__________________________________________________________________
Title: NPNF1-06. St. Augustin: Sermon on the Mount; Harmony of the
Gospels; Homilies on the Gospels
Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886
Rights: Public Domain
CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church
LC Call no: BR60
LC Subjects:
Christianity
Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.
__________________________________________________________________
A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND
AMERICA.
VOLUME VI
ST. AUGUSTIN:
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
__________________________________________________________________
Contents.
__________
EDITOR'S preface.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY: ST. AUGUSTIN AS AN EXEGETE.
By the Rev. David Schley Schaff.
OUR LORD'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
Translated by the Rev. William Findlay.
Revised and Annotated by the Rev. D. S. Schaff.
Book I. Explanation of the first part of the sermon
delivered by our Lord on the Mount, as contained in the fifth chapter
of Matthew.
Book II. On the latter part of our Lord's Sermon on the Mount,
contained in the sixth and seventh chapters of Matthew.
the harmony of the gospels.
Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.
Edited, with Notes, by the Rev. M. B. Riddle, D.D.
Introductory Notice by Dr. Riddle.
Introductory Notice by Dr. Salmond.
Book I. The treatise opens with a short statement on the subject
of the authority of the Evangelists, their number, their order, and the
different plans of their narratives. Augustin then prepares for the
discussion of the questions relating to their harmony, by joining issue
in this book with those who raise a difficulty in the circumstance that
Christ has left no writing of His own, or who falsely allege that
certain books were composed by Him on the arts of magic. He also meets
the objections of those who, in opposition to the evangelical teaching,
assert that the disciples of Christ at once ascribe more to their
Master than He really was, when they affirmed that He was God, and
inculcated what they had not been instructed in by Him, when they
interdicted the worship of the gods. Against these antagonists he
vindicates the teaching of the Apostles, by appealing to the utterances
of the Prophets, and by showing that the God of Israel was to be the
sole object of worship, who also, although He was the only Deity to
whom acceptance was denied in former times by the Romans, and that for
the very reason that He prohibited them from worshipping other gods
along with Himself, has now in the end made the Empire of Rome subject
to His Name, and among all nations has broken their idols in pieces
through the preaching of the Gospel, as He had promised by His prophets
that the event should be.
Book II. In this book Augustin undertakes an orderly examination of
the Gospel according to Matthew, on to the narrative of the Supper, and
institutes a comparison between it and the other Gospels by Mark, Luke,
and John, with the view of demonstrating a complete harmony between the
four Evangelists throughout all these sections.
Book III. This book contains a demonstration of the
harmony of the Evangelists from the accounts of the Supper on to the
end of the Gospel, the narratives given by the several writers being
collated, and the whole arranged in one orderly connection.
Book IV. This book embraces a discussion of those
passages which are peculiar to Mark, Luke, or John.
sermons on selected lessons of the new testament.
Translated by the Rev. R. G. MacMullen.
Edited by Dr. Schaff.
Preface by Dr. E. B. Pusey.
__________________________________________________________________
Preface.
------------------------
This volume contains the exegetical and homiletical writings of St.
Augustin on the Gospels.
The seventh volume will be devoted to his Commentary on the Gospel and
First Epistle of John, and the Soliloquies. It will be finished by the
1st of next April.
The eighth and last volume is reserved for his Commentary on the
Psalms, and will appear in July, 1888.
These eight volumes will form the most complete edition of St.
Augustin's Works in the English language, embracing the Edinburgh and
Oxford translations, and several treatises never before translated,
with introductions and explanatory notes.
Arrangements have been made for the regular issue of the Works of St.
Chrysostom according to the terms of the Publisher's Prospectus, which
so far has been promptly carried out. The favourable reception of the
preceding volumes by the public and the press, including some leading
theological journals of Europe (such as The Church Quarterly Review,
and Harnack's Theologische Literaturzeitung), will encourage the editor
and publisher to carry on this Patristic Library with undiminished
energy and zeal.
Philip Schaff.
New York, December, 1887.
__________________________________________________________________
Introductory Essay.
St. Augustin as an Exegete.
By the Rev. David Schley Schaff
------------------------
The exegetical writings of Augustin are commentaries on Genesis (first
three chapters), the Psalms, the Gospel and First Epistle of John, the
Sermon on the Mount, the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and a
Harmony of the Gospels. Many of his commentaries, like those of
Chrysostom, are expository homilies preached to his congregation at
Hippo; all are practical rather than grammatical and critical. He only
covered the first five verses of the first chapter of Romans, and found
his comments so elaborate, that, from fear of the immense proportions a
commentary on the whole Epistle would assume, he drew back from the
task. Augustin's other writings abound in quotations from Scripture,
and pertinent expositions. His controversies with the Manichaeans and
Donatists were particularly adapted to render him thorough in the
knowledge of the Bible, and skilled in its use.
The opinions of Augustin's ability as an exegete, and the worth of his
labors in the department of connected Biblical exposition, have greatly
differed. Some not only represent him at his weakest in this capacity,
but disparage his exegesis as of inferior merit. Others have given him,
and some at the present time still give him, a very high rank among the
chief commentators of the early Church. Pere Simon, as quoted by
Archbishop Trench (Sermon on the Mount, p. 65), says, "One must needs
read a vast deal in the exegetical writings of Augustin to light on any
thing which is good." Reuss expresses himself thus: "The fact is, that
his exegesis was the weak side of the great man" (Gesch. d. heil.
Schriften N. T. p. 263). Farrar, in his History of Interpretation (p.
24), declares his comments to be "sometimes painfully beside the mark,"
and in general depreciates the value of Augustin's expository writings.
On the other hand, the student is struck with the profound esteem in
which Augustin was held as an interpreter of Scripture during the
Middle Ages. His exposition was looked upon as the highest authority;
and a saying was current, that, if one had Augustin on his side, it was
sufficient (Si Augustinus adest, sufficit ipse tibi). So powerful was
his influence, that Rupert of Deutz, in the preface to his Commentary
on St. John, deemed it necessary to state, in part in vindication of
his own effort, that, though the eagle wings of the Bishop of Hippo
overshadowed the Gospel, he did not exhaust the right of all Christians
to handle the Gospel. The Reformers quote Augustin more frequently than
any Father, and were greatly indebted to his writings, especially for
their views on sin and grace. Among modern opinions according to him a
high rank in this department may be mentioned two. The Rev. H. Browne,
in the preface to the translation of Augustin's Homilies on St. John,
in the Oxford Library of the Fathers (I. vi.), is somewhat extravagant
in his praise, when he says, that, "as an interpreter of the Word of
God, St. Augustin is acknowledged to stand at an elevation which few
have reached, none surpassed." Archbishop Trench, in the essay on
Augustin as an interpreter of Scripture, prefixed to his edition of the
Sermon on the Mount, accords equal praise, and speaks specifically of
the "tact and skill with which he unfolded to others the riches which
the Word contains" (p. 133).
The truth certainly is not with those who minimize Augustin's services
in the department of exposition. Whether we compare him with ancient or
modern commentators, he will fall behind the greatest in some
particulars; but in profundity of insight into the meaning of the text,
in comprehensive knowledge of the whole Scriptures, in simplicity of
spiritual aim, he stands in the first rank. It is as a contributor to
theological and religious thought that he asserts his eminence.
Exposition is something more than bald textual and lexicographical
comment: it aims also at a spiritual perception of the truth as it is
in Christ, and requires a capacity to extract, for the spiritual
nutriment of the reader, the vital forces of the Scriptures. In this
sense Augustin is eminently worthy of study. Of textual details, he
gives only the barest minimum of any value. His mistakes, arising out
of his slender philological apparatus and his reverence for the LXX.,
are numerous and glaring. He often wanders far away from the plain
meaning of the text, into allegorical and typical fancies, like the
other Fathers, and many of the older Protestant commentators. He was
not prepared for, nor did he aim at, grammatico-historical exegesis in
the modern sense of the word; but he possessed extraordinary acumen and
depth, spiritual insight, an uncommon knowledge of Scripture as a
whole, and a pious intention to bring the truth to the convictions of
men, and to extend the kingdom of Christ.
As to Augustin's special equipment for the work of an exegete and on
his exegetical principles, the following may be added:--
Exegetical Equipment.
1. Augustin had no knowledge of Hebrew (Confessions, xi. 3; in this ed.
vol. i. p. 164). His knowledge of Greek was only superficial, and far
inferior to that of Jerome (vol. i. p. 9). He depended almost entirely
on the imperfect old Latin version before its revision by Jerome, and
was at first even prejudiced against this revision, the so-called
Vulgate. But it should be remembered that only two of the great
expositors of the ancient Church were familiar with Hebrew,--Origen and
Jerome. Augustin knew only a few Hebrew words. In the treatise on
Christian Doctrine (ii. 11, 16; this ed. vol. ii. p. 540) he adduces
the words Amen and Hallelujah as being left untranslated on account of
the sacredness of the original forms, and the words Racha and Hosanna
as being untranslatable by any single Latin equivalents. In the Sermon
on the Mount (i. 9, 23) he refers again to Racha, and defends its
Hebrew origin as against those who derived it from the Greek term
rhakos (a rag).
Augustin's linguistic attainments seem to have included familiarity
with Punic (Sermon on the Mount, ii. 14, 47). The Phoenician origin of
the North African people, the location of his birthplace and his
episcopal diocese, furnish an explanation of this.
2. For the Old Testament, Augustin used, besides the Latin version,
occasionally the Septuagint, and had at hand the versions of Symmachus,
Theodotion, and Aquila (Quaest. in Num. 52). He had profound reverence
for the LXX., and was inclined to give credit to the Jewish tradition
that each of the translators was confined in a separate cell, and on
comparing their work, which they had accomplished without communication
with each other, found their several versions to agree, word for word.
He held that the original was given through them in Greek by the
special direction of the Holy Spirit, and in such a way as to be most
suitable for the Gentiles (Christian Doctrine, ii. 15, 22; this ed. p.
542). He declared that the Latin copies were to be corrected from the
LXX., which was as authoritative as the Hebrew. Such a claim for the
authority of the Greek translation would make a knowledge of the Hebrew
almost unnecessary.
This excessive reverence for the LXX. has led Augustin to uphold, in
his exegesis of the Old Testament, all its errors of translation, which
a different view, coupled with a knowledge of Hebrew, would in most
cases have prevented him from accepting. Even at its plain and palpable
mistakes he takes no offence. He accepts the translation, "Yet three
days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," as of equal authority with the
"forty days" of the original, claiming a special symbolic meaning for
both.
3. For the New Testament, Augustin used some Latin translation or
translations older than the Vulgate. He declares the Latin translations
to be without number (Christian Doctr. ii. 11, 16; this ed. vol. ii. p.
540). There was already in his day "an endless diversity" of readings
in the Latin manuscripts. He vindicated for the Greek original the
claim of final authority, to which the Latin copies were to yield. As
there was likewise diversity of text among the Greek copies, he laid
down the rule, that those manuscripts were to be chosen for comparison
by the Latin student which were preserved in the churches of greater
learning and research (Christian Doctr. ii. 15, 22; in this ed. ii. p.
543). Not infrequently does Augustin cite the readings of the Greek. In
some cases he makes references to passages where there is a conflict of
text in the Latin authorities. He differs quite largely from Jerome's
Vulgate, to which he offered opposition, on the ground that a new
translation might unsettle the faith of some. In these variations of
construction and language he was sometimes nearer the original than
Jerome. Sometimes he does not approximate so closely. As a matter of
interest, and for the convenience of the reader, the differences of
Augustin's text and the Vulgate will be found, in all important cases,
noted down in this edition of the Sermon on the Mount.
Examples of Augustin's improvement upon the Vulgate are the omission of
the clause, "and despitefully use you" (et calumniantibus vos, Matt. v.
44), the use of quotidianum panem ("daily bread") instead of
supersubstantialem, and of inferas ("bring") instead of inducas
("lead"), in the fourth and sixth petitions of the Lord's Prayer (Matt.
vi. 11, 12). In reference to the last passage, it must be said,
however, that he notes a difference in the Latin mss., some using
infero, some induco; and while he adopts the former verb, he finds the
terms equivalent in meaning (Serm. on the Mt. ii. 9, 30).
4. Augustin's textual and grammatical comments are few in number, but
they cannot be said to be wanting in all value. A few instances will
suffice for a judgment of their merit:--
In the Harmony of the Gospels (ii. 29, 67), writing of the daughter of
Jairus (Matt. ix. 29), he mentions that some codices contain the
reading "woman" (mulier) for "damsel." Commenting on Matt. v. 22,
"Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," he includes the
expression "without a cause" (eike) without even a hint of its
spuriousness (Serm. on the Mt. i. 9, 25); but in his Retractations (i.
19. 4) he makes the correction, "The Greek manuscripts do not contain
sine causa." Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, the Vulgate and the
Revised English Version, in agreement with the oldest mss., omit the
clause. He refers to a conflict of the Greek and Latin text of Matt. v.
39 ("Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek"), and follows the
authority of the Greek in omitting the adjective "right" (Serm. on the
Mt. i. 19, 58). At Matt. vi. 4 he casts out, on the authority of the
Greek, the adverb palam ("openly"), which was found in many Latin
translations (as it is also found in the Textus Receptus, but not in
the Vulgate, and the Sinaitic, B, D, and other mss.). Commenting on
Matt. vii. 12, "Wherefore all things whatsoever ye would that men,"
etc., he refers to the addition of "good" before "things" by the
Latins, and insists upon its erasure on the basis of the Greek text
(Serm. on the Mt. ii. 22, 74).
On occasion, though very rarely, he quotes the Greek, as in the Sermon
on the Mount (ne tnn kauchesin, i. 17, 51; himation, i. 19, 60), in
confirmation of his opinions of the text.
At other times he compares Greek and Latin terms of synonymous or
kindred meanings. One of the most important of these is the passage
(City of God, x. 1; this ed. vol. ii. p. 181) where he draws a clear
distinction between latreia, threskeia, eusebeia, theosebeia. Other
examples of the kind under review are given by Trench (p. 20 sqq.).
It is evident that Augustin's equipment was defective from the
stand-point of the modern critical exegete. It would be wrong, however,
to say that he shows no concern about textual questions. But his
exegetical power shows itself in other ways than minute textual
investigation,--in comprehensive comparison of Scripture with
Scripture, and penetrating spiritual vision. To these qualities he adds
a purpose to be exhaustive, sparing no pains to develop the full
meaning of the passage under review. More exhaustive discussions can
hardly be found, to take a single example, than that on Matt. v. 25,
"Agree with thine adversary quickly" (Serm. on the Mt. xi. 31, where,
however, the view least reasonable is taken), or spiritually
satisfactory ones than the discussion of the gradation of sin and its
punishment (Matt. v. 21, 22; Serm. on the Mt. ix. 22), and "Judge not,
that ye be not judged" (Matt. vii. i), or pungently suggestive than the
handling of the words of our Lord at the marriage feast at Cana:
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John ii. 4; Homily VIII.), or
more indicative of great principles underlying the vindication to the
evangelists of a true historical character and of independence of each
other (at least in minor details) than discussions like that about the
differences in the details of the miracle of the five loaves and two
fishes, alone common of the miracles to the fourfold Gospel (a sort of
prelude to works like Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences), and the
relation of this miracle to the miracle of the seven loaves (Harmony,
xlvi.-1).
Exegetical Principles.
Augustin has laid down in a separate treatise a code of exegetical
principles. His Christian Doctrine (vol. ii. of this series) is the
earliest manual of Biblical hermeneutics. In spite of irrelevant and
lengthy digressions, it contains many suggestions of value, which have
not been improved upon in modern treatises on the subject.
1. He emphasizes Hebrew and Greek scholarship as an important aid to
the expositor, and an essential condition of the interpretation of the
figurative language of Scripture (ii. 11, 16; 16, 23, this ed., pp.
539, 543).
2. He will have his interpreter acquainted with sacred geography (ii.
29, 45, p. 549), natural history (ii. 16, 24, p. 543; 29, 45, p. 549),
music (ii. 16, 26, p. 544), chronology (ii. 28, 42, p. 549) and the
science of numbers (ii. 16, 25, p. 543), natural science generally (ii.
29, 45 sqq., p. 549 sqq.), history (ii. 28, 43, p. 549), dialectics
(ii. 31, 48, p. 550), and the writings of the ancient philosophers (ii.
40, 60, p. 554). He was the first to suggest a work which has been
realized in our dictionaries of the Bible. Pertinent to the subject he
says, "What some men have done in regard to all words and names found
in Scripture, in the Hebrew and Syriac and Egyptian and other tongues,
taking up and interpreting separately such as were left in Scripture
without interpretation; and what Eusebius has done in regard to the
history of the past...I think might be done in regard to other
matters....For the advantage of his brethren a competent man might
arrange in their several classes, and give an account of, the unknown
places, and animals and plants, and trees and stones and metals, and
other species of things mentioned in Scripture" (ii. 39, 59, p. 554).
It is, in view of this sage suggestion, almost incomprehensible that
Augustin pays no attention to these subjects in his commentaries.
Jerome, on the other hand, is quite rich in these departments.
3. He presses the view that the Scripture is designed to have more
interpretations than one (Christ. Doctr. iii. 27, 38 sq.; this ed. p.
567). Augustin constantly applies this canon (e.g., on the petition,
"Thy will be done," Sermon on the Mount, ii. 7, 21-23). He adopted the
seven rules of the Donatist Tichonius as assisting to a deep
understanding of the Word. These rules relate (1) to the Lord and His
body, (2) to the twofold division of the Lord's body, (3) to the
promises and the Law, (4) to species and genus, (5) to times, (6) to
recapitulation, (7) to the devil and his body (Christ. Doctr. iii. 30,
42, pp. 568-573). He explains and illustrates these laws at length, but
denies that they exhaust the rules for discovering the hidden truth of
Scripture.
4. He commends the method of interpreting obscure passages by the light
of passages that are understood, and prefers it before the
interpretation by reason (Christ. Doctr. iii. 29, 39, p. 567).
5. The spirit and intent of the interpreter are of more importance than
verbal accuracy and critical acumen (a qualification not always too
strictly insisted upon in these modern days of commentators and
critical Biblical study). One must be in sympathy with the Gospel of
Christ to interpret its records. [1] Even the mistakes of an exegete,
properly disposed, may confirm religious faith and character; and so
far forth are his labors to be commended, though he himself is to be
corrected, that he err not again after the same manner. "If the
mistaken interpretation," he says, "tends to build up love, which is
the end of the commandment, the interpreter goes astray in much the
same way as a man who, by mistake, quits the highroad, but yet reaches,
through the fields, the same place to which the road leads" (Christ.
Doctr. i. 36, 41 sq.; ii. p. 533).
That Augustin followed his own canons of interpretation, his writings
show. He does not hesitate to put more than one interpretation upon a
text (as especially in the Psalms), and none has been more elaborate in
comparing Scripture with Scripture than he. If he had possessed the
familiarity with the Hebrew that he recommends so strongly to others,
he would have been preserved from the misinterpretations with which his
commentaries on the Old Testament abound.
Use of Allegory.
Augustin's use of allegory has exposed him to much harsh criticism.
What was the practice of all, ought not to be considered a mortal fault
in one. None of the ancient expositors were free from it. Some of the
modern expositors, except as their works are designed only as a
critical arsenal for the student, are defective because of all absence
of the allegorical element.
Where Scripture itself has led the way, as in the case of the allegory
of Hagar and Sarah (Gal. iv.) and other cases, the uninspired penman
will be pardoned if he follow. The use of the allegorical method,
however, was carried to the most unreasonable excess, reaching its
culmination in Gregory's Commentary on Job. That writer finds that the
patriarch of Uz represents Christ, his sons the clergy, his three
daughters the three classes of the laity who are to worship the
Trinity, his friends the heretics, the oxen and she-asses the heathen,
etc. The frequent extravagance of Augustin, proceeding out of his
intellectual and Scriptural exuberance, cannot be commended; but it
will be found that his allegory is seldom commonplace, and mingled with
it, where it is most vicious, are comments of rare aptness and common
sense. In the Old Testament he looks upon almost every character and
event as symbolic of Christ and Christian institutions. But, as Trench
well says, "it is indeed far better to find Christ everywhere in the
Old Testament than to find Him nowhere" (p. 54).
In his effort to display the unity and harmony of all Scripture (to
which he was forced by the controversy with the Manichaeans) he often
strains after comparisons; and this came to be so much of a habit with
him, that, where he had no special purpose to gain, he is guilty of the
same excess. An instance among many is furnished in the opening
chapters of the Sermon on the Mount (iv. 11), where a close comparison
is instituted between the Beatitudes and the seven Spiritual operations
of Isa. xi. 2, 3. The historical element is nowhere denied, but
something else is constantly being superinduced upon it, especially in
the Old Testament.
A single illustration of Augustin's allegorical interpretation will
suffice. Turning away from the Psalms, where his imagination is
particularly fertile along this line, I extract one on the parable of
the five loaves and two fishes, as found in the XXIV. Homily on John.
The five loaves mean the five Books of Moses. They are not wheaten, but
barley, because they belong to the Old Testament. The nature of barley
is such that it is hard to be got at, as the kernel is set in a coating
of husk which is tenacious and hard to be stripped off. Such is the
letter of the Old Testament, enveloped in a covering of carnal
sacraments. The little lad represents the people of Israel, which, in
its childishness of mind, carried but did not eat. The two fishes
signify the persons of the Priest and King, which therefore point to
Christ. The multiplication of the loaves signifies the exposition into
many volumes of the five Books of Moses. There were five thousand
people fed, because they were under the Law, which is unfolded in five
books. "They sat upon the grass;" that is, they were carnally minded,
and rested in carnal things. The "fragments" are the truths of hidden
import which the people cannot receive, and which were therefore
entrusted to the twelve apostles.
The excessive taste for this style of interpretation, in which the
homilists and Biblical writers of a thousand years had revelled, was
sternly rebuked by the Reformers. Especially did Luther utter his
protest, on the ground that the fancies into which this method was apt
to lead had a tendency to shake confidence in the literal truth of the
sacred volume. He remarks, "Augustin said beautifully that a figure
proves nothing;" but, probably from the high regard he had for the
great theologian, he did not condemn his allegorizing exegesis. [2]
However much the great African bishop may have laid himself open to the
rebuke of a more critical and mechanical age in this regard and others,
his exegesis will continue to be admired for the diligence with which
the sacred text is scanned, the reverent frame of heart with which it
is approached, and the rich treasures of spiritual truth which it
brings forth to the willing and devout reader.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] On the principle that Davidica intelligit, qui Davidica patitur;
or, as the German couplet runs,-- "Wer den Dichter will verstehen Muss
in Dichters Lande gehen."
[2] The passage is quoted in full by Trench (p. 64). His work, St.
Augustin on the Sermon on the Mount, 4th ed., London, 1881, contains an
elaborate introductory essay on Augustin as an Interpreter of
Scripture. His use of allegory is considered in a separate chapter
(iv). An older work is by Clausen: Augustinus, Sac. Script. Interpres,
pp. 267, Berol. 1828.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
St. AUGUSTIN:
our lord's sermon on the mount,
according to matthew.
[De Sermone Domini in Monte secundum Matthaeum.]
translated by
the rev. William Findlay, m.a.,
larkhall.
revised and annotated by
the rev. d. s. schaff,
kansas city.
__________________________________________________________________
our lord's sermon on the mount.
------------------------
Book I.
Explanation of the first part of the sermon delivered by our Lord on
the mount, as contained in the fifth chapter of Matthew.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter I.
1. If any one will piously and soberly consider the sermon which our
Lord Jesus Christ spoke on the mount, as we read it in the Gospel
according to Matthew, I think that he will find in it, so far as
regards the highest morals, a perfect standard of the Christian life:
and this we do not rashly venture to promise, but gather it from the
very words of the Lord Himself. For the sermon itself is brought to a
close in such a way, that it is clear there are in it all the precepts
which go to mould the life. For thus He speaks: "Therefore, whosoever
heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, I will liken [3] him unto
a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat [4] upon that house;
and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that
heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, I will liken [5] unto
a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Since, therefore, He
has not simply said, "Whosoever heareth my words," but has made an
addition, saying, "Whosoever heareth these words of mine," He has
sufficiently indicated, as I think, that these sayings which He uttered
on the mount so perfectly guide the life of those who may be willing to
live according to them, that they may justly be compared to one
building upon a rock. I have said this merely that it may be clear that
the sermon before us is perfect in all the precepts by which the
Christian life is moulded; for as regards this particular section a
more careful treatment will be given in its own place. [6]
2. The beginning, then, of this sermon is introduced as follows: "And
when He saw the great [7] multitudes, He went up into a mountain: [8]
and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him: and He opened His
mouth, and taught them, saying." If it is asked what the "mountain"
means, it may well be understood as meaning the greater precepts of
righteousness; for there were lesser ones which were given to the Jews.
Yet it is one God who, through His holy prophets and servants,
according to a thoroughly arranged distribution of times, gave the
lesser precepts to a people who as yet required to be bound by fear;
and who, through His Son, gave the greater ones to a people whom it had
now become suitable to set free by love. Moreover, when the lesser are
given to the lesser, and the greater to the greater, they are given by
Him who alone knows how to present to the human race the medicine
suited to the occasion. Nor is it surprising that the greater precepts
are given for the kingdom of heaven, and the lesser for an earthly
kingdom, by that one and the same God, who made heaven and earth. With
respect, therefore, to that righteousness which is the greater, it is
said through the prophet, "Thy righteousness is like the mountains of
God:" [9] and this may well mean that the one Master alone fit to teach
matters of so great importance teaches on a mountain. Then He teaches
sitting, as behooves the dignity of the instructor's office; and His
disciples come to Him, in order that they might be nearer in body for
hearing His words, as they also approached in spirit to fulfil His
precepts. "And He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying." The
circumlocution before us, which runs, "And He opened His mouth,"
perhaps gracefully intimates by the mere pause that the sermon will be
somewhat longer than usual, unless, perchance, it should not be without
meaning, that now He is said to have opened His own mouth, whereas
under the old law He was accustomed to open the mouths of the prophets.
[10]
3. What, then, does He say? "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs
is the kingdom of heaven." We read in Scripture concerning the striving
after temporal things, "All is vanity and presumption of spirit;" [11]
but presumption of spirit means audacity and pride: usually also the
proud are said to have great spirits; and rightly, inasmuch as the wind
also is called spirit. And hence it is written, "Fire, hail, snow, ice,
spirit of tempest." [12] But, indeed, who does not know that the proud
are spoken of as puffed up, as if swelled out with wind? And hence also
that expression of the apostle, "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity
edifieth." [13] And "the poor in spirit" are rightly understood here,
as meaning the humble and God-fearing, i.e. those who have not the
spirit which puffeth up. Nor ought blessedness to begin at any other
point whatever, if indeed it is to attain unto the highest wisdom; "but
the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;" [14] for, on the
other hand also, "pride" is entitled "the beginning of all sin." [15]
Let the proud, therefore, seek after and love the kingdoms of the
earth; but "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven." [16]
__________________________________________________________________
[3] Similabo. The Vulgate, conforming more closely to the Greek, has
assimilabitur, "shall be likened."
[4] Offenderunt; the Vulgate has irruerunt.
[5] The Vulgate, more closely conforming to the Greek, has similis
erit.
[6] The main purpose of the Sermon on the Mount has been variously
stated. Augustin regards it as a perfect code of morals. Tholuck (Die
Bergpredigt) calls it "the Magna Charta of the kingdom of heaven."
Lange says, "The grand fundamental idea is to present the righteousness
of the kingdom of heaven in its relation to that of the Old Testament
theocracy." Geikie declares it to be the "formal inauguration of the
kingdom of God and the Magna Charta of our faith." Edersheim regards it
as presenting "the full delineation of the ideal man of God, of prayer,
and of righteousness; in short, of the inward and outward manifestation
of discipleship." Meyer (Com. 6th ed. p. 210) says that the aim of
Jesus is, as the One who fulfils the Law and the Prophets, to present
the moral conditions of participation in the Messianic kingdom. Weiss
(Leben Jesu) speaks of it as being "as little an ethical discourse as a
new proclamation of law. It is nothing else than an announcement of the
kingdom of God, in which is visible everywhere the purpose of Jesus to
distinguish between its righteousness and the righteousness revealed in
the Old Testament as well as that taught by the teachers of his day."
The Sermon on the Mount is a practical discourse, containing little of
what, in the strict sense, may be termed the credenda of Christianity.
It is the fullest statement of the nature and obligations of
citizenship in God's kingdom. It is noteworthy for its omissions as
well as for its contents. No reference is made to a priesthood, a
ritual, sacred places, or offerings. There is almost a total absence of
all that is sensuous and external. It deals with the motives and
affections of the inner man, and so comes into comparison and contrast
with the Mosaic law as well as with the Pharisaic ceremonialism of the
Lord's Day. The moral grandeur of the precepts of the Sermon on the
Mount has been acknowledged by believer and sceptics alike. Renan (Life
of Jesus) says, "The Sermon on the Mount will never be surpassed." On
the 15th of October, 1852, two weeks before he died, Daniel Webster
wrote and signed his name to the following words, containing a
testimony to this portion of Scripture, which he also ordered placed
upon his tombstone: "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief....My
heart has assured me and reassured me that the gospel of Jesus Christ
must be a divine reality. The Sermon on the Mount cannot be a merely
human production. This belief enters into the very depth of my
conscience. The whole history of man proves it" (Curtis, Life of
Webster, ii. p. 684). The relation which the reports of Matthew and
Luke (vi. 20-49) sustain to each other is ignored by Augustin here
(who, except in rare cases, omits all critical discussion), but is
discussed in his Harmony of the Gospels, ii. 19. The agreements are
numerous. The differences are striking, and concern the matter, the
arrangement, the language, and the setting of the sermon. Matthew has a
hundred and seven verses, Luke thirty. Matthew has seven (or eight)
beatitudes, Luke but four, and adds four woes which Matthew omits.
According to the first evangelist Jesus spoke sitting on a mountain:
according to the third evangelist He spoke standing, and in the plain.
The views are, (1) Matthew and Luke give accounts of the same discourse
(Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, Tholuck, Meyer, Keil, Schaff, Weiss). (2)
They report different sermons spoken at different times (Augustin not
positively, Storr, Plumptre). This is not probable, as so much of the
matter in both is identical: both begin with the same beatitude, and
close with the same parable; and both accounts are followed with the
report of the healing of the centurion's servant. (3) The two sermons
were delivered in close succession on the summit of the mountain to the
disciples, and on the plain to the multitude (Lange). Alford confesses
inability to reconcile the discrepancy.
[7] Multas turbas. The Vulgate omits multas.
[8] The Greek has the definite article to oros. Some, on this ground,
explain the expression to mean "mountain region." According to the
Latin tradition of the time of the Crusaders, the exact spot is the
Horns of Hattin, which Dean Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, Am. ed. p.
436) and most others adopt. The hill, which is horned like a saddle, is
south-west of Capernaum, and commands a good view of the Lake of
Galilee. It seems to meet the requirements of the text. Robinson says
there are a dozen other hills as eligible as this one. Tholuck enlarges
upon the "beautiful temple of nature in which the Lord delivered the
sermon." Matthew Henry says, "When the law was given, the Lord came
down upon the mountain, now the Lord went up; then He spake in thunder
and lightning, now in a still, small voice; then the people were
ordered to keep their distance, now they are invited to draw near,--a
blessed change!"
[9] Ps. xxxvi. 6.
[10] Chrysostom, Euthymius, etc., see in the expression the implication
that Christ also taught by works. Tholuck, with many modern
commentators, finds in it a reference to "loud and solemn utterance."
[11] Eccles. i. 14.
[12] Ps. cxlviii. 8.
[13] 1 Cor. viii. 1.
[14] Ps. cxi. 10.
[15] Ecclus. x. 13.
[16] Not the intellectually poor (Fritzsche), nor the poor in worldly
goods, as we might gather from Luke (vi. 20). Roman-Catholic
commentators have found here support for the doctrine of voluntary
poverty (Cornelius `a Lapide, Maldonatus, etc.). The Emperor Julian, in
allusion to this passage and others like it, said he would only
confiscate the goods of Christians, that they might enter as the poor
into the kingdom of heaven (Lett. xliii.). Some (Olearius, Michaelis,
Paulus) have joined "in spirit" with "blessed." Augustin explains the
passage of those who are not elated or proud, taking "spirit" in an
evil sense. In another place he says, "Blessed are the poor in their
own spirit, rich in God's Spirit, for every man who follows his own
spirit is proud." He then compares him who subdues his own spirit to
one living in a valley which is filled with water from the hills (En.
in Ps. cxli. 4). The most explain of those who are conscious of
spiritual need (Matt. xi. 28), and are ready to be filled with the
gospel riches, as opposed to the spiritually proud, the just who need
no repentance (Tholuck, Meyer, Lange, etc.). "Many are poor in the
world, but high in spirit; poor and proud, murmuring and complaining,
and blaming their lot. Laodicea was poor in spirituals, and yet rich in
spirit; so well increased with goods as to have need of nothing. Paul
was rich in spirituals, excelling most in gifts and graces and yet poor
in spirit; the least of the apostles, and less than the least of all
saints" (M. Henry).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.
4. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall by inheritance possess [17]
the earth:" that earth, I suppose, of which it is said in the Psalm,
"Thou art my refuge, my portion in the land of the living." [18] For it
signifies a certain firmness and stability of the perpetual
inheritance, where the soul, by means of a good disposition, rests, as
it were, in its own place, just as the body rests on the earth, and is
nourished from it with its own food, as the body from the earth. This
is the very rest and life of the saints. Then, the meek are those who
yield to acts of wickedness, and do not resist evil, but overcome evil
with good. [19] Let those, then, who are not meek quarrel and fight for
earthly and temporal things; but "blessed are the meek, for they shall
by inheritance possess the earth," from which they cannot be driven
out. [20]
5. "Blessed are they that mourn: [21] for they shall be comforted."
Mourning is sorrow arising from the loss of things held dear; but those
who are converted to God lose those things which they were accustomed
to embrace as dear in this world: for they do not rejoice in those
things in which they formerly rejoiced; and until the love of eternal
things be in them, they are wounded by some measure of grief. Therefore
they will be comforted by the Holy Spirit, who on this account chiefly
is called the Paraclete, i.e. the Comforter, in order that, while
losing the temporal joy, they may enjoy to the full that which is
eternal. [22]
6. "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
for they shall be filled." Now He calls those parties, lovers of a true
and indestructible good. They will therefore be filled with that food
of which the Lord Himself says, "My meat is to do the will of my
Father," which is righteousness; and with that water, of which
whosoever "drinketh," as he also says, it "shall be in him a well of
water, springing up into everlasting life." [23]
7. "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." [24] He
says that they are blessed who relieve the miserable, for it is paid
back to them in such a way that they are freed from misery.
8. "Blessed are the pure in heart: [25] for they shall see God." How
foolish, therefore, are those who seek God with these outward eyes,
since He is seen with the heart! as it is written elsewhere, "And in
singleness of heart seek Him." [26] For that is a pure heart which is a
single heart: and just as this light cannot be seen, except with pure
eyes; so neither is God seen, unless that is pure by which He can be
seen. [27]
9. "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God." It is the perfection of peace, where nothing offers
opposition; and the children of God are peacemakers, because nothing
resists God, and surely children ought to have the likeness of their
father. Now, they are peacemakers in themselves who, by bringing in
order all the motions of their soul, and subjecting them to
reason--i.e. to the mind and spirit--and by having their carnal lusts
thoroughly subdued, become a kingdom of God: in which all things are so
arranged, that that which is chief and pre-eminent in man rules without
resistance over the other elements, which are common to us with the
beasts; and that very element which is pre-eminent in man, i.e. mind
and reason, is brought under subjection to something better still,
which is the truth itself, the only-begotten Son of God. For a man is
not able to rule over things which are inferior, unless he subjects
himself to what is superior. And this is the peace which is given on
earth to men of goodwill; [28] this the life of the fully developed and
perfect wise man. From a kingdom of this sort brought to a condition of
thorough peace and order, the prince of this world is cast out, who
rules where there is perversity and disorder. [29] When this peace has
been inwardly established and confirmed, whatever persecutions he who
has been cast out shall stir up from without, he only increases the
glory which is according to God; being unable to shake anything in that
edifice, but by the failure of his machinations making it to be known
with how great strength it has been built from within outwardly. Hence
there follows: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
__________________________________________________________________
[17] Hereditate possidebunt. Vulgate omits hereditate. The passage is
quoted almost literally in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, iii. 7.
[18] Ps. cxlii. 5.
[19] Rom. xii. 21.
[20] The order in which Augustin places this Beatitude is followed in
Cod. D, and approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Neander, and others (not
Westcott and Hort). The meek not only bear provocation, but quietly
submit to God's dealings, and comply with His designs. The temporal
possession promised is one of the few temporal promises in the New
Testament. The inheritance of the earth is referred to "earthly good
and possessions," by Chrysostom, Euthymius, Luther, etc.; to conquest
of the world by the kingdom of God, by Neander, to the actual kingdom
on this earth, first in its millennial then in its blessed state, by
Alford; typically to the Messiah kingdom, by Meyer; to the land of the
living beyond the heavens by Gregory of Nyssa. "Humility and meekness
have been proved to be a conquering principle in the world's history"
(Tholuck).
[21] Lugentes. Greek, penthountes. The Vulgate, qui lugent, which
Augustin follows, p. 7.
[22] The mourning is a mourning over sins of their own and others
(Chrysostom, etc.); too restricted, as is also Augustin's explanation.
Spiritual mourning in general (Ambrose, Jerome, Tholuck, etc.) sorrow
according to God (2 Cor. vii. 10). We are helped to the meaning by
comparing the woe on those that laugh (Luke vi. 22); that is, upon
those who are satisfied with earthly things, and avoid the seriousness
of repentance.
[23] John iv. 34, 14.
[24] Ipsorum miserabitur; closer to the Greek than the Vulgate ipsi
misericordiam consequentur. The same thought that underlies the fifth
petition of the Lord's Prayer, as Augustin also says, Retract. I. xix.
3.
[25] Mundi corde; the Vulgate, mundo corde.
[26] Wisd. i. 1.
[27] "Pure in heart." "Ceremonial purity does not suffice" (Bengel).
The singleness of heart which has God's will for its aim, and follows
integrity with our fellow-men (Tholuck). "Shall see God:" the most
infinite communion with God (Tholuck). The promise is fulfilled even
here (Lange, Alford, Schaff, etc.). It concerns only the beatific
vision in the spiritual body (Meyer). Not a felicity to the impure to
see God (Henry). Comp. 1 John iii. 2, Rev. xxii. 4, etc. Augustin has a
brilliant description of the future vision of God in City of God (this
series, vol. ii. pp. 507-509).
[28] Luke ii. 14.
[29] The "peacemakers" not only establish peace within themselves as
Augustin, encouraged by the Latin word, explains, but diffuse peace
around about them,--heal the alienations and discords of others, and
bring about reconciliations in the world; not merely peaceful, but
peacemakers. "In most kingdoms those stand highest who make war: in the
Messiah's kingdom the crowning beatitude respects those who make
peace." The expressions will be remembered, "peace of God" (Phil. iv.
7); "peace of Christ" (Col. iii. 15); "God of peace" (Rom. xv. 33),
etc. "If the peacemakers are blessed, woe to the peacebreakers!" (M.
Henry).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.
10. There are in all, then, these eight sentences. For now in what
remains He speaks in the way of direct address to those who were
present, saying: "Blessed shall ye be when men shall revile you and
persecute you." But the former sentences He addressed in a general way:
for He did not say, Blessed are ye poor in spirit, for yours is the
kingdom of heaven; but He says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven:" nor, Blessed are ye meek, for ye
shall inherit the earth; but, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall
inherit the earth." And so the others up to the eighth sentence, where
He says: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness'
sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." After that He now begins to
speak in the way of direct address to those present, although what has
been said before referred also to His present audience; and that which
follows, and which seems to be spoken specially to those present,
refers also to those who were absent, or who would afterwards come into
existence.
For this reason the number of sentences before us is to be carefully
considered. For the beatitudes begin with humility: "Blessed are the
poor in spirit," i.e. those not puffed up, while the soul submits
itself to divine authority, fearing lest after this life it go away to
punishment, although perhaps in this life it might seem to itself to be
happy. Then it (the soul) comes to the knowledge of the divine
Scriptures, where it must show itself meek in its piety, lest it should
venture to condemn that which seems absurd to the unlearned, and should
itself be rendered unteachable by obstinate disputations. After that,
it now begins to know in what entanglements of this world it is held by
reason of carnal custom and sins: and so in this third stage, in which
there is knowledge, the loss of the highest good is mourned over,
because it sticks fast in what is lowest. Then, in the fourth stage
there is labour, where vehement exertion is put forth, in order that
the mind may wrench itself away from those things in which, by reason
of their pestilential sweetness, it is entangled: here therefore
righteousness is hungered and thirsted after, and fortitude is very
necessary; because what is retained with delight is not abandoned
without pain. Then, at the fifth stage, to those persevering in labour,
counsel for getting rid of it is given; for unless each one is assisted
by a superior, in no way is he fit in his own case to extricate himself
from so great entanglements of miseries. But it is a just counsel, that
he who wishes to be assisted by a stronger should assist him who is
weaker in that in which he himself is stronger: therefore "blessed are
the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." At the sixth stage there is
purity of heart, able from a good conscience of good works to
contemplate that highest good, which can be discerned by the pure and
tranquil intellect alone. Lastly is the seventh, wisdom itself--i.e.
the contemplation of the truth, tranquillizing the whole man, and
assuming the likeness of God, which is thus summed up: "Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." The eighth,
as it were, returns to the starting-point, because it shows and
commends what is complete and perfect: [30] therefore in the first and
in the eighth the kingdom of heaven is named, "Blessed are the poor in
spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;" and, "Blessed are they
which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven:" as it is now said, "Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or
nakedness, or peril, or sword?" [31] Seven in number, therefore, are
the things which bring perfection: for the eighth brings into light and
shows what is perfect, so that starting, as it were, from the beginning
again, the others also are perfected by means of these stages.
__________________________________________________________________
[30] "In the eighth beatitude the other seven are only summed up under
the idea of the righteousness of the kingdom in its relation to those
who persecute it; while the ninth is a description of the eighth, with
reference to the relation in which these righteous persons stand to
Christ" (Lange).
[31] Rom. viii. 35.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.
11. Hence also the sevenfold operation of the Holy Ghost, of which
Isaiah speaks, [32] seems to me to correspond to these stages and
sentences. But there is a difference of order: for there the
enumeration begins with the more excellent, but here with the inferior.
For there it begins with wisdom, and closes with the fear of God: but
"the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." And therefore, if we
reckon as it were in a gradually ascending series, there the fear of
God is first, piety second, knowledge third, fortitude fourth, counsel
fifth, understanding sixth, wisdom seventh. The fear of God corresponds
to the humble, of whom it is here said, "Blessed are the poor in
spirit," i.e. those not puffed up, not proud: to whom the apostle says,
"Be not high-minded, but fear;" [33] i.e. be not lifted up. Piety [34]
corresponds to the meek: for he who inquires piously honours Holy
Scripture, and does not censure what he does not yet understand, and on
this account does not offer resistance; and this is to be meek: whence
it is here said, "Blessed are the meek." Knowledge corresponds to those
that mourn who already have found out in the Scriptures by what evils
they are held chained which they ignorantly have coveted as though they
were good and useful. Fortitude corresponds to those hungering and
thirsting: for they labour in earnestly desiring joy from things that
are truly good, and in eagerly seeking to turn away their love from
earthly and corporeal things: and of them it is here said, "Blessed are
they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness." Counsel
corresponds to the merciful: for this is the one remedy for escaping
from so great evils, that we forgive, as we wish to be ourselves
forgiven; and that we assist others so far as we are able, as we
ourselves desire to be assisted where we are not able: and of them it
is here said, "Blessed are the merciful." Understanding corresponds to
the pure in heart, the eye being as it were purged, by which that may
be beheld which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and what hath not
entered into the heart of man: [35] and of them it is here said,
"Blessed are the pure in heart." Wisdom corresponds to the peacemakers,
in whom all things are now brought into order, and no passion is in a
state of rebellion against reason, but all things together obey the
spirit of man, while he himself also obeys God: and of them it is here
said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." [36]
12. Moreover, the one reward, which is the kingdom of heaven, is
variously named according to these stages. In the first, just as ought
to be the case, is placed the kingdom of heaven, which is the perfect
and highest wisdom of the rational soul. Thus, therefore, it is said,
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven:"
as if it were said, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
To the meek an inheritance is given, as it were the testament of a
father to those dutifully seeking it: "Blessed are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth." To the mourners comfort, as to those who know
what they have lost, and in what evils they are sunk: "Blessed are they
that mourn, for they shall be comforted." To those hungering and
thirsting, a full supply, as it were a refreshment to those labouring
and bravely contending for salvation: "Blessed are they which do hunger
and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." To the
merciful mercy, as to those following a true and excellent counsel, so
that this same treatment is extended toward them by one who is
stronger, which they extend toward the weaker: "Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." To the pure in heart is given
the power of seeing God, as to those bearing about with them a pure eye
for discerning eternal things: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God." To the peacemakers the likeness of God is given, as
being perfectly wise, and formed after the image of God by means of the
regeneration of the renewed man: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called the children of God." And those promises can indeed be
fulfilled in this life, as we believe them to have been fulfilled in
the case of the apostles. For that all-embracing change into the
angelic form, which is promised after this life, cannot be explained in
any words. "Blessed," therefore, "are they which are persecuted for
righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This eighth
sentence, which goes back to the starting-point, and makes manifest the
perfect man, is perhaps set forth in its meaning both by the
circumcision on the eighth day in the Old Testament, and by the
resurrection of the Lord after the Sabbath, the day which is certainly
the eighth, and at the same time the first day; and by the celebration
of the eight festival days which we celebrate in the case of the
regeneration of the new man; and by the very number of Pentecost. For
to the number seven, seven times multiplied, by which we make
forty-nine, as it were an eighth is added, so that fifty may be made
up, and we, as it were, return to the starting-point: on which day the
Holy Spirit was sent, by whom we are led into the kingdom of heaven,
and receive the inheritance, and are comforted; and are fed, and obtain
mercy, and are purified, and are made peacemakers; and being thus
perfect, we bear all troubles brought upon us from without for the sake
of truth and righteousness.
__________________________________________________________________
[32] Isa. xi. 2, 3.
[33] Rom. xi. 20.
[34] Augustin follows the Septuagint, which has "piety" instead of "the
fear of the Lord" in the last clause of Isa. xi. 2.
[35] Isa. lxiv. 4 and 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[36] This is guarded against misconstruction in the Retract. I. xix. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.
13. "Blessed are ye," says He, "when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for
my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great [37] is your reward
in heaven." Let any one who is seeking after the delights of this world
and the riches of temporal things under the Christian name, consider
that our blessedness is within; as it is said of the soul of the Church
[38] by the mouth of the prophet, "All the beauty of the king's
daughter is within;" [39] for outwardly revilings, and persecutions,
and disparagements are promised; and yet, from these things there is a
great reward in heaven, which is felt in the heart of those who endure,
those who can now say, "We glory in tribulations: knowing that
tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience,
hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." [40]
For it is not simply the enduring of such things that is advantageous,
but the bearing of such things for the name of Christ not only with
tranquil mind, but even with exultation. For many heretics, deceiving
souls under the Christian name, endure many such things; but they are
excluded from that reward on this account, that it is not said merely,
"Blessed are they which endure persecution;" but it is added, "for
righteousness' sake." Now, where there is no sound faith, there can be
no righteousness, for the just [righteous] man lives by faith. [41]
Neither let schismatics promise themselves anything of that reward; for
similarly, where there is no love, there cannot be righteousness, for
"love worketh no ill to his neighbour;" [42] and if they had it, they
would not tear in pieces Christ's body, which is the Church. [43]
14. But it may be asked, What is the difference when He says, "when men
shall revile you," and "when they shall say all manner of evil against
you," since to revile [44] is just this, to say evil against? [45] But
it is one thing when the reviling word is hurled with contumely in
presence of him who is reviled, as it was said to our Lord, "Say we not
the truth [46] that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" [47] and
another thing, when our reputation is injured in our absence, as it is
also written of Him, "Some said, He is a prophet; [48] others said,
Nay, but He deceiveth the people." [49] Then, further, to persecute is
to inflict violence, or to assail with snares, as was done by him who
betrayed Him, and by them who crucified Him. Certainly, as for the fact
that this also is not put in a bare form, so that it should be said,
"and shall say all manner of evil against you," but there is added the
word "falsely," and also the expression "for my sake;" I think that the
addition is made for the sake of those who wish to glory in
persecutions, and in the baseness of their reputation; and to say that
Christ belongs to them for this reason, that many bad things are said
about them; while, on the one hand, the things said are true, when they
are said respecting their error; and, on the other hand, if sometimes
also some false charges are thrown out, which frequently happens from
the rashness of men, yet they do not suffer such things for Christ's
sake. [50] For he is not a follower of Christ who is not called a
Christian according to the true faith and the catholic discipline.
15. "Rejoice," says He, "and be exceeding glad: for great is your
reward in heaven." I do not think that it is the higher parts of this
visible world that are here called heaven. For our reward, which ought
to be immoveable and eternal, is not to be placed in things fleeting
and temporal. But I think the expression "in heaven" means in the
spiritual firmament, where dwells everlasting righteousness: in
comparison with which a wicked soul is called earth, to which it is
said when it sins, "Earth thou art, and unto earth thou shalt return."
[51] Of this heaven the apostle says, "For our conversation is in
heaven." [52] Hence they who rejoice in spiritual good are conscious of
that reward now; but then it will be perfected in every part, when this
mortal also shall have put on immortality. "For," says He, "so
persecuted they the prophets also which were before you." In the
present case He has used "persecution" in a general sense, as applying
alike to abusive words and to the tearing in pieces of one's
reputation; and has well encouraged them by an example, because they
who speak true things are wont to suffer persecution: nevertheless did
not the ancient prophets on this account, through fear of persecution,
give over the preaching of the truth.
__________________________________________________________________
[37] Multa; Vulgate, copiosa.
[38] Anima ecclesiastica.
[39] Ps. xlv. 13.
[40] Rom. v. 3-5.
[41] Hab. ii. 4 and Rom. i. 17.
[42] Rom. xiii. 10.
[43] Col. i. 24.
[44] Maledicere.
[45] Malum dicere.
[46] Verum. The Vulgate more literally has bene.
[47] John viii. 48.
[48] The Vulgate, following the Greek, has bonus,--good man.
[49] Chap. vii. 12.
[50] "It is not the suffering but the cause, that makes men martyrs."
For, says Augustin in another place (En. in Ps. xxxiv. 23), if the
suffering made the martyr, every mine would be full of martyrs, every
chain drag them, every one beheaded with the sword be crowned. They who
suffer for righteousness' sake, suffer for Christ's sake.
[51] Gen. iii. 19.
[52] Phil. iii. 20.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.
16. Hence there follows most justly the statement, "Ye are the salt of
the earth;" showing that those parties are to be judged insipid, who,
either in the eager pursuit after abundance of earthly blessings, or
through the dread of want, lose the eternal things which can neither be
given nor taken away by men. "But [53] if the salt have lost [54] its
savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" i.e., If ye, by means of whom
the nations in a measure are to be preserved [from corruption], through
the dread of temporal persecutions shall lose the kingdom of heaven,
where will be the men through whom error may be removed from you, since
God has chosen you, in order that through you He might remove the error
of others? Hence the savourless salt is "good for nothing, but to be
cast out, and trodden under foot of men." It is not therefore he who
suffers persecution, but he who is rendered savourless by the fear of
persecution, that is trodden under foot of men. For it is only one who
is undermost that can be trodden under foot; but he is not undermost,
who, however many things he may suffer in his body on the earth, yet
has his heart fixed in heaven. [55]
17. "Ye are the light [56] of the world." In the same way as He said
above, "the salt of the earth," so now He says, "the light of the
world." For in the former case that earth is not to be understood which
we tread with our bodily feet, but the men who dwell upon the earth, or
even the sinners, for the preserving of whom and for the extinguishing
of whose corruptions the Lord sent the apostolic salt. And here, by the
world must be understood not the heavens and the earth, but the men who
are in the world or love the world, for the enlightening of whom the
apostles were sent. [57] "A city that is set on [58] an hill cannot be
hid," i.e. [a city] founded upon great and distinguished righteousness,
which is also the meaning of the mountain itself on which our Lord is
discoursing. "Neither do men light a candle [59] and put it under a
bushel measure." [60] What view are we to take? That the expression
"under a bushel measure" is so used that only the concealment of the
candle is to be understood, as if He were saying, No one lights a
candle and conceals it? Or does the bushel measure also mean something,
so that to place a candle under a bushel is this, to place the comforts
of the body higher than the preaching of the truth; so that one does
not preach the truth so long as he is afraid of suffering any annoyance
in corporeal and temporal things? And it is well said a bushel measure,
whether on account of the recompense of measure, for each one receives
the things done in his body,--"that every one," says the apostle, "may
there receive [61] the things done in his body;" and it is said in
another place, as if of this bushel measure of the body, "For with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again:" [62] --or because
temporal good things, which are carried to completion in the body, are
both begun and come to an end in a certain definite number of days,
which is perhaps meant by the "bushel measure;" while eternal and
spiritual things are confined within no such limit, "for God giveth not
the Spirit by measure." [63] Every one, therefore, who obscures and
covers up the light of good doctrine by means of temporal comforts,
places his candle under a bushel measure. "But on a candlestick." [64]
Now it is placed on a candlestick by him who subordinates his body to
the service of God, so that the preaching of the truth is the higher,
and the serving of the body the lower; yet by means even of the service
of the body the doctrine shines more conspicuously, inasmuch as it is
insinuated into those who learn by means of bodily functions, i.e. by
means of the voice and tongue, and the other movements of the body in
good works. The apostle therefore puts his candle on a candlestick,
when he says, "So fight I, not as one that beateth [65] the air; but I
keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any
means, when I preach to others, I myself should be found a castaway."
[66] When He says, however, "that it may give light to all who are in
the house," I am of opinion that it is the abode of men which is called
a house, i.e. the world itself, on account of what He says before, "Ye
are the light of the world;" or if any one chooses to understand the
house as being the Church, this, too, is not out of place.
__________________________________________________________________
[53] "A warning against pride" (Schaff).
[54] Infatuatum fuerit; Vulgate, evanuerit.
[55] Others follow Augustin in regarding the connection of this verse
and the next with the preceding one as very close. All the more must
they refuse to yield to persecution, as they have a function in the
world which is well represented by salt and light (Weizsaecker, Meyer,
etc.). The function of salt is to preserve and to season. With it
Elisha healed the unwholesome water (2 Kings ii. 21). The use of salt
in the sacrifices is, no doubt, alluded to (Tholuck). It becomes
savourless. Dr. Thomson says (Land and Book, ii. 43), "It is a
well-known fact that the salt in this country (gathered from the
marshes in dry weather), when in contact with the ground, or exposed to
air and sun, does become insipid and useless." The disciples are
appointed to communicate the truth and moral grace, before spoken of in
the Beatitudes, to counteract the error and corruption in the earth.
"Earth" not to be confined to "society as then existing, the definite
form the world then presented" (Lange), but to mankind in general, as
Augustin below. "Wherewith shall it be salted" does not imply that
those who have once fallen cannot be reclaimed (Alford). The comment of
Grotius is good: "Ipsi emendare alios debebent, non autem exspectare ut
ab aliis ipsi emendarentur" ("They ought to improve others, not expect
to be themselves improved by others").
[56] Lumen, also used for a luminary; Vulgate, lux. In a lower and
derivative sense are the disciples "the light," etc. (Alford), deriving
their light-giving quality from Him who is the "Light of the world"
(John viii. 12), so that they become "lights in the world" (Phil. ii.
15). Augustin (Sermon, ccclxxx.): Johannes lumen illuminatum, Christus
lumen illuminans.
[57] "The influence of salt is internal, of light external: hence the
element in which they work, the earth and the world, both referring to
mankind; the latter more to its organized external form" (Schaff).
[58] Constituta; Vulgate, posita. The city was probably visible. Some
have thought of the village on Mount Tabor, others of an ancient
fortress, predecessor of the present Safed (Dean Stanley, Thomson);
certainly not Jerusalem (Weizsaecker).
[59] Lucerna.
[60] The Greek has the definite article ton modion.
[61] 2 Cor. v. 10. Recipiat unusquisque quae gessit in corpore.
Vulgate, referat unusquisque propria corporis, prout gessit, etc.
[62] Matt. vii. 2.
[63] John iii. 34; which words, however, are, as Augustin subsequently
observed (Retract. I. xix. 3), applicable only to Christ.
[64] Candelabrum.
[65] Caedens; Vulgate, verberans.
[66] 1 Cor. ix. 26, 27. Ne forte aliis predicans...invenir. Vulgate, Ne
forte cum aliis praedicaverim...efficir.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.
18. "Let your light," [67] says He, "so shine before men, that they may
see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." If He
had merely said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works," He would seem to have fixed an end in the praises of
men, which hypocrites seek, and those who canvass for honours and covet
glory of the emptiest kind. Against such parties it is said, "If I yet
pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ;" [68] and, by the
prophet, "They who please men are put to shame, because God hath
despised them;" and again, "God hath broken the bones of those who
please men;" [69] and again the apostle, "Let us not be desirous of
vainglory;" [70] and still another time, "But let every man prove his
own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in
another." [71] Hence our Lord has not said merely, "that they may see
your good works," but has added, "and glorify your Father who is in
heaven:" so that the mere fact that a man by means of good works
pleases men, does not there set it up as an end that he should please
men; but let him subordinate this to the praise of God, and for this
reason please men, that God may be glorified in him. For this is
expedient for them who offer praise, that they should honour, not man,
but God; as our Lord showed in the case of the man who was carried,
where, on the paralytic being healed, the multitude, marvelling at His
powers, as it is written in the Gospel, "feared and glorified God,
which had given such power unto men." [72] And His imitator, the
Apostle Paul, says, "But they had heard only, that he which persecuted
us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed; and
they glorified [73] God in me."
19. And therefore, after He has exhorted His hearers that they should
prepare themselves to bear all things for truth and righteousness, and
that they should not hide the good which they were about to receive,
but should learn with such benevolence as to teach others, aiming in
their good works not at their own praise, but at the glory of God, He
begins now to inform and to teach them what they are to teach; as if
they were asking Him, saying: Lo, we are willing both to bear all
things for Thy name, and not to hide Thy doctrine; but what precisely
is this which Thou forbiddest us to hide, and for which Thou commandest
us to bear all things? Art Thou about to mention other things contrary
to those which are written in the law? "No," says He; "for think not
that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil."
__________________________________________________________________
[67] Lumen; Vulgate, lux. Christ presupposes His righteousness to have
become the principle of their life. "They were to stand forth openly
and boldly with the message of the New Testament" ( Lange).
[68] Gal. i. 10.
[69] Ps. liii. 5.
[70] Gal. v. 26.
[71] Chap. vi. 4.
[72] Matt. ix. 8.
[73] Gal. i. 23, 24. Vastabat...glorificabant; Vulgate,
expugnabat...clarificabant.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.
20. In this sentence the meaning is twofold. [74] We must deal with it
in both ways. For He who says, "I am not come [75] to destroy the law,
but to fulfil," means it either in the way of adding what is wanting,
or of doing what is in it. Let us then consider that first which I have
put first: for he who adds what is wanting does not surely destroy what
he finds, but rather confirms it by perfecting it; and accordingly He
follows up with the statement, "Verily I say unto you, [76] Till heaven
and earth pass, one iota or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled." For, if even those things which are added
for completion are fulfilled, much more are those things fulfilled
which are sent in advance as a commencement. Then, as to what He says,
"One iota or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law," nothing
else can be understood but a strong expression of perfection, since it
is pointed out by means of single letters, among which letters "iota"
is smaller than the others, for it is made by a single stroke; while a
"tittle" is but a particle of some sort at the top of even that. And by
these words He shows that in the law all the smallest particulars even
are to be carried into effect. [77] After that He subjoins: "Whosoever,
therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Hence
it is the least commandments that are meant by "one iota" and "one
tittle." And therefore, "whosoever shall break and shall teach [men]
so,"--i.e. in accordance with what he breaks, not in accordance with
what he finds and reads,--"shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven;" and therefore, perhaps, he will not be in the kingdom of
heaven at all, where only the great can be. "But whosoever shall do and
teach [men] so," [78] --i.e. who shall not break, and shall teach men
so, in accordance with what he does not break,--"shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven." But in regard to him who shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven, it follows that he is also in the
kingdom of heaven, into which the great are admitted: for to this what
follows refers.
__________________________________________________________________
[74] Here begins the second part of the Sermon. In it our Lord sets
forth His relation as a lawgiver to the Mosaic law, especially as
currently interpreted according to the letter only (Meyer, Alford
etc.).
[75] Veni; Greek, elthon.
[76] A decisive assertion of authority. Asseveratio gravissima ei
propria, qui per se ipsum et per suam veritatem asseverat (Bengel). The
prophet's most emphatic statement was, "Thus saith the Lord." Christ
speaks in His own name, as the fount of authority (v. 20 and often:
John iii. 3, xiv. 12, etc.).
[77] "Christ's words are decisive against all those who would set aside
the Old Testament as without significance, or inconsistent with the New
Testament" (Alford). Christ declares the New to be rooted in the Old;
its consummation, not its destruction. The essence and purport of the
law, the "whole law," was fulfilled by Him (Meyer). Theophylact well
compares the law to a sketch, which Christ (like the painter) does not
destroy, but fills out.
[78] Sic; Greek, houtos; Vulgate, hic.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.
21. "For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter into the kingdom of heaven;" [79] i.e., unless ye shall fulfil
not only those least precepts of the law which begin the man, but also
those which are added by me, who am not come to destroy the law, but to
fulfil it, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. But you say
to me: If, when He was speaking above of those least commandments, He
said that whosoever shall break one of them, and shall teach in
accordance with his transgression, is called the least in the kingdom
of heaven; but that whosoever shall do them, and shall teach [men] so,
is called great, and hence will be already in the kingdom of heaven,
because he is great: what need is there for additions to the least
precepts of the law, if he can be already in the kingdom of heaven,
because whosoever shall do them, and shall so teach, is great? For this
reason that sentence is to be understood thus: "But whosoever shall do
and teach men so, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven,"--i.e. not in accordance with those least commandments, but in
accordance with those which I am about to mention. Now what are they?
"That your righteousness," says He, "may exceed that of the scribes and
Pharisees;" for unless it shall exceed theirs, ye shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall break those least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least; but
whosoever shall do those least commandments, and shall teach men so, is
not necessarily to be reckoned great and meet for the kingdom of
heaven; but yet he is not so much the least as the man who breaks them.
But in order that he may be great and fit for that kingdom, he ought to
do and teach as Christ now teaches, i.e. in order that his
righteousness may exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. The
righteousness of the Pharisees is, that they shall not kill; the
righteousness of those who are destined to enter into the kingdom of
God, that they be not angry without a cause. The least commandment,
therefore, is not to kill; and whosoever shall break that, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall fulfil that
commandment not to kill, will not, as a necessary consequence, be great
and meet for the kingdom of heaven, but yet he ascends a certain step.
He will be perfected, however, if he be not angry without a cause; and
if he shall do this, he will be much further removed from murder. For
this reason he who teaches that we should not be angry, does not break
the law not to kill, but rather fulfils it; so that we preserve our
innocence both outwardly when we do not kill, and in heart when we are
not angry.
22. "Ye have heard" therefore, says He, "that it was said to them of
old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in
danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause [80] shall be in danger of the
judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in
danger of the gehenna of fire." What is the difference between being in
danger of the judgment, and being in danger of the council, and being
in danger of the gehenna of fire? [81] For this last sounds most
weighty, and reminds us that certain stages were passed over from
lighter to more weighty, until the gehenna of fire was reached. And,
therefore, if it is a lighter thing to be in danger of the judgment
than to be in danger of the council, and if it is also a lighter thing
to be in danger of the council than to be in danger of the gehenna of
fire, we must understand it to be a lighter thing to be angry with a
brother without a cause than to say "Raca;" and again, to be a lighter
thing to say "Raca" than to say "Thou fool." For the danger would not
have gradations, unless the sins also were mentioned in gradation.
23. But here one obscure word has found a place, for "Raca" is neither
Latin nor Greek. The others, however, are current in our language. Now,
some have wished to derive the interpretation of this expression from
the Greek, supposing that a ragged person is called "Raca," because a
rag is called in Greek rhakos; yet, when one asks them what a ragged
person is called in Greek, they do not answer "Raca;" and further, the
Latin translator might have put the word ragged where he has placed
"Raca," and not have used a word which, on the one hand, has no
existence in the Latin language, and, on the other, is rare in the
Greek. Hence the view is more probable which I heard from a certain
Hebrew whom I had asked about it; for he said that the word does not
mean anything, but merely expresses the emotion of an angry mind.
Grammarians call those particles of speech which express an affection
of an agitated mind interjections; as when it is said by one who is
grieved, "Alas," or by one who is angry, "Hah." And these words in all
languages are proper names, and are not easily translated into another
language; and this cause certainly compelled alike the Greek and the
Latin translators to put the word itself, inasmuch as they could find
no way of translating it. [82]
24. There is therefore a gradation in the sins referred to, so that
first one is angry, and keeps that feeling as a conception in his
heart; but if now that emotion shall draw forth an expression of anger
not having any definite meaning, but giving evidence of that feeling of
the mind by the very fact of the outbreak wherewith he is assailed with
whom one is angry, this is certainly more than if the rising anger were
restrained by silence; but if there is heard not merely an expression
of anger, but also a word by which the party using it now indicates and
signifies a distinct censure of him against whom it is directed, who
doubts but that this is something more than if merely an exclamation of
anger were uttered? Hence in the first there is one thing, i.e. anger
alone; in the second two things, both anger and a word that expresses
anger; in the third three things, anger and a word that expresses
anger, and in that word the utterance of distinct censure. Look now
also at the three degrees of liability,--the judgment, the council, the
gehenna of fire. For in the judgment an opportunity is still given for
defence; in the council, however, although there is also wont to be a
judgment, yet because the very distinction compels us to acknowledge
that there is a certain difference in this place, the production of the
sentence seems to belong to the council, inasmuch as it is not now the
case of the accused himself that is in question, whether he is to be
condemned or not, but they who judge confer with one another to what
punishment they ought to condemn him, who, it is clear, is to be
condemned; but the gehenna of fire does not treat as a doubtful matter
either the condemnation, like the judgment, or the punishment of him
who is condemned, like the council; for in the gehenna of fire both the
condemnation and the punishment of him who is condemned are certain.
Thus there are seen certain degrees in the sins and in the liability to
punishment; [83] but who can tell in what ways they are invisibly shown
in the punishments of souls? We are therefore to learn how great the
difference is between the righteousness of the Pharisees and that
greater righteousness which introduces into the kingdom of heaven,
because while it is a more serious crime to kill than to inflict
reproach by means of a word, in the one case killing exposes one to the
judgment, but in the other anger exposes one to the judgment, which is
the least of those three sins; for in the former case they were
discussing the question of murder among men, but in the latter all
things are disposed of by means of a divine judgment, where the end of
the condemned is the gehenna of fire. But whoever shall say that murder
is punished by a more severe penalty under the greater righteousness if
a reproach is punished by the gehenna of fire, compels us to understand
that there are differences of gehennas.
25. Indeed, in the three statements before us, we must observe that
some words are understood. For the first statement has all the words
that are necessary. "Whosoever," says He, "is angry with his brother
without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." But in the
second, when He says, "and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,"
there is understood the expression without cause, [84] and thus there
is subjoined, "shall be in danger of the council." In the third, now,
where He says, "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool," two things are
understood, both to his brother and without cause. And in this way we
defend the apostle when he calls the Galatians fools, [85] to whom he
also gives the name of brethren; for he does not do it without cause.
And here the word brother is to be understood for this reason, that the
case of an enemy is spoken of afterwards, and how he also is to be
treated under the greater righteousness.
__________________________________________________________________
[79] "With all their care, they had not understood the true spirit of
the law" (Schaff). The rest of the Sermon is largely a comment on this
verse, Christ giving His interpretation of the law, and the
righteousness following upon its observance; showing that the purport
goes beyond the external act of obedience to the purpose of the heart,
and that in the external act of obedience the real purport might be
ignored.
[80] Sine causa. The weight of critical evidence is against this
clause, which is omitted by Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort, the
Vulgate and the Revised Version.
[81] The "judgment" (krisis) was the local court of seven, which every
community was enjoined to have (Deut. xvi. 18). The "council" was the
Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-two members, sitting in Jerusalem. The
"gehenna" was the vale of Hinnom, on the confines of Jerusalem, where
sacrifices were offered to Moloch, and which became the place for
refuse and the burning of dead bodies. In the New Testament it is
equivalent to "hell."
[82] Raca is from the Chald. R+iJ+oQ+#, and is a term of contempt
equivalent to empty-headed (Thayer's Lexicon). Trench translates, "Oh,
vain man!"
[83] It is important "to keep in mind that there is no distinction in
kind between these punishments, only of degree. The `judgment' (krisis)
inflicted death by the sword, the Sanhedrin death by stoning, and the
disgrace of the gehenna followed as an intensification of death; but
the punishment is one and the same,--death. So also in the subject of
the similitude. All the punishments are spiritual; all result in
eternal death, but with various degrees, as the degrees of guilt have
been" (Alford).
[84] Augustin helps us to understand how the word eike (without cause)
in the preceding clause crept into some of the Mss. In Retract. I. xix.
4 he makes the critical note and correction: "Codices graeci non habent
sine causa."
[85] Gal. iii. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X.
26. Next there follows here: "Therefore, if thou hast brought [86] thy
gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought
against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."
From this surely it is clear that what is said above is said of a
brother: inasmuch as the sentence which follows is connected by such a
conjunction that it confirms the preceding one; for He does not say,
But if thou bring thy gift to the altar; but He says, "Therefore, if
thou bring thy gift to the altar." For if it is not lawful to be angry
with one's brother without a cause, or to say "Raca," or to say "Thou
fool," much less is it lawful so to retain anything in one's mind, as
that indignation may be turned into hatred. And to this belongs also
what is said in another passage: "Let not the sun go down upon your
wrath." [87] We are therefore commanded, when about to bring our gift
to the altar, if we remember that our brother hath ought against us, to
leave the gift before the altar, and to go and be reconciled to our
brother, and then to come and offer the gift. [88] But if this is to be
understood literally, one might perhaps suppose that such a thing ought
to be done if the brother is present; for it cannot be delayed too
long, since you are commanded to leave your gift before the altar. If,
therefore, such a thing should come into your mind respecting one who
is absent, and, as may happen, even settled down beyond the sea, it is
absurd to suppose that your gift is to be left before the altar until
you may offer it to God after having traversed both lands and seas. And
therefore we are compelled to have recourse to an altogether internal
and spiritual interpretation, in order that what has been said may be
understood without absurdity.
27. And so we may interpret the altar spiritually, as being faith
itself in the inner temple of God, whose emblem is the visible altar.
For whatever offering we present to God, whether prophecy, or teaching,
or prayer, or a psalm, or a hymn, and whatever other such like
spiritual gift occurs to the mind, it cannot be acceptable to God,
unless it be sustained by sincerity of faith, and, as it were, placed
on that fixedly and immoveably, so that what we utter may remain whole
and uninjured. For many heretics, not having the altar, i.e. true
faith, have spoken blasphemies for praise; being weighed down, to wit,
with earthly opinions, and thus, as it were, throwing down their
offering on the ground. But there ought also to be purity of intention
on the part of the offerer. And therefore, when we are about to present
any such offering in our heart, i.e. in the inner temple of God ("For,"
as it is said, "the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are;" [89]
and, "That Christ may dwell in the inner man [90] by faith in your
hearts") if it occur to our mind that a brother hath ought against us,
i.e. if we have injured him in anything (for then he has something
against us whereas we have something against him if he has injured us,
and in that case it is not necessary to proceed to reconciliation: for
you will not ask pardon of one who has done you an injury, but merely
forgive him, as you desire to be forgiven by the Lord what you have
committed against Him), we are therefore to proceed to reconciliation,
when it has occurred to our mind that we have perhaps injured our
brother in something; but this is to be done not with the bodily feet,
but with the emotions of the mind, so that you are to prostrate
yourself with humble disposition before your brother, to whom you have
hastened in affectionate thought, in the presence of Him to whom you
are about to present your offering. For thus, even if he should be
present, you will be able to soften him by a mind free from
dissimulation, and to recall him to goodwill by asking pardon, if first
you have done this before God, going to him not with the slow movement
of the body, but with the very swift impulse of love; and then coming,
i.e. recalling your attention to that which you were beginning to do,
you will offer your gift. [91]
28. But who acts in a way that he is neither angry with his brother
without a cause, nor says "Raca" without a cause, nor calls him a fool
without a cause, all of which are most proudly committed; or so, that,
if perchance he has fallen into any of these, he asks pardon with
suppliant mind, which is the only remedy; who but just the man that is
not puffed up with the spirit of empty boasting? "Blessed" therefore
"are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Let us
look now at what follows.
__________________________________________________________________
[86] Obtuleris; Vulgate, offers.
[87] Eph. iv. 26.
[88] The performance of an act of worship does not atone for an offence
against a fellow-man. The duties toward God never absolve from man's
duties to his neighbour. Inter rem sacram magis subit recordatio
offensarum, quam in strepitu negotiorum (Bengel).
[89] 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[90] Eph. iii. 17. In interiore homine, a different construction from
the Greek, which has eis with the accusative. So Vulgate, in interiorem
hominem.
[91] "Discharge of duty to men does not absolve from duty to God." The
passage has strong bearing upon the relation of morality and religion.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.
29. "Be kindly disposed," [92] says he, "toward thine adversary
quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the
adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the
officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou
shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost
farthing." I understand who the judge is: "For the Father judgeth no
man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." [93] I understand
who the officer is: "And angels," it is said, "ministered unto Him:"
[94] and we believe that He will come with His angels to judge the
quick and the dead. I understand what is meant by the prison: evidently
the punishments of darkness, which He calls in another passage the
outer darkness: [95] for this reason, I believe, that the joy of the
divine rewards is something internal in the mind itself, or even if
anything more hidden can be thought of, that joy of which it is said to
the servant who deserved well, "Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord;"
[96] just as also, under this republican government, one who is thrust
into prison is sent out from the council chamber, or from the palace of
the judge.
30. But now, with respect to paying the uttermost farthing, [97] it may
be understood without absurdity either as standing for this, that
nothing is left unpunished; just as in common speech we also say "to
the very dregs," when we wish to express that something is so drained
out that nothing is left: or by the expression "the uttermost farthing"
earthly sins may be meant. For as a fourth part of the separate
component parts of this world, and in fact as the last, the earth is
found; so that you begin with the heavens, you reckon the air the
second, water the third, the earth the fourth. It may therefore seem to
be suitably said, "till thou hast paid the last fourth," in the sense
of "till thou hast expiated thy earthly sins:" for this the sinner also
heard, "Earth thou art, and unto earth shall thou return." [98] Then,
as to the expression "till thou hast paid," I wonder if it does not
mean that punishment which is called eternal. [99] For whence is that
debt paid where there is now no opportunity given of repenting and of
leading a more correct life? For perhaps the expression "till thou hast
paid" stands here in the same sense as in that passage where it is
said, "Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool;" [100] for not even when the enemies have been put under His
feet, will He cease to sit at the right hand: or that statement of the
apostle, "For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His
feet;" [101] for not even when they have been put under His feet, will
He cease to reign. Hence, as it is there understood of Him respecting
whom it is said, "He must reign, till He hath put His enemies under His
feet," that He will reign for ever, inasmuch as they will be for ever
under His feet: so here it may be understood of him respecting whom it
is said, "Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid
the uttermost farthing," that he will never come out; for he is always
paying the uttermost farthing, so long as he is suffering the
everlasting punishment of his earthly sins. Nor would I say this in
such a way as that I should seem to prevent a more careful discussion
respecting the punishment of sins, as to how in the Scriptures it is
called eternal; although in all possible ways it is to be avoided
rather than known.
31. But let us now see who the adversary himself is, with whom we are
enjoined to agree quickly, whiles we are in the way with him. For he is
either the devil, or a man, or the flesh, or God, or His commandment.
[102] But I do not see how we should be enjoined to be on terms of
goodwill, i.e. to be of one heart or of one mind, with the devil. For
some have rendered the Greek word which is found here "of one heart,"
others "of one mind:" but neither are we enjoined to show goodwill to
the devil (for where there is goodwill there is friendship: and no one
would say that we are to make friends with the devil); nor is it
expedient to come to an agreement with him, against whom we have
declared war by once for all renouncing him, and on conquering whom we
shall be crowned; nor ought we now to yield to him, for if we had never
yielded to him, we should never have fallen into such miseries. Again,
as to the adversary being a man, although we are enjoined to live
peaceably with all men, as far as lieth in us, where certainly
goodwill, and concord, and consent may be understood; yet I do not see
how I can accept the view, that we are delivered to the judge by a man,
in a case where I understand Christ to be the judge, "before" whose
"judgment-seat we must all appear," [103] as the apostle says: how then
is he to deliver me to the judge, who will appear equally with me
before the judge? Or if any one is delivered to the judge because he
has injured a man, although the party who has been injured does not
deliver him, it is a much more suitable view, that the guilty party is
delivered to the judge by that law against which he acted when he
injured the man. And this for the additional reason, that if any one
has injured a man by killing him, there will be no time now in which to
agree with him; for he is not now in the way with him, i.e. in this
life: and yet a remedy will not on that account be excluded, if one
repents and flees for refuge with the sacrifice of a broken heart to
the mercy of Him who forgives the sins of those who turn to Him, and
who rejoices more over one penitent than over ninety-nine just persons.
[104] But much less do I see how we are enjoined to bear goodwill
towards, or to agree with, or to yield to, the flesh. For it is sinners
rather who love their flesh, and agree with it, and yield to it; but
those who bring it into subjection are not the parties who yield to it,
but rather they compel it to yield to them.
32. Perhaps, therefore, we are enjoined to yield to God, and to be
well-disposed towards Him, in order that we may be reconciled to Him,
from whom by sinning we have turned away, so that He can be called our
adversary. For He is rightly called the adversary of those whom He
resists, for "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble;"
[105] and "pride is the beginning of all sin, but the beginning of
man's pride is to become apostate from God;" [106] and the apostle
says, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His
life." [107] And from this it may be perceived that no nature [as
being] bad is an enemy to God, inasmuch as the very parties who were
enemies are being reconciled. Whoever, therefore, while in this way,
i.e. in this life, shall not have been reconciled to God by the death
of His Son, will be delivered to the judge by Him, for "the Father
judgeth no man, but hath delivered all judgment to the Son;" and so the
other things which are described in this section follow, which we have
already discussed. There is only one thing which creates a difficulty
as regards this interpretation, viz. how it can be rightly said that we
are in the way with God, if in this passage He Himself is to be
understood as the adversary of the wicked, with whom we are enjoined to
be reconciled quickly; unless, perchance, because He is everywhere, we
also, while we are in this way, are certainly with Him. For as it is
said, "If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in
hell, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and
dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead
me, and Thy right hand shall hold me." [108] Or if the view is not
accepted, that the wicked are said to be with God, although there is
nowhere where God is not present,--just as we do not say that the blind
are with the light, although the light surrounds their eyes,--there is
one resource remaining: that we should understand the adversary here as
being the commandment of God. For what is so much an adversary to those
who wish to sin as the commandment of God, i.e. His law and divine
Scripture, which has been given us for this life, that it may be with
us in the way, which we must not contradict, lest it deliver us to the
judge, but which we ought to submit to quickly? For no one knows when
he may depart out of this life. Now, who is it that submits to divine
Scripture, save he who reads or hears it piously, deferring to it as of
supreme authority; so that what he understands he does not hate on this
account, that he feels it to be opposed to his sins, but rather loves
being reproved by it, and rejoices that his maladies are not spared
until they are healed; and so that even in respect to what seems to him
obscure or absurd, he does not therefore raise contentious
contradictions, but prays that he may understand, yet remembering that
goodwill and reverence are to be manifested towards so great an
authority? But who does this, unless just the man who has come, not
harshly threatening, but in the meekness of piety, for the purpose of
opening and ascertaining the contents of his father's will? "Blessed,"
therefore, "are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." Let us see
what follows.
__________________________________________________________________
[92] Benevolus; Vulgate, consentiens. What is matter of prudence in a
civil case, becomes matter of life and death in spiritual things. The
Lord does not intend to inculcate simply a law of worldly prudence as
asserted by a few modern commentators.
[93] John v. 22.
[94] Matt. iv. 11.
[95] Matt. viii. 12.
[96] Matt. xxv. 23.
[97] The word translated "farthing" means literally "a fourth part" and
on this original sense Augustin's second interpretation is based.
[98] Gen. iii. 19.
[99] Universalists have quoted the passage to prove the doctrine that
punishment will not be endless, others in favor of purgatory. The main
idea is the inexorable rigor of the divine justice against the
impenitent. "The whole tone of the passage is that of one who seeks to
deepen the sense of danger, not to make light of it; to make men feel
that they cannot pay their debt, though God may forgive it freely"
(Plumptre).
[100] Ps. cx. 1.
[101] 1 Cor. xv. 25.
[102] "The devil" (Clemens Alex.); "conscience" (Euthymius, Zig.); "the
man who has done the injury" (Meyer, Tholuck, Lange, Trench, etc.)
[103] 2 Cor. v. 10. Exhiberi; Vulgate, manifestari.
[104] Luke xv. 7.
[105] Jas. iv. 6.
[106] Ecclus. x. 13, 12.
[107] Rom. v. 10.
[108] Ps. cxxxix. 8-10.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.
33. "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart." The lesser righteousness, therefore, is not to commit adultery
by carnal connection; but the greater righteousness of the kingdom of
God is not to commit adultery in the heart. Now, the man who does not
commit adultery in the heart, much more easily guards against
committing adultery in actual fact. Hence He who gave the later precept
confirmed the earlier; for He came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfil it. It is well worthy of consideration that He did not say,
Whosoever lusteth after a woman, but," Whosoever looketh on a woman to
lust after her," [109] i.e. turneth toward her with this aim and this
intent, that he may lust after her; which, in fact, is not merely to be
tickled [110] by fleshly delight, but fully to consent to lust; so that
the forbidden appetite is not restrained, but satisfied if opportunity
should be given.
34. For there are three things which go to complete sin: the suggestion
of, the taking pleasure in, and the consenting to. Suggestion takes
place either by means of memory, or by means of the bodily senses, when
we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch anything. And if it give
us pleasure to enjoy this, this pleasure, if illicit, must be
restrained. Just as when we are fasting, and on seeing food the
appetite of the palate is stirred up, this does not happen without
pleasure; but we do not consent to this liking, and [111] we repress it
by the right of reason, which has the supremacy. But if consent shall
take place, the sin will be complete, known to God in our heart,
although it may not become known to men by deed. There are, then, these
steps: the suggestion is made, as it were, by a serpent, that is to
say, by a fleeting and rapid, i.e. a temporary, movement of bodies: for
if there are also any such images moving about in the soul, they have
been derived from without from the body; and if any hidden sensation of
the body besides those five senses touches the soul, that also is
temporary and fleeting; and therefore the more clandestinely it glides
in, so as to affect the process of thinking, the more aptly is it
compared to a serpent. Hence these three stages, as I was beginning to
say, resemble that transaction which is described in Genesis, so that
the suggestion and a certain measure of suasion is put forth, as it
were, by the serpent; but the taking pleasure in it lies in the carnal
appetite, as it were in Eve; and the consent lies in the reason, as it
were in the man: and these things having been acted through, the man is
driven forth, as it were, from paradise, i.e. from the most blessed
light of righteousness, into death [112] --in all respects most
righteously. For he who puts forth suasion does not compel. And all
natures are beautiful in their order, according to their gradations;
but we must not descend from the higher, among which the rational mind
has its place assigned, to the lower. Nor is any one compelled to do
this; and therefore, if he does it, he is punished by the just law of
God, for he is not guilty of this unwillingly. But yet, previous to
habit, either there is no pleasure, or it is so slight that there is
hardly any; and to yield to it is a great sin, as such pleasure is
unlawful. Now, when any one does yield, he commits sin in the heart.
If, however, he also proceeds to action, the desire seems to be
satisfied and extinguished; but afterwards, when the suggestion is
repeated, a greater pleasure is kindled, which, however, is as yet much
less than that which by continuous practice is converted into habit.
For it is very difficult to overcome this; and yet even habit itself,
if one does not prove untrue to himself, and does not shrink back in
dread from the Christian warfare, he will get the better of under His
(i.e. Christ's) leadership and assistance; and thus, in accordance with
primitive peace and order, both the man is subject to Christ, and the
woman is subject to the man. [113]
35. Hence, just as we arrive at sin by three steps,--suggestion,
pleasure, consent,--so of sin itself there are three varieties,--in
heart, in deed, in habit,--as it were, three deaths: one, as it were,
in the house, i.e. when we consent to lust in the heart; a second now,
as it were, brought forth outside the gate, when assent goes forward
into action; a third, when the mind is pressed down by the force of bad
habit, as if by a mound of earth, and is now, as it were, rotting in
the sepulchre. And whoever reads the Gospel perceives that our Lord
raised to life these three varieties of the dead. And perhaps he
reflects what differences may be found in the very word of Him who
raises them, when He says on one occasion, "Damsel, arise;" [114] on
another, "Young man, [115] I say unto thee, Arise;" [116] and when on
another occasion He groaned in the spirit, and wept, and again groaned,
and then afterwards "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth."
[117]
36. And therefore, under the category of the adultery mentioned in this
section, we must understand all fleshly and sensual lust. For when
Scripture so constantly speaks of idolatry as fornication, and the
Apostle Paul calls avarice by the name of idolatry, [118] who doubts
but that every evil lust is rightly called fornication, since the soul,
neglecting the higher law by which it is ruled, and prostituting itself
for the base pleasure of the lower nature as its reward (so to speak),
is thereby corrupted? And therefore let every one who feels carnal
pleasure rebelling against right inclination in his own case through
the habit of sinning, by whose unsubdued violence he is dragged into
captivity, recall to mind as much as he can what kind of peace he has
lost by sinning, and let him cry out, "O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus
Christ." [119] For in this way, when he cries out that he is wretched,
in the act of bewailing he implores the help of a comforter. Nor is it
a small approach to blessedness, when he has come to know his
wretchedness; and therefore "blessed" also "are they that mourn, [120]
for they shall be comforted."
__________________________________________________________________
[109] The Greek pros to epithumesai refers to sin of intent. "The
particle pros indicates the mental aim" (Tholuck, Meyer, etc.). So
Augustin, rightly: "Qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit."
[110] Titillari.
[111] The reading "if" has been proposed by some.
[112] Gen. iii.
[113] 1 Cor. xi. 3 and Eph. v. 23.
[114] Mark v. 41.
[115] Juvenis; Vulgate, adolescens.
[116] Luke vii. 14.
[117] John xi. 33-44.
[118] Col. iii. 5 and Eph. v. 5.
[119] Rom. vii. 24, 25.
[120] Lugentes; Vulgate, qui lugent.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.
37. In the next place, He goes on to say: "And if thy right eye offend
thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should go [121] into hell." Here, certainly, there is need of great
courage in order to cut off one's members. [122] For whatever it is
that is meant by the "eye," undoubtedly it is such a thing as is
ardently loved. For those who wish to express their affection strongly
are wont to speak thus: I love him as my own eyes, or even more than my
own eyes. Then, when the word "right" is added, it is meant perhaps to
intensify the strength of the affection. [123] For although these
bodily eyes of ours are turned in a common direction for the purpose of
seeing, and if both are turned they have equal power, yet men are more
afraid of losing the right one. So that the sense in this case is:
Whatever it is which thou so lovest that thou reckonest it as a right
eye, if it offends thee, i.e. if it proves a hindrance to thee on the
way to true happiness, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is
profitable for thee, that one of these which thou so lovest that they
cleave to thee as if they were members, should perish, rather than that
thy whole body should be cast into hell.
38. But since He follows it up with a similar statement respecting the
right hand, "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it
from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should go [124] into hell," He
compels us to inquire more carefully what He has spoken of as an eye.
And as regards this inquiry, nothing occurs to me as a more suitable
explanation than a greatly beloved friend: for this, certainly, is
something which we may rightly call a member which we ardently love;
and this friend a counsellor, for it is an eye, as it were, pointing
out the road; and that in divine things, for it is the right eye: so
that the left is indeed a beloved counsellor, but in earthly matters,
pertaining to the necessities of the body; concerning which as a cause
of stumbling it was superfluous to speak, inasmuch as not even the
right was to be spared. Now, a counsellor in divine things is a cause
of stumbling, if he endeavours to lead one into any dangerous heresy
under the guise of religion and doctrine. Hence also let the right hand
be taken in the sense of a beloved helper and assistant in divine
works: for in like manner as contemplation is rightly understood as
having its seat in the eye, so action in the right hand; so that the
left hand may be understood in reference to works which are necessary
for this life, and for the body.
__________________________________________________________________
[121] Eat; Vulgate, mittatur.
[122] Not literally (Fritzsche). Excision of the members would not of
itself destroy the lust of the heart.
[123] So Meyer et al. What Robert South says (Sermon on John vii. 17)
of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, can certainly be applied here:
"All the particulars of Matt. v.-vii. are wrapt up in the doctrine of
self-denial, prescribing to the world the most inward purity of heart,
and a constant conflict with all our sensual appetites and worldly
interests," etc. Augustin's interpretation is correct as far as it
goes, but it is too restricted. Christ does not here insist upon the
renunciation of sinful lusts, but upon the evasion of occasions of sin.
What is harmless and innocent of itself, when through any temperament
or condition it becomes an occasion of sinning, is to be relinquished.
[124] Eat. So Vulgate.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.
39. "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give
her a writing of divorcement." This is the lesser righteousness of the
Pharisees, which is not opposed by what our Lord says: "But I say unto
you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: [125] and whosoever shall
marry her that is loosed from her husband committeth adultery." [126]
For He who gave the commandment that a writing of divorcement should be
given, did not give the commandment that a wife should be put away; but
"whosoever shall put away," says He, "let him give her a writing of
divorcement," in order that the thought of such a writing might
moderate the rash anger of him who was getting rid of his wife. And,
therefore, He who sought to interpose a delay in putting away,
indicated as far as He could to hard-hearted men that He did not wish
separation. And accordingly the Lord Himself in another passage, when a
question was asked Him as to this matter, gave this reply: "Moses did
so because of the hardness of your hearts." [127] For however
hard-hearted a man may be who wishes to put away his wife, when he
reflects that, on a writing of divorcement being given her, she could
then without risk marry another, he would be easily appeased. Our Lord,
therefore, in order to confirm that principle, that a wife should not
lightly be put away, made the single exception of fornication; but
enjoins that all other annoyances, if any such should happen to spring
up, be borne with fortitude for the sake of conjugal fidelity and for
the sake of chastity; and he also calls that man an adulterer who
should marry her that has been divorced by her husband. And the Apostle
Paul shows the limit of this state of affairs, for he says it is to be
observed as long as her husband liveth; but on the husband's death he
gives permission to marry. [128] For he himself also held by this rule,
and therein brings forward not his own advice, as in the case of some
of his admonitions, but a command by the Lord when he says: "And unto
the married [129] I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife
[130] depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put
away his wife." [131] I believe that, according to a similar rule, if
he shall put her away, he is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to
his wife. For it may happen that he puts away his wife for the cause of
fornication, which our Lord wished to make an exception of. But now, if
she is not allowed to marry while the husband is living from whom she
has departed, nor he to take another while the wife is living whom he
has put away, much less is it right to commit unlawful acts of
fornication with any parties whomsoever. More blessed indeed are those
marriages to be reckoned, where the parties concerned, whether after
the procreation of children, or even through contempt of such an
earthly progeny, have been able with common consent to practise
self-restraint toward each other: both because nothing is done contrary
to that precept whereby the Lord forbids a spouse to be put away (for
he does not put her away who lives with her not carnally, but
spiritually), and because that principle is observed to which the
apostle gives expression, "It remaineth, that they that have wives be
as though they had none." [132]
__________________________________________________________________
[125] Per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem dat divortium ("by another
marriage, power of which divorce gives."--Bengel). So also Meyer,
Alford, etc.
[126] Solutam a viro...moechatur; Vulgate, dimissam...adulterat.
[127] Matt. xix. 8.
[128] Rom. vii. 2, 3.
[129] In conjugio...mulierem; Vulgate, matrimonio...uxorem.
[130] In conjugio...mulierem; Vulgate, matrimonio...uxorem.
[131] 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11.
[132] 1 Cor. vii. 29.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.
40. But it is rather that statement which the Lord Himself makes in
another passage which is wont to disturb the minds of the little ones,
who nevertheless earnestly desire to live now according to the precepts
of Christ: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own
life also, he cannot be my disciple." [133] For it may seem a
contradiction to the less intelligent, that here He forbids the putting
away of a wife saving for the cause of fornication, but that elsewhere
He affirms that no one can be a disciple of His who does not hate his
wife. But if He were speaking with reference to sexual intercourse, He
would not place father, and mother, and brothers in the same category.
But how true it is, that "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and
they that use violence take it by force!" [134] For how great violence
is necessary, in order that a man may love his enemies, and hate his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers! For He
commands both things who calls us to the kingdom of heaven. And how
these things do not contradict each other, it is easy to show under His
guidance; but after they have been understood, it is difficult to carry
them out, although this too is very easy when He Himself assists us.
For in that eternal kingdom to which He has vouchsafed to call His
disciples, to whom He also gives the name of brothers, there are no
temporal relationships of this sort. For "there is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female;" "but Christ is all, and in all." [135] And the Lord Himself
says: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in
marriage, [136] but are as the angels of God in heaven." [137] Hence it
is necessary that whoever wishes here and now to aim after the life of
that kingdom, should hate not the persons themselves, but those
temporal relationships by which this life of ours, which is transitory
and is comprised in being born and dying, is upheld; because he who
does not hate them, does not yet love that life where there is no
condition of being born and dying, which unites parties in earthly
wedlock.
41. Therefore, if I were to ask any good Christian who has a wife, and
even though he may still be having children by her, whether he would
like to have his wife in that kingdom; mindful in any case of the
promises of God, and of that life where this incorruptible shall put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality; [138] though at
present hesitating from the greatness, or at least from a certain
degree of love, he would reply with execration that he is strongly
averse to it. Were I to ask him again, whether he would like his wife
to live with him there, after the resurrection, when she had undergone
that angelic change which is promised to the saints, he would reply
that he desired this as strongly as he reprobated the other. Thus a
good Christian is found in one and the same woman to love the creature
of God, whom he desires to be transformed and renewed; but to hate the
corruptible and mortal conjugal connection and sexual intercourse: i.e.
to love in her what is characteristic of a human being, to hate what
belongs to her as a wife. So also he loves his enemy, not in as far as
he is an enemy, but in as far as he is a man; so that he wishes the
same prosperity to come to him as to himself, viz. that he may reach
the kingdom of heaven rectified and renewed. This is to be understood
both of father and mother and the other ties of blood, that we hate in
them what has fallen to the lot of the human race in being born and
dying, but that we love what can be carried along with us to those
realms where no one says, My Father; but all say to the one God, "Our
Father:" and no one says, My mother; but all say to that other
Jerusalem, Our mother: and no one says, My brother; but each says
respecting every other, Our brother. But in fact there will be a
marriage on our part as of one spouse (when we have been brought
together into unity), with Him who hath delivered us from the pollution
of this world by the shedding of His own blood. It is necessary,
therefore, that the disciple of Christ should hate these things which
pass away, in those whom he desires along with himself to reach those
things which shall for ever remain; and that he should the more hate
these things in them, the more he loves themselves.
42. A Christian may therefore live in concord with his wife, whether
with her providing for a fleshly craving, a thing which the apostle
speaks by permission, not by commandment; or providing for the
procreation of children, which may be at present in some degree
praiseworthy; or providing for a brotherly and sisterly fellowship,
without any corporeal connection, having his wife as though he had her
not, as is most excellent and sublime in the marriage of Christians:
yet so that in her he hates the name of temporal relationship, and
loves the hope of everlasting blessedness. For we hate, without doubt,
that respecting which we wish at least, that at some time hereafter it
should not exist; as, for instance, this same life of ours in the
present world, which if we were not to hate as being temporal, we would
not long for the future life, which is not conditioned by time. For as
a substitute for this life the soul is put, respecting which it is said
in that passage, "If a man hate not his own soul [139] also, he cannot
be my disciple." For that corruptible meat is necessary for this life,
of which the Lord Himself says, "Is not the soul [140] more than meat?"
i.e. this life to which meat is necessary. And when He says that He
would lay down His soul [141] for His sheep, He undoubtedly means this
life, as He is declaring that He is going to die for us.
__________________________________________________________________
[133] Luke xiv. 26.
[134] Matt xi. 12. Qui vim faciunt diripiunt illud; Vulgate, violenti
rapiunt illud.
[135] Gal. iii. 28 and Col. iii. 11.
[136] Uxores ducent; Vulgate, nubentur.
[137] Matt. xxii. 30.
[138] 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54.
[139] Luke xiv. 26.
[140] Matt. vi. 25.
[141] John x. 15.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.
43. Here there arises a second question, when the Lord allows a wife to
be put away for the cause of fornication, in what latitude of meaning
fornication is to be understood in this passage,--whether in the sense
understood by all, viz. that we are to understand that fornication to
be meant which is committed in acts of uncleanness; or whether, in
accordance with the usage of Scripture in speaking of fornication (as
has been mentioned above), as meaning all unlawful corruption, such as
idolatry or covetousness, and therefore, of course, every transgression
of the law on account of the unlawful lust [involved in it]. [142] But
let us consult the apostle, that we may not say rashly. "And unto the
married I command," says he, "yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife
depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." For it may happen that she
departs for that cause for which the Lord gives permission to do so.
Or, if a woman is at liberty to put away her husband for other causes
besides that of fornication, and the husband is not at liberty, what
answer shall we give respecting this statement which he has made
afterwards, "And let not the husband put away his wife"? Wherefore did
he not add, saving for the cause of fornication, which the Lord
permits, unless because he wishes a similar rule to be understood, that
if he shall put away his wife (which he is permitted to do for the
cause of fornication), he is to remain without a wife, or be reconciled
to his wife? For it would not be a bad thing for a husband to be
reconciled to such a woman as that to whom, when nobody had dared to
stone her, the Lord said, "Go, and sin no more." [143] And for this
reason also, because He who says, It is not lawful to put away one's
wife saving for the cause of fornication, forces him to retain his
wife, if there should be no cause of fornication: but if there should
be, He does not force him to put her away, but permits him, just as
when it is said, Let it not be lawful for a woman to marry another,
unless her husband be dead; if she shall marry before the death of her
husband, she is guilty; if she shall not marry after the death of her
husband, she is not guilty, for she is not commanded to marry, but
merely permitted. If, therefore, there is a like rule in the said law
of marriage between man and woman, to such an extent that not merely of
the woman has the same apostle said, "The wife hath not power of her
own body, but the husband;" but he has not been silent respecting him,
saying, "And likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body,
but the wife;"--if, then, the rule is similar, there is no necessity
for understanding that it is lawful for a woman to put away her
husband, saving for the cause of fornication, as is the case also with
the husband.
44. It is therefore to be considered in what latitude of meaning we
ought to understand the word fornication, and the apostle is to be
consulted, as we were beginning to do. For he goes on to say, "But to
the rest speak I, not the Lord." Here, first, we must see who are "the
rest," for he was speaking before on the part of the Lord to those who
are married, but now, as from himself, he speaks to "the rest:" hence
perhaps to the unmarried, but this does not follow. For thus he
continues: "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." Hence, even now
he is speaking to those who are married. What, then, is his object in
saying "to the rest," unless that he was speaking before to those who
were so united, that they were alike as to their faith in Christ; but
that now he is speaking to "the rest," i.e. to those who are so united,
that they are not both believers? But what does he say to them? "If any
brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell
with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband
that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not
put him away." If, therefore, he does not give a command as from the
Lord, but advises as from himself, then this good result springs from
it, that if any one act otherwise, he is not a transgressor of a
command, just as he says a little after respecting virgins, that he has
no command of the Lord, but that he gives his advice; and he so praises
virginity, that whoever will may avail himself of it; yet if he shall
not do so, he may not be judged to have acted contrary to a command.
For there is one thing which is commanded, another respecting which
advice is given, another still which is allowed. [144] A wife is
commanded not to depart from her husband; and if she depart, to remain
unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband: therefore it is not
allowable for her to act otherwise. But a believing husband is advised,
if he has an unbelieving wife who is pleased to dwell with him, not to
put her away: therefore it is allowable also to put her away, because
it is no command of the Lord that he should not put her away, but an
advice of the apostle: just as a virgin is advised not to marry; but if
she shall marry, she will not indeed adhere to the advice, but she will
not act in opposition to a command. Allowance is given [145] when it is
said, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." And
therefore, if it is allowable that an unbelieving wife should be put
away, although it is better not to put her away, and yet not allowable,
according to the commandment of the Lord, that a wife should be put
away, saving for the cause of fornication, [then] unbelief itself also
is fornication.
45. For what sayest thou, O apostle? Surely, that a believing husband
who has an unbelieving wife pleased to dwell with him is not to put her
away? Just so, says he. When, therefore, the Lord also gives this
command, that a man should not put away his wife, saving for the cause
of fornication, why dost thou say here, "I speak, not the Lord"? For
this reason, viz. that the idolatry which unbelievers follow, and every
other noxious superstition, is fornication. Now, the Lord permitted a
wife to be put away for the cause of fornication; but in permitting, He
did not command it: He gave opportunity to the apostle for advising
that whoever wished should not put away an unbelieving wife, in order
that, perchance, in this way she might become a believer. "For," says
he, "the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother." [146] I suppose it had
already occurred that some wives were embracing the faith by means of
their believing husbands, and husbands by means of their believing
wives; and although not mentioning names, he yet urged his case by
examples, in order to strengthen his counsel. Then he goes on to say,
"Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." For now the
children were Christians, who were sanctified at the instance of one of
the parents, or with the consent of both; which would not take place
unless the marriage were broken up by one of the parties becoming a
believer, and unless the unbelief of the spouse were borne with so far
as to give an opportunity of believing. This, therefore, is the counsel
of Him whom I regard as having spoken the words, "Whatsoever thou
spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee." [147]
46. Moreover, if unbelief is fornication, and idolatry unbelief, and
covetousness idolatry, it is not to be doubted that covetousness also
is fornication. Who, then, in that case can rightly separate any
unlawful lust whatever from the category of fornication, if
covetousness is fornication? And from this we perceive, that because of
unlawful lusts, not only those of which one is guilty in acts of
uncleanness with another's husband or wife, but any unlawful lusts
whatever, which cause the soul making a bad use of the body to wander
from the law of God, and to be ruinously and basely corrupted, a man
may, without crime, put away his wife, and a wife her husband, because
the Lord makes the cause of fornication an exception; which
fornication, in accordance with the above considerations, we are
compelled to understand as being general and universal.
47. But when He says, "saving for the cause of fornication," He has not
said of which of them, whether the man or the woman. [148] For not only
is it allowed to put away a wife who commits fornication; but whoever
puts away that wife even by whom he is himself compelled to commit
fornication, puts her away undoubtedly for the cause of fornication.
As, for instance, if a wife should compel one to sacrifice to idols,
the man who puts away such an one puts her away for the cause of
fornication, not only on her part, but on his own also: on her part,
because she commits fornication; on his own, that he may not commit
fornication. Nothing, however, is more unjust than for a man to put
away his wife because of fornication, if he himself also is convicted
of committing fornication. For that passage occurs to one: "For wherein
thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest
doest the same things." [149] And for this reason, whosoever wishes to
put away his wife because of fornication, ought first to be cleared of
fornication; and a like remark I would make respecting the woman also.
48. But in reference to what He says, "Whosoever shall marry her that
is divorced [150] committeth adultery," it may be asked whether she
also who is married commits adultery in the same way as he does who
marries her. For she also is commanded to remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband; but this in the case of her departing from
her husband. There is, however, a great difference whether she put away
or be put away. For if she put away her husband, and marry another, she
seems to have left her former husband from a desire of changing her
marriage connection, which is, without doubt, an adulterous thought.
But if she be put away by the husband, with whom she desired to be, he
indeed who marries her commits adultery, according to the Lord's
declaration; but whether she also be involved in a like crime is
uncertain,--although it is much less easy to discover how, when a man
and woman have intercourse one with another with equal consent, one of
them should be an adulterer, and the other not. To this is to be added
the consideration, that if he commits adultery by marrying her who is
divorced from her husband (although she does not put away, but is put
away), she causes him to commit adultery, which nevertheless the Lord
forbids. And hence we infer that, whether she has been put away, or has
put away her husband, it is necessary for her to remain unmarried, or
be reconciled to her husband. [151]
49. Again, it is asked whether, if, with a wife's permission, either a
barren one, or one who does not wish to submit to intercourse, a man
shall take to himself another woman, not another man's wife, nor one
separated from her husband, he can do so without being chargeable with
fornication? And an example is found in the Old Testament history;
[152] but now there are greater precepts which the human race has
reached after having passed that stage; and those matters are to be
investigated for the purpose of distinguishing the ages of the
dispensation of that divine providence which assists the human race in
the most orderly way; but not for the purpose of making use of the
rules of living. But yet it may be asked whether what the apostle says,
"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise
also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife," can be
carried so far, that, with the permission of a wife, who possesses the
power over her husband's body, a man can have intercourse with another
woman, who is neither another man's wife nor divorced from her husband;
but such an opinion is not to be entertained, lest it should seem that
a woman also, with her husband's permission, could do such a thing,
which the instinctive feeling of every one prevents.
50. And yet some occasions may arise, where a wife also, with the
consent of her husband, may seem under obligation to do this for the
sake of that husband himself; as, for instance, is said to have
happened at Antioch about fifty years ago, [153] in the times of
Constantius. For Acyndinus, at that time prefect and at one time also
consul, when he demanded of a certain public debtor the payment of a
poundweight of gold, impelled by I know not what motive, did a thing
which is often dangerous in the case of those magistrates to whom
anything whatever is lawful, or rather is thought to be lawful, viz.
threatened with an oath and with a vehement affirmation, that if he did
not pay the foresaid gold on a certain day which he had fixed, he would
be put to death. Accordingly, while he was being kept in cruel
confinement, and was unable to rid himself of that debt, the dread day
began to impend and to draw near. He happened, however, to have a very
beautiful wife, but one who had no money wherewith to come to the
relief of her husband; and when a certain rich man had had his desires
inflamed by the beauty of this woman, and had learned that her husband
was placed in that critical situation, he sent to her, promising in
return for a single night, if she would consent to hold intercourse
with him, that he would give her the pound of gold. Then she, knowing
that she herself had not power over her body, but her husband, conveyed
the intelligence to him, telling him that she was prepared to do it for
the sake of her husband, but only if he himself, the lord by marriage
of her body, to whom all that chastity was due, should wish it to be
done, as if disposing of his own property for the sake of his life. He
thanked her, and commanded that it should be done, in no wise judging
that it was an adulterous embrace, because it was no lust, but great
love for her husband, that demanded it, at his own bidding and will.
The woman came to the villa of that rich man, did what the lewd man
wished; but she gave her body only to her husband, who desired not, as
was usual, his marriage rights, but life. She received the gold; but he
who gave it took away stealthily what he had given, and substituted a
similar bag with earth in it. When the woman, however, on reaching her
home, discovered it, she rushed forth in public in order to proclaim
the deed she had done, animated by the same tender affection for her
husband by which she had been forced to do it; she goes to the prefect,
confesses everything, shows the fraud that had been practised upon her.
Then indeed the prefect first pronounces himself guilty, because the
matter had come to this by means of his threats, and, as if pronouncing
sentence upon another, decided that a pound of gold should be brought
into the treasury from the property of Acyndinus; but that she (the
woman) be installed as mistress of that piece of land whence she had
received the earth instead of the gold. I offer no opinion either way
from this story: let each one form a judgment as he pleases, for the
history is not drawn from divinely authoritative sources; but yet, when
the story is related, man's instinctive sense does not so revolt
against what was done in the case of this woman, at her husband's
bidding, as we formerly shuddered when the thing itself was set forth
without any example. But in this section of the Gospel nothing is to be
more steadily kept in view, than that so great is the evil of
fornication, that, while married people are bound to one another by so
strong a bond, this one cause of divorce is excepted; but as to what
fornication is, that we have already discussed. [154]
__________________________________________________________________
[142] Augustin expresses himself (Retract. I. xix. 6) as having
misgivings about his own explanation of this matter here. He advises
readers to go to his other writings on the subject of marriage and
divorce, or to the works of other writers. He says all sin is not
fornication (omne peccatum fornicatio non est); and to determine which
sins are fornication, and when a wife may be dismissed, is a most broad
(latebrosissima) question. He calls the question a most difficult
(difficillimam) one, and says, "But verily I feel that I have not come
to the perfect conclusion of this matter (imo non me pervenisse ad
hujus rei perfectionem sentio." Retract. ii. 57). Some of his treatises
on the marriage relation: De Bono Conjugali; De Conjugiis Adulterinis;
De Nuptiis et Concupiscientia.
[143] John viii. 11. Vide deinceps ne pecces; Vulgate, jam amplius noli
peccare.
[144] Ignoscitur, lit. "is pardoned."
[145] Lit. "it is pardoned."
[146] 1 Cor. vii. 14. Augustin conforms to the approved reading in the
Greek text: in uxore...in fratre. Vulgate, per mulierem,...per virum.
(See Revised Version.)
[147] Luke x. 35.
[148] Modern commentators do not spring this question, agreeing that
the fornication referred to is of the wife. Paulus, Doellinger (in
Christ. u. Kirche, to which Professor Conington replied in Cont. Rev.,
May, 1869) think the fornication of the woman was committed before her
marriage. Plumptre also prefers the reference to ante-nuptial sin.
[149] Rom. ii. 1.
[150] /=aolelumenen; that is, one divorced unlawfully who has not been
guilty of fornication (so Meyer very positively, Stier et. al., Alford
hesitatingly). This explanation might seem to limit re-marriage to such
an one, inasmuch as the essence of the marriage bond has not been
touched (So Alford et. al.).
[151] That is, innocent or guilty, she cannot marry without committing
adultery. The Roman-Catholic Church forbids divorces, but permits an
indefinite separation a mensa et toro ("from table and bed").
[152] Abraham taking Hagar with Sarah's consent.
[153] About the year 343; for Augustin wrote this treatise about the
year 393.
[154] The law permitted divorce for "some uncleanness" (Deut. xxiv. 1).
In the time of Christ divorce was allowed on trivial grounds. While
Schammai interpreted the Deuteronomic prescription of moral uncleanness
or adultery, Hillel interpreted it to include physical uncleanness or
unattractiveness. A wife's cooking her husband's food unpalatably he
declared to be a legitimate cause for dissolution of the marriage bond.
Opposing the loose views current, Christ declared that it was on
account of the "hardness of their hearts" that Moses had suffered them
to put away their wives, and asserted adultery to be the only allowable
reason for divorce. The question whether the innocent party may marry,
is beset with great difficulties in view of this passage and Matt. xix.
9. The answer turns somewhat upon the construction of the passage.
Augustin here, the Council of Trent (and so the Roman-Catholic Church),
Weiss, Mansel, and others hold that all marriage of a divorced person
is declared illegal. In another place (De Conj. Adult. i. 9) Augustin
says, "Why, I say, did the Lord interject `the cause of fornication,'
and not say rather, in a general way, `Whosoever shall put away his
wife and marry another commits adultery'?...I think, because the Lord
wishes to mention that which is greater. For who will deny that it is a
greater adultery to marry another when the divorced wife has not
committed fornication than when any one divorces his wife and then
marries another? Not because this is not adultery, but because it is a
lesser sort." The Apost. Constitutions (vii. 2) say, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery, for thou dividest one flesh into two," etc. Weiss:
"Jesus everywhere takes it for granted that in the sight of God there
is no such thing as a dissolution of the marriage bond" (Leben Jesu, i.
529). President Woolsey, on the other hand, unhesitatingly declares,
that, by Christ's precepts, marriage is dissolved by adultery, so that
the innocent party may marry again. According to this passage, the
woman divorced on other grounds than adultery seems to be declared
adulterous if she marry. According to Matt. xix. 9 the man who puts
away his wife for adultery, seems to be permitted to marry without
becoming adulterous himself. According to Mark x. 12 the woman had the
privilege in that day of putting away her husband, but "there is no
evidence in the Hebrew Scriptures that the woman could get herself
divorced from her husband." To the able treatment of Augustin, which
might seem either exceedingly fearless or mawkish at the present day,
according to the stand-point of the critic, the reader would do well to
read Alford and Lange on this passage; Stanley on 1 Cor. vii. 11; and
Woolsey, art. "Divorce" in Schaff-Herzog Encycl. Whatever may be the
exact meaning of our Lord concerning the marriage of the innocent
party, it is evident that He regards the marriage bond as profoundly
sacred, and warrants the celebrant in binding the parties to marriage
to be faithful one to the other "till death do you part." He Himself
said, "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder" (Mark x. 9).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.
51. "Again," says He, "ye have heard that it hath been said to them of
old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the
Lord thine oath: [155] But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by
heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His
footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black. But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more [156] than these cometh of evil." The
righteousness of the Pharisees is not to forswear oneself; and this is
confirmed by Him who gives the command not to swear, so far as relates
to the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven. For just as he who does
not speak at all cannot speak falsely, so he who does not swear at all
cannot swear falsely. But yet, since he who takes God to witness
swears, this section must be carefully considered, lest the apostle
should seem to have acted contrary to the Lord's precept, who often
swore in this way, when he says, "Now the things which I write unto
you, behold, before God I lie not;" [157] and again, "The God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth
that I lie not." [158] Of like nature also is that asseveration, "For
God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His
Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers."
[159] Unless, perchance, one were to say that it is to be reckoned
swearing only when something is spoken of by which one swears; so that
he has not used an oath, because he has not said, by God; but has said,
"God is witness." It is ridiculous to think so; yet because of the
contentious, or those very slow of apprehension, lest any one should
think there is a difference, let him know that the apostle has used an
oath in this way also, saying, "By your rejoicing, I die daily." [160]
And let no one think that this is so expressed as if it were said, Your
rejoicing makes me die daily; just as it is said, By his teaching he
became learned, i.e. by his teaching it came about that he was
perfectly instructed: the Greek copies decide the matter, where we find
it written, Ne ten kauchesin humeteran, an expression which is used
only by one taking an oath. Thus, then, it is understood that the Lord
gave the command not to swear in this sense, lest any one should
eagerly seek after an oath as a good thing, and by the constant use of
oaths sink down through force of habit into perjury. And therefore let
him who understands that swearing is to be reckoned not among things
that are good, but among things that are necessary, refrain as far as
he can from indulging in it, unless by necessity, when he sees men slow
to believe what it is useful for them to believe, except they be
assured by an oath. To this, accordingly, reference is made when it is
said, "Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay;" this is good, and what
is to be desired. "For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil;"
i.e., if you are compelled to swear, know that it comes of a necessity
arising from the infirmity of those whom you are trying to persuade of
something; which infirmity is certainly an evil, from which we daily
pray to be delivered, when we say, "Deliver us from evil." [161] Hence
He has not said, Whatsoever is more than these is evil; for you are not
doing what is evil when you make a good use of an oath, which, although
not in itself good, is yet necessary in order to persuade another that
you are trying to move him for some useful end; but it "cometh of evil"
on his part by whose infirmity you are compelled to swear. [162] But no
one learns, unless he has had experience, how difficult it is both to
get rid of a habit of swearing, and never to do rashly what necessity
sometimes compels him to do. [163]
52. But it may be asked why, when it was said, "But I say unto you,
Swear not at all," it was added, "neither by heaven, for it is God's
throne," etc., up to "neither by thy head." I suppose it was for this
reason, that the Jews did not think they were bound by the oath, if
they had sworn by such things: and since they had heard it said, "Thou
shalt perform unto the Lord thine oath," they did not think an oath
brought them under obligation to the Lord, if they swore by heaven, or
earth, or by Jerusalem, or by their head; and this happened not from
the fault of Him who gave the command, but because they did not rightly
understand it. Hence the Lord teaches that there is nothing so
worthless among the creatures of God, as that any one should think that
he may swear falsely by it; since created things, from the highest down
to the lowest, beginning with the throne of God and going down to a
white or black hair, are ruled by divine providence. "Neither by
heaven," says He, "for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is
His footstool:" i.e., when you swear by heaven or the earth, do not
imagine that your oath does not bring you under obligation to the Lord;
for you are convicted of swearing by Him who has heaven for His throne,
and the earth for His footstool. "Neither by Jerusalem, for it is the
city of the great King;" a better expression than if He had said, "My
[city];" although, however, we understand Him to have meant this. And,
because He is undoubtedly the Lord, the man who swears by Jerusalem is
bound by his oath to the Lord. "Neither shall thou swear by thy head."
Now, what could any one suppose to belong more to himself than his own
head? But how is it ours, when we have not the power of making one hair
white or black? Hence, whoever should wish to swear even by his own
head, is bound by his oath to God, who in an ineffable way keeps all
things in His power, and is everywhere present. And here also all other
things are understood, which could not of course be enumerated; just as
that saying of the apostle we have mentioned, "By your rejoicing, I die
daily." And to show that he was bound by this oath to the Lord, he has
added, "which I have in Christ Jesus."
53. But yet (I make the remark for the sake of the carnal) we must not
think that heaven is called God's throne, and the earth His footstool,
because God has members placed in heaven and in earth, in some such way
as we have when we sit down; but that seat means judgment. And since,
in this organic whole of the universe, heaven has the greatest
appearance, and earth the least,--as if the divine power were more
present where the beauty excels, but still were regulating the least
degree of it in the most distant and in the lowest regions,--He is said
to sit in heaven, and to tread upon the earth. But spiritually the
expression heaven means holy souls, and earth sinful ones: and since
the spiritual man judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no
man, [164] he is suitably spoken of as the seat of God; but the sinner
to whom it is said, "Earth thou art, and unto earth shall thou return,"
[165] because, in accordance with that justice which assigns what is
suitable to men's deserts, he is placed among things that are lowest,
and he who would not remain in the law is punished under the law, is
suitably taken as His footstool.
__________________________________________________________________
[155] Jusjurandum; Vulgate, juramenta; Greek, tous horkous.
[156] Amplius; Vulgate, abundantius.
[157] Gal. i. 20.
[158] 2 Cor. xi. 31.
[159] Rom. i. 9.
[160] 1 Cor. xv. 31.
[161] Matt. vi. 13.
[162] Revised Version, Evil One. So Euthymius, Zig. (auctorem habet
diabolum), Chrysostom, Theophylact, Fritzsche, Keim, Meyer, Plumptre,
etc. The interpretation of Augustin is shared by Luther, Bengel, De
Wette, Tholuck, Ewald, etc.
[163] Augustin is somewhat perplexed about the meaning, but decides the
injunction to be directed against the abuse of the oath, not to forbid
it wholly. The oath was permitted by the law (Lev. xxii. 11), was to be
held sacred (Num. xxx. 2), and to be made in God's name (Deut. vi. 13).
It was customary under the Old Testament to swear (Gen. xxiv. 37, Josh.
ix. 15; perhaps only a solemn affirmation), and in the name of the Lord
(1 Sam. xx. 42; Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, etc.). The
Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Quakers understand the precept to forbid
all oaths, even in the civil court. "Christendom, if it were fully
conformed to Christ's will, as it should be, would tolerate no oaths
whatever" (Meyer). "The proper state of Christians is to require no
oaths" (Alford). If interpreted as a definite prohibition of all
swearing, the passage comes into conflict with Christ's own example
(Matt. xxvi. 63), and the apostle's conduct in the passages quoted by
Augustin. The meaning has been restricted to rash and frivolous oaths
on the street and in the market (Keim); in daily conversation (Carr,
Camb. Bible for Schools). In the ideal Christian community, where truth
and honesty prevail, oaths will be superfluous: the simple
asseverations, "Yea, nay," will be sufficient. To this, Christ's
precept ultimately looks. But He, no doubt, had in mind the widespread
profanity of His day, and the current opinion that only oaths
containing the name of God were binding (Lightfoot cites from the
Rabbinical books to this effect). All unnecessary appeals to God, as
well as careless and profane swearing, are forbidden, as coming either
from bad passions within or a want of reverence. "Prohibition would be
repeal of the Mosaic law" (Plumptre). "All strengthening of the simple
`Yea and nay' is occasioned by the presence of sin and Satan in the
world. There is no more striking proof of the existence of evil than
the prevalence of the foolish, low, useless habit of swearing. It could
never have arisen if men did not believe each other to be liars," etc.
(Schaff). "Men use their protestations because they are distrustful one
of another. An oath is physic, which supposes disease" (M. Henry). When
the oath is performed for the "sake of ethical interests, as when the
civil authority demands it," as seems to be necessary and safe for
society in its present unsanctified condition, the precept does not
interfere (Koestlin, art. "Oath," Schaff-Herzog Encycl., Meyer, Wuttke,
Alford, Tholuck, etc.). An interesting imitation of the Rabbinical
casuistry above referred to was practised by the crafty and subtle
Louis XI. Scott says (Introd. to Quentin Durward), "He admitted to one
or two peculiar forms of oath the force of a binding obligation which
he denied to all others, strictly preserving the secret; which mode of
swearing he really accounted obligatory, as one of the most valuable of
State secrets."
[164] 1 Cor. ii. 15.
[165] Gen. iii. 19.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.
54. But now, to conclude by summing up this passage, what can be named
or thought of more laborious and toilsome, where the believing soul is
straining every nerve of its industry, than the subduing of vicious
habit? Let such an one cut off the members which obstruct the kingdom
of heaven, and not be overwhelmed by the pain: in conjugal fidelity let
him bear with everything which, however grievously annoying it may be,
is still free from the guilt of unlawful corruption, i.e. of
fornication: as, for instance, if any one should have a wife either
barren, or misshapen in body, or faulty in her members,--either blind,
or deaf, or lame, or having any other defect,--or worn out by diseases
and pains and weaknesses, and whatever else may be thought of exceeding
horrible, fornication excepted, let him endure it for the sake of his
plighted love and conjugal union; [166] and let him not only not put
away such a wife, but even if he have her not, let him not marry one
who has been divorced by her husband, though beautiful, healthy, rich,
fruitful. And if it is not lawful to do such things, much less is it to
be deemed lawful for him to come near any other unlawful embrace; and
let him so flee from fornication, as to withdraw himself from base
corruption of every sort. Let him speak the truth, and let him commend
it not by frequent oaths, but by the probity of his morals; and with
respect to the innumerable crowds of all bad habits rising up in
rebellion against him, of which, in order that all may be understood, a
few have been mentioned, let him betake himself to the citadel of
Christian warfare, and let him lay them prostrate, as if from a higher
ground. But who would venture to enter upon labours so great, unless
one who is so inflamed with the love of righteousness, that, as it were
utterly consumed with hunger and thirst, and thinking there is no life
for him till that is satisfied, he puts forth violence to obtain the
kingdom of heaven? For otherwise he will not be able bravely to endure
all those things which the lovers of this world reckon toilsome and
arduous, and altogether difficult in getting rid of bad habits.
"Blessed," therefore, "are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness: for they shall be filled."
55. But yet, when any one encounters difficulty in these toils, and
advancing through hardships and roughnesses surrounded with various
temptations, and perceiving the troubles of his past life rise up on
this side and on that, becomes afraid lest he should not be able to
carry through what he has undertaken, let him eagerly avail himself of
the counsel that he may obtain assistance. But what other counsel is
there than this, that he who desires to have divine help for his own
infirmity should bear that of others, and should assist it as much as
possible? And so, therefore, let us look at the precepts of mercy. The
meek and the merciful man, however, seem to be one and the same: but
there is this difference, that the meek man, of whom we have spoken
above, from piety does not gainsay the divine sentences which are
brought forward against his sins, nor those statements of God which he
does not yet understand; but he confers no benefit on him whom he does
not gainsay or resist. But the merciful man in such a way offers no
resistance, that he does it for the purpose of correcting him whom he
would render worse by resisting.
__________________________________________________________________
[166] Pro fide et societate.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.
56. Hence the Lord goes on to say: "Ye have heard that it hath been
said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you,
that ye resist not evil; [167] but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee
at the law, and take away thy coat [tunic, undergarment], let him have
thy cloak [168] also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go
with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, [169] and from him that
would borrow of thee turn not thou away." It is the lesser
righteousness of the Pharisees not to go beyond measure in revenge,
that no one should give back more than he has received: and this is a
great step. For it is not easy to find any one who, when he has
received a blow, wishes merely to return the blow; and who, on hearing
one word from a man who reviles him, is content to return only one, and
that just an equivalent; but he avenges it more immoderately, either
under the disturbing influence of anger, or because he thinks it just,
that he who first inflicted injury should suffer more severe injury
than he suffered who had not inflicted injury. Such a spirit was in
great measure restrained by the law, where it was written, "An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;" by which expressions a certain
measure is intended, so that the vengeance should not exceed the
injury. And this is the beginning of peace: but perfect peace is to
have no wish at all for such vengeance.
57. Hence, between that first course which goes beyond the law, that a
greater evil should be inflicted in return for a lesser, and this to
which the Lord has given expression for the purpose of perfecting the
disciples, that no evil at all should be inflicted in return for evil,
a middle course holds a certain place, viz. that as much be paid back
as has been received; by means of which enactment the transition is
made from the highest discord to the highest concord, according to the
distribution of times. See, therefore, at how great a distance any one
who is the first to do harm to another, with the desire of injuring and
hurting him, stands from him who, even when injured, does not pay back
the injury. That man, however, who is not the first to do harm to any
one, but who yet, when injured, inflicts a greater injury in return,
either in will or in deed, has so far withdrawn himself from the
highest injustice, and made so far an advance to the highest
righteousness; but still he does not yet hold by what the law given by
Moses commanded. And therefore he who pays back just as much as he has
received already forgives something: for the party who injures does not
deserve merely as much punishment as the man who was injured by him has
innocently suffered. And accordingly this incomplete, by no means
severe, but [rather] merciful justice, is carried to perfection by Him
who came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it. Hence there are still
two intervening steps which He has left to be understood, while He has
chosen rather to speak of the very highest development of mercy. For
there is still what one may do who does not come fully up to that
magnitude of the precept which belongs to the kingdom of heaven; acting
in such a way that he does not pay back as much, but less; as, for
instance, one blow instead of two, or that he cuts off an ear for an
eye that has been plucked out. He who, rising above this, pays back
nothing at all, approaches the Lord's precept, but yet he does not
reach it. For still it seems to the Lord not enough, if, for the evil
which you may have received, you should inflict no evil in return,
unless you be prepared to receive even more. And therefore He does not
say, "But I say unto you," that you are not to return evil for evil;
although even this would be a great precept: but He says, "that ye
resist not evil;" [170] so that not only are you not to pay back what
may have been inflicted on you, but you are not even to resist other
inflictions. For this is what He also goes on to explain: "But
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also:" for He does not say, If any man smite thee, do not wish to smite
him; but, Offer thyself further to him if he should go on to smite
thee. As regards compassion, they feel it most who minister to those
whom they greatly love as if they were their children, or some very
dear friends in sickness, or little children, or insane persons, at
whose hands they often endure many things; and if their welfare demand
it, they even show themselves ready to endure more, until the weakness
either of age or of disease pass away. And so, as regards those whom
the Lord, the Physician of souls, was instructing to take care of their
neighbours, what else could He teach them, than that they endure
quietly the infirmities of those whose welfare they wish to consult?
For all wickedness arises from infirmity [171] of mind: because nothing
is more harmless than the man who is perfect in virtue.
58. But it may be asked what the right cheek means. For this is the
reading we find in the Greek copies, which are most worthy of
confidence; though many Latin ones have only the word "cheek," without
the addition of "right." Now the face is that by which any one is
recognised; and we read in the apostle's writings, "For ye suffer,
[172] if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man
take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face:"
then immediately he adds, "I speak as concerning reproach;" [173] so
that he explains what striking on the face is, viz. to be contemned and
despised. Nor is this indeed said by the apostle for this reason, that
they should not bear with those parties; but that they should bear with
himself rather, who so loved them, that he was willing that he himself
should be spent for them. [174] But since the face cannot be called
right and left, and yet there may be a worth according to the estimate
of God and according to the estimate of this world, it is so
distributed as it were into the right and left cheek that whatever
disciple of Christ might have to bear reproach for being a Christian,
he should be much more ready to bear reproach in himself, if he
possesses any of the honours of this world. Thus this same apostle, if
he had kept silence respecting the dignity which he had in the world,
when men were persecuting in him the Christian name, would not have
presented the other cheek to those that were smiting the right one. For
when he said, I am a Roman citizen, [175] he was not unprepared to
submit to be despised, in that which he reckoned as least, by those who
had despised in him so precious and life-giving a name. For did he at
all the less on that account afterwards submit to the chains, which it
was not lawful to put on Roman citizens, or did he wish to accuse any
one of this injury? And if any spared him on account of the name of
Roman citizenship, yet he did not on that account refrain from offering
an object they might strike at, since he wished by his patience to cure
of so great perversity those whom he saw honouring in him what belonged
to the left members rather than the right. For that point only is to be
attended to, in what spirit he did everything, how benevolently and
mildly he acted toward those from whom he was suffering such things.
For when he was smitten with the hand by order of the high priest, what
he seemed to say contumeliously when he affirms, "God shall smite thee,
thou whited wall," sounds like an insult to those who do not understand
it; but to those who do, it is a prophecy. For a whited wall is
hypocrisy, i.e. pretence holding forth the sacerdotal dignity before
itself, and under this name, as under a white covering, concealing an
inner and as it were sordid baseness. For what belonged to humility he
wonderfully preserved, when, on its being said to him, "Revilest thou
the high priest?" [176] he replied, "I wist not, brethren, that he was
the high priest; for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the
ruler of thy people." [177] And here he showed with what calmness he
had spoken that which he seemed to have spoken in anger, because he
answered so quickly and so mildly, which cannot be done by those who
are indignant and thrown into confusion. And in that very statement he
spoke the truth to those who understood him, "I wist not that he was
the high priest:" [178] as if he said, I know another High Priest, for
whose name I bear such things, whom it is not lawful to revile, and
whom ye revile, since in me it is nothing else but His name that ye
hate. Thus, therefore, it is necessary for one not to boast of such
things in a hypocritical way, but to be prepared in the heart itself
for all things, so that he can sing that prophetic word, "My heart is
prepared, [179] O God, my heart is prepared." For many have learned how
to offer the other cheek, but do not know how to love him by whom they
are struck. But in truth, the Lord Himself, who certainly was the first
to fulfil the precepts which He taught, did not offer the other cheek
to the servant of the high priest when smiting Him thereon; but, so far
from that, said, "If I have spoken evil, hear witness of the evil;
[180] but if well, why smitest thou me?" [181] Yet was He not on that
account unprepared in heart, for the salvation of all, not merely to be
smitten on the other cheek, but even to have His whole body crucified.
59. Hence also what follows, "And if any man will sue thee at the law,
and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak [182] also," is rightly
understood as a precept having reference to the preparation of heart,
not to a vain show of outward deed. But what is said with respect to
the coat and cloak is to be carried out not merely in such things, but
in the case of everything which on any ground of right we speak of as
being ours for time. For if this command is given with respect to what
is necessary, how much more does it become us to contemn what is
superfluous! But still, those things which I have called ours are to be
included in that category under which the Lord Himself gives the
precept, when He says, "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take
away thy coat." Let all these things therefore be understood for which
we may be sued at the law, so that the right to them may pass from us
to him who sues, or for whom he sues; such, for instance, as clothing,
a house, an estate, a beast of burden, and in general all kinds of
property. But whether it is to be understood of slaves also is a great
question. For a Christian ought not to possess a slave in the same way
as a horse or money: although it may happen that a horse is valued at a
greater price than a slave, and some article of gold or silver at much
more. But with respect to that slave, if he is being educated and ruled
by time as his master, in a way more upright, and more honourable, and
more conducing to the fear of God, than can be done by him who desires
to take him away, I do not know whether any one would dare to say that
he ought to be despised like a garment. For a man ought to love a
fellow-man as himself, inasmuch as he is commanded by the Lord of all
(as is shown by what follows) even to love his enemies.
60. It is carefully to be observed that every tunic [183] is a garment,
[184] but that every garment is not a tunic. Hence the word garment
means more than the word tunic. And therefore I think it is so
expressed, "And if any one will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
tunic, let him have thy garment also," as if He had said, Whoever
wishes to take away thy tunic, give over to him whatever other clothing
thou hast. And so some have interpreted the word pallium, which in the
Greek as used here is himation.
61. "And whosoever," says He, "shall compel [185] thee to go a mile, go
with him other two." And this, certainly, not so much in the sense that
thou shouldest do it on foot, as that thou shouldest be prepared in
mind to do it. For in the Christian history itself, which is
authoritative, you will find no such thing done by the saints, or by
the Lord Himself when in His human nature, which He condescended to
assume, He was showing us an example of how to live; while at the same
time, in almost all places, you will find them prepared to bear with
equanimity whatever may have been wickedly forced upon them. But are we
to suppose it is said for the sake of the mere expression, "Go with him
other two;" or did He rather wish that three should be completed,--the
number which has the meaning of perfection; so that every one should
remember when he does this, that he is fulfilling perfect righteousness
by compassionately bearing the infirmities of those whom he wishes to
be made whole? It may seem for this reason also that He has recommended
these precepts by three examples: of which the first is, if any one
shall smite thee on the cheek; the second, if any one shall wish to
take away thy coat; the third, if any one shall compel thee to go a
mile: in which third example twice as much is added to the original
unit, so that in this way the triplet is completed. And if this number
in the passage before us does not, as has been said, mean perfection,
let this be understood, that in laying down His precepts, as it were
beginning with what is more tolerable, He has gradually gone on, until
He has reached as far as the enduring of twice as much more. For, in
the first place, He wished the other cheek to be presented when the
right had been smitten, so that you may be prepared to bear less than
you have borne. For whatever the right means, it is at least something
more dear than that which is meant by the left; and if one who has
borne with something in what is more dear, bears with it in what is
less dear, it is something less. Then, secondly, in the case of one who
wishes to take away a coat, He enjoins that the garment also should be
given up to him: which is either just as much, or not much more; not,
however, twice as much. In the third place, with respect to the mile,
to which He says that two miles are to be added, He enjoins that you
should bear with even twice as much more: thus signifying that whether
it be somewhat less than the original demand, or just as much, or more,
that any wicked man shall wish to take from thee, it is to be borne
with tranquil mind.
__________________________________________________________________
[167] Adversus malum; Vulgate, malo.
[168] Vestimentum; Vulgate, pallium.
[169] Omni petenti te, da; Vulgate, qui petit a te, etc.
[170] With Augustin, Calvin, Tholuck, Ewald, Lange construe this as
neuter, evil; Chrysostom, Theophylact, the devil; De Wette, Meyer,
Alford, Plumptre, as also the Revised Version, the man who does evil.
Renan says the practice of this doctrine put down slavery: "It was not
Spartacus who suppressed slavery, but rather was it Blandina" ("Ce
n'est pas Spartacus qui a supprime l'esclavage, c'est bien plutot
Blandine").
[171] Imbecillitate.
[172] Toleratis; Vulgate, sustinetis.
[173] 2 Cor. xi. 20, 21.
[174] 2 Cor. xii. 15.
[175] Acts xxii. 25.
[176] Principi sacerdotum; Vulgate, summum sacerdotem.
[177] Acts xxiii. 3-5.
[178] Interpreted by modern commentators usually of temporary
forgetfulness, or, what is much better, failure to recognise through
infirmity of vision.
[179] English version, "fixed"-- Ps. lvii. 7.
[180] Exprobra de malo; Vulgate, testimonium perhibe de malo.
[181] John xviii. 23.
[182] The coat or tunic was the under-garment. The cloak, or pallium,
was the outer-garment, and the more precious.
[183] English version, "coat."
[184] English version, "cloak."
[185] The Greek word angareuo is derived from the Persian, to press one
into service, as a courier to bear despatches. (See Thayer, Lexicon.)
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.
62. And, indeed, in these three classes of examples, I see that no
class of injury is passed over. [186] For all matters in which we
suffer any injustice are divided into two classes: of which the one is,
where restitution cannot be made; the other, where it can. But in that
case where restitution cannot be made, a compensation in revenge is
usually sought. For what does it profit, that on being struck you
strike in return? Is that part of the body which was injured for that
reason restored to its original condition? But an excited mind desires
such alleviations. Things of that sort, however, afford no pleasure to
a healthy and firm one; nay, such an one judges rather that the other's
infirmity is to be compassionately borne with, than that his own (which
has no existence) should be soothed by the punishment of another.
63. Nor are we thus precluded from inflicting such punishment
[requital] [187] as avails for correction, and as compassion itself
dictates; nor does it stand in the way of that course proposed, where
one is prepared to endure more at the hand of him whom he wishes to set
right. But no one is fit for inflicting this punishment except the man
who, by the greatness of his love, has overcome that hatred wherewith
those are wont to be inflamed who wish to avenge themselves. For it is
not to be feared that parents would seem to hate a little son when, on
committing an offence, he is beaten by them that he may not go on
offending. And certainly the perfection of love is set before us by the
imitation of God the Father Himself when it is said in what follows:
"Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
[188] which persecute you;" and yet it is said of Him by the prophet,
"For whom the Lord loveth He correcteth; yea, He scourgeth every son
whom He receiveth." [189] The Lord also says, "The servant that knows
not [190] his Lord's will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be
beaten with few stripes; but the servant that knows his Lord's will,
and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes."
[191] No more, therefore, is sought for, except that he should punish
to whom, in the natural order of things, the power is given; and that
he should punish with the same goodwill which a father has towards his
little son, whom by reason of his youth he cannot yet hate. For from
this source the most suitable example is drawn, in order that it may be
sufficiently manifest that sin can be punished in love rather than be
left unpunished; so that one may wish him on whom he inflicts it not to
be miserable by means of punishment, but to be happy by means of
correction, yet be prepared, if need be, to endure with equanimity more
injuries inflicted by him whom he wishes to be corrected, whether he
may have the power of putting restraint upon him or not.
64. But great and holy men, although they at the time knew excellently
well that that death which separates the soul from the body is not to
be dreaded, yet, in accordance with the sentiment of those who might
fear it, punished some sins with death, both because the living were
struck with a salutary fear, and because it was not death itself that
would injure those who were being punished with death, but sin, which
might be increased if they continued to live. They did not judge rashly
on whom God had bestowed such a power of judging. Hence it is that
Elijah inflicted death on many, both with his own hand [192] and by
calling down fire from heaven; [193] as was done also without rashness
by many other great and godlike men, in the same spirit of concern for
the good of humanity. And when the disciples had quoted an example from
this Elias, mentioning to the Lord what had been done by him, in order
that He might give to themselves also the power of calling down fire
from heaven to consume those who would not show Him hospitality, the
Lord reproved in them, not the example of the holy prophet, but their
ignorance in respect to taking vengeance, their knowledge being as yet
elementary; [194] perceiving that they did not in love desire
correction, but in hated desired revenge. Accordingly, after He had
taught them what it was to love one's neighbour as oneself, and when
the Holy Spirit had been poured out, whom, at the end of ten days after
His ascension, He sent from above, as He had promised, [195] there were
not wanting such acts of vengeance, although much more rarely than in
the Old Testament. For there, for the most part, as servants they were
kept down by fear; but here mostly as free they were nourished by love.
For at the words of the Apostle Peter also, Ananias and his wife, as we
read in the Acts of the Apostles, fell down dead, and were not raised
to life again, but buried.
65. But if the heretics who are opposed to the Old Testament [196] will
not credit this book, let them contemplate the Apostle Paul, whose
writings they read along with us, saying with respect to a certain
sinner whom he delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, "that the spirit may be saved." [197] And if they will not here
understand death (for perhaps it is uncertain), let them acknowledge
that punishment [requital] of some kind or other was inflicted by the
apostle through the instrumentality of Satan; and that he did this not
in hatred, but in love, is made plain by that addition, "that the
spirit may be saved." Or let them notice what we say in those books to
which they themselves attribute great authority, where it is written
that the Apostle Thomas imprecated on a certain man, by whom he had
been struck with the palm of the hand, the punishment of death in a
very cruel form, while yet commending his soul to God, that it might be
spared in the world to come,--whose hand, torn from the rest of his
body after he had been killed by a lion, a dog brought to the table at
which the apostle was feasting. It is allowable for us not to credit
this writing, for it is not in the catholic canon; yet they both read
it, and honour it as being thoroughly uncorrupted and thoroughly
truthful, who rage very fiercely (with I know not what blindness)
against the corporeal punishments which are in the Old Testament, being
altogether ignorant in what spirit and at what stage in the orderly
distribution of times they were inflicted.
66. Hence, in this class of injuries which is atoned for by punishment,
such a measure will be preserved by Christians, that, on an injury
being received, the mind will not mount up into hatred, but will be
ready, in compassion for the infirmity, to endure even more; nor will
it neglect the correction, which it can employ either by advice, or by
authority, or by [the exercise of] power. There is another class of
injuries, where complete restitution is possible, of which there are
two species: the one referring to money, the other to labour. And
therefore examples are subjoined: of the former in the case of the coat
and cloak, of the latter in the case of the compulsory service of one
and two miles; for a garment may be given back, and he whom you have
assisted by labour may also assist you, if it should be necessary.
Unless, perhaps, the distinction should rather be drawn in this way:
that the first case which is supposed, in reference to the cheek being
struck, means all injuries that are inflicted by the wicked in such a
way that restitution cannot be made except by punishment; and that the
second case which is supposed, in reference to the garment, means all
injuries where restitution can be made without punishment; and
therefore, perhaps, it is added, "if any man will sue thee at the law,"
because what is taken away by means of a judicial sentence is not
supposed to be taken away with such a degree of violence as that
punishment is due; but that the third case is composed of both, so that
restitution may be made both without punishment and with it. For the
man who violently exacts labour to which he has no claim, without any
judicial process, as he does who wickedly compels a man to go with him,
and forces in an unlawful way assistance to be rendered to himself by
one who is unwilling, is able both to pay the penalty of his wickedness
and to repay the labour, if he who endured the wrong should ask it
again. In all these classes of injuries, therefore, the Lord teaches
that the disposition of a Christian ought to be most patient and
compassionate, and thoroughly prepared to endure more.
67. But since it is a small matter merely to abstain from injuring,
unless you also confer a benefit as far as you can, He therefore goes
on to say, "Give to every one that asketh thee, and from him that would
borrow of thee turn not thou away." "To every one that asketh," says
He; not, Everything to him that asketh: so that you are to give that
which you can honestly and justly give. For what if he should ask
money, wherewith he may endeavour to oppress an innocent man? what if,
in short, he should ask something unchaste? [198] But not to recount
many examples, which are in fact innumerable, that certainly is to be
given which may hurt neither thyself nor the other party, as far as can
be known or supposed by man; and in the case of him to whom you have
justly denied what he asks, justice itself is to be made known, so that
you may not send him away empty. Thus you will give to every one that
asketh you, although you will not always give what he asks; and you
will sometimes give something better, when you have set him right who
was making unjust requests.
68. Then, as to what He says, "From him that would borrow of thee turn
not thou away," it is to be referred to the mind; for God loveth a
cheerful giver. [199] Moreover, every one who accepts anything borrows,
even if he himself is not going to pay it; for inasmuch as God pays
back more to the merciful, whosoever does a kindness lends at interest.
Or if it does not seem good to understand the borrower in any other
sense than of him who accepts of anything with the intention of
repaying it, we must understand the Lord to have included those two
methods of doing a favour. For we either give in a present what we give
in the exercise of benevolence, or we lend to one who will repay us.
And frequently men who, setting before them the divine reward, are
prepared to give away in a present, become slow to give what is asked
in loan, as if they were destined to get nothing in return from God,
inasmuch as he who receives pays back the thing which is given him.
Rightly, therefore, does the divine authority exhort us to this mode of
bestowing a favour, saying, "And from him that would borrow of thee
turn not thou away:" i.e., do not alienate your goodwill from him who
asks it, both because your money will be useless, and because God will
not pay you back, inasmuch as the man has done so; but when you do that
from a regard to God's precept, it cannot be unfruitful with Him who
gives these commands. [200]
__________________________________________________________________
[186] Exemplum citatur injuriae privatae, forensis, curialis (Bengel).
[187] Vindicta.
[188] Pro eis qui vos persequuntur; Vulgate, pro persequentibus.
[189] Prov. iii. 12. So the LXX. English version: "even as a father the
son in whom he delighteth," following the Hebrew.
[190] Nescit; Vulgate, non cognovit.
[191] Luke xii. 48, 47.
[192] 1 Kings xviii. 40.
[193] 2 Kings i. 10.
[194] Luke ix. 52-56.
[195] Acts ii. 1-4.
[196] i.e., The Manicheans.
[197] 1 Cor. v. 5.
[198] "To give everything to every one--the sword to the madman, the
alms to the impostor, the criminal request to the temptress--would be
to act as the enemy of others and ourselves" (Alford). Paul's
willingness to spend and be spent illustrates a proper conformity to
the precept.
[199] 2 Cor. ix. 7.
[200] This section, which concerns the law of retaliation, grew out of
a rule of every-day life which the Pharisees constructed upon a
principle of judicature laid down, Exod. xxi. 24 (Tholuck). The spirit,
not the exact letter, of the illustrations is to be observed, and, when
the spirit of the precept would demand it, the exact letter. Christians
are taught to bear witness by enduring, yielding, and giving. "Sin is
to be conquered by being made to feel the power of goodness." Christ
gave a good example at His trial, without following the letter of His
precept here; and Paul followed Him (1 Cor. iv. 12, 13).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.
69. In the next place, He goes on to say, "Ye have heard that it hath
been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: But I
say unto you, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which persecute you; [201] that ye may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven: for He commandeth [202] His sun to rise
on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
unjust. For if ye love [203] them which love you, what reward have ye?
Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the Gentiles the very
same? [204] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in
heaven [205] is perfect." For without this love, wherewith we are
commanded to love even our enemies and persecutors, who can fully carry
out those things which are mentioned above? Moreover, the perfection of
that mercy, wherewith most of all the soul that is in distress is cared
for, cannot be stretched beyond the love of an enemy; and therefore the
closing words are: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is
in heaven is perfect." Yet in such a way that God is understood to be
perfect as God, and the soul to be perfect as a soul.
70. That there is, however, a certain step [in advance] in the
righteousness of the Pharisees, which belongs to the old law, is
perceived from this consideration, that many men hate even those by
whom they are loved; as, for instance, luxurious children hate their
parents for restraining them in their luxury. That man therefore rises
a certain step, who loves his neighbour, although as yet he hates his
enemy. But in the kingdom of Him who came to fulfil the law, not to
destroy it, he will bring benevolence and kindness to perfection, when
he has carried it out so far as to love an enemy. For the former stage,
although it is something, is yet so little that it may be reached even
by the publicans as well. And as to what is said in the law, "Thou
shalt hate thine enemy," [206] it is not to be understood as the voice
of command addressed to a righteous man, but rather as the voice of
permission to a weak man.
71. Here indeed arises a question in no way to be blinked, that to this
precept of the Lord, wherein He exhorts us to love our enemies, and to
do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who persecute us,
many other parts of Scripture seem to those who consider them less
diligently and soberly to stand opposed; for in the prophets there are
found many imprecations against enemies, which are thought to be
curses: as, for instance, that one, "Let their table become a snare,"
[207] and the other things which are said there; and that one, "Let his
children be fatherless, and his wife a widow," [208] and the other
statements which are made either before or afterwards in the same Psalm
by the prophet, as bearing on the case of Judas. Many other statements
are found in all parts of Scripture, which may seem contrary both to
this precept of the Lord, and to that apostolic one, where it is said,
"Bless; and curse not;" [209] while it is both written of the Lord,
that He cursed the cities which received not His word; [210] and the
above-mentioned apostle thus spoke respecting a certain man, "The Lord
will reward him according to his works." [211]
72. But these difficulties are easily solved, for the prophet predicted
by means of imprecation what was about to happen, not as praying for
what he wished, but in the spirit of one who saw it beforehand. So also
the Lord, so also the apostle; although even in the words of these we
do not find what they have wished, but what they have foretold. For
when the Lord says, "Woe unto thee, Capernaum," He does not utter
anything else than that some evil will happen to her as a punishment of
her unbelief; and that this would happen the Lord did not malevolently
wish, but saw by means of His divinity. And the apostle does not say,
May [the Lord] reward; but, "The Lord will reward him according to his
work;" which is the word of one who foretells, not of one uttering an
imprecation. Just as also, in regard to that hypocrisy of the Jews of
which we have already spoken, whose destruction he saw to be impending,
he said," God shall smite thee, thou whited wall." [212] But the
prophets especially are accustomed to predict future events under the
figure of one uttering an imprecation, just as they have often foretold
those things which were to come under the figure of past time: as is
the case, for example, in that passage, "Why have the nations raged,
and the peoples imagined vain things?" [213] For he has not said, Why
will the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? although he
was not mentioning those things as if they were already past, but was
looking forward to them as yet to come. Such also is that passage,
"They have parted my garments among them, and have cast lots upon my
vesture:" [214] for here also he has not said, They will part my
garments among them, and will cast lots upon my vesture. And yet no one
finds fault with these words, except the man who does not perceive that
variety of figures in speaking in no degree lessens the truth of facts,
and adds very much to the impressions on our minds.
__________________________________________________________________
[201] Augustin, with the best Greek text, omits et calumniantibus vos
("and despitefully use you") of the Vulgate.
[202] Jubet; Vulgate, facit (with the Greek).
[203] Dilexeritis; Vulgate, diligitis.
[204] Hoc ipsum; Vulgate, hoc; Greek, to auto.
[205] Qui est in coelis; Vulgate, coelestis (see Revised Version).
[206] The first part of the Lord's quotation is found in Lev. xix. 18;
these words, whatever may be said about the sanction, real or apparent,
of revenge and triumph over an enemy's fall in the Old Testament, are
not found there. Bengel well says "pessima glossa" ("wretched
gloss"),--a gloss of the Pharisees, "bearing plainly enough the
character of post-exilic Judaism in its exclusiveness toward all
surrounding nations" (Weiss). Centuries after Christ spoke these words,
Maimonides gives utterance to this narrow feeling of hate: "If a Jew
see a Gentile fall into the sea, let him by no means take him out; for
it is written, `Thou shalt love thy neighbour's blood,' but this is not
thy neighbour." The separation of the Jews, demanded by their
theocratic position, was the explanation in part--not an excuse--for
such feeling towards people of other nationalities. Heathen peoples had
the same feeling towards enemies. "It was the celebrated felicity of
Sulla; and this was the crown of Xenophon's panegyric of Cyrus the
Younger, that no one had done more good to his friends or more mischief
to his enemies." Plautus said, "Man is a wolf to the stranger" ("homo
homini ignoto lupus est"). The term "stranger" in Greek means "enemy."
But common as this philosophy was to the pre-Christian world, the Jew
was specially known for his hatred of all not of his own nationality
(Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 104, etc.). The "enemy" referred to in the passage
is not a national enemy ( Keim) but a personal one (Weiss, Meyer,
etc.). Our Lord subsequently defined who was to be understood by the
term "neighbour" in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 36).
[207] Ps. lxix. 22.
[208] Ps. cix. 9.
[209] Rom. xii. 14.
[210] Matt xi. 20-24 and Luke x. 13-15.
[211] 2 Tim. iv. 14. Augustin here again follows the better text than
the Textus Receptus; so also Vulgate, reddet. See Revised Version.
[212] See above chap. xix. 58.
[213] Ps. ii. 1. The English version employs the present tense.
[214] Ps. xxii. 18.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.
73. But the question before us is rendered more urgent by what the
Apostle John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not
unto death, he shall ask, and the Lord shall give him life for him who
sinneth not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he
shall pray for it." [215] For he manifestly shows that there are
certain brethren for whom we are not commanded to pray, although the
Lord bids us pray even for our persecutors. Nor can the question in
hand be solved, unless we acknowledge that there are certain sins in
brethren which are more heinous than the persecution of enemies.
Moreover, that brethren mean Christians can be proved by many examples
from the divine Scriptures. Yet that one is plainest which the apostle
thus states: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother." [216] For he
has not added the word our; but has thought it plain, as he wished a
Christian who had an unbelieving wife to be understood by the
expression brother. And therefore he says a little after, "But if the
unbelieving depart, let him depart: a brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases." [217] Hence I am of opinion that the sin of a
brother is unto death, when any one, after coming to the knowledge of
God through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, makes an assault on the
brotherhood, and is impelled by the fires of envy to oppose that grace
itself by which he is reconciled to God. But the sin is not unto death,
if any one has not withdrawn his love from a brother, but through some
infirmity of disposition has failed to perform the incumbent duties of
brotherhood. And on this account our Lord also on the cross says,
"Father, forgive [218] them; for they know not what they do:" [219]
for, not yet having become partakers of the grace of the Holy Spirit,
they had not yet entered the fellowship of the holy brotherhood. And
the blessed Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles prays for those by whom
he is being stoned, [220] because they had not yet believed on Christ,
and were not fighting against that common grace. And the Apostle Paul
on this account, I believe, does not pray for Alexander, because he was
already a brother, and had sinned unto death, viz. by making an assault
on the brotherhood through envy. But for those who had not broken off
their love, but had given way through fear, he prays that they may be
pardoned. For thus he expresses it: "Alexander the coppersmith did me
much evil: the Lord will reward him according to his works. Of whom be
thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." [221] Then he
adds for whom he prays, thus expressing it: "At my first defence no man
stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be
laid to their charge." [222]
74. It is this difference in their sins which separates Judas the
betrayer from Peter the denier: not that a penitent is not to be
pardoned, for we must not come into collision with that declaration of
our Lord, where He enjoins that a brother is to be pardoned, when he
asks his brother to pardon him; [223] but that the ruin connected with
that sin is so great, that he cannot endure the humiliation of asking
for it, even if he should be compelled by a bad conscience both to
acknowledge and divulge his sin. For when Judas had said, "I have
sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood," yet it was easier
for him in despair to run and hang himself, [224] than in humility to
ask for pardon. And therefore it is of much consequence to know what
sort of repentance God pardons. For many much more readily confess that
they have sinned, and are so angry with themselves that they vehemently
wish they had not sinned; but yet they do not condescend to humble the
heart and to make it contrite, and to implore pardon: and this
disposition of mind we must suppose them to have, as feeling themselves
already condemned because of the greatness of their sin.
75. And this is perhaps the sin against the Holy Ghost, i.e. through
malice and envy to act in opposition to brotherly love after receiving
the grace of the Holy Ghost,--a sin which our Lord says is not forgiven
either in this world or in the world to come. And hence it may be asked
whether the Jews sinned against the Holy Ghost, when they said that our
Lord was casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils:
whether we are to understand this as said against our Lord Himself,
because He says of Himself in another passage, "If they have called the
Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of
His household!" [225] or whether, inasmuch as they had spoken from
great envy, being ungrateful for so manifest benefits, although they
were not yet Christians, they are, from the very greatness of their
envy, to be supposed to have sinned against the Holy Ghost? This latter
is certainly not to be gathered from our Lord's words. For although He
has said in the same passage, "And whosoever speaketh a word against
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh a word
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this
world, neither in the world to come;" yet it may seem that He
admonished them for this purpose, that they should come to His grace,
and after accepting of it should not so sin as they have now sinned.
For now they have spoken a word against the Son of man, and it may be
forgiven them, if they be converted, and believe on Him, and receive
the Holy Ghost; but if, after receiving Him, they should choose to envy
the brotherhood, and to assail the grace they have received, it cannot
be forgiven them, neither in this world nor in the world to come. For
if He reckoned them so condemned, that there was no hope left for them,
He would not judge that they ought still to be admonished, as He did by
adding the statement, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good;
or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt." [226]
76. Let it be understood, therefore, that we are to love our enemies,
and to do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who
persecute us, in such a way, that it is at the same time understood
that there are certain sins of brethren for which we are not commanded
to pray; lest, through unskilfulness on our part, divine Scripture
should seem to contradict itself (a thing which cannot happen). But
whether, as we are not to pray for certain parties, so we are also to
pray against some, has not yet become sufficiently evident. For it is
said in general, "Bless, and curse not;" and again, "Recompense to no
man evil for evil." [227] Moreover, while you do not pray for one, you
do not therefore pray against him: for you may see that his punishment
is certain, and his salvation altogether hopeless; and you do not pray
for him, not because you hate him, but because you feel you can profit
him nothing, and you do not wish your prayer to be rejected by the most
righteous Judge. But what are we to think respecting those parties
against whom we have it revealed that prayers were offered by the
saints, not that they might be turned from their error (for in this way
prayer is offered rather for them), but that final condemnation might
come upon them: not as it was offered against the betrayer of our Lord
by the prophet; for that, as has been said, was a prediction of things
to come, not a wish for punishment: nor as it was offered by the
apostle against Alexander; for respecting that also enough has been
already said: but as we read in the Apocalypse of John of the martyrs
praying that they may be avenged; [228] while the well-known first
martyr prayed that those who stoned him should be pardoned.
77. But we need not be moved by this circumstance. For who would
venture to affirm, in regard to those white-robed saints, when they
pleaded that they should be avenged, whether they pleaded against the
men themselves or against the dominion of sin? For of itself it is a
genuine avenging of the martyrs, and one full of righteousness and
mercy, that the dominion of sin should be overthrown, under which
dominion they were subjected to so great sufferings. And for its
overthrow the apostle strives, saying, "Let not sin therefore reign in
your mortal body." [229] But the dominion of sin is destroyed and
overthrown, partly by the amendment of men, so that the flesh is
brought under subjection to the spirit; partly by the condemnation of
those who persevere in sin, so that they are righteously disposed of in
such a way that they cannot be troublesome to the righteous who reign
with Christ. Look at the Apostle Paul; does it not seem to you that he
avenges the martyr Stephen in his own person, when he says: "So fight
I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring
it into subjection"? [230] For he was certainly laying prostrate, and
weakening, and bringing into subjection, and regulating that principle
in himself whence he had persecuted Stephen and the other Christians.
Who then can demonstrate that the holy martyrs were not asking from the
Lord such an avenging of themselves, when at the same time, in order to
their being avenged, they might lawfully wish for the end of this
world, in which they had endured such martyrdoms? And they who pray for
this, on the one hand pray for their enemies who are curable, and on
the other hand do not pray against those who have chosen to be
incurable: because God also, in punishing them, is not a malevolent
Torturer, but a most righteous Disposer. Without any hesitation,
therefore, let us love our enemies, let us do good to those that hate
us, and let us pray for those who persecute us.
__________________________________________________________________
[215] 1 John v. 16.
[216] See note p.
[217] 1 Cor. vii. 14, 15.
[218] Ignosce; Vulgate, dimitte.
[219] Luke xxiii. 34.
[220] Acts vii. 60.
[221] Sermonibus; Vulgate, verbis.
[222] 2 Tim. iv. 14-16.
[223] Matt. xviii. 21. Luke xvii. 3.
[224] Matt. xxvii. 4, 5.
[225] Matt. x. 25.
[226] Matt. xii. 24-33.
[227] Rom. xii. 14, 17.
[228] Rev. vi. 10.
[229] Rom. vi. 12.
[230] 1 Cor. ix. 26, 27. Sevituti subjicio; Vulgate, in servitutem
redigo.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.
78. Then, as to the statement which follows, "that ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven," [231] it is to be
understood according to that rule in virtue of which John also says,
"He gave them power to become the sons of God." [232] For one is a Son
by nature, who knows nothing at all of sin; but we, by receiving power,
are made sons, in as far as we perform those things which are commanded
us by Him. And hence the apostolic teaching gives the name of adoption
to that by which we are called to an eternal inheritance, that we may
be joint-heirs with Christ. [233] We are therefore made sons by a
spiritual regeneration, and we are adopted into the kingdom of God, not
as aliens, but as being made and created by Him: so that it is one
benefit, His having brought us into being through His omnipotence, when
before we were nothing; another, His having adopted us, so that, as
being sons, we might enjoy along with Him eternal life for our
participation. Therefore He does not say, Do those things, because ye
are sons; but, Do those things, that ye may be sons.
79. But when He calls us to this by the Only-begotten Himself, He calls
us to His own likeness. For He, as is said in what follows, "maketh
[234] His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust." Whether you are to understand His sun as
being not that which is visible to the fleshly eyes, but that wisdom of
which it is said, "She is the brightness of the everlasting light;"
[235] of which it is also said, "The Sun of righteousness has arisen
upon me;" and again, "But unto you that fear the name of the Lord shall
the Sun of righteousness arise:" [236] so that you would also
understand the rain as being the watering with the doctrine of truth,
because Christ hath appeared to the good and the evil, and is preached
to the good and the evil. Or whether you choose rather to understand
that sun which is set forth before the bodily eyes not only of men, but
also of cattle; and that rain by which the fruits are brought forth,
which have been given for the refreshment of the body, which I think is
the more probable interpretation: so that that spiritual sun does not
rise except on the good and holy; for it is this very thing which the
wicked bewail in that book which is called the Wisdom of Solomon, "And
the sun rose not upon us:" [237] and that spiritual rain does not water
any except the good; for the wicked were meant by the vineyard of which
it is said, "I will also command my clouds that they rain no rain upon
it." [238] But whether you understand the one or the other, it takes
place by the great goodness of God, which we are commanded to imitate,
if we wish to be the children of God. For who is there so ungrateful as
not to feel how great the comfort, so far as this life is concerned,
which that visible light and the material rain bring? And this comfort
we see bestowed in this life alike upon the righteous and upon sinners
in common. But He does not say, "who maketh the sun to rise on the evil
and on the good;" but He has added the word "His," i.e. which He
Himself made and established, and for the making of which He took
nothing from any one, as it is written in Genesis respecting all the
luminaries; [239] and He can properly say that all the things which He
has created out of nothing are His own: so that we are hence admonished
with how great liberality we ought, according to His precept, to give
to our enemies those things which we have not created, but have
received from His gifts.
80. But who can either be prepared to bear injuries from the weak, in
as far as it is profitable for their salvation; and to choose rather to
suffer more injustice from another than to repay what he has suffered;
to give to every one that asketh anything from him, either what he
asks, if it is in his possession, and if it can rightly be given, or
good advice, or to manifest a benevolent disposition, and not to turn
away from him who desires to borrow; to love his enemies, to do good to
those who hate him, to pray for those who persecute him;--who, I say,
does these things, but the man who is fully and perfectly merciful?
[240] And with that counsel misery is avoided, by the assistance of Him
who says, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." [241] "Blessed,"
therefore, "are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." But now I
think it will be more convenient, that at this point the reader,
fatigued with so long a volume, should breathe a little, and recruit
himself for considering what remains in another book.
__________________________________________________________________
[231] "Not in power or wisdom,--which was the cause of man's fall, and
leads evermore to the same,--but in love" (Plumptre).
[232] John i. 12.
[233] Rom viii. 17 and Gal. iv. 5.
[234] Facit(above, jubet). Bengel's comment is good: "Magnifica
appellatio. Ipse et fecit solem et gubernat et habet in sua unius
potestate" ("Splendid designation. He made the sun, governs it, and has
it in His own power").
[235] Wisd. vii. 26.
[236] Mal. iv. 2.
[237] Wisd. v. 6.
[238] Isa. v. 6.
[239] Gen. i. 16.
[240] "Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
The Greek text has here the future: esesthe teleioi, "Ye therefore
shall be perfect" (Revised Version). Meyer gives the verb the
imperative sense; Alford, Lange, and others include the imperative
sense. The imperative force adds not a little to the plausibility of
deriving the doctrine of perfectibility on earth, or complete
"sanctification," from the passage, as the Pelagians (whom Augustin
elsewhere combats) and some Methodist commentators (Whedon, etc.).
Alford, Trench, etc., deny that the verse gives any countenance to the
doctrine. As regards the nature of the perfection, Bengel sententiously
says, "in amore, erga omnes" ("in love, toward all." See Col. iii. 14).
It seems "to refer chiefly to the perfection of the divine love"
(Mansel); so also Bleek, Meyer. Weiss (whose Leben Jesu, i. 532-534,
see) finds an allusion to the fundamental command of the Old Testament,
"Be ye holy," etc. In the place of the divine holiness, or God's
elevation above all uncleanness of the creature, is substituted the
divine perfection, whose essence is all-comprehensive and unselfish
love; and in the place of the God separated from the sinful people,
appears He who in love condescends to them and brings them into
likeness with Himself as His children. The last verse of the Sermon as
reported by Luke (vi. 36) confirms the idea that the perfection is of
love: "Be ye merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful."
Commenting on this verse, Dr. Schaff says, "Instruction in morality
cannot rise above this. Having thus led us up to our heavenly Father as
the true standard, our Lord, by a natural transition, passes to our
religious duties, i.e. duties to our heavenly Father."
[241] Hos. vi. 6.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Book II.
On the latter part of our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, contained in the
sixth and seventh chapters of Matthew.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter I.
1. The subject of mercy, with the treatment of which the first book
came to a close, is followed by that of the cleansing of the heart,
with which the present one begins. [242] The cleansing of the heart,
then, is as it were the cleansing of the eye by which God is seen; and
in keeping that single, there ought to be as great care as the dignity
of the object demands, which can be beheld by such an eye. But even
when this eye is in great part cleansed, it is difficult to prevent
certain defilements from creeping insensibly over it, from those things
which are wont to accompany even our good actions,--as, for instance,
the praise of men. If, indeed, not to live uprightly is hurtful; yet to
live uprightly, and not to wish to be praised, what else is this than
to be an enemy to the affairs of men, which are certainly so much the
more miserable, the less an upright life on the part of men gives
pleasure? If, therefore, those among whom you live shall not praise you
when living uprightly, they are in error: but if they shall praise you,
you are in danger; unless you have a heart so single and pure, that in
those things in which you act uprightly you do not so act because of
the praises of men; and that you rather congratulate those who praise
what is right, as having pleasure in what is good, than yourself;
because you would live uprightly even if no one were to praise you: and
that you understand this very praise of you to be useful to those who
praise you, only when it is not yourself whom they honour in your good
life, but God, whose most holy temple every man is who lives well; so
that what David says finds its fulfilment, "In the Lord shall my soul
be praised; the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad." [243] It
belongs therefore to the pure eye not to look at the praises of men in
acting rightly, nor to have reference to these while you are acting
rightly, i.e. to do anything rightly with the very design of pleasing
men. For thus you will be disposed also to counterfeit what is good, if
nothing is kept in view except the praise of man; who, inasmuch as he
cannot see the heart, may also praise things that are false. And they
who do this, i.e. who counterfeit goodness, are of a double heart. No
one therefore has a single, i.e. a pure heart, except the man who rises
above the praises of men; and when he lives well, looks at Him only,
and strives to please Him who is the only Searcher of the conscience.
And whatever proceeds from the purity of that conscience is so much the
more praiseworthy, the less it desires the praises of men.
2. "Take heed, [244] therefore," says He, "that ye do not your
righteousness [245] before men, to be seen of them:" i.e., take heed
that ye do not live righteously with this intent, and that ye do not
place your happiness in this, that men may see you. "Otherwise ye have
no reward of your Father who is in heaven:" not if ye should be seen by
men; but if ye should live righteously with the intent of being seen by
men. For, [were it the former], what would become of the statement made
in the beginning of this sermon, "Ye are the light of the world. A city
that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle,
and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light
unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works"? But He did not set up this as the
end; for He has added, "and glorify your Father who is in heaven."
[246] But here, because he is finding fault with this, if the end of
our right actions is there, i.e. if we act rightly with this design,
only of being seen of men; after He has said, "Take heed that ye do not
your righteousness before men," He has added nothing. And hereby it is
evident that He has said this, not to prevent us from acting rightly
before men, but lest perchance we should act rightly before men for the
purpose of being seen by them, i.e. should fix our eye on this, and
make it the end of what we have set before us.
3. For the apostle also says, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be
the servant of Christ;" [247] while he says in another place, "Please
all men in all things, even as I also please all men in all things."
[248] And they who do not understand this think it a contradiction;
while the explanation is, that he has said he does not please men,
because he was accustomed to act rightly, not with the express design
of pleasing men, but of pleasing God, to the love of whom he wished to
turn men's hearts by that very thing in which he was pleasing men.
Therefore he was both right in saying that he did not please men,
because in that very thing he aimed at pleasing God: and right in
authoritatively teaching that we ought to please men, not in order that
this should be sought for as the reward of our good deeds; but because
the man who would not offer himself for imitation to those whom he
wished to be saved, could not please God; but no man possibly can
imitate one who has not pleased him. As, therefore, that man would not
speak absurdly who should say, In this work of seeking a ship, it is
not a ship, but my native country, that I seek: so the apostle also
might fitly say, In this work of pleasing men, it is not men, but God,
that I please; because I do not aim at pleasing men, but have it as my
object, that those whom I wish to be saved may imitate me. Just as he
says of an offering that is made for the saints, "Not because I desire
a gift, but I desire fruit;" [249] i.e., In seeking your gift, I seek
not it, but your fruit. For by this proof it could appear how far they
had advanced Godward, when they offered that willingly which was sought
from them not for the sake of his own joy over their gifts, but for the
sake of the fellowship of love.
4. Although when He also goes on to say, "Otherwise ye have no reward
of your Father who is in heaven," [250] He points out nothing else but
that we ought to be on our guard against seeking man's praise as the
reward of our deeds, i.e. against thinking we thereby attain to
blessedness.
__________________________________________________________________
[242] Jesus passes from the precepts of the genuine righteousness to
the actual practice of the same (Meyer, Weiss), from moral to religious
duties (Lange), from actions to motives; having spoken to the heart
before by inference, he now speaks directly (Alford).
[243] Ps. xxxiv. 2.
[244] Cavete facere; Vulgate, attendite ne faciatis.
[245] In agreement with the best Greek text. (See Revised Version.)
This verse is a general proposition. The three leading manifestations
of righteousness and practical piety among the Jews
follow,--alms-giving, prayer, fasting.
[246] Matt. v. 14-16.
[247] Gal. i. 10.
[248] 1 Cor. x. 32, 33.
[249] Phil. iv. 17.
[250] Acts otherwise noble and praiseworthy become sin when done to
make an appearance before men, and get honour from them. Bad intentions
vitiate pious observances.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.
5. "Therefore, when thou doest thine alms," says He, "do not sound a
trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory [251] of men." Do not, says He,
desire to become known in the same way as the hypocrites. Now it is
manifest that hypocrites have not that in their heart also which they
hold forth before the eyes of men. For hypocrites are pretenders, as it
were setters forth of other characters, just as in the plays of the
theatre. For he who acts the part of Agamemnon in tragedy, for example,
or of any other person belonging to the history or legend which is
acted, is not really the person himself, but personates him, and is
called a hypocrite. In like manner, in the Church, or in any phase of
human life, whoever wishes to seem what he is not is a hypocrite. For
he pretends, but does not show himself, to be a righteous man; because
he places the whole fruit [of his acting] in the praise of men, which
even pretenders may receive, while they deceive those to whom they seem
good, and are praised by them. But such do not receive a reward from
God the Searcher of the heart, unless it be the punishment of their
deceit: from men, however, says He, "They have received their reward;"
and most righteously will it be said to them, Depart from me, ye
workers of deceit; ye had my name, but ye did not my works. Hence they
have received their reward, who do their alms for no other reason than
that they may have glory of men; not if they have glory of men, but if
they do them for the express purpose of having this glory, as has been
discussed above. For the praise of men ought not to be sought by him
who acts rightly, but ought to follow him who acts rightly, so that
they may profit who can also imitate what they praise, not that he whom
they praise may think that they are profiting him anything.
6. "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right
hand doeth." If you should understand unbelievers to be meant by the
left hand, then it will seem to be no fault to wish to please
believers; while nevertheless we are altogether prohibited from placing
the fruit and end of our good deed in the praise of any men whatever.
But as regards this point, that those who have been pleased with your
good deeds should imitate you, we are to act before the eyes not only
of believers, but also of unbelievers, so that by our good works, which
are to be praised, they may honour God, and may come to salvation. But
if you should be of opinion that the left hand means an enemy, so that
your enemy is not to know when you do alms, why did the Lord Himself,
when His enemies the Jews were standing round, mercifully heal men? why
did the Apostle Peter, by healing the lame man whom he pitied at the
gate Beautiful, bring also the wrath of the enemy upon himself, and
upon the other disciples of Christ? [252] Then, further, if it is
necessary that the enemy should not know when we do our alms, how shall
we do with the enemy himself so as to fulfil that precept, "If thine
enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him
water to drink"? [253]
7. A third opinion is wont to be held by carnal people, so absurd and
ridiculous, that I would not mention it had I not found that not a few
are entangled in that error, who say that by the expression left hand a
wife is meant; so that, inasmuch as in family affairs women are wont to
be more tenacious of money, it is to be kept hid from them when their
husbands compassionately spend anything upon the needy, for fear of
domestic quarrels. As if, forsooth, men alone were Christians, and this
precept were not addressed to women also! From what left hand, then, is
a woman enjoined to conceal her deed of mercy? Is a husband also the
left hand of his wife? A statement most absurd. Or if any one thinks
that they are left hands to each other; if any part of the family
property be expended by the one party in such a way as to be contrary
to the will of the other party, such a marriage will not be a Christian
one; but whichever of them should choose to do alms according to the
command of God, whomsoever he should find opposed, would inevitably be
an enemy to the command of God, and therefore reckoned among
unbelievers,--the command with respect to such parties being, that a
believing husband should win his wife, and a believing wife her
husband, by their good conversation and conduct; and therefore they
ought not to conceal their good works from each other, by which they
are to be mutually attracted, so that the one may be able to attract
the other to communion in the Christian faith. Nor are thefts to be
perpetrated in order that God may be rendered propitious. But if
anything is to be concealed as long as the infirmity of the other party
is unable to bear with equanimity what nevertheless is not done
unjustly and unlawfully; yet, that the left hand is not meant in such a
sense on the present occasion, readily appears from a consideration of
the whole section, whereby it will at the same time be discovered what
He calls the left hand.
8. "Take heed," says He, "that ye do not your righteousness before men,
to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is
in heaven." Here He has mentioned righteousness generally, then He
follows it up in detail. For a deed which is done in the way of alms is
a certain part of righteousness, and therefore He connects the two by
saying, "Therefore, when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet
before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets,
that they may have glory of men." In this there is a reference to what
He says before, "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before
men, to be seen of them." But what follows, "Verily I say unto you,
They have received their reward," refers to that other statement which
He has made above, "Otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is
in heaven." Then follows, "But when thou doest alms." When He says,
"But thou," what else does He mean but, Not in the same manner as they?
What, then, does He bid me do? "But when thou doest alms," says He,
"let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." Hence those
other parties so act, that their left hand knoweth what their right
hand doeth. What, therefore, is blamed in them, this thou art forbidden
to do. But this is what is blamed in them, that they act in such a way
as to seek the praises of men. And therefore the left hand seems to
have no more suitable meaning than just this delight in praise. But the
right hand means the intention of fulfilling the divine commands. When,
therefore, with the consciousness of him who does alms is mixed up the
desire of man's praise, the left hand becomes conscious of the work of
the right hand: "Let not, therefore, thy left hand know what thy right
hand doeth;" [254] i.e. Let there not be mixed up in thy consciousness
the desire of man's praise, when in doing alms thou art striving to
fulfil a divine command.
9. "That thine alms may be in secret." [255] What else is meant by "in
secret," but just in a good conscience, which cannot be shown to human
eyes, nor revealed by words? since, indeed, the mass of men tell many
lies. And therefore, if the right hand acts inwardly in secret, all
outward things, which are visible and temporal, belong to the left
hand. Let thine alms, therefore, be in thine own consciousness, where
many do alms by their good intention, even if they have no money or
anything else which is to be bestowed on one who is needy. But many
give alms outwardly, and not inwardly, who either from ambition, or for
the sake of some temporal object, wish to appear merciful, in whom the
left hand only is to be reckoned as working. Others again hold, as it
were, a middle place between the two; so that, with a design which is
directed Godward, they do their alms, and yet there insinuates itself
into this excellent wish also some desire after praise, or after a
perishable and temporal object of some sort or other. But our Lord much
more strongly prohibits the left hand alone being at work in us, when
He even forbids its being mixed up with the works of the right hand:
that is to say, that we are not only to beware of doing alms from the
desire of temporal objects alone; but that in this work we are not even
to have regard to God in such a way as that there should be mingled up
or united therewith the grasping after outward advantages. For the
question under discussion is the cleansing of the heart, which, unless
it be single, will not be clean. But how will it be single, if it
serves two masters, and does not purge its vision by the striving after
eternal things alone, but clouds it by the love of mortal and
perishable things as well? "Let thine alms," therefore, "be in secret;
and thy [256] Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee."
Altogether most righteously and most truly. For if you expect a reward
from Him who is the only Searcher of the conscience, let conscience
itself suffice thee for meriting a reward. Many Latin copies have it
thus, "And thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly;"
but because we have not found the word "openly" in the Greek copies,
which are earlier, [257] we have not thought that anything was to be
said about it.
__________________________________________________________________
[251] Glorificantur; Vulgate honorificentur. The sounding of trumpet is
referred by some to an alleged custom of the parties themselves calling
the poor together by a trumpet, or even to the noise of the coins on
the trumpet-shaped chests in the temple. Better, it is figurative of
"self-laudation and display" (Meyer, Alford, Lange, etc.).
[252] Acts iii., iv.
[253] Prov. xxv. 21.
[254] "With complete modesty; secret, noiseless giving" (Chrysostom).
No reference to a counting of the money by the left hand (Paulus, De
Wette). Luther's comment is quaint and characteristic: "When thou
givest alms with thy right hand, take heed that thou dost not seek with
the left to take more, but put it behind thy back." Trench pronounces
this discussion concerning the meaning of the left hand "laborious,
and, as I cannot but think, unnecessary;" but it is ingenious and
interesting.
[255] Pii lucent et tamen latent (Bengel).
[256] Not our Father.
[257] It is wanting in the Sinaitic, B, D, etc., mss., as also in the
Vulgate copies.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.
10. "And when ye pray," says He, "ye shall not be as the hypocrites
are; for they love to pray standing [258] in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." And here also it
is not the being seen of men that is wrong, but doing these things for
the purpose of being seen of men; and it is superfluous to make the
same remark so often, since there is just one rule to be kept, from
which we learn that what we should dread and avoid is not that men know
these things, but that they be done with this intent, that the fruit of
pleasing men should be sought after in them. Our Lord Himself, too,
preserves the same words, when He adds similarly, "Verily I say unto
you, They have received their reward;" hereby showing that He forbids
this,--the striving after that reward in which fools delight when they
are praised by men.
11. "But when ye [259] pray," says He, "enter into your bed-chambers."
What are those bed-chambers but just our hearts themselves, as is meant
also in the Psalm, when it is said, "What ye say in your hearts, have
remorse for even in your beds"? [260] "And when ye have shut [261] the
doors," says He, "pray to your Father who is in secret." [262] It is a
small matter to enter into our bed-chambers if the door stand open to
the unmannerly, through which the things that are outside profanely
rush in and assail our inner man. Now we have said that outside are all
temporal and visible things, which make their way through the door,
i.e. through the fleshly sense into our thoughts, and clamorously
interrupt those who are praying by a crowd of vain phantoms. Hence the
door is to be shut, i.e. the fleshly sense is to be resisted, so that
spiritual prayer may be directed to the Father, which is done in the
inmost heart, where prayer is offered to the Father which is in secret.
"And your Father," says He, "who seeth in secret, shall reward you."
And this had to be wound up with a closing statement of such a kind;
for here at the present stage the admonition is not that we should
pray, but as to how we should pray. Nor is what goes before an
admonition that we should give alms, but as to the spirit in which we
should do so, inasmuch as He is giving instructions with regard to the
cleansing of the heart, which nothing cleanses but the undivided and
single-minded striving after eternal life from the pure love of wisdom
alone.
12. "But when ye pray," says He, "do not speak much, [263] as the
heathen do; for they think [264] that they shall be heard for their
much speaking." As it is characteristic of the hypocrites to exhibit
themselves to be gazed at when praying, and their fruit is to please
men, so it is characteristic of the heathen, i.e. of the Gentiles, to
think they are heard for their much speaking. And in reality, every
kind of much speaking comes from the Gentiles, who make it their
endeavour to exercise the tongue rather than to cleanse the heart. And
this kind of useless exertion they endeavour to transfer even to the
influencing of God by prayer, supposing that the Judge, just like man,
is brought over by words to a certain way of thinking. "Be not ye,
therefore, like unto them," says the only true Master. "For your Father
knoweth what things are necessary [265] for you, before ye ask Him."
For if many words are made use of with the intent that one who is
ignorant may be instructed and taught, what need is there of them for
Him who knows all things, to whom all things which exist, by the very
fact of their existence, speak, and show themselves as having been
brought into existence; and those things which are future do not remain
concealed from His knowledge and wisdom, in which both those things
which are past, and those things which will yet come to pass, are all
present and cannot pass away?
13. But since, however few they may be, yet there are words which He
Himself also is about to speak, by which He would teach us to pray; it
may be asked why even these few words are necessary for Him who knows
all things before they take place, and is acquainted, as has been said,
with what is necessary for us before we ask Him? Here, in the first
place, the answer is, that we ought to urge our case with God, in order
to obtain what we wish, not by words, but by the ideas which we cherish
in our mind, and by the direction of our thought, with pure love and
sincere desire; but that our Lord has taught us the very ideas in
words, that by committing them to memory we may recollect those ideas
at the time we pray.
14. But again, it may be asked (whether we are to pray in ideas or in
words) what need there is for prayer itself, if God already knows what
is necessary for us; unless it be that the very effort involved in
prayer calms and purifies our heart, and makes it more capacious for
receiving the divine gifts, which are poured into us spiritually. [266]
For it is not on account of the urgency of our prayers that God hears
us, who is always ready to give us His light, not of a material kind,
but that which is intellectual and spiritual: but we are not always
ready to receive, since we are inclined towards other things, and are
involved in darkness through our desire for temporal things. Hence
there is brought about in prayer a turning of the heart to Him, who is
ever ready to give, if we will but take what He has given; and in the
very act of turning there is effected a purging of the inner eye,
inasmuch as those things of a temporal kind which were desired are
excluded, so that the vision of the pure heart may be able to bear the
pure light, divinely shining, without any setting or change: and not
only to bear it, but also to remain in it; not merely without
annoyance, but also with ineffable joy, in which a life truly and
sincerely blessed is perfected.
__________________________________________________________________
[258] They love to stand praying, more than they love to pray. Like the
Mohammedans of to-day, they took delight in airing their piety. Our
Lord mentions the most conspicuous localities. The usual posture of the
Jews in prayer was standing (1 Sam. i. 26, Luke xviii. 11, etc.).
[259] Vos; Vulgate, tu (Revised Version).
[260] Ps. iv. 4. The English version renders, "Commune with your own
heart upon your bed, and be still."
[261] Claudentes ostia; Vulgate, clauso ostio.
[262] Our Lord on occasion followed this habit (Matt. xiv. 23 and in
Gethsemane).
[263] Greek, battalogeo "Use not vain repetitions," Revised Version (or
stammer). Some derive the word from Battus, king of Cyrene, who
stuttered, or from Battus, author of wordy poems. The word is probably
only an imitation of the sound of the stammerer (Thayer, Lexicon, who
spells battologeo). The Jews were only doing as well as the Gentiles
when they placed virtue in the length of the prayer, and no better.
"Who makes his prayer long, shall not return home empty" (Rabbi
Chasima, quoted by Hausrath, 73). The Rabbins took up at great length
the question how many and what kind of petitions should be offered up
at the table spread on different occasions with different viands,
whether salutations should be acknowledged in the course of prayer,
etc. (see Schuerer, pp. 498, 499). Examples of repetitious prayer in
Scripture: 1 Kings xviii. 26, Acts xix. 34. The warning is not against
frequent prayer (Luke xviii. 1).
[264] Arbitrantur; Vulgate, putant.
[265] Vobis necessarium; Vulgate, opus.
[266] The illustration is frequently used (M. Henry; after him F. W.
Robertson), to represent the position of some, that prayer only has an
influence on the petitioner, of a boatman in his boat, taking hold of
the wharf with his grappling hook. While prayer does not "inform or
persuade God," it is the condition of receiving. The sanctifying
influence is secondary and incidental.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.
15. But now we have to consider what things we are taught to pray for
by Him through whom we both learn what we are to pray for, and obtain
what we pray for. "After this manner, therefore, pray ye," [267] says
He: "Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day
our daily [268] bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors. And bring [269] us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil." [270] Seeing that in all prayer we have to conciliate the
goodwill of him to whom we pray, then to say what we pray for; goodwill
is usually conciliated by our offering praise to him to whom the prayer
is directed, and this is usually put in the beginning of the prayer:
and in this particular our Lord has bidden us say nothing else but "Our
Father who art in heaven." For many things are said in praise of God,
which, being scattered variously and widely over all the Holy
Scriptures, every one will be able to consider when he reads them: yet
nowhere is there found a precept for the people of Israel, that they
should say "Our Father," or that they should pray to God as a Father;
but as Lord He was made known to them, as being yet servants, i.e.
still living according to the flesh. I say this, however, inasmuch as
they received the commands of the law, which they were ordered to
observe: for the prophets often show that this same Lord of ours might
have been their Father also, if they had not strayed from His
commandments: as, for instance, we have that statement, "I have
nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me;"
[271] and that other, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are
children of the Most High;" [272] and this again, "If then I be a
Father, where is mine honour? and if I be a Master, where is my fear?"
[273] and very many other statements, where the Jews are accused of
showing by their sin that they did not wish to become sons: those
things being left out of account which are said in prophecy of a future
Christian people, that they would have God as a Father, according to
that gospel statement, "To them gave He power to become the sons of
God." [274] The Apostle Paul, again, says, "The heir, as long as he is
a child, differeth nothing from a servant;" and mentions that we have
received the Spirit of adoption, "whereby we cry, Abba, Father." [275]
16. And since the fact that we are called to an eternal inheritance,
that we might be fellow-heirs with Christ and attain to the adoption of
sons, is not of our deserts, but of God's grace; we put this very same
grace in the beginning of our prayer, when we say "Our Father." And by
that appellation both love is stirred up--for what ought to be dearer
to sons than a father?--and a suppliant disposition, when men say to
God, "Our Father:" and a certain presumption of obtaining what we are
about to ask; since, before we ask anything, we have received so great
a gift as to be allowed to call God "Our Father." [276] For what would
He not now give to sons when they ask, when He has already granted this
very thing, namely, that they might be sons? Lastly, how great
solicitude takes hold of the mind, that he who says "Our Father,"
should not prove unworthy of so great a Father! For if any plebeian
should be permitted by the party himself to call a senator of more
advanced age father; without doubt he would tremble, and would not
readily venture to do it, reflecting on the humbleness of his origin,
and the scantiness of his resources, and the worthlessness of his
plebeian person: how much more, therefore, ought we to tremble to call
God Father, if there is so great a stain and so much baseness in our
character, that God might much more justly drive forth these from
contact with Himself, than that senator might the poverty of any beggar
whatever! Since, indeed, he (the senator) despises that in the beggar
to which even he himself may be reduced by the vicissitude of human
affairs: but God never falls into baseness of character. And thanks be
to the mercy of Him who requires this of us, that He should be our
Father,--a relationship which can be brought about by no expenditure of
ours, but solely by God's goodwill. Here also there is an admonition to
the rich and to those of noble birth, so far as this world is
concerned, that when they have become Christians they should not
comport themselves proudly towards the poor and the low of birth; since
together with them they call God "Our Father,"--an expression which
they cannot truly and piously use, unless they recognise that they
themselves are brethren.
__________________________________________________________________
[267] Orate; Vulgate, Orabitis.
[268] Quotidianum; Vulgate, supersubstantialem.
[269] Inferas (Rev. Vers.); Vulgate, inducas.
[270] This prayer is called the Lord's Prayer because our Lord is its
author, He did not and could not have used it Himself, on account of
(1) the special meaning of the pronoun "our" in the address, (2) the
confession of sins in the fifth petition. Luke's account (xi. 1) agrees
in the subject of the petitions as in the address, but differs (1) in
the omission of the third petition (Crit text); (2) in the addition to
the fifth petition (which, however, Matthew gives at the close of the
prayer in a more elaborate form); (3) in adducing a request of the
disciples as the occasion of the prayer. Some have thought the prayer
was given on two occasions (Meyer in earlier edd., Tholuck). Others
hold that Matthew has inserted it out of its proper historical place
(Neander, Olshausen, De Wette, Ebrard, Meyer in ed. vi., Weiss, etc.).
This question of priority and accuracy as between the forms of Matthew
and Luke may be regarded as set at rest by the Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, which (viii. 2) gives the exact form of Matthew with three
unimportant differences: viz. (1) heaven, ourano, instead of heavens;
(2) the omission of the article before earth; (3) debt instead of
debts. This document contains the doxology (with the omission of
kingdom), and supports the Textus Receptus in giving the present, we
forgive, aphiemen, instead of the perfect, we have forgiven,
aphekamen.--The division of the prayer is usually made into (1)
address, (2) petitions, (3) doxology (omitted from the approved
critical Greek text and the Revised Version).--The petitions are seven
according to Augustin, Luther, Bengel, Tholuck, etc: six (the two last
being combined as one) according to Chrysostom, Reformed catechisms,
Calvin, Schaff, etc. The petitions are divided into two groups
(Tertullian) or tables (Calvin).--The contents of the first three
petitions concern the glory of God; of the last four, the wants of men.
In the first group the pronoun is thy, and the direction of the thought
is from heaven downwards to earth; in the second group it is us, and
the direction of the thought is from earth upwards to God.--The
numbers, in view of their significance in the Old Testament, 3, 4, 7,
are not an uninteresting item. Tholuck says: "The attention of the
student who has otherwise heard of the doctrine of the Trinity will
find a distinct reference to it in the arrangement of this prayer. In
the first petition of each group, God is referred to as Creator and
Preserver; in the second as Redeemer; in the third as the Holy
Spirit."--The Lord's Prayer is more than a specimen of prayer: it is a
pattern. Different views are held concerning its liturgical use, which
can be traced back to Cyprian and Tertullian, and now farther still, to
the Teaching of the Apostles, which, after giving the prayer, says,
"Thrice a day pray thus." It also gives (ix.) a form of prayer to be
used after the Eucharist. Of its abuse Luther says, "It is the greatest
martyr."--It is not a compilation, although similar or the same,
petitions may have been in use among the Jews. The simplicity, symmetry
of arrangement, depth and progress of thought, reverence of feeling,
make it, indeed, the model prayer,--the Lord's Prayer. Tertullian calls
it breviarium totius evangelii (so Meyer).
[271] Isa. i. 2.
[272] Ps. lxxxii. 6.
[273] Mal. i. 6.
[274] John i. 12.
[275] Rom. viii. 15-23 and Gal. iv. 1-6.
[276] Patrem quisquis appellare potest, omnia orare potest (Bengel).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.
17. Let the new people, therefore, who are called to an eternal
inheritance, use the word of the New Testament, and say, "Our Father
who art in heaven," [277] i.e. in the holy and the just. For God is not
contained in space. For the heavens are indeed the higher material
bodies of the world, but yet material, and therefore cannot exist
except in some definite place; but if God's place is believed to be in
the heavens, as meaning the higher parts of the world, the birds are of
greater value than we, for their life is nearer to God. But it is not
written, The Lord is nigh unto tall men, or unto those who dwell on
mountains; but it is written, "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a
broken heart," [278] which refers rather to humility. But as a sinner
is called earth, when it is said to him, "Earth thou art, and unto
earth shalt thou return;" [279] so, on the other hand, a righteous man
may be called heaven. For it is said to the righteous, "For the temple
of God is holy, which temple ye are." [280] And therefore, if God
dwells in His temple, and the saints are His temple, the expression
"which art in heaven" is rightly used in the sense, which art in the
saints. And most suitable is such a similitude, so that spiritually
there may be seen to be as great a difference between the righteous and
sinners, as there is materially between heaven and earth.
18. And for the purpose of showing this, when we stand at prayer, we
turn to the east, whence the heaven rises: not as if God also were
dwelling there, in the sense that He who is everywhere present, not as
occupying space, but by the power of His majesty, had forsaken the
other parts of the world; but in order that the mind may be admonished
to turn to a more excellent nature, i.e. to God, when its own body,
which is earthly, is turned to a more excellent body, i.e. to a
heavenly one. It is also suitable for the different stages of religion,
and expedient in the highest degree, that in the minds of all, both
small and great, there should be cherished worthy conceptions of God.
And therefore, as regards those who as yet are taken up with the
beauties that are seen, and cannot think of anything incorporeal,
inasmuch as they must necessarily prefer heaven to earth, their opinion
is more tolerable, if they believe God, whom as yet they think of after
a corporeal fashion, to be in heaven rather than upon earth: so that
when at any future time they have learned that the dignity of the soul
exceeds even a celestial body, they may seek Him in the soul rather
than in a celestial body even; and when they have learned how great a
distance there is between the souls of sinners and of the righteous,
just as they did not venture, when as yet they were wise only after a
carnal fashion, to place Him on earth, but in heaven, so afterwards
with better faith or intelligence they may seek Him again in the souls
of the righteous rather than in those of sinners. Hence, when it is
said, "Our Father which art in heaven," it is rightly understood to
mean in the hearts of the righteous, as it were in His holy temple. And
at the same time, in such a way that he who prays wishes Him whom he
invokes to dwell in himself also; and when he strives after this,
practises righteousness,--a kind of service by which God is attracted
to dwell in the soul.
19. Let us see now what things are to be prayed for. For it has been
stated who it is that is prayed to, and where He dwells. First of all,
then, of those things which are prayed for comes this petition,
"Hallowed be Thy name." And this is prayed for, not as if the name of
God were not holy already, but that it may be held holy by men; i.e.,
that God may so become known to them, that they shall reckon nothing
more holy, and which they are more afraid of offending. For, because it
is said, "In Judah is God known; His name is great in Israel," [281] we
are not to understand the statement in this way, as if God were less in
one place, greater in another; but there His name is great, where He is
named according to the greatness of His majesty. And so there His name
is said to be holy, where He is named with veneration and the fear of
offending Him. And this is what is now going on, while the gospel, by
becoming known everywhere throughout the different nations, commends
the name of the one God by means of the administration of His Son.
__________________________________________________________________
[277] "The address puts us into the proper attitude of prayer. It
indicates our filial relation to God as `Father' (word of faith),
fraternal relation to our fellow-men (`our,' word of love), and our
destination of `heaven' (word of hope)."
[278] Ps. xxxiv. 18.
[279] Gen. iii. 19.
[280] 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[281] Ps. lxxvi. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.
20. In the next place there follows, "Thy kingdom come." Just as the
Lord Himself teaches in the Gospel that the day of judgment will take
place at the very time when the gospel shall have been preached among
all nations: [282] a thing which belongs to the hallowing of God's
name. For here also the expression "Thy kingdom come" is not used in
such a way as if God were not now reigning. But some one perhaps might
say the expression "come" meant upon earth; as if, indeed, He were not
even now really reigning upon earth, and had not always reigned upon it
from the foundation of the world. "Come," therefore, is to be
understood in the sense of "manifested to men." For in the same way
also as a light which is present is absent to the blind, and to those
who shut their eyes; so the kingdom of God, though it never departs
from the earth, is yet absent to those who are ignorant of it. But no
one will be allowed to be ignorant of the kingdom of God, when His
Only-begotten shall come from heaven, not only in a way to be
apprehended by the understanding, but also visibly in the person of the
Divine Man, in order to judge the quick and the dead. And after that
judgment, i.e. when the process of distinguishing and separating the
righteous from the unrighteous has taken place, God will so dwell in
the righteous, that there will be no need for any one being taught by
man, but all will be, as it is written, "taught of God." [283] Then
will the blessed life in all its parts be perfected in the saints unto
eternity, just as now the most holy and blessed heavenly angels are
wise and blessed, from the fact that God alone is their light; because
the Lord hath promised this also to His own: "In the resurrection,"
says He, "they will be as the angels in heaven." [284]
21. And therefore, after that petition where we say, "Thy kingdom
come," there follows, "Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth:"
i.e., just as Thy will is in the angels who are in heaven, so that they
wholly cleave to Thee, and thoroughly enjoy Thee, no error beclouding
their wisdom, no misery hindering their blessedness; so let it be done
in Thy saints who are on earth, and made from the earth, so far as the
body is concerned, and who, although it is into a heavenly habitation
and exchange, are yet to be taken from the earth. To this there is a
reference also in that doxology of the angels, "Glory to God in the
highest, [285] and on earth peace to men of goodwill:" [286] so that
when our goodwill has gone before, which follows Him that calleth, the
will of God is perfected in us, as it is in the heavenly angels; so
that no antagonism stands in the way of our blessedness: and this is
peace. "Thy will be done" is also rightly understood in the sense of,
Let obedience be rendered to Thy precepts: "as in heaven so on earth,"
i.e. as by the angels so by men. For, that the will of God is done when
His precepts are obeyed, the Lord Himself says, when He affirms, "My
meat is to do the will of Him that sent me;" [287] and often, "I came,
not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me;" [288] and
when He says, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do
the will of God, [289] the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
[290] And therefore, in those at least who do the will of God, the will
of God is accomplished; not because they cause God to will, but because
they do what He wills, i.e. they do according to His will.
22. There is also that other interpretation, "Thy will be done as in
heaven so on earth,"--as in the holy and just, so also in sinners. And
this, besides, may be understood in two ways: either that we should
pray even for our enemies (for what else are they to be reckoned, in
spite of whose will the Christian and Catholic name still spreads?), so
that it is said, "Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth,"--as if
the meaning were, As the righteous do Thy will, in like manner let
sinners also do it, so that they may be converted unto Thee; or in this
sense, "Let Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth," so that every
one may get his own; which will take place at the last judgment, the
righteous being requited with a reward, sinners with condemnation--when
the sheep shall be separated from the goats. [291]
23. That other interpretation also is not absurd, nay, it is thoroughly
accordant with both our faith and hope, that we are to take heaven and
earth in the sense of spirit and flesh. And since the apostle says,
"With the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the
law of sin," [292] we see that the will of God is done in the mind,
i.e. in the spirit. But when death shall have been swallowed up in
victory, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, which will
happen at the resurrection of the flesh, and at that change which is
promised to the righteous, according to the prediction of the same
apostle, [293] let the will of God be done on earth, as it is in
heaven; i.e., in such a way that, in like manner as the spirit does not
resist God, but follows and does His will, so the body also may not
resist the spirit or soul, which at present is harassed by the weakness
of the body, and is prone to fleshly habit: and this will be an element
of the perfect peace in the life eternal, that not only will the will
be present with us, but also the performance of that which is good.
"For to will," says he, "is present with me; but how to perform that
which is good I find not:" for not yet in earth as in heaven, i.e. not
yet in the flesh as in the spirit, is the will of God done. For even in
our misery the will of God is done, when we suffer those things through
the flesh which are due to us in virtue of our mortality, which our
nature has deserved because of its sin. But we are to pray for this,
that the will of God may be done as in heaven so in earth; that in like
manner as with the heart we delight in the law after the inward man,
[294] so also, when the change in our body has taken place, no part of
us may, on account of earthly griefs or pleasures, stand opposed to
this our delight.
24. Nor is that view inconsistent with truth, that we are to understand
the words, "Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth," as in our Lord
Jesus Christ Himself, so also in the Church: as if one were to say, As
in the man who fulfilled the will of the Father, so also in the woman
who is betrothed to him. For heaven and earth are suitably understood
as if they were man and wife; since the earth is fruitful from the
heaven fertilizing it.
__________________________________________________________________
[282] Matt. xxiv. 14.
[283] Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45.
[284] Matt. xxii. 30.
[285] In excelsis; Vulgate, in altissimis.
[286] Luke ii. 14.
[287] John iv. 34.
[288] John vi. 38.
[289] Vulgate, Patris qui in coelis ("Father who is in heaven"). So the
Greek.
[290] Matt. xxii. 49, 50.
[291] Matt. xxv. 33, 46.
[292] Rom. vii. 25.
[293] 1 Cor. xv. 42, 55.
[294] Rom. vii. 18, 22.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.
25. The fourth petition is, "Give us this day our daily bread." Daily
bread is put either for all those things which meet the wants of this
life, in reference to which He says in His teaching, "Take no thought
for the morrow:" so that on this account there is added, "Give us this
day:" or, it is put for the sacrament of the body of Christ, which we
daily receive: or, for the spiritual food, of which the same Lord says,
"Labour for the meat which perisheth not;" [295] and again, "I am the
bread of life, [296] which came down from heaven." [297] But which of
these three views is the more probable, is a question for
consideration. For perhaps some one may wonder why we should pray that
we may obtain the things which are necessary for this life,--such, for
instance, as food and clothing,--when the Lord Himself says, "Be not
anxious what ye shall eat, or what ye shall put on." Can any one not be
anxious for a thing which he prays that he may obtain; when prayer is
to be offered with so great earnestness of mind, that to this refers
all that has been said about shutting our closets, and also the
command, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and
all these things shall be added [298] unto you"? Certainly He does not
say, Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and then seek those other
things; but "all these things," says He, "shall be added unto you,"
that is to say, even though ye are not seeking them. But I know not
whether it can be found out, how one is rightly said not to seek what
he most earnestly pleads with God that he may receive.
26. But with respect to the sacrament of the Lord's body (in order that
they may not start a question, who, the most of them being in Eastern
parts, do not partake of the Lord's supper daily, while this bread is
called daily bread: in order, therefore, that they may be silent, and
not defend their way of thinking about this matter even by the very
authority of the Church, because they do such things without scandal,
and are not prevented from doing them by those who preside over their
churches, and when they do not obey are not condemned; whence it is
proved that this is not understood as daily bread in these parts: for,
if this were the case, they would be charged with the commission of a
great sin, who do not on that account receive it daily; but, as has
been said, not to argue at all to any extent from the case of such
parties), this consideration at least ought to occur to those who
reflect, that we have received a rule for prayer from the Lord, which
we ought not to transgress, either by adding or omitting anything. And
since this is the case, who is there who would venture to say that we
ought only once to use the Lord's Prayer, or at least that, even if we
have used it a second or a third time before the hour at which we
partake of the Lord's body, afterwards we are assuredly not so to pray
during the remaining hours of the day? For we shall no longer be able
to say, "Give us this day," respecting what we have already received;
or every one will be able to compel us to celebrate that sacrament at
the very last hour of the day.
27. It remains, therefore, that we should understand the daily bread as
spiritual, that is to say, divine precepts, which we ought daily to
meditate and to labour after. For just with respect to these the Lord
says, "Labour for the meat which perisheth not." That food, moreover,
is called daily food at present, so long as this temporal life is
measured off by means of days that depart and return. And, in truth, so
long as the desire of the soul is directed by turns, now to what is
higher, now to what is lower, i.e. now to spiritual things, now to
carnal, as is the case with him who at one time is nourished with food,
at another time suffers hunger; bread is daily necessary, in order that
the hungry man may be recruited, and he who is falling down may be
raised up. As, therefore, our body in this life, that is to say, before
that great change, is recruited with food, because it feels loss; so
may the soul also, since by means of temporal desires it sustains as it
were a loss in its striving after God, be reinvigorated by the food of
the precepts. Moreover, it is said, "Give us this day," as long as it
is called to-day, i.e. in this temporal life. For we shall be so
abundantly provided with spiritual food after this life unto eternity,
that it will not then be called daily bread; because there the flight
of time, which causes days to succeed days, whence it may be called
to-day, will not exist. But as it is said, "To-day, if ye will hear His
voice," [299] which the apostle interprets in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, As long as it is called to-day; [300] so here also the
expression is to be understood, "Give us this day." But if any one
wishes to understand the sentence before us also of food necessary for
the body, or of the sacrament of the Lord's body, we must take all
three meanings conjointly; that is to say, that we are to ask for all
at once as daily bread, both the bread necessary for the body, and the
visible hallowed bread, and the invisible bread of the word of God.
[301]
__________________________________________________________________
[295] Escam quae non corrumpitur; Vulgate, non cibum qui perit.
[296] Panis vitae; Vulgate, panis vivus.
[297] John vi. 27, 41.
[298] Apponentur; Vulgate, adjicientur.
[299] Ps. xcv. 7.
[300] Heb. iii. 13.
[301] The Greek epiousios, translated daily (see margin of Revised
Version, with alternate rendering of American Committee), is found only
here and in Luke (xi. 3). Its meaning does not seem to come under the
review of Augustin, but has troubled modern commentators. It has been
taken to mean (1) needful, hence sufficient, as opposed to superfluity
or want (Chrysostom, Tholuck, Ewald, Ebrard, Weiss, etc.); (2) daily
(Luther, English version, etc.); (3) for the coming day (Grotius,
Meyer, Thayer, Lightfoot, who has an elaborate treatment in Revision of
English New Testament, Append. pp. 195-245). The direct reference of
the bread to spiritual food is given by the Vulgate, and generally
accepted in the Roman-Catholic Church. Olshausen, Delitzsch, Alford,
etc., regard the spiritual nourishment involved by implication in the
term.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.
28. The fifth petition follows: "And forgive us our debts, as we also
forgive [302] our debtors." It is manifest that by debts are meant
sins, either from that statement which the Lord Himself makes, "Thou
shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost
farthing;" [303] or from the fact that He called those men debtors who
were reported to Him as having been killed, either those on whom the
tower fell, or those whose blood Herod had mingled with the sacrifice.
For He said that men supposed it was because they were debtors above
measure, i.e. sinners, and added "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye
repent, ye shall all likewise die." [304] Here, therefore, it is not a
money claim that one is pressed to remit, but whatever sins another may
have committed against him. For we are enjoined to remit a money claim
by that precept rather which has been given above, "If any man will sue
thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also;"
[305] nor is it necessary to remit a debt to every money debtor; but
only to him who is unwilling to pay, to such an extent that he wishes
even to go to law. "Now the servant of the Lord," as says the apostle,
"must not go to law." [306] And therefore to him who shall be
unwilling, either spontaneously or when requested, to pay the money
which he owes, it is to be remitted. For his unwillingness to pay will
arise from one of two causes, either that he has it not, or that he is
avaricious and covetous of the property of another; and both of these
belong to a state of poverty: for the former is poverty of substance,
the latter poverty of disposition. Whoever, therefore, remits a debt to
such an one, remits it to one who is poor, and performs a Christian
work; while that rule remains in force, that he should be prepared in
mind to lose what is owing to him. For if he has used exertion in every
way, quietly and gently, to have it restored to him, not so much aiming
at a money profit, as that he may bring the man round to what is right,
to whom without doubt it is hurtful to have the means of paying, and
yet not to pay; not only will he not sin, but he will even do a very
great service, in trying to prevent that other, who is wishing to make
gain of another's money, from making shipwreck of the faith; which is
so much more serious a thing, that there is no comparison. And hence it
is understood that in this fifth petition also, where we say, "Forgive
us our debts," the words are spoken not indeed in reference to money,
but in reference to all ways in which any one sins against us, and by
consequence in reference to money also. For the man who refuses to pay
you the money which he owes, when he has the means of doing so, sins
against you. And if you do not forgive this sin, you will not be able
to say, "Forgive us, as we also forgive;" but if you pardon it, you see
how he who is enjoined to offer such a prayer is admonished also with
respect to forgiving a money debt.
29. That may indeed be construed in this way, that when we say,
"Forgive us our debts, as [307] we also forgive," then only are we
convicted of having acted contrary to this rule, if we do not forgive
them who ask pardon, because we also wish to be forgiven by our most
gracious Father when we ask His pardon. But, on the other hand, by that
precept whereby we are enjoined to pray for our enemies, it is not for
those who ask pardon that we are enjoined to pray. For those who are
already in such a state of mind are no longer enemies. By no
possibility, however, could one truthfully say that he prays for one
whom he has not pardoned. And therefore we must confess that all sins
which are committed against us are to be forgiven, if we wish those to
be forgiven by our Father which we commit against Him. For the subject
of revenge has been sufficiently discussed already, as I think. [308]
__________________________________________________________________
[302] The present with the Vulgate, Textus Receptus, Teaching of Twelve
Apostles. The perfect is found in #, B, Z, etc., and adopted by
Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Revised Version.
[303] Matt. v. 26.
[304] Luke xiii. 1-5. Moriemini; Vulgate, peribitis. Augustin has
written "Herod" instead of "Pilate."
[305] Matt. v. 40.
[306] 2 Tim. ii. 24.
[307] Not "because," nor "to the same extent as," but "in the same
manner as." It is interesting to note the contrast between the spirit
of Christianity and Islam as indicated by a comparison of this petition
with the prayer offered every night by the ten thousand students at the
Mahometan college in Cairo: "I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the
accursed. In the name of Allah the compassionate, the merciful, O Lord
of all the creatures! O Allah! destroy the infidels and polytheists,
thine enemies, the enemies of the religion. O Allah! make their
children orphans, and defile their abodes. Cause their feet to slip,"
etc.
[308] See Book i. chaps. 19, 20.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.
30. The sixth petition is, "And bring [309] us not into temptation."
Some manuscripts have the word "lead," [310] which is, I judge,
equivalent in meaning: for both translations have arisen from the one
Greek word which is used. But many parties in prayer express themselves
thus, "Suffer us not to be led into temptation;" that is to say,
explaining in what sense the word "lead" is used. For God does not
Himself lead, but suffers that man to be led into temptation whom He
has deprived of His assistance, in accordance with a most hidden
arrangement, and with his deserts. Often, also, for manifest reasons,
He judges him worthy of being so deprived, and allowed to be led into
temptation. But it is one thing to be led into temptation, another to
be tempted. For without temptation no one can be proved, whether to
himself, as it is written, "He that hath not been tempted, what manner
of things doth he know?" [311] or to another, as the apostle says, "And
your temptation in my flesh ye despised not:" [312] for from this
circumstance he learnt that they were stedfast, because they were not
turned aside from charity by those tribulations which had happened to
the apostle according to the flesh. For even before all temptations we
are known to God, who knows all things before they happen.
31. When, therefore, it is said, "The Lord your God tempteth (proveth)
you, that He may know if ye love Him," [313] the words "that He may
know" are employed for what is the real state of the case, that He may
make you know: just as we speak of a joyful day, because it makes us
joyful; of a sluggish frost, because it makes us sluggish; and of
innumerable things of the same sort, which are found either in ordinary
speech, or in the discourse of learned men, or in the Holy Scriptures.
And the heretics who are opposed to the Old Testament, not
understanding this, think that the brand of ignorance, as it were, is
to be placed upon Him of whom it is said, "The Lord your God tempteth
you:" as if in the Gospel it were not written of the Lord, "And this He
said to tempt (prove) him, for He Himself knew what He would do." [314]
For if He knew the heart of him whom He was tempting, what is it that
He wished to see by tempting him? But in reality, that was done in
order that he who was tempted might become known to himself, and that
he might condemn his own despair, on the multitudes being filled with
the Lord's bread, while he had thought they had not enough to eat.
32. Here, therefore, the prayer is not, that we should not be tempted,
but that we should not be brought into temptation: as if, were it
necessary that any one should be examined by fire, he should pray, not
that he should not be touched by the fire, but that he should not be
consumed. For "the furnace proveth the potter's vessels, and the trial
of tribulation righteous men." [315] Joseph therefore was tempted with
the allurement of debauchery, but he was not brought into temptation.
[316] Susanna was tempted, but she was not led or brought into
temptation; [317] and many others of both sexes: but Job most of all,
in regard to whose admirable stedfastness in the Lord his God, those
heretical enemies of the Old Testament, when they wish to mock at it
with sacrilegious mouth, brandish this above other weapons, that Satan
begged that he should be tempted. [318] For they put the question to
unskilful men by no means able to understand such things, how Satan
could speak with God: not understanding (for they cannot, inasmuch as
they are blinded by superstition and controversy) that God does not
occupy space by the mass of His corporeity; and thus exist in one
place, and not in another, or at least have one part here, and another
elsewhere: but that He is everywhere present in His majesty, not
divided by parts, but everywhere complete. But if they take a fleshly
view of what is said, "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool," [319] --to which passage our Lord also bears testimony,
when He says, "Swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's
throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool," [320] --what wonder
if the devil, being placed on earth, stood before the feet of God, and
spoke something in His presence? For when will they be able to
understand that there is no soul, however wicked, which can yet reason
in any way, in whose conscience God does not speak? For who but God has
written the law of nature in the hearts of men?--that law concerning
which the apostle says: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,
do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written
in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness, [321] and
their thoughts [322] the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one
another, in the day when the Lord [323] shall judge the secrets of
men." [324] And therefore, as in the case of every rational soul, which
thinks and reasons, even though blinded by passion, we attribute
whatever in its reasoning is true, not to itself but to the very light
of truth by which, however faintly, it is according to its capacity
illuminated, so as to perceive some measure of truth by its reasoning;
what wonder if the depraved spirit of the devil, perverted though it be
by lust, should be represented as having heard from the voice of God
Himself, i.e. from the voice of the very Truth, whatever true thought
it has entertained about a righteous man whom it was proposing to
tempt? But whatever is false is to be attributed to that lust from
which he has received the name of devil. Although it is also the case
that God has often spoken by means of a corporeal and visible creature
whether to good or bad, as being Lord and Governor of all, and Disposer
according to the merits of every deed: as, for instance, by means of
angels, who appeared also under the aspect of men; and by means of the
prophets, saying, Thus saith the Lord. What wonder then, if, though not
in mere thought, at least by means of some creature fitted for such a
work, God is said to have spoken with the devil?
33. And let them not imagine it unworthy of His dignity, and as it were
of His righteousness, that God spoke with him: inasmuch as He spoke
with an angelic spirit, although one foolish and lustful, just as if He
were speaking with a foolish and lustful human spirit. Or let such
parties themselves tell us how He spoke with that rich man, whose most
foolish covetousness He wished to censure, saying: "Thou fool, this
night thy soul shall be required [325] of thee: then whose shall those
things be which thou hast provided?" [326] Certainly the Lord Himself
says so in the Gospel, to which those heretics, whether they will or
no, bend their necks. But if they are puzzled by this circumstance,
that Satan asks from God that a righteous man should be tempted; I do
not explain how it happened, but I compel them to explain why it is
said in the Gospel by the Lord Himself to the disciples, "Behold, Satan
hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat;" [327] and He
says to Peter, "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not."
[328] And when they explain this to me, they explain to themselves at
the same time that which they question me about. But if they should not
be able to explain this, let them not dare with rashness to blame in
any book what they read in the Gospel without offence.
34. Temptations, therefore, take place by means of Satan not by his
power, but by the Lord's permission, either for the purpose of
punishing men for their sins, or of proving and exercising them in
accordance with the Lord's compassion. And there is a very great
difference in the nature of the temptations into which each one may
fall. For Judas, who sold his Lord, did not fall into one of the same
nature as Peter fell into, when, under the influence of terror, he
denied his Lord. There are also temptations common to man, I believe,
when every one, though well disposed, yet yielding to human frailty,
falls into error in some plan, or is irritated against a brother, in
the earnest endeavour to bring him round to what is right, yet a little
more than Christian calmness demands: concerning which temptations the
apostle says, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common
to man;" while he says at the same time, "But God is faithful, who will
not suffer [329] you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will
with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to
bear [330] it." [331] And in that sentence he makes it sufficiently
evident that we are not to pray that we may not be tempted, but that we
may not be led into temptation. For we are led into temptation, if such
temptations have happened to us as we are not able to bear. But when
dangerous temptations, into which it is ruinous for us to be brought
and led, arise either from prosperous or adverse temporal
circumstances, no one is broken down by the irksomeness of adversity,
who is not led captive by the delight of prosperity. [332]
35. The seventh and last petition is, "But deliver us from evil." [333]
For we are to pray not only that we may not be led into the evil from
which we are free, which is asked in the sixth place; but that we may
also be delivered from that into which we have been already led. And
when this has been done, nothing will remain terrible, nor will any
temptation at all have to be feared. And yet in this life, so long as
we carry about our present mortality, into which we were led by the
persuasion of the serpent, it is not to be hoped that this can be the
case; but yet we are to hope that at some future time it will take
place: and this is the hope which is not seen, of which the apostle,
when speaking, said, "But hope which is seen is not hope." [334] But
yet the wisdom which is granted in this life also, is not to be
despaired of by the faithful servants of God. And it is this, that we
should with the most wary vigilance shun what we have understood, from
the Lord's revealing it, is to be shunned; and that we should with the
most ardent love seek after what we have understood, from the Lord's
revealing it, is to be sought after. For thus, after the remaining
burden of this mortality has been laid down in the act of dying, there
shall be perfected in every part of man at the fit time, the
blessedness which has been begun in this life, and which we have from
time to time strained every nerve to lay hold of and secure.
__________________________________________________________________
[309] Inferas...inducas, as the Vulgate.
[310] Inferas...inducas, as the Vulgate.
[311] Ecclus. xxxiv. 9, 11.
[312] Gal. iv. 13, 14. The English version renders "my temptation," but
"your temptation" is the reading of the oldest mss.
[313] Deut. xiii. 3.
[314] John vi. 6.
[315] Ecclus. xxvii. 5.
[316] Gen. xxxix. 7-12.
[317] Hist. of Sus. i. 19-22.
[318] Job i. 11.
[319] Isa. lxvi. 1.
[320] Matt. v. 34, 35.
[321] Contestante; Vulgate, testimonium reddente.
[322] Cogitationum accusantium; Vulgate, cogitationibus accusantibus.
[323] Dominus; Vulgate, Deus.
[324] Rom. ii. 14-16.
[325] Anima expostulatur; Vulgate, animam repetunt.
[326] Luke xii. 20.
[327] Petit vos vexare quomodo triticum; Vulgate, expetivit vos ut
cribraret sicut triticum.
[328] Luke xxii. 31, 32.
[329] Sinat; Vulgate, patietur.
[330] Tolerare; Vulgate, sustinere.
[331] 1 Cor. x. 13.
[332] Trench, giving the essence of Augustin's discussion, says, "God
does tempt quite as truly as the devil tempts; all the difference lies
in the end and aim with which they severally do it,--the one tempting
to deceive, the other to approve: Satan, to their ruin; God, to their
everlasting gain."
[333] Alford and other modern commentators agree with Augustin in
explaining apo tou ponerou "of evil;" Bengel, Meyer, Schaff, and others
(see Revised Version) make the form masculine,--"the Evil One."
[334] Rom. viii. 24.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X.
36. But the distinction among these seven petitions is to be considered
and commended. For inasmuch as our temporal life is being spent now,
and that which is eternal hoped for, and inasmuch as eternal things are
superior in point of dignity, albeit it is only when we have done with
temporal things that we pass to the other; although the three first
petitions begin to be answered in this life, which is being spent in
the present world (for both the hallowing of God's name begins to be
carried on just with the coming of the lord of humility; and the coming
of His kingdom, to which He will come in splendour, will be manifested,
not after the end of the world, but in the end of the world; and the
perfect doing of His will in earth as in heaven, whether you understand
by heaven and earth the righteous and sinners, or spirit and flesh, or
the Lord and the Church, or all these things together, will be brought
to completion just with the perfecting of our blessedness, and
therefore at the close of the world), yet all three will remain to
eternity. For both the hallowing of God's name will go on for ever, and
there is no end of His kingdom, and eternal life is promised to our
perfected blessedness. Hence those three things will remain consummated
and thoroughly completed in that life which is promised us.
37. But the other four things which we ask seem to me to belong to this
temporal life. [335] And the first of them is, "Give us this day our
daily bread." For whether by this same thing which is called daily
bread be meant spiritual bread, or that which is visible in the
sacrament or in this sustenance of ours, it belongs to the present
time, which He has called "to-day," not because spiritual food is not
everlasting, but because that which is called daily food in the
Scriptures is represented to the soul either by the sound of the
expression or by temporal signs of any kind: things all of which will
certainly no more have existence when all shall be taught of God, [336]
and thus shall no longer be making known to others by movement of their
bodies, but drinking in each one for himself by the purity of his mind
the ineffable light of truth itself. For perhaps for this reason also
it is called bread, not drink, because bread is converted into aliment
by breaking and masticating it, just as the Scriptures feed the soul by
being opened up and made the subject of discourse; but drink, when
prepared, passes as it is into the body: so that at present the truth
is bread, when it is called daily bread; but then it will be drink,
when there will be no need of the labour of discussing and discoursing,
as it were of breaking and masticating, but merely of drinking
unmingled and transparent truth. And sins are at present forgiven us,
and at present we forgive them; which is the second petition of these
four that remain: but then there will be no pardon of sins, because
there will be no sins. And temptations molest this temporal life; but
they will have no existence when these words shall be fully realized,
"Thou shall hide them in the secret of Thy presence." [337] And the
evil from which we wish to be delivered, and the deliverance from evil
itself, belong certainly to this life, which as being mortal we have
deserved at the hand of God's justice, and from which we are delivered
by His mercy.
__________________________________________________________________
[335] Or, as he expresses it in another place (Sermon lvii. 7), "to
this life of our pilgrimage" ("ista vita peregrinationis nostrae").
[336] Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45.
[337] Ps. xxxi. 20.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.
38. The sevenfold number of these petitions also seems to me to
correspond to that sevenfold number out of which the whole sermon
before us has had its rise. [338] For if it is the fear of God through
which the poor in spirit are blessed, inasmuch as theirs is the kingdom
of heaven; let us ask that the name of God may be hallowed among men
through that "fear which is clean, enduring for ever." [339] If it is
piety through which the meek are blessed, inasmuch as they shall
inherit the earth; let us ask that His kingdom may come, whether it be
over ourselves, that we may become meek, and not resist Him, or whether
it be from heaven to earth in the splendour of the Lord's advent, in
which we shall rejoice, and shall be praised, when He says, "Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit [340] the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation [341] of the world." [342] For "in the Lord," says the
prophet, "shall my soul be praised; the meek shall hear thereof, and be
glad." [343] If it is knowledge through which those who mourn are
blessed, inasmuch as they shall be comforted; let us pray that His will
may be done as in heaven so in earth, because when the body, which is
as it were the earth, shall agree in a final and complete peace with
the soul, which is as it were heaven, we shall not mourn: for there is
no other mourning belonging to this present time, except when these
contend against each other, and compel us to say, "I see another law in
my members, warring against the law of my mind;" and to testify our
grief with tearful voice, "O wretched [344] man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?" [345] If it is fortitude
through which those are blessed who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, inasmuch as they shall be filled; let us pray that our
daily bread may be given to us to-day, by which, supported and
sustained, we may be able to reach that most abundant fulness. If it is
prudence through which the merciful are blessed, inasmuch as they shall
obtain mercy; let us forgive their debts to our debtors, and let us
pray that ours may be forgiven to us. If it is understanding through
which the pure in heart are blessed, inasmuch as they shall see God;
let us pray not to be led into temptation, lest we should have a double
heart, in not seeking after a single good, to which we may refer all
our actings, but at the same time pursuing things temporal and earthly.
For temptations arising from those things which seem to men burdensome
and calamitous, have no power over us, if those other temptations have
no power which befall us through the enticements of such things as men
count good and cause for rejoicing. If it is wisdom through which the
peacemakers are blessed, inasmuch as they shall be called the children
of God; [346] let us pray that we may be freed from evil, for that very
freedom will make us free, i.e. sons of God, so that we may cry in the
spirit of adoption, "Abba, Father." [347]
39. Nor are we indeed carelessly to pass by the circumstance, that of
all those sentences in which the Lord has taught us to pray, He has
judged that that one is chiefly to be commended which has reference to
the forgiveness of sins: in which He would have us to be merciful,
because it is the only wisdom for escaping misery. For in no other
sentence do we pray in such a way that we, as it were, enter into a
compact with God: for we say, "Forgive us, as we also forgive." And if
we lie in that compact, the whole prayer is fruitless. For He speaks
thus: "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
__________________________________________________________________
[338] Lange draws a comparison between the petitions and the Beatitudes
similar to that which follows.
[339] Ps. xix. 9.
[340] Accipite; Vulgate, possidete.
[341] Origine, Vulgate, constitutione.
[342] Matt. xxv. 34.
[343] Ps. xxxiv. 2.
[344] Miser; Vulgate, infelix.
[345] Rom. vii. 23, 24.
[346] Matt. v. 3-9.
[347] Rom. viii. 15 and Gal. iv. 6.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.
40. There follows a precept concerning fasting, having reference to
that same purification of heart which is at present under discussion.
For in this work also we must be on our guard, lest there should creep
in a certain ostentation and hankering after the praise of man, which
would make the heart double, and not allow it to be pure and single for
apprehending God. "Moreover, when ye fast," says He, "be not, as the
hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, [348]
that they may appear [349] unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you,
they have their reward. But ye, [350] when ye fast, anoint your head,
and wash your face; that ye appear not unto men to fast, but unto your
Father which is in secret: and your Father, which seeth in secret,
shall reward you." It is manifest from these precepts that all our
effort is to be directed towards inward joys, lest, seeking a reward
from without, we should be conformed to this world, and should lose the
promise of a blessedness so much the more solid and firm, as it is
inward, in which God has chosen that we should become conformed to the
image of His Son. [351]
41. But in this section it is chiefly to be noticed, that there may be
ostentatious display not merely in the splendour and pomp of things
pertaining to the booty, but also in doleful squalor itself; and the
more dangerous on this account, that it deceives under the name of
serving God. And therefore he who is very conspicuous by immoderate
attention to the body, and by the splendour of his clothing or other
things, is easily convicted by the things themselves of being a
follower of the pomps of the world, and misleads no one by a cunning
semblance of sanctity; but in regard to him who under a profession of
Christianity, fixes the eyes of men upon himself by unusual squalor and
filth, when he does it voluntarily, and not under the pressure of
necessity, it may be conjectured from the rest of his actings whether
he does this from contempt of superfluous attention to the body, or
from a certain ambition: for the Lord has enjoined us to beware of
wolves under a sheep's skin; but "by their fruits," says He, "shall ye
know them." For when by temptations of any kind those very things begin
to be withdrawn from them or refused to them, which under that veil
they either have obtained or desire to obtain, then of necessity it
appears whether it is a wolf in a sheep's skin or a sheep in its own.
For a Christian ought not to delight the eyes of men by superfluous
ornament on this account, because pretenders also too often assume that
frugal and merely necessary dress, that they may deceive those who are
not on their guard: for those sheep also ought not to lay aside their
own skins, if at any time wolves cover themselves there with.
42. It is usual, therefore, to ask what He means, when He says: "But
ye, when ye fast, anoint your head, and wash your faces, that ye appear
not unto men to fast." For it would not be right in any one to teach
(although we may wash our face according to daily custom) that we ought
also to have our heads anointed when we fast. If, then, all admit this
to be most unseemly, we must understand this precept with respect to
anointing the head and washing the face as referring to the inner man.
[352] Hence, to anoint the head refers to joy; to wash the face, on the
other hand, refers to purity: and therefore that man anoints his head
who rejoices inwardly in his mind and reason. For we rightly understand
that as being the head which has the pre-eminence in the soul, and by
which it is evident that the other parts of man are ruled and governed.
And this is done by him who does not seek his joy from without, so as
to draw his delight in a fleshly way from the praises of men. For the
flesh, which ought to be subject, is in no way the head of the whole
nature of man. "No man," indeed, "ever yet hated his own flesh," as the
apostle says, when giving the precept as to loving one's wife; [353]
but the man is the head of the woman, and Christ is the head of the
man. [354] Let him, therefore, rejoice inwardly in his fasting [355] in
this very circumstance, that by his fasting he so turns away from the
pleasure of the world as to be subject to Christ, who according to this
precept desires to have the head anointed. For thus also he will wash
his face, i.e. cleanse his heart, with which he shall see God, no veil
being interposed on account of the infirmity contracted from squalor;
but being firm and stedfast, inasmuch as he is pure and guileless.
"Wash you," says He, "make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
from before mine eyes." [356] From the squalor, therefore, by which the
eye of God is offended, our face is to be washed. For we, with open
face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into
the same image. [357]
43. Often also the thought of things necessary belonging to this life
wounds and defiles our inner eye; and frequently it makes the heart
double, so that in regard to those things in which we seem to act
rightly with our fellowmen, we do not act with that heart wherewith the
Lord enjoins us; i.e., it is not because we love them, but because we
wish to obtain some advantage from them for the necessity of the
present life. But we ought to do them good for their eternal salvation,
not for our own temporal advantage. May God, therefore, incline our
heart to His testimonies, and not to covetousness. [358] For "the end
of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good
conscience, and of faith unfeigned." [359] But he who looks after his
brother from a regard to his own necessities in this life, does not
certainly do so from love, because he does not look after him whom he
ought to love as himself, but after himself; or rather not even after
himself, seeing that in this way he makes his own heart double, by
which he is hindered from seeing God, in the vision of whom alone there
is certain and lasting blessedness.
__________________________________________________________________
[348] Vultum...videantur; Vulgate, facies...appareant. The Greek has a
play on words, aphanizousi...phanosi ("they mar their appearance, that
they may make an appearance").
[349] Vultum...videantur; Vulgate, facies...appareant. The Greek has a
play on words, aphanizousi...phanosi ("they mar their appearance, that
they may make an appearance").
[350] Vulgate has the singular as the Greek. The Pharisees were
scrupulous in keeping fast-days. Monday and Thursday were observed by
the strict with different degrees of scrupulosity,--the lowest
admitting of washing and anointing the head. (See Schuerer, N.
Zeitgesch. p. 505 sqq.). The early practice of fasting in the
sub-apostolic Church is evident from the Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, which enjoins it before baptism, and on the "fourth day and
the Preparation Day" (vii., viii.).
[351] Rom. viii. 29.
[352] So modern exegetes (Meyer, etc.).
[353] Eph. v. 25-33.
[354] 1 Cor. xi. 3.
[355] "It hardly needs to add," says Trench, "that Augustin everywhere
interprets `when ye fast' as a command."
[356] Isa. i. 16.
[357] 2 Cor. iii. 18.
[358] Ps. cxix. 36.
[359] 1 Tim. i. 5.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.
44. Rightly, therefore, does he who is intent on cleansing our heart
follow up [360] what He has said with a precept, where He says: "Lay
not up [361] for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
[362] doth corrupt, [363] and where thieves break through and steal:
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be [364] also." If,
therefore, the heart be on earth, i.e. if one perform anything with a
heart bent on obtaining earthly advantage, how will that heart be clean
which wallows on earth? But if it be in heaven, it will be clean,
because whatever things are heavenly are clean. For anything becomes
polluted when it is mixed with a nature that is inferior, although not
polluted of its kind; for gold is polluted even by pure silver, if it
be mixed with it: so also our mind becomes polluted by the desire after
earthly things, although the earth itself be pure of its kind and
order. But we would not understand heaven in this passage as anything
corporeal, because everything corporeal is to be reckoned as earth. For
he who lays up treasure for himself in heaven ought to despise the
whole world. Hence it is in that heaven of which it is said, "The
heaven of heavens is the Lord's, [365] i.e. in the spiritual firmament:
for it is not in that which is to pass away that we ought to fix and
place our treasure and our heart, but in that which ever abideth; but
heaven and earth shall pass away. [366]
45. And here He makes it manifest that He gives all these precepts with
a view to the cleansing of the heart, when He says: "The candle [367]
of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole
body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body
shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light [lamp] [368] that
is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" And this passage
we are to understand in such a way as to learn from it that all our
works are pure and well-pleasing in the sight of God, when they are
done with a single heart, i.e. with a heavenly intent, having that end
of love in view; for love is also the fulfilling of the law. [369]
Hence we ought to take the eye here in the sense of the intent itself,
wherewith we do whatever we are doing; and if this be pure and right,
and looking at that which ought to be looked at, all our works which we
perform in accordance therewith are necessarily good. And all those
works He has called the whole body; for the apostle also speaks of
certain works of which he disapproves as our members, and teaches that
they are to be mortified, saying, "Mortify therefore your members which
are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, covetousness," [370] and
all other such things. [371]
46. It is not, therefore, what one does, but the intent with which he
does it, that is to be considered. For this is the light in us, because
it is a thing manifest to ourselves that we do with a good intent what
we are doing; for everything which is made manifest is light. [372] For
the deeds themselves which go forth from us to human society, have an
uncertain issue; and therefore He has called them darkness. For I do
not know, when I present money to a poor man who asks it, either what
he is to do with it, or what he is to suffer from it; and it may happen
that he does some evil with it, or suffers some evil on account of it,
a thing I did not wish to happen when I gave it to him, nor would I
have given it with such an intention. If, therefore, I did it with a
good intention,--a thing which was known to me when I was doing it, and
is therefore called light,--my deed also is lighted up, whatever issue
it shall have; but that issue, inasmuch as it is uncertain and unknown,
is called darkness. But if I have done it with a bad intent, the light
itself even is darkness. For it is spoken of as light, because every
one knows with what intent he acts, even when he acts with a bad
intent; but the light itself is darkness, because the aim is not
directed singly to things above, but is turned downwards to things
beneath, and makes, as it were, a shadow by means of a double heart.
"If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is
that darkness!" i.e., if the very intent of the heart with which you do
what you are doing (which is known to you) is polluted by the hunger
after earthly and temporal things, and blinded, how much more is the
deed itself, whose issue is uncertain, polluted and full of darkness!
Because, although what you do with an intent which is neither upright
nor pure, may turn out for some one's good, it is the way in which you
have done it, not how it has turned out for him, that is reckoned to
you. [373]
__________________________________________________________________
[360] Having uttered warnings against formalists, the Lord now passes
to the complete dedication of the heart.
[361] Condere...tinea et comestura exterminant; Vulgate,
thesaurizare...aerugo et tinea domolitur.
[362] Not the specific rust of metals; wider sense of wear and tear.
[363] Condere...tinea et comestura exterminant; Vulgate,
thesaurizare...aerugo et tinea domolitur.
[364] Erit; Vulgate, est.
[365] Ps. cxv. 16.
[366] Matt. xxiv. 35. Robert South gives his sermon on this passage the
heading, "No man ever went to heaven whose heart was not there before."
It has been remarked, as regards an earthly Church, one does not take
abiding interest in it unless one gives toward it.
[367] Lucerna...lumen.
[368] Lucerna...lumen.
[369] Rom. xiii. 10.
[370] Col. iii. 5.
[371] "Singleness of intention will preserve us from the snare of
having a double treasure, and therefore a divided heart" (Plumptre).
[372] Eph. v. 13. Augustin's rendering here is the true sense of the
original.
[373] The eye is as the lamp (Revised Version) through which the body
gets light,--the organ whose proper work it is to transmit light. The
blind have no light, because their lamp is out or destroyed. The light
within us is "the reason, especially the practical reason" (Meyer);
that which is left of the divine image in man (Tholuck); the reason
that was left after the fall of Adam (Calvin); the Old-Testament
revelation perverted (Lange); the conscience (Alford). "The spirit of
man is the candle (lamp, Revised Version) of the Lord" (Prov. xx. 27):
it guides the faculties of the soul. But if it be in darkness how great
is that darkness; i.e. the darkness which already existed! What a
terrible condition those are in who do not receive the Spirit of
enlightenment (who becomes the "inner light"), and feel no need of Him!
"He whose affections are on heavenly things, has his whole soul
lighted; he whose affections are depraved, has his understanding and
his whole soul darkened also" (Mansel).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.
47. Then, further, the statement which follows, "No man can serve two
masters," is to be referred to this very intent, as He goes on to
explain, saying: "For either he will hate the one, and love the other;
or else he will [374] submit to the one, and despise the other." And
these words are to be carefully considered; for who the two masters are
he forthwith shows, when He says, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Riches are said to be called mammon among the Hebrews. The Punic name
also corresponds: for gain is called mammon in Punic. [375] But he who
serves mammon certainly serves him who, as being set over those earthly
things in virtue of his perversity, is called by our Lord the prince of
this world. [376] A man will therefore "either hate" this one, "and
love the other," i.e. God; "or he will submit to the one, and despise
the other." For whoever serves mammon submits to a hard and ruinous
master: for, being entangled by his own lust, he becomes a subject of
the devil, and he does not love him; for who is there who loves the
devil? But yet he submits to him; as in any large house he who is
connected with another man's maid servant submits to hard bondage on
account of his passion. even though he does not love him whose
maid-servant he loves.
48. But "he will despise the other," He has said; not, he will hate.
For almost no one's conscience can hate God; but he despises, i.e. he
does not fear Him, as if feeling himself secure in consideration of His
goodness. From this carelessness and ruinous security the Holy Spirit
recalls us, when He says by the prophet, "My son, do not add sin upon
sin, and say, The mercy of God is great ;" [377] and, "Knowest thou not
that the patience [378] of God inviteth [379] thee to repentance?"
[380] For whose mercy can be mentioned as being so great as His, who
pardons all the sins of those who return, and makes the wild olive a
partaker of the fatness of the olive? and whose severity as being so
great as His, who spared not the natural branches, but broke them off
because of unbelief? [381] But let not any one who wishes to love God,
and to beware of offending Him, suppose that he can serve two masters;
[382] and let him disentangle the upright intention of his heart from
all doubleness: for thus he will think of the Lord with a good heart,
and in simplicity of heart will seek Him. [383]
__________________________________________________________________
[374] Alterum patietur; Vulgate, unum sustinebit.
[375] Augustin is the only one to give this derivation. His residence
in North Africa is the explanation of his knowledge of the Punic. The
word probably comes from the Chaldee and through the Hebrew word aman,
"what is trusted in." (See Thayer, Lexicon.)
[376] John xii. 31 and xiv. 30.
[377] Ecclus. v. 5, 6.
[378] Patientia...invitat; Vulgate, benignitas...adducit.
[379] Patientia...invitat; Vulgate, benignitas...adducit.
[380] Rom. ii. 4.
[381] Rom. xi. 17-24.
[382] Luther says the world can do it in a masterly way, and carry the
tree (or "water" according to the English figure) on both shoulders.
This verse is a rebuke to those who think they can combine a supreme
affection for heavenly and for earthly things at the same time, and
pursue both with equal zeal.
[383] Wisd. i. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.
49. "Therefore," says He, "I say unto you, Have not anxiety [384] for
your life, what ye shall eat; [385] nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on." Lest perchance, although it is not now superfluities
that are sought after, the heart should be made double by reason of
necessaries themselves, and the aim should be wrenched aside to seek
after those things of our own, when we are doing something as it were
from compassion; i.e. so that when we wish to appear to be consulting
for some one's good, we are in that matter looking after our own profit
rather than his advantage: and we do not seem to ourselves to be
sinning for this reason, that it is not superfluities, but necessaries,
which we wish to obtain. But the Lord admonishes us that we should
remember that God, when He made and compounded us of body and soul,
gave us much more than food and clothing, through care for which He
would not have us make our hearts double. "Is not," says He, "the soul
more than the meat?" So that you are to understand that He who gave the
soul will much more easily give meat. "And the body than the raiment,"
i.e. is more than raiment: so that similarly you are to understand,
that He who gave the body will much more easily give raiment.
50. And in this passage the question is wont to be raised, whether the
food spoken of has reference to the soul, since the soul is
incorporeal, and the food in question is corporeal food. But let us
admit that the soul in this passage stands for the present life, whose
support is that corporeal nourishment. In accordance with this
signification we have also that statement: "He that loveth his soul
shall lose it." [386] And here, unless we understand the expression of
this present life, which we ought to lose for the kingdom of God, as it
is clear the martyrs were able to do, this precept will be in
contradiction to that sentence where it is said: "What is a man
profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose [387] his own
soul?" [388]
51. "Behold," says He, "the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither
do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them: are ye not much better than they?" i.e. ye are of more value. For
surely a rational being such as man has a higher rank in the nature of
things than irrational ones, such as birds. "Which of you, by taking
thought, [389] can add one cubit unto his stature? [390] And why take
ye thought for raiment?" That is to say, the providence of Him by whose
power and sovereignty it has come about that your body was brought up
to its present stature, can also clothe you; but that it is not by your
care that it has come about that your body should arrive at this
stature, may be understood from this circumstance, that if you should
take thought, and should wish to add one cubit to this stature, you
cannot. Leave, therefore, the care of protecting the body to Him by
whose care you see it has come about that you have a body of such a
stature.
52. But an example was to be given for the clothing too, just as one is
given for the food. Hence He goes on to say, "Consider the lilies of
the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet
I say unto you, that even Solomon [391] in all his glory was not
arrayed [392] like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass
of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven;
shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?" But these
examples are not to be treated as allegories, so that we should inquire
what the fowls of heaven or the lilies of the field mean: for they
stand here, in order that from smaller matters we may be persuaded
respecting greater ones; [393] just as is the case in regard to the
judge who neither feared God nor regarded man, and yet yielded to the
widow who often importuned him to consider her case, not from piety or
humanity, but that he might be saved annoyance. For that unjust judge
does not in any way allegorically represent the person of God; but yet
as to how far God, who is good and just, cares for those who supplicate
Him, our Lord wished the inference to be drawn from this circumstance,
that not even an unjust man can despise those who assail him with
unceasing petitions, even were his motive merely to avoid annoyance.
[394]
__________________________________________________________________
[384] Habere sollicitudinem; Vulgate, sollicitae sitis.
[385] Edatis; Vulgate, manducetis.
[386] John xii. 25.
[387] Detrimentum faciat; Vulgate, detrimentum patiatur.
[388] Matt. xvi. 26.
[389] Curans; Vulgate, cogitans.
[390] The term helikia, translated by Augustin and the Vulgate statura,
and by the English version stature, more probably means the measure of
life, or age (American notes to Revised Version, Tholuck, De Wette,
Trench, Alford, Meyer, Schaff, Plumptre, Weiss, etc.) A cubit was equal
to the length of the forearm. The force of the Lord's words would be
greatly diminished if such a measure was conceived of as possible to be
added to the stature. The idea is, that human ingenuity and labor
cannot add the least measure.
[391] To the Jew the highest representative of splendour and pomp.
[392] Vestitutus; Vulgate, coopertus. "As the beauties of the flower
are unfolded by the divine Creator Spirit from within, from the laws
and capacities of its own individual life, so must all true adornment
of man be unfolded from within by the same Spirit. This hidden meaning
must not be overlooked" (Alford). The law of spiritual growth is
mysterious and spontaneous.
[393] The argument, so called, a minore ad majus.
[394] Luke xviii. 2-8.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.
53. "Therefore be not anxious," says He," saying, What shall we eat?
[395] or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
[396] (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first
the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be
added [397] unto you." Here He shows most manifestly that these things
are not to be sought as if they were our blessings in such sort, that
on account of them we ought to do well in all our actings, but yet that
they are necessary. For what the difference is between a blessing which
is to be sought, and a necessary which is to be taken for use, He has
made plain by this sentence, when He says, "Seek ye first the kingdom
of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto
you." [398] The kingdom and the righteousness of God therefore are our
good; and this is to be sought, and there the end is to be set up, on
account of which we are to do everything which we do. But because we
serve as soldiers in this life, in order that we may be able to reach
that kingdom, and because our life cannot be spent without these
necessaries, "These things shall be added unto you," says He; "but seek
ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." For in using that
word "first," He has indicated that this is to be sought later, not in
point of time, but in point of importance: the one as being our good,
the other as being something necessary for us; but the necessary on
account of that good.
54. For neither ought we, for example, to preach the gospel with this
object, that we may eat; but to eat with this object, that we may
preach the gospel: for if we preach the gospel for this cause, that we
may eat, we reckon the gospel of less value than food; and in that case
our good will be in eating, but that which is necessary for us in
preaching the gospel. And this the apostle also forbids, when he says
it is lawful for himself even, and permitted by the Lord, that they who
preach the gospel should live of the gospel, i.e. should have from the
gospel the necessaries of this life; but yet that he has not made use
of this power. For there were many who were desirous of having an
occasion for getting and selling the gospel, from whom the apostle
wished to cut off this occasion, and therefore he submitted to a way of
living by his own hands. [399] For concerning these parties he says in
another passage, "That I may cut off occasion from them which seek
[400] occasion." [401] Although even if, like the rest of the good
apostles, by the permission of the Lord he should live of the gospel,
he would not on that account place the end of preaching the gospel in
that living, but would rather make the gospel the end of his living;
i.e., as I have said above, he would not preach the gospel with this
object, that he might get his food and all other necessaries; but he
would take such things for this purpose, in order that he might carry
out that other object, viz. that willingly, and not of necessity, he
should preach the gospel. For this he disapproves of when he says, "Do
ye not know, that they which minister in the temple [402] eat the
things which are of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are
partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they
which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none
of these things." Hence he shows that it was permitted, not commanded;
otherwise he will be held to have acted contrary to the precept of the
Lord. Then he goes on to say: "Neither have I written these things,
that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die,
than that any man should make my glorying void." [403] This he said, as
he had already resolved, because of some who were seeking occasion, to
gain a living by his own hands. "For if I preach the gospel," says he,
"I have nothing to glory of:" i.e., if I preach the gospel in order
that such things may be done in my case, or, if I preach with this
object, in order that I may obtain those things, and if I thus place
the end of the gospel in meat and drink and clothing. But wherefore has
he nothing to glory of? "Necessity," says he," is laid upon me;" i.e.
so that I should preach the gospel for this reason, because I have not
the means of living, or so that I should acquire temporal fruit from
the preaching of eternal things; for thus, consequently, the preaching
of the gospel will be a matter of necessity, not of free choice. "For
woe is unto me," says he, "if I preach not the gospel!" But how ought
he to preach the gospel? Evidently in such a way as to place the reward
in the gospel itself, and in the kingdom of God: for thus he can preach
the gospel, not of constraint, but willingly. "For if I do this thing
willingly," says he, "I have a reward: but if against my will, a
dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me;" [404] if, constrained
by the want of those things which are necessary for temporal life, I
preach the gospel, others will have through me the reward of the
gospel, who love the gospel itself when I preach it; but I shall not
have it, because it is not the gospel itself I love, but its price
lying in those temporal things. And this is something sinful, that any
one should minister the gospel not as a son, but as a servant to whom a
stewardship of it has been committed; that he should, as it were, pay
out what belongs to another, but should himself receive nothing from it
except victuals, which are given not in consideration of his sharing in
the kingdom, but from without, for the support of a miserable bondage.
Although in another passage he calls himself also a steward. For a
servant also, when adopted into the number of the children, is able
faithfully to dispense to those who share with him that property in
which he has acquired the lot of a fellow-heir. But in the present
case, where he says, "But if against my will, a dispensation
(stewardship) is committed unto me," he wished such a steward to be
understood as dispenses what belongs to another, and from it gets
nothing himself.
55. Hence anything whatever that is sought for the sake of something
else, is doubtless inferior to that for the sake of which it is sought;
and therefore that is first for the sake of which you seek such a
thing, not the thing which you seek for the sake of that other. And for
this reason, if we seek the gospel and the kingdom of God for the sake
of food, we place food first, and the kingdom of God last; so that if
food were not to fail us, we would not seek the kingdom of God: this is
to seek food first, and then the kingdom of God. But if we seek food
for this end, that we may gain the kingdom of God, we do what is said,
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these
things shall be added unto you." [405]
__________________________________________________________________
[395] Edemus...vestiemur; Vulgate, manducabimus...operiemur.
[396] Edemus...vestiemur; Vulgate, manducabimus...operiemur.
[397] Apponentur; Vulgate, adjicientur.
[398] Matt. vi. 33.
[399] Acts xx. 34.
[400] Quaerunt; Vulgate, volunt.
[401] 2 Cor. xi. 12.
[402] Templo; Vulgate, sacrario.
[403] Inanem faciat; Vulgate, evacuet.
[404] 1 Cor. ix. 13-17.
[405] Nor is it said, "Seek...in order that all these things may be
added:" simply, "and all," etc., yet largely inclusive,--sanctity and
comfort. The comfort follows naturally. The passage is a rebuke to
those who condemn the amenities of life and art, and a caution to those
who place these things before themselves as a chief end. The passage
justifies the statement that religion (or godliness) is profitable for
the life that now is. The Psalmist never saw the righteous forsaken. A
traditional saying of Jesus, quoted by Clement, Origen, and Eusebius,
runs, "Ask great things, and little things shall be added; ask heavenly
things, and earthly things shall be added."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.
56. For in the case of those who are seeking first the kingdom of God
and His righteousness, i.e. who are preferring this to all other
things, so that for its sake they are seeking the other things, there
ought not to remain behind the anxiety lest those things should fail
which are necessary to this life for the sake of the kingdom of God.
For He has said above, "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of all
these things." And therefore, when He had said, "Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness," He did not say, Then seek such
things (although they are necessary), but He affirms "all these things
shall be added unto you," [406] i.e. will follow, if ye seek the
former, without any hindrance on your part: lest while ye seek such
things, ye should be turned away from the other; or lest ye should set
up two things to be aimed at, so as to seek both the kingdom of God for
its own sake, and such necessaries: but these rather for the sake of
that other; so shall they not be wanting to you. For ye cannot serve
two masters. But the man is attempting to serve two masters, who seeks
both the kingdom of God as a great good, and these temporal things. He
will not, however, be able to have a single eye, and to serve the Lord
God alone, unless he take all other things, so far as they are
necessary, for the sake of this one thing, i.e. for the sake of the
kingdom of God. But as all who serve as soldiers receive provisions and
pay, so all who preach the gospel receive food and clothing. But all do
not serve as soldiers for the welfare of the republic, but some do so
for what they get: so also all do not minister to God for the welfare
of the Church, but some do so for the sake of these temporal things,
which they are to obtain in the shape as it were of provisions and pay;
or both for the one thing and for the other. But it has been already
said above, "Ye cannot serve two masters." Hence it is with a single
heart and only for the sake of the kingdom of God that we ought to do
good to all; and we ought not in doing so to think either of the
temporal reward alone, or of that along with the kingdom of God: all
which temporal things He has placed under the category of to-morrow,
saying, "Take no thought for to-morrow." [407] For to-morrow is not
spoken of except in time, where the future succeeds the past.
Therefore, when we do anything good, let us not think of what is
temporal, but of what is eternal; then will that be a good and perfect
work. "For the morrow," says He, "will be anxious for the things of
itself;" [408] i.e., so that, when you ought, you will take food, or
drink, or clothing, that is to say, when necessity itself begins to
urge you. For these things will be within reach, because our Father
knoweth that we have need of all these things. For "sufficient unto the
day," says He, "is the evil thereof;" [409] i.e. it is sufficient that
necessity itself will urge us to take such things. And for this reason,
I suppose, it is called evil, because for us it is penal: for it
belongs to this frailty and mortality which we have earned by sinning.
Do not add, therefore, to this punishment of temporal necessity
anything more burdensome, so that you should not only suffer the want
of such things, but should also for the purpose of satisfying this want
enlist as a soldier for God.
57. In the use of this passage, however, we must be very specially on
our guard, lest perchance, when we see any servant of God making
provision that such necessaries shall not be wanting either to himself
or to those with whose care he has been entrusted, we should decide
that he is acting contrary to the Lord's precept, and is anxious for
the morrow. [410] For the Lord Himself also, although angels ministered
to Him, [411] yet for the sake of example, that no one might afterwards
be scandalized when he observed any of His servants procuring such
necessaries, condescended to have money bags, out of which whatever
might be required for necessary uses might be provided; of which bags,
as it is written, Judas, who betrayed Him, was the keeper and the
thief. [412] In like manner, the Apostle Paul also may seem to have
taken thought for the morrow, when he said: "Now concerning the
collection for the saints, as I have given order to the saints of
Galatia, even so do ye: upon the first day of the week let every one of
you lay by him in store [413] what shall seem good unto him, that there
be no gatherings when I come. And when I come [414] whomsoever ye shall
approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto
Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me. Now
I will come unto you when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I shall
pass through Macedonia. And it may be that I will abide, yea, and
winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.
For I will not see you now by the way; but I trust to tarry a while
with you, if the Lord permit. But I will tarry at Ephesus until
Pentecost." [415] In the Acts of the Apostles also it is written, that
such things as are necessary for food were provided for the future, on
account of an impending famine. For we thus read: "And in these days
came prophets down from Jerusalem to Antioch, [416] and there was great
rejoicing. And when we were gathered together, [417] there stood up one
of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be
great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days
of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every one according to his
ability, determined to send relief to the elders for the brethren which
dwelt in Judaea, which also they did by the hands of Barnabas and
Saul." [418] And in the case of the necessaries presented to him,
wherewith the same Apostle Paul when setting sail was laden, [419] food
seems to have been furnished for more than a single day. And when the
same apostle writes, "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let
him labour, working [420] with his hands the thing which is good, that
he may have to give to him that needeth;" [421] to those who
misunderstand him he does not seem to keep the Lord's precept, which
runs, "Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they
reap, nor gather into barns;" and, "Consider the lilies of the field,
how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin;" while he enjoins
the parties in question to labour, working with their hands, that they
may have something which they may be able to give to others also. And
in what he often says of himself, that he wrought with his hands that
he might not be burdensome; [422] and in what is written of him, that
he joined himself to Aquila on account of the similarity of their
occupation, in order that they might work together at that from which
they might make a living; [423] he does not seem to have imitated the
birds of the air and the lilies of the field. From these and such like
passages of Scripture, it is sufficiently apparent that our Lord does
not disapprove of it, when one looks after such things in the ordinary
way that men do; but only when one enlists as a soldier of God for the
sake of such things, so that in what he does he fixes his eye not on
the kingdom of God, but on the acquisition of such things.
58. Hence this whole precept is reduced to the following rule, that
even in looking after such things we should think of the kingdom of
God, but in the service of the kingdom of God we should not think of
such things. For in this way, although they should sometimes be wanting
(a thing which God often permits for the purpose of exercising us),
they not only do not weaken our proposition, but even strengthen it,
when it is examined and tested. For, says He, "we glory in tribulations
also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and patience
experience, and experience hope: And hope maketh not ashamed, because
the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is
given unto us." [424] Now, in the mention of his tribulations and
labours, the same apostle mentions that he has had to endure not only
prisons and shipwrecks and many such like annoyances, but also hunger
and thirst, cold and nakedness. [425] But when we read this, let us not
imagine that the promises of God have wavered, so that the apostle
suffered hunger and thirst and nakedness while seeking the kingdom and
righteousness of God, although it is said to us, "Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be
added unto you:" since that Physician to whom we have once for all
entrusted ourselves wholly, and from whom we have the promise of life
present and future, knows such things just as helps, when He sets them
before us, when He takes them away, just as He judges it expedient for
us; whom He rules and directs as parties who require both to be
comforted and exercised in this life, and after this life to be
established and confirmed in perpetual rest. For man also, when he
frequently takes away the fodder from his beast of burden, is not
depriving it of his care, but rather does what he is doing in the
exercise of care.
__________________________________________________________________
[406] Nor is it said, "Seek...in order that all these things may be
added:" simply, "and all," etc., yet largely inclusive,--sanctity and
comfort. The comfort follows naturally. The passage is a rebuke to
those who condemn the amenities of life and art, and a caution to those
who place these things before themselves as a chief end. The passage
justifies the statement that religion (or godliness) is profitable for
the life that now is. The Psalmist never saw the righteous forsaken. A
traditional saying of Jesus, quoted by Clement, Origen, and Eusebius,
runs, "Ask great things, and little things shall be added; ask heavenly
things, and earthly things shall be added."
[407] Cogitare in crastino; Vulgate, solliciti esse in crastinum. There
is no uniformity in Augustin's or the Vulgate's translation of the
Greek merimnao ("take anxious thought") in this passage.
[408] The morrow will bring its own vexations and anxieties. The
English version entirely misleads as to the meaning of the special
clause, "will take care of itself." The Revised Version is a literal
translation, and at least gives the true sense by implication. But with
each day's temptations and troubles, it is implied, special enablement
and deliverance will be provided.
[409] Wiclif, following the Vulgate, translates malice; Tyndale,
trouble; the Genevan Bible, grief.
[410] Our Lord's precept is not against provident forethought,--of
which Augustin goes on to give examples,--but against anxious thought
which implies distrust of God's providence. Anxious, fretful,
distrustful care for the future, unreliant upon God's bounty, wisdom,
and love (as implied in the address, your heavenly Father) is declared
to be unnecessary (25, 26), foolish (27-30), and heathenish (32, "After
these things do the Gentiles seek"). The passages teach trust in God,
who is more interested in His children than in the fowls of the air,
and will certainly take care of them.
[411] Matt. iv. 11.
[412] John xii. 6.
[413] Thesaurizans; Vulgate, recondens.
[414] Advenero; Vulgate, praesens fuero.
[415] 1 Cor. xvi. 1-8.
[416] Not in the original Greek or Vulgate, but implied in the
preceding context.
[417] Not in the original Greek or Vulgate, but implied in the
preceding context.
[418] Acts xi. 27-30. The clause shows much divergence from the Vulgate
in construction.
[419] Acts xxviii. 10.
[420] Operans; Vulgate, operando.
[421] Eph. iv. 28. Unde tribuere cui opus est; Vulgate, unde tribuat
necessitatem patienti.
[422] 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8.
[423] Acts xviii. 2, 3.
[424] Rom. v. 3-5.
[425] 2 Cor. xi. 23-27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.
59. And inasmuch as when such things are either provided against the
time to come, or reserved, if there is no cause wherefore you should
expend them, it is uncertain with what intention it is done, since it
may be done with a single heart, and also with a double one, He has
seasonably added in this passage: "Judge not, [426] that ye be not
judged. [427] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged,
[428] and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you
again." In this passage, I am of opinion that we are taught nothing
else, but that in the case of those actions respecting which it is
doubtful with what intention they are done, we are to put the better
construction on them. For when it is written, "By their fruits ye shall
know them," the statement has reference to things which manifestly
cannot be done with a good intention; such as debaucheries, or
blasphemies, or thefts, or drunkenness, and all such things, of which
we are permitted to judge, according to the apostle's statement: "For
what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge
them that are within?" [429] But concerning the kind of food, because
every kind of human food can be taken indiscriminately with a good
intention and a single heart, without the vice of concupiscence, the
same apostle forbids that they who ate flesh and drank wine be judged
by those who abstained from such kinds of sustenance: "Let not him that
eateth," says he, "despise him that eateth not; and let not him which
eateth not, judge him that eateth." There also he says: "Who art thou
that judges another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or
falleth." [430] For in reference to such matters as can be done with a
good and single and noble intention, although they may also be done
with an intention the reverse of good, those parties wished, howbeit
they were [mere] men, to pronounce judgment upon the secrets of the
heart, of which God alone is Judge.
60. To this category belongs also what he says in another passage:
"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both
will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
manifest the thoughts [431] of the hearts: and then shall every man
have praise of God." [432] There are therefore certain ambiguous
actions, respecting which we are ignorant with what intention they are
performed, because they may be done both with a good or with an evil
one, of which it is rash to judge, especially for the purpose of
condemning. Now the time will come for these to be judged, when the
Lord "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
manifest the counsels of the hearts." In another passage also the same
apostle says: "Some men's aims are manifest beforehand, going before to
judgment; and some men they follow after." He calls those sins
manifest, with regard to which it is clear with what intention they are
done; these go before to judgment, because if a judgment shall follow,
it is not rash. But those which are concealed follow, because neither
shall they remain hid in their own time. So we must understand with
respect to good works also. For he adds to this effect: "Likewise also
the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are
otherwise cannot be hid." [433] Let us judge, therefore, with respect
to those which are manifest; but respecting those which are concealed,
let us leave the judgment to God: for they also cannot be hid, whether
they be good or evil, when the time shall come for them to be
manifested.
61. There are two things, moreover, in which we ought to beware of rash
judgment; when it is uncertain with what intention any thing is done;
or when it is uncertain what sort of a person he is going to be, who at
preset is manifestly either good or bad. If, therefore, any one, for
example, complaining of his stomach, would not fast, and you, not
believing this, were to attribute it to the vice of gluttony, you would
judge rashly. Likewise, if you were to come to know the gluttony and
drunkenness as being manifest, and were so to administer reproof as if
the man could never be amended and changed, you would nevertheless
judge rashly. Let us not therefore reprove those things about which we
do not know with what intention they are done; nor let us so reprove
those things which are manifest, as that we should despair of a return
to a right state of mind; and thus we shall avoid the judgment of which
in the present instance it is said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
62. But what He says may cause perplexity: "For with what judgment ye
judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again." Is it the case, then, that if we shall judge
any thing with a rash judgment, God will also judge rashly with respect
to us? or if we shall measure any thing with an unjust measure, is
there with God also an unjust measure, according to which it shall be
measured to us again? (for by the expression measure also, I suppose
the judgment itself is meant.) By no means does God either judge
rashly, or recompense to any one with an unjust measure; but it is so
expressed, inasmuch as that very same rashness wherewith you punish
another must necessarily punish yourself. Unless, perchance, it is to
be imagined that injustice does harm in some way to him against whom it
goes forth, but in no way to him from whom it goes forth; but nay, it
often does no harm to him who suffers the injury, but it must
necessarily do harm to him who inflicts it. For what harm did the
injustice of the persecutors do to the martyrs? None; but very much to
the persecutors themselves. For although some of them were turned from
the error of their ways, yet at the time at which they were acting as
persecutors, their wickedness was blinding them. So also a rash
judgment frequently does no harm to him who is the object of the rash
judgment; but to him who judges rashly, the rashness itself must
necessarily do harm. According to such a rule, I judge of that saying
also: "Every one that strikes [434] with the sword shall perish with
the sword." [435] For how many take the sword, and yet do not perish
with the sword, Peter himself being an instance! But lest any should
think that he escaped such punishment by the pardon of his sins
(although nothing could be more absurd than to think that the
punishment of the sword, which did not befall Peter, could have been
greater than that of the cross, which actually befell him), yet what
would they say of the malefactors who were crucified with our Lord; for
both he who got pardon, got it after he was crucified, and the other
did not get it at all? [436] Or had they perhaps crucified all whom
they had slain; and did they therefore themselves too deserve to suffer
the same thing? It is ridiculous to think so. For what else is meant by
the statement, "For all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword," but that the soul dies by that very sin, whatever it may be,
which it has committed?
__________________________________________________________________
[426] Sine scientia, amore, necessitate ("without knowledge, love,
necessity."--Bengel). The discussion is one of the most thorough and
satisfactory sections of Augustin's commentary.
[427] Judicetur de vobis...judicabitur; Vulgate,
judicemini...judicabimini.
[428] Judicetur de vobis...judicabitur; Vulgate,
judicemini...judicabimini.
[429] 1 Cor. v. 12.
[430] Rom. xiv. 3, 4.
[431] Cogitationes; Vulgate, consilia.
[432] 1 Cor. iv. 5.
[433] 1 Tim. v. 24, 25.
[434] Omnis qui percusserit; Vulgate, omnes qui acceperint.
[435] Matt. xxvi. 52.
[436] Luke xxiii. 33-43.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.
63. And inasmuch as the Lord is admonishing us in this passage with
respect to rash and unjust judgment,--for He wishes that whatever we
do, we should do it with a heart that is single and directed toward God
alone; and inasmuch as, with respect to many things, it is uncertain
with what intention they are done, regarding which it is rash to judge;
inasmuch, moreover, as those parties especially judge rashly respecting
things that are uncertain, and readily find fault, who love rather to
censure and to condemn than to amend and to improve, which is a fault
arising either from pride or from envy; therefore He has subjoined the
statement: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's
eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" So that if
perchance, for example, he has transgressed in anger, you should find
fault in hatred; there being, as it were, as much difference between
anger and hatred as between a mote and a beam. For hatred is inveterate
anger, which, as it were simply by its long duration, has acquired so
great strength as to be justly called a beam. Now, it may happen that,
though you are angry with a man, you wish him to be turned from his
error; but if you hate a man, you cannot wish to convert him.
64. "Or how wilt [437] thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the
mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou
hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt
thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye;" i.e.,
first cast the hatred away from thee, and then, but not before, shalt
thou be able to amend him whom thou lovest. [438] And He well says,
"Thou hypocrite." For to make complaint against vices is the duty of
good and benevolent men; and when bad men do it, they are acting a part
which does not belong to them; just like hypocrites, who conceal under
a mask what they are, and show themselves off in a mask what they are
not. Under the designation hypocrites, therefore, you are to understand
pretenders. And there is, in fact, a class of pretenders much to be
guarded against, and troublesome, who, while they take up complaints
against all kinds of faults from hatred and spite, also wish to appear
counsellors. And therefore we must piously and cautiously watch, so
that when necessity shall compel us to find fault with or rebuke any
one, we may reflect first whether the fault is such as we have never
had, or one from which we have now become free; and if we have never
had it, let us reflect that we are men, and might have had it; but if
we have had it, and are now free from it, let the common infirmity
touch the memory, that not hatred but pity may go before that
fault-finding or administering of rebuke: so that whether it shall
serve for the conversion of him on whose account we do it, or for his
perversion (for the issue is uncertain), we at least from the
singleness of our eye may be free from care. If, however, on
reflection, we find ourselves involved in the same fault as he is whom
we were preparing to censure, let us not censure nor rebuke; but yet
let us mourn deeply over the case, and let us invite him not to obey
us, but to join us in a common effort.
65. For in regard also to what the apostle says,--"Unto the Jews I
became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the
law, as under the law (not being under the law), that I might gain them
that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law
(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I
might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak,
that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I
might gain all,"--he did not certainly so act in the way of pretence,
as some wish it to be understood, in order that their detestable
pretence may be fortified by the authority of so great an example; but
he did so from love, under the influence of which he thought of the
infirmity of him whom he wished to help as if it were his own. For this
he also lays as the foundation beforehand, when he says: "For although
I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I
might gain [439] the more." [440] And that you may understand this as
being done not in pretence, but in love, under the influence of which
we have compassion for men who are weak as if we were they, he thus
admonishes us in another passage, saying, "Brethren, ye have been
called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh,
but by love serve one another." [441] And this cannot be done, unless
each one reckon the infirmity of another as his own, so as to bear it
with equanimity, until the party for whose welfare he is solicitous is
freed from it.
66. Rarely, therefore, and in a case of great necessity, are rebukes to
be administered; yet in such a way that even in these very rebukes we
may make it our earnest endeavour, not that we, but that God, should be
served. For He, and none else, is the end: so that we are to do nothing
with a double heart, removing from our own eye the beam of envy, or
malice, or pretence, in order that we may see to cast the mote out of a
brother's eye. For we shall see it with the dove's eyes,--such eyes as
are declared to belong to the spouse of Christ, [442] whom God hath
chosen for Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, [443]
i.e. pure and guileless.
__________________________________________________________________
[437] The meaning is, how wilt thou have the effrontery to say, dare to
say. The precept forbids all meddling, censoriousness, and captious
faultfinding, and the spirit of slander, backbiting, calumny, etc.
[438] "Ere you remark another's sin, Bid your own conscience look
within." --Cowper.
[439] Lucrifacerem; Vulgate, facerem salvos.
[440] 1 Cor. ix. 19-22.
[441] Gal. v. 13.
[442] Cant. iv. 1.
[443] Eph. v. 27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.
67. But inasmuch as the word "guileless" may mislead some who are
desirous of obeying God's precepts, so that they may think it wrong, at
times, to conceal the truth, just as it is wrong at times to speak a
falsehood, and inasmuch as in this way,--by disclosing things which the
parties to whom they are disclosed are unable to bear,--they may do
more harm than if they were to conceal them altogether and always, He
very rightly adds: "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither
cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their
feet, and turn again and rend you." For the Lord Himself, although He
never told a lie, yet showed that He was concealing certain truths,
when He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now." [444] And the Apostle Paul, too, says: "And I,
brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto
carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not
with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now
are ye able. For ye are yet carnal." [445]
68. Now, in this precept by which we are forbidden to give what is holy
to the dogs, and to cast our pearls before swine, we must carefully
require what is meant by holy, what by pearls, what by dogs, what by
swine. A holy thing is something which it is impious to violate and to
corrupt; and the very attempt and wish to commit that crime is held to
be criminal, although that holy thing should remain in its nature
inviolable and incorruptible. By pearls, again, are meant whatever
spiritual things we ought to set a high value upon, both because they
lie hid in a secret place, are as it were brought up out of the deep,
and are found in wrappings of allegory, as it were in shells that have
been opened. We may therefore legitimately understand that one and the
same thing may be called both holy and a pearl: but it gets the name of
holy for this reason, that it ought not to be corrupted; of a pearl for
this reason, that it ought not to be despised. Every one, however,
endeavours to corrupt what he does not wish to remain uninjured: but he
despises what he thinks worthless, and reckons to be as it were beneath
himself; and therefore whatever is despised is said to be trampled on.
And hence, inasmuch as dogs spring at a thing in order to tear it in
pieces, and do not allow what they are tearing in pieces to remain in
its original condition, "Give not," says He, "that which is holy unto
the dogs:" for although it cannot be torn in pieces and corrupted, and
remains unharmed and inviolable, yet we must think of what is the wish
of those parties who bitterly and in a most unfriendly spirit resist,
and, as far as in them lies, endeavour, if it were possible, to destroy
the truth. But swine, although they do not, like dogs, fall upon an
object with their teeth, yet by recklessly trampling on it defile it:
"Do not therefore cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you." We may therefore not
unsuitably understand dogs as used to designate the assailants of the
truth, swine the despisers of it.
69. But when He says, "they turn again and rend you," He does not say,
they rend the pearls themselves. For by trampling on them, just when
they turn in order that they may hear something more, they yet rend him
by whom the pearls have just been cast before them which they have
trampled on. For you would not easily find out what pleasure the man
could have who has trampled pearls under foot, i.e. has despised divine
things whose discovery is the result of great labour. But in regard to
him who teaches such parties, I do not see how he would escape being
rent in pieces through their anger and wrathfulness. Moreover, both
animals are unclean, the dog as well as the swine. We must therefore be
on our guard, lest anything should be opened up to him who does not
receive it: for it is better that he should seek for what is hidden,
than that he should either attack or slight at what is open. Neither,
in fact, is any other cause found why they do not receive those things
which are manifest and of importance, except hatred and contempt, the
one of which gets them the name of dogs, the other that of swine. And
all this impurity is generated by the love of temporal things, i.e. by
the love of this world, which we are commanded to renounce, in order
that we may be able to be pure. The man, therefore, who desires to have
a pure and single heart, ought not to appear to himself blameworthy, if
he conceals anything from him who is unable to receive it. Nor is it to
be supposed from this that it is allowable to lie: for it does not
follow that when truth is concealed, falsehood is uttered. Hence, steps
are to be taken first, that the hindrances which prevent his receiving
it may be removed; for certainly if pollution is the reason he does not
receive it, he is to be cleansed either by word or by deed, as far as
we can possibly do it.
70. Then, further, when our Lord is found to have made certain
statements which many who were present did not accept, but either
resisted or despised, He is not to be thought to have given that which
is holy to the dogs, or to have cast pearls before swine: for He did
not give such things to those who were not able to receive them, but to
those who were able, and were at the same time present; whom it was not
meet that He should neglect on account of the impurity of others. And
when tempters put questions to Him, and He answered them, so that they
might have nothing to gainsay, although they might pine away from the
effects of their own poisons, rather than be filled with His food, yet
others, who were able to receive His teaching, heard to their profit
many things in consequence of the opportunity created by these parties.
I have said this, lest any one, perhaps, when he is not able to reply
to one who puts a question to him, should seem to himself excused, if
he should say that he is unwilling to give that which is holy to the
dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. For he who knows what to answer
ought to do it, even for the sake of others, in whose minds despair
arises, if they believe that the question proposed cannot be answered:
and this in reference to matters that are useful, and that belong to
saving instruction. For many things which may be the subject of inquiry
on the part of idle people are needless and vain, and often hurtful,
respecting which, however, something must be said; but this very point
is to be opened up and explained, viz. why such things ought not to
form the subject of inquiry. In reference, therefore, to things that
are useful, we ought sometimes to give a reply to what is asked of us:
just as the Lord did, when the Sadducees had asked Him about the woman
who had seven husbands, to which of them she would belong in the
resurrection. For He answered that in the resurrection they will
neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but will be as the angels in
heaven. But sometimes, he who asks is to be asked something else, by
telling which he would answer himself as to the matter he asked about;
but if he should refuse to make a statement, it would not seem to those
who are present unfair, if he himself should not hear anything as to
the matter he inquired about. For those who put the question, tempting
Him, whether tribute was to be paid, were asked another question, viz.
whose image the money bore which was brought forward by themselves; and
because they told what they had been asked, i.e. that the money bore
the image of Caesar, they gave a kind of answer to themselves in
reference to the question they had asked the Lord: and accordingly from
their answer He drew this inference, "Render therefore unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
[446] When, however, the chief priests and elders of the people had
asked by what authority He was doing those things, He asked them about
the baptism of John: and when they would not make a statement which
they saw to be against themselves, and yet would not venture to say
anything bad about John, on account of the bystanders, "Neither tell I
you," says He, "by what authority I do these things;" [447] a refusal
which appeared most just to the bystanders. For they said they were
ignorant of that which they really knew, but did not wish to tell. And,
in truth, it was right that they who wished to have an answer to what
they asked, should themselves first do what they required to be done
toward them; and if they had done this, they would certainly have
answered themselves. For they themselves had sent to John, asking who
he was; or rather they themselves, being priests and Levites, had been
sent, supposing that he was the very Christ, but he said that he was
not, and gave forth a testimony concerning the Lord: [448] a testimony
respecting which if they chose to make a confession, they would teach
themselves by what authority as the Christ He was doing those things;
which as if ignorant of they had asked, in order that they might find
an avenue for calumny.
__________________________________________________________________
[444] John xvi. 12.
[445] 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2.
[446] Matt. xxii. 15-34.
[447] Chap. xxi. 23-27.
[448] John i. 19-27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.
71. Since, therefore, a command had been given that what is holy should
not be given to dogs, and pearls should not be cast before swine, a
hearer might object and say, conscious of his own ignorance and
weakness, and hearing a command addressed to him, that he should not
give what he felt that he himself had not yet received,--might (I say)
object and say, What holy thing do you forbid me to give to the dogs,
and what pearls do you forbid me to cast before swine, while as yet I
do not see that I possess such things? Most opportunely He has added
the statement: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh
receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it
shall be opened." The asking refers to the obtaining by request
soundness and strength of mind, so that we may be able to discharge
those duties which are commanded; the seeking, on the other hand,
refers to the finding of the truth. For inasmuch as the blessed life is
summed up in action and knowledge, action wishes for itself a supply of
strength, contemplation desiderates that matters should be made clear:
of these therefore the first is to be asked, the second is to be
sought; so that the one may be given, the other found. But knowledge in
this life belongs rather to the way than to the possession itself: but
whoever has found the true way, will arrive at the possession itself
which, however, is opened to him that knocks.
72. In order, therefore, that these three things--viz. asking, seeking,
knocking--may be made clear, let us suppose, for example, the case of
one weak in his limbs, who cannot walk: in the first place, he is to be
healed and strengthened so as to be able to walk; and to this refers
the expression He has used, "Ask." But what advantage is it that he is
now able to walk, or even run, if he should go astray by devious paths?
A second thing therefore is, that he should find the road that leads to
the place at which he wishes to arrive; and when he has kept that road,
and arrived at the very place where he wishes to dwell, if he find it
closed, it will be of no use either that he has been able to walk, or
that he has walked and arrived, unless it be opened to him; to this,
therefore, the expression refers which has been used, "Knock."
73. Moreover, great hope has been given, and is given, by Him who does
not deceive when He promises: for He says, "Every one that asketh,
receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it
shall be opened." Hence there is need of perseverance, in order that we
may receive what we ask, and find what we seek, and that what we knock
at may be opened. [449] Now, just as He talked of the fowls of heaven
and of the lilies of the field, that we might not despair of food and
clothing being provided for us, so that our hopes might rise from
lesser things to greater; so also in this passage, "Or what man is
there of you," says He, "whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a
stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much
more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that
ask Him?" How do the evil give good things? Now, He has called those
evil [450] who are as yet the lovers of this world and sinners. And, in
fact, the good things are to be called good according to their feeling,
because they reckon these to be good things. Although in the nature of
things also such things are good, but temporal, and pertaining to this
feeble life: and whoever that is evil gives them, does not give of his
own; for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof, [451] who
made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is. [452] How
much reason, therefore, there is for the hope that God will give us
good things when we ask Him, and that we cannot be deceived, so that we
should get one thing instead of another, when we ask Him; since we
even, although we are evil, know how to give that for which we are
asked? For we do not deceive our children; and whatever good things we
give are not given of our own, but of what is His.
__________________________________________________________________
[449] The conditions of effective prayer are, that it should be made in
the name of Christ (John xv. 16), with faith, and according to God's
will (1 John v. 14).
[450] This has been regarded as a strong proof-text for the doctrine of
original sin. Bengel calls it "a shining testimony for original sin."
Stier says it is "the strongest proof-text for original sin in the
whole of the Holy Scriptures." Meyer says the reference is to actual
sin; while Plumptre declares that "the words at once recognise the fact
of man's depravity, and assert that it is not total."
[451] Ps. xxiv. 1.
[452] Ps. cxlvi. 6.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.
74. Moreover, a certain strength and vigour in walking along the path
of wisdom ties in good morals, which are made to extend as far as to
purification and singleness of heart,--a subject on which He has now
been speaking long, and thus concludes: "Therefore all good [453]
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them: for this is the law and the prophets." In the Greek copies we
find the passage runs thus: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." But I think the word
"good" has been added by the Latins to make the sentence clear. For the
thought occurred, that if any one should wish something wicked to be
done to him, and should refer this clause to that,--as, for instance,
if one should wish to be challenged to drink immoderately, and to get
drunk over his cups, and should first do this to the party by whom he
wishes it to be done to himself,--it would be ridiculous to imagine
that he had fulfilled this clause. Inasmuch, therefore, as they were
influenced by this consideration, as I suppose, one word was added to
make the matter clear; so that in the statement, "Therefore all things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you," there was inserted the
word "good." But if this is wanting in the Greek copies, they also
ought to be corrected: but who would venture to do this? It is to be
understood, therefore, that the clause is complete and altogether
perfect, even if this word be not added. For the expression used,
"whatsoever ye would," ought to be understood as used not in a
customary and random, but in a strict sense. For there is no will
except in the good: for in the case of bad and wicked deeds, desire is
strictly spoken of, not will. Not that the Scriptures always speak in a
strict sense; but where it is necessary, they so keep a word to its
perfectly strict meaning, that they do not allow anything else to be
understood.
75. Moreover, this precept seems to refer to the love of our neighbour,
and not to the love of God also, seeing that in another passage He says
that there are two precepts on which "hang all the law and the
prophets." For if He had said, All things whatsoever ye would should be
done to you, do ye even so; in this one sentence He would have embraced
both those precepts: for it would soon be said that every one wishes
that he himself should be loved both by God and by men; and so, when
this precept was given to him, that what he wished done to himself he
should himself do, that certainly would be equivalent to the precept
that he should love God and men. But when it is said more expressly of
men, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them," nothing else seems to be meant than, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." [454] But we must carefully
attend to what He has added here: "for this is the law and the
prophets." Now, in the case of these two precepts, He not merely says,
The law and the prophets hang; but He has also added, "all the law and
the prophets," [455] which is the same as the whole of prophecy: and in
not making the same addition here, He has kept a place for the other
precept, which refers to the love of God. Here, then, inasmuch as He is
following out the precepts with respect to a single heart, and it is to
be dreaded lest any one should have a double heart toward those from
whom the heart can be hid, i.e. toward men, a precept with respect to
that very thing was to be given. For there is almost nobody that would
wish that any one of double heart should have dealings with himself.
But no one can bestow anything upon a fellowman with a single heart,
unless he so bestow it that he expects no temporal advantage from him,
and does it with the intention which we have sufficiently discussed
above, when we were speaking of the single eye.
76. The eye, therefore, being cleansed and rendered single, will be
adapted and suited to behold and contemplate its own inner light. For
the eye in question is the eye of the heart. Now, such an eye is
possessed by him who, in order that his works may be truly good, does
not make it the aim of his good works that he should please men; but
even if it should turn out that he pleases them, he makes this tend
rather to their salvation and to the glory of God, not to his own empty
boasting; nor does he do anything that is good tending to his
neighbour's salvation for the purpose of gaining by it those things
that are necessary for getting through this present life; nor does he
rashly condemn a man's intention and wish in that action in which it is
not apparent with what intention and wish it has been done; and
whatever kindnesses he shows to a man, he shows them with the same
intention with which he wishes them shown to himself, viz. as not
expecting any temporal advantage from him: thus will the heart be
single and pure in which God is sought. "Blessed," therefore, "are the
pure in heart: for they shall see God." [456]
__________________________________________________________________
[453] Bona; the Vulgate does not contain it.
[454] The nearest approach that any uninspired Jewish teacher came to
the Golden Rule--the designation by which these words are known--was
the saying of Hillel, "What is unpleasant to thyself, do not to thy
neighbour. This is the whole law, and all the rest is commentary upon
it." Beautiful as the saying is, it falls behind Christ's words,
because it is merely negative, while they are a positive requirement.
The Stoics and the Chinese ethics also have a similar negative precept.
It is strange that the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (i. 2) gives the
negative form, and not the positive precept. Augustin says we ought to
be glad when writers before Christ spoke things in the Gospel (En. in
Ps. cxl. 6).
[455] Matt. xxii. 37-40.
[456] Matt. v. 8.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.
77. But because this belongs to few, He now begins to speak of
searching for and possessing wisdom, which is a tree of life; and
certainly, in searching for and possessing, i.e. contemplating this
wisdom, such an eye is led through all that precedes to a point where
there may now be seen the narrow way and the strait gate. When,
therefore, He says in continuation, "Enter ye [457] in at the strait
gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is
the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there
be that find it; [458] He does not say so for this reason, that the
Lord's yoke is rough, or His burden heavy; but because few are willing
to bring their labours to an end, giving too little credit to Him who
cries, "Come unto me, all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in
heart: for my yoke is easy, [459] and my burden [460] is light" [461]
(hence, moreover, the sermon before us took as its starting-point the
lowly and meek in heart): and this easy yoke and light burden which
many spurn, few submit to; and on that account the way becomes narrow
which leadeth unto life, and the gate strait by which it is entered.
__________________________________________________________________
[457] Introite; Vulgate, intrate.
[458] The narrowness of the way is taken to represent the self-denial
and hardships of disciples (Meyer, Mansel, etc.), or righteousness
(Bengel, Schaff, etc.). "The picture is a dark one, and yet it
represents but too faithfully the impression made, I do not say on
Calvinist or true Christian, but on any ethical teacher, by the actual
state of mankind around us. If there is any wider hope, it is found in
hints and suggestions of the possibilities of the future (1 Pet. iii.
19, iv. 6)," etc. ( Plumptre).
[459] Lene...sarcina; Vulgate, suave...onus.
[460] Lene...sarcina; Vulgate, suave...onus.
[461] Matt. xi. 28-30.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIV.
78. Here, therefore, those who promise a wisdom and a knowledge of the
truth which they do not possess, are especially to be guarded against;
as, for instance, heretics, who frequently commend themselves on
account of their fewness. And hence, when He had said that there are
few who find the strait gate and the narrow way, lest they [the
heretics] should falsely substitute themselves under the pretext of
their fewness, He immediately added, "Beware of false prophets, [462]
which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves." But such parties do not deceive the single eye, which knows
how to distinguish a tree by its fruits. For He says: "Ye shall know
them by their fruits." Then He adds the similitudes: "Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil
fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good
fruit [463] is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their
fruits ye shall know them."
79. And in [the interpretation of] this passage we must be very much on
our guard against the error of those who judge from these same two
trees that there are two original natures, the one of which belongs to
God, but the other neither belongs to God nor springs from Him. And
this error has both been already discussed in other books [of ours]
[464] very copiously, and if that is still too little, will be
discussed again; but at present we have merely to show that the two
trees before us do not help them. In the first place, because it is so
clear that He is speaking of men, that whoever reads what goes before
and what follows will wonder at their blindness. Secondly, they fix
their attention on what is said, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit," and
therefore think that neither can it happen that an evil soul should be
changed into something better, nor a good one into something worse; as
if it were said, A good tree cannot become evil, nor an evil tree good.
But it is said, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." For the tree is certainly the
soul itself, i.e. the man himself, but the fruits are the works of the
man; an evil man, therefore, cannot perform good works, nor a good man
evil works. If an evil man, therefore, wishes to perform good works,
let him first become good. So the Lord Himself says in another passage
more plainly: "Either make the tree good, or make the tree bad." But if
He were figuratively representing the two natures of such parties by
these two trees, He would not say, "Make:" for who of the sons of men
can make a nature? Then also in that passage, when He had made mention
of these two trees, He added, "Ye hypocrites, how can ye, being evil,
speak good things?" [465] As long, therefore, as any one is evil, he
cannot bring forth good fruits; for if he were to bring forth good
fruits, he would no longer be evil. So it might most truly have been
said, snow cannot be warm; for when it begins to be warm, we no longer
call it snow, but water. It may therefore come about, that what was
snow is no longer so; but it cannot happen that snow should be warm. So
it may come about, that he who was evil is no longer evil; it cannot,
however, happen that an evil man should do good. And although he is
sometimes useful, this is not the man's own doing; but it is done
through him, in virtue of the arrangements of divine providence: as,
for instance, it is said of the Pharisees, "What they bid you, do; but
what they do, do not consent to do." This very circumstance, that they
spoke things that were good, and that the things which they spoke were
usefully listened to and done, was not a matter belonging to them: for,
says He, "they sit in Moses' seat." [466] It was, therefore, when
engaged through divine providence in preaching the law of God, that
they were able to be useful to their hearers, although they were not so
to themselves. Respecting such it is said in another place by the
prophet, "They have sown wheat, but shall reap thorns;" [467] because
they teach what is good, and do what is evil. Those, therefore, who
listened to them, and did what was said by them, did not gather grapes
of thorns, but through the thorns gathered grapes of the vine: just as,
were any one to thrust his hand through a hedge, or were at least to
gather a grape from a vine which was entangled in a hedge, that would
not be the fruit of the thorns, but of the vine.
80. The question, indeed, is most rightly put, What are the fruits He
would wish us to attend to, whereby we might know the tree? For many
reckon among the fruits certain things which belong to the sheep's
clothing, and in this way are deceived by wolves: as, for instance,
either fastings, or prayers, or almsgivings; but unless all of these
things could be done even by hypocrites, He would not say above, "Take
heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them."
And after prefixing this sentence, He goes on to speak of those very
three things, almsgiving, prayer, fasting. For many give largely to the
poor, not from compassion, but from vanity; and many pray, or rather
seem to pray, while not keeping God in view, but desiring to please
men; and many fast, and make a wonderful show of abstinence before
those to whom such things appear difficult, and by whom they are
reckoned worthy of honour: and catch them with artifices of this sort,
while they hold up to view one thing for the purpose of deceiving, and
put forth another for the purpose of preying upon or killing those who
cannot see the wolves under that sheep's clothing. These, therefore,
are not the fruits by which He admonishes us that the tree is known.
For such things, when they are done with a good intention in sincerity,
are the appropriate clothing of sheep; but when they are done in wicked
deception, they cover nothing else but wolves. But the sheep ought not
on this account to hate their own clothing, because the wolves often
conceal themselves therein.
81. What the fruits are by the finding of which we may know an evil
tree, the apostle tells us: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest,
which are these; adulteries, fornications, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatreds, variances, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and
such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in
time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom
of God." And what the fruits are by which we may know a good tree, the
very same apostle goes on to tell us: "But the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance." [468] It must be known, indeed, that "joy"
stands here in a strict and proper sense; for bad men are, strictly
speaking, not said to rejoice, but to make extravagant demonstrations
of joy: just as we have said above, that "will" which the wicked do not
possess, stands in a strict sense where it is said, "All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
In accordance with that strict sense of the word, in virtue of which
joy is spoken of only in the good, the prophet also speaks, saying:
"Rejoicing is not for the wicked, saith the Lord." [469] So also
"faith" stands, not certainly as meaning any kind of it, but true
faith: and the other things which find a place here have certain
resemblances of their own in bad men and deceivers; so that they
entirely mislead, unless one has the pure and single eye by which he
may know such things. It is accordingly the best arrangement, that the
cleansing of the eye is first discussed, and then mention is made of
what things were to be guarded against.
__________________________________________________________________
[462] Cavete a pseudoprophetis; Vulgate, attendite a falsis prophetis.
[463] Excellency of fruitage is sanctity of life (Bonitas fructuum est
sanctitas vitae (Bengel).
[464] More particularly his works against the Manichaeans, Contra
Faustum Manichaeum, etc. Augustin also made much use of this passage
against the Pelagians, to show that the will must be aided to produce
good thoughts and deeds; that the unregenerate man is incapable of
restoring himself.
[465] Matt. xii. 33, 34.
[466] Matt. xxiii. 3, 2.
[467] Jer. xii. 13.
[468] Gal. v. 19-23.
[469] Isa. lvii. 21, according to the Septuagint.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXV.
82. But seeing that, however pure an eye one may have, i.e. with
however single and sincere a heart one may live, he yet cannot look
into the heart of another: whatever things could not have become
apparent in deeds or words, are disclosed by trials. Now trial is
twofold; either in the hope of obtaining some temporal advantage, or in
the terror of losing it. And especially must we be on our guard, lest,
when striving after wisdom, which can be found in Christ alone, in whom
are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; [470] --we must be
on our guard, I say, lest, under the very name of Christ, we be
deceived by heretics, or by any parties whatever defective in
intelligence, and lovers of this world. For on this account He adds a
warning, saying, "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, [471]
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of
My Father which is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven:" lest we should think that the mere fact of one saying to our
Lord, "Lord, Lord," belongs to those fruits; and from that he should
seem to us to be a good tree. But those are the fruits, to do the will
of the Father who is in heaven, in the doing of which He has
condescended to exhibit Himself as an example.
83. But the question may fairly be started, how with this sentence the
statement of the apostle is to be reconciled, where he says, "No man
speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and no man can
say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost:" [472] for neither
can we say that any who have the Holy Spirit will not enter into the
kingdom of heaven, if they persevere onwards to the end; nor can we
affirm that those who say, "Lord, Lord," and yet do not enter into the
kingdom of heaven, have the Holy Spirit. How then does no one say "that
Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost," unless it is because the
apostle has used the word "say" here in a strict and proper sense, so
that it implies the will and understanding of him who says? But the
Lord has used the word which He employs in a general sense: "Not every
one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven." For he also who neither wishes nor understands what he says,
seems to say it; but he properly says it, who gives expression to his
will and mind by the sound of his voice: just as, a little before, what
is called "joy" among the fruits of the Spirit is called so in a strict
and proper sense, not in the way in which the same apostle elsewhere
uses the expression, "Rejoiceth not in iniquity:" [473] as if any one
could rejoice in iniquity: for that transport of a mind making confused
and boisterous demonstrations of joy is not joy; for this latter is
possessed by the good alone. Hence those also seem to say it, who
neither perceive with the understanding nor engage with the deliberate
consent of the will in this which they utter, but utter it with the
voice merely; and after this manner the Lord says, "Not every one that
saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." But
truly and properly those parties say it whose utterance in speech
really represents their will and intention; and it is in accordance
with this signification that the apostle has said, "No one can say that
Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."
84. And besides, it belongs especially to the matter in hand, that, in
striving after the contemplation of the truth, we should not only not
be deceived by the name of Christ, by means of those who have the name
and have not the deeds; but also not by certain deeds and miracles, for
when the Lord performed of the same kind for the sake of unbelievers,
He has warned us not to be deceived by such things, thinking that an
invisible wisdom is present where we see a visible miracle. Hence He
annexes the statement: "Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out
devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I say
[474] unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work
iniquity." He will not, therefore, recognise any but the man that
worketh righteousness. For He forbade also His own disciples themselves
to rejoice in such things, viz. that the spirits were subject unto
them: "But rejoice," says He, "because your names are written in
heaven;" [475] I suppose, in that city of Jerusalem which is in heaven,
in which only the righteous and holy shall reign. "Know ye not," says
the apostle, "that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God?" [476]
85. But perhaps some one may say that the unrighteous cannot perform
those visible miracles, and may believe rather that those parties are
telling a lie, who will be found saying, "We have prophesied in Thy
name, and have cast out devils in Thy name, and have done many
wonderful works." Let him therefore read what great things the magi of
the Egyptians did who resisted Moses, the servant of God; [477] or if
he will not read this, because they did not do them in the name of
Christ, let him read what the Lord Himself says of the false prophets,
speaking thus: "Then, if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is
Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs,
and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch
that the very elect shall be deceived. [478] Behold, I have told you
before." [479]
86. How much need, therefore, is there of the pure and single eye, in
order that the way of wisdom may be found, against which there is the
clamour of so great deceptions and errors on the part of wicked and
perverse men, to escape from all of which is indeed to arrive at the
most certain peace, and the immoveable stability of wisdom! For it is
greatly to be feared, lest, by eagerness in quarrelling and
controversy, one should not see what can be seen by few, that small is
the disturbance of gainsayers, unless one also disturbs himself. And in
this direction, too, runs that statement of the apostle: "And the
servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle [480] unto all men,
apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that think
differently; [481] if God peradventure will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth." [482] "Blessed," therefore, "are the
peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." [483]
87. Hence we must take special notice how terribly the conclusion of
the whole sermon is introduced: "Therefore, whosoever heareth these
sayings of Mine, and doeth them, is like [484] unto a wise man, which
built his house upon the rock." For no one confirms what he hears or
understands, unless by doing. And if Christ is the rock, as many
Scripture testimonies proclaim [485] that man builds in Christ who does
what he hears from Him. "The rain descended, and the floods came, and
the winds blew, and beat [486] upon that house; and it fell not: for it
was founded upon a rock." Such an one, therefore, is not afraid of any
gloomy superstitions (for what else is understood by rain, when it is
put in the sense of anything bad?), or of turnouts of men, which I
think are compared to winds; or of the river of this life, as it were
flowing over the earth in carnal lusts. For it is the man who is
seduced by the prosperity that is broken down by the adversities
arising from these three things; none of which is feared by him who has
his house founded upon a rock, i.e. who not only hears, but also does,
the Lord's commands. And the man who hears and does them not is in
dangerous proximity to all these, for he has no stable foundation; but
by hearing and not doing, he builds a ruin. For He goes on to say: "And
every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall
be like unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: [487]
and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat [488] upon that house; and it fell: and great was [489] the fall
of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the
people were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one
having authority, and not as their scribes." [490] This is what I said
before was meant by the prophet in the Psalms, when he says: "I will
act confidently in regard of him. The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried and proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times." [491] And from this number, I am admonished to trace back those
precepts also to the seven sentences which He has placed in the
beginning of this sermon, when He was speaking of those who are
blessed; and to those seven operations of the Holy Spirit, which the
prophet Isaiah mentions; [492] but whether the order before us, or some
other, is to be considered in these, the things we have heard from the
Lord are to be done, if we wish to build upon a rock.
__________________________________________________________________
[470] Col. ii. 3.
[471] Many called Him Lord, but He never called any one Lord (ipsum
multi, etiam amplissimi viri,--ipse neminem ne Pilatum quidem, dominum
vocavit.--Bengel).
[472] 1 Cor. xii. 3.
[473] 1 Cor. xiii. 6.
[474] Dicam; Vulgate, confitebor; Greek, homologeso. Meyer says, "It is
the conscious dignity of the future Judge of the world." Bengel calls
attention to the great power of the word (magna potestas hujus dicti).
In this action Christ lays the most confident claim to functions not
imparted to any human being.
[475] Luke x. 20.
[476] 1 Cor. vi. 9.
[477] Exod. vii. and viii.
[478] Inducantur etiam electi; Vulgate, inducantur, si fieri potest,
etiam electi.
[479] Matt. xxiv. 23-25.
[480] Mitem...diversa sentientes; Vulgate, mansuetum...resistunt
veritati.
[481] Mitem...diversa sentientes; Vulgate, mansuetum...resistunt
veritati.
[482] 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25.
[483] Matt. v. 9.
[484] Similis est...; Vulgate, assimilabitur. Meyer, Tholuck, etc,
refer this to the future judgment, "I will make him like," etc., when
Christ will establish those who keep His sayings for ever (opposed by
Alford etc.).
[485] 1 Cor. x. 4. So Alford, who thinks this signification too plain
to be overlooked.
[486] Offenderunt; Vulgate, irruerunt.
[487] The transitory teachings and institutions of men as opposed to
Christ's own word.
[488] Offenderunt; Vulgate, irruerunt.
[489] Facta est; Vulgate, fuit.
[490] Vulgate adds et Pharisaei. The people were astonished, not merely
at His teachings, but the dignity and self-consciousness with which
Christ uttered them, quod nova quaedam majestas et insueta hominum
mentes ad se raperet (Calvin). The Scribes spoke as expounders of the
law, and referred back to Moses for their authority; Christ spoke in
His own name, and as an independent legislator, vested with greater
authority than Moses and a higher dignity. The Scribes by elaborate
sophistry often drew many meanings from a single precept, and burdened
the people with an intricate and endless variety of precepts for the
details of conduct, laying painful stress upon their observance; Christ
directed attention from outward acts to the motive and intent of the
heart. "He opposed a genuine righteousness to the mock righteousness of
the Scribes and Pharisees."
[491] Ps. xii. 5, 6.
[492] Isa. xi. 2, 3.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
St. AUGUSTIN:
the harmony of the gospels
translated by
the rev. s. d. f. salmond, d.d.,
free college, aberdeen
edited, with notes and introduction, by
the rev. m. b. riddle, d.d.,
professor of new-testament exegesis, western theological seminary,
allegheny, pa.
__________________________________________________________________
Introductory Essay.
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.
------------------------
The treatise of Augustin On the Harmony of the Evangelists (De Consensu
Evangelistarum) is regarded as the most laborious task undertaken by
the great African Father. But its influence has been much less obvious
than that of his strictly exegetical and doctrinal works. Dr. Salmond,
in his Introductory Notice, gives a discriminating and just estimate of
it. Jerome was, in some respects, far better equipped for such a task
than Augustin; yet one cannot study this work, bearing in mind the
hermeneutical tendencies of the fourth century, without having an
increased respect for the ability, candour, and insight of the great
theologian when engaged in labours requiring linguistic knowledge,
which he did not possess. Despite his ignorance of the correct text in
many difficult passages, his lack of familiarity with the Greek
original, many of his explanations have stood the test of time, finding
acceptance even among the exegetes of this age.
Most modern Harmonies give indications of the abiding influence of the
work. Yet the treatise itself has not called forth extended comments.
From its character it directs attention to the problems it discusses
rather than to its own solutions of them. Hence the difficulty of
presenting an adequate Bibliographical List in connection with this
work. All Gospel Harmonies, all Lives of Christ, all discussions of the
apparent discrepancies of the Gospels, stand related to it. As a
complete list was out of the question, it seemed fitting to preface
this edition of the work with a few general statements in regard to
Harmonies of the Gospels.
The early date of the oldest work of this character, before A.D. 170
(see below), attests the genuineness of our four canonical Gospels, by
proving that they, and they only, were generally accepted at that time.
But it also shows that the existence of four Gospels, recognised as
genuine and authoritative, naturally calls forth harmonistic efforts.
Two questions confront every intelligent reader of these four Gospels:
(1) In view of the variation in the order of events as narrated by the
different evangelists, what is the more probable chronological order?
(2) In view of the variation in details, what is, in each case, the
correct explanation of such variations? These problems are largely
exegetical; but those of the former class soon lead to the historical
method of treatment, while those of the latter class lead to apologetic
discussions, when apparent discrepancies are discovered. The work of
Augustin deals more largely with the latter; more recent Harmonies lay
greater stress upon the historical and chronological questions. The
methods represent the tendencies of the age to which they respectively
belong. The historical method is doubtless the more correct one; but,
when it assumes the extreme form of destructive criticism, it denies
the possibility of harmony. On the other hand, the apologetic method,
when linked with a mechanical view of inspiration, too often adopts
interpretations that are ungrammatical, in order to ignore the
necessity of harmonizing differences. The true position lies between
these extremes: the grammatico-historical sense must be accepted; the
correct text of each Gospel must be determined, independently of verbal
variations; the truthfulness of each evangelist must be assumed, until
positive error is proven; the more definite statements are to be used
in explaining the less definite; the characteristics of each evangelist
must be given their proper weight in determining the probabilities of
greater or less accuracy of detail.
But the necessary limitations of harmonistic methods should be fully
recognised. Absolute certainty is often impossible: there will always
be room for difference of judgment. For example, there is to-day as
little agreement as ever in regard to the length of our Lord's
ministry; i.e., whether the Evangelist John refers to three or four
passovers. The Tripaschal and Quadripaschal theories still divide
scholars, as in past ages of the Church.
Still, the progress made in textual criticism has, by indicating more
positively the exact words of all four accounts, laid the foundation
for better results in harmonistic labours.
One great advantage of a Harmony, as now constructed, with the text of
the evangelists in parallel columns, or in independent sections when
the matter is peculiar to one of them, is the emphasis it gives to the
historical sequence. The movement of the evangelical narrative is made
more apparent; the relations of the events shed light upon the entire
story; the purpose of discourses and journeys appears; the training of
the Twelve can be better studied; the emphasis placed upon the closing
events of our Lord's life on earth is made more obvious. A comparison
of the several accounts gives to the events new significance, often
reveals minute and undesigned coincidences which attest the
truthfulness of all the narrators. Now that the attempt to secure
mechanical uniformity in the narratives has been universally rejected
by scholars, another advantage of a Harmony is seen to be this: that it
sets forth most strikingly the verbal differences and correspondences
of the parallel passages. Only by a minute comparison of these can we
discover the data for a settlement of the problem respecting the origin
and relation of the Synoptic Gospels. [493]
The dangers attending harmonistic methods are obvious enough, and
appeared very early. The tendency has been to create a rigid verbal
uniformity. Hence the peculiarities of the several evangelists are
obscured; the text of one is, consciously or unconsciously, conformed
to that of another. The Gospel of Mark, the most individual and
striking of the Synoptics, probably the oldest, has been repeatedly
altered to correspond with that of Matthew. When uniformity could not
be secured by this process, false exegesis was often resorted to, and
hermeneutical principles avowed which injured the cause of truth.
Evangelical truth cannot be defended with the weapons of error. This
vicious method was usually the result of mechanical views of
inspiration. That view of inspiration which rightly recognises language
as vital, and which therefore seeks to know the meaning of every word,
has no worse foe than the hermeneutical principle which ignores the
historical sense of any word of Scripture.
The tendency just referred to brought harmonistic labours into
disrepute. The immense activity of the present century in exegetical
theology has not taken this direction. Moreover, the historical method
received its greatest impulse from the tendency-theory of the Tuebingen
school, which presupposes the impossibility of constructing a Harmony
of the four Gospels. Hence the reaction, in Germany especially, has
been excessive.
Yet Harmonies are still prepared, and are still useful. Harmonistic
labours have their rightful, though limited, place in the field of
Exegetical Theology.
A very brief sketch of the leading works of this character will serve
to illustrate the above statements.
The earliest attempt at constructing a Harmony was that of Tatian [494]
(died A.D. 172). The date of its appearance was between A.D. 153 and
170; and its title, Diatessaron, furnishes abundant evidence of the
early acceptance of our four canonical Gospels. Our knowledge of this
work was, until recently, very slight. But the discovery of an Armenian
translation of a commentary upon it, by Ephraem the Syrian, has enabled
Zahn to reconstruct a large part of the text. The commentary was
translated into Latin in 1841, but little attention was paid to it
until an edition by Moesinger appeared in 1876. [495] The influence of
Tatian's Diatessaron upon the Greek text seems to have been
unfortunate. Many of the corruptions in the received text of the Gospel
of Mark are probably due to the confusion of the separate narratives
occasioned by this work. Tregelles (in the new edition of Horne's
Introduction, vol. iv. p. 40) says that it "had more effect apparently
in the text of the Gospels in use throughout the Church than all the
designed falsifications of Marcion and every scion of the Gnostic
blood." It seems to have contained nothing indicating heretical bias or
intentional alteration.
The next Harmony was that of Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of
Origen, the first work bearing this title (HaArmonia). It appeared
about A.D. 220, but has been lost. Until recently it was supposed that
the sections into which some early mss. divide the Gospels were those
of Ammonius himself; but, while he did make such divisions, those
bearing his name are to be attributed to Eusebius (see below). Ammonius
made Matthew the basis of his work, and by his arrangement destroyed
the continuity of the separate narratives. Every Harmony based upon the
order of Matthew must be a failure.
Eusebius of Caesarea (died A.D. 340) adopted a similar set of
divisions, adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which
indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons
are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament,
and in some other editions. [496] The influence of this system seems to
have been great, but Eusebius often accepts a parallelism where there
is really none whatever. Some of the sections are very brief,
containing only part of a verse. Hence the tables of sections furnish
no basis for estimating the matter common to two or more evangelists.
The work of Augustin comes next in order; it deals little with
chronological questions, and shows no trace of such complete textual
labour as that of Eusebius.
The Reformation gave a new impulse to this department of Biblical
study. In the sixteenth century many Harmonies appeared. Among the
authors are the well-known names of Osiander, Jansen, Robert Stephens,
John Calvin, Du Moulin, Chemnitz. These works were written in Latin, as
a rule; and they are worthy of the age which produced them. Lack of
sufficient critical material prevented complete accuracy, but the
exegetical methods of the sixteenth century obtain in the Harmonies
also.
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries present little in this field
of labour that deserves favourable notice. The undisputed reign of the
Textus Receptus impeded investigation; the supernaturalism of the
dominant theology was not favourable to historical investigation; the
mechanical theory of inspiration led to arbitrary and forced
interpretations. Even the older rationalism, which explained away the
supernatural, was scarcely more faulty in its exegesis than many an
orthodox commentator. The labours of J. Lightfoot deserve grateful
recognition. This great Hebrew scholar did not finish his Harmony of
the Gospels, but shed great light upon many of the problems involved,
by his knowledge of Jewish customs. J. A. Bengel, the pioneer of modern
textual criticism of the New Testament, published a valuable Harmony in
German. W. Newcome published a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek (Dublin,
1778). He follows Le Clerc (Amsterdam, 1779), and his Harmony is the
basis of the more modern work by Edward Robinson (see below).
While the Tuebingen school, by its tendency-theory, virtually denied
the possibility of constructing a Harmony, it compelled the
conservative theologians to adopt the historical method. Thus there has
been gathered much material for harmonistic labours. But in Germany, as
in England and America, Lives of Christ have been more numerous than
Harmonies.
K. Wieseler and C. Tischendorf, among recent German scholars, have
published valuable Harmonies. In England the work most in use is that
of E. Greswell. The Archbishop of York, William Thomson, presents in
Smith's Bible Dictionary a valuable table of the Harmony of the Four
Gospels (article "Gospels," Am. ed. vol. ii. p. 751).
An interesting edition of the Synoptic Gospels is that of W. G.
Rushbrooke (Synopticon, Cambridge, 1880-81). It is designed to show, by
different type and colour, the divergences and correspondences of the
three Gospels. The Greek text is that of Tischendorf, corrected from
that of Westcott and Hort. It presents in the readiest form the
material for harmonistic comparisons; but the editor has prepared it
with a purpose diametrically opposed to that of the Harmonist, namely,
to construct from the matter common to the Synoptists a "triple
tradition," which will, in the author's judgment, approximately present
the "source" from which all have drawn. The work has great value apart
from its theory of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels.
In America Edward Robinson published, in repeated editions, a Harmony
of the Gospels in Greek and also in English. He had previously
reprinted that of Newcome.
S. J. Andrews (Life of our Lord; New York, 1863), has sought "to
arrange the events of the Lord's life, as given us by the evangelists,
so far as possible, in a chronological order, and to state the grounds
of this order." It is virtually a Harmony, with the full text of the
Gospels omitted. Few works of the kind equal it in value, though it
needs revision in the light of the more recent results of textual
criticism.
Frederic Gardinerhas published a Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek
(Andover, 1871, 1876). It gives the text of Tischendorf (eighth
edition), with a collation of the Textus Receptus, and of the texts of
Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles. The authorities are cited in the
case of important variations. Another valuable feature is a comparative
table, presenting in parallel columns the arrangement adopted by
Greswell, Stroud, Robinson, Thomson, Tischendorf, and Gardiner.
A number of works, aiming to consolidate into one narrative the four
accounts, have been passed over.
The Harmony of Dr. Robinson, which has held its ground for more than
forty years, has been recently revised by the present writer. The text
of Tischendorf has been substituted for that of Hahn; all the various
readings materially affecting the sense which are found in Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, and in the Revised English version of 1881, have
been given in footnotes, with a selection of the leading authorities
(mss. and versions) for or against each reading cited. The Appendix has
been enlarged to meet the new phases of discussion; but the whole
volume is what it purports to be,--a revision of the standard work of
Dr. Robinson. In the matter of the Greek text, the author would
probably have done what has now been done by the editor. A similar but
less extensive revision of the English Harmony of Dr. Robinson has been
published. [497]
Allegheny, Pa., Nov. 14, 1887.
__________________________________________________________________
[493] The writer may be pardoned for alluding to his own experience in
connection with this point. In the exegetical labours of some years, he
found himself accepting the theory that the three Synoptists wrote
independently of each other. Afterwards, when the task of editing Dr.
Robinson's Greek Harmony compelled him to compare again and again every
word of each account, the evidences of independence seemed to him to be
overwhelming.
[494] See Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. ii. rev. ed.,
pp. 493 sqq., 726 sqq.; also Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, article
"Diatessaron." For the literature, see as above, and the supplementary
volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 33-35. Tatian's Address to the
Greeks may be found in vol. ii. Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 65-83.
[495] For full titles of these volumes, see Schaff, as above.
[496] The letter of Eusebius to Caprianus is given by C. R. Gregory
(Prolegomena to Tischendorf's eighth edition, part i. pp. 143-153),
together with a full list of the sections arranged under the separate
canons. The numbers signify as follows:-- 1. In all four Gospels, 71.
2. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, 111. 3. In Matthew, Luke, John, 22. 4. In
Matthew, Mark, John, 26. 5. In Matthew, Luke, 82. 6. In Matthew, Mark,
47. 7. In Matthew, John, 7. 8. In Luke, Mark, 14. 9. In Luke, John, 21.
10. In one Gospel: Matthew, 62; Mark, 21; Luke, 71; John, 97.
[497] For lists of Harmonies, see Schaff, History of the Christian
Church, rev. ed. vol. i. pp. 575, 576; Gardiner, Harmony, pp.
xxxiv.-xxxvii.; Robinson, Harmony, revised by Riddle, pp. ix, x. Each
of these lists contains references to older authors and their lists.
See also Smith, Bible Dictionary, Am. ed. (Hackett and Abbot) ii. pp.
950, 960.
__________________________________________________________________
Translator's Introductory Notice.
------------------------
In the remarkable work known as his Retractations, Augustin makes a
brief statement on the subject of this treatise on the Harmony of the
Evangelists. The sixteenth chapter of the second book of that memorable
review of his literary career, contains corrections of certain points
on which he believed that he had not been sufficiently accurate in
these discussions. In the same passage he informs us that this treatise
was undertaken during the years in which he was occupied with his great
work on the Trinity, and that, breaking in upon the task which had been
making gradual progress under his hand, he wrought continuously at this
new venture until it was finished. Its composition is assigned to about
the year 400 A.D. The date is determined in the following manner: In
the first book there is a sentence (S: 27) which appears to indicate
that, by the time when Augustin engaged himself with this effort, the
destruction of the idols of the old religion was being carried out
under express imperial authority. No law of that kind, however,
affecting Africa, seems to be found expressed previous to those to
which he refers at the close of the eighteenth book of the City of God.
There he gives us to understand that such measures were put in force in
Carthage, under Gaudentius and Jovius, the associates of the Emperor
Honorius, and states that for the space of nearly thirty years from
that time the Christian religion made advances large enough to arrest
general attention. Before that period, which must have been about the
year 399, the idols could not be destroyed, as Augustin elsewhere
indicates (Serm. lxii. 11, n. 17), but with the consent of the parties
to whom they belonged. These considerations are taken to fix the
composition of this work to a date not earlier than the close of 399
A.D.
Among Augustin's numerous theological productions, this one takes rank
with the most toilsome and exhaustive. We find him expressing himself
to that effect now and again, when he has occasion to allude to it.
Thus, in the 112th Tractate on John (n. i), he calls it a laborious
piece of literature; and in the 117th Tractate on the same evangelist,
he speaks of the themes here dealt with as matters which were discussed
with the utmost painstaking.
Its great object is to vindicate the Gospel against the critical
assaults of the heathen. Paganism, having tried persecution as its
first weapon, and seen it fail, attempted next to discredit the new
faith by slandering its doctrine, impeaching its history, and attacking
with special persistency the veracity of the Gospel writers. In this it
was aided by some of Augustin's heretical antagonists, who endeavoured
at times to establish a conspicuous inconsistency between the Jewish
Scriptures and the Christian, and at times to prove the several
sections of the New Testament to be at variance with each other. Many
alleged that the original Gospels had received considerable additions
of a spurious character. And it was a favorite method of argumentation,
adopted both by heathen and by Manichaean adversaries, to urge that the
evangelical historians contradicted each other. Thus, in the present
treatise (i. 7), Augustin speaks of this matter of the discrepancies
between the Evangelists as the palmary argument wielded by his
opponents. Hence, as elsewhere he sought to demonstrate the congruity
of the Old Testament with the New, he set himself here to exonerate
Christianity from the charge of any defect of harmony, whether in the
facts recorded or in the order of their narration, between its four
fundamental historical documents.
The plan of the work is laid out in four great divisions. In the first
book, he refutes those who asserted that Christ was only the wisest
among men, and who aimed at detracting from the authority of the
Gospels, by insisting on the absence of any written compositions
proceeding from the hand of Christ Himself, and by affirming that the
disciples went beyond what had been his own teaching both on the
subject of His divinity, and on the duty of abandoning the worship of
the gods. In the second, he enters upon a careful examination of
Matthew's Gospel, on to the record of the supper, comparing it with
Mark, Luke, and John, and exhibiting the perfect harmony subsisting
between them. In the third, he demonstrates the same consistency
between the four Evangelists, from the account of the supper on to the
end. And in the fourth, he subjects to a similar investigation those
passages in Mark, Luke, and John, which have no proper parallels in
Matthew.
For the discharge of a task like this, Augustin was gifted with much,
but he also lacked much. The resources of a noble and penetrating
intellect, profound spiritual insight, and reverent love for Scripture,
formed high qualifications at his command. But he was deficient in
exact scholarship. Thoroughly versed in Latin literature, as is evinced
here by the happy notices of Ennius, Cicero, Lucan, and others of its
great writers, he knew little Greek, and no Hebrew. He refers more than
once in the present treatise to his ignorance of the original language
of the Old Testament; and while his knowledge of that of the New was
probably not so unserviceable as has often been supposed, instances
like that in which he solves the apparent difficulty in the two
burdens, mentioned in Gal. vi., without alluding to the distinction
between the Greek words, make it sufficiently plain that it was not at
least his invariable habit to prosecute these studies with the original
in his view. Hence we find him missing many explanations which would at
once have suggested themselves, had he not so implicitly followed the
imperfect versions of the sacred text.
An analysis of the contents of the work might show much that is of
interest to the Biblical critic. Principles elsewhere theoretically
enunciated are seen here in their free application. In some respects,
this effort is one of a more severely scientific character than is
often the case with Augustin. It displays much less digression than is
customary with him. The tendency to extravagant allegorizing is also
less frequently indulged in, although it does come to the surface at
times, as in the notable example of the interpretation of the names
Leah and Rachel. His inordinate dependence upon the Septuagint,
however, is as broadly marked here as anywhere. As he sometimes
indicates an inclination to accept the story of Aristeas, in this
composition he almost goes the length of claiming a special inspiration
for these translators. On the other hand, in many passages we have the
privilege of seeing his resolve to be no uncritical expositor. He
pauses often to chronicle varieties of reading, sometimes in the Latin
text and sometimes in the Greek. Thus he notices the occurrence of
Lebbaeus for Thaddaeus, of Dalmanutha for Magedan, and the like, and
mentions how some codices read woman for maid, in the sentence, The
maid is not dead, but sleepeth (Matt. ix. 24).
His principles of harmonizing are ordinarily characterized by
simplicity and good sense. In general, he surmounts the difficulty of
what may seem at first sight discordant versions of one incident, by
supposing different instances of the same circumstances, or repeated
utterances of the same words. He holds emphatically by the position,
that wherever it is possible to believe two similar incidents to have
taken place, no contradiction can legitimately be alleged, although no
Evangelist may relate them both together. All merely verbal variations
in the records of the same occurrence he regards as matters of too
little consequence to create any serious perplexity to the student
whose aim is honestly to reach the sense intended. Such narratives as
those of the storm upon the lake, the healing of the centurion's
servant, and the denials of Peter, furnish good examples of his method,
and of the fair and fearless spirit of his inquiry. And however
unsuccessful we may now judge some of his endeavours, when we consider
the comparative poverty of his materials, and the untrodden field which
he essayed to search, we shall not deny to this treatise the merit of
grandeur in original conception, and exemplary faithfulness in actual
execution.
S. D. F. S.
__________________________________________________________________
the harmony of the gospels.
------------------------
Book I.
The treatise opens with a short statement on the subject of the
authority of the evangelists, their number, their order, and the
different plans of their narratives. Augustin then prepares for the
discussion of the questions relating to their harmony, by joining issue
in this book with those who raise a difficulty in the circumstance that
Christ has left no writing of His own, or who falsely allege that
certain books were composed by Him on the arts of magic. He also meets
the objections of those who, in opposition to the evangelical teaching,
assert that the disciples of Christ at once ascribed more to their
Master than He really was, when they affirmed that He was God, and
inculcated what they had not been instructed in by Him, when they
interdicted the worship of the gods. Against these antagonists he
vindicates the teaching of the apostles, by appealing to the utterances
of the prophets, and by showing that the God of Israel was to be the
sole object of worship, who also, although He was the only Deity to
whom acceptance was denied in former times by the Romans, and that for
the very reason that He prohibited them from worshipping other gods
along with Himself, has now in the end made the empire of Rome subject
to His name, and among all nations has broken their idols in pieces
through the preaching of the gospel, as He had promised by His prophets
that the event should be.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter I.--On the Authority of the Gospels.
1. In the entire number of those divine records which are contained in
the sacred writings, the gospel deservedly stands pre-eminent. For what
the law and the prophets aforetime announced as destined to come to
pass, is exhibited in the gospel in its realization [498] and
fulfilment. The first preachers of this gospel were the apostles, who
beheld our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in person when He was yet
present in the flesh. And not only did these [499] men keep in
remembrance the words heard from His lips, and the deeds wrought by Him
beneath their eyes; but they were also careful, when the duty of
preaching the gospel was laid upon them, to make mankind acquainted
with those divine and memorable occurrences which took place at a
period antecedent to the formation of their own connection with Him in
the way of discipleship, which belonged also to the time of His
nativity, His infancy, or His youth, and with regard to which they were
able to institute exact inquiry and to obtain information, either at
His own hand or at the hands of His parents or other parties, on the
ground of the most reliable intimations and the most trustworthy
testimonies. Certain of them also--namely, Matthew and John--gave to
the world, in their respective books, a written account of all those
matters which it seemed needful to commit to writing concerning Him.
2. And to preclude the supposition that, in what concerns the
apprehension and proclamation of the gospel, it is a matter of any
consequence whether the enunciation comes by men who were actual
followers of this same Lord here when He manifested Himself in the
flesh and had the company of His disciples attendant on Him, or by
persons who with due credit received facts with which they became
acquainted in a trustworthy manner through the instrumentality of these
former, divine providence, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, has
taken care that certain of those also who were nothing more than
followers of the first apostles should have authority given them not
only to preach the gospel, but also to compose an account of it in
writing. I refer to Mark and Luke. All those other individuals,
however, who have attempted or dared to offer a written record of the
acts of the Lord or of the apostles, failed to commend themselves in
their own times as men of the character which would induce the Church
to yield them its confidence, and to admit their compositions to the
canonical authority of the Holy Books. And this was the case not merely
because they were persons who could make no rightful claim to have
credit given them in their narrations, but also because in a deceitful
manner they introduced into their writings certain matters which are
condemned at once by the catholic and apostolic rule of faith, and by
sound doctrine. [500]
__________________________________________________________________
[498] Reading redditum. Four mss. give revelatum = as brought to
light.--Migne.
[499] Instead of Qui non solum, as above, many mss. read Cujus,
etc.--Migne.
[500] [The character of the Apocryphal Gospels is obvious. The
reference of Luke (i. 1) is probably to fragmentary records, now lost.
Comp. below Book iv. chap. 8.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.--On the Order of the Evangelists, and the Principles on
Which They Wrote.
3. Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most
remarkable circulation [501] over the whole world, and whose number has
been fixed as four,--it may be for the simple reason that there are
four divisions of that world through the universal length of which
they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the
advancing extension of the Church of Christ,--are believed to have
written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly
Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these had one
order determined among them with regard to the matters of their
personal knowledge and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different
order in reference to the task of giving the written narrative. As far,
indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own knowledge and the
charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were
actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and
who heard Him speak and saw Him act; and [with a commission received]
from His lips they were despatched to preach the gospel. But as
respects the task of composing that record of the gospel which is to be
accepted as ordained by divine authority, there were (only) two,
belonging to the number of those whom the Lord chose before the
passover, that obtained places,--namely, the first place and the last.
For the first place in order was held by Matthew, and the last by John.
And thus the remaining two, who did not belong to the number referred
to, but who at the same time had become followers of the Christ who
spoke in these others, were supported on either side by the same, like
sons who were to be embraced, and who in this way were set in the midst
between these twain.
4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written
in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may
appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to
himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer
chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left
out as matters about which there was no information things which
another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is,
that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they
abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint
compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to
construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the
royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and
words as they stood in relation to this present life of men. Mark
follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer. [502]
For in his narrative he gives nothing in concert with John apart from
the others: by himself separately, he has little to record; in
conjunction with Luke, as distinguished from the rest, he has still
less; but in concord with Matthew, he has a very large number of
passages. Much, too, he narrates in words almost numerically and
identically the same as those used by Matthew, where the agreement is
either with that evangelist alone, or with him in connection with the
rest. On the other hand, Luke appears to have occupied himself rather
with the priestly lineage and character [503] of the Lord. For although
in his own way he carries the descent back to David, what he has
followed is not the royal pedigree, but the line of those who were not
kings. That genealogy, too, he has brought to a point in Nathan the son
of David, [504] which person likewise was no king. It is not thus,
however, with Matthew. For in tracing the lineage along through Solomon
the king, [505] he has pursued with strict regularity the succession of
the other kings; and in enumerating these, he has also conserved that
mystical number of which we shall speak hereafter.
__________________________________________________________________
[501] Notissimi.
[502] [This opinion is not only unwarranted, since Mark shows greater
signs of originality, but it has been prejudicial to the correct
appreciation of the Gospel of Mark. The verbal identity of Matthew and
Mark in parallel passages is far less than commonly supposed.--R.]
[503] Personam.
[504] Luke iii. 31.
[505] Matt. i. 6.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Of the Fact that Matthew, Together with Mark, Had
Specially in View the Kingly Character of Christ, Whereas Luke Dealt
with the Priestly.
5. For the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the one true King and the one true
Priest, the former to rule us, and the latter to make expiation for us,
has shown us how His own figure bore these two parts together, which
were only separately commended [to notice] among the Fathers. [506]
This becomes apparent if (for example) we look to that inscription
which was affixed to His cross--"King of the Jews:" in connection also
with which, and by a secret instinct, Pilate replied, "What I have
written, I have written." [507] For it had been said aforetime in the
Psalms, "Destroy not the writing of the title." [508] The same becomes
evident, so far as the part of priest is concerned, if we have regard
to what He has taught us concerning offering and receiving. For thus it
is that He sent us beforehand a prophecy [509] respecting Himself,
which runs thus, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of
Melchisedek." [510] And in many other testimonies of the divine
Scriptures, Christ appears both as King and as Priest. Hence, also,
even David himself, whose son He is, not without good reason, more
frequently declared to be than he is said to be Abraham's son, and whom
Matthew and Luke have both alike held by,--the one viewing him as the
person from whom, through Solomon, His lineage can be traced down, and
the other taking him for the person to whom, through Nathan, His
genealogy can be carried up,--did represent the part of a priest,
although he was patently a king, when he ate the shew-bread. For it was
not lawful for any one to eat that, save the priests only. [511] To
this it must be added that Luke is the only one who mentions how Mary
was discovered by the angel, and how she was related to Elisabeth,
[512] who was the wife of Zacharias the priest. And of this Zacharias
the same evangelist has recorded the fact, that the woman whom he had
for wife was one of the daughters of Aaron, which is to say she
belonged to the tribe of the priests. [513]
6. Whereas, then, Matthew had in view the kingly character, and Luke
the priestly, they have at the same time both set forth pre-eminently
the humanity of Christ: for it was according to His humanity that
Christ was made both King and Priest. To Him, too, God gave the throne
of His father David, in order that of His kingdom there should be none
end. [514] And this was done with the purpose that there might be a
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [515] to make
intercession for us. Luke, on the other hand, had no one connected with
him to act as his summarist in the way that Mark was attached to
Matthew. And it may be that this is not without a certain solemn
significance. [516] For it is the right of kings not to miss the
obedient following of attendants; and hence the evangelist, who had
taken it in hand to give an account of the kingly character of Christ,
had a person attached to him as his associate who was in some fashion
to follow in his steps. But inasmuch as it was the priest's want to
enter all alone into the holy of holies, in accordance with that
principle, Luke, whose object contemplated the priestly office of
Christ, did not have any one to come after him as a confederate, who
was meant in some way to serve as an epitomizer of his narrative. [517]
__________________________________________________________________
[506] Some editions insert antiquos, the ancient Fathers; but the mss.
omit it.--Migne.
[507] John xix. 19-22.
[508] Ps. lxxv. 1.
[509] Two mss. give prophetam ("prophet") instead of prophetiam
("prophecy").--Migne.
[510] Ps. cx. 4.
[511] 1 Sam. xxi. 6; Matt. xii. 3.
[512] The reading supported by the manuscripts is: Mariam commemorat ab
Angelo manifestatam cognatam fuisse Elisabeth. It is sometimes given
thus: Mariam commemorat manifeste cognatam, etc. = mentions that Mary
was clearly related to Elizabeth.
[513] Luke i. 36, 5.
[514] Luke i. 32.
[515] 1 Tim. ii. 5.
[516] Sine aliquo sacramento.
[517] [Here we have a mystical meaning attached to an opinion
unwarranted by facts. Yet Augustin's mystical treatment of the
"Synoptic problem" is, with all its faults, not more fanciful and
extravagant than some of the modern "critical" solutions of the same
problem.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Of the Fact that John Undertook the Exposition of Christ's
Divinity.
7. These three evangelists, however, were for the most part engaged
with those things which Christ did through the vehicle of the flesh of
man, and after the temporal fashion. [518] But John, on the other hand,
had in view that true divinity of the Lord in which He is the Father's
equal, and directed his efforts above all to the setting forth of the
divine nature in his Gospel in such a way as he believed to be adequate
to men's needs and notions. [519] Therefore he is borne to loftier
heights, in which he leaves the other three far behind him; so that,
while in them you see men who have their conversation in a certain
manner with the man Christ on earth, in him you perceive one who has
passed beyond the cloud in which the whole earth is wrapped, and who
has reached the liquid heaven from which, with clearest and steadiest
mental eye, he is able to look upon God the Word, who was in the
beginning with God, and by whom all things were made. [520] And there,
too, he can recognise Him who was made flesh in order that He might
dwell amongst us; [521] [that Word of whom we say,] that He assumed the
flesh, not that He was changed into the flesh. For had not this
assumption of the flesh been effected in such a manner as at the same
time to conserve the unchangeable Divinity, such a word as this could
never have been spoken,--namely, "I and the Father are one." [522] For
surely the Father and the flesh are not one. And the same John is also
the only one who has recorded that witness which the Lord gave
concerning Himself, when He said: "He that hath seen me, hath seen the
Father also;" and, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me;" [523]
"that they may be one, even as we are one;" [524] and, "Whatsoever the
Father doeth, these same things doeth the Son likewise." [525] And
whatever other statements there may be to the same effect, calculated
to betoken, to those who are possessed of right understanding, that
divinity of Christ in which He is the Father's equal, of all these we
might almost say that we are indebted for their introduction into the
Gospel narrative to John alone. For he is like one who has drunk in the
secret of His divinity more richly and somehow more familiarly than
others, as if he drew it from the very bosom of his Lord on which it
was his wont to recline when He sat at meat. [526]
__________________________________________________________________
[518] Temporaliter.
[519] Quantum inter homines sufficere credidit.
[520] John i. 1, 3.
[521] John i. 14.
[522] John x. 30.
[523] John xiv. 9, 10.
[524] John xvii. 22.
[525] John v. 19.
[526] John xiii. 23.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--Concerning the Two Virtues, of Which John is Conversant
with the Contemplative, the Other Evangelists with the Active.
8. Moreover, there are two several virtues (or talents) which have been
proposed to the mind of man. Of these, the one is the active, and the
other the contemplative: the one being that whereby the way is taken,
and the other that whereby the goal is reached; [527] the one that by
which men labour in order that the heart may be purified to see God,
and the other that by which men are disengaged [528] and God is seen.
Thus the former of these two virtues is occupied with the precepts for
the right exercise of the temporal life, whereas the latter deals with
the doctrine of that life which is everlasting. In this way, also, the
one operates, the other rests; for the former finds its sphere in the
purging of sins, the latter moves in the light [529] of the purged. And
thus, again, in this mortal life the one is engaged with the work of a
good conversation; while the other subsists rather on faith, and is
seen only in the person of the very few, and through the glass darkly,
and only in part in a kind of vision of the unchangeable truth. [530]
Now these two virtues are understood to be presented emblematically in
the instance of the two wives of Jacob. Of these I have discoursed
already up to the measure of my ability, and as fully as seemed to be
appropriate to my task, (in what I have written) in opposition to
Faustus the Manichaean. [531] For Lia, indeed, by interpretation means
"labouring," [532] whereas Rachel signifies "the first principle seen."
[533] And by this it is given us to understand, if one will only attend
carefully to the matter, that those three evangelists who, with
pre-eminent fulness, have handled the account of the Lord's temporal
doings and those of His sayings which were meant to bear chiefly upon
the moulding of the manners of the present life, were conversant with
that active virtue; and that John, on the other hand, who narrates
fewer by far of the Lord's doings, but records with greater carefulness
and with larger wealth of detail the words which He spoke, and most
especially those discourses which were intended to introduce us to the
knowledge of the unity of the Trinity and the blessedness of the life
eternal, formed his plan and framed his statement with a view to
commend the contemplative virtue to our regard.
__________________________________________________________________
[527] Illa qua itur, ista qua pervenitur.
[528] Qua vacatur.
[529] Reading lumine; but one of the Vatican mss. gives in
illuminatione, in the enlightenment of the purged.
[530] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[531] Book xxii. 52.
[532] Laborans.
[533] Visum principium. In various editions it is given as visus
principium. The mss. have visum principium. In the passage referred to
in the treatise against Faustus the Manichaean, Augustin appends the
explanation, sive verbum ex quo videtur principium, = the first
principle seen, or the word by which the first principle is seen. The
etymologies on which Augustin proceeds may perhaps be these: for Leah,
the Hebrew verb Laah, to be wearied (L+o#oH+); and for Rachel the
Hebrew forms Raah = see, and Chalal = begin (R+o#oH+ ,X+oL+aL+). For
another example of extravagant allegorizing on the two wives of Jacob,
see Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, chap. cxl.--Tr.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--Of the Four Living Creatures in the Apocalypse, Which Have
Been Taken by Some in One Application, and by Others in Another, as Apt
Figures of the Four Evangelists.
9. For these reasons, it also appears to me, that of the various
parties who have interpreted the living creatures in the Apocalypse as
significant of the four evangelists, those who have taken the lion to
point to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to
John, have made a more reasonable application of the figures than those
who have assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion
to John. [534] For, in forming their particular idea of the matter,
these latter have chosen to keep in view simply the beginnings of the
books, and not the full design of the several evangelists in its
completeness, which was the matter that should, above all, have been
thoroughly examined. For surely it is with much greater propriety that
the one who has brought under our notice most largely the kingly
character of Christ, should be taken to be represented by the lion.
Thus is it also that we find the lion mentioned in conjunction with the
royal tribe itself, in that passage of the Apocalypse where it is said,
"The lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed." [535] For in Matthew's
narrative the magi are recorded to have come from the east to inquire
after the King, and to worship Him whose birth was notified to them by
the star. Thus, too, Herod, who himself also was a king, is [said there
to be] afraid of the royal child, and to put so many little children to
death in order to make sure that the one might be slain. [536] Again,
that Luke is intended under the figure of the calf, in reference to the
pre-eminent sacrifice made by the priest, has been doubted by neither
of the two [sets of interpreters]. For in that Gospel the narrator's
account commences with Zacharias the priest. In it mention is also made
of the relationship between Mary and Elisabeth. [537] In it, too, it is
recorded that the ceremonies proper to the earliest priestly service
were attended to in the case of the infant Christ; [538] and a careful
examination brings a variety of other matters under our notice in this
Gospel, by which it is made apparent that Luke's object was to deal
with the part of the priest. In this way it follows further, that Mark,
who has set himself neither to give an account of the kingly lineage,
nor to expound anything distinctive of the priesthood, whether on the
subject of the relationship or on that of the consecration, and who at
the same time comes before us as one who handles the things which the
man Christ did, appears to be indicated simply under the figure of the
man among those four living creatures. But again, those three living
creatures, whether lion, man, or calf, have their course upon this
earth; and in like manner, those three evangelists occupy themselves
chiefly with the things which Christ did in the flesh, and with the
precepts which He delivered to men, who also bear the burden of the
flesh, for their instruction in the rightful exercise of this mortal
life. Whereas John, on the other hand, soars like an eagle above the
clouds of human infirmity, and gazes upon the light of the unchangeable
truth with those keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart. [539]
__________________________________________________________________
[534] [The latter application is that of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii.);
but the prevalent application is that of Jerome, which is accepted in
mediaeval art. It differs from that of Augustin (see table below). As a
curious illustration of the fanciful character of such interpretations,
the reader may consult the following table, which gives the order of
the following living creatures in Rev. iv. 7, with some of the leading
"applications."
Rev. iv. 7. Irenaeus. Augustin. Jerome.
Lange, Stier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------- 1. Lion... John. Matthew.
Mark. Mark. 2. Calf... Luke. Luke. Luke.
Matthew. 3. Man... Matthew. Mark. Matthew. Luke.
4. Eagle... Mark. John. John. John.
No doubt further variations could be discovered. Comp. Schaff's Church
History, rev. ed. vol. i. 585-589.--R.]
[535] Rev. v. 5.
[536] Matt. ii. 1-18.
[537] Luke i. 5, 36.
[538] Luke ii. 22-24.
[539] See also Tract. 36, on John i. 5. [This figure of Augustin has
controlled all the subsequent symbolism respecting the Evangelist John,
and has been constantly cited by commentators.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.--A Statement of Augustin's Reason for Undertaking This
Work on the Harmony of the Evangelists, and an Example of the Method in
Which He Meets Those Who Allege that Christ Wrote Nothing Himself, and
that His Disciples Made an Unwarranted Affirmation in Proclaiming Him
to Be God.
10. Those sacred chariots of the Lord, [540] however, in which He is
borne throughout the earth and brings the peoples under His easy yoke
and His light burden, are assailed with calumnious charges by certain
persons who, in impious vanity or in ignorant temerity, think to rob of
their credit as veracious historians those teachers by whose
instrumentality the Christian religion has been disseminated all the
world over, and through whose efforts it has yielded fruits so
plentiful that unbelievers now scarcely dare so much as to mutter their
slanders in private among themselves, kept in check by the faith of the
Gentiles and by the devotion of all the peoples. Nevertheless, inasmuch
as they still strive by their calumnious disputations to keep some from
making themselves acquainted with the faith, and thus prevent them from
becoming believers, while they also endeavour to the utmost of their
power to excite agitations among others who have already attained to
belief, and thereby give them trouble; and further, as there are some
brethren who, without detriment to their own faith, have a desire to
ascertain what answer can be given to such questions, either for the
advantage of their own knowledge or for the purpose of refuting the
vain utterances of their enemies, with the inspiration and help of the
Lord our God (and would that it might prove profitable for the
salvation of such men), we have undertaken in this work to demonstrate
the errors or the rashness of those who deem themselves able to prefer
charges, the subtilty of which is at least sufficiently observable,
against those four different books of the gospel which have been
written by these four several evangelists. And in order to carry out
this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers
in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other. For those
adversaries are in the habit of adducing this as the palmary [541]
allegation in all their vain objections, namely, that the evangelists
are not in harmony with each other.
11. But we must first discuss a matter which is apt to present a
difficulty to the minds of some. I refer to the question why the Lord
has written nothing Himself, and why He has thus left us to the
necessity of accepting the testimony of other persons who have prepared
records of His history. For this is what those parties--the pagans more
than any [542] --allege when they lack boldness enough to impeach or
blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and when they allow Him--only
as a man, however--to have been possessed of the most distinguished
wisdom. In making that admission, they at the same time assert that the
disciples claimed more for their Master than He really was; so much
more indeed that they even called Him the Son of God, and the Word of
God, by whom all things were made, and affirmed that He and God are
one. And in the same way they dispose of all other kindred passages in
the epistles of the apostles, in the light of which we have been taught
that He is to be worshipped as one God with the Father. For they are of
opinion that He is certainly to be honoured as the wisest of men; but
they deny that He is to be worshipped as God.
12. Wherefore, when they put the question why He has not written in His
own person, it would seem as if they were prepared to believe regarding
Him whatever He might have written concerning Himself, but not what
others may have given the world to know with respect to His life,
according to the measure of their own judgment. Well, I ask them in
turn why, in the case of certain of the noblest of their own
philosophers, they have accepted the statements which their disciples
left in the records they have composed, while these sages themselves
have given us no written accounts of their own lives? For Pythagoras,
than whom Greece in those days [543] did not possess any more
illustrious personage in the sphere of that contemplative virtue, is
believed to have written absolutely nothing, whether on the subject of
his own personal history or on any other theme whatsoever. And as to
Socrates, to whom, on the other hand, they have adjudged a position of
supremacy above all others in that active virtue by which the moral
life is trained, so that they do not hesitate also to aver that he was
even pronounced to be the wisest of men by the testimony of their deity
Apollo,--it is indeed true that he handled the fables of AEsop in some
few short verses, and thus made use of words and numbers of his own in
the task of rendering the themes of another. But this was all. And so
far was he from having the desire to write anything himself, that he
declared that he had done even so much only because he was constrained
by the imperial will of his demon, as Plato, the noblest of all his
disciples, tells us. That was a work, also, in which he sought to set
forth in fair form not so much his own thoughts, as rather the ideas of
another. What reasonable ground, therefore, have they for believing,
with regard to those sages, all that their disciples have committed to
record in respect of their history, while at the same time they refuse
to credit in the case of Christ what His disciples have written on the
subject of His life? And all the more may we thus argue, when we see
how they admit that all other men have been excelled by Him in the
matter of wisdom, although they decline to acknowledge Him to be God.
Is it, indeed, the case that those persons whom they do not hesitate to
allow to have been by far His inferiors, have had the faculty of making
disciples who can be trusted in all that concerns the narrative of
their careers, and that He failed in that capacity? But if that is a
most absurd statement to venture upon, then in all that belongs to the
history of that Person to whom they grant the honour of wisdom, they
ought to believe not merely what suits their own notions, but what they
read in the narratives of those who learned from this sage Himself
those various facts which they have left on record on the subject of
His life.
__________________________________________________________________
[540] Has Domini sanctas quadrigas.
[541] Reading either palmam suae vanitatis objicere, or with several
mss. palmare, etc.
[542] Vel maxime pagani.
[543] Six mss. omit the tunc, at that time.--Migne.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.--Of the Question Why, If Christ is Believed to Have Been
the Wisest of Men on the Testimony of Common Narrative Report, He
Should Not Be Believed to Be God on the Testimony of the Superior
Report of Preaching.
13. Besides this, they ought to tell us by what means they have
succeeded in acquiring their knowledge of this fact that He was the
wisest of men, or how it has had the opportunity of reaching their
ears. If they have been made acquainted with it simply by current
report, then is it the case that common report forms a more trustworthy
informant [544] on the subject of His history than those disciples of
His who, as they have gone and preached of Him, have disseminated the
same report like a penetrating savour throughout the whole world? [545]
In fine, they ought to prefer the one kind of report to the other, and
believe that account of His life which is the superior of the two. For
this report, [546] indeed, which is spread abroad with a wonderful
clearness from that Church catholic [547] at whose extension through
the whole world those persons are so astonished, prevails in an
incomparable fashion over the unsubstantial rumours with which men like
them occupy themselves. This report, furthermore, which carries with it
such weight and such currency, [548] that in dread of it they can only
mutter their anxious and feeble snatches of paltry objections within
their own breasts, as if they were more afraid now of being heard than
wishful to receive credit, proclaims Christ to be the only-begotten Son
of God, and Himself God, [549] by whom all things were made. If,
therefore, they choose report as their witness, why does not their
choice fix on this special report, which is so pre-eminently lustrous
in its remarkable definiteness? And if they desire the evidence of
writings, why do they not take those evangelical writings which excel
all others in their commanding authority? On our side, indeed, we
accept those statements about their deities which are offered at once
in their most ancient writings and by most current report. But if these
deities are to be considered proper objects for reverence, why then do
they make them the subject of laughter in the theatres? And if, on the
other hand, they are proper objects for laughter, the occasion for such
laughter must be all the greater when they are made the objects of
worship in the theatres. It remains for us to look upon those persons
as themselves minded to be witnesses concerning Christ, who, by
speaking what they know not, divest themselves of the merit of knowing
what they speak about. Or if, again, they assert that they are
possessed of any books which they can maintain to have been written by
Him, they ought to produce them for our inspection. For assuredly those
books (if there are such) must be most profitable and most wholesome,
seeing they are the productions of one whom they acknowledge to have
been the wisest of men. If, however, they are afraid to produce them,
it must be because they are of evil tendency; but if they are evil,
then the wisest of men cannot have written them. They acknowledge
Christ, however, to be the wisest of men, and consequently Christ
cannot have written any such thing.
__________________________________________________________________
[544] Instead of de illo nuntia fama est, fourteen mss. give de illo
fama nuntiata est = is it a more trustworthy report that has been
announced.--Migne.
[545] Quibus eum praedicantibus ipsa per totum mundum fama fragravit?
[546] Fama.
[547] De catholica ecclesia.
[548] Celebris.
[549] The words stand, as above, in the great majority of mss.: tam
celebris, ut eam timendo isti trepidas et tepidas contradictiunculas in
sinu suo rodant, jam plus metuentes audiri quam volentes credi, Filium
Dei Unigenitum et Deum praedicat Christum? In some mss. and editions
the sense is altered by inserting est after celebris, and substituting
nolentes for volentes, and praedicari for praedicat; so that it becomes
= that report is of such distinguished currency, that in dread of it
they can only mutter, etc....as now rather fearing to be heard than
refusing to admit the belief that Christ is proclaimed to be the
only-begotten Son of God, etc. See Migne.--Tr.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.--Of Certain Persons Who Pretend that Christ Wrote Books on
the Arts of Magic.
14. But, indeed, these persons rise to such a pitch of folly as to
allege that the books which they consider to have been written by Him
contain the arts by which they think He wrought those miracles, the
fame of which has become prevalent in all quarters. And this fancy of
theirs betrays what they really love, and what their aims really are.
For thus, indeed, they show us how they entertain this opinion that
Christ was the wisest of men only for the reason that He possessed the
knowledge of I know not what illicit arts, which are justly condemned,
not merely by Christian discipline, but even by the administration of
earthly government itself. And, in good sooth, if there are people who
affirm that they have read books of this nature composed by Christ,
then why do they not perform with their own hand some such works as
those which so greatly excite their wonder when wrought by Him, by
taking advantage of the information which they have derived from these
books?
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X.--Of Some Who are Mad Enough to Suppose that the Books Were
Inscribed with the Names of Peter and Paul.
15. Nay more, as by divine judgment, some of those who either believe,
or wish to have it believed, that Christ wrote matter of that
description, have even wandered so far into error as to allege that
these same books bore on their front, in the form of epistolary
superscription, a designation addressed to Peter and Paul. And it is
quite possible that either the enemies of the name of Christ, or
certain parties who thought that they might impart to this kind of
execrable arts the weight of authority drawn from so glorious a name,
may have written things of that nature under the name of Christ and the
apostles. But in such most deceitful audacity they have been so utterly
blinded as simply to have made themselves fitting objects for laughter,
even with young people who as yet know Christian literature only in
boyish fashion, and rank merely in the grade of readers.
16. For when they made up their minds to represent Christ to have
written in such strain as that to His disciples, they bethought
themselves of those of His followers who might best be taken for the
persons to whom Christ might most readily be believed to have written,
as the individuals who had kept by Him on the most familiar terms of
friendship. And so Peter and Paul occurred to them, I believe, just
because in many places they chanced to see these two apostles
represented in pictures as both in company with Him. [550] For Rome, in
a specially honourable and solemn manner, [551] commends the merits of
Peter and of Paul, for this reason among others, namely, that they
suffered [martyrdom] on the same day. Thus to fall most completely into
error was the due desert of men who sought for Christ and His apostles
not in the holy writings, but on painted walls. Neither is it to be
wondered at, that these fiction-limners were misled by the painters.
[552] For throughout the whole period during which Christ lived in our
mortal flesh in fellowship with His disciples, Paul had never become
His disciple. Only after His passion, after His resurrection, after His
ascension, after the mission of the Holy Spirit from heaven, after many
Jews had been converted and had shown marvellous faith, after the
stoning of Stephen the deacon and martyr, and when Paul still bore the
name Saul, and was grievously persecuting those who had become
believers in Christ, did Christ call that man [by a voice] from heaven,
and made him His disciple and apostle. [553] How, then, is it possible
that Christ could have written those books which they wish to have it
believed that He did write before His death, and which were addressed
to Peter and Paul, as those among His disciples who had been most
intimate with Him, seeing that up to that date Paul had not yet become
a disciple of His at all?
__________________________________________________________________
[550] Simul eos cum illo pictos viderent.
[551] The text gives diem celebrius solemniter, etc.; others give diem
celebrius et solemniter; and three mss. have diem celeberrimum
solemniter.--Migne.
[552] A pingentibus fingentes decepti sunt.
[553] Acts ix. 1-30.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.--In Opposition to Those Who Foolishly Imagine that Christ
Converted the People to Himself by Magical Arts.
17. Moreover, let those who madly fancy that it was by the use of
magical arts that He was able to do the great things which He did, and
that it was by the practice of such rites that He made His name a
sacred thing to the peoples who were to be converted to Him, give their
attention to this question,--namely, whether by the exercise of magical
arts, and before He was born on this earth, He could also have filled
with the Holy Spirit those mighty prophets who aforetime declared those
very things concerning Him as things destined to come to pass, which we
can now read in their accomplishment in the gospel, and which we can
see in their present realization in the world. For surely, even if it
was by magical arts that He secured worship for Himself, and that, too,
after His death, it is not the case that He was a magician before He
was born. Nay, for the office of prophesying on the subject of His
coming, one nation had been most specially deputed; and the entire
administration of that commonwealth was ordained to be a prophecy of
this King who was to come, and who was to found a heavenly state [554]
drawn out of all nations.
__________________________________________________________________
[554] Civitatem.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.--Of the Fact that the God of the Jews, After the
Subjugation of that People, Was Still Not Accepted by the Romans,
Because His Commandment Was that He Alone Should Be Worshipped, and
Images Destroyed.
18. Furthermore, that Hebrew nation, which, as I have said, was
commissioned to prophesy of Christ, had no other God but one God, the
true God, who made heaven and earth, and all that therein is. Under His
displeasure they were ofttimes given into the power of their enemies.
And now, indeed, on account of their most heinous sin in putting Christ
to death, they have been thoroughly rooted out of Jerusalem itself,
which was the capital of their kingdom, and have been made subject to
the Roman empire. Now the Romans were in the habit of propitiating
[555] the deities of those nations whom they conquered by worshipping
these themselves, and they were accustomed to undertake the charge of
their sacred rites. But they declined to act on that principle with
regard to the God of the Hebrew nation, either when they made their
attack or when they reduced the people. I believe that they perceived
that, if they admitted the worship of this Deity, whose commandment was
that He only should be worshipped, and that images should be destroyed,
they would have to put away from them all those objects to which
formerly they had undertaken to do religious service, and by the
worship of which they believed their empire had grown. But in this the
falseness of their demons mightily deceived them. For surely they ought
to have apprehended the fact that it is only by the hidden will of the
true God, in whose hand resides the supreme power in all things, that
the kingdom was given them and has been made to increase, and that
their position was not due to the favour of those deities who, if they
could have wielded any influence whatever in that matter, would rather
have protected their own people from being over-mastered by the Romans,
or would have brought the Romans themselves into complete subjection to
them.
19. Certainly they cannot possibly affirm that the kind of piety and
manners exemplified by them became objects of love and choice on the
part of the gods of the nations which they conquered. They will never
make such an assertion, if they only recall their own early beginnings,
the asylum for abandoned criminals and the fratricide of Romulus. For
when Remus and Romulus established their asylum, with the intention
that whoever took refuge there, be the crime what it might be with
which he stood charged, should enjoy impunity in his deed, they did not
promulgate any precepts of penitence for bringing the minds of such
wretched men back to a right condition. By this bribe of impunity did
they not rather arm the gathered band of fearful fugitives against the
states to which they properly belonged, and the laws of which they
dreaded? Or when Romulus slew his brother, who had perpetrated no evil
against him, is it the case that his mind was bent on the vindication
of justice, and not on the acquisition of absolute power? And is it
true that the deities did take their delight in manners like these, as
if they were themselves enemies to their own states, in so far as they
favoured those who were the enemies of these communities? Nay rather,
neither did they by deserting them harm the one class, nor did they by
passing over to their side in any sense help the other. For they have
it not in their power to give kingship or to remove it. But that is
done by the one true God, according to His hidden counsel. And it is
not His mind to make those necessarily blessed to whom He may have
given an earthly kingdom, or to make those necessarily unhappy whom He
has deprived of that position. But He makes men blessed or wretched for
other reasons and by other means, and either by permission or by actual
gift distributes temporal and earthly kingdoms to whomsoever He
pleases, and for whatsoever period He chooses, according to the
fore-ordained order of the ages.
__________________________________________________________________
[555] The text gives deos...colendos propitiare. Five mss. give
deos...colendo propitiare.--Migne.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.--Of the Question Why God Suffered the Jews to Be Reduced
to Subjection.
20. Hence also they cannot meet us fairly with this question: Why,
then, did the God of the Hebrews, whom you declare to be the supreme
and true God, not only not subdue the Romans under their power, but
even fail to secure those Hebrews themselves against subjugation by the
Romans? For there were open sins of theirs that went before them, and
on account of which the prophets so long time ago predicted that this
very thing would overtake them; and above all, the reason lay in the
fact, that in their impious fury they put Christ to death, in the
commission of which sin they were made blind [to the guilt of their
crime] through the deserts of other hidden transgressions. That His
sufferings also would be for the benefit of the Gentiles, was foretold
by the same prophetic testimony. Nor, in another point of view, did the
fact appear clearer, that the kingdom of that nation, and its temple,
and its priesthood, and its sacrificial system, and that mystical
unction which is called chrisma [556] in Greek, from which the name of
Christ takes its evident application, and on account of which that
nation was accustomed to speak of its kings as anointed ones, [557]
were ordained with the express object of prefiguring Christ, than has
the kindred fact become apparent, that after the resurrection of the
Christ who was put to death began to be preached unto the believing
Gentiles, all those things came to their end, all unrecognised as the
circumstance was, whether by the Romans, through whose victory, or by
the Jews, through whose subjugation, it was brought about that they did
thus reach their conclusion.
__________________________________________________________________
[556] Chrism.
[557] Christos.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.--Of the Fact that the God of the Hebrews, Although the
People Were Conquered, Proved Himself to Be Unconquered, by
Overthrowing the Idols, and by Turning All the Gentiles to His Own
Service.
21. Here indeed we have a wonderful fact, which is not remarked by
those few pagans who have remained such,--namely, that this God of the
Hebrews who was offended by the conquered, and who was also denied
acceptance by the conquerors, is now preached and worshipped among all
nations. This is that God of Israel of whom the prophet spake so long
time since, when he thus addressed the people of God: "And He who
brought thee out, the God of Israel, shall be called (the God) of the
whole earth." [558] What was thus prophesied has been brought to pass
through the name of the Christ, who comes to men in the form of a
descendant of that very Israel who was the grandson of Abraham, with
whom the race of the Hebrews began. [559] For it was to this Israel
also that it was said, "In thy seed shall all the tribes of the earth
be blessed." [560] Thus it is shown that the God of Israel, the true
God who made heaven and earth, and who administers human affairs justly
and mercifully in such wise that neither does justice exclude mercy
with Him, nor does mercy hinder justice, was not overcome Himself when
His Hebrew people suffered their overthrow, in virtue of His permitting
the kingdom and priesthood of that nation to be seized and subverted by
the Romans. For now, indeed, by the might of this gospel of Christ, the
true King and Priest, the advent of which was prefigured by that
kingdom and priesthood, the God of Israel Himself is everywhere
destroying the idols of the nations. And, in truth, it was to prevent
that destruction that the Romans refused to admit the sacred rites of
this God in the way that they admitted those of the gods of the other
nations whom they conquered. Thus did He remove both kingdom and
priesthood from the prophetic nation, because He who was promised to
men through the agency of that people had already come. And by Christ
the King He has brought into subjection to His own name that Roman
empire by which the said nation was overcome; and by the strength and
devotion of Christian faith, He has converted it so as to effect a
subversion of those idols, the honour ascribed to which precluded His
worship from obtaining entrance.
22. I am of opinion that it was not by means of magical arts that
Christ, previous to His birth among men, brought it about that those
things which were destined to come to pass in the course of His
history, were pre-announced by so many prophets, and prefigured also by
the kingdom and priesthood established in a certain nation. For the
people who are connected with that now abolished kingdom, and who in
the wonderful providence of God are scattered throughout all lands,
have indeed remained without any unction from the true King and Priest;
in which anointing [561] the import of the name of Christ is plainly
discovered. But notwithstanding this, they still retain remnants of
some of their observances; while, on the other hand, not even in their
state of overthrow and subjugation have they accepted those Roman rites
which are connected with the worship of idols. Thus they still keep the
prophetic books as the witness of Christ; and in this way in the
documents of His enemies we find proof presented [562] of the truth of
this Christ who is the subject of prophecy. What, then, do these
unhappy men disclose themselves to be, by the unworthy method in which
they laud [563] the name of Christ? If anything relating to the
practice of magic has been written under His name, while the doctrine
of Christ is so vehemently antagonistic to such arts, these men ought
rather in the light of this fact to gather some idea of the greatness
of that name, by the addition of which even persons who live in
opposition to His precepts endeavour to dignify their nefarious
practices. For just as, in the course of the diverse errors of men,
many persons have set up their varied heresies against the truth under
the cover of His name, so the very enemies of Christ think that, for
the purposes of gaining acceptance for opinions which they propound in
opposition to the doctrine of Christ, they have no weight of authority
at their service unless they have the name of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
[558] Et qui eruit te, Deus Israel, universae terrae vocabitur. Isa.
liv. 5. [Compare the Hebrew, from which the Latin citation varies.--R.]
[559] In his Retractations (ii. 16) Augustin alludes to this sentence,
and says that the word Hebrews (Hebraei) may be derived from Abraham,
as if the original form had been Abrahaei, but that it is more correct
to take it from Heber, so that Hebraei is for Heberaei. He refers us
also to his discussion in the City of God, xvi. 11.
[560] Gen. xxviii. 14.
[561] Chrism.
[562] The text gives probetur veritas Christi, etc.; six mss. give
profertur veritas, etc.--Migne.
[563] Or adduce--male laudando.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.--Of the Fact that the Pagans, When Constrained to Laud
Christ, Have Launched Their Insults Against His Disciples.
23. But what shall be said to this, if those vain eulogizers of Christ,
and those crooked slanderers of the Christian religion, lack the daring
to blaspheme Christ, for this particular reason that some of their
philosophers, as Porphyry of Sicily [564] has given us to understand in
his books, consulted their gods as to their response on the subject of
[the claims of] Christ, and were constrained by their own oracles to
laud Christ? Nor should that seem incredible. For we also read in the
Gospel that the demons confessed Him; [565] and in our prophets it is
written in this wise: "For the gods of the nations are demons." [566]
Thus it happens, then, that in order to avoid attempting aught in
opposition to the responses of their own deities, they turn their
blasphemies aside from Christ, and pour them forth against His
disciples. It seems to me, however, that these gods of the Gentiles,
whom the philosophers of the pagans may have consulted, if they were
asked to give their judgment on the disciples of Christ, as well as on
Christ Himself, would be constrained to praise them in like manner.
__________________________________________________________________
[564] The philosopher of the Neo-Platonic school, better known as one
of the earliest and most learned antagonists of Christianity. Though a
native either of Tyre or Batanea, he is called here, as also again in
the Retractations, ii. 31, a Sicilian, because, according to Jerome and
Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 19), it was in Sicily that he wrote his
treatise in fifteen books against the Christian religion.--Tr.
[565] Luke iv. 41.
[566] Ps. xcvi. 5. [Comp 1 Cor. x. 20, where "demons" is the more
correct rendering (so Revised Version margin and American revisers'
text).--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.--Of the Fact That, on the Subject of the Destruction of
Idols, the Apostles Taught Nothing Different from What Was Taught by
Christ or by the Prophets.
24. Nevertheless these persons argue still to the effect that this
demolition of temples, and this condemnation of sacrifices, and this
shattering of all images, are brought about, not in virtue of the
doctrine of Christ Himself, but only by the hand of His apostles, who,
as they contend, taught something different from what He taught. They
think by this device, while honouring and lauding Christ, to tear the
Christian faith in pieces. For it is at least true, that it is by the
disciples of Christ that at once the works and the words of Christ have
been made known, on which this Christian religion is established, with
which a very few people of this character are still in antagonism, who
do not now indeed openly assail it, but yet continue even in these days
to utter their mutterings against it. But if they refuse to believe
that Christ taught in the way indicated, let them read the prophets,
who not only enjoined the complete destruction of the superstitions of
idols, but also predicted that this subversion would come to pass in
Christian times. And if these spoke falsely, why is their word
fulfilled with so mighty a demonstration? But if they spoke truly, why
is resistance offered to such divine power? [567]
__________________________________________________________________
[567] Or, to such power in interpreting the divine mind--tantae
divinitati resistatur.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.--In Opposition to the Romans Who Rejected the God of
Israel Alone.
25. However, here is a matter which should meet with more careful
consideration at their hands,--namely, what they take the God of Israel
to be, and why they have not admitted Him to the honours of worship
among them, in the way that they have done with the gods of other
nations that have been made subject to the imperial power of Rome? This
question demands an answer all the more, when we see that they are of
the mind that all the gods ought to be worshipped by the man of wisdom.
Why, then, has He been excluded from the number of these others? If He
is very mighty, why is He the only deity that is not worshipped by
them? If He has little or no might, why are the images of other gods
broken in pieces by all the nations, while He is now almost the only
God that is worshipped among these peoples? From the grasp of this
question these men shall never be able to extricate themselves, who
worship both the greater and the lesser deities, whom they hold to be
gods, and at the same time refuse to worship this God, who has proved
Himself stronger than all those to whom they do service. If He is [a
God] of great virtue, [568] why has He been deemed worthy only of
rejection? And if He is [a God] of little or no power, why has He been
able to accomplish so much, although rejected? If He is good, why is He
the only one separated from the other good deities? And if He is evil,
why is He, who stands thus alone, not subjugated by so many good
deities? If He is truthful, why are His precepts scorned? And if He is
a liar, why are His predictions fulfilled?
__________________________________________________________________
[568] Or, power--virtutis.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.--Of the Fact that the God of the Hebrews is Not Received
by the Romans, Because His Will is that He Alone Should Be Worshipped.
26. In fine, they may think of Him as they please. Still, we may ask
whether it is the case that the Romans refuse to consider evil deities
as also proper objects of worship,--those Romans who have erected fanes
to Pallor and Fever, and who enjoin both that the good demons are to
been treated, [569] and that the evil demons are to be propitiated.
Whatever their opinion, then, of Him may be, the question still is, Why
is He the only Deity whom they have judged worthy neither of being
called upon for help, nor of being propitiated? What God is this, who
is either one so unknown, that He is the only one not discovered as yet
among so many gods, or who is one so well known that He is now the only
one worshipped by so many men? There remains, then, nothing which they
can possibly allege in explanation of their refusal to admit the
worship of this God, except that His will was that He alone should be
worshipped; and His command was, that those gods of the Gentiles that
they were worshipping at the time should cease to be worshipped. But an
answer to this other question is rather to be required of them, namely,
what or what manner of deity they consider this God to be, who has
forbidden the worship of those other gods for whom they erected temples
and images,--this God, who has also been possessed of might so vast
that His will has prevailed more in effecting the destruction of their
images than theirs has availed to secure the non-admittance of His
worship. And, indeed, the opinion of that philosopher of theirs is
given in plain terms, whom, even on the authority of their own oracle,
they have maintained to have been the wisest of all men. For the
opinion of Socrates is, that every deity whatsoever ought to be
worshipped just in the manner in which he may have ordained that he
should be worshipped. Consequently it became a matter of the supremest
necessity with them to refuse to worship the God of the Hebrews. For if
they were minded to worship Him in a method different from the way in
which He had declared that He ought to be worshipped, then assuredly
they would have been worshipping not this God as He is, but some
figment of their own. And, on the other hand, if they were willing to
worship Him in the manner which He had indicated, then they could not
but perceive that they were not at liberty to worship those other
deities whom He interdicted them from worshipping. Thus was it,
therefore, that they rejected the service of the one true God, because
they were afraid that they might offend the many false gods. For they
thought that the anger of those deities would be more to their injury,
than the goodwill of this God would be to their profit.
__________________________________________________________________
[569] The text gives invitandos; others read imitandos, to be imitated.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.--The Proof that This God is the True God.
27. But that must have been a vain necessity and a ridiculous timidity.
[570] We ask now what opinion regarding this God is formed by those men
whose pleasure it is that all gods ought to be worshipped. For if He
ought not to be worshipped, how are all worshipped when He is not
worshipped? And if He ought to be worshipped, it cannot be that all
others are to be worshipped along with Him. For unless He is worshipped
alone, He is really not worshipped at all. Or may it perhaps be the
case, that they will allege Him to be no God at all, while they call
those gods who, as we believe, have no power to do anything except so
far as permission is given them by His judgment,--have not merely no
power to do good to any one, but no power even to do harm to any,
except to those who are judged by Him, who possesses all power, to
merit so to be harmed? But, as they themselves are compelled to admit,
those deities have shown less power than He has done. For if those are
held to be gods whose prophets, when consulted by men, have returned
responses which, that I may not call them false, were at least most
convenient for their private interests, how is not He to be regarded as
God whose prophets have not only given the congruous answer on subjects
regarding which they were consulted at the special time, but who also,
in the case of subjects respecting which they were not consulted, and
which related to the universal race of man and all nations, have
announced prophetically so long time before the event those very things
of which we now read, and which indeed we now behold? If they gave the
name of god to that being under whose inspiration the Sibyl sung of the
fates [571] of the Romans, how is not He (to be called) God, who, in
accordance with the announcement aforetime given, has shown us how the
Romans and all nations are coming to believe in Himself through the
gospel of Christ, as the one God, and to demolish all the images of
their fathers? Finally, if they designate those as gods who have never
dared through their prophets to say anything against this God, how is
not He (to be designated) God, who not only commanded by the mouth of
His prophets the destruction of their images, but who also predicted
that among all the Gentiles they would be destroyed by those who should
be enjoined to abandon their idols and to worship Him alone, and who,
on receiving these injunctions, should be His servants? [572]
__________________________________________________________________
[570] Or, Away with that vain necessity and ridiculous timidity--Sed
fuerit ista vana necessitas, etc.
[571] Reading fata. Seven mss. give facta = deeds.
[572] [This reference to the destruction of idols has been used to fix
the date of the Harmony; see Introductory Notice of translator. The
polemic character of the larger part of Book i. seems due to the
circumstances of that particular period in North Africa.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.--Of the Fact that Nothing is Discovered to Have Been
Predicted by the Prophets of the Pagans in Opposition to the God of the
Hebrews.
28. Or let them aver, if they are able, that some Sibyl of theirs, or
any one whatever among their other prophets, announced long ago that it
would come to pass that the God of the Hebrews, the God of Israel,
would be worshipped by all nations, declaring, at the same time, that
the worshippers of other gods before that time had rightly rejected
Him; and again, that the compositions of His prophets would be in such
exalted authority, [573] that in obedience to them the Roman government
itself would command the destruction of images, the said seers at the
same time giving warning against acting upon such ordinances;--let
them, I say, read out any utterances like these, if they can, from any
of the books of their prophets. For I stop not to state that those
things which we can read in their books repeat a testimony on behalf of
our religion, that is, the Christian religon, which they might have
heard from the holy angels and from our prophets themselves; just as
the very devils were compelled to confess Christ when He was present in
the flesh. But I pass by these matters, regarding which, when we bring
them forward, their contention is that they were invented by our party.
Most certainly, however, they may themselves be pressed to adduce
anything which has been prophesied by the seers of their own gods
against the God of the Hebrews; as, on our side, we can point to
declarations so remarkable at once for number and for weight recorded
in the books of our prophets against their gods, in which also we can
both note the command and recite the prediction and demonstrate the
event. And over the realization of these things, that comparatively
small number of heathens who have remained such are more inclined to
grieve than they are ready to acknowledge that God who has had the
power to foretell these things as events destined to be made good;
whereas in their dealings with their own false gods, who are genuine
demons, they prize nothing else so highly as to be informed by their
responses of something which is to take place with them. [574]
__________________________________________________________________
[573] Reading futuras etiam litteras...in auctoritate ita sublimi. Six
mss. give futurum...sublimari, but with substantially the same sense.
[574] Nihil aliud pro magno appetant quam cum aliquid eorum responsis
sibi futurum esse didicerint.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.--An Argument for the Exclusive Worship of This God, Who,
While He Prohibits Other Deities from Being Worshipped, is Not Himself
Interdicted by Other Divinities from Being Worshipped.
29. Seeing, then, that these things are so, why do not these unhappy
men rather apprehend the fact that this God is the true God, whom they
perceive to be placed in a position so thoroughly separated from the
company of their own deities, that, although they are compelled to
acknowledge Him to be God, those very persons who profess that all gods
ought to be worshipped are nevertheless not permitted to worship Him
along with the rest? Now, since these deities and this God cannot be
worshipped together, why is not He selected who forbids those others to
be worshipped; and why are not those deities abandoned, who do not
interdict Him from being worshipped? Or if they do indeed forbid His
worship, let the interdict be read. For what has greater claims to be
recited to their people in their temples, in which the sound of no such
thing has ever been heard? And, in good sooth, the prohibition directed
by so many against one ought to be more notable [575] and more potent
than the prohibition launched by one against so many. For if the
worship of this God is impious, then those gods are profitless, who do
not interdict men from that impiety; but if the worship of this God is
pious, then, as in that worship the commandment is given that these
others are not to be worshipped, their worship is impious. If, again,
those deities forbid His worship, but only so diffidently that they
rather fear to be heard [576] than dare to prohibit, who is so unwise
as not to draw his own inference from the fact, who fails to perceive
that this God ought to be chosen, who in so public a manner prohibits
their worship, who commanded that their images should be destroyed, who
foretold that demolition, who Himself effected it, in preference to
those deities of whom we know not that they ordained abstinence from
His worship, of whom we do not read that they foretold such an event,
and in whom we do not see power sufficient to have it brought about? I
put the question, let them give the answer: Who is this God, who thus
harasses all the gods of the Gentiles, who thus betrays all their
sacred rites, who thus renders them extinct?
__________________________________________________________________
[575] Reading notior; others give potior = preferable. [The text of
Migne reads notior et potentior, but five mss. read notior et potior.
The argument favours the former reading, and the latter can readily be
accounted for.--R.]
[576] Some read audere timeant = fear to dare. But the mss. give more
correctly audiri timeant = fear to be heard; i.e., the demons were
afraid that, if they interdicted His worship, the true God might be
made known by their own hand.--Migne.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.--Of the Opinion Entertained by the Gentiles Regarding Our
God.
30. But why do I interrogate men whose native wit has deserted them in
answering the question as to who this God is? Some say that He is
Saturn. I fancy the reason of that is found in the sanctification of
the Sabbath; for those men assign that day to Saturn. But their own
Varro, than whom they can point to no man of greater learning among
them, thought that the God of the Jews was Jupiter, and he judged that
it mattered not what name was employed, provided the same subject was
understood under it; in which, I believe, we see how he was subdued by
His supremacy. For, inasmuch as the Romans are not accustomed to
worship any more exalted object than Jupiter, of which fact their
Capitol is the open and sufficient attestation, and deem him to be the
king of all gods; when he observed that the Jews worshipped the supreme
God, he could not think of any object under that title other than
Jupiter himself. But whether men call the God of the Hebrews Saturn, or
declare Him to be Jupiter, let them tell us when Saturn dared to
prohibit the worship of a second deity. He did not venture to interdict
the worship even of this very Jupiter, who is said to have expelled him
from his kingdom,--the son thus expelling the father. And if Jupiter,
as the more powerful deity and the conqueror, has been accepted by his
worshippers, then they ought not to worship Saturn, the conquered and
expelled. But neither, on the other hand, did Jove put his worship
under the ban. Nay, that deity whom he had power to overcome, he
nevertheless suffered to continue a god.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.--Of the Follies Which the Pagans Have Indulged in
Regarding Jupiter and Saturn.
31. These narratives of yours, say they, are but fables which have to
be interpreted by the wise, or else they are fit only to be laughed at;
but we revere that Jupiter of whom Maro says that
"All things are full of Jove,"
--Virgil's Eclogues, iii. v. 60;
that is to say, the spirit of life [577] that vivifies all things. It
is not without some reason, therefore, that Varro thought that Jove was
worshipped by the Jews; for the God of the Jews says by His prophet, "I
fill heaven and earth." [578] But what is meant by that which the same
poet names Ether? How do they take the term? For he speaks thus:
"Then the omnipotent father Ether, with fertilizing showers,
Came down into the bosom of his fruitful spouse."
--Virgil's Georgics, ii. 325.
They say, indeed, that this Ether is not spirit, [579] but a lofty body
in which the heaven is stretched above the air. [580] Is liberty
conceded to the poet to speak at one time in the language of the
followers of Plato, as if God was not body, but spirit, and at another
time in the language of the Stoics, as if God was a body? What is it,
then, that they worship in their Capitol? If it is a spirit, or if
again it is, in short, the corporeal heaven itself, then what does that
shield of Jupiter there which they style the AEgis? The origin of that
name, indeed, is explained by the circumstance that a goat [581]
nourished Jupiter when he was concealed by his mother. Or is this a
fiction of the poets? But are the capitols of the Romans, then, also
the mere creations of the poets? And what is the meaning of that,
certainly not poetical, but unmistakeably farcical, variability of
yours, in seeking your gods according to the ideas of philosophers in
books, and revering them according to the notions of poets in your
temples?
32. But was that Euhemerus also a poet, who declares both Jupiter
himself, and his father Saturn, and Pluto and Neptune his brothers, to
have been men, in terms so exceedingly plain that their worshippers
ought all the more to render thanks to the poets, because their
inventions have not been intended so much to disparage them as rather
to dress them up? Albeit Cicero [582] mentions that this same Euhemerus
was translated into Latin by the poet Ennius. [583] Or was Cicero
himself a poet, who, in counselling the person with whom he debates in
his Tusculan Disputations, addresses him as one possessing knowledge of
things secret, in the following terms: "If, indeed, I were to attempt
to search into antiquity, and produce from thence the subjects which
the writers of Greece have given to the world, it would be found that
even those deities who are reckoned gods of the higher orders have gone
from us into heaven. Ask whose sepulchres are pointed out in Greece:
call to mind, since you have been initiated, the things which are
delivered in the mysteries: then, doubtless, you will comprehend how
widely extended this belief is." [584] This author certainly makes
ample acknowledgment of the doctrine that those gods of theirs were
originally men. He does, indeed, benevolently surmise that they made
their way into heaven. But he did not hesitate to say in public, that
even the honour thus given them in general repute [585] was conferred
upon them by men, when he spoke of Romulus in these words: "By good
will and repute we have raised to the immortal gods that Romulus who
founded this city." [586] How should it be such a wonderful thing,
therefore, to suppose that the more ancient men did with respect to
Jupiter and Saturn and the others what the Romans have done with
respect to Romulus, and what, in good truth, they have thought of doing
even in these more recent times also in the case of Caesar? And to
these same Virgil has addressed the additional flattery of song,
saying:
"Lo, the star of Caesar, descendant of Dione, arose."
--Eclogue, ix. ver. 47.
Let them see to it, then, that the truth of history do not turn out to
exhibit to our view sepulchres erected for their false gods here upon
the earth!and let them take heed lest the vanity of poetry, instead of
fixing, may be but feigning [587] stars for their deities there in
heaven. For, in reality, that one is not the star of Jupiter, neither
is this one the star of Saturn; but the simple fact is, that upon these
stars, which were set from the foundation of the world, the names of
those persons were imposed after their death by men who were minded to
honour them as gods on their departure from this life. And with respect
to these we may, indeed, ask how there should be such ill desert in
chastity, or such good desert in voluptuousness, that Venus should have
a star, and Minerva be denied one among those luminaries which revolve
along with the sun and moon?
33. But it may be said that Cicero, the Academic sage, who has been
bold enough to make mention of the sepulchres of their gods, and to
commit the statement to writing, is a more doubtful authority than the
poets; although he did not presume to offer that assertion simply as
his own personal opinion, but put it on record as a statement contained
among the traditions of their own sacred rites. Well, then, can it also
be maintained that Varro either gives expression merely to an invention
of his own, as a poet might do, or puts the matter only dubiously, as
might be the case with an Academician, because he declares that, in the
instance of all such gods, the matters of their worship had their
origin either in the life which they lived, or in the death which they
died, among men? Or was that Egyptian priest, Leon, [588] either a poet
or an Academician, who expounded the origin of those gods of theirs to
Alexander of Macedon, in a way somewhat different indeed from the
opinion advanced by the Greeks, but nevertheless so far accordant
therewith as to make out their deities to have been originally men?
34. But what is all this to us? [589] Let them assert that they worship
Jupiter, and not a dead man; let them maintain that they have dedicated
their Capitol not to a dead man, but to the Spirit that vivifies all
things and fills the world. And as to that shield of his, which was
made of the skin of a she-goat in honour of his nurse, let them put
upon it whatever interpretation they please. What do they say, however,
about Saturn? [590] What is it that they worship under the name of
Saturn? Is not this the deity that was the first to come down to us
from Olympus (of whom the poet sings):
"Then from Olympus' height came down
Good Saturn, exiled from his crown
By Jove, his mightier heir:
He brought the race to union first
Erewhile, on mountain-tops dispersed,
And gave them statutes to obey,
And willed the land wherein he lay
Should Latium's title bear."
--Virgil's AEneid, viii. 320-324, Conington's trans.
Does not his very image, made as it is with the head covered, present
him as one under concealment? [591] Was it not he that made the
practice of agriculture known to the people of Italy, a fact which is
expressed by the reaping-hook? [592] No, say they; for you may see
whether the being of whom such things are recorded was a man, [593] and
indeed one particular king: we, however, interpret Saturn to be
universal Time, as is signified also by his name in Greek: for he is
called Chronus, [594] which word, with the aspiration thus given it, is
also the vocable for time: whence, too, in Latin he gets the name of
Saturn, as if it meant that he is sated [595] with years. But now, what
we are to make of people like these I know not, who, in their very
effort to put a more favourable meaning upon the names and the images
of their gods, make the confession that the very god who is their major
deity, and the father of the rest, is Time. For what else do they thus
betray but, in fact, that all those gods of theirs are only temporal,
seeing that the very parent of them all is made out to be Time?
35. Accordingly, their more recent philosophers of the Platonic school,
who have flourished in Christian times, have been ashamed of such
fancies, and have endeavoured to interpret Saturn in another way,
affirming that he received the name Chronos [596] in order to signify,
as it were, the fulness of intellect; their explanation being, that in
Greek fulness [597] is expressed by the term choros, [598] and
intellect or mind by the term nous; [599] which etymology seems to be
favoured also by the Latin name, on the supposition that the first part
of the word (Saturnus) came from the Latin, and the second part from
the Greek: so that he got the title Saturnus as an equivalent to satur,
nous. [600] For they saw how absurd it was to have that Jupiter
regarded as a son of Time, whom they either considered, or wished to
have considered, eternal deity. Furthermore, however, according to this
novel interpretation, which it is marvellous that Cicero and Varro
should have suffered to escape their notice, if their ancient
authorities really had it, they call Jupiter the son of Saturn, thus
denoting him, it may be, as the spirit that proceedeth forth from that
supreme mind--the spirit which they choose to look upon as the soul of
this world, so to speak, filling alike all heavenly and all earthly
bodies. Whence comes also that saying of Maro, which I have cited a
little ago, namely, "All things are full of Jove"? Should they not,
then, if they are possessed of the ability, alter the superstitions
indulged in by men, just as they alter their interpretation; and either
erect no images at all, or at least build capitols to Saturn rather
than to Jupiter? For they also maintain that no rational soul can be
produced gifted with wisdom, except by participation in that supreme
and unchangeable wisdom of his; and this affirmation they advance not
only with respect to the soul of a man, but even with respect to that
same soul of the world which they also designate Jove. Now we not only
concede, but even very particularly proclaim, that there is a certain
supreme wisdom of God, by participation in which every soul whatsoever
that is constituted truly wise acquires its wisdom. But whether that
universal corporeal mass, which is called the world, has a kind of
soul, or, so to speak, its own soul, that is to say, a rational life by
which it can govern its own movements, as is the case with every sort
of animal, is a question both vast and obscure. That is an opinion
which ought not to be affirmed, unless its truth is clearly
ascertained; neither ought it to be rejected, unless its falsehood is
as clearly ascertained. And what will it matter to man, even should
this question remain for ever unsolved, since, in any case, no soul
becomes wise or blessed by drawing from any other soul but from that
one supreme and immutable wisdom of God?
36. The Romans, however, who have founded a Capitol in honour of
Jupiter, but none in honour of Saturn, as also these other nations
whose opinion it has been that Jupiter ought to be worshipped
pre-eminently and above the rest of the gods, have certainly not agreed
in sentiment with the persons referred to; who, in accordance with that
mad view of theirs, would dedicate their loftiest citadels [601] rather
to Saturn, if they had any power in these things, and who most
particularly would annihilate those mathematicians and
nativity-spinners [602] by whom this Saturn, whom their opponents would
designate the maker of the wise, has been placed with the character of
a deity of evil among the other stars. But this opinion, nevertheless,
has prevailed so mightily against them in the mind of humanity, that
men decline even to name that god, and call him Ancient [603] rather
than Saturn; and that in so fearful a spirit of superstition, that the
Carthaginians have now gone very near to change the designation of
their town, and call it the town of the Ancient [604] more frequently
than the town of Saturn. [605]
__________________________________________________________________
[577] Or, the breathed air--spiritum.
[578] Jer. xxiii. 24.
[579] Spiritum, breath.
[580] Aerem.
[581] Alluding to the derivation of the word AEgis = aigis, a goatskin,
from the Greek aix = goat.
[582] See the first book of his De Natura Deorum, c. 42. Compare also
Lactantius, De Falsa Religione, i. 11; and Varro, De Re Rustica, i. 48.
[583] The father of Roman literature, born B.C. 239 at Rudiae in
Calabria, both a poet and a man of learning, and well versed, among
other things, in Oscan, Latin, and Greek--linguistic accomplishments
beyond his day. Of his writings we now possess only fragments,
preserved by Cicero, Macrobius, Aulus Gellius, and others.
[584] Tusculan Disputations, Book i. 13.
[585] Honorem opinionis.
[586] From the Third Oration against Catiline, S: 1.
[587] Non figat sed fingat.
[588] On this Leo or Leon, see also Augustin's City of God, viii. 5.
Reference is often made to him by early Christian writers as a thinker
agreeing so far with the principles of Euhemerus (in whose time, or
perhaps somewhat before it, he flourished) as to teach that the gods of
the old heathen world were originally men. He is mentioned by Arnobius,
Adversus Gentes, iv. 29; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, i. 23;
Tertullian, De Corona, c. 7; Tatian, etc.
[589] Reading, with Migne, Sed quid ad nos? Dicant se Jovem, etc.
Others give, Sed quid ad nos si decant, etc. = But what is it to us
although they say that they worship, etc. The si, however, is wanting
in the mss.
[590] Reading, with Migne, Quid dicunt de Saturno? Quem, etc. Others
give, Quid dicunt de Saturno qui = What do those say about Saturn who
worship Saturn? The mss. have quem.
[591] Quasi latentem indicat, in reference to the story introduced in
the Virgilian passage, that the country got its name, Latium, from the
disappearance of the god.
[592] The statue of Saturn represented him with a sickle or
pruning-knife in his hand.
[593] Migne's text gives, on the authority of mss., the reading, Nam
videris si fuit ille homo, etc. Others edit, Nam tametsi fuerit ille,
etc. = For although he may have been a man...yet we interpret, etc.
[594] For Kronos.
[595] Saturetur--saturated, abundantly furnished.
[596] Chronos, Kronos.
[597] Or satiety.
[598] Choros.
[599] Nous.
[600] Full, mind.
[601] Reading arces. Some editions give artes = arts.
[602] Genethliacos.
[603] Senex.
[604] Vicus Senis.
[605] Vicus Saturni.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIV.--Of the Fact that Those Persons Who Reject the God of
Israel, in Consequence Fail to Worship All the Gods; And, on the Other
Hand, that Those Who Worship Other Gods, Fail to Worship Him.
37. It is well understood, therefore, what these worshippers of images
are convicted in reality of revering, and what they attempt to colour
over. [606] But even these new interpreters of Saturn must be required
to tell us what they think of the God of the Hebrews. For to them also
it seemed right to worship all the gods, as is done by the heathen
nations, because their pride made them ashamed to humble themselves
under Christ for the remission of their sins. What opinion, therefore,
do they entertain regarding the God of Israel? For if they do not
worship Him then they do not worship all gods; and if they do worship
Him, they do not worship Him in the way that He has ordained for His
own worship, because they worship others also whose worship He has
interdicted. Against such practices He issued His prohibition by the
mouth of those same prophets by whom He also announced beforehand the
destined occurrence of those very things which their images are now
sustaining at the hands of the Christians. For whatever the explanation
may be, whether it be that the angels were sent to those prophets to
show them figuratively, and by the congruous forms of visible objects,
the one true God, the Creator of all things, to whom the whole universe
is made subject, and to indicate the method in which He enjoined His
own worship to proceed; or whether it was that the minds of some among
them were so mightily elevated by the Holy Spirit, as to enable them to
see those things in that kind of vision in which the angels themselves
behold objects: in either case it is the incontestable fact, that they
did serve that God who has prohibited the worship of other gods; and,
moreover, it is equally certain, that with the faithfulness of piety,
in the kingly and in the priestly office, they ministered at once for
the good of their country, and in the interest of those sacred
ordinances which were significant of the coming of Christ as the true
King and Priest.
__________________________________________________________________
[606] Reading colorare, as in the mss. Some editions give colere =
revere.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXV.--Of the Fact that the False Gods Do Not Forbid Others to
Be Worshipped Along with Themselves. That the God of Israel is the True
God, is Proved by His Works, Both in Prophecy and in Fulfilment.
38. But further, in the case of the gods of the Gentiles (in their
willingness to worship whom they exhibit their unwillingness to worship
that God who cannot be worshipped together with them), let them tell us
the reason why no one is found in the number of their deities who
thinks of interdicting the worship of another; while they institute
them in different offices and functions, and hold them to preside each
one over objects which pertain properly to his own special province.
For if Jupiter does not prohibit the worship of Saturn, because he is
not to be taken merely for a man, who drove another man, namely his
father, out of his kingdom, but either for the body of the heavens, or
for the spirit that fills both heaven and earth, and because thus he
cannot prevent that supernal mind from being worshipped, from which he
is said to have emanated: if, on the same principle also, Saturn cannot
interdict the worship of Jupiter, because he is not [to be supposed to
be merely] one who was conquered by that other in rebellion,--as was
the case with a person of the same name, by the hand of some one or
other called Jupiter, from whose arms he was fleeing when he came into
Italy,--and because the primal mind favours the mind that springs from
it: yet Vulcan at least might [be expected to] put under the ban the
worship of Mars, the paramour of his wife, and Hercules [might be
thought likely to interdict] the worship of Juno, his persecutor. What
kind of foul consent must subsist among them, if even Diana, the chaste
virgin, fails to interdict the worship, I do not say merely of Venus,
but even of Priapus? For if the same individual decides to be at once a
hunter and a farmer, he must be the servant of both these deities; and
yet he will be ashamed to do even so much as erect temples for them
side by side. But they may aver, that by interpretation Diana means a
certain virtue, be it what they please; and they may tell us that
Priapus really denotes the deity of fecundity, [607] --to such an
effect, at any rate, that Juno may well be ashamed to have such a
coadjutor in the task of making females fruitful. They may say what
they please; they may put any explanation upon these things which in
their wisdom they think fit: only, in spite of all that, the God of
Israel will confound all their argumentations. For in prohibiting all
those deities from being worshipped, while His own worship is hindered
by none of them, and in at once commanding, foretelling, and effecting
destruction for their images and sacred rites, He has shown with
sufficient clearness that they are false and lying deities, and that He
Himself is the one true and truthful God.
39. Moreover, to whom should it not seem strange that those
worshippers, now become few in number, of deities both numerous and
false, should refuse to do homage to Him of whom, when the question is
put to them as to what deity He is; they dare not at least assert,
whatever answer they may think to give, that He is no God at all? For
if they deny His deity, they are very easily refuted by His works, both
in prophecy and in fulfilment. I do not speak of those works which they
deem themselves at liberty not to credit, such as His work in the
beginning, when He made heaven and earth, and all that is in them.
[608] Neither do I specify here those events which carry us back into
the remotest antiquity, such as the translation of Enoch, [609] the
destruction of the impious by the flood, and the saving of righteous
Noah and his house from the deluge, by means of the [ark of] wood.
[610] I begin the statement of His doings among men with Abraham. To
this man, indeed, was given by an angelic oracle an intelligible
promise, which we now see in its realization. For to him it was said,
"In thy seed shall all nations be blessed." [611] Of his seed, then,
sprang the people of Israel, whence came the Virgin Mary, who was the
mother of Christ; and that in Him all the nations are blessed, let them
now be bold enough to deny if they can. This same promise was made also
to Isaac the son of Abraham. [612] It was given again to Jacob the
grandson of Abraham. This Jacob was also called Israel, from whom that
whole people derived both its descent and its name so that indeed the
God of this people was called the God of Israel: not that He is not
also the God of the Gentiles, whether they are ignorant of Him or now
know Him; but that in this people He willed that the power of His
promises should be made more conspicuously apparent. For that people,
which at first was multiplied in Egypt, and after a time was delivered
from a state of slavery there by the hand of Moses, with many signs and
portents, saw most of the Gentile nations subdued under it, and
obtained possession also of the land of promise, in which it reigned in
the person of kings of its own, who sprang from the tribe of Judah.
This Judah, also, was one of the twelve sons of Israel, the grandson of
Abraham. And from him were descended the people called the Jews, who,
with the help of God Himself, did great achievements, and who also,
when He chastised them, endured many sufferings on account of their
sins, until the coming of that Seed to whom the promise was given, in
whom all the nations were to be blessed, and [for whose sake] they were
willingly to break in pieces the idols of their fathers.
__________________________________________________________________
[607] Reading fecunditatis. Foeditatis, foulness, also occurs.
[608] Gen. i. 1.
[609] Gen. v. 24.
[610] Gen. vii.
[611] Gen. xxii. 18.
[612] Gen. xxvi. 4.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVI.--Of the Fact that Idolatry Has Been Subverted by the Name
of Christ, and by the Faith of Christians According to the Prophecies.
40. For truly what is thus effected by Christians is not a thing which
belongs only to Christian times, but one which was predicted very long
ago. Those very Jews who have remained enemies to the name of Christ,
and regarding whose destined perfidy these prophetic writings have not
been silent, do themselves possess and peruse the prophet who says: "O
Lord my God, and my refuge in the day of evil, the Gentiles shall come
unto Thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers
have worshipped mendacious idols, and there is no profit in them."
[613] Behold, that is now being done; behold, now the Gentiles are
coming from the ends of the earth to Christ, uttering things like
these, and breaking their idols! Of signal consequence, too, is this
which God has done for His Church in its world-wide extension, in that
the Jewish nation, which has been deservedly overthrown and scattered
abroad throughout the lands, has been made to carry about with it
everywhere the records of our prophecies, so that it might not be
possible to look upon these predictions as concocted by ourselves; and
thus the enemy of our faith has been made a witness to our truth. How,
then, can it be possible that the disciples of Christ have taught what
they have not learned from Christ, as those foolish men in their silly
fancies object, with the view of getting the superstitious worship of
heathen gods and idols subverted? Can it be said also that those
prophecies which are still read in these days, in the books of the
enemies of Christ, were the inventions of the disciples of Christ?
41. Who, then, has effected the demolition of these systems but the God
of Israel? For to this people was the announcement made by those divine
voices which were addressed to Moses: "Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy God
is one God." [614] "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the
earth beneath." [615] And again, in order that this people might put an
end to these things wherever it received power to do so, this
commandment was also laid upon the nation: "Thou shalt not bow down to
their gods, nor serve them; thou shalt not do after their works, but
thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."
[616] But who shall say that Christ and Christians have no connection
with Israel, seeing that Israel was the grandson of Abraham, to whom
first, as afterwards to his son Isaac, and then to his grandson Israel
himself, that promise was given, which I have already mentioned,
namely: "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed"? That prediction we
see now in its fulfilment in Christ. For it was of this line that the
Virgin was born, concerning whom a prophet of the people of Israel and
of the God of Israel sang in these terms: "Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son; and they shall call [617] His name Emmanuel."
For by interpretation, Emmanuel means, "God with us." [618] This God of
Israel, therefore, who has interdicted the worship of other gods, who
has interdicted the making of idols, who has commanded their
destruction, who by His prophet has predicted that the Gentiles from
the ends of the earth would say, "Surely our fathers have worshipped
mendacious idols, in which there is no profit;" this same God is He
who, by the name of Christ and by the faith of Christians, has ordered,
promised, and exhibited the overthrow of all these superstitions. In
vain, therefore, do these unhappy men, knowing that they have been
prohibited from blaspheming the name of Christ, even by their own gods,
that is to say, by the demons who fear the name of Christ, seek to make
it out, that this kind of doctrine is something strange to Him, in the
power of which the Christians dispute against idols, and root out all
those false religions, wherever they have the opportunity.
__________________________________________________________________
[613] Jer. xvi. 19.
[614] Deut. vi. 4. [See Revised Version, text and margin, for the
variations in the rendering of the Hebrew. Comp. Mark xii. 29 for
similar variations in the passage as cited in the New Testament.--R.]
[615] Exod. xx. 4.
[616] Exod. xxiii. 24. [Simulacra eorum. The Revised Version renders
"their pillars," with "obelisks" in the margin.--R.]
[617] Vocabunt.
[618] Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVII.--An Argument Urging It Upon the Remnant of Idolaters
that They Should at Length Become Servants of This True God, Who
Everywhere is Subverting Idols.
42. Let them now give their answer with respect to the God of Israel,
to whom, as teaching and enjoining such things, witness is borne not
only by the books of the Christians, but also by those of the Jews.
Regarding Him, let them ask the counsel of their own deities, who have
prevented the blaspheming of Christ. Concerning the God of Israel, let
them give a contumelious response if they dare. But whom are they to
consult? or where are they to ask counsel now? Let them peruse the
books of their own authorities. If they consider the God of Israel to
be Jupiter, as Varro has written (that I may speak for the time being
in accordance with their own way of thinking), why then do they not
believe that the idols are to be destroyed by Jupiter? If they deem Him
to be Saturn, [619] why do they not worship Him? Or why do they not
worship Him in that manner in which, by the voice of those prophets
through whom He has made good the things which He has foretold, He has
ordained His worship to be conducted? Why do they not believe that
images are to be destroyed by Him, and the worship of other gods
forbidden? If He is neither Jove nor Saturn (and surely, if He were one
of these, He would not speak out so mightily against the sacred rites
of their Jove and Saturn), who then is this God, who, with all their
consideration for other gods, is the only Deity not worshipped by them,
and who, nevertheless, so manifestly brings it about that He shall
Himself be the sole object of worship, to the overthrow of all other
gods, and to the humiliation of everything proud and highly exalted,
which has lifted itself up against Christ in behalf of idols,
persecuting and slaying Christians? But, in good truth, men are now
asking into what secret recesses these worshippers withdraw, when they
are minded to offer sacrifice; or into what regions of obscurity they
thrust back these same gods of theirs, to prevent their being
discovered and broken in pieces by the Christians. Whence comes this
mode of dealing, if not from the fear of those laws and those rulers by
whose instrumentality the God of Israel discovers His power, and who
are now made subject to the name of Christ. And that it should be so He
promised long ago, when He said by the prophet: "Yea, all kings of the
earth shall worship Him: all nations shall serve Him." [620]
__________________________________________________________________
[619] Reading Si Saturnum putant. Others read, Si Saturnum Deum putant
= if they deem Saturn to be God, etc.
[620] Ps. lxxii. 11.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVIII.--Of the Predicted Rejection of Idols.
43. It cannot be questioned that what was predicted at sundry times by
His prophets is now being realized,--namely, the announcement that He
would disclaim His impious people (not, indeed, the people as a whole,
because even of the Israelites many have believed in Christ; for His
apostles themselves belonged to that nation), and would humble every
proud and injurious person, so that He should Himself alone be exalted,
that is to say, alone be manifested to men as lofty and mighty; until
idols should be cast away by those who believe, and be concealed by
those who believe not; when the earth is broken by His fear, that is to
say, when the men of earth are subdued by fear, to wit, by fearing His
law, or the law of those who, being at once believers in His name and
rulers among the nations, shall interdict such sacrilegious practices.
44. For these things, which I have thus briefly stated in the way of
introduction, and with a view to their readier apprehension, are thus
expressed by the prophet: And now, O house of Jacob, come ye, and let
us walk in the light of the Lord. For He has disclaimed His people the
house of Israel, because the country was replenished, as from the
beginning, with their soothsayings as with those of strangers, and many
strange children were born to them. For their country was replenished
with silver and gold, neither was there any numbering of their
treasures; their land also is full of horses, neither was there any
numbering of their chariots: their land also is full of the
abominations of the works of their own hands, and they have worshipped
that which their own fingers have made. And the mean man [621] has
bowed himself, and the great man [622] has humbled himself; and I will
not forgive it them. And now enter ye into the rocks, and hide
yourselves in the earth from before the fear of the Lord, and from the
majesty of His power, when He arises to crush the earth: for the eyes
of the Lord are lofty, and man is low; and the haughtiness of men shall
be humbled, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. For the
day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon every one that is injurious and
proud, and upon every one that is lifted up and humbled, [623] and they
shall be brought low; and upon every cedar of Lebanon of the high ones
and the lifted up, [624] and upon every tree of the Lebanon of Bashan,
[625] and upon every mountain, and upon every high hill, [626] and upon
every ship of the sea, and upon every spectacle of the beauty of ships.
And the contumely of men shall be humbled and shall fall, and the Lord
alone shall be exalted in that day; [627] and all things made by hands
they shall hide in dens, and in holes of the rocks, and in caves of the
earth, from before the fear of the Lord, and from the majesty of His
power, when He arises to crush the earth: for in that day a man shall
cast away the abominations of gold and silver, the vain and evil things
which they made for worship, in order to go into the clefts of the
solid rock, and into the holes of the rocks, from before the fear of
the Lord, and from the majesty of His power, when He arises to break
the earth in pieces. [628]
__________________________________________________________________
[621] Homo.
[622] Vir.
[623] The text gives humiliatum; but elatum seems to be required,
corresponding with the LXX meteoron.
[624] Reading cedrum Libani excelsorum et elatorum, which is given by
the mss., and is accordant with the LXX. hupselon kai meteoron. Some
editions give cedrum Libani excelsam et elatam = Every high and
elevated cedar of Lebanon.
[625] The LXX. here has kai epi pan dendron balanou Basan = And upon
every tree of the acorn of Bashan. For the balanou Augustin adopts
Libani, as if he read in the Greek Libanou.
[626] The fifteenth verse of our version is wholly omitted.
[627] [Ver. 18, though very relevant, is omitted: "And the idols shalt
utterly pass away."--R.]
[628] Isa. ii. 5-21. [The variations from the Hebrew are quite
numerous; compare the English versions.-- R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIX.--Of the Question Why the Heathen Should Refuse to Worship
the God of Israel; Even Although They Deem Him to Be Only the Presiding
Divinity of the Elements?
45. What do they say of this God of Sabaoth, which term, by
interpretation, means the God of powers or of armies, inasmuch as the
powers and the armies of the angels serve Him? What do they say of this
God of Israel; for He is the God of that people from whom came the seed
wherein all the nations were to be blessed? Why is He the only deity
excluded from worship by those very persons who contend that all the
gods ought to be worshipped? Why do they refuse their belief to Him who
both proves other gods to be false gods, and also overthrows them? I
have heard one of them declare that he had read, in some philosopher or
other, the statement that, from what the Jews did in their sacred
observances, he had come to know what God they worshipped. "He is the
deity," said he, "that presides over those elements of which this
visible and material universe is constructed;" when in the Holy
Scriptures of His prophets it is plainly shown that the people of
Israel were commanded to worship that God who made heaven and earth,
and from whom comes all true wisdom. But what need is there for further
disputation on this subject, seeing that it is quite sufficient for my
present purpose to point out how they entertain any kind of
presumptuous opinions regarding that God whom yet they cannot deny to
be a God? If, indeed, He is the deity that presides over the elements
of which this world consists, why is He not worshipped in preference to
Neptune, who presides over the sea only? Why not, again, in preference
to Silvanus, who presides over the fields and woods only? Why not in
preference to the Sun, who presides over the day only, or who also
rules over the entire heat of heaven? Why not in preference to the
Moon, who presides over the night only, or who also shines pre-eminent
for power over moisture? Why not in preference to Juno, who is supposed
to hold possession of the air only? For certainly those deities,
whoever they may be, who preside over the parts, must necessarily be
under that Deity who wields the presidency over all the elements, and
over the entire universe. But this Deity prohibits the worship of all
those deities. Why, then, is it that these men, in opposition to the
injunction of One greater than those deities, not only choose to
worship them, but also decline, for their sakes, to worship Him? Not
yet have they discovered any constant and intelligible judgment to
pronounce on this God of Israel; neither will they ever discover any
such judgment, until they find out that He alone is the true God, by
whom all things were created.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXX.--Of the Fact That, as the Prophecies Have Been Fulfilled,
the God of Israel Has Now Been Made Known Everywhere.
46. Thus it was with a certain person named Lucan, one of their great
declaimers in verse. For a long time, as I believe, he endeavored to
find out, by his own cogitations, or by the perusal of the books of his
own fellow-countrymen, [629] who the God of the Jews was; and failing
to prosecute his inquiry in the way of piety, he did not succeed. Yet
he chose rather to speak of Him as the uncertain God whom he did not
find out, than absolutely to deny the title of God to that Deity of
whose existence he perceived proofs so great. For he says:
"And Judaea, devoted to the worship
Of an uncertain God." [630]
--Lucan, Book ii. towards the end.
And as yet this God, the holy and true God of Israel, had not done by
the name of Christ among all nations works so great as those which have
been wrought after Lucan's times up to our own day. But now who is so
obdurate as not to be moved, who so dull [631] as not to be inflamed,
seeing that the saying of Scripture is fulfilled, "For there is not one
that is hid from the heat thereof;" [632] and seeing also that those
other things which were predicted so long time ago in this same Psalm
from which I have cited one little verse, are now set forth in their
accomplishment in the clearest light? For under this term of the
"heavens" the apostles of Jesus Christ were denoted, because God was to
preside in them with a view to the publishing of the gospel. Now,
therefore, the heavens have declared the glory of God, and the
firmament has proclaimed the works of His hands. Day unto day has given
forth speech, and night unto night has shown knowledge. Now there is no
speech or language where their voices are not heard. Their sound has
gone out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
Now hath He set His tabernacle in the sun, that is, in manifestation;
which tabernacle is His Church. For in order to do so (as the words
proceed in the passage) He came forth from His chamber like a
bridegroom; that is to say, the Word, wedded with the flesh of man,
came forth from the Virgin's womb. Now has He rejoiced as a strong man,
and has run His race. Now has His going forth been made from the height
of heaven, and His return even to the height of heaven. [633] And
accordingly, with the completest propriety, there follows upon this the
verse which I have already mentioned: "And there is not one that is hid
from the heat thereof [or, His heat]." And still these men make choice
of their little, weak, prating objections, which are like stubble to be
reduced to ashes in that fire, rather than like gold to be purged of
its dross by it; while at once the fallacious monuments of their false
gods have been brought to nought, and the veracious promises of that
uncertain God have been proved to be sure.
__________________________________________________________________
[629] Per suorum libros.
[630] [...Et dedita sacris Incerti Judaea Dei.--R.]
[631] Reading torpidus; for which others give tepidus, cool.
[632] Ps. xix. 6.
[633] [Ps. xix. 1-6, partly in citation, partly in allegorizing
paraphrase.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXI.--The Fulfilment of the Prophecies Concerning Christ.
47. Wherefore let those evil applauders of Christ, who refuse to become
Christians, desist from making the allegation that Christ did not teach
that their gods were to be abandoned, and their images broken in
pieces. For the God of Israel, regarding whom it was declared aforetime
that He should be called the God of the whole earth, is now indeed
actually called the God of the whole earth. By the mouth of His
prophets He predicted that this would come to pass, and by Christ He
did bring it eventually to pass at the fit time. Assuredly, if the God
of Israel is now named the God of the whole earth, what He has
commanded must needs be made good; for He who has given the commandment
is now well known. But, further, that He is made known by Christ and in
Christ, in order that His Church may be extended throughout the world,
and that by its instrumentality the God of Israel may be named the God
of the whole earth, those who please may read a little earlier in the
same prophet. That paragraph may also be cited by me. It is not so long
as to make it requisite for us to pass it by. Here there is much said
about the presence, the humility, and the passion of Christ, and about
the body of which He is the Head, that is, His Church, where it is
called barren, like one that did not bear. For during many years the
Church, which was destined to subsist among all the nations with its
children, that is, with its saints, was not apparent, as Christ
remained yet unannounced by the evangelists to those to whom He had not
been declared by the prophets. Again, it is said that there shall be
more children for her who is forsaken than for her who has a husband,
under which name of a husband the Law was signified, or the King whom
the people of Israel first received. For neither had the Gentiles
received the Law at the period at which the prophet spake; nor had the
King of Christians yet appeared to the nations, although from these
Gentile nations a much more fruitful and numerous multitude of saints
has now proceeded. It is in this manner, therefore, that Isaiah speaks,
commencing with the humility [634] of Christ, and turning afterwards to
an address to the Church, on to that verse which we have already
instanced, where he says: And He who brought thee out, the same God of
Israel, shall be called the God of the whole earth. [635] Behold, says
he, my Servant shall deal prudently, and shall be exalted and honoured
exceedingly. As many shall be astonied at Thee; so shall Thy marred
visage, nevertheless, be seen by all, and Thine honour by men. For so
shall many nations be astonied at Him, and the kings shall shut their
mouths. For they shall see to whom it has not been told of Him; and
those who have not heard shall understand. O Lord, who hath believed
our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have
proclaimed before Him as a servant, [636] as a root in a thirsty soil;
He hath no form nor comeliness. And we have seen Him, and He had
neither beauty nor seemliness; but His countenance is despised, and His
state rejected by all men: a man stricken, and acquainted with the
bearing of infirmities; on account of which His face is turned aside,
injured, and little esteemed. He bears our infirmities, and is in
sorrows for us. And we did esteem Him to be in sorrows, and to be
stricken and in punishment. But He was wounded for our transgressions,
and He was enfeebled for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace
was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed. All we, like sheep,
have gone astray, and the Lord hath given Him up for our sins. And
whereas He was evil entreated, He opened not His mouth; He was brought
as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before him who shears it is
dumb, so He opened not His mouth. In humility was His judgment taken.
Who shall declare His generation? For His life shall be cut off out of
the land; by the iniquities of my people is He led to death. Therefore
shall I give the wicked for His sepulture, and the rich on account of
His death; because He did no iniquity, neither was any deceit in His
mouth. The Lord is pleased to clear Him in regard to His stroke. [637]
If ye shall give your soul for your offences, ye shall see the seed of
the longest life. And the Lord is pleased to take away His soul from
sorrows, to show Him the light, and to set Him forth in sight, [638]
and to justify the righteous One who serves many well; and He shall
bear their sins. Therefore shall He have many for His inheritance, and
shall divide the spoils of the strong; for which reason His soul was
delivered over to death, and He was numbered with the transgressors,
and He bare the sins of many, and was delivered for their iniquities.
Rejoice, O barren, thou that dost not bear: exult, and cry aloud, thou
that dost not travail with child; for more are the children of the
desolate than those of her who has a husband. For the Lord hath said,
Enlarge the place of thy tent, and fix thy courts; [639] there is no
reason why thou shouldst spare: lengthen thy cords, and strengthen Thy
stakes firmly. Yea, again and again break thou forth on the right hand
and on the left. For thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and thou
shall inhabit the cities which were desolate. There is nothing for thee
to fear. For thou shall prevail, and be not thou confounded as if thou
shall be put to shame. For thou shall forget thy confusion for ever:
thou shall not remember the shame of thy widowhood, since I who made
thee am the Lord; the Lord is His name: and He who brought thee out,
the very God of Israel, shall be called the God of the whole earth.
[640]
48. What can be said in opposition to this evidence, and this
expression of things both foretold and fulfilled? If they suppose that
His disciples have given a false testimony on the subject of the
divinity of Christ, will they also doubt the passion of Christ? No:
they are not accustomed to believe that He rose from the dead; but, at
the same time, they are quite ready to believe that He suffered all
that men are wont to suffer, because they wish Him to be held to be a
man and nothing more. According to this, then, He was led like a sheep
to the slaughter; He was numbered with the transgressors; He was
wounded for our sins; by His stripes were we healed; His face was
marred, and little esteemed, and smitten with the palms, and defiled
with the spittle; His position was disfigured on the cross; He was led
to death by the iniquities of the people Israel; He is the man who had
no form nor comeliness when He was buffeted with the fists, when He was
crowned with the thorns, when He was derided as He hung (upon the
tree); He is the man who, as the lamb is dumb before its shearer,
opened not His mouth, when it was said to Him by those who mocked Him,
"Prophesy to us, thou Christ." [641] Now, however, He is exalted
verily, now He is honoured exceedingly; truly many nations are now
astonied at Him. [642] Now the kings have shut their mouth, by which
they were wont to promulgate the most ruthless laws against the
Christians. Truly those now see to whom it was not told of Him, and
those who have not heard understand. [643] For those Gentile nations to
whom the prophets made no announcement, do now rather see for
themselves how true these things are which were of old reported by the
prophets; [644] and those who have not heard Isaiah speak in his own
proper person, now understand from his writings the things which he
spoke concerning Him. For even in the said nation of the Jews, who
believed the report of the prophets, or to whom was that arm of the
Lord revealed, which is this very Christ who was announced by them,
[645] seeing that by their own hands they perpetrated those crimes
against Christ, the commission of which had been predicted by the
prophets whom they possessed? But now, indeed, He possesses many by
inheritance; and He divides the spoils of the strong, since the devil
and the demons have now been cast out and given up, and the possessions
once held by them have been distributed by Him among the fabrics of His
churches and for other necessary services.
__________________________________________________________________
[634] Reading humilitate; some editions give humanitate, the humanity.
[635] Isa. liv 5.
[636] Puer.
[637] Purgare deus illum de plaga.
[638] Figurare per sensum = set forth in sensible figure.
[639] Reading aulas tuas confige; others give caulas = thy folds.
[640] Isa. lii. 13-liv. 5. [The variations from the Hebrew, especially
in some of the more obscure passages, are worthy of notice. Compare the
Revised Version, text and margin, in loco.--R.]
[641] Matt. xxvi., xxvii.; Mark xiv., xv.; Luke xxii., xxiii.; John
xviii., xix.
[642] [Isa. lii. 15 (in the Revised Version): "So shall He sprinkle
many nations," with margin, "Or, startle."--R.]
[643] Rom. xv. 16, 21.
[644] Magis ipsae vident quam vera nuntiata sint per prophetas.
[645] John xii. 37, 38; Rom. x. 16.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXII.--A Statement in Vindication of the Doctrine of the
Apostles as Opposed to Idolatry, in the Words of the Prophecies.
49. What, then, do these men, who are at once the perverse applauders
of Christ and the slanderers of Christians, say to these facts? Can it
be that Christ, by the use of magical arts, caused those predictions to
be uttered so long ago by the prophets? or have His disciples invented
them? Is it thus that the Church, in her extension among the Gentile
nations, though once barren, has been made to rejoice now in the
possession of more children than that synagogue had which, in its Law
or its King, had received, as it were, a husband? or is it thus that
this Church has been led to enlarge the place of her tent, and to
occupy all nations and tongues, so that now she lengthens her cords
beyond the limits to which the rights of the empire of Rome extend,
yea, even on to the territories of the Persians and the Indians and
other barbarous nations? or that, on the right hand by means of true
Christians, and on the left hand by means of pretended Christians, His
name is being made known among such a multitude of peoples? or that His
seed is made to inherit the Gentiles, so as now to inhabit cities which
had been left desolate of the true worship of God and the true
religion? or that His Church has been so little daunted by the threats
and furies of men, even at times when she has been covered with the
blood of martyrs, like one clad in purple array, that she has prevailed
over persecutors at once so numerous, so violent, and so powerful? or
that she has not been confounded, like one put to shame, when it was a
great crime to be or to become a Christian? or that she is made to
forget her confusion for ever, because, where sin had abounded, grace
did much more abound? [646] or that she is taught not to remember the
shame of her widowhood, because only for a little was she forsaken and
subjected to opprobrium, while now she shines forth once more with such
eminent glory? or, in fine, is it only a fiction concocted by Christ's
disciples, that the Lord who made her, and brought her forth from the
denomination of the devil and the demons, the very God of Israel is now
called the God of the whole earth; all which, nevertheless, the
prophets, whose books are now in the hands of the enemies of Christ,
foretold so long before Christ became the Son of man?
50. From this, therefore, let them understand that the matter is not
left obscure or doubtful even to the slowest and dullest minds: from
this, I say, let these perverse applauders of Christ and execrators of
the Christian religion understand that the disciples of Christ have
learned and taught, in opposition to their gods, precisely what the
doctrine of Christ contains. For the God of Israel is found to have
enjoined in the books of the prophets that all these objects which
those men are minded to worship should be held in abomination and be
destroyed, while He Himself is now named the God of the whole earth,
through the instrumentality of Christ and the Church of Christ, exactly
as He promised so long time ago. For if, indeed, in their marvellous
folly, they fancy that Christ worshipped their gods, and that it was
only through them that He had power to do things so great as these, we
may well ask whether the God of Israel also worshipped their gods, who
has now fulfilled by Christ what He promised with respect to the
extension of His own worship through all the nations, and with respect
to the detestation and subversion of those other deities? [647] Where
are their gods? Where are the vaticinations of their fanatics, and the
divinations of their prophets? [648] Where are the auguries, or the
auspices, or the soothsayings, [649] or the oracles of demons? Why is
it that, out of the ancient books which constitute the records of this
type of religion, nothing in the form either of admonition or of
prediction is advanced to oppose the Christian faith, or to controvert
the truth of those prophets of ours, who have now come to be so well
understood among all nations? "We have offended our gods," they say in
reply, "and they have deserted us for that reason: that explains it
also why the Christians have prevailed against us, and why the bliss of
human life, exhausted [650] and impaired, goes to wreck among us." We
challenge them, however, to take the books of their own seers, and read
out to us any statement purporting that the kind of issue which has
come upon them would be brought on them by the Christians: nay, we
challenge them to recite any passages in which, if not Christ (for they
wish to make Him out to have been a worshipper of their own gods), at
least this God of Israel, who is allowed to be the subverter of other
deities, is held up as a deity destined to be rejected and worthy of
detestation. But never will they produce any such passage, unless,
perchance, it be some fabrication of their own. And if ever they do
cite any such statement, the fact that it is but a fiction of their own
will betray itself in the unnoticeable manner in which a matter of so
grave importance is found adduced; whereas, in good truth, before what
has been predicted should have come to pass, it behoved to have been
proclaimed in the temples of the gods of all nations, with a view to
the timeous preparation and warning of all who are now minded [651] to
be Christians.
__________________________________________________________________
[646] Rom. v. 20.
[647] Deut. vii. 5.
[648] Pythonum.
[649] Aruspicia.
[650] Reading defessa; others give depressa, crushed.
[651] Others read nolunt, who refuse.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIII.--A Statement in Opposition to Those Who Make the
Complaint that the Bliss of Human Life Has Been Impaired by the
Entrance of Christian Times.
51. Finally, as to the complaint which they make with respect to the
impairing of the bliss of human life by the entrance of Christian
times, if they only peruse the books of their own philosophers, who
reprehend those very things which are now being taken out of their way
in spite of all their unwillingness and murmuring, they will indeed
find that great praise is due to the times of Christ. For what
diminution is made in their happiness, unless it be in what they most
basely and luxuriously abused, to the great injury of their Creator? or
unless, perchance, it be the case that evil times originate in such
circumstances as these, in which throughout almost all states the
theatres are failing, and with them, too, the dens of vice and the
public profession of iniquity: yea, altogether the forums and cities in
which the demons used to be worshipped are falling. How comes it, then,
that they are falling, unless it be in consequence of the failure of
those very things, in the lustful and sacrilegious use of which they
were constructed? Did not their own Cicero, when commending a certain
actor of the name of Roscius, call him a man so clever as to be the
only one worthy enough to make it due for him to come upon the stage;
and yet, again, so good a man as to be the only one so worthy as to
make it due for him not to approach it? [652] What else did he disclose
with such remarkable clearness by this saying, but the fact that the
stage was so base there, that a person was under the greater obligation
not to connect himself with it, in proportion as he was a better man
than most? And yet their gods were pleased with such things of shame as
he deemed fit only to be removed to a distance from good men. But we
have also an open confession of the same Cicero, where he says that he
had to appease Flora, the mother of sports, by frequent celebration;
[653] in which sports such an excess of vice is wont to be exhibited,
that, in comparison with them, others are respectable, from engaging in
which, nevertheless, good men are prohibited. Who is this mother Flora,
and what manner of goddess is she, who is thus conciliated and
propitiated by a practice of vice indulged in with more than usual
frequency and with looser reins? How much more honourable now was it
for a Roscius to step upon the stage, than for a Cicero to worship a
goddess of this kind! If the gods of the Gentile nations are offended
because the supplies are lessened which are instituted for the purpose
of such celebrations, it is apparent of what character those must be
who are delighted with such things. But if, on the other hand, the gods
themselves in their wrath diminish these supplies, their anger yields
us better services than their placability. Wherefore let these men
either confute their own philosophers, who have reprehended the same
practices on the side of wanton men; or else let them break in pieces
those gods of theirs who have made such demands upon their worshippers,
if indeed they still find any such deities either to break in pieces or
to conceal. But let them cease from their blasphemous habit of charging
Christian times with the failure of their true prosperity,--a
prosperity, indeed, so used by them that they were sinking into all
that is base and hurtful,--lest thereby they be only putting us all the
more emphatically in mind of reasons for the ampler praise of the power
of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
[652] See Cicero's Oration in behalf of Roscius.
[653] See Cicero, Against Verres, 5.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIV.--Epilogue to the Preceding.
52. Much more might I say on this subject, were it not that the
requirements of the task which I have undertaken compel me to conclude
this book, and revert to the object originally proposed. When, indeed,
I took it in hand to solve those problems of the Gospels which meet us
where the four evangelists, as it seems to certain critics, fail to
harmonize with each other, by setting forth to the best of my ability
the particular designs which they severally have in view, I was met
first by the necessity of discussing a question which some are
accustomed to bring before us,--the question, namely, as to the reason
why we cannot produce any writings composed by Christ Himself. For
their aim is to get Him credited with the writing of some other
composition, I know not of what sort, which may be suitable to their
inclinations, and with having indulged in no sentiments of antagonism
to their gods, but rather with having paid respect to them in a kind of
magical worship; and their wish is also to get it believed that His
disciples not only gave a false account of Him when they declared Him
to be the God by whom all things were made, while He was really nothing
more than a man, although certainly a man of the most exalted wisdom,
but also that they taught with regard to these gods of theirs something
different from what they had themselves learned from Him. This is how
it happens that we have been engaged preferentially in pressing them
with arguments concerning the God of Israel, who is now worshipped by
all nations through the medium of the Church of the Christians, who is
also subverting their sacrilegious vanities the whole world over,
exactly as He announced by the mouth of the prophets so long ago, and
who has now fulfilled those predictions by the name of Christ, in whom
He had promised that all nations should be blessed. And from all this
they ought to understand that Christ could neither have known nor
taught anything else with regard to their gods than what was enjoined
and foretold by the God of Israel through the agency of these prophets
of His by whom He promised, and ultimately sent, this very Christ, in
whose name, according to the promise given to the fathers, when all
nations were pronounced blessed, it has come to pass that this same God
of Israel should be called the God of the whole earth. By this, too,
they ought to see that His disciples did not depart from the doctrine
of their Master when they forbade the worship of the gods of the
Gentiles, with the view of preventing us from addressing our
supplications to insensate images, or from having fellowship with
demons, or from serving the creature rather than the Creator with the
homage of religious worship.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXV.--Of the Fact that the Mystery of a Mediator Was Made
Known to Those Who Lived in Ancient Times by the Agency of Prophecy, as
It is Now Declared to Us in the Gospel.
53. Wherefore, seeing that Christ Himself is that Wisdom of God by whom
all things were created, and considering that no rational
intelligences, whether of angels or of men, receive wisdom except by
participation in this Wisdom wherewith we are united by that Holy
Spirit through whom charity is shed abroad in our hearts [654] (which
Trinity at the same time constitutes one God), Divine Providence,
having respect to the interests of mortal men whose time-bound life was
held engaged in things which rise into being and die, [655] decreed
that this same Wisdom of God, assuming into the unity of His person the
(nature of) man, in which He might be born according to the conditions
of time, and live and die and rise again, should utter and perform and
bear and sustain things congruous to our salvation; and thus, in
exemplary fashion, show at once to men on earth the way for a return to
heaven, and to those angels who are above us, the way to retain their
position in heaven. [656] For unless, also, in the nature of the
reasonable soul, and under the conditions of an existence in time,
something came newly into being,--that is to say, unless that began to
be which previously was not,--there could never be any passing from a
life of utter corruption and folly into one of wisdom and true
goodness. And thus, as truth in the contemplative lives in the
enjoyment of things eternal, while faith in the believing is what is
due to things which are made, man is purified through that faith which
is conversant with temporal things, in order to his being made capable
of receiving the truth of things eternal. For one of their noblest
intellects, the philosopher Plato, in the treatise which is named the
Timaeus, speaks also to this effect: "As eternity is to that which is
made, so truth to faith." Those two belong to the things
above,--namely, eternity and truth; these two belong to the things
below,--namely, that which is made and faith. In order, therefore, that
we may be called off from the lowest objects, and led up again to the
highest, and in order also that what is made may attain to the eternal,
we must come through faith to truth. And because all contraries are
reduced to unity by some middle factor, and because also the iniquity
of time alienated us from the righteousness of eternity, there was need
of some mediatorial righteousness of a temporal nature; which
mediatizing factor might be temporal on the side of those lowest
objects, but also righteous on the side of these highest, [657] and
thus, by adapting itself to the former without cutting itself off from
the latter, might bring back those lowest objects to the highest.
Accordingly, Christ was named the Mediator between God and men, who
stood between the immortal God and mortal man, as being Himself both
God and man, [658] who reconciled man to God, who continued to be what
He (formerly) was, but was made also what He (formerly) was not. And
the same Person is for us at once the (centre of the) said faith in
things that are made, and the truth in things eternal.
54. This great and unutterable mystery, this kingdom and priesthood,
was revealed by prophecy to the men of ancient time, and is now
preached by the gospel to their descendants. For it behoved that, at
some period or other, that should be made good among all nations which
for a long time had been promised through the medium of a single
nation. Accordingly, He who sent the prophets before His own descent
also despatched the apostles after His ascension. Moreover, in virtue
of the man [659] assumed by Him, He stands to all His disciples in the
relation of the head to the members of His body. Therefore, when those
disciples have written matters which He declared and spake to them, it
ought not by any means to be said that He has written nothing Himself;
since the truth is, that His members have accomplished only what they
became acquainted with by the repeated statements of the Head. For all
that He was minded to give for our perusal on the subject of His own
doings and sayings, He commanded to be written by those disciples, whom
He thus used as if they were His own hands. Whoever apprehends this
correspondence of unity and this concordant service of the members, all
in harmony in the discharge of diverse offices under the Head, will
receive the account which he gets in the Gospel through the narratives
constructed by the disciples, in the same kind of spirit in which he
might look upon the actual hand of the Lord Himself, which He bore in
that body which was made His own, were he to see it engaged in the act
of writing. For this reason let us now rather proceed to examine into
the real character of those passages in which these critics suppose the
evangelists to have given contradictory accounts (a thing which only
those who fail to understand the matter aright can fancy to be the
case); so that, when these problems are solved, it may also be made
apparent that the members in that body have preserved a befitting
harmony in the unity of the body itself, not only by identity in
sentiment, but also by constructing records consonant with that
identity.
__________________________________________________________________
[654] Rom. v. 5.
[655] In rebus orientibus et occidentibus occupata tenebatur.
[656] Fieret et deorsum hominibus exemplum redeundi et eis qui sursum
sunt angelis exemplum manendi.
[657] Reading quae medietas temporalis esset de imis, justa de summis.
Another version gives quae medietas temporalis esset de imis mixta et
summis = which temporal mediatizing factor might be made up of the
lowest and the highest objects together, or = which might be a temporal
mediatizing factor made up, etc.
[658] 1 Tim. ii. 5.
[659] Hominem.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Book II.
In this book Augustin undertakes an orderly examination of the Gospel
according to Matthew, on to the narrative of the Supper, and institutes
a comparison between it and the other gospels by Mark, Luke, and John,
with the view of demonstrating a complete harmony between the four
evangelists throughout all these sections.
__________________________________________________________________
The Prologue.
1. Whereas, in a discourse of no small length and of imperative
importance, which we have finished within the compass of one book, we
have refuted the folly of those who think that the disciples who have
given us these Gospel histories deserve only to be disparagingly
handled, for the express reason that no writings are produced by us
with the claim of being compositions which have proceeded immediately
from the hand of that Christ whom they refuse indeed to worship as God,
but whom, nevertheless, they do not hesitate to pronounce worthy to be
honoured as a man far surpassing all other men in wisdom; and as,
further, we have confuted those who strive to make Him out to have
written in a strain suiting their perverted inclinations, but not in
terms calculated, by their perusal and acceptance, to set men right, or
to turn them from their perverse ways, let us now look into the
accounts which the four evangelists have given us of Christ, with the
view of seeing how self-consistent they are, and how truly in harmony
with each other. And let us do so in the hope that no offence, even of
the smallest order may be felt in this line of things in the Christian
faith by those who exhibit more curiosity than capacity, in so far as
they think that a study of the evangelical books, conducted not in the
way of a merely cursory perusal, but in the form of a more than
ordinarily careful investigation, has disclosed to them certain matters
of an inapposite and contradictory nature, and in so far as their
notion is, that these things are to be held up as objections in the
spirit of contention, rather than pondered in the spirit of
consideration.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter I.--A Statement of the Reason Why the Enumeration of the
Ancestors of Christ is Carried Down to Joseph, While Christ Was Not
Born of that Man's Seed, But of the Virgin Mary.
2. The evangelist Matthew has commenced his narrative in these terms:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son
of Abraham." [660] By this exordium he shows with sufficient clearness
that his undertaking is to give an account of the generation of Christ
according to the flesh. For, according to this, Christ is the Son of
man,--a title which He also gives very frequently to Himself, [661]
thereby commending to our notice what in His compassion He has
condescended to be on our behalf. For that heavenly and eternal
generation, in virtue of which He is the only-begotten Son of God,
before every creature, because all things were made by Him, is so
ineffable, that it is of it that the word of the prophet must be
understood when he says, "Who shall declare His generation?" [662]
Matthew therefore traces out the human generation of Christ, mentioning
His ancestors from Abraham downwards, and carrying them on to Joseph
the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not held
allowable to consider him dissociated from the married estate which was
entered into with Mary, on the ground that she gave birth to Christ,
not as the wedded wife of Joseph, but as a virgin. For by this example
an illustrious recommendation is made to faithful married persons of
the principle, that even when by common consent they maintain their
continence, the relation can still remain, and can still be called one
of wedlock, inasmuch as, although there is no connection between the
sexes of the body, there is the keeping of the affections of the mind;
particularly so for this reason, that in their case we see how the
birth of a son was a possibility apart from anything of that carnal
intercourse which is to be practised with the purpose of the
procreation of children only. Moreover, the mere fact that he had not
begotten Him by act of his own, was no sufficient reason why Joseph
should not be called the father of Christ; for indeed he could be in
all propriety the father of one whom he had not begotten by his own
wife, but had adopted from some other person.
3. Christ, it is true, was also supposed to be the son of Joseph in
another way, as if He had been born simply of that man's seed. But this
supposition was entertained by persons whose notice the virginity of
Mary escaped. For Luke says: "And Jesus Himself began to be about
thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." [663]
This Luke, however, instead of naming Mary His only parent, had not the
slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as His parents,
when he says: "And the boy grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom,
and the grace of God was in Him: and His parents went to Jerusalem
every year at the feast of the passover." [664] But lest any one may
fancy that by the "parents" here are rather to be understood the blood
relations of Mary along with the mother herself, what shall be said to
that preceding word of the same Luke, namely, "And His father [665] and
mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him"? [666]
Since, then, he also makes the statement that Christ was born, not in
consequence of Joseph's connection with the mother, but simply of Mary
the virgin, how can he call him His father, unless it be that we are to
understand him to have been truly the husband of Mary, without the
intercourse of the flesh indeed, but in virtue of the real union of
marriage; and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the
father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have
been the case had He been only adopted from some other party? And this
makes it clear that the clause,"as was supposed," [667] is inserted
with a view to those who are of opinion that He was begotten by Joseph
in the same way as other men are begotten.
__________________________________________________________________
[660] Matt. i. 1.
[661] Matt. viii. 20, ix. 6.
[662] Isa. liii. 8.
[663] Luke iii. 23. [Revised Version, "And Jesus Himself, when He began
to teach, was about," etc. The Latin, erat incipiens, conveys the same
sense.--R.]
[664] Luke ii. 40, 41.
[665] Et erat pater ejus, etc., instead of Joseph, etc. [The correct
text in Luke ii. 33 is undoubtedly that given by Augustin. Compare
critical editions of the Greek text. So Revised Version, "And His
father and His mother," etc.--R.]
[666] Luke ii. 33.
[667] [Compare Revised Version, where the parenthesis is correctly
given.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.--An Explanation of the Sense in Which Christ is the Son of
David, Although He Was Not Begotten in the Way of Ordinary Generation
by Joseph the Son of David.
4. Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent,
according to the laws of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary,
we should have warrant enough to hold Christ to be the son of David, on
the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also Joseph is
called His father. But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells
us that "Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh," [668]
how much more ought we to accept without any hesitation the position
that Mary herself also was descended in some way, according to the laws
of blood, from the lineage of David? Moreover, since this woman's
connection with the priestly family also is a matter not left in
absolute obscurity, inasmuch as Luke inserts the statement that
Elisabeth, whom he records to be of the daughters of Aaron, [669] was
her cousin, [670] we ought most firmly to hold by the fact that the
flesh of Christ sprang from both lines; to wit, from the line of the
kings, and from that of the priests, in the case of which persons there
was also instituted a certain mystical unction which was symbolically
expressive among this people of the Hebrews. In other words, there was
a chrism; which term makes the import of the name of Christ patent, and
presents it as something indicated so long time ago by an intimation so
very intelligible.
__________________________________________________________________
[668] Rom. i. 3.
[669] Luke i. 5.
[670] Luke i. 36.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--A Statement of the Reason Why Matthew Enumerates One
Succession of Ancestors for Christ, and Luke Another.
5. Furthermore, as to those critics who find a difficulty in the
circumstance that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, beginning
with David and travelling downwards to Joseph, [671] while Luke
specifies a different succession, tracing it from Joseph upwards as far
as to David, [672] they might easily perceive that Joseph may have had
two fathers,--namely, one by whom he was begotten, and a second by whom
he may have been adopted. [673] For it was an ancient custom also among
that people to adopt children with the view of making sons for
themselves of those whom they had not begotten. For, leaving out of
sight the fact that Pharaoh's daughter [674] adopted Moses (as she was
a foreigner), Jacob himself adopted his own grandsons, the sons of
Joseph, in these very intelligible terms: "Now, therefore, thy two sons
which were born unto thee before I came unto thee, are mine: Ephraim
and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon: and thy issue which
thou begettest after them shall be thine." [675] Whence also it came to
pass that there were twelve tribes of Israel, although the tribe of
Levi was omitted, which did service in the temple; for along with that
one the whole number was thirteen, the sons of Jacob themselves being
twelve. Thus, too, we can understand how Luke, in the genealogy
contained in his Gospel, has named a father for Joseph, not in the
person of the father by whom he was begotten, but in that of the father
by whom he was adopted, tracing the list of the progenitors upwards
until David is reached. For, seeing that there is a necessity, as both
evangelists give a true narrative,--to wit, both Matthew and
Luke,--that one of them should hold by the line of the father who begat
Joseph, and the other by the line of the father who adopted him, whom
should we suppose more likely to have preserved the lineage of the
adopting father, than that evangelist who has declined to speak of
Joseph as begotten by the person whose son he has nevertheless reported
him to be? For it is more appropriate that one should have been called
the son of the man by whom he was adopted, than that he should be said
to have been begotten by the man of whose flesh he was not descended.
Now when Matthew, accordingly, used the phrases, "Abraham begat Isaac,"
"Isaac begat Jacob," and so on, keeping steadily by the term "begat,"
until he said at the close, "and Jacob begat Joseph," he gave us to
know with sufficient clearness, that he had traced out the order [676]
of ancestors on to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but
begotten.
6. But even although Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by Heli,
that expression ought not to disturb us to such an extent as to lead us
to believe anything else than that by the one evangelist the father
begetting was mentioned, and by the other the father adopting. For
there is nothing absurd in saying that a person has begotten, not after
the flesh, it may be, but in love, one whom he has adopted as a son.
Those of us, to wit, to whom God has given power to become His sons, He
did not beget of His own nature and substance, as was the case with His
only Son; but He did indeed adopt us in His love. And this phrase the
apostle is seen repeatedly to employ just in order to distinguish from
us the only-begotten Son who is before every creature, by whom all
things were made, who alone is begotten of the substance of the Father;
who, in accordance with the equality of divinity, is absolutely what
the Father is, and who is declared to have been sent with the view of
assuming to Himself the flesh proper to that race to which we too
belong according to our nature, in order that by His participation in
our mortality, through His love for us, He might make us partakers of
His own divinity in the way of adoption. For the apostle speaks thus:
"But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of
a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive [677] the adoption of sons." [678] And yet we are
also said to be born of God,--that is to say, in so far as we, who
already were men, have received power to be made the sons of God,--to
be made such, moreover, by grace, and not by nature. For if we were
sons by nature, we never could have been aught else. But when John
said, "To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on His name," he proceeded at once to add these words,
"which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God." [679] Thus, of the same persons he said,
first, that having received power they became the sons of God, which is
what is meant by that adoption which Paul mentions; and secondly, that
they were born of God. And in order the more plainly to show by what
grace this is effected, he continued thus: "And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us," [680] --as if he meant to say, What wonder
is it that those should have been made sons of God, although they were
flesh, on whose behalf the only Son was made flesh, although He was the
Word? Howbeit there is this vast difference between the two cases, that
when we are made the sons of God we are changed for the better; but
when the Son of God was made the son of man, He was not indeed changed
into the worse, but He did certainly assume to Himself what was below
Him. James also speaks to this effect: "Of His own will begat He us by
the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits [681] of
His creatures." [682] And to preclude our supposing, as it might appear
from the use of this term "begat," that we are made what He is Himself,
he here points out very plainly, that what is conceded to us in virtue
of this adoption, is a kind of headship [683] among the creatures.
7. It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke
said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really
adopted. Even in that way he did in fact beget him, not indeed to be a
man, but certainly to be a son; just as God has begotten us to be His
sons, whom He had previously made to the effect of being men. But He
begat only one to be not simply the Son, which the Father is not, but
also God, which the Father in like manner is. At the same time, it is
evident that if Luke had employed that phraseology, it would be
altogether a matter of dubiety as to which of the two writers mentioned
the father adopting, and which the father begetting of his own flesh;
just as, on the other hand, although neither of them had used the word
"begat," and although the former evangelist had called him the son of
the one person, and the latter the son of the other, it would
nevertheless be doubtful which of them named the father by whom he was
begotten, and which the father by whom he was adopted. As the case
stands now, however,--the one evangelist saying that "Jacob begat
Joseph," and the other speaking of "Joseph who was the son of
Heli,"--by the very distinction which they have made between the
expressions, they have elegantly indicated the different objects which
they have taken in hand. But surely it might easily suggest itself, as
I have said, to a man of piety decided enough to make him consider it
right to seek some worthier explanation than that of simply crediting
the evangelist with stating what is false; it might, I repeat, readily
suggest itself to such a person to examine what reasons there might be
for one man being (supposed) capable of having two fathers. This,
indeed, might have suggested itself even to those detractors, were it
not that they preferred contention to consideration.
__________________________________________________________________
[671] Matt. i. 1-16.
[672] Luke iii. 23-38.
[673] In the Retractations (ii. 16), Augustin alludes to this passage
with the view of correcting his statement regarding the adoption. He
tells us that, in speaking of the two several fathers whom Joseph may
have had, he should not have said that there "was one by whom Joseph
was begotten, and another by whom he may have been adopted," but should
rather have put it thus: "one by whom he was begotten, and another unto
whom he was adopted" (alteri instead of ab altero adoptatus). And the
reason indicated for the correction is the probability that the father
who begat Joseph was the mother's second husband, who, according to the
Levirate law, had married her on the death of his brother without
issue. [That Luke gives the lineage of Mary, who was the daughter of
Heli, has been held by many scholars. Weiss, in his edition of Meyer's
Commentary, claims that this is the only grammatical view: see
Robinson's Greek Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 207, 208. Augustin passes over
this solution apparently because he was more concerned to press the
priestly lineage of Mary.--R.]
[674] Ex. ii. 10.
[675] Gen. xlviii. 5, 6.
[676] Reading ordinem; others have originem, descent.
[677] Reciperemus. Most of the older mss. give recipiamus, may receive.
[678] Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[679] John i. 12, 13.
[680] John i. 14.
[681] Initium, beginning.
[682] Jas. i. 18.
[683] Principatum.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Of the Reason Why Forty Generations (Not Including Christ
Himself) are Found in Matthew, Although He Divides Them into Three
Successions of Fourteen Each.
8. The matter next to be introduced, moreover, is one requiring, in
order to its right apprehension and contemplation, a reader of the
greatest attention and carefulness. For it has been acutely observed
that Matthew, who had proposed to himself the task of commending the
kingly character in Christ, named, exclusive of Christ Himself, forty
men in the series of generations. Now this number denotes the period in
which, in this age and on this earth, it behoves us to be ruled by
Christ in accordance with that painful discipline whereby "God
scourgeth," as it is written, "every son that He receiveth;" [684] and
of which also an apostle says that "we must through much tribulation
enter into the kingdom of God." [685] This discipline is also signified
by that rod of iron, concerning which we read this statement in a
Psalm: "Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron;" [686] which words
occur after the saying, "Yet I am set king by Him upon His holy hill of
Zion!" [687] For the good, too, are ruled with a rod of iron, as it is
said of them: "The time is come that judgment should begin at the house
of God; and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be to them that
obey not the gospel of God? and if the righteous scarcely be saved,
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" [688] To the same
persons the sentence that follows also applies: "Thou shall dash them
in pieces like a potter's vessel." For the good, indeed, are ruled by
this discipline, while the wicked are crushed by it. And these two
different classes of persons are mentioned here as if they were the
same, on account of the identity of the signs [689] employed in
reference to the wicked in common with the good.
9. That this number, then, is a sign of that laborious period in which,
under the discipline of Christ the King, we have to fight against the
devil, is also indicated by the fact that both the law and the prophets
solemnized a fast of forty days,--that is to say, a humbling of the
soul,--in the person of Moses and Elias, who fasted each for a space of
forty days. [690] And what else does the Gospel narrative shadow forth
under the fast of the Lord Himself, during which forty days He was also
tempted of the devil, [691] than that condition of temptation which
appertains to us through all the space of this age, and which He bore
in the flesh which He condescended to take to Himself from our
mortality? After the resurrection also, it was His will to remain with
His disciples on the earth not longer than forty days, [692] continuing
to mingle for that space of time with this life of theirs in the way of
human intercourse, and partaking along with them of the food needful
for mortal men, although He Himself was to die no more; and all this
was done with the view of signifying to them through these forty days,
that although His presence should be hidden from their eyes, He would
yet fulfil what He promised when He said, "Lo, I am with you, even to
the end of the world." [693] And in explanation of the circumstance
that this particular number should denote this temporal and earthly
life, what suggests itself most immediately in the meantime, although
there may be another and subtler method of accounting for it, is the
consideration that the seasons of the years also revolve in four
successive alternations, and that the world itself has its bounds
determined by four divisions, which Scripture sometimes designates by
the names of the winds,--East and West, Aquilo [or North] and Meridian
[or South]. [694] But the number forty is equivalent to four times ten.
Furthermore, the number ten itself is made up by adding the several
numbers in succession from one up to four together.
10. In this way, then, as Matthew undertook the task of presenting the
record of Christ as the King who came into this world, and into this
earthly and mortal life of men, for the purpose of exercising rule over
us who have to struggle with temptation, he began with Abraham, and
enumerated forty men. For Christ came in the flesh from that very
nation of the Hebrews with a view to the keeping of which as a people
distinct from the other nations, God separated Abraham from his own
country and his own kindred. [695] And the circumstance that the
promise contained an intimation of the race from which He was destined
to come, served very specially to make the prediction and announcement
concerning Him something all the clearer. Thus the evangelist did
indeed mark out fourteen generations in each of three several members,
stating that from Abraham until David there were fourteen generations,
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon other fourteen
generations, and another fourteen from that period on to the nativity
of Christ. [696] But he did not then reckon them all up in one sum,
counting them one by one, and saying that thus they make up forty-two
in all. For among these progenitors there is one who is enumerated
twice, namely Jechonias, with whom a kind of deflection was made in the
direction of extraneous nations at the time when the transmigration
into Babylon took place. [697] When the enumeration, moreover, is thus
bent from the direct order of progression, and is made to form, if we
may so say, a kind of corner for the purpose of taking a different
course, what meets us at that corner is mentioned twice over,--namely,
at the close of the preceding series, and at the head of the deflection
specified. And this, too, was a figure of Christ as the one who was, in
a certain sense, to pass from the circumcision to the uncircumcision,
or, so to speak, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and to be, as it were, the
corner-stone to all who believe on Him, whether on the one side or on
the other. Thus was God making preparations then in a figurative manner
for things which were to come in truth. For Jechonias himself, with
whose name the kind of corner which I have in view was prefigured, is
by interpretation the "preparation of God." [698] In this way,
therefore, there are really not forty-two distinct generations named
here, which would be the proper sum of three times fourteen; but, as
there is a double enumeration of one of the names, we have here forty
generations in all, taking into account the fact that Christ Himself is
reckoned in the number, who, like the kingly president over this
[significant] number forty, superintends the administration of this
temporal and earthly life of ours.
11. And inasmuch as it was Matthew's intention to set forth Christ as
descending with the object of sharing this mortal state with us, he has
mentioned those same generations from Abraham on to Joseph, and on to
the birth of Christ Himself, in the form of a descending scale, and at
the very beginning of his Gospel. Luke, on the other hand, details
those generations not at the commencement of his Gospel, but at the
point of Christ's baptism, and gives them not in the descending, but in
the ascending order, ascribing to Him preferentially the character of a
priest in the expiation of sins, as where the voice from heaven
declared Him, and where John himself delivered his testimony in these
terms: "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!"
[699] Besides, in the process by which he traces the genealogy upwards,
he passes Abraham and carries us back to God, to whom, purified and
atoned for, we are reconciled. Of merit, too, He has sustained in
Himself the origination of our adoption; for we are made the sons of
God through adoption, by believing on the Son of God. Moreover, on our
account the Son of God was pleased to be made the son of man by the
generation which is proper to the flesh. And the evangelist has shown
clearly enough that he did not name Joseph the son of Heli on the
ground that he was begotten of him, but only on the ground that he was
adopted by him. For he has spoken of Adam also as the son of God, who,
strictly speaking, was made by God, but was also, as it may be said,
constituted a son in paradise by the grace which afterwards he lost
through his transgression.
12. In this way, it is the taking of our sins upon Himself by the Lord
Christ that is signified in the genealogy of Matthew, while in the
genealogy of Luke it is the abolition of our sins by the Lord Christ
that is expressed. In accordance with these ideas, the one details the
names in the descending scale, and the other in the ascending. For when
the apostle says, "God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of
sin," [700] he refers to the taking of our sins upon Himself by Christ.
But when he adds, "for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh," [701] he
expresses the expiation of sins. Consequently Matthew traces the
succession downwards from David through Solomon, in connection with
whose mother it was that he sinned; while Luke carries the genealogy
upwards to the same David through Nathan, [702] by which prophet God
took away [703] his sin. [704] The number, also, which Luke follows
does most certainly best indicate the taking away of sins. For inasmuch
as in Christ, who Himself had no sin, there is assuredly no iniquity
allied to the iniquities of men which He bore in His flesh, the number
adopted by Matthew makes forty when Christ is excepted. On the
contrary, inasmuch as, by clearing us of all sin and purging us, He
places us in a right relation to His own and His Father's righteousness
(so that the apostle's word is made good: "But he that is joined to the
Lord is one spirit" [705] ), in the number used by Luke we find
included both Christ Himself, with whom the enumeration begins, and
God, with whom it closes; and the sum becomes thus seventy-seven, which
denotes the thorough remission and abolition of all sins. This perfect
removal of sins the Lord Himself also clearly represented under the
mystery of this number, when He said that the person sinning ought to
be forgiven not only seven times, but even unto seventy times seven.
[706]
13. A careful inquiry will make it plain that it is not without some
reason that this latter number is made to refer to the purging of all
sins. For the number ten is shown to be, as one may say, the number of
justice [righteousness] in the instance of the ten precepts of the law.
Moreover, sin is the transgression of the law. And the transgression
[707] of the number ten is expressed suitably in the eleven; whence
also we find instructions to have been given to the effect that there
should be eleven curtains of haircloth constructed in the tabernacle;
[708] for who can doubt that the haircloth has a bearing upon the
expression of sin? Thus, too, inasmuch as all time in its revolution
runs in spaces of days designated by the number seven, we find that
when the number eleven is multiplied by the number seven, we are
brought with all due propriety to the number seventy-seven as the sign
of sin in its totality. In this enumeration, therefore, we come upon
the symbol for the full remission of sins, as expiation is made for us
by the flesh of our Priest, with whose name the calculation of this
number starts here; and as reconciliation is also effected for us with
God, with whose name the reckoning of this number is here brought to
its conclusion by the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove
on the occasion of that baptism in connection with which the number in
question is mentioned. [709]
__________________________________________________________________
[684] Heb. xii. 6.
[685] Acts xiv. 22.
[686] Ps. ii. 9.
[687] Ps. ii. 6.
[688] 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18.
[689] Sacramenta.
[690] Exod. xxxiv. 28; 1 Kings xix. 8.
[691] Matt. iv. 1, 2.
[692] Acts i. 3.
[693] Matt. xxviii. 20.
[694] Zech. xiv. 4.
[695] Gen. xii. 1, 2.
[696] Matt. i. 17.
[697] [It is more probable that David should be reckoned twice, in
making out the series. Augustin passes over the more serious difficulty
arising from the omissions in the genealogy given by Matthew. These
omissions, however, show that the evangelist had some purpose in his
use of the number "fourteen." Of any design to emphasize the number
"forty" there is no evidence.--R.]
[698] Praeparatio Dei.
[699] John i. 29.
[700] Rom. viii. 3. [Comp. Revised Version margin.--R.]
[701] Ut de peccato damnaret peccatum in carne. [Revised Version, "And
as an offering for sin," etc.--R.]
[702] 2 Sam. xii. 1-14.
[703] Expiavit.
[704] In his Retractations (ii. 16) Augustin refers to this sentence in
order to chronicle a correction. He tells us that, instead of saying
that "Luke carries the genealogy upwards to the same David through
Nathan, by which prophet God took away his sin," he should have said
"by a prophet of which name," etc., because although the name was the
same, the progenitor was a different person from the prophet Nathan.
[705] 1 Cor. vi. 17.
[706] Matt. xviii. 22. [Augustin apparently follows the rendering:
"seventy times and seven" (see Revised Version margin), accepted by
Meyer and many others. His whole argument turns upon the presence of
the number "eleven" as a factor.--R.]
[707] Transgressio, overstepping.
[708] Exod. xxvi. 7.
[709] Luke iii. 22.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke's Procedure is
Proved to Be in Harmony with Matthew's in Those Matters Concerning the
Conception and the Infancy or Boyhood of Christ, Which are Omitted by
the One and Recorded by the Other.
14. After the enumeration of the generations, Matthew proceeds thus:
Now the birth of Christ [710] was on this wise. Whereas His mother Mary
was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
child of the Holy Ghost. [711] What Matthew has omitted to state here
regarding the way in which that came to pass, has been set forth by
Luke after his account of the conception of John. His narrative is to
the following effect: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent
from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to
a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's
name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou
that art full of grace, [712] the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou
among women. And when she saw [713] these things, she was troubled at
his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should
be. And the angel said unto her: Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found
favour with God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and
shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give
unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign in the
house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. Then
said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born [714] shall be
called the Son of God; [715] and then follow matters not belonging to
the question at present in hand. Now all this Matthew has recorded
[summarily], when he tells us of Mary that "she was found with child of
the Holy Ghost." Neither is there any contradiction between the two
evangelists, in so far as Luke has set forth in detail what Matthew has
omitted to notice; for both bear witness that Mary conceived by the
Holy Ghost. And in the same way there is no want of concord between
them, when Matthew, in his turn, connects with the narrative something
which Luke leaves out. For Matthew proceeds to give us the following
statement: Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing
to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But
while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt
call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now
all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son; and His name shall be called [716] Emmanuel,
which, being interpreted, is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised
from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto
him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her
first-born son; [717] and he called His name Jesus. Now when Jesus was
born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Herod the king, and so
forth. [718]
15. With respect to the city of Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke are at one.
But Luke explains in what way and for what reason Joseph and Mary came
to it; whereas Matthew gives no such explanation. On the other hand,
while Luke is silent on the subject of the journey of the magi from the
east, Matthew furnishes an account of it. That narrative he constructs
as follows, in immediate connection with what he has already offered:
Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where
is He that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the
east, and are come to worship Him. Now, when Herod the king had heard
these things, he was troubled. [719] And in this manner the account
goes on, down to the passage where of these magi it is written that,
"being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod,
they departed into their own country another way." [720] This entire
section is omitted by Luke, just as Matthew fails to mention some other
circumstances which are mentioned by Luke: as, for example, that the
Lord was laid in a manger; and that an angel announced His birth to the
shepherds; and that there was with the angel a multitude of the
heavenly host praising God; and that the shepherds came and saw that
that was true which the angel had announced to them; and that on the
day of His circumcision He received His name; as also the incidents
reported by the same Luke to have occurred after the days of the
purification of Mary were fulfilled,--namely, their taking Him to
Jerusalem, and the words spoken in the temple by Simeon or Anna
concerning Him, when, filled with the Holy Ghost, they recognized Him.
Of all these things Matthew says nothing.
16. Hence, a subject which deserves inquiry is the question concerning
the precise time when these events took place which are omitted by
Matthew and given by Luke, and those, on the other hand, which have
been omitted by Luke and given by Matthew. For after his account of the
return of the magi who had come from the east to their own country,
Matthew proceeds to tell us how Joseph was warned by an angel to flee
into Egypt with the young child, to prevent His being put to death by
Herod; and then how Herod failed to find Him, but slew the children
from two years old and under; thereafter, how, when Herod was dead,
Joseph returned from Egypt, and, on hearing that Archelaus reigned in
Judaea instead of his father Herod, went to reside with the boy in
Galilee, at the city Nazareth. All these facts, again, are passed over
by Luke. Nothing, however, like a want of harmony can be made out
between the two writers merely on the ground that the latter states
what the former omits, or that the former mentions what the latter
leaves unnoticed. But the real question is as to the exact period at
which these things could have taken place which Matthew has linked on
to his narrative; to wit, the departure of the family into Egypt, and
their return from it after Herod's death, and their residence at that
time in the town of Nazareth, the very place to which Luke tells us
that they went back after they had performed in the temple all things
regarding the boy according to the law of the Lord. Here, accordingly,
we have to take notice of a fact which will also hold good for other
like cases, and which will secure our minds against similar agitation
or disturbance in subsequent instances. I refer to the circumstance
that each evangelist constructs his own particular narrative on a kind
of plan which gives it the appearance of being the complete and orderly
record of the events in their succession. For, preserving a simple
silence on the subject of those incidents of which he intends to give
no account, he then connects those which he does wish to relate with
what he has been immediately recounting, in such a manner as to make
the recital seem continuous. At the same time, when one of them
mentions facts of which the other has given no notice, the order of
narrative, if carefully considered, will be found to indicate the point
at which the writer by whom the omissions are made has taken the leap
in his account, and thus has attached the facts, which it was his
purpose to introduce, in such a manner to the preceding context as to
give the appearance of a connected series, in which the one incident
follows immediately on the other, without the interposition of anything
else. On this principle, therefore, we understand that where he tells
us how the wise men were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, and
how they went back to their own country by another way, Matthew has
simply omitted all that Luke has related respecting all that happened
to the Lord in the temple, and all that was said by Simeon and Anna;
while, on the other hand, Luke has omitted in the same place all notice
of the journey into Egypt, which is given by Matthew, and has
introduced the return to the city of Nazareth as if it were immediately
consecutive.
17. If any one wishes, however, to make up one complete narrative out
of all that is said or left unsaid by these two evangelists
respectively, on the subject of Christ's nativity and infancy or
boyhood, he may arrange the different statements in the following
order:--Now the birth of Christ was on this wise. [721] There was, in
the days of Herod the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias,
of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and
her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God,
walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both
were well stricken in years. And it came to pass, that while he
executed the priest's office before God, in the order of his course,
according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn
incense when he went into the temple of the Lord: and the whole
multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right
side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him he was
troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear
not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall
bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have
joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be
great in the sight of the Lord: and he shall drink neither wine nor
strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his
mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the
Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of
Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the
disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people perfect
[722] for the Lord. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I
know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And
the angel, answering, said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the
presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these
glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, [723] and not able to
speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou
hast not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried in
the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and
they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: and he beckoned
unto them, and remained speechless. And it came to pass that, as soon
as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his
own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid
herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the
days wherein He looked upon me, to take away my reproach among men. And
in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of
Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the
angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art full of grace,
[724] the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. And when she
saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what
manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear
not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. Behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name
Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest;
and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David:
and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom
there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this
be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God. [725] And, behold, thy cousin
Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is
the sixth month with her who is called [726] barren. For with God
nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the
Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from
her. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with
haste, into a city of Juda; and entered into the house of Zacharias,
and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard
the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was
filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spake out with a loud voice, and
said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come
to me? for, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine
ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed art thou that
didst believe, [727] for there shall be a performance of those things
which were told thee from the Lord. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify
the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For He hath
regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth
all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done
to me great things, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on them that
fear Him, from generation to generation. He hath made [728] strength
with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their
heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and exalted them of
low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He
hath sent empty away. He hath holpen [729] His servant Israel, in
remembrance of his mercy: as He spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and
to his seed for ever. And Mary abode with her about three months, and
returned to her own house. [730] Then it proceeds thus:--She was found
with child of the Holy Ghost. [731] Then Joseph her husband, being a
just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to
put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou
son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which
is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a
son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people
from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call
His name Emmanuel; which, being interpreted, is, God with us. Then
Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had
bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not. [732]
Now [733] Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered, and
she brought forth a son. And her neighbours and her relatives [734]
heard that the Lord magnified His mercy with her; and they
congratulated her. And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they
came to circumcise the child; and they called [735] him Zacharias,
after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so;
but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is none of
thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made signs to his
father, how he would have him called. And he asked for a writing table,
and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all. And his
mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue, and he spake and praised
God. And fear came on all them that dwelt round about them: and all
these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of
Judaea. And all they that had heard them laid them up in their heart,
saying, What manner of child, thinkest thou, shall this be? For the
hand of the Lord was with him. And his father Zacharias was filled with
the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of
Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath raised up
an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David; as He
spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since the
world began; (to give) salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of
all that hate us: to perform mercy with our fathers, and to remember
His holy covenant, the oath which He sware to Abraham our father that
He would give to us; in order that, being saved out of the hand of our
enemies, we might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness
before Him, all our days. And thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet
of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to
prepare His ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto His people, for
the remission [736] of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God;
whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to
them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet
into the way of peace. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit,
and was in the deserts until the day of his showing unto Israel. And it
came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar
Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. [737] This first taxing
[738] was made when Syrinus [739] was governor of Syria. And all went
to be taxed, [740] every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up
from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city
of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and
lineage of David, to be taxed [741] with Mary his espoused wife, being
great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days
were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth
her first-born son, and wrapped Him in swaddling-clothes, and laid Him
in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there
were in the same country shepherds watching and keeping the vigils of
the night over their flock. And, lo, the angel of the Lord stood by
them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were
sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I
bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For
unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is
Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the
babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly
there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God,
and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of
goodwill. [742] And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from
them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even
unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the
Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary
and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it,
they understood [743] the saying which had been told them concerning
this child. And all they that heard it, wondered also at those things
which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things,
and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying
and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it
was told unto them. And when eight days were accomplished for the
circumcising of the child, His name was called Jesus, which was so
named of the angel before He was conceived in the womb. [744] And then
it proceeds thus: [745] Behold, there came wise men from the east to
Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we
have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him. Now when
Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all
Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and
scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should
be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea; for thus it is
written by the prophet, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art
not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a
Governor that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had
privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently the time of
the star which appeared unto them. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and
said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have
found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star which
they had seen in the east went before them, until it came and stood
over where the young child was. And when they saw the star, they
rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the
house, they found [746] the child with Mary His mother, and fell down
and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they
presented unto Him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And being
warned of God in a dream that they should not return unto Herod, they
departed into their own country another way. [747] Then, after this
account of their return, the narrative goes on thus: [748] When the
days of her (His mother's) purification, according to the law of Moses,
were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the
Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth
the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), and to offer a sacrifice
according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of
turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in
Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout,
waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was in him.
And it had been revealed unto him [749] by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came
by the Spirit into the temple. And when His parents brought in the
child Jesus, to do for Him after the custom of the law, then took he
Him up in his arms, and said, Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart
in peace, according to Thy word: for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation,
which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to
lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel. And His
father and mother [750] marvelled at those things which were spoken of
Him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary His mother, Behold,
this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and
for a sign that shall be spoken against; and a sword shall pierce
through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be
revealed. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of
Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived
with her husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of
about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but
served God with fastings and prayers day and night. And she, coming in
that instant, gave thanks [751] also unto the Lord, and spake of Him to
all them that looked for the redemption of Jerusalem. [752] And when
they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, [753]
behold, [754] the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream,
saying, Arise, and take the young child and His mother, and flee into
Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word; for Herod will seek
the young child to destroy Him. When he arose, he took the young child
and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until
the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son. Then
Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding
wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and great mourning, [755]
Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because
they are not. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the
young child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for they
are dead which sought the young child's life. And he arose, and took
the young child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But
when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea, in the room of his
father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a
dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee; and came and dwelt in
a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. [756] And [757] the child
grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was in
Him. And His parents went to Jerusalem every year, at the feast of the
passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem,
after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as
they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and His
parents [758] knew not of it. But they, supposing Him to have been in
the company, went a day's journey; and they sought Him among their
kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found Him not, they turned
back again to Jerusalem seeking Him. And it came to pass, that after
three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the
doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that
heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. And when
they saw Him, they were amazed. And His mother said to Him, Son, why
hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee
sorrowing. And He said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye
not that I must be about my Father's business? [759] And they
understood not the saying which He spake unto them. And He went down
with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them; and His
mother kept all these sayings in her heart. [760] And Jesus increased
in wisdom and age, [761] and in favour with God and men. [762]
__________________________________________________________________
[710] [The omission of "Jesus" is an early variation of the Latin text
of the Gospel.--R.]
[711] Matt. i. 18.
[712] Gratia plena. [Comp. Revised Version margin.--R.]
[713] Quae cum vidisset. Others read audisset, heard. [The better Greek
mss. omit the clause. The variation in the Latin text here was probably
due to the later gloss of the scribes.--R.]
[714] Various editions insert ex te, of thee; but the words are omitted
in three Vatican mss., and most of the Gallican. See Migne's note.
[Omitted in the Greek text, according to the best authorities.--R.]
[715] Luke i. 26-34. [Ver. 34 is differently rendered in the text of
the Revised Version. The Latin of Augustin would perhaps admit of the
same sense, but is more naturally explained as above.--R.]
[716] Vocabitur. The mss. give vocabunt, they shall call; one ms. gives
vocabis, thou shalt call. [The proper reading is probably vocabunt; at
all events, this accords with the Greek text. The variations can be
accounted for by the presence of vocabitur and vocabis in previous part
of the paragraph.--R.]
[717] [The best Greek mss. read "a son" in Matt. i. 23. In Luke ii. 7
"first-born" occurs.--R.]
[718] Matt. i. 19-21.
[719] Matt. ii. 1-3.
[720] Matt. ii. 12.
[721] Matt. i. 18; Luke i. 5. [In this extended citation from the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Latin text given by Augustin is in
many cases, more closely reproduced in the Revised Version than in the
Authorized. The translator has, as usual, taken the language of the
latter, except in a few places, where the difference seemed more
important and striking.--R.]
[722] Perfectum.
[723] [Tacens; the fair equivalent of the original Greek phrase
properly rendered "silent'" in the Revised Version.--R.]
[724] Gratia plena.
[725] [Compare above on S: 14.--R.]
[726] Vocatur.
[727] Beata quae credidisti.
[728] Fecit.
[729] Undertaken--suscepit.
[730] Luke i. 5-36.
[731] Matt. i. 18. [The discovery of Mary's condition probably
occurred, as the order of Augustin implies, after the return of Mary
from the visit to Elizabeth. But it is altogether uncertain whether it
preceded the birth of John the Baptist.--R.]
[732] Matt. i. 18-25. [The last clause of ver. 25 is omitted here, but
given in S:14. Possibly the variation was intentional.--R.]
[733] Luke i. 57.
[734] Cognati.
[735] [Vocabunt, "would have called," answering to the Greek imperfect
of arrested action.--R.]
[736] In remissionem.
[737] Describeretur, registered. [Revised Version, "should be
enrolled."--R.]
[738] Descriptio prima [This is now the accepted sense of the phrase in
Luke ii. 2; Comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[739] Reading praeside Syriae Syrino; in some mss. it is a praeside,
etc., and sub praeside also occurs.
[740] Profiterentur, to make their declaration.
[741] Profiteretur, make his declaration.
[742] Hominibus bonae voluntatis. [Comp Revised Version.--R.]
[743] Cognoverunt.
[744] Luke i. 57-ii. 21.
[745] Matt. ii. 1. [It is here assumed that the visit of the Magi
preceded the presentation in the temple. But this order cannot be
positively established. The two events must be placed near together. In
chap. xi. Augustin implies that there was an interval of some length.
The traditional date of the Epiphany (Jan. 6) is clearly too early,
since it assumes an interval of twenty-seven days.--R.]
[746] Invenerunt.
[747] Matt. ii. 1-12.
[748] Luke ii. 22.
[749] Responsum acceperat.
[750] Pater ejus et mater. ["Joseph" was early substituted. Augustin
follows the text now accepted on the authority of the best Greek
mss.--R.]
[751] Confitebatur, made acknowledgment.
[752] Reading redemptionem Jerusalem; for which some editions gave
redemptionem Israel.
[753] Luke ii. 22-39.
[754] Matt. ii. 13.
[755] [The briefer reading, here accepted, is more correctly rendered
in the Revised Version.--R.]
[756] Matt. ii. 13-23.
[757] Luke ii. 40.
[758] Parentes ejus. ["Joseph and His mother" is the later reading,
followed in the Authorized Version.--R.]
[759] In his quae Patris mei sunt. [Comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[760] Reading, with the mss., conservabat omnia verba haec in corde
suo. Some editions insert conferens, pondering them.
[761] AEtate. [So Revised Version margin.--R.]
[762] Luke ii. 40-52.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--On the Position Given to the Preaching of John the Baptist
in All the Four Evangelists.
18. Now at this point commences the account of the preaching of John,
which is presented by all the four. For after the words which I have
placed last in the order of his narrative thus far,--the words with
which he introduces the testimony from the prophet, namely, He shall be
called a Nazarene,--Matthew proceeds immediately to give us this
recital: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judaea," [763] etc. And Mark, who has told us nothing of
the nativity or infancy or youth of the Lord, has made his Gospel begin
with the same event,--that is to say, with the preaching of John. For
it is thus that he sets out: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, [764]
Behold, I send a messenger [765] before Thy face, which shall prepare
Thy way before Thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. John was in the
wilderness baptizing, and preaching the baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins, [766] etc. Luke, again, follows up the passage in
which he says, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and age, [767] and in
favour with God and man," by a section in which he speaks of the
preaching of John in these terms: Now in the fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and
Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of
Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of
Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God
came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness, [768] etc. The
Apostle John, too, the most eminent of the four evangelists, after
discoursing of the Word of God, who is also the Son, antecedent to all
the ages of creaturely existence, inasmuch as all things were made by
Him, has introduced in the immediate context his account of the
preaching and testimony of John, and proceeds thus: There was a man
sent from God, whose name was John. [769] This will be enough at once
to make it plain that the narratives concerning John the Baptist given
by the four evangelists are not at variance with one another. And there
will be no occasion for requiring or demanding that to be done in all
detail in this instance which we have already done in the case of the
genealogies of the Christ who was born of Mary, to the effect of
proving how Matthew and Luke are in harmony with each other, of showing
how we might construct one consistent narrative out of the two, and of
demonstrating on behoof of those of less acute perception, that
although one of these evangelists may mention what the other omits, or
omit what the other mentions, he does not thereby make it in any sense
difficult to accept the veracity of the account given by the other. For
when a single example [of this method of harmonizing] has been set
before us, whether in the way in which it has been presented by me, or
in some other method in which it may more satisfactorily be exhibited,
every man can understand that, in all other similar passages, what he
has seen done here may be done again.
19. Accordingly, let us now study, as I have said, the harmony of the
four evangelists in the narratives regarding John the Baptist. Matthew
proceeds in these terms: In those days came John the Baptist, preaching
in the wilderness of Judaea. [770] Mark has not used the phrase "In
those days," because he has given no recital of any series of events at
the head of his Gospel immediately before this narrative, so that he
might be understood to speak in reference to the dates of such events
under the terms, "In those days." [771] Luke, on the other hand, with
greater precision has defined those times of the preaching or baptism
of John, by means of the notes of the temporal power. For he says: Now,
in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate
being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his
brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high
priests, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the
wilderness. [772] We ought not, however, to understand that what was
actually meant by Matthew when He said, "In those days," was simply the
space of days literally limited to the specified period of these
powers. On the contrary, it is apparent that he intended the note of
time which was conveyed in the phrase "In those days," to be taken to
refer to a much longer period. For he first gives us the account of the
return of Christ from Egypt after the death of Herod,--an incident,
indeed, which took place at the time of His infancy or childhood, and
with which, consequently, Luke's statement of what befell Him in the
temple when He was twelve years of age is quite consistent. [773] Then,
immediately after this narrative of the recall of the infant or boy out
of Egypt, Matthew continues thus in due order: "Now, in those days came
John the Baptist." And thus under that phrase he certainly covers not
merely the days of His childhood, but all the days intervening between
His nativity and this period at which John began to preach and to
baptize. At this period, moreover, Christ is found already to have
attained to man's estate; [774] for John and he were of the same age;
[775] and it is stated that He was about [776] thirty years of age when
He was baptized by the former.
__________________________________________________________________
[763] Matt. iii. 1.
[764] In Isaia propheta. [So the Greek text, according to the best mss.
Comp. Revised Version--R.]
[765] Angelum.
[766] Mark i. 1-4.
[767] AEtate.
[768] Luke iii. 1, 2.
[769] John i. 6.
[770] Matt. iii. 1.
[771] Mark i. 4.
[772] Luke iii. 1-3.
[773] Luke ii. 42-50.
[774] Juvenilis aetas. For juvenilis aetas, the mss. give regularly
juvenalis aetas.
[775] Coaevi.
[776] Ferme.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.--Of the Two Herods.
20. But with respect to the mention of Herod, it is well understood
that some are apt to be influenced by the circumstance that Luke has
told us how, in the days of John's baptizing, and at the time when the
Lord, being then a grown man, was also baptized, Herod was tetrarch of
Galilee; [777] whereas Matthew tells us that the boy [778] Jesus
returned from Egypt after the death of Herod. Now these two accounts
cannot both be true, unless we may also suppose that there were two
different Herods. But as no one can fail to be aware that this is a
perfectly possible case, what must be the blindness in which those
persons pursue their mad follies, who are so quick to launch false
charges against the truth of the Gospels; and how miserably
inconsiderate must they be, not to reflect that two men may have been
called by the same name? Yet this is a thing of which examples abound
on all sides. For this latter Herod is understood to have been the son
of the former Herod: just as Archelaus also was, whom Matthew states to
have succeeded to the throne of Judaea on the death of his father; and
as Philip was, who is introduced by Luke as the brother of Herod the
tetrarch, and as himself tetrarch of Ituraea. For the Herod who sought
the life of the child Christ was king; whereas this other Herod, his
son, was not called king, but tetrarch, which is a Greek word,
signifying etymologically one set over the fourth part of a kingdom.
__________________________________________________________________
[777] Luke iii. 1-21.
[778] Puerum.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.--An Explanation of the Statement Made by Matthew, to the
Effect that Joseph Was Afraid to Go with the Infant Christ into
Jerusalem on Account of Archelaus, and Yet Was Not Afraid to Go into
Galilee, Where Herod, that Prince's Brother, Was Tetrarch.
21. Here again, however, it may happen that a difficulty will be found,
and that some, seeing that Matthew has told us how Joseph was afraid to
go into Judaea with the child on his return, expressly for the reason
that Archelaus the son reigned there in place of his father Herod, may
be led to ask how he could have gone into Galilee, where, as Luke bears
witness, there was another son of that Herod, namely, Herod the
tetrarch. But such a difficulty can only be founded on the fancy that
the times indicated as those in which there was such apprehension on
the child's account were identical with the times dealt with now by
Luke: whereas it is conspicuously evident that there is a change in the
periods, because we no longer find Archelaus represented as king in
Judaea; but in place of him we have Pontius Pilate, who also was not
the king of the Jews, but only their governor, in whose times the sons
of the elder Herod, acting under Tiberius Caesar, held not the kingdom,
but the tetrarchy. And all this certainly had not come to pass at the
time when Joseph, in fear of the Archelaus who was then reigning in
Judaea, betook himself, together with the child, into Galilee, where
was also his city Nazareth.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.--An Explanation of the Circumstance that Matthew States
that Joseph's Reason for Going into Galilee with the Child Christ Was
His Fear of Archelaus, Who Was Reigning at that Time in Jerusalem in
Place of His Father, While Luke Tells Us that the Reason for Going into
Galilee Was the Fact that Their City Nazareth Was There.
22. Or may a question perchance be raised as to how Matthew tells us
that His parents went with the boy Jesus into Galilee, because they
were unwilling to go into Judaea in consequence of their fear of
Archelaus; whereas it would rather appear that the reason for their
going into Galilee was, as Luke has not failed to indicate, the
consideration that their city was Nazareth of Galilee? Well, but we
must observe, that when the angel said to Joseph in his dreams in
Egypt, "Arise, and take the young child and His mother, and go into the
land of Israel," [779] the words were understood at first by Joseph in
a way that made him consider himself commanded to journey into Judaea.
For that was the first interpretation that could have been put upon the
phrase, "the land of Israel." But again, after ascertaining that
Archelaus, the son of Herod, was reigning there, he declined to expose
himself to such danger, inasmuch as this phrase, "the land of Israel,"
was capable also of being so understood as to cover Galilee too,
because the people of Israel were occupants of that territory as well
as the other. At the same time, this question also admits of being
solved in another manner. For it might have appeared to the parents of
Christ that they were called to take up their residence along with the
boy, concerning whom such information had been conveyed to them through
the responses of angels, just in Jerusalem itself, where was the temple
of the Lord: and it may thus be, that when they came back out of Egypt,
they would have gone directly thither in that belief, and have taken up
their abode there, had it not been that they were terrified at the
presence of Archelaus. And certainly they did not receive any such
instructions from heaven to take up their residence there as would have
made it their imperative duty to set at nought the fears they
entertained of Archelaus.
__________________________________________________________________
[779] Matt. ii. 19, 20.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X.--A Statement of the Reason Why Luke Tells Us that "His
Parents Went to Jerusalem Every Year at the Feast of the Passover"
Along with the Boy; While Matthew Intimates that Their Dread of
Archelaus Made Them Afraid to Go There on Their Return from Egypt.
23. Or does any one put to us this question, How was it, then, that His
parents went up to Jerusalem every year during the boyhood of Christ,
as Luke's narrative bears, if they were prevented from going there by
the fear of Archelaus? Well, I should not deem it any very difficult
task to solve this question, even although none of the evangelists has
given us to understand how long Archelaus reigned there. For it might
have been the case that, simply for that one day, and with the
intention of returning forthwith, they went up on the day of the feast,
without attracting any notice among the vast multitudes then assembled,
to the city where, nevertheless, they were afraid to make their
residence on other days. And thus they might at once have saved
themselves from the appearance of being so irreligious as to neglect
the observance of the feast, and have avoided drawing attention upon
themselves by a continued sojourn. But further, although all the
evangelists have omitted to tell us what was the length of the reign of
Archelaus, we have still open to us this obvious method of explaining
the matter, namely, to understand the custom to which Luke refers, when
he says that they were in the habit of going to Jerusalem every year,
[780] as one prosecuted at a time when Archelaus was no more an object
of fear. But if the reign of Archelaus should be made out to have
lasted for a somewhat longer period on the authority of any
extra-evangelical history which appears to deserve credit, the
consideration which I have indicated above should still prove quite
sufficient,--namely, the supposition that the fear which the parents of
the child entertained of a residence in Jerusalem was, nevertheless,
not of such a nature as to lead them to neglect the observance of the
sacred festival to which they were under obligation in the fear of God,
and which they might very easily go about in a manner that would not
attract public attention to them. For surely it is nothing incredible
that, by taking advantage of favourable opportunities, whether by day
or by hour, men may (safely venture to) approach places in which they
nevertheless are afraid to be found tarrying.
__________________________________________________________________
[780] Luke ii. 4.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.--An Examination of the Question as to How It Was Possible
for Them to Go Up, According to Luke's Statement, with Him to Jerusalem
to the Temple, When the Days of the Purification of the Mother of
Christ Were Accomplished, in Order to Perform the Usual Rites, If It is
Correctly Recorded by Matthew, that Herod Had Already Learned from the
Wise Men that the Child Was Born in Whose Stead, When He Sought for
Him, He Slew So Many Children.
24. Hereby also we see how another question is solved, if any one
indeed finds a difficulty in it. I allude to the question as to how it
was possible, on the supposition that the elder Herod was already
anxious (to obtain information regarding Him), and agitated by the
intelligence received from the wise men concerning the birth of the
King of the Jews, for them, when the days of the purification of His
mother were accomplished, to go up in any safety with Him to the
temple, in order to see to the performance of those things which were
according to the law of the Lord, and which are specified by Luke.
[781] For who can fail to perceive that this solitary day might very
easily have escaped the notice of a king, whose attention was engaged
with a multitude of affairs? Or if it does not appear probable that
Herod, who was waiting in the extremest anxiety to see what report the
wise men would bring back to him concerning the child, should have been
so long in finding out how he had been mocked, that, only after the
mother's purification was already past, and the solemnities proper to
the first-born were performed with respect to the child in the temple,
nay more, only after their departure into Egypt, did it come into his
mind to seek the life of the child, and to slay so many little
ones;--if, I say, any one finds a difficulty in this, I shall not pause
to state the numerous and important occupations by which the king's
attention may have been engaged, and for the space of many days either
wholly diverted from such thoughts, or prevented from following them
out. For it is not possible to enumerate all the cases which might have
made that perfectly possible. No one, however, is so ignorant of human
affairs as either to deny or to question that there may very easily
have been many such matters of importance (to preoccupy the king). For
to whom will not the thought occur, that reports, whether true or
false, of many other more terrible things may possibly have been
brought to the king, so that the person who had been apprehensive of a
certain royal child, who after a number of years might prove an
adversary to himself or to his sons, might be so agitated with the
terrors of certain more immediate dangers, as to have his attention
forcibly removed from that earlier anxiety, and engaged rather with the
devising of measures to ward off other more instantly threatening
perils? Wherefore, leaving all such considerations unspecified, I
simply venture on the assertion that, when the wise men failed to bring
back any report to him, Herod may have believed that they had been
misled by a deceptive vision of a star, and that, after their want of
success in discovering Him whom they had supposed to have been born,
they had been ashamed to return to him; and that in this way the king,
having his fears allayed, had given up the idea of asking after and
persecuting the child. Consequently, when they had gone with Him to
Jerusalem after the purification of His mother, and when those things
had been performed in the temple which are recounted by Luke, [782]
inasmuch as the words which were spoken by Simeon and Anna in their
prophesyings regarding Him, when publicity began to be given to them by
the persons who had heard them, were like to call back the king's mind
then to its original design, Joseph obeyed the warning conveyed to him
in the dream, and fled with the child and His mother into Egypt.
Afterwards, when the things which had been done and said in the temple
were made quite public, Herod perceived that he had been mocked; and
then, in his desire to get at the death of Christ, he slew the
multitude of children, as Matthew records. [783]
__________________________________________________________________
[781] [Compare note on the relative position of the visit of the Magi
and the presentation in the temple, S: 17.--R.]
[782] Luke ii. 22-39.
[783] Matt. ii. 3-16.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.--Concerning the Words Ascribed to John by All the Four
Evangelists Respectively.
25. Moreover, Matthew makes up his account of John in the following
manner:--Now in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand. For this is He that is spoken of by the prophet Esaias,
saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way
of the Lord, make His paths straight. [784] Mark also and Luke agree in
presenting this testimony of Isaiah as one referring to John. [785]
Luke, indeed, has likewise recorded some other words from the same
prophet, which follow those already cited, when he gives his narrative
of John the Baptist. The evangelist John, again, mentions that John the
Baptist did also personally advance this same testimony of Isaiah
regarding himself. [786] And, to a similar effect, Matthew here has
given us certain words of John which are unrecorded by the other
evangelists. For he speaks of him as "preaching in the wilderness of
Judaea, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;"
which words of John have been omitted by the others. In what follows,
however, in immediate connection with that passage in Matthew's
Gospel,--namely, the sentence, "The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight,"--the position is ambiguous; and it does not clearly appear
whether this is something recited by Matthew in his own person, or
rather a continuance of the words spoken by John himself, so as to lead
us to understand the whole passage to be the reproduction of John's own
utterance, in this way: "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand; for this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," and so
on. For it ought to create no difficulty against this latter view, that
he does not say, "For I am He that was spoken of by the prophet
Isaiah," but employs the phraseology, "For this is He that was spoken
of." For that, indeed, is a mode of speech [787] which the evangelists
Matthew and John are in the habit of using in reference to themselves.
Thus Matthew has adopted the phrase, "He found [788] a man sitting at
the receipt of custom," [789] instead of "He found me." John, too,
says, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote
these things, and we know that his testimony is true," [790] instead of
"I am," etc., or, "My testimony is true." Yea, our Lord Himself very
frequently uses the words, "The Son of man," [791] or, "The Son of
God," [792] instead of saying, "I." So, again, He tells us that "it
behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day,"
[793] instead of saying, "It behoved me to suffer." Consequently it is
perfectly possible that the clause, "For this is He that was spoken of
by the prophet Isaiah," which immediately follows the saying, "Repent
ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," may be but a continuation of
what John the Baptist said of himself; so that only after these words
cited from the speaker himself will Matthew's own narrative proceed,
being thus resumed: "And the same John had his raiment of camel's
hair," and so forth. But if this is the case, then it need not seem
wonderful that, when asked what he had to say regarding himself, he
should reply, according to the narrative of the evangelist John, "I am
the voice of one crying in the wilderness," [794] as he had already
spoken in the same terms when enjoining on them the duty of repentance.
Accordingly, Matthew goes on to tell us about his attire and his mode
of living, and continues his account thus: And the same John had his
raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his
meat was locusts and wild honey. Mark also gives us this same statement
almost in so many words. But the other two evangelists omit it.
26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative, and says: Then went out
to him Jerusalem and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
and were baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he
saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said
unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and
think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for
I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children
unto Abraham. For now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be hewn
down and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance; but He that is to come after me is mightier than I, whose
shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit
and fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His
floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire. [795] This whole passage is also given by
Luke, who ascribes almost the same words to John. And where there is
any variation in the words, there is nevertheless no real departure
from the sense. Thus, for example, Matthew tells us that John said,
"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father," where Luke puts it thus: "And begin not to say, We have
Abraham to our father." Again, in the former we have the words, "I
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance;" whereas the latter
brings in the questions put by the multitudes as to what they should
do, and represents John to have replied to them with a statement of
good works as the fruits of repentance,--all which is omitted by
Matthew. So, when Luke tells us what reply the Baptist made to the
people when they were musing in their hearts concerning Him, and
thinking whether He were the Christ, he gives us simply the words, "I
indeed baptize you with water," and does not add the phrase, "unto
repentance." Further, in Matthew the Baptist says, "But he that is to
come after me is mightier than I;" while in Luke he is exhibited as
saying, "But one mightier than I cometh." In like manner, according to
Matthew, he says, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear;" but according
to the other, his words are, "the latchet of whose shoes I am not
worthy to unloose." The latter sayings are recorded also by Mark,
although he makes no mention of those other matters. For, after
noticing his attire and his mode of living, he goes on thus: "And
preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose: I
have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you in the Holy
Spirit." In the notice of the shoes, therefore, he differs from Luke in
so far as he has added the words, "to stoop down;" and in the account
of the baptism he differs from both these others in so far as he does
not say, "and in fire," but only, "in the Holy Spirit." For as in
Matthew, so also in Luke, the words are the same, and they are given in
the same order, "He shall baptize you in the Spirit and in fire,"--with
this single exception, that Luke has not added the adjective "Holy,"
[796] while Matthew has given it thus: "in the Holy Spirit and in
fire." [797] The statements made by these three are attested by the
evangelist John, when he says: "John bears witness [798] of Him, and
cries, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is
preferred before me; for He was before me." [799] For thus he indicates
that the thing was spoken by John at the time at which those other
evangelists record him to have uttered the words. Thus, too, he gives
us to understand that John was repeating and calling into notice again
something which he had already spoken, when he said, "This was He of
whom I spake, He that cometh after me."
27. If now the question is asked, as to which of the words we are to
suppose the most likely to have been the precise words used by John the
Baptist, whether those recorded as spoken by him in Matthew's Gospel,
or those in Luke's, or those which Mark has introduced, among the few
sentences which he mentions to have been uttered by him, while he omits
notice of all the rest, it will not be deemed worth while creating any
difficulty for oneself in a matter of that kind, by any one who wisely
understands that the real requisite in order to get at the knowledge of
the truth is just to make sure of the things really meant, whatever may
be the precise words in which they happen to be expressed. For although
one writer may retain a certain order in the words, and another present
a different one, there is surely no real contradiction in that. Nor,
again, need there be any antagonism between the two, although one may
state what another omits. For it is evident that the evangelists have
set forth these matters just in accordance with the recollection each
retained of them, and just according as their several predilections
prompted them to employ greater brevity or richer detail on certain
points, while giving, nevertheless, the same account of the subjects
themselves.
28. Thus, too, in what more pertinently concerns the matter in hand, it
is sufficiently obvious that, since the truth of the Gospel, conveyed
in that word of God which abides eternal and unchangeable above all
that is created, but which at the same time has been disseminated [800]
throughout the world by the instrumentality of temporal symbols, and by
the tongues of men, has possessed itself of the most exalted height of
authority, we ought not to suppose that any one of the writers is
giving an unreliable account, if, when several persons are recalling
some matter either heard or seen by them, they fail to follow the very
same plan, or to use the very same words, while describing,
nevertheless, the self-same fact. Neither should we indulge such a
supposition, although the order of the words may be varied; or although
some words may be substituted in place of others, which nevertheless
have the same meaning; or although something may be left unsaid, either
because it has not occurred to the mind of the recorder, or because it
becomes readily intelligible from other statements which are given; or
although, among other matters which (may not bear directly on his
immediate purpose, but which) he decides on mentioning rather for the
sake of the narrative, and in order to preserve the proper order of
time, one of them may introduce something which he does not feel called
upon to expound as a whole at length, but only to touch upon in part;
or although, with the view of illustrating his meaning, and making it
thoroughly clear, the person to whom authority is given to compose the
narrative makes some additions of his own, not indeed in the
subject-matter itself, but in the words by which it is expressed; or
although, while retaining a perfectly reliable comprehension of the
fact itself, he may not be entirely successful, however he may make
that his aim, in calling to mind and reciting anew with the most
literal accuracy the very words which he heard on the occasion.
Moreover, if any one affirms that the evangelists ought certainly to
have had that kind of capacity imparted to them by the power of the
Holy Spirit, which would secure them against all variation the one from
the other, either in the kind of words, or in their order, or in their
number, that person fails to perceive, that just in proportion as the
authority of the evangelists [under their existing conditions] is made
pre-eminent, the credit of all other men who offer true statements of
events ought to have been established on a stronger basis by their
instrumentality: so that when several parties happen to narrate the
same circumstance, none of them can by any means be rightly charged
with untruthfulness if he differs from the other only in such a way as
can be defended on the ground of the antecedent example of the
evangelists themselves. For as we are not at liberty either to suppose
or to say that any one of the evangelists has stated what is false, so
it will be apparent that any other writer is as little chargeable with
untruth, with whom, in the process of recalling anything for narration,
it has fared only in a way similar to that in which it is shown to have
fared with those evangelists. And just as it belongs to the highest
morality to guard against all that is false, so ought we all the more
to be ruled by an authority so eminent, to the effect that we should
not suppose ourselves to come upon what must be false, when we find the
narratives of any writers differ from each other in the manner in which
the records of the evangelists are proved to contain variations. At the
same time, in what most seriously concerns the faithfulness of
doctrinal teaching, we should also understand that it is not so much in
mere words, as rather truth in the facts themselves, that is to be
sought and embraced; for as to writers who do not employ precisely the
same modes of statement, if they only do not present discrepancies with
respect to the facts and the sentiments themselves, we accept them as
holding the same position in veracity. [801]
29. With respect, then, to those comparisons which I have instituted
between the several narratives of the evangelists, what do these
present that must be considered to be of a contradictory order? Are we
to regard in this light the circumstance that one of them has given us
the words, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear," whereas the others
speak of the "unloosing of the latchet of the shoe"? For here, indeed,
the difference seems to be neither in the mere words, nor in the order
of the words, nor in any matter of simple phraseology, but in the
actual matter of fact, when in the one case the "bearing of the shoe"
is mentioned, and in the other the "unloosing of the shoe's latchet."
Quite fairly, therefore, may the question be put, as to what it was
that John declared himself unworthy to do--whether to bear the shoes,
or to unloose the shoe's latchet. For if only the one of these two
sentences was uttered by him, then that evangelist will appear to have
given the correct narrative who was in a position to record what was
said; while the writer who has given the saying in another form,
although he may not indeed have offered an [intentionally] false
account of it, may at any rate be taken to have made a slip of memory,
and will be reckoned thus to have stated one thing instead of another.
It is only seemly, however, that no charge of absolute unveracity
should be laid against the evangelists, and that, too, not only with
regard to that kind of unveracity which comes by the positive telling
of what is false, but also with regard to that which arises through
forgetfulness. Therefore, if it is pertinent to the matter to deduce
one sense from the words "to bear the shoes," and another sense from
the words "to unloose the shoe's latchet," what should one suppose the
correct interpretation to be put on the facts, but that John did give
utterance to both these sentences, either on two different occasions or
in one and the same connection? For he might very well have expressed
himself thus, "whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose, and
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:" and then one of the evangelists
may have reproduced the one portion of the saying, and the rest of them
the other; while, notwithstanding this, all of them have really given a
veracious narrative. But further, if, when he spoke of the shoes of the
Lord, John meant nothing more than to convey the idea of His supremacy
and his own lowliness, then, whichever of the two sayings may have
actually been uttered by him, whether that regarding the unloosing of
the latchet of the shoes, or that respecting the bearing of the shoes,
the self-same sense is still correctly preserved by any writer who,
while making mention of the shoes in words of his own, has expressed at
the same time the same idea of lowliness, and thus has not made any
departure from the real mind [of the person of whom he writes]. It is
therefore a useful principle, and one particularly worthy of being
borne in mind, when we are speaking of the concord of the evangelists,
that there is no divergence [to be supposed] from truth, even when they
introduce some saying different from what was actually uttered by the
person concerning whom the narrative is given, provided that,
notwithstanding this, they set forth as his mind precisely what is also
so conveyed by that one among them who reproduces the words as they
were literally spoken. For thus we learn the salutary lesson, that our
aim should be nothing else than to ascertain what is the mind and
intention of the person who speaks.
__________________________________________________________________
[784] Matt. iii. 1-3.
[785] Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4.
[786] John i. 23.
[787] Reading solet quippe esse talis locutio, etc. Some codices give
solet quippe esse quasi de aliis locutio = a mode of speech as if other
persons were meant.
[788] Invenit.
[789] Matt. ix. 9.
[790] John xxi. 24.
[791] Matt. ix. 6, xvi. 27.
[792] John v. 25.
[793] Luke xxiv. 46.
[794] John i. 23.
[795] Matt. iii. 4-12.
[796] Greek and Latin Bibles now, however, add the word Holy in Luke.
[The variation does not occur in early Greek mss.--R.]
[797] Matt. iii. 3-12; Mark i. 6-8; Luke iii. 7-17.
[798] Perhibet.
[799] John i. 15.
[800] Dispensato.
[801] Or, as abiding by the same truth--in eadem veritate constitisse
approbamus.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.--Of the Baptism of Jesus.
30. Matthew then continues his narrative in the following terms: "Then
cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbade Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee, and
comest Thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be
so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he
suffered Him." [802] The others also attest the fact that Jesus came to
John. The three also mention that He was baptized. But they omit all
mention of one circumstance recorded by Matthew, namely, that John
addressed the Lord, or that the Lord made answer to John. [803]
__________________________________________________________________
[802] Dimisit eum.
[803] Matt. iii. 13-15; Mark i. 9; Luke iii. 21; John i. 32-34.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.--Of the Words or the Voice that Came from Heaven Upon Him
When He Had Been Baptized.
31. Thereafter Matthew proceeds thus: "And Jesus, when He was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened
unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon Him; and, lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." This incident is also recorded
in a similar manner by two of the others, namely Mark and Luke. But at
the same time, while preserving the sense intact, they use different
modes of expression in reproducing the terms of the voice which came
from heaven. For although Matthew tells us that the words were, "This
is my beloved Son," while the other two put them in this form, "Thou
art my beloved Son," these different methods of speech serve but to
convey the same sense, according to the principle which has been
discussed above. For the heavenly voice gave utterance only to one of
these sentences; but by the form of words thus adopted, namely, "This
is my beloved Son," it was the evangelist's intention to show that the
saying was meant to intimate specially to the hearers there [and not to
Jesus] the fact that He was the Son of God. With this view, he chose to
give the sentence, "Thou art my beloved Son," this turn, "This is my
beloved Son," as if it were addressed directly to the people. For it
was not meant to intimate to Christ a fact which He knew already; but
the object was to let the people who were present hear it, for whose
sakes indeed the voice itself was given. But furthermore now, with
regard to the circumstance that the first of them puts the saying thus,
"In whom I am well pleased," [804] the second thus, "In Thee I am well
pleased;" [805] and the third thus, "In Thee it has pleased me;" [806]
--if you ask which of these different modes represents what was
actually expressed by the voice, you may fix on whichever you will,
provided only that you understand that those of the writers who have
not reproduced the self-same form of speech have still reproduced the
identical sense intended to be conveyed. And these variations in the
modes of expression are also useful in this way, that they make it
possible for us to reach a more adequate conception of the saying than
might have been the case with only one form, and that they also secure
it against being interpreted in a sense not consonant with the real
state of the case. For as to the sentence, "In whom I am well pleased,"
[807] if any one thinks of taking it as if it meant that God is pleased
with Himself in the Son, he is taught a lesson of prudence by the other
turn which is given to the saying, "In Thee I am well pleased." [808]
And on the other hand, if, looking at this last by itself, any one
supposes the meaning to be, that in the Son the Father had favour with
men, he learns something from the third form of the utterance, "In Thee
it has pleased me." [809] From this it becomes sufficiently apparent,
that whichever of the evangelists may have preserved for us the words
as they were literally uttered by the heavenly voice, the others have
varied the terms only with the object of setting forth the same sense
more familiarly; so that what is thus given by all of them might be
understood as if the expression were: In Thee I have set my good
pleasure; that is to say, by Thee to do what is my pleasure. [810] But
once more, with respect to that rendering which is contained in some
codices of the Gospel according to Luke, and which bears that the words
heard in the heavenly voice were those that are written in the Psalm,
"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee;" [811] although it is
said not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices, yet if it can
be established by any copies worthy of credit, what results but that we
suppose both voices to have been heard from heaven, in one or other
verbal order?
__________________________________________________________________
[804] In quo mihi complacui--well pleased with myself.
[805] In te complacui.
[806] In te complacuit mihi. Matt. iii. 16, 17; Mark i. 10, 11; Luke
iii. 22. [The Greek mss., of most weight, show no variation between
Mark and Luke in the last clause.--R.]
[807] In quo mihi complacui--as if = "in" whom I am well pleased with
myself.
[808] In te complacui.
[809] In te complacuit mihi.
[810] In te placitum meum constitui, hoc est, per te gerere quod mihi
placet. [Greek aorist points to a past act; hence "set my good
pleasure" is a better rendering of the verb, in all three accounts,
than "am well pleased."--R.]
[811] Ps. ii. 7.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.--An Explanation of the Circumstance That, According to the
Evangelist John, John the Baptist Says, "I Knew Him Not;" While,
According to the Others, It is Found that He Did Already Know Him.
32. Again, the account of the dove given in the Gospel according to
John does not mention the time at which the incident happened, but
contains a statement of the words of John the Baptist as reporting what
he saw. In this section, the question rises as to how it is said, "And
I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same
said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and
remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit."
[812] For if he came to know Him only at the time when he saw the dove
descending upon Him, the inquiry is raised as to how he could have said
to Him, as He came to be baptized, "I ought rather to be baptized of
Thee." [813] For the Baptist addressed Him thus before the dove
descended. From this, however, it is evident that, although he did know
Him [in a certain sense] before this time,--for he even leaped in his
mother's womb when Mary visited Elisabeth, [814] --there was yet
something which was not known to him up to this time, and which he
learned by the descending of the dove,--namely, the fact that He
baptized in the Holy Spirit by a certain divine power proper to
Himself; so that no man who received this baptism from God, even
although he baptized some, should be able to say that that which he
imparted was his own, or that the Holy Spirit was given by him.
__________________________________________________________________
[812] John i. 33.
[813] Matt. iii. 14.
[814] Luke i. 41.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.--Of the Temptation of Jesus.
33. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "Then was Jesus
led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil.
And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an
hungered. And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If thou be the Son
of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and
said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And so the account
continues, until we come to the words, Then the devil left [815] him:
and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him." [816] This whole
narrative is given also in a similar manner by Luke, although not in
the same order. And this makes it uncertain which of the two latter
temptations took place first: whether it was that the kingdoms of the
world were shown Him first, and then that He Himself was taken up to
the pinnacle of the temple thereafter; or whether it was that this
latter act occurred first, and that the other scene followed it. It is,
however, a matter of no real consequence, provided it be clear that all
these incidents did take place. And as Luke sets forth the same events
and ideas in different words, attention need not ever be called to the
fact that no loss results thereby to truth. Mark, again, does indeed
attest the fact that He was tempted of the devil in the wilderness for
forty days and forty nights; but he gives no statement of what was said
to Him, or of the replies He made. At the same time, he does not fail
to notice the circumstance which is omitted by Luke, namely, that the
angels ministered unto Him. [817] John, however, has left out this
whole passage.
__________________________________________________________________
[815] Reliquit.
[816] Matt. iv. 1-11.
[817] Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1-13.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.--Of the Calling of the Apostles as They Were Fishing.
34. Matthew's narrative is continued thus: "Now when Jesus had heard
that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee." [818] Mark
states the same fact, as also does Luke, [819] only Luke says nothing
in the present section as to John being cast into prison. The
evangelist John, again, tells us that, before Jesus went into Galilee,
Peter and Andrew were with Him one day, and that on that occasion the
former had this name, Peter, given him, while before that period he was
called Simon. Likewise John tells us, that on the day following, when
Jesus was now desirous of going forth unto Galilee, He found Philip,
and said to him that he should follow Him. Thus, too, the evangelist
comes to give the narrative about Nathanael. [820] Further, he informs
us that on the third day, when He was yet in Galilee, Jesus wrought the
miracle of the turning of the water into wine at Cana. [821] All these
incidents are left unrecorded by the other evangelists, who continue
their narratives at once with the statement of the return of Jesus into
Galilee. Hence we are to understand that there was an interval here of
several days, during which those incidents took place in the history of
the disciples which are inserted at this point by John. [822] Neither
is there anything contradictory here to that other passage where
Matthew tells us how the Lord said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock will I build my Church." [823] But we are not to understand
that that was the time when he first received this name; but we are
rather to suppose that this took place on the occasion when it was said
to him, as John mentions, "Thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by
interpretation, A stone." [824] Thus the Lord could address him at that
later period by this very name, when He said, "Thou art Peter." For He
does not say then, "Thou shalt be called Peter," but, "Thou art Peter;"
because on a previous occasion he had already been spoken to in this
manner, "Thou shalt be called."
35. After this, Matthew goes on with his narrative in these terms: "And
leaving the city of Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capharnaum, which is
upon the sea-coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim;" and so
forth, until we come to the conclusion of the sermon which He delivered
on the mount. In this section of the narrative, Mark agrees with him in
attesting the calling of the disciples Peter and Andrew, and a little
after that, the calling of James and John. But whereas Matthew
introduces in this immediate context his account of that lengthened
sermon which He delivered on the mount, after He cured a multitude, and
when great crowds followed Him, Mark has inserted other matters at this
point, touching His teaching in the synagogue, and the people's
amazement at His doctrine. Then, too, he has stated what Matthew also
states, although not till after that lengthened sermon has been given,
namely, that "He taught them as one that had authority, and not as the
scribes." He has likewise given us the account of the man out of whom
the unclean spirit was cast; and after that the story of Peter's
mother-in-law. In these things, moreover, Luke is in accord with him.
[825] But Matthew has given us no notice of the evil spirit here. The
story of Peter's mother-in-law, however, he has not omitted, only he
brings it in at a later stage. [826]
36. In this paragraph, moreover, which we are at present considering,
the same Matthew follows up his account of the calling of those
disciples to whom, when they were engaged in fishing, He gave the
command to follow Him, by a narrative to the effect that He went about
Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, and preaching the gospel, and
healing all manner of sickness; and that when multitudes had gathered
about Him, He went up into a mountain, and delivered that lengthened
sermon [already alluded to]. Thus the evangelist gives us ground for
understanding that those incidents which are recorded by Mark after the
election of those same disciples, took place at the period when He was
going about Galilee, and teaching in their synagogues. We are at
liberty also to suppose that what happened to Peter's mother-in-law
came in at this point; and that he has mentioned at a later stage what
he has passed over here, although he has not indeed brought up at that
later point, for direct recital, everything else which is omitted at
the earlier. [827]
37. The question may indeed be raised as to how John gives us this
account of the calling of the disciples, which is to the effect that,
certainly not in Galilee, but in the vicinity of the Jordan, Andrew
first of all became a follower of the Lord, together with another
disciple whose name is not declared; that, in the second place, Peter
got that name from Him; and thirdly, that Philip was called to follow
Him; whereas the other three evangelists, in a satisfactory concord
with each other, Matthew and Mark in particular being remarkably at one
here, tell us that the men were called when they were engaged in
fishing. Luke, it is true, does not mention Andrew by name.
Nevertheless, we can gather that he was in that same vessel, from the
narrative of Matthew and Mark, who furnish a concise history of the
manner in which the affair was gone about. Luke, however, presents us
with a fuller and clearer exposition of the circumstances, and gives us
also an account of the miracle which was performed there in the haul of
fishes, and of the fact that previous to that the Lord spake to the
multitudes when He was seated in the boat. There may also seem to be a
discrepancy in this respect, that Luke records the saying, "From
henceforth thou shalt catch men," [828] as if it had been addressed by
the Lord to Peter alone, while the others have exhibited it as spoken
to both the brothers. [829] But it may very well be the case that these
words were spoken first to Peter himself, when he was seized with
amazement at the immense multitude of fishes which were caught, and
this will then be the incident introduced by Luke; and that they were
addressed to the two together somewhat later, which [second utterance]
will be the one noticed by the other two evangelists. Therefore the
circumstance which we have mentioned with regard to John's narrative
deserves to be carefully considered; for it may indeed be supposed to
bring before us a contradiction of no slight importance. For if it be
the case that in the vicinity of the Jordan, and before Jesus went into
Galilee, two men, on hearing the testimony of John the Baptist,
followed Jesus; that of these two disciples the one was Andrew, who at
once went and brought his own brother Simon to Jesus; and that on this
occasion that brother received the name Peter, by which he was
thereafter to be called,--how can it be said by the other evangelists
that He found them engaged in fishing in Galilee, and called them there
to be His disciples? [830] How can these diverse accounts be
reconciled, unless it be that we are to understand that those men did
not gain such a view of Jesus on the occasion connected with the
vicinity of the Jordan as would lead them to attach themselves to Him
for ever, but that they simply came to know who He was, and, after
their first wonder at His Person, returned to their former engagements?
38. For [it is noticeable that] again in Cana of Galilee, after He had
turned the water into wine, this same John tells us how His disciples
believed on Him. The narrative of that miracle proceeds thus: "And the
third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of
Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called and His disciples to the
marriage." [831] Now, surely, if it was on this occasion that they
believed on Him, as the evangelist tells us a little further on, they
were not yet His disciples at the time when they were called to the
marriage. This, however, is a mode of speech of the same kind with what
is intended when we say that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of
Cilicia; [832] for certainly he was not an apostle at that period. In
like manner are we told here that the disciples of Christ were invited
to the marriage, by which we are to understand, not that they were
already disciples, but only that they were to be His disciples. For, at
the time when this narrative was prepared and committed to writing,
they were the disciples of Christ in fact; and that is the reason why
the evangelist, as the historian of past times, has thus spoken of
them.
39. But further, as to John's statement, that "after this He went down
to Capharnaum, He and His mother, and His brethren and His disciples;
and they continued there not many days;" [833] it is uncertain whether
by this period these men had already attached themselves to Him, in
particular Peter and Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee. For Matthew first
of all tells us that He came and dwelt in Capharnaum, [834] and then
that He called them from their boats as they were engaged in fishing.
On the other hand, John says that His disciples came with Him to
Capharnaum. Now it may be the case that Matthew has but gone over here
something he had omitted in its proper order. For he does not say,
"After this, walking by the sea of Galilee, He saw two brethren," but,
without any indication of the strict consecution of time, simply, "And
walking by the sea of Galilee, He saw two brethren," [835] and so
forth: consequently it is quite possible that he has recorded at this
later period not something which took place actually at that later
time, but only something which he had omitted to introduce before; so
that the men may be understood in this way to have come along with Him
to Capharnaum, to which place John states that He did come, He and His
mother and His disciples: or should we rather suppose that these were a
different body of disciples, as He [may already have] had a follower in
Philip, whom He called in this particular manner, by saying to him,
"Follow me"? For in what order all the twelve apostles were called is
not apparent from the narratives of the evangelists. Indeed, not only
is the succession of the various callings left unrecorded; but even the
fact of the calling is not mentioned in the case of all of them, the
only vocations specified being those of Philip, and Peter and Andrew,
and the sons of Zebedee, and Matthew the publican, who was also called
Levi. [836] The first and only person, however, who received a separate
name from Him was Peter. [837] For He did not give the sons of Zebedee
their names individually, but He called them both together the sons of
thunder. [838]
40. Besides, we ought certainly to note the fact that the evangelical
and apostolical Scriptures do not confine this designation of His
"disciples" to those twelve alone, but give the same appellation to all
those who believed on Him, and were educated under His instruction for
the kingdom of heaven. Out of the whole number of such He chose twelve,
whom He also named apostles, as Luke mentions. For a little further on
he says: And He came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the
concourse [839] of His disciples and a great multitude of people. [840]
And surely he would not speak of a "concourse" [or "crowd"] of
disciples if he referred only to twelve men. In other passages of the
Scriptures also the fact is plainly apparent, that all those were
called His disciples who were instructed by Him in what pertained to
eternal life.
41. But the question may be asked, how He called the fishermen from
their boats two by two, namely, calling Peter and Andrew first, and
then going forward a little and calling other two, namely the sons of
Zebedee, according to the narratives of Matthew and Mark; whereas
Luke's version of the matter is, that both their boats were filled with
the immense haul of fishes. And his statement bears further, that
Peter's partners, to wit, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were
summoned to the men's help when they were unable to drag out their
crowded nets, and that all who were there were astonished at the
enormous draught of fishes which had been taken; and that when Jesus
said to Peter, "Fear not, from henceforth thou shall catch men,"
although the words had been addressed to Peter alone, they all
nevertheless followed Him when they had brought their ships to land.
[841] Well, we are to understand by this, that what Luke introduces
here was what took place first, and that these men were not called by
the Lord on this occasion, but only that the prediction was uttered to
Peter by himself, that he would be a fisher of men. That saying,
moreover, was not intended to convey that they would never thereafter
be catchers of fish. For we read that even after the Lord's
resurrection they were engaged again in fishing. [842] The words,
therefore, imported simply that thereafter he would catch men, and they
did not bear that henceforth he would not catch fish. And in this way
we are at perfect liberty to suppose that they returned to the catching
of fish, according to their habit; so that those incidents which are
related by Matthew and Mark might easily take place at a period
subsequent to this. I refer to what occurred at the time when He called
the disciples two by two, and Himself gave them the command to follow
Him, at first addressing Peter and Andrew, and then the others, namely,
the two sons of Zebedee. For on that occasion they did not follow Him
only after they had drawn up their ships on shore, as with the
intention of returning to them, but they went after Him immediately, as
after one who summoned and commanded them to follow Him.
__________________________________________________________________
[818] Matt. iv. 12.
[819] Mark i. 14; Luke iv. 14.
[820] John i. 39, etc.
[821] John ii. 1-11.
[822] [The interval between the temptation and the return to Galilee,
referred to by the Synoptists, was at least nine months; possibly more
than a year. Augustin implies, in S: 42, that this journey was a
different one.--R.]
[823] Matt. xvi. 18.
[824] John i. 42.
[825] Matt. iv. 13, vii. 29; Mark i. 16-31; Luke iv. 31-39.
[826] Matt. viii. 14, 15.
[827] [There is here a partial recognition of the fact, now widely
received, that the order of Mark is the most exact. No harmony can be
successfully constructed on the order of Matthew.--R.]
[828] Luke v. 10.
[829] Matt. iv. 10; Mark i. 17.
[830] Matt. iv. 13-23; Mark i. 16-20; Luke v. 1-11; John i. 35-44.
[831] John ii. 1, 2.
[832] Acts xxii. 3.
[833] John ii. 12.
[834] Matt. iv. 13.
[835] Matt. iv. 18.
[836] Matt. iv. 18-22, ix. 9; Mark i. 16-20, ii. 14; Luke v. 1-11; John
i. 35-44.
[837] John i. 42.
[838] Mark iii. 17.
[839] Turba.
[840] Luke vi. 17.
[841] Luke v. 1-11.
[842] John xxi. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.--Of the Date of His Departure into Galilee.
42. Furthermore, we must consider the question how the evangelist John,
before there is any mention of the casting of John the Baptist into
prison, tells us that Jesus went into Galilee. For, after relating how
He turned the water into wine at Cana of Galilee, and how He came down
to Capernaum with His mother and His disciples, and how they abode
there not many days, he tells us that He went up then to Jerusalem on
account of the passover; that after this He came into the land of
Judaea along with His disciples, and tarried there with them, and
baptized; and then in what follows at this point the evangelist says:
"And John also was baptizing in AEnon, near to Salim, because there was
much water there; and they came, and were baptized: for John was not
yet cast into prison." [843] On the other hand, Matthew says: "Now when
He had heard that John was cast into prison, Jesus departed into
Galilee." [844] In like manner, Mark's words are: "Now, after that John
was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee." [845] Luke, again, says
nothing indeed about the imprisonment of John; but notwithstanding
this, after his account of the baptism and temptation of Christ, he
also makes a statement to the same effect with that of these other two,
namely, that Jesus went into Galilee. For he has connected the several
parts of his narrative here in this way: "And when all the temptation
was ended, the devil departed from Him for a season; and Jesus returned
in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and there went out a fame of
Him through all the region round about." [846] From all this, however,
we may gather, not that these three evangelists have made any statement
opposed to the evangelist John, but only that they have left unrecorded
the Lord's first advent in Galilee after His baptism; on which occasion
also He turned the water into wine there. For at that period John had
not yet been cast into prison. And we are also to understand that these
three evangelists have introduced into the context of these narratives
an account of another journey of His into Galilee, which took place
after John's imprisonment, regarding which return into Galilee the
evangelist John himself furnishes the following notice: "When,
therefore, Jesus knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus makes and
baptizes more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself baptized not,
but His disciples), he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee."
[847] So, then, we perceive that by that time John had been already
cast into prison; and further, that the Jews had heard that He was
making and baptizing more disciples than John had made and baptized.
__________________________________________________________________
[843] John ii. 13, iii. 22-24.
[844] Matt. iv. 12.
[845] Mark i. 14.
[846] Luke iv. 13, 14.
[847] John iv. 1-3.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.--Of the Lengthened Sermon Which, According to Matthew, He
Delivered on the Mount.
43. Now, regarding that lengthened sermon which, according to Matthew,
the Lord delivered on the mount, let us at present see whether it
appears that the rest of the evangelists stand in no manner of
antagonism to it. Mark, it is true, has not recorded it at all, neither
has he preserved any utterances of Christ's in any way resembling it,
with the exception of certain sentences which are not given
connectedly, but occur here and there, and which the Lord repeated in
other places. Nevertheless, he has left a space in the text of his
narrative indicating the point at which we may understand this sermon
to have been spoken, although it has been left unrecited. That is the
place where he says: "And He was preaching in their synagogues, and in
all Galilee, and was casting out devils." [848] Under the head of this
preaching, in which he says Jesus engaged in all Galilee, we may also
understand that discourse to be comprehended which was delivered on the
mount, and which is detailed by Matthew. For the same Mark continues
his account thus: "And there came a leper to Him, beseeching Him; and
kneeling down to Him, said, If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean."
[849] And he goes on with the rest of the story of the cleansing of
this leper, in such a manner as to make it intelligible to us that the
person in question is the very man who is mentioned by Matthew as
having been healed at the time when the Lord came down from the mount
after the delivery of His discourse. For this is how Matthew gives the
history there: "Now, when He was come down from the mountain, great
multitudes followed Him; and, behold, there came a leper, and
worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean;"
[850] and so on.
44. This leper is also referred to by Luke, [851] not indeed in this
order, but after the manner in which the writers are accustomed to act,
recording at a subsequent point things which have been omitted at a
previous stage, or bringing in at an earlier point occurrences which
took place at a later period, according as they had incidents suggested
to their minds by the heavenly influence, with which indeed they had
become acquainted before, but which they were afterwards prompted to
commit to writing as they came up to their recollection. This same
Luke, however, has also left us a version of his own of that copious
discourse of the Lord, in a passage which he commences just as the
section in Matthew begins. For in the latter the words run thus:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;"
[852] while in the former they are put thus: "Blessed be ye poor: for
yours is the kingdom of God." [853] Then, too, much of what follows in
Luke's narrative is similar to what we have in the other. And finally,
the conclusion given to the sermon is repeated in both Gospels in its
entire identity,--namely, the story of the wise man who builds upon the
rock, and the foolish man who builds upon the sand; the only difference
being, that Luke speaks only of the stream beating against the house,
and does not mention also the rain and the wind, as they occur in
Matthew. Accordingly, it might very readily be believed that he has
there introduced the self-same discourse of the Lord, but that at the
same time he has omitted certain sentences which Matthew has inserted;
that he has also brought in other sayings which Matthew has not
mentioned; and that, in a similar manner, he has expressed certain of
these utterances in somewhat different terms, but without detriment to
the integrity of the truth.
45. This we might very well suppose to have been the case, as I have
said, were it not that a difficulty is felt to attach to the
circumstance that Matthew tells us how this discourse was delivered on
a mount by the Lord in a sitting posture; while Luke says that it was
spoken on a plain by the Lord in a standing posture. This difference,
accordingly, makes it seem as if the former referred to one discourse,
and the latter to another. And what should there be, indeed, to hinder
[us from supposing] Christ to have repeated elsewhere some words which
He had already spoken, or from doing a second time certain things which
He had already done on some previous occasion? However, that these two
discourses, of which the one is inserted by Matthew and the other by
Luke, are not separated by a long space of time, is with much
probability inferred from the fact that, at once in what precedes and
in what follows them, both the evangelists have related certain
incidents either similar or perfectly identical, so that it is not
unreasonably felt that the narrations of the writers who introduce
these things are occupied with the same localities and days. For
Matthew's recital proceeds in the following terms: "And there followed
Him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and
from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. And seeing the
multitudes, He went up into a mountain; and when He was set, His
disciples came unto Him: and He opened His mouth, and taught them,
saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven;" [854] and so forth. Here it may appear that His desire was to
free Himself from the great crowds of people, and that for this reason
He went up into the mountain, as if He meant to withdraw Himself from
the multitudes, and seek an opportunity of speaking with His disciples
alone. And this seems to be certified also by Luke, whose account is to
the following effect: "And it came to pass in those days, that He went
out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
And when it was day, He called unto Him His disciples: and of them He
chose twelve, whom also He named apostles; Simon, whom He also named
Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon, who is called
Zelotes, Judas the brother of James, and Judas Scarioth, which was the
traitor. And He came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the
company of His disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all
Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre [855] and Sidon,
which had come to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases; and
they that were vexed with unclean spirits were healed. [856] And the
whole multitude sought to touch Him; for there went virtue out of Him,
and healed them all. And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and
said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of heaven;" [857]
and so on. Here the relation permits us to understand that, after
selecting on the mountain twelve disciples out of the larger body, whom
He also named apostles (which incident Matthew has omitted), He then
delivered that discourse which Matthew has introduced, and which Luke
has left unnoticed,--that is to say, the one on the mount; and that
thereafter, when He had now come down, He spoke in the plain a second
discourse similar to the first, on which Matthew is silent, but which
is detailed by Luke; and further, that both these sermons were
concluded in the same manner. [858]
46. But, again, as regards what Matthew proceeds to state after the
termination of that discourse--namely this, "And it came to pass, when
Jesus had ended these sayings, the people [859] were astonished at His
doctrine," [860] --it may appear that the speakers there were those
multitudes of disciples out of whom He had chosen the twelve. Moreover,
when the evangelist goes on immediately in these terms, "And when He
was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him; and,
behold, there came a leper and worshipped Him," [861] we are at
libertyto suppose that that incident took place subsequently to both
discourses,--not only after the one which Matthew records, but also
after the one which Luke inserts. For it is not made apparent what
length of time elapsed after the descent from the mountain. But
Matthew's intention was simply to indicate the fact itself, that after
that descent there were great multitudes of people with the Lord on the
occasion when He cleansed the leper, and not to specify what period of
time had intervened. And this supposition may all the more readily be
entertained, since [we find that] Luke tells us how the same leper was
cleansed at a time when the Lord was now in a certain city,--a
circumstance which Matthew has not cared to mention.
47. After all, however, this explanation may also be
suggested,--namely, that in the first instance the Lord, along with His
disciples and no others, was on some more elevated portion of the
mountain, and that during the period of His stay there He chose out of
the number of His followers those twelve; that then He came down in
company with them, not indeed from the mountain itself, but from that
said altitude on the mountain, into the plain--that is to say, into
some level spot which was found on the slope of the mountain, and which
was capable of accommodating great multitudes; and that thereafter,
when He had seated Himself, His disciples took up their position next
Him, and in these circumstances He delivered both to them and to the
other multitudes who were present one discourse, which Matthew and Luke
have both recorded, their modes of narrating it being indeed different,
but the truth being given with equal fidelity by the two writers in all
that concerns the facts and sayings which both of them have recounted.
For we have already prefaced our inquiry with the position, which
indeed ought of itself to have been obvious to all without the need of
any one to give them counsel to that effect beforehand, that there is
not [necessarily] any antagonism between writers, although one may omit
something which another mentions; nor, again, although one states a
fact in one way, and another in a different method, provided that the
same truth is set forth in regard to the objects and sayings
themselves. In this way, therefore, Matthew's sentence, "Now when He
was come down from the mountain," may at the same time be understood to
refer also to the plain, which there might very well have been on the
slope of the mountain. And thereafter Matthew tells the story of the
cleansing of the leper, which is also given in a similar manner by Mark
and Luke.
__________________________________________________________________
[848] Mark i. 39.
[849] Mark i. 40.
[850] Matt. viii. 1, 2.
[851] Luke v. 12, 13. [It seems altogether more probable that the
healing of the leper occurred, before the Sermon on the Mount, at the
time indicated by Luke.--R.]
[852] Matt. v. 3.
[853] Luke vi. 20.
[854] Matt. iv. 25, etc.
[855] Various mss. and editions insert et before the Tyri = both of
Tyre, although it is wanting in the Greek.
[856] Qui vexabantur a spiritibus immundis curabantur.
[857] Luke vi. 12-20.
[858] [The explanation suggested in S: 47 is altogether more
probable.--R.]
[859] Turbae, multitudes.
[860] Matt. vii. 28.
[861] Matt. viii. 1, 2.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.--An Explanation of the Circumstance that Matthew Tells Us
How the Centurion Came to Jesus on Behalf of His Servant, While Luke's
Statement is that the Centurion Despatched Friends to Him.
48. After these things, Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the
following terms: "And when Jesus was entered into Capharnaum, there
came unto Him a centurion, beseeching Him, and saying, Lord, my servant
lieth at home sick of the palsy, and he is grievously tormented;" and
so forth, on to the place where it is said, "And his servant was healed
in the self-same hour." [862] This case of the centurion's servant is
related also by Luke; only Luke does not bring it in, as Matthew does,
after the cleansing of the leper, whose story he has recorded as
something suggested to his recollection at a later stage, but
introduces it after the conclusion of that lengthened sermon already
discussed. For he connects the two sections in this way: "Now when He
had ended all His sayings in the audience of the people, He entered
into Capharnaum; and a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto
him, was sick and ready to die;" and so forth, until we come to the
verse where it is said that he was healed. [863] Here, then, we notice
that it was not till after He had ended all His words in the hearing of
the people that Christ entered Capharnaum; by which we are to
understand simply that He did not make that entrance before He had
brought these sayings to their conclusion; and we are not to take it as
intimating the length of that period of time which intervened between
the delivery of these discourses and the entrance into Capharnaum. In
this interval that leper was cleansed, whose case is recorded by
Matthew in its own proper place, but is given by Luke only at a later
point. [864]
49. Accordingly, let us proceed to consider whether Matthew and Luke
are at one in the account of this servant. Matthew's words, then, are
these: "There came unto Him a centurion, beseeching Him, and saying, My
servant lieth at home sick of the palsy." [865] Now this seems to be
inconsistent with the version presented by Luke, which runs thus: "And
when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto Him the elders of the Jews,
beseeching Him that He would come and heal his servant. And when they
came to Jesus, they besought Him instantly, saying, That he was worthy
for whom He should do this: for he loveth our nation, and he hath built
us a synagogue. Then Jesus went with them. And when He was now not far
from the house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying unto Him,
Lord, trouble not Thyself; for I am not worthy that Thou shouldest
enter under my roof: wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come
unto Thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed." [866]
For if this was the manner in which the incident took place, how can
Matthew's statement, that there "came to Him a certain centurion," be
correct, seeing that the man did not come in person, but sent his
friends? The apparent discrepancy, however, will disappear if we look
carefully into the matter, and observe that Matthew has simply held by
a very familiar mode of expression. For not only are we accustomed to
speak of one as coming [867] even before he actually reaches the place
he is said to have approached, [868] whence, too, we speak of one as
making small approach or making great approach [869] to what he is
desirous of reaching; but we also not unfrequently speak of that
access, [870] for the sake of getting at which the approach is made, as
reached even although the person who is said to reach another may not
himself see the individual whom he reaches, inasmuch as it may be
through a friend that he reaches the person whose favour is necessary
to him. This, indeed, is a custom which has so thoroughly established
itself, that even in the language of every-day life now those men are
called Perventores [871] who, in the practice of canvassing, [872] get
at the inaccessible ears, as one may say, of any of the men of
influence, by the intervention of suitable personages. If, therefore,
access [873] itself is thus familiarly said to be gained by the means
of other parties, how much more may an approach [874] be said to take
place, although it be by means of others, which always remains
something short of actual access! For it is surely the case, that a
person may be able to do very much in the way of approach, but yet may
have failed to succeed in actually reaching what he sought to get at.
Consequently it is nothing out of the way for Matthew,--a fact, indeed,
which may be understood by any intelligence,--when thus dealing with an
approach on the part of the centurion to the Lord, which was effected
in the person of others, to have chosen to express the matter in this
compendious method, "There came a centurion to Him."
50. At the same time, however, we must be careful enough to discern a
certain mystical depth in the phraseology adopted by the evangelist,
which is in accordance with these words of the Psalm, "Come ye to Him,
and be ye lightened." [875] For in this way, inasmuch as the Lord
Himself commended the faith of the centurion, in which indeed his
approach was really made to Jesus, in such terms that He declared, "I
have not found so great faith in Israel," the evangelist wisely chose
to speak of the man himself as coming to Jesus, rather than to bring in
the persons through whom he had conveyed his words. And furthermore,
Luke has unfolded the whole incident to us just as it occurred, in a
form constraining us to understand from his narrative in what manner
another writer, who was also incapable of making any false statement,
might have spoken of the man himself as coming. It is in this way, too,
that the woman who suffered from the issue of blood, although she took
hold merely of the hem of His garment, did yet touch the Lord more
effectually than those multitudes did by whom He was thronged. [876]
For just as she touched the Lord the more effectually, in so far as she
believed the more earnestly, so the centurion also came the more really
to the Lord, inasmuch as he believed the more thoroughly. And now, as
regards the rest of this paragraph, it would be a superfluous task to
go over in detail the various matters which are recounted by the one
and omitted by the other. For, according to the principle brought under
notice at the outset, there is not to be found in these peculiarities
any actual antagonism between the writers.
__________________________________________________________________
[862] Matt. viii. 5-13.
[863] Luke vii. 1-10.
[864] [But see note on S: 44.--R.]
[865] Matt. viii. 5, 6.
[866] Luke vii. 3-7.
[867] Accessisse, approaching.
[868] Accessisse, come to.
[869] Parum accessit vel multum accessit.
[870] Perventio, arrival.
[871] Reachers, comers at.
[872] Ambitionis arte.
[873] Perventio.
[874] Coming at--accessus.
[875] Accedite ad eum et illuminamini. Ps. xxxiv. 5.
[876] Luke vii. 42-48.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.--Of the Order in Which the Narrative Concerning Peter's
Mother-In-Law is Introduced.
51. Matthew proceeds in the following terms: "And when Jesus was come
into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
And He touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and
ministered unto them." [877] Matthew has not indicated the date of this
incident; that is to say, he has specified neither before what event
nor after what occurrence it took place. For we are certainly under no
necessity of supposing that, because it is recorded after a certain
event, it must also have happened in actual matter of fact after that
event. And unquestionably, in this case, we are to understand that he
has introduced for record here something which he had omitted to notice
previously. For Mark brings in this narrative before his account of
that cleansing of the leper which he would appear to have placed after
the delivery of the sermon on the mount; [878] which discourse,
however, he has left unrelated. And thus, too, Luke [879] inserts this
story of Peter's mother-in-law after an occurrence [880] which it
follows likewise in Mark's version, but also before that lengthened
discourse, which has been reproduced by him, and which may appear to be
one with the sermon which Matthew states to have been delivered on the
mount. For of what consequence is it in what place any of them may give
his account; or what difference does it make whether he inserts the
matter in its proper order, or brings in at a particular point what was
previously omitted, or mentions at an earlier stage what really
happened at a later, provided only that he contradicts neither himself
nor a second writer in the narrative of the same facts or of others?
For as it is not in one's own power, however admirable and trustworthy
may be the knowledge he has once obtained of the facts, to determine
the order in which he will recall them to memory (for the way in which
one thing comes into a person's mind before or after another is
something which proceeds not as we will, but simply as it is given to
us), it is reasonable enough to suppose that each of the evangelists
believed it to have been his duty to relate what he had to relate in
that order in which it had pleased God to suggest to his recollection
the matters he was engaged in recording. At least this might hold good
in the case of those incidents with regard to which the question of
order, whether it were this or that, detracted nothing from evangelical
authority and truth.
52. But as to the reason why the Holy Spirit, who divideth to every man
severally as He will, [881] and who therefore undoubtedly, with a view
to the establishing of their books on so distinguished an eminence of
authority, also governs and rules the minds of the holy men themselves
in the matter of suggesting the things they were to commit to writing,
has left one historian at liberty to construct his narrative in one
way, and another in a different fashion, that is a question which any
one may look into with pious consideration, and for which, by divine
help, the answer also may possibly be found. That, however, is not the
object of the work which we have taken in hand at present. The task we
have proposed to ourselves is simply to demonstrate that not one of the
evangelists contradicts either himself or his fellow-historians,
whatever be the precise order in which he may have had the ability or
may have preferred to compose his account of matters belonging to the
doings and sayings of Christ; and that, too, at once in the case of
subjects identical with those recorded by others, and in the case of
subjects different from these. For this reason, therefore, when the
order of times is not apparent, we ought not to feel it a matter of any
consequence what order any of them may have adopted in relating the
events. But wherever the order is apparent, if the evangelist then
presents anything which seems to be inconsistent with his own
statements, or with those of another, we must certainly take the
passage into consideration, and endeavour to clear up the difficulty.
__________________________________________________________________
[877] Matt. viii. 14, 15.
[878] Cf. what is said above (chap. xix. 43) as to the note of time
implied in the statement (Mark i. 39), that He preached in their
synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils. [The order of
Mark is probably correct.--R.]
[879] Luke iv. 38, 39.
[880] Referring, apparently, to the casting out of the unclean spirit
(Mark i. 23, etc.; Luke iv. 33, etc.).
[881] 1 Cor. xii. 11.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.--Of the Order of the Incidents Which are Recorded After
This Section and of the Question Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke are
Consistent with Each Other in These.
53. Matthew, accordingly, continues his narration thus: "Now when the
even was come, they brought unto Him many that were possessed with
devils; and He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all that
were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the
prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our
sicknesses." [882] That this belongs in date to the same day, he
indicates with sufficient clearness by these words which he subjoins,
"Now when the even was come." In a similar manner, after concluding his
account of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law with the sentence, "And
she ministered unto them," Mark has appended the following statement:
"And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto Him all that were
diseased, and them that were possessed of the devils. And all the city
was gathered together at the door. And He healed many that were sick of
divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils
to speak, because they knew Him. And in the morning, rising up a great
while before day, He went out, and departed into a solitary place."
[883] Here Mark appears to have preserved the order in such wise, that
after the statement conveyed in the words "And at even," he gives this
note of time: "And in the morning, rising up a great while before day."
And although there is no absolute necessity for supposing either that,
when we have the words "And at even," the reference must be to the
evening of the very same day, or that when the phrase "In the morning"
meets us, it must mean the morning [884] after the self-same night;
still, however that may be, this order in the occurrences may fairly
appear to have been preserved with a view to an orderly arrangement of
the times. Moreover, Luke, too, after relating the story of Peter's
mother-in-law, while he does not indeed say expressly, "And at even,"
has at least used a phrase which conveys the same sense. For he
proceeds thus: "Now when the sun had set, [885] all they that had any
sick with divers diseases brought them unto Him; and He laid His hands
on every one of them, and healed them. And devils also came out of
many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And He,
rebuking them, suffered them not to speak: for they knew that He was
Christ. And when it was day, He departed and went into a desert place."
[886] Here, again, we see precisely the same order of times preserved
as we discovered in Mark. But Matthew, who appears to have introduced
the story of Peter's mother-in-law not according to the order in which
the incident itself took place, but simply in the succession in which
he had it suggested to his mind after previous omission, has first
recorded what happened on that same day, to wit, when even was come;
and thereafter, instead of subjoining the notice of the morning, goes
on with his account in these terms: "Now when Jesus saw great
multitudes about Him, He gave commandment to depart unto the other side
of the lake." [887] This, then, is something new, differing from what
is given in the context by Mark and Luke, who, after the notice of the
even, bring in the mention of the morning. Consequently, as regards
this verse in Matthew, "Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about Him,
He gave commandment to depart unto the other side of the lake," we
ought simply to understand that he has introduced here another fact
which he has had brought to mind at this point,--namely, the fact that
on a certain day, when Jesus had seen great multitudes about Him, He
gave instructions to cross to the other side of the lake.
__________________________________________________________________
[882] Matt. viii. 16-18.
[883] Mark i. 31-35.
[884] Diluculum, dawn.
[885] Occidisset.
[886] Luke iv. 40-42.
[887] Matt. viii. 18.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.--Of the Person Who Said to the Lord, "I Will Follow Thee
Whithersoever Thou Goest;" And of the Other Things Connected Therewith,
and of the Order in Which They are Recorded by Matthew and Luke.
54. He next appends the following statement: "And a certain scribe came
and said unto Him, Master, I will follow Thee whithersoever thou
goest;" and so on, down to the words, "Let the dead bury their dead."
[888] We have a narrative in similar terms also in Luke. But he inserts
it only after a variety of other matters, and without any explicit note
of the order of time, but after the fashion of one only bethinking
himself of the incident at that point. He leaves us also uncertain
whether he brings it in there as something previously omitted, or as an
anticipatory notice of something which in actual fact took place
subsequently to those incidents by which it is followed in the history.
For he proceeds thus: "And it came to pass, that as they went in the
way, a certain man said unto Him, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou
goest." [889] And the Lord's answer is given here in precisely the same
terms as we find recited in Matthew. Now, although Matthew tells us
that this took place at the time when He gave commandment to depart
unto the other side of the lake, and Luke, on the other hand, speaks of
an occasion when they "went in the way," there is no necessary
contradiction in that. For it may be the case that they went in the way
just in order to come to the lake. Again, in what is said about the
person who begged to be allowed first to bury his father, Matthew and
Luke are thoroughly at one. For the mere fact that Matthew has
introduced first the words of the man who made the request regarding
his father, and that he has put after that the saying of the Lord,
"Follow me," whereas Luke puts the Lord's command, "Follow me," first,
and the declaration of the petitioner second, is a matter of no
consequence to the sense itself. Luke has also made mention of yet
another person, who said, "Lord, I will follow Thee, but let me first
bid them farewell which are at home at my house;" [890] of which
individual Matthew says nothing. And thereafter Luke proceeds to
another subject altogether, and not to what followed in the actual
order of time. The passage runs: "And after these things, the Lord
appointed other seventy-two also." [891] That this occurred "after
these things" is indeed manifest; but at what length of time after
these things the Lord did so is not apparent. Nevertheless, in this
interval that took place which Matthew subjoins next in succession. For
the same Matthew still keeps up the order of time, and continues his
narrative, as we shall now see.
__________________________________________________________________
[888] Matt. viii. 19-22.
[889] Luke ix. 57.
[890] Luke ix. 61.
[891] Septuaginta duo. Luke x. 1. [An early variation in the Greek
text; comp. Revised Version margin.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIV.--Of the Lord's Crossing the Lake on that Occasion on
Which He Slept in the Vessel, and of the Casting Out of Those Devils
Whom He Suffered to Go into the Swine; And of the Consistency of the
Accounts Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke of All that Was Done and Said
on These Occasions.
55. "And when He was entered into a ship, His disciples followed Him.
And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea." And so the story
goes on, until we come to the words, "And He came into His own city."
[892] Those two narratives which are told by Matthew in continuous
succession,--namely, that regarding the calm upon the sea after Jesus
was roused from His sleep and had commanded the winds, and that
concerning the persons who were possessed with the fierce devil, and
who brake their bands and were driven into the wilderness,--are given
also in like manner by Mark and Luke. [893] Some parts of these stories
are expressed, indeed, in different terms by the different writers, but
the sense remains the same. This is the case, for example, when Matthew
represents the Lord to have said, "Why are ye fearful, O ye of little
faith?" [894] while Mark's version is, "Why are ye fearful? Is it that
ye have no faith?" [895] For Mark's word refers to that perfect faith
which is like a grain of mustard seed; and so he, too, speaks in effect
of the "little faith." Luke, again, puts it thus: "Where is your
faith?" [896] Accordingly, the whole utterance may perhaps have gone
thus: "Why are ye fearful? Where is your faith, O ye of little faith?"
And so one of them records one part, and another another part, of the
entire saying. The same may be the case with the words spoken by the
disciples when they awoke Him. Matthew gives us: "Lord, save us: we
perish." [897] Mark has: "Master, carest Thou not that we perish?"
[898] And Luke says simply, "Master, we perish." [899] These different
expressions, however, convey one and the same meaning on the part of
those who were awaking the Lord, and who were wishful to secure their
safety. Neither need we inquire which of these several forms is to be
preferred as the one actually addressed to Christ. For whether they
really used the one or the other of these three phraseologies, or
expressed themselves in different words, which are unrecorded by any
one of the evangelists, but which were equally well adapted to give the
like representation of what was meant, what difference does it make in
the fact itself? At the same time, it may also possibly have been the
case that, when several parties in concert were trying to awake Him,
all these various modes of expression had been used, one by one person,
and another by another. In the same way, too, we may deal with the
exclamation on the stilling of the tempest, which, according to
Matthew, was, "What manner of man is this, that the winds and the sea
obey Him?" [900] according to Mark, "What man, thinkest thou, is this,
[901] that both the wind and the sea obey Him?" [902] and according to
Luke, "What man, thinkest thou, is this? [903] for He commandeth both
the winds and the sea, [904] and they obey Him." Who can fail to see
that the sense in all these forms is quite identical? For the
expression, "What man, thinkest thou, is this?" has precisely the same
import with the other, "What manner of man is this?" [905] And where
the words "He commandeth" are omitted, it can at least be understood as
a matter of course that the obedience is rendered to the person
commanding.
56. Moreover, with respect to the circumstance that Matthew states that
there were two men who were afflicted with the legion of devils which
received permission to go into the swine, whereas Mark and Luke
instance only a single individual, we may suppose that one of these
parties was a person of some kind of superior notability and repute,
whose case was particularly lamented by that district, and for whose
deliverance there was special anxiety. With the intention of indicating
that fact, two of the evangelists have judged it proper to make mention
only of the one person, in connection with whom the fame of this deed
had been spread abroad the more extensively and remarkably. Neither
should any scruple be excited by the different forms in which the words
uttered by the possessed [906] have been reproduced by the various
evangelists. For we may either resolve them all into one and the same
thing, or suppose them all to have been actually spoken. Nor, again,
should we find any difficulty in the circumstance that with Matthew the
address is couched in the plural number, but with Mark and Luke in the
singular. For these latter two tell us at the same time, that when the
man was asked what was his name, he answered that he was Legion,
because the devils were many. Nor, once more, is there any discrepancy
between Mark's statement that the herd of swine was round about the
mountain, [907] and Luke's, that they were on the mountain. [908] For
the herd of swine was so great that one portion of it might be on the
mountain, and another only round about it. For, as Mark has expressly
informed us, there were about two thousand swine.
__________________________________________________________________
[892] Matt. viii. 23-ix. 1.
[893] Mark iv. 36; Luke viii. 22-37.
[894] Matt. viii. 16.
[895] Mark iv. 40. [The variations in the Greek text are numerous.
Augustin gives necdum, which represents the rending followed in the
Revised Version.--R.]
[896] Luke viii. 25.
[897] Matt. viii. 25.
[898] Mark iv. 38.
[899] Luke viii. 24.
[900] Matt. viii. 27.
[901] Quis putas est iste.
[902] Mark iv. 41. [The Greek text in Mark and Luke has nothing
corresponding to "thinkest thou." The Authorized Version, given above,
has an unnecessary variation; "that," "that," "for." The Greek particle
is the same, and Augustin gives quia three times.--R.]
[903] Quis putas hic est.
[904] Mari.
[905] Qualis est hic.
[906] Or, the devils--daemonum.
[907] Circa montem. [The correct Greek text is rendered "on the
mountain side" in the Revised Version.--R.]
[908] In monte.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXV.--Of the Man Sick of the Palsy to Whom the Lord Said, "Thy
Sins are Forgiven Thee," And "Take Up Thy Bed;" And in Especial, of the
Question Whether Matthew and Mark are Consistent with Each Other in
Their Notice of the Place Where This Incident Took Place, in So Far as
Matthew Says It Happened "In His Own City," While Mark Says It Was in
Capharnaum.
57. Hereupon Matthew proceeds with his recital, still preserving the
order of time, and connects his narrative in the following
manner:--"And He entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into
His own city. And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy,
lying on a bed;" and so on down to where it is said, "But when the
multitude saw it, they marvelled; and glorified God, which had given
such power unto men." [909] Mark and Luke have also told the story of
this paralytic. Now, as regards Matthew's stating that the Lord said,
"Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee;" while Luke makes
the address run, not as "son," but as "man,"--this only helps to bring
out the Lord's meaning more explicitly. For these sins were [thus said
to be] forgiven to the "man," inasmuch as the very fact that he was a
man would make it impossible for him to say, "I have not sinned;" and
at the same time, that mode of address served to indicate that He who
forgave sins to man was Himself God. Mark, again, has given the same
form of words as Matthew, but he has left out the terms, "Be of good
cheer." It is also possible, indeed, that the whole saying ran thus:
"Man, be of good cheer: son, thy sins are forgiven thee;" or thus:
"Son, be of good cheer: man, thy sins are forgiven thee;" or the words
may have been spoken in some other congruous order.
58. A difficulty, however, may certainly arise when we observe how
Matthew tells the story of the paralytic after this fashion: "And He
entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into His own city. And,
behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed;"
whereas Mark speaks of the incident as taking place not in His own
city, which indeed is called Nazareth, but in Capharnaum. His narrative
is to the following effect:--"And again He entered into Capharnaum
after some days; and it was noised that He was in the house. And
straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no
room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and He spake a
word [910] unto them. And they came unto Him, bringing one sick of the
palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto
Him for the press, they uncovered the roof where He was: and when they
had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy
lay. And when Jesus saw their faith;" and so forth. [911] Luke, on the
other hand, does not mention the place in which the incident happened,
but gives the tale thus: "And it came to pass on a certain day that He
was sitting teaching, [912] and there were Pharisees and doctors of the
law also sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and
Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal
them. And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a
palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before
Him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in
because of the multitude, they went upon the house-top, and let him
down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. And
when He saw their faith, He said, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee;" and
so forth. [913] The question, therefore, remains one between Mark and
Matthew, in so far as Matthew writes of the incident as taking place in
the Lord's city; [914] while Mark locates it in Capharnaum. This
question would be more difficult to solve if Matthew mentioned Nazareth
by name. But, as the case stands, when we reflect that the state of
Galilee itself might have been called Christ's city, [915] because
Nazareth was in Galilee, just as the whole region which was made up of
so many cities [916] is yet called a Roman state; [917] when, further,
it is considered that so many nations are comprehended in that city, of
which it is written, "Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of
God;" [918] and also that God's ancient people, though dwelling in so
many cities, have yet been spoken of as one house, the house of Israel,
[919] --who can doubt that [it may be fairly said that] Jesus wrought
this work in His own city [or, state], inasmuch as He did it in the
city of Capharnaum, which was a city of that Galilee to which He had
returned when He crossed over again from the country of the Gerasenes,
so that when He came into Galilee He might correctly be said to have
come into His own city [or, state], in which ever town of Galilee He
might happen to be? This explanation may be vindicated more
particularly on the ground that Capharnaum itself held a position of
such eminence in Galilee that it was reckoned to be a kind of
metropolis. But even were it altogether illegitimate to take the city
of Christ in the sense either of Galilee itself, in which Nazareth was
situated, or of Capharnaum, which was distinguished as in a certain
sense the capital of Galilee, we might still affirm that Matthew has
simply passed over all that happened after Jesus came into His own city
until He reached Capharnaum, and that he has simply tacked on the
narrative of the healing of the paralytic at this point; just as the
writers do in many instances, leaving unnoticed much that intervenes,
and, without any express indication of the omissions they are making,
proceeding precisely as if what they subjoin, followed actually in
literal succession. [920]
__________________________________________________________________
[909] Matt. ix. 1-8.
[910] Loquebatur verbum. ["Was speaking the word" is probably the
meaning.--R.]
[911] Mark ii. 1-12.
[912] Et ipse sedebat docens.
[913] Luke v. 17-26.
[914] Or, state--civitate.
[915] Or, state--civitas.
[916] Civitatibus.
[917] Civitas, city.
[918] Ps. lxxxvii. 3.
[919] Isa. v. 7; Jer. iii. 20; Ezek. iii. 4.
[920] [The true solution of the difficulty is simple. Our Lord had
already left Nazareth and made Capernaum His headquarters (comp. Luke
iv. 30, 31). But Augustin identifies that incident with a subsequent
visit to Nazareth (see ch. xlii.).--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVI.--Of the Calling of Matthew, and of the Question Whether
Matthew's Own Account is in Harmony with Those of Mark and Luke When
They Speak of Levi the Son of Alphaeus.
59. Matthew next continues his narrative in the following terms:--"And
as Jesus passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew, sitting
at the receipt of custom: and He saith unto him, Follow me. And he
arose and followed Him." [921] Mark gives this story also, and keeps
the same order, bringing it in after the notice of the healing of the
man who was sick of the palsy. His version runs thus: "And He went
forth again by the sea-side; and all the multitude resorted unto Him,
and He taught them. And as He passed by, He saw Levi the son of
Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow
me. And he arose, and followed Him." [922] There is no contradiction
here; for Matthew is the same person with Levi. Luke also introduces
this after the story of the healing of the same man who was sick of the
palsy. He writes in these terms: "And after these things He went forth,
and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and
He said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed
Him." [923] Now, from this it will appear to be the most reasonable
explanation to say that Matthew records these things here in the form
of things previously passed over, and now brought to mind. For
certainly we must believe that Matthew's calling took place before the
delivery of the sermon on the mount. For Luke tells us that on this
mountain on that occasion the election was made of all these twelve,
whom Jesus also named apostles, out of the larger body of the
disciples. [924]
__________________________________________________________________
[921] Matt. ix. 9.
[922] Mark ii. 13, 14.
[923] Luke v. 27, 28.
[924] Luke vi. 13. [This fact shows that the order of Matthew is not
chronological. Indeed, as Augustin goes on, he is led more and more to
accept the order of the other evangelists.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVII.--Of the Feast at Which It Was Objected at Once that
Christ Ate with Sinners, and that His Disciples Did Not Fast; Of the
Circumstance that the Evangelists Seem to Give Different Accounts of
the Parties by Whom These Objections Were Alleged; And of the Question
Whether Matthew and Mark and Luke are Also in Harmony with Each Other
in the Reports Given of the Words of These Persons, and of the Replies
Returned by the Lord.
60. Matthew, accordingly, goes on to say: "And it came to pass, as He
sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and
sat down with Jesus and His disciples;" and so on, down to where we
read, "But they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."
[925] Here Matthew has not told us particularly in whose house it was
that Jesus was sitting at meat along with the publicans and sinners.
This might make it appear as if he had not appended this notice in its
strict order here, but had introduced at this point, in the way of
reminiscence, something which actually took place on a different
occasion, were it not that Mark and Luke, who repeat the account in
terms thoroughly similar, have made it plain that it was in the house
of Levi--that is to say, Matthew--that Jesus sat at meat, and all these
sayings were uttered which follow. For Mark states the same fact,
keeping also the same order, in the following manner: "And it came to
pass, as He sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat
also together with Jesus." [926] Accordingly, when he says, "in his
house," he certainly refers to the person of whom he was speaking
directly before, and that was Levi. To the same effect, after the
words, "He saith unto him, Follow me; and he left all, rose up, and
followed Him," [927] Luke has appended immediately this statement: "And
Levi made Him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great
company of publicans and of others that sat down with them." And thus
it is manifest in whose house it was that these things took place.
61. Let us next look into the words which these three evangelists have
all brought in as having been addressed to the Lord, and also into the
replies which were made by Him. Matthew says: "And when the Pharisees
saw it, they said unto His disciples, Why eateth your Master with
publicans and sinners?" [928] This reappears very nearly in the same
words in Mark: "How is it that He eateth and drinketh with publicans
and sinners?" [929] Only we find thus that Matthew has omitted one
thing which Mark inserts--namely, the addition "and drinketh." But of
what consequence can that be, since the sense is fully given, the idea
suggested being that they were partaking of a repast in company? Luke,
on the other hand, seems to have recorded this scene somewhat
differently. For his version proceeds thus: "But their scribes and
Pharisees murmured against His disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and
drink with publicans and sinners?" [930] But his intention in this
certainly is not [931] to indicate that their Master was not referred
to on that occasion, but to intimate that the objection was levelled
against all of them together, both Himself and His disciples; the
charge, however, which was to be taken to be meant both of Him and of
them, being addressed directly not to Him, but to them. For the fact is
that Luke himself, no less than the others, represents the Lord as
making the reply, and saying, "I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance." [932] And He would not have returned that
answer to them, had not their words, "Why do ye eat and drink?" been
directed very specially to Himself. For the same reason, Matthew and
Mark have told us that the objection which was brought against Him was
stated immediately to His disciples, because, when the allegation was
addressed to the disciples, the charge was thereby laid all the more
seriously against the Master whom these disciples were imitating and
following. One and the same sense, therefore, is conveyed; and it is
expressed all the better in consequence of these variations employed in
some of the terms, while the matter of fact itself is left intact. In
like manner we may deal with the accounts of the Lord's reply.
Matthew's runs thus: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they
that are sick; but go ye and learn what this meaneth, I will have
mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but
sinners." [933] Mark and Luke have also preserved for us the same sense
in almost the same words, with this exception, that they both fail to
introduce that quotation from the prophet, "I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice." Luke, again, after the words, "I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners," has added the term, "unto repentance." This
addition serves to bring out the sense more fully, so as to preclude
any one from supposing that sinners are loved by Christ, purely for the
very reason that they are sinners. For this similitude also of the sick
indicates clearly what God means by the calling of sinners,--that it is
like the physician with the sick,--and that its object verily is that
men should be saved from their iniquity as from disease; which healing
is effected by repentance.
62. In the same way, we may subject what is said about the disciples of
John to examination. Matthew's words are these: "Then came to Him the
disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft?" [934]
The purport of Mark's version is similar: "And the disciples of John
and the Pharisees [935] used to fast. [936] And they come and say unto
Him, Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees [937] fast, but thy
disciples fast not?" [938] The only semblance of a discrepancy that can
be found here, is in the possibility of supposing that the mention of
the Pharisees as having spoken along with the disciples of John is an
addition of Mark's, while Matthew states only that the disciples of
John expressed themselves to the above effect. But the words which were
actually uttered by the parties, according to Mark's version, rather
indicate that the speakers and the persons spoken of were not the same
individuals. I mean, that the persons who came to Jesus were the guests
who were then present, that they came because the disciples of John and
the Pharisees were fasting, and that they uttered the above words with
respect to these parties. In this way, the evangelist's phrase, "they
come," would not refer to the persons regarding whom he had just thrown
in the remark, "And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were
fasting." But the case would be, that as those parties were fasting,
some others here, who are moved by that fact, come to Him, and put this
question to Him, "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees
fast, but thy disciples fast not?" This is more clearly expressed by
Luke. For, evidently with the same idea in his mind, after stating what
answer the Lord returned in the words in which He spoke about the
calling of sinners under the similitude of those who are sick, he
proceeds thus: "And they said unto Him, Why do the disciples of John
fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the
Pharisees, but thine eat and drink?" [939] Here, then, we see that, as
was the case with Mark, Luke has mentioned one party as speaking to
this intent in relation to other parties. How comes it, therefore, that
Matthew says, "Then came to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do
we and the Pharisees fast?" The explanation may be, that those
individuals were also present, and that all these various parties were
eager to advance this charge, as they severally found opportunity. And
the sentiments which sought expression on this occasion have been
conveyed by the three evangelists under varied terms, but yet without
any divergence from a true statement of the fact itself.
63. Once more, we find that Matthew and Mark have given similar
accounts of what was said about the children of the bridegroom not
fasting as long as the bridegroom is with them, with this exception,
that Mark has named them the children of the bridals, [940] while
Matthew has designated them the children of the bridegroom. [941] That,
however, is a matter of no moment. For by the children of the bridals
we understand at once those connected with the bridegroom, and those
connected with the bride. The sense, therefore, is obvious and
identical, and neither different nor contradictory. Luke, again, does
not say, "Can the children of the bridegroom fast?" but, "Can ye make
the children of the bridegroom fast, while the bridegroom is with
them?" By expressing it in this method, the evangelist has elegantly
opened up the self-same sense in a way calculated to suggest something
else. For thus the idea is conveyed, that those very persons who were
speaking would try to make the children of the bridegroom mourn and
fast, inasmuch as they would [seek to] put the bridegroom to death.
Moreover, Matthew's phrase, "mourn," is of the same import as that used
by Mark and Luke, namely, "fast." For Matthew also says further on,
"Then shall they fast," and not, "Then shall they mourn." But by the
use of this phrase, he has indicated that the Lord spoke of that kind
of fasting which pertains to the lowliness of tribulation. In the same
way, too, the Lord may be understood to have pictured out a different
kind of fasting, which stands related to the rapture of a mind dwelling
in the heights of things spiritual, and for that reason estranged in a
certain measure from the meats that are for the body, when He made use
of those subsequent similitudes touching the new cloth and the new
wine, by which He showed that this kind of fasting is an incongruity
for sensual [942] and carnal people, who are taken up with the cares of
the body, and who consequently still remain in the old mind. These
similitudes are also embodied in similar terms by the other two
evangelists. And it should be sufficiently evident that there need be
no real discrepancy, although one may introduce something, whether
belonging to the subject-matter itself, or merely to the terms in which
that subject is expressed, which another leaves out; provided only that
there be neither any departure from a genuine identity in sense, nor
any contradiction created between the different forms which may be
adopted for expressing the same thing.
__________________________________________________________________
[925] Matt. ix. 10-17.
[926] Mark ii. 15.
[927] Luke v. 27-29.
[928] Matt. ix. 11.
[929] Mark ii. 16.
[930] Luke v. 30.
[931] Non utique magistrum eorum nolens illic intelligi, with most mss.
The reading volens occurs in some = not meaning their Master to be
referred to, he intimates, etc.
[932] Luke v. 32.
[933] Omitting in poenitentiam = unto repentance. [These words should
be omitted in Matthew and Mark, according to the Greek mss. Revised
Version.--R.]
[934] Matt. ix. 14.
[935] Pharisaei, not Pharisaeorum. [So the Greek text.--R.]
[936] Or, as Augustin's reasoning implies that he understood it, were
fasting--erant jejunantes. [So Revised Version.--R.]
[937] Pharisaeorum.
[938] Mark ii. 18.
[939] Luke v. 33.
[940] Filios nuptiarum.
[941] Filios sponsi.
[942] Animalibus.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVIII.--Of the Raising of the Daughter of the Ruler of the
Synagogue, and of the Woman Who Touched the Hem of His Garment; Of the
Question, Also, as to Whether the Order in Which These Incidents are
Narrated Exhibits Any Contradiction in Any of the Writers by Whom They
are Reported; And in Particular, of the Words in Which the Ruler of the
Synagogue Addressed His Request to the Lord.
64. Still keeping by the order of time, Matthew next continues to the
following effect: "While He spake these things unto them, behold, there
came a certain ruler, and worshipped Him, saying, My daughter is even
now dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her, and she shall live;" and
so on, until we come to the words, "and the maid arose. And the fame
hereof went abroad into all that land." [943] The other two, namely,
Mark and Luke, in like manner give this same account, only they do not
keep by the same order now. For they bring up this narrative in a
different place, and insert it in another connection; to wit, at the
point where He crosses the take and returns from the country of the
Gerasenes, after casting out the devils and permitting them to go into
the swine. Thus Mark introduces it, after he has related what took
place among the Gerasenes, in the following manner: "And when Jesus was
passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered
unto Him: and He was nigh unto the sea. And there cometh one of the
rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw Him, he fell
at His feet," etc. [944] By this, then, we are certainly to understand
that the occurrence in connection with the daughter of the ruler of the
synagogue did take place after Jesus had passed across the lake again
in the ship. [945] It does not, however, appear from the words
themselves how long after that passage this thing happened. But that
some time did elapse is clear. For had there not been an interval, no
period would be left within which those circumstances might fall which
Matthew has just related in the matter of the feast in his house.
These, indeed, he has told after the fashion of the evangelists, as if
they were the story of another person's doings. But they are the story
really of what took place in his own case, and at his own house. And
after that narrative, what follows in the immediate context is nothing
else than this notice of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue.
For he has constructed the whole recital in such a manner, that the
mode of transition from one thing to the other has itself indicated
with sufficient clearness that the words immediately following give the
narrative of what actually took place in immediate consecution. For
after mentioning, in connection with the former incident, those words
which Jesus spake with respect to the new cloth and the new wine, he
has subjoined these other words, without any interruption in the
narrative, namely, "While He spake these things unto them, behold,
there came a certain ruler." And this shows that, if the person
approached Him while He was speaking these things, nothing else either
done or said by Him could have intervened. In Mark's account, on the
other hand, the place is quite apparent, as we have already pointed
out, where other things [left unrecorded by him] might very well have
come in. The case is much the same also with Luke, who, when he
proceeds to follow up his version of the story of the miracle wrought
among the Gerasenes, by giving his account of the daughter of the ruler
of the synagogue, does not pass on to that in any such way as to place
it in antagonism with Matthew's version, who, by his words, "While He
yet spake these things," gives us plainly to understand that the
occurrence took place after those parables about the cloth and the
wine. For when he has concluded his statement of what happened among
the Gerasenes, Luke passes to the next subject in the following manner;
"And it came to pass that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly
received Him; for they were all waiting for Him. And, behold, there
came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue, and he
fell down at Jesus' feet," and so on. [946] Thus we are given to
understand that the crowd did indeed receive Jesus forthwith on the
said occasion: for He was the person for whose return they were
waiting. But what is conveyed in the words which are directly added,
"And, behold, there came a man whose name was Jairus," is not to be
taken to have occurred literally in immediate succession. On the
contrary, the feast with the publicans, as Matthew records it, took
place before that. For Matthew connects this present incident with that
feast in such a way as to make it impossible for us to suppose that any
other sequence of events can be the correct order. [947]
65. In this narrative, then, which we have undertaken to consider at
present, all these three evangelists indeed are unquestionably at one
in the account which they give of the woman who was afflicted with the
issue of blood. Nor is it a matter of any real consequence, that
something which is passed by in silence by one of them is related by
another; or that Mark says, "Who touched my clothes?" while Luke says,
"Who touched me?" For the one has only adopted the phrase in use and
wont, whereas the other has given the stricter expression. But for all
that, both of them convey the same meaning. For it is more usual with
us to say, "You are tearing me," [948] than to say, "You are tearing my
clothes;" as, notwithstanding the term, the sense we wish to convey is
obvious enough.
66. At the same time, however, there remains the fact that Matthew
represents the ruler of the synagogue to have spoken to the Lord of his
daughter, not merely as one likely to die, or as dying, or as on the
very point of expiring, but as even then dead; while these other two
evangelists report her as now nigh unto death, but not yet really dead,
and keep so strictly to that version of the circumstances, that they
tell us how the persons came at a later stage with the intelligence of
her actual death, and with the message that for this reason the Master
ought not now to trouble Himself by coming, with the purpose of laying
His hand upon her, and so preventing her from dying,--the matter not
being put as if He was one possessed of ability to raise the once dead
to life. It becomes necessary for us, therefore, to investigate this
fact lest it may seem to exhibit any contradiction between the
accounts. And the way to explain it is to suppose that, by reason of
brevity in the narrative, Matthew has preferred to express it as if the
Lord had been really asked to do what it is clear He did actually do,
namely, raise the dead to life. For what Matthew directs our attention
to, is not the mere words spoken by the father about his daughter, but
what is of more importance, his mind and purpose. Thus he has given
words calculated to represent the father's real thoughts. For he had so
thoroughly despaired of his child's case, that not believing that she
whom he had just left dying, could possibly now be found yet in life,
his thought rather was that she might be made alive again. Accordingly
two of the evangelists have introduced the words which were literally
spoken by Jairus. But Matthew has exhibited rather what the man
secretly wished and thought. Thus both petitions were really addressed
to the Lord; namely, either that He should restore the dying damsel, or
that, if she was already dead, He might raise her to life again. But as
it was Matthew's object to tell the whole story in short compass, he
has represented the father as directly expressing in his request what,
it is certain, had been his own real wish, and what Christ actually
did. It is true, indeed, that if those two evangelists, or one of them,
had told us that the father himself spake the words which the parties
who came from his house uttered,--namely, that Jesus should not now
trouble Himself, because the damsel had died,--then the words which
Matthew has put into his mouth would not be in harmony with his
thoughts. But, as the case really stands, it is not said that he gave
his consent to the parties who brought that report, and who bade the
Master no more think of coming now. And together with this, we have to
observe, that when the Lord addressed him in these terms, "Fear not:
believe only, and she shall be made whole," [949] He did not find fault
with him on the ground of his want of belief, but really encouraged him
to a yet stronger faith. For this ruler had faith like that which was
exhibited by the person who said, "Lord, I believe; help Thou mine
unbelief." [950]
67. Seeing, then, that the case stands thus, from these varied and yet
not inconsistent modes of statement adopted by the evangelists, we
evidently learn a lesson of the utmost utility, and of great
necessity,--namely, that in any man's words the thing which we ought
narrowly to regard is only the writer's thought which was meant to be
expressed, and to which the words ought to be subservient; and further,
that we should not suppose one to be giving an incorrect statement, if
he happens to convey in different words what the person really meant
whose words he fails to reproduce literally. And we ought not to let
the wretched cavillers at words fancy that truth must be tied somehow
or other to the jots and tittles of letters; whereas the fact is, that
not in the matter of words only, but equally in all other methods by
which sentiments are indicated, the sentiment itself, and nothing else,
is what ought to be looked at.
68. Moreover, as to the circumstance that some codices of Matthew's
Gospel contain the reading, "For the woman [951] is not dead, but
sleepeth," while Mark and Luke certify that she was a damsel of the age
of twelve years, we may suppose that Matthew has followed the Hebrew
mode of speech here. For in other passages of Scripture, as well as
here, it is found that not only those who had already known a man, but
all females in general, including untouched virgins, are called women.
[952] That is the case, for instance, where it is written of Eve, "He
made it [953] into a woman;" [954] and again, in the book of Numbers,
where the women [955] who have not known a man by lying with him, that
is to say, the virgins, are ordered to be saved from being put to
death. [956] Adopting the same phraseology, Paul, too, says of Christ
Himself, that He was "made of a woman." [957] And it is better,
therefore, to understand the matter according to these analogies, than
to suppose that this damsel of twelve years of age was already married,
or had known a man. [958]
__________________________________________________________________
[943] Matt. ix. 18-26.
[944] Mark v. 21-43.
[945] [The events can be arranged in the order of Mark, with the
exception of the passage, chap. ii. 15-22. This must be placed, as
Augustin says, after the return from "the country of the Gerasenes."
Comp. S: 89.--R.]
[946] Luke viii. 40-56.
[947] [This is one of the rare cases where the order of Matthew is more
exact than that of Mark and Luke. But the former evangelist has
dislocated a long series of events in the same connection. See
above.--R.]
[948] Conscindis.
[949] Luke viii. 50.
[950] Mark ix. 24.
[951] Mulier.
[952] Mulieres.
[953] Eam, her.
[954] Gen. ii. 22.
[955] Mulieres.
[956] Num. xxxi. 18.
[957] Gal. ii. 4.
[958] [The curious variation in text noted above was probably due to
the scribe's confounding the "damsel" with the "woman" who had just
been spoken of.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIX.--Of the Two Blind Men and the Dumb Demoniac Whose Stories
are Related Only by Matthew.
69. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And
when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed Him, crying and
saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us;" and so on, down to the
verse where we read, "But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils
through the prince of the devils." [959] Matthew is the only one who
introduces this account of the two blind men and the dumb demoniac. For
those two blind men, whose story is given also by the others, [960] are
not the two before us here. Nevertheless there is such similarity in
the occurrences, that if Matthew himself had not recorded the latter
incident as well as the former, it might have been thought that the one
which he relates at present has also been given by these other two
evangelists. There is this fact, therefore, which we ought to bear
carefully in mind,--namely, that there are some occurrences which
resemble each other. For we have a proof of this in the circumstance
that the very same evangelist mentions both incidents here. And thus,
if at any time we find any such occurrences narrated individually by
the several evangelists, and discover some contradiction in the
accounts, which seems not to admit of being solved [on the principle of
harmonizing], it may occur to us that the explanation simply is, that
this [apparently contradictory] circumstance did not take place [on
that particular occasion], but that what did happen then was only
something resembling it, or something which was gone about in a similar
manner.
__________________________________________________________________
[959] Matt. ix. 27-34. [The view of Augustin is that now generally
accepted by harmonists.--R.]
[960] Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii. 35-43.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXX.--Of the Section Where It is Recorded, that Being Moved
with Compassion for the Multitudes, He Sent His Disciples, Giving Them
Power to Work Cures, and Charged Them with Many Instructions, Directing
Them How to Live; And of the Question Concerning the Proof of Matthew's
Harmony Here with Mark and Luke, Especially on the Subject of the
Staff, Which Matthew Says the Lord Told Them They Were Not to Carry,
While According to Mark It is the Only Thing They Were to Carry; And
Also of the Wearing of the Shoes and Coats.
70. As to the events next related, it is true that their exact order is
not made apparent by Matthew's narrative. For after the notices of the
two incidents in connection with the blind men and the dumb demoniac,
he continues in the following manner: "And Jesus went about all the
cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the
kingdom of the gospel, [961] and healing every sickness and every
disease. But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion
on them, because they were troubled and prostrate, [962] as sheep
having no shepherd. Then saith He unto His disciples, The harvest truly
is plenteous, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of
the harvest, that He will send forth [963] labourers into His harvest.
And when He had called unto Him His twelve disciples, He gave them
power against unclean spirits;" and so forth, down to the words,
"Verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." [964] This whole
passage which we have now mentioned shows how He gave many counsels to
His disciples. But whether Matthew has subjoined this section in its
historical order, or has made its order dependent only on the
succession in which it came up to his own mind, as has already been
said, is not made apparent. Mark appears to have handled this paragraph
in a succinct method, and to have entered upon its recital in the
following terms: "And He went round about the villages, teaching in
their circuit: [965] and He called unto Him the twelve, and began to
send them by two and two, and gave them power over unclean spirits;"
and so on, down to where we read, "Shake off the dust from your feet
for a testimony against them." [966] But before narrating this
incident, Mark has inserted, immediately after the story of the raising
of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, an account of what took
place on that occasion on which, in His own country, the people were
astonished at the Lord, and asked from whence He had such wisdom and
such capabilities, [967] when they perceived His judgment: which
account is given by Matthew after these counsels to the disciples, and
after a number of other matters. [968] It is uncertain, therefore,
whether what thus happened in His own country has been recorded by
Matthew in the succession in which it came to mind, after having been
omitted at first, or whether it has been introduced by Mark in the way
of an anticipation; and which of them, in short, has kept the order of
actual occurrence, and which of them the order of his own recollection.
Luke, again, in immediate succession to the mention of the raising of
the daughter of Jairus to life, subjoins this paragraph, bearing on the
power and the counsels given to the disciples, and that indeed with as
great brevity as Mark. [969] This evangelist, however, does not, any
more than the others, introduce the subject in such a way as to produce
the impression that it comes in also in the strictly historical order.
Moreover, with regard to the names of the disciples, Luke, who gives
their names in another place, [970] --that is to say, in the earlier
passage, where they are [represented as being] chosen on the
mountain,--is not at variance in any respect with Matthew, with the
exception of the single instance of the name of Judas the brother of
James, whom Matthew designates Thaddaeus, although some codices also
read Lebbaeus. [971] But who would ever think of denying that one man
may be known under two or three names?
71. Another question which it is also usual to put is this: How comes
it that Matthew and Luke have stated that the Lord said to His
disciples that they were not to take a staff with them, whereas Mark
puts the matter in this way: "And He commanded them that they should
take nothing for their journey, save a staff only;" [972] and proceeds
further in this strain, "no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:"
thereby making it quite evident that his narrative belongs to the same
place and circumstances with which the narratives of those others deal
who have mentioned that the staff was not to be taken? Now this
question admits of being solved on the principle of understanding that
the staff which, according to Mark, was to be taken, bears one sense,
and that the staff which, according to Matthew and Luke, was not to be
taken with them, is to be interpreted in a different sense; just in the
same way as we find the term "temptation" used in one meaning, when it
is said, "God tempteth no man," [973] and in a different meaning where
it is said, "The Lord your God tempteth [proveth] you, to know whether
ye love Him." [974] For in the former case the temptation of seduction
is intended; but in the latter the temptation of probation. Another
parallel occurs in the case of the term "judgment," which must be taken
in one way, where it is said, "They that have done good unto the
resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the
resurrection of judgment;" [975] and in another way, where it is said,
"Judge me, O God, and discern [976] my cause, in respect of an ungodly
nation." [977] For the former refers to the judgment of damnation, and
the latter to the judgment of discrimination.
72. And there are many other words which do not retain one uniform
signification, but are introduced so as to suit a variety of
connections, and thus are understood in a variety of ways, and
sometimes, indeed, are adopted along with an explanation. We have an
example in the saying, "Be not children [978] in understanding; howbeit
in malice be ye little children, that in understanding ye may be
perfect." [979] For here is a sentence which, in a brief and pregnant
form, might have been expressed thus: "Be ye not children; howbeit be
ye children." The same is the case with the words, "If any man among
you thinketh himself to be wise in this world, let him become a fool
that he may be wise." [980] For what else is the statement there but
this: "Let him not be wise, that he may be wise"? Moreover, the
sentences are sometimes so put as to exercise the judgment of the
inquirer. An instance of this kind occurs in what is said in the
Epistle to the Galatians: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so ye
will fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man thinketh himself to be
something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But it is meet
that every man should prove his own work; and then shall he have
rejoicing in himself, and not in another. For every man shall bear his
own burden." [981] Now, unless the word "burden" can be taken in
different senses, without doubt one would suppose that the same writer
contradicts himself in what he says here, and that, too, when the words
are placed in such close neighbourhood in one paragraph. [982] For when
he has just said, "One shall bear another's burdens," after the lapse
of a very brief interval he says, "Every man shall bear his own
burden." But the one refers to the burdens which are to be borne in
sharing in one's infirmity, the other to the burdens borne in the
rendering of an account of our own actions to God: the former are
burdens to be borne in our [duties of] fellowship with brethren; the
latter are those peculiar to ourselves, and borne by every man for
himself. And in the same way, once more, the "rod" of which the apostle
spoke in the words, "Shall I come unto you with a rod?" [983] is meant
in a spiritual sense; while the same term bears the literal meaning
when it occurs of the rod applied to a horse, or used for some other
purpose of the kind, not to mention, in the meantime, also other
metaphorical significations of this phrase.
73. Both these counsels, therefore, must be accepted as having been
spoken by the Lord to the apostles; namely, at once that they should
not take a staff, and that they should take nothing save a staff only.
For when He said to them, according to Matthew, "Provide neither gold
nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor scrip for your journey,
neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet a staff," He added
immediately, "for the workman is worthy of his meat." And by this He
makes it sufficiently obvious why it is that He would have them provide
and carry none of these things. He shows that His reason was, not that
these things are not necessary for the sustenance of this life, but
because He was sending them in such a manner as to declare plainly that
these things were due to them by those very persons who were to hear
believingly the gospel preached by them; just as wages are the
soldier's due, and as the fruit of the vine is the right of the
planters, and the milk of the flock the right of the shepherds. For
which reason Paul also speaks in this wise: "Who goeth a warfare any
time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the
fruit thereof? who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the
flock?" [984] For under these figures he was speaking of those things
which are necessary to the preachers of the gospel. And so, a little
further on, he says: "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it
a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others are
partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we
have not used this power." [985] This makes it apparent that by these
instructions the Lord did not mean that the evangelists should not seek
their support in any other way than by depending on what was offered
them by those to whom they preached the gospel (otherwise this very
apostle acted contrary to this precept when he acquired a livelihood
for himself by the labours of his own hands, because he would not be
chargeable to any of them [986] ), but that He gave them a power in the
exercise of which they should know such things to be their due. Now,
when any commandment is given by the Lord, there is the guilt of
non-obedience if it is not observed; but when any power is given, any
one is at liberty to abstain from its use, and, as it were, to recede
from his right. Accordingly, when the Lord spake these things to the
disciples, He did what that apostle expounds more clearly a little
further on, when he says, "Do ye not know that they who minister in the
temple [987] live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at
the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained,
that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have
used none of these things." [988] When he says, therefore, that the
Lord ordained it thus, but that he did not use the ordinance, he
certainly indicates that it was a power to use that was given him, and
not a necessity of service that was imposed upon him.
74. Accordingly, as our Lord ordained what the apostle declares Him to
have ordained,--namely, that those who preach the gospel should live of
the gospel,--He gave these counsels to the apostles in order that they
might be without the care of providing [989] or of carrying with them
things necessary for this life, whether great or the very smallest;
consequently He introduced this term, "neither a staff," with the view
of showing that, on the part of those who were faithful to Him, all
things were due to His ministers, who themselves, too, required nothing
superfluous. And thus, when He added the words, "For the workman is
worthy of his meat," He indicated quite clearly, and made it thoroughly
plain, how and for what reason it was that He spake all these things.
It is this kind of power, therefore, that the Lord denoted under the
term "staff," when He said that they should "take nothing" for their
journey, save a staff only. For the sentence might also have been
briefly expressed in this way: "Take with you none of the necessaries
of life, neither a staff, save a staff only." So that the phrase
"neither a staff" may be taken to be equivalent to "not even the
smallest things;" while the addition, "save a staff only," may be
understood to mean that, in virtue of that power which they received
from the Lord, and which was signified by the name "staff" [or, "rod"],
even those things which were not carried with them would not be wanting
to them. Our Lord therefore used both phrases. But inasmuch as one and
the same evangelist has not recorded them both, the writer who has told
us that the rod, as introduced in the one sense, was to be taken, is
supposed to be in antagonism to him who has told us that the rod, as
occurring again in the other sense, was not to be taken. After this
explanation of the matter, however, no such supposition ought to be
entertained.
75. In like manner, also, when Matthew tells us that the shoes were not
to be carried with them on the journey, what is intended is the
checking of that care which thinks that such things must be carried
with them, because otherwise they might be unprovided. Thus, too, the
import of what is said regarding the two coats is, that none of them
should think of taking with him another coat in addition to the one in
which he was clad, as if he was afraid that he might come to be in
want, while all the time the power (which was received from the Lord)
made him sure of getting what was needful. To the same effect, when
Mark says that they were to be shod with sandals or soles, he gives us
to understand that this matter of the shoe has some sort of mystical
significance, the point being that the foot is to be neither covered,
nor yet left bare to the ground; by which the idea may be conveyed that
the gospel was neither to be concealed, nor yet made to depend on the
good things of earth. And as to the fact that what is forbidden is
neither the carrying nor the possessing of two coats, but more
distinctly the putting of them on,--the words being, "and not put on
two coats,"--what counsel is conveyed to them therein but this, that
they ought to walk not in duplicity, but in simplicity?
76. Thus it is not by any means to be made a matter of doubt that the
Lord Himself spake all these words, some of them with a literal import,
and others of them with a figurative, although the evangelists may have
introduced them only in part into their writings,--one inserting one
section, and another giving a different portion. Certain passages, at
the same time, have been recorded in identical terms either by some two
of them, or by some three, or even by all the four together. And yet
not even when this is the case can we take it for granted that
everything has been committed to writing which was either uttered or
done by Him. Moreover, if any one fancies that the Lord could not in
the course of the same discourse have used some expressions with a
figurative application and others with a literal, let him but examine
His other addresses, and he will see how rash and inconsiderate such a
notion is. For, then (to mention but a single instance which occurs
meantime to my mind), when Christ gives the counsel not to let the left
hand know what the right hand doeth, [990] he may suppose himself under
the necessity of accepting in the same figurative sense at once the
almsgivings themselves referred to, and the other instructions offered
on that occasion.
77. In good truth, I must repeat here once more an admonition which it
behoves the reader to keep in mind, so as not to be requiring that kind
of advice so very frequently, namely, that in various passages of His
discourses, the Lord has reiterated much which He had uttered already
on other occasions. It is needful, indeed, to call this fact to mind,
lest, when it happens that the order of such passages does not appear
to fit in with the narrative of another of the evangelists, the reader
should fancy that this establishes some contradiction between them;
whereas he ought really to understand it to be due to the fact that
something is repeated a second time in that connection which had been
already expressed elsewhere. And this is a remark that should be held
applicable not only to His words, but also to His deeds. For there is
nothing to hinder us from believing that the same thing may have taken
place more than once. But for a man to impeach the gospel simply
because he does not believe in the repeated occurrence of some
incident, which no one [at least] can prove to be an impossible event,
betrays mere sacrilegious vanity.
__________________________________________________________________
[961] Regnum evangelii.
[962] Vexati et jacentes.
[963] The mss. read ejicias: some editions have mittat, send.
[964] Matt. ix. 35-x. 42.
[965] In circuitu docens.
[966] Mark vi. 6-11.
[967] Virtutes.
[968] Matt. xiii. 54.
[969] Luke ix. 1-6.
[970] The Ratisbon edition and nineteen mss. read alio nomine, by
another name instead of alio loco.--Migne.
[971] In five mss. Lebdaeum, Lebdeus, is given instead of Lebbeus, but
wrongly, as appears from the Greek text of Matt. x. 3.--Migne. [The
Vulgate (Matt x. 3) reads Thaddaeus, now accepted by critical editors;
so Revised Version. The Authorized Version follows a composite reading
(with two early uncials and Syriac versions): "Lebbaeus, whose surname
was Thaddaeus." A harmonistic gloss--R.]
[972] Mark vi. 8. [In Matt. x. 10, Luke ix. 3, the later authorities
substitute the plural "staves," probably to avoid the seeming
discrepancy. The better sustained reading in both passages is
"staff."--R.]
[973] Jas. i. 13.
[974] Deut. xiii. 3.
[975] Judicii. John v. 29.
[976] Discerne.
[977] Ps. xliii. 1.
[978] Pueri.
[979] Parvuli estote ut sensibus perfecti sitis. 1 Cor. xiv. 20.
[980] 1 Cor. iii. 18.
[981] Gal. vi. 2-5.
[982] [Augustin fails to notice that the word "burden" represents
different Greek words in Gal. vi. 2-5. His argument here resembles the
method of modern expositors who explain the discrepancies of the
Authorized Version without consulting the original.--R.]
[983] 1 Cor. iv. 21.
[984] 1 Cor. ix. 7.
[985] 1 Cor. ix. 11, 12.
[986] 1 Thess. ii. 9.
[987] In templo operantur.
[988] 1 Cor. ix. 13-15.
[989] [Ut securi non possiderent.--R.]
[990] Matt. vi. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXI.--Of the Account Given by Matthew and Luke of the Occasion
When John the Baptist Was in Prison, and Despatched His Disciples on a
Mission to the Lord.
78. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And it
came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding His twelve
disciples, He departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
Now, when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two
of his disciples, and said unto Him, Art thou He that should come, or
do we look for another?" and so on, until we come to the words, "And
Wisdom is justified of her children." [991] This whole section relating
to John the Baptist, touching the message which he sent to Jesus, and
the tenor of the reply which those whom he despatched received, and the
terms in which the Lord spoke of John after the departure of these
persons, is introduced also by Luke. [992] The order, however, is not
the same. But it is not made clear which of them gives the order of his
own recollections, and which keeps by the historical succession of the
things themselves. [993]
__________________________________________________________________
[991] Matt. xi. 1-19.
[992] Luke vii. 18-35.
[993] [The order of Luke seems to be more exact. Matt. xii., xiii, must
be distributed through an earlier part of the history.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXII.--Of the Occasion on Which He Upbraided the Cities
Because They Repented Not, Which Incident is Recorded by Luke as Well
as by Matthew; And of the Question Regarding Matthew's Harmony with
Luke in the Matter of the Order.
79. Thereafter Matthew goes on as follows: "Then began He to upbraid
the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they
repented not;" and so on, down to where we read, "It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom at the day of judgment, than for you."
[994] This section likewise is given by Luke, who reports it also as an
utterence from the lips of the Lord in connection with a certain
continuous discourse which He delivered. This circumstance makes it the
rather appear that Luke has recorded these words in the strict
consecution in which they were spoken by the Lord, while Matthew has
kept by the order of his own recollections. Or if it is supposed that
Matthew's words, "Then began He to upbraid the cities," must be taken
in such a way as to imply that the intention was to express, by the
term "then," the precise point of time at which the saying was uttered,
and not to signify in a somewhat broader way the period at which many
of these things were done and spoken, then I say that any one
entertaining that idea may equally well believe these sentences to have
been pronounced on two different occasions. For if it is the fact that
even in one and the same evangelist some things are found which the
Lord utters twice over, as is the case with this very Luke in the
instance of the counsel not to take a scrip for the journey, and so
with other things in like manner which we find to have been spoken by
the Lord in two different places, [995] --why should it seem strange if
some other word of the Lord, which was originally uttered on two
separate occasions, may happen also to be recorded by two several
evangelists, each of whom gives it in the order in which it was
actually spoken, and if thus the order seems to be different in the
two, simply because the sentences were uttered both on the occasion
noticed by the one, and on that referred to by the other?
__________________________________________________________________
[994] Matt. xi. 20-24.
[995] Luke ix. 3, x. 4. [The view of Augustin is now generally
accepted. The occasions when the sayings were uttered are distinguished
in the accounts of Matthew and Luke --R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIII.--Of the Occasion on Which He Calls Them to Take His
Yoke and Burden Upon Them, and of the Question as to the Absence of Any
Discrepancy Between Matthew and Luke in the Order of Narration.
80. Matthew proceeds thus: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I
make my acknowledgment to Thee, [996] O Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent," and
so on, down to where we read, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light." [997] This passage is also noticed by Luke, but only in part.
For he does not give us the words, "Come unto me, all ye that labour,"
and the rest. It is, however, quite legitimate to suppose that all this
may have been said on one occasion by the Lord, and yet that Luke has
not recorded the whole of what was said on that occasion. For Matthew's
phrase is, that "at that time Jesus answered and said;" by which is
meant the time after His upbraiding of the cities. Luke, on the other
hand, interposes some matters, although they are not many, after that
upbraiding of the cities; and then he subjoins this sentence: "In that
hour He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, [998] and said." [999] Thus, too,
we see that even if Matthew's expression had been, not "at that time,"
but "in that very hour," still what Luke inserts in the interval is so
little that it would not appear an unreasonable thing to give it as all
spoken in the same hour.
__________________________________________________________________
[996] Confiteor tibi. [Comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[997] Matt. xi. 25-30.
[998] Spiritu sancto.
[999] Luke x. 21.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIV.--Of the Passage in Which It is Said that the Disciples
Plucked the Ears of Corn and Ate Them; And of the Question as to How
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in Harmony with Each Other with Respect to
the Order of Narration There.
81. Matthew continues his history in the following terms: "At that time
Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn; and His disciples were
an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat;" and so
forth, on to the words, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the
Sabbath-day." [1000] This is also given both by Mark and by Luke, in a
way precluding any idea of antagonism. [1001] At the same time, these
latter do not employ the definition "at that time." That fact,
consequently, may perhaps make it the more probable that Matthew has
retained the order of actual occurrence here, and that the others have
kept by the order of their own recollections; unless, indeed, this
phrase "at that time" is to be taken in a broader sense, that is to
say, as indicating the period at which these many and various incidents
took place. [1002]
__________________________________________________________________
[1000] Matt. xii. 1-8.
[1001] Mark ii. 23-28; Luke vi. 1-5.
[1002] [Clearly the Sabbath controversies must be placed before the
Sermon on the Mount, as indicated by the order of Mark and Luke.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXV.--Of the Man with the Withered Hand, Who Was Restored on
the Sabbath-Day; And of the Question as to How Matthew's Narrative of
This Incident Can Be Harmonized with Those of Mark and Luke, Either in
the Matter of the Order of Events, or in the Report of the Words Spoken
by the Lord and by the Jews.
82. Matthew continues his account thus: "And when He was departed
thence, He went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man
which had his hand withered;" and so on, down to the words, "And it was
restored whole, like as the other." [1003] The restoring of this man
who had the withered hand is also not passed over in silence by Mark
and Luke. [1004] Now, the circumstance that this day is also designated
a Sabbath might possibly lead us to suppose that both the plucking of
the ears of corn and the healing of this man took place on the same
day, were it not that Luke has made it plain that it was on a different
Sabbath that the cure of the withered hand was wrought. Accordingly,
when Matthew says, "And when He was departed thence, He came into their
synagogue," the words do indeed import that the said coming did not
take place until after He had departed from the previously mentioned
locality; but, at the same time, they leave the question undecided as
to the number of days which may have elapsed between His passing from
the aforesaid corn-field and His coming into their synagogue; and they
express nothing as to His going there in direct and immediate
succession. And thus space is offered us for getting in the narrative
of Luke, who tells us that it was on another Sabbath that this man's
hand was restored. But it is possible that a difficulty may be felt in
the circumstance that Matthew has told us how the people put this
question to the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day?"
wishing thereby to find an occasion for accusing Him; and that in reply
He set before them the parable of the sheep in these terms: "What man
shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into
a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out?
How much, then, is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to
do well on the Sabbath-days;" [1005] whereas Mark and Luke rather
represent the people to have had this question put to them by the Lord,
"Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day, or to do evil? to save
life, or to kill?" [1006] We solve this difficulty, however, by the
supposition that the people in the first instance asked the Lord, "Is
it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day?" that thereupon, knowing the
thoughts of the men who were thus seeking an occasion for accusing Him,
He set the man whom He had been on the point of healing in their midst,
and addressed to them the interrogations which Mark and Luke mention to
have been put; that, as they remained silent, He next put before them
the parable of the sheep, and drew the conclusion that it was lawful to
do good on the Sabbath-day; and that, finally, when He had looked round
about on them with anger, as Mark tells us, being grieved for the
hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, "Stretch forth thine
hand."
__________________________________________________________________
[1003] Matt. xii. 9-13.
[1004] Mark iii. 1-5; Luke vi. 6-10.
[1005] Matt. xii. 10-12.
[1006] Mark iii. 4; Luke vi. 9.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVI.--Of Another Question Which Demands Our Consideration,
Namely, Whether, in Passing from the Account of the Man Whose Withered
Hand Was Restored, These Three Evangelists Proceed to Their Next
Subjects in Such a Way as to Create No Contradictions in Regard to the
Order of Their Narrations.
83. Matthew continues his narrative, connecting it in the following
manner with what precedes: "But the Pharisees went out and held a
council against Him, how they might destroy Him. But when Jesus knew
it, He withdrew Himself from thence: and great multitudes followed Him,
and He healed them all; and charged them that they should not make Him
known: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet
Esaias, saying;" and so forth, down to where it is said, "And in His
name shall the Gentiles trust." [1007] He is the only one that records
these facts. The other two have advanced to other themes. Mark, it is
true, seems to some extent to have kept by the historical order: for he
tells us how Jesus, on discovering the malignant disposition which was
entertained toward Him by the Jews, withdrew to the sea along with His
disciples, and that then vast multitudes flocked to Him, and He healed
great numbers of them. [1008] But, at the same time, it is not quite
clear at what precise point He begins to pass to a new subject,
different from what would have followed in strict succession. He leaves
it uncertain whether such a transition is made at the point where he
tells us how the multitudes gathered about Him (for if that was the
case now, it might equally well have been the case at some other time),
or at the point where He says that "He goeth up into a mountain." It is
this latter circumstance that Luke also appears to notice when he says,
"And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to
pray." [1009] For by the expression "in those days," he makes it plain
enough that the incident referred to did not occur in immediate
succession upon what precedes. [1010]
__________________________________________________________________
[1007] Matt. xii. 14-21. [Sperabunt, "hope," as in Revised
Version.--R.]
[1008] Mark iii. 7-12.
[1009] Luke vi. 12.
[1010] [The Sermon on the Mount was delivered during the withdrawal
here referred to.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVII.--Of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew
and Luke Regarding the Dumb and Blind Man Who Was Possessed with a
Devil.
84. Matthew then goes on with his recital in the following fashion:
"Then was brought unto Him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb;
and He healed him, insomuch that he both spake and saw." [1011] Luke
introduces this narrative, not in the same order, but after a number of
other matters. He also speaks of the man only as dumb, and not as blind
in addition. [1012] But it is not to be inferred, from the mere
circumstance of his silence as to some portion or other of the account,
that he speaks of an entirely different person. For he has likewise
recorded what followed [immediately after that cure], as it stands also
in Matthew.
__________________________________________________________________
[1011] Matt. xii. 22.
[1012] Luke xi. 14.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVIII.--Of the Occasion on Which It Was Said to Him that He
Cast Out Devils in the Power of Beelzebub, and of the Declarations
Drawn Forth from Him by that Circumstance in Regard to the Blasphemy
Against the Holy Spirit, and with Respect to the Two Trees; And of the
Question Whether There is Not Some Discrepancy in These Sections
Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists, and Particularly Between
Matthew and Luke.
85. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And
all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But
when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out
devils but in Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their
thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself
shall be brought to desolation;" and so on, down to the words, "By thy
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned." [1013] Mark does not bring in this allegation against
Jesus, that He cast out devils in [the power of] Beelzebub, in
immediate sequence on the story of the dumb man; but after certain
other matters, recorded by himself alone, he introduces this incident
also, either because he recalled it to mind in a different connection,
and so appended it there, or because he had at first made certain
omissions in his history, and after noticing these, took up this order
of narration again. [1014] On the other hand, Luke gives an account of
these things almost in the same language as Matthew has employed.
[1015] And the circumstance that Luke here designates the Spirit of God
as the finger of God, does not betray any departure from a genuine
identity in sense; but it rather teaches us an additional lesson,
giving us to know in what manner we are to interpret the phrase "the
finger of God" wherever it occurs in the Scriptures. Moreover, with
regard to other matters which are left unmentioned in this section both
by Mark and by Luke, no difficulty can be raised by these. Neither can
that be the case with some other circumstances which are related by
them in somewhat different terms, for the sense still remains the same.
__________________________________________________________________
[1013] Matt. xii. 23-37.
[1014] Mark iii. 22-30.
[1015] Luke xi. 14-26.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIX.--Of the Question as to the Manner of Matthew's Agreement
with Luke in the Accounts Which are Given of the Lord's Reply to
Certain Persons Who Sought a Sign, When He Spoke of Jonas the Prophet,
and of the Ninevites, and of the Queen of the South, and of the Unclean
Spirit Which, When It Has Gone Out of the Man, Returns and Finds the
House Garnished.
86. Matthew goes on and relates what followed thus: "Then certain of
the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see
a sign of thee;" and so on, down to where we read, "Even so shall it be
also unto this wicked generation." [1016] These words are recorded also
by Luke in this connection, although in a somewhat different order.
[1017] For he has mentioned the fact that they sought of the Lord a
sign from heaven at an earlier point in his narrative, which makes it
follow immediately on his version of the miracle wrought on the dumb
man. He has not, however, recorded there the reply which was given to
them by the Lord. But further on, after [telling us how] the people
were gathered together, he states that this answer was returned to the
persons who, as he gives us to understand, were mentioned by him in
those earlier verses as seeking of Him a sign from heaven. And that
reply he also subjoins, only after introducing the passage regarding
the woman who said to the Lord, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee."
[1018] This notice of the woman, moreover, he inserts after relating
the Lord's discourse concerning the unclean spirit that goes out of the
man, and then returns and finds the house garnished. In this way, then,
after the notice of the woman, and after his statement of the reply
which was made to the multitudes on the subject of the sign which they
sought from heaven, he brings in the similitude of the prophet Jonas;
and then, directly continuing the Lord's discourse, he next instances
what was said concerning the Queen of the South and the Ninevites. Thus
he has rather related something which Matthew has passed over in
silence, than omitted any of the facts which that evangelist has
narrated in this place. And furthermore, who can fail to perceive that
the question as to the precise order in which these words were uttered
by the Lord is a superfluous one? For this lesson also we ought to
learn, on the unimpeachable authority of the evangelists,--namely, that
no offence against truth need be supposed on the part of a writer,
although he may not reproduce the discourse of some speaker in the
precise order in which the person from whose lips it proceeded might
have given it; the fact being, that the mere item of the order, whether
it be this or that, does not affect the subject-matter itself. And by
his present version Luke indicates that this discourse of the Lord was
of greater length than we might otherwise have supposed; and he records
certain topics handled in it, which resemble those which are mentioned
by Matthew in his recital of the sermon which was delivered on the
mount. [1019] So that we take these words to have been spoken twice
over, to wit, on that previous occasion, and again on this one. But on
the conclusion of this discourse Luke proceeds to another subject, as
to which it is uncertain whether, in the account which he gives of it,
he has kept by the order of actual occurrence. For he connects it in
this way: "And as He spake, a certain Pharisee besought Him to dine
with him." [1020] He does not say, however, "as He spake these words,"
but only "as He spake." For if he had said, "as He spake these words,"
the expression would of course have compelled us to suppose that the
incidents referred to, besides being recorded by him in this order,
also took place on the Lord's part in that same order.
__________________________________________________________________
[1016] Matt. xii. 38.
[1017] Luke xi. 16-37.
[1018] Luke xi. 27.
[1019] Matt. v.-vii.
[1020] Luke xi. 37.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XL.--Of the Question as to Whether There is Any Discrepancy
Between Matthew on the One Hand, and Mark and Luke on the Other, in
Regard to the Order in Which the Notice is Given of the Occasion on
Which His Mother and His Brethren Were Announced to Him.
87. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms:
"While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren
stood without, desiring to speak to Him;" and so on, down to the words,
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the
same is my brother, and sister, and mother." [1021] Without doubt, we
ought to understand this to have occurred in immediate sequence on the
preceding incidents. For he has prefaced his transition to this
narrative by the words, "While He yet talked to the people;" and what
does this term "yet" refer to, but to the very matter of which He was
speaking on that occasion? For the expression is not, "When He talked
to the people, Behold, His mother and His brethren;" but, "While He was
yet speaking," etc. And that phraseology compels us to suppose that it
was at the very time when He was still engaged in speaking of those
things which were mentioned immediately above. For Mark has also
related what our Lord said after His declaration on the subject of the
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He gives it thus: "And there came
His mother and His brethren," [1022] omitting certain matters which
meet us in the context connected with that discourse of the Lord, and
which Matthew has introduced there with greater fulness than Mark, and
Luke, again, with greater fulness than Matthew. On the other hand, Luke
has not kept the historical order in the report which he offers of this
incident, but has given it by anticipation, and has narrated it as he
recalled it to memory, at a point antecedent to the date of its literal
occurrence. But furthermore, he has brought it in in such a manner that
it appears dissociated from any close connection either with what
precedes it or with what follows it. For, after reporting certain of
the Lord's parables, he has introduced his notice of what took place
with His mother and His brethren in the following manner: "Then came to
Him His mother and His brethren, and could not come at Him for the
press." [1023] Thus he has not explained at what precise time it was
that they came to Him. And again, when he passes off from this subject,
he proceeds in these terms: "Now it came to pass on one of the days,
that He went into a ship with His disciples." [1024] And certainly,
when he employs this expression, "it came to pass on one of the days,"
he indicates clearly enough that we are under no necessity of supposing
that the day meant was the very day on which this incident took place,
or the one following in immediate succession. Consequently, neither in
the matter of the Lord's words, nor in that of the historical order of
the occurrences related, does Matthew's account of the incident which
occurred in connection with the mother and the brethren of the Lord,
exhibit any want of harmony with the versions given of the same by the
other two evangelists.
__________________________________________________________________
[1021] Matt. xii. 46-50.
[1022] Mark iii. 31-35.
[1023] Luke viii. 19.
[1024] Luke viii. 22.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLI.--Of the Words Which Were Spoken Out of the Ship on the
Subject of the Sower, Whose Seed, as He Sowed It, Fell Partly on the
Wayside, Etc.; And Concerning the Man Who Had Tares Sowed Over and
Above His Wheat; And Concerning the Grain of Mustard Seed and the
Leaven; As Also of What He Said in the House Regarding the Treasure Hid
in the Field, and the Pearl, and the Net Cast into the Sea, and the Man
that Brings Out of His Treasure Things New and Old; And of the Method
in Which Matthew's Harmony with Mark and Luke is Proved Both with
Respect to the Things Which They Have Reported in Common with Him, and
in the Matter of the Order of Narration.
88. Matthew continues thus: "In that day went Jesus out of the house,
and sat by the seaside: and great multitudes were gathered together
unto Him, so that He went into a ship and sat, and the whole multitude
stood on the shore. And He spake many things unto them in parables,
saying;" and so on, down to the words, "Therefore every scribe which is
instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an
householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and
old." [1025] That the things narrated in this passage took place
immediately after the incident touching the mother and the brethren of
the Lord, and that Matthew has also retained that historical order in
his version of these events, is indicated by the circumstance that, in
passing from the one subject to the other, he has expressed the
connection by this mode of speech: "In that day went Jesus out of the
house, and sat by the sea-side; and great multitudes were gathered
together unto Him." For by adopting this phrase, "in that day" (unless
perchance the word "day," in accordance with a use and wont of the
Scriptures, may signify simply "time"), he intimates clearly enough
either that the thing now related took place in immediate succession on
what precedes, or that much at least could not have intervened. This
inference is confirmed by the fact that Mark keeps by the same order.
[1026] Luke, on the other hand, after his account of what happened with
the mother and the brethren of the Lord, passes to a different subject.
But at the same time, in making that transition, he does not institute
any such connection as bears the appearance of a want of consistency
with this order. [1027] Consequently, in all those passages in which
Mark and Luke have reported in common with Matthew the words which were
spoken by the Lord, there is no questioning their harmony with one
another. Moreover, the sections which are given by Matthew only are
even much more beyond the range of controversy. And in the matter of
the order of narration, although it is presented somewhat differently
by the various evangelists, according as they have proceeded severally
along the line of historical succession, or along that of the
succession of recollection, I see as little reason for alleging any
discrepancy of statement or any contradiction between any of the
writers. [1028]
__________________________________________________________________
[1025] Matt. xiii. 1-52.
[1026] Mark iv. 1-34.
[1027] Luke viii. 22.
[1028] [The discourse in parables must be placed before the voyage to
the country of the Gadarenes; comp. Mark iv. 36, and Augustin remark in
S: 89.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLII.--Of His Coming into His Own Country, and of the
Astonishment of the People at His Doctrine, as They Looked with
Contempt Upon His Lineage; Of Matthew's Harmony with Mark and Luke in
This Section; And in Particular, of the Question Whether the Order of
Narration Which is Presented by the First of These Evangelists Does Not
Exhibit Some Want of Consistency with that of the Other Two.
89. Matthew thence proceeds as follows: "And it came to pass that, when
Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence: and when He was
come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogues;" [1029]
and so on, down to the words, "And He did not many mighty works there
because of their unbelief." [1030] Thus he passes from the above
discourse containing the parables, on to this passage, in such a way as
not to make it absolutely necessary for us to take the one to have
followed in immediate historical succession upon the other. All the
more may we suppose this to be the case, when we see how Mark passes on
from these parables to a subject which is not identical with Matthew's
directly succeeding theme, but quite different from that, and agreeing
rather with what Luke introduces; and how he has constructed his
narrative in such a manner as to make the balance of credibility rest
on the side of the supposition, that what followed in immediate
historical sequence was rather the occurrences which these two latter
evangelists both insert in near connection [with the
parables],--namely, the incidents of the ship in which Jesus was
asleep, and the miracle performed in the expulsion of the devils in the
country of the Gerasenes, [1031] --two events which Matthew has already
recalled and introduced at an earlier stage of his record. [1032] At
present, therefore, we have to consider whether [Matthew's report of]
what the Lord spoke, and what was said to Him in His own country, is in
concord with the accounts given by the other two, namely, Mark and
Luke. For, in widely different and dissimilar sections of his history,
John mentions words, either spoken to the Lord or spoken by Him, [1033]
which resemble those recorded in this passage by the other three
evangelists.
90. Now Mark, indeed, gives this passage in terms almost precisely
identical with those which meet us in Matthew; with the one exception,
that what he says the Lord was called by His fellow-townsmen is, "the
carpenter, and the son of Mary," [1034] and not, as Matthew tells us,
the "carpenter's son." Neither is there anything to marvel at in this,
since He might quite fairly have have been designated by both these
names. For in taking Him to be the son of a carpenter, they naturally
also took Him to be a carpenter. Luke, on the other hand, sets forth
the same incident on a wider scale, and records a variety of other
matters which took place in that connection. And this account he brings
in at a point not long subsequent to His baptism and temptation, thus
unquestionably introducing by anticipation what really happened only
after the occurrence of a number of intervening circumstances. In this,
therefore, every one may see an illustration of a principle of prime
consequence in relation to this most weighty question concerning the
harmony of the evangelists, which we have undertaken to solve by the
help of God,--the principle, namely, that it is not by mere ignorance
that these writers have been led to make certain omissions, and that it
is as little through simple ignorance of the actual historical order of
events that they have [at times] preferred to keep by the order in
which these events were recalled to their own memory. The correctness
of this principle may be gathered most clearly from the fact that, at a
point antecedent to any account given by him of anything done by the
Lord at Capharnaum, Luke has anticipated the literal date, and has
inserted this passage which we have at present under consideration, and
in which we are told how His fellow-citizens at once were astonished at
the might of the authority which was in Him, and expressed their
contempt for the meanness of His family. For he tells us that He
addressed them in these terms: "Ye will surely say unto me, Physician,
heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capharnaum, do also here
in thy country;" [1035] while, so far as the narrative of this same
Luke is concerned, we have not yet read of Him as having done anything
at Capharnaum. Furthermore, as it will not take up much time, and as,
besides, it is both a very simple and a highly needful matter to do so,
we insert here the whole context, showing the subject from which and
the method in which the writer has come to give the contents of this
section. After his statement regarding the Lord's baptism and
temptation, he proceeds in these terms: "And when the devil had ended
all the temptation, he departed from Him for a season. And Jesus
returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a
fame of Him through all the region round about. And He taught in their
synagogues, and was magnified of all. And He came to Nazareth, where He
had been brought up: and, as his custom was, He went into the synagogue
on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered
unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias: and when He had opened the
book, He found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me, because He hath anointed me. He hath sent me to preach the
gospel to the poor, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and sight
to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the
accepted year of the Lord, and the day of retribution. And when He had
closed the book, He gave it again to the minister, and sat down: and
the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him.
And He began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in
your ears. And all bare Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words
which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's
son? And He said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb,
Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capharnaum,
do also here in thy country." [1036] And so he continues with the rest,
until this entire section in his narrative is gone over. What,
therefore, can be more manifest, than that he has knowingly introduced
this notice at a point antecedent to its historical date, seeing it
admits of no question that he knows and refers to certain mighty deeds
done by Him before this period in Capharnaum, which, at the same time,
he is aware he has not as yet narrated in detail? For certainly he has
not made such an advance with his history from his notice of the Lord's
baptism, as that he should be supposed to have forgotten the fact that
up to this point he has not mentioned any of the things which took
place in Capharnaum; the truth being, that he has just begun here,
after the baptism, to give us his narrative concerning the Lord
personally. [1037]
__________________________________________________________________
[1029] Three mss., however, give in synagoga eorum--in their
synagogue--as in our version.
[1030] Matt. xiii. 53-58.
[1031] Mark iv. 35, v. 17; Luke viii. 22-37. [On the variations in the
name, see critical editions of Greek text. Comp. Revised Version. The
Latin versions generally read "Gerasenes" in all three accounts.--R.]
[1032] Matt. viii. 23-34.
[1033] John vi. 42.
[1034] Mark vi. 1-6.
[1035] Luke iv. 23.
[1036] Luke iv. 13-23.
[1037] [The question of the identity of the visits to Nazareth is still
an open one. But there are some points ignored by Augustin which
indicate that Luke refers to an earlier visit.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLIII.--Of the Mutual Consistency of the Accounts Which are
Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke of What Was Said by Herod on Hearing
About the Wonderful Works of the Lord, and of Their Concord in Regard
to the Order of Narration.
91. Matthew continues: "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the
fame of Jesus, and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist: he
is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do show forth
themselves in him." [1038] Mark gives the same passage, and in the same
manner, but not in the same order. [1039] For, after relating how the
Lord sent forth the disciples with the charge to take nothing with them
on the journey save a staff only, and after bringing to its close so
much of the discourse which was then delivered as has been recorded by
him, he has subjoined this section. He does not, however, connect it in
such a way as to compel us to suppose that what it narrates took place
actually in immediate sequence on what precedes it in the history. And
in this, indeed, Matthew is at one with him. For Matthew's expression
is, "at that time," not "on that day," or "at that hour." Only there is
this difference between them, that Mark refers not to Herod himself as
the utterer of the words in question, but to the people, his statement
being this: "They said [1040] that John the Baptist was risen from the
dead;" whereas Matthew makes Herod himself the speaker, the phrase
being: "He said unto his servants." Luke, again, keeping the same order
of narration as Mark, and introducing it also indeed, like Mark, in no
such way as to compel us to suppose that his order must have been the
order of actual occurrence, presents his version of the same passage in
the following terms: "Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by
Him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John
was risen from the dead; and of some, that Elias had appeared; and of
others, that one of the old prophets was risen again. And Herod said,
John have I beheaded: but who is this of whom I hear such things? And
he desired to see Him." [1041] In these words Luke also attests Mark's
statement, at least, so far as concerns the affirmation that it was not
Herod himself, but other parties, who said that John was risen from the
dead. But as regards his mentioning how Herod was perplexed, and his
bringing in thereafter those words of the same prince: "John have I
beheaded: but who is this of whom I hear such things?" we must either
understand that after the said perplexity he became persuaded in his
own mind of the truth of what was asserted by others, when he spoke to
his servants, in accordance with the version given by Matthew, which
runs thus: "And he said to his servants, This is John the Baptist: he
is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do show forth
themselves in him;" or we must suppose that these words were uttered in
a manner betraying that he was still in a state of perplexity. For had
he said, "Can this be John the Baptist?" or, "Can it chance that this
is John the Baptist?" there would have been no need of saying anything
about a mode of utterance by which he might have revealed his dubiety
and perplexity. But seeing that these forms of expression are not
before us, his words may be taken to have been pronounced in either of
two ways: so that we may either suppose him to have been convinced by
what was said by others, and so to have spoken the words in question
with a real belief [in John's reappearance]; or we may imagine him to
have been still in that state of hesitancy of which mention is made by
Luke. Our explanation is favoured by the fact that Mark, who had
already told us how it was by others that the statement was made as to
John having risen from the dead, does not fail to let us know also that
in the end Herod himself spoke to this effect: "It is John whom I
beheaded: he is risen from the dead." [1042] For these words may also
be taken to have been pronounced in either of two ways,--namely, as the
utterances either of one corroborating a fact, or of one in doubt.
Moreover, while Luke passes on to a new subject after the notice which
he gives of this incident, those other two, Matthew and Mark, take
occasion to tell us at this point in what way John was put to death by
Herod.
__________________________________________________________________
[1038] Matt. xiv. 1, 2.
[1039] Mark vi. 14-16.
[1040] Dicebant; so that the reading elegon is followed instead of
elegen in Mark vi. 14. [Westcott and Hort give the plural in their
text, following the Vatican codex and some other authorities.--R.]
[1041] Luke ix. 7-9.
[1042] [Augustin gives the reading followed in the Revised Version
("John whom I beheaded, he is risen"). The translator gives the words
of the Authorized Version.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLIV.--Of the Order in Which the Accounts of John's
Imprisonment and Death are Given by These Three Evangelists.
92. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms:
"For Herod laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for
Herodias' sake, his brother's wife;" and so on, down to the words, "And
his disciples came and took up the body, and buried it, and went and
told Jesus." [1043] Mark gives this narrative in similar terms. [1044]
Luke, on the other hand, does not relate it in the same succession, but
introduces it in connection with his statement of the baptism wherewith
the Lord was baptized. Hence we are to understand him to have acted by
anticipation here, and to have taken the opportunity of recording at
this point an event which took place actually a considerable period
later. For he has first reported those words which John spake with
regard to the Lord--namely, that "His fan is in His hand, and that He
will thoroughly purge His floor, and will gather the wheat into His
garner; but the chaff He will burn up with fire unquenchable;" and
immediately thereafter he has appended his statement of an incident
which the evangelist John demonstrates not to have taken place in
direct historical sequence. For this latter writer mentions that, after
Jesus had been baptized, He went into Galilee at the period when He
turned the water into wine; and that, after a sojourn of a few days in
Capharnaum, He left that district and returned to the land of Judaea,
and there baptized a multitude about the Jordan, previous to the time
when John was imprisoned. [1045] Now what reader, unless he were all
the better versed [1046] in these writings, would not take it to be
implied here that it was after the utterance of the words with regard
to the fan and the purged floor that Herod became incensed against
John, and cast him into prison? Yet, that the incident referred to here
did not, as matter of fact, occur in the order in which it is here
recorded, we have already shown elsewhere; and, indeed, Luke himself
puts the proof into our hands. [1047] For if [he had meant that] John's
incarceration took place immediately after the utterance of those
words, then what are we to make of the fact that in Luke's own
narrative the baptism of Jesus is introduced subsequently to his notice
of the imprisonment of John? Consequently it is manifest that,
recalling the circumstance in connection with the present occasion, he
has brought it in here by anticipation, and has thus inserted it in his
history at a point antecedent to a number of incidents, of which it was
his purpose to leave us some record, and which, in point of time, were
antecedent to this mishap that befell John. But it is as little the
case that the other two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, have placed the
fact of John's imprisonment in that position in their narratives which,
as is apparent also from their own writings, belonged to it in the
actual order of events. For they, too, have told us how it was on
John's being cast into prison that the Lord went into Galilee; [1048]
and then, after [relating] a number of things which He did in Galilee,
they come to Herod's admonition or doubt as to the rising again from
the dead of that John whom he beheaded; [1049] and in connection with
this latter occasion, they give us the story of all that occurred in
the matter of John's incarceration and death.
__________________________________________________________________
[1043] Matt. xiv. 3-12.
[1044] Mark vi. 17-29.
[1045] John ii. 1, 12, iii. 22-24.
[1046] The reading in the mss. and in Migne's text is, quis autem non
putet qui minus in his litteris eruditus est; for which some give, quis
autem non putet nisi qui minus, etc.
[1047] Luke iii. 15-21.
[1048] Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14.
[1049] Matt. xiv. 1, 2; Mark vi. 14-16.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLV.--Of the Order and the Method in Which All the Four
Evangelists Come to the Narration of the Miracle of the Five Loaves.
93. After stating how the report of John's death was brought to Christ,
Matthew continues his account, and introduces it in the following
connection: "When Jesus heard of it, He departed thence by ship into a
desert place apart: and when the people had heard thereof, they
followed Him on foot out of the cities. And He went forth, and saw a
great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and He
healed their sick." [1050] He mentions, therefore, that this took place
immediately after John had suffered. Consequently it was after this
that those things took place which have been previously
recorded--namely, the circumstances which alarmed Herod, and induced
him to say, "John have I beheaded." [1051] For it must surely be
understood that these incidents occurred subsequently which report
carried to the ears of Herod, so that he became anxious, and was in
perplexity as to who that person possibly could be of whom he heard
things so remarkable, when he had himself put John to death. Mark,
again, after relating how John suffered, mentions that the disciples
who had been sent forth returned to Jesus, and told Him all that they
had done and taught; and that the Lord (a fact which he alone records)
directed them to rest for a little while in a desert place, and that He
went on board a vessel with them, and departed; and that the crowds of
people, when they perceived that movement, went before them to that
place; and that the Lord had compassion on them, and taught them many
things; and that, when the hour was now advancing, it came to pass that
all who were present were made to eat of the five loaves and the two
fishes. [1052] This miracle has been recorded by all the four
evangelists. For in like manner, Luke, who has given an account of the
death of John at a much earlier stage in his narrative, [1053] in
connection with the occasion of which we have spoken, in the present
context tells us first of Herod's perplexity as to who the Lord could
be, and immediately thereafter appends statements to the same effect
with those in Mark,--namely, that the apostles returned to Him, and
reported to Him all that they had done; and that then He took them with
Him and departed into a desert place, and that the multitudes followed
Him thither, and that He spake to them concerning the kingdom of God,
and restored those who stood in need of healing. Then, too, he mentions
that, when the day was declining, the miracle of the five loaves was
wrought. [1054]
94. But John, again, who differs greatly from those three in this
respect, that he deals more with the discourses which the Lord
delivered than with the works which He so marvellously wrought, after
recording how He left Judaea and departed the second time into Galilee,
which departure is understood to have taken place at the time to which
the other evangelists also refer when they tell us that on John's
imprisonment He went into Galilee,--after recording this, I say, John
inserts in the immediate context of his narrative the considerable
discourse which He spake as He was passing through Samaria, on the
occasion of His meeting with the Samaritan woman whom He found at the
well; and then he states that two days after this He departed thence
and went into Galilee, and that thereupon He came to Cana of Galilee,
where He had turned the water into wine, and that there He healed the
son of a certain nobleman. [1055] But as to other things which the rest
have told us He did and said in Galilee, John is silent. At the same
time, however, he mentions something which the others have left
unnoticed,--namely, the fact that He went up to Jerusalem on the day of
the feast, and there wrought the miracle on the man who had the
infirmity of thirty-eight years standing, and who found no one by whose
help he might be carried down to the pool in which people afflicted
with various diseases were healed. [1056] In connection with this, John
also relates how He spake many things on that occasion. He tells us,
further, that after these events He departed across the sea of Galilee,
which is also the sea of Tiberias, and that a great multitude followed
Him; that thereupon He went away to a mountain, and there sat with His
disciples,--the passover, a feast of the Jews, being then nigh; that
then, on lifting up His eyes and seeing a very great company, He fed
them with the five loaves and the two fishes; [1057] which notice is
given us also by the other evangelists. And this makes it certain that
he has passed by those incidents which form the course along which
these others have come to introduce the notice of this miracle into
their narratives. Nevertheless, while different methods of narration,
as it appears, are prosecuted, and while the first three evangelists
have thus left unnoticed certain matters which the fourth has recorded,
we see how those three, on the one hand, who have been keeping nearly
the same course, have found a direct meeting-point with each other at
this miracle of the five loaves; and how this fourth writer, on the
other hand, who is conversant above all with the profound teachings of
the Lord's discourses, in relating some other matters on which the rest
are silent, has sped round in a certain method upon their track, and,
while about to soar off from their pathway after a brief space again
into the region of loftier subjects, has found a meeting-point with
them in the view of presenting this narrative of the miracle of the
five loaves, which is common to them all.
__________________________________________________________________
[1050] Matt. xiv. 13, 14.
[1051] Luke ix. 9.
[1052] Mark vi. 30-44.
[1053] Luke iii. 20.
[1054] Luke ix. 10-17.
[1055] John iv. 3, 5, 43-54.
[1056] [Augustin here passes over one of the most difficult questions
in connection with the Gospel history. The length of our Lord's
ministry turns upon the feast referred to in John v. If it was
passover, then John refers to four passovers; and our Lord's ministry
extended over three years and a few weeks. If some other feast is
meant, the ministry covered but two years and a few weeks.--R.]
[1057] John v.-vi. 13.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLVI.--Of the Question as to How the Four Evangelists Harmonize
with Each Other on This Same Subject of the Miracle of the Five Loaves.
95. Matthew then proceeds and carries on his narrative in due
consecution to the said incident connected with the five loaves in the
following manner: "And when it was evening, His disciples came to Him,
saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the
multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves
victuals. But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them
to eat;" and so forth, down to where we read, "And the number of those
who ate was five thousand men, besides women and children." [1058] This
miracle, therefore, which all the four evangelists record, [1059] and
in which they are supposed to betray certain discrepancies with each
other, must be examined and subjected to discussion, in order that we
may also learn from this instance some rules which will be applicable
to all other similar cases in the form of principles regulating modes
of statement in which, however diverse they may be, the same sense is
nevertheless retained, and the same veracity in the expression of
matters of fact is preserved. And, indeed, this investigation ought to
begin not with Matthew, although that would be in accordance with the
order in which the evangelists stand, but rather with John, by whom the
narrative in question is told with such particularity as to record even
the names of the disciples with whom the Lord conversed on this
subject. For he gives the history in the following terms: "When Jesus
than lifted up His eyes, and saw a very great company come unto Him, He
saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And
this He said to prove him; for He Himself knew what He would do. Philip
answered Him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for
them, that every one of them may take a little. One of His disciples,
Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto Him, There is a lad here,
which hath five barley loaves, and two fishes; but what are they among
so many? Jesus said therefore, Make the men sit down. Now there was
much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five
thousand. Jesus then took the loaves; and when He had given thanks, He
distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set
down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. And when they
were filled, He said unto His disciples, Gather up the fragments that
remain, that they be not lost. Therefore they gathered them together,
and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves,
which remained over and above unto them that had eaten." [1060]
96. The inquiry which we have here to handle does not concern itself
with a statement given by this evangelist, in which he specifies the
kind of loaves; for he has not omitted to mention, what has been
omitted by the others, that they were barley loaves. Neither does the
question deal with what he has left unnoticed,--namely, the fact that,
in addition to the five thousand men, there were also women and
children, as Matthew tells us. And it ought now by all means to be a
settled matter, and one kept regularly in view in all such
investigations, that no one should find any difficulty in the mere
circumstance that something which is unrecorded by one writer is
related by another. But the question here is as to how the several
matters narrated by these writers may be [shown to be] all true, so
that the one of them, in giving his own peculiar version, does not put
out of court the account offered by the other. For if the Lord,
according to the narrative of John, on seeing the multitudes before
Him, asked Philip,with the view of proving him, whence bread might be
got to be given to them, a difficulty may be raised as to the truth of
the statement which is made by the others,--namely, that the disciples
first said to the Lord that He should send the multitudes away, in
order that they might go and purchase food for themselves in the
neighbouring localities, and that He made this reply to them, according
to Matthew: "They need not depart; give ye them to eat." [1061] With
this last Mark and Luke also agree, only that they leave out the words,
"They need not depart." We are to suppose, therefore, that after these
words the Lord looked at the multitude, and spoke to Philip in the
terms which John records, but which those others have omitted. Then the
reply which, according to John, was made by Philip, is mentioned by
Mark as having been given by the disciples,--the intention being, that
we should understand Philip to have returned this answer as the
mouthpiece of the rest; although they may also have put the plural
number in place of the singular, according to very frequent usage. The
words here actually ascribed to Philip--namely, "Two hundred pennyworth
of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a
little" [1062] --have their counterpart in this version by Mark, "Shall
we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?"
[1063] The expression, again, which the same Mark relates to have been
used by the Lord, namely, "How many loaves have ye?" has been passed by
without notice by the rest. On the other hand, the statement occurring
in John, to the effect that Andrew made the suggestion about the five
loaves and the two fishes, appears in the others, who use here the
plural number instead of the singular, as a notice referring the
suggestion to the disciples generally. And, indeed, Luke has coupled
Philip's reply together with Andrew's answer in one sentence. For when
he says, "We have no more but five loaves and two fishes," he reports
Andrew's response; but when he adds, "except we should go and buy meat
for all this people," he seems to carry us back to Philip's reply, only
that he has left unnoticed the "two hundred pennyworth." At the same
time, that [sentence about the going and buying meat] may also be
understood to be implied in Andrew's own words. For after saying,
"There is a lad here which hath five barley loaves and two fishes," he
likewise subjoined, "But what are they among so many?" And this last
clause really means the same as the expression in question, namely,
"except we should go and buy meat for all this people."
97. From all this variety of statement which is found in connection
with a genuine harmony in regard to the matters of fact and the ideas
conveyed, it becomes sufficiently clear that we have the wholesome
lesson inculcated upon us, that what we have to look to in studying a
person's words is nothing else than the intention of the speakers; in
setting forth which intention all truthful narrators ought to take the
utmost pains when they record anything, whether it may relate to man,
or to angels, or to God. For the subjects' mind and intention admit of
being expressed in words which should leave no appearance of any
discrepancies as regards the matter of fact.
98. In this connection, it is true, we ought not to omit to direct the
reader's attention to certain other matters which may turn out to be of
a kindred nature with those already considered. One of these is found
in the circumstance that Luke has stated that they were ordered to sit
down by fifties, whereas Mark's version is that it was by hundreds and
by fifties. This difference, however, creates no real difficulty. The
truth is, that the one has reported simply a part, and the other has
given the whole. For the evangelist who has introduced the notice of
the hundreds as well as the fifties has just mentioned something which
the other has left unmentioned. But there is no contradiction between
them on that account. If, indeed, the one had noticed only the fifties,
and the other only the hundreds, they might certainly have seemed to be
in some antagonism with each other, and it might not have been easy to
make it plain that both instructions were actually uttered, although
only the one has been specified by the former writer, and the other by
the latter. And yet, even in such a case, who will not acknowledge that
when the matter was subjected to more careful consideration, the
solution should have been discovered? This I have instanced now for
this reason, that matters of that kind do often present themselves,
which, while they really contain no discrepancies, appear to do so to
persons who pay insufficient attention to them, and pronounce upon them
inconsiderately.
__________________________________________________________________
[1058] Matt. xiv. 15-21.
[1059] Mark vi. 34-44; Luke ix. 12-17.
[1060] John vi. 5-13.
[1061] Matt. xiv. 16.
[1062] John vi. 7.
[1063] Mark vi. 37.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLVII.--Of His Walking Upon the Water, and of the Questions
Regarding the Harmony of the Evangelists Who Have Narrated that Scene,
and Regarding the Manner in Which They Pass Off from the Section
Recording the Occasion on Which He Fed the Multitudes with the Five
Loaves.
99. Matthew goes on with his account in the following terms: "And when
He had sent the multitudes away, He went up into a mountain apart to
pray: and when the evening was come, He was there alone. But the ship
was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was
contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night He came unto them,
walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea,
they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit;" and so on, down to the
words, "They came and worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the
Son of God." [1064] In like manner, Mark, after narrating the miracle
of the five loaves, gives his account of this same incident in the
following terms: "And when it was late, the ship was in the midst of
the sea, and He alone on the land. And He saw them toiling in rowing:
for the wind was contrary to them," and so on. [1065] This is similar
to Matthew's version, except that nothing is said as to Peter's walking
upon the waters. But here we must see to it, that no difficulty be
found in what Mark has stated regarding the Lord, namely, that, when He
walked upon the waters, He would also have passed by them. For in what
way could they have understood this, were it not that He was really
proceeding in a different direction from them, as if minded to pass
those persons by like strangers, who were so far from recognizing Him
that they took Him to be a spirit? Who, however, is so obtuse as not to
perceive that this bears a mystical significance? At the same time,
too, He came to the help of the men in their perturbation and outcry,
and said to them, "Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid." What is
the explanation, therefore, of His wish to pass by those persons whom
nevertheless He thus encouraged when they were in terror, but that that
intention to pass them by was made to serve the purpose of drawing
forth those cries to which it was meet to bear succour?
100. Furthermore, John still tarries for a little space with these
others. For, after his recital of the miracle of the five loaves, he
also gives us some account of the vessel that laboured, and of the
Lord's act in walking upon the sea. This notice he connects with his
preceding narrative in the following manner: "When Jesus therefore
perceived that they would come and take Him by force and make Him a
king, He departed again into a mountain Himself alone. And when it
became late, His disciples went down unto the sea; and when they had
entered into a ship, they came over the sea to Capharnaum: and it was
now dark, and Jesus was not come to them. And the sea arose by reason
of a great wind that blew," and so on. [1066] In this there cannot
appear to be anything contrary to the records preserved in the other
Gospels, unless it be the circumstance that Matthew tells us how, when
the multitudes were sent away, He went up into a mountain, in order
that there He might pray alone; while John states that He was on a
mountain with those same multitudes whom He fed with the five loaves.
[1067] But seeing that John also informs us how He departed into a
mountain after the said miracle, to preclude His being taken possession
of by the multitudes, who wished to make Him a king, it is surely
evident that they had come down from the mountain to more level ground
when those loaves were provided for the crowds. And consequently there
is no contradiction between the statements made by Matthew and John as
to His going up again to the mountain. The only difference is, that
Matthew uses the phrase "He went up," while John's term is "He
departed." And there would be an antagonism between these two, only if
in departing He had not gone up. Nor, again, is any want of harmony
betrayed by the fact that Matthew's words are, "He went up into a
mountain apart to pray;" whereas John puts it thus: "When He perceived
that they would come to make Him a king, He departed again into a
mountain Himself alone." Surely the matter of the departure is in no
way a thing antagonistic to the matter of prayer. For, indeed, the
Lord, who in His own person transformed the body of our humiliation in
order that He might make it like unto the body of His own glory, [1068]
hereby taught us also the truth that the matter of departure should be
to us in like manner grave matter for prayer. Neither, again, is there
any defect of consistency proved by the circumstance that Matthew has
told us first how He commanded His disciples to embark in the little
ship, and to go before Him unto the other side of the lake until He
sent the multitudes away, and then informs us that, after the
multitudes were sent away, He Himself went up into a mountain alone to
pray; while John mentions first that He departed unto a mountain alone,
and then proceeds thus: "And when it became late, His disciples came
down unto the sea; and when they had entered into a ship," etc. For who
will not perceive that, in recapitulating the facts, John has spoken of
something as actually done at a later point by the disciples, which
Jesus had already charged them to do before His own departure unto the
mountain; just as it is a familiar procedure in discourse, to revert in
some fashion or other to any matter which otherwise would have been
passed over? But inasmuch as it may not be specifically noted that a
reversion, especially when done briefly and instantaneously, is made to
something omitted, the auditors are sometimes led to suppose that the
occurrence which is mentioned at the later stage also took place
literally at the later period. In this way the evangelist's statement
really is, that to those persons whom he had described as embarking in
the ship and coming across the sea to Capharnaum, the Lord came,
walking toward them upon the waters, as they were toiling in the deep;
which approach of the Lord of course took place at the earlier point,
during the said voyage in which they were making their way to
Capharnaum. [1069]
101. On the other hand, Luke, after the record of the miracle of the
five loaves, passes to another subject, and diverges from this order of
narration. For he makes no mention of that little ship, and of the
Lord's pathway over the waters. But after the statement conveyed in
these words, "And they did all eat, and were filled, and there was
taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets," he has
subjoined the following notice: "And it came to pass, as He was alone
praying, His disciples were with Him; and He asked them, saying, Who
say the people that I am?" [1070] Thus he relates in this succession
something new, which is not given by those three who have left us the
account of the manner in which the Lord walked upon the waters, and
came to the disciples when they were on the voyage. It ought not,
however, on this account, to be supposed that it was on that same
mountain to which Matthew has told us He went up in order to pray
alone, that He said to His disciples, "Who say the people that I am?"
For Luke, too, seems to harmonize with Matthew in this, because his
words are, "as He was alone praying;" while Matthew's were, "He went up
unto a mountain alone to pray." But it must by all means be held to
have been on a different occasion that He put this question, since [it
is said here, both that] He prayed alone, and [that] the disciples were
with Him. Thus Luke, indeed, has mentioned only the fact of His being
alone, but has said nothing of His being without His disciples, as is
the case with Matthew and John, since [according to these latter] they
left Him in order to go before Him to the other side of the sea. For
with unmistakeable plainness Luke has added the statement that "His
disciples also were with Him." Consequently, in saying that He was
alone, he meant his statement to refer to the multitudes, who did not
abide with Him.
__________________________________________________________________
[1064] Matt. xiv. 23-33.
[1065] Mark vi. 47-54.
[1066] John vi. 15-21.
[1067] Reading in monte fuisse cum eisdem turbis quas de quinque
panibus pavit. According to Migne, this is the reading of several mss.
of the better class; some twelve other mss. give in monte fuisse cum
easdem turbas, etc. = "He was on a mountain when He fed," etc. Some
editions have also in montem fugisse cum easdem, etc. = "He departed to
a mountain when He fed," etc.
[1068] Phil. iii. 21.
[1069] [The difficulty in regard to the course of the ship did not
suggest itself to Augustin, nor does he allude to the position of
Bethsaida. Luke ix. 10 seems to place it on one side of the lake and
Mark vi. 45 on the other. A contrary wind would blow them across the
lake, unless they were trying to get to some point on the eastern
shore; from which shore they certainly started, after the feeding of
the five thousand.--R.]
[1070] Luke ix. 17, 18.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLVIII.--Of the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and
Mark on the One Hand, and John on the Other, in the Accounts Which the
Three Give Together of What Took Place After the Other Side of the Lake
Was Reached.
102. Matthew proceeds as follows: "And when they were gone over, they
came into the land of Genesar. And when the men of that place had
knowledge of Him, they sent out unto all that country round about, and
brought unto Him all that were diseased, and besought Him that they
might only touch the hem of His garment: and as many as touched were
made perfectly whole. Then came to Him scribes and Pharisees from
Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the
elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread," and so on,
down to the words, "But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."
[1071] This is also related by Mark, in a way which precludes the
raising of any question about discrepancies. For anything expressed
here by the one in a form differing from that used by the other,
involves at least no departure from identity in sense. John, on the
other hand, fixing his attention, as his wont is, upon the Lord's
discourses, passes on from the notice of the ship, which the Lord
reached by walking upon the waters, to what took place after they
disembarked upon the land, and mentions that He took occasion from the
eating of the bread to deliver many lessons, dealing pre-eminently with
divine things. After this address, too, his narrative is again borne on
to one subject after another, in a sublime strain. [1072] At the same
time, this transition which he thus makes to different themes does not
involve any real want of harmony, although he exhibits certain
divergencies from these others, with the order of events presented by
the rest of the evangelists. For what is there to hinder us from
supposing at once that those persons, whose story is given by Matthew
and Mark, were healed by the Lord, and that He delivered this discourse
which John recounts to the people who followed Him across the sea? Such
a supposition is made all the more reasonable by the fact that
Capharnaum, to which place they are said, according to John, to have
crossed, is near the lake of Genesar; and that, again, is the district
into which they came, according to Matthew, on landing.
__________________________________________________________________
[1071] Matt. xiv. 34-xv. 20.
[1072] John vi. 22-72.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XLIX.--Of the Woman of Canaan Who Said, "Yet the Dogs Eat of
the Crumbs Which Fall from Their Masters' Tables," And of the Harmony
Between the Account Given by Matthew and that by Luke.
103. Matthew, accordingly, proceeds with his narrative, after the
notice of that discourse which the Lord delivered in the presence of
the Pharisees on the subject of the unwashed hands. Preserving also the
order of the succeeding events, as far as it is indicated by the
transitions from the one to the other, he introduces this account into
the context in the following manner: "And Jesus went thence, and
departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of
Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto Him, saying, Have
mercy on me, O Lord, Thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed
with a devil. But He answered her not a word," and so on, down to the
words, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.
And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." [1073] This story
of the woman of Canaan is recorded also by Mark, who keeps the same
order of events, and gives no occasion to raise any question as to a
want of harmony, unless it be found in the circumstance that he tells
us how the Lord was in the house at the time when the said woman came
to Him with the petition on behalf of her daughter. [1074] Now we might
readily suppose that Matthew has simply omitted mention of the house,
while nevertheless relating the same occurrence. But inasmuch as he
states that the disciples made the suggestion to Him in these terms,
"Send her away, for she crieth after us," he seems to imply distinctly
that the woman gave utterance to these cries of entreaty behind the
Lord as He walked on. In what sense, then, could it have been "in the
house," unless we are to take Mark to have intimated the fact, that she
had gone into the place where Jesus then was, when he mentioned at the
beginning of the narrative that He was in the house? But when Matthew
says that "He answered her not a word," he has given us also to
understand what neither of the two evangelists has related
explicitly,--namely, the fact that during that silence which He
maintained Jesus went out of the house. And in this manner all the
other particulars are brought into a connection which from this point
onwards presents no kind of appearance of discrepancy. For as to what
Mark records with respect to the answer which the Lord gave her, to the
effect that it was not meet to take the children's bread and cast it
unto the dogs, that reply was returned only after the interposition of
certain sayings which Matthew has not left unrecorded. That is to say,
[we are to suppose that] there came in first the request which the
disciples addressed to Him in regard to the woman's case, and the
answer He gave them, to the effect that He was not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel; that next there was her own
approach, or, in other words, her coming after Him, and worshipping
Him, saying, "Lord, help me;" and that then, after all these incidents,
those words were spoken which have been recorded by both the
evangelists.
__________________________________________________________________
[1073] Matt. xv. 21-28.
[1074] Mark vii. 24-30.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter L.--Of the Occasion on Which He Fed the Multitudes with the
Seven Loaves, and of the Question as to the Harmony Between Matthew and
Mark in Their Accounts of that Miracle.
104. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And
when Jesus had departed from thence, He came nigh unto the sea of
Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there. And great
multitudes came unto Him, having with them those that were lame, blind,
dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet, and
He healed them; insomuch that the multitudes wondered, when they saw
the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the
blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel. Then Jesus called
His disciples unto Him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude,
because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat,"
and so on, down to the words, "And they that did eat were four thousand
men, besides women and children." [1075] This other miracle of the
seven loaves and the few little fishes is recorded also by Mark, and
that too in almost the same order; the exception being that he inserts
before it a narrative given by no other,--namely, that relating to the
deaf man whose ears the Lord opened, when He spat and said, "Effeta,"
that is, Be opened. [1076]
105. In the case of this miracle of the seven loaves, it is certainly
not a superfluous task to call attention to the fact that these two
evangelists, Matthew and Mark, have thus introduced it into their
narrative. For if one of them had recorded this miracle, who at the
same time had taken no notice of the instance of the five loaves, he
would have been judged to stand opposed to the rest. For in such
circumstances, who would not have supposed that there was only the one
miracle wrought in actual fact, and that an incomplete and unveracious
version of it had been given by the writer referred to, or by the
others, or by all of them together; so [that we must have imagined]
either that the one evangelist, by a mistake on his own part, had been
led to mention seven loaves instead of five; or that the other two,
whether as having both presented an incorrect statement, or as having
been misled through a slip of memory, had put the number five for the
number seven. In like manner, it might have been supposed that there
was a contradiction between the twelve baskets [1077] and the seven
baskets, [1078] and again, between the five thousand and the four
thousand, expressing the numbers of those who were fed. But now, since
those evangelists who have given us the account of the miracle of the
seven loaves have also not failed to mention the other miracle of the
five loaves, no difficulty can be felt by any one, and all can see that
both works were really wrought. This, accordingly, we have instanced,
in order that, if in any other passage we come upon some similar deed
of the Lord's, which, as told by one evangelist, seems so utterly
contrary to the version of it given by another that no method of
solving the difficulty can possibly be found, we may understand the
explanation to be simply this, that both incidents really took place,
and that they were recorded separately by the two several writers. This
is precisely what we have already recommended to attention in the
matter of the seating of the multitudes by hundreds and by fifties. For
were it not for the circumstance that both these numbers are found
noted by the one historian, we might have supposed that the different
writers had made contradictory statements. [1079]
__________________________________________________________________
[1075] Matt. xv. 29-38.
[1076] Mark vii. 31-viii. 9.
[1077] Cophinis.
[1078] Sportis.
[1079] See above, chap. xlvi.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LI.--Of Matthew's Declaration That, on Leaving These Parts, He
Came into the Coasts of Magedan; And of the Question as to His
Agreement with Mark in that Intimation, as Well as in the Notice of the
Saying About Jonah, Which Was Returned Again as an Answer to Those Who
Sought a Sign.
106. Matthew continues as follows: "And He sent away the multitude, and
took ship, and came into the coasts of Magedan;" and so on, down to the
words, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and
there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the prophet
Jonas." [1080] This has already been recorded in another connection by
the same Matthew. [1081] Hence again and again we must hold by the
position that the Lord spake the same words on repeated occasions; so
that when any completely irreconcilable difference appears between
statements of His utterances, we are to understand the words to have
been spoken twice over. In this case, indeed, Mark also keeps the same
order; and after his account of the miracle of the seven loaves,
subjoins the same intimation as is given us in Matthew, only with this
difference, that Matthew's expression for the locality is not
Dalmanutha, as is read in certain codices, but Magedan. [1082] There is
no reason, however, for questioning the fact that it is the same place
that is intended under both names. For most codices, even of Mark's
Gospel, give no other reading than that of Magedan. [1083] Neither
should any difficulty be felt in the fact that Mark does not say, as
Matthew does, that in the answer which the Lord returned to those who
sought after a sign, He referred to Jonah, but mentions simply that He
replied in these terms: "There shall no sign be given unto it." For we
are given to understand what kind of sign they asked--namely, one from
heaven. And he has simply omitted to specify the words which Matthew
has introduced regarding Jonas.
__________________________________________________________________
[1080] Matt. xv. 39-xvi. 4.
[1081] Matt. xii. 38.
[1082] Mark viii. 10-12.
[1083] ["Magdala," as the Authorized Version reads in Matthew, is
poorly supported, and was probably substituted by some ignorant scribe
for "Magadan" (comp. Revised Version). In Mark viii. 10, however, the
reading "Dalmanutha" is well attested. Augustin refers to Latin
codices.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LII.--Of Matthew's Agreement with Mark in the Statement About
the Leaven of the Pharisees, as Regards Both the Subject Itself and the
Order of Narrative.
107. Matthew proceeds: "And He left them, and departed. And when His
disciples were come to the other side, they forgot to take bread. Then
Jesus said unto them, Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees;" and so forth, down to where we read,
"Then understood they that He bade them not beware of the leaven of
bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
[1084] These words are recorded also by Mark, and that likewise in the
same order. [1085]
__________________________________________________________________
[1084] Matt. xvi. 5-12.
[1085] Mark viii. 13-21.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LIII.--Of the Occasion on Which He Asked the Disciples Whom Men
Said that He Was; And of the Question Whether, with Regard Either to
the Subject-Matter or the Order, There are Any Discrepancies Between
Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
108. Matthew continues thus: "And Jesus came into the coasts of
Caesarea Philippi; and He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say
that I, [1086] the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say that Thou
art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the
prophets;" and so on, down to the words, "And whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [1087] Mark relates this
nearly in the same order. But he has brought in before it a narrative
which is given by him alone,--namely, that regarding the giving of
sight to that blind man who said to the Lord, "I see men as trees
walking." [1088] Luke, again, also records this incident, inserting it
after his account of the miracle of the five loaves; [1089] and, as we
have already shown above, the order of recollection which is followed
in his case is not antagonistic to the order adopted by these others.
Some difficulty, however, may be imagined in the circumstance that
Luke's representation bears that the Lord put this question, as to whom
men held Him to be, to His disciples at a time when He was alone
praying, and when His disciples were also with Him; whereas Mark, on
the other hand, tells us that the question was put by Him to the
disciples when they were on the way. But this will be a difficulty only
to the man who has never prayed on the way. [1090]
109. I recollect having already stated that no one should suppose that
Peter received that name for the first time on the occasion when He
said to Him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church." For the time at which he did obtain this name was that
referred to by John, when he mentions that he was addressed in these
terms: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation,
Peter." [1091] Hence, too, we are as little to think that Peter got
this designation on the occasion to which Mark alludes, when he
recounts the twelve apostles individually by name, and tells us how
James and John were called the sons of thunder, merely on the ground
that in that passage he has recorded the fact that He surnamed him
Peter. [1092] For that circumstance is noticed there simply because it
was suggested to the writer's recollection at that particular point,
and not because it took place in actual fact at that specific time.
__________________________________________________________________
[1086] Some editions omit the me in quem me dicum, etc., and make it =
Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
[1087] Matt. xvi. 13-19.
[1088] Mark viii. 22-29.
[1089] Luke ix. 18-20.
[1090] Adopting, with the Ratisbon mss., eum movet qui nunquam oravit
in via. Another reading is, eum movet qui putat nunquam, etc. = a
difficulty to the man who thinks He never prayed on the way.
[1091] John i. 42.
[1092] Mark iii. 16-19.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LIV.--Of the Occasion on Which He Announced His Coming Passion
to the Disciples, and of the Measure of Concord Between Matthew, Mark,
and Luke in the Accounts Which They Give of the Same.
110. Matthew proceeds in the following strain: "Then charged He His
disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ.
From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He
must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief
priests, and scribes;" and so on, down to where we read, "Thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
[1093] Mark and Luke add these passages in the same order. Only Luke
says nothing about the opposition which Peter expressed to the passion
of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
[1093] Matt. xvi. 20-23.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LV.--Of the Harmony Between the Three Evangelists in the
Notices Which They Subjoin of the Manner in Which the Lord Charged the
Man to Follow Him Who Wished to Come After Him.
111. Matthew continues thus: "Then said Jesus unto His disciples, If
any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me;" and so on, down to the words, "And then He shall
reward every man according to his work." [1094] This is appended also
by Mark, who keeps the same order. But he does not say of the Son of
man, who was to come with His angels, that He is to reward every man
according to his work. Nevertheless, he mentions at the same time that
the Lord spoke to this effect: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the
Son of man be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the
holy angels." [1095] And this may be taken to bear the same sense as is
expressed by Matthew, when he says, that "He shall reward every man
according to his work." Luke [1096] also adds the same statements in
the same order, slightly varying the terms indeed in which they are
conveyed, but still showing a complete parallel with the others in
regard to the truthful reproduction of the self-same ideas. [1097]
__________________________________________________________________
[1094] Matt. xvi. 24-27.
[1095] Mark viii. 34-38.
[1096] Luke ix. 25, 26.
[1097] The text gives, eadem tamen sententiarum veritate simillimus.
Another reading is, sententiam veritate simillimo.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LVI.--Of the Manifestation Which the Lord Made of Himself, in
Company with Moses and Elias, to His Disciples on the Mountain; And of
the Question Concerning the Harmony Between the First Three Evangelists
with Regard to the Order and the Circumstances of that Event; And in
Especial, the Number of the Days, in So Far as Matthew and Mark State
that It Took Place After Six Days, While Luke Says that It Was After
Eight Days.
112. Matthew proceeds thus: "Verily I say unto you, There be some
standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of
man coming in His kingdom. And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter,
James, and John his brother, and brought them up into an high
mountain;" and so on, down to where we read, "Tell the vision to no man
until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." This vision of the
Lord upon the mount in the presence of the three disciples, Peter,
James, and John, on which occasion also the testimony of the Father's
voice was borne Him from heaven, is related by the three evangelists in
the same order, and in a manner expressing the same sense completely.
[1098] And as regards other matters, they may be seen by the readers to
be in accordance with those modes of narration of which we have given
examples in many passages already, and in which there are diversities
in expression without any consequent diversity in meaning.
113. But with respect to the circumstance that Mark, along with
Matthew, tells us how the event took place after six days, while Luke
states that it was after eight days, those who find a difficulty here
do not deserve to be set aside with contempt, but should be enlightened
by the offering of explanations. For when we announce a space of days
in these terms, "after so many days," sometimes we do not include in
the number the day on which we speak, or the day on which the thing
itself which we intimate beforehand or promise is declared to take
place, but reckon only the intervening days, on the real and full and
final expiry of which the incident in question is to occur. This is
what Matthew and Mark have done. Leaving out of their calculation the
day on which Jesus spoke these words, and the day on which He exhibited
that memorable spectacle on the mount, they have regarded simply the
intermediate days, and thus have used the expression, "after six days."
But Luke, reckoning in the extreme day at either end, that is to say,
the first day and the last day, has made it "after eight days," in
accordance with that mode of speech in which the part is put for the
whole.
114. Moreover, the statement which Luke makes with regard to Moses and
Elias in these terms, "And it came to pass, as they departed [1099]
from Him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here,"
and so forth, ought not to be considered antagonistic to what Matthew
and Mark have subjoined to the same effect, as if they made Peter offer
this suggestion while Moses and Elias were still talking with the Lord.
For they have not expressly said that it was at that time, but rather
they have simply left unnoticed the fact which Luke has added,--namely,
that it was as they went away that Peter made the suggestion to the
Lord with respect to the making of three tabernacles. At the same time,
Luke has appended the intimation that it was as they were entering the
cloud that the voice came from heaven,--a circumstance which is not
affirmed, but which is as little contradicted, by the others.
__________________________________________________________________
[1098] Matt. xvi. 28-xvii. 9; Mark viii. 39-ix. 9; Luke ix. 27-36.
[1099] [Dum discederent. The Revised Version correctly renders the
Greek: "as they were parting."--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LVII.--Of the Harmony Between Matthew and Mark in the Accounts
Given of the Occasion on Which He Spoke to the Disciples Concerning the
Coming of Elias.
115. Matthew goes on thus: "And His disciples asked Him, saying, Why
then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and
said unto them, Elias truly shall first come and restore all things.
But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not,
but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the
Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that He spake
unto them of John the Baptist." [1100] This same passage is given also
by Mark, who keeps also the same order; and although he exhibits some
diversity of expression, he makes no departure from a truthful
representation of the same sense. [1101] He has not, however, added the
statement, that the disciples understood that the Lord had referred to
John the Baptist in saying that Elias was come already.
__________________________________________________________________
[1100] Matt. xvii. 10-13.
[1101] Mark ix. 10-12.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LVIII.--Of the Man Who Brought Before Him His Son, Whom the
Disciples Were Unable to Heal; And of the Question Concerning the
Agreement Between These Three Evangelists Also in the Matter of the
Order of Narration Here.
116. Matthew goes on in the following terms: "And when He was come
[1102] to the multitude, there came to Him a certain man, kneeling down
before Him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic,
and sore vexed;" and so on, down to the words, "Howbeit this kind is
not cast out but by prayer and fasting." [1103] Both Mark and Luke
record this incident, and that, too, in the same order, without any
suspicion of a want of harmony. [1104]
__________________________________________________________________
[1102] Venisset.
[1103] Matt. xvii. 14-20.
[1104] Mark ix. 16-28; Luke ix. 38-45.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LIX.--Of the Occasion on Which the Disciples Were Exceeding
Sorry When He Spoke to Them of His Passion, as It is Related in the
Same Order by the Three Evangelists.
117. Matthew continues thus: "And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus
said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men;
and they shall kill Him, and the third day He shall rise again. And
they were exceeding sorry." [1105] Mark and Luke record this passage in
the same order. [1106]
__________________________________________________________________
[1105] Matt. xvii. 21, 22.
[1106] Mark ix. 29-31; Luke ix. 44, 45.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LX.--Of His Paying the Tribute Money Out of the Mouth of the
Fish, an Incident Which Matthew Alone Mentions.
118. Matthew continues in these terms: "And when they were come to
Capharnaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said to
him, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes;" and so on, down
to where we read: "Thou shall find a piece of money: that take, and
give unto them for me and thee." [1107] He is the only one who relates
this occurrence, after the interposition of which he follows again the
order which is pursued also by Mark and Luke in company with him.
__________________________________________________________________
[1107] Matt. xvii. 23-27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXI.--Of the Little Child Whom He Set Before Them for Their
Imitation, and of the Offences of the World; Of the Members of the Body
Causing Offences; Of the Angels of the Little Ones, Who Behold the Face
of the Father; Of the One Sheep Out of the Hundred Sheep; Of the
Reproving of a Brother in Private; Of the Loosing and the Binding of
Sins; Of The Agreement of Two, and the Gathering Together of Three; Of
the Forgiving of Sins Even Unto Seventy Times Seven; Of the Servant Who
Had His Own Large Debt Remitted, and Yet Refused to Remit the Small
Debt Which His Fellow-Servant Owed to Him; And of the Question as to
Matthew's Harmony with the Other Evangelists on All These Subjects.
119. The same Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following
terms: "In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who,
thinkest Thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus
called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and
said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven;" and so
on, down to the words, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also
unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother
their trespasses." [1108] Of this somewhat lengthened discourse which
was spoken by the Lord, Mark, instead of giving the whole, has
presented only certain portions, in dealing with which he follows
meantime the same order. He has also introduced some matters which
Matthew does not mention. [1109] Moreover, in this complete discourse,
so far as we have taken it under consideration, the only interruption
is that which is made by Peter, when he inquires how often a brother
ought to be forgiven. The Lord, however, was speaking in a strain which
makes it quite clear that even the question which Peter thus proposed,
and the answer which was returned to him, belong really to the same
address. Luke, again, records none of these things in the order here
observed, with the exception of the incident with the little child whom
He set before His disciples, for their imitation when they were
thinking of their own greatness. [1110] For if he has also narrated
some other matters of a tenor resembling those which are inserted in
this discourse, these are sayings which he has recalled for notice in
other connections, and on occasions different from the present: just as
John [1111] introduces the Lord's words on the subject of the
forgiveness of sins,--namely, those to the effect that they should be
remitted to him to whom the apostles remitted them, and that they
should be retained to him to whom they retained them, as spoken by the
Lord after His resurrection; while Matthew mentions that in the
discourse now under notice the Lord made this declaration, which,
however, the self-same evangelist at the same time affirms to have been
given on a previous occasion to Peter. [1112] Therefore, to preclude
the necessity of having always to inculcate the same rule, we ought to
bear in mind the fact that Jesus uttered the same word repeatedly, and
in a number of different places,--a principle which we have pressed so
often upon your attention already; and this consideration should save
us from feeling any perplexity, even although the order of the sayings
may be thought to create some difficulty.
__________________________________________________________________
[1108] Matt. xviii.
[1109] Mark ix. 33-49.
[1110] Luke ix. 46-48.
[1111] John xx. 23.
[1112] Matt. xvi. 19.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXII.--Of the Harmony Subsisting Between Matthew and Mark in
the Accounts Which They Offer of the Time When He Was Asked Whether It
Was Lawful to Put Away One's Wife, and Especially in Regard to the
Specific Questions and Replies Which Passed Between the Lord and the
Jews, and in Which the Evangelists Seem to Be, to Some Small Extent, at
Variance.
120. Matthew continues giving his narrative in the following manner:
"And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He
departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond
Jordan; and great multitudes followed Him; and He healed them there.
[1113] The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying, Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" And so on,
down to the words, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
[1114] Mark also records this, and observes the same order. At the same
time, we must certainly see to it that no appearance of contradiction
be supposed to arise from the circumstance that the same Mark tells us
how the Pharisees were asked by the Lord as to what Moses commanded
them, and that on His questioning them to that effect they returned the
answer regarding the bill of divorcement which Moses suffered them to
write; whereas, according to Matthew's version, it was after the Lord
had spoken those words in which He had shown them, out of the law, how
God made male and female to be one flesh, and how, therefore, those
[thus joined together of Him] ought not to be put asunder by man, that
they gave the reply, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?" To this interrogation, also [as
Matthew puts it], He says again in reply, "Moses, because of the
hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from
the beginning it was not so." There is no difficulty, I repeat, in
this; for it is not the case that Mark makes no kind of mention of the
reply which was thus given by the Lord, but he brings it in after the
answer which was returned by them to His question relating to the bill
of divorcement.
121. As far as the order or method of statement here adopted is
concerned, we ought to understand that it in no way affects the truth
of the subject itself, whether the question regarding the permission to
write a bill of divorcement given by the said Moses, by whom also it is
recorded that God made male and female to be one flesh, [1115] was
addressed by these Pharisees to the Lord at the time when He was
forbidding the separation of husband and wife, and confirming His
declaration on that subject by the authority of the law; or whether the
said question was conveyed in the reply which the same persons returned
to the Lord, at the time when He asked them about what Moses had
commanded them. For His intention was not to offer them any reason for
the permission which Moses thus granted them until they had first
mentioned the matter themselves; which intention on His part is what is
indicated by the inquiry which Mark has introduced. On the other hand,
their desire was to use the authority of Moses in commanding the giving
of a bill of divorcement, for the purpose of stopping His mouth, so to
speak, in the matter of forbidding, as they believed He undoubtedly
would do, a man to put away his wife. For they had approached Him with
the view of saying what would tempt Him. And this desire of theirs is
what is indicated by Matthew, when, instead of stating how they were
interrogated first themselves, he represents them as having of their
own accord put the question about the precept of Moses, in order that
they might thereby, as it were, convict the Lord of doing what was
wrong in prohibiting the putting away of wives. Wherefore, since the
mind of the speakers, in the service of which the words ought to stand,
has been exhibited by both evangelists, it is no matter how the modes
of narration adopted by the two may differ, provided neither of them
fails to give a correct representation of the subject itself.
122. Another view of the matter may also be taken, namely, that, in
accordance with Mark's statement, when these persons began by
questioning the Lord on the subject of the putting away of a wife, He
questioned them in turn as to what Moses commanded them; and that, on
their replying that Moses suffered them to write a bill of divorcement
and put the wife away, He made His answer to them regarding the said
law which was given by Moses, reminding them how God instituted the
union of male and female, and addressing them in the words which are
inserted by Matthew, namely, "Have ye not read that He which made them
at the beginning made them male and female?" and so on. On hearing
these words, they repeated in the form of an inquiry what they had
already given utterance to when replying to His first interrogation,
namely the expression, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?" Then Jesus showed that the reason
was the hardness of their heart; which explanation Mark brings in, with
a view to brevity, at an earlier point, as if it had been given in
reply to that former response of theirs, which Matthew has passed over.
And this he does as judging that no injury could be done to the truth
at whichever point the explanation might be introduced, seeing that the
words, with a view to which it was returned, had been uttered twice in
the same form; and seeing also that the Lord, in any case, had offered
the said explanation in reply to such words.
__________________________________________________________________
[1113] [Augustin entirely ignores the most perplexing problem in the
Gospel history, namely, the proper distribution of the matter peculiar
to Luke and John, at this point in the narrative. The passages are:
Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14 and John vii. 2-xi. 54. These events cover about
six months, but Matthew and Mark omit all reference to them. The
difficulty is all the greater, since Luke inserts in his narrative many
things that evidently belong to an earlier period (e.g., chaps. xi.
14-xiii. 19). There are also peculiar difficulties connected with the
chronology of John x. and xi.--R.]
[1114] Matt. xix. 1-12.
[1115] Gen. ii. 24.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXIII.--Of the Little Children on Whom He Laid His Hands; Of
the Rich Man to Whom He Said, "Sell All that Thou Hast;" Of the
Vineyard in Which the Labourers Were Hired at Different Hours; And of
the Question as to the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and
the Other Two Evangelists on These Subjects.
123. Matthew proceeds thus: "Then were there brought unto Him little
children, that He should put His hands on them, and pray; and the
disciples rebuked them;" and so on, down to where we read, "For many
are called, but few are chosen." [1116] Mark has followed the same
order here as Matthew. [1117] But Matthew is the only one who
introduces the section relating to the labourers who were hired for the
vineyard. Luke, on the other hand, first mentions what He said to those
who were asking each other who should be the greatest, and next
subjoins at once the passage concerning the man whom they had seen
casting out devils, although he did not follow Him; then he parts
company with the other two at the point where he tells us how He
stedfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem; [1118] and after the
interposition of a number of subjects, [1119] he joins them again in
giving the story of the rich man, to whom the word is addressed, "Sell
all that thou hast," [1120] which individual's case is related here by
the other two evangelists, but still in the succession which is
followed by all the narratives alike. For in the passage referred to in
Luke, that writer does not fail to bring in the story of the little
children, just as the other two do immediately before the mention of
the rich man. With regard, then, to the accounts which are given us of
this rich person, who asks what good thing he should do in order to
obtain eternal life, there may appear to be some discrepancy between
them, because the words were, according to Matthew, "Why askest thou me
about the good?" while according to the others they were, "Why callest
thou me good?" The sentence, "Why askest thou me about the good?" may
then be referred more particularly to what was expressed by the man
when he put the question, "What good thing shall I do?" For there we
have both the name "good" applied to Christ, and the question put.
[1121] But the address "Good Master" does not of itself convey the
question. Accordingly, the best method of disposing of it is to
understand both these sentences to have been uttered, "Why callest thou
me good?" and, "Why askest thou me about the good?"
__________________________________________________________________
[1116] Matt. xix. 13-xx. 16.
[1117] Mark x. 13-31.
[1118] Luke ix. 46-51.
[1119] [Compare note on S: 120.--R.]
[1120] Luke xviii. 18-30.
[1121] The Latin version is followed here. In Matt. xix. 17, where the
English version gives, "Why callest thou me good?" the Vulgate has,
Quid me interrogas de bono? [The Revised Version text agrees with the
Vulgate (in Matthew), following the most ancient Greek mss. But the
same authorities read "Master" instead of "good Master," differing from
the Vulgate. Augustin accepts the latter reading.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXIV.--Of the Occasions on Which He Foretold His Passion in
Private to His Disciples; And of the Time When the Mother of Zebedee's
Children Came with Her Sons, Requesting that One of Them Should Sit on
His Right Hand, and the Other on His Left Hand; And of the Absence of
Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists on These
Subjects.
124. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "And
Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart, and said
unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock,
and to scourge, and to crucify Him; and the third day He shall rise
again. Then came to Him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons,
worshipping Him, and desiring a certain thing of Him;" and so on, down
to the words, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." [1122] Here
again Mark keeps the same order as Matthew, only he represents the sons
of Zebedee to have made the request themselves; while Matthew has
stated that it was preferred on their behalf not by their own personal
application, but by their mother, as she had laid what was their wish
before the Lord. Hence Mark has briefly intimated what was said on that
occasion as spoken by them, rather than by her [in their name]. And to
conclude with the matter, it is to them rather than to her, according
to Matthew no less than according to Mark, that the Lord returned His
reply. Luke, on the other hand, after narrating in the same order our
Lord's predictions to the twelve disciples on the subject of His
passion and resurrection, leaves unnoticed what the other two
evangelists immediately go on to record; and after the interposition of
these passages, he is joined by his fellow-writers again [at the point
where they report the incident] at Jericho. [1123] Moreover, as to what
Matthew and Mark have stated with respect to the princes of the
Gentiles exercising dominion over those who are subject to
them,--namely, that it should not be so with them [the disciples], but
that he who was greatest among them should even be a servant to the
others,--Luke also gives us something of the same tenor, although not
in that connection; [1124] and the order itself indicates that the same
sentiment was expressed by the Lord on a second occasion.
__________________________________________________________________
[1122] Matt. xx. 17-28.
[1123] Luke xviii. 31-35.
[1124] Luke xxii. 24-27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXV.--Of the Absence of Any Antagonism Between Matthew and
Mark, or Between Matthew and Luke, in the Account Offered of the Giving
of Sight to the Blind Men of Jericho.
125. Matthew continues thus: "And as they departed from Jericho, a
great multitude followed Him. And, behold, two blind men sitting by the
wayside heard that Jesus passed by, and cried out, saying, Have mercy
on us, O Lord, thou Son of David;" and so on, down to the words, "And
immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him." [1125]
Mark also records this incident, but mentions only one blind man.
[1126] This difficulty is solved in the way in which a former
difficulty was explained which met us in the case of the two persons
who were tormented by the legion of devils in the territory of the
Gerasenes. [1127] For, that in this instance also of the two blind men
whom he [Matthew] alone has introduced here, one of them was of
pre-eminent note and repute in that city, is a fact made clear enough
by the single consideration, that Mark has recorded both his own name
and his father's; a circumstance which scarcely comes across us in all
the many cases of healing which had been already performed by the Lord,
unless that miracle be an exception, in the recital of which the
evangelist has mentioned by name Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue,
whose daughter Jesus restored to life. [1128] And in this latter
instance this intention becomes the more apparent, from the fact that
the said ruler of the synagogue was certainly a man of rank in the
place. Consequently there can be little doubt that this Bartimaeus, the
son of Timaeus, had fallen from some position of great prosperity, and
was now regarded as an object of the most notorious and the most
remarkable wretchedness, because, in addition to being blind, he had
also to sit begging. And this is also the reason, then, why Mark has
chosen to mention only the one whose restoration to sight acquired for
the miracle a fame as widespread as was the notoriety which the man's
misfortune itself had gained.
126. But Luke, although he mentions an incident altogether of the same
tenor, is nevertheless to be understood as really narrating only a
similar miracle which was wrought in the case of another blind man, and
as putting on record its similarity to the said miracle in the method
of performance. For he states that it was performed when He was coming
nigh unto Jericho; [1129] while the others say that it took place when
He was departing from Jericho. Now the name of the city, and the
resemblance in the deed, favour the supposition that there was but one
such occurrence. But still, the idea that the evangelists really
contradict each other here, in so far as the one says, "As He was come
nigh unto Jericho," while the others put it thus, "As He came out of
Jericho," is one which no one surely will be prevailed on to accept,
unless those who would have it more readily credited that the gospel is
unveracious, than that He wrought two miracles of a similar nature and
in similar circumstances. [1130] But every faithful son of the gospel
will most readily perceive which of these two alternatives is the more
credible, and which the rather to be accepted as true; and, indeed,
every gainsayer too, when he is advised concerning the real state of
the case, will answer himself either by the silence which he will have
to observe, or at least by the tenor of his reflections should he
decline to be silent.
__________________________________________________________________
[1125] Matt. xx. 29-34.
[1126] Mark x. 46-52.
[1127] See chap. xxiv. S: 56.
[1128] Mark v. 22-43.
[1129] Luke xviii. 35-43.
[1130] [Various other solutions are suggested. Comp. Robinson's Greek
Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 234, 235.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXVI.--Of the Colt of the Ass Which is Mentioned by Matthew,
and of the Consistency of His Account with that of the Other
Evangelists, Who Speak Only of the Ass.
127. Matthew goes on with his narrative in the following terms: "And
when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto
the Mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them,
Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an
ass tied, and a colt with her;" and so on, down to the words, "Blessed
is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."
[1131] Mark also records this occurrence, and inserts it in the same
order. [1132] Luke, on the other hand, tarries a space by Jericho,
recounting certain matters which these others have omitted,--namely,
the story of Zacchaeus, the chief of the publicans, and some sayings
which are couched in parabolic form. After instancing these things,
however, this evangelist again joins company with the others in the
narrative relating to the ass on which Jesus sat. [1133] And let not
the circumstance stagger us, that Matthew speaks both of an ass and of
the colt of an ass, while the others say nothing of the ass. For here
again we must bear in mind the rule which we have already introduced in
dealing with the statements about the seating of the people by fifties
and by hundreds on the occasion on which the multitudes were fed with
the five loaves. [1134] Now, after this principle has been brought into
application, the reader should not feel any serious difficulty in the
present case. Indeed, even had Matthew said nothing about the colt,
just as his fellow-historians have taken no notice of the ass, the fact
should not have created any such perplexity as to induce the idea of an
insuperable contradiction between the two statements, when the one
writer speaks only of the ass, and the others only of the colt of the
ass. But how much less cause then for any disquietude ought there to
be, when we see that the one writer has mentioned the ass to which the
others have omitted to refer, in such a manner as at the same time not
to leave unnoticed also the colt of which the rest have spoken! In
fine, where it is possible to suppose both objects to have been
included in the occurrence, there is no real antagonism, although the
one writer may specify only the one thing, and another only the other.
How much less need there be any contradiction, when the one writer
particularizes the one object, and another instances both!
128. Again, although John tells us nothing as to the way in which the
Lord despatched His disciples to fetch these animals to Him,
nevertheless he inserts a brief allusion to this colt, and cites also
the word of the prophet which Matthew makes use of. [1135] In the case
also of this testimony from the prophet, the terms in which it is
reproduced by the evangelists, although they exhibit certain
differences, do not fail to express a sense identical in intention.
Some difficulty, however, may be felt in the fact that Matthew adduces
this passage in a form which represents the prophet to have made
mention of the ass; whereas this is not the case, either with the
quotation as introduced by John, or with the version given in the
ecclesiastical codices of the translation in common use. An explanation
of this variation seems to me to be found in the fact that Matthew is
understood to have written his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Moreover,
it is manifest that the translation which bears the name of the
Septuagint differs in some particulars from the text which is found in
the Hebrew by those who know that tongue, and by the several scholars
who have given us renderings of the same Hebrew books. And if an
explanation is asked for this discrepancy, or for the circumstance that
the weighty authority of the Septuagint translation diverges in many
passages from the rendering of the truth which is discovered in the
Hebrew codices, I am of opinion that no more probable account of the
matter will suggest itself, than the supposition that the Seventy
composed their version under the influence of the very Spirit by whose
inspiration the things which they were engaged in translating had been
originally spoken. This is an idea which receives confirmation also
from the marvellous consent which is asserted to have characterized
them. [1136] Consequently, when these translators, while not departing
from the real mind of God from which these sayings proceeded, and to
the expression of which the words ought to be subservient, gave a
different form to some matters in their reproduction of the text, they
had no intention of exemplifying anything else than the very thing
which we now admiringly contemplate in that kind of harmonious
diversity which marks the four evangelists, and in the light of which
it is made clear that there is no failure from strict truth, although
one historian may give an account of some theme in a manner different
indeed from another, and yet not so different as to involve an actual
departure from the sense intended by the person with whom he is bound
to be in concord and agreement. To understand this is of advantage to
character, with a view at once to guard against what is false, and to
pronounce correctly upon it; and it is of no less consequence to faith
itself, in the way of precluding the supposition that, as it were with
consecrated sounds, truth has a kind of defence provided for it which
might imply God's handing over to us not only the thing itself, but
likewise the very words which are required for its enunciation; whereas
the fact rather is, that the theme itself which is to be expressed is
so decidedly deemed of superior importance to the words in which it has
to be expressed, [1137] that we would be under no obligation to ask
about them at all, if it were possible for us to know the truth without
the terms, as God knows it, and as His angels also know it in Him.
__________________________________________________________________
[1131] Matt. xxi. 1-9.
[1132] Mark xi. 1-10.
[1133] Luke xix. 1-38.
[1134] See above, chap. xlvi. S: 98.
[1135] John xii. 14, 15.
[1136] [The reference here is to the story of Aristeas, to the effect
that the translators, though separated, produced identical versions.
Compare translator's remark in Introductory Notice.--R.]
[1137] Reading quae dicenda est, sermonibus per quos dicenda. The
Ratisbon edition and twelve mss. give in both instances discenda = to
be learned, instead of dicenda = to be expressed. See Migne.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXVII.--Of the Expulsion of the Sellers and Buyers from the
Temple, and of the Question as to the Harmony Between the First Three
Evangelists and John, Who Relates the Same Incident in a Widely
Different Connection.
129. Matthew goes on with his narrative in the following terms: "And
when He was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is
this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of
Galilee. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them
that sold and bought in the temple;" and so on, down to where we read,
"But ye have made it a den of thieves." This account of the multitude
of sellers who were cast out of the temple is given by all the
evangelists; but John introduces it in a remarkably different order.
[1138] For, after recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to
Jesus, and mentioning that He went into Galilee at the time when He
turned the water into wine, and after he has also noticed the sojourn
of a few days in Capharnaum, John proceeds to tell us that He went up
to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews' passover, and when He had made
a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were
selling in it. This makes it evident that this act was performed by the
Lord not on a single occasion, but twice over; but that only the first
instance is put on record by John, and the last by the other three.
__________________________________________________________________
[1138] Matt. xxi. 10-13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46; John ii.
1-17.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXVIII.--Of the Withering of the Fig-Tree, and of the Question
as to the Absence of Any Contradiction Between Matthew and the Other
Evangelists in the Accounts Given of that Incident, as Well as the
Other Matters Related in Connection with It; And Very Specially as to
the Consistency Between Matthew and Mark in the Matter of the Order of
Narration.
130. Matthew continues thus: "And the blind and the lame came to Him in
the temple, and He healed them. And when the chief priests and scribes
saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying in the
temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were sore
displeased, and said unto Him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus
saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and
sucklings Thou hast perfected praise? And He left them, and went out of
the city into Bethany; and He lodged there. Now in the morning, as He
returned into the city, He hungered. And when He saw a single [1139]
fig-tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon but
leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward
for ever. And presently the fig-tree withered away. And when the
disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig-tree
withered away! But Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto
you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which
is done to the fig-tree; but also, if ye shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done. And
all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
receive." [1140]
131. Mark also records this occurrence in due succession. [1141] He
does not, however, follow the same order in his narrative. For first of
all, the fact which is related by Matthew, namely, that Jesus went into
the temple, and cast out those who sold and bought there, is not
mentioned at that point by Mark. On the other hand, Mark tells us that
He looked round about upon all things, and, when the eventide was now
come, went out into Bethany with the twelve. Next he informs us that on
another day, [1142] when they were coming from Bethany, He was hungry,
and cursed the fig-tree, as Matthew also intimates. Then the said Mark
subjoins the statement that He came into Jerusalem, and that, on going
into the temple, He cast out those who sold and bought there, as if
that incident took place not on the first day specified, but on a
different day. [1143] But inasmuch as Matthew puts the connection in
these terms, "And He left them, and went out of the city into Bethany,"
[1144] and tells us that it was when returning in the morning into the
city that He cursed the tree, it is more reasonable to suppose that he,
rather than Mark, has preserved the strict order of time so far as
regards the incident of the expulsion of the sellers and buyers from
the temple. For when he uses the phrase, "And He left them, and went
out," who can be understood by those parties whom He is thus said to
have left, but those with whom He was previously speaking,--namely, the
persons who were so sore displeased because the children cried out,
"Hosanna to the Son of David"? It follows, then, that Mark has omitted
what took place on the first day, when He went into the temple; and in
mentioning that He found nothing on the fig-tree but leaves, he has
introduced what He called to mind only there, but what really occurred
on the second day, as both evangelists testify. Then, further, his
account bears that the astonishment which the disciples expressed at
finding how the fig-tree had withered away, and the reply which the
Lord made to them on the subject of faith, and the casting of the
mountain into the sea, belonged not to this same second day on which He
said to the tree, "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever," but to
a third day. For in connection with the second day, the said Mark has
recorded the incident of the casting of the sellers out of the temple,
which he had omitted to notice as belonging to the first day.
Accordingly, it is in connection with this second day that he tells us
how Jesus went out of the city, when even was come, and how, when they
passed by in the morning, the disciples saw the fig-tree dried up from
the roots, and how Peter, calling to remembrance, said unto Him,
"Master, behold the fig-tree which Thou cursedst is withered away."
[1145] Then, too, he informs us that He gave the answer relating to the
power of faith. On the other hand, Matthew recounts these matters in a
manner importing that they all took place on this second day; that is
to say, both the word addressed to the tree, "Let no fruit grow on thee
from henceforward for ever," and the withering that ensued so speedily
in the tree, and the reply which He made on the subject of the power of
faith to His disciples when they observed that withering and marvelled
at it. From this we are to understand that Mark, on his side, has
recorded in connection with the second day what he had omitted to
notice as occurring really on the first,--namely, the incident of the
expulsion of the sellers and buyers from the temple. On the other hand,
Matthew, after mentioning what was done on the second day,--namely, the
cursing of the fig-tree as He was returning in the morning from Bethany
into the city,--has omitted certain facts which Mark has inserted,
namely, His coming into the city, and His going out of it in the
evening, and the astonishment which the disciples expressed at finding
the tree dried up as they passed by in the morning; and then to what
had taken place on the second day, which was the day on which the tree
was cursed, he has attached what really took place on the third
day,--namely, the amazement of the disciples at seeing the tree's
withered condition, and the declaration which they heard from the Lord
on the subject of the power of faith. [1146] These several facts
Matthew has connected together in such a manner that, were we not
compelled to turn our attention to the matter by Mark's narrative, we
should be unable to recognise either at what point or with regard to
what circumstances the former writer has left anything unrecorded in
his narrative. The case therefore stands thus: Matthew first presents
the facts conveyed in these words, "And He left them, and went out of
the city into Bethany; and He lodged there. Now in the morning, as He
returned into the city, He hungered; and when He saw a single fig-tree
in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only,
and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; and
presently the fig-tree withered away." Then, omitting the other matters
which belonged to that same day, he has immediately subjoined this
statement, "And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How
soon is it withered away!" although it was on another day that they saw
this sight, and on another day that they thus marvelled. But it is
understood that the tree did not wither at the precise time when they
saw it, but presently when it was cursed. For what they saw was not the
tree in the process of drying up, but the tree already dried completely
up; and thus they learned that it had withered away immediately on the
Lord's sentence.
__________________________________________________________________
[1139] Unam.
[1140] Matt. xxi. 14-22.
[1141] Consequenter.
[1142] Alia die.
[1143] Mark xi. 11-17.
[1144] Matt. xxi. 17.
[1145] Mark xi. 20, 21.
[1146] [The explanation of Augustin is still accepted by many. But the
order of Mark may be followed without any difficulty. The long
discourses occurred on the third day, and the blasted condition of the
fig-tree was first noticed on the morning of that day; these are the
main points.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXIX.--Of the Harmony Between the First Three Evangelists in
Their Accounts of the Occasion on Which the Jews Asked the Lord by What
Authority He Did These Things.
132. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "And when
He was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the
people came unto Him as He was teaching, and said, By what authority
doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus
answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye
tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these
things. The baptism of John, whence was it?" and so on, down to the
words, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." [1147]
The other two, Mark and Luke, have also set forth this whole passage,
and that, too, in almost as many words. [1148] Neither does there
appear to be any discrepancy between them in regard to the order, the
only exception being found in the circumstance of which I have spoken
above,--namely, that Matthew omits certain matters belonging to a
different day, and has constructed his narrative with a connection
which, were our attention not called [otherwise] to the fact, might
lead to the supposition that he was still treating of the second day,
where Mark deals with the third. Moreover, Luke has not appended his
notice of this incident, as if he meant to go over the days in orderly
succession; but after recording the expulsion of the sellers and buyers
from the temple, he has passed by without notice all that is contained
in the statements above--His going out into Bethany, and His returning
to the city, and what was done to the fig-tree, and the reply touching
the power of faith which was made to the disciples when they marvelled.
And then, after all these omissions, he has introduced the next section
of his narrative in these terms: "And He taught daily in the temple.
But the chief priests, and the scribes, and the chief of the people
sought to destroy Him; and could not find what they might do: for all
the people were very attentive to hear Him. And it came to pass, that
on one of these days, as He taught the people in the temple, and
preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon Him,
with the elders, and spake unto Him, saying, Tell us, by what authority
doest thou these things?" and so on; all which the other two
evangelists record in like manner. From this it is apparent that he is
in no antagonism with the others, even with regard to the order; since
what he states to have taken place "on one of those days," may be
understood to belong to that particular day on which they also have
reported it to have occurred. [1149]
__________________________________________________________________
[1147] Matt. xxi. 23-27.
[1148] Mark xi. 27-33; Luke xix. 47-xx. 8.
[1149] [The order of occurrences during this day of public controversy
in the temple presents few difficulties. It was probably the Tuesday of
Passion Week. The day of the month is in dispute because of the still
mooted question, whether our Lord ate the last passover at the regular
time or one day earlier.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXX.--Of the Two Sons Who Were Commanded by Their Father to Go
into His Vineyard, and of the Vineyard Which Was Let Out to Other
Husbandmen; Of the Question Concerning the Consistency of Matthew's
Version of These Passages with Those Given by the Other Two
Evangelists, with Whom He Retains the Same Order; As Also, in
Particular, Concerning the Harmony of His Version of the Parable, Which
is Recorded by All the Three, Regarding the Vineyard that Was Let Out;
And in Reference Specially to the Reply Made by the Persons to Whom
that Parable Was Spoken, in Relating Which Matthew Seems to Differ
Somewhat from the Others.
133. Matthew goes on thus: "But what think ye? A certain man had two
sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my
vineyard. But he answered and said, I will not; but afterward he
repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And
he answered and said, I go, sir; and went not;" and so on, down to the
words, "And whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken; but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." [1150] Mark
and Luke do not mention the parable of the two sons to whom the order
was given to go and labour in the vineyard. But what is narrated by
Matthew subsequently to that,--namely, the parable of the vineyard
which was let out to the husbandmen, who persecuted the servants that
were sent to them, and afterwards put to death the beloved son, and
thrust him out of the vineyard,--is not left unrecorded also by those
two. And in detailing it they likewise both retain the same order, that
is to say, they bring it in after that declaration of their inability
to tell which was made by the Jews when interrogated regarding the
baptism of John, and after the reply which He returned to them in these
words: "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."
[1151]
134. Now no question implying any contradiction between these accounts
rises here, unless it be raised by the circumstance that Matthew, after
telling us how the Lord addressed to the Jews this interrogation, "When
the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those
husbandmen?" adds, that they answered and said, "He will miserably
destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other
husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons." For
Mark does not record these last words as if they constituted the reply
returned by the men; but he introduces them as if they were really
spoken by the Lord immediately after the question which was put by Him,
so that in a certain way He answered Himself. For [in this Gospel] He
speaks thus: "What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will
come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto
others." But it is quite easy for us to suppose, either that the men's
words are subjoined herewithout the insertion of the explanatory clause
"they said," or "they replied," that being left to be understood; or
else that the said response is ascribed to the Lord Himself rather than
to these men, because when they answered with such truth, He also, who
is Himself the Truth, really gave the same reply in reference to the
persons in question.
135. More serious difficulty, however, may be created by the fact that
Luke not only does not speak of them as the parties who made that
answer (for he, as well as Mark, attributes these words to the Lord),
but even represents them to have given a contrary reply, and to have
said, "God forbid." For his narrative proceeds in these terms: "What
therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come
and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.
And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And He beheld them, and
said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders
rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?" [1152] How then
is it that, according to Matthew's version, the men to whom He spake
these words said, "He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will
let out this vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the
fruits in their seasons;" whereas, according to Luke, they gave a reply
inconsistent with any terms like these, when they said, "God forbid"?
And, in truth, what the Lord proceeds immediately to say regarding the
stone which was rejected by the builders, and yet was made the head of
the corner, is introduced in a manner implying that by this testimony
those were confuted who were gainsaying the real meaning of the
parable. For Matthew, no less than Luke, records that passage as if it
were intended to meet the gainsayers, when he says, "Did ye never read
in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner?" For what is implied by this question,
"Did ye never read," but that the answer which they had given was
opposed to the real intention [of the parable]? This is also indicated
by Mark, who gives these same words in the following manner: "And have
ye not read this scripture, The stone which the builders rejected is
become the head of the corner?" This sentence, therefore, appears to
occupy in Luke, rather than the others, the place which is properly
assignable to it as originally uttered. For it is brought in by him
directly after the contradiction expressed by those men when they said,
"God forbid." And the form in which it is cast by him,--namely, "What
is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected,
the same is become the head of the corner?"--is equivalent in sense to
the other modes of statement. For the real meaning of the sentence is
indicated equally well, whichever of the three phrases is used, "Did ye
never read?" or, "And have ye not read?" or, "What is this, then, that
is written?"
136. It remains, therefore, for us to understand that among the people
who were listening on that occasion, there were some who replied in the
terms related by Matthew, when he writes thus: "They say unto Him, He
will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard
unto other husbandmen;" and that there were also some who answered in
the way indicated by Luke, that is to say, with the words, "God
forbid." Accordingly, those persons who had replied to the Lord to the
former effect, were replied to by these other individuals in the crowd
with the explanation, "God forbid." But the answer which was really
given by the first of these two parties, to whom the second said in
return, "God forbid," has been ascribed both by Mark and by Luke to the
Lord Himself, on the ground that, as I have already intimated, the
Truth Himself spake by these men, whether as by persons who knew not
that they were wicked, in the same way that He spake also by Caiaphas,
who when he was high priest prophesied without realizing what he said,
[1153] or as by persons who did understand, and who had come by this
time both to knowledge and to belief. For there was also present on
this occasion that multitude of people at whose hand the prophecy had
already received a fulfilment, when they met Him in a mighty concourse
on His approach, and hailed Him with the acclaim, "Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord." [1154]
137. Neither should we stumble at the circumstance that the same
Matthew has stated that the chief priests and the elders of the people
came to the Lord, and asked Him by what authority He did these things,
and who gave Him this authority, on the occasion when He too, in turn,
interrogated them concerning the baptism of John, inquiring whence it
was, whether from heaven or of men; to whom also, on their replying
that they did not know, He said, "Neither do I tell you by what
authority I do those things." For he has followed up this with the
words introduced in the immediate context, "But what think ye? A
certain man had two sons," and so forth. Thus this discourse is brought
into a connection which is continued, uninterrupted by the
interposition either of any thing or of any person, down to what is
related regarding the vineyard which was let out to the husbandmen. It
may, indeed, be supposed that He spake all these words to the chief
priests and the elders of the people, by whom He had been interrogated
with regard to His authority. But then, if these persons had indeed
questioned Him with a view to tempt Him, and with a hostile intention,
they could not be taken for men who had believed, and who cited the
remarkable testimony in favour of the Lord which was taken from a
prophet; and surely it is only if they had the character of those who
believed, and not of those who were ignorant, that they could have
given a reply like this: "He will miserably destroy those wicked men,
and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen." This peculiarity
[of Matthew's account], however, should not by any means so perplex us
as to lead us to imagine that there were none who believed among the
multitudes who listened at this time to the Lord's parables. For it is
only for the sake of brevity that the same Matthew has passed over in
silence what Luke does not fail to mention,--namely, the fact that the
said parable was not spoken only to the parties who had interrogated
Him on the subject of His authority, but to the people. For the latter
evangelist puts it thus: "Then began He to speak to the people this
parable; A certain man planted a vineyard," and so on. Accordingly, we
may well understand that among the people then assembled there might
also have been persons who could listen to Him as those did who before
this had said, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord;" and
that either these, or some of them, were the individuals who replied in
the words, "He will miserably destroy these wicked men, and will let
out his vineyard to other husbandmen." The answer actually returned by
these men, moreover, has been attributed to the Lord Himself by Mark
and Luke, not only because their words were really His words, inasmuch
[1155] as He is the Truth that ofttimes speaks even by the wicked and
the ignorant, moving the mind of man by a certain hidden instinct, not
in the merit of man's holiness, but by the right of His own proper
power; but also because the men may have been of a character admitting
of their being reckoned, not without reason, as already members in the
true body of Christ, so that what was said by them might quite
warrantably be ascribed to Him whose members they were. For by this
time He had baptized more than John, [1156] and had multitudes of
disciples, as the same evangelists repeatedly testify; and from among
these followers He also drew those five hundred brethren, to whom the
Apostle Paul tells us that He showed Himself after His resurrection.
[1157] And this explanation of the matter is supported by the fact that
the phrase which occurs in the version by this same Matthew,--namely,
"They say unto Him, [1158] He will miserably destroy those wicked
men,"--is not put in a form necessitating us to take the pronoun illi
in the plural number, as if it was intended to mark out the words
expressly as the reply made by the persons who had craftily questioned
Him on the subject of His authority; but the clause, "They say unto
Him," [1159] is so expressed that the term illi should be taken for the
singular pronoun, and not the plural, and should be held to signify
"unto Him," that is to say, unto the Lord Himself, as is made clear in
the Greek codices, [1160] without a single atom of ambiguity.
138. There is a certain discourse of the Lord which is given by the
evangelist John, and which may help us more readily to understand the
statement I thus make. It is to this effect: "Then said Jesus to those
Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in my word, then ye shall be
my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free. And they answered Him, We be Abraham's seed, and were
never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be free? [1161]
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in
the house for ever; but the Son abideth for ever. If the Son,
therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye
are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no
place in you." [1162] Now surely it is not to be supposed that He spake
these words, "Ye seek to kill me" to those persons who had already
believed on Him, and to whom He had said, "If ye abide in my word, then
shall ye be my disciples indeed." But inasmuch as He had spoken in
these latter terms to the men who had already believed on Him, and as,
moreover, there was present on that occasion a multitude of people,
among whom there were many who were hostile to Him, even although the
evangelist does not tell us explicitly who those parties were who made
the reply referred to, the very nature of the answer which they gave,
and the tenor of the words which thereupon were rightly directed to
them by Him, make it sufficiently clear what specific persons were then
addressed, and what words were spoken to them in particular. Precisely,
therefore, as in the multitude thus alluded to by John there were some
who had already believed on Jesus, and also some who sought to kill
Him, in that other concourse which we are discussing at present there
were some who had craftily questioned the Lord on the subject of the
authority by which He did these things; and there were also others who
had hailed Him, not in deceit, but in faith, with the acclaim, "Blessed
is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." And thus, too, there were
persons present who could say, "He will destroy those men, and will
give his vineyard to others." This saying, furthermore, may be rightly
understood to have been the voice of the Lord Himself, either in virtue
of that Truth which in His own Person He is Himself, or on the ground
of the unity which subsists between the members of His body and the
head. There were also certain individuals present who, when these other
parties gave that kind of answer, said to them, "God forbid," because
they understood the parable to be directed against themselves.
__________________________________________________________________
[1150] Matt. xxi. 28-44.
[1151] Mark xii. 1-11; Luke xx. 9-18.
[1152] Luke xx. 15-17.
[1153] John xi. 49-51.
[1154] Ps. cxviii. 26; Matt. xxi. 9.
[1155] Keeping quia veritas est, for which the reading qui veritas est
= "who is the truth," also occurs.
[1156] John iv. 1.
[1157] 1 Cor. xv. 6.
[1158] Aiunt illi.
[1159] Aiunt illi.
[1160] That is to say, the aiunt illi is the rendering for legousin
auto. [This reading of the Greek text is abundantly attested.--R.]
[1161] Liberi eritis.
[1162] John viii. 31-37.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXI.--Of the Marriage of the King's Son, to Which the
Multitudes Were Invited; And of the Order in Which Matthew Introduces
that Section as Compared with Luke, Who Gives Us a Somewhat Similar
Narrative in Another Connection.
139. Matthew goes on as follows: "And when the chief priests and
Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spake of them:
and when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitude,
because they took Him for a prophet. And Jesus answered and spake unto
them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a
certain king which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his
servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, and they would
not come;" and so on, down to the words, "For many are called, but few
are chosen." [1163] This parable concerning the guests who were invited
to the wedding is related only by Matthew. Luke also records something
which resembles it. But that is really a different passage, as the
order itself sufficiently indicates, although there is some similarity
between the two. [1164] The matters introduced, however, by Matthew
immediately after the parable concerning the vineyard, and the killing
of the son of the head of the house,--namely, the Jews' perception that
this whole discourse was directed against them, and their beginning to
contrive treacherous schemes against Him,--are attested likewise by
Mark and Luke, who also keep the same order in inserting them. [1165]
But after this paragraph they proceed to another subject, and
immediately subjoin a passage which Matthew has also indeed introduced
in due order, but only subsequently to this parable of the marriage,
which he alone has put on record here.
__________________________________________________________________
[1163] Matt. xxi. 45-xxii. 14.
[1164] Luke xiv. 16-24.
[1165] Mark xii. 12; Luke xx. 19.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXII.--Of the Harmony Characterizing the Narratives Given by
These Three Evangelists Regarding the Duty of Rendering to Caesar the
Coin Bearing His Image, and Regarding the Woman Who Had Been Married to
the Seven Brothers.
140. Matthew then continues in these terms: "Then went the Pharisees,
and took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they send
out unto Him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master, we
know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither
carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men: tell
us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to
Caesar, or not?" and so on, down to the words, "And when the multitude
heard this, they were astonished at His doctrine." [1166] Mark and Luke
give a similar account of these two replies made by the Lord,--namely,
the one on the subject of the coin, which was prompted by the question
as to the duty of giving tribute to Caesar; and the other on the
subject of the resurrection, which was suggested by the case of the
woman who had married the seven brothers in succession. Neither do
these two evangelists differ in the matter of the order. [1167] For
after the parable which told of the men to whom the vineyard was let
out, and which also dealt with the Jews (against whom it was directed),
and the evil counsel they were devising (which sections are given by
all three evangelists together), these two, Mark and Luke, pass over
the parable of the guests who were invited to the wedding (which only
Matthew has introduced), and thereafter they join company again with
the first evangelist, when they record these two passages which deal
with Caesar's tribute, and the woman who was the wife of seven
different husbands, inserting them in precisely the same order, with a
consistency which admits of no question.
__________________________________________________________________
[1166] Matt. xxii. 15-33.
[1167] Mark xii. 13-27; Luke xx. 20-40.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXIII.--Of the Person to Whom the Two Precepts Concerning the
Love of God and the Love of Our Neighbour Were Commended; And of the
Question as to the Order of Narration Which is Observed by Matthew and
Mark, and the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Them and Luke.
141. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms:
"But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to
silence, they were gathered together. And one of them, which was a
lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which
is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [1168] This
is recorded also by Mark, and that too in the same order. Neither
should there be any difficulty in the statement made by Matthew, to the
effect that the person by whom the question was put to the Lord tempted
Him; whereas Mark [1169] says nothing about that, but tells us at the
end of the paragraph how the Lord said to the man, as to one who
answered discreetly, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." For it
is quite possible that, although the man approached Him with the view
of tempting Him, he may have been set right by the Lord's response. Or
we need not at any rate take the tempting referred to in a bad sense,
as if it were the device of one who sought to deceive an adversary; but
we may rather suppose it to have been the result of caution, as if it
were the act of one who wished to have further trial of a person who
was unknown to him. For it is not without a good purpose that this
sentence has been written, "He that is hasty to give credit is
light-minded, and shall be impaired." [1170]
142. Luke, on the other hand, not indeed in this order, but in a widely
different connection, introduces something which resembles this. [1171]
But whether in that passage he is actually recording this same
incident, or whether the person with whom the Lord [is represented to
have] dealt in a similar manner there on the subject of those two
commandments is quite another individual, is altogether uncertain. At
the same time, it may appear right to regard the person who is
introduced by Luke as a different individual from the one before us
here, not only on the ground of the remarkable divergence in the order
of narration, but also because he is there reported to have replied to
a question which was addressed to him by the Lord, and in that reply to
have himself mentioned those two precepts. The same opinion is further
confirmed by the fact that, after telling us how the Lord said to him,
"This do, and thou shall live,"--thus instructing him to do that great
thing which, according to his own answer, was contained in the
law,--the evangelist follows up what had passed with the statement,
"But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my
neighbour?" [1172] Thereupon, too [according to Luke], the Lord told
the story of the man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and
fell among robbers. Consequently, considering that this individual is
described at the outset as tempting Christ, and is represented to have
repeated the two commandments in his reply; and considering, further,
that after the counsel which was given by the Lord in the words, "This
do, and thou shalt live," he is not commended as good, but, on the
contrary, has this said of him, "But he, willing to justify himself,"
etc., whereas the person who is mentioned in parallel order both by
Mark and by Luke received a commendation so marked, that the Lord spake
to him in these terms, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,"--the
more probable view is that which takes the person who appears on that
occasion to be a different individual from the man who comes before us
here.
__________________________________________________________________
[1168] Matt. xxii. 34-40.
[1169] Another but evidently faulty reading is sometimes found
here,--namely, Lucas autem hoc tacet et in fine Marcus, etc. = whereas
Luke says nothing about that, and Mark tells us, etc.
[1170] Minorabitur. Ecclus. xix. 4.
[1171] Luke x. 25-37.
[1172] Luke x. 29.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXIV.--Of the Passage in Which the Jews are Asked to Say Whose
Son They Suppose Christ to Be; And of the Question Whether There is Not
a Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists, in So Far
as He States the Inquiry to Have Been, "What Think Ye of Christ? Whose
Son is He?" And Tells Us that to This They Replied, "The Son of David;"
Whereas the Others Put It Thus, "How Say the Scribes that Christ is
David's Son?"
143. Matthew goes on thus: "Now when the Pharisees were gathered
together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son
is He? They say unto Him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How
then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool? If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son? And no man
was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day
forth ask Him any more questions." [1173] This is given also by Mark in
due course, and in the same order. [1174] Luke, again, only omits
mention of the person who asked the Lord which was the first
commandment in the law, and, after passing over that incident in
silence, observes the same order once more as the others, narrating
just as these, do this question which the Lord put to the Jews
concerning Christ, as to how He was David's son. [1175] Neither is the
sense at all affected by the circumstance that, as Matthew puts it,
when Jesus had asked them what they thought of Christ, and whose son He
was, they [the Pharisees] replied, "The son of David," and then He
proposed the further query as to how David then called Him Lord;
whereas, according to the version presented by the other two, Mark and
Luke, we do not find either that these persons were directly
interrogated, or that they made any answer. For we ought to take this
view of the matter, namely, that these two evangelists have introduced
the sentiments which were expressed by the Lord Himself after the reply
made by those parties, and have recorded the terms in which He spoke in
the hearing of those whom He wished profitably to instruct in His
authority, and to turn away from the teaching of the scribes, and whose
knowledge of Christ amounted then only to this, that He was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh, while they did not understand
that He was God, and on that ground also the Lord even of David. It is
in this way, therefore, that in the accounts given by these two
evangelists, the Lord is mentioned in a manner which makes it appear as
if He was discoursing on the subject of these erroneous teachers to men
whom He desired to see delivered from the errors in which these scribes
were involved. Thus, too, the question, which is presented by Matthew
in the form, "What say ye?" is to be taken not as addressed directly to
these [Pharisees], but rather as expressed only with reference to those
parties, and directed really to the persons whom He was desirous of
instructing.
__________________________________________________________________
[1173] Matt. xxii. 41-46.
[1174] Mark xii. 35-37.
[1175] Luke xx. 41-44.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXV.--Of the Pharisees Who Sit in the Seat of Moses, and
Enjoin Things Which They Do Not, and of the Other Words Spoken by the
Lord Against These Same Pharisees; Of the Question Whether Matthew's
Narrative Agrees Here with Those Which are Given by the Other Two
Evangelists, and in Particular with that of Luke, Who Introduces a
Passage Resembling This One, Although It is Brought in Not in This
Order, But in Another Connection.
144. Matthew proceeds with his account, observing the following order
of narration: "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples,
saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all,
therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do
not ye after their works: for they say, and do not;" and so on, down to
the words, "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed
is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." [1176] Luke also mentions a
similar discourse which was spoken by the Lord in opposition to the
Pharisees and the scribes and the doctors of the law, but reports it as
delivered in the house of a certain Pharisee, who had invited Him to a
feast. In order to relate that passage, he has made a digression from
the order which is followed by Matthew, about the point at which they
have both put on record the Lord's sayings respecting the sign of the
three days and nights in the history of Jonas, and the queen of the
south, and the unclean spirit that returns and finds the house swept.
[1177] And that paragraph is followed up by Matthew with these words:
"While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren
stood without, desiring to speak with Him." But in the version which
the third Gospel presents of the discourse then spoken by the Lord,
after the recital of certain sayings of the Lord which Matthew has
omitted to notice, Luke turns off from the order which he had been
observing in concert with Matthew, so that his immediately subsequent
narrative runs thus: "And as He spake, a certain Pharisee besought Him
to dine with him: and He went in, and sat down to meat. And when the
Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that He had not first washed before
dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the
outside of the cup and platter." [1178] And after this, Luke reports
other utterances which were directed against the said Pharisees and
scribes and teachers of the law, which are of a similar tenor to those
which Matthew also recounts in this passage which we have taken in hand
at present to consider. [1179] Wherefore, although Matthew records
these things in a manner which, while it is true indeed that the house
of that Pharisee is not mentioned by name, yet does not specify as the
scene where the words were spoken any place entirely inconsistent with
the idea of His having been in the house referred to; still the facts
that the Lord by this time [i.e. according to Matthew's Gospel] had
left Galilee and come into Jerusalem, and that the incidents alluded to
above, on to the discourse which is now under review, [1180] are so
arranged in the context after His arrival as to make it only reasonable
to understand them to have taken place in Jerusalem, whereas Luke's
narrative deals with what occurred at the time when the Lord as yet was
only journeying towards Jerusalem, are considerations which lead me to
the conclusion that these are not the same, but only two similar
discourses, of which the former evangelist has reported the one, and
the latter the other.
145. This is also a matter which requires some consideration,--namely,
the question how it is said here, "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till
ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,"
[1181] when, according to this same Matthew, they had already expressed
themselves to this effect. [1182] Besides, Luke likewise tells us that
a reply containing these very words had previously been returned by the
Lord to the persons who had counselled Him to leave their locality,
because Herod sought to kill Him. That evangelist represents these
self-same terms, which Matthew records here, to have been employed by
Him in the declaration which He directed on that occasion against
Jerusalem itself. For Luke's narrative proceeds in the following
manner: "The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto
Him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And He
said unto them, Go ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and
I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected.
Nevertheless, I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following;
for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent
unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a
hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold,
your house shall be left unto you desolate: and I say unto you, that ye
shall not see me until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is He
that cometh in the name of the Lord." [1183] There does not seem,
however, to be anything contradictory to the narration thus given by
Luke in the circumstance that the multitudes said, when the Lord was
approaching Jerusalem, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord." For, according to the order which is followed by Luke, He had
not yet come to the scene in question, and the words had not been
uttered. But since he does not tell us that He did actually leave the
place at that time, not to return to it until the period came when such
words would be spoken by them (for He continues on His journey until he
arrives at Jerusalem; and the saying, "Behold, I cast out devils, and I
do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected," is to
be taken to have been uttered by Him in a mystical and figurative
sense: for certainly He did not suffer at a time answering literally to
the third day after the present occasion; nay, He immediately goes on
to say, "Nevertheless, I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day
following"), we are indeed constrained also to put a mystical
interpretation upon the sentence, "Ye shall not see me henceforth,
until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord," and to understand it to refer to that advent of His
in which He is to come in His effulgent brightness; [1184] it being
thereby also implied, that what He expressed in the declaration, "I
cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day
I am perfected," bears upon His body, which is the Church. For devils
are cast out when the nations abandon their ancestral superstitions and
believe on Him; and cures are wrought when men renounce the devil and
this world, and live in accordance with His commandments, even unto the
consummation of the resurrection, in which there shall, as it were, be
realized that perfecting on the third day; that is to say, the Church
shall be perfected up to the measure of the angelic fulness through the
realized immortality of the body as well as the soul. Therefore the
order followed by Matthew is by no means to be understood to involve a
digression to another connection. But we are rather to suppose, either
that Luke has antedated the events which took place in Jerusalem, and
has introduced them at this point simply as they were here suggested to
his recollection, before his narrative really brings the Lord to
Jerusalem; or that the Lord, when drawing near the same city on that
occasion, did actually reply to the persons who counselled Him to be on
His guard against Herod, in terms resembling those in which Matthew
represents Him to have spoken also to the multitudes at a period when
He had already arrived in Jerusalem, and when all these events had
taken place which have been detailed above.
__________________________________________________________________
[1176] Matt. xxiii.
[1177] Matt. xii. 39-46.
[1178] Luke xi. 29-39.
[1179] Luke xi. 40-52.
[1180] In Matt. xxiii.
[1181] Matt. xxiii. 39.
[1182] Matt. xxi. 9.
[1183] Luke xiii. 31-35.
[1184] In claritate.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXVI.--Of the Harmony in Respect of the Order of Narration
Subsisting Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists in the
Accounts Given of the Occasion on Which He Foretold the Destruction of
the Temple.
146. Matthew proceeds with his history in the following terms: "And
Jesus went out and departed from the temple; and His disciples came to
Him for to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto
them, See ye all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not
be left here one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down."
[1185] This incident is related also by Mark, and nearly in the same
order. But he brings it in after a digression of some small extent,
which is made with a view to mention the case of the widow who put the
two mites into the treasury, [1186] which occurrence is recorded only
by Mark and Luke. For [in proof that Mark's order is essentially the
same as Matthew's, we need only notice that] in Mark's version also,
after the account of the Lord's discussion with the Jews on the
occasion when He asked them how they held Christ to be David's son, we
have a narrative of what He said in warning them against the Pharisees
and their hypocrisy,--a section which Matthew has presented on the
amplest scale, introducing into it a larger number of the Lord's
sayings on that occasion. Then after this paragraph, which has been
handled briefly by Mark, and treated with great fulness by Matthew,
Mark, as I have said, introduces the passage about the widow who was at
once so extremely poor, and yet abounded so remarkably. And finally,
without interpolating anything else, he subjoins a section in which he
comes again into unison with Matthew,--namely, that relating to the
destruction of the temple. In like manner, Luke first states the
question which was propounded regarding Christ, as to how He was the
son of David, and then mentions a few of the words which were spoken in
cautioning them against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Thereafter he
proceeds, as Mark does, to tell the story of the widow who cast the two
mites into the treasury. And finally he appends the statement, [1187]
which appears also in Matthew and Mark, on the subject of the destined
overthrow of the temple. [1188]
__________________________________________________________________
[1185] Matt. xxiv. 1, 2. According to Migne, certain codices add here
the clause, "when the disciples were asking the Lord privately what was
the sign of His coming."
[1186] Mark xii. 41-xiii. 2.
[1187] Luke xx. 16-xxi. 6.
[1188] [Many harmonists insert at this point the events narrated in
John xii. 20-50. Augustin does not express an opinion in regard to this
passage.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXVII.--Of the Harmony Subsisting Between the Three
Evangelists in Their Narratives of the Discourse Which He Delivered on
the Mount of Olives, When the Disciples Asked When the Consummation
Should Happen.
147. Matthew continues in the following strain: "And as He sat upon the
mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell
us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy
coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered, and said unto
them, Take heed that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my
name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many;" and so on, down to
where we read, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal." We have now, therefore, to
examine this lengthened discourse as it meets us in the three
evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For they all introduce it in
their narratives, and that, too, in the same order. [1189] Here, as
elsewhere, each of these writers gives some matters which are peculiar
to himself, in which, nevertheless, we have not to apprehend any
suspicion of inconsistency. But what we have to make sure of is the
proof that, in those passages which are exact parallels, they are
nowhere to be regarded as in antagonism with each other. For if
anything bearing the appearance of a contradiction meets us here, the
simple affirmation that it is something wholly distinct, and uttered by
the Lord in similar terms indeed, but on a totally different occasion,
cannot be deemed a legitimate mode of explanation in a case like this,
where the narrative, as given by all the three evangelists, moves in
the same connection at once of subjects and of dates. Moreover, the
mere fact that the writers do not all observe the same order in the
reports which they give of the same sentiments expressed by the Lord,
certainly does not in any way affect either the understanding or the
communication of the subject itself, provided the matters which are
represented by them to have been spoken by Him are not inconsistent the
one with the other.
148. Again, what Matthew states in this form, "And this gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all
nations, and then shall the end come," [1190] is given also in the same
connection by Mark in the following manner: "And the gospel must first
be published among all nations." [1191] Mark has not added the words,
"and then shall the end come;" but he indicates what they express, when
he uses the phrase "first "in the sentence, "And the gospel must first
be published among all nations." For they had asked Him about the end.
And therefore, when He addresses them thus, "The gospel must first be
published among all nations," the term "first" clearly suggests the
idea of something to be done before the consummation should come.
149. In like manner, what Matthew states thus, "When ye therefore shall
see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
stand in the holy place, whoso readeth let him understand," [1192] is
put in the following form by Mark: "But when ye shall see the
abomination of desolation standing where it ought not, let him that
readeth understand." [1193] But though the phrase is thus altered, the
sense conveyed is the same. For the point of the clause "where it ought
not," is that the abomination of desolation ought not to be in the holy
place. Luke's method of putting it, again, is neither, "And when ye
shall see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place," nor
"where it ought not," but, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed
with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." [1194] At
that time, therefore, will the abomination of desolation be in the holy
place.
150. Again, what is given by Matthew in the following terms: "Then let
them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains; and let him which is
on the house-top not come down to take anything out of his house;
neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes,"
[1195] is reported also by Mark almost in so many words. On the other
hand, Luke's version proceeds thus: "Then let them which are in Judaea
flee to the mountains." [1196] Thus far he agrees with the other two.
But he presents what is subsequent to that in a different form. For he
goes on to say, "And let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto: for these
be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be
fulfilled." Now these statements seem to present differences enough
between each other. For the one, as it occurs in the first two
evangelists, runs thus: "Let him which is on the house-top not come
down to take anything out of his house;" whereas what is given by the
third evangelist is to this effect: "And let them which are in the
midst of it depart out." The import, however, may be, that in the great
agitation which will arise in the face of so mighty an impending peril,
those shut up in the state of siege (which is expressed by the phrase,
"they which are in the midst of it") will appear upon the housetop [or
"wall"], amazed and anxious to see what terror hangs over them, or what
method of escape may open. Still the question rises, How does this
third evangelist say here, "let them depart out," when he has already
used these terms: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with an
army"? For what is brought in after this--namely, the sentence, "And
let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto"--appears to
form part of one consistent admonition; and we can perceive how those
who are outside the city are not to enter into it; but the difficulty
is to see how those who are in the midst of it are to depart out, when
the city is already compassed with an army. Well, may not this
expression, "in the midst of it," indicate a time when the danger will
be so urgent as to leave no opportunity open, so far as temporal means
are concerned, for the preservation of this present life in the body,
and that the fact that this will be a time when the soul ought to be
ready and free, and neither taken up with, nor burdened by, carnal
desires, is imported by the phrase employed by the first two
writers--namely, "on the house-top," or, "on the wall"? In this way the
third evangelist's phraseology, "let them depart out" (which really
means, let them no more be engrossed with the desire of this life, but
let them be prepared to pass into another life), is equivalent in sense
to the terms used by the other two," let him not come down to take
anything out of his house" (which really means, "let not his affections
turn towards the flesh, as if it could yield him anything to his
advantage then"). And in like manner the phrase adopted by the one,
"And let not them that are in the countries enter thereunto" (which is
to say, "Let not those who, with good purpose of heart, have already
placed themselves outside it, indulge again in any carnal lust or
longing after it"), denotes precisely what the other two evangelists
embody in the sentence, "Neither let him which is in the field return
back to take his clothes," which is much the same as to state that he
should not again involve himself in cares of which he had been
unburdened.
151. Moreover, Matthew proceeds thus: "But pray ye that your flight be
not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day." Part of this is given
and part omitted by Mark, when he says, "And pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter." Luke, on the other hand, leaves this out
entirely, and instead of it introduces something which is peculiar to
himself, and by which he appears to me to have cast light upon this
very clause which has been set before us somewhat obscurely by these
others. For his version runs thus: "And take heed to yourselves, lest
at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and
drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you
unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the
face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye
may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to
pass." [1197] This is to be understood to be the same flight as is
mentioned by Matthew, which should not be taken in the winter or on the
Sabbath-day. That "winter," moreover, refers to these "cares of this
life" which Luke has specified directly; and the "Sabbath-day" refers
in like manner to the "surfeiting and drunkenness." For sad cares are
like a winter; and surfeiting and drunkenness drown and bury the heart
in carnal delights and luxury--an evil which is expressed under the
term "Sabbath-day," because of old, as is the case with them still, the
Jews had the very pernicious custom of revelling in pleasure on that
day, when they were ignorant of the spiritual Sabbath. Or, if something
else is intended by the words which thus appear in Matthew and Mark,
Luke's terms may also be taken to bear on something else, while no
question implying any antagonism between them need be raised for all
that. At present, however, we have not undertaken the task of
expounding the Gospels, but only that of defending them against
groundless charges of falsehood and deceit. Furthermore, other matters
which Matthew has inserted in this discourse, and which are common to
him and Mark, present no difficulty. On the other hand, with respect to
those sections which are common to him and Luke, [it is to be remarked
that] these are not introduced into the present discourse by Luke,
although in regard to the order of narration here they are at one. But
he records sentences of like tenor in other connections, either
reproducing them as they suggested themselves to his memory, and thus
bringing them in by anticipation so as to relate at an earlier point
words which, as spoken by the Lord, belong really to a later; or else,
giving us to understand that they were uttered twice over by the Lord,
once on the occasion referred to by Matthew, and on a second occasion,
with which Luke himself deals.
__________________________________________________________________
[1189] Matt. xxiv. 3-xxv. 46; Mark xiii. 4-37; Luke xxi. 7-36.
[1190] Matt. xxiv. 14.
[1191] Mark xiii. 10.
[1192] Matt. xxiv. 15.
[1193] Mark xiii. 14. [The Greek text of Mark, according to the best
authorities, does not contain the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the
prophet." Augustin also omits the clause, but the Edinburgh edition
inserts it, following the Authorized Version. It has therefore been
stricken out in this edition.--R.]
[1194] Luke xxi. 20.
[1195] Matt. xxiv. 16-18.
[1196] Luke xxi. 21.
[1197] Luke xxi. 34-36.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXVIII.--Of the Question Whether There is Any Contradiction
Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and John on the Other, in So
Far as the Former State that After Two Days Was to Be the Feast of the
Passover, and Afterwards Tells Us that He Was in Bethany, While the
Latter Gives a Parallel Narrative of What Took Place at Bethany, But
Mentions that It Was Six Days Before the Passover.
152. Matthew continues thus: "And it came to pass, when Jesus had
finished all these sayings, He said unto His disciples, Ye know that
after two days will be the feast of the passover, and the Son of man
shall be betrayed to be crucified." [1198] This is attested in like
manner by the other two,--namely, Mark and Luke,--and that, too, with a
thorough harmony on the subject of the order of narration. [1199] They
do not, however, introduce the sentence as one spoken by the Lord
Himself. They make no statement to that effect. At the same time, Mark,
speaking in his own person, does tell us that "after two days was the
feast of the passover and of unleavened bread." And Luke likewise gives
this as his own affirmation: "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew
nigh, which is called the passover;" that is to say, it "drew nigh" in
this sense, that it was to take place after two days' space, as the
other two are more apparently at one in expressing it. John, on the
other hand, has mentioned in three several places the nearness of this
same feast-day. In the two earlier instances the intimation is made
when he is engaged in recording certain matters of another tenor. But
on the third occasion his narrative appears clearly to deal with those
very times, in connection with which the other three evangelists also
notice the subject,--that is to say, the times when the Lord's passion
was actually imminent. [1200]
153. But to those who look into the matter without sufficient care,
there may seem to be a contradiction involved in the fact that Matthew
and Mark, after stating that the passover was to be after two days,
have at once informed us how Jesus was in Bethany on that occasion, on
which the account of the precious ointment comes before us; whereas
John, when he is about to give us the same narrative concerning the
ointment, begins by telling us that Jesus came to Bethany six days
before the passover. [1201] Now, the question is, how the passover
could be spoken of by those two evangelists as about to be celebrated
two days after, seeing that we find them, immediately after they have
made this statement, in company with John, giving us an account of the
scene with the ointment in Bethany; while in that connection the
last-named writer informs us, that the feast of the passover was to
take place six days after. Nevertheless, those who are perplexed by
this difficulty simply fail to perceive that Matthew and Mark have
brought in their account of the scene which was enacted in Bethany
really in the form of a recapitulation, not as if the time of its
occurrence was actually subsequent to the [time indicated in the]
announcement made by them on the subject of the two days' space, but as
an event which had already taken place at a date when there was still a
period of six days preceding the passover. For neither of them has
appended his account of what took place at Bethany to his statement
regarding the celebration of the passover after two days' space in any
such terms as these: "After these things, when He was in Bethany." But
Matthew's phrase is this: "Now when Jesus was in Bethany." And Mark's
version is simply this: "And being in Bethany," etc.; which is a method
of expression that may certainly be taken to refer to a period
antecedent to the utterance of what was said two days before the
passover. The case, therefore, stands thus: As we gather from the
narrative of John, Jesus came to Bethany six days before the passover;
there the supper took place, in connection with which we get the
account of the precious ointment; leaving this place, He came next to
Jerusalem, sitting upon an ass; and thereafter happened those things
which they relate to have occurred after this arrival of His in
Jerusalem. Consequently, even although the evangelists do not mention
the fact, we understand that between the day on which He came to
Bethany, and which witnessed the scene with the ointment, and the day
to which all these deeds and words which are at present before us
belonged, there elapsed a period of four days, so that at this point
might come in the day which the two evangelists have defined by their
statement as to the celebration of the passover two days after.
Further, when Luke says, "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,"
he does not indeed make any express mention of a two days' space; but
still, the nearness which he has instanced ought to be accepted as made
good by this very space of two days. Again, when John makes the
statement that "the Jews' passover was nigh at hand," [1202] he does
not intend a two days' space to be understood thereby, but means that
there was a period of six days before the passover. Thus it is that, on
recording certain matters immediately after this affirmation, with the
intention of specifying what measure of nearness he had in view when he
spoke of the passover as nigh at hand, he next proceeds in the
following strain: "Then Jesus, six days before the passover, came to
Bethany, where Lazarus had died, whom Jesus raised from the dead;
[1203] and there they made Him a supper." [1204] This is the incident
which Matthew and Mark introduce in the form of a recapitulation, after
the statement that after two days would be the passover. In their
recapitulation they thus come back upon the day in Bethany, which was
yet a six days' space off from the passover, and give us the account
which John also gives of the supper and the ointment. Subsequently to
that scene, we are to suppose Him to come to Jerusalem, and then, after
the occurrence of the other things recorded, to reach this day, which
was still a two days' space from the passover, and from which these
evangelists have made this digression, with the object of giving a
recapitulatory notice of the incident with the ointment in Bethany. And
after the completion of that narrative, they return once more to the
point from which they made the digression; that is to say, they now
proceed to record the words spoken by the Lord two days before the
passover. For if we remove the notice of the incident at Bethany, which
they have introduced as a digression from the literal order, and have
given in the form of a recollection and recapitulation inserted at a
point subsequent to its actual historical position, and if we then set
the narrative in its regular connection, the recital will go on as
follows;--according to Matthew, the Lord's words coming in thus: "Ye
know that after two days shall be the feast of the passover, and the
Son of man shall be betrayed to be crucified. Then assembled together
the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the
high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might
take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him. But they said, Not on the
feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Then one of the
twelve, called Judas Scarioth, went unto the chief priests," [1205]
etc. For between the place where it is said, "lest there be an uproar
among the people," and the passage where we read, "then one of the
disciples, called Judas, went," etc., that notice of the scene at
Bethany intervenes, which they have introduced by way of
recapitulation. Consequently, by leaving it out, we have established
such a connection in the narrative as may make our conclusion
satisfactory, that there is no contradiction here in the matter of the
order of times. Again, if we deal with Mark's Gospel in like manner,
and omit the account of the same supper at Bethany, which he also has
brought in as a recapitulation, his narrative will proceed in the
following order: "Now after two days was the feast of the passover, and
of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how
they might take Him by craft, and put Him to death. For they said,
[1206] Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar of the people. And
Judas Scariothes, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to
betray Him." [1207] Here, again, the incident at Bethany which these
evangelists have inserted, by way of recapitulation, is placed between
the clause, "lest there be an uproar of the people," and the verse
which we have attached immediately to that, namely, "And Judas
Scariothes, one of the twelve." Luke, on the other hand, has simply
omitted the said occurrence at Bethany. This is the explanation which
we give in reference to the six days before the passover, which is the
space mentioned by John when narrating what took place at Bethany, and
in reference to the two days before the passover, which is the period
specified by Matthew and Mark when presenting their account, in direct
sequence upon the statement thus made, of that same scene in Bethany
which has been recorded also by John. [1208]
__________________________________________________________________
[1198] Matt. xxvi. 1, 2. [It cannot be determined with certainty how
much time is to be included in the phrase "after two days." Moreover,
the difficulty in regard to the time of the Last Supper affects this
question, to some extent at least.--R.]
[1199] Mark xiv. 1; Luke xxii. 1.
[1200] John xi. 55, xii. 1, xiii. 1.
[1201] John xii. 1.
[1202] John xi. 55.
[1203] Ubi fuerat Lazarus mortuus quem suscitavit Jesus.
[1204] John xii. 1, 2.
[1205] Matt. xxvi. 2-5, 14, etc.
[1206] Dicebant enim.
[1207] Mark xiv. 1, 2, 10.
[1208] [This view is rejected by Dr. Robinson in his Harmony, but
accepted by many commentators. See Robinson's Greek Harmony, rev. ed.
pp. 236-238.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXIX.--Of the Concord Between Matthew, Mark, and John in Their
Notices of the Supper at Bethany, at Which the Woman Poured the
Precious Ointment on the Lord, and of the Method in Which These
Accounts are to Be Harmonized with that of Luke, When He Records an
Incident of a Similar Nature at a Different Period.
154. Matthew, then, continuing his narrative from the point up to which
we had concluded its examination, proceeds in the following terms:
"Then assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people
unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and
consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him: but they
said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people.
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there
came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and
poured it on His head as He sat at meat;" and so on down to the words,
"there shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial
of her." [1209] The scene with the woman and the costly ointment at
Bethany we have now to consider, as it is thus detailed. For although
Luke records an incident resembling this, and although the name which
he assigns to the person in whose house the Lord was supping might also
suggest an identity between the two narratives (for Luke likewise names
the host "Simon"), still, since there is nothing either in nature or in
the customs of men to make the case an incredible one, that as one man
may have two names, two men may with all the greater likelihood have
one and the same name, it is more reasonable to believe that the Simon
in whose house [it is thus supposed, according to Luke's version, that]
this scene at Bethany took place, was a different person from the Simon
[named by Matthew]. For Luke, again, does not specify Bethany as the
place where the incident which he records happened. And although it is
true that he in no way particularizes the town or village in which that
occurrence took place, still his narrative does not seem to deal with
the same locality. Consequently, my opinion is, that there is but one
interpretation to be put upon the matter. That is not, however, to
suppose that the woman who appears in Matthew was an entirely different
person from the woman who approached the feet of Jesus on that occasion
in the character of a sinner, and kissed them, and washed them with her
tears, and wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment,
in reference to whose case Jesus also made use of the parable of the
two debtors, and said that her sins, which were many, were forgiven her
because she loved much. But my theory is, that it was the same Mary who
did this deed on two separate occasions, the one being that which Luke
has put on record, when she approached Him first of all in that
remarkable humility, and with those tears, and obtained the forgiveness
of her sins. [1210] For John, too, although he has not given the kind
of recital which Luke has left us of the circumstances connected with
that incident, has at least mentioned the fact, in commending the same
Mary to our notice, when he has just begun to tell the story of the
raising of Lazarus, and before his narrative brings the Lord to Bethany
itself. The history which he offers us of that transaction proceeds
thus: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town
of Mary, and her sister Martha. It was that Mary which anointed the
Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother
Lazarus was sick." [1211] By this statement John attests what Luke has
told us when he records a scene of this nature in the house of a
certain Pharisee, whose name was Simon. Here, then, we see that Mary
had acted in this way before that time. And what she did a second time
in Bethany is a different matter, which does not belong to Luke's
narrative, but is related by three of the evangelists in concert,
namely, John, Matthew, and Mark. [1212]
155. Let us therefore notice how harmony is maintained here between
these three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and John, regarding whom there
is no doubt that they record the self-same occurrence at Bethany, on
occasion of which the disciples also, as all three mention, murmured
against the woman, ostensibly on the ground of the waste of the very
precious ointment. Now the further fact that Matthew and Mark tell us
that it was the Lord's head on which the ointment was poured, while
John says it was His feet, can be shown to involve no contradiction, if
we apply the principle which we have already expounded in dealing with
the scene of the feeding of the multitudes with the five loaves. For as
there was one writer who, in giving his account of that incident, did
not fail to specify that the people sat down at once by fifties and by
hundreds, although another spoke only of the fifties, no contradiction
could be supposed to emerge. There might indeed have seemed to be some
difficulty, if the one evangelist had referred only to the hundreds,
and the other only to the fifties; and yet, even in that case, the
correct finding should have been to the effect that they were seated
both by fifties and by hundreds. And this example ought to have made it
plain to us, as I pressed it upon my readers in discussing that
section, that even where the several evangelists introduce only the one
fact each, we should take the case to have been really, that both
things were elements in the actual occurrence. [1213] In the same way,
our conclusion with regard to the passage now before us should be, that
the woman poured the ointment not only upon the Lord's head, but also
on His feet. It is true that some person may possibly be found absurd
and artful enough to argue, that because Mark states that the ointment
was poured out only after the alabaster vase was broken there could not
have remained in the shattered vessel anything with which she could
anoint His feet. But while a person of that character, in his
endeavours to disprove the veracity of the Gospel, may contend that the
vase was broken, in a manner making it impossible that any portion of
the contents could have been left in it, how much better and more
accordant with piety must the position of a very different individual
appear, whose aim will be to uphold the truthfulness of the Gospel, and
who may therefore contend that the vessel was not broken in a manner
involving the total outpouring of the ointment! Moreover, if that
calumniator is so persistently blinded as to attempt to shatter the
harmony of the evangelists on this subject of the shattering of the
vase, [1214] he should rather accept the alternative, that the [Lord's]
feet were anointed before the vessel itself was broken, and that it
thus remained whole, and filled with ointment sufficient for the
anointing also of the head, when, by the breakage referred to, the
entire contents were discharged. For we allow that there is a due
regard to the several parts of our nature when the act commences with
the head, but [we may also say that] an equally natural order is
preserved when we ascend from the feet to the head.
156. The other matters belonging to this incident do not seem to me to
raise any question really involving a difficulty. There is the
circumstance that the other evangelists mention how the disciples
murmured about the [wasteful] outpouring of the precious ointment,
whereas John states that Judas was the person who thus expressed
himself, and tells us, in explanation of the fact, that "he was a
thief." But I think it is evident that this same Judas was the person
referred to under the [general] name of the disciples, the plural
number being used here instead of the singular, in accordance with that
mode of speech of which we have already introduced an explanation in
the case of Philip and the miracle of the five loaves. [1215] It may
also be understood in this way, that the other disciples either felt as
Judas felt, or spoke as he did, or were brought over to that view of
the matter by what Judas said, and that Matthew and Mark consequently
have expressed in word what was really the mind of the whole company;
but that Judas spoke as he did just because he was a thief, whereas
what prompted the rest was their care for the poor; and further, that
John has chosen to record the utterance of such sentiments only in the
instance of that one [among the disciples] whose habit of acting the
thief he believed it right to bring out in connection with this
occasion.
__________________________________________________________________
[1209] Matt. xxvi. 3-13.
[1210] Luke vii. 36-50. [This identification of Mary of Bethany with
the woman spoken of by Luke is part of the process by which the latter
is assumed to be Mary Magdalene. The occasions were different, and it
is far more likely that there were two women, neither of them Mary
Magdalene.--R.]
[1211] John xi. 1, 2. [John's language is more properly referred to
what was well known among Christians when he wrote, than to what had
occurred before the sickness of Lazarus.--R.]
[1212] John xii. 1-8; Matt. xxvi. 3-13; Mark xiv. 3-9.
[1213] See above, chap. xlvi. S: 98.
[1214] De alabastro fracto frangere conetur.
[1215] See above, S: 96.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter LXXX.--Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which are
Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of the Occasion on Which He Sent His
Disciples to Make Preparations for His Eating the Passover.
157. Matthew proceeds thus: "Then one of the twelve, who is called
Judas [of] Scarioth, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them,
What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they
covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver;" and so on down to the
words, "And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they
made ready the passover." [1216] Nothing in this section can be
supposed to stand in any contradiction with the versions of Mark and
Luke, who record this same passage in a similar manner. [1217] For as
regards the statement given by Matthew in these terms, "Go into the
city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at
hand: I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples," [1218]
it just indicates the person whom Mark and Luke name the "goodman of
the house," [1219] or the "master of the house," [1220] in which the
dining-room was shown them where they were to make ready the passover.
And Matthew has expressed this by simply bringing in the phrase, "to
such a man," as a brief explanation introduced by himself with the view
of succinctly giving us to understand who the person referred to was.
For if he had said that the Lord addressed them in words like these:
"Go into the city, and say unto him [or "it"], [1221] The Master saith,
My time is at hand, I will keep the passover at thy house," it might
have been supposed that the terms were intended to be directed to the
city itself. For this reason, therefore, Matthew has inserted the
statement, that the Lord bade them go "to such a man," not, however, as
a statement made by the Lord, whose instructions he was recording, but
simply as one volunteered by himself, with the view of avoiding the
necessity of narrating the whole at length, when it seemed to him that
this was all that required to be mentioned in order to bring out with
sufficient accuracy what was really meant by the person who gave the
order. For who can fail to see that no one naturally speaks to others
in such an indefinite fashion as this, "Go ye to such a man"? If,
again, the words had been, "Go ye to any one whatsoever," or "to any
one you please," [1222] the mode of expression might have been correct
enough, but the person to whom the disciples were sent would have been
left uncertain: whereas Mark and Luke present him as a certain
definitely indicated individual, although they pass over his name in
silence. The Lord Himself, we may be sure, knew to what person it was
that He despatched them. And in order that those also whom He was thus
sending might be able to discover the individual meant, He gave them,
before they set out, a particular sign which they were to
follow,--namely, the appearance of a man bearing a pitcher or a vessel
of water,--and told them, that if they went after him, they would reach
the house which He intended. Hence, seeing that it was not competent
here to employ the phraseology, "Go to any one you please," which is
indeed legitimate enough, so far as the demands of linguistic propriety
are concerned, but which an accurate statement of the matter dealt with
here renders inadmissible in this passage, with how much less warrant
could an expression like this have been used here (by the speaker
Himself), "Go to such a man," which the usage of correct language can
never admit at all? But it is manifest that the disciples were sent by
the Lord, plainly, not to any man they pleased, but to "such a man,"
that is to say, to a certain definite individual. And that is a thing
which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, could quite rightly
have related to us, by putting it in this way: "He sent them to such a
man, [1223] in order to say to him, I will keep the passover at thy
house." He might also have expressed it thus: "He sent them to such a
man, saying, Go, say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house."
And thus it is that, after giving us the words actually spoken by the
Lord Himself, namely, "Go into the city," he has introduced this
addition of his own, "to such a man," which he does, however, not as if
the Lord had thus expressed Himself, but simply with the view of giving
us to understand, although the name is left unrecorded, that there was
a particular person in the city to whom the Lord's disciples were sent,
in order to make ready the passover. Thus, too, after the two [or
three] words brought in that manner as an explanation of his own, he
takes up again the order of the words as they were uttered by the Lord
Himself, namely, "And say unto him, The Master saith." And if you ask
now "to whom" they were to say this, the correct reply is given [at
once] in these terms, To that particular man to whom the evangelist has
given us to understand that the Lord sent them, when, speaking in His
own person, he introduced the clause, "to such a man." The clause thus
inserted may indeed contain a rather unusual mode of expression, but
still it is a perfectly legitimate phraseology when it is thus
understood. Or it may be, that in the Hebrew language, in which Matthew
is reported to have written, there is some peculiar usage which might
make it entirely accordant with the laws of correct expression, even
were the whole taken to have been spoken by the Lord Himself. Whether
that is the case, those who understand that tongue may decide. Even in
the Latin language itself, indeed, this kind of expression might also
be used, in terms like these: "Go into the city to such a man as may be
indicated by a person who shall meet you carrying a pitcher of water."
If the instructions were conveyed in such words as these, they could be
acted upon without any ambiguity. Or again, if the terms were anything
like these, "Go into the city to such a man, who resides in this or the
other place, in such and such a house," then the note thus given of the
place and the designation of the house would make it quite possible to
understand the commission delivered, and to execute it. But when these
instructions, and all others of a similar order, are left entirely
untold, the person who in such circumstances uses this kind of address,
"Go to such a man, and say unto him," cannot possibly be listened to
intelligently for this obvious reason, that when he employs the terms,
"to such a man," he intends a certain particular individual to be
understood by them, and yet offers us no hint by which he may be
identified. But if we are to suppose that the clause referred to is one
introduced as an explanation by the evangelist himself, [we may find
that] the requirements of brevity will render the expression somewhat
obscure, without, however, making it incorrect. Moreover, as to the
fact, that where Mark speaks of a pitcher [1224] of water, Luke
mentions a vessel, [1225] the simple explanation is, that the one has
used a word indicative of the kind of vessel, and the other a term
indicative of its capacity, while both evangelists have nevertheless
preserved the real meaning actually intended.
158. Matthew proceeds thus: "Now when the even was come, He sat down
with the twelve disciples; and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say
unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding
sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?" and so
on, down to where we read, "Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered
and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said." [1226] In
what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three
evangelists, [1227] who also record such matters, offer nothing
calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty. [1228]
__________________________________________________________________
[1216] Matt. xxvi. 14-19.
[1217] Mark xiv. 10-16; Luke xxii. 3-13.
[1218] Matt. xxvi. 18.
[1219] Patrem familias.
[1220] Dominum domus.
[1221] Ite in civitatem et dicite ei. Turning on the identity of form
retained by the Latin pronoun in all the genders of the dative case,
this, of course, cannot be precisely represented in English.
[1222] Ad quemcunque aut ad quemlibet.
[1223] Ad quendam.
[1224] Lagenam, bottle.
[1225] Amphoram, large measure.
[1226] Matt. xxvi. 20-25.
[1227] Mark xiv. 17-21; Luke xxii. 14-23; John xiii. 21-27.
[1228] [No notice is taken by Augustin, in this treatise, of the most
serious difficulty connected with the narratives of the Lord's Supper;
namely, that of the day of the month on which it was instituted. The
Synoptists distinctly declare that our Lord ate the passover supper
with His disciples at the regular time (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12;
Luke xxii. 7), but some passages in John (xiii. 1, 27-30; xviii. 28;
xix. 31) seem to indicate that the proper time of its observance had
not yet come. Hence many commentators think that the Lord's Supper was
instituted on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, one day before the
regular time of the paschal supper.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Book III.
This book contains a demonstration of the harmony of the evangelists
from the accounts of the Supper on to the end of the Gospel, the
narratives given by the several writers being collated, and the whole
arranged in one orderly connection.
__________________________________________________________________
Prologue.
1. Inasmuch as we have now reached that point in the history at which
all the four evangelists necessarily hold their course in company on to
the conclusion, without presenting any serious divergence the one from
the other, if it happens anywhere that one of them makes mention of
something which another leaves unnoticed, it appears to me that we may
demonstrate the consistency maintained by the various evangelists with
greater expedition, if from this point onwards we now bring all the
statements given by all the writers together into one connection, and
arrange the whole in a single narration, and under one view. [1229] I
consider that in this way the task which we have undertaken may be
discharged with greater convenience and facility than otherwise might
be the case. What we have now before us, therefore, is to attempt the
construction of a single narrative, in which we shall include all the
particulars, and for which we shall possess the attestation of those
evangelists who, (each selecting for recital out of the whole number of
facts those which he had either the ability or the desire to relate,)
have prepared these records for us: [1230] this being done in such a
manner, moreover, that all these statements, in regard to which we have
to prove an entire freedom from contradictions, are taken as made by
all the evangelists together.
__________________________________________________________________
[1229] The text gives: et in unam narrationem faciemque digeramus. For
faciem the reading seriem, series, also occurs.
[1230] The text gives: ut aggrediamur narrationem omnia commemorantes,
cum eorum evangelistarum attestatione qui ex his omnibus, etc. Some
editions have cum eorundem evangelistarum attestatione quid ex his,
etc. = the attestation of the same evangelists as to what, etc.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter I.--Of the Method in Which the Four Evangelists are Shown to Be
at One in the Accounts Given of the Lord's Supper and the Indication of
His Betrayer.
2. Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by
Matthew, [which runs thus]: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said,
Take, eat; this is my body." [1231] Both Mark and Luke also gave this
section. [1232] It is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice
over: first before He gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread
has been given. But the fact is, that what is stated in that earlier
connection has been introduced, according to this writer's habit, by
anticipation, while the words which he has inserted here in their
proper order are left unrecorded in those previous verses, and the two
passages when put together make up exactly what stands expressed by
those other evangelists. [1233] John, on the other hand, has said
nothing about the body and blood of the Lord in this context; but he
plainly certifies that the Lord spake to that effect on another
occasion, [1234] with much greater fulness than here. At present,
however, after recording how the Lord rose from supper and washed the
disciples' feet, and after telling us also the reason why the Lord
dealt thus with them, in expressing which He had intimated, although
still obscurely, and by the use of a testimony of Scripture, the fact
that He was being betrayed by the man who was to eat of His bread, at
this point John comes to the section in question, which the other three
evangelists also unite in introducing. He presents it thus: "When Jesus
had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, That one of you shall betray me. Then
the disciples looked (as the same John subjoins) one on another,
doubting of whom He spake." [1235] "And (as Matthew and Mark tell us)
they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto
Him, Is it I? And He answered and said (as Matthew proceeds to state),
He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray
me." Matthew also goes on to make the following addition to the
preceding: "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but
woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed! it had been
good for that man if he had not been born." [1236] Mark, too, is at one
with him here as regards both the words themselves and the order of
narration. [1237] Then Matthew continues thus: "Then Judas, which
betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him,
Thou hast said." Even these words did not say explicitly whether he was
himself the man. For the sentence still admits of being understood as
if its point was this, "I am not the person who has said so." [1238]
All this, too, may quite easily have been uttered by Judas and answered
by the Lord without its being noticed by all the others.
3. After this, Matthew proceeds to insert the mystery of His body and
blood, as it was committed then by the Lord to the disciples. Here Mark
and Luke act correspondingly. But after He had handed the cup to them,
[we find that] He spoke again concerning His betrayer, in terms which
Luke recounts, when he says, "But, behold, the hand of him that
betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as
it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom He shall be betrayed."
[1239] At this point we must now suppose that to come in which is
narrated by John while these others omit it, just as John has also
passed by certain matters which they have detailed. In accordance with
this, after the giving of the cup, and after the Lord's subsequent
saying which has been brought in by Luke,--namely, "But, behold, the
hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table," etc.,--the
statement made by John is [to be taken as immediately] subjoined. It is
to the following effect: "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of
His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him,
and said unto him, [1240] Who is he of whom He speaketh? He then, when
he had laid himself on Jesus' breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?
Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped
it. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas, the son of
Simon [of] Scarioth. And after the sop Satan then entered into him."
[1241]
4. Here we must take care not to let John underlie the appearance not
only of standing in antagonism to Luke, who had stated before this,
that Satan entered into the heart of Judas at the time when he made his
bargain with the Jews to betray Him on receipt of a sum of money, but
also of contradicting himself. For, at an earlier point, and previous
to [his notice of] the receiving of this sop, he had made use of these
terms: "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart
of Judas to betray Him." [1242] And how does he enter into the heart,
but by putting unrighteous persuasions into the thoughts of unrighteous
men? The explanation, however, is this. We ought to suppose Judas to
have been more fully taken possession of by the devil now, just as on
the other hand, in the instance of the good, those who had already
received the Holy Spirit on that occasion, subsequently to His
resurrection, when He breathed upon them and said, "Receive ye the Holy
Ghost," [1243] also obtained a fuller gift of that Spirit at a later
time, namely, when He was sent down from above on the day of Pentecost.
In like manner, Satan then entered into this man after the sop. And (as
John himself mentions in the immediate context) "Jesus saith unto him,
What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what
intent He spake this unto him; for some of them thought, because Judas
had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things that we have
need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the
poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it
was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son
of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him: and if God be glorified
in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway
glorify Him." [1244]
__________________________________________________________________
[1231] Matt. xxvi. 26.
[1232] Mark xiv. 22; Luke xxii. 49.
[1233] [Luke's first reference to the cup belongs to the passover
celebration, in distinction from the Lord's Supper.--R.]
[1234] John vi. 32-64.
[1235] John xiii. 21, 22.
[1236] Matt. xxvi. 22-25.
[1237] Mark xiv. 19-21.
[1238] [This explanation seems altogether inadmissible, and is equally
unnecessary.--R.]
[1239] Luke xxii. 21, 22.
[1240] Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus et dixit ei.
[1241] John xiii. 23-27. [Whether this preceded or followed the giving
of the cup is still in dispute.--R.]
[1242] John xiii. 2.
[1243] John xx. 22.
[1244] John xiii. 28-32.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.--Of the Proof of Their Freedom from Any Discrepancies in
the Notices Given of the Predictions of Peter's Denials.
5. "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek
me: and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now
I say unto you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this
shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to
another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus
answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou
shalt follow me afterwards. Peter saith unto Him, Lord, why cannot I
follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus answered
him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, The cock shall not crow, until thou deniest me thrice."
[1245] John, from whose Gospel I have taken the passage introduced
above, is not the only evangelist who details this incident of the
prophetic announcement of his own denial to Peter. The other three also
record the same thing. [1246] They do not, however, take one and the
same particular point in the discourses [of Christ] as their occasion
for proceeding to this narration. For Matthew and Mark both introduce
it in a completely parallel order, and at the same stage of their
narrative, namely, after the Lord left the house in which they had
eaten the passover; while Luke and John, on the other hand, bring it in
before He left that scene. Still we might easily suppose, either that
it has been inserted in the way of a recapitulation by the one couple
of evangelists, or that it has been inserted in the way of an
anticipation by the other; only such a supposition may be made more
doubtful by the circumstance that there is so remarkable a diversity,
not only in the Lord's words, but even in those sentiments of His by
which the incident in question is introduced, and by which Peter was
moved to venture his presumptuous asseveration that he would die with
the Lord or for the Lord. These considerations may constrain us rather
to understand the narratives really to import that the man uttered his
presumptuous declaration thrice over, as it was called forth by
different occasions in the series of Christ's discourses, and that also
three several times the answer was returned him by the Lord, which
intimated that before the cock crew he would deny Him thrice.
6. And surely there is nothing incredible in supposing that Peter was
moved to such an act of presumption on several occasions, separated
from each other by certain intervals of time, as he was actually
instigated to deny Him repeatedly. Neither should it seem unreasonable
to fancy that the Lord gave him a reply in similar terms at three
successive periods, especially when [we see that] in immediate
connection with each other, and without the interposition of anything
else either in fact or word, Christ addressed the question to him three
several times whether he loved Him, and that, when Peter returned the
same answer thrice over, He also gave him thrice over the self-same
charge to feed His sheep. [1247] That it is the more reasonable thing
to suppose that Peter displayed his presumption on three different
occasions, and that thrice over he received from the Lord a warning
with respect to his triple denial, is further proved, as we may see, by
the very terms employed by the evangelists, which record sayings
uttered by the Lord in diverse form and of diverse import. Let us here
call attention again to that passage which I introduced a little ago
from the Gospel of John. There we certainly find that He had expressed
Himself in this way: "Little children, yet a little while I am with
you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye
cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you,
That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye love one
another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye
have love one to another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither
goest Thou?" [1248] Now, surely it is evident here that what moved
Peter to utter this question, "Lord, whither goest Thou?" was the words
which the Lord Himself had spoken. For he had heard Him say, "Whither I
go, ye cannot come." Then Jesus made this reply to the said Peter:
"Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shall follow me
afterwards." Thereupon Peter expressed himself thus: "Lord, why cannot
I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake." [1249] And to
this presumptuous declaration the Lord responded by predicting his
denial. Luke, again, first mentions how the Lord said, "Simon, behold
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and, when thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren:" next he proceeds immediately to
tell us how Peter replied to this effect: "Lord, I am ready to go with
Thee, both unto prison and to death;" and then he continues thus: "And
He said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before
that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." [1250] Now, who can
fail to perceive that this is an occasion by itself, and that the
incident in connection with which Peter was incited to make the
presumptuous declaration already referred to is an entirely different
one? But, once more, Matthew presents us with the following passage:
"And when they had sung an hymn," he says, "they went out into the
Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended
because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am
risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." [1251] The same
passage is given in precisely the same form by Mark. [1252] What
similarity is there, however, in these words, or in the ideas expressed
by them, either to the terms in which John represents Peter to have
made his presumptuous declaration, or to those in which Luke exhibits
him as uttering such an asseveration? And so we find that in Matthew's
narrative the connection proceeds immediately thus: "Peter answered and
said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet
will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily, I say unto
thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Peter saith unto him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not
deny Thee. Likewise also said all His disciples." [1253]
7. All this is recorded almost in the same language also by Mark, only
that he has not put in so general a form what the Lord said with regard
to the manner in which the event [of Peter's failure] was to be brought
about, but has given it a more particular turn. For his version is
this: "Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night,
before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." [1254] Thus it
appears that all of them tell us how the Lord foretold that Peter would
deny Him before the cock crew, but that they do not all mention how
often the cock was to crow, and that Mark is the only one who has
presented a more explicit notice of this incident in the narrative.
Hence some are of opinion that Mark's statement is not in harmony with
those of the others. But this is simply because they do not give
sufficient attention to the facts of the case, and, above all, because
they approach the question under the cloud of a prejudiced mind, in
consequence of their being possessed by a hostile disposition towards
the gospel. The fact is, that Peter's denial, when taken as a whole, is
a threefold denial. For he remained in the same state of mental
agitation, and harboured the same mendacious intention, until what had
been foretold regarding him was brought to his mind, and healing came
to him by bitter weeping and sorrow of heart. It is evident, however,
that if this complete denial--that is to say, the threefold denial--is
taken to have commenced only after the first crowing of the cock, three
of the evangelists will appear to have given an incorrect account of
the matter. For Matthew's version is this: "Verily I say unto thee,
That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice;" and
Luke puts it thus: "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this
day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me;" and John
presents it in this form: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, the cock
shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice." And thus, in different
terms and with words introduced in diverse successions, these three
evangelists have expressed one and the same sense as conveyed by the
words which the Lord spake--namely, the fact that, before the cock
should crow, Peter was to deny Him thrice. On the other hand, if [we
suppose that] he went through the whole triple denial before the cock
began to crow at all, then Mark will be made to underlie the charge of
having given a superfluous statement when he puts these words into the
Lord's mouth: "Verily I say unto thee, That this day, before the cock
crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice." For to what purpose would it be
to say, "before the cock crow twice," when, on the supposition that
this entire threefold denial was gone through previous to the first
crowing of the cock, it is self-evident that a negation, which would
thus be proved to have been completed before the first cockcrow, must
also, as matter of course, be understood to have been fully uttered
before the second cockcrow and before the third, and, in short, before
all the cockcrowings which took place on that same night? But, inasmuch
as this threefold denial was begun previous to the first crowing of the
cock, those three evangelists concerned themselves with noticing, not
the time at which Peter was to complete it, but the extent [1255] to
which it was to be carried, and the period at which it was to commence;
that is to say, their object was to bring out the facts that it was to
be thrice repeated, and that it was to begin previous to the
cockcrowing. At the same time, so far as the man's own mind is
concerned, we might also quite well understand it to have been engaged
in, as a whole, previous to the first cockcrow. For although it is true
that, so far as regards the actual utterance of the individual who was
guilty of the denial, that threefold negation was only entered upon
previous to the first cockcrow, and really finished before the second
cockcrow, still it is equally true that, in so far as the disposition
of mind and the apprehensions indulged by Peter were concerned, it was
conceived, [1256] as a whole, before the first cockcrow. Neither is it
a matter of any consequence of what duration those intervals of delay
were which elapsed between the several utterances of that
thrice-recurring voice, if it is the case that the denial completely
possessed his heart even previous to the first cockcrow,--in
consequence, indeed, of his having imbibed a spirit of terror so abject
as to make him capable of denying the Lord when he was questioned
regarding Him, not only once, but a second time, and even a third time.
Thus, a more correct and careful consideration of the matter might show
us [1257] that, precisely as it is declared that the man who looketh on
a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in
his heart, [1258] so, in the present instance, inasmuch as in the words
which he spoke, Peter merely expressed the apprehension which he had
already conceived with such intensity in his mind as to make it capable
of enduring even on to a third repetition of his denial of the Lord,
this threefold negation is to be assigned as a whole to that particular
period at which the fear that sufficed thus to carry him on to a
threefold denial took possession of him. In this way, too, it may be
made apparent that, even if the words in which the denial was couched
began to break forth from him only after the first cockcrow, when his
heart was smitten by the inquiries addressed to him, it would involve
neither any absurdity nor any untruthfulness, although it were said
that before the cock crew he denied Him thrice, seeing that, in any
case, previous to the crowing of the cock, his mind had been assailed
by an apprehension violent enough to be able to draw him [1259] on even
to a third denial. All the less, therefore, ought we to feel any
difficulty in the matter, if it appears that the threefold denial, as
expressed also in the thrice-recurring utterances of the person who
made the denial, was entered upon previous to the crowing of the cock,
although it was not completed before the first cockcrow. We may take a
parallel case, and suppose an intimation to be made to the following
effect to a person: "This night, before the cock crow, you will write a
letter to me, in which you will revile me thrice." Well, surely in this
instance, if the man began to write the letter before the cock had
crowed at all, and finished it after the cock had crowed for the first
time, that would be no reason for alleging that the intimation
previously made was false. The fact, therefore, is that, in putting
these words into the Lord's lips, "Before the cock crow twice, thou
shalt deny me thrice," Mark has given us a plainer indication of the
intervals of time which separated the utterances themselves. And when
we come to the said section of the evangelical narrative, we shall see
that the circumstances are presented in a manner which exhibits, in
that connection also, the harmony subsisting among the evangelists.
8. If, however, the demand is to get at the very words, literally and
completely, which the Lord addressed to Peter, we answer that it is
impossible to discover these; and further, that it is simply
superfluous to ask them, inasmuch as the speaker's meaning--to intimate
which was the object He had in view in uttering the words--admits of
being understood with the utmost plainness, even under the diverse
terms employed by the evangelists. And whether, then, it be the case
that Peter, instigated at different occasions in the course of the
Lord's sayings, made his presumptuous declaration three several times,
and had his denial foretold him thrice over by the Lord, as is the more
probable result to which our investigation points us; or whether it may
appear that the accounts given by all the evangelists are capable of
being reduced to a single statement, when a certain order of narration
is adopted, so that it could be proved that it was only on one occasion
that the Lord predicted to Peter, on the exhibition of his presumptuous
spirit, the fact that he would deny Him;--in either case, any
contradiction between the evangelists will fail to be detected, as
nothing of that nature really exists.
__________________________________________________________________
[1245] John xiii. 33-38.
[1246] Matt. xxvi. 30-35; Mark xiv. 26-31; Luke xxii. 31-34.
[1247] John xxi. 15-17.
[1248] John xiii. 33-36.
[1249] John xiii. 37.
[1250] Luke xxii. 31-33.
[1251] Matt. xxvi. 30-32.
[1252] Mark xiv. 26-28.
[1253] Matt. xxvi. 33-35. [It is very probable that the prediction of
Peter's denial was repeated, being first spoken in the upper room
(Luke, John), and afterwards on the way to Gethsemane (Matthew,
Mark)--R.]
[1254] Mark xiv. 30. [The Latin reproduces the emphatic form of the
Greek text: "That thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow
twice, shalt deny me thrice" (Revised Version). It seem probable that
this is the most accurate report, derived from Peter himself.--R.]
[1255] Reading quanta futura esset. Quando also occurs for quanta, in
which case the sense would be = the period at which it was to take
place.
[1256] Adopting concepta est. There is another reading, coepta est = it
was commenced.
[1257] The text gives simply: ut rectius diligentiusque attendentibus.
Migne states that in six mss. videtur is added = it seems to those who
consider the matter more correctly, etc.
[1258] Matt. v. 28.
[1259] The text gives eum. Another common reading is eam = it, i.e. his
mind.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Of the Manner in Which It Can Be Shown that No
Discrepancies Exist Between Them in the Accounts Which They Give of the
Words Which Were Spoken by the Lord, on to the Time of His Leaving the
House in Which They Had Supped.
9. At this point, therefore, we may now follow, as far as we can, the
order of the narrative, as gathered from all the evangelists together.
Thus, then, after the prediction in question had been made to Peter,
according to John's version, the same John proceeds with his statement,
and introduces in this connection the Lord's discourse, which was to
the following effect: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in
God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions;"
[1260] and so forth. He narrates at length the sayings, so memorable
and so pre-eminently sublime, of which He delivered Himself in the
course of that address, until, in due connection, he comes to the
passage where the Lord speaks as follows: "O righteous Father, the
world hath not known Thee: but I have known Thee, and these have known
that Thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them Thy name, and
will declare it; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved me may be in
them, and I in them." [1261] Again we find, according to the narrative
given by Luke, that there arose "a strife among them which of them
should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them, The kings of
the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but
he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; [1262] and he
that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that
sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat?
but I am among you as he that serveth. And ye are they which have
continued with me in my temptations: and I appoint unto you a kingdom,
as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my
table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel." [1263] The said Luke also immediately subjoins to these words
the following passage: "And the Lord said to Simon: Simon, behold,
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto Him: Lord, I am
ready to go with Thee, both into prison, and to death. And He said, I
tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou
shall thrice deny that thou knowest me. And He said unto them, When I
sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And
they said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a
purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no
sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, this
that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And He was reckoned
among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And
they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It
is enough." [1264] Next comes the passage, given both by Matthew and by
Mark: "And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of
Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of
me this night: for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the
sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen
again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto
Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never
be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this
night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith
unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee.
Likewise also said all the disciples." [1265] We have introduced the
preceding section as it is presented by Matthew. But Mark also records
it almost in so many and the same words, with the exception of the
apparent discrepancy, which we have already cleared up above, on the
subject of the crowing of the cock.
__________________________________________________________________
[1260] John xiv. 1, 2.
[1261] John xvii. 25, 26.
[1262] Another reading is minor = as the less.
[1263] Luke xxii. 24-30. [This incident may with more propriety be
placed before the washing of the disciples' feet.--R.]
[1264] Luke xxii. 31-38. [The conversation in regard to the swords
(vers. 35-38) probably preceded the discourse reported by John
(xiv.-xvii.).--R.]
[1265] Matt. xxvi. 30-35.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Of What Took Place in the Piece of Ground or Garden to
Which They Came on Leaving the House After the Supper; And of the
Method in Which, in John's Silence on the Subject, a Real Harmony Can
Be Demonstrated Between the Other Three Evangelists--Namely, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke.
10. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the same connection as
follows: "Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane."
[1266] This is mentioned also by Mark. [1267] Luke, too, refers to it,
although he does not notice the piece of ground by name. For he says:
"And He came out, and went, as was His wont, to the Mount of Olives;
and His disciples also followed Him. And when He was at the place, He
said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation." [1268] That is
the place which the other two have instanced under the name of
Gethsemane. There, we understand, was the garden which John brings into
notice when he gives the following narration: "When Jesus had spoken
these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron,
where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples."
[1269] Then taking Matthew's record, we get this statement next in
order: "He said unto His disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray
yonder. [1270] And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee,
and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My
soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch
with me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. And He cometh unto
the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What!
could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not
into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if
this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, Thy will be done.
And He came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And
He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying
the same words. Then cometh He to His disciples, and saith unto them,
Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the
Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be
going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me." [1271]
11. Mark also records these passages, introducing them quite in the
same method and succession. Some of the sentences, however, are given
with greater brevity by him, and others are somewhat more fully
explained. These sayings of our Lord, indeed, may seem in one portion
to stand in some manner of contradiction to each other as they are
presented in Matthew's version. I refer to the fact that [it is stated
there that] He came to His disciples after His third prayer, and said
to them, "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at
hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me." For
what are we to make of the direction thus given above, "Sleep on now,
and take your rest," when there is immediately subjoined this other
declaration, "Behold, the hour is at hand," and thereafter also the
instruction, "Arise, let us be going"? Those readers who perceive
something like a contradiction here, seek to pronounce these words,
"Sleep on now, and take your rest," in a way betokening that they were
spoken in reproach, and not in permission. And this is an expedient
which might quite fairly be adopted were there any necessity for it.
Mark, however, has reproduced these sayings in a manner which implies
that after He had expressed himself in the terms, "Sleep on now, and
take your rest," He added the words, "It is enough," and then appended
to these the further statement, "The hour is come; behold, the Son of
man shall be betrayed." [1272] Hence we may conclude that the case
really stood thus: namely, that after addressing these words to them,
"Sleep on now, and take your rest," the Lord was silent for a space, so
that what He had thus given them permission to do might be [seen to be]
really acted upon; and that thereafter He made the other declaration,
"Behold the hour is come." Thus it is that in Mark's Gospel we find
those words [regarding the sleeping] followed immediately by the
phrase, "It is enough;" that is to say, "the rest which you have had is
enough now." But as no distinct notice is introduced of this silence on
the Lord's part which intervened then, the passage comes to be
understood in a forced manner, and it is supposed that a peculiar
pronunciation must be given to these words.
12. Luke, on the other hand, has omitted to mention the number of times
that He prayed. He has told us, however, a fact which is not recorded
by the others--namely, that when He prayed He was strengthened by an
angel, and that, as He prayed more earnestly, He had a bloody sweat,
with drops falling down to the ground. Thus it appears that when he
makes the statement, "And when He rose up from prayer, and was come to
His disciples," he does not indicate how often He had prayed by that
time. But still, in so doing, he does not stand in any kind of
antagonism to the other two. Moreover, John does indeed mention how He
entered into the garden along with His disciples. But he does not
relate how He was occupied there up to the period when His betrayer
came in along with the Jews to apprehend Him.
13. These three evangelists, therefore, have in this manner narrated
the same incident, just as, on the other hand, one man might give three
several accounts of a single occurrence, with a certain measure of
diversity in his statements, and yet without any real contradiction.
Luke, for example, has specified the distance to which He went forward
from the disciples--that is to say, when He withdrew from them in order
to pray--more definitely than the others. For he tells us that it was
"about a stone's cast." Mark, again, states first of all in his own
words how the Lord prayed that, "If it were possible, the hour might
pass from Him," referring to the hour of His Passion, which he also
expresses presently by the term "cup." He then reproduces the Lord's
own words, in the following manner: "Abba, Father, all things are
possible to Thee: take away this cup from me." And if we connect with
these terms the clause which is given by the other two evangelists, and
for which Mark himself has also already introduced a clear parallel,
presented as a statement made in his own person instead of the Lord's,
the whole sentence will be exhibited in this form: "Father, if it be
possible, (for) all things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup
from me." And it will be so put just to prevent any one from supposing
that He made the Father's power less than it is when He said, "If it be
possible." For thus His words were not, "If Thou canst do it;" but "If
it be possible." And anything is possible which He wills. Therefore,
the expression, "If it be possible," has here just the same force as,
"If Thou wilt." For Mark has made the sense in which the phrase, "If it
be possible," is to be taken quite plain, when he says, "All things are
possible unto Thee." And further, the fact that these writers have
recorded how He said, "Nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou
wilt" (an expression which means precisely the same as this other form,
"Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done"), shows us clearly enough
that it was with reference not to any absolute impossibility on the
Father's side, but only to His will, that these words, "If it be
possible," were spoken. This is made the more apparent by the plainer
statement which Luke has presented to the same effect. For his version
is not, "If it be possible," but, "If Thou be willing." And to this
clearer declaration of what was really meant we may add, with the
effect of still greater clearness, the clause which Mark has inserted,
so that the whole will proceed thus: "If Thou be willing, (for) all
things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup from me."
14. Again, as to Mark's mentioning that the Lord said not only
"Father," but "Abba, Father," the explanation simply is, that "Abba" is
in Hebrew exactly what "Pater" is in Latin. And perhaps the Lord may
have used both words with some kind of symbolical significance,
intending to indicate thereby, that in sustaining this sorrow He bore
the part of His body, which is the Church, of which He has been made
the corner-stone, and which comes to Him [in the person of disciples
gathered] partly out of the Hebrews, to whom He refers when He says
"Abba," and partly out of the Gentiles, to whom He refers when He says
"Pater" [Father]. [1273] The Apostle Paul also makes use of the same
significant expression. For he says, "In whom we cry, Abba, Father;"
[1274] and, in another passage, "God sent His Spirit into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father." [1275] For it was meet that the good Master and
true Saviour, by sharing in the sufferings of the more infirm, [1276]
should in His own person illustrate the truth that His witnesses ought
not to despair, although it might perchance happen that, through human
frailty, sorrow might steal in upon their hearts at the time of
suffering; seeing that they would overcome it if, mindful that God
knows what is best for those whose well-being He regards, they gave His
will the preference over their own. On this subject, however, as a
whole, the present is not the time for entering on any more detailed
discussion. For we have to deal simply with the question concerning the
harmony of the evangelists, from whose varied modes of narration we
gather the wholesome lesson that, in order to get at the truth, the one
essential thing to aim at in dealing with the terms is simply the
intention which the speaker had in view in using them. For the word
"Father" means just the same as the phrase "Abba, Father." But with a
view to bring out the mystic significance, the expression, "Abba,
Father," is the clearer form; while, for indicating the unity, the word
"Father" is sufficient. And that the Lord did indeed employ this method
of address, "Abba, Father," must be accepted as matter of fact. But
still His intention would not appear very obvious were there not the
means (since others use simply the term "Father") to show that under
such a form of expression those two Churches, which are constituted,
the one out of the Jews, and the other out of the Gentiles, are
presented as also really one. In this way, then, [we may suppose that]
the phrase, "Abba, Father," was adopted in order to convey the same
idea as was indicated by the Lord on another occasion, when He said,
"Other sheep I have which are not of this fold." [1277] In these words
He certainly referred to the Gentiles, since He had sheep also among
the people of Israel. But in that passage He goes on immediately to add
the declaration, "Them also I must bring, that there may be one fold
and one Shepherd." And so we may say that, just as the phrase, "Abba,
Father," contains the idea of [the two races,] the Israelites and the
Gentiles, the word "Father," used alone, points to the one flock which
these two constitute.
__________________________________________________________________
[1266] Matt. xxvi. 36-46.
[1267] Mark xiv. 32-42.
[1268] Luke xxii. 39-46.
[1269] John xviii. 1.
[1270] ["Go yonder and pray;" so the Latin, as well as the Greek text.
Comp. Revised Version, which in some other instances, in the passage
here cited, agrees more closely with Augustin's text than does the
Authorized Version.--R.]
[1271] Matt. xxvi. 36-46.
[1272] Mark xiv. 41. [On the various explanations of this difficult
passage, see commentaries.--R.]
[1273] See Eph. ii. 11-22.
[1274] Rom. viii. 15.
[1275] Gal. iv. 6.
[1276] Or = having compassion on the more infirm; infirmioribus
compatiens.
[1277] John x. 16.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--Of the Accounts Which are Given by All the Four Evangelists
in Regard to What Was Done and Said on the Occasion of His
Apprehension; And of the Proof that These Different Narratives Exhibit
No Real Discrepancies.
15. When we follow the versions presented by Matthew and Mark, we find
that the history now proceeds thus: "And while He yet spake, lo, Judas,
one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude, with swords
and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he
that betrayed Him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss,
that same is He; hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and
said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him." [1278] First of all, however, as
we gather from Luke's statement, He said to the traitor, "Judas,
betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" [1279] Next, as we learn
from Matthew, He spoke thus: "Friend, wherefore art thou come?"
Thereafter He added certain words which are found in John's narrative,
which runs in the following strain: "Whom seek ye? They answered Him,
Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also,
which betrayed Him, stood with them. As soon then as He had said unto
them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked
He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek me, let
these go their way; that the saying might be fulfilled which He spake,
Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none." [1280]
16. Next comes in a passage, which is given by Luke as follows: "When
they which were about Him saw what would follow, they said unto Him,
Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant
of the high priest," as is noticed by all the four historians, "and cut
off his ear," which, as we are informed by Luke and John, was his
"right ear." Moreover, we gather also from John that the person who
smote the servant was Peter, and that the name of the man whom he thus
struck was Malchus. Next we take what Luke mentions, namely, "Jesus
answered and said, Suffer ye thus far;" [1281] with which we must
connect the words appended by Matthew, namely, "Put up thy sword into
his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall
presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then
shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" [1282] Along
with these words we may also place the question to which John tells us
He gave utterance on the same occasion, namely, "The cup which my
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" [1283] And then, as is
recorded by Luke, He touched the ear of the person who had been struck,
and healed him.
17. Neither should we let the idea disturb us, that some contradiction
may be found in the circumstance that Luke tells us how, when the
disciples asked Him whether they should smite with the sword, the Lord
replied in these words, "Suffer ye thus far," in a manner which might
seem to imply that He thus expressed Himself, after the blow had been
struck, in terms bearing that He was satisfied with what had been done
so far, but desired nothing further to be done; whereas the language
which is employed by Matthew might give us rather to understand that
this whole incident of the use which Peter made of the sword was
displeasing to the Lord. For it is more correct to suppose that when
they put the question to Him, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" He
replied then, "Suffer ye thus far;" His meaning being this: "Let not
what is about to take place agitate you. These men are to be suffered
to go thus far; that is to say, so far as to apprehend me, and thus to
effect the fulfilment of those things which are written of me." We have
further to suppose, however, that during the time which passed in the
interchange of the question addressed by them to the Lord, and the
reply returned by Him to them, Peter was borne on by his intense desire
to appear as defender, and by his stronger excitement in the Lord's
behalf, to deal the blow. But while these two things might easily have
happened at the same time, two different statements could not have been
uttered by the same person in one breath. [1284] For the writer would
not have used the expression, "And Jesus answered and said," unless the
words were a reply to the question which had been addressed by those
who were about Him, and not a statement directed to Peter's act. For
Matthew is the only one who has recorded the judgment passed by Jesus
on Peter's act. And in that passage the phrase which Matthew has
employed is also not in the form, "Jesus answered Peter thus, Put up
thy sword;" but it runs in these terms: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put
up thy sword;" from which it appears that it was after the deed that
Jesus thus declared Himself. What is contained, again, in the
phraseology used by Luke, namely, "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer
ye thus far," must be taken to have been the reply which was returned
to the parties who had put the question to Him. But inasmuch as,
according to our previous explanation, the single blow with which the
servant was struck was delivered just during the time when the terms of
the said question and answer were passing between these persons and the
Lord, the writer has considered it right to record that act in the same
particular order, so that it stands inserted between the words of the
interrogation and those in which the response was couched.
Consequently, there is nothing here in antagonism to the statement
introduced by Matthew, namely, "For all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword,"--that is to say, those who may have used the
sword. But there might appear to be some inconsistency here if the
Lord's answer were taken in a sense which would show Him to have
expressed approval on this occasion of the voluntary use of the sword,
even although it was only to the effect of a single wound, and that,
too, not a fatal one. The words, however, which were addressed to Peter
may be understood, as a whole, in an application quite in harmony with
the rest; so that, bringing in also what Luke and Matthew have
reported, as I have stated above, we obtain the following connection:
"Suffer ye thus far. Put up thy sword into its place; for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword," etc. In what way,
moreover, this sentence, "Suffer ye thus far," is to be understood, I
have explained already. And if there is any better method of
interpreting it, be it so. Only let the veracity of the evangelists be
maintained in any case.
18. After this, Matthew continues the narrative, and mentions that in
that hour He addressed the multitude as follows: "Are ye come out as
against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with
you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me." [1285] Then He
added also certain words, which Luke introduces thus: "But this is your
hour, and the power of darkness." [1286] Next comes the sentence given
by Matthew: "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets
might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled." This
last fact is recorded also by Mark. The same evangelist makes also the
following addition: "And there followed Him a certain young man, having
a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and when they laid hold on
him, he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." [1287]
__________________________________________________________________
[1278] Matt. xxvi. 47-56; Mark xiv. 43-50.
[1279] Luke xii. 48.
[1280] John xviii. 4-9. [This passage is more naturally placed before
the kissing by Judas.--R.]
[1281] Luke xxii. 51.
[1282] Matt. xxvi. 52-55.
[1283] John xviii. 11.
[1284] That is to say, while Christ's answer to the disciples and
Peter's act might easily have been synchronous, the Lord could not have
addressed Himself in different senses to two distinct parties at the
same time, namely, to the persons who put the question, and to Peter.
[1285] Matt. xxvi. 53.
[1286] Luke xxii. 53.
[1287] Mark xiv. 52.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which These
Evangelists Give of What Happened When the Lord Was Led Away to the
House of the High Priest, as Also of the Occurrences Which Took Place
Within the Said House After He Was Conducted There in the Nighttime,
and in Particular of the Incident of Peter's Denial.
19. In the line of Matthew's narrative we come next upon this
statement: "And they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas
the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled."
[1288] We learn, however, from John that He was conducted first to
Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. [1289] On the other hand, Mark
and Luke omit all mention of the name of the high priest. [1290]
Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as John informs us,
there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and
the servants of the Jews. [1291] Then in Matthew we have these words:
"But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and
went in and sat with the servants to see the end." [1292] To this
passage in the narrative Mark makes this addition: "And he warmed
himself at the fire." [1293] Luke also makes a statement which amounts
to the same, thus: "Peter followed afar off: and when they had kindled
a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat
down among them." [1294] And John proceeds in these terms: "And Simon
Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple
(namely, that other) was known unto the high priest, and went in (as
John also tells us) with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But
Peter (as the same John adds) stood at the door without. Then went out
that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake
unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter." [1295] For the last
fact we are thus indebted to John's narrative. And in this way we see
how it came about that Peter also got inside, and was within the hall,
as the other evangelists mention. [1296]
20. Then Matthew's report goes on thus: "Now the chief priests and
elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put
Him to death, but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came,
yet found they none." [1297] Mark comes in here with the explanation,
that "their witness agreed not together." [1298] But, as Matthew
continues, "At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow
said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three
days." [1299] Mark states that there were also others who said, "We
have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands,
and within three days I will build another made without hands. And
therefore (as Mark also observes in the same passage) their witness did
not agree together." [1300] Then Matthew gives us the following
relation: "And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest thou
nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held
His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure
thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ,
the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said." [1301] Mark
reports the same passage in different terms, only he omits to mention
the fact that the high priest adjured Him. He makes it plain, however,
that the two expressions ascribed to Jesus as the reply to the high
priest,--namely, "Thou hast said," and, "I am," [1302] --really amount
to the same. For, as the said Mark puts it, the narrative goes on thus:
"And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." [1303] This
is just as Matthew also presents the passage, with the solitary
exception that he does not say that Jesus replied in the phrase "I am."
Again, Matthew goes on further in this strain: "Then the high priest
rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need
have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What
think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death." [1304]
Mark's version of this is entirely to the same effect. So Matthew
continues, "Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him, and
others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto
us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?" [1305] Mark reports these
things in like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that
they covered His face. [1306] On these incidents we have likewise the
testimony of Luke.
21. These things the Lord is understood to have passed through on to
the early morning in the high priest's house, to which He was first
conducted, and in which Peter was also tempted. With respect, however,
to this temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the
Lord was enduring these injuries, the several evangelists do not
present the same order in the recital of the circumstances. For Matthew
and Mark first narrate the injuries offered to the Lord, and then this
temptation of Peter. Luke, again, first describes Peter's temptation,
and only after that the reproaches borne by the Lord; while John, on
the other hand, first recounts part of Peter's temptation, then
introduces some verses recording what the Lord had to bear, next
appends a statement to the effect that the Lord was sent away thence
(i.e. from Annas) to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point
resumes and sums up the relation which he had commenced of Peter's
temptation in the house to which he was first conducted, giving a full
account of that incident, thereafter reverting to the succession of
things befalling the Lord, and telling us how He was brought to
Caiaphas. [1307]
22. Accordingly, Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now Peter sat without in
the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with
Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not
what thou sayest. And as he went out into the porch, another maid saw
him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with
Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the
man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to
Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
Then began he to curse and to swear, saying that he knew not the man.
And immediately the cock crew." [1308] Such is Matthew's version. But
we are also given to understand that after he had gone outside, and
when he had now denied the Lord once, the first cock crew,--a fact
which Matthew does not specify, but which is intimated by Mark.
23. But it was not when he was outside at the gate that he denied the
Lord the second time. That took place after he had come back to the
fire-place. There was no need, however, to mention the precise time at
which he did thus return. Consequently Mark goes on with his narrative
of the incident in these terms: "And he went out into the porch, and
the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that
stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it again." [1309] This is
not the same maid, however, as the former one, but another, as Matthew
tells us. Nay, we gather further that on the occasion of the second
denial he was addressed by two parties, namely, by the maid who is
mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also by another person who is
noticed by Luke. For Luke's account runs in this style: "And Peter
followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the
hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them. But a
certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked
upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied Him,
saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little while, another saw
him, and said, "Thou art also of them." [1310] Now the clause, "And
after a little while," which Luke introduces, covers the period during
which [we may suppose that] Peter went out and the first cock crew. By
this time, however, he had come in again; and thus we can understand
the consistency of John's narrative, which informs us that he denied
the Lord the second time as he stood by the fire. For in his version of
Peter's first denial, John not only says nothing about the first
crowing of the cock (which holds good of the other evangelists, too,
with the exception of Mark), but also leaves unnoticed the fact that it
was as he sat by the fire that the maid recognised him. For all that
John says there is this, "Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto
Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am
not." [1311] Then he brings in the statement which he deemed it right
to make on the subject of what took place with Jesus in that same
house. His record of this is to the following effect: "And the servants
and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was
cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed
himself." [1312] Here, therefore, we may suppose Peter to have gone
out, and by this time to have come in again. For at first he was
sitting by the fire; and after a space, as we gather, he had returned,
and commenced to stand [by the hearth].
24. It may be, however, that some one will say to us: Peter had not
actually gone out as yet, but had only risen with the purpose of going
out. This may be the allegation of one who is of opinion that the
second interrogation and denial took place when Peter was outside at
the door. Let us therefore look at what follows in John's narrative. It
is to this effect: "The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples,
and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I
ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews
always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me?
ask them which heard me what I have said unto them: behold, they know
what I said. And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which
stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou
the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear
witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? And Annas sent
Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." [1313] This certainly shows us
that Annas was high priest. For Jesus had not been sent to Caiaphas as
yet, when the question was thus put to Him, "Answerest thou the high
priest so?" Mention is also made of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests
by Luke at the beginning of his Gospel. [1314] After these statements,
John reverts to the account which he had previously begun of Peter's
denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took
place which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to
Caiaphas, to whom He was being conducted at the commencement of this
scene, as Matthew has informed us. [1315] Moreover, it is in the way of
a recapitulation that John records the matters regarding Peter which he
has introduced at this point. Falling back upon his narration of that
incident with the view of making up a complete account of the threefold
denial, he proceeds thus: "And Simon stood and warmed himself. They
said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He
denied it, and said, I am not." [1316] Here, therefore, we find that
Peter's second denial occurred, not when he was at the door, but as he
was standing by the fire. This, however, could not have been the case,
had he not returned by this time after having gone outside. For it is
not that by this second occasion he had actually gone out, and that the
other maid who is referred to saw him there outside; but the matter is
put as if it was on his going out that she saw him; or, in other words,
it was when he rose to go out that she observed him, and said to those
who were there,--that is, to those who were gathered by the fire
inside, within the court,--"This fellow was also with Jesus of
Nazareth." Then we are to suppose that the man who had thus gone
outside, on hearing this assertion, came in again, and swore to those
who were now inimically disposed, "I do not know the man." [1317] In
like manner, Mark also says of this same maid, that "she began to say
to them that stood by, This is one of them." [1318] For this damsel was
speaking not to Peter, but to those who had remained there when he went
out. At the same time, she spoke in such a manner that he heard her
words; whereupon he came back and stood again by the fire, and met
their words with a negative. Then we have the statement made by John in
these terms: "They said, Art not thou also one of his disciples?" We
understand this question to have been addressed to him on his return as
he stood there; and we also recognise the harmony in which this stands
with the position that on this occasion Peter had to do not only with
that other maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark in connection with
this second denial, but also with that other person who is introduced
by Luke. This is the reason why John uses the plural, "They said." The
explanation then may be, that when the maid said to those who were with
her in the court as he went out, "This is one of them," he heard her
words and returned with the purpose of clearing himself, as it were, by
a denial. Or, in accordance with the more probable theory, we may
suppose that he did not catch what was said about him as he went out,
and that on his return the maid and the other person who is introduced
by Luke addressed him thus, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?"
that he met them with a denial, "and said, I am not;" and further, that
when this other person of whom Luke speaks insisted more
pertinaciously, and said, "Surely thou art one of them," Peter answered
thus, "Man, I am not." Still, when we compare together all the
statements made by the several evangelists on this subject, we come
clearly to the conclusion, that Peter's second denial took place, not
when he was at the door, but when he was within, by the fire in the
court. It becomes evident, therefore, that Matthew and Mark, who have
told us how he went without, have left the fact of his return unnoticed
simply with a view to brevity.
25. Accordingly, let us next examine into the consistency of the
evangelists so far as the third denial is concerned, which we have
previously instanced in the statement given by Matthew only. Mark then
goes on with his version in these terms: "And a little after, they that
stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art
a Galilaean. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not
this man of whom ye speak. And immediately the second time the cock
crew." [1319] Luke, again, continues his narrative, relating the same
incident in this fashion: "And about the space of one hour after,
another confidently affirmed, Of a truth this fellow also was with him;
for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou
sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the cock crew." [1320] John
follows with his account of Peter's third denial, which is thus given:
"One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear
Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter
then denied again; and immediately the cock crew." [1321] Now what
precise period of time is meant under the phrase, "a little after,"
which is employed by Matthew and Mark, is made clear by Luke, when he
says, "And about the space of one hour after." John, however, conveys
no intimation of this space of time. Again, with respect to the
circumstance that Matthew and Mark use the plural number instead of the
singular, and speak of the persons who were engaged with Peter, while
Luke mentions only a single individual, and John, too, specifies but
one, particularizing him further as kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut
off; we may easily explain it either by understanding Matthew and Mark
to have adopted a familiar method of speech here in employing the
plural number simply instead of the singular, or by supposing that one
of the persons present--one who knew Peter and had seen him--took the
lead in making the declaration, and that the rest, imitating his
confidence, joined him in pressing the assertion upon Peter. If this is
the case, then two of the evangelists have given the general statement,
using simply the plural number; while the other two have preferred to
particularize only the one special individual who played the chief part
in the transaction. But, once more, Matthew affirms that the words,
"Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee," were
spoken to Peter himself. In like manner, John tells us that the
question, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" was addressed
directly to Peter. But Mark, on the other hand, gives us to understand
that the sentence, "Surely he is one of them, for he is also a
Galilaean," was what those who stood by said to each other about Peter.
And, in the same way, Luke indicates that the declaration uttered by
the other person, who said, "Of a truth, this fellow also was with him,
for he is a Galilaean," was not addressed to Peter, but was made
regarding Peter. These variations, however, may be explained either by
understanding the evangelists, who speak of Peter as the person
directly addressed, to have fairly reproduced the general sense,
inasmuch as what was spoken about the man in his own presence was much
the same as if it had been spoken immediately to him; or by supposing
that both these methods of address were actually practised, and that
the one has been noticed by the former evangelists, and the other by
the latter. Moreover, we take the second cockcrowing to have occurred
after the third denial, as Mark has expressly informed us.
26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "And Peter
remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before the
cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept
bitterly." [1322] Mark, again, gives it thus: "And Peter called to mind
the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice thou
shall deny me thrice. And he began to weep." [1323] Luke's version is
as follows: "And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter
remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the
cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out and wept
bitterly." [1324] John says nothing about Peter's recollection and
weeping. Now, the statement made here by Luke, to the effect that "the
Lord turned and looked upon Peter," is one which requires more careful
consideration, with a view to its correct acceptance. For although
there are also inner halls (or courts), so named, it was in the outer
court (or hall) that Peter appeared on this occasion among the
servants, who were warming themselves along with him at the fire. And
it is not a credible supposition that Jesus was heard by the Jews in
this place, so that we might also understand the look referred to to
have been a look with the bodily eye. For Matthew presents us first
with this narrative: "Then did they spit in His face and buffeted Him;
and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy
unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?" [1325] And then he
follows this up immediately with the paragraph about Peter: "Now Peter
sat without in the palace." [1326] He would not, however, have used
this latter expression, had it not been the case that the things
previously alluded to were done to the Lord inside the house. And,
indeed, as we gather from Mark's version, these things took place not
simply in the interior, but also in the upper parts of the house. For,
after recording the said circumstances, Mark goes on thus: "And as
Peter was beneath in the palace." [1327] Thus, as Matthew's words, "Now
Peter sat without in the palace," show us that the things previously
mentioned took place inside the house, so Mark's words, "And as Peter
was beneath in the palace," indicate that they were done not only in
the interior, but in the upper parts of the house. But if this is the
case, how could the Lord have looked on Peter with the actual glance of
the bodily eye? These considerations bring me to the conclusion, that
the look in question was one cast upon Peter from Heaven, the effect of
which was to bring up before his mind the number of times he had now
denied [his Master], and the declaration which the Lord had made to him
prophetically, and in this way (the Lord thus looking mercifully upon
him [1328] ), to lead him to repent, and to weep salutary tears. The
expression, therefore, will be a parallel to other modes of speech
which we employ daily, as when we thus pray, "Lord, look upon me;" or
as when, in reference to one who has been delivered by the divine mercy
from some danger or trouble, we say that the "Lord looked upon him." In
the Scriptures, also, we find such words as these: "Look upon me and
hear me;" [1329] and "Return, [1330] O Lord, and deliver my soul."
[1331] And, according to my judgment, a similar view is to be taken of
the expression adopted here, when it is said that "the Lord turned and
looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord." Finally,
we have to notice how, while it is the more usual practice with the
evangelists to employ the name "Jesus" in preference to the word "Lord"
in their narratives, Luke has used the latter term exclusively in the
said sentence, saying expressly, "The `Lord' turned and looked upon
Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the `Lord:'" whereas Matthew
and Mark have passed over this "look" in silence, and consequently have
said that Peter remembered not the word of the "Lord," but the word of
"Jesus." From this, therefore, we may gather that the "look" thus
proceeding from Jesus was not one with the eyes of the human body, but
a look cast from Heaven. [1332]
__________________________________________________________________
[1288] Matt. xxvi. 57.
[1289] John xviii. 13.
[1290] Mark xiv. 53; Luke xxii. 54.
[1291] John xviii. 12.
[1292] Matt. xxvi. 58.
[1293] Mark xiv. 54.
[1294] Luke xxii. 54, 55.
[1295] John xviii. 15-18.
[1296] [It is implied here that the denials of Peter took place in the
house of Annas, and also that Matthew and Mark, in their account of the
night examination, refer to the same event described by John (xviii.
19-23). The objection to this is found in the explicit statement of
Matthew (xxvi. 57) in regard to Caiaphas.--R.]
[1297] Matt. xxvi. 59, 60.
[1298] Mark xiv. 56.
[1299] Matt. xxvi. 61.
[1300] Mark xiv. 57-59.
[1301] Matt. xxvi. 62-64.
[1302] Mark xiv. 62.
[1303] Mark xiv. 62.
[1304] Matt. xxvi. 65, 66.
[1305] Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.
[1306] Mark xiv. 65.
[1307] [The evangelists indicate three distinct episodes of recognition
and denial, but do not refer to the same facts in detail. This Augustin
seems to apprehend.--R.]
[1308] Matt. xxvi. 69-74.
[1309] Mark xiv. 68-70.
[1310] Luke xxii. 54-58.
[1311] John xviii. 17.
[1312] John xviii. 18.
[1313] John xviii. 19-24.
[1314] Luke iii. 2.
[1315] Matt. xxviii. 57. [See note on S: 19. Augustin's Latin text in
John xviii. 24, et misit eum, etc., agrees in tense with the Greek. The
Authorized Version incorrectly renders, "Now Annas had sent," etc. The
Revised Version has, "Annas therefore sent," The theory of two distinct
night examinations (before Annas first, and then before Caiphas) agrees
best with the literal sense. Both may have occupied parts of the same
house.--R.]
[1316] John xviii. 25.
[1317] Matt. xxviii. 71.
[1318] Mark xiv. 69.
[1319] Mark xiv. 70-72.
[1320] Luke xxii. 59, 60.
[1321] John xviii. 26, 27.
[1322] Matt. xxvi. 75.
[1323] Mark xiv. 72: the words, "when he thought thereon," being
omitted. [There is nothing omitted. The difficult Greek term (epibalon)
is explained by "when he thought thereon" in the Authorized Version.
Augustin's view is given in Revised Version margin, "And he began to
weep."--R.]
[1324] Luke xxii. 61, 62.
[1325] Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.
[1326] Atrio, court. [The Revised Version properly renders the terms
referring to the "court," etc. "Palace" (Authorized Version) is
misleading.--R.]
[1327] Mark xiv. 66.
[1328] Or, regarding him, respiciente.
[1329] Ps. xiii. 3.
[1330] Converte.
[1331] Ps. vi. 4.
[1332] [This fanciful interpretation is unnecessary. The inner court of
the large Jewish house, with rooms looking upon it, would allow place
for all the incidents, without any departure from the simple historical
sense.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.--Of the Thorough Harmony of the Evangelists in the
Different Accounts of What Took Place in the Early Morning, Previous to
the Delivery of Jesus to Pilate; And of the Question Touching the
Passage Which is Quoted on the Subject of the Price Set Upon the Lord,
and Which is Ascribed to Jeremiah by Matthew, Although No Such
Paragraph is Found in the Writings of that Prophet.
27. Matthew next proceeds as follows: "When the morning was come, all
the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus,
to put Him to death; and when they had bound Him, they led Him away,
and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor." [1333] Mark's
version is to the like effect: "And straightway in the morning, the
chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes, and the
whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried Him away, and delivered Him
to Pilate." [1334] Luke, again, after completing his account of Peter's
denial, recapitulates what Jesus had to endure when it was now about
daybreak, as it appears, and continues his narrative in the following
connection: "And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and smote Him; and
when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked
Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things
blasphemously spake they against Him. And as soon as it was day, the
elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came
together, and led Him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ?
tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe; and
if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter
shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then
said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye
say that I am. And they said, What need we further witness? For we
ourselves have heard of His own mouth. And the whole multitude of them
arose, and led Him unto Pilate." [1335] Luke has thus recorded all
these things. His statement contains certain facts which are also
related by Matthew and Mark; namely, that the Lord was asked whether He
was the Son of God, and that He made this reply, "I say unto you,
hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." And we gather that these
things took place when the day was now breaking, because Luke's
expression is, "And as soon as it was day." Thus Luke's narrative is
similar to those of the others, although he also introduces something
which these others have left unnoticed. We gather further, that when it
was yet night, the Lord faced the ordeal of the false witnesses,--a
fact which is recorded briefly by Matthew and Mark, and which is passed
over in silence by Luke, who, however, has told the story of what was
done when the dawn was coming in. The former two--namely, Matthew and
Mark--have given connected narratives of all that the Lord passed
through until early morning. After that, however, they have reverted to
the story of Peter's denial; on the conclusion of which they have come
back upon the events of the early morning, and have introduced the
other circumstances which remained for recital with a view to the
completion of their account of what befell the Lord. [1336] But up to
this point they have given no account of the occurrences belonging
specifically to the morning. [1337] In like manner John, after
recording what was done with the Lord as fully as he deemed requisite,
and after telling also the whole story of Peter's denial, continues his
narrative in these terms: "Then lead they Jesus to Caiaphas, [1338]
unto the hall of judgment. And it was early." [1339] Here we might
suppose either that there had been something imperatively requiring
Caiaphas' presence in the hall of judgment, and that he was absent on
the occasion when the other chief priests held an inquiry on the Lord;
or else that the hall of judgment was in his house; and that yet from
the beginning of this scene they had thus only been leading Jesus away
to the personage in whose presence He was at last actually conducted.
But as they brought the accused person in the character of one already
convicted, and as it had previously approved itself to Caiaphas'
judgment that Jesus should die, there was no further delay in
delivering Him over to Pilate, with a view to His being put to death.
[1340] And thus it is that Matthew here relates what took place between
Pilate and the Lord.
28. First, however, he makes a digression with the purpose of telling
the story of Judas' end, which is related only by him. His account is
in these terms: "Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that
He was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces
of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in
that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to
us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the
temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief
priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put
them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took
counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was
valued, whom the children of Israel [1341] did value, and gave them for
the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." [1342]
29. Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this
passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and
thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let
him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage
to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and
that some of them state simply that it was spoken "by the prophet." It
is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to
be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words
were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In
this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which
contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given
the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the
case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken "by the
prophet, saying," which prophet would assuredly be understood to be
Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they
are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason
is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that
those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in
the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more
ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration,
namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added
[subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas
there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so
many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have
done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that
this passage could not be found in Jeremiah. [1343]
30. How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by supposing that
this has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that
providence of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed?
For it may have been the case, that when Matthew was engaged in
composing his Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in
accordance with a familiar experience, instead of Zechariah. Such an
inaccuracy, however, he would most undoubtedly have corrected (having
his attention called to it, as surely would have been the case, by some
who might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had he
not reflected that [perhaps] it was not without a purpose that the name
of the one prophet had been suggested instead of the other in the
process of recalling the circumstances (which process of recollection
was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that this might not have
occurred to him had it not been the Lord's purpose to have it so
written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so
determined it, there is this first and most serviceable reason, which
deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that some idea was
thus conveyed of the marvellous manner in which all the holy prophets,
speaking in one spirit, continued in perfect unison with each other in
their utterances,--a circumstance certainly much more calculated to
impress the mind than would have been the case had all the words of all
these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single individual. The
same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting
unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given expression to through
the agency of these prophets, and of looking upon their individual
communications as also those of the whole body, and on their collective
communications as also those of each separately. If, then, it is the
case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as
Jeremiah's, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are
really as much Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what necessity was
there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what he had
written, and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the
other? Was it not rather the proper course for him to bow to the
authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance he certainly felt
his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than is the case with us,
and consequently to leave untouched what he had thus written, in
accordance with the Lord's counsel and appointment, with the intent to
give us to understand that the prophets maintain so complete a harmony
with each other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes
nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to credit
Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah? [1344] For if,
in these days of ours, a person, desiring to bring under our notice the
words of a certain individual, happens to mention the name of another
by whom the words were not actually uttered, [1345] but who at the same
time is the most intimate friend and associate of the man by whom they
were really spoken; and if forthwith recollecting that he has given the
one name instead of the other, he recovers himself and corrects the
mistake, but does it nevertheless in some such way as this, "After all,
what I said was not amiss;" what would we take to be meant by this, but
just that there subsists so perfect a unison of sentiment between the
two parties--that is to say, the man whose words the individual in
question intended to repeat, and the second person whose name occurred
to him at the time instead of that of the other--that it comes much to
the same thing to represent the words to have been spoken by the former
as to say that they were uttered by the latter? How much more, then, is
this a usage which might well be understood and most particularly
commended to our attention in the case of the holy prophets, so that we
might accept the books composed by the whole series of them, as if they
formed but a single book written by one author, in which no discrepancy
with regard to the subjects dealt with should be supposed to exist, as
none would be found, and in which there would be a more remarkable
example of consistency and veracity than would have been the case had a
single individual, even the most learned, been the enunciator of all
these sayings? Therefore, while there are those, whether unbelievers or
merely ignorant men, who endeavour to find an argument here to help
them in demonstrating a want of harmony between the holy evangelists,
men of faith and learning, on the other hand, ought rather to bring
this into the service of proving the unity which characterizes the holy
prophets. [1346]
31. I have also another reason (the fuller discussion of which must be
reserved, I think, for another opportunity, in order to prevent the
present discourse from extending to larger limits than may be allowed
by the necessity which rests upon us to bring this work to a
conclusion) to offer in explanation of the fact that the name of
Jeremiah has been permitted, or rather directed, by the authority of
the Holy Spirit, to stand in this passage instead of that of Zechariah.
It is stated in Jeremiah that he bought a field from the son of his
brother, and paid him money for it. That sum of money is not given,
indeed, under the name of the particular price which is found in
Zechariah, namely, thirty pieces of silver; but, on the other hand,
there is no mention of the buying of the field in Zechariah. Now, it is
evident that the evangelist has interpreted the prophecy which speaks
of the thirty pieces of silver as something which has received its
fulfilment only in the Lord's case, so that it is made to stand for the
price set upon Him. But again, that the words which were uttered by
Jeremiah on the subject of the purchase of the field have also a
bearing upon the same matter, may have been mystically signified by the
selection thus made in introducing [into the evangelical narrative] the
name of Jeremiah, who spoke of the purchase of the field, instead of
that of Zechariah, to whom we are indebted for the notice of the thirty
pieces of silver. In this way, on perusing first the Gospel, and
finding the name of Jeremiah there, and then, again, on perusing
Jeremiah, and failing there to discover the passage about the thirty
pieces of silver, but seeing at the same time the section about the
purchase of the field, the reader would be taught to compare the two
paragraphs together, and get at the real meaning of the prophecy, and
learn how it also stands in relation to this fulfilment of prophecy
which was exhibited in the instance of our Lord. For [it is also to be
remarked that] Matthew makes the following addition to the passage
cited, namely, "Whom the children of Israel did value; and gave them
the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." Now, these words are not
to be found either in Zechariah or in Jeremiah. Hence we must rather
take them to have been inserted with a nice and mystical meaning by the
evangelist, on his own responsibility,--the Lord having given him to
understand, by revelation, that a prophecy of the said tenor had a real
reference to this occurrence, which took place in connection with the
price set upon Christ. Moreover, in Jeremiah, the evidence of the
purchase of the field is ordered to be cast into an earthen vessel. In
like manner, we find in the Gospel that the money paid for the Lord was
used for the purchase of a potter's field, which field also was to be
employed as a burying-place for strangers. And it may be that all this
was significant of the permanence of the repose of those who sojourn
like strangers in this present world, and are buried with Christ by
baptism. For the Lord also declared to Jeremiah, that the said purchase
of the field was expressive of the fact that in that land [of Judaea]
there would be a remnant of the people delivered from their captivity.
[1347] I judged it proper to give some sort of sketch [1348] of these
things, as I was calling attention to the kind of significance which a
really careful and painstaking study should look for in these
testimonies of the prophets, when they are reduced to a unity and
compared with the evangelical narrative. These, then, are the
statements which Matthew has introduced with reference to the traitor
Judas.
__________________________________________________________________
[1333] Matt. xxvii. 1, 2.
[1334] Mark xv. 1, 2.
[1335] Luke xxii. 63-xxiii. 1. [That Luke's account gives in detail the
formal meeting of the Sanhedrin at daybreak in altogether probable,
since Matthew and Mark distinguish this assembly from the night
examination.--R.]
[1336] The text gives: ut inde caetera contexerent quousque
perducerent, etc. Seven mss. read perduxerant, = as far as they had
drawn out their account, etc.
[1337] Matt. xxvi. 59-xxvii. 1, 2; Mark xiv. 55-xv. 1, 2.
[1338] Adducunt ergo Jesum ad Caiapham.
[1339] John xviii. 28.
[1340] In his 114 Tractate on John, Augustin again attempts to grapple
with the difficulty created here by the reading which was before him,
namely, to Caiaphas, instead of from Caiaphas. [The Greek text is "from
Caiaphas." The other reading is probably harmonistic error, of early
origin.--R.]
[1341] The text gives filii Israel, instead of a filiis Israel = they
of the children of Israel.
[1342] Matt. xxvii. 3-10.
[1343] [It is refreshing to find this exhibition of critical judgment
and candour. The critical canon respecting the lectio difficilier is
virtually accepted. The easier reading was suggested by Origen.--R.]
[1344] [The simplest explanation is that the name "Jeremiah" was
applied to the collection of prophetical books, in which it was placed
first by the Jews.--R.]
[1345] Reading a quo non dicta sint. Most of the mss. omit the non.
[1346] [This explanation is at variance with many of the healthy
expressions regarding inspiration which abound in Augustin's expository
writings.--R.]
[1347] See Jer. xxxii.
[1348] Reading delineanda. Four mss. give delibanda = proper to touch
upon.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.--Of the Absence of Any Discrepancies in the Accounts
Which the Evangelists Give of What Took Place in Pilate's Presence.
32. He next proceeds as follows: "And Jesus stood before the governor:
and the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus saith unto him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief
priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then saith Pilate unto Him,
Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And He
answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled
greatly. Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the
people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable
prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together,
Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas,
or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had
delivered Him. But when he was set down on the judgment-seat, his wife
sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for
I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the
chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask
Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered and said unto
them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? And they
said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus
which is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. The
governor said to them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out
the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could
prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and
washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the
blood of this just person; see ye to it. Then answered all the people,
and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he
Barabbas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to
them to be crucified." [1349] These are the things which Matthew has
reported to have been done to the Lord by Pilate.
33. Mark also presents an almost entire identity with the above, both
in language and in subject. The words, however, in which Pilate replied
to the people when they asked him to release one prisoner according to
the custom of the feast, are reported by this evangelist as follows:
"But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the
King of the Jews?" [1350] On the other hand, Matthew gives them thus:
"Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
called Christ?" There need be no difficulty in the circumstance that
Matthew says nothing about the people having requested that one should
be released unto them. But it may fairly be asked, what were the words
which Pilate actually uttered, whether these reported by Matthew, or
those recited by Mark. For there seems to be some difference between
these two forms of expression, namely, "Whom will ye that I release
unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" and, "Will ye
that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" Nevertheless, as they
were in the habit of calling their kings "anointed ones," [1351] and
one might use the one term or the other, [1352] it is evident that what
Pilate asked them was whether they would have the King of the Jews,
that is, the Christ, released unto them. And it matters nothing to the
real identity in meaning that Mark, desiring simply to relate what
concerned the Lord Himself, has not mentioned Barabbas here. For, in
the report which he gives of their reply, he indicates with sufficient
clearness who the person was whom they asked to have released unto
them. His version is this: "But the chief priests moved the people,
that he should rather release Barabbas unto them." Then he proceeds to
add the sentence, "And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What
will ye then that I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the
Jews?" This makes it plain enough now, that in speaking of the King of
the Jews, Mark meant to express the very sense which Matthew intended
to convey by using the term "Christ." For kings were not called
"anointed ones" [1353] except among the Jews; and the form which
Matthew gives to the words in question is this, "Pilate saith unto
them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?" So Mark
continues, "And they cried out again, Crucify him:" which appears thus
in Matthew, "They all say unto him, Let him be crucified." Again Mark
goes on, "Then Pilate said unto them Why, what evil hath he done? And
they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him." Matthew has not
recorded this passage; but he has introduced the statement, "When
Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made," and has also informed us how he washed his hands before the
people with the view of declaring himself innocent of the blood of that
just person (a circumstance not reported by Mark and the others). And
thus he has also shown us with all due plainness how the governor dealt
with the people with the intention of securing His release. This has
been briefly referred to by Mark, when he tells us that Pilate said,
"Why, what evil hath he done?" And thereupon Mark also concludes his
account of what took place between Pilate and the Lord in these terms:
"And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto
them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged Him, to be crucified."
The above is Mark's recital of what occurred in presence of the
governor. [1354]
34. Luke gives the following version of what took place in presence of
Pilate: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow
perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and
saying that he himself is Christ a king." [1355] The previous two
evangelists have not recorded these words, although they do mention the
fact that these parties accused Him. Luke is thus the one who has
specified the terms of the false accusations which were brought against
Him. On the other hand, he does not state that Pilate said to Him,
"Answerest thou nothing? behold, how many things they witness against
thee." Instead of introducing these sentences, Luke goes on to relate
other matters which are also reported by these two. Thus he continues:
"And Pilate asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And He
answered him and said, Thou sayest." Matthew and Mark have likewise
inserted this fact, previous to the statement that Jesus was taken to
task for not answering His accusers. The truth, however, is not at all
affected by the order in which Luke has narrated these things; and as
little is it affected by the mere circumstance that one writer passes
over some incident without notice, which another expressly specifies.
We have an instance in what follows; namely, "Then said Pilate to the
chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. And they
were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching
throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. But when
Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And
as soon as he knew that He belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent
Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. And when
Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see Him
of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him, and he hoped
to see some miracle done by Him. Then he questioned with Him in many
words; but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes
stood and vehemently accused Him. And Herod with his men of war set Him
at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent
Him again to Pilate. And the same day Herod and Pilate were made
friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves."
[1356] All these things are related by Luke alone, namely, the fact
that the Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod, and the account of what took
place on that occasion. At the same time, among the statements which he
makes in this passage, there are some bearing a resemblance to matters
which may be found reported by the other evangelists in connection with
different portions of their narrations. But the immediate object of
these others, however, was to recount simply the various things which
were done in Pilate's presence on to the time when the Lord was
delivered over to be crucified. In accordance with his own plan,
however, Luke makes the above digression with the view of telling what
occurred with Herod; and after that he reverts to the history of what
took place in the governor's presence. Thus he now continues as
follows: "And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and
the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man
unto me as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I having
examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those
things whereof ye accuse him." [1357] Here we notice that he has
omitted to mention how Pilate asked the Lord what answer He had to make
to His accusers. Thereafter he proceeds in these terms: "No, nor yet
Herod: for I sent you to him: and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done
unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him. For of
necessity he must release one unto them at the feast. And they cried
out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us
Barabbas; who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder,
was cast into prison. Pilate, therefore, willing to release Jesus,
spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I
have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and
let him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He
might be crucified; and the voices of them [1358] prevailed." [1359]
The repeated effort which Pilate, in his desire to accomplish the
release of Jesus, thus made to gain the people's consent, is
satisfactorily attested by Matthew, although in a very few words, when
he says, "But when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made." For he would not have made such a statement
at all, had not Pilate exerted himself earnestly in that direction,
although at the same time he has not told us how often he made such
attempts to rescue Jesus from their fury. Accordingly, Luke concludes
his report of what took place in the governor's presence in this
fashion: "And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast
into prison, whom they desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will."
[1360]
35. Let us next take the account of these same incidents--that is to
say, those in which Pilate was engaged--as it is presented by John. He
proceeds thus: "And they themselves went not into the judgment-hall,
lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye
against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a
malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." [1361] We
must look into this passage in order to show that it contains nothing
inconsistent with Luke's version, which states that certain charges
were brought against Him, and also specifies their terms. For Luke's
words are these: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this
fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
saying that he himself is Christ a king." On the other hand, according
to the paragraph which I have now cited from John, the Jews seem to
have been unwilling to state any specific accusations, when Pilate
asked them, "What accusation bring ye against this man?" For their
reply was, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered
him up unto thee;" the purport of which was, that he should accept
their authority, cease to inquire what fault was alleged against Him,
and believe Him guilty for the simple reason that He had been
[reckoned] worthy of being delivered up by them to him. This being the
case, then, we ought to suppose that both these versions report words
which were actually said, both the one before us at present, and the
one given by Luke. For among the multitude of sayings and replies which
passed between the parties, these writers have made their own
selections as far as their judgment allowed them to go, and each of
them has introduced into his narrative just what he considered
sufficient. It is also true that John himself mentions certain charges
which were alleged against Him, and which we shall find in their proper
connections. Here, then, he proceeds thus: "Then said Pilate unto them,
Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews, therefore,
said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; that
the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what
death He should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again,
and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And
Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell
it thee of me?" [1362] This again may seem not to harmonize with what
is recorded by the others,--namely, "Jesus answered, Thou
sayest,"--unless it is made clear in what follows that the one thing
was said as well as the other. Hence he gives us to understand that the
matters which he records next are [not to be regarded as] things never
actually uttered by the Lord, but are rather to be considered things
which have been passed over in silence by the other evangelists. Mark,
therefore, what remains of his narrative. It proceeds thus: "Pilate
answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief priests, have
delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom
is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is
my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a
king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king." [1363]
Behold, here is the point at which he comes to that which the other
evangelists have reported. And then he goes on, the Lord being still
the speaker, to recite other matters which the rest have not recorded.
His terms are these: "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I
into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one
that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is
truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and
saith unto them, I find no fault in him. But ye have a custom, that I
should release unto you one at the passover: will ye, therefore, that I
release unto you the King of the Jews? Then cried they all again, Not
this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. Then Pilate,
therefore, took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers platted a
crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple
robe; and they came to Him and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they
smote Him with their hands. Pilate went forth again, and saith unto
them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no
fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and
the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the
chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying,
Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and
crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have
a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son
of God." [1364] This may fit in with what Luke reports to have been
stated in the accusation brought by the Jews,--namely, "We found this
fellow perverting our nation,"--so that we might append here the reason
given for it, "Because he made himself the Son of God." John then goes
on in the following strain: "When Pilate, therefore, heard that saying,
he was the more afraid, and went again into the judgment-hall, and
saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then
saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that
I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus
answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were
given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath
the greater sin. From thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him: but the
Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's
friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar."
[1365] This may very well agree with what Luke records in connection
with the said accusation brought by the Jews. For after the words, "We
found this fellow perverting our nation," he has added the clause, "And
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is
Christ a king." This will also offer a solution for the difficulty
previously referred to, namely, the occasion which might seem to be
given for supposing John to have indicated that no specific charge was
laid by the Jews against the Lord, when they answered and said unto
him, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up
unto thee." John then continues in the following strain: "When Pilate
therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in
the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the
Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King? But they
cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I
crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but
Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified."
[1366] The above is John's version of what was done by Pilate. [1367]
__________________________________________________________________
[1349] Matt. xxvii. 11-26.
[1350] Mark xv. 9.
[1351] Or, Christs, Christos.
[1352] The text gives: et qui dixit illum an illum.
[1353] Or, Christs, Christos.
[1354] Mark xv. 2-15.
[1355] Luke xxiii. 2, 3.
[1356] Luke xxii. 4-12.
[1357] Luke xxiii. 13, 14.
[1358] The words, and of the chief priests, are omitted in the text.
[So the Greek text, according to the best authorities. Comp. Revised
Version.--R.]
[1359] Luke xxiii. 15-23.
[1360] Luke xxiii. 24, 25.
[1361] John xviii. 28-30.
[1362] John xviii. 31-34.
[1363] John xviii. 35-37.
[1364] John xviii. 37-xix. 7.
[1365] John xix. 8-12.
[1366] John xix. 13-16.
[1367] [Many harmonists, in view of the fact that Jesus had been
scourged before the events narrated in John xix. 2-16, place these
occurrences after the delivery of Jesus to be crucified. In S: 36
Augustin defends the view that Matthew and Mark have varied from the
order. See also chap. xiii.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.--Of the Mockery Which He Sustained at the Hands of Pilate's
Cohort, and of the Harmony Subsisting Among the Three Evangelists Who
Report that Scene, Namely, Matthew, Mark, and John.
36. We have now reached the point at which we may study the Lord's
passion, strictly so called, as it is presented in the narrative of
these four evangelists. Matthew commences his account as follows: "Then
the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and
gathered unto Him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped Him,
and put on Him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of
thorns, they put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand: and
they bowed the knee before Him, and mocked Him, saying, Hail, King of
the Jews!" [1368] At the same stage in the narrative, Mark delivers
himself thus: "And the soldiers led Him away into the hall called
Praetorium; and they called together the whole band. And they clothed
Him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head,
and began to salute Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote
Him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon Him, and, bowing their
knees, worshipped Him." [1369] Here, therefore, we perceive that while
Matthew tells us how they "put on Him a scarlet robe," Mark speaks of
purple, with which He was clothed. The explanation may be that the said
scarlet robe was employed instead of the royal purple by these
scoffers. There is also a certain red-coloured purple which resembles
scarlet very closely. And it may also be the case that Mark has noticed
the purple which the robe contained, although it was properly scarlet.
Luke has left this without mention. On the other hand, previous to
stating how Pilate delivered Him up to be crucified, John has
introduced the following passage: "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus,
and scourged Him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put
it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe, and said, Hail, King
of the Jews! And they smote Him with their hands." [1370] This makes it
evident that Matthew and Mark have reported this incident in the way of
a recapitulation, and that it did not actually take place after Pilate
had delivered Him up to be crucified. For John informs us distinctly
enough that these things took place when He yet was with Pilate. Hence
we conclude that the other evangelists have introduced the occurrence
at that particular point, just because, having previously passed it by,
they recollected it there. This is also borne out by what Matthew
proceeds next to relate. He continues thus: "And they spit upon Him,
and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. And after that they had
mocked Him, they took the robe off from Him, and put His own raiment on
Him, and led Him away to crucify Him." [1371] Here we are given to
understand that the taking the robe off Him and the clothing Him with
His own raiment were done at the close, when He was being led away.
This is given by Mark, as follows: "And when they had mocked Him, they
took off the purple from Him, and put His own clothes on Him." [1372]
__________________________________________________________________
[1368] Matt. xxvii. 27-31.
[1369] Mark xv. 16-20.
[1370] John xix. 1-3.
[1371] Matt. xxvii. 30, 31.
[1372] Mark xv. 20.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X.--Of the Method in Which We Can Reconcile the Statement Which
is Made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to the Effect that Another Person
Was Pressed into the Service of Carrying the Cross of Jesus, with that
Given by John, Who Says that Jesus Bore It Himself.
37. Matthew, accordingly, goes on with his narrative in these terms:
"And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him
they compelled to bear His cross." [1373] In like manner, Mark says:
"And they led Him out to be crucified. And they compelled one Simon, a
Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of
Alexander and Rufus, to bear His cross." [1374] Luke's version is also
to this effect: "And as they led Him away, they laid hold upon one
Simon a Cyrenian, coming out of the country; and on him they laid the
cross, that he might bear it after Jesus." [1375] On the other hand,
John records the matter as follows: "And they took Jesus, and led Him
away. And He bearing His cross went forth into a place called the place
of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they
crucified Him." [1376] From all this we understand that Jesus was
carrying the cross Himself as He went forth into the place mentioned.
But on the way the said Simon, who is named by the other three
evangelists, was pressed into the service, and got the cross to carry
for the rest of the course until the spot was reached. Thus we find
that both circumstances really took place; namely, first the one
noticed by John, and thereafter the one instanced by the other three.
__________________________________________________________________
[1373] Matt. xxvii. 32.
[1374] Mark xv. 20, 21.
[1375] Luke xxiii. 26. [This probably implies that the afterpart of the
cross was laid upon Simon, not the whole of it. This obviates the
necessity for the explanation given by Augustin.--R.]
[1376] John xix. 16-18.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.--Of the Consistency of Matthew's Version with that of Mark
in the Account of the Potion Offered Him to Drink, Which is Introduced
Before the Narrative of His Crucifixion.
38. Matthew then proceeds in these terms: "And they came unto a place
called Golgotha; that is to say, a place of a skull." [1377] So far as
the place is concerned, they are most unmistakeably at one. The same
Matthew next adds, "and they gave Him wine [1378] to drink, mingled
with gall; and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink." [1379]
This is given by Mark as follows: "And they gave Him to drink wine
mingled with myrrh; and He received it not." [1380] Here we may
understand Matthew to have conveyed the same sense as Mark, when he
speaks of the wine being "mingled with gall." For the gall is mentioned
with a view to express the bitterness of the potion. And wine mingled
with myrrh is remarkable for its bitterness. The fact may also be that
gall and myrrh together made the wine exceedingly bitter. Again, when
Mark says that "He received it not," we understand the phrase to denote
that He did not receive it so as actually to drink it. He did taste it,
however, as Matthew certifies. Thus Mark's words, "He received it not,"
convey the same meaning as Matthew's version, "He would not drink." The
former, however, has said nothing about His tasting the potion.
__________________________________________________________________
[1377] Matt. xxvii. 33.
[1378] Vinum. [So the correct Greek text. Comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[1379] Matt. xxvii. 34.
[1380] Mark xv. 23.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.--Of the Concord Preserved Among All the Four Evangelists
on the Subject of the Parting of His Raiment.
39. Matthew goes on thus: "And after they crucified Him, they parted
His garments, casting lots: and sitting down, they watched Him." [1381]
Mark reports the same incident, as follows: "And crucifying Him, they
parted His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should
take." [1382] In like manner Luke says: "And they parted His raiment,
and cast lots. And the people stood beholding." [1383] The occurrence
is thus recorded briefly by the first three. But John gives us a more
detailed narrative of the method in which the act was gone about. His
version runs thus: "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus,
took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and
also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top
throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it,
but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be
fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments, and for my vesture
they did cast lots." [1384]
__________________________________________________________________
[1381] Matt. xxvii. 35, 36. The words, "that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them,
and upon my vesture did they cast lots," are omitted. [So the Greek
text, according to the best authorities. Comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[1382] Mark xv. 24.
[1383] Luke xxiii. 34, 35.
[1384] John xix. 23, 24.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.--Of the Hour of the Lord's Passion, and of the Question
Concerning the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Mark and John in the
Article of the "Third" Hour and the "Sixth."
40. Matthew continues thus: "And they set up over His head His
accusation written, `This is Jesus the King of the Jews.'" [1385] Mark,
on the other hand, before making any such statement, inserts these
words: "And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him." [1386] For
he subjoins these terms immediately after he has told us about the
parting of the garments. This, then, is a matter which we must consider
with special care, lest any serious error emerge. For there are some
who entertain the idea that the Lord was certainly crucified at the
third hour; and that thereafter, from the sixth hour on to the ninth,
the darkness covered the land. According to this theory, we should have
to understand three hours to have passed between the time when He was
crucified and the time when the darkness occurred. And this view might
certainly be held with all due warrant, were it not that John has
stated that it was about the sixth hour when Pilate sat down on the
judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in Hebrew,
Gabbatha. For his version goes on in this manner: "And as it was the
preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith
unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him,
away with him! crucify him! Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your
king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then
delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified." [1387] If Jesus,
therefore, was delivered up to the Jews to be crucified when it was
about the sixth hour, and when Pilate was then sitting upon the
judgment-seat, how could He have been crucified at the third hour, as
some have been led to suppose, in consequence of a misinterpretation of
the words of Mark?
41. First, then, let us consider what the hour really is at which He
can have been crucified; and then we shall see how it happens that Mark
has reported Him to have been crucified at the third hour. Now it was
about the sixth hour when Pilate, who was sitting, as has been stated,
at the time upon the judgment-seat, delivered Him up to be crucified.
The expression is not that it was the sixth hour fully, but only that
it was about the sixth hour; that is to say, the fifth hour was
entirely gone, and so much of the sixth hour had also been entered
upon. These writers, however, could not naturally use such
phraseologies as the fifth hour and a quarter, or the fifth hour and a
third, or the fifth hour and a half or anything of that kind. For the
Scriptures have the well-known habit of dealing simply with the round
numbers, without mention of fractions, especially in matters of time.
We have an example of this in the case of the "eight days," after
which, as they tell us, He went up into a mountain, [1388] --a space
which is given by Matthew and Mark as "six days after," [1389] because
they look simply at the days between the one from which the reckoning
commences and the one with which it closes. This is particularly to be
kept in view when we notice how measured the terms are which John
employs here. For he says not "the sixth hour," but "about the sixth
hour." And yet, even had he not expressed himself in that way, but had
stated merely that it was the sixth hour, it would still be competent
for us to interpret the phrase in accordance with the method of speech
with which we are, as I said, familiar in Scripture, namely, the use of
the round numbers. And thus we could still take the sense quite fairly
to be that, on the completion of the fifth hour and the commencement of
the sixth, those matters were going on which are recorded in connection
with the Lord's crucifixion, until, on the close of the sixth hour, and
when He was hanging on the cross, the darkness occurred which is
attested by three of the evangelists, namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
[1390]
42. In due order, let us now inquire how it is that Mark, after telling
us that they parted His garments when they were crucifying Him, casting
lots upon them what every man should take, has appended this statement,
"And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him." [1391] Now here he
had already made the declaration, "And crucifying Him, they parted His
garments;" and the other evangelists also certify that, when He was
crucified, they parted His garments. If, therefore, it was Mark's
design to specify the time at which the incident took place, it would
have been enough for him to say simply, "And it was the third hour."
What reason, then, can be assigned for his having added these words,
"And they crucified Him," but that, under the summary statement thus
inserted, he intended significantly to suggest something which might be
found a subject for consideration, when the Scripture in question was
read in times in which the whole Church knew perfectly well what hour
it was at which the Lord was hanged upon the tree, and the means were
possessed for either correcting the writer's error or confuting his
want of truth? But, inasmuch as he was quite aware of the fact that the
Lord was suspended [on the cross] by the soldiers, and not by the Jews,
as John most plainly affirms, [1392] his hidden object [in bringing in
the said clause] was to convey the idea that those parties who cried
out that He should be crucified were the Lord's real crucifiers, rather
than the men who simply discharged their service to their chief in
accordance with their duty. We understand, accordingly, that it was the
third hour when the Jews cried out that the Lord should be crucified.
And thus it is intimated most truly that these persons did really
crucify Christ at the time when they cried out. All the more, too, did
this merit notice, because they were unwilling to have the appearance
of having done the deed themselves, and with that view delivered Him up
unto Pilate, as their words indicate clearly enough in the report given
by John. For, after stating how Pilate said to them, "What accusation
bring ye against this man?" his version proceeds thus: "They answered
and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him,
and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him,
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." [1393] Consequently,
what they were especially unwilling to have the appearance of doing,
that Mark here shows that they actually did do at the third hour. For
he judged most truly that the Lord's murderer was rather the tongue of
the Jews than the hand of the soldiers.
43. Moreover, if any one alleges that it was not the third hour when
the Jews cried out for the first time in the terms referred to, he
simply displays himself most insanely to be an enemy to the Gospel;
unless perchance he can prove himself able to produce some new solution
of the problem. For he cannot possibly establish the position that it
was not the third hour at the period alluded to. And, consequently, we
surely ought rather to credit a veracious evangelist than the
contentious suspicions of men. But you may ask, How can you prove that
it was the third hour? I answer, Because I believe the evangelists; and
if you also believe them, show me how the Lord can have been crucified
both at the sixth hour and at the third. For, to make a frank
acknowledgment, we cannot get over the statement of the sixth hour in
John's narrative; and Mark records the third hour: and, therefore, if
both of us accept the testimony of these writers, show me any other way
in which both these notes of time can be taken as literally correct. If
you can do so, I shall most cheerfully acquiesce. For what I prize is
not my own opinion, but the truth of the Gospel. And I could wish,
indeed, that more methods of clearing up this problem might be
discovered by others. Until that be done, however, join me, if it
please you, in taking advantage of the solution which I have
propounded. For if no explanation can be found, this one will suffice
of itself. But if another can be devised, when it is unfolded, we shall
make our choice. Only don't consider it an inevitable conclusion that
any one of all the four evangelists has stated what is false, or has
fallen into error in a position of authority at once so elevated and so
holy.
44. Again, if any one affirms his ability to prove it not to have been
the third hour when the Jews cried out in the terms in question,
because, after Mark's statement to this effect, "And Pilate answered,
and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him
whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify
him," we find no further details introduced into the narrative of the
same evangelist, but are led on at once to the statement, that the Lord
was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified--an act which John mentions
to have taken place about the sixth hour;--I repeat, if any one adduces
such an argument, let him understand that many things have been passed
by without record here, which occurred in the interval when Pilate was
engaged in looking out for some means by which he could rescue Jesus
from the Jews, and was exerting himself most strenuously by every means
in his power to withstand their maddened desires. For Matthew says,
"Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do, then, with Jesus, which is
called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified." Then we affirm it
to have been the third hour. And when the same Matthew goes on to add
the sentence, "But when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but
that rather a tumult was made," we understand that a period of two
hours had passed, during the attempts made by Pilate to effect the
release of Jesus, and the tumults raised by the Jews in their efforts
to defeat him, and that the sixth hour had then commenced, previous to
the close of which those things took place which are related as
happening between the time when Pilate delivered up the Lord and the
oncoming of the darkness. Once more, as regards what Matthew records
above,--namely, "And when he was set down on the judgment-seat, his
wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man;
for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him,"
[1394] --we remark, that Pilate really took his seat upon the tribunal
at a later point, but that, among the earlier incidents which Matthew
was recounting, the account given of Pilate's wife came into his mind,
and he decided on inserting it in this particular connection, with the
view of preparing us for understanding how Pilate had an especially
urgent reason for wishing, even on to the last, not to deliver Him up
to the Jews.
45. Luke, again, after mentioning how Pilate said, "I will therefore
chastise him and let him go," tells us that the whole multitude then
cried out, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas." [1395]
But perhaps they had not yet exclaimed, "Crucify him!" For Luke next
proceeds thus: "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again
to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!" [1396] This
is understood to have been at the third hour. Luke then continues in
these terms: "And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath
he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore
chastise him and let him go. And they were instant with loud voices
requiring that He might be crucified. And the voices of them
prevailed." [1397] Here, then, this evangelist also makes it quite
evident that there was a great tumult. With sufficient accuracy for the
purposes of my inquiry into the truth, we can further gather how long
the interval was after which he spoke to them in these terms, "Why,
what evil hath he done?" And when he adds thereafter, "They were
instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified, and the
voices of them prevailed," who can fail to perceive that this clamour
was made just because they saw that Pilate was unwilling to deliver the
Lord up to them? And, inasmuch as he was exceedingly reluctant to give
Him up, he did not certainly yield at present in a moment, but in
reality two hours and something more were passed by him in that state
of hesitancy.
46. Interrogate John in like manner, and see how strong this hesitancy
was on Pilate's part, and how he shrank from so shameful a service. For
this evangelist records these incidents much more fully, although even
he certainly does not mention all the occurrences which took up these
two hours and part of the sixth hour. After telling us how Pilate
scourged Jesus, and allowed the robe to be put on Him in derision by
the soldiers, and suffered Him to be subjected to ill-treatment and
many acts of mockery (all of which was permitted by Pilate, as I
believe, really with the view of mitigating their fury and keeping them
from persevering in their maddened desire for His death), John
continues his account in the following manner: "Pilate went forth
again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye
may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing
the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man!" [1398] The object of this was, that they might gaze
upon that spectacle of ignominy and be appeased. But the evangelist
proceeds again: "When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!" [1399] It was then
the third hour, as we maintain. Mark also what follows: "Pilate saith
unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him.
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,
because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard
that saying, he was the more afraid; and went again into the
judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave
him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me?
knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to
release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all
against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that
delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. From thenceforth Pilate
sought to release Him." [1400] Now, when it is said here that "Pilate
sought to release Him," how long a space of time may we suppose to have
been spent in that effort, and how many things may have been omitted
here among the sayings which were uttered by Pilate, or the
contradictions which were raised by the Jews, until these Jews gave
expression to the words which moved him, and made him yield? For the
writer goes on thus: "But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this
man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king
speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he
brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that
is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the
preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour." [1401] Thus, then,
between that exclamation of the Jews when they first cried out,
"Crucify him," at which period it was the third hour, and this moment
when he sat down on the judgment-seat, two hours had passed, which had
been taken up with Pilate's attempts to delay matters and the tumults
raised by the Jews; and by this time the fifth hour was quite spent,
and so much of the sixth hour had been entered. Then the narrative goes
on thus: "He saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out,
Away with him, away with him! crucify him!" [1402] But not even now was
Pilate so overcome by the apprehension of their bringing a charge
against himself as to be very ready to yield. For his wife had sent to
him when he was sitting at this time upon the judgment-seat,--an
incident which Matthew, who is the only one that records it, has given
by anticipation, introducing it before he comes to its proper place
(according to the order of time) in his narrative, and bringing it in
at another point which he judged opportune. In this way, Pilate, still
continuing his efforts to prevent further advances, said then to them,
"Shall I crucify your king?" Thereupon "the chief priests answered, We
have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to
be crucified." [1403] And in the time that passed when He was on the
way, and when He was crucified along with the two robbers, and when His
garments were parted and the possession of His coat was decided by lot,
and the various deeds of contumely were done to Him (for, while these
different things were going on, gibes were also cast at Him), the sixth
hour was fully spent, and the darkness came on, which is mentioned by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. [1404]
47. Let such impious pertinacity therefore perish, and let it be
believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified at once at the third
hour by the voice of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the
soldiers. For during these tumults on the part of the Jews, and these
agitations on the side of Pilate, upwards of two hours elapsed from the
time when they burst out with the cry, "Crucify Him." But again, even
Mark, who studies brevity above all the other evangelists, has been
pleased to give a concise indication of Pilate's desire and of his
efforts to save the Lord's life. For, after giving us this statement,
"And they cried again, Crucify him" (in which he gives us to understand
that they had cried out before this, when they asked that Barabbas
might be released to them), he has appended these words: "Then Pilate
continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?" [1405] Thus
by one short sentence he has given us an idea of matters which took a
long time for their transaction. At the same time, however, keeping in
view the correct apprehension of his meaning, he does not say, "Then
Pilate said unto them," but expresses himself thus: "Then Pilate
continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?" For, if his
phrase had been "said," [1406] we might have understood him to mean
that such words were uttered only once. But, by adopting the terms,
"continued to say," [1407] he has made it clear enough to the
intelligent that Pilate spoke repeatedly, and in a number of ways. Let
us therefore consider how briefly Mark has expressed this as compared
with Matthew, how briefly Matthew as compared with Luke, how briefly
Luke as compared with John, while at the same time each of these
writers has introduced now one thing and now another peculiar to
himself. In fine, let us also consider how brief is even the narrative
given by John himself, as compared with the number of things which took
place, and the space of time occupied by their occurrence. And let us
give up the madness of opposition, and believe that two hours, and
something more, may quite well have passed in the interval referred to.
48. If any one, however, asserts that if this was the real state of the
case, Mark might have mentioned the third hour explicitly at the point
at which it really was the third hour, namely, when the voices of the
Jews were lifted up demanding that the Lord should be crucified; and,
further, that he might have told us plainly there that those
vociferators did really crucify Him at that time,--such a reasoner is
simply imposing laws upon the historians of truth in his own
overweening pride. For he might as well maintain that if he were
himself to be a narrator of these occurrences, they ought all to be
recorded just in the same way and the same order by all other writers
as they have been recorded by himself. Let him therefore be content to
reckon his own notion inferior to that of Mark the evangelist, who has
judged it right to insert the statement just at the point at which it
was suggested to him by divine inspiration. For the recollections of
those historians have been ruled by the hand of Him who rules the
waters, as it is written, according to His own good pleasure. For the
human memory moves [1408] through a variety of thoughts, and it is not
in any man's power to regulate either the subject which comes into his
mind or the time of its suggestion. Seeing, then, that those holy and
truthful men, in this matter of the order of their narrations,
committed the casualties of their recollections (if such a phrase may
be used) to the direction of the hidden power of God, to whom nothing
is casual, it does not become any mere man, in his low estate, removed
far from the vision of God, and sojourning distantly from Him, to say,
"This ought to have been introduced here;" for he is utterly ignorant
of the reason which led God to will its being inserted in the place it
occupies. The word of an apostle is to this effect: "But if our gospel
be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." [1409] And again he says: "To
the one indeed we are the savour of life unto life; to the other, the
savour of death unto death;" and adds immediately, "And who is
sufficient for these things?" [1410] --that is to say, who is
sufficient to comprehend how righteously that is done? The Lord Himself
expresses the same when He says, "I am come that they which see not
might see, and that they which see might be made blind." [1411] For it
is in the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God that
it comes to pass that of the same lump one vessel is made unto honour,
and another unto dishonour. [1412] And to flesh and blood it is said,
"O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" [1413] Who, then,
knows the mind of the Lord in the matter now under consideration? or
who hath been His counsellor, [1414] where He has in such wise ruled
the hearts of these evangelists in their recollections, and has raised
them to so commanding a position of authority in the sublime edifice of
His Church, that those very things which are capable of presenting the
appearance of contradictions in them become the means by which many are
made blind, deservedly given over to the lusts of their own heart, and
to a reprobate mind; [1415] and by which also many are exercised in the
thorough cultivation of a pious understanding, in accordance with the
hidden righteousness of the Almighty? For the language of a prophet in
speaking to the Lord is this: "Thy thoughts are exceeding deep. An
inconsiderate man will not know, and a foolish man will not understand
these things." [1416]
49. Moreover, I request and admonish those who read the statement
which, with the help of the Lord, has thus been elaborated by us, to
bear in mind this discourse, which I have thought it needful to
introduce in the present connection, in every similar difficulty which
may be raised in such inquiries, so that there may be no necessity for
repeating the same thing over and over again. Besides, any one who is
willing to clear himself of the hardness of impiety, and to give his
attention to the subject, will easily perceive how opportune the place
is in which Mark has inserted this notice of the third hour, so that
every one may there be led to bethink himself of an hour at which the
Jews really crucified the Lord, although they sought to transfer the
burden of the crime to the Romans, whether to the leaders among them or
to the soldiers, [as we see] when we come here upon the record of what
was done by the soldiers in the discharge of their duty. For this
writer says here, "And crucifying Him, they parted His garments,
casting lots upon them, what every man should take." [1417] And to whom
can this refer but to the soldiers, as is made manifest in John's
narrative? Thus, lest any one should leave the Jews out of account, and
make the conception of so great a crime lie against those soldiers,
Mark gives us here the statement, "And it was the third hour, and they
crucified Him,"--his object being to have those Jews rather discovered
to be the real crucifiers, who will be found by the careful
investigator in a position making it quite possible for them to have
cried out for the Lord's crucifixion at the third hour, while he
observes that what was done by the soldiers took place at the sixth
hour. [1418]
50. At the same time, however, there are not wanting persons who would
have the time of the preparation--which is referred to by John, when he
says, "And it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth
hour"--understood under this third hour of the day, which was also the
period at which Pilate sat down upon the judgment-seat. In this way the
completion of the said third hour would appear to be the time when He
was crucified, and when He was now hanging on the tree. Other three
hours must then be supposed to have passed, at the end of which He gave
up the ghost. According to this idea, too, the darkness would have
commenced with the hour at which He died--that is to say, the sixth
hour of the day--and have lasted until the ninth. For these persons
affirm that the preparation of the passover of the Jews was indeed on
the day which was followed by the day of the Sabbath, because the days
of unleavened bread began with the said Sabbath; but that,
nevertheless, the true passover, which was being realized in the Lord's
passion, the passover not of the Jews, but of the Christians, began to
be prepared--that is, to have its parasceue--from the ninth hour of the
night onwards, inasmuch as the Lord was then being prepared for being
put to death by the Jews. For the term parasceue means by
interpretation "preparation." Between the said ninth hour of the night,
therefore, and His crucifixion, the period occurs which is called by
John the sixth hour of the parasceue, and by Mark the third hour of the
day; so that, according to this view, Mark has not introduced by way of
recapitulation into his record the hour at which the Jews cried out,
"Crucify him, crucify him," but has expressly mentioned the third hour
as the hour at which the Lord was nailed to the tree. What believer
would not receive this solution of the problem with favour, were it
only possible to find some point [in the narrative of incidents] in
connection with the said ninth hour, at which we could suppose, in due
consistency with other circumstances, the parasceue of our
passover--that is to say, the preparation of the death of Christ--to
have commenced. For, if we say that it began at the time when the Lord
was apprehended by the Jews, it was still but the first parts of the
night. If we hold that it was at the time when He was conducted to the
house of Caiaphas' father-in-law, where He was also heard by the chief
priests, the cock had not crowed at all as yet, as we gather from
Peter's denial, which took place only when the cock was heard. Again,
if we suppose it was at the time when He was delivered up to Pilate, we
have in the plainest terms the statement of Scripture, to the effect
that by this time it was morning. Consequently, it only remains for us
to understand that this parasceue of the passover--that is to say, the
preparation for the death of the Lord--commenced at the period when all
the chief priests, in whose presence He was first heard, answered and
said, "He is guilty of death," an utterance which we find reported both
by Matthew and by Mark; [1419] so that they are taken to have
introduced, in the form of a recapitulation, at a later stage, facts
relating to the denial of Peter, which in point of historical order had
taken place at an earlier point. And it is nothing unreasonable to
conjecture, that the time at which, as I have said, they pronounced Him
guilty of death, may very well have been the ninth hour of the night,
between which time and the hour at which Pilate sat down on the
judgment-seat there came in this sixth hour, as it is called--not,
however, the sixth hour of the day, but that of the parasceue--that is
to say, the preparation for the sacrifice of the Lord, which is the
true passover. And, on this theory, the Lord was suspended on the tree
when the sixth hour of the same parasceue was completed, which occurred
at the completion of the third hour of the day. [1420] We may make our
choice, therefore, between this view and the other, which supposes Mark
to have introduced the third hour by way of reminiscence, and to have
had it especially in view, in mentioning the hour there, to suggest the
fact of the condemnation brought upon the Jews in the matter of the
Lord's crucifixion, in so far as they are understood to have been in a
position to raise the clamour for His crucifixion to such an effect
that we may hold them to have been the persons who actually crucified
Him, rather than the men by whose hands He was suspended on the tree;
just as the centurion, already referred to, approached the Lord in a
more genuine sense than could be said of those friends whom He sent [on
the matter-of-fact mission]. [1421] But whichever of these two views we
adopt, unquestionably a solution is found for this problem on the
subject of the hour of the Lord's passion, which is most remarkably apt
at once to excite the impudence of the contentious and to agitate the
inexperience of the weak.
__________________________________________________________________
[1385] Matt. xxvii. 37. [No notice is taken of the different forms the
"title" on the cross, recorded by the evangelists.--R.]
[1386] Mark xv. 25.
[1387] John xix. 13-16.
[1388] Luke ix. 28.
[1389] Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 1.
[1390] Matt. xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 33; Luke xxiii. 44.
[1391] Mark xv. 25.
[1392] John xix. 23.
[1393] John xviii. 29-31.
[1394] Matt. xxvii. 19.
[1395] Luke xxiii. 16, 18.
[1396] Luke xxiii. 20, 21.
[1397] Luke xxiii. 22, 23.
[1398] John xix. 4, 5.
[1399] John xix. 6.
[1400] John xix. 6-12.
[1401] John xix. 12-14.
[1402] John xix. 15.
[1403] John xix. 15, 16.
[1404] [The arrangement of the various details is open to discussion;
but the probability is, that the virtual surrender of Pilate to the
demand of the Jews took place about the third hour (9 A.M.), and that
it was nearly two hours before the crucifixion took place.--R.]
[1405] Mark xv. 13, 14.
[1406] Dixit.
[1407] Dicebat. (The Greek also has the imperfect, elegen. But in the
use of this verb in the New Testament the continuous force of the
imperfect cannot be insisted upon, as many examples will show. The
conclusion of Augustin is correct, despite the insufficiency of this
argument.--R.]
[1408] Fluitat = floats.
[1409] 2 Cor. iv. 3.
[1410] 2 Cor. ii. 16.
[1411] John ix. 39.
[1412] Rom. ix. 21.
[1413] Rom. ix. 20.
[1414] Rom. xi. 34.
[1415] Rom. i. 24-28.
[1416] Ps. xcii. 5, 6.
[1417] Mark xv. 24.
[1418] [There is so much force in the positions of Augustin in regard
to the time of day, that one may overlook the irrelevant arguments he
introduces. He at least candidly accepts the readings before him. The
supposition of an early confusion of the numbers has no support, and
such an alteration is altogether unlikely.--R.]
[1419] Matt. xxvi. 66; Mark xiv. 64.
[1420] [This view is extremely fanciful. "Preparation" was a Jewish
term, with a distinct meaning. In early Christian times it meant
Friday. To modify the sense is impossible.--R.]
[1421] See above, Book ii. ch. 20.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.--Of the Harmony Preserved Among All the Evangelists on the
Subject of the Two Robbers Who Were Crucified Along with Him.
51. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "Then were
there two robbers crucified with Him, one on the right hand, and
another on the left." [1422] Mark and Luke give it also in a similar
form. [1423] Neither does John raise any question of difficulty,
although he has made no mention of those robbers. For he says, "And two
other with Him, on either side one,and Jesus in the midst." [1424] But
there would have been a contradiction if John had spoken of these
others as innocent, while the former evangelists called them robbers.
__________________________________________________________________
[1422] Matt. xxvii. 38.
[1423] Mark xv. 27; Luke xxiii. 33.
[1424] John xix. 18.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.--Of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew, Mark,
and Luke on the Subject of the Parties Who Insulted the Lord.
52. Matthew goes on in the following strain: "And they that passed by
reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the
temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son
of God, come down from the cross." [1425] Mark's statement agrees with
this almost to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: "Likewise also
the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He
saved others; himself he cannot save: if he be the King of Israel, let
him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted
in God; let Him deliver him now, if He will: for he said, I am the Son
of God." [1426] Mark and Luke, although they report the words
differently, nevertheless agree in conveying the same meaning, although
the one passes without notice something which the other mentions.
[1427] For they are both really at one on the subject of the chief
priests, giving us to understand that they insulted the Lord when He
was crucified. The only difference is, that Mark does not specify the
elders, while Luke, who has instanced the rulers, has not added the
designation "of the priests," and thus has rather comprehended the
whole body of the leading men under the general designation; so that we
may fairly take both the scribes and the elders to be included in his
description.
__________________________________________________________________
[1425] Matt. xxvii. 39, 40.
[1426] Matt. xxvii. 41-43.
[1427] Mark xv. 29-32; Luke xxiii. 35-37.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.--Of the Derision Ascribed to the Robbers, and of the
Question Regarding the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and
Mark on the One Hand, and Luke on the Other, When the Last-Named
Evangelist States that One of the Two Mocked Him, and that the Other
Believed on Him.
53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: "The robbers also,
which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth." [1428] Mark
is quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in
different words. [1429] On the other hand, Luke may be thought to
contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of
speech which is sufficiently familiar. For Luke's narrative runs thus:
"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If
thou be Christ, save thyself and us." [1430] And then the same writer
proceeds to introduce into the same context the following recital: "But
the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God,
seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we
receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing
amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when Thou comest into
Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day
thou shalt be with me in paradise." [1431] The question then is, how we
can reconcile either Matthew's report, "The robbers also, which were
crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth," or Mark's, namely,
"And they that were crucified with Him reviled Him," with Luke's
testimony, which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but
that the other arrested him and believed on the Lord. The explanation
will be, that Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the
passage under review, have employed the plural number instead of the
singular; as is the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find
the statement given in the plural form, that "they stopped the mouths
of lions," [1432] while Daniel alone is understood to be referred to.
Again, the plural number is adopted where it is said that they "were
sawn asunder," [1433] while that manner of death is reported only of
Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in the Psalm, "The kings of
the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together," etc.,
[1434] the plural number is employed instead of the singular, according
to the exposition given of the passage in the Acts of the Apostles. For
those who have made use of the testimony of the said Psalm in that book
take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes to Pilate. [1435] But
further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such
slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how
their own writers have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras,
when there really was but a single individual reputed under each of
these names. And what is more common, for example, than for a person to
say, "The rustics also behave insolently to me," even although it
should only be one that acted rudely? In short, no real discrepancy
would be created by the restriction of Luke's report to one of the two
robbers, unless the other evangelists had declared expressly that
"both" the malefactors reviled the Lord; for in that case it would not
be possible for us to suppose only one individual intended under the
plural number. Seeing, however, that the phrase employed is "the
robbers," or "those who were crucified with Him," and the term "both"
is not added, the expression is one which might have been used if both
these men had been engaged in the thing, but which might equally well
be adopted if one of the two had been implicated in it,--that fact
being then conveyed by the use of the plural number, according to a
familiar method of speech.
__________________________________________________________________
[1428] Matt. xxvii. 44.
[1429] Mark xv. 32.
[1430] Luke xxiii. 39.
[1431] Luke xxiii. 40-43.
[1432] Heb. xi. 33.
[1433] Heb. xi. 37.
[1434] Ps. ii. 2.
[1435] Acts iv. 26, 27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.--Of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists in Their Notices
of the Draught of Vinegar.
54. Matthew proceeds in the following terms: "Now from the sixth hour
there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour." [1436] The
same fact is attested by two others of the evangelists. [1437] Luke
adds, however, a statement of the cause of the darkness, namely, that
"the sun was darkened." Again, Matthew continues thus: "And about the
ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani! that is to say, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?
And some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man
calleth for Elias." [1438] Mark's agreement with this is almost
complete, so far as regards the words, and not only almost, but
altogether complete, so far as the sense is concerned. Matthew next
makes this statement: "And straightway one of them ran, and took a
sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him
to drink." [1439] Mark presents it in a similar form: "And one ran, and
filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to
drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take
Him down." [1440] Matthew, however, has represented these words about
Elias to have been spoken, not by the person who offered the sponge
with the vinegar, but by the rest. For his version runs thus: "But the
rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elias will come to save Him;"
[1441] --from which, therefore, we infer that both the man specially
referred to and the others who were there expressed themselves in these
terms. Luke, again, has introduced this notice of the vinegar previous
to his report of the robber's insolence. He gives it thus: "And the
soldiers also mocked Him, coming to Him, and offering Him vinegar, and
saying, If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself." [1442] It has
been Luke's purpose to embrace in one statement what was done and what
was said by the soldiers. And we ought to feel no difficulty in the
circumstance that he has not said explicitly that it was "one" of them
who offered the vinegar. For, adopting a method of expression which we
have discussed above, [1443] he has simply put the plural number for
the singular. [1444] Moreover, John has also given us an account of the
vinegar, where he says: "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things
were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I
thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a
sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth."
[1445] But although the said John thus informs us that Jesus said "I
thirst," and also mentions that there was a vessel full of vinegar
there, while the other evangelists leave these things unspecified,
there is nothing to marvel at in this.
__________________________________________________________________
[1436] Matt. xxvii. 45.
[1437] Mark xv. 33-36; Luke xxiii. 44, 45.
[1438] Matt. xxvii. 46, 47.
[1439] Matt. xxvii. 48.
[1440] Mark xv. 36.
[1441] Matt. xxvii. 49.
[1442] Luke xxiii. 36, 37.
[1443] See chap. xvi.
[1444] [This act of the soldiers was probably distinct from the giving
of the vinegar referred to by the other evangelist; it belongs to the
time when all were mocking the Crucified One.--R.]
[1445] John xix. 28, 29.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.--Of the Lord's Successive Utterances When He Was About
to Die; And of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark are in Harmony
with Luke in Their Reports of These Sayings, and Also Whether These
Three Evangelists are in Harmony with John.
55. Matthew proceeds as follows: "And Jesus, crying again with a loud
voice, yielded up the ghost." [1446] In like manner, Mark says, "And
Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost." [1447] Luke,
again, has told us what He said when that loud voice was uttered. For
his version is thus: "And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said,
Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit: and saying this, He gave up
the ghost." [1448] John, on the other hand, as he has left unnoticed
the first voice, which Matthew and Mark have reported--namely, "Eli,
Eli"--has also passed over in silence the one which has been recited
only by Luke, while the other two have referred to it under the
designation of the "loud voice." I allude to the cry, "Father, into Thy
hands I commend my spirit." Luke has also attested the fact that this
exclamation was uttered with a loud voice; and hence we may understand
this particular cry to be identified with the loud voice which Matthew
and Mark have specified. But John has stated a fact which is noticed by
none of the other three, namely, that He said "It is finished," after
He had received the vinegar. This cry we take to have been uttered
previous to the loud voice referred to. For these are John's words:
"When Jesus, therefore, had received the vinegar, He said, It is
finished; and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost." [1449] In the
interval elapsing between this cry, "It is finished," and what is
referred to in the subsequent sentence, "and He bowed His head and gave
up the ghost," the voice was uttered which John himself has passed over
without record, but which the other three have noticed. For the precise
succession appears to be this, namely, that He said first "It is
finished," when what had been prophesied regarding Him was fulfilled in
Him, and that thereafter--as if He had been waiting for this, like one,
indeed, who died when He willed it to be so--He commended His spirit
[to His Father], and resigned it. [1450] But, whatever the order may be
in which a person may consider it likely that these words were spoken,
he ought above all things to guard against entertaining the notion that
any one of the evangelists is in antagonism with another, when one
leaves unmentioned something which another has repeated, or
particularizes something which another has passed by in silence.
__________________________________________________________________
[1446] Matt. xxvii. 50.
[1447] Mark xv. 37.
[1448] Luke xxiii. 46.
[1449] John xix. 30.
[1450] [This view of the order is altogether the more probable one. See
commentaries.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.--Of the Rending of the Veil of the Temple, and of the
Question Whether Matthew and Mark Really Harmonize with Luke with
Respect to the Order in Which that Incident Took Place.
56. Matthew proceeds thus: "And, behold, the veil of the temple was
rent in twain from the top to the bottom." [1451] Mark's version is
also as follows: "And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the
top to the bottom." [1452] Luke likewise gives a statement in similar
terms: "And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." [1453] He
does not introduce it, however, in the same order. For, with the
intention of attaching miracle to miracle, he has told us first how
"the sun was darkened," and then has deemed it right to subjoin the
said sentence in immediate succession, namely, "And the veil of the
temple was rent in the midst." Thus it would appear that he has
introduced at an earlier point this incident, which really took place
when the Lord expired, so as to give us there a summary description of
the circumstances relating to the drinking of the vinegar, and the loud
voice, and the death itself, which are understood to have taken place
previous to the rending of the veil, and after the darkness had come
in. For Matthew has inserted this sentence, "And, behold, the veil of
the temple was rent," in immediate succession to the statement, "And
Jesus, crying again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost;" and has
thus given us clearly to understand that the time when the veil was
rent was after Jesus had given up His spirit. If, however, he had not
added the words, "And behold," but had said simply, "And the veil of
the temple was rent," it would have been uncertain whether Mark and he
had narrated the incident in the form of a recapitulation, while Luke
had kept the exact order, or whether Luke had given the summary account
of what these others had introduced in the correct historical
succession.
__________________________________________________________________
[1451] Matt. xxvii. 51.
[1452] Mark xv. 38.
[1453] Luke xxiii. 45.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.--Of the Question as to the Consistency of the Several
Notices Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the Subject of the
Astonishment Felt by the Centurion and Those Who Were with Him.
57. Matthew proceeds thus: "And the earth did quake, and the rocks
rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which
slept arose, and came out of the graves after the resurrection, and
went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." [1454] There is no
reason to fear that these facts, which have been related only by
Matthew, may appear to be inconsistent with the narratives presented by
any one of the rest. The same evangelist then continues as follows:
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus,
saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared
greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." [1455] Mark offers
this version: "And when the centurion which stood over against Him saw
that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this was
the Son of God." [1456] Luke's report runs thus: "Now when the
centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this
was a righteous man." [1457] Here Matthew says that it was when they
saw the earthquake that the centurion and those who were with him were
thus astonished, whereas Luke represents the man's amazement to have
been drawn forth by the fact that Jesus uttered such a cry, and then
gave up the ghost; thus making it clear how He had it in His own power
to determine the time for His dying. But this involves no discrepancy.
For as the said Matthew not only tells us how the centurion "saw the
earthquake," but also appends the words, "and those things that were
done," he has indicated that there was room enough for Luke to
represent the Lord's death as itself the thing which called forth the
centurion's wonder. For that event is also one of the things which were
done in so marvellous a manner then. At the same time, even although
Matthew had not added any such statement, it would still have been
perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many astonishing things did
take place at that time, and as the centurion and those who were with
him may well have looked upon them all with amazement, the historians
were at liberty to select for narration any particular incident which
they were severally disposed to instance as the subject of the man's
wonder. And it would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency,
simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the
immediate cause of the centurion's amazement, while another introduces
a different incident. For all these events together had really been
matters for the man's astonishment. Again, the mere fact that one
evangelist tells us that the centurion said, "Truly this was the Son of
God," while another informs us that the words were, "Truly this man was
the Son of God," will create no difficulty to any one who has retained
some recollection of the numerous statements and discussions bearing
upon similar cases, which have already been given above. For these
different versions of the words both convey precisely the same sense
and although one writer introduces the word "man" while another does
not, that implies no kind of contradiction. A greater appearance of
discrepancy may be supposed to be created by the circumstance, that the
words which Luke reports the centurion to have uttered are not "This
was the Son of God," but "This was a righteous man." But we ought to
suppose either that both things were actually said by the centurion,
and that two of the evangelists have recorded the one expression, and
the third the other; or else perhaps that it was Luke's intention to
bring out the exact idea which the centurion had in view when he said
that Jesus was the Son of God. For it may be the case that the
centurion did not really understand Him to be the Only-begotten, equal
with the Father; but that he called Him the Son of God simply because
he believed Him to be a righteous man, as many righteous men have been
named sons of God. Moreover, when Luke says, "Now when the centurion
saw what was done," he has really used terms which cover all the
marvellous things which occurred on that occasion, commemorating a
single deed of wonder, so to speak, of which all those miraculous
incidents were, as we may say, members and parts. But, once more, as
regards the circumstance that Matthew has also referred to those who
were with the centurion, while the others have left these parties
unnoticed, to whom will this not explain itself on the well-understood
principle that there is no contradiction necessarily involved in the
mere fact that one writer records what another passes by without
mention? And, finally, as to Matthew's having told us that "they feared
greatly," while Luke has said nothing about the man being afraid, but
has informed us that "he glorified God," who can fail to understand
that he glorified [God] just by the fear which he exhibited?
__________________________________________________________________
[1454] Matt. xxvii. 51-53.
[1455] Matt. xxvii. 54.
[1456] Mark xv. 39.
[1457] Luke xxiii. 47.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.--Of the Women Who Were Standing There, and of the Question
Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Who Have Stated that They Stood Afar
Off, are in Antagonism with John, Who Has Mentioned that One of Them
Stood by the Cross.
58. Matthew proceeds thus: "And many women were there beholding afar
off, which followed Jesus from Galilee: among which was Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's
children." [1458] Mark gives it in this form: "There were also women
looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother
of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome (who also, when He was in
Galilee, followed Him, and ministered unto Him); and many other women
which came up with Him unto Jerusalem." [1459] I see nothing which can
be supposed to constitute a discrepancy between these writers here. For
in what way can the truth be affected by the fact that some of these
women are named in both lists, while others are referred to only in the
one? Luke has likewise connected his narrations as follows: "And all
the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which
were done, smote their breasts, and returned. And all His acquaintance
and the women that followed Him from Galilee stood afar off beholding
these things." [1460] Here we perceive that he is quite in harmony with
the former two as far as regards the presence of the women, although he
does not mention any of them by name. On the subject of the multitude
of people who were also present, and who, as they beheld the things
which were done, smote their breasts and returned, he is in like manner
at one with Matthew, although that evangelist has introduced into the
context this distinct statement: "Now the centurion and they that were
with him." Thus it simply appears that Luke is the only one who has
spoken expressly of His "acquaintance" who stood afar off. For John has
also noticed the presence of the women before the Lord gave up the
ghost. His narrative runs thus: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus
His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and
Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple
standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy
son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that
hour that disciple took her unto his own home." [1461] Now, as regards
this statement, had not Matthew and Mark at the same time mentioned
Mary Magdalene most explicitly by name, it might have been possible for
us to say that there was one company of women afar off, and another
near the cross. For none of these writers has mentioned the Lord's
mother here but John himself. The question, therefore, which rises now
is this, How can we understand the same Mary Magdalene both to have
stood afar off along with other women, as the accounts of Matthew and
Mark bear, and to have been by the cross, as John tells us, unless it
be the case that these women were at such a distance as made it quite
legitimate to say at once that they were near, because they were at
hand there in the sight of Him, and also afar off in comparison with
the crowd of people who were standing round about in closer vicinity
along with the centurion and the soldiers? It is open for us, then, to
suppose that those women who were present at the scene along with the
Lord's mother, after He commended her to the disciple, began then to
retire with the view of extricating themselves from the dense mass of
people, and of looking on at what remained to be done from a greater
distance. And in this way the rest of the evangelists, who have
introduced their notices of these women only after the Lord's death,
have properly reported them to be standing by that time afar off.
__________________________________________________________________
[1458] Matt. xxvii. 55, 56.
[1459] Mark xv. 40, 41.
[1460] Luke xxiii. 48, 49.
[1461] John xix. 25-27.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.--Of the Question Whether the Evangelists are All at One
on the Subject of the Narrative Regarding Joseph, Who Begged the Lord's
Body from Pilate, and Whether John's Version Contains Any Statements at
Variance with Each Other.
59. Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now when the even was come, there
came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus'
disciple: he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate
commanded the body to be delivered." [1462] Mark presents it in this
form: "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation,
that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable
councillor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in
boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled
if He were already dead: and, calling unto him the centurion, he asked
him whether He had been any while [1463] dead. And when he knew it of
the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph." [1464] Luke's report runs
in these terms: "And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a
councillor; and he was a good man, and a just (the same had not
consented to the counsel and deed of them): he was of Arimathea, a city
of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man
went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus." [1465] John, on the
other hand, first narrates the breaking of the legs of those who had
been crucified with the Lord, and the piercing of the Lord's side with
the lance (which whole passage has been recorded by him alone), and
then subjoins a statement which is of the same tenor with what is given
by the other evangelists. It proceeds in these terms: "And after this,
Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear
of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus:
and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of
Jesus." [1466] There is nothing here to give any one of them the
appearance of being in antagonism with another. But some one may
perhaps ask whether John is not inconsistent with himself, when he at
once unites with the rest in telling us how Joseph begged the body of
Jesus, and comes forward as the only one who states here that Joseph
had been a disciple of Jesus secretly for fear of the Jews. For the
question may reasonably be raised as to how it happened that the man
who had been a disciple secretly for fear had the courage to beg His
body--a thing which not one of those who were His open followers was
bold enough to do. We must understand, however, that this man did so in
the confidence which his dignified position gave him, the possession of
which rendered it possible for him to make his way on familiar terms
into Pilate's presence. And we must suppose, further, that in the
performance of that last service relating to the interment, he cared
less for the Jews, however he tried in ordinary circumstances, when
hearing the Lord, to avoid exposing himself to their enmity.
__________________________________________________________________
[1462] Matt. xxvii. 57, 58.
[1463] [Augustin's text has jam a second time, agreeing with some early
Greek mss. Comp. Revised Version margin, "were already dead."--R.]
[1464] Mark xv. 42-45.
[1465] Luke xxiii. 50-52.
[1466] John xix. 38.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.--Of the Question Whether the First Three Evangelists are
Quite in Harmony with John in the Accounts Given of His Burial.
60. Matthew proceeds thus: "And when Joseph had taken the body, he
wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb,
which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the
door of the sepulchre, and departed." [1467] Mark's version is as
follows: "And he bought fine linen, [1468] and took Him down, and
wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre which was hewn
out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre."
[1469] Luke reports it in those terms: "And he took it down, and
wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone,
wherein never man before was laid." [1470] So far as these three
narratives are concerned, no allegation of a want of harmony can
possibly be raised. John, however, tells us that the burial of the Lord
was attended to not only by Joseph, but also by Nicodemus. For he
begins with Nicodemus in due connection with what precedes, and goes on
with his narrative as follows: "And there came also Nicodemus (which at
the first came to Jesus by night), and brought a mixture of myrrh and
aloes, about an hundred pound weight." [1471] Then, introducing Joseph
again at this point, he continues in these terms: "Then took they the
body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the
manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified
there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was
never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus, therefore, because of the
Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." [1472] But
there is really as little ground for supposing any discrepancy here as
there was in the former case, if we take a correct view of the
statement. For those evangelists who have left Nicodemus unnoticed have
not affirmed that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone, although he is
the only one introduced into their records. Neither does the fact, that
these three are all at one in informing us how the Lord was wrapped in
the linen cloth by Joseph, preclude us from entertaining the idea that
other linen stuffs may have been brought by Nicodemus, and added to
what was given by Joseph, so that John may be perfectly correct in his
narrative, especially as what he tells us is that the Lord was wrapped
not in a linen cloth, but in linen clothes. [1473] At the same time,
when we take into account the handkerchief which was used for the head,
and the bandages with which the whole body was swathed, and consider
that all these were made of linen, we can see how, even although there
was really but a single linen cloth [of the kind referred to by the
first three evangelists] there, it could still have been stated with
the most perfect truth that "they wound Him in linen clothes." For the
phrase, linen clothes, is one applied generally to all textures made of
flax.
__________________________________________________________________
[1467] Matt. xxvii. 59, 60.
[1468] [All three evangelists use the same term in referring to "the
linen cloth;" so the Latin text. The Authorized Version makes an
unnecessary variation. John uses another word; see below.--R.]
[1469] Mark xv. 46.
[1470] Luke xxiii. 53.
[1471] John xix. 39.
[1472] John xix. 40-42.
[1473] [John uses the term othoniois, which the Latin renders linteis.
Augustin's discussion is not intelligible unless this variation is
recognised.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIV.--Of the Absence of All Discrepancies in the Narratives
Constructed by the Four Evangelists on the Subject of the Events Which
Took Place About the Time of the Lord's Resurrection.
61. Matthew proceeds thus: "And there was there Mary Magdalene, and the
other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre." [1474] This is given
by Mark as follows: "And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joseph,
beheld where He was laid." [1475] So far it is evident that there is no
kind of inconsistency between the accounts.
62. Matthew continues in these terms: "Now the next day, that followed
the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came
together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we have remembered that deceiver
said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day,
lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the
people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse
than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch; go your way,
make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure,
sealing the stone, and setting a watch." [1476] This narrative is given
only by Matthew. Nothing, however, is stated by any of the others which
can have the appearance of contrariety.
63. Again, the same Matthew carries on his recital as follows: "Now, in
the evening of the Sabbath, [1477] when it began to dawn towards the
first day of the week, [1478] came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary,
to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back
the stone from the door, and sat upon it. And his countenance was like
lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the
keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and
said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which
was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see
the place where the Lord lay: And go quickly, and tell His disciples
that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into
Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you." [1479] Mark is
in harmony with this. It is possible, however, that some difficulty may
be felt in the circumstance that, according to Matthew's version, the
stone was already rolled away from the sepulchre, and the angel was
sitting upon it. For Mark tells us that the women entered into the
sepulchre, and there saw a young man sitting on the right side, covered
with a long white garment, and that they were affrighted. [1480] But
the explanation may be, that Matthew has simply said nothing about the
angel whom they saw when they entered into the sepulchre, and that Mark
has said nothing about the one whom they saw sitting outside upon the
stone. In this way they would have seen two angels, and have got two
separate angelic reports relating to Jesus,--namely, first one from the
angel whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone, and then another
from the angel whom they saw sitting on the right side when they
entered into the sepulchre. Thus, too, the injunction given them by the
angel who was sitting outside, and which was conveyed in the words,
"Come, and see the place where the Lord lay," would have served to
encourage them to go within the tomb; on coming to which, as has been
said, and venturing within it, we may suppose them to have seen the
angel concerning whom Matthew tells us nothing, but of whom Mark
discourses, sitting on the right side, from whom also they heard things
of like tenor to those they had previously listened to. Or if this
explanation is not satisfactory, we ought certainly to accept the
theory that, as they entered into the sepulchre, they came within a
section of the ground where, it is reasonable to suppose, a certain
space had been by that time securely enclosed, extending a little
distance in front of the rock which had been cut out in order to
construct the place of sepulture; so that, according to this view, what
they really beheld was the one angel sitting on the right side, in the
space thus referred to, which same angel Matthew also represents to
have been sitting upon the stone which he had rolled away from the
mouth of the tomb when the earthquake took place, that is to say, from
the place which had been dug out in the rock for a sepulchre.
64. It may also be asked how it is that Mark says: "And they went out
quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were
amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid;"
[1481] whereas Matthew's statement is in these terms: "And they
departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did
run to bring His disciples word. [1482] The explanation, however, may
be that the women did not venture to tell either of the angels
themselves,--that is, they had not courage enough to say anything in
reply to what they had heard from the angels. Or, indeed, it may be
that they were not bold enough to speak to the guards whom they saw
lying there; for the joy which Matthew mentions is not inconsistent
with the fear of which Mark takes notice. Indeed, we ought to have
supposed that both feelings had possession of their minds, even
although Matthew himself had said nothing about the fear. But now, when
this evangelist also particularizes it, saying, "They departed quickly
from the sepulchre with fear and great joy," he allows nothing to
remain which can occasion any question of difficulty on this subject.
65. At the same time, a question, which is not to be dealt with
lightly, does arise here with respect to the exact hour at which the
women came to the sepulchre. For when Matthew says, "Now, on the
evening of the Sabbath, when it was dawning toward the first day of the
week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,"
what are we to make of Mark's statement, which runs thus: "And very
early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the
sepulchre at the rising of the sun"? [1483] It is to be observed that
in this Mark states nothing inconsistent with the reports given by
other two of the evangelists, namely, Luke and John. For when Luke
says, "Very early in the morning," and when John puts it thus, "Early,
when it was yet dark," they convey the same sense which Mark is
understood to express when he says, "Very early, at the rising of the
sun;" that is to say, they all refer to the period when the heavens
were now beginning to brighten in the east, which, of course, does not
take place but when the sunrise is at hand. For it is the brightness
which is diffused by the rising sun that is familiarly designated by
the name of the dawn. [1484] Consequently, Mark does not contradict the
other evangelist who uses the phrase, "When it was yet dark;" for as
the day breaks, what remains of the darkness [of the night] passes away
just in proportion as the sun continues to rise. And this phrase, "Very
early in the morning," need not be taken to mean that the sun itself
was actually seen by this time [blazing] over the lands; but it is
rather to be taken as like the kind of expression which we are in the
habit of employing when speaking to people to whom we wish to intimate
that something should be done more betimes than usual. For when we have
used the term, "Early in the morning," [1485] if we wish to keep the
persons addressed from supposing that we refer directly to the time
when the sun is already conspicuously visible over earth, we usually
add the word "very," and say, "very early in the morning," in order
that they may clearly understand that we allude to the time which is
also called the daybreak. [1486] At the same time, it is also customary
for men, after the cockcrow has been repeatedly heard, and when they
begin to surmise that the day is now approaching, to say, "It is now
early in the morning;" [1487] and when after this they weigh their
words and observe that, as the sun now rises,--that is to say, as it
now makes its immediate advent into these parts,--the sky is just
beginning to redden, or to brighten, those who said, "It is early in
the morning," then amplify their expression and say, "It is very early
in the morning." But what does it matter, provided only that, whichever
method of explanation be preferred, we understand that what is meant by
Mark, when he uses the terms "early in the morning," [1488] is just the
same as is intended by Luke when he adopts the phrase, "in the
morning;" [1489] and that the whole expression employed by the
former--namely, "very early in the morning" [1490] --amounts to the
same as that which we find in Luke--namely, "very early in the dawn,"
[1491] --and as that which is chosen by John when he says, "early, when
it was yet dark"? [1492] Moreover, when Mark speaks of the "rising of
the sun," he just means that by its rising the sun was now beginning to
bring the light in upon the sky. But the question now is this: how can
Matthew be in harmony with these three when he says neither "in the
early morning" nor "early in the morning," but "in the evening of the
Sabbath, when it was beginning to dawn toward the first day of the
week"? This is a matter which must be carefully investigated. [1493]
Now, under that first part of the night, which is [here called] the
evening, Matthew intended to refer to this particular night, at the
close of which the women came to the sepulchre. And we understand his
reason for so referring to the said night to have been this: that by
the time of the evening it was lawful for them to bring the spices,
because the Sabbath was then indeed over. Consequently, as they were
hindered by the Sabbath from doing so previously, he has given a
designation of the night, taken from the time at which it began to be a
lawful thing for them to do what they did at any period of the same
night which pleased them. Thus, therefore, the phrase "in the evening
of the Sabbath" is used, as if what was said had been "in the night of
the Sabbath," or in other words, in the night which follows the day of
the Sabbath. The express words which he employs thus indicate this with
sufficient clearness. For his terms are these: "Now, in the evening of
the Sabbath, when it began to dawn toward the first day of the week;"
and that could not be the case if what we had to understand to be
denoted by the mention of the "evening" was simply the first short
space of the night, or in other words, only the beginning of the night.
For what can be said "to begin to dawn toward the first day of the
week" is not explicitly the beginning [of the night], but the night
itself, as it commences to be brought to its close by the advance of
the light. For the terminus of the first part of the night is just the
beginning of the second part, but the terminus of the whole night is
the light. Hence we could not speak of the evening as dawning toward
the first day of the week unless under the term "evening" we should
understand the night itself to be meant, which, as a whole, is brought
to its close by the light. It is also a familiar method of speech in
divine Scripture to express the whole under the part; and thus, under
the word "evening" here, the evangelist has denoted the whole night,
which finds its extreme point in the dawn. [1494] For it was in the
dawn that those women came to the sepulchre; and in this way they
really came on the night, which is here indicated by the term
"evening." For, as I have said, the night as a whole is denoted by that
word; consequently, at whatever period of that night they might have
come, they certainly did come in the said night. And, accordingly, if
they came at the latest point in that night, it is still unquestionably
the case that they did come in the said night. But it could not be said
to be on "the evening, when it began to dawn toward the first day of
the week," unless the night as a whole can be understood under that
expression. Accordingly, the women who came in the night referred to,
came in the evening specified. And if they came at any period, even the
latest during that night, they surely came in the night itself.
66. For the space of three days, which elapsed between the Lord's death
and resurrection, cannot be correctly understood except in the light of
that form of expression according to which the part is dealt with as
the whole. [1495] For He said Himself, "For as Jonas was three days and
three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth." [1496] Now, in
whichever way we reckon the times, whether from the point when He
yielded up the ghost, or from the date of his burial, the sum does not
come out clearly, unless we take the intermediate day, that is to say,
the Sabbath, as a complete day--in other words, a full day along with
its night,--and, on the other hand, understand those days between which
that one intervenes--that is to say, the day of the preparation and the
first day of the week, which we designate the Lord's day--to be dealt
with on the principle of the part standing for the whole. For of what
avail is it that some, hard pressed by these difficulties, and not
knowing the very large part which the mode of expression referred
to--namely, that which takes the part as the whole--plays in the matter
of solving the problems presented in the Holy Scriptures, have struck
out the idea of reckoning as a distinct night those three hours,
namely, from the sixth hour to the ninth, during which the sun was
darkened, and as a distinct day the other three hours, during which the
sun was restored again to the lands, that is to say, from the ninth
hour on to its setting? For the night connected with the coming Sabbath
follows, and if we compute it along with its day, there will then be
two days and two nights. But, further, after the Sabbath there comes in
the night connected with the first day of the week, that is to say,
with the dawning of the Lord's day, which was the time when the Lord
arose. Consequently, the result to which this mode of calculation leads
us will be just two days and two nights, and one night, even supposing
it possible to take the last as a complete night, and taking it for
granted that we were not to show that the said dawn was in reality the
ultimate portion of the same. Thus it would appear that, even although
we were to compute these six hours in that fashion, during three of
which the sun was darkened, and during the other three of which it
shone forth again, we would not establish a satisfactory reckoning of
three days and three nights. In accordance, therefore, with the usage
which meets us so frequently in the language of the Scriptures, and
which deals with the part as the whole, it remains for us to hold the
time of the preparation to constitute the day at the one extremity,
[1497] on which the Lord was crucified and buried, and, from that
limit, to find one whole day along with its night which was fully
spent. In this way, too, we must take the intermediate member, that is
to say the day of the Sabbath, not as calculated simply from the part,
but as a really complete day. The third day, again, must be computed
from its first part; that is to say, calculating from the night, we
must look upon it as making up a whole day when its day-portion is
connected with it. Thus we shall get a space of three days, on the
analogy of a case already considered, namely, those eight days after
which the Lord went up into a mountain; with respect to which period we
find that Matthew and Mark, fixing their attention simply on the
complete days intervening, have put it thus, "After six days," whereas
Luke's representation of the same is this, "An eight days after."
[1498]
67. Let us now proceed, therefore, to look into the rest of this
passage, and see how in other respects these statements are quite
consistent with what is given by Matthew. For Luke tells us, with the
utmost plainness, that two angels were seen by those women who came to
the sepulchre. One of these angels we have understood to be referred to
by each of the first two evangelists; that is to say, one of them is
noticed by Matthew, namely, the one who was sitting outside upon the
stone, and a second by Mark, namely, the one who was sitting within the
sepulchre on the right side. But Luke's version of the scene is to the
following effect: "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath
drew on. And the women which had come with Him from Galilee beheld the
sepulchre, and how His body was laid. And they returned, and prepared
spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the
commandment. [1499] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in
the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which
they had prepared. [1500] And they found the stone rolled away from the
sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord
Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in shining garments; and as they were
afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them,
Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen:
remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The
Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be
crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered His words.
And they returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto
the eleven, and to all the rest." [1501] The question, therefore, is
this, how can these angels have been seen sitting each one
separately,--namely, one outside upon the stone, according to Matthew,
and another within upon the right side, according to Mark,--if Luke's
report of the same bears that the two stood beside those women,
although the words ascribed to them are similar? Well, it is still
possible for us to suppose that one angel was seen by the women in the
position assigned by Matthew, and in the circumstances indicated by
Mark, as we have already explained. In this way, we may understand the
said women to have entered into the sepulchre, that is to say, into a
certain space which had been fenced off within a kind of enclosure, in
such a manner that an entrance might be said to be made when they came
in front of the rocky place in which the sepulchre was constructed; and
there we may take them to have beheld the angel sitting upon the stone
which had been rolled away from the tomb, as Matthew tells us, or in
other words, the angel sitting on the right side, as Mark expresses it.
[1502] And then we may further surmise that the said women, after they
had gone within, and when they were looking at the place where the body
of the Lord lay, saw other two angels standing, as Luke informs us, by
whom they were addressed in similar terms, with a view to animate their
minds and edify their faith. [1503]
68. But let us also examine John's version, and see whether or in what
manner its consistency with these others is apparent. John, then,
narrates these incidents as follows: "Now the first day of the week
cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,
and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and
cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciples whom Jesus loved, and
saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre,
and we know not where they have laid Him. Peter therefore went forth,
and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. So they ran
both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first
to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying;
yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went
into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin,
that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped
together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple,
which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet
they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood
without at the sepulchre weeping: and, as she wept, she stooped down,
and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting,
the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus
had lain. They say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto
them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they
have laid Him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and
saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto
her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to
be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence,
tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith
unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which
is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord,
and that He had spoken these things unto her." [1504] In the narrative
thus given by John, the statement of the day or time when the sepulchre
was come to agrees with the accounts presented by the rest. Again, in
the report of two angels who were seen, he is also at one with Luke.
But when we observe how the one evangelist tells us that these angels
were seen standing, while the other says that they were sitting; when
we notice, also, that there are certain other things which are left
unrecorded by these two writers; and, further, when we consider how
questions are thus raised regarding the possibility of proving the
consistency of the one set of historians with the other on these
subjects, and of fixing the order in which those said things took
place, we see that, unless we submit the whole to a careful
examination, there may easily appear to be contradictions here between
the several narratives.
69. This being the case, therefore, let us, so far as the Lord may help
us, take all these incidents, which took place about the time of the
Lord's resurrection, as they are brought before us in the statements of
all the evangelists together, and let us arrange them in one connected
narrative, which will exhibit them precisely as they may have actually
occurred. It was in the early morning of the first day of the week, as
all the evangelists are at one in attesting, that the women came to the
sepulchre. By that time, all that is recorded by Matthew alone had
already taken place; that is to say, in regard to the quaking of the
earth, and the rolling away of the stone, and the terror of the guards,
with which they were so stricken, that in some part they lay like dead
men. Then, as John informs us, came Mary Magdalene, who unquestionably
was surpassingly more ardent in her love than these other women [1505]
who had ministered to the Lord; so that it was not unreasonable in John
to make mention of her alone, leaving those others unnamed, who,
however, were along with her, as we gather from the reports given by
others of the evangelists. She came accordingly; and when she saw the
stone taken away from the sepulchre, without pausing to make any more
minute investigation, and never doubting but that the body of Jesus had
been removed from the tomb, she ran, as the same John states, and told
the state of matters to Peter and to John himself. For John is himself
that disciple whom Jesus loved. They then set out running to the
sepulchre; and John, reaching the spot first, stooped down and saw the
linen clothes lying, but he did not go within. But Peter followed up,
and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lie, and the
napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen
clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then John entered
also, and saw in like manner, and believed what Mary had told him,
namely, that the Lord had been taken away from the sepulchre. "For as
yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood
without at the sepulchre weeping," [1506] --that is to say, before the
place in the rock in which the sepulchre was constructed, but at the
same time within that space into which they had now entered; for there
was a garden there, as the same John mentions. [1507] Then they saw the
angel sitting on the right side, upon the stone which was rolled away
from the sepulchre; of which angel both Matthew and Mark discourse.
"Then he said unto them, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus,
which was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come,
see the place where the Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell His
disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before
you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you." [1508]
In Mark we also find a passage similar in tenor to the above. At these
words, Mary, still weeping, bent down and looked forwards into the
sepulchre, and beheld the two angels, who are introduced to us in
John's narrative, sitting in white raiment, one at the head, and the
other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been deposited. "They
say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because
they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him."
[1509] Here we are to suppose the angels to have risen up, so that they
could be seen standing, as Luke states that they were seen, and then,
according to the narrative of the same Luke, to have addressed the
women, as they were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth. The
terms were these: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not
here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in
Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of
sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise. And they
remembered His words." [1510] It was after this that, as we learn from
John, "Mary turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not
that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom
seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him,
Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him,
and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned
herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus
saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and
your Father; and to my God, and your God." [1511] Then she departed
from the sepulchre, that is to say, from the ground where there was
space for the garden in front of the stone which had been dug out.
Along with her there were also those other women, who, as Mark tells
us, were surprised with fear and trembling. And they told nothing to
any one. At this point we next take up what Matthew has recorded in the
following passage: "Behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they
came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." [1512] For thus we
gather that, on coming to the sepulchre, they were twice addressed by
the angels; and, again, that they were also twice addressed by the Lord
Himself, namely, at the point at which Mary took Him to be the
gardener, and a second time at present, when He meets them on the way,
with a view to strengthen them by such a repetition, and to bring them
out of their state of fear. "Then, accordingly, said He unto them, Be
not afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there
shall they see me." [1513] "Then came Mary Magdalene, and told the
disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these
things unto her;" [1514] --not herself alone, however, but with her
also those other women to whom Luke alludes when he says, "Which told
these things unto the eleven disciples, and all the rest. And their
words seemed to them like madness, and they believed them not." [1515]
Mark also attests these facts; for, after telling us how the women went
out from the sepulchre, trembling and amazed, and said nothing to any
man, he subjoins the statement, that the Lord rose early the first day
of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had
cast seven devils, and that she went and told them who had been with
Him, as they mourned and wept, and that they, when they heard that He
was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. [1516] It is further
to be observed, that Matthew has also introduced a notice to the effect
that, as the women who had seen and heard all these things were going
away, there came likewise into the city some of the guards who had been
lying like dead men, and that these persons reported to the chief
priests all the things that were done, that is to say, those of them
which they were themselves also in a position to observe. He tells us,
moreover, that when they were assembled with the elders and had taken
counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, and bade them say
that His disciples came and stole Him away while they slept, promising
at the same time to secure them against the governor, who had given
those guards. Finally, he adds that they took the money, and did as
they had been taught, and that this saying is commonly reported among
the Jews until this day. [1517]
__________________________________________________________________
[1474] Matt. xxvii. 61.
[1475] Mark xv. 47.
[1476] Matt. xxvii. 62-66.
[1477] Vespere autem Sabbati. [The Greek does not present the
difficulty which is found in the Latin text, and discussed by Augustin
in S: 65 (latter part). The phrase is properly rendered in the Revised
Version, "Now late on the Sabbath day."--R.]
[1478] The editions often give, in prima Sabbati = on the first day of
the week. The best mss. read, as above, in primam, etc.
[1479] Matt. xxviii. 1-7.
[1480] Mark xvi. 5.
[1481] Mark xvi. 8.
[1482] Matt. xxviii. 8.
[1483] Mark xvi. 2. [Mark's expression, according to the Greek text is
more explicit: "when the sun was risen." But this is to be explained by
the context, as Augustin indicates.--R.]
[1484] Aurorae.
[1485] Mane.
[1486] Albescente.
[1487] Mane.
[1488] Mane.
[1489] Diluculo.
[1490] Valde mane.
[1491] Valde diluculo.
[1492] Mane cum adhuc tenebrae essent.
[1493] [The difficulty arises from taking vespere in its technical
sense, as referring to the previous evening. As already intimated (see
note on S: 63), the Greek does not necessarily imply this.--R.]
[1494] Diluculo.
[1495] A sentence is sometimes added here in the editions, namely, Hinc
magna redditur ratio verbi Domini = hence a large account is given of
the Lord's word. It is omitted in the mss.
[1496] Matt. xii. 40.
[1497] The text gives, extremum diem tempus parasceues. One of the
Vatican mss. reads primum diem, etc. = the first day.
[1498] See above, Book ii. chap. 56, S: 113.
[1499] [The Greek text connects closely this clause with the following
one. Comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[1500] The words, "and certain others with them," are omitted here. [So
the Greek text, according to the best authorities. Comp. Revised
Version.--R.]
[1501] Luke xxiii. 54-xxiv. 12.
[1502] [Matthew tells nothing of their entering the tomb; but Mark
distinctly affirms this, as does Luke.--R.]
[1503] [The view that there were two parties of women is not noticed by
Augustin. His explanations are in the main pertinent, though harmonists
and commentators still disagree in regard to the details.--R.]
[1504] John xx. 1-18.
[1505] The text follows the mss. in reading sine dubio caeteris
mulieribus...plurimum dilectione ferventior. Some editions insert cum
before caeteris mulieribus; in which case the sense would be = Mary
Magdalene, unquestionably accompanied by the other women who had
ministered to the Lord, but herself more ardent, etc.
[1506] John xx. 9, 10.
[1507] John xix. 41.
[1508] Matt. xxviii. 5-7.
[1509] John xx. 13.
[1510] Luke xxiv. 5-8.
[1511] John xx. 13-18.
[1512] Matt. xxviii. 9.
[1513] Matt. xxviii. 10.
[1514] John xx. 18.
[1515] Luke xxiv. 10, 11.
[1516] [Augustin makes no allusion to the doubtful genuineness of Mark
xvi. 9-20. The passage appears in nearly all early Latin codices.--R.]
[1517] Matt. xxviii. 11-15.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXV.--Of Christ's Subsequent Manifestations of Himself to the
Disciples, and of the Question Whether a Thorough Harmony Can Be
Established Between the Different Narratives When the Notices Given by
the Four Several Evangelists, as Well as Those Presented by the Apostle
Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are Compared Together.
70. We must take up the consideration of the manner in which the Lord
showed Himself to the disciples after His resurrection, and that with
the view not only of bringing out clearly the consistency of the four
evangelists with each other on these subjects, but also of exhibiting
their agreement with the Apostle Paul, who discourses of the theme in
his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The statement by the latter runs
in the following terms: "For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the
third day according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve: [1518] after that He was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this day, but
some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all
the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born
out of due time." [1519] Now this succession of the appearances is one
which has been given by none of the evangelists. Hence we must examine
whether the order which they have put on record does not stand in
antagonism to this. For neither has Paul related all, nor have the
evangelists included everything in their reports. And the real subject
for our investigation, therefore, is the question, whether, among the
incidents which do come under our notice in these various narratives,
there is anything fitted to establish a discrepancy between the
writers. Now Luke is the only one among the four evangelists who omits
to tell us how the Lord was seen by the women, and confines his
statement to the appearance of the angels. Matthew, again, informs us
that He met them as they were returning from the sepulchre. Mark
likewise mentions that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene; as also
does John. Only Mark does not state how He manifested Himself to her,
while John does give us an explanation of that. Moreover, Luke not only
passes by in silence the fact that He showed Himself to the women, as I
have already remarked, but also reports that two disciples, one of whom
was Cleophas, talked with Him, before they recognised Him, in a strain
which seems to imply that the women had related no other appearance
seen by them than that of the angels who told them that He was alive.
For Luke's narrative proceeds thus: "And, behold, two of them went that
same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about
threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which
had happened. And it came to pass that, while they communed together
and reasoned, Jesus Himself drew near, and went with them. But their
eyes were holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them,
What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as
ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas,
answering, said unto Him, Art thou only a stranger [1520] in Jerusalem,
and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these
days? And He said unto them, What things? And they said unto Him,
Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and
word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our
rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and have crucified Him.
But we trusted that it had been He that should have redeemed Israel:
and besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things were
done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished,
which were early at the sepulchre; and when they found not His body,
they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which
said that He was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to
the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women said; but Him they saw
[1521] not." [1522] All these things they relate, according to Luke's
narrative, just as they were able to command their recollections and
bethink themselves of what had been reported to them by the women, or
by the disciples who had run to the sepulchre when the intelligence was
conveyed to them that His body had been removed from the place. It is
at the same time true that Luke himself reports only Peter to have run
to the tomb, and there to have stooped down and seen the linen clothes
laid by themselves, and then to have departed, wondering in himself at
that which was come to pass. This notice about Peter, moreover, is
introduced previous to the narrative of these two disciples whom He
found on the way, and subsequently to the story of the women who had
seen the angels, and who had heard from them that Jesus had risen
again; so that this position might seem to mark the period at which
Peter ran to the sepulchre. But still we must suppose that Luke has
inserted the passage about Peter here in the form of a recapitulation.
For the time when Peter ran to the sepulchre was also the time when
John ran to it; and at that point all that they had heard was simply
the statement conveyed to them by the women, and in particular by Mary
Magdalene, to the effect that the body had been carried away.
Furthermore, the period at which the said woman brought such tidings
was just the occasion when she saw the stone rolled away from the
sepulchre. And it was at a later point that these other things
occurred, connected with the vision of the angels, and the appearance
of the Lord Himself, who showed Himself twice over to the women,
namely, once at the sepulchre, and a second time when He met them as
they were returning from the tomb. This, however, took place previous
to His being seen by those two upon the journey, one of whom was
Cleophas. For, when this Cleophas was talking with the Lord, before he
recognized who He was, he did not say expressly that Peter had gone to
the sepulchre. But his words were these: "Certain of them which were
with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women said;"
which last statement is also to be understood as introduced in the form
of a recapitulation. For the reference is to the report brought first
of all by the women to Peter and John about the removal of the body.
And thus, when Luke here informs us that Peter ran to the sepulchre,
and also states how Cleophas mentioned that some of those who were with
them went to the tomb, he is to be taken as attesting John's account,
which bears that two persons proceeded to the sepulchre. But Luke has
specified Peter alone in the first instance, just because it was to him
that Mary had brought the earliest tidings. A difficulty, however, may
also be felt in the circumstance that the same Luke does not say that
Peter entered, but only that he stooped down and saw the linen clothes
hid by themselves, and that thereupon he departed, wondering in
himself; whereas John intimates that it was rather himself (for he is
the disciple whom Jesus loved) that looked at the scene in this
fashion, not going within the sepulchre, which he was the first to
reach, but simply bending down and beholding the linen clothes laid in
their place; although he also adds that he did enter the tomb
afterwards. The explanation, therefore, is simply this, that Peter at
first did stoop down and look in after the fashion which Luke
specifies, but to which John makes no allusion; and that he went
actually in somewhat later, but still before John entered. And in this
way we shall find that all these writers have given a true account of
what occurred in terms which betray no discrepancies. [1523]
71. Taking, then, not only the reports presented by the four
evangelists, but also the statement given by the Apostle Paul, we shall
endeavour to bring the whole into a single connected narrative, and
exhibit the order in which all these incidents may have taken place,
comprehending all the Lord's appearances to the male disciples, and
leaving out His earlier declarations to the women. Now, in the entire
number of the men, Peter is understood to be the one to whom Christ
showed Himself first. At least, this holds good so far as regards all
the individuals who are actually mentioned by the four evangelists, and
by the Apostle Paul. But, at the same time, who would be bold enough
either to affirm or to deny that He may have appeared to some one among
them before He showed Himself to Peter, although all these writers pass
the matter over in silence? For the statement which Paul also gives is
not in the form, "He was seen first of Cephas." But it runs thus: "He
was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above
five hundred brethren at once." And thus it is not made clear who these
twelve were, just as we are not informed who these five hundred were.
It is quite possible, indeed, that the twelve here instanced were some
unknown twelve belonging to the multitude of the disciples. For now the
apostle might speak of those whom the Lord designated apostles, not as
the twelve, but as the eleven. Some codices, indeed, contain this very
reading. I take that, however, to be an emendation introduced by men
who were perplexed by the text, supposing it to refer to those twelve
apostles who, by the time when Judas disappeared, were really only
eleven. It may be the case, then, that those are the more correct
codices which contain the reading "eleven;" or it may be that Paul
intended some other twelve disciples to be understood by that phrase;
[1524] or, once more, the fact may be that he meant that consecrated
number [1525] to remain as before, although the circle had been reduced
to eleven: for this number twelve, as it was used of the apostles, had
so mystical an importance, that, in order to keep the spiritual symbol
of the same number, there could be but a single individual, namely,
Matthias, elected to fill the place of Judas. [1526] But whichever of
these several views may be adopted, nothing necessarily results which
can appear to be inconsistent with truth, or at variance with any one
most trustworthy historian among them. Still, it remains the probable
supposition, that, after He was seen of Peter, He appeared next to
those two, of whom Cleophas was one, and regarding whom Luke presents
us with a complete narrative, while Mark gives us only a very brief
notice. The latter evangelist [1527] reports the same incident in these
concise terms: "And after that He appeared in another form unto two of
them, as they walked and went to a country-seat." [1528] For it is not
unreasonable for us to suppose that the place of residence [1529]
referred to may also have been styled a country-seat; [1530] just as
Bethlehem itself, which formerly was called a city, is even at the
present time also named a village, although its honour has now been
made so much the greater since the name of this Lord, who was born in
it, has been proclaimed so extensively throughout the Churches of all
nations. In the Greek codices, indeed, the reading which we discover is
rather "estate" [1531] than "country-seat." But that term was employed
not only of residences, [1532] but also of free towns [1533] and
colonies beyond the city, which is the head and mother of the rest, and
is therefore called the metropolis.
72. Again, if Mark tells us that the Lord appeared to these persons in
another form, Luke refers to the same when he says that their eyes,
were holden, that they should not know Him. For something had come upon
their eyes which was suffered to remain until the breaking of the
bread, in reference to a well-known mystery, so that only then was the
different form in Him made visible to them, and they did not recognise
Him, as is shown by Luke's narrative, until the breaking of the bread
took place. And thus, in apt accordance with the state of their minds,
which were still ignorant of the truth, that it behoved Christ to die
and rise again, their eyes sustained something of a similar order; not,
indeed, that the truth itself proved misleading, but that they were
themselves incompetent to perceive the truth, and thought of the matter
as something else than it was. The deeper significance of all which is
this, that no one should consider himself to have attained the
knowledge of Christ, if he is not a member in His body--that is to say,
in His Church--the unity of which is commended to our notice under the
sacramental symbol of the bread by an apostle, when he says: "We being
many are one bread and one body." [1534] So was it that, when He handed
to them the bread which He had blessed, their eyes were opened, and
they recognised Him, that is to say, their eyes were opened for such
knowledge of Him, in so far as the impediment was now removed which had
prevented them from recognising Him. For certainly they were not
walking with closed eyes. But there was something in them which
debarred them from seeing correctly what was in their view,--a state of
matters, indeed, which is the familiar result of darkness, or of a
certain kind of humour. It is not meant by this, however, that the Lord
could not alter the form of His flesh, so that His figure might be
literally and actually different, and not the one which they were in
the habit of beholding. For, indeed, even before His passion, He was
transfigured on the mount so that His countenance "did shine as the
sun." [1535] And He who made genuine wine out of genuine water can also
transform any body whatsoever in all unquestionable reality into any
other kind of body which may please Him. But what is meant is, that He
had not acted so when He appeared in another form unto those two
individuals. For He did not appear to be what He was [1536] to these
men, because their eyes were holden, so that they should not know Him.
Moreover, not unsuitably may we suppose that this impediment in their
eyes came from Satan, with the view of precluding their recognition of
Jesus. But, nevertheless, permission that it should be so was given by
Christ on to the point at which the mystery of the bread was taken up.
And thus the lesson might be, that it is when we become participants in
the unity of His body, that we are to understand the impediment of the
adversary to be removed, and liberty to be given us to know Christ.
73. Besides, it is necessary to believe that these were the same
persons to whom Mark also refers. For he informs us, that they went and
told these things to the rest: just as Luke states, that the persons in
question rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the
eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, "The
Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." [1537] And then he
adds that these two also told what things were done on the way, and how
He was known of them in breaking of bread. [1538] By this time,
therefore, a report of the resurrection of Jesus had been conveyed by
those women, and also by Simon Peter, to whom He had already shown
Himself. For these two disciples found those to whom they came in
Jerusalem talking of that very subject. Consequently, it may be the
case that fear made them decline mentioning formerly, when they were on
the way, that they had heard that He had risen again, so that they
confined themselves to stating how the angels had been seen by the
women. For, not knowing with whom they were conversing, they might
reasonably be anxious not to let any word drop from them on the subject
of Christ's resurrection, lest they should fall into the hands of the
Jews. But again, we must remark that Mark states that "they went and
told it unto the residue: neither believed they them:" [1539] whereas
Luke tells us that these others were already saying that the Lord was
risen indeed, and had appeared unto Simon. Is not the explanation,
however, simply this, that there were some of them there who refused to
credit what was related? Moreover, to whom can it fail to be clear that
Mark has just omitted certain matters which are fully set forth in
Luke's narrative,--that is to say, the subjects of the conversation
which Jesus had with them before He recognised them, and the manner in
which they came to know Him in the breaking of the bread? For, after
recording how He appeared to them in another form, as they went towards
a country-seat, Mark has immediately appended the sentence, "And they
went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them;" as if
men could tell of a person whom they had not recognised, or as if those
to whom He had appeared only in another form could know Him! Without
doubt, therefore, Mark has simply given us no explanation of the way in
which they came to know Him, so as to be able to report the same to
others. And this, then, is a thing which deserves to be imprinted on
our memory, in order that we may accustom ourselves to keep in view the
habit which these evangelists have of passing over those matters which
they do not put on record, and of connecting the facts which they do
relate in such a manner that, among those who fail to give due
consideration to the usage referred to, nothing proves itself a more
fruitful source of misapprehension than this, leading them to imagine
the existence of discrepancies in the sacred writers.
74. Luke next proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And
as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith
unto them, Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid. [1540] But they
were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a
spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts
arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:
handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have. And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His
feet." [1541] It is to this act, by which the Lord showed Himself after
His resurrection, that John is also understood to refer when he
discourses as follows: "Then, when it was late on the first day of the
week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith
unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had so said, He showed unto
them His hands and His side." [1542] Thus, too, we may connect with
these words of John certain matters which Luke reports, but which John
Himself omits. For Luke continues in these terms: "And while they yet
believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any
meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
And when He had eaten before them, He took what remained, [1543] and
gave it unto them." [1544] Again, a passage which Luke omits, but which
John presents, may next be connected with these words. It is to the
following effect: "Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath
sent me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on
them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain,
they are retained." [1545] Once more, we may attach to the above
section another which John has left out, but which Luke inserts. It
runs thus: "And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake
unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled
which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
Psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their understanding, that they
might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is
written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the
dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye
are witnesses of these things. And I send the promise of my Father upon
you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be endued with power from on
high." [1546] Observe, then, how Luke has here referred to that promise
of the Holy Spirit which we do not elsewhere find made by the Lord,
save in John's Gospel. [1547] And this deserves something more than a
passing notice, in order that we may bear in mind how the evangelists
attest each other's truth, even on subjects which some of them may not
themselves record, but which they nevertheless know to have been
reported. After these matters, Luke passes over in silence all else
that happened, and introduces nothing into his narrative beyond the
occasion when Jesus ascended into heaven. And at the same time he
appends this [statement of the ascension], just as if it followed
immediately upon these words which the Lord spake, at the same time
with those other transactions on the first day of the week, that is to
say, on the day on which the Lord rose again; whereas, in the Acts of
the Apostles, [1548] the self-same Luke tells us that the event really
took place on the fortieth day after His resurrection. Finally, as
regards the fact that John states that the Apostle Thomas was not
present with these others on the occasion under review, whereas,
according to Luke, the two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one,
returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven assembled and those who
were with them, it admits of little doubt that we must suppose Thomas
simply to have left the company before the Lord showed Himself to the
brethren when they were talking in the terms noticed above.
75. This being the case, John now records a second manifestation of
Himself, which was vouchsafed by the Lord to the disciples eight days
after, on which occasion Thomas also was present, who had not seen Him
up to that time. The narrative proceeds thus: "And after eight days
again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus,
the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto
you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My
Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto Him, Thomas, because thou hast seen
me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet
have believed." [1549] This second appearance of the Lord among the
disciples--that is to say, the appearance which John records in the
second instance--we might also recognise as alluded to by Mark in a
section concisely disposing of it, according to that evangelist's
habit. A difficulty, however, is created by the circumstance that his
terms are these: "Lastly, [1550] He appeared unto those eleven as they
sat at meat." [1551] The difficulty does not lie in the mere fact that
John says nothing about their sitting at meat, for he might well have
omitted that; but it does rest in the use of the word "lastly," for
that makes it seem as if He did not show Himself to them after that
occasion, whereas John still proceeds to record a third appearance of
the Lord by the sea of Tiberias. And then we have to keep in view the
fact that the same Mark tells us how Jesus "upbraided them with their
unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which
had seen Him after He was risen." In these words he refers to the two
disciples to whom He appeared after He was risen, as they went toward a
country-seat, and to Peter, to whom the examination of Luke's narrative
has shown us that He manifested Himself first of all [among the
apostles],--perhaps also to Mary Magdalene, and those other women who
were along with her on the occasion when He was seen by them at the
sepulchre, and again when He met them as they were returning on the
way. For the said Mark has constructed his record in a manner which
leads him first to insert his brief notice of the two disciples to whom
He appeared as they went toward the country-seat, and of their giving a
report to the residue and obtaining no credit, and then to subjoin in
the immediate connection this statement: "Lastly, He appeared unto the
eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and
hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him
after He was risen." How, then, is this phrase "lastly" used, as if
they did not see Him subsequently to this occasion? For the last time
that the apostles saw the Lord upon the earth was really the time when
He ascended into heaven, and that event took place on the fortieth day
after His resurrection. Now, is it likely that He would upbraid them at
that period on the ground that they had not believed those who had seen
Him after He was risen, when by that time they had seen Him themselves
so often after His resurrection, and especially when they had seen Him
on the very day of His resurrection,--that is to say, on the first day
of the week, when it was now about night, as Luke and John record? It
remains for us, therefore, to suppose that, in the passage under
review, it was Mark's intention to give a statement, in his own concise
fashion, simply on the subject of the said day of the Lord's
resurrection; that is to say, that first day of the week on which Mary
and the other women who were along with her saw Him after daybreak, on
which also Peter beheld Him, on which likewise He appeared to the two
disciples, of whom Cleophas was one, and to whom Mark himself also
seems to refer; on which, further, when it was now about night, He
showed Himself to the eleven (Thomas, however, being excepted) and
those who were with them; and on which, finally, the persons already
instanced reported to the disciples the things which they had seen.
Hence it is that he has employed the term "lastly," because the
incident mentioned was the last that took place on this same day. For
the night was now coming on by the time that the two disciples had
returned from the place where they had recognised Him in the breaking
of bread, and had made their way into Jerusalem and found the eleven,
as Luke tells us, and those who were with them, speaking to each other
about the Lord's resurrection and about His having appeared to Peter;
to whom these two also related what had occurred on the way, and how
they came to know Him in the breaking of bread. But, assuredly, there
were also there some who did not believe. Hence we see the truth of
Mark's words, "Neither believed they them." When these, therefore, were
now sitting at meat, as Mark informs us, and when they were talking of
these subjects, as Luke tells us, the Lord stood in their midst, and
said unto them, "Peace be unto you," as Luke and John both record.
Moreover, the doors were shut when He entered among them, as John alone
mentions. And thus, among the words which, as Luke and John have
reported, the Lord spoke to the disciples on that occasion, this
expostulation also comes in, which is instanced by Mark, and in which
He upbraided them for not believing those who had seen Him after He was
risen.
76. But, again, a difficulty may also be felt in understanding how Mark
says that the Lord appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, if the
time referred to is really the beginning of the night of that Lord's
day, as is indicated by Luke and John. For John, indeed, tells us
plainly that the Apostle Thomas was not with them on that occasion; and
we believe that he left them before the Lord entered among them, but
after the two disciples who returned from the village had been
conversing with the eleven, as we discover from Luke. Luke, it is true,
presents a point in his narrative, at which we may fairly suppose,
first, that Thomas went out while they were talking of these subjects,
and then that the Lord came in. Mark, however, who says, "Lastly, He
appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat," compels us to admit that
Thomas also was there. But it may be the case, perhaps, that he chose
to style them the eleven, although one of the company was absent,
because the same apostolic society was designated by this number at the
time previous to the election of Matthias in the place of Judas. Or, if
there is a difficulty in accepting this explanation, we may still
suppose that, after the many manifestations in which He vouchsafed His
presence to the disciples during the forty days, He also showed Himself
on one final occasion to the eleven as they sat at meat,--that is to
say, on the fortieth day itself; and that, as He was now on the point
of leaving them and ascending into heaven, He was minded on that
memorable day specially to upbraid them with their refusal to believe
those who had seen Him after He had risen until they should first have
seen Him themselves; and this particularly because it was the case
that, when they preached the gospel subsequently to His ascension, the
very Gentiles would be ready to believe what they did not see. For,
after mentioning this upbraiding, Mark at once proceeds to subjoin this
passage: "And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." [1552] If,
therefore, they were charged to preach that he who believes not shall
be condemned, when that indeed which he believes not is just what he
has not seen, was it not meet that they should themselves first of all
be thus reproved for their own refusal to believe those to whom the
Lord had shown Himself at an earlier stage until they should have seen
Him with their own eyes?
77. In what follows we have a further recommendation to take this to
have been the last manifestation of Himself in bodily fashion which the
Lord gave to the apostles. For the same Mark continues in these terms:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up
serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." [1553] Then
he appends this statement: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto
them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with
them, and confirming the word by signs following." [1554] Now, when he
says, "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up
into heaven," he appears probably enough to indicate that this was the
last discourse He held with them upon the earth. At the same time, the
words do not seem to shut us up to that idea absolutely. For what he
says is not, "after He had spoken these things unto them," but simply,
"after He had spoken unto them;" and hence it would be quite
admissible, were there any necessity for such a theory, to suppose that
this was not the last discourse, and that that was not the last day on
which He was present with them upon the earth, but that all the matters
regarding which He spake with them in all these days may be referred to
in the sentence, "After He had spoken unto them, He was received up
into heaven." But, inasmuch as the considerations which we have
detailed above lead us rather to conclude that this was the last day,
than to suppose that the allusion is specifically to the eleven at a
time when, in consequence of the absence of Thomas, they were only ten,
we are of opinion that after this discourse which Mark mentions, and
with which we have to connect in their proper order those other words,
whether of the disciples or of the Lord Himself, which are recorded in
the Acts of the Apostles, [1555] we must believe the Lord to have been
received up into heaven, to wit, on the fortieth day after the day of
His resurrection.
78. John, again, although he tells us plainly that he has passed over
many of the things which Jesus did, has been pleased, nevertheless, to
give us a narrative of a third manifestation of Himself, which the Lord
granted to the disciples after the resurrection, namely, by the sea of
Tiberias, and before seven of the disciples,--that is to say, Peter,
Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others who are not
mentioned by name. That is the occasion when they were engaged in
fishing; when, in obedience to His command, they cast the nets on the
right side, and drew to land great fishes, a hundred and fifty and
three: when He also asked Peter three times whether He was loved by
him, and charged him to feed His sheep, and delivered a prophecy
regarding what he would suffer, and said also, with reference to John,
"Thus [1556] I will that he tarry till I come." And with this John has
brought his Gospel to its conclusion.
79. We have next to consider now what was the occasion of His first
appearance to the disciples in Galilee. For this incident, which John
narrates as the third in order, took place in Galilee by the sea of
Tiberias. And one may perceive that the scene was in that district, if
he calls to mind the miracle of the five loaves, the narrative of which
the same John commences in these terms: "After these things Jesus went
over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias." [1557] And what
should naturally be supposed to be the proper locality for His first
manifestation to the disciples after His resurrection but Galilee? This
seems to be the conclusion to which we should be led when we recollect
the words of the angel who, according to Matthew's Gospel, addressed
the women as they came to the sepulchre. The words were these: "Fear
not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified.
He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where
the Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen
from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there
shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you." [1558] Mark presents a similar
report, whether the angel of whom he speaks be the same one or a
different. His version runs thus: "Be not affrighted: ye seek Jesus of
Nazareth which was crucified; He is risen; He is not here: behold the
place where they laid Him. But go your way, tell His disciples and
Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him, as
He said unto you." [1559] Now the impression which these words seem to
produce is, that Jesus was not to show Himself to His disciples after
His resurrection, but in Galilee. The appearance thus referred to,
however, is not recorded even by Mark himself, who has informed us how
He showed Himself first to Mary Magdalene in the early morning of the
first day of the week; how she went and told them that had been with
Him as they mourned and wept; how these persons refused to believe her;
how, after this, He was next seen by the two disciples who were going
to the residence in the country; how these twain reported what had
occurred to them to the residue, which, as Luke and John agree in
certifying, took place in Jerusalem on the very day of the Lord's
resurrection, and when night was now coming on. Thereafter the same
evangelist comes next to that appearance which he calls His last, and
which was vouchsafed to the eleven as they sat at meat; and when he has
given us his account of that scene, he tells us how He was received up
into heaven, which event took place, as we know, on the Mount Olivet,
at no great distance from Jerusalem. Thus Mark nowhere relates the
actual fulfilment of that which he declares to have been announced
beforehand by the angel. Matthew, on the other hand, confines his
statement to a single occurrence, and refers to no other locality
whatsoever, whether earlier or later, where the disciples saw the Lord
after He was risen, but the Galilee which was specified in the angel's
prediction. This evangelist, in short, first introduces his notice of
the terms in which the women were addressed by the angel; then he
subjoins an account of what happened as they were going, and how the
members of the watch were bribed to give a false report; and then he
inserts his statement [of the appearance in Galilee], just as if that
were the very event which followed immediately on what he has been
relating. For, indeed, the angel's words, "He is risen; and behold, He
goeth before you into Galilee," were really such as might make it seem
reasonable to suppose that nothing would intervene [before that
manifestation in Galilee]. Matthew's version, accordingly, proceeds as
follows: "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they
worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world." [1560] In these terms has
Matthew closed his Gospel.
80. Thus, then, were it not that the consideration of the narratives
given by others of the evangelists led us inevitably to examine the
whole subject with greater care, we might entertain the idea that the
scene of the Lord's first manifestation of Himself to the disciples
after His resurrection, could be nowhere else but in Galilee. In like
manner, had Mark passed over the angel's announcement without notice,
any one might have supposed that Matthew was induced to tell us how the
disciples went away to a mountain in Galilee, and there worshipped the
Lord, by his desire to show the actual fulfilment of the charge, and of
the prediction which he had also recorded to have been conveyed by the
angel. As the case now stands, however, Luke and John both certify with
sufficient clearness, that on the very day of His resurrection the Lord
was seen by His disciples in Jerusalem, which is at such a distance
from Galilee as makes it impossible for Him to have been seen by these
same individuals in both places in the course of a single day. In like
manner, Mark, while he does report in similar terms the announcement
made by the angel, nowhere mentions that the Lord actually was seen in
Galilee by His disciples after He was risen. These, therefore, are
considerations which strongly force upon us an inquiry into the real
import of this saying, "Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee! there
shall ye see Him." For if Matthew himself, too, had not stated that the
eleven disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus
had appointed them, and that they saw Him there and worshipped Him, we
might have supposed that there was no literal fulfilment of the
prediction in question, but that the whole announcement was intended to
convey a figurative meaning. And a parallel to that we should then find
in the words recorded by Luke, namely, "Behold I cast out devils, and I
do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected;"
[1561] which prediction certainly was not accomplished in the letter.
In like manner, if the angel had said, "He goeth before you into
Galilee, there shall ye see Him first;" or, "Only there shall ye see
Him;" or, "Nowhere else but there shall ye see Him;" unquestionably, in
that case, Matthew would have been in antagonism with the rest of the
evangelists. As the matter stands, however, the words are simply these:
"Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him;" and
there is no statement of the precise time at which that meeting was to
take place--whether at the earliest opportunity, and before He was seen
by them elsewhere, or at a later period, and after they had seen Him
also in other places besides Galilee; and, further, although Matthew
relates that the disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain, he
neither specifies the day of that departure, nor constructs his
narrative in an order which would force upon us the necessity of
supposing that this particular event must have been actually the first
appearance. Consequently, we may conclude that Matthew stands in no
antagonism with the narratives of the other evangelists, but that he
makes it quite competent for us, in due consistency with his own
report, to understand the meaning and accept the truth of these other
accounts. At the same time, as the Lord thus pointed, not to the place
where He intended first to manifest Himself, but to the locality of
Galilee, where undoubtedly He appeared afterwards; and as He conveyed
these instructions about beholding Himself at once through the angel,
who said," Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see
Him;" and by His own words, "Go, tell my brethren, that they go into
Galilee, and there shall ye see me;"--in these facts we find
considerations which make every believer anxious to inquire with what
mystical significance all this may be understood to have been stated.
81. In the first place, however, we must also consider the question of
the time at which He may thus have shown Himself in bodily form in
Galilee, according to the statement given by Matthew in these terms:
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain where
Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him;
but some doubted." That it was not on the day of His resurrection is
manifest. For Luke and John agree in telling us most plainly that He
was seen in Jerusalem that very day, when the night was coming on;
while Mark is not so clear on the subject. When was it, then, that they
saw the Lord in Galilee? I do not refer to the appearance mentioned by
John, by the sea of Tiberias; for on that occasion there were only
seven of them present, and they were found fishing. But I mean the
appearance detailed by Matthew, when the eleven were on the mountain,
to which Jesus had gone before them, according to the announcement made
by the angel. For the import of Matthew's statement appears to be this,
that they found Him there just because He had gone before them
according to appointment. It did not take place, then, either on the
day on which He rose, or in the eight days that followed, after which
space John states that the Lord showed Himself to the disciples, when
Thomas, who had not seen Him on the day of His resurrection, saw Him
for the first time. For, surely, on the supposition that the eleven had
really seen Him on the mountain in Galilee within the period of these
eight days, it may well be asked how Thomas, who had been of the number
of these eleven, could be said to have seen Him for the first time at
the end of these eight days. To that question there is no answer,
unless, indeed, one could say that they were not the eleven, who by
that time bore the specific designation of Apostles, but some other
eleven disciples singled out of the numerous body of His followers. For
those eleven were, indeed, the only persons who were yet called by the
name of Apostles, but they were not the only disciples. It may perhaps
be the case, therefore, that the apostles are really referred to; that
not all but only some of them were there; that there were also other
disciples with them, so that the number of persons present was made up
to eleven; and that Thomas, who saw the Lord for the first time at the
end of those eight days, was absent on this occasion. For when Mark
mentions the said eleven, he does not use the general expression
"eleven," but says explicitly, "He appeared unto the eleven." [1562]
Luke, likewise, puts it thus: "They returned to Jerusalem, and found
the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them." There he
gives us to understand that these were the eleven--that is to say, the
apostles. For when he adds, "and those who were with them," he has
surely indicated plainly enough, that those with whom these others
were, were styled "the eleven" in some eminent sense; and this leads us
to understand those to be meant who were now called distinctively
Apostles. Consequently, it is quite possible that, out of the body of
apostles and other disciples, the number of eleven disciples was made
up who saw Jesus upon the mountain in Galilee, within the space of
these eight days.
82. But another difficulty in the way of this settlement arises here.
For, when John has recorded how the Lord was seen, not by the eleven on
the mountain, but by seven of them when they were fishing in the sea of
Tiberias, he appends the following statement: "This is now the third
time that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was
risen from the dead." [1563] Now, if we accept the theory that the Lord
was seen by the company of the eleven disciples within the period of
these eight days, and previous to His being seen by Thomas, this scene
by the sea of Tiberias will not be the third but the fourth time that
He showed Himself. Here, indeed, we must take care not to let any one
suppose that, in speaking of the third time, John meant that there were
in all only three appearances of the Lord. On the contrary, we must
understand him to refer to the number of the days, and not to the
number of the manifestations themselves; and, further, it is to be
observed that these days are not presented as coming in immediate
succession after each other, but as separated by intervals in
accordance with intimations given by the evangelist himself. For,
keeping out of view His appearance to the women, it is made perfectly
plain in the Gospel that He showed Himself three several times on the
first day after He was risen; namely, once to Peter; again to those two
disciples, of whom Cleophas was one; and a third time to the larger
body, while they were conversing with each other as the night came on.
But all these John, looking to the fact that they took place on a
single day, reckons as one appearance. Then he identifies a
second--that is to say, an appearance on another day--with the occasion
on which Thomas also saw Him; and he particularizes a third by the sea
of Tiberias, that is to say, not literally His third appearance, but
the third day of His self-manifestations. Thus the result is, that
after all these incidents, we are constrained to suppose this other
occasion to have occurred on which, according to Matthew, the eleven
disciples saw Him on the mountain in Galilee, to which He had gone
before them according to appointment, so that all that had been
foretold, both by the angel and by Himself, should be fulfilled even to
the letter.
83. Consequently, in the four evangelists we find mention made of ten
distinct appearances of the Lord to different persons after His
resurrection. First, to the women near the sepulchre. [1564] Secondly,
to the same women as they were on the way returning from the sepulchre.
[1565] Thirdly, to Peter. [1566] Fourthly, to the two who were going to
the place in the country. [1567] Fifthly, to the larger number in
Jerusalem, when Thomas was not present. [1568] Sixthly, on the occasion
when Thomas saw Him. [1569] Seventhly, by the sea of Tiberias. [1570]
Eighthly, on the mountain in Galilee, of which Matthew speaks. [1571]
Ninthly, at the time to which Mark refers in the words, "Lastly, as
they sat at meat," thereby intimating that now they were no more to eat
with Him upon the earth. [1572] Tenthly, on the same day, not now
indeed upon the earth, but lifted up in the cloud, as He ascended into
heaven, as Mark and Luke record. This last appearance, indeed, is
introduced by Mark, directly after he has told us how the Lord showed
Himself to them as they sat at meat. For his narrative goes on
connectedly as follows: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them,
He was received up into heaven." [1573] Luke, on the other hand, omits
all that may have passed between Him and His disciples during the forty
days, and, after giving the history of the first day of His
resurrection-life, when He showed Himself to the larger number in
Jerusalem, he silently connects therewith the closing day on which He
ascended up into heaven. His statement proceeds in this form: "And He
led them out as far as to Bethany; and He lifted up His hands, and
blessed them; and it came to pass, that while He blessed them, He was
parted from them, and carried up into heaven." [1574] Thus, therefore,
besides seeing Him upon the earth, they beheld Him also as He was borne
up into heaven. So many times, then, is He reported in the evangelical
books to have been seen by different individuals, previous to His
completed ascension into heaven, namely, nine times upon the earth, and
once in the air as He was ascending.
84. At the same time, all is not recorded, as John plainly declares.
[1575] For He had frequent intercourse with His disciples during the
forty days which preceded His ascension into heaven. [1576] He had not,
however, showed Himself to them throughout all these forty days without
interruption. For John tells us, that after the first day of His
resurrection-life, there elapsed other eight days, at the end of which
space He appeared to them again. The appearance which is identified [in
John] as the third--namely, the one by the sea of Tiberias--may perhaps
have taken place on an immediately succeeding day; for there is nothing
antagonistic to that. And then He showed Himself when it seemed the
proper time to Him, as He had appointed with them (which appointment
had also been conveyed in the previous prophetic announcement) to go
before them into Galilee. And all throughout these forty days, He
appeared on occasions, and to individuals, and in modes, just as He was
minded. To these appearances Peter alludes when, in the discourse which
he delivered before Cornelius and those who were withhim, he says,
"Even to us who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead,
for the space of forty days." [1577] It is not meant, however, that
they had eaten and drunk with Him daily throughout these forty days.
For that would be contrary to John's statement, who has interposed the
space of eight days, during which He was not seen, and makes His third
appearance take place by the sea of Tiberias. At the same time, even
although He [should be supposed to have] manifested Himself to them and
lived with them every day after that period, that would not come into
antagonism with anything in the narrative. And, perhaps, this
expression, "for the space of forty days," which is equivalent to four
times ten, and may thus sustain a mystical reference to the whole world
or the whole temporal age, has been used just because those first ten
days, within which the said eight fall, may not incongruously be
reckoned, in accordance with the practice of the Scriptures, on the
principle of dealing with the part in general terms as the whole.
85. Let us therefore compare what is said by the Apostle Paul with the
view of deciding whether it raises any question of difficulty. His
statement proceeds thus: "That He rose again the third day according to
the Scriptures, and that He was seen of Cephas." [1578] He does not
say, "He was seen first of Cephas." For this would be inconsistent with
the fact that it is recorded in the Gospel that He appeared first to
the women. He continues thus: "then of the twelve;" and whoever the
individuals may have been to whom He then showed Himself, and whatever
the precise hour, this was at least on the very day of His
resurrection. Again he goes on: "After that He was seen of above five
hundred brethren at once." And whether these were gathered together
with the eleven when the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, and when
Jesus came to them after Thomas had gone out from the company, or
whether the reference is to some other appearance subsequent to these
eight days, no discrepancy is created. Again he says, "after that He
was seen of James." We ought not, however, to suppose this to mean that
this was the first occasion on which He was seen of James; but we may
take it to allude to some special appearance to that apostle by
himself. Next he adds, "then of all the apostles," which does not imply
that this was the first time that He showed Himself to them, but that
from this period He lived in more familiar intercourse with them on to
the day of His ascension. Finally he says, "And last of all He was seen
of me also, as of one born out of due time." But that was a revelation
of Himself from heaven some considerable time after His ascension.
86. Consequently, let us now take up the subject which we had
postponed, and inquire what mystical meaning may underlie the report
given by Matthew and Mark, namely, that on rising He made this
statement, "I will go before you into Galilee: there shall ye see me."
For this announcement, if it was fulfilled at all, was certainly not
fulfilled till a considerable interval had elapsed; whereas it is
couched in terms which seem to lead us (although such a conclusion is
not an absolute necessity) most naturally to expect that the appearance
referred to would be either the only one or the first that would ensue.
We observe, however, that the words in question are not given as the
words of the evangelist himself, in the form of a narrative of a past
occurrence, but as the words of the angel, who spoke according to the
Lord's commission, and subsequently also as the words of the Lord
Himself; that is to say, the words are used by the evangelist in his
narrative, but they are presented by him as a direct statement of what
was spoken by the angel and by the Lord. This, therefore,
unquestionably compels us to accept them as uttered prophetically.
[1579] Now Galilee may be interpreted to mean either "Transmigration"
or "Revelation." Consequently, if we adopt the idea of
"Transmigration," what other sense occurs to us to put upon the
sentence, "He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall you see Him,"
but just this, that the grace of Christ was to be transferred from the
people of Israel to the Gentiles? That in preaching the gospel to these
Gentiles, the apostles would meet with no acceptance unless the Lord
prepared a way for them in the hearts of men,--this may be what is to
be understood by the sentence, "He goeth before you into Galilee." And,
again, that they would look with joy and wonder at the breaking down
and removing of difficulties, and at the opening of a door for them in
the Lord through the enlightenment of the believing,--this is what is
to be understood by the words, "there shall ye see Him;" that is to
say, there shall ye find His members, there shall ye recognise His
living body in the person of those who shall receive you. Or, if we
follow the second view which takes Galilee to signify "Revelation," the
idea may be, that He was now no more to be in the form of a servant,
but in that form in which He is equal with the Father; [1580] as He
promised to those who loved Him when He said, according to the
testimony of John, "And I will love him, and will manifest myself to
him." [1581] That is to say, He was afterwards to manifest Himself, not
merely as they saw Him before, nor merely in the way in which, rising
as He did with His wounds upon Him, He was to give Himself to be
touched as well as seen by them, but in the character of that ineffable
light, wherewith He enlightens every man that cometh into this world,
and in virtue of which He shineth in darkness, and the darkness
comprehends Him not. [1582] Thus has He gone before us to something
from which He withdraws not, although He comes to us, and which does
not involve His leaving us, although He has preceded us thither. That
will be a revelation which may be spoken of as a true Galilee, when we
shall be like Him; there shall we see Him as He is. [1583] Then, also,
will there be for us the more blessed transmigration, from this world
into that eternity, if we embrace His precepts so as to be counted
worthy of being set apart on His right hand. For there, those on the
left hand shall go away into eternal burning, but the righteous into
life eternal. [1584] Hence they shall pass thither, and there, shall
they see Him, as the wicked do not see Him. For the wicked shall be
taken away, so that he shall not see the brightness of the Lord; [1585]
and the unrighteousness shall not see the light. For He says, "And this
is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent;" [1586] even as He shall be known in
that eternity to which He will bring His servants by the form of a
servant, in order that in liberty they may contemplate the form of the
Lord.
__________________________________________________________________
[1518] Some editions read undecim = the eleven.
[1519] 1 Cor. xv. 3-8.
[1520] [Tu solus peregrinus es, agreeing with the Greek text: "Art thou
the only sojourner," etc. But comp. Revised Version.--R.]
[1521] Another reading occurs here, non invenerunt = Him they found
not.
[1522] Luke xxiv. 13-24.
[1523] [Luke xxiv. 12 is omitted by Tischendorf, on the authority of
codices allied to the text of the Vulgate. The omission was probably
occasioned by the difficulties discussed above.--R.]
[1524] The text has, Sive alios quosdam duodecim discipulos Paulus,
etc. In the mss. another reading is found: Sive alios quosdam duodecim
apostolus, etc. = it may be that the Apostle Paul intended some other
twelve to be understood, etc.
[1525] For sacratum illum numerum, five mss. give sacramentum illius
numeri = the mystical symbol of that number.
[1526] Acts i. 26.
[1527] Mark xvi. 12.
[1528] In villam.
[1529] Castellum.
[1530] Villam.
[1531] Agrum = field, domain, as the equivalent for agron.
[1532] Castella.
[1533] Municipia.
[1534] 1 Cor. x. 17.
[1535] Matt. xvii. 2.
[1536] The text gives, Non enim sicut erat, apparuit, etc. Some
editions make it non enim aliter quam erat, sed sicut erat apparuit =
for He did not really assume another form, but appeared in that which
He had.
[1537] Luke xxiv. 33, 34.
[1538] Luke xxiv. 35.
[1539] Mark xvi. 13.
[1540] The words Ego sum, nolite timere, are thus inserted.
[1541] Luke xxiv. 36-40.
[1542] John xx. 19, 20.
[1543] Et cum manducasset coram eis, sumens reliquias dedit eis.
[1544] Luke xxiv. 41-43.
[1545] John xx. 20-23.
[1546] Luke xxiv. 44-49. [Many harmonists place this passage in
connection with this appearance (evening of the Resurrection day); but
part of it may belong to the final appearance, or be a summary of the
teaching during the forty days.--R.]
[1547] John xiv. 26, xv. 26.
[1548] Acts i. 2-9.
[1549] John xx. 26-29.
[1550] Novissime. [The Greek is husteron, "afterwards," not necessarily
"lastly."--R.]
[1551] Mark xvi. 14.
[1552] Mark xvi. 15, 16.
[1553] Mark xvi. 17, 18.
[1554] Mark xvi. 19, 20.
[1555] Acts i. 4-8.
[1556] Some editions read si = if I will, etc. But the best editions
and mss. give sic, as above. And that Augustin read it so, is clear
also from what occurs further on in Book iv. 20.
[1557] John vi. 1.
[1558] Matt. xxviii. 5-7.
[1559] Mark xvi. 6, 7.
[1560] Matt. xxviii. 16-20.
[1561] Luke xiii. 32. See above, Book ii. chap. 75, S: 145.
[1562] Illis undecim = those eleven.
[1563] John xxi. 14.
[1564] John xx. 14.
[1565] Matt. xxviii. 9.
[1566] Luke xxiv. 35.
[1567] Luke xxiv. 15.
[1568] John xx. 19-24.
[1569] John xx. 26.
[1570] John xxi. 1.
[1571] Matt. xxviii. 16, 17.
[1572] Mark xvi. 14.
[1573] Mark xvi. 19.
[1574] Luke xxiv. 50, 51.
[1575] John xxi. 25.
[1576] Acts i. 3.
[1577] Acts x. 41--the words, per quadraginta dies, being added.
[1578] 1 Cor. xv. 4, 5.
[1579] [The discussion of the appearances of the Risen Lord is so clear
and candid, that one must regret that it finds its conclusion in the
allegorizing exegesis of this section.--R.]
[1580] Phil. ii. 6, 7.
[1581] John xiv. 21.
[1582] John i. 5-9.
[1583] 1 John iii. 2.
[1584] Matt. xxv. 33-46.
[1585] Isa. xxvi. 10.
[1586] John xviii. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Book IV.
This book embraces a discussion of those passages which are peculiar to
Mark, Luke, or John.
__________________________________________________________________
Prologue.
1. As we have examined Matthew's narrative in its complete connection,
and as the comparison which we have carried out between it and the
other three on to its conclusion has established the fact, that not one
of these evangelists contains anything either at variance with other
statements in his own Gospel, or inconsistent with the accounts
presented by his fellow-historians, let us now subject Mark to a
similar scrutiny. Our plan will be to omit those sections which he has
in common with Matthew, which we have already investigated as far as
seemed requisite and are now done with, and to take up those paragraphs
which remain, with the view of submitting them to discussion and
comparison, and of demonstrating their thorough harmony with what is
related by the other evangelists on to the notice of the Lord's Supper.
For we have already dealt with all the incidents which are reported in
all the four Gospels from that point on to the end, and have considered
the subject of their mutual consistency.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter I.--Of the Question Regarding the Proof that Mark's Gospel is
in Harmony with the Rest in What is Narrated (Those Passages Which He
Has in Common with Matthew Being Left Out of Account), from Its
Beginning Down to the Section Where It is Said, "And They Go into
Capharnaum, and Straightway on the Sabbath-Day He Taught Them:" Which
Incident is Reported Also by Luke.
2. Mark, then, commences as follows: "The beginning of the gospel of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God: as it is written in the prophet Isaiah;"
and so on, down to where it is said, "And they go into Capharnaum; and
straightway on the Sabbath-day He entered into the synagogue and taught
them." [1587] In this entire context, everything has been examined
above in connection with Matthew. This particular statement, however,
about His going into the synagogue at Capharnaum and teaching them on
the Sabbath-day, is one which Mark has in common with Luke. [1588] But
it raises no question of difficulty.
__________________________________________________________________
[1587] Mark i. 1-21.
[1588] Mark iv. 31.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.--Of the Man Out of Whom the Unclean Spirit that Was
Tormenting Him Was Cast, and of the Question Whether Mark's Version is
Quite Consistent with that of Luke, Who is at One with Him in Reporting
the Incident.
3. Mark proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And they
were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one that had
authority, and not as the scribes. And there was in their synagogue a
man with an unclean spirit: and he cried out, saying, [1589] What have
we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy
us?" and so on, down to the passage where we read, "And He preached in
the synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils." [1590]
Although there are some points here which are common only to Mark and
Luke, the entire contents of this section have also been already dealt
with when we were going over Matthew's narrative in its continuity. For
all these matters came into the order of narration in such a manner
that I thought they could not be passed over. But Luke says that this
unclean spirit went out of the man in such a way as not to hurt him:
whereas Mark's statement is to this effect: "And the unclean spirit
cometh out of him, tearing him, and crying with a loud voice." There
may seem, therefore, to be some discrepancy here. For how could the
unclean spirit have been "tearing him," or, as some codices have it,
"tormenting him," if, as Luke says, he "hurt him not"? Luke, however,
gives the notice in full, thus: "And when the devil had thrown him in
the midst, he came out of him, and "hurt him not." [1591] Thus we are
to understand that when Mark says, "tormenting him," he just refers to
what Luke expresses in the sentence, "When he had thrown him in the
midst." And when the latter appends the words, "and hurt him not," the
meaning simply is, that the said tossing of the man's limbs and
tormenting him did not debilitate him, as is often the case with the
exit of devils, when, at times, some of the members are even destroyed
[1592] in the process of removing the trouble.
__________________________________________________________________
[1589] The words Let us alone, are omitted. [So the Greek text,
according to the best mss.--R.]
[1590] Mark i. 22-39.
[1591] Luke iv. 35.
[1592] Reading elisis. Various mss. give amputatis aut evulsis =
amputated or torn off.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Of the Question Whether Mark's Reports of the Repeated
Occasions on Which the Name of Peter Was Brought into Prominence are
Not at Variance with the Statement Which John Has Given Us of the
Particular Time at Which the Apostle Received that Name.
4. The same Mark continues as follows: "And there came a leper to Him,
beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying unto Him, If thou
wilt, thou canst make me clean;" and so on, down to where it is said,
"And they cried out, saying, Thou art the Son of God: and He
straightway charged them that they should not make Him known." [1593]
Luke [1594] also records something similar to the last passage which we
have here adduced. But nothing emerges involving any discrepancy. Mark
proceeds thus: "And He goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto Him
whom He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained twelve that they
should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach; and He
gave them power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils. And Simon
He surnamed Peter;" and so on, down to where it is said, "And he
departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had
done: and all men did marvel." [1595] I am aware that I have spoken
already of the names of the disciples when following the order of
Matthew's narrative. [1596] Here, therefore, I repeat the caution, that
no one should suppose Simon to have received the name Peter on this
occasion for the first time, or fancy that Mark is here in any
antagonism with John, who reports that disciple to have been addressed
long before in these terms: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by
interpretation, A stone." [1597] For John has there recorded the very
words in which the Lord gave him that name. Mark, on the other hand,
has introduced the matter in the form of a recapitulation in this
passage, when he says, "And Simon He surnamed Peter." For, as it was
his intention to enumerate the names of the twelve apostles here, and
it was necessary for him thus to mention Peter, he decided briefly to
intimate the fact that the said name was not borne by that disciple all
along, but was given him by the Lord, not, however, at the time with
which Mark was immediately dealing, but on the occasion in connection
with which John has introduced the very words employed by the Lord. The
other matters embraced within this paragraph, present nothing
inconsistent with any of the other Gospels, and they have also been
discussed previously.
__________________________________________________________________
[1593] Mark i. 40-iii. 12.
[1594] Luke iv. 41.
[1595] Mark iii. 13-v. 20.
[1596] See above, Book ii. chaps. 17 and 53.
[1597] John i. 42.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Of the Words, "The More He Charged Them to Tell No One, So
Much the More a Great Deal They Published It;" And of the Question
Whether that Statement is Not Inconsistent with His Prescience, Which
is Commended to Our Notice in the Gospel.
5. Mark continues thus: "And when Jesus was passed over again by ship
unto the other side, much people gathered unto Him: and He was nigh
unto the sea;" and so on, down to where we read, "And the apostles
gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told Him all things, both
what they had done, and what they had taught." [1598] This last portion
Mark has in common with Luke, and there is no discrepancy between them.
The rest of the contents of this section we have already discussed.
Mark continues in these terms: "And He said unto them, Come ye apart
into a desert place, and rest a while;" and so on, down to the words,
"But the more He charged them, so much the more a great deal they
published it; and were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done
all things well: He maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to
speak." [1599] In all this there is nothing which presents the
appearance of any want of harmony between Mark and Luke; and the whole
of the above we have already considered, when we were comparing these
evangelists with Matthew. At the same time, we must make sure that no
one shall suppose that the last statement, which I have cited here from
Mark's Gospel, is in antagonism with the entire body of the
evangelists, who, in reporting most of His other deeds and words, make
it plain that He knew what went on in men; that is to say, that their
thoughts and desires could not be concealed from Him. Thus John puts it
very clearly in the following passage: "But Jesus did not commit
Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any
should testify of man; for He knew what was in man." [1600] But what
wonder is it that He should discern the present thoughts of men, if He
announced beforehand to Peter the thought which he was to entertain in
the future, [1601] but which he certainly had not then, at the very
time when he was boldly declaring himself ready to die for Him, or with
Him? [1602] This being the case, then, how can it fail to appear as if
this knowledge and foreknowledge, which He possessed in so supreme a
measure, is contradicted by Mark's statement, "He charged them that
they should tell no man: but the more He charged them, so much the more
a great deal they published it"? For if He, as one who held in His own
knowledge all the intentions of men, both present and future was aware
that they would publish it all the more the more He charged them not to
publish it, what purpose could He have in giving them such a charge?
Well, but may not the explanation be this, that he desired to give
backward ones to understand how much more zealously and fervently they
ought to preach on whom He lays the commission to preach, if even men
who were interdicted were unable to keep silent?
__________________________________________________________________
[1598] Mark v. 21-vi. 30.
[1599] Mark vi. 31-vii. 37.
[1600] John ii. 24, 25.
[1601] The text gives simply: futuram Petro praenuntiavit, to which
cogitationem has to be supplied. Some editions insert negationem = his
future denial.
[1602] Matt. xxvi. 33-35.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--Of the Statement Which John Made Concerning the Man Who
Cast Out Devils Although He Did Not Belong to the Circle of the
Disciples; And of the Lord's Reply, "Forbid Them Not, for He that is
Not Against You is on Your Part;" And of the Question Whether that
Response Does Not Contradict the Other Sentence, in Which He Said, "He
that is Not with Me is Against Me."
6. Mark proceeds as follows: "In those days again, [1603] the multitude
being very great, and having nothing to eat;" and so on, down to the
words, "John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out
devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbade him. [1604]
But Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no man which shall do a
miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is
not against you is on your side." [1605] Luke relates this in similar
terms, with this exception, that he does not insert the clause, "for
there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly
speak evil of me." Consequently, there is nothing here to raise the
question of any discrepancy between these two. We must see, however,
whether this sentence must be supposed to stand in opposition to
another of the Lord's sayings, namely, the one to this effect, "He that
is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad." [1606] For how was this man not against Him, who
was not with Him, and of whom John reported that he did not unite with
them in following Him, if he is against Him who is not with Him? Or if
the man was against Him, how does He say to the disciples, "Forbid him
not; for he that is not against you is on your side"? Will any one aver
that it is of consequence to observe that here He says to the
disciples, "He that is not against you is on your side;" whereas, in
the other passage, He spoke of Himself in the terms, "He that is not
with me is against me"? That would make it appear, indeed, as if it
were possible for one not to be with Him, although he was associated
with those disciples of His who are, so to speak, His very members.
Besides, how would the truth of such sayings as these stand then: "He
that receiveth you receiveth me;" [1607] and "Inasmuch as ye have done
it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto
me"? [1608] Or is it possible for one not to be against Him, although
he may be against His disciples? Nay; for what shall we make then of
words like these: "He that despiseth you, despiseth me;" [1609] and,
"Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of mine, ye did it not unto
me;" [1610] and, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me," [1611]
--although it was His disciples that Saul was persecuting? But, in good
truth, the sense intended to be conveyed is just this, that, so far as
a man is not with Him, so far is he against Him; and again, that, so
far as a man is not against Him, so far is he with Him. For example,
take this very case of the individual who was working miracles in the
name of Christ, and yet was not in the company of Christ's disciples:
so far as this man was working miracles in His name, so far was he with
them, and so far he was not against them. [1612] But, inasmuch as they
had prohibited the man from doing a thing in which, so far forth, he
was really with them, the Lord said to them, "Forbid him not." For what
they ought to have forbidden was what was outside their fellowship, so
that they might bring him over to the unity of the Church, and not a
thing like this, in which he was at one with them, that is to say, so
far as he commended the name of their Master and Lord in the casting
out of devils. And this is the principle on which the Catholic Church
acts, not condemning common sacraments among heretics; for in these
they are with us, and they are not against us. But she condemns and
forbids division and separation, or any sentiment adverse to peace and
truth. For therein they are against us, just because they are not with
us in that, and because, not gathering with us, they are consequently
scattering.
__________________________________________________________________
[1603] Iterum, inserted. [The Greek text, according to the best mss.
reads: "when there was again a great multitude." So Revised Version.
Augustin's text is: "In those days again, when there was a great
multitude."--R.]
[1604] The words, "because he followeth not us," are omitted. [So the
Vulgate and old Latin text; but the best Greek mss. omit the clause,
"and he followeth not us," inserting the last clause, "because he
followeth not us," as in Luke ix. 49.--R.]
[1605] Mark viii. 1-ix. 39.
[1606] Matt. xii. 30.
[1607] Matt. x. 40.
[1608] Matt. xxv. 40.
[1609] Luke x. 16.
[1610] Matt. xxv. 45.
[1611] Acts ix. 4.
[1612] [The correct reading in Luke ix. 50: "For he that is not against
you is for you," gives the key to the meaning. See commentaries in
loco.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--Of the Circumstance that Mark Has Recorded More Than Luke
as Spoken by the Lord in Connection with the Case of This Man Who Was
Casting Out Devils in the Name of Christ, Although He Was Not Following
with the Disciples; And of the Question How These Additional Words Can
Be Shown to Have a Real Bearing Upon What Christ Had in View in
Forbidding the Individual to Be Interdicted Who Was Performing Miracles
in His Name.
7. Mark proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "For whosoever
shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to
Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And
whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe on me, it
is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is
better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go
into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." And so on, down to where it
is said, "Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another."
[1613] These words Mark represents to have been spoken by the Lord in
the connection immediately following what He said in forbidding the man
to be interdicted who was casting out devils in His name, and yet was
not following Him along with the disciples. In this section, too, he
introduces some matters which are not found in any of the other
evangelists, but also some which occur in Matthew as well, and some
which we come across in like manner both in Matthew and in Luke. Those
other evangelists, however, bring in these matters in different
connections, and in another order of facts, and not at this particular
point when the statement was made to Christ about the man who did not
follow Him along with the disciples, and yet was casting out devils in
His name. My opinion, therefore, is, that the Lord did really utter
sayings in this connection, according to Mark's attestation, of which
he also delivered Himself on other occasions, and this for the simple
reason, that they were sufficiently pertinent to this expression of His
mind which he gave here, when He forbade the placing of any interdict
upon the working of miracles in His name, even although that should be
done by a man who did not follow Him along with His disciples. For Mark
presents the relation of the one passage to the other thus: "For he
that is not against us is on our part; for whosoever shall give you a
cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I
say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." This makes it plain that
even this man, whose case John had taken up, and thus had given
occasion for the Lord to commence the discourse referred to, was not
separating himself from the society of the disciples to any such effect
as to scorn it like a heretic. But his position was something parallel
to the familiar one of men who, while not going the length yet of
receiving the sacraments of Christ, nevertheless favour the Christian
name so far as even to receive Christians, and accommodate themselves
to them for this very reason, and none other, that they are Christian;
of which type of persons it is that He tells us that they do not lose
their reward. This does not mean, however, that they ought at once to
think themselves quite safe and secure simply on account of this
kindness which they cherish towards Christians, while at the same time
they are neither cleansed by Christ's baptism, nor incorporated into
the unity of His body. But the import is, that they are now being
guided by the mercy of God in such a way that they may also come to
these higher things, [1614] and so quit this present world in safety.
And such persons assuredly are more profitable [servants], even before
they become associated with the number of Christians, than those
individuals who, while already bearing the Christian name and partaking
in the Christian sacraments, recommend courses which are only fitted to
drag others, whom they may persuade to adopt them, along with
themselves into eternal punishment. These are the persons to whom He
refers under the figure of the members of the body, and whom He
commands to be cast out from the body, like an offending hand or eye;
that is to say, to be cut off from the fellowship of that unity, in
order that they should seek rather to enter into life without such
associates, than to go into hell in their company. Moreover, they are
separated from those from whom they separate themselves, just when no
consent is yielded to their evil recommendations, that is to say, to
the offences in which they indulge. And if, indeed, they are discovered
in the character of their perversity to all good men with whom they
have any fellowship, [1615] they are cut off completely from the
fellowship of all, and also from participation in the divine
sacraments. But if they are known in this character only to some, while
their perversity is unknown to the majority, they must just be borne
with, as the chaff is endured in the thrashing-floor previous to the
winnowing; that is to say, they must be dealt with in a manner which
will neither involve any agreement with them in the fellowship of
unrighteousness, nor lead to a forsaking of the society of the good on
their account. This is what is done by those who have salt in
themselves, and who have peace one with another.
__________________________________________________________________
[1613] Mark ix. 40-50.
[1614] The text gives ad ea. Another reading is ad eam = that unity of
His body.
[1615] Reading societas. Many mss. give notitia = acquaintance.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.--Of the Fact that from This Point on to the Lord's Supper,
with Which Act the Discussion of All the Narratives of the Four
Evangelists Conjointly Commenced, No Question Calling for Special
Examination is Raised by Mark's Gospel.
8. Mark continues as follows: "And He arose from thence, and cometh
into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people
resort unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again;" and
so on, down to where it is said, "For all they did cast in of their
abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all
her living." [1616] In this entire context, all the above has been
subjected to investigation already, with the view of removing the
appearance of any contrariety, when we were comparing the other Gospels
in due order with Matthew. This narrative, however, of the poor widow
who cast two mites into the treasury is reported only by two of them,
namely, Mark and Luke. [1617] But their harmony admits of no question.
And from this point onwards to the Lord's Supper, which latter act
formed the starting-point for our discussion of all the records of the
four evangelists taken conjointly, Mark introduces nothing of a kind to
make it necessary for us to institute a special comparison between it
and any other statement, or to conduct an inquiry with the view of
dispelling any appearance of discrepancy.
__________________________________________________________________
[1616] Mark x. 1-xii. 44.
[1617] Luke xxi. 1-4.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.--Of Luke's Gospel, and Specially of the Harmony Between
Its Commencement and the Beginning of the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles.
9. Next in succession, therefore, let us now go over the Gospel of Luke
in regular order. We shall omit, however, those passages which he has
in common with Matthew and Mark. For all these have been already
handled. Luke, then, begins his narrative in the following fashion:
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration of these things which have been fulfilled [1618] among us,
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were
eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to
write unto thee in order, [1619] most excellent Theophilus, that thou
mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been
instructed." [1620] This beginning does not pertain immediately to the
narrative presented in the Gospel. But it suggests to us to be
cognizant of the fact, that this same Luke is also the writer of the
other book which bears the name of the Acts of the Apostles. Our ground
for holding this opinion is not merely the circumstance that the name
of Theophilus occurs there as well as here. For it might quite well
happen that there was a second person with the name of Theophilus; and
even if it was one and the same person that was referred to in both
cases, still another composition might have been addressed to him by a
different individual, just as the Gospel was written in his behoof by
Luke. We base our view of the identity of authorship, however, on the
fact that this second book commences in the following strain: "The
former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both
to do and teach, until the day in which He, [1621] through the Holy
Ghost, gave commandment unto the apostles whom He chose to preach the
gospel." [1622] This statement gives us to understand that, previous to
this, he had written one of those four books of the gospel which are
held in the loftiest authority in the Church. At the same time, when he
tells us that he had composed a treatise of all that Jesus began both
to do and teach until the day in which He gave commandment to the
apostles, we are not to take this to mean that he actually has given us
a full account in his Gospel of all that Jesus did and said when He
lived with His apostles on earth. For that would be contrary to what
John affirms when he says that there are also many other things which
Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, the world
itself could not contain the books. [1623] And besides, it is the
admitted fact that not a few things have been narrated by the other
evangelists, which Luke himself has not touched upon in his history.
The sense therefore is, that he wrote a treatise of all these things,
in so far as he made a selection out of the whole mass of materials for
his narrative, and introduced those facts which he judged fit and
suitable for the satisfactory discharge of the responsible duty laid
upon him. Again, when he speaks of many who had "taken in hand to set
forth in order a declaration of those things which have been fulfilled
among us," he seems to refer to certain parties who had not been able
to complete the task which they had assumed. Hence he also says that it
seemed good to him also to "write carefully in order, forasmuch as many
have taken in hand," etc. The allusion here, however, we ought to take
to be to those writers who have attained to no authority in the Church,
just because they were utterly incompetent rightly to carry out what
they took in hand. Moreover, the author at present before us has not
confined himself to the task of bringing down his narrative to the
events of the Lord's resurrection and assumption; neither has it been
his aim simply to have a place commensurate in honour with his labours
in the company of the four writers of the Gospel Scriptures. But he has
also undertaken a record of what was done subsequently by the hands of
the apostles; and relating as many of those events as he believed to be
needful and helpful to the edification of the faith of readers or
hearers, he has given us a narrative so faithful, that his is the only
book that has been reckoned worthy of acceptance in the Church as a
history of the Acts of the Apostles; while all these other writers who
attempted, although deficient in the trustworthiness which was the
first requisite, to compose an account of the doings and sayings of the
apostles, have met with rejection. And, further, Mark and Luke
certainly wrote at a time when it was quite possible to put them to the
test not only by the Church of Christ, but also by the apostles
themselves who were still alive in the flesh.
__________________________________________________________________
[1618] Completae sunt. [So Revised Version.--R.]
[1619] [Et mihi assecuto a principio omnibus (some mss. have omnia)
diligenter ex ordine tibi scribere. Comp. Revised Version and
Augustin's explanation below.--R.]
[1620] Luke i. 1-4.
[1621] Usque in diem quo apostolis quos elegit, etc. Some editions read
quo apostolos elegit = on which He chose the apostles, giving them
commandment, etc.
[1622] Acts i. 1, 2.
[1623] John xxi. 25.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.--Of the Question How It Can Be Shown that the Narrative of
the Haul of Fishes Which Luke Has Given Us is Not to Be Identified with
the Record of an Apparently Similar Incident Which John Has Reported
Subsequently to the Lord's Resurrection; And of the Fact that from This
Point on to the Lord's Supper, from Which Event Onwards to the End the
Combined Accounts of All the Evangelists Have Been Examined, No
Difficulty Calling for Special Consideration Emerges in the Gospel of
Luke Any More Than in that of Mark.
10. Luke, then, commences his Gospel in the following fashion: "There
was in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, a certain priest named
Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of
Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth;"and so on, down to the passage where
it is said, "Now when He had left speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch
out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught." [1624] In
this whole section, there is nothing to stir any question as to
discrepancies. It is true that John appears to relate something
resembling the last passage. But what he gives is really something
widely different. I refer to what took place by the sea of Tiberias
after the Lord's resurrection. [1625] In that instance, not only is the
particular time extremely different, but the circumstances themselves
are of quite another character. For there the nets were cast on the
right side, and a hundred and fifty and three fishes were caught. It is
added, too, that they were great fishes. And the evangelist, therefore,
has felt it necessary to state, that "for all there were so many, yet
was not the net broken," surely just because he had in view the
previous case, which is recorded by Luke, and in connection with which
the nets were broken [1626] by reason of the multitude of fishes. As
for the rest, Luke has not recounted things like those which John has
narrated, except in relation to the Lord's passion and resurrection.
And this whole section, which comes in between the Lord's Supper and
the conclusion, has already been handled by us in a manner which has
yielded, as the result of a comparison of the testimonies of all the
evangelists conjointly, the demonstration of an entire absence of
discrepancies between them.
__________________________________________________________________
[1624] Luke i. 5-v. 4.
[1625] John xxi. 1-11.
[1626] [Rumpebantur, "were breaking," as in the Greek; comp. Revised
Version.--R.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X.--Of the Evangelist John, and the Distinction Between Him and
the Other Three.
11. John remains, between whom and others there is left no comparison
to be instituted. For, however the evangelists may each have reported
some matters which are not recorded by the others, it will be hard to
prove that any question involving real discrepancy arises out of these.
Thus, too, it is a clearly admitted position that the first
three--namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke--have occupied themselves
chiefly with the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to which
He is both king and priest. And in this way, Mark, who seems to answer
to the figure of the man in the well-known mystical symbol of the four
living creatures, [1627] either appears to be preferentially the
companion of Matthew, as he narrates a larger number of matters in
unison with him than with the rest, and therein acts in due harmony
with the idea of the kingly character whose wont it is, as I have
stated in the first book, [1628] to be not unaccompanied by attendants;
or else, in accordance with the more probable account of the matter, he
holds a course in conjunction with both [the other Synoptists]. For
although he is at one with Matthew in the larger number of passages, he
is nevertheless at one rather with Luke in some others. And this very
fact shows him to stand related at once to the lion and to the steer,
that is to say, to the kingly office which Matthew emphasizes, and to
the sacerdotal which Luke introduces, wherein also Christ appears
distinctively as man, as the figure which Mark sustains stands related
to both these. On the other hand, Christ's divinity, in virtue of which
He is equal to the Father, in accordance with which He is the Word, and
God with God, and the Word that was made flesh in order to dwell among
us, [1629] in accordance with which also He and the Father are one,
[1630] has been taken specially in hand by John with a view to its
recommendation to our minds. Like an eagle, he abides among Christ's
sayings of the sublimer order, and in no way descends to earth but on
rare occasions. In brief, although he declares plainly his own
knowledge of the Lord's mother, he nevertheless neither unites with
Matthew and Luke in recording His nativity, nor associates himself with
all the three in relating His baptism; but all that he does there is
simply to present the testimony delivered by John in a lofty and
sublime fashion, and then, quitting the company of these others, he
proceeds with Him to the marriage in Cana of Galilee. And there,
although the evangelist himself mentions His mother by that very name,
He nevertheless addresses her thus: "Woman, what have I to do with
thee?" [1631] In this, however, [it is to be understood that] He does
not repel her of whom He received the flesh, but means to convey the
conception of His divinity with special fitness at this time, when He
is about to change the water into wine; which divinity, likewise, had
made that woman, and had not itself been made in her.
12. Then, after noticing the few days spent in Capharnaum, the
evangelist comes again to the temple, where he states that Jesus spoke
of the temple of His body in these terms: "Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up:" [1632] in which declaration emphatic
intimation is given not only that God was in that temple in the person
of the Word that was made flesh, but also that He Himself raised the
said flesh to life, in the veritable exercise of that prerogative which
He has in His oneness with the Father, and according to which He does
not act separately from Him; whereas it will perhaps be found that, in
all other passages, the phrase which Scripture employs is one to the
effect that God raised Him: neither is there any such expression found
anywhere else as that, when God raised Christ, Christ also raised
Himself, because He is one God with the Father; which is the import of
the passage now before us, in which He says, "Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up."
13. Then how great and how divine are the words reported to have been
spoken with Nicodemus! From these the evangelist proceeds again to the
testimony of John, and brings before our notice the fact, that the
friend of the bridegroom cannot but rejoice because of the bridegroom's
voice. In this statement He gives us to understand that the soul of man
neither has light derivable from itself, nor can have blessing, except
by participation in the unchangeable wisdom. Thereafter he carries us
on to the case of the woman of Samaria, in connection with which
mention is made of the water, whereof if a man drinks, he shall never
thirst again. Once more, he brings us again to Cana of Galilee, where
Jesus had made the water wine. In that narrative he tells us how He
spoke to the nobleman, whose son was sick, in these terms: "Except ye
see signs and wonders ye believe not:" [1633] in which saying He aims
at lifting the mind of the believer high above all things mutable, so
that He would not have even the miracles themselves, which, however
they may bear the impression of what is divine, are yet wrought in the
instance of what is changeable in bodies, made objects of seeking on
the part of the faithful.
14. Next he brings us back to Jerusalem, and tells the story of the
healing of the man who had an infirmity of thirty-eight years'
standing. What words are spoken on this occasion, and how ample is the
discourse! Here we are met by the sentence, "The Jews sought to kill
Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was
His Father, making Himself equal with God." [1634] In this passage it
is made sufficiently plain that He did not speak of God as His Father
in the ordinary sense in which holy men are in the habit of using the
phrase, but that He meant that He is His equal. For, a little before
this, He had said to those who were impeaching Him with violating the
Sabbath-day, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." [1635] Then
their fury flamed forth, not merely because He said that God was His
Father, but because He wished it to be understood that He was equal
with God, when He used the phrase, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work." In which utterance He also shows it to be matter of course that,
as the Father works, the Son should work also; because the Father does
not work without the Son. And this is in accordance with what He states
a little further on in the same passage, when these parties were
incensed at His declaration, namely, "For what things soever He doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise." [1636]
15. Then at length John descends to bear company with the other three,
whose course is with the same Lord, but upon the earth, and joins them
in recording the feeding of the five thousand men with the five loaves.
In this narrative, however, he is the only one who mentions, that when
the people wished to make Him a king, Jesus departed into a mountain
Himself alone. [1637] And in making that statement, his intention
appears to me to have been just to communicate to the reasonable soul
the truth, that Christ reigns over our mind and reason purely in a
sphere in which He is exalted above us, in which He has no community of
nature with men, and in which He is verily by Himself alone, as He is
the Father's only fellow. This, however, is a mystical truth, which
escapes the cognizance of carnal men, whose life creeps upon the lower
soil of this earth, just because it is so sublime a mystery. Hence
Christ Himself also departs into the mountain from the men whose habit
is to seek for His kingdom with earthly conceptions of it. Thus is it
that He expresses Himself elsewhere to this effect, "My kingdom is not
of this world." [1638] And this, again, is something which is reported
only by John, who soars high over earth in a kind of ethereal flight,
and delights himself in the light of the Sun of righteousness. Then, on
passing from the narrative connected with this mountain, and from the
miracle of the five loaves, he still keeps company with the same three
for a little while, until the notice of the crossing of the sea is
reached, and the occasion on which Jesus walked upon the waters. But at
this point he at once rises again to the region of the Lord's
discourses, and relates those words, so grave, so lengthened, so
sustainedly lofty and elevated, which had their occasion in the
multiplying of the bread, when He addressed the multitudes to the
following effect: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not
because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and
were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat
which endureth unto everlasting life." [1639] After which sayings, He
continues to discourse in similar terms for a very long period, and in
the most exalted strain. At that time, some fell away from the sublime
teaching of such words, namely, those who walked no more with Him
afterwards. But there were also those who did cleave to Him; and these
were they who were able to receive the meaning of this saying, "It is
the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing." [1640]
For surely it is true, that even through the flesh it is the spirit
that profiteth, [1641] and the spirit alone that profiteth; whereas the
flesh without the spirit profiteth nothing.
16. Next we come to the passage where His brethren--that is to say, His
relations according to the flesh--urge Him to go up to the feast-day,
in order that He may have an opportunity of making Himself known to the
multitude. And here, again, how supremely elevated is the tone of His
reply! "My time is not yet come, but your time is alway ready. The
world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it that
the works thereof are evil." [1642] So it is the case, then, that "your
time is alway ready," because ye desire that kind of day to which the
prophet refers when he says, "But I have not laboured following Thee, O
Lord; and the day of man I have not desired, Thou knowest:" [1643] that
is to say, to soar to the light of the Word, and to desire that day
which Abraham desired to see, and which he did see, and was glad.
[1644] And again, how wonderful, how divine, how sublime are the words
which John represents Him to have spoken after He had gone up to the
temple, at the time of the feast! They are such as these: that where He
was about to go, thither they could not come; [1645] that they both
knew Him, and knew whence He was; [1646] that He who sent Him is true,
whom they knew not, [1647] which is much the same as if He had said,
"Ye both know whence I am, and know not whence I am." And what else did
He wish to be understood by such utterances, but that it was possible
for Him to be known to them according to the flesh, in respect of
lineage and country, but that, so far as regarded His divinity, He was
unknown to them? On this occasion, too, when He spoke of the gift of
the Holy Spirit, He showed them who He was, inasmuch as He could hold
the power of bestowing that highest boon.
17. Again, how weighty are the things which this evangelist reports
Jesus to have spoken, when He came back to the temple from Mount
Olivet, and after the forgiveness which He extended to the adulteress,
who had been brought before Him by His tempters, as one deserving to be
stoned: on which occasion He wrote with His finger upon the ground, as
if He would indicate that people of the character of these men would be
written on earth, and not in heaven, as He also admonished His
disciples to rejoice that their names were written in heaven! [1648]
Or, it may be that He meant to convey the idea that it was by humbling
Himself (which He expressed by bending down His head) that He wrought
signs upon the earth; or, that the time was now come when His law
should be written, not, as formerly, on the sterile stone, but on a
soil which would yield fruit. Accordingly, after these incidents, He
affirmed Himself to be the light of the world, and declared that he who
followed Him would not walk in darkness, but would have the light of
life. He said, also, that He was "the beginning which also discoursed
to them." [1649] By which designation He clearly distinguished Himself
from the light which He made, and presented Himself as the Light by
which all things have been made. Consequently, when He said that He was
the light of the world, we are not to take the words to bear simply the
sense intended when He addressed the disciples in similar terms,
saying, "Ye are the light of the world." For they are compared only to
the kindled light, which is not to be put beneath a bushel, but to be
set upon a candlestick; [1650] as He also says of John the Baptist,
that "he was a burning and shining light." [1651] But He is Himself the
beginning, of whom it is likewise declared, that "of His fulness have
all we received." [1652] On the occasion presently under review, He
asserted further that He, the Son, is the Truth, which will make us
free, and without which no man will be free. [1653]
18. Next, after telling the story of the giving of sight to the man who
was blind from his birth, John tarries for a space over the copious
discourse to which that incident gave occasion, on the subject of the
sheep, and the shepherd, and the door, and the power of laying down His
life and taking it again, wherein He gave token of the supreme might of
His divinity. Thereafter, he relates how, at the time when the feast of
the dedication was being celebrated in Jerusalem, the Jews said to Him,
"How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly." [1654] And then he reports the sublime words which the Lord
uttered when the opportunity thus arose for a discourse. It was on this
occasion that He said, "I and my Father are one." [1655] After this,
again, he brings before us the raising of Lazarus from the dead: in
connection with which miracle the Lord said, "I am the resurrection and
the life: he that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he
live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." [1656]
In these words what do we recognise but the sublimity of the Godhead of
Him, in fellowship with whom we shall live for ever? Once more, John
joins Matthew and Mark in what is recorded about Bethany, where the
scene took place with the precious ointment which was poured upon His
feet and His head by Mary. [1657] And then, on to the Lord's passion
and resurrection, John keeps by the other three evangelists, but only
in so far as his narrative engages itself with the same places.
19. Moreover, so far as regards the Lord's discourses, he does not
cease to ascend to the sublimer and more extended utterances of which,
from this point also, He delivered Himself. For he inserts a lofty
address which the Lord spoke on the occasion when, through Philip and
Andrew, the Gentiles expressed their desire to see Him, and which is
introduced by none of the other evangelists. There, too, he reports the
remarkable words which were spoken again on the subject of the light
which enlightens and makes men the children of light. [1658]
Thereafter, in connection with the Supper itself, of which none of the
evangelists has failed to give us some notice, how affluent and how
lofty are those words of Jesus which John records, but which the others
have passed over in silence! I may instance not only His commendation
of humility, when He washed the disciples' feet, but also that
marvellously overpowering and pre-eminently copious discourse which the
Lord delivered to the eleven who remained with Him after His betrayer
had been indicated by the morsel of bread, and had gone out. It was in
this discourse, over which John lingers long, that He said, "He that
hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." [1659] It was in it, too,
that He expressed Himself so largely about the Holy Spirit, the
Comforter, whom He was to send to them, and about His own glory, which
He had with the Father before the world was, and about His making us
one in Himself, even as He and the Father are one,--not that He and the
Father and we should be one, but that we should be one as they are one.
And many other things of a wonderfully sublime order did He utter in
that connection. But who can fail to see that to discuss such themes in
any manner that would be worthy of them, even if we were competent to
do so, is at least not the task which we have undertaken in the present
effort? For our object is to help those who are lovers of the Word of
God and students of holy truth to understand that, in his Gospel, John
was indeed an announcer and preacher of the same Christ, the true and
truthful One of whom the other three who have composed Gospels also
testified, and to whom the rest of the apostles likewise bore witness,
who, although they did not take in hand the construction of written
narratives, did at least discharge the kindred service in officially
preaching of Him: but that, at the same time, he was borne to far
loftier heights in the doctrine of Christ from the very beginning of
his book, and that it was but on rare occasions that he kept to the
level pursued by the others. These occasions were the following in
particular, namely: first by the Jordan, in reference to the testimony
of John the Baptist; secondly, on the other side of the sea of
Tiberias, when the Lord fed the multitudes with the five loaves, and
walked upon the waters; thirdly, in Bethany, where He had the precious
ointment poured over Him by the devotion of a woman of faith. And so he
proceeds, until he meets them at the time of the Passion, which, as
matter of course, he had to relate in conjunction with them. But, even
in that section, and on the particular subject of the Lord's Supper,
which has been left unnoticed by none of them, he has presented us with
a much more affluent statement, as if he drew his materials directly
from the treasure-store of that bosom of the Lord on which it was his
wont to recline. Then, again, [John shows us how] He astonishes Pilate
with words of a sublimer import, declaring that His kingdom is not of
this world, and that He was born a King, and that He came into the
world for this purpose, that He might bear witness to the truth. [1660]
[It is in this Gospel also that] He withdraws Himself [1661] from Mary
with some deep mystical intention after His resurrection, and says to
her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." [1662] It
is here, too, that He imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples by
breathing on them [1663] giving us thereby to understand that this
Spirit who is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Trinity, should
not be considered to be simply the Spirit of the Father, but should
also be held to be the Spirit of the Son.
20. Finally, He here commits His sheep to the care of Peter, who loves
Him, and thrice confesses that love, and then He states that He wills
this very John so to tarry until He comes. [1664] In which utterance,
again, He seems to me to have conveyed in a profound and mystical way
the fact that this [1665] evangelical stewardship of John's, in which
he is borne aloft into the most liquid light of the Word, [1666] where
it is possible to behold the equality and unchangeableness of the
Trinity, and in which, above all, we see at what a distance from all
others in respect of essential character that humanity stands by whose
assumption it occurred that the Word was made flesh, cannot be clearly
discerned and recognised until the Lord Himself comes. Consequently, it
will tarry thus until He comes. At present it will tarry in the faith
of believers, but hereafter it will be possible to contemplate it face
to face, [1667] when He, our Life, shall appear, and when we shall
appear with Him in glory. [1668] But if any one supposes that with man,
living, as he still does, in this mortal life, it may be possible for a
person to dispel and clear off every obscurity induced by corporeal and
carnal fancies, and to attain to the serenest light of changeless
truth, and to cleave constantly and unswervingly to that with a mind
thoroughly estranged from the course of this present life, that man
understands neither what he asks, nor who he is that put such a
supposition. Let such an individual rather accept the authority, at
once lofty and free from all deceitfulness, which tells us that, as
long as we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord, and that we
walk by faith and not by sight. [1669] And thus, with all perseverance
keeping and guarding his faith and hope and charity, let him look
forward to the sight which is promised, in accordance with that earnest
which we have received of the Holy Ghost, who shall teach us all truth,
[1670] when God, who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall also
quicken our mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in us. [1671] But
before this body, which is dead by reason of sin, is quickened, it is
without doubt corruptible, and presseth down the soul. [1672] And if,
in the body, man is ever helped to reach beyond the cloud with which
the whole earth is covered, [1673] --that is to say, beyond this carnal
darkness with which the whole life of earth is covered,--it is simply
as if he were touched with a rapid coruscation, only to sink swiftly
into his natural infirmity, the desire surviving by which he may again
be excited (to what is evil), and the purity being insufficient to
establish him (in what is good). The more, however, any one can do
this, the greater is he; while the less he can do so, the less is he.
And if the mind of a man has as yet had no such experience--in which
mind nevertheless Christ dwells by faith--he ought to strive earnestly
to diminish the lusts of this world, and to make an end of them by the
exercise of moral virtue, walking, as it were, in the company of these
three evangelists with Christ the Mediator. And, with the joy of large
hope, let him in faith hold Him who is alway the Son of God, but who,
for our sakes, became the Son of man, in order that His eternal power
and Godhead might be united with [1674] our weakness and mortality,
and, on the basis of what is ours, make a way for us in Himself and to
Himself. That a man may be kept from sinning, he should be ruled by
Christ the King. If he happens to sin, he may obtain remission from
Christ, who is also priest. And thus, nurtured in the exercise of a
good conversation and life, and borne out of the atmosphere of earth on
the wings of a twofold love, as on a pair of strong pinions, so may he
be enlightened by the same Christ, who is also the Word, the Word who
was in the beginning, the Word who was with God, and the Word who was
God; and although that will still be through a glass darkly, it will be
a sublime kind of illumination far superior to every corporeal
similitude. Wherefore, although it is the gifts of the active virtue
that shine pre-eminent in the first three evangelists, while it is the
gift of the contemplative virtue that discerns such subjects,
nevertheless, this Gospel of John, in so far as it also is in part,
will so tarry until that which is perfect comes. [1675] And to one,
indeed, is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word
of knowledge by the same Spirit. [1676] One man regardeth the day to
the Lord; [1677] another receives a clearer draught from the breast of
the Lord; another is caught up even to the third heaven, and hears
unspeakable words. [1678] But all, as long as they are in the body, are
absent from the Lord. [1679] And for all believers living in the good
hope, whose names are written in the book of life, there is still in
reserve that which is referred to in the words, "And I will love him,
and will manifest myself unto him." [1680] Nevertheless, the greater
the advance which a man may make in the apprehension and knowledge of
this theme during the time of this absence from the Lord, all the more
carefully should he guard against those devilish vices, pride and envy.
Let him remember that this very Gospel of John, which urges us so
pre-eminently to the contemplation of truth, gives a no less remarkable
prominence to the inculcation of the sweet grace of charity. Let him
also consider that most true and wholesome precept which is couched in
the words, "The greater thou art, the more humble thyself in all."
[1681] For the evangelist who presents Christ to us in a far loftier
strain of teaching than all the others, is also the one in whose
narrative the Lord washes the disciples' feet. [1682]
__________________________________________________________________
[1627] Apoc. iv. 6, 7.
[1628] See chap. iii.
[1629] John i. 1, 14.
[1630] John x. 30.
[1631] John ii. 1-11.
[1632] John ii. 12-22.
[1633] John iv. 48.
[1634] John v. 18.
[1635] John v. 17.
[1636] John v. 19.
[1637] John vi. 15.
[1638] John xviii. 36.
[1639] John vi. 26, 27.
[1640] John vi. 63.
[1641] The text gives: et per carnem spiritus prodest. Some editions
read et carni, etc. = the spirit profiteth even the flesh. [The
erroneous view of the term "flesh" leads to this explanation. It has
already in this passage an ethical sense, which Augustin ignores.--R.]
[1642] John vii. 6, 7.
[1643] Jer. xvii. 16.
[1644] John viii. 56.
[1645] John vii. 34.
[1646] John vii. 28.
[1647] John vii. 28.
[1648] Luke x. 20.
[1649] Se esse principium quod et loqueretur eis, as the rendering of
the ten archen ho ti kai lalo humin in John viii. 25.
[1650] Matt. v. 14, 15.
[1651] John v. 35.
[1652] John i. 16.
[1653] John viii. 36.
[1654] John x. 24.
[1655] John x. 30.
[1656] John xi. 25, 26.
[1657] John xii. 1-9; Matt. xxvi. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9.
[1658] John xii. 20-50.
[1659] John xiv. 9.
[1660] John xviii. 36, 37.
[1661] The text gives vitans. Many mss. and editions read visitans
=coming to Mary.
[1662] John xx. 17.
[1663] John xx. 22.
[1664] John xxi. 23.
[1665] Some mss. insert secretam = secret.
[1666] Reading, lucem liquidissimam verbi sublimiter. But various mss.
and editions give verbi sublimitate fertur, etc. = borne aloft in the
sublimity of the word into the most liquid light.
[1667] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[1668] Col. iii. 4.
[1669] 2 Cor. v. 6, 7.
[1670] John xvi. 13.
[1671] Rom. viii. 10, 11.
[1672] Wisd. of Sol. ix. 13.
[1673] Ecclus. xxiv. 3.
[1674] Contemperata = attempered to.
[1675] 1 Cor. xiii. 12, 9, 10.
[1676] 1 Cor. xii. 8.
[1677] Rom. xiv. 6.
[1678] 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.
[1679] 2 Cor. v. 6.
[1680] John xiv. 21.
[1681] Ecclus. iii. 18.
[1682] John xiii. 5.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
St. AUGUSTIN:
sermons on selected lessons of the new testament
translated by
the rev. r. g. macmullen, m.a.,
edited by
philip schaff, d.d.
__________________________________________________________________
advertisement.
------------------------
The Sermons of St. Augustin, besides their other excellencies, furnish
a beautiful picture of perhaps the deepest and most powerful mind of
the Western Church adapting itself to the little ones of Christ. In
them, he who has furnished the mould for all the most thoughtful minds
for fourteen hundred years, is seen forming with loving tenderness the
babes in Christ. Very touching is the child-like simplicity, with which
he gradually leads them through what to them were difficulties,
watching all the while whether he made himself clear to them, keeping
up their attention, pleased at their understanding, dreading their
approbation, and leading them off from himself to some practical
result. Very touching the tenderness with which he at times reproves,
the allowance which he makes for human infirmities and for those in
secular life, if they will not make their infirmities their boast, or
in allowed duties and indulgences forget God. But his very simplicity
precludes the necessity of any preface. His Sermons explain themselves.
They appear from a passage in the Commentary on the Psalms to have been
often taken down in writing at the time by the more attentive sort of
hearers (as were those of St. Chrysostom); Possidius states that this
was done from the commencement of his presbyterate, and that "thence
[1683] through the body of Africa, excellent doctrine and the most
sweet savour of Christ was diffused and made manifest, the Church of
God beyond seas, when it heard thereof, partaking of the joy." Those on
the New Testament have been now selected, both as furnishing a comment,
and as a gradual introduction to what is found in a larger measure
elsewhere, the spiritual interpretation of Holy Scripture. It will
doubtless seem strange to some at first sight that the spiritual
meaning of numbers, for instance, should be made a part of religious
instruction. And yet, it might not require any great diffidence to
think that St. Augustin knew better than any of us, the tendency and
effects of his mode of teaching upon minds, which he evidently treated
with such tender care, and that they who have entered into that system
can estimate its value better than they who have not. It will appear
also, probably, that a system which sees a meaning everywhere in Holy
Scripture is more reverential than one which overlooks it; as, on the
other hand, as a fact, the anti-mystical interpretation has both in
ancient and modern times stood connected with a cold rationalism, and
with heresy. This is, however, a large subject, upon which this does
not seem the place to enter, since such interpretations are here only
incidental and subordinate, and it is here intended only to give a
practical warning. Those who close their eyes, of course, never see.
The eye also requires to be insensibly familiarized with what, as new,
is strange to it. But whoever will not set himself against what is in
fact the received mode of interpretation of the Church, will be
insensibly won by it, and will have his reward. The interpretations of
St. Augustin were, as he himself often says, sought by his own prayers
and the prayers of his people, and will, to those who receive them,
open a rich variety of meaning and instruction. One might instance, of
the most solemn sort, the analogy of the three dead, whom our Lord
raised, with the three stages of sin, consent, act, and habit, as an
affecting and impressive specimen of this mode of instruction, which
has been adopted, in a manner, by the spiritual perception of the
Western Church.
On his directly practical teaching, it will be borne in mind, that to
him the Church is mainly indebted for the overthrow of Pelagianism, and
the vindication of the doctrine of the free grace of God. When then he
insists, as he does so frequently, on the value of good works and
especially almsgiving, to which he seems to recur with such especial
sympathy, it will not be hastily thought that so deep and consistent a
thinker, and so imbued with Divine truth, was at variance with himself
and with it, and we may in his teaching gain more constraining motives
to encourage ourselves and others, if so one great stain of our times,
the neglect of Christ's poor, may be mitigated or effaced. On the other
hand, when he speaks of heresy, he speaks of what he had himself been;
of the nothingness of this world's pleasures and applause, of what he
had himself, when unbaptized, too miserably tasted; of Christ's power
to save out of them, what he had himself felt; of the grace of God,
what he had himself used; of the value of alms, as having himself given
up what was his; [1684] of humility, as showing it in the very language
in which he praises it; of the joys of Heaven, and the love of God, as
that for which he had abandoned freely and for ever all on earth, for
which he was daily labouring, enduring, sighing.
It remains to say, that the text used is that of the Benedictines, in
which their large resources in mss. have been so excellently employed,
and that the Editors are indebted for the translation to the Rev. R. G.
Macmullen, M.A., Fellow of Corpus Christi College.
E. B. Pusey.
Christ Church, Oxford, Feast of St. Barnabas, 1844.
__________________________________________________________________
[1683] Vit. c. 7.
[1684] This he did immediately on his conversion. Possidius says, "He
made no will, because as a poor man of God (pauper Dei) he had nothing
whereof to make one" (c. ult.). The poor, Possidius calls his
"compauperes," of whom he says "he was ever mindful, and supplied them
out of the same sources as himself and all who lived with him [his
clergy under monastic rule],--out of the returns of the possessions of
the Church, or the oblations of the faithful" (c. 23). Possidius speaks
(c. 4), how the report of "the continency and deep poverty of his
monastery" won those separated from the Church.
__________________________________________________________________
sermons on selected lessons of the new testament.
------------------------
Sermon I.
[LI. Benedictine Edition.]
Of the agreement of the evangelists Matthew and Luke in the generations
of the Lord.
1. May He, beloved, fulfil your expectation who hath awakened it: for
though I feel confident that what I have to say is not my own, but
God's, yet with far more reason do I say, what the Apostle in his
humility saith, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." [1685] I do not
doubt accordingly that you remember my promise; in Him I made it
through whom I now fulfil it, for both when I made the promise, did I
ask of the Lord, and now when I fulfil it, do I receive of Him. Now you
will remember, beloved, that it was in the matins of the festival of
the Lord's Nativity, that I put off the question which I had proposed
for resolution, because many came with us to the celebration of the
accustomed solemnities of that day to whom the word of God is usually
burdensome; but now I imagine that none have come here, but they who
desire to hear, and so I am not speaking to hearts that are deaf, and
to minds that will disdain the word, but this your longing expectation
is a prayer for me. There is a further consideration; for the day of
the public shows [1686] has dispersed many from hence, for whose
salvation I exhort you to share my great anxiety, and do you with all
earnestness of mind, entreat God for those who are not yet intent upon
the spectacles of the truth, but are wholly given up to the spectacles
of the flesh; for I know and am well assured, that there are now among
you those who have this day despised them, and have burst the bonds of
their inveterate habits; for men are changed both for the better and
the worse. By daily instances of this kind are we alternately made
joyful and sad; we joy over the reformed, are sad over the corrupted;
and therefore the Lord doth not say that he who beginneth, shall be
saved, "But he that endureth unto the end shall be saved." [1687]
2. Now what more marvellous, what more magnificent thing could our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and also the Son of man (for this also He
vouchsafed to be), grant to us, than the gathering into His fold not
only of the spectators of these foolish shows, but even some of the
actors in them; for He hath combated [1688] unto salvation not only the
lovers of the combats of men with beasts, but even the combatants
themselves, for He also was made a spectacle Himself. Hear how. He hath
told us Himself, and foretold it before He was made a spectacle, and in
the words of prophecy announced beforehand what was to come to pass, as
if it were already done, saying in the Psalms, "They pierced My hands
and My feet, they told all My bones." [1689] Lo! how He was made a
spectacle, for His bones to be told! and this spectacle He expresseth
more plainly, "they observed and looked upon Me." He was made a
spectacle and an object of derision, made a spectacle by them who were
to show Him no favour indeed in that spectacle, but who were to be
furious against Him, just as at first He made His martyrs spectacles;
as saith the Apostle, "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to
angels, and to men." [1690] Now two sorts of men are spectators of such
spectacles; the one, carnal, the other, spiritual men. The carnal look
on, as thinking those martyrs who are thrown to the beasts, or
beheaded, or burnt in the flames, to be wretched men, and they detest
and abhor them; but others look on, like the holy Angels, not regarding
the laceration of their bodies, but admiring the unimpaired purity of
their faith. A grand spectacle to the eyes of the heart doth a whole
mind in a mangled body exhibit! When these things are read of in the
church, you behold them with pleasure with these eyes of the heart, for
if you were to behold nothing, you would hear nothing; so you see you
have not neglected the spectacles to-day, but have made a choice of
spectacles. May God then be with you, and give you grace with gentle
persuasiveness to report your spectacles to your friends, whom you have
been pained to see this day running to the amphitheatre, and unwilling
to come to the church; that so they too may begin to contemn those
things, by the love of which themselves have become contemptible, and
may, with you, love God, of whom none who love Him can ever be ashamed,
for that they love Him who cannot be overcome: let them, as you do,
love Christ, who by that very thing wherein He seemed to be overcome,
overcame the whole world. For He hath overcome the whole world as we
see, my brethren; He hath subjected all powers, He hath subjugated
kings, not with the pride of soldiery, but by the ignominy of the
Cross: not by the fury of the sword, but by hanging on the Wood, by
suffering in the body, by working in the Spirit. [1691] His body was
lifted up on the Cross, and so He subdued souls to the Cross; and now
what jewel in their diadem is more precious than the Cross of Christ on
the foreheads of kings? In loving Him you will never be ashamed.
Whereas from the amphitheatre how many return conquered, because those
are conquered, for whom they are so madly interested! still more would
they be conquered were they to conquer. For so would they be enslaved
to the vain joy, to the exultation of a depraved desire, who are
conquered by the very circumstance of running to these shows. For how
many, my brethren, do you think have this day been in hesitation
whether they would go here or there? And they who in this hesitation,
turning their thoughts to Christ, have run to the church, have
overcome, not any man, but the devil himself, him that hunteth [1692]
after the souls of the whole world. But they who in that hesitation
have chosen rather to run to the amphitheatre, have assuredly been
overcome by him whom the others overcame--overcame in Him who saith,
"Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." [1693] For the Captain
suffered Himself to be tried, only that He might teach His soldiers to
fight.
3. That our Lord Jesus Christ might do this He became the Son of man by
being born of a woman. But now, "would He have been any less a man, if
He had not been born of the Virgin Mary" one may say. "He willed to be
a man; well and good; He might have so been, and yet not be born of a
woman; for neither did He make the first man whom He made, of a woman."
Now see what answer I make to this. You say, Why did He choose to be
born of a woman? I answer, Why should He avoid being born of a woman?
Granted that I could not show that He chose to be born of a woman; do
you show why He need have avoided it. But I have already said at other
times, that if He had avoided the womb of a woman, it might have
betokened, as it were, that He could have contracted defilement from
her; but by how much He was in His own substance more incapable of
defilement, by so much less had He cause to fear the woman's womb, as
though He could contract defilement from it. But by being born of a
woman, He purposed to show to us some high mystery. [1694] For of a
truth, brethren, we grant too, that if the Lord had willed to become
man without being born of a woman, it were easy to His sovereign
Majesty. For as He could be born of a woman without a man, so could He
also have been born without the woman. But this hath He shown us, that
mankind of neither sex might despair of its salvation, for the human
sexes are male and female. If therefore being a man, which it behoved
Him assuredly to be, He had not been born of a woman, women might have
despaired of themselves, as mindful of their first sin, because by a
woman was the first man deceived, and would have thought that they had
no hope at all in Christ. He came therefore as a man to make special
choice of that sex, and was born of a woman to console the female sex,
as though He would address them and say; "That ye may know that no
creature of God is bad, but that [1695] unregulated pleasure perverteth
it, when in the beginning I made man, I made them male and female. I do
not condemn the creature which I made. See I have been born a Man, and
born of a woman; it is not then the creature which I made that I
condemn, but the sins which I made not." Let each sex then at once see
its honour, and confess its iniquity, and let them both hope for
salvation. The poison to deceive man was presented him by woman,
through woman let salvation for man's recovery be presented; so let the
woman make amends for the sin by which she deceived the man, by giving
birth to Christ. For the same reason again, women were the first who
announced to the Apostles the Resurrection of God. The woman in
Paradise announced death to her husband, and the women in the Church
announced salvation to the men; the Apostles were to announce to the
nations the Resurrection of Christ, the women announced it to the
Apostles. Let no one then reproach Christ with His birth of a woman, by
which sex the Deliverer could not be defiled, and to which it was in
the purpose [1696] of the Creator to do honour. [1697]
4. But, say they, "how are we to believe that Christ was born of a
woman?" I would answer, by the Gospel which hath been preached and is
still preached to all the world. But these men, blind themselves, and
aiming to blind others, seeing not what they ought to see, whilst they
try to shake what ought to be believed, endeavour to obtrude a question
on a matter which is now believed through all the earth. For they
answer and say: "Do not think to overwhelm us with the authority of the
whole world--let us look to Scripture itself, urge not arguments of
mere [1698] numbers against us, for the seduced multitude favours you."
To this I answer, in the first place, "Does the seduced multitude
favour me?" This multitude was once a scantling. Whence grew this
multitude, which in this increase was announced so long before? For
this which hath been seen to increase, is none other than the same
which was seen beforehand. I need not have said, it was a scantling;
once it was Abraham only. Consider, brethren; it was Abraham alone
throughout all the world at that time; throughout the whole world,
among all men, and all nations; Abraham alone to whom it was said, "In
thy seed shall all nations be blessed;" [1699] and what he alone
believed of his own [1700] single person, is exhibited as present now
to many in the multitude of his seed. Then it was not seen, and was
believed; now it is seen, and it is contested; and what was then said
to one man, and was by that one believed, is disputed now by some few,
when in many it is made good. He who made His disciples fishers of men,
inclosed within His nets every kind of authority. If great numbers are
to be believed, what more widely diffused over the whole world than the
Church? If the rich are to be believed, let them consider how many rich
He hath taken; if the poor, let them consider the thousands of poor; if
nobles, almost all the nobility are within the Church; if kings, let
them see all of them subjected to Christ; if the more eloquent, and
wise, and learned, let them see how many orators, and scientific [1701]
men, and philosophers of this world, have been caught by those
fishermen, to be drawn from the depth to salvation; let them think of
Him who, coming down to heal by the example of His own humility that
great evil of man's soul, pride, "chose the weak things of the world to
confound the things which are mighty, and the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise" (not the really wise, but who seemed so to
be), "and chose the base things of the world, and things which are not,
to bring to nought things that are." [1702]
5. "Whatever you may choose to say," they say, "we find that in the
place where we read that Christ was born, the Gospels disagree with one
another, and two things which disagree cannot both be true;" for, says
one, "when I have proved this disagreement, I may rightly disallow
belief in it, or, at least, do you who accept the belief in it, shew
the agreement." And what disagreement, I ask, will you prove? "A plain
one," says he, "which none can gainsay." With what security, brethren,
do you hear all this, because ye are believers! Attend, dearly beloved,
and see what wholesome advice the Apostle gives, who says, "As ye have
therefore received Christ Jesus our Lord, so walk ye in Him, rooted and
built up in Him, and established in the faith;" [1703] for with this
simple and assured faith ought we to abide stedfastly in Him, that He
may Himself open to the faithful what is hidden in Him; for as the same
Apostle saith, "In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge;" [1704] and He does not hide them to refuse them, but to
stir up desire for those hidden things. This is the advantage of their
secrecy. Honour in Him then what as yet thou understandest not, and so
much the more as the veils which thou seest are more in number: for the
higher in honour any one is, the more veils are suspended in his
palace. The veils make that which is kept secret honoured, and to those
who honour it, the veils are lifted up; but as for those who mock at
the veils, they are driven away from even approaching them. Because
then we "turn unto Christ, the veil is taken away." [1705]
6. They bring forward then their cavillings, [1706] and say, "You allow
Matthew is an Evangelist." We answer: Yes indeed, with a godly
confession, and a heart devout, in neither having any doubt at all, we
answer plainly, Matthew is an Evangelist. "Do you believe him?" they
say. Who will not answer, I do? How clear an assent doth that your
godly murmur convey! So, brethren, you believe it in all assurance; you
have no cause to blush for it. I am speaking to you, who was once
deceived, when as in my early boyhood I chose to bring to the divine
Scriptures a subtlety of criticising before the godly temper of one who
was seeking truth: by my irregular [1707] life I shut the gate of my
Lord against myself: when I should have knocked for it to be opened, I
went on so as to make it more closely shut, for I dared to search in
pride for that which none but the humble can discover. How much more
blessed now are you, with what sure confidence do you learn, and in
what safety, who are still young ones in the nest of faith, and receive
the spiritual food; whereas I, wretch that I was, as thinking myself
fit to fly, left the nest, and fell down before I flew: but the Lord of
mercy raised me up, that I might not be trodden down to death by
passers by, and put me in the nest again; for those same things then
troubled me, which now in quiet security I am proposing and explaining
to you in the Name of the Lord.
7. As then I had begun to say, thus do they cavil. "Matthew," say they,
"is an Evangelist, and you believe him?" Immediately that we
acknowledge him to be an Evangelist, we necessarily believe him. Attend
then to the generations of Christ, which Matthew has set down. "The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of
Abraham." [1708] How the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham? He could
not be shown to be so, but by the succession of generations; for
certain it is that when the Lord was born of the Virgin Mary, neither
Abraham nor David was in this world, and dost thou say that the same
man is both the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham? Let us, as it
were, say to Matthew, Prove thy word, for I am waiting for the
succession of the generations of Christ. "Abraham begat Isaac; and
Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; and Judas
begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom
begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and
Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat
Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king."
[1709] Now observe how from this point the genealogy is brought down
from David to Christ, who is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of
David. "And David begat Solomon, of her that had been the wife of
Urias; and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat
Asa; and Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat
Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz
begat Ezekias; and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and
Amon begat Josias; and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about
the time they were carried away to Babylon; and after the carrying away
into Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat
Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat
Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan
begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ." Thus then by the order and
succession of fathers and forefathers, Christ is found to be the Son of
David, and the Son of Abraham.
8. Now upon this thus faithfully narrated, the first cavil they bring
is, that the same Matthew goes on to say, "All the generations from
Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the
carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Then
in order to tell us how Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, he went on
and said, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise;" [1710] for
by the line of the generations he had showed why Christ is called the
Son of David, and the Son of Abraham. But now it needed to be shown how
He was born and appeared among men: and so there follows immediately
that narrative, by means of which we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ
was not only born of the everlasting God, coeternal with Him who begat
Him before all times, before all creation, by whom all things were
made; but was also now born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary,
which we confess equally with the other; for you remember and know (for
I am speaking to Catholics, to my brethren), that this is our faith,
that this we profess and confess; for this faith thousands of martyrs
have been slain in all the world.
9. This also which follows they like to laugh at, whose wish it is to
destroy the authority of the Evangelical books, that they may show as
it were that we have without any good reason believed what is said,
"When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with Child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her
husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example,
was minded to put her away privily;" [1711] for because he knew that
she was not with child by him, he thought that she was so to say [1712]
necessarily an adulteress. "Being a just man," as the Scripture saith,
"and not willing to make her a public example," (that is, to divulge
the matter, for so it is in many copies), "he was minded to put her
away privily." The husband indeed was in trouble, but as being a just
man he deals not severely; for so great justice is ascribed to this
man, as that he neither wished to keep an adulterous wife, nor could
bring himself [1713] to punish and expose her. "He was minded to put
her away privily," because he was not only unwilling to punish, but
even to betray her; and mark his genuine justice; for he did not wish
to spare her, because he had a desire to keep her; for many spare their
adulterous wives through a carnal love, choosing to keep them even
though adulterous, that they may enjoy them through a carnal desire.
But this just man has no wish to keep her, and so does not love in any
carnal sort; and yet he does not wish to punish her; and so in his
mercy he spares her. How truly just a man is this! He would neither
keep an adulteress, lest he should seem to spare her because of an
impure affection, and yet he would not punish or betray her. Deservedly
indeed was he chosen for the witness of his wife's virginity: and so he
who was in trouble through human infirmity, was assured by Divine
authority.
10. For the Evangelist goes on to say, "While he thought on these
things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in sleep,
saying, Joseph, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for That
which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. [1714] And she shall
bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus." Why Jesus? "for
He shall save His people from their sins." [1715] It is well known
then, that "Jesus" in the Hebrew tongue is in Latin interpreted
"Saviour," which we see from this very explanation of the name; for as
if it had been asked, "Why Jesus?" he subjoined immediately as
explaining the reason of the word, "for He shall save His people from
their sins." This then we religiously believe, this most firmly hold
fast, that Christ was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.
11. What then do our adversaries say? "If," says one, "I shall discover
a lie, surely you will not then believe it all; and such I have
discovered." Let us see: I will reckon up the generations; for by their
slanderous cavillings they invite and bring us to this. Yes, if we live
religiously, if we believe Christ, if we do not desire to fly out of
the nest before the time, they only bring us to this--to the knowledge
of mysteries. Mark then, holy brethren, [1716] the usefulness of
heretics; their usefulness, that is, in respect of the designs of God,
who makes a good use even of those that are bad; whereas, as regards
themselves, the fruit of their own designs is rendered to them, and not
that good which God brings out of them. Just as in the case of Judas;
what great good did he! By the Lord's Passion all nations are saved;
but that the Lord might suffer, Judas betrayed Him. God then both
delivers the nations by the Passion of His Son, and punishes Judas for
his own wickedness. For the mysteries which lie hid in Scripture, no
one who is content with the simplicity of the faith would curiously
sift them, and therefore as no one would sift them, no one would
discover them but for cavillers who force us. For when heretics cavil,
the little ones are disturbed; when disturbed, they make search, and
their search is, so to say, a beating of the head at the mother's
breasts, that they may yield as much milk as is sufficient for these
little ones. They search then, because they are troubled; but they who
know and have learnt these things, because they have investigated them,
and God hath opened to their knocking, they in their turn open to those
who are in trouble. And so it happens that heretics serve usefully for
the discovery of the truth, whilst they cavil to seduce men into error.
For with less carefulness would truth be sought out, if it had not
lying adversaries; "For there must be also heresies among you," and as
though we should enquire the cause, he immediately subjoined, "that
they which are approved may be made manifest among you." [1717]
12. What then is it that they say? "See; Matthew enumerates the
generations, and says, that "from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are
fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto
Christ are fourteen generations." Now three times fourteen make
forty-two; yet they number them, and find them forty-one generations,
and immediately they bring up their cavilling and their insulting
mockery, and say, "What means it, when in the Gospel it is said that
there are three times fourteen generations, yet when they are numbered
all together, they are found to be not forty-two, but forty-one?"
Doubtless there is a great mystery [1718] here: and glad are we, and we
give thanks unto the Lord, that by the occasion of cavillers we have
discovered something which gives us in the discovery the more pleasure,
in proportion to its obscurity when it was the object of search; for,
as I have said before, we are exhibiting a spectacle to your minds.
From Abraham then to David are fourteen generations: after that, the
enumeration begins with Solomon, for David begat Solomon; the
enumeration, I say, begins with Solomon, and reaches to Jechonias,
during whose life the carrying away into Babylon took place; and so are
there other fourteen generations, by reckoning in Solomon at the head
of the second division, and Jechonias also, with whom that enumeration
closes to fill up the number fourteen; and the third division begins
with this same Jechonias.
13. Give attention, holy brethren, to this circumstance, at once
mysterious and pleasant; for I confess to you the feeling [1719] of my
own heart, whereby I believe that when I have brought it forth, and you
have got taste of it, you will give the same report of it. Attend then.
In the third division, beginning from this Jechonias unto the Lord
Jesus Christ, are found fourteen generations; for this Jechonias is
reckoned twice, as the last of the former, and the first of the
following division. "But why is Jechonias," one may say, "reckoned
twice?" Nothing took place of old among the people of Israel, which was
not a mysterious figure of things to come: and indeed it is not without
good reason that Jechonias is reckoned twice, because if there be a
boundary between two fields, be it a stone, or any dividing wall, both
he who is on the one side measures up to that same wall, and he who is
on the other takes the beginning of his measurement again from the
same. But why this was not done in the first connecting link of the
divisions, when we number from Abraham to David fourteen generations,
and begin to reckon the fourteen others, not from David over again, but
from Solomon, a reason must be given which contains an important
mystery. [1720] Attend then. The carrying away into Babylon took place
when Jechonias was appointed king in the room of his deceased father.
The kingdom was taken from him, and another appointed in his room;
still the carrying away unto the Gentiles took place during the
lifetime of Jechonias, for no fault of Jechonias is mentioned for which
he was deprived of the kingdom; but the sins rather of those who
succeeded him are marked out. So then there follows the Captivity and
the passing away into Babylon; and the wicked do not go alone, but the
saints also go with them: for in that Captivity were the prophets
Ezekiel and Daniel, and the Three Children who were cast into the
flames, and so made famous. They all went according to the prophecy of
the prophet Jeremiah.
14. Remember then, that Jechonias, rejected without any fault of his,
ceased to reign, and passed over unto the Gentiles, when the carrying
away unto Babylon took place. Now observe the figure hereby manifested
beforehand, of things to come in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the Jews
would not that our Lord Jesus Christ should reign over them, yet found
they no fault in Him. He was rejected in His own person, and in that of
His servants also, and so they passed over unto the Gentiles as into
Babylon in a figure. For this also did Jeremiah prophesy, that the Lord
commanded them to go into Babylon: and whatever other prophets told the
people not to go into Babylon, them he reproved as false prophets.
[1721] Let those who read the Scriptures, remember this as we do; and
let those who do not, give us credit. Jeremiah then on the part of God
threatened those who would not go into Babylon, whereas to them who
should go he promised rest there, and a sort of happiness in the
cultivation of their vines, and planting of their gardens, and the
abundance of their fruits. How then does the people of Israel, not now
in figure but in verity, pass over unto Babylon? Whence came the
Apostles? Were they not of the nation of the Jews? Whence came Paul
himself? for he saith, "I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,
of the tribe of Benjamin." [1722] Many of the Jews then believed in the
Lord; from them were the Apostles chosen; of them were the more than
five hundred brethren, to whom it was vouchsafed [1723] to see the Lord
after His resurrection; [1724] of them were the hundred and twenty in
the house, [1725] when the Holy Ghost came down. But what saith the
Apostle in the Acts of the Apostles, when the Jews refused the word of
truth? "We were sent unto you, but seeing ye have rejected the word of
God, lo! we turn unto the Gentiles." [1726] The true passing over then
into Babylon, which was then prefigured in the time of Jeremiah, took
place in the spiritual dispensation of the time of the Lord's
Incarnation. But what saith Jeremiah of these Babylonians, to those who
were passing over to them? "For in their peace shall be your peace."
[1727] When Israel then passed over also into Babylon by Christ and the
Apostles, that is, when the Gospel came unto the Gentiles, what saith
the Apostle, as though by the mouth of Jeremiah of old? "I exhort
therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks be made for all men. For kings, and for all that
are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all
godliness and honesty." [1728] For they were not yet Christian kings,
yet he prayed for them. Israel then praying in Babylon hath been heard;
the prayers of the Church have been heard, and the kings have become
Christian, and you see now fulfilled what was then spoken in figure;
"In their peace shall be your peace," for they have received the peace
of Christ, and have left off to persecute Christians, that now in the
secure quiet of peace, the Churches might be built up, and peoples
planted in the garden [1729] of God, and that all nations might bring
forth fruit in faith, and hope, and love, which is in Christ.
15. The carrying away into Babylon took place of old by Jechonias, who
was not permitted to reign in the nation of the Jews, as a type of
Christ, whom the Jews would not have reign over them. Israel passed
over unto the Gentiles, that is, the preachers of the Gospel passed
over unto the people of the Gentiles. What marvel then, that Jechonias
is reckoned twice? for if he were a figure of Christ passing over from
the Jews unto the Gentiles, consider only what Christ is between the
Jews and Gentiles. Is He not that Corner-stone? In a corner-stone you
see the end of one wall, and the beginning of another; up to that stone
you measure one wall, and another from it; therefore the corner-stone
which connects both walls is reckoned twice. Jechonias then as
prefiguring the Lord was, as it were, a type of the corner-stone; and
as Jechonias was not permitted to reign over the Jews, but they went
unto Babylon, so Christ, "the stone which the builders rejected, is
made the head of the corner," [1730] that the Gospel might reach unto
the Gentiles. Hesitate not then to reckon the head of the corner twice,
and you have at once the number written: and so there are fourteen in
each of the three divisions, yet altogether the generations are not
forty-two, but forty-one; for as when the order of the stones runs in a
straight line, they are all reckoned but once, but when there is a
deviation from the straight line to make an angle, that stone at which
the deviation begins must be reckoned twice, because it belongs at once
to that line which is finished at it, and to that other line which
begins from it; so as long as the order of the generations continued in
the Jewish people, it made no angle in the regular division of
fourteen; but when the line was turned that the people might pass over
into Babylon, a sort of angle as it were was made at Jechonias, so that
it was necessary to reckon him twice, as the type of that adorable
Corner-stone.
16. They have another cavil. "The generations of Christ," say they,
"are numbered through Joseph, and not through Mary." Attend awhile,
holy brethren. "It ought not to be," they say, "through Joseph." And
why not? Was not Joseph the husband of Mary? "No," they say. Who says
so? For the Scripture saith by the authority of the Angel that he was
her husband. "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for That which
is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." [1731] Again, he was
commanded to name the Child, though He was not born of his seed; "She
shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus." [1732]
Now the Scripture is intent on showing, that He was not born of
Joseph's seed, when he is told in his trouble as to her being with
child, "He is of the Holy Ghost;" and yet his paternal authority is not
taken from him, forasmuch as he is commanded to name the Child; and
again the Virgin Mary herself, who was well aware that it was not by
him that she conceived Christ, yet calls him the father of Christ.
17. Consider when this was. When the Lord Jesus, as to His Human
Nature, was twelve years old [1733] (for as to His Divine Nature He is
before all times, and without time), He tarried behind them in the
temple, and disputed with the elders, and they wondered at His
doctrine; and His parents who were returning from Jerusalem sought Him
among their company, among those, that is, who were journeying with
them, and when they found Him not, they returned in trouble to
Jerusalem, and found Him disputing in the temple with the elders, when
He was, as I said, twelve years old. But what wonder? The Word of God
is never silent, though it is not always heard. He is found then in the
temple, and His mother saith to Him, "Why hast Thou thus dealt with us?
Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing;" and He said, "Wist ye not
that I must be about My Father's service?" [1734] This He said for that
the Son of God was in the temple of God, for that temple was not
Joseph's, but God's. See, says some one, "He did not allow that He was
the Son of Joseph." Wait, brethren, with a little patience, because of
the press of time, that it may be long enough for what I have to say.
When Mary had said, "Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing," He
answered, "Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's service?" for
He would not be their Son in such a sense, as not to be understood to
be also the Son of God. For the Son of God He was--ever the Son of
God--Creator even of themselves who spake to Him; but the Son of Man in
time; born of a Virgin without the operation of her husband, yet the
Son of both parents. Whence prove we this? Already have we proved it by
the words of Mary, "Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing."
18. Now in the first place for the instruction of the women, our
sisters, such saintly modesty of the Virgin Mary must not be passed
over, brethren. She had given birth to Christ--the Angel had come to
her, and said, "Behold, thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus. [1735] He shall be great,
and shall be called the Son of the Highest." [1736] She [1737] had been
thought worthy to give birth to the Son of the Highest, yet was she
most humble; nor did she put herself before her husband, even in the
order of naming him, so as to say, "I and Thy father," but she saith,
"Thy father and I." She regarded not the high honour [1738] of her
womb, but the order of wedlock did she regard, for Christ the humble
would not have taught His mother to be proud. "Thy father and I have
sought Thee sorrowing." Thy father and I, she saith, "for the husband
is the head of the woman." [1739] How much less then ought other women
to be proud! for Mary herself also is called a woman, not from the loss
of virginity, but by a form of expression peculiar to her country; for
of the Lord Jesus the Apostle also said, "made of a woman," [1740] yet
there is no interruption hence to the order and connection of our Creed
[1741] wherein we confess "that He was born of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary." For as a virgin she conceived Him, as a virgin brought
Him forth, and a virgin she continued; but all females they called
"women," [1742] by a peculiarity of the Hebrew tongue. Hear a most
plain example of this. The first woman whom God made, having taken her
out of the side of a man, was called a woman before she "knew" her
husband, which we are told was not till after they went out of
Paradise, for the Scripture saith, "He made her a woman." [1743]
19. The answer then of the Lord Jesus Christ, "I must be about My
Father's service," does not in such sense declare God to be His Father,
as to deny that Joseph was His father also; And whence prove we this?
By the Scripture, which saith on this wise, "And He said unto them,
Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's service; but they
understood not what He spake to them: and when He went down with them,
He came to Nazareth, and was subject to them." [1744] It did not say,
"He was subject to His mother," or was "subject to her," but "He was
subject to them." To whom was He subject? was it not to His parents? It
was to both His parents that He was subject, by the same condescension
by which He was the Son of Man. A little way back women received their
precepts. Now let children receive theirs--to obey their parents, and
to be subject to them. The world was subject unto Christ, and Christ
was subject to His parents.
20. You see then, brethren, that He did not say, "I must needs be about
My Father's service," in any such sense as that we should understand
Him thereby to have said, "You are not My parents." They were His
parents in time, God was His Father eternally. They were the parents of
the Son of Man--"He," the Father of His Word, and Wisdom, and Power, by
whom He made all things. But if all things were made by that Wisdom,
"which reacheth from one end to another mightily, and sweetly ordereth
all things," [1745] then were they also made by the Son of God to whom
He Himself as Son of Man was afterwards to be subject; and the Apostle
says that He is the Son of David, "who was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh." [1746] But yet the Lord Himself proposes a
question to the Jews, which the Apostle solves in these very words; for
when he said, "who was made of the seed of David," he added, "according
to the flesh," that it might be understood that He is not the Son of
David according to His Divinity, but that the Son of God is David's
Lord; for thus in another place, when He is setting forth the [1747]
privileges of the Jewish people, the Apostle saith, "Whose are the
fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all,
God blessed for ever." [1748] As, "according to the flesh," He is
David's Son; but as being "God over all, blessed for ever," He is
David's Lord. The Lord then saith to the Jews, "Whose Son say ye that
Christ is?" They answered, "The Son of David." [1749] For this they
knew, as they had learnt it easily from the preaching of the Prophets;
and in truth, He was of the seed of David, "but according to the
flesh," by the Virgin Mary, who was espoused to Joseph. When they
answered then that Christ was David's Son, Jesus said to them, "How
then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I put Thine enemies under Thy
feet. [1750] If David then in spirit call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"
[1751] And the Jews could not answer Him. So we have it in the Gospel.
He did not deny that He was David's Son, so that they could not
understand that He was also David's Lord. For they acknowledged in
Christ that which He became in time, but they did not understand in Him
what He was in all eternity. Wherefore wishing to teach them His
Divinity, He proposed a question touching His Humanity; as though He
would say, "You know that Christ is David's Son, answer Me, how He is
also David's Lord?" And that they might not say, "He is not David's
Lord," He introduced the testimony of David himself. And what doth he
say? He saith indeed the truth. For you find God in the Psalms saying
to David, "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat." [1752]
Here then He is the Son of David. But how is He the Lord of David, who
is David's Son? "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right
hand." [1753] Can you wonder that David's Son is his Lord, when you see
that Mary was the mother of her Lord? He is David's Lord then as being
God. David's Lord, as being Lord of all; and David's Son, as being the
Son of Man. At once Lord and Son. David's Lord, "who, being in the form
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;" [1754] and
David's Son, in that "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a
servant." [1755]
21. Joseph then was not the less His father, because he knew not the
mother of our Lord, as though concupiscence and not conjugal affection
constitutes the marriage bond. [1756] Attend, holy brethren; Christ's
Apostle was some time after this to say in the Church, "It remaineth
that they that have wives be as though they had none." [1757] And we
know many of our brethren bringing forth fruit through grace, who for
the Name of Christ practise an entire restraint by mutual consent, who
yet suffer no restraint of true conjugal affection. Yea, the more the
former is repressed, the more is the other strengthened and confirmed.
Are they then not married people who thus live, not requiring from each
other any carnal gratification, or exacting the satisfaction [1758] of
any bodily desire? And yet the wife is subject to the husband, because
it is fitting that she should be, and so much the more in subjection is
she, in proportion to her greater chastity; and the husband for his
part loveth his wife truly, as it is written, "In honour and
sanctification," [1759] as a coheir of grace: as "Christ," saith the
Apostle, "loved the Church." [1760] If then this be a union, and a
marriage; if it be not the less a marriage because nothing of that kind
passes between them, which even with unmarried persons may take place,
but then unlawfully; (O that all could live so, but many have not the
power!) let them at least not separate those who have the power, and
deny that the man is a husband or the woman a wife, because there is no
fleshly intercourse, but only the union of hearts between them.
22. Hence, my brethren, understand the sense of Scripture concerning
those our ancient fathers, whose sole design in their marriage was to
have children by their wives. For those even who, according to the
custom of their time and nation, had a plurality of wives, lived in
such chastity with them, as not to approach their bed, but for the
cause I have mentioned, thus treating them indeed with honour. But he
who exceeds the limits which this rule prescribes for the fulfilment of
this end of marriage, acts contrary to the very contract [1761] by
which he took his wife. The contract is read, read in the presence of
all the attesting witnesses; and an express clause is there that they
marry "for the procreation of children;" and this is called the
marriage contract. [1762] If it was not for this that wives were given
and taken to wife, what father could without blushing give up his
daughter to the lust of any man? But now, that the parents may not
blush, and that they may give their daughters in honourable marriage,
not to shame, [1763] the contract is read out. And what is read from
it?--the clause, "for the sake of the procreation of children." And
when this is heard, the brow of the parent is cleared up and calmed.
Let us consider again the feelings [1764] of the husband who takes his
wife. The husband himself would blush to receive her with any other
view, if the father would blush with any other view to give her.
Nevertheless, if they cannot contain (as I have said on other
occasions), let them require what is due, and let them not go to any
others than those from whom it is due. Let both the woman and the man
seek relief for their infirmity in themselves. Let not the husband go
to any other woman, nor the woman to any other man, for from this
adultery gets its name, as though it were "a going to another." [1765]
And if they exceed the bounds of the marriage contract, let them not at
least exceed those of conjugal fidelity. Is it not a sin in married
persons to exact from one another more than this design of the
"procreation of children" renders necessary? It is doubtless a sin,
though a venial one. The Apostle saith, "But I speak this of
allowance," [1766] when he was treating the matter thus. "Defraud ye
not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may
give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." [1767] What does this mean?
That you do not impose upon yourselves any thing beyond your strength,
that you do not by your mutual continence fall into adultery. "That
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." And that he might not seem
to enjoin what he only allowed (for it is one thing to give precepts to
strength of virtue, and another to make allowance to infirmity), he
immediately subjoined; "But this I speak of allowance, not of
commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself." As though
he would say, I do not command you to do this; but I pardon you if you
do.
23. So then, my brethren, give heed. Those famous men who marry wives
only for the procreation of children, such as we read the Patriarchs to
have been, and know it, by many proofs, by the clear and unequivocal
testimony of the sacred books; whoever, I say, they are who marry wives
for this purpose only, if the means could be given them of having
children without intercourse with their wives, would they not with joy
unspeakable embrace so great a blessing? would they not with great
delight accept it? For there are two carnal operations by which mankind
is preserved, to both of which the wise and holy descend as matter of
duty, but the unwise rush headlong into them through lust; and these
are very different things. Now what are these two things by which
mankind is preserved? The first which is confined to ourselves and
relates to taking nourishment (which cannot of course be taken without
some gratification of the flesh), is eating and drinking; if you do not
this you will die. By this one support then of eating and drinking does
the race of man subsist, by a [1768] law of its nature. But by this men
are only supported as far as themselves are concerned; for they do not
provide for any succession by eating and drinking, but by marrying
wives. For so is the race of man preserved; first, by the means of
life; but because whatever care they exercise they cannot of course
live for ever, there is a second provision made, that those who are
newly born may replace those who die. For the race of man is, as it is
written, like the leaves on a tree, or an olive, that is, or a laurel,
or some tree of this sort, which is never without foliage, yet whose
leaves are not always the same. [1769] For, as it is written, "it
shooteth forth some, and casteth others," because those which sprout
afresh replace the others as they fall, for the tree is ever casting
its leaves, yet is ever clothed with leaves. So also the race of man
feels not the loss of those who die day by day, because of the supply
of those who are newly born; and thus the whole race of mankind is
according to its own laws sustained, and as leaves are ever seen on the
trees, so is the earth seen to be full of men. Whereas if they were
only to die, and no fresh ones be born, the earth would be stripped of
all its inhabitants, as certain trees are of all their leaves.
24. Seeing then that the human race subsists in such sort, as that
those two supports, of which enough has now been said, are necessary to
it, the wise, and understanding, and the faithful man descends to both
as matter of duty, and does not fall into them through lust. But how
many are there who rush greedily to their eating and drinking, and make
their whole life to consist in them, as if they were the very reason
for living. For whereas men really eat to live, they think that they
live to eat. These will every wise man condemn, and holy Scripture
especially, all gluttons, drunkards, gormandizers, "whose god is their
belly." [1770] Nothing but the lust of the flesh, and not the need of
refreshment, carries them to the table. These then fall upon their meat
and drink. But they who descend to them from the duty of maintaining
life, do not live to eat, but eat to live. Accordingly, if the offer
were made to these wise and temperate persons that they should live
without food or drink, with what great joy would they embrace the boon!
that now they might not even be forced to descend to that into which it
had never been their custom to fall, but that they might be lifted up
always in the Lord, and no necessity of repairing the wastings of their
body might make them lay aside their fixed attention towards Him. How
think ye that the holy Elias received the cruse of water, and the cake
of bread, to satisfy him for forty days? [1771] With great joy no
doubt, because he eat and drank to live, and not to serve his lust. But
try to bring this about, if you could, for a man who, like the beast in
his stall, places his whole blessedness and happiness in the table. He
would hate your boon, and thrust it from him, and look upon it as a
punishment. And so in that other duty of marriage, sensual men seek for
wives only to satisfy their sensuality, and therefore at length are
scarce contented even with their wives. And oh! I would that if they
cannot or will not cure their sensuality, they would not suffer it to
go beyond that limit which conjugal duty prescribes, I mean even that
which is granted to infirmity. Nevertheless, if you were to say to such
a man, "why do you marry?" he would answer perhaps for very shame, "for
the sake of children." But if any one in whom he could have
unhesitating credit were to say to him, "God is able to give, and yea,
and will give you children without your having any intercourse with
your wife;" he would assuredly be driven to confess that it was not for
the sake of children that he was seeking for a wife. Let him then
acknowledge his infirmity, and so receive that which he pretended to
receive only as matter of duty.
25. It was thus those holy men of former times, those men of God sought
and wished for children. For this one end--the procreation of children,
was their intercourse and union with their wives. It is for this reason
that they were allowed to have a plurality of wives. For if
immoderateness in these desires could be well-pleasing to God, it would
have been as much allowed at that time for one woman to have many
husbands, as one husband many wives. Why then had all chaste women no
more than one husband, but one man had many wives, except that for one
man to have many wives is a means to the multiplication of a family,
whereas a woman would not give birth to more children, how many soever
more husbands she might have. Wherefore, brethren, if our fathers'
union and intercourse with their wives, was for no other end but the
procreation of children, it had been great matter of joy to them, if
they could have had children without that intercourse, since for the
sake of having them they descended to that intercourse only through
duty, and did not rush into it through lust. So then was Joseph not a
father because he had gotten a son without any lust of the flesh? God
forbid that Christian chastity should entertain a thought, which even
Jewish chastity entertained not! Love your wives then, but love them
chastely. In your intercourse with them keep yourselves within the
bounds necessary for the procreation of children. And inasmuch as you
cannot otherwise have them, descend to it with regret. For this
necessity is the punishment of that Adam from whom we are sprung. Let
us not make a pride of our punishment. It is his punishment who because
he was made mortal by sin, was condemned [1772] to bring forth only a
mortal posterity. This punishment God has not withdrawn, that man might
remember from what state he is called away, and to what state he is
called, and might seek for that union, in which there can be no
corruption.
26. Among that people then, because it was necessary that there should
be an abundant increase until Christ came, by the multiplication of
that people in whom were to be prefigured all that was to be prefigured
as instruction for the Church, it was a duty to marry wives, by means
of whom that people in whom the Church should be foreshown might
increase. But when the King of all nations Himself was born, then began
the honour of virginity with the mother of the Lord, who had the
privilege [1773] of bearing a Son without any loss of her virgin
purity. As that then was a true marriage, and a marriage free from all
corruption, so why should not the husband chastely receive what his
wife had chastely brought forth? For as she was a wife in chastity, so
was he in chastity a husband; and as she was in chastity a mother, so
was he in chastity a father. Whoso then says that he ought not to be
called father, because he did not beget his Son in the usual [1774]
way, looks rather to the satisfaction of passion in the procreation of
children, and not the natural feeling of affection. What others desire
to fulfil in the flesh, he in a more excellent way fulfilled in the
spirit. For thus they who adopt children, beget them by the heart in
greater chastity, whom they cannot by the flesh beget. Consider,
brethren, the laws of adoption; how a man comes to be the son of
another, of whom he was not born, so that the choice of the person who
adopts has more right in him than the nature of him who begets him has.
Not only then must Joseph be a father, but in a most excellent manner a
father. For men beget children of women also who are not their wives,
and they are called natural children, and the children of the lawful
marriage are placed above them. Now as to the manner of their birth,
they are born alike; why then are the latter set above the other, but
because the love of a wife, of whom children are born, is the more
pure. The union of the sexes is not regarded in this case, for this is
the same in both women. Where has the wife the pre-eminence but in her
fidelity, her wedded love, her more true and pure affection? If then a
man could have children by his wife without this intercourse, should he
not have so much the more joy thereby, in proportion to the greater
chastity of her whom he loves the most?
27. See too by this how it may happen, that one man may have not two
sons only, but two fathers also. For by the mention of adoption, it may
occur to your thoughts that so it may be. For it is said; A man can
have two sons, but two fathers he cannot have. But the truth is, it is
found that he can have two fathers also, if one have begotten him of
his body, and another adopted him in love. If one man then can have two
fathers, Joseph could have two fathers also; might be begotten by one,
and adopted by another. And if this be so, what do their cavillings
mean, who insist that Matthew has followed one set of generations, and
Luke another? And in fact we find that so it is, for Matthew has given
Jacob as the father of Joseph, and Luke Heli. Now it is true it might
seem, as if one and the same man, whose son Joseph was, had two names.
But inasmuch as the grandfathers, and all the other progenitors which
they enumerate, are different, and in the very number of the
generations, the one has more, and the other fewer, Joseph is plainly
shown hereby to have had two fathers. Now having disposed of the cavil
of this question, forasmuch as clear reason has shown that it may
happen that he who has begotten a child may be one father, and he who
has adopted him another: supposing two fathers, it is nothing strange
if the grandfathers and the great grandfathers, and the rest in the
line upwards which are enumerated, should be different as coming from
different fathers.
28. And let not the law of adoption seem to you to be foreign to our
Scriptures, and that, as if it were recognised [1775] only in the
practice of human laws, it cannot fall in with the authority of the
divine books. For it is a thing established of old time, and frequently
heard of in the Ecclesiastical books [1776] --that not only the natural
way of birth, but the free choice [1777] of the will also, should give
birth to a child. For women, if they had no children of their own, used
to adopt children born of their husbands by their hand-maids, and even
oblige their husbands to give them children in this way; as Sarah,
Rachel, and Leah. [1778] And in doing this the husbands did not commit
adultery, in that they obeyed their wives in that matter which had
regard to conjugal duty, according to what the Apostle saith: "The wife
hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the
husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." [1779] Moses
too, who was born of a Hebrew mother and was exposed, was adopted by
Pharaoh's daughter. [1780] There were not then indeed the same forms of
law as now, but the choice of the will was taken for the rule of law,
as the Apostle saith also in another place, "The Gentiles which have
not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law." [1781] But
if it is permitted to women to make those their children to whom they
have not given birth, why should it not be allowed men to do so too
with those whom they have not begotten of their body, but of the love
of adoption. For we read that the patriarch Jacob even, the father of
so many children, made his grandchildren, the sons of Joseph, his own
children, in these words: "These too shall be mine, and they shall
receive the land with their brethren, and those which thou begettest
after them shall be thine." [1782] But it will be said, perhaps, that
this word "adoption" is not found in the Holy Scriptures. As though it
were of any importance by what name it is called, when the thing itself
is there--for a woman to have a child to whom she has not given birth,
or a man a child whom he has not begotten. And he may, without any
opposition from me, refuse to call Joseph adopted, provided he grant
that he may have been the son of a man of whose body he was not born.
Yet the Apostle Paul does continually use this very word "adoption,"
and [1783] that to express a great mystery. For though Scripture
testifies that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, it says,
that the brethren and coheirs whom He hath vouchsafed to have, are made
so by a kind of adoption through Divine grace. "When," saith he, "the
fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons." [1784] And in another place: "We groan
within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of
our body." [1785] And again, when he was speaking of the Jews, "I could
wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen
according to the flesh; who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the
adoption, and the glory, and the testaments, and the giving of the law;
whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
Who is over all, God blessed for ever." [1786] Where he shows, that the
word "adoption," or at least the thing which it signifies, was of
ancient use among the Jews, just as was the Testament and the giving of
the Law, which he mentions together with it.
29. Added to this; there is another way peculiar to the Jews, in which
a man might be the son of another of whom he was not born according to
the flesh. For kinsmen used to marry the wives of their next of kin,
who died without children, to raise up seed to him that was deceased.
[1787] So then he who was thus born was both his son of whom he was
born, and his in whose line of succession he was born. All this has
been said, lest any one, thinking it impossible for two fathers to be
mentioned properly for one man, should imagine that either of the
Evangelists who have narrated the generations of the Lord are to be, by
an impious calumny, charged so to say with a lie; especially when we
may see that we are warned against this by their very words. For
Matthew, who is understood to make mention of that father of whom
Joseph was born, enumerates the generations thus: "This one begat the
other," so as to come to what he says at the end, "Jacob begat Joseph."
But Luke--because he cannot properly be said to be begotten who is made
a child either by adoption, or who is born in the succession of the
deceased, of her who was his wife--did not say, "Heli begat Joseph," or
"Joseph whom Heli begat," but "Who was the son of Heli," whether by
adoption, or as being born of the next of kin in the succession of one
deceased. [1788]
30. Enough has now been said to show that the question, why the
generations are reckoned through Joseph and not through Mary, ought not
to perplex us; for as she was a mother without carnal desire, so was he
a father without any carnal intercourse. Let then the generations
ascend and descend through him. And let us not exclude him from being a
father, because he had none of this carnal desire. Let his greater
purity only confirm rather his relationship of father, lest the holy
Mary herself reproach us. For she would not put her own name before her
husband; but said, "Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing."
[1789] Let not then these perverse murmurers do that which the chaste
spouse of Joseph did not. Let us reckon then through Joseph, because as
he is in chastity a husband, so is he in chastity a father. And let us
put the man before the woman, according to the order of nature and the
law of God. For if we should cast him aside and leave her, he would
say, and say with reason, "Why have you excluded me? Why do not the
generations ascend and descend through me?" Shall we say to him,
"Because thou didst not beget Him by the operation of thy flesh?"
Surely he will answer, "And is it by the operation of the flesh that
the Virgin bare Him? What the Holy Spirit wrought, He wrought for
both." "Being a just man," [1790] saith the Gospel. The husband then
was just and the woman just. The Holy Spirit reposing in the justice of
them both, gave to both a Son. In that sex which is by nature fitted to
give birth, He wrought that birth which was for the husband also. And
therefore doth the Angel bid them both give the Child a name, and
hereby is the authority of both parents established. For when Zacharias
was yet dumb, the mother gave a name to her newborn son. And when they
who were present "made signs to his father what he would have him
called, he took a writing-table and wrote" [1791] the name which she
had already pronounced. So to Mary too the Angel saith, "Behold, thou
shalt conceive a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus." [1792] And to
Joseph also he saith, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife; for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name
Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." [1793] Again it
is said, "And she brought forth a Son to him," [1794] by which he is
established to be a father, not in the flesh indeed, but in love. Let
us then acknowledge him to be a father, as in truth he is. For most
advisedly and most wisely do the Evangelists reckon through him,
whether Matthew in descending from Abraham down to Christ, or Luke in
ascending from Christ through Abraham up to God. The one reckons in a
descending, the other in an ascending order; but both through Joseph.
And why? Because he is the father. How the father? Because he is the
more undeniably [1795] a father in proportion as he is more chastely
so. He was thought, it is true, to be the father of our Lord Jesus
Christ in another way: that is, as other parents are according to a
fleshly birth, and not through the fruitfulness of a wholly spiritual
love. For Luke said, "Who was supposed to be the father of Jesus."
[1796] Why supposed? Because men's thoughts and suppositions were
directed to what is usually the case with men. The Lord then was not of
the seed of Joseph, though He was supposed to be; yet nevertheless the
Son of the Virgin Mary, who is also the Son of God, was born to Joseph,
the fruit of his piety and love.
31. But why does St Matthew reckon in a descending, and Luke in an
ascending order? I pray you give attentive ear to what the Lord may
help me to say on this matter; with your minds now at ease, and
disembarrassed from all the perplexity of these cavillings. Matthew
descends through his generations, to signify our Lord Jesus Christ
descending to bear our sins, that in the seed of Abraham all nations
might be blessed. Wherefore, he does not begin with Adam, for from him
is the whole race of mankind. Nor with Noe, because from his family
again, after the flood, descended the whole human race. Nor could the
man Christ Jesus, as descended from Adam, from whom all men are
descended, bear [1797] upon the fulfilment of prophecy; nor, again, as
descended from Noe, from whom also all men are descended; but only as
descended from Abraham, who at that time was chosen, that all nations
should be blessed in his seed, when the earth was now full of nations.
But Luke reckons in an ascending order, and does not begin to enumerate
the generations from the beginning of the account of our Lord's birth,
but from that place, where he relates His Baptism by John. Now, as in
the incarnation of the Lord, the sins of the human race are taken upon
Him to be borne, so in the consecration of His Baptism are they taken
on Him to be expiated. Accordingly, St. Matthew, as representing His
descent to bear our sins, enumerates the generations in a descending
order; but the other, as representing the expiation of sins, not His
own, of course, but our sins, enumerates them in an ascending order.
Again, St. Matthew descends through Solomon, by whose mother David
sinned; St. Luke ascends through Nathan [1798] another son of the same
David, through whom he was purged from his sin. [1799] For we read,
that Nathan was sent to him to reprove him, and that he might through
repentance be healed. Both Evangelists meet together in David; the one
in descending, the other in ascending; and from David to Abraham, or
from Abraham to David, there is no difference in any one generation.
And so Christ, both the Son of David and the Son of Abraham, comes up
to God. For to God must we be brought back, when renewed in Baptism,
from the abolition of sins.
32. Now, in the generations which Matthew enumerates, the predominant
[1800] number is forty. For it is a custom of the Holy Scriptures, not
to reckon what is over and above certain round numbers. [1801] For thus
it is said to be four hundred years, after which the people of Israel
went out of Egypt, whereas it is four hundred and thirty. [1802] And so
here the one generation, which exceeds the fortieth, does not take away
the predominance of that number. Now this number signifies the life
wherein we labour in this world, as long as we are absent from the
Lord, during which the temporal dispensation of the preaching of the
truth is necessary. For the number ten, by which the perfection of
blessedness is signified, multiplied four times, because of the
fourfold divisions of the seasons, and the fourfold divisions of the
world, will make the number forty. [1803] Wherefore Moses and Elias,
and the Mediator Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, fasted forty days,
because in the time of this life, continence from the enticements of
the body is necessary. Forty years also did the people wander in the
wilderness. [1804] Forty days the waters of the flood lasted. [1805]
Forty days after His resurrection did the Lord converse with the
disciples, persuading them of the reality [1806] of His risen body,
[1807] whereby He showed that in this life, "wherein we are absent from
the Lord" [1808] (which the number forty, as has been already said,
mystically figures), we have need to celebrate the memory of the Lord's
Body, which we do in the Church, till He come. [1809] Forasmuch, then
as our Lord descended to this life, and "the Word was made flesh, that
He might be delivered for our sins, and rise again for our
justification," [1810] Matthew followed the number forty; so that the
one generation which there exceeds that number, either does not hinder
its predominance--just as those thirty years do not hinder the perfect
number of four hundred--or that it even has this further meaning, that
the Lord Himself, by the addition of whom the forty-one is made up, so
descended to this life to bear our sins, as yet, by a peculiar and
especial excellency, whereby He is in such sense man, as to be also
God, to be found to be excepted from this life. For of Him only is that
said, which never has been or shall be able to be said of any holy man,
however perfected in wisdom and righteousness, "The Word was made
Flesh." [1811]
33. But Luke, who ascends up through the generations from the baptism
of the Lord, makes up the number seventy-seven, beginning to ascend
from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself through Joseph, and coming through
Adam up to God. And that is, because by this number is signified the
abolition of all sins, which takes place in Baptism. Not that the Lord
Himself had any thing to be forgiven Him in baptism, but that by His
humility He set forth its usefulness to us. And though that was only
the baptism of John, yet there appeared in it to outward sense the
Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and hereby was
consecrated the Baptism of Christ Himself, whereby Christians were to
be baptized. The Father in the voice which came from heaven, the Son in
the person of the Mediator Himself, the Holy Ghost in the dove. [1812]
34. Now, why the number seventy-seven should contain all sins which are
remitted in Baptism, there occurs this probable reason, for that the
number ten implies the perfection of all righteousness, and
blessedness, when the creature denoted by seven [1813] cleaves to the
Trinity of the Creator; whence also the Decalogue of the Law was
consecrated in ten precepts. Now the "transgression" of the number ten
is signified by the number eleven; and sin is known to be
transgression, when a man, in seeking something "more," exceeds the
rule of justice. And hence the Apostle calls avarice "the root of all
evils." [1814] And to the soul which goes a-whoring from God, it is
said, in the Person of the same Lord, "Thou wast in hope, if thou didst
depart from Me, that thou wouldest have something more." Because the
sinner then has in his transgression, that is, in his sin, regard to
himself alone--in that he wishes to gratify himself by some private
good of his own (whence they are blamed "who seek their own, not the
things which are Jesus Christ's;" [1815] and charity is commended,
"which seeketh not her own" [1816] ); therefore, this number eleven, by
which transgression is signified, is multiplied, not ten times, but
seven, and so makes up seventy-seven. For transgression looks [1817]
not to the Trinity of the Creator, but to the creature, that is, to the
man himself, which creature the number seven denotes. Three, because of
the soul, in which there [1818] is a kind of image of the Trinity of
the Creator (for it is in the soul that man has been made after the
image of God); and four, because of the body. For the four elements
[1819] of which the body is made up are known by all. And if any one
know them not, he may easily remember, that this body of the world, in
which our bodies move along, has, so to say, four principal parts,
which even Holy Scripture is constantly making mention of, East, and
West, and North, and South. And forasmuch as sins are committed either
by the mind, as in the will only, or by the works of the body also, and
so visibly; therefore the Prophet Amos continually introduces [1820]
God as threatening, and saying, "For three and four iniquities I will
not turn away," that is," I will not dissemble My wrath." [1821] Three,
because of the nature of the soul; four, because of that of the body;
of which two, man consists.
35. So, then, seven times eleven, that is, as has been explained, the
transgression of righteousness, which has regard only to the sinner
himself, make up the number seventy-seven, in which it is signified,
that all sins which are remitted in Baptism are contained. And hence it
is that Luke ascends up through seventy-seven generations unto God, as
showing that man is reconciled unto God by the abolition of all sin.
Hence the Lord Himself saith to Peter, who asked Him how oft he ought
to forgive a brother, "I say not unto thee [1822] seven times, but
until seventy times and seven." [1823] Now, whatever else can be drawn
out of these recesses and treasures of God's mysteries by those who are
more diligent and more worthy than I, receive. Yet have I spoken
according to my poor ability, as the Lord hath aided and given me
power, and as I best could, considering also the little time I had. If
any one of you be capable of anything further, let him knock at Him
from whom I too receive what I am able to receive and speak. But, above
all things, remember this; not to be disturbed by the Scriptures, which
you do not yet understand, nor be puffed up by what you do understand;
but what you do not understand, with submission [1824] wait for, and
what you do understand, hold fast with charity.
__________________________________________________________________
[1685] 2 Cor. iv. 7.
[1686] Muneris.
[1687] Matt. x. 22.
[1688] Ipsos venatores venatus est ad salutem.
[1689] Ps. xxii. 16, 17.
[1690] 1 Cor. iv. 9.
[1691] Spiritaliter.
[1692] Venatorem.
[1693] John xvi. 33.
[1694] Sacramenti.
[1695] Prava.
[1696] Deberet.
[1697] Commendare.
[1698] Populariter agere.
[1699] Gen. xxii. 18.
[1700] Singularitate.
[1701] Periti.
[1702] 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.
[1703] Col. ii. 6, 7.
[1704] Col. ii. 3.
[1705] 2 Cor. iii. 16.
[1706] Calumnias.
[1707] Perversis moribus.
[1708] Matt. i. 1.
[1709] Matt. i. 2-6.
[1710] Matt. i. 7-18.
[1711] Matt. i. 19.
[1712] Velut.
[1713] Auderet.
[1714] Matt. i. 20.
[1715] Matt. i. 21.
[1716] Sanctitas vestra.
[1717] 1 Cor. xi. 19.
[1718] Sacramentum.
[1719] Gustatum.
[1720] Sacramentum.
[1721] Jer. xxvii.
[1722] Rom. xi. 1.
[1723] Meruerunt.
[1724] 1 Cor. xv. 6.
[1725] Acts i. 15.
[1726] Acts xiii. 46.
[1727] Jer. xxix. 7.
[1728] 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.
[1729] Agricultura.
[1730] Ps. cxviii. 22.
[1731] Matt. i. 20.
[1732] Matt. i. 21.
[1733] Luke ii. 42.
[1734] Luke ii. 48, 49.
[1735] Luke i. 31.
[1736] Luke i. 32.
[1737] Meruerat.
[1738] Dignitatem.
[1739] Ephes. v. 23.
[1740] Gal. iv. 4.
[1741] Fidei.
[1742] #ShH+ femina mulier omnis aetatis et conditionis, sive nupta
est, sive non est. Gesenius, Lex. Heb., vide exempla, especially Gen.
xxiv. 5 and Isa. iv. 1. Vid. Serm. lii. 10.
[1743] Gen. ii. 22.
[1744] Luke ii. 49, 50, 51.
[1745] Wisd. viii. 1.
[1746] Rom. i. 3.
[1747] Commendaret.
[1748] Rom. ix. 5.
[1749] Matt. xxii. 42.
[1750] Ps. cx. 1.
[1751] Matt. xxii. 43, 44, 45.
[1752] Ps. cxxxii. 11.
[1753] Ps. cx. 1.
[1754] Phil. ii. 6.
[1755] Phil. ii. 7.
[1756] Uxorem.
[1757] 1 Cor. vii. 29.
[1758] Debitum.
[1759] 1 Thess. iv. 4.
[1760] Ephes. v. 25.
[1761] Tabulas.
[1762] Tabulae matrimoniales.
[1763] Ut sint soceri non lenones.
[1764] Frontem.
[1765] Adulterium quasi ad alterum.
[1766] 1 Cor vii. 6.
[1767] 1 Cor. vii. 5.
[1768] Modo.
[1769] Ecclus. xiv. 18.
[1770] Phil. iii. 19.
[1771] 1 Kings xix. 6.
[1772] Meruit.
[1773] Meruit.
[1774] Sic.
[1775] Animadversum.
[1776] The Scriptures.
[1777] Gratia.
[1778] Gen. xvi. 2 and xxx.
[1779] 1 Cor. vii. 4.
[1780] Exod. ii. 10.
[1781] Rom. ii. 14.
[1782] Gen. xlviii. 5, 6.
[1783] In magno sacramento.
[1784] Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[1785] Rom. viii. 23.
[1786] Rom. ix. 3, etc.
[1787] Deut. xxv. 5; Matt. xxii. 24.
[1788] Of these two solutions, (1) that Joseph may have been the
adopted son of Eli, or (2) the son of his wife who, as the next of kin,
married Jacob after his decease, the latter is stated by Africanus
(Eus. H. E. i. 7) to be traditional and derived from kinsmen of the
Lord's. It may be the more likely, in that the name of the wife of
Matthan and Malchi (Estha) is also handed down, through whom, though
half-blood, Heli and Jacob became, at all events, near kinsmen. Else in
the Jerus. Talm. (ap. Lightfoot ad loc.) St. Mary is called the
daughter of Heli, and her genealogy might be counted as his, to whom,
according to the above statement, she was nearly related. The name
Heli, indeed, is no way connected (as some have thought) with Eliachim,
i.q. Joachim; but this name of the father of the Blessed Virgin is said
by St. Augustin to have been taken by the Manichees from apocryphal
books (comp. Faust. xxiii. 9), so neither is it any hindrance. St.
Augustin remarks (Quaest. Ev. ii. 5) that any one possible explanation
is sufficient, and yet that it would be rash to say that there were
only the two that he had named. He treats it then as "madness" to
ground any charge against the evangelists thereon; inasmuch as it can
be solved, faith is indifferent to the "how," since God has not
explained it.
[1789] Luke ii. 48.
[1790] Matt. i. 19.
[1791] Luke i. 63.
[1792] Luke i. 31.
[1793] Matt. i. 20, 21.
[1794] Luke ii. 7. There seems to be no trace of any such reading
anywhere else.
[1795] Firmius.
[1796] Luke iii. 23.
[1797] Pertinere.
[1798] St. Augustin corrects this confusion of Nathan, the son of
David, with the prophet Nathan, in his Retract. B. ii. c. 16.
[1799] 2 Sam. xii. 1.
[1800] Eminet.
[1801] Certos articulos numerorum.
[1802] Gen. xv. 13; Acts vii. 6.
[1803] Deut. ix. 9; 1 Kings xix. 8; Matt. iv. 2.
[1804] Num. xxxii. 13.
[1805] Gen. vii. 4.
[1806] Veritatem.
[1807] Acts i. 3.
[1808] 2 Cor. v. 6.
[1809] 1 Cor. xi. 26.
[1810] Rom. iv. 25.
[1811] John i. 14.
[1812] Matt. iii. 16.
[1813] Septenaria.
[1814] 1 Tim. vi. 10.
[1815] Phil. ii. 21.
[1816] 1 Cor. xiii. 5.
[1817] Pertinet.
[1818] Vid. Aug. De Trin. ix. 4, 5; xiv. c. 6-16, etc.; lib. xv. 40-43.
Ep. 169 (Ben.). 6. De Civ. Dei, xi. 26 and 28. Conf. xiii. 12 (11) and
note in Oxf. ed.
[1819] Primordia.
[1820] Commemorat.
[1821] Amos i. 2, Sept.
[1822] Vide Sermon xxxiii. (Bened. lxxxiii.).
[1823] Matt. xviii. 22.
[1824] Honore.
__________________________________________________________________
Sermon II.
[LII. Ben.]
Of the words of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. iii. 13, "Then Jesus cometh
from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him."
Concerning the Trinity.
1. The lesson of the Gospel hath set before me a subject whereof to
speak to you, beloved, as though by the Lord's command, and by His
command in very deed. For my heart hath waited for an order as it were
from Him to speak, that I might understand thereby that it is His wish
that I should speak on that which He hath also willed should be read to
you. Let your zeal and devotion then give ear, and before the Lord our
God Himself aid ye my labour. For we behold and see as it were in a
divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity,
conveyed [1825] to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was
baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an
example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is
righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, "I have need to be
baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" [1826] He answered, "Suffer
it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled" [1827] ),
when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit
came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high
followed, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." [1828]
Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The
Father in the Voice,--the Son in the Man,--the Holy Spirit in the Dove.
It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to
see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and
without leaving room for doubt or hesitation. For the Lord Christ
Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the
Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit.
"Jesus," it is said, "cometh;" [1829] that is, the Son of God. And who
hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, "What is the Dove?" when
the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, "The Holy Spirit descended
upon Him in the form of a dove." [1830] And in like manner as to that
voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father's, when He saith,
"Thou art My Son." [1831] Thus then we have the Trinity distinguished.
2. And if we consider the places, I say with confidence (though in fear
I say it), that the Trinity is in a manner separable. When Jesus came
to the river, He came from one place to another; and the Dove descended
from heaven to earth, from one place to another; and the very Voice of
the Father sounded neither from the earth, nor from the water, but from
heaven; these three are as it were separated in places, in offices, and
in works. But one may say to me, "Show the Trinity to be inseparable
rather. Remember that thou who art speaking art a Catholic, and to
Catholics art thou speaking." For thus doth our faith teach, that is,
the true, the right Catholic faith, gathered not by the opinion of
private [1832] judgment, but by the witness of the Scriptures, [1833]
not subject to the fluctuations of heretical rashness, but grounded on
Apostolic truth: this we know, this we believe. This though we see it
not with our eyes, nor as yet with the heart, so long as we are being
purified by faith, yet by this faith we most lightly and most
strenuously maintain--That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a
Trinity inseparable; One God, not three Gods. But yet so One God, as
that the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son, and the
Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but the Spirit of the
Father and of the Son. This ineffable Divinity, abiding ever in itself,
making all things new, creating, creating anew, sending, recalling,
judging, delivering, this Trinity, I say, we know to be at once
ineffable and inseparable.
3. What am I then about? See: The Son came separately in the Man; The
Holy Spirit descended separately from heaven in the form of a Dove; The
Voice of the Father sounded separately out of heaven, "This is My Son."
Where then is this inseparable Trinity? God hath made you attentive by
my words. Pray for me, and open, as it were, the folds [1834] of your
hearts, and may He grant you wherewith your hearts so opened may be
filled. Share my travail with me. For you see what I have undertaken;
and not only what, but who I am that have undertaken it, and of what I
wish to speak, and where and what my position is, even in that "body
which is corruptible, and presseth down the soul, and the earthly
habitation weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things." [1835]
When therefore I abstract my mind from the multiplicity of things, and
gather it up into the One God, the inseparable Trinity, that so I may
see something which I may say of it, think ye that in this "body which
presseth down the soul," I shall be able to say (in order that I may
speak to you something worthy of the subject), "O Lord, I have lifted
up my soul unto Thee." [1836] May He assist me, may He lift it up with
me. For I am too infirm in respect of Him, and He in respect of me is
too mighty.
4. Now this is a question which is often proposed by the most earnest
brethren, and often has place in the conversation of the lovers of
God's word; for this much knocking is wont to be made unto God, while
men say, "Doeth the Father anything which the Son doeth not? or doeth
the Son anything which the Father doeth not?" Let us first speak of the
Father and the Son. And when He to Whom we say, "Be Thou my helper,
leave me not," [1837] shall have given good success to this essay of
ours, then shall we understand how that the Holy Spirit also is in no
way separated from the operation of the Father and the Son. As
concerning the Father and the Son, then, brethren, give ear. Doeth the
Father anything without the Son? We answer, No. Do you doubt it? For
what doeth He without Him "by Whom all things were made? All things,"
saith the Scripture, "were made by Him." [1838] And to inculcate it
fully [1839] upon the slow, and hard, and disputatious it added, And
without Him was not anything made."
5. What then, brethren? "All things were made by Him." We understand
then by this that the whole creation which was made by the Son, the
Father made by His Word--God, by His Power and Wisdom. Shall we then
say, "All things" indeed when they were created, "were made by Him,"
but now the Father doeth not all things by Him? God forbid! Be such a
thought as this far from the hearts of believers; be it driven away
from the mind of the devout; from the understanding of the godly! It
cannot be that He created by Him, and doth not govern by Him. God
forbid that what existeth should be governed without Him, when by Him
it was made, that it might have existence! But let us show by the
testimony of the same Scripture that not only were all things created
and made by Him as we have quoted from the Gospel, "All things were
made by Him, and without Him was nothing made," but that the things
which were made are also governed and ordered by Him. You acknowledge
Christ then to be the Power and Wisdom of God; acknowledge too what is
said of Wisdom, "She reacheth from one end to another mightily, and
sweetly doth she order all things." [1840] Let us not then doubt that
by Him are all things ruled, by whom all things were made. So then the
Father doeth nothing without the Son, nor the Son without the Father.
6. But so a difficulty meets us, which we have undertaken to solve in
the Name of the Lord, and by His will. If the Father doeth nothing
without the Son, nor the Son without the Father, will it not follow,
that we must say that the Father also was born of the Virgin Mary, the
Father suffered under Pontius Pilate, the Father rose again and
ascended into heaven? God forbid! We do not say this, because we do not
believe it. "For I believed, therefore have I spoken: we also believe,
and therefore speak." [1841] What [1842] is in the Creed? That the Son
was born of a Virgin, not the Father. What is in the Creed? That the
Son suffered under Pontius Pilate and was dead, not the Father. Have we
forgotten, that some, misunderstanding this, are called
"Patripassians," who say that the Father Himself was born of a woman,
that the Father Himself suffered, that the Father is the same as the
Son, that they are two names, not two things? And these hath the Church
Catholic separated from the communion of saints, that they might not
deceive any, but dispute in separation from her.
7. Let us then recall the difficulty of the question to your minds. One
may say to me, "You have said that the Father doeth nothing without the
Son, nor the Son without the Father, and testimonies you have adduced
out of the Scriptures, that the Father doeth nothing without the Son,
for that `all things were made by Him;' and again, that that which was
made is not governed without the Son, for that He is the Wisdom of the
Father, `reaching from one end to another mightily, and sweetly
ordering all things.' And now you tell me, as if contradicting
yourself, that the Son was born of a Virgin, and not the Father; the
Son suffered, not the Father; the Son rose again, not the Father. See
then, here I see the Son doing something which the Father doeth not. Do
you therefore either confess that the Son doeth something without the
Father, or else that the Father also was born and suffered, and died
and rose again. Say one or the other of these, choose one of the two."
No: I will choose neither, I will say neither the one nor the other. I
will neither say the Son doeth anything without the Father, for I
should lie were I to say so; nor that the Father was born, suffered,
and died, and rose again, for I should equally lie were I to say this.
"How then, saith he, will you disentangle yourself from these straits?"
8. The proposing of the question pleases you. May God grant His aid,
that its solution may please you too. See, what I am asking Him, that
He would free both me and you. For in one faith do we stand in the Name
of Christ; and in one house do we live under one Lord, and in one body
are we members under One Head, and by One Spirit are we quickened.
[1843] That the Lord then may set both me who speak, and you who hear,
free from the straits of this most perplexing question, I say as
follows: The Son indeed and not the Father was born of the Virgin Mary;
but this very birth of the Son, not of the Father, was the work both of
the Father and the Son. The Father indeed suffered not, but the Son,
yet the suffering of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son.
The Father did not rise again, but the Son, yet the resurrection of the
Son was the work of the Father and the Son. We seem then to be already
quit of this question, but peradventure it is only by words of my own;
let us see whether it is not as well by words divine. It is my place
then to prove by testimonies of the sacred books, that the birth, and
passion, and resurrection of the Son were in such sort the works of the
Father and the Son, that whereas it is the birth, and passion, and
resurrection of the Son only, yet these three things which belong to
the Son only, were wrought neither by the Father alone, nor by the Son
alone, but by the Father and the Son. Let us prove each several point,
you hear as judges; the case has been already laid open; now let the
witnesses come forth. Let your judgment say to me, as is wont to be
said to pleaders in a cause, "Establish what you promise." I will do so
assuredly, with the Lord's assistance, and will cite the books of
heavenly law. Ye have listened to me attentively while proposing the
question, listen now with still more attention while I prove my point.
9. I must first teach you concerning the birth of Christ, how it is the
work of the Father and the Son, though what the Father and the Son did
work pertains only to the Son. I will quote Paul; one competently
versed in the divine law. That Paul, I say, will I quote, who
prescribes the laws of peace, not of litigation, for lawyers at this
day also have a Paul who prescribes the laws of the courts, [1844] not
the Christian's laws. Let the holy Apostle show us then how the birth
of the Son was the work of the Father. "But," saith he, "when the
fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made
under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law." [1845] Thus
have ye heard him, and because it is plain and express, have
understood. See, the Father made the Son to be born of a Virgin. For
"when the fulness of time was come, God sent His Son;" the Father sent
His Christ. How sent He Him? "made of a woman, made under the Law." The
Father then made Him of a woman under the Law.
10. Doth this peradventure perplex you, that I said of a virgin, and
Paul saith of a woman? Let not this perplex you; let us not stop here,
for I am not speaking to persons without instruction. The Scripture
saith both, both "of a virgin," and "of a woman." Where saith it, "of a
virgin? Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son." [1846] And
"of a woman," as you have just heard; here there is no contradiction.
For the peculiarity of the Hebrew tongue gives [1847] the name of
"women" not to such as have lost their virgin estate, but to females
generally. You have a plain passage in Genesis, when Eve herself was
first made, "He made her a woman." [1848] Scripture also in another
place saith, that God ordered "the women" to be separated "which had
not known man by lying with him." [1849] This then ought now to be well
established, and should not detain us, that so we may be able to
explain, by the Lord's assistance, what will deservedly detain us.
11. We have then proved that the birth of the Son was the work of the
Father; now let us prove that it was the work of the Son also. Now what
is the birth of the Son of the Virgin Mary? Surely it is His assumption
of the form of a servant in the Virgin's womb. Is the birth of the Son
ought else, but the taking of the form of a servant in the womb of the
Virgin? Now hear how that this was the work of the Son also. "Who when
He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
but emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant." [1850]
"When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a
woman," [1851] who was "made [1852] His Son of the seed of David
according to the flesh." [1853] In this then we see that the birth of
the Son was the work of the Father; but in that the Son Himself
"emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant," we see that the birth
of the Son was the work also of the Son Himself. This then has been
proved; so let us pass on from this point, and receive ye with
attention that which comes next in order.
12. Let us prove that the Passion also of the Son was the work of the
Father and the Son. We may see [1854] that the Passion of the Son is
the work of the Father, since it is written, "Who spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all;" [1855] and that the Passion of
the Son was His own work also, "Who loved me, and gave Himself for me."
[1856] The Father delivered up the Son, and the Son delivered up
Himself. This Passion was wrought out for one, but by both. As
therefore the birth, so the Passion, of Christ, was not the work of the
Son without the Father, nor of the Father without the Son. The Father
delivered up the Son, and the Son delivered up Himself. What did Judas
in it, but his own sin? Let us then pass on from this point also, and
come we to the resurrection.
13. Let us see the Son indeed, and not the Father, rising again, but
both the Father and the Son working the resurrection of the Son. The
resurrection of the Son is the work of the Father; for it is written,
"Wherefore He exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every
name." [1857] The Father therefore raised the Son to life again, in
exalting, and awakening Him from the dead. And did the Son also raise
Himself? Assuredly He did. For He said of the temple, as the figure of
His own body, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
again." [1858] Lastly, as the laying down of life has reference to the
Passion, so the taking it again has reference to the resurrection. Let
us see then if the Son laid down His life indeed, and the Father
restored His life to Him, and not He to Himself. For that the Father
restored it is plain. For so saith the Psalm, "Raise Thou Me up, and I
will requite them." [1859] But why do ye wait for a proof from me that
the Son also restored life to Himself? Let Him speak Himself; "I have
power to lay down My life." I have not yet said what I promised. I have
said, "to lay it down;" and you are crying out already, for you are
flying past me. For well-instructed as ye are in the school of your
heavenly teacher, as attentively listening to, and in pious affection
rehearsing, [1860] what is read, ye are not ignorant of what comes
next. "I have power," saith He,"to lay down My life, and I have power
to take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of
Myself, and take it again." [1861]
14. I have made good what I promised; I have established my
propositions with, as I think, the strongest proofs and testimonies.
Hold fast then what you have heard. I will recapitulate it briefly, and
entrust it to be stored up in your minds as a thing, to my thinking, of
the greatest usefulness. The Father was not born of the Virgin; yet
this birth of the Son from the Virgin was the work both of the Father
and the Son. The Father suffered not on the Cross; yet the Passion of
the Son was the work both of the Father and the Son. The Father rose
not again from the dead; yet the resurrection of the Son was the work
both of the Father and the Son. You see then a distinction of Persons,
and an inseparableness of operation. Let us not say therefore that the
Father doeth any thing without the Son, or the Son any thing without
the Father. But perhaps you have a difficulty as to the miracles which
Jesus did, lest peradventure He did some which the Father did not!
Where then is that saying, "The Father who dwelleth in Me, He doeth the
works?" [1862] All that I have now said was plain; it needed to be
barely mentioned; there was no necessity for much labour to make it
understood, but only that care should be taken, that it might be
brought to your remembrance.
15. I wish to say something further, and here ask sincerely both for
your more earnest attention, and your devotion to Godward. For none but
bodies are held or contained in places suited to the nature [1863] of
bodies. The Divinity is beyond all such places: let no one seek for it
as though it were in space. It is everywhere invisible and inseparably
present; not in one part greater, and another smaller; but whole
everywhere, and nowhere divided. Who can see? Who can comprehend this?
Let us restrain ourselves: let us remember who we are; and of Whom we
speak. Let this and that, or whatever appertains [1864] to the nature
of God, be with a pious faith embraced, with a holy respect
entertained, and as far as is allowed us, as far as is possible for us,
in an unspeakable sort understood. Let words be hushed: let the tongue
be silent, let the heart be aroused, let the heart be lifted up
thither. For it is not of such a nature as that it can ascend into the
heart of man; but the heart of man must itself ascend to it. Let us
consider the creatures ("for the invisible things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made" [1865] ), if haply in the things which God hath made,
with which we have some familiarity of intercourse, we may find some
resemblance, whereby we may prove that there are some three things
which may be exhibited [1866] as three separably, yet whose operation
is inseparable.
16. Come, brethren, give me your whole attention. But first of all
consider what it is that I promise; if haply I can find any resemblance
in the creature, for the Creator is too high above us. And peradventure
some one of us, whose mind the glare of truth hath, as it were,
stricken with sparks of its brightness, can say those words, "I said in
my ecstasy."--What saidst thou in thine ecstasy?--"I am cast away from
the sight of Thine eyes." [1867] For it seems to me as if he who said
this had lifted up his soul unto God, and had been carried beyond
himself, while they said daily unto him, "Where is thy God?"--had
reached by a kind of spiritual contact to that unchangeable Light, and
through the weakness [1868] of his sight had been unable to endure it,
and so had fallen back again into his own, as it were, sick and languid
state, and had compared himself with that Light, and had felt that the
eye of his mind could not yet be attempered to the light of God's
wisdom. And because he had done this in ecstasy, hurried away from his
bodily senses, and taken [1869] up into God, when he was recalled in a
manner from God to man, he said, "I said in my ecstasy." For I saw in
ecstasy I know not what, which I could not long endure, and being
restored to my mortal estate, [1870] and the manifold thoughts of
mortal things from the body which presseth down the soul, I said, what?
"I am cast away from the sight of Thine eyes." Thou art far above, and
I am far below. What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou
hast been able to comprehend what thou wouldest say, it is not God; if
thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something
else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend Him as thou
thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not
God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if it be God, thou hast not
comprehended it. How therefore wouldest thou speak of that which thou
canst not comprehend?
17. Let us see then, if haply we cannot find something in the creature
whereby we may prove that some three things are exhibited [1871]
separately whose operation is yet inseparable. But whither shall we go?
To the heaven, to dispute of the sun and moon and stars? To the earth,
to dispute of shrubs, and trees, and animals which fill the earth? Or
of the heaven and the earth itself, which contain all the things that
are in heaven and earth? How long, O man, wilt thou roam over the
creation? Return unto thyself, see, consider, examine thine own self.
Thou art searching among the creatures for some three things which are
separately exhibited, whose operation is yet inseparable; if then thou
art searching for this among the creatures, search for it first in
thine own self. For thou art not other than a creature. It is a
resemblance thou art searching for. Wouldest thou search for it among
the cattle? For of God it was thou wast speaking, when thou wast in
search for this resemblance. Thou wast speaking of the Trinity of
Majesty ineffable, and because thou didst fail in contemplating [1872]
the Divine Nature, and with becoming humility didst confess thine
infirmity, thou didst come down to human nature; there then pursue
thine enquiry. Wilt thou make thy search among the cattle, in the sun,
or the stars? What of these was made after the image and likeness of
God? Thou mayest search in thine own self for something more familiar
to thee, and more excellent than all these. For God made man after His
own image and likeness. Search then in thine own self, if haply the
image of the Trinity bear not some vestige of the Trinity. And what is
this image? It is an image very different from its model; yet different
as it is, it is an image and a likeness notwithstanding, not indeed in
the same way as the Son is the Image, being the Same Which the Father
is. For an image is in one sort in a son, and in another in a mirror.
There is great difference between them. Thine image in thy son is thine
own self, for the son is by nature what thou art. In substance the same
as thou, in person other than thou. Man then is not an image as the
Only-begotten Son is, but made after a sort of image and likeness. Let
him then search for something in himself, if so be he may find it, even
for some three things which are exhibited [1873] separately, whose
operation is yet inseparable. I will search, and do ye search with me.
I will not search in you, but do ye search in yourselves, and I in
myself. Let us search in concert, and in concert discuss our common
nature and substance.
18. See, O man, and consider whether what I am saying be true. Hast
thou a body and flesh? I have, you say. For how am I in this place that
I now occupy, and how do I move from place to place? How do I hear the
words of one who is speaking, but by the ears of my body? How do I see
the mouth of him who is speaking, but by the eyes of my body? It is
plain then that thou hast a body, no need is there to trouble one's
self about so plain a matter. Consider then another point, consider
what it is that acts through this body. For thou hearest by means of
the ear, but it is not the ear that hears. There is something else
within which hears by means of the ear. Thou seest by means of the
eye--examine this eye. What! hast thou acknowledged the house, and paid
no regard to him that inhabiteth it? Doth the eye see by itself? Is it
not another that sees by means of the eye? I will not say, that the eye
of a dead man, from whose body it is plain the inhabitant hath
departed, sees not, but any man's eye who is only thinking of something
else, sees not the form of the object that is before him. Look then
into thine inner man. For there it is rather that the resemblance must
be sought for of some three things which are exhibited separately,
whose operation is yet inseparable. What then is in thy mind?
Peradventure if I search, I find many things there, but there is
something very nigh at hand, which is understood more easily. What then
is in thy soul? Call it to mind, reflect upon it. For I do not require
that credit should be given me in what I am about to say; if thou find
it not in thyself, admit it not. Look inward then; but first let us see
what had escaped me, whether man be not the image, not of the Son only,
or of the Father only, but of the Father and the Son, and so
consequently of course of the Holy Ghost also. The words in Genesis
are, "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness." [1874] So then
the Father doth not act without the Son, nor the Son without the
Father. "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness. Let us
make," not, "I will make," or "Make thou," or "Let him make," but, "Let
Us make after," not "thine image," or "mine," but, "after Our image."
19. I am asking, I am speaking remember of a distant [1875]
resemblance. So let no one say, See what he has compared to God! I have
advertised you of this already, and by anticipation have both put you
on your guard, and have guarded myself. The two are indeed very far
removed from each other, as the lowest from the Highest, as the
changeable from the Unchangeable, the created from the Creator, the
human nature from the Divine. Lo! I apprise you of this at first, that
no one may say ought against me, because there is so great a difference
in the things whereof I am about to speak. Lest then while I am asking
for your ears, ye should any of you be getting ready your teeth,
remember I have undertaken merely to show, that there are some three
things which are separately exhibited, whose operation is yet
inseparable. How like or how unlike these things are to the Almighty
Trinity is no concern of mine at present; but in the very creatures of
the lowest order, and subject to change, we do find three things which
may be separately exhibited, whose operation is yet inseparable. O
carnal imagination! obstinate, unbelieving conscience! Why as
concerning that ineffable Majesty dost thou doubt as to that thing,
which thou canst discover in thine own self? For I ask thee, O man,
hast thou memory? If not, how hast thou retained what I have said? But
perhaps thou hast forgotten already what I said but a little while ago.
Yet these very words, "I said"--these two syllables, thou couldest not
retain except by memory. For how shouldest thou know they were two, if
as the second sounded, thou hadst forgotten the first? But why do I
dwell longer on this? Why am I so urgent? Why do I so press conviction?
For thou hast memory; it is plain. I am searching then for something
else. Hast thou understanding? "I have," you will say. For hadst thou
not memory, thou couldest not retain what I said; and hadst thou not
understanding, thou couldest not comprehend what thou hast retained.
Thou hast then this as well as the other. Thou recallest thine
understanding unto that which thou dost retain within, and so thou
seest it, and by seeing art fashioned into that state as to be said to
know. But I am searching for a third thing. Memory thou hast, whereby
to retain what is said; and understanding thou hast, whereby to
understand what is retained; but as touching these two, I ask again of
thee, Hast thou not with thy will retained and understood? Undoubtedly,
with my will, you will say. So then thou hast will.
These are the three things which I promised I would bring home to your
ears and minds. These three things are in thee, which thou canst
number, but canst not separate. These three then, memory,
understanding, and will--these three, I say, consider how they are
separately exhibited, [1876] yet is their operation inseparable.
20. The Lord will be my present help, and I see that He is present to
help me; by your understanding what I say, I see that He is present to
help me. For I perceive by these your voices how that you have
understood me, and I surely trust that He will still assist us, that
you may comprehend the whole. I promised to show you three things which
are separately exhibited whose operation is yet inseparable. See then;
I did not know what was in thy mind, and thou showedest me by saying,
"Memory." This word, this sound, this expression came forth from thy
mind to mine ears. For before that, thou hadst the silent idea of this
memory, but thou didst not express it. It was in thee, but it had not
yet come to me. But in order that that which was in thee might be
passed on to me, thou didst express the very word, that is, "Memory." I
heard it, I heard these three syllables in the word, "Memory." It is a
noun, a word of three syllables, it sounded, and came to my ear, and
impressed [1877] a certain idea on my mind. The sound has passed away,
but the word whereby the idea was conveyed, and the idea itself,
remains. But I ask, when thou didst pronounce this word, "Memory," thou
seest certainly that it has reference to the memory only. For the other
two things have their own proper names. For one is called "the
understanding," and the other, "the will," not the "memory," but that
one alone is called "memory." Nevertheless, whereby didst thou work in
order to express this, in order to produce these three syllables? This
word which has reference to the memory only, both memory was engaged in
producing in thee, that thou mightest retain what thou saidst, and
understanding, that thou mightest know what thou retainedst, and will,
that thou mightest give expression to what thou knewest. Thanks be to
the Lord our God! He hath helped us, both you and me. For I tell you
the truth, beloved, that I undertook the examination and explanation of
this subject with exceeding fear. For I was afraid lest haply I might
gladden the spirit of the more enlarged in mind, and inflict on the
slower capacities an afflictive weariness. But now I see both by the
attention with which you have heard, and the quickness with which you
have understood me, that you have not only caught what I have said, but
that you have anticipated my words. Thanks be to the Lord!
21. See then, henceforth I speak in all security of that which you have
already understood; I am inculcating no unknown lesson, but am only
conveying to you by recapitulation what you have already received. Now,
of these three things, one only has been yet named and expressed;
"Memory" is the name of one only of those three, yet all the three
concurred in producing the name of this single one of the three. The
single word "memory" could not be expressed, but by the operation of
the will, and the understanding, and the memory. The single word
"understanding" could not be expressed, but by the operation of the
memory, the will, and the understanding; and the single word "will"
could not be expressed, but by the operation of the memory and the
understanding and the will. What I promised, then, I think has been
explained, that which I have pronounced separately, I conceived
inseparably. The three together have produced each one of these, but
yet this one which the three have produced has reference not to the
three, but to one. The three together have produced the word "memory,"
but this word has reference to none but the memory only. The three
together have produced the word "understanding," but it has reference
to none but the understanding only. The three together have produced
the word "will," but it has reference to none but the will only. So the
Trinity concurred in the formation of the Body of Christ, but it
belongs to none but Christ only. The Trinity concurred in the formation
of the Dove from heaven; but it belongs to none but the Holy Spirit
only. The Trinity formed the Voice from heaven, but this Voice belongs
to none but the Father only.
22. Let no one then say to me, no one with unfair cavils try to press
upon my infirmity, saying, "Which then of these three, which you have
shown to be in our mind or soul, which of them [1878] answers to the
Father, that is, so to say, to the likeness of the Father, which of
them to that of the Son, and which of them to that of the Holy Ghost?"
I cannot say--I cannot explain this. Let us leave somewhat to
meditation and to silence. Enter into thine own self; separate thyself
from all tumult. Look into thine inner self; see if thou have there
some sweet retiring place of conscience, where there may be no noise,
no disputation, no strife, or debatings; where there will be not a
thought of dissensions, and obstinate contention. Be meek to hear the
word, that so thou mayest understand. Perhaps thou mayest soon have to
say, "Thou wilt make me hear of joy and gladness, and my bones shall
rejoice;" [1879] the bones, that is, which are humbled, not those that
are lifted up.
23. It is enough, then, that I have shown that there are some three
things which are exhibited separately, whose operation is yet
inseparable. If thou hast discovered this in thine own self; if thou
hast discovered it in man; if thou hast discovered it in a being [1880]
that walketh on the earth, and beareth about a frail "body, which
weigheth down the soul;" believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
may be exhibited separately, by certain visible symbols, by certain
forms borrowed from the creatures, and still their operation be
inseparable. This is enough. I do not say that "memory" is the
Father,--the "understanding" the Son,--and "will" the Spirit; I do not
say this; let men understand it how they will. I do not venture to say
this. Let us reserve the greater truths for those who are capable of
them: but, infirm as I am myself, I convey to the infirm only what is
according to our powers. I do not say that these things are in any sort
to be equalled with the Holy Trinity, to be squared after an analogy;
that is, a kind of exact rule of comparison. This I do not say. But
what do I say? See. I have discovered in thee three things, which are
exhibited separately, whose operation is inseparable; and of these
three, every single name is produced by the three together; yet does
not this name belong to the three, but to some one of the three.
Believe then in the Trinity, what thou canst not see, if in thyself
thou hast heard, and seen, and retained it. For what is in thine own
self thou canst know: but what is in Him who made thee, whatever it be,
how canst thou know? And if thou shalt be ever able, thou art not able
yet. And even when thou shalt be able, wilt thou be able so to know
God, as He knoweth Himself? Let then this suffice you, beloved: I have
said all I could; I have made good my promise as ye required. As to the
rest which must be added, that your understanding may make advancement,
this seek from the Lord.
__________________________________________________________________
[1825] Commendari.
[1826] Matt. iii. 14.
[1827] Matt. iii. 15.
[1828] Matt. iii. 17.
[1829] Matt. iii. 13.
[1830] Matt. iii. 16.
[1831] Matt. iii. 17; Mark i. 11.
[1832] Praesumptionis.
[1833] Lectionis.
[1834] Aperientes sinum.
[1835] Wisd. ix. 15.
[1836] Ps. lxxxvi. 4.
[1837] Ps. xxvi. 9, Sept. (xxvii. English version).
[1838] John i. 3.
[1839] Satiate.
[1840] Wisd. viii. 1.
[1841] Ps. cxvi. 10.
[1842] Fide, i.e. Symb. fidei (Ben.).
[1843] Vegetamur.
[1844] Litigatorum.
[1845] Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[1846] Isa. vii. 14.
[1847] Vide Serm. i. (li.) 18.
[1848] Gen. ii. 22.
[1849] Num. xxxi. 18; Judg. xxi. 11.
[1850] Phil. ii. 6, 7.
[1851] Gal. iv. 4.
[1852] i.e.the term made belongs to His birth in the flesh, Who was
begotten in eternity.
[1853] Rom. i. 3.
[1854] Faciat Pater passionem Filii.
[1855] Rom. viii. 32.
[1856] Gal. ii. 20.
[1857] Phil. ii. 9.
[1858] John ii. 19.
[1859] Ps. xli. 10.
[1860] Reddentes.
[1861] John x. 18.
[1862] John xiv. 10.
[1863] Corporalibus.
[1864] Quidquid est quod Deus est.
[1865] Rom. i. 20.
[1866] Proferantur.
[1867] Ps. xxxi. 22, Sept.
[1868] See Aug Conf. B. xii. ch. 23-26.
[1869] Subreptus.
[1870] Membris.
[1871] Demonstrari.
[1872] Defecisti in divinis.
[1873] Pronuntientur.
[1874] Gen. i. 26.
[1875] Dissimilem rem.
[1876] Pronuntiari.
[1877] Insinuavit.
[1878] Pertinet.
[1879] Ps. l. 10, Sept. (li. 8, English version).
[1880] Persona.
__________________________________________________________________
Sermon III.
[LIII. Ben.]
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. Chap. v. 3 and 8, "Blessed are the
poor in spirit:" etc., but especially on that, "Blessed are the pure in
heart: for they shall see God."
1. By the return of the commemoration of a holy virgin, who gave her
testimony to Christ, and was found worthy [1881] of a testimony from
Christ, who was put to death openly, and crowned invisibly, I am
reminded to speak to you, beloved, on that exhortation which the Lord
hath just now uttered out of the Gospel, [1882] assuring us that there
are many sources of a blessed life, which there is not a man that does
not wish for. There is not a man surely can be found, who does not wish
to be blessed. But oh! if as men desire the reward, so they would not
decline the work that leads to it! Who would not run with all alacrity,
were it told him, "Thou shalt be blessed"? Let him then also give a
glad and ready ear when it is said, "Blessed, if thou shalt do thus."
Let not the contest be declined, if the reward be loved; and let the
mind be enkindled to an eager execution of the work, by the setting
forth of the reward. What we desire, and wish for, and seek, will be
hereafter; but what we are ordered to do for the sake of that which
will be hereafter, must be now. Begin now, then, to recall to mind the
divine sayings, and the precepts and rewards of the Gospel. "Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." [1883]
The kingdom of heaven shall be thine hereafter; be poor in spirit now.
Wouldest thou that the kingdom of heaven should be thine hereafter?
Look well to thyself whose thou art now. Be poor in spirit. You ask me,
perhaps, "What is to be poor in spirit?" No one who is puffed up is
poor in spirit; therefore he that is lowly is poor in spirit. The
kingdom of heaven is exalted; but "he who humbleth himself shall be
exalted." [1884]
2. Mark what follows: "Blessed," saith He, "are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth." [1885] Thou wishest to possess the earth now;
take heed lest thou be possessed by it. If thou be meek, thou wilt
possess it; if ungentle, thou wilt be possessed by it. And when thou
hearest of the proposed reward, do not, in order that thou mayest
possess the earth, unfold the lap of covetousness, whereby thou
wouldest at present possess the earth, to the exclusion even of thy
neighbour by whatever means; let no such imagination deceive thee. Then
wilt thou truly possess the earth, when thou dost cleave to Him who
made heaven and earth. For this is to be meek, not to resist thy God,
that in that thou doest well He may be well-pleasing to thee, not thou
to thyself; and in that thou sufferest ill justly, He may not be
unpleasing to thee, but thou to thyself. For no small matter is it that
thou shalt be well-pleasing to Him, when thou art displeased with
thyself; whereas if thou art well-pleased with thine own self, thou
wilt be displeasing to Him.
3. Attend to the third lesson, "Blessed are they that mourn, for they
shall be comforted." [1886] The work consisteth in mourning, the reward
in consolation; for they who mourn in a carnal sort, what consolations
have they? Miserable consolations, objects rather of fear. There the
mourner is comforted by things which make him fear lest he have to
mourn again. For instance, the death of a son causes the father sorrow,
and the birth of a son joy. The one he has carried out to his burial,
the other he has brought into the world; in the former is occasion of
sadness, in the latter of fear: and so in neither is there consolation.
That therefore will be the true consolation, wherein shall be given
that which may not be lost, so that they may rejoice for their after
consolation, who mourn that they are in [1887] exile now.
4. Let us come to the fourth work and its reward, "Blessed are they
that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled."
[1888] Dost thou desire to be filled? Whereby? If the flesh long for
fulness, after digestion thou wilt suffer hunger again. So He saith,
"Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again." [1889] If the
remedy which is applied to a wound heal it, there is no more pain; but
that which is applied against hunger, food that is, is so applied as to
give relief only for a little while. For when the fulness is past,
hunger returns. This remedy of fulness is applied day by day, yet the
wound of weakness is not healed. Let us therefore "hunger and thirst
after righteousness, that we may be filled" with that righteousness
after which we now hunger and thirst. For filled we shall be with that
for which we hunger and thirst. Let our inner man then hunger and
thirst, for it hath its own proper meat and drink. "I," saith He, "am
the Bread which came down from heaven." [1890] Here is the bread of the
hungry; long also for the drink of the thirsty, "For with Thee is the
well of life." [1891] )
5. Mark what comes next: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall
obtain mercy." [1892] Do this, and so shall it be done to thee; deal so
with others, that God may so deal with thee. For thou art at once in
abundance and in want--in abundance of temporal things, in want of
things eternal. The man whom thou hearest is a beggar, and thou art
thyself God's beggar. Petition is made to thee, and thou makest thy
petition. As thou hast dealt with thy petitioner, so shall God deal
with His. Thou art at once full and empty; fill the empty with thy
fulness, that thy emptiness may be filled with the fulness of God.
6. Mark what comes next: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall
see God." [1893] This is the end of our love; an end whereby we are
perfected, and not consumed. For there is an end of food, and an end of
a garment; of food when it is consumed by the eating; of a garment when
it is perfected in the weaving. Both the one and the other have an end;
but the one is an end of consumption, the other of perfection.
Whatsoever we now do, whatsoever we now do well, whatsoever we now
strive for, or are in laudable sort eager for, or blamelessly desire,
when we come to the vision of God, we shall require no more. For what
need he seek for, with whom God is present? or what shall suffice him,
whom God sufficeth not? We wish to see God, we seek, we kindle with
desire to see Him. Who doth not? But mark what is said: "Blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Provide thyself then with
that whereby thou mayest see Him. For (to speak after the flesh) how
with weak eyes desirest thou the rising of the sun? Let the eye be
sound, and that light will be a rejoicing, if it be not sound, it will
be but a torment. For it is not permitted with a heart impure to see
that which is seen only by the pure heart. Thou wilt be repelled,
driven back from it, and wilt not see it. For "blessed are the pure in
heart, for they shall see God." How often already hath he enumerated
the blessed, and the causes of their blessedness, and their works and
recompenses, their merits and rewards! But nowhere hath it been said,
"They shall see God." "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven." "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit
the earth." "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted."
"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, they
shall be filled." "Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy."
In none of these hath it been said, "They shall see God." When we come
to the "pure in heart," there is the vision of God promised. And not
without good cause; for there, in the heart, are the eyes, by which God
is seen. Speaking of these eyes, the Apostle Paul saith, "The eyes of
your heart being enlightened." [1894] At present then these eyes are
enlightened, as is suitable to their infirmity, by faith; hereafter as
shall be suited to their strength, they shall be enlightened by sight.
"For as long as we are in the body we are absent from the Lord; For we
walk by faith, not by sight." [1895] Now as long as we are in this
state of faith, what is said of us? "We see now through a glass darkly;
but then face to face." [1896]
7. Let no thought be entertained here of a bodily face. For if
enkindled by the desire of seeing God, thou hast made ready thy bodily
face to see Him, thou wilt be looking also for such a face in God. But
if now thy conceptions of God are at least so spiritual as not to
imagine Him to be corporeal (of which [1897] subject I treated
yesterday at considerable length, if yet it was not in vain), if I have
succeeded in breaking down in your heart, as in God's temple, that
image of human form; if the words in which the Apostle expresses his
detestation of those, "who, professing themselves to be wise became
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like unto corruptible man," [1898] have entered deep into your
minds, and taken possession of your inmost heart; if ye do now detest
and abhor such impiety, if ye keep clean for the Creator His own
temple, if ye would that He should come and make His abode with you,
"Think of the Lord with a good heart, and in simplicity of heart seek
for Him." [1899] Mark well who it is to whom ye say, if so be ye do say
it, and say it in sincerity, "My heart said to Thee, I will seek Thy
face." Let thine heart also say, and add, "Thy face, Lord, will I
seek." [1900] For so wilt thou seek it well, because thou seekest with
thine heart. Scripture speaks of the "face of God, the arm of God, the
hands of God, the feet of God, the seat of God," and His footstool; but
think not in all this of human members. If thou wouldest be a temple of
truth, break down the idol of falsehood. The hand of God is His power.
The face of God is the knowledge of God. The feet of God are His
presence. The seat of God, if thou art so minded, is thine own self.
But perhaps thou wilt venture to deny that Christ is God! "Not so," you
say. Dost thou grant this too, that "Christ is the power of God and the
wisdom of God? [1901] "I grant it," you say. Hear then, "The soul of
the righteous is the seat of wisdom." [1902] "Yes." For where hath God
His seat, but where He dwelleth? And where doth He dwell, but in His
temple? "For the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." [1903]
Take heed therefore how thou dost receive God. "God is a Spirit, and
must be worshipped in spirit and in truth." [1904] Let the ark of
testimony enter now into thy heart, if thou art so minded, and let
Dagon fall. [1905] Now therefore give ear at once, and learn to long
for God; learn to make ready that whereby thou mayest see God.
"Blessed," saith He, "are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
Why dost thou make ready the eyes of the body? If He should be seen by
them, that which should be so seen would be contained in space. But He
who is wholly everywhere is not contained in space. Cleanse that
whereby He may be seen.
8. Hear and understand, if haply through His help I shall be able to
explain it; and may He help us to the understanding of all the
above-named works and rewards, how suitable rewards are apportioned to
their corresponding duties. For where is there anything said of a
reward which does not suit, and harmonize with its work? Because the
lowly seem as it were aliens from a kingdom, He saith, "Blessed are the
poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Because meek men
are easily despoiled of their land, [1906] He saith, "Blessed are the
meek, for they shall inherit the land." [1907] Now the rest are plain
at once; they are understood of themselves, and require no one to treat
of them at length; they need only one to mention them. "Blessed are
they that mourn." Now what mourner does not desire consolation? "They,"
saith He, "shall be comforted." "Blessed are they that hunger and
thirst after righteousness." What hungry and thirsty man does not seek
to be filled? "And they," saith He, "shall be filled." "Blessed are the
merciful." What merciful man but wishes that a return should be
rendered him by God of His own work, that it may be so done to him, as
he doeth to the poor? "Blessed," saith He, "are the merciful, for they
shall obtain mercy." How in each case hath every duty its appropriate
reward: and nothing is introduced in the reward which doth not suit the
precept! For the precept is, that thou be "poor in spirit;" the reward,
that thou shalt have the "kingdom of heaven." The precept is, that thou
be "meek;" the reward, that thou shalt "possess the earth." The percept
is, that thou "mourn;" the reward, that thou shalt be "comforted." The
precept is, that thou "hunger and thirst after righteousness;" the
reward, that thou shalt "be filled." The precept is, that thou be
"merciful;" the reward, that thou shalt "obtain mercy." And so the
precept is, that thou cleanse the heart; the reward, that thou shalt
see God.
9. But do not so conceive of these precepts and rewards, as to think
when thou dost hear, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God," that the poor in spirit, or the meek, or they that mourn, or they
who hunger and thirst after righteousness, or the merciful, will not
see Him. Think not of those that are pure in heart, that they only will
see Him, whilst the others will be excluded from the sight of Him. For
all these several characters are the self-same persons. They shall all
see; but they shall not see in that they are poor in spirit, or meek,
or in that they mourn, and hunger and thirst after righteousness, or
are merciful, but in that they are pure in heart. Just as if bodily
works were duly assigned to the several members of the body, and one
were to say for example, Blessed are they who have feet, for they shall
walk; blessed are they that have hands, for they shall work; blessed
are they that have a voice, for they shall cry aloud; blessed are they
who have a mouth and tongue, for they shall speak; blessed are they
that have eyes, for they shall see. Even so our Lord arranging in their
order the members as it were of the soul, hath taught what is proper to
each. Humility qualifies [1908] for the possession of the kingdom of
heaven; meekness qualifies for possessing the earth; mourning for
consolation; hunger and thirst after righteousness for being filled;
mercy for the obtaining mercy; a pure heart for seeing God.
10. If then we desire to see God, whereby shall our eye be purified?
For who would not care for, and diligently seek the means of purifying
that eye whereby he may see Him whom he longeth after with an entire
affection? The Divine record has expressly mentioned this when it says,
"purifying their hearts by faith." [1909] The faith of God then
purifies the heart, the pure heart sees God. But because this faith is
sometimes so defined by men who deceive themselves, as though it were
enough only to believe (for some promise themselves even the sight of
God and the kingdom of heaven, who believe and live evilly); against
these, the Apostle James, incensed and indignant as it were with a holy
[1910] charity, saith in his Epistle, "Thou believest there is one
God." Thou applaudest thyself for thy faith, for thou markest how that
many ungodly men think there are gods many, and thou rejoicest in
thyself because thou dost believe that there is but one God; "Thou
doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." [1911] Shall they
also see God? They shall see Him who are pure in heart. But who can say
that unclean spirits are pure in heart? And yet they also "believe and
tremble."
11. Our faith then must be different from the faith of devils. For our
faith purifies the heart; but their faith makes them guilty. For they
do wickedly, and therefore say they to the Lord, "What have we to do
with Thee?" When thou hearest the devils say this, thinkest thou that
they do not acknowledge Him? "We know," they say, "who Thou art: Thou
art the Son of God." [1912] This Peter says, and is commended; the
devil says it, and is condemned. Whence cometh this, but that though
the words be the same, the heart is different? Let us then make a
distinction in our faith, and not be content to believe. This is no
such faith as purifieth the heart. "Purifying their hearts," it is
said, "by faith." [1913] But by what, and what kind of faith, save that
which the Apostle Paul defines when he says, "Faith which worketh by
love." [1914] That faith distinguishes us from the faith of devils, and
from the infamous and abandoned conduct of men. "Faith," he says. What
faith? "That which worketh by love," and which hopeth for what God doth
promise. Nothing is more exact or perfect than this definition. There
are then in faith these three things. He in whom that faith is which
worketh by love, must necessarily hope for that which God doth promise.
Hope therefore is the associate of faith. For hope is necessary as long
as we see not what we believe, lest perhaps through not seeing, and by
despairing to see, we fail. That we see not, doth make us sad; but that
we hope we shall see, comforteth us. Hope then is here, and she is the
associate of faith. And then charity also, by which we long, and strive
to attain, and glow with desire, and hunger and thirst. This then is
taken in also; and so there will be faith, hope, and charity. For how
shall there not be charity there, since charity is nothing else but
love? And this faith is itself defined as that "which worketh by love."
Take away faith, and all thou believest perisheth; take away charity,
and all that thou dost perisheth. For it is the province of faith to
believe, of charity to do. For if thou believest without love, thou
dost not apply thyself to good works; or if thou dost, it is as a
servant, not as a son, through fear of punishment, not through love of
righteousness. Therefore I say, that faith purifieth the heart, which
worketh by love.
12. And what does this faith effect at present? What does it by so many
testimonies of Scripture, by its manifold lessons, its various and
plentiful exhortations, but make us "see now through a glass darkly,
and hereafter face to face." But return not now in thought again to
this thy bodily face. Think only of the face of the heart. Force,
compel, press thine heart to think of things divine. Whatsoever occurs
to thy mind that is like to a body, throw it off from thee. If thou
canst not yet say, "It is this," yet at least say, "It is not this."
For when wilt thou be able to say, "This is God"? Not even then, when
thou shall see Him; for what thou shalt then see is ineffable. Thus the
Apostle says, that he "was caught up into the third heaven, and heard
ineffable words." [1915] If the words are ineffable, what is He whose
words they are? Therefore as thou dost think of God, perchance there is
presented to thee the idea of some human figure of marvellous and
exceeding greatness, and thou hast set it before the eyesof thy mind as
something very great, and grand, and of vast extension. Still somewhere
thou hast set bounds to it. If thou hast, it is not God. But if thou
hast not set bounds to it, where can the face be? Thou art fancying to
thyself some huge body, and in order to distinguish the members in it,
thou must needs set bounds to it. For in no other way but by setting
bounds to this large body, canst thou distinguish the members. But what
art thou about, O foolish and carnal imagination! Thou hast made a
large bulky body, and so much the larger, as thou hast thought the more
to honour God. Another adds one cubit to it, and makes it greater than
before.
13. But "I have read," you will say. What hast thou read, who hast
understood nothing? Yet tell me, what hast thou read? Let us not thrust
back the babe in understanding with his play. Tell me, what hast thou
read? "Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool." [1916] I
hear thee; I have read it also: but it may be that thou thinkest
thyself to have the advantage, in that thou hast both read and
believed. But I also believe what thou hast just said. Let us then
believe it together. What do I say? Let us search it out together. Lo!
hold fast what thou hast so read and believed; "Heaven is My throne
(that is, "my seat," for "throne," [1917] in Greek, is "seat," [1918]
in Latin), and the earth is My footstool." But hast thou not read these
words as well, "Who has meted out the heaven with the palm of His
hand?" [1919] I conclude that thou hast read them; thou dost
acknowledge them, and confess that thou believest them; for in that
book we read both the one and the other, and believe both. But now
think a while, and teach me. I make thee my teacher, and myself the
little one. Teach me, I pray thee, "Who is He that sitteth on the palm
of His hand?"
14. See, thou hast drawn the figure and lineaments of the members of
God from a human body. And perhaps it has occurred to thee to think,
that it is according to the body that we were made after the Image of
God. I will admit this idea for a time to be considered, and canvassed,
and examined, and by disputation to be thoroughly sifted. Now then, if
it please thee, hear me; for I heard thee in what thou wast pleased to
say. God sitteth in heaven, and meteth out the heaven with His palm.
What! doth the same heaven become broad when it is God's seat, and
narrow, when He meteth it out? Or is [1920] God when sitting, limited
to the measure of His palm? If this be so, God did not make us after
His likeness, for the palm of our hand is much narrower than that part
of the body whereon we sit. But if He be as broad in His palm as in His
sitting, He hath made our members quite unlike His. There is no
resemblance here. Let the Christian then blush to set up such an idol
in his heart as this. Wherefore take heaven for all saints. For the
earth also is spoken of all who are in the earth, "Let all the earth
worship Thee." [1921] If we may properly say with regard to those who
dwell on the earth, "Let all the earth worship Thee," we may with the
same propriety say also as to those who dwell in heaven, "Let all the
heaven bear Thee." For even the Saints who dwell on earth, though in
their body they tread the earth, in heart dwell in heaven. For it is
not in vain that they are reminded to "lift up their hearts," [1922]
and when they are so reminded, they answer, "that they lift them up:"
nor in vain is it said, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those
things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth."
[1923] In so far therefore as they have their conversation there, they
do bear God, and they are heaven; because they are the seat of God; and
when they declare the words of God, "The heavens declare the glory of
God." [1924]
15. Return then with me to the face of the heart, and make it ready.
That to which God speaketh is within. The ears, and eyes, and all the
rest of the visible members, are either the dwelling place or the
instrument of some thing within. It is the inner man where Christ doth
dwell, now [1925] by faith, and hereafter He will dwell in it, by the
presence of His Divinity, when we shall have known "what is the length,
and breadth, and depth, and height; when we shall have known also the
love of Christ that surpasseth knowledge, that we may be filled with
all the fulness of God." [1926] Now then if thou wouldest enter into
the meaning of these words, summon all thy powers [1927] to comprehend
the breadth, and length, and height, and depth. Wander not in the
imagination of the thoughts through the spaces of the world, and the
yet comprehensible extent of this so vast a body. Look for what I am
speaking of in thine own self. The "breadth" is in good works; the
"length" is in long-suffering and perseverance in well-doing; the
"height" is in the expectation of rewards above, for which height's
sake thou art bidden "to lift up thy heart." Do well, and persevere in
well-doing, because of God's reward. Esteem earthly things as nothing,
lest, when this earth shall be smitten with any scourge of that wise
One, thou say that thou hast worshipped God in vain, hast done good
works in vain, hast persevered in good works in vain. For by doing good
works thou hadst as it were the "breadth," by persevering in them thou
hadst as it were the "length;" but by seeking earthly things thou hast
not had the "height." Now observe the "depth;" it is the grace of God
in the secret dispensation of His will. "For who hath known the mind of
the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor?" [1928] and, "Thy judgments
are as a great depth." [1929]
16. This conversation of well-doing, of perseverance in well-doing, of
hoping for rewards above, of the secret dispensation of the grace of
God, in wisdom not in foolishness, nor yet in finding fault, because
one man is after this manner and another after that; for "there is no
iniquity with God;" [1930] apply this, I say, if you think good, also
to the Cross of thy Lord. For it was not without a meaning [1931] that
He chose this kind of death, in whose power it was even either to die
or not. Now if it was in His power to die or not, why was it not in His
power also to die in this or the other manner! Not without a meaning
then did He select the Cross, whereby to crucify thee to this world.
For the "breadth" is the transverse beam in the cross where the hands
are fastened, to signify good works. The "length" is in that part of
the wood which reaches from this transverse beam to the ground. For
there the body is crucified and in a manner stands, and this standing
signifies perseverance. Now "the height" is in that part, which from
the same transverse beam projects upward to the head, and hereby is
signified the expectation of things above. And where is the "depth" but
in that part which is fixed in the ground? For so is the dispensation
of grace, hidden and in secret. It is not seen itself, but from thence
is projected all that is seen. After this, when thou shalt have
comprehended all these things, not in the mere understanding but in
action also ("for a good understanding have all they that do
hereafter)," [1932] then if thou canst, stretch out thyself to attain
to the knowledge of the "love of Christ which passeth knowledge." When
thou hast attained to it, thou "wilt be filled with all the fulness of
God." Then will be fulfilled the "face to face." Now thou wilt be
filled with all the fulness of God, not as if God should be full of
thee, but so that thou shalt be full of God. Seek there, if thou canst,
for any bodily face. Away with such trifles from the eye of the mind.
Let the child cast away his playthings, and learn to handle more
serious matters. And in many things we are but children; and when we
were more so than we are, we were borne with by our betters. "Follow
peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God."
[1933] For by this is the heart purified; for that in it is that faith
"which worketh by love." Hence, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God."
__________________________________________________________________
[1881] Meruit.
[1882] This portion of St. Matthew is the gospel during the whole
octave of All Saints, as in our own Church on All Saints' Day; the
corresponding portion of St. Luke is read in the Comm. Plur. Mart.
[1883] Matt. v. 3.
[1884] Luke xiv. 11 and xviii. 14.
[1885] Matt. v. 5 (4, Vulgate).
[1886] Matt. v. 4 (5, Vulgate).
[1887] Peregrinari.
[1888] Matt. v. 6.
[1889] John iv. 13.
[1890] John vi. 41.
[1891] Ps. xxxvi. 9.
[1892] Matt. v. 7.
[1893] Matt. v. 8.
[1894] Eph. i. 18.
[1895] 2 Cor. v. 6, 7.
[1896] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[1897] Probably the Sermon xxiii., on Ps. lxxiii. 23, seu de visione
Dei (Ben.).
[1898] Rom. i. 22, 23.
[1899] Wisd. i. 1.
[1900] Ps. xxvi. 8, Sept. (xxvii. English version).
[1901] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[1902] Wisd. i.
[1903] 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[1904] John iv. 24.
[1905] 1 Sam. v. 3.
[1906] Terra.
[1907] Terram.
[1908] Apta est.
[1909] Acts xv. 9.
[1910] Spiritali.
[1911] Jas. ii. 19.
[1912] Luke iv. 34; Matt. xvi. 16.
[1913] Acts xv. 9.
[1914] Gal. v. 6.
[1915] 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.
[1916] Isa. lxvi. 1.
[1917] Thronus.
[1918] Sedes.
[1919] Isa. xl. 12.
[1920] An ipse Deus tantus est in sedendo quantus in palmo.
[1921] Ps. lxv. 4, Sept. (lxvi. English version).
[1922] In the Communion Office.
[1923] Col. iii. 1, 2.
[1924] Ps. xix. 1.
[1925] Interim.
[1926] Eph. iii. 17, etc.
[1927] Si tibi intellectus hic non displicet advoca te comprehendere.
[1928] Rom. xi. 34.
[1929] Ps. xxxvi. 6.
[1930] 2 Chron. xix. 7; Rom. ix. 14.
[1931] Frustra.
[1932] Ps. cxi. 10.
[1933] Heb. xii. 14.
__________________________________________________________________
Sermon IV.
[LIV. Ben.]
On that which is written in the Gospel, Matt. v. 16, "Even so let your
light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify
your Father Who is in Heaven:" and contrariwise, Chap. vi., "Take heed
that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them."
1. It is wont to perplex many persons, Dearly beloved, that our Lord
Jesus Christ in His Evangelical Sermon, after He had first said, "Let
your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father which is in heaven;" [1934] said afterwards, "Take
heed that ye do not your righteousness [1935] before men to be seen of
them." [1936] For so the mind of him who is weak in understanding is
disturbed, is desirous to obey both precepts, and distracted by
diverse, and contradictory commandments. For a man can as little obey
but one master, if he give contradictory orders, as he can serve two
masters, [1937] which the Saviour Himself hath testified in the same
Sermon to be impossible. What then must the mind that is in this
hesitation do, when it thinks that it cannot, and yet is afraid not to
obey? For if he set his good works in the light to be seen of men, that
he may fulfil the command, "Let your light so shine before men, that
they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in
heaven;" he will think himself involved in guilt because he has done
contrary to the other precept which says, "Take heed that ye do not
your righteousness before men to be seen of them." And again, if
fearing and avoiding this, he conceal his good works, he will think
that he is not obeying Him who commands, saying, "Let your light shine
before men, that they may see your good works."
2. But he who is of a right understanding, fulfils both, and will obey
in both the Universal Lord of all, who would not condemn the slothful
servant, if he commanded those things which could by no means be done.
For give ear to "Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God," [1938] both doing and
teaching both duties. See how his "light shineth before men, that they
may see his good works. We commend ourselves," saith he, "to every
man's conscience in the sight of God." [1939] And again, "For we
provide things honest, not only in the sight of God, but also in the
sight of men." [1940] And again, "Please all men in all things, even as
I please all men in all things." [1941] See, on the other hand, how he
takes heed, that he "do not his righteousness before men to be seen of
them. Let every man," saith he, "prove his own work, and then shall he
have glorying in himself, and not in another." [1942] And again, "For
our glorying is this, the testimony of our conscience." [1943] And
that, than which nothing is plainer, "If," saith he, "I yet pleased
men, I should not be the servant of Christ." [1944] But lest any of
those who are perplexed about the precepts of our Lord Himself as
contradictory, should much more raise a question against His Apostle
and say, How sayest thou, "Please all men in all things, even as I also
please all men in all things:" and yet also sayest, "If I yet pleased
men; I should not be the servant of Christ"? May the Lord Himself be
with us, who spake also in His servant and Apostle, and open to us His
will, and give us the means of obeying it.
3. The very words of the Gospel carry with them their own explanation;
nor do they shut the mouths of those who hunger, seeing they feed the
hearts of them that knock. The intention of a man's heart, its
direction and its aim, is what is to be regarded. For if he who wishes
his good works to be seen of men, sets before men his own glory and
advantage, and seeks for this in the sight of men, he does not fulfil
either of those precepts which the Lord has given as touching this
matter; because He has at once looked to "doing his righteousness
before men to be seen of them;" and his light has not so shined before
men that they should see his good works, and glorify His Father which
is in heaven. It was himself he wished to be glorified, not God; he
sought his own advantage, and loved not the Lord's will. Of such the
Apostle says, "For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus
Christ's." [1945] Accordingly, the sentence was not finished at the
words, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works;" but there was immediately subjoined why this was to be done;
"that they may glorify your Father which is in heaven;" that when a man
who does good works is seen of men, he may have only the intention of
the good work in his own conscience, but may have no intention of being
known, save for the praise of God, for their advantage-sake to whom he
is thus made known; for to them this advantage comes, that God who has
given this power to man begins to be well-pleasing to them; and so they
do not despair, but that the same power might be vouchsafed to
themselves also if they would. And so He did not conclude the other
precept, "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men,"
otherwise than in the words, "to be seen of them;" nor did He add in
this case, "that they may glorify your Father which is in heaven," but
rather, "otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in
heaven." For by this He shows us, that they who are such, as He will
not have His faithful ones to be, seek a reward in this very thing,
that they are seen of men--that it is in this they place their good--in
this that they delight the vanity of their heart--in this is their
emptiness, and inflation, their swelling, and wasting away. For why was
it not sufficient to say, "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness
before men," but that he added, "that ye may be seen of them," except
because there are some who do their "righteousness before men;" not
that they may be seen of them, but that the works themselves may be
seen; and the Father which is in heaven, who hath vouchsafed to endow
with these gifts the ungodly whom He had justified, may be glorified?
4. They who are such, neither do they account their righteousness as
their own, but His, by the faith of whom they live (whence also the
Apostle says, "That I may win Christ, and be found in Him, not having
mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is of the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith;" [1946]
and in another place, "That we may be the righteousness of God in Him."
[1947] Whence also he finds fault with the Jews in these words, "Being
ignorant of God's righteousness, and wishing to establish their own
righteousness, they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness
of God" [1948] ). Whosoever then wish their good works to be so seen of
men, that He may be glorified from whom they have received those things
which are seen in them, and that thereby those very persons who see
them, may through the dutifulness [1949] of faith be provoked to
imitate the good, their light shines truly before men, because there
beams forth from them the light of charity; theirs is no mere empty
fume of pride; and in the very act they take precautions, that they do
not their righteousness before men to be seen of them, in that they do
not reckon that righteousness as their own, nor do they therefore do it
that they may be seen; but that He may be made known, who is praised in
them that are justified, that so He may bring to pass in him that
praises that which is praised in others, that is, that He may make him
that praises to be himself the object of praise. Observe the Apostle
too, how that when he had said, "Please all men in all things, as I
also please all men in all things;" [1950] he did not stop there, as if
he had placed in that, namely, the pleasing men, the end of his
intention; for else he would have said falsely, "If I yet pleased men,
I should not be the servant of Christ;" but he subjoined immediately
why it was that he pleased men; "Not seeking," saith he, "mine own
profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." [1951] So he
at once did not please men for his own profit, lest he should not be
"the servant of Christ;" and he did please men for their salvation's
sake, that he might be a faithful Minister of Christ; because for him
his own conscience in the sight of God was enough, and from him there
shined forth in the sight of men something which they might imitate.
__________________________________________________________________
[1934] Matt. v. 16.
[1935] Justitiam, Vulgate.
[1936] Matt. vi. 1.
[1937] Matt. vi. 24.
[1938] Rom. i. 1.
[1939] 2 Cor. iv. 2.
[1940] 2 Cor. viii. 21.
[1941] 1 Cor. x. 33.
[1942] Gal. vi. 4.
[1943] 2 Cor. i. 12.
[1944] Gal. i. 10.
[1945] Phil. ii. 21.
[1946] Phil. iii. 8, 9.
[1947] 2 Cor. v. 21.
[1948] Rom. x. 3.
[1949] Pietate.
[1950] 1 Cor. x. 33.
[1951] 1 Cor. x. 33.
__________________________________________________________________
Sermon V.
[LV. Ben.]
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. v. 22, "Whosoever shall say to his
brother, thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire."
1. The section of the Holy Gospel which we just now heard when it was
read, must have sorely alarmed us, if we have faith; but those who have
not faith, it alarmed not. And because it does not alarm them, they are
minded to continue in their false security, as knowing not how to
divide and distinguish the proper times of security and fear. Let him
then who is leading now that life which has an end, fear, that in that
life which is without end, he may have security. Therefore were we
alarmed. For who would not fear Him who speaketh the truth, and saith,
"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of
hell fire." [1952] Yet "the tongue can no man tame." [1953] Man tames
the wild beast, yet he tames not his tongue; he tames the lion, yet he
bridles not his own speech; he tames all else, yet he tames not
himself; he tames what he was afraid of, and what he ought to be afraid
of, in order that he may tame himself, that he does not fear. But how
is this? It is a true sentence, and came forth from an oracle of truth,
"But the tongue can no man tame."
2. What shall we do then, my brethren? I see that I am speaking indeed
to a large assembly, yet, seeing that we are one in Christ, let us take
counsel as it were in secret. No stranger heareth us, we are all one,
because we are all united in one. [1954] What shall we do then?
"Whosoever saith to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell
fire: But the tongue can no man tame." Shall all men go into hell fire?
God forbid! "Lord, Thou art our refuge from generation to generation:"
[1955] Thy wrath is just: Thou sendest no man into hell unjustly.
"Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit?" [1956] and whither shall I flee
from Thee, but to Thee? Let us then understand, Dearly beloved, that if
no man can tame the tongue, we must have recourse to God, that He may
tame it. For if thou shouldest wish to tame it, thou canst not, because
thou art a man. "The tongue can no man tame." Observe a like instance
to this in the case of those beasts which we do tame. The horse does
not tame himself; the camel does not tame himself; the elephant does
not tame himself; the viper does not tame himself; the lion does not
tame himself; and so also man does not tame himself. But that the
horse, and ox, and camel, and elephant, and lion, and viper, may be
tamed, man is sought for. Therefore let God be sought to, that man may
be tamed.
3. Therefore, "O Lord, art Thou become our refuge." To Thee do we
betake ourselves, and with Thy help it will be well with us. For ill is
it with us by ourselves. Because we have left Thee, Thou hast left us
to ourselves. Be we then found in Thee, for in ourselves were we lost.
"Lord, Thou art become our refuge." Why then, brethren, should we doubt
that the Lord will make us gentle, if we give up ourselves to be tamed
by him? Thou hast tamed the lion which thou madest not; shall not He
tame thee, who made thee? For from whence didst thou get the power to
tame such savage beasts? Art thou their equal in bodily strength? By
what power then hast thou been able to tame great beasts? The very
beasts of burden, as they are called, are by their nature wild. For in
their untamed state they are unserviceable. But because custom has
never known them except as in the hands and under the bridle and power
of men, dost thou imagine that they could have been born in this tame
state? But now at all events mark the beasts which are unquestionably
of savage kind. "The lion roareth, who doth not fear?" [1957] And yet
wherein is it that thou dost find thyself to be stronger than he? Not
in strength of body, but in the interior reason of the mind. Thou art
stronger than the lion, in that wherein thou wast made after the image
of God. What! Shall the image of God tame a wild beast; and shall not
God tame His own image?
4. In Him is our hope; let us submit ourselves to Him, and entreat His
mercy. In Him let us place our hope, and until we are tamed, and tamed
thoroughly, that is, are perfected, let us bear our Tamer. For
oftentimes does our Tamer bring forth His scourge too. For if thou dost
bring forth the whip to tame thy beasts, shall not God do so to tame
His beasts (which we are), who of His beasts will make us His sons?
Thou tamest thine horse; and what wilt thou give thy horse, when he
shall have begun to carry thee gently, to bear thy discipline, to obey
thy rule, to be thy faithful, useful [1958] beast? How dost thou repay
him, who wilt not so much as bury him when he is dead, but cast him
forth to be torn by the birds of prey? Whereas when thou art tamed, God
reserveth for thee an inheritance, which is God Himself, and though
dead for a little time, He will raise thee to life again. He will
restore to thee thy body, even to the full number of thy hairs; and
will set thee with the Angels for ever, where thou wilt need no more
His taming hand, but only to be possessed by His exceeding [1959]
mercy. For God will then be "all in all;" [1960] neither will there be
any unhappiness to exercise us, but happiness alone to feed us. Our God
will be Himself our Shepherd; our God will be Himself our Cup; [1961]
our God will be Himself our glory; our God will be Himself our wealth.
What multiplicity of things soever thou seekest here, He alone will be
Himself all these things to thee.
5. Unto this hope is man tamed, and shall his Tamer then be deemed
intolerable? Unto this hope is man tamed, and shall he murmur against
his beneficent Tamer, if He chance to use the scourge? Ye have heard
the exhortation of the Apostle, "If ye are without chastening, ye are
bastards, and not sons; [1962] for what son is he whom the father
chasteneth not? Furthermore," he says, "we have had fathers of our
flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much
rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?" [1963] For
what could thy father do for thee, that he corrected and chastised
thee, brought out the scourge and beat thee? Could he make thee live
for ever? What he could not do for himself, how should he do for thee?
For some paltry sum of money which he had gathered together by usury
and travail, did he discipline thee by the scourge, that the fruit of
his labour when left to thee might not be squandered by thy evil
living. Yes, he beats his son, as fearing lest his labours should be
lost; forasmuch as he left to thee what he could neither retain here,
nor carry away. For he did not leave thee anything here which could be
his own; he went off, that so thou mightest come on. But thy God, thy
Redeemer, thy Tamer, thy Chastiser, thy Father, instructeth thee. To
what end? That thou mayest receive an inheritance, when thou shalt not
have to carry thy father to his grave, but shall have thy Father
Himself for thine inheritance. Unto this hope art thou instructed, and
dost thou murmur? and if any sad chance befall thee, dost thou (it may
be) blaspheme? Whither wilt thou go from His Spirit? But now He letteth
thee alone, and doth not scourge thee; or He abandoneth thee in thy
blaspheming; shalt thou not experience His judgment? Is it not better
that He should scourge thee and receive thee, than that He should spare
thee and abandon thee?
6. Let us say then to the Lord our God, "Lord, Thou art become our
refuge from generation to generation." In the first and second
generations Thou art become our refuge. Thou wast our refuge, that we
might be born, who before were not. Thou wast our refuge, that we might
be born anew, who were evil. Thou wast a refuge to feed those that
forsake Thee. Thou art a refuge to raise up and direct Thy children.
"Thou art become our refuge." We will not go back from Thee, when Thou
hast delivered us from all our evils, and filled us with Thine own good
things. Thou givest good things now, Thou [1964] dealest softly with
us, that we be not wearied in the way; Thou dost correct, and chastise,
and smite, and direct us, that we may not wander from the way. Whether
therefore Thou dealest softly with us, that we be not wearied in the
way, or chastisest us, that we wander not from the way, "Thou art
become our refuge, O Lord."
__________________________________________________________________
[1952] Matt. v. 22.
[1953] Jas. iii. 8.
[1954] In unum.
[1955] Ps. lxxxix. 1, Sept. (xc. English version).
[1956] Ps. cxxxix. 7.
[1957] Amos iii. 8.
[1958] There is a paranomasia here in the original, which it is not
possible to preserve in the translation: "Esse jumentum, hoc est
adjumentum infirmitatis suae."
[1959] Piissimo.
[1960] 1 Cor. xv. 28.
[1961] Potus.
[1962] Heb. xii. 8.
[1963] Heb. xii. 7, 9.
[1964] Blandiris.
__________________________________________________________________
Sermon VI.
[LVI. Ben.]
On the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. vi. 9, etc. to the
Competentes. [1965]
1. The blessed Apostle, to show that those times when it should come to
pass that all the nations should believe in Christ had been foretold by
the Prophets, produced this testimony where it is written, "And it
shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be
saved." [1966] For before time the name of the Lord who made heaven and
earth was called upon amongst the Israelites only; the rest of the
nations called upon dumb and deaf idols, by whom they were not heard,
or by devils, by whom they were heard to their harm. "But when the
fulness of time came," that was fulfilled which had been foretold, "And
it shall be, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall
be saved." Moreover, because the Jews, even those who believed in
Christ, grudged the Gospel to the Gentiles, and said that the Gospel
ought not to be preached to them who were not circumcised; because
against these the Apostle Paul alleged this testimony, "And it shall
be, that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord, shall be
saved;" [1967] he immediately subjoined, to convince those who were
unwilling that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, the
words, "But how shall they call upon Him, in whom they have not
believed? or how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
or how shall they hear without a preacher? or how shall they preach
except they be sent?" Because then he said, "how shall they call upon
Him in whom they have not believed?" ye have not first learnt the
Lord's Prayer, and after that the Creed; but first the Creed, where ye
might know what to believe, and afterwards the Prayer, where ye might
know whom to call upon. The Creed then has respect to the faith, the
Lord's Prayer to prayer; because it is he who believeth, that is heard
when he calleth.
2. But many ask for what they ought not to ask, not knowing what is
expedient for them. Two things therefore must he that prays beware of;
that he ask not what he ought not; and that he ask not from whom he
ought not. From the devil, from idols, from evil spirits, [1968] must
nothing be asked. From the Lord our God Jesus Christ, God the Father of
Prophets, and Apostles, and Martyrs, from the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, from God who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things in
them, from Him must we ask whatsoever we have to ask. But we must
beware that we ask not of Him that which we ought not to ask. If
because we ought to ask for life, thou ask it of dumb and deaf idols,
what doth it profit thee? So if from God the Father, who is in heaven,
thou dost wish for the death of thine enemies, what doth it profit
thee? Hast thou not heard or read in the Psalm, in which the damnable
end of the traitor Judas is foretold, how the prophecy spake of him,
"Let his prayer be turned into sin?" [1969] If then thou risest up, and
prayest for evil on thine enemies, thy "prayer will be turned into
sin."
3. You have read in the Holy Psalms, how that he who speaks in them
imprecates, as it would seem, many curses upon his enemies. And surely,
one may say, he who speaks in the Psalms is a righteous man; wherefore
then does he so wish evil upon his enemies? He does not wish, but he
foresees, it is a prophecy of one who is telling things to come, not a
vow of malediction; for the prophets knew by the Spirit to whom evil
was appointed to happen, and to whom good; and by prophecy they spake
as if they wished for what they did foresee. But how canst thou know
whether he for whom today thou art asking evil, may not to-morrow be a
better man than thyself? But you will say, I know him to be a wicked
man. Well: thou must know that thou art wicked too. Although it may be
thou takest upon thyself to judge of another's heart what thou dost not
know; but as for thine own self thou knowest that thou art wicked.
Hearest thou not the Apostle saying, "Who was before a blasphemer, and
a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it
ignorantly in unbelief?" [1970] Now when the Apostle Paul persecuted
the Christians, binding them wherever he found them, and drew them to
the Chief Priests to be questioned and punished, what think ye,
brethren, did the Church pray against him, or for him? Surely the
Church of God which had learnt instruction from her Lord, who said as
He hung upon the Cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do," [1971] so prayed for Paul (or rather as yet Saul), that that
might be wrought in him which was wrought. For in that he says, "But I
was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea which are in Christ: only
they heard that he who persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the
faith which once he destroyed; and they magnified God in me;" [1972]
why did they magnify God, but because they asked this of God, before it
came to pass?
4. Our Lord then first of all cut off "much speaking," that thou
mightest not bring a multitude of words unto God, as though by thy many
words thou wouldest teach Him. Therefore when thou prayest thou hast
need of piety, not of wordiness. "For your Father knoweth what is
needful for you, before ye ask Him." [1973] Be ye loth then to use many
words, for He knoweth what is needful for you. But lest peradventure
any should say here, If He know what is needful for us, why should we
use so much as a few words? why should we pray at all? He knoweth
Himself; let Him then give what He knoweth to be needful for us. Yes,
but it is His will that thou shouldest pray, that He may give to thy
longings, that His gifts may not be lightly esteemed; seeing He hath
Himself formed this longing desire in us. The words therefore which our
Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us in His prayer, are the rule and
standard of our desires. Thou mayest not ask for anything but what is
written there.
5. "Do ye therefore say," saith he, "Our Father, which art in heaven."
Where ye see ye have begun to have God for your Father. Ye will have
Him, when ye are new born. Although even now before ye are born, ye
have been conceived of His seed, as being on the eve of being brought
forth in the font, the womb as it were of the Church. "Our Father,
which art in heaven." Remember then, that ye have a Father in heaven.
Remember that ye were born of your father Adam unto death, that ye are
to be born anew of God the Father unto life. And what ye say, say in
your hearts. Only let there be the earnest affection of prayer, and
there will be the effectual [1974] answer of Him who heareth prayer.
"Hallowed be thy Name." Why dost thou ask, that God's Name may be
hallowed? It is holy. Why then askest thou for that which is already
holy? And then when thou dost ask that His Name may be hallowed, dost
thou not as it were pray to Him for Him, and not for thyself? No.
Understand it aright, and it is for thine own self thou askest. For
this thou askest, that what is always in itself holy, may be hallowed
in thee. What is "be hallowed?" "Be accounted holy," be not despised.
So then you see, that the good thou dost wish, thou wishest for thine
own self. For if thou despise the Name of God, for thyself it will be
ill, and not for God.
6. "Thy kingdom come." [1975] To whom do we speak? and will not God's
kingdom come, if we ask it not. For of that kingdom do we speak which
will be after the end of the world. For God hath a kingdom always;
neither is He ever without a kingdom, whom the whole creation serveth.
But what kingdom then dost thou wish for? That of which it is written
in the Gospel, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom
which is prepared for you from the beginning of the world." [1976] Lo
here is the kingdom whereof we say, "Thy kingdom come." We pray that it
may come in us; we pray that we may be found in it. For come it
certainly will; but what will it profit thee, if it shall find thee at
the left hand? Therefore, here again it is for thine own self that thou
wishest well; for thyself thou prayest. This it is that thou dost long
for; this desire in thy prayer, that thou mayest so live, that thou
mayest have a part in the kingdom of God, which is to be given to all
saints. Therefore when thou dost say, "Thy kingdom come," thou dost
pray for thyself, that thou mayest live well. Let us have part in Thy
kingdom: let that come even to us, which is to come to Thy saints and
righteous ones.
7. "Thy will be done." [1977] What! if thou say not this, will not God
do His will? Remember what thou hast repeated in the Creed, "I believe
in God the Father Almighty." If He be Almighty, why prayest thou that
His will may be done? What is this then, "Thy will be done"? May it be
done in me, that I may not resist Thy will. Therefore here again it is
for thyself thou prayest, and not for God. For the will of God will be
done in thee, though it be not done by thee. For both in them to whom
He shall say, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom
prepared for you from the beginning of the world;" [1978] shall the
will of God be done, that the saints and righteous may receive the
kingdom; and in them to whom He shall say, "Depart ye into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," [1979] shall the will of
God be done, that the wicked may be condemned to everlasting fire. That
His will may be done by thee is another thing. It is not then without a
cause, but that it may be well with thee, that thou dost pray that His
will may be done in thee. But whether it be well or ill with thee, it
will still be done in thee: but O that it may be done by thee also. Why
do I say then, "Thy will be done in heaven and in earth," and do not
say, "Thy will be done by heaven and earth?" Because what is done by
thee, He Himself doeth in thee. Never is anything done by thee which He
Himself doeth not in thee. Sometimes, indeed, He doeth in thee what is
not done by thee; but never is anything done by thee, if He do it not
in thee.
8. But what is "in heaven and in earth," or, "as in heaven so in
earth?" The Angels do Thy will; may we do it also. "Thy will be done as
in heaven so in earth." The mind is heaven, the flesh is earth. When
thou dost say (if so be thou do say it) with the Apostle, "With my mind
I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin;" [1980] the
will of God is done in heaven, but not yet in earth. But when the flesh
shall be in harmony with the mind, and "death shall be swallowed up in
victory," [1981] so that no carnal desires shall remain for the mind to
be in conflict with, when strife in the earth shall have passed away,
the war of the heart be over, and that be gone by which is spoken, "the
flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for
these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the
things that ye would;" [1982] when this war, I say, shall be over, and
all concupiscence shall have been changed into charity, nothing shall
remain in the body to oppose the spirit, nothing to be tamed, nothing
to be bridled, nothing to be trodden down; but the whole shall go on
through concord unto righteousness, and the will of God will be done in
heaven and in earth. "Thy will be done in heaven and in earth." We wish
for perfection, when we pray for this. "Thy will be done as in heaven
so in earth." In the Church the spiritual are heaven, the carnal are
earth. So then, "Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth;" that as
the spiritual do serve Thee, so the carnal being reformed may serve
Thee also. "Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth." There is yet
another very spiritual [1983] meaning of it. For we are admonished to
pray for our enemies. The Church is heaven, the enemies of the Church
are earth. What then is, "Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth"?
May our enemies believe, as we also believe in Thee! may they become
friends, and end their enmities! They are earth, therefore are they
against us; may they become heaven, and they will be with us.
9. "Give us this day our daily bread." [1984] Now here it is manifest,
that it is for ourselves we pray. When thou sayest, "Hallowed be Thy
Name," it requires explanation how it is that it is for thyself thou
prayest, not for God. When thou sayest, "Thy will be done;" here again
is there need of explanation, lest thou think that thou art wishing
well to God in this prayer, that His will may be done, and not rather
that thou art praying for thyself. When thou sayest, "Thy kingdom
come;" this again must be explained, lest thou think that thou art
wishing well to God in this prayer that He may reign. But from this
place and onwards to the end of the Prayer, it is plain that we are
praying to God for our own selves. When thou sayest, "Give us this day
our daily bread," thou dost profess thyself to be God's beggar. But be
not ashamed at this; how rich soever any man be on earth, he is still
God's beggar. The beggar takes his stand before the rich man's house;
but the rich man himself stands before the door of the great rich One.
Petition is made to him, and he maketh his petition. If he were not in
need, he would not knock at the ears of God in prayer. And what doth
the rich man need? I am bold to say, the rich man needeth even daily
bread. For how is it that he hath abundance of all things? whence but
because God hath given it him? What should he have, if God withdrew His
hand? Have not many laid down to sleep in wealth, and risen up in
beggary? And that he doth not want, is due to God's mercy, not to his
own power.
10. But this bread, Dearly beloved, by which our body is filled, by
which the flesh is recruited day by day; this bread, I say, God giveth
not to those only who praise, but to those also who blaspheme Him; "Who
maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain
upon the just and on the unjust." [1985] Thou praisest Him, and He
feedeth thee; thou dost blaspheme Him, He feedeth thee. He waiteth for
thee to repent; but if thou wilt not change thyself, He will condemn
thee. Because then both good and bad receive this bread from God,
thinkest thou there is no other bread for which the children ask, of
which the Lord said in the Gospel, "It is not meet to take the
children's bread, and to cast it to dogs?" [1986] Yes, surely there is.
What then is that bread? and why is it called daily? Because this is
necessary as the other; for without it we cannot live; without bread we
cannot live. It is shamelessness to ask for wealth from God; it is no
shamelessness to ask for daily bread. That which ministereth to pride
is one thing, that which ministereth to life another. Nevertheless,
because this bread which may be seen and handled, is given both to the
good and bad; there is a daily bread, for which the children pray. That
is the word of God, which is dealt out to us day by day. Our bread is
daily bread; and by it live not our bodies, but our souls. It is
necessary for us who are even now labourers in the vineyard,--it is our
food,