On Christian Doctrine 3.34–4.5

The fourth rule of Tyconius is about species and genus. For so he calls it, meaning by species a part, and by genus the whole of which the part he calls species is a part; as each city is certainly a part of the totality of the nations: this he calls species, and all the nations the genus. Nor need we apply here that subtlety of distinction which is handed down by the dialecticians, who argue very sharply about the difference between a part and a species. The same reasoning holds if something of this kind is found in the divine words not about each city, but about each province, nation, or kingdom. For it is not only about Jerusalem, for example, or about some city of the nations, whether Tyre or Babylon or any other, that something is said in the holy Scriptures which exceeds its measure and fits all nations rather; but also about Judea, Egypt, Assyria, and any other nation in which there are very many cities, yet which is not the whole world but a part of it, something is said that goes beyond its measure and fits the whole of which it is a part, or, as he calls it, the genus of which it is a species. Hence these words have come into common knowledge, so that even the unlearned understand what is laid down specially and what generally in any imperial decree. This happens also with persons, as the things said of Solomon exceed his measure and become clear when referred rather to Christ or the Church, of which he is a part.

Nor is the species always exceeded; for things are often said that fit it too, or perhaps fit it alone, very plainly. But when there is a passage from species to genus, while Scripture seems still to be speaking of the species, there the reader's attention must be watchful, lest he seek in the species what he can find better and more surely in the genus. For it is easy to understand what the prophet Ezekiel says: “The house of Israel dwelt in the land, and they defiled it by their way, and by their idols, and by their sins; their way became before my face like the uncleanness of a menstruous woman. And I poured out my wrath upon them, and scattered them among the nations, and winnowed them into the lands; according to their ways and according to their sins I judged them”: it is easy, I say, to understand this of that house of Israel of which the Apostle says, “Look at Israel according to the flesh,” because the carnal people of Israel did and suffered all these things. Other things too that follow are understood to fit the same people; but when he begins to say, “And I will sanctify my holy and great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” the reader must now attend to how the species is exceeded and the genus joined to it. For he goes on and says: “And when I am sanctified in you before their eyes, I will take you from the nations, and gather you out of all lands, and bring you into your own land; and I will sprinkle you with clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your idols, and I will cleanse you; and I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take away the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you; and I will cause you to walk in my statutes, and to keep my judgments and do them; and you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God; and I will cleanse you from all your uncleannesses.”

That this was prophesied of the New Testament, to which belongs not only that one nation in its remnant, of which it is written elsewhere, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved,” but also the other nations, which were promised to their fathers, who are ours too, no one doubts who sees that the washing of regeneration is promised here, which we now see given to all nations; and that saying of the Apostle, when he commended the grace of the New Testament so that it would stand out in comparison with the Old, “You are our letter, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on fleshly tablets of the heart,” he sees and perceives to be drawn from here, where this prophet says, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take away the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh.” For he wished the heart of flesh, from which the Apostle says “fleshly tablets of the heart,” to be distinguished from the heart of stone by sentient life, and by sentient life he signified intelligent life. So the spiritual Israel comes to be, not of one nation but of all nations which were promised to the fathers in their seed, which is Christ. This spiritual Israel, then, is distinguished from that carnal Israel which is of one nation by the newness of grace, not the nobility of fatherland, by mind, not by race. But the prophetic depth, while speaking of or to that Israel, passes imperceptibly to this one; and when it is now speaking of or to this one, it still seems to be speaking of or to that one; not grudging us the understanding of the Scriptures as an enemy, but exercising ours as a physician. Hence that saying too, “And I will bring you into your own land,” and a little later, as if repeating the same thing, “And you shall dwell,” he says, “in the land which I gave to your fathers,” we ought to take not carnally as the carnal Israel, but spiritually as the spiritual Israel. For the Church without spot or wrinkle, gathered from all nations, and to reign forever with Christ, is itself the land of the blessed, the land of the living; it is to be understood as given to the fathers when it was promised to them by the sure and unchangeable will of God; since by the firmness of the promise or predestination it has already been given, which the fathers believed would be given in its own time. So the Apostle, writing to Timothy about the grace that is given to the saints, says, “Not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times, but has now been made manifest through the coming of our Savior.” He said grace was given when those to whom it would be given did not yet exist; because in God's disposition and predestination what was to be in its own time had already been done, which he calls made manifest. Although these things can also be understood of the land of the world to come, when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, in which the unjust will not be able to dwell. And so it is rightly said to the godly that it is their land, which will in no part belong to the ungodly; because it too has likewise been given, when it was established that it would be given.

Tyconius sets down a fifth rule, which he calls “On times”: by this rule the length of time hidden in the holy Scriptures can often be found or conjectured. He says that this rule operates in two ways: either by the trope synecdoche, or by legitimate numbers. The trope synecdoche causes either the whole to be understood from a part or a part from the whole: as one evangelist says that something happened after eight days which another says happened after six days, when on the mountain, with only three disciples present, the Lord's face shone like the sun and his garments like snow. For both statements about the number of days could not be true unless the one who said “after eight days” is understood to have put the last part of the day on which Christ foretold that it would happen, and the first part of the day on which he showed it fulfilled, for two whole and entire days; while the one who said “after six days” counted all the whole and entire days, but only those in between. By this mode of expression, by which the whole is signified by a part, that question too about the resurrection of Christ is resolved. For unless the last part of the day on which he suffered is taken for the whole day, that is, with the preceding night added, and the night in whose last part he rose is taken for the whole day, that is, with the dawning Lord's day added, there cannot be the three days and three nights in which he foretold that he would be in the heart of the earth.

He calls legitimate numbers those which the divine Scripture commends more eminently, such as seven, ten, twelve, and any others which the studious gladly recognize in reading. For numbers of this kind are often put for the whole of time: as “Seven times a day I will praise you” is nothing else than “His praise shall always be in my mouth.” They have the same force when they are multiplied, whether by ten, as seventy and seven hundred (hence the seventy years of Jeremiah can also be taken spiritually for the whole time in which the Church is among strangers), or by themselves, as ten times ten is a hundred, and twelve times twelve a hundred and forty-four, the number by which the totality of the saints is signified in the Apocalypse. From this it appears that not only questions of times are to be resolved by these numbers, but that their significations extend more widely and spread into many things. For that number in the Apocalypse refers not to times but to persons.

The sixth rule Tyconius calls recapitulation, which he discovered with considerable watchfulness in the obscurity of the Scriptures. For some things are said as if they followed in order of time, or are narrated in continuous sequence, when the narrative imperceptibly goes back to earlier things that had been passed over; and unless this is understood by this rule, one goes wrong. As in Genesis: “And the Lord God planted a paradise in Eden toward the east, and put there the man whom he had formed; and God brought forth further out of the earth every tree beautiful and good for food.” It seems to be said as if this was done after God had put the man in paradise; whereas, having briefly mentioned both, that is, that God planted paradise and put there the man he had formed, it goes back by recapitulation and tells what it had passed over, namely how paradise was planted, because God brought forth further out of the earth every tree beautiful and good for food. Then it went on to add: “And the tree of life in the middle of paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Then the river by which paradise was watered, divided into four heads of four rivers, is described; all of which belongs to the establishment of paradise. When it had finished this, it repeated what it had already said, and what in fact followed, and said: “And the Lord God took the man whom he had formed and put him in paradise,” and so on. For it was after these things were done that the man was put there, as the order itself now shows; these things were not done after the man was put there, as could be thought from what was said earlier, unless the recapitulation there is watchfully understood, by which there is a return to the things that had been passed over.

Likewise in the same book, when the generations of the sons of Noah were mentioned, it is said: “These are the sons of Ham in their tribes, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations.” And when the sons of Shem are enumerated, it is said: “These are the sons of Shem in their tribes, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations.” And it is added about all of them: “These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their generations and according to their nations. From these the islands of the nations were scattered over the earth after the flood. And the whole earth was one lip, and there was one speech for all.” This addition, then, “And the whole earth was one lip, and there was one speech for all,” that is, one language of all, seems to be said as if at that time, when they had already been scattered over the earth even according to the islands of the nations, there was one language common to all; which without doubt conflicts with the earlier words, where it was said, “in their tribes according to their languages.” For the single tribes, which had formed single nations, would not be said to have had their own languages already, when there was one common to all. And so it was added by recapitulation, “And the whole earth was one lip, and there was one speech for all,” the narrative imperceptibly going back, to tell how it came about that from one language of all they were divided into many; and immediately the building of that tower is narrated, where this punishment for their pride was imposed on them by divine judgment; after which they were scattered over the earth according to their languages.

This recapitulation also occurs more obscurely, as in the Gospel the Lord says: “On the day when Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire from heaven and destroyed them all; so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that hour, let him who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away; and likewise let him who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot's wife.” Are these things to be observed only when the Lord has been revealed, that no one should look back, that is, seek the past life he has renounced; and not rather at this time, so that when the Lord has been revealed each may find the reward for what he has kept or despised? And yet, because it is said “in that hour,” these things are thought to be observed when the Lord has been revealed, unless the reader's sense is watchful to understand the recapitulation, with the help of another Scripture which cried out even in the time of the apostles themselves, “Little children, it is the last hour.” So the very time in which the Gospel is preached, until the Lord is revealed, is the hour in which these things must be observed; because the revelation of the Lord itself also belongs to the same hour, which will end with the day of judgment.

The seventh rule of Tyconius, and the last, is about the devil and his body. For he too is the head of the ungodly, who are in a way his body, destined to go with him into the punishment of eternal fire; just as Christ is the head of the Church, which is his body, destined to be with him in the kingdom and everlasting glory. Just as, then, in the first rule, which he calls “On the Lord and his body,” one must be watchful to understand, when Scripture speaks of one and the same person, what befits the head and what the body, so also in this last one, sometimes something is said against the devil which can be recognized not in him but rather in his body, which he has not only in those who are most plainly outside, but also in those who, though they belong to him, are mingled for a time with the Church, until each departs from this life, or the chaff is separated from the wheat by the last winnowing fan. For what is written in Isaiah, “How Lucifer, rising in the morning, has fallen from heaven,” and the rest, which in the context of the passage are said under the figure of the king of Babylon about or to the same person, is certainly understood of the devil; and yet what is said there, “He who sends to all nations is crushed on the earth,” does not entirely fit the head himself. For although the devil sends his angels to all nations, yet it is his body, not he himself, that is crushed on the earth; unless because he is in his body, which is crushed like dust that the wind blows from the face of the earth.

Now all these rules, except one, which is called “On the promises and the Law,” cause one thing to be understood from another, which is proper to tropical expression; and this extends more widely, it seems to me, than can be comprehended in its entirety by anyone. For wherever one thing is said so that another may be understood, even if the name of that trope is not found in the art of speaking, it is a tropical expression. When it occurs where it usually occurs, understanding follows without labor; but when it occurs where it does not usually occur, there is labor to understand it, more for some, less for others, as the gifts of God in human minds are greater or less, or helps are given. So, as with literal words, which we discussed above, where things are to be understood as they are said, so with figurative words, which make tropical expressions, where one thing is to be understood from another, which we have treated sufficiently, as it seemed good, up to this point: students of the venerable writings are not only to be advised to know the kinds of expressions in the holy Scriptures, and to note watchfully and keep in memory how something is usually said in them; but also, what is chief and most necessary, to pray that they may understand. For in those very writings of which they are students they read that “the Lord gives wisdom, and from his face come knowledge and understanding”; from whom they have also received their very zeal for study, if it is endowed with piety. But let this be enough said about signs, as far as words are concerned. It remains that in the next volume we discuss the setting forth of what we understand, as far as the Lord grants.

This work of ours, which is entitled On Christian Doctrine, I had divided at the first arrangement into two parts. For after the preface, in which I answered those who were going to find fault with it, I said: “There are two things on which all handling of the Scriptures rests: the way of discovering what is to be understood, and the way of setting forth what has been understood. We shall discuss discovering first and setting forth afterwards.” Since, then, we have already said much about discovering, and have completed three volumes on this one part, with the Lord's help we shall say a little about setting forth, so that, if possible, we may conclude everything in one book, and this whole work may be completed in four volumes. First, then, I check by this preliminary remark the expectation of readers who perhaps think that I am going to give the rules of rhetoric which I both learned and taught in the secular schools, and I warn them not to expect them from me: not because they have no usefulness, but because, if they have any, it is to be learned separately, if perhaps some good man has leisure to learn these things too; but it is not to be sought from me, either in this work or in any other.

For since both truth and falsehood are urged by the art of rhetoric, who would dare to say that truth ought to stand unarmed against falsehood in its defenders, so that those who try to persuade people of false things should know how to make the hearer well-disposed, attentive, or teachable by their introduction, while these do not know how? That they should tell false things briefly, clearly, and plausibly, while these tell true things in such a way that it is tedious to listen, not easy to understand, and finally not pleasant to believe? That they should attack truth and assert falsehood with fallacious arguments, while these are able neither to defend the true nor to refute the false? That they, moving and driving the minds of their hearers into error by their speaking, should terrify, sadden, delight, and ardently exhort them, while these sleep, slow and cold, on behalf of truth? Who is so foolish as to think this? Since, then, the faculty of eloquence is available to both sides and is of very great power for urging either wrong or right, why should it not be acquired by the zeal of the good to fight for truth, if the wicked take it over for the uses of iniquity and error to win perverse and vain causes?

But whatever observations and rules there are on this subject, to which, when there is added the most skilled practice of a tongue well exercised in an abundance of words and verbal ornaments, the result is what is called fluency or eloquence, these are to be learned outside these writings of ours, at a suitable and fitting age, with a fitting space of time set aside for it, by those who can do so quickly. For even the leading masters of Roman eloquence were not ashamed to say that unless someone can learn this art quickly, he can never learn it thoroughly at all. Whether this is true, what need is there to ask? For even if these things can at last be learned by the slower, we do not value them so highly that we would want people of mature or even advanced age to spend themselves in learning them. It is enough that this be the concern of young men; and not of all of them whom we wish to be educated for the service of the Church, but of those whom no more urgent necessity, one that should certainly be preferred to this, has yet taken up. For if there is a sharp and eager mind, eloquence attaches itself more easily to those who read and hear the eloquent than to those who follow the rules of eloquence. Nor is there any lack of ecclesiastical writings, even apart from the canon, which is wholesomely placed in the citadel of authority, by reading which a capable person, even if he is not aiming at it but is intent only on the things said there, is imbued also with the eloquence in which they are said while he is occupied with them; especially if practice is added, whether in writing, or dictating, or finally in speaking what he thinks according to the rule of piety and faith. But if such a mind is lacking, neither are those rules of rhetoric grasped; nor, if they are grasped in some small part after being drilled in with great labor, do they do any good. Since even those who have learned them, and speak fluently and ornately, cannot all think of them while they speak so as to speak according to them, unless they are discussing them; indeed, I think there are hardly any of them who can do both, speak well and think of those rules of speaking while they speak in order to do so. For one must beware lest what is to be said slips from the mind while attention is paid to saying it artfully. And yet in the speeches and discourses of the eloquent the rules of eloquence are found fulfilled, which they did not think of in order to be eloquent or while they were being eloquent, whether they had learned them or never even touched them. For they fulfill them because they are eloquent; they do not apply them in order to be eloquent.

Therefore, since infants do not become speakers except by learning the expressions of speakers, why cannot people become eloquent without being taught any art of eloquence, by reading and hearing the expressions of the eloquent and imitating them as far as they are able? And do we not find from actual examples that this happens? For we know very many who, without the rules of rhetoric, are more eloquent than very many who have learned them; but we know no one who is eloquent without having read or heard the arguments or discourses of the eloquent. For boys would not even need the art of grammar, by which correctness of speech is learned, if they were allowed to grow up and live among people who spoke correctly. For, not knowing any names of faults, they would criticize and avoid by their own sound habit whatever was faulty that they heard from anyone's mouth, just as city people criticize country people, even those who do not know letters.

The interpreter and teacher of the divine Scriptures, then, the defender of right faith and the vanquisher of error, ought both to teach what is good and to unteach what is bad; and in this work of speaking to win over the hostile, to rouse the careless, and to make clear to those who do not know what is at issue and what they ought to expect. When he has found his hearers well-disposed, attentive, and teachable, or has made them so himself, the rest is to be carried out as the case requires. If the hearers are to be taught, it must be done by narration, if it is needed, so that the matter in question becomes known. And to make doubtful things certain, one must reason by bringing forward proofs. But if the hearers are to be moved rather than taught, so that they do not grow sluggish in acting on what they already know, and so that they give their assent to things they admit to be true, greater powers of speaking are needed. There entreaties and rebukes, rousings and restraints, and whatever else avails to move minds, are necessary. And all these things that I have mentioned nearly all people do not cease to do in whatever they do by speaking.

But since some do it dully, unattractively, and coldly, others sharply, ornately, and forcefully, the one who should now approach this work which we are discussing is one who can argue or speak wisely, even if he cannot speak eloquently, so as to benefit his hearers, even if less than he would benefit them if he could also speak eloquently. But one who abounds in foolish eloquence is the more to be guarded against the more the hearer is delighted by him in things it is useless to hear, and, because he hears him speak fluently, thinks he also speaks truly. This view did not escape even those who thought the art of rhetoric should be taught; for they admitted that wisdom without eloquence is of little benefit to states, but that eloquence without wisdom is very often extremely harmful and never beneficial. If, then, those who handed down the rules of eloquence were compelled by the prompting of truth to confess this in the very books in which they did so, though they did not know the true, that is, the heavenly wisdom which comes down from the Father of lights, how much more ought we not to think otherwise, who are the sons and ministers of this wisdom?

A person speaks wisely to the degree that he has made more or less progress in the holy Scriptures. I do not mean in reading much of them and committing them to memory, but in understanding them well and diligently searching out their meanings. For there are those who read them and neglect them; they read to retain them, and neglect to understand them. Far preferable to these, without doubt, are those who retain their words less but see their heart with the eyes of their own heart. But better than both is he who both quotes them when he wishes and understands them as he ought. For one, then, who ought to speak wisely even when he cannot speak eloquently, it is most necessary to hold fast to the words of the Scriptures. For the poorer he sees himself in his own words, the richer he ought to be in these, so that what he has said in his own words he may prove from them; and he who was small in his own words may in some way grow by the testimony of the great. For one who can delight less by speaking delights by proving. But one who wishes to speak not only wisely but also eloquently, since he will certainly benefit more if he can do both, I send more gladly to read or hear the eloquent and to imitate them by practice than I bid him spend his time with teachers of the art of rhetoric; provided that those who are read and heard are praised with truthful commendation for having spoken, or for speaking, not only eloquently but also wisely. For those who speak eloquently are heard with pleasure; those who speak wisely, with benefit. That is why Scripture does not say, “A multitude of the eloquent,” but, “A multitude of the wise is the health of the world.” And just as bitter but wholesome things must often be taken, so a harmful sweetness must always be avoided. But what is better than wholesome sweetness or sweet wholesomeness? For the more sweetness is sought there, the more easily wholesomeness does good. There are, then, churchmen who have handled the divine words not only wisely but also eloquently; and time fails for reading them sooner than they could fail the studious who have leisure.