 |
|
ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
(cont) |
|
|
|
by St Augustine of Hippo |
 |
|
|
|
Argument.
The author, having discussed in the preceding book the method of
dealing with unknown signs, goes on in this third book to treat of
ambiguous signs. Such signs may be either direct or figurative. In
the case of direct signs ambiguity may arise from the punctuation,
the pronunciation, or the doubtful signification of the words, and
is to be resolved by attention to the context, a comparison of
translations, or a reference to the original tongue.
In the case
of figurative signs we
need to guard against two mistakes:--1. the interpreting literal
expressions figuratively; 2. the interpreting figurative
expressions literally. The author lays down rules by which we may
decide whether an expression is literal or figurative; the general
rule being, that whatever can be shown to be in its literal sense
inconsistent either with purity of life or correctness of doctrine
must be taken figuratively. He then goes on to lay down rules for
the interpretation of expressions which have been proved to be
figurative; the general principle being, that no interpretation
can be true which does not promote the love of God and the love of
man. The author then proceeds to expound and illustrate the seven
rules of Tichonius the Donatist, which he commends to the
attention of the student of Holy Scripture.
|
|
Ch 1. Summary of the foregoing books, and scope of
that which follows |
|
1. The man who fears God seeks diligently in Holy Scripture for a
knowledge of His will. And when he has become meek through piety,
so as to have no love of strife; when furnished also with a
knowledge of languages, so as not to be stopped by unknown words
and forms of speech, and with the knowledge of certain necessary
objects, so as not to be ignorant of the force and nature of those
which are used figuratively; and assisted, besides, by accuracy in
the texts, which has been secured by skill and care in the matter
of correction;--when thus prepared, let him proceed to the
examination and solution of the ambiguities of Scripture. And that
he may not be led astray by ambiguous signs, I so far as I can
give him instruction (it may happen however, that either from the
greatness of his intellect, or the greater clearness of the light
he enjoys, he shall laugh at the methods I am going to point out
as childish),--but yet, as I was going to say, so far as I can
give instruction, let him who is in such a state of mind that he
can be instructed by me know, that the ambiguity of Scripture lies
either in proper words or in metaphorical, classes which I have
already described in the second book.
|
|
Ch 2. The science of numbers not created, but only
discovered, by man |
|
2. But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in
the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or
pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the
passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to
be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of
faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of
Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I
treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book
about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are
more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it
remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what
comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer
themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into
itself.
3. Now look at some examples. The heretical pointing, "In
principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat" (In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and God
was), so as to make the next sentence run, "Verbum hoc erat in
principio apud Deum" (This word was in the beginning with God),
arises out of unwillingness to confess that the Word was God. But
this must be rejected by the rule of faith, which, in reference to
the equality of the Trinity, directs us to say: "et Deus erat
verbum" (and the Word was God); and then to add: "hoc erat in
principio apud Deum" (the same was in the beginning with God).
4. But the following ambiguity of punctuation does not go
against the faith in either way you take it, and therefore must be
decided from the context. It is where the apostle says: "What I
shall choose I wet not: for I am in a strait betwixt two, having a
desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better:
nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." Now
it is uncertain whether we should read, "ex duobus concupiscentiam
habens " [having a desire for two things], or "compellor
autem ex duobus " [I am in a strait betwixt two]; and so to add: "concupiscentiam
habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo" [having a desire to depart,
and to be with Christ]. But since there follows "multo enim magis
optimum" [for it is far better], it is evident that he says he has
a desire for that which is better; so that, while he is in a
strait betwixt two, yet he has a desire for one and sees a
necessity for the other; a desire, viz., to be with Christ, and a
necessity to remain in the flesh. Now this ambiguity is resolved
by one word that follows, which is translated denim [for]; and the
translators who have omitted this particle have preferred the
interpretation which makes the apostle seem not only in a strait
betwixt two, but also to have a desire for two. We must therefore
punctuate the sentence thus: "et quid eligam ignoro: compellor
autem ex duobus" [what I shall choose I wet not: for I am in a
strait betwixt two]; and after this point follows: "concupiscentiam
habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo" [having a desire to depart,
and to be with Christ]. And, as if he were asked why he has a
desire for this in preference to the other, he adds: "multo enim
magis optimum" [for it is far better]. Why, then, is he in a
strait betwixt the two? Because there is a need for his remaining,
which he adds in these terms: "manere in carne necessarium propter
vos" [nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you].
5. Where, however, the ambiguity cannot be cleared up, either
by the rule of faith or by the context, there is nothing to hinder
us to point the sentence according to any method we choose of
those that suggest themselves. As is the case in that passage to
the Corinthians: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved,
let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Receive us; we
have wronged no man." It is doubtful whether we should read,
mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis et spiritus" [let us
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit], in
accordance with the passage, "that she may be holy both in body
and in spirit," or, "mundemus nos ab omni coinquintione carnis"
[let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh], so as
to make the next sentence, "et spiritus perficientes
sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos" [and perfecting
holiness of spirit in the fear of God, receive us]. Such
ambiguities of punctuation, therefore, are left to the reader's
discretion.
|
|
Ch 3. To which of the above-mentioned studies
attention should be given, and in what spirit |
|
6. And all the directions that I have given about ambiguous
punctuations are to be observed likewise in the case of doubtful
pronunciations. For these too, unless the fault lies in the
carelessness of the reader, are corrected either by the rule of
faith, or by a reference to the preceding or succeeding context;
or if neither of these methods is applied with success, they will
remain doubtful, but so that the reader will not be in fault in
whatever way he may pronounce them. For example, if our faith that
God will not bring any charges against His elect, and that Christ
will not condemn His elect, did not stand in the way, this
passage, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"
might be pronounced in such a way as to make what follows an
answer to this question, "God who justifieth," and to make a
second question, "Who is he that condemneth?" with the answer,
"Christ Jesus who died." But as it would be the height of madness
to believe this, the passage will be pronounced in such a way as
to make the first part a question of inquiry, and the second a
rhetorical interrogative. Now the ancients said that the
difference between an inquiry and an interrogative was this, that
an inquiry admits of many answers, but to an interrogative the
answer must be either "No" or "Yes." The passage will be
pronounced, then, in such a way that after the inquiry, "Who shall
lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" what follows will be
put as an interrogative: "Shall God who justifieth?" the answer
"No" being understood. And in the same way we shall have the
inquiry, "Who is he that condemneth?" and the answer here again in
the form of an interrogative, "Is it Christ who died? yea, rather,
who is risen again? who is even at the right hand of God? who also
maketh intercession for us?" the answer "No" being understood to
every one of these questions. On the other hand, in that passage
where the apostle says, "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles
which followed not after righteousness have attained to
righteousness;" unless after the inquiry, "What shall we say
then?" what follows were given as the answer to this question:
"That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have
attained to righteousness;" it would not be in harmony with the
succeeding context. But with whatever tone of voice one may choose
to pronounce that saying of Nathanael's, "Can any good thing come
out of Nazareth?"--whether with that of a man who gives an
affirmative answer, so that "out of Nazareth" is the only part
that belongs to the interrogation, or with that of a man who asks
the whole question with doubt and hesitation,--I do not see how a
difference can be made. But neither sense is opposed to faith.
7. There is, again, an ambiguity arising out of the doubtful
sound of syllables; and this of course has relation to
pronunciation. For example, in the passage, "My bone [os meum] was
not hid from Thee, which Thou didst make in secret," it is not
clear to the reader whether he should take the word "os" as short
or long. If he make it short, it is the singular of ossa [bones];
if he make it long, it is the singular of ora [mouths]. Now
difficulties such as this are cleared up by looking into the
original tongue, for in the Greek we find not "stome" [mouth], but
"osteon" [bone]. And for this reason the vulgar idiom is
frequently more useful in conveying the sense than the pure speech
of the educated. For I would rather have the barbarism, "non est
absconditum a te ossum meum", than have the passage in better
Latin but the sense less clear. But sometimes when the sound of a
syllable is doubtful, it is decided by a word near it belonging to
the same sentence. As, for example, that saying of the apostle,
"Of the which I tell you before [praedico], as I have also told
you in time past [praedixi], that they which do such things shall
not inherit the kingdom of God." Now if he had only said, "Of the
which I tell you before [quae praedico vobis]", and had not added,
"as I have also told you in time past [sicut proedixi]," we could
not know without going back to the original whether in the word
praedico the middle syllable should be pronounced long or short.
But as it is, it is clear that it should be pronounced long; for
he does not say, sicut praedicavi, but sicut praedixi.
|
|
Ch 4. Whatever has been rightly said by the heathen,
we must appropriate to our usesid |
|
8. And not only these, but also those ambiguities that do not
relate either to punctuation or pronunciation, are to be examined
in the same way. For example, that one in the Epistle to the
Thessalonians: "Propterea consolati sumus fratres in vobis". Now
it is doubtful whether "fratres" [brethren] is in the vocative or
accusative case, and it is not contrary to faith to take it either
way. But in the Greek language the two cases are not the same in
form; and accordingly, when we look into the original, the case is
shown to be vocative. Now if the translator had chosen to say, "propterea
consolationem habuimus fratres in vobis", he would have followed
the words less literally, but there would have been less doubt
about the meaning; or, indeed, if he had added "nostri",
hardly any one would have doubted that the vocative case was meant
when he heard "propterea consolationem habuimus fratres in vobis",
But this is a rather dangerous liberty to take. It has been taken,
however in that passage to the Corinthians, where the apostle
says, "I protest by your rejoicing [per vestram gloriam] which I
have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily." For one translator
has it, "per vestram" juro "gloriam", the form of adjuration
appearing in the Greek without any ambiguity. It is therefore very
rare and very difficult to find any ambiguity in the case of
proper words, as far at least as Holy Scripture is concerned,
which neither the context, showing the design of the writer, nor a
comparison of translations, nor a reference to the original
tongue, will suffice to explain.
|
| |
Ch 5. What kind of spirit is required for the study
of Holy Scripture |
| |
9. But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am
next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first
place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally.
For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: "The
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." For when what is said
figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is
understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly
called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it
above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to
the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows
the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does
not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its
secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for
example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which
recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice,
does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of
victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is
surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things,
and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is
corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.
|
| |
Ch 6. Sacred Scripture compared with profane authors |
| |
10. This bondage, however, in the case of the Jewish people,
differed widely from what it was in the case of the other nations;
because, though the former were in bondage to temporal things, it
was in such a way that in all these the One God was put before
their minds. And although they paid attention to the signs of
spiritual realities in place of the realities themselves, not
knowing to what the signs referred, still they had this conviction
rooted in their minds, that in subjecting themselves to such a
bondage they were doing the pleasure of the one invisible God of
all. And the apostle describes this bondage as being like to that
of boys under the guidance of a schoolmaster. And those who clung
obstinately to such signs could not endure our Lord's neglect of
them when the time for their revelation had come. And hence their
leaders brought it as a charge against Him that He healed on the
Sabbath, and the people, clinging to these signs as it they were
realities, could not believe that one who refused to observe them
in the way the Jews did was God, or came from God. But those who
did believe, from among whom the first Church at Jerusalem was
formed, showed clearly how great an advantage it had been to be so
guided by the schoolmaster that signs, which had been for a season
imposed on the obedient, fixed the thoughts of those who observed
them on the worship of the One God who made heaven and earth.
These men, because they had been very near to spiritual things
(for even in the temporal and carnal offerings and types, though
they did not clearly apprehend their spiritual meaning, they had
learnt to adore the One Eternal God,) were filled with such a
measure of the Holy Spirit that they sold all their goods, and
laid their price at the apostles' feet to be distributed among the
needy, and consecrated themselves wholly to God as a new temple,
of which the old temple they were serving was but the earthly
type.
11. Now it is not recorded that any of the Gentile churches did
this, because men who had for their gods idols made with hands had
not been so near to spiritual things.
|
|
|
|
|
