On Christian Doctrine 3.18–3.33

Likewise, one must beware of thinking that what in the old Scriptures, given the conditions of those times, is neither a vice nor a crime, even if understood not figuratively but literally, can be transferred to these times too for the practice of life. No one will do this unless desire is in control and seeking support even from the very Scriptures by which it is to be overthrown; and the wretch does not understand that those things were set down there for this purpose, that people of good hope may see, to their health, both that the custom they reject can have a good use and that the one they embrace can be damnable, if love is attended to in the users there, and desire here.

For if someone could, for his time, use many wives chastely, another can use one with lust. For I approve more of one who uses the fruitfulness of many for the sake of something else than of one who enjoys the flesh of one for its own sake. For in the former case a usefulness suited to the circumstances of the times is sought; in the latter a desire entangled in temporal pleasures is satisfied. And those to whom the Apostle by concession grants carnal intercourse with one wife each because of their incontinence are at a lower stage toward God than those who, though each had several, looked in intercourse to nothing but the procreation of children, just as a wise man looks in food and drink to nothing but the health of the body. And so, if the Lord's coming had found them in this life, when it was no longer the time for casting stones but for gathering them, they would at once have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven; for there is no difficulty in going without, except when there is desire in having. For those men knew that even with wives the intemperance of abusing them is lust; as the prayer of Tobias testifies, when he was joined to his wife. For he says: “Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our fathers, and blessed is your name for all ages of ages. Let the heavens and all your creation bless you. You made Adam and gave him Eve as a helper; and now, O Lord, you know that I take my sister not for the sake of lust, but in truth itself, that you may have mercy on us, O Lord.”

But those who, with unbridled lust, either wander about dissolute in many acts of sexual immorality, or, even with one wife, not only exceed the measure that belongs to the procreation of children, but also heap up the filth of a more brutish intemperance with the altogether shameless license of a kind of servile freedom, do not believe that it could have happened that the men of old used many women temperately, keeping in that use nothing but the duty, suited to the time, of propagating offspring; and what they themselves, bound by the snares of lust, do not do even with one, they think can in no way be done with many.

But these people may as well say that good and holy men ought not even to be honored and praised, because they themselves, when honored and praised, swell with pride, all the more greedy for the emptiest glory the more often and widely a flattering tongue has fanned them; by which they become so light that the breeze of rumor, whether thought favorable or adverse, carries them into any whirlpools of vice or dashes them even on the rocks of crime. Let them see, then, how hard and difficult it is for them neither to be lured by the bait of praise nor pierced by the stings of insults, and let them not measure others by themselves.

Let them rather believe that our apostles were neither puffed up when they were looked up to by men, nor crushed when they were looked down on. For neither temptation was lacking to those men: for they were both celebrated by the praise of believers and defamed by the curses of persecutors. As, then, these men used all these things according to the time and were not corrupted, so those men of old, referring their use of women to what suited their own time, did not suffer that domination of lust to which those who do not believe these things are slaves. And so these people would in no way restrain themselves from implacable hatred of their sons if they learned that their wives or concubines had been tempted or handled by them, if anything of the kind happened to them.

But King David, when he suffered this at the hands of an ungodly and savage son, not only bore with him in his fury but even mourned him when he was killed. For he was not held entangled by carnal jealousy, since it was in no way his own injuries but his son's sins that moved him. For that is why he had forbidden him to be killed if he were defeated, so that, once subdued, room for repentance might be kept for him; and because he could not, it was not his loss that he grieved in his death, but he knew to what punishments so ungodly an adulterous and parricidal soul was being snatched away. For when another son earlier, who was innocent, and for whom he afflicted himself while he was sick, died, he rejoiced.

From this especially it appears with what moderation and temperance those men used women: that when the same king, carried away by a certain heat of youth and the prosperity of temporal things, had unlawfully fallen upon one woman, whose husband he had even ordered to be killed, he was accused by a prophet. When the prophet came to him to convict him of sin, he set before him a parable about a poor man who had one sheep, whose neighbor, though he had many, at the arrival of his guest served up for the feast the one little sheep of his poor neighbor instead. Moved against him, David ordered him to be killed and the sheep to be repaid fourfold to the poor man, so that he who had sinned knowingly unknowingly condemned himself. When this was made plain to him and divine vengeance announced, he washed away his sin by repentance. But in this parable only the act of sexual immorality is signified by the poor neighbor's sheep; about the killing of the woman's husband, that is, of the poor man himself who had one sheep, David was not questioned in the parable, so that he pronounced the sentence of his own condemnation on the adultery alone. From this it is understood with what temperance he had many women, since he was compelled to punish himself for the one with whom he exceeded the measure. But in this man this immoderate lust did not remain but passed through; that is why the unlawful appetite was also called a guest by the prophet who reproved him. For he did not say that he served up the poor neighbor's sheep to his king but to his guest. But in his son Solomon this lust did not pass through like a guest, but held the kingdom; Scripture did not keep silent about him, blaming him for being a lover of women. Yet his beginnings had burned with desire for wisdom; and having gained it by spiritual love, he lost it by carnal love.

Therefore, although all or nearly all the deeds contained in the books of the Old Testament are to be taken not only literally but also figuratively, still, as for those which the reader has taken literally, if those who did them are praised, yet they are foreign to the custom of the good who keep the divine commandments after the Lord's coming, let him refer the figure to understanding, but not transfer the deed itself to conduct. For there are many things that were done dutifully in that time which now cannot be done except with lust.

But if he reads of any sins of great men, even if he can notice and trace in them some figure of things to come, let him take the literal reality of the deed to this use: that he should never dare to boast of his own right deeds and despise others as sinners in comparison with his own righteousness, when he sees both the storms to be avoided and the shipwrecks to be wept over of such great men. For the sins of those men were written down for this purpose too, that that apostolic saying might everywhere be feared, where he says: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” For there is hardly a page in the holy books on which it does not sound out that “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

Above all, then, one must investigate whether the expression we are trying to understand is literal or figurative. For once it is found to be figurative, by applying the rules about things which we set out in the first book, it is easy to turn it over in every way until we arrive at the meaning of truth, especially when practice strengthened by the exercise of piety is added. And we find out whether an expression is literal or figurative by looking at what has been said above.

When this has become clear, the words in which it is contained will be found to be drawn either from similar things or from things related by some kind of nearness. But since things appear similar to other things in many ways, let us not think it prescribed that what a thing has signified by likeness in one place we should believe it always signifies. For the Lord used leaven in blame when he said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” and in praise when he said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a woman who hid leaven in three measures of flour until the whole was leavened.”

The observation of this variety, then, has two forms. For each thing signifies one thing and another in such a way that it signifies either contrary things or merely different ones. Contrary, namely, when the same thing is put by likeness sometimes in a good sense, sometimes in a bad, as with what we said above about leaven. Such too is the fact that the lion signifies Christ, where it is said, “The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered”; and also signifies the devil, where it is written, “Your adversary the devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour.” So the serpent is in a good sense, “Wise as serpents”; but in a bad sense, “The serpent seduced Eve by his cunning.” Bread in a good sense, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven”; in a bad sense, “Eat hidden bread gladly.” And so with very many others. The ones I have mentioned have a meaning that is not at all doubtful, because only clear ones ought to be mentioned as examples. But there are some about which it is uncertain in which sense they should be taken, such as, “In the hand of the Lord there is a cup of unmixed wine full of mixture.” For it is uncertain whether it signifies the wrath of God not to the final punishment, that is, not to the dregs; or rather the grace of the Scriptures passing from the Jews to the Gentiles, because “he has poured from this into that,” while the observances which they understand carnally remain with the Jews, because “its dregs have not been emptied out.”

But when the same thing is put not in contrary but only in different senses, here is an example: water signifies a people, as we read in the Apocalypse, and also the Holy Spirit, whence the saying, “Rivers of living water will flow from his belly”; and whatever else water is understood to signify, one thing and another, according to the places where it is put. So also other things, not singly but each of them, signify not only two different things but sometimes many, according to the place in the passage where they are found.

Where things are put more plainly, there we must learn how they are to be understood in obscure places. For what is said to God, “Take hold of arms and shield, and rise up to help me,” cannot be better understood than from the place where we read, “O Lord, you have crowned us as with the shield of your good will.” Yet not so that wherever we read “shield” put for some kind of protection we take it to mean nothing but the good will of God; for there is also mention of “the shield of faith, with which,” he says, “you may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.” Nor again should we, among spiritual arms of this kind, assign faith only to the shield, since in another place it is also called the breastplate of faith: “Putting on,” he says, “the breastplate of faith and love.”

But when from the same words of Scripture not one thing but two or more are understood, even if what the writer meant is hidden, there is no danger, if it can be shown from other places of the holy Scriptures that any of them agrees with the truth; provided that the one who searches the divine words tries to arrive at the will of the author through whom the Holy Spirit produced that Scripture. Whether he attains this, or draws out from those words another meaning that does not oppose right faith, he has testimony from any other place of the divine words. For that author perhaps saw this very meaning too in the same words we wish to understand; and certainly the Spirit of God, who produced these things through him, without doubt foresaw that it would occur to the reader or hearer; rather, he provided that it should occur, because it too rests on truth. For what more generous and fruitful provision could God have made in the divine words than that the same words should be understood in several ways, which other no less divine testimonies cause to be approved?

But where a sense is drawn out whose uncertainty cannot be cleared up by certain testimonies of the holy Scriptures, it remains for it to be made plain by giving reasons, even if the one whose words we seek to understand perhaps did not mean it. But this custom is dangerous; for it is much safer to walk through the divine Scriptures. When we wish to search them where they are darkened by figurative words, either something should come out of it that is not in dispute, or, if it is disputed, it should be settled by witnesses found and brought forward from the same Scripture wherever they may be.

Let the learned know that our authors used all the modes of expression which the grammarians call by the Greek name of tropes, and more manifoldly and abundantly than those who do not know them, and have learned these things in other writings, can think or believe. Those who know these tropes recognize them in the holy writings, and are helped somewhat by their knowledge of them in understanding these writings. But it is not fitting to teach them here to those who do not know them, lest we seem to be teaching the art of grammar. I advise that they be learned outside, although I have already advised it above, that is, in the second book, where I discussed the necessary knowledge of languages. For letters, from which grammar itself received its name (for the Greeks call letters γράμματα), are of course signs of sounds belonging to the articulate voice by which we speak. Of these tropes, not only examples, as of all, but also the names of some are read in the divine books, such as allegory, enigma, parable. Although nearly all these tropes, which are said to be learned by the liberal art, are found even in the speech of those who have never heard any grammarians and are content with the language the common people use. For who does not say, “May you flourish so”? This trope is called metaphor. Who does not say piscina (“fish pond”) even of one that has no fish and was not made for fish, yet took its name from fish? This trope is called catachresis.

It would take long to go through the rest in this way; for the speech of the common people reaches even to those which are more wonderful because they signify the contrary of what is said, such as what is called irony or antiphrasis. But irony shows by pronunciation what it wants understood, as when we say to a man doing evil, “You are doing fine things.” Antiphrasis, however, signifies the contrary not by the speaker's tone of voice, but either it has words of its own whose origin is from the contrary, as a grove is called lucus because it has very little light (lucere); or something is customarily said so, although it is also said not by contraries, as when we seek to obtain something that is not there and are answered, “There is plenty”; or by adding words we cause what we say to be understood by contraries, as if we were to say, “Beware of him, because he is a good man.” And what unlearned person does not say such things, without knowing at all what these tropes are or what they are called? The knowledge of them is necessary for resolving the ambiguities of the Scriptures, because when the sense, if taken according to the literal meaning of the words, is absurd, we must certainly ask whether what we do not understand may not have been said by this or that trope; and in this way many things that were hidden have been found.

A certain Tyconius, who wrote very powerfully against the Donatists although he was a Donatist, and who is found to have a most absurd heart in that he did not wish to leave them entirely, made a book which he called the Book of Rules, because in it he worked out seven rules, as it were keys, by which the hidden things of the divine Scriptures might be opened. The first he sets down as “On the Lord and his body”; the second, “On the twofold body of the Lord”; the third, “On the promises and the Law”; the fourth, “On species and genus”; the fifth, “On times”; the sixth, “On recapitulation”; the seventh, “On the devil and his body.” When these are considered, as he opens them up, they help not a little in penetrating what is hidden in the divine words. Yet not everything that is written so as not to be easily understood can be found out by these rules, but by many other ways which he did not include in this number seven, so much so that he himself expounds many obscure things in which he applies none of these rules, since there is no need. For nothing of that kind is involved or sought there; as when he asks in the Apocalypse of John how the angels of the seven churches to whom he is told to write are to be understood, and reasons in many ways, and arrives at this, that we understand the angels themselves to be the churches. In this very full discussion there is none of these rules, and certainly a very obscure matter is being sought there. Let this be enough said by way of example; for it would be too long and too laborious to gather all the things in the canonical Scriptures that are so obscure that none of these seven is needed there.

But when he commended these as rules, he attributed so much to them as if we could understand everything we find obscurely put in the Law, that is, in the divine books, once these are well known and applied. For he began that book by saying: “I have thought it necessary before all else that seem to me to write a little book of rules, and to fashion, as it were, keys and lamps for the secrets of the Law. For there are certain mystical rules which hold the recesses of the whole Law and make the treasures of truth, invisible to some, visible. If the reasoning of these rules is received without envy, as we share it, whatever is closed will be opened and whatever is obscure will be made clear, so that anyone walking through the immense forest of prophecy, led by these rules as by paths of light, may be defended from error.” If he had said, “For there are certain mystical rules which hold some recesses of the Law,” or at least, “which hold great recesses of the Law,” and not what he said, “the recesses of the whole Law”; and if he had not said, “whatever is closed will be opened,” but “many closed things will be opened,” he would have spoken the truth, and would not, by giving more than the matter itself requires to so elaborate and useful a work of his, have led its reader and student into false hope. I have thought this should be said so that the book itself may be read by the studious, because it helps very much toward understanding the Scriptures, and yet not more may be hoped from it than it contains. It must indeed be read with caution, not only because of some things in which he erred as a man, but especially because of those which he speaks as a Donatist heretic. What these seven rules teach or advise I shall briefly show.

The first is about the Lord and his body. In it, knowing that sometimes one person of head and body, that is, of Christ and the Church, is conveyed to us (for it was not said in vain to the faithful, “Therefore you are the seed of Abraham,” although the seed of Abraham is one, which is Christ), let us not hesitate when there is a passage from the head to the body or from the body to the head, and yet no departure from one and the same person. For one person speaks, saying, “He has set a crown on me like a bridegroom, and adorned me with ornament like a bride”; and yet which of these two befits the head and which the body, that is, which befits Christ and which the Church, must of course be understood.

The second is about the twofold body of the Lord, which ought not really to have been so called; for what will not be with him forever is not truly the Lord's body. It should rather have been called “On the true and the mixed body of the Lord,” or “the true and the feigned,” or something else; because not only in eternity, but even now, hypocrites are not to be said to be with him, although they seem to be in his Church. So this rule could also have been called “On the mixed Church.” This rule requires a watchful reader, when Scripture, though it is now speaking to others, seems to be speaking to the same people it was speaking to; or about the same people, when it is now speaking about others; as if the body of both were one, because of their temporal mingling and their communion in the sacraments. To this belongs the saying in the Song of Songs, “I am dark and beautiful, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon.” For it does not say, “I was dark like the tents of Kedar, and I am beautiful like the curtains of Solomon,” but it says that it is both, because of the temporal unity of good and bad fish within the same nets. For the tents of Kedar belong to Ishmael, who will not be heir with the son of the free woman. So, when God says of the good part, “I will lead the blind in a way they have not known, and they will tread paths they have not known; and I will make darkness light for them, and crooked things straight; these words I will do, and I will not forsake them,” he soon says of the other part, which is badly mixed in, “But they have turned back,” although others are now signified by these words. But since they are now in one, he speaks as if of the same people he was speaking of; yet they will not always be in one. For this is the servant mentioned in the Gospel whose master, when he comes, will cut him in two and put his portion with the hypocrites.

The third rule is about the promises and the Law, which can also be called “On the spirit and the letter,” as we called it when we wrote a book on this subject. It can also be called “On grace and the commandment.” But this seems to me a great question rather than a rule to be applied to resolving questions. It is this that the Pelagians, not understanding it, either founded or increased their heresy upon. Tyconius worked well at resolving it, but not fully. For in discussing faith and works, he said that works are given to us by God as the reward of faith, but that faith itself is from us in such a way that it is not from God for us. Nor did he attend to the Apostle when he says, “Peace to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” But he had not experienced this heresy, which, arising in our time, has exercised us greatly in defending against it the grace of God which is through our Lord Jesus Christ; and, according to what the Apostle says, “There must be heresies, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you,” it has made us much more watchful and careful to notice in the holy Scriptures what escaped this Tyconius, who was less attentive and less concerned because he had no enemy: namely, that faith itself is the gift of him who apportions its measure to each. In accordance with this it is said to some, “To you it has been given for Christ's sake not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.” From this, who would doubt that each is a gift of God, if he hears faithfully and with understanding that each has been given? There are many other testimonies by which this is shown, but we are not dealing with this now; we have dealt with it very often elsewhere.