Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To Jerome
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter LXXXII.
(a.d. 405.)
A Reply to Letters LXXII., LXXV., and LXXXI.
To Jerome, My Lord Beloved and
Honoured in the Bowels of Christ, My Holy Brother and
Fellow-Presbyter, Augustin Sends Greeting in the Lord.
1. Long ago I sent to your Charity a long letter in
reply to the one which you remember sending to me by your holy son
Asterius, who is now not only my brother, but also my colleague.
Whether that reply
reached you or not I do not know, unless I am to infer this from
the words in your letter brought to me by our most sincere friend
Firmus, that if the one who first assaulted you with his sword has
been driven back by your pen, you rely upon my good feeling and
equity to lay blame on the one who brought, not on the one who
repelled, the accusation. From this one indication, though very
slight, I infer that you have read my letter. In that letter I
expressed indeed my sorrow that so great discord had arisen between
you and Rufinus, over the strength of whose former friendship
brotherly love was wont to rejoice in all parts to which the fame
of it had come; but I did not in this intend to rebuke you, my
brother, whom I dare not say that I have found blameable in that
matter. I only lamented the sad lot of men in this world, in whose
friendships, depending as they do on the continuance of mutual
regard, there is no stability, however great that regard may
sometimes be. I would rather, however, have been informed by your
letter whether you have granted me the pardon which I begged, of
which I now desire you to give me more explicit assurance; although
the more genial and cheerful tone of your letter seems to signify
that I have obtained what I asked in mine, if indeed it was
despatched after mine had been read by you, which is, as I have
said, not clearly indicated.
2. You ask, or rather you give a command with
the confiding boldness of charity, that we should amuse ourselves2011
| 2011 Ludamus. Letter LXXXI. On this unfortunate
word of Jerome’s Augustin lingers with most provoking
ingenuity. | in the
field of Scripture without wounding each other. For my part, I am
by all means disposed to exercise myself in earnest much rather
than in mere amusement on such themes. If, however, you have chosen
this word because of its suggesting easy exercise, let me frankly
say that I desire something more from one who has, as you have,
great talents under the control of a benignant disposition,
together with wisdom enlightened by erudition, and whose
application to study, hindered by no other distractions, is year
after year impelled by enthusiasm and guided by genius: the Holy
Spirit not only giving you all these advantages, but expressly
charging you to come with help to those who are engaged in great
and difficult investigations; not as if, in studying Scripture,
they were amusing themselves on a level plain, but as men punting
and toiling up a steep ascent. If, however, perchance, you selected
the expression “ludamus” [let us amuse ourselves] because of
the genial kindliness which befits discussion between loving
friends, whether the matter debated be obvious and easy, or
intricate and difficult, I beseech you to teach me how I may
succeed in securing this; so that when I am dissatisfied with
anything which, not through want of careful attention, but perhaps
through my slowness of apprehension, has not been demonstrated to
me, if I should, in attempting to make good an opposite opinion,
express myself with a measure of unguarded frankness, I may not
fall under the suspicion of childish conceit and forwardness, as if
I sought to bring my own name into renown by assailing illustrious
men;2012
| 2012 See Letter LXXII., sec. 2. | and that
if, when something harsh has been demanded by the exigencies of
argument, I attempt to make it less hard to bear by stating it in
mild and courteous phrases, I may not be pronounced guilty of
wielding a “honeyed sword.” The only way which I can see for
avoiding both these faults, or the suspicion of either of them, is
to consent that when I am thus arguing with a friend more learned
than myself, I must approve of everything which he says, and may
not, even for the sake of more accurate information, hesitate
before accepting his decisions.
3. On such terms we might amuse ourselves
without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but
I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I
confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect
and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone
do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from
error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which
appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that
either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator
has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have
failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them,
however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity
and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere
ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they
have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by
means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments
addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your
own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not
suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or
of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they
are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety
and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without
which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could
receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other
in learning!”2013
| 2013 Letter LXVIII. sec. 2. |
Chap. II.
4. Now if, knowing as I do your life and
conversation, I do not believe in regard to you that you have spoken anything with
an intention of dissimulation and deceit, how much more reasonable
is it for me to believe, in regard to the Apostle Paul, that he did
not think one thing and affirm another when he wrote of Peter and
Barnabas: “When I saw that they walked not uprightly, according
to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all,
‘If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles,
and not as to the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as
do the Jews?’”2014
For whom can I confide in, as
assuredly not deceiving me by spoken or written statements, if the
apostle deceived his own “children,” for whom he “travailed
in birth again until Christ (who is the Truth) were formed in
them”?2015
After
having previously said to them, “The things which I write unto
you, behold, before God, I lie not,”2016
could he in writing to these same
persons state what was not true, and deceive them by a fraud which
was in some way sanctioned by expediency, when he said that he had
seen Peter and Barnabas not walking uprightly, according to the
truth of the gospel, and that he had withstood Peter to the face
because of this, that he was compelling the Gentiles to live after
the manner of the Jews?
5. But you will say it is better to believe
that the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that
the Apostle Peter did what was not right. On this principle, we
must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to
believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that
Christ was denied by Peter;2017
and better to charge the book of
Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe
that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God
as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away
the wife of another, and committed such detestable homicide in
procuring the death of her husband.2018
Better far that I should read with
certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on
the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should,
without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn
from it that men have been either commended, or corrected, or
condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who,
though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men,
actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit
suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of
God.”
6. The Manichæans maintain that the greater part of
the Divine Scripture, by which their wicked error is in the most
explicit terms confuted, is not worthy of credit, because they
cannot pervert its language so as to support their opinions; yet
they lay the blame of the alleged mistake not upon the apostles who
originally wrote the words, but upon some unknown corrupters of the
manuscripts. Forasmuch, however, as they have never succeeded in
proving this by more numerous and by earlier manuscripts, or by
appealing to the original language from which the Latin
translations have been drawn, they retire from the arena of debate,
vanquished and confounded by truth which is well known to all. Does
not your holy prudence discern how great scope is given to their
malice against the truth, if we say not (as they do) that the
apostolic writings have been tampered with by others, but that the
apostles themselves wrote what they knew to be untrue?
7. You say that it is incredible that Paul should
have rebuked in Peter that which Paul himself had done. I am not at
present inquiring about what Paul did, but about what he wrote.
This is most pertinent to the matter which I have in
hand,—namely, the confirmation of the universal and
unquestionable truth of the Divine Scriptures, which have been
delivered to us for our edification in the faith, not by unknown
men, but by the apostles, and have on this account been received as
the authoritative canonical standard. For if Peter did on that
occasion what he ought to have done, Paul falsely affirmed that he
saw him walking not uprightly, according to the truth of the
gospel. For whoever does what he ought to do, walks uprightly. He
therefore is guilty of falsehood who, knowing that another has done
what he ought to have done, says that he has not done uprightly.
If, then, Paul wrote what was true, it is true that Peter was not
then walking uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel. He
was therefore doing what he ought not to have done; and if Paul had
himself already done something of the same kind, I would prefer to
believe that, having been himself corrected, he could not omit the
correction of his brother apostle, than to believe that he put down
any false statement in his epistle; and if in any epistle of Paul
this would be strange, how much more in the one in the preface of
which he says, “The things which I write unto you, behold, before
God, I lie not”!
8. For my part, I believe that Peter so acted on
this occasion as to compel the Gentiles to live as Jews: because I
read that Paul wrote this, and I do not believe that he lied. And
therefore Peter was not acting uprightly. For it was contrary to
the truth of the gospel, that those who believed in Christ should
think that without those ancient ceremonies they could not be saved. This was the
position maintained at Antioch by those of the circumcision who had
believed; against whom Paul protested constantly and vehemently. As
to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy,2019
performing a vow at Cenchrea,2020
and
undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the
performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow,2021
it is
manifest that Paul’s design in these things was not to give to
others the impression that he thought that by these observances
salvation is given under the Christian dispensation, but to prevent
men from believing that he condemned as no better than heathen
idolatrous worship, those rites which God had appointed in the
former dispensation as suitable to it, and as shadows of things to
come. For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone
abroad concerning him that he taught men “to forsake Moses.”2022
This would
be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake
him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the
teaching of him of whom Christ said, “Had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.”
9. For mark, I beseech you, the words of
James: “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are
which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are
informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among
the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to
circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What
is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they
will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to
thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and
purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they
may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof
they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou
thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the
Gentiles which have believed, we have written and concluded that
they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves
from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication.”2023
It is, in my opinion, very clear
that the reason why James gave this advice was, that the falsity of
what they had heard concerning him might be known to those Jews,
who, though they had believed in Christ, were jealous for the
honour of the law, and would not have it thought that the
institutions which had been given by Moses to their fathers were
condemned by the doctrine of Christ as if they were profane, and
had not been originally given by divine authority. For the men who
had brought this reproach against Paul were not those who
understood the right spirit in which observance of these ceremonies
should be practised under the Christian dispensation by believing
Jews,—namely, as a way of declaring the divine authority of these
rites, and their holy use in the prophetic dispensation, and not as
a means of obtaining salvation, which was to them already revealed
in Christ and ministered by baptism. On the contrary, the men who
had spread abroad this report against the apostle were those who
would have these rites observed, as if without their observance
there could be no salvation to those who believed the gospel. For
these false teachers had found him to be a most zealous preacher of
free grace, and a most decided opponent of their views, teaching as
he did that men are not justified by these things, but by the grace
of Jesus Christ, which these ceremonies of the law were appointed
to foreshadow. This party, therefore, endeavouring to raise odium
and persecution against him, charged him with being an enemy of the
law and of the divine institutions; and there was no more fitting
way in which he could turn aside the odium caused by this false
accusation, than by himself celebrating those rites which he was
supposed to condemn as profane, and thus showing that, on the one
hand, the Jews were not to be debarred from them as if they were
unlawful, and on the other hand, that the Gentiles were not to be
compelled to observe them as if they were necessary.
10. For if he did in truth condemn these
things in the way in which he was reported to have done, and
undertook to perform these rites in order that he might, by
dissembling, disguise his real sentiments, James would not have
said to him, “and all shall know,” but, “all shall
think that those things whereof they were informed concerning
thee are nothing;”2024
especially seeing that in
Jerusalem itself the apostles had already decreed that no one
should compel the Gentiles to adopt Jewish ceremonies, but had not
decreed that no one should then prevent the Jews from living
according to their customs, although upon them also Christian
doctrine imposed no such obligation. Wherefore, if it was after the
apostle’s decree that Peter’s dissimulation at Antioch took
place, whereby he was compelling the Gentiles to live after the
manner of the Jews, which he himself was not compelled to do,
although he was not forbidden to use Jewish rites in order to
declare the honour of the oracles of God which were committed to
the Jews;—if this, I say, were the case, was it strange that Paul should exhort
him to declare freely that decree which he remembered to have
framed in conjunction with the other apostles at Jerusalem?
11. If, however, as I am more inclined to think,
Peter did this before the meeting of that council at Jerusalem, in
that case also it is not strange that Paul wished him not to
conceal timidly, but to declare boldly, a rule of practice in
regard to which he already knew that they were both of the same
mind; whether he was aware of this from having conferred with him
as to the gospel which both preached, or from having heard that, at
the calling of the centurion Cornelius, Peter had been divinely
instructed in regard to this matter, or from having seen him eating
with Gentile converts before those whom he feared to offend had
come to Antioch. For we do not deny that Peter was already of the
same opinion in regard to this question as Paul himself was. Paul,
therefore, was not teaching Peter what was the truth concerning
that matter, but was reproving his dissimulation as a thing by
which the Gentiles were compelled to act as Jews did; for no other
reason than this, that the tendency of all such dissembling was to
convey or confirm the impression that they taught the truth who
held that believers could not be saved without circumcision and
other ceremonies, which were shadows of things to come.
12. For this reason also he circumcised
Timothy, lest to the Jews, and especially to his relations by the
mother’s side, it should seem that the Gentiles who had believed
in Christ abhorred circumcision as they abhorred the worship of
idols; whereas the former was appointed by God, and the latter
invented by Satan. Again, he did not circumcise Titus, lest he
should give occasion to those who said that believers could not be
saved without circumcision, and who, in order to deceive the
Gentiles, openly declared that this was the view held by Paul. This
is plainly enough intimated by himself, when he says: “But
neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought
in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we
gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of
the gospel might continue with you.”2025
Here we see plainly what he
perceived them to be eagerly watching for, and why it was that he
did not do in the case of Titus as he had done in the case of
Timothy, and as he might otherwise have done in the exercise of
that liberty, by which he had shown that these observances were
neither to be demanded as necessary to salvation, nor denounced as
unlawful.
13. You say, however, that in this discussion
we must beware of affirming, with the philosophers, that some of
the actions of men lie in a region between right and wrong, and are
to be reckoned, accordingly, neither among good actions nor among
the opposite;2026
| 2026 See Jerome’s Letter, LXXV. sec. 16, p. 340. | and it is
urged in your argument that the observance of legal ceremonies
cannot be a thing indifferent, but either good or bad; so that if I
affirm it to be good, I acknowledge that we also are bound to
observe these ceremonies; but if I affirm it to be bad, I am bound
to believe that the apostles observed them not sincerely, but in a
way of dissimulation. I, for my part, would not be so much afraid
of defending the apostles by the authority of philosophers, since
these teach some measure of truth in their dissertations, as of
pleading on their behalf the practice of advocates at the bar, in
sometimes serving their clients’ interests at the expense of
truth. If, as is stated in your exposition of the Epistle to the
Galatians, this practice of barristers may be in your opinion with
propriety quoted as resembling and justifying dissimulation on the
part of Peter and Paul, why should I fear to allege to you the
authority of philosophers whose teaching we account worthless, not
because everything which they say is false, but because they are in
most things mistaken, and wherein they are found affirming truth,
are notwithstanding strangers to the grace of Christ, who is the
Truth?
14. But why may I not say regarding these
institutions of the old economy, that they are neither good nor
bad: not good, since men are not by them justified, they having
been only shadows predicting the grace by which we are justified;
and not bad, since they were divinely appointed as suitable both to
the time and to the people? Why may I not say this, when I am
supported by that saying of the prophet, that God gave unto His
people “statutes that were not good”?2027
For we have in this perhaps the
reason of his not calling them “bad,” but calling them “not
good,” i.e. not such that either by them men could be made
good, or that without them men could not possibly become good. I
would esteem it a favour to be informed by your Sincerity, whether
any saint, coming from the East to Rome, would be guilty of
dissimulation if he fasted on the seventh day of each week,
excepting the Saturday before Easter. For if we say that it is
wrong to fast on the seventh day, we shall condemn not only the
Church of Rome, but also many other churches, both neighbouring and
more remote, in which the same custom continues to be observed. If,
on the other hand, we pronounce it wrong not to fast on the seventh
day, how great is our presumption in
censuring so many churches in the East,
and by far the greater part of the Christian world! Or do you
prefer to say of this practice, that it is a thing indifferent in
itself, but commendable in him who conforms with it, not as a
dissembler, but from a seemly desire for the fellowship and
deference for the feelings of others? No precept, however,
concerning this practice is given to Christians in the canonical
books. How much more, then, may I shrink from pronouncing that to
be bad which I cannot deny to be of divine institution!—this fact
being admitted by me in the exercise of the same faith by which I
know that not through these observances, but by the grace of God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, I am justified.
15. I maintain, therefore, that circumcision, and
other things of this kind, were, by means of what is called the Old
Testament, given to the Jews with divine authority, as signs of
future things which were to be fulfilled in Christ; and that now,
when these things have been fulfilled, the laws concerning these
rights remained only to be read by Christians in order to their
understanding the prophecies which had been given before, but not
to be of necessity practised by them, as if the coming of that
revelation of faith which they prefigured was still future.
Although, however, these rites were not to be imposed upon the
Gentiles, the compliance with them, to which the Jews had been
accustomed, was not to be prohibited in such a way as to give the
impression that it was worthy of abhorrence and condemnation.
Therefore slowly, and by degrees, all this observance of these
types was to vanish away through the power of the sound preaching
of the truth of the grace of Christ, to which alone believers would
be taught to ascribe their justification and salvation, and not to
those types and shadows of things which till then had been future,
but which were now newly come and present, as at the time of the
calling of those Jews whom the personal coming of our Lord and the
apostolic times had found accustomed to the observance of these
ceremonial institutions. The toleration, for the time, of their
continuing to observe these was enough to declare their excellence
as things which, though they were to be given up, were not, like
the worship of idols, worthy of abhorrence; but they were not to be
imposed upon others, lest they should be thought necessary, either
as means or as conditions of salvation. This was the opinion of
those heretics who, while anxious to be both Jews and Christians,
could not be either the one or the other. Against this opinion you
have most benevolently condescended to warn me, although I never
entertained it. This also was the opinion with which, through fear,
Peter fell into the fault of pretending to yield concurrence,
though in reality he did not agree with it; for which reason Paul
wrote most truly of him, that he saw him not walking uprightly,
according to the truth of the gospel, and most truly said of him
that he was compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews. Paul
did not impose this burden on the Gentiles through his sincerely
complying, when it was needful, with these ceremonies, with the
design of proving that they were not to be utterly condemned (as
idol-worship ought to be); for he nevertheless constantly preached
that not by these things, but by the grace revealed to faith,
believers obtain salvation, lest he should lead any one to take up
these Jewish observances as necessary to salvation. Thus,
therefore, I believe that the Apostle Paul did all these things
honestly, and without dissimulation; and yet if any one now leave
Judaism and become a Christian, I neither compel nor permit him to
imitate Paul’s example, and go on with the sincere observance of
Jewish rites, any more than you, who think that Paul dissembled
when he practised these rites, would compel or permit such an one
to follow the apostle in that dissimulation.
16. Shall I also sum up “the matter in
debate, or rather your opinion concerning it”2028
| 2028 See Letter LXXV. sec. 13, p. 338. | (to quote your own expression)? It
seems to me to be this: that after the gospel of Christ has been
published, the Jews who believe do rightly if they offer sacrifices
as Paul did, if they circumcise their children as Paul circumcised
Timothy, and if they observe the “seventh day of the week, as the
Jews have always done, provided only that they do all this as
dissemblers and deceivers.” If this is your doctrine, we are now
precipitated, not into the heresy of Ebion, or of those who are
commonly called Nazarenes, or any other known heresy, but into some
new error, which is all the more pernicious because it originates
not in mistake, but in deliberate and designed endeavour to
deceive. If, in order to clear yourself from the charge of
entertaining such sentiments, you answer that the apostles were to
be commended for dissimulation in these instances, their purpose
being to avoid giving offence to the many weak Jewish believers who
did not yet understand that these things were to be rejected, but
that now, when the doctrine of Christ’s grace has been firmly
established throughout so many nations, and when, by the reading of
the Law and the Prophets throughout all the churches of Christ, it
is well known that these are not read for our observance, but for
our instruction, any man who should propose to feign compliance
with these rites would be regarded as a madman. What objection can
there be to my affirming that the Apostle Paul, and other sound and faithful
Christians, were bound sincerely to declare the worth of these old
observances by occasionally honouring them, lest it should be
thought that these institutions, originally full of prophetic
significance, and cherished sacredly by their most pious
forefathers, were to be abhorred by their posterity as profane
inventions of the devil? For now, when the faith had come, which,
previously foreshadowed by these ceremonies, was revealed after the
death and resurrection of the Lord, they became, so far as their
office was concerned, defunct. But just as it is seemly that the
bodies of the deceased be carried honourably to the grave by their
kindred, so was it fitting that these rites should be removed in a
manner worthy of their origin and history, and this not with
pretence of respect, but as a religious duty, instead of being
forsaken at once, or cast forth to be torn in pieces by the
reproaches of their enemies, as by the teeth of dogs. To carry the
illustration further, if now any Christian (though he may have been
converted from Judaism) were proposing to imitate the apostles in
the observance of these ceremonies, like one who disturbs the ashes
of those who rest, he would be not piously performing his part in
the obsequies, but impiously violating the sepulchre.
17. I acknowledge that in the statement
contained in my letter, to the effect that the reason why Paul
undertook (although he was an apostle of Christ) to perform certain
rites, was that he might show that these ceremonies were not
pernicious to those who desired to continue that which they had
received by the Law from their fathers, I have not explicitly
enough qualified the statement, by adding that this was the case
only in that time in which the grace of faith was at first
revealed; for at that time this was not pernicious. These
observances were to be given up by all Christians step by step, as
time advanced; not all at once, lest, if this were done, men should
not perceive the difference between what God by Moses appointed to
His ancient people, and the rites which the unclean spirit taught
men to practise in the temples of heathen deities. I grant,
therefore, that in this your censure is justifiable, and my
omission deserved rebuke. Nevertheless, long before the time of my
receiving your letter, when I wrote a treatise against Faustus the
Manichæan, I did not omit to insert the qualifying clause which I
have just stated, in a short exposition which I gave of the same
passage, as you may see for yourself if you kindly condescend to
read that treatise; or you may be satisfied in any other way that
you please by the bearer of this letter, that I had long ago
published this restriction of the general affirmation. And I now,
as speaking in the sight of God, beseech you by the law of charity
to believe me when I say with my whole heart, that it never was my
opinion that in our time, Jews who become Christians were either
required or at liberty to observe in any manner, or from any motive
whatever, the ceremonies of the ancient dispensation; although I
have always held, in regard to the Apostle Paul, the opinion which
you call in question, from the time that I became acquainted with
his writings. Nor can these two things appear incompatible to you;
for you do not think it is the duty of any one in our day to feign
compliance with these Jewish observances, although you believe that
the apostles did this.
18. Accordingly, as you in opposing me affirm,
and, to quote your own words, “though the world were to protest
against it, boldly declare that the Jewish ceremonies are to
Christians both hurtful and fatal, and that whoever observes them,
whether he was originally Jew or Gentile, is on his way to the pit
of perdition,”2029
| 2029 See Letter LXXV. sec. 14, pp. 338, 339. | I entirely indorse that statement,
and add to it, “Whoever observes these ceremonies, whether he was
originally Jew or Gentile, is on his way to the pit of perdition,
not only if he is sincerely observing them, but also if he is
observing them with dissimulation.” What more do you ask? But as
you draw a distinction between the dissimulation which you hold to
have been practised by the apostles, and the rule of conduct
befitting the present time, I do the same between the course which
Paul, as I think, sincerely followed in all these examples then,
and the matter of observing in our day these Jewish ceremonies,
although it were done, as by him, without any dissimulation, since
it was then to be approved, but is now to be abhorred. Thus,
although we read that “the law and the prophets were until
John,”2030
and that
“therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not
only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father,
making Himself equal with God,”2031
and that “we have received grace
for grace for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came
by Jesus Christ;”2032
and although it was promised by
Jeremiah that God would make a new covenant with the house of
Judah, not according to the covenant which He made with their
fathers;2033
nevertheless I do not think that the Circumcision of our Lord by
His parents was an act of dissimulation. If any one object that He
did not forbid this because He was but an infant, I go on to say
that I do not think that it was with intention to deceive that He
said to the leper, “Offer for thy cleansing those things which
Moses commanded for a testimony unto
them,”2034
—thereby adding His own precept
to the authority of the law of Moses regarding that ceremonial
usage. Nor was there dissimulation in His going up to the feast,2035
as there
was also no desire to be seen of men; for He went up, not openly,
but secretly.
19. But the words of the apostle himself may
be quoted against me: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”2036
It follows from this that he
deceived Timothy, and made Christ profit him nothing, for he
circumcised Timothy. Do you answer that this circumcision did
Timothy no harm, because it was done with an intention to deceive?
I reply that the apostle has not made any such exception. He does
not say, If ye be circumcised without dissimulation, any more than,
If ye be circumcised with dissimulation. He says unreservedly,
“If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” As,
therefore, you insist upon finding room for your interpretation, by
proposing to supply the words, “unless it be done as an act of
dissimulation,” I make no unreasonable demand in asking you to
permit me to understand the words, “if ye be circumcised,” to
be in that passage addressed to those who demanded circumcision,
for this reason, that they thought it impossible for them to be
otherwise saved by Christ. Whoever was then circumcised because of
such persuasion and desire, and with this design, Christ assuredly
profited him nothing, as the apostle elsewhere expressly affirms,
“If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain.2037
The same
is affirmed in words which you have quoted: “Christ is become of
no effect to you, whosoever of you is justified by the law; ye are
fallen from grace.”2038
His rebuke, therefore, was
addressed to those who believed that they were to be justified by
the law,—not to those who, knowing well the design with which the
legal ceremonies were instituted as foreshadowing truth, and the
time for which they were destined to be in force, observed them in
order to honour Him who appointed them at first. Wherefore also he
says elsewhere, “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the
law,”2039
—a
passage from which you infer, that evidently “he has not the Holy
Spirit who submits to the Law, not, as our fathers affirmed the
apostles to have done, feignedly under the promptings of a wise
discretion, but”—as I suppose to have been the
case—“sincerely.”2040
| 2040 Jerome, Letter LXXV. sec. 14, p. 339. |
20. It seems to me important to ascertain
precisely what is that submission to the law which the apostle here
condemns; for I do not think that he speaks here of circumcision
merely, or of the sacrifices then offered by our fathers, but now
not offered by Christians, and other observances of the same
nature. I rather hold that he includes also that precept of the
law, “Thou shalt not covet,”2041
which we confess that Christians
are unquestionably bound to obey, and which we find most fully
proclaimed by the light which the Gospel has shed upon it.2042
| 2042 Evangelica maxime illustratione
prædicari. | “The
law,” he says, “is holy, and the commandment holy, and just,
and good;” and then adds, “Was, then, that which is good made
death unto me? God forbid.” “But sin, that it might appear sin,
wrought death in me by that which is good; that sin, by the
commandment, might become exceeding sinful.”2043
As he says here, “that sin by
the commandment might become exceeding sinful,” so elsewhere,
“The law entered that the offence might abound; but where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound.”2044
Again, in another place, after
affirming, when speaking of the dispensation of grace, that grace
alone justifies, he asks, “Wherefore then serveth the law?” and
answers immediately, “It was added because of transgressions,
until the Seed should come to whom the promises were made.”2045
The
persons, therefore, whose submission to the law the apostle here
pronounces to be the cause of their own condemnation, are those
whom the law brings in guilty, as not fulfilling its requirements,
and who, not understanding the efficacy of free grace, rely with
self-satisfied presumption on their own strength to enable them to
keep the law of God; for “love is the fulfilling of the law.”2046
Now “the
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts,” not by our own power,
but “by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.”2047
The
satisfactory discussion of this, however, would require too long a
digression, if not a separate volume. If, then, that precept of the
law, “Thou shalt not covet,” holds under it as guilty the man
whose human weakness is not assisted by the grace of God, and
instead of acquitting the sinner, condemns him as a transgressor,
how much more was it impossible for those ordinances which were
merely typical, circumcision and the rest, which were destined to
be abolished when the revelation of grace became more widely known,
to be the means of justifying any man! Nevertheless they were not
on this ground to be immediately shunned with abhorrence, like the
diabolical impieties of heathenism, from the first beginning of the
revelation of the grace which had been by these shadows prefigured; but to be
for a little while tolerated, especially among those who joined the
Christian Church from that nation to whom these ordinances had been
given. When, however, they had been, as it were, honourably buried,
they were thenceforward to be finally abandoned by all
Christians.
21. Now, as to the words which you use, “non
dispensative, ut nostri voluere majores,”2048
| 2048 Letter LXXV. sec. 14, p. 339. | —“not in a way justifiable by
expediency, the ground on which our fathers were disposed to
explain the conduct of the apostles,”—pray what do these words
mean? Surely nothing else than that which I call “officiosum
mendacium,” the liberty granted by expediency being equivalent to
a call of duty to utter a falsehood with pious intention. I at
least can see no other explanation, unless, of course, the mere
addition of the words “permitted by expediency” be enough to
make a lie cease to be a lie; and if this be absurd, why do you not
openly say that a lie spoken in the way of duty2049
| 2049 Mendacium offisiosum. | is to be defended? Perhaps the
name offends you, because the word “officium” is not common in
ecclesiastical books; but this did not deter our Ambrose from its
use, for he has chosen the title “De Officiis” for some of his
books that are full of useful rules. Do you mean to say, that
whoever utters a lie from a sense of duty is to be blamed, and
whoever does the same on the ground of expediency is to be
approved? I beseech you, consider that the man who thinks this may
lie whenever he thinks fit, because this involves the whole
important question whether to say what is false be at any time the
duty of a good man, especially of a Christian man, to whom it has
been said, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall
into condemnation,”2050
and who believes the Psalmist’s
word, “Thou wilt destroy all them that speak lies.”2051
22. This, however, is, as I have said, another
and a weighty question; I leave him who is of this opinion to judge
for himself the circumstances in which he is at liberty to utter a
lie: provided, however, that it be most assuredly believed and
maintained that this way of lying is far removed from the authors
who were employed to write holy writings, especially the canonical
Scriptures; lest those who are the stewards of Christ, of whom it
is said, “It is required in stewards, that a man be found
faithful,”2052
should
seem to have proved their fidelity by learning as an important
lesson to speak what is false when this is expedient for the
truth’s sake, although the word fidelity itself, in the Latin
tongue, is said to signify originally a real correspondence between
what is said and what is done.2053
| 2053 Cum ipsa fides in latino sermone ab eo dicatur
appellata quia fit quod dicitur. | Now, where that which is spoken is
actually done, there is assuredly no room for falsehood. Paul
therefore, as a “faithful steward” doubtless is to be regarded
as approving his fidelity in his writings; for he was a steward of
truth, not of falsehood. Therefore he wrote the truth when he wrote
that he had seen Peter walking not uprightly, according to the
truth of the gospel, and that he had withstood him to the face
because he was compelling the Gentiles to live as the Jews did. And
Peter himself received, with the holy and loving humility which
became him, the rebuke which Paul, in the interests of truth, and
with the boldness of love, administered. Therein Peter left to
those that came after him an example, that, if at any time they
deviated from the right path, they should not think it beneath them
to accept correction from those who were their juniors,—an
example more rare, and requiring greater piety, than that which
Paul’s conduct on the same occasion left us, that those who are
younger should have courage even to withstand their seniors if the
defence of evangelical truth required it, yet in such a way as to
preserve unbroken brotherly love. For while it is better for one to
succeed in perfectly keeping the right path, it is a thing much
more worthy of admiration and praise to receive admonition meekly,
than to admonish a transgressor boldly. On that occasion,
therefore, Paul was to be praised for upright courage, Peter was to
be praised for holy humility; and so far as my judgment enables me
to form an opinion, this ought rather to have been asserted in
answer to the calumnies of Porphyry, than further occasion given to
him for finding fault, by putting it in his power to bring against
Christians this much more damaging accusation, that either in
writing their letters or in complying with the ordinances of God
they practised deceit.
Chap. III.
23. You call upon me to bring forward the name
of even one whose opinion I have followed in this matter, and at
the same time you have quoted the names of many who have held
before you the opinion which you defend.2054
| 2054 Jerome’s Letter, LXXV. sec. 6, p.335. | You also say that if I censure you
for an error in this, you beg to be allowed to remain in error in
company with such great men. I have not read their writings; but
although they are only six or seven in all, you have yourself
impugned the authority of four of them. For as to the Laodicean
author,2055
| 2055 Ibid. sec. 4, p. 334. | whose name
you do not give, you say that he has lately forsaken the Church;
Alexander you describe as a heretic of old standing; and as to
Origen and Didymus, I read in some of your more recent
works, censure
passed on their opinions, and that in no measured terms, nor in
regard to insignificant questions, although formerly you gave
Origen marvellous praise. I suppose, therefore, that you would not
even yourself be contented to be in error with these men; although
the language which I refer to is equivalent to an assertion that in
this matter they have not erred. For who is there that would
consent to be knowingly mistaken, with whatever company he might
share his errors? Three of the seven therefore alone remain,
Eusebius of Emesa, Theodorus of Heraclea, and John, whom you
afterwards mention, who formerly presided as pontiff over the
Church of Constantinople.
24. However, if you inquire or recall to
memory the opinion of our Ambrose,2056
| 2056 In his Commentary on Galations. | and also of our Cyprian,2057
| 2057 In his letter, LXX., to Quintus; Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Am. ed. vol. v. p. 377. | on the
point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been
without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have
maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the
canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit
subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the
slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement
intended to mislead could find a place. Wherefore, when I look
round for a third name that I may oppose three on my side to your
three, I might indeed easily find one, I believe, if my reading had
been extensive; but one occurs to me whose name is as good as all
these others, nay, of greater authority—I mean the Apostle Paul
himself. To him I betake myself; to himself I appeal from the
verdict of all those commentators on his writings who advance an
opinion different from mine. I interrogate him, and demand from
himself to know whether he wrote what was true, or under some plea
of expediency wrote what he knew to be false, when he wrote that he
saw Peter not walking uprightly, according to the truth of the
gospel, and withstood him to his face because by that dissimulation
he was compelling the Gentiles to live after the manner of the
Jews. And I hear him in reply proclaiming with a solemn oath in an
earlier part of the epistle, where he began this narration, “The
things that I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.”2058
25. Let those who think otherwise, however great
their names, excuse my differing from them. The testimony of so
great an apostle using, in his own writings, an oath as a
confirmation of their truth, is of more weight with me than the
opinion of any man, however learned, who is discussing the writings
of another. Nor am I afraid lest men should say that, in
vindicating Paul from the charge of pretending to conform to the
errors of Jewish prejudice, I affirm him to have actually so
conformed. For as, on the one hand, he was not guilty of pretending
conformity to error when, with the liberty of an apostle, such as
was suitable to that period of transition, he did, by practising
those ancient holy ordinances, when it was necessary to declare
their original excellence as appointed not by the wiles of Satan to
deceive men, but by the wisdom of God for the purpose of typically
foretelling things to come; so, on the other hand, he was not
guilty of real conformity to the errors of Judaism, seeing that he
not only knew, but also preached constantly and vehemently, that
those were in error who thought that these ceremonies were to be
imposed upon the Gentile converts, or were necessary to the
justification of any who believed.
26. Moreover, as to my saying that to the Jews
he became as a Jew, and to the Gentiles as a Gentile, not with the
subtlety of intentional deceit, but with the compassion of pitying
love,2059
| 2059 Letter XL. sec. 4, p. 273, quoted also by Jerome,
LXXV. sec. 12, p. 338. | it seems
to me that you have not sufficiently considered my meaning in the
words; or rather, perhaps, I have not succeeded in making it plain.
For I did not mean by this that I supposed him to have practised in
either case a feigned conformity; but I said it because his
conformity was sincere, not less in the things in which he became
to the Jews as a Jew, than in those in which he became to the
Gentiles as a Gentile,—a parallel which you yourself suggested,
and by which I thankfully acknowledge that you have materially
assisted my argument. For when I had in my letter asked you to
explain how it could be supposed that Paul’s becoming to the Jews
as a Jew involved the supposition that he must have acted
deceitfully in conforming to the Jewish observances, seeing that no
such deceptive conformity to heathen customs was involved in his
becoming as a Gentile to the Gentiles; your answer was, that his
becoming to the Gentiles as a Gentile meant no more than his
receiving the uncircumcised, and permitting the free use of those
meats which were pronounced unclean by Jewish law. If, then, when I
ask whether in this also he practised dissimulation, such an idea
is repudiated as palpably most absurd and false: it is an obvious
inference, that in his performing those things in which he became
as a Jew to the Jews, he was using a wise liberty, not yielding to
a degrading compulsion, nor doing what would be still more unworthy
of him, viz. stooping from integrity to fraud out of a regard to
expediency.
27. For to believers, and to those who know the
truth, as the apostle testifies (unless here
too, perhaps, he is deceiving his
readers), “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be
refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.”2060
Therefore to Paul himself, not
only as a man, but as a steward eminently faithful, not only as
knowing, but also as a teacher of the truth, every creature of God
which is used for food was not feignedly but truly good. If, then,
to the Gentiles he became as a Gentile, by holding and teaching the
truth concerning meats and circumcision although he feigned no
conformity to the rites and ceremonies of the Gentiles, why say
that it was impossible for him to become as a Jew to the Jews,
unless he practised dissimulation in performing the rites of their
religion? Why did he maintain the true faithfulness of a steward
towards the wild olive branch that was engrafted, and yet hold up a
strange veil of dissimulation, on the plea of expediency, before
those who were the natural and original branches of the olive tree?
Why was it that, in becoming as a Gentile to the Gentiles, his
teaching and his conduct2061
| 2061 We follow here the reading of fourteen Mss., “agit” instead of
“ait.” | are in harmony with his real
sentiments; but that, in becoming as a Jew to the Jews, he shuts up
one thing in his heart, and declares something wholly different in
his words, deeds, and writings? But far be it from us to entertain
such thoughts of him. To both Jews and Gentiles he owed “charity
out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned;”2062
and
therefore he became all things to all men, that he might gain
all,2063
not with
the subtlety of a deceiver, but with the love of one filled with
compassion; that is to say, not by pretending himself to do all the
evil things which other men did, but by using the utmost pains to
minister with all compassion the remedies required by the evils
under which other men laboured, as if their case had been his
own.
28. When, therefore, he did not refuse to
practise some of these Old Testament observances, he was not led by
his compassion for Jews to feign this conformity, but
unquestionably was acting sincerely; and by this course of action
declaring his respect for those things which in the former
dispensation had been for a time enjoined by God, he distinguished
between them and the impious rites of heathenism. At that time,
moreover, not with the subtlety of a deceiver, but with the love of
one moved by compassion, he became to the Jews as a Jew, when,
seeing them to be in error, which either made them unwilling to
believe in Christ, or made them think that by these old sacrifices
and ceremonial observances they could be cleansed from sin and made
partakers of salvation, he desired so to deliver them from that
error as if he saw not them, but himself, entangled in it; thus
truly loving his neighbour as himself, and doing to others as he
would have others do to him if he required their help,—a duty to
the statement of which our Lord added these words, “This is the
law and the prophets.”2064
29. This compassionate affection Paul
recommends in the same Epistle to the Galatians, saying: “If a
man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an
one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also
be tempted.”2065
See
whether he has not said, “Make thyself as he is, that thou mayest
gain him.” Not, indeed, that one should commit or pretend to have
committed the same fault as the one who has been overtaken, but
that in the fault of that other he should consider what might
happen to himself, and so compassionately render assistance to that
other, as he would wish that other to do to him if the case were
his; that is, not with the subtlety of a deceiver, but with the
love of one filled with compassion. Thus, whatever the error or
fault in which Jew or Gentile or any man was found by Paul, to all
men he became all things,—not by feigning what was not true, but
by feeling, because the case might have been his own, the
compassion of one who put himself in the other’s place,—that he
might gain all.
Chap. IV.
30. I beseech you to look, if you please, for
a little into your own heart,—I mean, into your own heart as it
stands affected towards myself,—and recall, or if you have it in
writing beside you, read again, your own words in that letter (only
too brief) which you sent to me by Cyprian our brother, now my
colleague. Read with what sincere brotherly and loving earnestness
you have added to a serious complaint of what I had done to you
these words: “In this friendship is wounded, and the laws of
brotherly union are set at nought. Let not the world see us
quarrelling like children, and giving material for angry contention
between those who may become our respective supporters or
adversaries.”2066
| 2066 Letter LXXII. sec. 4. | These
words I perceive to be spoken by you from the heart, and from a
heart kindly seeking to give me good advice. Then you add, what
would have been obvious to me even without your stating it: “I
write what I have now written, because I desire to cherish towards
you pure and Christian love, and not to hide in my heart anything
which does not agree with the utterance of my lips.” O pious man,
beloved by me, as God who seeth my soul is witness, with a true
heart I believe your statement; and just as I do not question the
sincerity of the profession which you have thus made in a letter to
me, so do I by all means believe the Apostle Paul when he makes the
very same profession in his letter, addressed not to any one
individual, but to Jews and Greeks, and all those Gentiles who were
his children in the gospel, for whose spiritual birth he travailed,
and after them to so many thousands of believers in Christ, for
whose sake that letter has been preserved. I believe, I say, that
he did not “hide in his heart anything which did not agree with
the utterance of his lips.”
31. You have indeed yourself done towards me
this very thing,—becoming to me as I am,—“not with the
subtlety of deception, but with the love of compassion,” when you
thought that it behoved you to take as much pains to prevent me
from being left in a mistake, in which you believed me to be, as
you would have wished another to take for your deliverance if the
case had been your own. Wherefore, gratefully acknowledging this
evidence of your goodwill towards me, I also claim that you also be
not displeased with me, if, when anything in your treatises
disquieted me, I acquainted you with my distress, desiring the same
course to be followed by all towards me as I have followed towards
you, that whatever they think worthy of censure in my writings,
they would neither flatter me with deceitful commendation nor blame
me before others for that of which they are silent towards myself;
thereby, as it seems to me, more seriously “wounding friendship
and setting at nought the laws of brotherly union.” For I would
hesitate to give the name of Christian to those friendships in
which the common proverb, “Flattery makes friends, and truth
makes enemies,”2067
| 2067 Terence, Andria, Act i. Sc. 1. | is of more authority than the
scriptural proverb, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the
kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”2068
32. Wherefore let us rather do our utmost to
set before our beloved friends, who most cordially wish us well in
our labours, such an example that they may know that it is possible
for the most intimate friends to differ so much in opinion, that
the views of the one may be contradicted by the other without any
diminution of their mutual affection, and without hatred being
kindled by that truth which is due to genuine friendship, whether
the contradiction be in itself in accordance with truth, or at
least, whatever its intrinsic value is, be spoken from a sincere
heart by one who is resolved not “to hide in his heart anything
which does not agree with the utterance of his lips.” Let
therefore our brethren, your friends, of whom you bear testimony
that they are vessels of Christ, believe me when I say that it was
wholly against my will that my letter came into the hands of many
others before it reached your own, and that my heart is filled with
no small sorrow for this mistake. How it happened would take long
to tell, and this is now, if I am not mistaken, unnecessary; since,
if my word is to be taken at all in regard to this, it suffices for
me to say that it was not done by me with the sinister intention
which is supposed by some, and that it was not by my wish, or
arrangement, or consent, or design that this has taken place. If
they do not believe this, which I affirm in the sight of God, I can
do no more to satisfy them. Far be it, however, from me to believe
that they made this suggestion to your Holiness with the malicious
desire to kindle enmity between you and me, from which may God in
His mercy defend us! Doubtless, without any intention of doing me
wrong, they readily suspected me, as a man, to be capable of
failings common to human nature. For it is right for me to believe
this concerning them, if they be vessels of Christ appointed not to
dishonour, but to honour, and made meet by God for every good work
in His great house.2069
If, however, this my solemn
protestation come to their knowledge, and they still persist in the
same opinion of my conduct, you will yourself see that in this they
will do wrong.
33. As to my having written that I had never
sent to Rome a book against you, I wrote this because, in the first
place, I did not regard the name “book” as applicable to my
letter, and therefore was under the impression that you had heard
of something else entirely different from it; in the second place,
I had not sent the letter in question to Rome, but to you; and in
the third place, I did not consider it to be against you, because I
knew that I had been prompted by the sincerity of friendship, which
should give liberty for the exchange of suggestions and corrections
between us. Leaving out of sight for a little while your friends of
whom I have spoken, I implore yourself, by the grace whereby we
have been redeemed, not to suppose that I have been guilty of
artful flattery in anything which I have said in my letters
concerning the good gifts which have been by the Lord’s goodness
bestowed on you. If, however, I have in anything wronged you,
forgive me. As to that incident in the life of some forgotten bard,
which, with perhaps more pedantry than good taste, I quoted from
classic literature, I beg you not to carry the application of it to
yourself further than my words warranted for I immediately added:
“I do not say this in order that you may recover the faculty of
spiritual sight—far be it from me to say that you have lost
it!—but that, having eyes both clear and quick in discernment,
you may turn them to this matter.”2070
| 2070 Letter XL. sec 7, p. 274. | I thought a reference to that
incident suitable exclusively in connection with the παλινῳδία, in which we ought all to
imitate Stesichorus if
we have written anything which it becomes our duty to correct in a
writing of later date, and not at all in connection with the
blindness of Stesichorus, which I neither ascribed to your mind,
nor feared as likely to befall you. And again, I beseech you to
correct boldly whatever you see needful to censure in my writings.
For although, so far as the titles of honour which prevail in the
Church are concerned, a bishop’s rank is above that of a
presbyter, nevertheless in many things Augustin is in inferior to
Jerome; albeit correction is not to be refused nor despised, even
when it comes from one who in all respects may be an inferior.
Chap. V.
34. As to your translation, you have now
convinced me of the benefits to be secured by your proposal to
translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, in order that
you may bring to light those things which have been either omitted
or perverted by the Jews. But I beg you to be so good as state by
what Jews this has been done, whether by those who before the
Lord’s advent translated the Old Testament—and if so, by what
one or more of them—or by the Jews of later times, who may be
supposed to have mutilated or corrupted the Greek
Mss., in order to prevent themselves from being unable to
answer the evidence given by these concerning the Christian faith.
I cannot find any reason which should have prompted the earlier
Jewish translators to such unfaithfulness. I beg of you, moreover,
to send us your translation of the Septuagint, which I did not know
that you had published. I am also longing to read that book of
yours which you named De optimo genere interpretandi, and to
know from it how to adjust the balance between the product of the
translator’s acquaintance with the original language, and the
conjectures of those who are able commentators on the Scripture,
who, notwithstanding their common loyalty to the one true faith,
must often bring forward various opinions on account of the
obscurity of many passages;2071
| 2071 An important sentence, as indicating the
estimation in which Augustin held the “consensus patrum” as an
authority in the interpretation of Scripture. | although this difference of
interpretation by no means involves departure from the unity of the
faith; just as one commentator may himself give, in harmony with
the faith which he holds, two different interpretations of the same
passage, because the obscurity of the passage makes both equally
admissible.
35. I desire, moreover, your translation of
the Septuagint, in order that we may be delivered, so far as is
possible, from the consequences of the notable incompetency of
those who, whether qualified or not, have attempted a Latin
translation; and in order that those who think that I look with
jealousy on your useful labours, may at length, if it be possible,
perceive that my only reason for objecting to the public reading of
your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest,
bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to
the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by
serious cause of offence the flocks of Christ, whose ears and
hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which
the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves.
Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah,2072
if in the
Hebrew it is neither “gourd” nor “ivy,” but something else
which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props,
I would prefer to call it “gourd” in all our Latin versions;
for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at
random, had they not known that the plant was something like a
gourd.
36. I think I have now given a sufficient
answer (perhaps more than sufficient) to your three letters; of
which I received two by Cyprian, and one by Firmus. In replying,
send whatever you think likely to be of use in instructing me and
others. And I shall take more care, as the Lord may help me, that
any letter which I may write to you shall reach yourself before it
falls into the hand of any other, by whom its contents may be
published abroad; for I confess that I would not like any letter of
yours to me to meet with the fate of which you justly complain as
having befallen my letter to you. Let us, however, resolve to
maintain between ourselves the liberty as well as the love of
friends; so that in the letters which we exchange, neither of us
shall be restrained from frankly stating to the other whatever
seems to him open to correction, provided always that this be done
in the spirit which does not, as inconsistent with brotherly love,
displease God. If, however, you do not think that this can be done
between us without endangering that brotherly love, let us not do
it: for the love which I should like to see maintained between us
is assuredly the greater love which would make this mutual freedom
possible; but the smaller measure of it is better than none at
all.2073
| 2073 It is interesting to know that Jerome afterwards
admitted the soundness of the view so ably and reasonably defended
by Augustin in this letter concerning the rebuke of Peter at
Antioch. In Letter CLXXX., addressed to Oceanus, we have these
words: “This question the venerable Father Jerome and I have
discussed fully in letters which we exchanged; and in the last work
which he has published against Pelagius, under the name of
Critobulus, he has maintained the same opinion concerning that
event, and the sayings of the apostles, as I myself had adopted,
following the blessed Cyprian.” See Jerome, book i., against the
Pelagians, and Cyprian, Letter LXX., to Quintus. |
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
