Anf-02 vi.iv.i.xviii Pg 8.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.vi.vi Pg 28.1
Anf-03 v.viii.xxvi Pg 8
Isa. i. 19.
the expression means the blessings which await the flesh when in the kingdom of God it shall be renewed, and made like the angels, and waiting to obtain the things “which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man.”7467 7467
Anf-02 vi.iii.i.ix Pg 70.2
Anf-01 v.xvi.viii Pg 2
Comp. Deut. xxxi. 7; 23.
in and out the people of the Lord that are in Antioch, and so “the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheep which have no shepherd.”1293 1293
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Anf-01 v.xvi.viii Pg 2
Comp. Deut. xxxi. 7; 23.
in and out the people of the Lord that are in Antioch, and so “the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheep which have no shepherd.”1293 1293
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Npnf-201 iii.ix.xv Pg 33
Anf-03 v.x.ii Pg 8
Deut. vi. 12.
But setting before them blessings and curses, He also says: “Blessings shall be yours, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, whatsoever I command you this day, and do not wander from the way which I have commanded you, to go and serve other gods whom ye know not.”8234 8234
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxiii Pg 6
What in the Punic language is called Mammon, says Rigaltius, the Latins call lucrum, “gain or lucre.” See Augustine, Serm. xxxv. de Verbo domini. I would add Jerome, On the VI. of Matthew where he says: “In the Syriac tongue, riches are called mammon.” And Augustine, in another passage, book ii., On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, says: “Riches in Hebrew are said to be called mammon. This is evidently a Punic word, for in that language the synonyme for gain (lucrum) is mammon.” Compare the same author on Ps. ciii. (Oehler).
For when advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the example of that steward who, when removed from his office,4776 4776 Ab actu.
relieves his lord’s debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help, He said, “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness,” that is to say, of money, even as the steward had done. Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator4777 4777 Auctorem.
of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship4778 4778 Famulatam.
to it, He hurled4779 4779 Ammentavit.
this sentence against them, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”4780 4780
Anf-01 ix.vi.xxvii Pg 22
Num. xvi. 15.
In this way, too, Samuel, who judged the people so many years, and bore rule over Israel without any pride, in the end cleared himself, saying, “I have walked before you from my childhood even unto this day: answer me in the sight of God, and before His anointed (Christi ejus); whose ox or whose ass of yours have I taken, or over whom have I tyrannized, or whom have I oppressed? or if I have received from the hand of any a bribe or [so much as] a shoe, speak out against me, and I will restore it to you.”4167 4167
Anf-03 iv.ii Pg 49
See Judg. ix. 2 sqq.
and perhaps, too, to the “thistle” of Jehoash’s.31 31
Npnf-201 iii.xv.ix Pg 24
Npnf-201 iv.vi.i.xxxviii Pg 12
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 72.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 109.1
Anf-02 vi.ii.viii Pg 17.1
Anf-03 v.iv.ii.iv Pg 3
Isa. xl. 18; 25.
Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371 2371 Denique.
you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372 2372 Excidet.
from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373 2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2.
in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374 2374 Scilicet.
who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375 2375 Graduum.
to Him) the very summit,2376 2376 Culmen.
as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377 2377 Minutalibus regnis.
prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378 2378 Undique.
into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379 2379 Substantiis.
and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380 2380 Eliquetur.
to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 72.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 109.1
Anf-03 v.iv.ii.iv Pg 3
Isa. xl. 18; 25.
Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371 2371 Denique.
you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372 2372 Excidet.
from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373 2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2.
in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374 2374 Scilicet.
who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375 2375 Graduum.
to Him) the very summit,2376 2376 Culmen.
as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377 2377 Minutalibus regnis.
prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378 2378 Undique.
into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379 2379 Substantiis.
and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380 2380 Eliquetur.
to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Anf-02 v.ii.ix Pg 5.1
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxi Pg 23
Jer. ii. 31.
That is to say: “Then have I none whom I may call to me; have I no place whence I may bring them?” “Since my people have said, We will come no more unto thee.”4747 4747
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxi Pg 24
Jer. ii. 31.
Therefore He sent out to call others, but from the same city.4748 4748
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 6
VERSE (11) - De 7:12-18; 8:10-20; 32:15 Jud 3:7 Pr 30:8,9 Jer 2:31,32
