Christian Science or Foundations of Hermeneutics and Ecclesiastical Eloquence

The work “Christian Science or the Foundations of Hermeneutics and Church Eloquence” (396-427) is one of the most important works of Blessed. Aurelius Augustine. The Bishop of Hippo in 4 books summarizes the methods and rules of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. In his opinion, exegesis is designed to kindle in people faith, hope and love for God and neighbor. In books 1-3 blzh. Augustine offers basic principles for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and also examines the 7 rules of biblical exegesis established by the Donatist Tychonius. According to blzh. Augustine, any interpretation of the biblical text, even erroneous, can theoretically be considered legitimate because it is inspired by love (of course, it can be corrected later). The author's goal is to encourage every Christian to try to understand the sacred text and be able to explain it to others. Book 4 deals with the method of biblical interpretation. If the literal understanding of any passage of Scripture does not provide the opportunity for moral edification, then such a narrative must be considered a “figurative sign”, i.e. interpret allegorically. The treatise contains an overview of the scientific and humanitarian knowledge necessary for a Christian exegete and the main rules for the “presentation” of a sermon (rhetorical and stylistic requirements). *The title of the work in Latin is De doctrina christiana. Contents Introduction Book 1. About subjects in general, about the main purpose of Holy Scripture and the main rule for understanding it Book 2. About signs and language in general, about the qualities necessary for the expounder of Holy Scripture, and about obstacles and aids to the explanation of it Book 3. About the ambiguity and darkness of some places of Holy Scripture, about the proper and allegorical meaning, about the means to understand both and about Tikhonian rules for the explanation of Holy Scripture Book 4. Containing instructions for the church speaker 1) There are well-known rules that help to understand the meaning of Scripture; I see from experience that they can be usefully taught to lovers of the word of God, so that these people can not only successfully read the interpreters of Holy Scripture, but also explain it to others themselves. I decided to lay out these rules for those who wish and are able to receive instructions - if only the Lord bless my pen to happily reveal those thoughts that He usually inspires in me in the moments of my reflection on His Holy Word. But before I begin my subject, I consider it necessary to answer those of my readers who want or would like to reproach me if I had not first reassured them. If even after this there are people who begin to reproach me, at least they will not have time to seduce others and will not distract them from useful occupations to ignorant idleness; and this they could have done if they had found them defenseless and not ready to respond. 2) Some will condemn my real work because they will not understand the rules I have taught well. Others, having understood them, will want to use them and, on the basis of these rules, will begin to make experiments in explaining Scripture, but, not having time to open and explain what they wanted, they will immediately conclude that I worked in vain and that my work will not benefit anyone because they did not know how to use it. The third class of my critics will be made up of people who either really explain Scripture well, or who only think so about themselves. If these people have acquired the ability (true or imaginary) to explain Scripture without the aid of those rules that I intend to set forth, then they will cry out that the rules are not needed for anyone, and that everything taught in them regarding the explanation of obscure passages of Scripture can be learned and comprehended through one Divine gift - from above. 3) To all my critics, in a few words, I answer the following: those who do not understand my present work, of course, should not blame me for not understanding it; just as they would have no right to be angry with me in such a case when they wanted, for example, to see a new moon or some obscure star, and I, for my part, would point my finger at them, and they, meanwhile, would not have enough visual acuity not only for the moon and stars, but even to even see my finger. Those who recognize and understand my instructions well, and, meanwhile, are not able to explain the dark passages of Scripture with their help, then let them conclude from this that they only have the ability to see my fingers alone, but do not have the strength to see the stars indicated by this finger. And therefore, both those and others must refrain from making unfavorable judgments about my work and, in order to illuminate their eyes, must ask for Divine light from above. For I can move my finger in order to indicate certain objects, but I am by no means able to give a person an eye so that he can clearly see both the means with which I indicate and the object that I want to indicate. 4) Finally, in order to soften the displeasure against me of people who boast of the Divine gift and arrogantly assimilate to themselves the ability to understand and explain Scripture without such rules as will be taught here, and therefore are ready to consider my work unnecessary, I can and must tell these people that although they have the right to admire the great gift of God, they should not forget that they, at least, learned the alphabet not from God, but from people, and in learning it, did not at all think that they were acting badly, not imitating the example of Anthony the Great, the Egyptian monk, about whom they say that he, without any knowledge, from one hearsay, knew all the Scriptures by heart and with the help of one sound reflection completely understood it, or the example of one pious slave from the barbarians, who, according to recent news I received from respectable and worthy people, did not learn to read and write from anyone, but only He prayed to God to open his understanding of the writings, and received complete information in them, so that after three days of prayer, to the surprise of those present, he suddenly began to clearly and quickly read the Bible brought to him. 5) If the latter does not seem entirely probable to anyone, I will not persistently contradict, because I do not see any need for it. For my purpose, it is enough that I am dealing with Christians, who boast of the ability to know the Scriptures without human guidance and who undeniably possess great good in this regard, if only they actually possess it. No matter how they judge, they must agree with me, at least, that each of us from childhood learned our natural language through the constant habit of hearing it from others; I also learned some other language, for example, Greek, Hebrew, etc., either by hearsay, or with the help of a famous mentor - not God, but just a person. I ask: why did we act and act this way? Why, bearing in mind that the Apostles, after the descent of the Holy Spirit, in an instant, without learning, began to speak in the languages ​​of all nations, have we not long ago begun to advise all the brethren so that they do not teach their children either their own or someone else’s language in anticipation of a miracle? And for anyone who does not experience the same miraculous event that happened with the Apostles, as a result of this, let him not consider himself a full Christian or, at least, should doubt the receipt of the Holy Spirit! I don't think anyone would agree with these thoughts. Let everyone, without pride, learn from man what he should learn from men; in the same way, let him who teaches others, without pride and envy, teach what he himself has acquired. Let us not tempt the One in whom we have believed, so that the evil one does not deceive us with his cunning and malice to such an extent that we do not want to go to the churches of God even to hear and study the Gospel itself, we do not want to read the Holy Scripture, we do not want to listen to a good person who is reading or preaching in vain expectation that they will take us up to the third heaven, “whether in the body - I don’t know, or outside the body - I don’t know,” as the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:2), and that there we will hear ineffable verbs, “which it is impossible for a man to tell” (2 Cor. 12:4), or we will see the Lord Jesus, and we will hear the Gospel better from Himself than from a man. 6) Let us, I say, beware of these excessively arrogant thoughts, as very dangerous temptations. Let us explain that Ap himself. Paul, although initially cast down to earth and instructed by the Divine voice from heaven (Acts 9:3-7), was subsequently sent to man to receive the sacraments and unite with the Church. Let us remember how Cornelius the Centurion, although he was informed by an Angel that his prayers were heard and his alms were accepted, was sent to Peter not only to receive the sacraments, but also to teach what one should believe, what one should hope for and what to love (Acts 10:1-48). There is no doubt that every method of teaching could and can be accomplished through an Angel, but in this case, the fate of humanity would be very low if God did not deign to communicate His words to people through people. How would the saying of Scripture be justified: “For the church of God is holy; and this church is you" (1 Cor. 3:17), if the Lord did not reveal his will from this church, but would communicate everything necessary for teaching man from heaven and through an Angel? Love itself, which binds people in a union of unity, would not have the closest means to the closest union and, so to speak, the mutual transfusion and dissolution of souls, if people had not learned anything from people. 7) Mentioned in Ap. In Acts, the eunuch who read the Prophet Isaiah without understanding him was sent by the Apostle not to an Angel and not through an Angel, not through inner illumination that which he did not understand was revealed to him, but by Divine inspiration Philip was brought to him, who knew the Prophet Isaiah, who sat down with him and explained to him in human words a prophecy incomprehensible to him (Acts 8:26-35). Didn't God himself talk to Moses? However, Moses without pride accepted the advice of his father-in-law, a foreigner, regarding the management of the numerous people of Judah (Exodus 18:14-26), for he knew that whoever gave true and useful advice should not be attributed to the person advising, but to the One who is the very truth - to the eternal God. 8) Finally, let us assume that he thinks correctly who considers himself able to explain the obscure passages of Scripture without human rules, with the help of one Divine gift, for, in fact, such an ability - if this person really possesses it - is not his own natural ability, but imparted by God, especially if he seeks the glory of God, and not his own. But, reading and understanding the Scripture, why does he himself try to explain it to others, and not leave them to God, so that they, like him, may be instructed in the Scripture not by man, but directly by God himself? Then, of course, he is afraid to hear from the Lord: “You wicked and slothful servant!... you should have given my silver to the merchants” (Matthew 25:26-27). Thus, if these people verbally or in writing tell others what they themselves know, then I do not deserve blame, intending to tell others not only what they need to know, but also how to act in acquiring knowledge of known objects, although, of course, none of us should boast of anything as our property, except, perhaps, only a lie. For everything true comes from Him who said about Himself: “I am... the Truth” (John 14:6). And what do we have that we wouldn’t get? And if you received it, why should you boast as if you didn’t receive it? (1 Cor. 4:7). 9) Whoever reads something written to the listeners shows that he knows how to read, on the contrary, whoever teaches the writing itself conveys to others the ability to read, although both of them communicate only what they themselves acquired from others. In the same way, whoever explains to his listeners what he understands in Scripture is, as it were, reading to them the writings known to him, but whoever teaches how to understand Scripture is like one who teaches the writings themselves. Just as one who knows how to read does not need another person to read what is written in a book, so one who is familiar with the rules that I intend to teach will not need another person to understand any obscure passage of Scripture, but he himself, as if following ready-made tracks, without any error, will reach the meaning hidden in the word of God and, at least, will never fall into the absurdity of any false and harmful opinion. I conclude: my present creation itself can sufficiently demonstrate whether anyone’s objections to the difficult undertaking I am deciding to undertake are fair. Meanwhile, it did not seem to me superfluous to place this warning here, in order, on the one hand, to give in it a decent, in my opinion, answer to some of my most persistent critics, on the other, to make it the beginning of the path that I intend to embark on in the next book. Book 1. About subjects in general, about the main purpose of Holy Scripture and the main rule for understanding it 1) Two main subjects that should be kept in mind when studying Holy Scripture in a scientific manner: a way to find the true meaning of it and a way to communicate or expound this meaning to others. Therefore, I will first talk about how to find meaning, and then about how to communicate it. Deciding on this great and difficult task, I am afraid that I will not undertake it recklessly when I realize how difficult it is for me to accomplish this. – It’s definitely not easy if you rely on your own strength alone! But I placed all my hope of completing my work on Him who was deigning to instill in me many good truths in the moments of my meditation on His Holy Word; I remember these truths vividly, and I have nothing to fear that the Lord will refuse me other information necessary for me, if only I wisely begin to use for the benefit of others what has already been given to me from Him. For if a thing is such that by sharing it with other people it does not become scarce at all, then if they give it to us, but we, on the contrary, have it and do not give it to others, We use this thing inappropriately. The Lord said: “Whoever has, to him will be given” (Matthew 13:12). Therefore, He will give to those who have, i.e. Such people, who lovingly use for the benefit of others what they themselves received from Him, will multiply and multiply His gifts. There were only five loaves mentioned in the Gospel, and in another case only seven (Matthew 14, 17, 15:34), until they began to be distributed to the hungry people; and as soon as they began, several thousand people were fed with this bread and, moreover, many baskets and bags were filled. I believe that just as the bread miraculously multiplied at the time when it was broken, so the information given to me by the Lord for the work I am undertaking will multiply by His almighty power when I begin to rely on it for the benefit of my neighbors, and my present service will not turn out to be meager, but will comfort me and my brothers with a wonderful abundance. 2) Every science deals either with objects or with known signs that express objects. There is no doubt that we, in general, know all objects through the signs that represent them, but here by object or thing (res), in fact, I call something that in itself is not used to mean something else, for example, a tree, a stone, an animal. It should, however, be noted that sometimes the same objects serve together as signs for the expression of other objects, such as, for example, the tree with which, according to Scripture, Moses sweetened the bitter waters of Measure (Ex. 15:25), the stone that Jacob placed at the top of his head (Gen. 28:11), the animal that Abraham sacrificed instead of his son (Gen. 22:13). On the other hand, there are signs (signa), the entire use of which consists only in the designation or expression of objects: these are our words and human language in general, for we use words only to express and signify by them a known object. From this it is clear that I call these signs. Exactly what is used to designate objects. However, in an abstract sense, every sign is also an object, for what is not an object is, in fact, nothing, but not every object is a sign. Having thus distinguished between objects and signs, when discussing objects later, I will speak in such a way (at least some of them could also serve as signs of other objects) that this will not interfere with the main division of my research into two parts, according to which in one I will reason about the objects themselves, and in the other about signs. Let the reader only firmly remember that in the first part of my treatise I should consider what objects are in themselves, and not what they can mean besides themselves. 3) Objects in general are of three kinds: one of them should be enjoyed, others should be used, while others contain both joy and benefit. Those with whom we should rejoice fill us with bliss, and those with whom we should enjoy help us achieve it, that is, they will help us both to achieve such things that make us happy and to closely unite with them. As for us, who experience joy and use, then, being placed, as it were, in the middle between these and other objects, we make our progress more difficult if we begin to enjoy those of them that we should only use, and sometimes we are completely turned away from our path, since we are slow to turn to things that should please us, or we even turn away from them because of our love for other, lower objects. 4) To rejoice in a thing means nothing more than to love it deeply for itself; to use a thing means to use it as a means to achieve what we love, if, however, it is worthy of love, for unauthorized and illegal use is abuse, not use. So, for example, if one of us were a wanderer who could not live happily anywhere except in his fatherland, and if, wanting to end his disastrous journey, he decided to return to his fatherland, then in this case he would need chariots or ships, which he would have to use in order to return to his fatherland to enjoy a happy life there. But if the pleasures of the path and the very movement of the chariots occupied him so that he began to enjoy what he should only use, and no longer thought about the speedy end of his journey, then, occupied with perverse pleasure, he would turn away from his fatherland, the joys of which alone could make him truly happy. In the same way, we, who wander away from the Lord in this mortal life (2 Cor. 5:6), if we wish to return to our fatherland, where we can be blessed, must use this world, and not enjoy it, so that the invisible things of God may be visible to us through created things (Rom. 1:20), that is, in order to gain us knowledge of the eternal and spiritual through visible and sensible things. 5) That which should be the object of our love is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - the venerable Trinity, constituting one certain highest object, common to all those who love Her, if, however, we can call Her the object, and not the Cause of all objects, although this last name is lower than Her. For it is not easy to find a name suitable to the table Majesty, except to say: the Triune God, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, and in whom are all things: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each God, and All together, is one God; each is a complete Being, and all together are One Being. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; The Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; The Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son, but the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the Holy Spirit is only the Holy Spirit. All three are equally eternal, equally immutable, have the same greatness and the same power. There is unity in the Father; in the Son there is equality; in the Holy Spirit there is agreement of unity and equality; and these three are all one for the sake of the Father, all equal for the sake of the Son, all united for the sake of the Holy Spirit. 6) Speaking in this way, have I nevertheless said anything worthy of God? No; I fully feel that I only wanted to say, but if I said it, I didn’t say what I wanted. I know this because God is unspeakable, and what I said, if it were unspeakable, would not have been said. For this reason, God cannot even be called unspeakable, for something is already being said about Him when it is said that He is unspeakable. Hence there arises some kind of contradiction in words, for if something that cannot be spoken about is called unspeakable, then it is no longer possible to call something unspeakable that, at least, can be said to be unspeakable. It is perhaps better to prevent this contradiction by reverent silence than to reconcile it in words. However, God, although nothing can be said about Him worthy of Him, was pleased that the word of man should serve Him and that we should open our mouths and use our tongues to praise Him. Because of this, He is called God. The sound of this word, of course, is far from giving us a true concept of Him, however, everyone who knows our Latin language, hearing this sound, immediately imagines in his mind a certain Supreme and Immortal Being. 7) In fact, when the One God of gods appears in the mind, even those who recognize and honor other gods on earth or in heaven try to imagine Him as the highest and most excellent of all that is. Since people are captivated by two kinds of goods, partly related to the senses, partly belonging to the soul and mind, then those devoted to sensory goods worship the gods as God, or Heaven itself, or that which is most brilliant in heaven, or, finally, the world itself. If they extend their gaze beyond the limits of the world, then they imagine God as something bright, and, moreover, either limitless or enclosed in the most beautiful form, for example, those who prefer the human form to all others imagine Him in the image of a man. If they do not recognize One Supreme God, but admit many and countless gods of equal dignity, then they present them all in the form that seems best to them. As for those who go to the knowledge of God through the mind, they imagine God above all creatures, not only visible and physical, but also invisible and spiritual, above everything changing and temporary. Everyone unanimously defends the superiority of the nature of God, and no one considers that which is not the best to be God. God, according to everyone, is the most perfect Being. 8) Further, since everyone who thinks about God imagines Him as a living being, they cannot have absurd and unworthy concepts about him, who have an accurate concept of life itself, who, no matter in what form the body appears to them, distinguish a living body from an inanimate one and prefer the former to the latter, who understand that a living body, no matter how light, majestic and beautiful it is, is still not the same as life itself, which gives rise to this body, and that this latter is incomparably superior to the mass, which it animates and grows, and, finally, who distinguish between life itself, i.e., plant life, living without feeling, such as, for example, in trees, they prefer sentient life, such as in animals, to sentient life - rational life, seen in people, and, again, they prefer rationally unchangeable life to rational changeable life, i.e., one that is not only from time to time is reasonable, but is Wisdom in itself (ipsa Sapientia). For the wise mind, i.e. he who achieved wisdom, before he achieved it, was not wise, but Wisdom itself, that is, the highest Wisdom, was not and will never be unwise. If our mind had not foreseen such wisdom, it would not have so confidently preferred an eternally wise life to a life changing in wisdom. The very law of truth, by virtue of which the first is decisively considered better, our mind, finding it unchangeable, where does it find it so? Somewhere outside and above our nature, for we all find ourselves changeable. 9) There is not a single person so senseless who would ask: “How do you know that an eternally wise life should be preferred not to an eternally wise one? For the very thing that he would ask me about” (how I know) is a common and invariably given object of knowledge and contemplation for everyone. Whoever does not see this is like a blind man in the middle of the day, to whom the brilliance of the rays of the sun falls directly on the place where his eyes should be, but without any benefit for him; and whoever sees and closes himself so as not to see, clearly, maliciously weakens the sharpness of his mental gaze with sensual darkness. Depraved morals, just like contrary winds, drive people away from their own fatherland, and therefore they are carried away by objects that are much worse and lower than those which, by their own free admission, are incomparably better and more sublime. 10) Thus, if the essential object of love for our soul should be that Truth that lives forever, God in the Trinity, the Creator and Creator of the universe and the Provider of all things, then we must necessarily cleanse our soul from the darkness of sensuality, so that we can see this heavenly Light and immerse ourselves in it, in this perfect Light. We must consider this purification as a kind of journey, a kind of ship voyage to our fatherland, for we can reach the Omnipresent One not by moving from place to place, but by pious zeal and the gradual improvement of our morality. 11) Such internal purification would be completely impossible for us if Wisdom herself (the Son of God) did not deign to condescend and, so to speak, moderate herself to our weakness; if She had not presented to us in Herself a model of life, having become human for this purpose, because we are all human. When we go to this Wisdom, we do it wisely; when, on the contrary, She came to us, proud people imagined that Wisdom had acted unwisely (stulte). When we go to her, we become strong, but when she came to us, we considered her weak. But “...the foolish things of God are wiser than men, and the weak things of God are stronger than men”! (1 Cor. 1:25) Since She herself is the true Fatherland, she has made Herself the path for us to the Fatherland. Finally, since She is everywhere present only in the sound and pure eye of the heart, then for those whose inner eye is weak and darkened, She deigned to reveal herself to the sensual eyes. “For when the world through its wisdom did not know God in the wisdom of God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). 12) Wisdom did not come to us through the space of places, but through taking upon Himself the mortality of our flesh, it came to where it was, for He “was in the world, and the world through Him began to be” (John 1:10). But since people preferred creation to the Creator, those devoted to the world, and therefore rightly called the world, did not know Him. That is why the Evangelist said: “...and the world did not know Him” (John 1:10). That is why “...in the wisdom of God, not understanding, is peace through the wisdom of God.” But why did She come, having been here before, if not because it pleased God to save the believers through the violence of preaching? How did it come, if not so that “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14)? Just as during conversations, a thought that exists in the depths of our soul is clothed in certain sounds of voice, becomes a word, a utterance of itself, so that in that state it can move into the soul of the listener, falling on his external, bodily hearing (meanwhile, this thought, turning into sounds, is not absorbed by them, but, on the contrary, remains intact in itself, and only takes the form of a word necessary for acting on the external ear, without changing its essence in the least), so and God the Word did not change at all, but only became flesh, so that he might dwell in us. 13) Just as the means of healing is healing, so the incarnation of the Word is the means of healing undertaken for the healing and restoration of sinners. And ordinary doctors, when bandaging wounds, do not act indiscriminately, but adapt to the wounds, so that the bandages combine benefit with some pleasure; so the healing of Wisdom, which took upon itself humanity, adapted itself to our wounds, healing some of them with the opposite, others with similar means. As a physical physician, sometimes he uses opposite remedies, for example, in colds - hot, in phlegm - drying up phlegm, etc., and sometimes similar ones, for example, he applies round pieces of linen to round wounds, oblong pieces to elongated ones, and generally does not use the same dressing for different members, but takes into account the properties and differences of each member separately; This is what the Wisdom of God did when healing man, being herself both a doctor and a healer. Since man fell through pride, She used humility as a medicine. We are deceived by the evil wisdom of the serpent, but are saved by the violence of God. Just as the cunning of the serpent was considered wisdom among people who manifest themselves to God, although it is complete madness, so, on the contrary, the violence of God is considered the highest wisdom among people who defeat the devil, although from the world it is called violence. We used immortality for evil in order to die; Christ used death for good so that we would come to life. The damaged soul of the wife brought illness into the world - health emerged from the intact flesh of the Virgin. These opposite means also include the fact that our vices are healed by the example of the virtues of Christ. On the other hand, in addition to the opposite means, similar means were used, like certain bandages, corresponding to the damage to our members, such as, for example: those who were seduced by a wife were freed by the One Born of a Virgin; mortals are healed by death; people are saved by Man. Diligent seekers, who, like me, do not need to rush to complete the work undertaken, can easily find in the Christian Physician (medicina Christiana) many other means for edification, both opposite and similar. 14) But I cannot fail to mention here the Lord’s resurrection from the dead and His ascension into heaven, two most important events that strengthened our faith with great hope. Both of these events clearly show with what freedom He laid down His life for us, He who had full power to take it up again (John 10:18). After this, how sweetly comforted is the hope of the faithful, who in living hope think about Who and what suffered for us, who have not yet believed! On the other hand, the thought that the Judge of the living and the dead will come to earth again makes the careless fearful and encourages them to be vigilant, so that they would rather desire His coming by doing righteous deeds, rather than fearing it by doing evil. But with what words can we express or with what thought can we grasp the reward that He will give at the end of the age, if now, to facilitate our journey, He has given us so much from His Spirit, so that in the misfortunes of life our faith and love for Him Whom we do not yet see become impoverished, and He imparted the gifts that are sufficient for everyone, for the edification of our Church, so that we, members of this Church, do what is commanded not only without grumbling, but with eagerness and joy? 15) For the Church, according to the teaching of the Apostles (Eph. 1:23), is the body of the Lord and is called His bride. Therefore, the Lord binds the members of his body, performing various functions, with a union of unity and love, which constitutes health for them. However, He strengthens and cleanses His Church on earth with certain bitter healings, so that, having freed it from the bonds of this world, He may unite with it forever, as with a bride, “not having spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that” (Eph. 5:27). 16) Further, since we are on the path to eternal life, which is measured not by the space of places, but by the dispositions of the heart, and which was blocked by our past sins, as if by some kind of thorny fence, is it possible to do anything more humane and more merciful than what the Lord did for us, deigning to make it our way? He forgave those who converted all their sins and with His Cross destroyed the barriers that stopped us on the path of our conversion. 17) This is why He gave His Church the keys of the kingdom, so that everything that is resolved by it “on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matthew 16:19), and everything that is bound by it here will be bound there too, that is, so that all those who do not believe in the remission of their sins will not receive forgiveness in them; on the contrary, those who believe and are corrected, being accepted into the union with the Church, according to this very faith, accompanied correction, they would be healed. For whoever does not believe that his sins can be forgiven, through despair he becomes worse: doubting the fruits of his conversion, he thinks that there is nothing better left for him but to be evil. 18) Just as the abandonment of the former sinful life and morals, accomplished by repentance, is a kind of death for the soul, so the release from the old animality (pristinae animationis) of ours is death for the body, and just as the soul, after repentance mortifying the previous bad inclinations, becomes better, so we must believe and hope that the body after the death to which sin has subjected us all will become better on the day of the Resurrection, so that not the flesh and blood would inherit the Kingdom of God (which is impossible), but this corruptible body would be clothed with incorruptibility, and the mortal with immortality, and thus, alien to all passions (for it would not have any shortcomings), it would calmly be governed by a holy and blessed soul. 19) On the contrary, whose spirit does not die for this age and does not begin to conform to the truth, through the death of the body he will undergo the most severe death and will come to life not for heavenly life, but for torment. For faith inspires us - and this is how it should be - that neither the soul nor the body of a person will be completely destroyed, but the wicked will be resurrected to unspeakable torment, and the righteous to eternal life. 20) Thus, of all objects in general, only those worthy of love are those that I above called eternal and unchangeable; others should only be used as means contributing to the achievement of the said good disposition of the soul. But we, people who rejoice in certain objects and use them, we ourselves also constitute an object. Moreover: man, created in the image and likeness of God, is something very great and important - not in the sense that he has a mortal body, but in the fact that with his rational soul he surpasses all other animals. This raises an important question: should people love themselves, or only use themselves, or love and use together? We are commanded to love each other mutually, but, the question arises, should we love a person for himself, or for something else? If for himself, then we place our bliss in him; if for something else, then we use it. It seems to me that we should not love a person for his own sake, for what we love for his own sake is where we place our bliss, with which we console ourselves in this life, if not in reality, then at least in hope; but he is cursed who puts his hope in man! (Jer.17:5) 21) If you judge maturely, you will see that no one should love himself for his own sake, since a person should love himself not for his own sake, but for the sake of the one whom he should love. Then only a person is truly great and excellent when he strives with his whole life for the unchangeable life of God and cleaves to it with all his heart; on the contrary, if a person loves himself for his own sake, then he does not strive for God, but, turning to himself, obviously turns to a changeable, impermanent object. Therefore, in this case, he experiences a feeling of some lack, for he is most perfect only when he is completely attached to the unchangeable good, and not when he turns away from it towards himself. So, if you must love yourself not for your own sake, but for the sake of God, who is the true object of your love, then do not let your neighbor be angry with you when you love him for God’s sake. For here is the rule of love, decreed from above: “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev.19:18), and the Lord - “...with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt.22:37); that is, dedicate all your thoughts, all your life, all your understanding to the One who gave you all this. The words “... with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your thought” embrace our entire being, so that there is no room left in us for love for any other thing. Therefore, whoever loves his neighbor properly must try to ensure that this neighbor also loves the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his thought. For he who truly loves his neighbor as himself places all his love, both his and his, in that love for the Lord, which does not like to pour out streams that diminish its waters. 22) Thus, not everything should be loved that should be used; but only that which either strives towards God with us, for example, a person, an Angel, etc., or through us has a need for the benefits of God, such as, for example, our body. Thus, the martyrs did not like the iniquity of their tormentors, but they took advantage of it to gain the Lord. Therefore, four objects should be objects of our love: one of them is above us, the other is ourselves, the third is next to us or equal to us, the last is below us. There is no need to give commandments about the second and last: for a person, no matter how much he moves away from the truth, always by nature loves himself and his body. The soul, having withdrawn from the eternal light, the Lord and Ruler of all, strives only to control itself and its body, and therefore cannot help but love itself and its body. 23) Such a soul considers it a great acquisition if it manages to dominate other people. For in a damaged soul there is a strong desire to take for granted what, in fact, belongs to the one God. But such self-love can more accurately be called hatred. For it is unfair to want those who are higher than us to serve us, while we ourselves refuse to serve the One who is higher than us. It is very rightly said: “Whoever loves unrighteousness hates his own soul” (Ps. 10:5). That is why such a soul is weak and tormented by the mortality of its body: it loves it, and therefore cannot help but be burdened by its damaged state, but is not able to help it, for the immortality and integrity of the body depend on the health of the soul, and the soul is healthy when it is most closely united with the most perfect, i.e., unchangeable God. To strive for dominance over those equal to oneself by nature, that is, over people, is intolerable pride. 24) That no one hates himself, there was no dispute about this with any sect. But no one, in the same way, hates his own body, as the Apostle rightly said: “For no one has ever hated his own flesh” (Eph. 5:29). If some say that they strongly desire to remain without a body, then they are decisively deceived; for they do not hate the body, but its illness and heaviness. Actually, what they want is not to not have any body, but to have a body that is the lightest and undamaged by anything, which body, according to their concept, would no longer be a body, but would, in a way, be the soul itself. As for those who oppress their body with abstinence and labor, and they, if only they act properly in this case, do not strive to not have a body, but to subordinate it to their spirit and make it capable of the proper way of acting. For, exercising their body with exhausting labor, they try to destroy in themselves not the body, but lusts that are harmful to the body, that is, habits and inclinations to enjoy lower objects. Such people do not destroy themselves in relation to the body, as someone might think, but, on the contrary, they care about its true well-being. 25) But whoever acts in a wrong way in this matter obviously has enmity against his body, as if against some enemy of his. Some people are misled by the words of Ap. Paul: “the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh: they oppose each other” (Gal. 5:17). Meanwhile, these words simply point to unbridled carnal inclinations, against which the spirit rebels, not in order to destroy the body, but in order to subjugate it through the taming of its lusts, that is, sinful inclinations, which the natural order of things requires. For if after the resurrection the body will enjoy immortality in no other way than by being completely subordinated to the spirit, then even in this life we ​​must take care that the sensual inclinations are, as much as possible, the best and do not oppose the spirit. Until a certain time, as if the flesh lusts for the spirit, and the spirit for the flesh, but the spirit opposes the flesh not out of hatred, but by the right of its primacy: loving its body, the spirit naturally wants to subjugate it to itself, as the best part of human nature. And the flesh also opposes the spirit not out of hatred, but out of an unfortunate habit, which, being taken from the parents along with being, then turns into nature through repetition. Therefore, while taming the body, our spirit acts only with the intention of breaking, so to speak, the illegal agreement with the evil habits of the flesh and making peace with the good ones. However, I am sure that those who, according to false concepts, completely abhor their body, will not voluntarily agree to lose even one eye unless absolutely necessary, even if this deprivation could be accomplished without any pain, and at least in the other eye there remains as much ability and convenience to see as there was in both. From here the reliability of the words of Ap. is visible to all who impartially seek the truth. Paul: “For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and warms it, just as the Lord does the Church” (Eph. 5:29). 26) So, a person should only be prescribed the measure of love for himself, that is, show how he should love himself in order for this love to be useful to him; otherwise it is certain that a person always loves himself and does not want to harm himself. Further, it must show to what extent he must love his body in order to be able to properly care for it; otherwise, again, there is no doubt that a person naturally loves his body and cares about preserving its well-being and integrity. You can love some things more than the health and integrity of your body; for there are examples that many voluntarily underwent both illness and the deprivation of certain members in order to achieve what they loved more than the body. But it does not follow from this that he does not love the health and well-being of his body, who loves some things more than his body. So a stingy person, although he loves money very much and tries to increase it, nevertheless buys bread for himself, because he prefers the health of his body, which is supported by food, to money. I consider it unnecessary to enter into a more extensive discussion here about this very well-known subject, although, however, the delusions of reckless people very often make such reasoning necessary. 27) So, since we do not need the commandment that everyone should love themselves and their body, that is, since we love ourselves and what is below us, but belongs to us - our body, according to the immutable law of nature itself, which extends even to animals (for animals also love themselves and their body), then we had to accept the commandment only about what is above us and about what is near us. Therefore, the Savior said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” and “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40). The subject of this commandment is love, and love is only twofold: “towards God and neighbor. But, if here you understand yourself entirely, that is, both your body and your soul; If you also understand your neighbor as a whole, that is, his soul and body” (for man consists of soul and body), then you will find that in these two commandments of the Lord not a single type of object that should be loved is omitted. Since love for God precedes here as something important, and its very image is clearly prescribed, so that love for everything else merges with it, it seems that nothing is said here about love for yourself; but if it is said “love your neighbor as yourself,” then this also means your love for yourself. 28) He lives righteously and holy who values ​​all objects properly, according to their dignity, who has the right love for everything, based on the following order: not to love what one should not love; loving what should be loved, not loving much of what should be loved little; not to love equally that which should be loved more or less, and, conversely, not to love that more or less which in its essence should be loved equally. Every sinner, insofar as he is a sinner, should not be loved, but every man, insofar as he is a man, must be loved for the sake of God, and God - for His own sake. If God is to be loved more than any man, then everyone must love God more than himself. In the same way, our neighbor must be loved more than our body, for, although we must love both of these objects only for God, our neighbor can love God with us, but the body cannot, since it does not live by itself, but by the soul striving for God. 29) All people, as people, should be loved equally. But since you cannot be useful to everyone, then provide primarily for those who, as if by some kind of lot, are closely connected with you either by time, or place, or some other circumstances. For example, suppose that you have an abundance of something and want to share it with the poor, but cannot give to two; in this case, when meeting with two people who have an equal right to your alms, you cannot do anything fairer than to decide by lot which of the two should give what cannot be given to both. The same applies to people in general: you cannot help everyone; help those of them who are closer to you in time and circumstances: in this case, your temporary closest connection with them will be for you instead of an electoral lot. 30) Of the people who can love God with us, we usually love partly those whom we ourselves help, partly those who help us, partly those whom we help and they help us, and partly, finally, those whom we do not help at all and do not hope to receive any help from them. But we must desire that all people without exception love God with us and that everything is directed towards this one goal, whether we help someone or whether someone helps us. For, look what happens at worldly spectacles! He who loves a famous actor, whose art he enjoys as a great or even the highest good, loves those who love this jester, and loves not for their own sake, but for the sake of the one they love. And the stronger his love for the actor, the more diligently he tries in every possible way to gather as many admirers as possible around his favorite. He points him out to everyone, if he finds someone cold towards him, tries to inflame him with praise for the comedian; if he finds an opponent, he harbors the greatest hatred for this opponent for hatred of his favorite and tries in every possible way to destroy it. What effort should we not make to ensure that everyone participates in the love of the Lord, the joy of Whom constitutes the bliss of our lives, from Whom those who love Him receive everything: both what they are and the fact that they love Him, for Whom we have nothing to fear, that He might not please anyone, Who desires to be loved not in order to gain Himself anything from us, but in order to offer Himself as an eternal reward those who love Him? It follows from this that we must love our enemies too - not out of fear, for they cannot take away from us what we love, but out of compassion for them, because the more they hate us, the more they move away from the One we love. If they turned to Him, then, of necessity, they would love Him as the highest good, and us, as participants in this good. 31) Here an important question about Angels arises. It is obvious that they are blessed, since they are already in the joy of the Lord, which we only anticipate in this life, like a mirror, in fortune-telling, however, in such a way that the greater the anticipation, the easier our present journey becomes for us and the stronger the desire to end it. So, the question is: do the two above-mentioned commandments about love for God and neighbor also include love for Angels? That from these commandments not a single person is excluded by the Lord, who commanded to love his neighbor, this was shown both by the Lord himself in the Gospel parable and by the Apostle Paul. When the lawyer, to whom the commandments about love for God and neighbors were spoken, as the essence of all the Law and the Prophets, asked the Lord, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29), then the Lord offered him a parable about a certain man walking from Jerusalem to Jericho, on the way he fell into the hands of robbers, was wounded, beaten and left dead. With this parable, the Savior taught us that the neighbor of this unfortunate man is the one who showed him mercy by raising him and making efforts to heal him, which the lawyer himself admitted when he, in turn, was questioned by the Lord. At the conclusion of the parable, the Savior said to the lawyer: “Go and do the same” (Luke 10:37). With these words, He makes us understand that our neighbor is the kind of person who must immediately show the duty of mercy when he really needs it, and if he does not need it, then at least be ready to help him. It follows from this that that person, in the same way, is our neighbor, who is obliged to show us a duty of mercy, for the very expression “neighbor” shows reciprocity, and one cannot be a neighbor without closeness in any respect. If so, then every person is our neighbor, for who will doubt that the duty of love and mercy extends to all people without exception, when the Lord himself extended this duty even to our very enemies, commanding us: “love your enemies... do good to those who hate you”? (Matthew 5:44) 32) The Apostle Paul teaches the same teaching about love, saying: “Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not covet the things of others, and all others are contained in this word: love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to one’s neighbor” (Rom. 13:9–10). If anyone thinks that in these words the Apostle did not prescribe the commandment for every person, he must of necessity come to the very absurd and disgusting conclusion that the Apostle did not consider as sin either adultery with the wife of either a non-Christian or his enemy, nor the killing of this latter, nor the criminal desire to take possession of his property. Since, I repeat, it is only a fool to conclude in this way, then obviously, according to the Apostolic commandment, every person should be considered his neighbor, for he should not do evil to anyone: “No one does evil to anyone who is sincere.” 33) So, if our neighbor is not only the one whom we must help, but also the one who is obliged to show us the duty of mercy, then it is clear that the commandment to love our neighbor also extends to the Holy Angels, since, as can be seen from many places of Scripture, they show us very many acts of mercy. In this regard, God Our Lord Himself deigned to call Himself our neighbor. For Jesus Christ understood Himself under the name of the Samaritan, who helped a man who was barely alive, lying on the path, wounded by robbers. And the Prophet says: “I acted as if I were my friend, my brother” (Ps. 34:14). But since the Divine nature is incomparably superior and higher than ours, the commandment to love God is different from the commandment to love one’s neighbor. For God shows us mercy out of His own goodness, and we help each other for His sake, and not for the sake of our own goodness, that is, He has mercy on us so that we rejoice in Him, and we have mercy on each other in order to rejoice again in Him, but not in ourselves. 34) I will note here: when we say that we rejoice only in an object that we love for its own sake, that we should rejoice only in that object that makes us blessed, and should use the rest, then some ambiguity emerges from this. For God himself loves us, as Holy Scripture very often speaks about this. But why does he love? Is it to be enjoyed or to be used? If in order to enjoy himself, then He needs our good, which no sane person will say, for all our good is either in Him or from Him. And who can think that the light needs the brilliance of the things it illuminates? The Prophet says very clearly: “I said to the Lord: You are my Lord; You don’t need my blessings” (Ps. 15:2). So, God does not delight in us, but uses us, that is, uses us as a means, for if He does not delight and does not use us, then I cannot understand how He loves us. 35) However, He uses things differently than we do: “for we, using objects, have as our goal the joy of God’s goodness, and God uses us according to His own goodness. Since God is good” (bonus), we exist; and insofar as we exist, we are good (boni). Further, since He is Just, we will not go unpunished if we are bad; and to the extent that we are bad, to the extent that we exist, one might say, less than proper. God alone exists to the highest degree, for He is unchangeable from century to century; He could only say about Himself in the broadest sense: “I am who I am. And he said: Thus say to the children of Israel: Jehovah (Jehovah) has sent me to you” (Ex. 3:14). All other beings could only receive their existence from Him, and were good insofar as they received their existence from Him. Thus, the use that we attribute to God in our reasoning occurs with Him not for His own, but for our benefit, for His only Goodness. Although we do good for the benefit of the one we do good for, and look only at his benefit, I don’t know how this happens, but our own benefit always results from our good deeds to others, for God never leaves without reward the help that we provide to those in need. The highest benefit and reward for us is always the same - to rejoice in the Lord and love one another in Him. 36) If we delight in something outside of God, then we remain motionless on the path to heaven, placing in this case either a person or an Angel the hope of our bliss. And a proud man, just like a proud Angel, willingly admires this honor from God, for they love to be relied upon. On the contrary, a holy man and a holy Angel, although they love to bring help and peace to a weary person, do not stop him on themselves, but, having given him joy and rest in those ways that they - whether for us or for themselves, received (only received) - then encourage the poor but encouraged person to turn and continue the procession to the One who gives us joy and constitutes the common bliss of all. For this reason the Apostle exclaims: “Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?... He who plants and he who waters is nothing, but (all) God who gives increase” (1 Cor. 1, 13, 3:7). For the same reason, the Angel once commanded the man who bowed to him to worship more than the One under Whose dominion he himself was (Rev. 19:10). 37) But if you love man in God, you will love God more than man. For you will rejoice in Him who constitutes your bliss, you will be comforted that you have come to Him in Whom lies your hope, which forced you to go to Him. That is why the Apostle says to Philemon: “Yes, brother... I will rejoice in the Lord in you” (Phil. 1:20). If he had not added “in the Lord,” but had said only “let me rejoice,” it would have meant that he placed the hope of his blessedness in Philemon. However, the expression “to rejoice” can mean almost the same as the expression “to enjoy with pleasure” (cum dilectione uti). For if the object that we love is available to us, then it necessarily brings pleasure with it. If you do not look at pleasure as a goal, and relate it to an object on which you must constantly dwell, then in this case you rather do not rejoice, but use pleasure, using it as a means to something. If, on the contrary, you become attached and dwell on pleasure itself, so that in it you place the goal of your joy, then in the proper sense you really rejoice. This concept of joy should not be realized anywhere except the Holy Trinity, because She alone is the highest and unchangeable Good. 38) See how St. Paul talks about this. Although the Truth Itself, the Word, “came into being through Him” (John 1:3, 14), “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), the Apostle nevertheless says: “we know no one according to the flesh; but even if we knew Christ according to the flesh, now we know it no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). This means: Christ wanted to take on flesh in order not only to give Himself to those who reach Him, but also to offer Himself to those who come to Him as the beginning of the ways, according to the word of Scripture: “The Lord made me the beginning of His way” (Prov. 8:22)), so that from this beginning all who wish to go would begin. Therefore, the Apostle, although he was still on the way, not considering himself to have reached it, and was just striving towards God, who calls for the honor of the highest calling, however, forgetting what is behind and stretching forward, he had already crossed the beginning of the paths (Phil. 3:12-14), i.e., he no longer had the need to delay himself there, from where, however, everyone who wants to achieve the truth and abide in the “eternal” should begin their journey. stomach." For the Savior himself says about Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), - that is, only through Me can one go to Me, come to Me, abide in Me. And when we come to Him, we come to the Father (since through the equal the one to whom he is equal is comprehended), and through the action of the Holy Spirit we are connected with God and, as it were, clinging (vinciente et tamquam agglutinante) to Him, so that we can be able to abide in Him as in the highest and unchangeable Good. From here it is obvious how no object in the world should detain us on the path, when the Lord Himself, who deigned to become our path, did not even want to detain us in this regard forever, but wants us to pass through it further! Moreover, we, as completely weak, should not dwell for too long on temporary events and actions, although they were undertaken and accomplished by Him for our salvation. On the contrary, we must urgently go through them, so that, walking - walking, we can finally come to the One who freed our nature from everything temporary and seated it at the right hand of the Father. 39) I conclude: the essence of my hitherto continued research on subjects consists in revealing that important truth that the fullness and purpose of the Law and all Holy Scripture is Love, and namely: “love for that only Object that can fill us with joy, and love for those beings who, together with us, can be filled with this joy” (for the commandment about self-love is not needed). To this goal, that is, so that we know this and can act accordingly, Divine Providence directed all its temporary economy for our salvation, which we should use not as a permanent (mansoria) some object of love and joy, but more as a transitory order (transitoria); we must, I say, use it in the same way as we use the amenities of the ordinary path - chariots or any other tools. In a word, we must love everything that leads us to God not in itself, but for the sake of Him to Whom it leads. 40) Hence, whoever, when interpreting the word of God, thinks that he has understood the Holy Scripture or some part of it, and yet his understanding does not edify anyone in the above-mentioned twofold love for God and neighbor, he has not yet understood the Scripture. On the contrary, whoever extracted from it thoughts useful for edification in love, at least sometimes did not say exactly what the Writer he was explaining wants to say in a certain place, however, his mistake is harmless: he, of course, is deceived, but does not lie. For he is a liar who speaks a lie willingly and with intent; This is why we find many who are willing to lie, but no one to be deceived. If the former is done knowingly, and the latter is done without knowing, then it is obvious that in the same case the one who is deceived is better than the one who deceives. It is better to suffer injustice than to do it; and a great liar commits injustice: and if it seems useful to someone to sometimes lie, it may seem useful to him to sometimes do injustice. No liar, when he lies, remains faithful, for he wants to be believed, and, meanwhile, by telling a lie, he himself violates loyalty, and every violator of loyalty is an unjust person. Therefore, either injustice is sometimes useful, which cannot be, or lying is always useless. 41) Thus, whoever, when interpreting Scripture, derives a meaning different from that which the Writer was expressing had, he, of course, is deceived, although the fault of this deception is not Scripture, which never deceives. But if this meaning, incorrectly extracted during explanation, edifies in love, which is the end of the law, then the explainer is deceived in the same way as a traveler is deceived who, by mistake, leaving the straight road, goes through the field, however, to the same place where the road itself leads. It goes without saying that an erroneous interpreter must be corrected, clearly showing him that it is incomparably more profitable not to stray from the proper path at all, so that the habit of deviating from the road does not lead him too far, or even in a completely opposite direction. For, recklessly asserting a meaning that the Holy Writer does not have, the interpreter often in this case encounters other thoughts in the Writer, which he cannot in any way connect with the meaning found from him. If he feels that these last thoughts are completely true and accurate, then he feels at the same time that the meaning that he previously found in the Writer cannot possibly be true. From here, I don’t really know how it happens, only what happens is that the interpreter, addicted to his own erroneous meaning, suddenly begins to be more dissatisfied and angry with the word of God than with himself. This evil will destroy him if he allows it to intensify within himself. We must never forget that we walk here by faith and not by sight; but faith will weaken where respect for the Holy One is lost. Scripture: if faith weakens, love itself will weaken. For whoever loses faith necessarily loses love: you cannot love what you do not believe. On the contrary, he who believes and loves, by doing deeds of righteousness and obeying its laws, puts himself in a state of undoubted hope of one day achieving what he loves. Therefore, faith, hope and love form the basis of both all true knowledge in general, and, in particular, the Science of explaining Holy Scripture. 42) Vision will take the place of faith, bliss itself will take the place of hope, and love, and after their abolition, will intensify even more. For if by faith we love what we do not yet see, will we not love it more when we actually begin to see? And if, out of hope, we love what we have not yet achieved, then shall we not love more when we achieve it? Between temporary and eternal goods, among other things, the difference is that we love the first more when we do not yet possess them, but upon achieving them, our love for them cools down, because they do not satiate the soul destined for eternity. On the contrary, eternal blessings arouse the most ardent love for ourselves when we achieve them, rather than when we only desire them: for no one who wants to achieve eternal blessings can imagine them as they are in themselves, and no matter how much someone tries to comprehend them in thought, but having received them, he will always find in them more than what he imagined. 43) Therefore, whoever has faith, hope and love, and constantly abides in them, has need of the Scripture itself not so much for himself, but in order to edify others. So many live in the desert, not having a Bible at all, but instead are guided by faith, hope and love. It seems that what the Apostle said has already been fulfilled over them: “... although prophecies will cease, and tongues will be silent, and knowledge will be abolished.” (1 Cor. 13:8). Faith and love have made these people so wise that, holding on to what is perfect, they no longer seek what is partial; “perfect,” I say, as much as possible in this life, for, in relation to the future life, no righteous person on earth can be called perfect. That is why it is said: “And now these three remain: faith, hope, love; but love is the greatest of these” (1 Cor. 13:13), for, having reached eternity, when faith and hope are abolished, our love will become fuller and more perfect. 44) For this reason, whoever fully understands that the purpose of the Law “is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith” (1 Tim. 1:5), and whoever bases the entire understanding of Holy Scripture on these three virtues, boldly begin to explain the Word of God. For when the Apostle said “love from the heart,” he thereby showed that one should love one thing worthy of love. To a pure heart he adds a “good conscience” - for hope, since he cannot hope to achieve the object of his faith and love who has a bad, troubled conscience. Finally, he says “and unfeigned in faith” because if we sincerely believe, then, on the one hand, we do not love anything that we should not love, on the other hand, leading a correct life, we hope firmly, so that our hope can in no way deceive us. I have said here about subjects regarding faith as much as I considered necessary to say due to the circumstances: the most detailed research on this can be found in other works, both by me and by other writers. Now I will finish my first book about objects and, with God’s help, I will begin a study on signs. Book 2. About signs and language in general, about the qualities necessary for an expounder of Holy Scripture, and about obstacles and aids to its explanation 1) Speaking about objects, I first noted that one must look in them only for what they are in themselves, and not for what they can still mean. Now starting to study about signs, I will note on the contrary, namely: “here we must look not at what signs are in themselves, but only at what they are signs, i.e., what is signified by them. For a sign in general is an object that, in addition to its own species or form acting on our senses, excites in our mind the idea of other known objects, so, for example, having seen a trail, we imagine the animal that made this trail, seeing smoke, we imagine the fire that produced it, hearing the cry of an animal, we conclude about its internal state, having heard the sound of a trumpet, warriors already know what to do - whether to go forward, or retreat, or do something else according to the rules military science. 2) Signs in general are of two kinds - some natural, others artificial (conventional) (data). Natural signs are those that, in addition to the idea of ​​themselves, arouse in us the concept of another thing, on their own, and not by someone’s arbitrariness, connecting with them the meaning of this thing; such, for example, is the sign “smoke”, suggesting fire. For it does not depend on human arbitrariness that the last is always assumed to be first, but from experience and observation people have learned that where there is smoke, there is also fire, even if only smoke is visible. The same type of signs includes the trace of a passing animal, and the appearance of a person, angry or saddened, without any desire on the part of him revealing his inner, sorrowful state and other movements of the soul, expressed on our face when we do not even think of expressing them. However, I do not intend to discuss natural signs in detail now and touched upon them here only because they were included in the main division of my treatise, considering the remark now made about them sufficient. 3) Artificial or conventional signs are those with which living beings, by mutual agreement, express their mental movements, feelings and thoughts. The purpose of using them is to convey and impress upon the soul of another what is in the mind of the person giving the sign. This kind of signs, insofar as they are used by people, is the subject of my present discussion; for the signs given from above, contained in Scripture, are communicated to us through the people who wrote them. Animals also have some signs for mutual expression of their feelings. So the rooster, when he finds food, signals with his voice the hen to go to him; the dove moans to the dove, and the dove calls the dove. There are many other similar signs in animals, but what kind of these signs are, whether they follow a spiritual sensation in them, like a change in the face and voice of an upset person without any arbitrariness or intention on his part, or are they conditionally given to express certain objects - this is another question that does not relate to my subject and therefore is left here without resolution. 4) The signs used by people to mutually express their feelings belong: some to the sense of vision, most to the sense of hearing, very few to other senses. So, for example, when we point to something with our hand, we give a sign only to the eyes of the one whom we want to make a participant in our will and thoughts. There are people who mean a lot with one movement of their hands; comedians make certain signs before experts with the movement of all their limbs and speak, as it were, with their eyes; military banners also tell the will of the leaders to the eyes of warriors: all these signs are, as it were, some visible words. Signs related to hearing constitute, as I said, the largest class and mainly consist of words. Of course, the military trumpet, the flute, and the cithara emit not only pleasant, but also significant sounds, but all these signs in comparison with the words make up a very small number; words, on the contrary, serve as people's first and most important means of meaning everything that the soul feels and what it wants to reveal to others. It is also true that Jesus Christ Himself gave a certain sign to the precious ointment with which His feet were anointed (John 12:3, 7), gave a sign that He Himself favored to the sacrament of eating His body and blood (Luke 22:19-20), and not without a sign did the hems of His garment remain, which the bleeding wife, having touched, was healed of her illness (Matt. 9:21); but, despite all this, countless signs are predominantly contained in the words with which people express their thoughts. For all the kinds of signs that I have briefly mentioned now, I could, if I wanted, express in words, but I could not express words with these signs in any way. 5) But since words, upon shaking the air, immediately disappear and are as short-lived as their sound itself, then letters were established to materialize them. Thus, words are no longer presented to the eyes by themselves, but through their well-known signs, i.e. letters. These last signs could not, however, be the same among all nations due to a constant certain discord and envy in humanity, due to which every nation arrogates to itself the primacy of the invention of writing. A striking monument to such human pride is the well-known pillar in heaven, which raised the wicked instead of heaven to the fact that they deserved the punishment of being discordant among themselves not only in thoughts, but also in words (Gen. 11: 1-9). 6) From here it followed that the Holy Scripture itself, healing the many different diseases of the human soul and written in one language in which it could very conveniently spread throughout the face of the whole earth, should then be translated into different languages ​​in order to serve all peoples for salvation. Those who read the word of God for their salvation desire nothing more than to find in it the thoughts and will of those by whom it was written, and thus to find the will of God, according to which, as we believe, all the God-inspired Writers spoke. 7) Meanwhile, unreasonable readers, reading inappropriately, are therefore often deceived, encountering a lot of darkness and obscurity in Scripture, incorrectly putting one meaning instead of another, and in some places finding no meaning at all. Such darkness is presented to such people by certain obscure passages of Scripture. I have no doubt that Providence, having allowed some darkness in Scripture, had a wise purpose - in order to humble human pride by the difficulty of finding its exact meaning, and in order to warn our reason against satiety - this reason, which, for the most part, considers unimportant what can be easily discovered. The following example can serve as proof of the latter: tell the listener that very holy and perfect are those people whose life and morality serve for the Church of Christ to cut off superstition from people who come to it from other faiths, and through imitation of the good deeds of these holy people, becoming actual members of its body, those people who, as good and faithful servants of the true God, laying aside worldly cares, came to the holy baptismal font, and, having been born in it by the influx of the Holy Spirit, they constantly give the fruit of pure love, that is, love for God and neighbor, tell all this to the listener, and you will see that he will not like your speech much. But explain the same idea with a not entirely clear passage from the Song of Songs, where about the Church, praised as a certain beautiful woman, it is said: “Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep coming out of the pool, each of which has a pair of lambs, and there is not a barren one among them” (Song. 4:2); I'll like this explanation better. Why is this? Does a thought expressed by similarities and comparisons teach the listener something different than the same thought expressed in the clearest and most personal words? Not at all; and yet, I don’t know why, I look at the saints with greater pleasure when I see that they, like the teeth of the Church, separate and free people from error, and, having softened their cruelty, turn them into the body of the Church, like accepted and chewed food. In the same way, the saints seem especially pleasant to me when I look at them, as at shorn lambs, throwing off the cares of light from themselves, like a wave of lamb, rising from the font, that is, from Holy Baptism, having two fruits, that is, fulfilling the two commandments of love; and there are those who do not give birth in them, that is, those deprived of the holy fruit of love. 8) Why does the explanation borrowed in Scripture from similarity seem to me much more pleasant than the simple disclosure of a thought, despite the fact that both the subject and the knowledge about it are the same in both cases? This is difficult to explain and that is another question. At least, no one will doubt that there are objects that you can learn much more readily if they are presented in similarities, and that those truths are generally much more pleasant, the discovery of which is associated with some difficulty. For he who does not find what he is looking for at all is tormented by hunger, and he who does not seek at all, because he has everything ready, often withers from boredom and inaction. In both cases, one must be wary of complete exhaustion of mental strength. For this reason, the Holy Spirit acted in a manner worthy of Him and most beneficial to us, giving Scripture such a form that in clear places it can satisfy spiritual hunger, and in dark places it can destroy the pride and negligence of people. For this darkness hides almost nothing in itself that has not been revealed in the clearest way in other places of Scripture. 9) Therefore, in order to understand the will of God, which prescribes what we should desire and what we should avoid, we must first of all have the fear of God. This fear necessarily arouses in us thoughts about our mortality and death itself; humbling our flesh, he nails, as if to the tree of the cross, all the arrogance of our pride. Then we must become meek through the spirit of piety, not contradict Divine Scripture, whether it is clear when it exposes our vices, or (in other cases) not clear - so that it would seem to us that we ourselves can reason better and teach better rules. We must always think and believe that everything contained in Scripture, although sometimes dark to us, is better and more true than all our wisdom. 10) After these two degrees - Fear of God and Piety, there follows a third, namely the degree of knowledge, which I proposed to talk about especially. For this is the degree that everyone who studies Scripture should strive for, looking for nothing in it like the following two Commandments: one must love God for God and one’s neighbor also for God; must love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind - and your neighbor as yourself, i.e. so that complete love for one's neighbor, as well as for oneself, then relates to God. I spoke about these two Commandments of love in the previous book, when I discussed objects (rebus). Now let’s say that everyone, turning to Scripture out of necessity, first of all, according to its instructions, finds in himself an attachment to the present world, that is, to its temporary blessings, and at the same time he sees himself far from that love for God and neighbor, which the Word of God requires. After this, the spirit of Fear, reminiscent of the judgment of God, and the spirit of Piety, encouraging one to believe and obey the teachings of Scripture, make a person weep for himself. For the saving spirit of knowledge naturally disposes one to sorrowful feelings, and not to vanity. But, in order not to be a victim of despair, a person at this time, through constant prayers, asks for the consolation of Divine help and is placed on the fourth degree, which is the degree of Strength, or fortress, where he hungers and thirsts for righteousness. In this disposition, man abandons all deadly pleasure in transitory goods: turning his gaze away from them, he turns to the love of eternal goods, that is, the unchangeable unity in the Trinity. 11) As soon as possible, he sees this Trinity, as if radiantly shining in some distance, and at the same time feels that, due to the weakness of his vision, he cannot embrace this light, then he tries to cleanse his soul, dissatisfied with himself for doing unworthy objects, still troubled by unclean thoughts, and actually cleanses it at the fifth degree, that is, in the Council of Mercy. Here he already exercises himself with all zeal in love for his neighbor and improves in it. Further, full of hope and strong in strength, having reached the point where he is able to love his enemy, he ascends to the sixth degree - purity of heart, where he purifies his innermost eye, capable of seeing God as much as everyone can see Him, if possible dying to this world. For God can be seen insofar as we die to the world, and insofar as we live for the world cannot be seen. Thus, as you move away from the world, the vision of the eternal light begins to seem something familiar and not only acceptable, but also joyful; although we still see this light only fortune-telling and as if through a glass darkly: “for man generally walks here by faith rather than by sight, since we are strangers in this life, and our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). He who seeks wisdom at the sixth degree so purifies the eye of his heart that he does not prefer the truth and does not even equate his neighbor with it, and, therefore, does not equate himself, since he does not equate the one whom he loves as himself. In this state, a person can already be considered a saint if he is so kind and pure in his heart that he does not deviate from the truth - neither out of man-pleasing, nor out of a desire to avoid the disadvantages of real life. And only such a son of the Church achieves Wisdom, which constitutes the seventh and final degree, and which he enjoys in silence and peace. Thus, the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord; because they achieve wisdom only by starting from this fear and passing through all other degrees. 12) But let's turn to the third degree; for we have proposed to discuss it here in particular and say how much God will help. The most zealous examiner of Scripture, first of all, must read and notice all Scripture - that is, all the Canonical books - and thus become familiar with them, if not yet by understanding them, then at least by reading them. He can read other books of Scripture - non-canonical ones - with safety later, being already illuminated by the light of true faith - after, and not before, out of fear that they will not preoccupy his inexperienced soul and that, having captivated him with some thoughts that are pleasant in appearance, but not safe in themselves, they will not instill in him, instead of the truth, something that is contrary to common understanding. In reasoning the Canonical books of Scripture, the examiner must follow the authority and leadership of the Catholic Churches, and especially those who were honored to have the Thrones of the Apostles themselves (sedes Apostolica) and receive Epistles from them. Here is the main rule that must be followed regarding canonical books: “Books accepted by the entire universal Church should be preferred to those not accepted by some of the Churches; books that are not accepted by everyone, but accepted by many and the most important Churches, should be preferred to those accepted by not many and, moreover, not so important Churches.” But if it were found that some of the books are accepted by the largest, and others by the most important Churches, although this may not easily happen, then such books, in my opinion, should be considered as Scriptures of equal dignity. 13) The entire Canon of Scripture, which should be primarily dealt with, consists of the following books: the five books of Moses - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua, one of Judges; one small one, known as the book of Ruth, which seems to serve as the beginning of the book of Kings; further, the four books of Kings and two books of Chronicles, which constitute not a continuation, but a repetition and addition of the events set out in the books of Kings. All the books that have been counted so far contain History, which sets out events and objects in their connection and in chronological order. But, besides these, there are books that do not have such an order and mutual connection with each other. These are: the books of Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the two books of Maccabees and two Esdras, which seem to be a continuation of the History contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Then the books of the Prophets, among which is one book of the Psalms of David and three books of Solomon, namely, the book of Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, two more books, of which one is known under the name of Wisdom, and the other under the name of Ecclesiasticus. The writing of these last two books is attributed by others, due to some similarity in syllable, to Solomon, but the more consistent opinion regarding this is that they were written by Jesus Sirach (later Augustine changed his opinion about the writer of the Book of Wisdom and stopped attributing it to Sirach (Revisions, 2, 4, 2); be that as it may, only they, as having earned respect from the Church, should be classified among the books of the Prophets. Other books are actually the Prophetic and, firstly, the twelve Prophets, whose books are listed together, because they were never separated, and therefore are revered as if they were one book. The names of the Prophets themselves who wrote them are: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. great ones: the Prophet Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezekiel. All these forty-four books constitute the Old Testament. The books of the New Testament are as follows: the four books of the Gospel - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, namely: to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; then two epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of Jude, one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles, and, finally, one book of the Revelation of John (Apocalypse). 14) Here are all the canonical books in which meek people who fear God seek the will of God. But the first rule in this holy matter is, as I have already said, to first learn these books, if not yet by understanding, then at least by solidifying them in memory through reading; for complete ignorance of them in this regard is unforgivable. Then one must, with all care and zeal, delve deeper into the knowledge of what they clearly speak about - whether it is the rules of life or the rules of faith. In this case, the more capable someone is of understanding, the more will he find it clear in Scripture: for everything related to faith and morals, that is, hope and love, which I discussed in the previous book, the word of God offers in a clear way. Finally, having become more familiar with the very language of Divine Scripture, one must begin to discover and examine what is obscure in it, explaining obscure expressions as intelligible, unknown thoughts as known. In this regard, memory helps a lot, the lack of which cannot be replaced by the rules presented here. 15) Every work is incomprehensible for two reasons: either because some words are completely unknown, or because their meaning is ambiguous. Words generally have either proper or figurative meanings. The proper meaning of words occurs when they mean precisely those objects for the expression of which they were invented, so, for example, we say “ox” and by this word we mean a well-known animal, which is what everyone who speaks our language (Latin) calls it. The figurative meaning of words occurs when the very objects expressed in their own words are used to mean something else; Thus, by the word “ox” we actually mean a well-known animal, usually called by the word; but we can also understand a person who is engaged in preaching the Word of God, whom Scripture itself called by this name, according to the Apostle’s explanation, in the following place: “Do not muzzle the ox that is threshing” (1 Cor. 9:9). 16) Knowledge of languages ​​is a means to understanding unknown, albeit one’s own, words. People who know the Latin language, for whom I decided to write these rules, in addition to their own language, need to know two other languages ​​- Hebrew and Greek - for a greater understanding of the Divine Scripture, so that in case of any doubt - with the Latin translations being so different from each other - everyone can resort to the originals. In addition, in translations of the Holy Scriptures we often find some Hebrew words untranslated, such as: Amen, Hallelujah, Cancer, Hosanna and perhaps some others. The first two, i.e. Amen and Hallelujah, although they could have been translated, remain to this day in their original form due to the sacred respect for them, and the last two, i.e. Cancer and Hosanna, even, as they say, could not be translated, for in every language there are words that cannot be translated into any other language. These are especially interjections that express a strong feeling of the soul, and not any ordinary thought. These interjections include some of the words we have presented - Cancer and Hosanna; the first, they say, expresses a feeling of indignation, the second - joy. However, it is not only these and similar words that require knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages ​​(you can notice such words and ask others about them); but it is also necessary because of the differences in many translations. The number of Greek translators is quite limited; but there are an extraordinary number of Latin ones. For, even from the first times of Christianity, every Latin who happened to have the Greek Text of Scripture in his hands, and who at least considered himself knowledgeable in the Latin and Greek languages, everyone boldly undertook the translation of Holy Scripture. 17) However, this state of affairs would help more than hinder the understanding of Scripture, if only the readers were not lazy. For, in this case, one simple comparison of many translations can easily explain many obscure passages of Scripture. For example, one of the translators translates one of the verses of the Prophet Isaiah as follows: “Do not despise those of your kindred” (Is.58, 7), and another as follows: “Do not despise your flesh” (Is.58, 7). But both of these translators do not contradict each other; for each of them can be explained one by one to the other; the word “flesh” can be taken in its own sense, and the thought will be this: no one should despise his body; and the words “thy tribe” can be taken in a figurative sense and mean Christians who are born with us from the same seed of the Word of God. Thus, after comparing the thoughts of one translator with the thoughts of another, the opinion becomes most reliable that here it is forbidden to despise relatives; for by applying the words “peculiar to your tribe” to the words “your flesh”, the closest meaning of both will be the meaning of relatives; and it seems to me that these words express the same thing that the Apostle says: “Lest I arouse jealousy in (my relatives) according to the flesh and save some of them” (Rom. 11:14), that is, lest they also believe, being jealous of those who have already believed. Here the Apostle, obviously, by the name of his flesh means the Jews, by his kinship with them. In the same way, the following passage of the Prophet Isaiah is translated differently. One translator: “And if you do not believe, you will not understand” (Is. 7:9); another: “If you do not believe, you will not abide” (Is. 7: 9). Although, without resorting to the original, it is impossible to know which of the two translators translated this passage more accurately, despite the fact that both translations themselves reveal a lot to an intelligent reader; since in general it is difficult to find translators who would not have any relationship with each other and therefore would not teach the reader anything. Namely, since there is a place for full understanding only where there is constant vision, and faith, on the contrary, tends to nourish us, like the milk of children, little by little in the cradle of time; and we now walk in faith, and not in vision, and if we do not believe, we will not achieve vision, which does not pass away, but constantly continues in a pure mind with its eternal cooperation with the truth, then - in this sense - one could translate the said passage “if you do not believe, you will not abide,” and another - “and if you do not believe, you will not understand” (Is. 7:9). (Sept.) 18) The ambiguous words of the original itself very often deceive the translator, and he, not understanding the thoughts well, gives them a meaning that is completely inconsistent with the Writer’s intention. So, in one of the translations we read: “Their feet are sharp to shed blood” (Rom. 3:15). The Greek word όξύζ has two meanings - “sharp” and “quick”. He who translated this word with the second meaning: “Their feet are swift to shed blood,” better understood the Writer’s thought. The first ones sinned precisely because of the double meaning of the word, taking it here in the wrong meaning. Such translations are not obscure, but incorrect, and they need to be corrected, not understood. For some, the following Greek words have caused similar errors in translations: “Μόσχοζ and μοσχεύματα. Μόσχοζ means “taurus” (vitulus). Deriving both words from the same root and not knowing that μοσχεύμα means “planting in the ground” (plantatio), the translators gave this word the meaning of calf (vitulamina), and this error has crept into so many translations that it is unlikely that even one can be found correct. Meanwhile, the thought here is very clear, and the following words are revealed in full light; for it is better to say: “An adulterous plant will not give root in the depths” (Wis. 4:3) rather than “adulterous calves” and so on. Taurus walk only on the earth, and do not establish their roots in it. Other further words of the text also force us to translate the word μοσχεύμα in the meaning of planting. 19) Since, without mastering the language of the original, it is often impossible to see the very thought of the translators, which they, each according to their ability and understanding, try to convey to us; and since the translator, if he is not completely learned, having lost his way from the straight path, moves away for the most part from the very thoughts of the Writer he is translating, then the reader either should try to understand those languages ​​from which the Scripture is translated into Latin, or should have more literal translations - not because these translations are completely satisfactory, but because they can show the reader the correctness or error of the thoughts contained in their translations, not so much the words. For in literal translations not only individual words are translated, but even frequent figures of speech that are not commonly used in the Latin language without violating anciently established rules of speech. Such translations for the most part do not take anything away from the mind, although they offend the taste of those for whom it is more pleasant to read truths expressed in pure and correct language. For the so-called solecism, with which such translations abound, is nothing more than a strange and incorrect composition of words, contrary to what we learned from people who spoke our language before us and in this respect earned themselves respect. But for someone who is trying to find out the thing itself, it does not matter whether they tell him “between people” (intner homines) or “between people” (inter hominibus). Likewise, the barbarisms that are usually found in literal translations are nothing more than an error against the spelling or pronunciation of words, established by the example of people who wrote or pronounced the known words one way and not another. But for one who prays to God for the forgiveness of his sins, it is not important to know how the word ignoscere (to forgive) should be pronounced, whether by shortening the third syllable of this word, or by continuing; he only prays to God for forgiveness, no matter how he pronounces the words of his prayer. And what is the very purity of language, violated by these and similar errors, if not merely imitation of the way of speech of the ancients, who earned respect for themselves in this regard? 20) People are offended by impurity in language the more, the more ignorant they are; and they are usually less knowledgeable the more they want to appear learned - not in relation to the knowledge of the truths themselves, which edifies, but in relation to the knowledge of one language, in which it is almost impossible to protect oneself from some kind of arrogance, when the knowledge of the truths themselves often puffs us up if we are not humbled by the yoke of the Lord. Indeed, what harm does it do to the student of Scripture when he reads the following passage translated word for word from the original thus: “What is the land in which they dwell” (the Canaanites) in it, whether good or evil, and what are the cities wherein they dwell in them? (Num. 13:20) - “What kind of land are these people sitting on it, is there good or evil, and what kind of cities are these people living in, are they fences or not fences?” Such a translation, of course, contains phrases characteristic of an alien language, and not ours, but the meaning is not impaired at all. In the same way, what the people sing in the words “in him shall My holiness flourish” (Ps. 131:18) - “Super ipsum autem floriet sanctificatio mea.” floriet instead of florebit, which we can no longer prohibit those who sing, does not in the least violate the integrity of thought, although an experienced listener in language would like to correct this and hear florebit instead of floriet. Nothing prevents such correction except the habit of the singers. But such shortcomings in translations, as completely harmless to the meaning, can be ignored by those who are looking not for grace, but for truth. The translation of the following words of the Apostle is completely different: “Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus, et quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus” (“Before God, man is wiser, and the weak things of God are stronger than man”) (1 Cor. 1:25). If someone, sticking closer to the Greek language, presented these words in the following form: “Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominum; et quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominum” (In Russian it is impossible to express the ambiguity that the author finds here, and in general his remarks in this place concern only Latin), then an attentive and reasonable reader would, of course, find a real thought in these words; but anyone else either would not have understood them at all, or would have understood them incorrectly. For such a translation in Latin, despite its obvious malfunction, would carry ambiguity; for from it it can come out that supposedly the insane human was wiser than God, and the weak human was stronger than God. And the first translation: “sapientius est hominibus” (the wiser man) - although it does not contain solecism, is also somewhat ambiguous, because without understanding the Writer’s thoughts, one cannot know how to understand the word hominibus. Therefore, the words of the Apostle could be better translated as follows: “... wiser than men, and stronger than men.” 21) But we will talk about ambiguous (ambigua) signs of Scripture later, but now we will talk about unknown signs, which - if we understand by the name of their words - are of two kinds. For, the reader is stopped either by one unknown word, or by a whole unknown saying (locutio). If this uncertainty depends on ignorance of a foreign language, then to resolve it we must either ask people who know that language, or learn it ourselves, when time and abilities allow, or, finally, consult with various translations, comparing some of them with others. But we can also find in our own language some words and even entire sayings that are unknown to us; in this case, you should try to meet them as often as possible when reading and in conversations. There is nothing that needs to be fixed in your memory as much as these unknown words and sayings; one must always keep them, so to speak, ready, so that one can take advantage of all opportunities to learn their true meaning, for example, ask about them if you meet a person who knows, or find a place in the writings of others where the meaning of these words is clearly revealed from the previous or subsequent one, or from both together. For the habit of learning from memory generally has such power that, for example, people who have read the Holy Scripture and were brought up on it are more likely to be surprised at all other expressions and consider them less Latin than those that they have memorized from Scripture, although these latter are not at all used by Latin Writers. Meanwhile, in any case, it is very useful to compare as many different translators as possible, delving into their differences; only in this case one must use every effort so as not to be deceived by the incorrectness of the lists, for there are lists that still need to be corrected first - and those who want to know the Divine Scripture must pay special attention to this circumstance, so that, when examining the lists themselves, they do not prefer the incorrect ones to the correct ones. 22) As for the translations themselves, the Italian translation should be preferred to all others, because it is both more accurate and clearer than the others. To correct the shortcomings in the Latin translations, it is necessary to resort to the Greek translations, among which the most important - if we talk about the Old Testament - is the translation of seventy interpreters, who, in the opinion of all the churches who are more knowledgeable in this matter, when they translated the Scriptures, were honored with such inspiration from the Holy Spirit that they had, as it were, only lips. If, as many not unworthy people say, during the translation itself they were each imprisoned in a special room, and, despite the fact that the translation of each of them was found to agree with the translations of others not only in words, but also in the arrangement of words, then who would dare to compare other translations with this so important translation, and, even more so, to prefer them to it? If some, in order to create further agreement in thoughts and for greater unity in the very expressions, have already compared the translation of the Seventy with others, at least it is inappropriate and indecent for anyone alone, in the hope of their own experience, to attempt to correct anything in this translation, approved by the unanimous consent of such ancient and learned men as the seventy interpreters. Even if in their translation there was something that disagreed with the Hebrew original, then this, in my opinion, should be attributed to the special intentions of God, accomplished through them, so that the books that the Jews did not want to open to other peoples - either out of respect for their Religion, or out of hatred for these peoples - in advance, through the mediation and authority of King Ptolemy, became known to the pagans, who had to be enlightened by faith in the Lord. It could very well have happened that the seventy interpreters, translating the Scripture, according to the will of the Holy Spirit, who guided them and gave them one mouth, took into account, moreover, the condition of the pagans. In addition, for greater clarity of a certain passage, it is not useless, as I said above, to demolish those translators who in their translation adhered to the very words of the original. And, as for the Latin translations of the Old Testament, they, if necessary, should be corrected, as noted above, by Greek translations, and especially by the translation of seventy interpreters, despite their large number, who, as they say, translated everything into one word. Likewise, in the books of the N. Testament, if, due to the differences in the Latin translations, one encounters anything dubious, then, without any doubt, one must resort to the Greek originals, especially those accepted by the Churches, which are more experienced and discriminating in this matter. 23) If in Scripture the reader is stopped by any figurative signs unknown to him, then to understand them one needs knowledge, partly of languages, and partly of the very objects they signify. So the pool of Siloam, where the Lord commanded the blind man to wash after anointing his eyes with clay made from spitting, undoubtedly has something mysterious in its own sign; but its mysterious meaning, with all its importance, would have remained unknown due to the unknown meaning of the word, if the Evangelist had not explained it. Likewise, many Hebrew words, not explained by the Holy Writers themselves, would, without a doubt, greatly contribute to the resolution of many mysteries of Scripture, if someone could explain them as they should; and those who know the Hebrew language have rendered an important service to posterity, who have already explained what, for example, the words Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses mean, or what Jerusalem, Zion, Jericho, Sinai, Lebanon, Jordan and many others mean. By discovering the meaning of these words, many figurative sayings of Holy Scripture also become clear. 24) If we do not know the properties of the objects themselves, for example, famous animals, stones, herbs and other things used in Holy Scripture due to any similarity between them and higher and spiritual objects, then, of necessity, all those figurative sayings of Scripture in which they are mentioned are dark for us. But how, on the contrary (let’s say for example), the thought of the Savior becomes clear to us, commanding us to be wise, like serpents ( Matthew 10:16), when we know about the serpent that, in order to save his head, he yields his entire body to those attacking him, or, taking advantage of the tightness of his cave, sheds his former skin and thus receives new strength! This command of the Lord clearly means that we must, firstly, in order to preserve our head, which is Christ, sacrifice our body to our enemies, not spare it, if the preservation of this body leads us to distance from God, and, so to speak, kills the Christian faith in us; secondly, imitating the wisdom of the serpent in the last respect, we must, according to the word of the Apostle, put off the old man and put on the new (Eph. 4:24) through tightness and sorrow, as the Lord himself teaches: “Enter through the narrow gate” (Matthew 7:13). Thus, just as it is useful to know the properties of the serpent for understanding many improper sayings of Scripture in which it is mentioned, so, on the contrary, the unknown nature of some other animals cited in Scripture, due to some similarity to higher objects, very often confuses the reader. You also need to know the properties of stones, herbs and plants in general. Knowledge, for example, of a carbuncle, shining in the darkness, helps to clarify the dark passages of Scripture in which it is mentioned for some semblance; and ignorance of beryl and diamond sometimes hinders the reader’s understanding. By the name of the olive branch brought by the dove into the ark (Gen. 8:11), we usually mean constant peace, for no other reason than as we know that olive oil, with proper frugality, does not quickly spoil, and the tree itself is always green. Many, not knowing hyssop, what power it has to cleanse the lungs, or, as they say, to penetrate the very stones with its roots, and, looking at the fact that it is a small and low grass, cannot understand why it is said: “Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I will be clean” (Ps. 50:9). 25) The darkness of many improper and mysterious passages of Scripture often also depends on ignorance of the meaning of the numbers mentioned in it. The searching mind cannot be indifferent without knowing why Moses, Elijah and the Lord Himself fasted for forty days. This such a significant action can be understood and resolved in no other way than by considering and knowing the properties of the fortieth day. The decimal number, taken four times, expresses the knowledge of all things in time, for the quaternary number determines the flow of all time - daily and annual: because the first, as is known, consists of the hours of the morning, noon, evening and night, and the second - of the months of spring, summer, autumn and winter. Therefore, for the eternity in which we wish to live, we, while still living in time, must voluntarily abstain from attachment to everything temporary and thus fast; although the passage of time in itself already teaches us enough to despise everything temporary and desire the eternal. Further, the decimal number signifies the knowledge of the Creator and the creature; namely, the triple number is the number of the Creator, while the sevenfold number is the number of the creature, taking into account its life and body. For three relate to life - heart, soul and mind - which is why one should love God with all the heart, all the soul and all the mind, but the last number - four - belongs to the body, which clearly means the four elements necessary in the composition of the body. So, the decimal number, taken four times, teaches us to live in time not for time, that is, purely, abstinently and without attachment to the temporal, and thus, as it were, to fast for forty days, that is, all our lives. The law teaches us this - in the person of Moses, prophecy teaches us - in the person of Elijah, the Lord Himself teaches us, who, as if as a testimony to Himself of the Law and the Prophets, appeared on the mountain among Moses and Elijah to his three disciples, delighting them with this vision. In the same way we can examine how the number fifty, so sacred in our religion on account of Pentecost, is derived from the number fourscore; how this number, taken three times to signify three times - before the Law, under the Law and under Grace - or adaptable to the highest subject, the Trinity itself, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, refers to the Sacraments of the Church not only earthly, but also heavenly, from which we conclude that in Scripture the number one hundred and fifty-three is not unimportant, i.e. the number of fish that, after the resurrection of the Lord, were caught in nets thrown across right side (John 21:11). Thus, under various types of numbers, Holy Scripture often hides secrets that are inaccessible to the understanding of readers who do not understand the meaning of the numbers themselves. 26) Much in Scripture is dark and incomprehensible to us even when we do not know some subjects related to music. Someone, for example, quite successfully discovered many significant things in the various structures of the Psalter and the harp. And it is not in vain that scientists ask about the ten-string Psalter: is it the law of any music that required such a number of strings, or, if not the law, should not this number be even more sacred for us, does it not point to the ten commandments of the Law, where the number ten must clearly have some mysterious relation to the essence of the Creator and the creature, or does it not have the meaning that we gave to the decimal number above? Also, the number forty-six years, during which, as the Gospel says, the temple of Jerusalem was built (John 2:20), resonates with something similar to a musical rhythm. It is noteworthy that his attitude towards the composition of the body of the Lord, for which the church is mentioned in the Gospel, prompts some heretics to admit that the Son of God took upon himself not only the appearance of a body, but a true human body. In general, we are confident that St. Scripture in many places mentions numbers and music with particular significance, without at all considering it indecent to use them. 27) There is no need to listen to those superstitious pagan nonsense, according to which the nine muses are the daughters of Jupiter and Memoria. This legend was rejected by Varro, with whom, it seems to me, hardly any of the pagans can compare in learning and inclination to research regarding such subjects. He says that one city (I don’t know what it was called, and it’s not about the name) commissioned three artists to make three images of muses, with an agreement to buy for dedication in the Church of Apollo those of them that would be made better. The artists finished their work with equal success; nine images were equally liked by the city, and all were purchased for the intended purpose. And the poet Hesiod, later on, gave them names. Thus, it was not Jupiter who gave birth to the nine muses, but three artists - each of three - who produced them. And the city commissioned each artist to make three images, not because the muses in such a number appeared to anyone in a dream or were visible from someone in an unusual way, but due to the universal, constant observation that every sound, as the matter of singing and music, is essentially of three kinds, namely: produced either by the voice, when they sing with the larynx, without any instrument; or by blowing, when, for example, they play trumpets and flutes; or through a certain accent, when, for example, they play harps, kettledrums and other musical instruments that produce sound when they are struck. 28) Whether this narrative of Varro is fair or not, only we, because of such superstition of the pagans, should not despise music, information about which can sometimes be useful for the understanding of Scripture, and we should not neglect the most theatrical things, when in our discussion about harps and other musical instruments, they can reveal to us something that contributes to the knowledge of spiritual things. Otherwise, we would not have to learn the ABC, the inventor of which the Pagans revere Mercury; they should not have loved truth and virtue itself, because the pagans dedicated temples to truth and virtue, preferring to honor in stones that which was most important to carry and nourish in the heart. On the contrary, a good and true Christian should know that truth, wherever he finds it, is the property of his Lord; confessing and recognizing her in St. Scripture, he must reject only superstitious fictions, must mourn and fear only those people who, “having known God, did not glorify Him as God, and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; calling themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed creatures, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21-23). 29) But in order to better reveal these words of the Apostle, which are very important, it is necessary to pay attention to two types of sciences, known among the Pagans and closely connected with morality itself. Sciences of the first kind have as their subject what is invented by people; and science of the second kind is that which is not invented, but as a result of observation is accepted as already ready or established from above. Based on human institutions, partly connected with superstition, partly free from it. 30) To make and venerate idols, to idolize the creature or any part of it, to consult and enter into close and close relations with evil spirits, which is facilitated by magic, which poets, however, mention more than they say anything definite - all such teaching, based on human institutions, is full of superstition. This category also includes various books by fortunetellers on the entrails of animals and soothsayers on the flight of birds, which, however, despite all their vanity, are not as reprehensible as others. This also includes various dressings and medicines, condemned by medicine itself and consisting of spells or some kind of signs, which are called characters, as well as the use of various pendants, bindings and wrappers, which are not made to correct the members of the body, but because of their special power and meaning, which are sometimes kept secret, and sometimes announced. All this is called by the modest name of physics, wanting to show that they are treated as if in a natural way, and not out of superstition: for example, they hang earrings on the top of each ear, they advise having rings made of ostrich bones on your fingers, holding the thumb of your left hand with your right hand during hiccups, etc. 31) There are an extraordinary number of such superstitious remarks. Thus, it is also considered significant if any member of the body begins to move in an unusual way and itches, if friends walking together happen to see a stone lying between them, or if a dog or child passes between them. In the latter case, what is worthy of regret is not so much that friends usually trample that stone with their feet, as a harbinger of a breaking friendship, but that they also beat an innocent child running between them. But dogs often take revenge for children: some, out of superstition, beat a dog passing between them, but this does not always go unpunished for them - sometimes a dog suddenly, from an imaginary cure, carries its enemy to a true physician. The following also belong to this type of superstition: kicking your foot on the threshold when you pass by your house; lie down on the bed again when, putting on your shoes, you start sneezing; return to the house when, upon leaving it, you stumble over something; trembling at the idea of ​​future misfortune, with little regret at the present loss, when the mice wear away the dress. On this last occasion, Cato beautifully said to one person who asked him for advice, complaining that his boots were worn out by mice: it is not a miracle, he said, that mice sharpen boots, then it would be a miracle if the boots began to sharpen mice. 32) Those who, due to observations of the stars made regarding birthdays, are called predictors of the fate of newborns (genethliaci), and are now generally called mathematicians (mathematici), are not free from such harmful superstitions. For, no matter what observations they make in determining the true position of the stars when someone is born, and no matter how much they succeed in this; but, trying to predict our future actions or the consequences of our actions on the basis of their experiences, by this they themselves are extremely mistaken and sell to inexperienced people not prediction, but miserable slavery. For everyone, hitherto free, coming to such a mathematician, gives him money in order to leave him as a slave of Mars or Venus, or, better, of all the stars, named (by those who first fell into error and passed it on to their offspring) due to some similarity with known animals, the names of these animals, and out of respect for certain important people - the names of these people. So the Romans in recent times wanted to name the star, which we call Lucifer, in honor of Caesar with the name of Caesar. And such a name, perhaps, would really have remained with the star and would have passed on to posterity if Caesar’s grandmother, Venus, had not anticipated this honor for herself, who, unfortunately, herself did not have any right to transfer to her heirs what she did not have during her life, and probably did not aspire to have. For when there was an idle place not occupied by any of the deceased ancestors, they did not hesitate to act as they usually do in such cases: they forced us to call the months of Quintilius and Sextiles July and Augustus in honor of the Caesars - Julius and Augustus, as if so that everyone could see and know that these stars were in the sky a hundred times before these people were born! And those who gave the stars the names of persons - either by order of the Caesars or by their own arbitrariness and vanity - imagined that through this very thing, after the death of these persons, they would lift them to heaven! On the contrary, no matter what names people give to the stars, they are all just stars, created and arranged in the order of nature by the will of the Creator in order to produce change and variety of times with their movement. It is very convenient to notice what this movement is like at the time when someone is born, on the basis of the rules, the inventors of which Holy Scripture long ago condemned with these words: “Even though they were able to lead so much, so that they could understand the age, they would not have found this Master” (Wis. 13, 9). 33) But those who, on the basis of such observations, want to predict about the characteristics and morals, about the future actions and adventures of a newborn, are very mistaken and show extreme recklessness. This superstition is rejected without any doubt or pity by everyone who has learned through experience to unlearn such nonsense. For the observations made in this case about the stars are limited to noting the position of the so-called constellations when a child is born, about whose fate some unfortunate people ask other unfortunate people. But some twins emerge one after another from their mothers’ wombs so quickly that there is almost no noticeable interval of time between their births, and therefore this interval cannot be indicated by any feature from the constellations. From this it must be concluded that some twins are born under the same constellation: meanwhile, the circumstances of their lives are not only not the same, but even opposite, so that one of them enjoys complete happiness, while the other suffers the greatest disasters. An example of this can be the twins - Esau and Jacob, of whom the latter, at birth, even held onto the heel of the first (Gen. 25, 25-26). Therefore, regarding the day and hour of their birth, no other remark could be made than that it happened under the same constellation, but Scripture, preached in all languages, constantly testifies to how different Esau and Jacob were from each other - in morals, actions, activities and successes. 34) The objection that even one small moment delimiting the time of the birth of twins is very significant in the whole world with the unusually rapid movement of celestial bodies has no force here. For, even if we assume that it is very significant, then, at least during its continuation, the mathematician cannot notice anything special in the constellations, when looking at which he is called upon to predict the future fate of those being born. If in this case he does not notice anything special in the constellations; if, according to him, Esau and Jacob were to be born under the same constellation, then what does it benefit him that in the course of even one moment there is a change in the sky (which he so pathetically vilifies with his reckless actions), but it does not appear on his tablet, which he looks at in vain with such care? Such opinions of people about the importance of certain fortune-telling signs established by human prejudice, in some respects, should be looked at in no other way than as some kind of agreement and condition with evil spirits. 35) In fact, those who are addicted to the destructive science of fortune-telling, which, in fact, is only the science of mocking others and deceiving them, for such addiction, according to some secret judgment of God, often fall under the secret influence of fallen Angels who laugh at them and deceive them, those Angels who, in accordance with the wisely established order of things, by the law of Divine Providence are sometimes allowed to have some influence to this lower part of the world. From these ridicule and deceptions of evil spirits, it happens that the superstitious and disastrous art of divination sometimes actually reveals to the soothsayers something from the past and the future and tells them a lot of things that are later justified in part by events and correspond to their own observations. Such small successes excite and feed their curiosity, as a result of which they become more and more confused and entangle others in the network of harmful delusions. As a precaution, St. Scripture; it turns our soul away from him not only by calling all fortune-tellers deceivers, but also by forbidding us to believe them even when their predictions come true: “If a prophet or a dreamer arises among you and presents you with a sign or a miracle, and that sign or miracle about which he told you comes true, and moreover says: “Let us follow other gods... then do not listen to the words of this prophet, or this dreamer" (Deut. 13:1-3). Thus, even the accuracy of such predictions does not in any way justify the science of prediction itself. Therefore, the sacrilegious art, with the help of which the shadow of the deceased Samuel was invoked (1 Samuel 28:14-20), is worthy of all disgust and curse, although this shadow, being presented to King Saul, predicted the truth for him (Sir. 46:23). And the Apostle Paul, as the book of Acts testifies, did not spare the spirit of malice in a certain ventriloquist, but forbade it and drove it out of the woman, despite the fact that with this spirit she spoke true testimony about the Apostles (Acts 16, 16-18). 36) Therefore, a Christian must despise and reject all those arts and sciences which, being based on such a reckless and harmful superstition, still presuppose some communication between people and devils, must avoid them, just as he avoids a treacherous and dangerous community. “This,” says the Apostle, teaching us to despise idolatry, “is not because an idol is anything, but because those who sacrifice to it sacrifice to demons, and not to God: I do not want you to be in communion with demons” (1 Cor. 10:19). What the Apostle said about idols and about sacrifices performed in honor of idols, we must also understand about all other types and objects of superstition, which lead to idolatry, to the retribution of Divine honor to the creature or any part of it, inspire various superstitious actions and remarks - that is, about everything that is not established from above for general use in the spirit of love for God and neighbor, but is a consequence mere covetousness of private individuals only upsets the hearts of the weak. In all these arts one must fear and avoid communication with demons, who, with their boss the Devil, try for nothing so much as to keep us in communication with themselves and not allow us to turn to God. Meanwhile, unfortunately, people have formed false opinions not only about the stars, which, by their existence and arrangement in the order of creation, proclaim only the glory of God, and not the fate of man; many have already written a lot about other cases of birth (in animals) and in general about various incidents of the world, forgetting that they take place under the control of Divine Providence, and not our wisdom; dreams and guesses in this reasoning are even presented as firm rules, as if justified by the experiments themselves. What kind of experiments are these? So-and-so gave birth there, a thunderclap broke such-and-such, that is, something not entirely ordinary followed. 37) All such superstitious actions are sometimes significant because, out of a heartfelt prejudice in their favor, poor people have formed a kind of universal agreement with demons, while in themselves, these superstitions, are all filled only with harmful curiosity, painful worries and disastrous slavery. For they are not noticed by people because they actually have any power, but because they often have power because people, through their comments and signs, have, so to speak, forced them to have some power. For this reason, their consequences are not the same for everyone, but for the most part they are consistent with the thoughts and prejudices of each. For evil spirits, wanting to keep a person deceived, flatter him by delivering what, as they see, is in accordance with his expectations and desires. To explain this subject, we will use several examples: the cross-shaped letter “X” means something different among the Greeks, and another among the Latins, and this does not depend on the properties of the letter itself, but on the arbitrariness and mutual condition of people to connect one or another meaning with it; and therefore a person who knows Greek and Latin, when writing to a Greek, uses the letter “X” in a completely different meaning than he uses it when writing to a Latin. Also, the word “beta” among the Greeks is the name of the famous letter P, and among the Latins it means a garden potion; in the same way, when I pronounce the word “lege,” the Greek means by it one thing (“speak”), but the Latin means something else (“read”). Such a difference in meanings in the same words and their relative intelligibility obviously depend on the conditions that people set among themselves in their reasoning: not the conditions came from the meanings, but the meanings from the conditions; In exactly the same way, the strength of various superstitious actions that lead to a disastrous connection with demons depends on the private observations and prejudices of each, and not on themselves. All this is most clearly demonstrated by the rituals and custom of bird fortunetellers, neither before nor after observations, not allowing one to look at the flight of birds or listen to their cry. Why? Yes, because all these signs are very insignificant in themselves if the observer who observes them is not prepared in their favor. 38) Having wished the Christian complete freedom from such harmful and God-defying superstitions, I must also consider those human institutions or inventions that do not contain anything superstitious, and which owe their origin to people themselves without any communication with demons. This includes everything that is in use among people and has its own meaning - this or that - not in itself, but according to the will of man alone, of which some things are not at all needed and serve more for pleasure and luxury, while others are useful and necessary. For if the various signs represented, for example, by dancing comedians, were understandable in themselves - naturally, and not according to the accepted custom of connecting known meanings with them - then there would be no need, for example, for the people's herald to explain to the Carthaginians what one of their pantomimists, who danced before them, wanted to express with such signs, as many old people, from whom we have heard it, also tell about this. And there is nothing to marvel at in this respect to the Carthaginians, when even now among us a person inexperienced in reasoning with such trifles, entering the theater, with all his attention, does not understand the meaning of the actions represented there by pantomimes, unless someone else explains them to him. It is true that everyone wants to see the closest similarity between the signifier and the signified, that is, for signs to be as similar as possible to the objects they express, and they try to achieve this; but since one may be similar to another in various respects, then, generally speaking, the intelligibility of signs necessarily depends on a previously achieved conditional agreement in their meaning. 39) As for works of painting, sculpture and other similar arts, especially if these works are marked by the experience of the artists, then almost everyone, when looking at them, will infallibly recognize what they are similar to and what is expressed by them. Despite the fact that these works should be classified more as unnecessary things, excluding those that clearly show their special meaning, motive, place, time and special purpose of origin. Finally, the number of completely useless human inventions includes thousands of different fables and fictions with which people have been amused for a long time. And in general, it must be said that among human inventions, the more that came from people themselves, the more full of lies and deceit. Useful and necessary human institutions are those that determine a certain type of clothing and headdress for the distinction of sex and rank, as well as countless kinds of signs, without which human society either cannot exist at all, or would be imperfect, which should include a certain weight, measure, mark and price of coins, which every nation and society has its own, in a special form, and which, without a doubt, would not be different among different peoples and in the same people would not change at the will of the rulers, if it were not a human institution. 40) A Christian not only should not despise human decrees that are necessary in life, but should, as much as possible, observe them and retain them in memory. For among them there are those whose features are taken from nature itself. Of human decrees, only those that relate, as noted above, to communication with demons should be rejected and despised; all the others with whom people connect with people - except the unnecessary and superfluous - are worthy of our attention. These are especially the type of writing, without which we cannot read, and various languages, the knowledge of which is necessary, as we said above. This also includes abbreviation signs, known to the so-called notaries or scribes under abbreviations. It is useful to know all this, it is permissible to learn all this, it does not lead to superstition, it is not something superfluous if it occupies us so much that it does not prevent us from achieving higher goals, for which all this, in fact, should be intended. 41) Now let us turn to the institutions of non-human origin, and they should include everything that was not invented by people themselves, but was accepted by them from previous times, or from above, from God, in whose hands and lips it was later preserved. Of these discoveries, some relate to the body and feelings, others to the soul and mind. The first consist either of narratives, or of descriptions, or, finally, of experiments and mechanical affairs. 42) Thus, everything that tells about the succession of past times, the so-called History, greatly contributes to our understanding of the sacred books, although, without its relation to the Church, it constitutes the most childish science. For we reveal much in Scripture both by the Olympiads and by the names of the consuls; ignorance of the consulate, during which the Lord was born and during which He suffered, led some into such a misconception that the Lord suffered in the forty-sixth year of his life, because the Jerusalem temple, which represented the body of the Lord, took forty-six years to build, as the Jews said. That Jesus Christ was about thirty years old when he was baptized, we know for sure from the Gospel (Luke 3:23), but how long He lived on earth after baptism, we can only guess about this, taking His deeds into consideration; with greater accuracy this can be determined from pagan history, after it is combined with the Gospel. Here it is also revealed that it was not in vain that the forty-six-year-old construction of the Temple of Jerusalem was mentioned. Since this number of years cannot in any way be applied to the years of the earthly life of Jesus Christ, it, without a doubt, has some particularly significant relation to the structure of the human body, which, out of love for us, the only begotten Son of God did not disdain to take upon Himself, “In Him were all things.” 43) The usefulness of history will become even more clear to us when we imagine how important use our Ambrose made of it (not to mention the Greek writers) against the readers and lovers of Plato, who dared to say that the entire teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, so lofty and glorified by themselves, was borrowed from the writings of Plato, that Plato who lived much earlier than our Savior! Did not the aforementioned Bishop, with greater certainty, with the help of History, prove completely contrary to the daring thoughts of the lovers of Plato? Having found in History that this glorious Greek philosopher undertook a journey to Egypt at the time of Jeremiah, and it was then, as this Prophet himself was in Egypt, that he most plausibly deduced from the fact that all the best in the teachings and writings of Plato were a consequence of the instruction that Jeremiah taught him. For the teaching of the Jewish people, in which alone the veneration of the one God shone and from which our Lord came to us in the flesh, appeared much earlier than the times of Pythagoras himself, from whose later followers Plato, as his lovers themselves say, studied Theology. So, according to the considerations of time, it turns out to be much more likely that the pagan sages borrowed from our teaching in the best and more faithful parts of their teaching than that our Lord Jesus Christ borrowed his teaching from Plato, which is completely false and absurd. 44) Since History, by the way, also tells about all past institutions or human works, then History itself should no longer be classified as a purely human invention, as its very subject shows, for everything that has passed cannot be remade and must remain forever in the order of times, of which the Creator and Ruler is one God. It’s one thing to narrate events, another thing to teach how to do something. History narrates past incidents with authenticity, keeping in mind the benefit of the readers; the books of fortune-tellers and other similar works teach how to do or observe something, having, instead of any basis, only the audacity of the teachers, and not the reliability of the narrators. 45) There are also narratives similar to descriptive speech (demonstratio), whose subject is not something past, but the present. These are the legends about the location of countries, about the properties of famous animals, trees, herbs, stones and other things. We discussed all these subjects above and said that knowledge of them contributes to the understanding of many allegorical passages of Scripture; only they themselves should not be used instead of signs leading to any superstition - in this last respect, we have already called the use of them impermissible. For it is one thing to say: “You will not have a stomach ache if, having rubbed such and such herb, you drink the water infused with it,” and quite another: “You will not have a stomach ache if you hang this herb around your neck.” In the first case we are dealing with the useful use of a thing, which is approved; in the latter - with a superstitious prejudice in her reasoning, which is condemned. However, one can freely use a known thing that serves the health of the body, being tied to it or attached to it in some other way, even if it is not known exactly how it has such a beneficial effect on the body; the main rule in this case is that when using it there should be no spells, invocations or superstitious signs, otherwise a Christian should be all the more afraid of using it, the more it seems useful to him. When it is unknown why a thing is useful and has this or that power, then in this case the permissibility or impermissibility of its use depends on the user, that is, on the spirit in which and for what purpose it is used - this purpose should only be the restoration or well-being of the bodily nature, therefore such things should be consumed only in medicine and agriculture. 46) The doctrine of the celestial bodies does not consist of narratives, but of descriptions, which cannot be neglected at all, because the Holy Scriptures, although not about many stars, do mention them. And the course of the Moon, by adaptation to which a certain time is annually celebrated in honor of the suffering of the Lord, is itself known to many, but very few know well the time of rising, setting and other features of the other celestial bodies. And, to tell the truth, this knowledge, in itself, although it does not represent anything superstitious, despite this, it is not very useful for those who study Divine Scripture, and with a fruitless effort to extract from it what is not and cannot be in it, it can even be harmful; and he does not lose much who does not study it at all, as such a subject that serves as the basis for destructive deceptions, having long been in the hands of charlatans and blind soothsayers. However, the doctrine of the stars, in addition to describing present objects, in some parts of it has the form of a narrative about the past, for from the present position and movement of the stars one can with strict correctness infer to the past and, thus, resume their previous traces and positions. In addition, it offers true, calculus-based predictions about the future, but not in the reasoning of our affairs and adventures, about which soothsayers usually rave, but in the reasoning of the stars themselves. For, knowing what month it is now, by means of reckoning one can find and show exactly what it was at such and such a time several years before and what it will be like several years after that. People who are properly involved in astronomy can say similar things about any star. But I have already said enough of what, in my opinion, should be said about the use of this kind of knowledge. 47) In the same way, on the basis of past experiences, the future is correctly predicted in the reasoning of other arts, which either produce something that remains for a long time, such as a house, a chair, some kind of vessel, etc., or even serve, one might say, as an instrument of God’s beneficial actions for us, such as the science of medicine, agriculture, the science of government, or are limited to the mere representation of actions, such as dancing, lists, struggle. Anyone practicing these arts does not begin the work itself except on the basis of past experiences and with confidence in the success of future experiments. Knowledge of all these arts, as having considerable application in ordinary human life, is not useless for us: not in order to engage in them in practice, unless some need requires it, which I am not talking about here, but in order to be able to at least somewhat judge these arts where Holy Scripture concerns them with allegories from them. 48) Now it remains to say about the mental sciences, of which the science of reasoning and the science of calculation are especially worthy of our attention. The first greatly contributes to the resolution of difficult passages of Scripture; but one should not use it out of a desire to argue and childish vanity to catch the enemy. For there are many so-called sophisms, that is, false consequences based on true causes, which are sometimes so plausible that, being accepted without proper attention, they ensnare not only simple people, but also the most witty. So, someone suggested the following to another: “You are not like me.” The latter agreed to this position because it was partly true; the one who proposed was cunning, but the other one was simple. “But I am a man,” added the first. When this was also admitted, he concluded: “Consequently, you are not a person.” The Scripture itself, in my opinion, condemns all such speculation when it says: “Some are cunning in speech, but are hated” (Sir.37, 23). Sophistic speech is also called that which, although it does not contain such intricacies, is more abundant in discussing the beauty of words, more refined than the importance of its subject would require. 49) There are conclusions that are correct based on the combination of thoughts, but incorrect based on the thoughts themselves, which come from some false position accepted as truth by those with whom we are speaking. The kindest and most learned people use them so that those who are mistaken will be ashamed of their thoughts and leave them for fear of otherwise clearly showing their attachment to what they themselves consider incorrect. Thus, the Apostle did not deduce the truth in conclusion when he said: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain” (1 Cor. 15:13-14). All these thoughts are completely false, since Christ was resurrected, and the preaching of those who proclaimed this was not in vain, nor the faith of those who believed it, meanwhile, these thoughts contained in his above words, despite their falsity, are in a true and necessary connection with the thought “there is no resurrection of the dead.” Why did the Apostle use these thoughts? In order that, having rejected the first, which would be just if the last were just, we must necessarily conclude that the dead are raised. You can conveniently learn to connect not only true but also false thoughts with each other in a true way in worldly schools, outside the Church, but the truth of thoughts should primarily be drawn from Holy Scripture. 50) The truth of the connection of thoughts is not a human invention: it was only discovered by people and noticed so that it could be learned and taught, but in itself it reveals a natural law of nature, established from above. Just as the one who narrates the order of times about various events does not invent anything about it himself, when he speaks about the location of known countries, about the properties of any animals, plants and stones, about the stars and their movements, he does not say anything that would have been invented by himself or invented by others - in the same way, whoever says: “if the following is false, then the previous one is necessarily false,” speaks the very truth, but this truth does not depend on him, but he only shows that it's true. On this very proposition or logical law the power of the above words of the Apostle is affirmed; for they are preceded by the following false thought: “there is no resurrection of the dead” (this is what some said, whom the Apostle wanted to lead out of error). From these words - “there is no resurrection of the dead” - it necessarily follows: “Christ has not risen,” but this consequence is false, for Christ has risen; Consequently, what serves as the basis for it is also false, namely, that “there is no resurrection of the dead.” So - there is a resurrection of the dead! All this can be stated briefly as follows: if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, but Christ is risen, therefore, there is a resurrection of the dead. This law, according to which, as a result of the rejection of what follows, the previous one is also rejected, was only discovered by people, and not arbitrarily established by them, and relates to the truth of the doubt of thoughts, and not to the truth of the thoughts themselves. 51) The conclusion about the resurrection of the dead, stated in the mentioned place, is correct both according to the law of connection of thoughts and in its consequences. But consequences that are true only according to the rules of connection of thoughts can also be deduced on the basis of false propositions. So, let’s imagine that someone admitted our following proposition: if a snail is an animal, then it has the gift of speech. Since when the subsequent one is rejected, as we have already said, the previous one is also necessarily rejected, then, having proven that the snail does not have the gift of speech, we will have the right to conclude that it is not an animal. The idea behind this conclusion is obviously false; but the conclusion itself, according to the rules of connecting thoughts, despite the false position admitted, is true. Thus, the truth of thoughts, in itself, has certainty; but the truth of the connection of thoughts depends on the opinion or agreement of the one with whom we speak. Inferences that are correct based on the combination of thoughts, but incorrect based on the thoughts themselves, should be used, as we said above, to enlighten those who are mistaken and to bring them into a state in which they themselves would be forced to realize the incorrectness of their thoughts, seeing that they lead to absurd conclusions. But just as true conclusions can be deduced on the basis of false propositions, so, on the contrary, false ones can also be deduced on the basis of true propositions. Suppose that someone tells us: “If so-and-so is fair, then he is good.” We agree to this, after which we are told: “He is unfair.” We accept this too, but from this they suddenly conclude that this person is not kind. In this conclusion, the thoughts are correct, but the combination of thoughts is incorrect: for, after rejecting the previous, it is not as necessary to reject the subsequent, as necessary, after rejecting the subsequent, the previous is rejected. Our position will be true when we say: “If someone is an Orator, then he is a man.” But, having added: “Someone is not an Orator,” we incorrectly conclude that “someone is not a man.” 52) Therefore, it is one thing to know the rules for connecting thoughts, but to know the very truth of thoughts. The first teach us only what follows from a given position, what does not follow, and what contradicts it. “If someone is a speaker, then he is a man” - here the last thought follows from the first. “If someone is a man, then he is an Orator” - here the last thought does not follow from the first. “If someone is a person, then the creature is four-legged” - here the last thought contradicts the first. In all such cases, only the connection of thoughts or their connection with each other is assessed. As for the truth itself in thoughts, then we must pay attention to the thoughts themselves, and not to their connection, which is necessary only for conclusions: if thoughts are true and obvious, then other, less known ones receive their credibility from them, if only they are correctly connected with them or deduced from them. Some, having learned the rules of connecting thoughts, become vain as if they had learned the truth of the thoughts themselves; and some, knowing only the truths of thoughts, complain to themselves that they do not know the rules of their true connection. This complaint is in vain: in my opinion, it is better to firmly know that there is a resurrection of the dead, rather than that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been resurrected. 53) Thus, the science of making definitions, divisions and calculations of parts is not a false science, although it is very often used to determine and separate false objects, and was not invented by people, but only learned by them through experience. From the fact that it is used by poets in their fictions, false wise men, heretics and false Christians to prove their errors, it does not at all follow that the rule was false, for example, according to which one should neither introduce into the definition and division anything that does not relate to the subject itself, nor leave out what does. This rule is fair, although the objects defined and divided may be false. Thus, we can define the lie itself: a lie is something that seems completely different from what it is in itself. The definition is correct, although its object - a lie - cannot be the truth. We can just as surely share the lies. There are two types of falsehood: the first includes that which is completely impossible; to the second - what does not exist, but what can be. For example, whoever says that seven and three make eleven is saying something completely impossible; and whoever says, for example, that there was rain on the Kalends of Genvar, says it is possible, even if this actually did not happen. Thus, the definitions and divisions of the most false objects can be true, although the objects themselves are not made true at all. 54) The rules by which we learn to reason about a subject from different sides and in different respects, which are known under the name of Eloquence, have exactly the same dignity. In themselves, they are true, although they can be used to convince others of something false, and since they can also be used to convince others of the truth itself, they are not at all reprehensible - only their abuse is reprehensible. It is not established from people that, for example, a living description of love captivates the listener, so that short and clear speech is intelligible to him, so that its variety - without excess - involuntarily maintains his attention. Some other rules of orbit were not established from people, which, although they are used to reveal both true and false objects, are nevertheless true in themselves, since they contribute to either knowing something or believing something, and since they guide the conviction of the heart in what it should desire or avert. People only learned from experience that these rules are exactly as they seem, and did not invent them so that they were exactly like that. 55) The rules of Eloquence form more of the gift of speech than the ability of thinking; the rules of conclusion, definition and division form the mind. However, having learned both, one should not think of oneself, as some do, dreaming that through this they have comprehended the very secret of the blessed life; this is a fallacy. Knowledge of these rules is not as important as some people imagine it to be, for it often happens that people understand the very objects for the understanding of which the rules are taught rather than the intricate lessons about the rules. For example, if someone, wanting to teach the rules of walking, said: the second leg should not be raised before the first one, which was raised, is placed, and then he would describe in detail how to move the upper and lower parts of the knees. Such a teacher would speak the truth, because otherwise, as he says, one cannot walk; but people, doing all this even without teaching, walk rather than notice what they do while walking, and rather than understand when they are told about it. Those who cannot walk and test the rules taught to them with their own experience have even less need of them. Likewise, witty people very often see the falsity of any conclusion rather than understand the rules of the conclusion itself; stupid people, if they do not see the first, the less they understand the power of the latter. In general, it should be said about these rules that they often give us pleasure, helping to present the truth in various forms, in a picturesque way, rather than helping us much in our research and reasoning about the truth; One thing that can be added in their favor is that they give our mind greater experience and make it more resourceful, but this benefit is achieved completely only if they do not make our mind wicked and arrogant, i.e. if those who have learned them do not deceive others, knowing how to present a lie as the truth, and do not become vain before the meek and quiet and that they allegedly know and have comprehended something important. 56) As for the science of numbers, it is clear even to the simplest person that it was not created by people, but only explored and discovered by them. For in it one cannot make at will such changes as are done in other sciences. So, Virginia wanted the first syllable of the word “Italy” to be long, and did this, despite the ancient pronunciation according to which it was short; but in the science of numbers it is in no way possible to ensure that, for example, three times three is not nine, that nine is not a square in relation to its root three, that three times more than three, one and a half more than six, and - since odd numbers do not have two halves equal - could not be exactly twice as large as any number. Thus, the laws of numbers, whether these numbers are considered in themselves or in relation to the laws of any figures, sounds and other movements, are always unchanged and are not established by people, but only discovered by the most insightful of them. 57) But whoever, having loved all these sciences, would only be vain about his knowledge of them before the inexperienced, and would not try to investigate why exactly those of them are true, which he found to be truly true, why others are not only true, but also unchangeable; whoever, from the image of sensory objects ascending to the human soul, would recognize that it is a changeable being - it can be educated and uneducated - and, despite this, occupies a middle place between the unchangeable truth, which is above it, and all other objects that are changeable and below it - who, I say, would know all this, but would not turn his knowledge to the glory and love of the one God, the Creator of all things, such a person is worthy of the name only a learned man, but by no means a sage. 58) Therefore, to young men who are committed to science, to young men who are gifted, who have the fear of God and who seek a blessed life, it is very useful, in my opinion, to offer the following instruction: they should not, without any research, be carried away by any teaching taught outside the Church of Christ, and entrust themselves to it as a guide to achieving a blessed life; on the contrary, one must always pre-judge it with all attention and caution. If among the sciences invented by people, there are discordant and discordant among themselves due to the difference in spirit and intentions of those who invented them and doubtful due to the suspicion of error of the inventors themselves, especially if these sciences include open or secret communication with demons, through well-known magical signs, as if some diabolical conditions and agreements, then all such sciences should be rejected and despised without mercy. One should not engage in those that are not particularly necessary and serve only for pleasure. Human sciences and decisions related to living in accordance with the necessary needs of real life should not be neglected. As for other pagan sciences, they are, in my opinion, completely useless, excluding from this only history, which tells about objects of the past or present time, some arts based on experience and prudent insight and useful for the body, and the science of reasoning (logic) and calculation. But even in these sciences, especially those that have as their subject only the sensory, located in time and space, one must adhere to the well-known rule: “nothing superfluous” (Ne quid nimis)! 59) Some have already taken the trouble to explain all the words of Hebrew, Syrian, Egyptian and other languages ​​that can only be found in Scripture and are not explained by them themselves; and Eusebius also wrote a History, on the basis of which many questions regarding the Holy Books are best resolved: all this is done and done in order to save the Christian from the need to work on a lot for a little. In the same way, I see that people who have the proper information could, for the benefit of the congregation, decide to undertake a pleasant and good work - to put in order and set forth separately everything that is mentioned in Scripture about the location of various lands, about animals, herbs, trees, stones, metals, etc. You can also begin to explain the numbers themselves, at least those that Scripture points to. Probably, there were people who had already explained some or even all of these subjects, for it happens to us that we find many works of good and learned Christians that we did not know about before; such explanations are unknown to us either due to lack of concern for them, or intentionally hidden from us by envious people. I don’t know whether the work I propose can be undertaken and discussed (disputandi) regarding science? It seems that it is impossible, for it is closely connected with the entire composition of Scripture and must spread everywhere in it, like nerves. However, this science helps readers more in resolving and explaining ambiguous passages of Scripture - which I will talk about later - than in understanding the unknown signs and words that form the subject of our present discussion. 60) If the so-called philosophers, especially the Platonists, somehow accidentally said something true and consistent with our Religion, then we should demand such a teaching from them, as from illegal owners, and not be afraid of it. For, just as the Egyptians had not only idols and hard work, which the people of Israel had to abhor and avoided, but, at the same time, they had silver and gold vessels and jewelry, they had various clothes, which this people, leaving Egypt, by the very definition of God, demanded from them as if for better use, and which the Egyptians, as not knowing the proper use, themselves lent to the Israelites without their own about this consciousness: so the pagan sciences contain not only empty and superstitious fictions, they offer more than one heavy burden of useless labor, which each of us should turn away and run away from, leaving pagan societies and following Christ, but they also contain noble knowledge very favorable to the benefits of truth, they also contain some moral rules, very beneficial, and a considerable number of truths related to the veneration of the one God. All this, the best in the teaching of the pagans, is, as it were, silver and gold, not created by them themselves, but only mined, so to speak, in the mines of the Divine, all-fulfilling Providence - there is a treasure abused by them to serve the demons, which, however, the Christian, mentally alienating the otherwise dangerous communication with the pagans, must wrest from them for the benefit of the Gospel. It is permissible for a Christian to borrow and turn into his own favor the very clothes of the pagans, that is, their regulations, useful in the community, from which we cannot abandon in this life. 61) For, did not many of the good and faithful sons of our Church do the same? Do we not see how the sweet-talking teacher and blessed Martyr Cyprian left Egypt, burdened with a lot of gold, silver and clothes? How many similar treasures did Lactantius, Victorinus, Optatus, Hilary (not talking about my contemporaries) bring from there? How much did the countless host of Greek Church Writers gain? First of all, Moses himself, the most faithful servant of God, made such a borrowing, about whom it is written: “And Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). The superstitious custom of the pagans would never, especially in those days, as Christianity was not yet good, but the obstinate yoke of Christ, would never, I say, lend to the men I mentioned above those sciences that the pagans themselves considered useful, if these pagans could suspect that their sciences would one day turn into an instrument for the veneration of the one God, by whom the vain service of idols should be destroyed. But the idolaters lent silver, gold and clothing to the people of God coming out of Egypt, not knowing how what they gave could subsequently be converted into the obedience of Christ. Thus, the occupation of the Egyptian treasures described in the book of Exodus (Exodus 3:22), in my opinion, is a transformation of this new borrowing, which, however, will be said without prejudice to any other meaning of the designated place in the book of Exodus, equal or better. 62) The reader of Holy Scripture instructed by me in this way, deciding to test it, must constantly contain in his thoughts the following Apostolic remark: “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1 Cor. 8:1). For through this he will feel the important truth that even if he came out of Egypt rich, but if he does not celebrate the Passover, he cannot be saved, “for our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). This sacrifice of Christ primarily teaches us what the Savior himself calls to those whom He sees as if toiling in Egypt under Pharaoh: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest; take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls; for My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). For whom is it easy, if not for the meek and humble of heart, whom knowledge does not puff up, but love builds? So, the meek must remember that those who celebrated the ancient Passover, having received the command to mark the thresholds of the doors with a brush of hyssop, dipped in the blood of a lamb, and they were marked with hyssop (Ex. 12:22). This grass is meek and humble, but there is nothing stronger and more penetrating than its roots, so that like this we, “rooted and established in love, could comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height” (Eph. 3:17-18), that is, we could understand the Cross of the Lord, where the cross tree on which the arms are stretched out is called breadth; longitude - a tree rising from the ground to the very latitude (transverse tree), on which the whole body is nailed, starting from the hands and below them; height - a tree from the latitude (diameter), extending in height to the very top, where the head is attached; and the depth is the lower end, planted in the ground and hiding there. This sign of the Cross describes all Christian activity - that is, the obligation to act piously in Christ and constantly abide in him, to hope for heavenly things and not to tell the tuna of the mysteries of Faith before the uninitiated. Purified in the field by this activity, we will be able to “understand the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:19), according to which He is equal with the Father, for all things came into being through Him, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. There is also a cleansing power in hyssop, so that, puffed up with knowledge from the wealth stolen from Egypt, our lung, having swelled, does not begin to emit some kind of proud shortness of breath. “Sprinkle me with hyssop,” says the Prophet, “I will be cleansed; Wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Give joy and gladness to my hearing” (Ps. 50:9-10). Following this, in order to show that hyssop signifies cleansing from pride, the Prophet adds: “The bones of the humble will rejoice.” 63) But just as the abundance of gold, silver and clothing stolen by the people of Israel from Egypt is very insignificant in comparison with the wealth that the same people received in Jerusalem, especially during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 10:25); The same is true for all knowledge (even useful knowledge) borrowed from pagan scriptures, if we compare it with the knowledge contained in Holy Scripture. For whatever a person learns from the outside (in pagan books), all of it, if harmful, is condemned in Holy Scripture, if useful, is found in it. And if everyone finds here everything that he managed to learn useful somewhere else, then in much greater abundance he will also find here that which can never be found anywhere, but which is taught in Holy Scripture alone with amazing sublimity and at the same time with amazing simplicity. I conclude: “if unknown signs” (incognita signa) do not stop the reader, equipped with previous instructions, meek and humble in heart, willingly taking upon himself the yoke of Christ and His light burden, based, and rooted, and created in love, which reason cannot boast of for this very reason, then let him begin to consider and study the unclear signs (ambigua signa) found in Scripture, about of whom I will speak in the third book that which the Lord is pleased to tell me. Book 3. About the ambiguity and darkness of some places of Holy Scripture, about the proper and allegorical meaning, about the means to understand both, and about Tikhon’s rules for explaining Holy Scripture 1) A God-fearing person carefully seeks the will of God in Holy Scripture. To avoid the passion for controversy, he is meek in the spirit of piety; in order not to dwell in doubt on unknown words and expressions, he enriches himself with knowledge of languages; also strives to acquire information about various subjects necessary to understand the power and properties of various comparisons and similarities used in Scripture; tries to have at hand the best lists, which we owe to the tireless diligence of the people who worked to correct the text. Whoever is prepared in this way, let him boldly begin to resolve the darkness and ambiguities found in Holy Scripture. But, so that he is not deceived by the ambiguity of expressions and words, I intend (despite the fact that, perhaps, some people, either due to the vastness of their minds, or due to some imaginary insight from above, will ridicule my remarks as childish) - and not only intend, but even consider myself obliged, to give guidance in this regard, and for this I consider it necessary to again remind those who wish to accept instruction from me that the ambiguity of Holy Scripture occurs either in in my own words, or figuratively, as I already noticed in the second book. 2) If words, taken in their own meaning, make any place of Holy Scripture dark, then, first of all, we need to look at whether we have correctly divided them into arrangement and read them properly. If, after proper careful examination, it is not clear how they should be divided or read, then one must resort to the rule of faith (regula fidei), extracted from the clearest places of Holy Scripture and based on respect for the voice of the Church, which I sufficiently said in the first book, discussing the subjects. If, after that, both parts of the passage in question (or all of its parts, if there are many of them) seem ambiguous and dark, in this case it remains to turn to the connection (context) of speech and consider the previous and subsequent parts of the text surrounding the dark passage. Then it will be revealed which of the presented concepts is closer to the text and can be more conveniently connected to it. 3) Let us clarify these remarks with examples. Heretics, not wanting to recognize the Word as God, divide the words of the Apostle and Evangelist John as follows. First they read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1); then, in order to give the next words ambiguity, they continue: “It was in the beginning with God.” But such a division must be rejected according to the rule of Faith, which clearly speaks of the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. It should read “And God was the Word,” adding then “It was with God in the beginning.” 4) Ambiguity from the division of the following words of the Apostle: “... I don’t know what to choose. I am attracted by both: I have a desire to be resolved and to be with Christ, because this is incomparably better; but remaining in the flesh is more necessary for you” (Phil. 1:22–24), cannot be eliminated by the rule of Faith; for no matter how they are divided, the meaning of the words will not contradict faith, and therefore here the ambiguity must be eliminated by considering the connection of speech. At first glance, it is not known whether it should read “and other things: I have a desire” or first “I am attracted by both,” and then add “I have a desire to be resolved and be with Christ.” But, since the words “this is incomparably better” follow, it is clear that the Apostle desires this better, so that, being attracted by both (or being difficult by both), he desires one thing, and finds the other only more necessary, that is, he wants to be resolved and be with Christ, but finds it more necessary to remain in the flesh. Here the ambiguity is resolved by one subsequent particle “for,” although some of the interpreters excluded it, thinking that the Apostle is not only at a loss for both, but, apparently, desires both. By virtue of this remark, the words of the Apostle in this place should be distributed as follows: “I don’t know what to choose. I am attracted by both,” and for this it should already read, “I have a desire to be resolved and to be with Christ.” Since the Apostle could be asked here why he primarily desires this permission, he adds: “this is incomparably better.” Why does he find difficulty on both sides? From the fact that on the other hand he finds it more necessary to remain: “but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.” 5) Where ambiguity cannot be eliminated either by the rule of Faith or by the connection of speech, there is nothing preventing the text from being divided in accordance with any one of the concepts presented. These are the following words from the Epistle to the Corinthians: “Having therefore, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Accommodate us. We did not offend anyone” (2 Cor. 7:1-2). It is not clear how it should be read - either this way: “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” in accordance with these words in another place, “so that we may be holy both in body and spirit” (1 Cor. 7:34), or this way: “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh,” and then: “and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Accommodate us,” so that these last words have a different meaning than the first? Such ambiguities can be left, so to speak, to the will of the reader. 6) What we said about ambiguity arising from different arrangements of words, the same should be observed with ambiguity arising from differences in reading. For ambiguous reading, if, however, it is not the fruit of the negligence of the reader himself, is eliminated either by the rule of Faith, or by the connection of speech, or - if there is no need to use either one or the other - it may even remain unresolved, if the reader does not sin much, no matter how he reads such a passage. If, for example, the rule of Faith inspired us that God will never accuse, and Christ will never condemn his elect, then the words of the Apostle: “Who will accuse God’s elect?” (Rom. 8:33–34) could be pronounced in such a way that they would be followed by the answer: “God justifies (them).” And then, asking: “Who condemns?” again one could answer: “Christ Jesus died,” etc. But since it is crazy to think this way about God and Christ, one must pronounce it in such a way that it first expresses a kind of vague intelligence” (percontatio), and then a decisive question. The difference between reconnaissance and a question, as the ancients noted, is that the former can be answered both many and unequally, but to the latter only “yes” or “no.” Therefore, the above words should be pronounced in such a way that after reconnaissance, “Who will accuse God’s elect?” followed by the question “God justifies (them)” and, moreover, secretly implying “no”; For this again, finding out who condemns? and again the question “Christ Jesus died, but also rose again: is He also at the right hand of God, and He intercedes for us?”, so that here too, secretly – in the mind – the answer is “no.” But in the next place where the Apostle says: “What shall we say? The pagans, who did not seek righteousness, received righteousness...”, asking “What shall we say?” the answer must follow: “The Gentiles, who did not seek righteousness, received righteousness...” (Rom. 9:30), otherwise the subsequent words will have no connection. On the contrary, Nathanael’s words “can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46) in whatever voice you say it - whether to show that in the word “from Nazareth” alone there is a question, or that everything is asked with doubt - there will be no difference: faith will not suffer harm in either case. 7) Sometimes ambiguity depends on the dubious sound of syllables and therefore primarily relates to pronunciation. If you read the following text in the Latin Bible: “My bones were not hidden from You, when I was being created in secret” (Ps. 138:15), then it is not clear how the word “os” should be pronounced, briefly or protractedly? In short, this will be the singular number of the word “ossa” (bones); if it is drawn out, then it is the singular number of the word “ora” (mouths). But such ambiguities are resolved by reference to the original text. For in the original it is not στόμα (mouth) that is used, but αστέον (bone). That is why the common language is for the most part more useful in denoting objects than the book language. In the above passage, I would rather use barbarism and say: “the ossum meum is not hidden from You” (as the common people say, using ossum instead of os),” rather than allow ambiguity just to express myself more clearly in Latin. However, doubt about the pronunciation of a syllable is sometimes resolved by the nearest word relating to the same thought, as in the following words of the Apostle: “Quae praedico vobis sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt” (“I warn you, as I did before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God”) (Gal. 5, 21). If the Apostle had only said “quae praedico vobis”, (“I precede you”), and had not added “sicut praedixi” (“as before”), then to find out whether the middle syllable in the word “praedico” was long or short, one would have had to resort to the original language, but now that the addition has been made, it is clear that this syllable is long, for the Apostle did not say “sicut praedicavi", but "sicut praedixi". 8) In a similar way, those ambiguities that arise not from the arrangement of words or their pronunciation, but from any other grammatical properties of the language, should be resolved. Such, for example, is the following passage from the Epistle to the Thessalonians: “Propterea consolati sumus fratres in vobis” (“For this reason, brethren, we are comforted about you”) (1 Thess. 3:7). One may wonder whether the word “fratres” is in the vocative case or in the accusative case? In neither case will there be a contradiction to the Faith: however, in the Greek language these cases differ, and therefore, having consulted the Greek Bible, we see that it is necessary to keep the case vocative. If the translator had said this: “Propterea consolationem habuimus, fratres, in vobis,” then even though he would not have translated the words of the text so closely, he would have eliminated doubt in the reasoning of thought or even completely destroyed it if he had added the word “nostri” to “fratres.” (However, such additions, although they are made, are sometimes more dangerous than the inaccuracies themselves.) Thus, the following passage from the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians: “Cotidie morior, utique per vestram gloriationem, fratres, quam habeo in Christo Iesu Domino nostro!” (“I die every day: I am testified of this by your praise, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord”) (1 Cor. 15:31) one translator translated “Quotidie morior, per vestram iuro gloriam.” He added “iuro” (“I swear”) - on the grounds that in Greek in the words of the Apostle “per vestram gloriam”, with a certain way of pronunciation, one can directly see an oath. In general, we note that in the own words of Holy Scripture it is very rare to find such uncertainty that could not be resolved either by considering the circumstances of the text that reveal the intention of the writer, or by comparing translations, or by consulting the original. 9) On the contrary, the ambiguity (or uncertainty) of figurative expressions, which we should now talk about, requires considerable care and diligence. First of all, one must be careful not to take allegorical speech literally. This, by the way, includes the words of the Apostle: “the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). For whoever takes an allegory literally, as if it were said in its own sense, is a carnal philosophizer; when the soul, following the letter, subordinates to the flesh even that which constitutes its superiority over animals, that is, the understanding itself, this is called the death of the soul. He who follows the letter, like an unreasonable animal, accepts allegorical words as his own, and, on the contrary, does not try to find another, higher meaning in what is literally expressed in words; for example, if he hears about the Sabbath, then he does not imagine anything other than one of the seven constantly repeating days, or if he hears about sacrifice, then he does not extend his thoughts to what is usually performed on sacrificial animals or fruits. And this is the disastrous slavery of the soul, when under the signs it cannot see the thing itself and is not able to stretch its mental gaze above the physical nature - to the contemplation of the eternal light. 10) However, slavery to signs and letters in the Jewish people was very different from similar slavery among other peoples. For the Jews, although they were attached to sensory objects, at the same time, constantly saw in them an indication and reminder of the one God. And although they often mistook the signs of spiritual things (not knowing what they served for) for the things themselves, they were nevertheless convinced that their (ritual) service, despite the fact that it looked like slavery, was pleasing to the one true God, whom they do not see. The Apostle says that they were strict under the law because the law was for them a nurturer in Christ (Gal. 3:24). Therefore, although the most stubborn of the Jews did not love the Lord for disrespecting their signs (which then the time had come to explain), although the leaders of the Jews invented various slander against the Savior for not keeping the Sabbath, and the people, attached to the signs as to the most signified, did not want to believe that he was God or came from God, who does not want to respect their signs as they respect themselves, however, those who believed and formed the first Church in Jerusalem, sufficiently proved how useful it is for them to be strict mentors and, according to signs temporarily established, to serve the one true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. For for this reason, being close to the spiritual (since in the most temporary and sensual offerings and signs, despite the fact that they did not know how to understand them spiritually, they honored the one eternal God), they turned out to be so capable of receiving the Holy Spirit that they sold all their property and threw the price of it at the feet of the Apostles for distribution to the poor (Acts 4:34), while they completely dedicated themselves to God, like new a certain church, whose earthly image, that is, the Old Church, they had hitherto served. 11) But nowhere is it written that any pagan church acted in this way and showed itself to be similar to the Jewish one; in general, those who revered man-made idols as gods turned out to be not so capable of the spiritual and not so close to Christianity. Although some of the Pagans then revered their idols as signs and symbols, they still worshiped and adored creatures under these symbols, not the true God. Indeed, what good does it do me that the image of, for example, Neptune should not be revered by me as God himself, but as an image of the sea or generally all the waters flowing in springs, as one of their poets explains, who, if I am not mistaken, says: “Neptune, from whose endless beard the Ocean flows, and from his hair rivers flow.” Such nonsense looks like a pod, jangling inside a pleasant-tasting shell with ringing dry grains, but this is the food of pigs, not people. Anyone who knows the Gospel will understand what I am saying. What, I say, is the benefit of giving this meaning to the image of Neptune? Is it the one who does not respect either the sign or the signified? Neither the sea nor any statue is God for me. I agree that those who regard the works of human hands as gods are more deceived than those who idolize the works of God: but we are commanded to love and honor not things, but the only God, who created things, the images of which the pagans honor either as the gods themselves, or as their signs and likenesses. So, if, even with a good purpose, taking an established sign for the very thing it signifies is carnal slavery, then isn’t it much more disastrous slavery to take the signs of useless things for the things themselves? Even if you honored the things themselves, nevertheless, in this case you would not be free from the carnal and slavish yoke. 12) Therefore, Christian freedom freed even those people for whom they were useful from signs or symbols (signis). These people (Jews) were closer to the spiritual, so Christianity could only explain to them the signs, indicating the very things that were hidden under them, as a result of which the first Churches of the holy Israelites were formed from such people. On the contrary, where they served useless signs and symbols, it (Christianity) not only rejected this slavish service, but also destroyed the signs themselves, in order through this to turn the pagans away from serving false gods, which is often and expressively called fornication in Holy Scripture, to convert them to the worship of the one God and teach them not to serve symbols, even if they are useful, but to exercise their minds in the spiritual understanding of them. 13) For a slave of signs is one who honors or serves some significant thing without understanding its meaning; but whoever honors a useful symbol, established from above, and honors it, understanding its meaning and power, he honors not the external and transitory, but what is meant by this external and transitory. Such a person is also spiritual even during slavery, when it is not yet necessary and not the time to explain to carnal people those signs and symbols, under the burden of which they must humble themselves. Such were the Patriarchs, the Prophets, and all those among the people of Israel, through whom the Holy Spirit gave us the Scriptures to help and console us. At the present time, when the resurrection of the Lord most clearly indicated and proved our freedom, we are not obliged to honor even those signs whose meaning we already understand. Instead of much, we are commanded both by the Lord himself and by the Apostolic teachings to do little and, moreover, something that is easy to fulfill and that, due to its importance and highest purity, is worthy of all attention and fulfillment, such as, for example, the sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament of Communion. Everyone who receives these sacraments, having been instructed, understands their meaning, and everyone honors them no longer in the spirit of carnal slavery, but in the spirit of true freedom. However, just as holding on to the letter and mistaking signs for the very things they signify is a matter of carnal weakness, so giving useless explanations to signs is the work of an erring mind. Since he is not yet a perfect slave, who, although he does not understand the meaning of symbols, nevertheless accepts them as nothing more than signs, it is better to serve even incomprehensible, but useful symbols, rather than give them a useless meaning and thus impose on himself, instead of the bonds of slavery of simple ignorance, the suffocating noose of error. 14) To the remark warning us to accept allegorical or, what is the same, figurative speech as our own, we need to add another remark - namely, that, on the contrary, we should not take our own speech as allegorical. Therefore, we must, first of all, show a way by which one could find out whether a well-known expression is allegorical or one’s own. This method is as follows: everything that in Holy Scripture, being accepted in its own sense, is not in accordance with morality or with the truths of faith, must be understood in an allegorical sense. Morality is entirely based on love for God and neighbor, and the truths of faith are based on knowledge of God and neighbor. And hope lies in everyone’s own conscience or in the inner feeling of how successful he is in loving God and his neighbor and how far he is in knowing them. All this is said in the first book. 15) But since people are inclined to judge sins not by the importance of the lust itself that gives rise to them, but by their customs, then for the most part they consider reprehensible that which is condemned and condemned by their contemporaries and compatriots, and, on the contrary, good and praiseworthy that which is in accordance with the custom of their compatriots. Hence it happens that many consider as allegorical those passages in which Scripture either commands something contrary to real customs, or forbids something consistent with them; and this is done out of respect for Scripture, whose importance they cannot otherwise defend. But Holy Scripture does not prescribe anything except love and does not forbid anything except lust, in this one way forming and correcting morals. Likewise, if the mind is prejudiced by some erroneous opinion, then whatever Scripture asserts contrary to the accepted error, all of this is then considered an allegory. But Scripture, with past, future, and present objects and events, does not affirm anything other than the Catholic faith. History, prophecies, dogmas and moral teaching - everything in it is aimed at producing and strengthening love, destroying and destroying lust. 16) I call love the desire of the soul to love God for His own sake, and itself and its neighbors for the sake of God; By the name of lust I mean the desire of the soul to love itself, its neighbor and any other object not for the sake of God. The action of unbridled lust for harm and corruption of one’s own body and soul is called depravity (fagitium), and the action of lust for harm and destruction of one’s neighbor is called crime (facinus). Debauchery and atrocity constitute the main types of all sins: but the first precedes the latter, for a person indulges in atrocities only when debauchery humiliates his soul to some shameful and unfortunate need or destroys obstacles to debauchery and finds the means to it. A similar thing, but only in a different sense, can be said about love: the action of correct love for one’s own benefit is called caring, and the action of love for the benefit of others is called charity. And here charity is preceded by self-care; for you cannot use for the benefit of another what you do not have yourself. The more the kingdom of lust is destroyed, the more the kingdom of love increases. 17) Therefore, no matter how harshly and harshly anything is said in Scripture on behalf of God or His saints, one should not be embarrassed by this, but should think that this is necessary for the overthrow of the kingdom of lust. And if this stern and strict expression is expressed in clear words, then each time it must be understood in its own sense, and not in an allegorical sense. These are the following words of the Apostle: “due to your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgment from God, who will reward everyone according to his deeds: to those who, by persistence in good deeds, seek glory, honor and immortality - eternal life; and to those who persist and do not submit to the truth, but indulge in unrighteousness - rage and anger. Sorrow and distress to every soul of a person who does evil, first the Jew, (then) the Greek!” (Rom.2:5-9). This is said about those who perish along with lust, not wanting to defeat it. These are also the following words: “those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts” (Gal. 5:24). They are clearly spoken to a person who destroys the kingdom in himself before the lust that dominated him. However, even here some words can be taken as figurative, such as “the wrath of God” and “crucified,” but there are few such words, and they do not stand in such a way that they could obscure the meaning and produce an allegory or parable, which, in fact, I call allegorical or figurative speech. As for the next passage of Jeremiah: “See, I have set you this day over nations and kingdoms to uproot and destroy” (Jer. 1:10), then there is no doubt that here the whole saying is figurative and should be attributed to the purpose I showed above. 18) Everything that for inexperienced people seems to be immoral (flagitiosum) - whether it be words alone or actions themselves, whether they are attributed to God or relate to people praised for holiness - all this is said allegorically in Holy Scripture and the mysterious meaning of such passages must be explained in favor of love. Regarding this, we should generally note the following: whoever uses transitory things with greater moderation than what the custom of the people with whom he lives allows and requires, is either temperate or superstitious; but whoever uses things in such a way that he transgresses the boundaries of the customs that good people of his time adhere to, in this case either he himself serves as a sign of something or is truly immoral. For in all such cases it is not the use of things that is guilty, but the lust of the user. No sane person would think that the Lord’s feet were anointed by the woman mentioned in the Gospel for the same purpose with which intemperate and luxurious people, whose feasts we abhor, usually anoint them. A pleasant smell means in this case good fame, which everyone can earn by deeds of a good life; therefore, whoever follows in the footsteps of Christ, as it were, anoints His feet with precious perfume (John 12:3) Thus, what in other persons there is for the most part something impermissible, in a Divine or prophetic person it serves as a sign of something special and important. Communication with a harlot of corrupt people is another matter, and the same communication described in the book of the prophet Hosea (Hosea 1, 2) is quite another. From the fact that drunken and voluptuous people dissolutely expose their bodies at feasts, it does not follow that being naked in the bathhouse is debauchery. 19) Therefore, one must carefully look at what is appropriate for the time, place and persons, so as not to recklessly condemn something as a crime. A prudent person can indulge in the most precious and pleasant dishes, without any greed, while a reckless person, even with the most ordinary food, will, so to speak, burn from gluttony. And every sane person, without a doubt, would rather, following the example of the Lord, want to eat fish than, following the example of Esau, the grandson of Abraham, some kind of juice, or, in the likeness of draft animals, barley. Most animals eat the most base and empty food, but it does not follow from this that animals are more abstinent than us. In any case, we should judge actions not so much by the quality of the things we use, but by the motive with which we use them and to what extent we desire them. 20) The Old Testament righteous imagined the Kingdom of Heaven, and therefore foreshadowed it under the image of the earthly kingdom. In order to have a sufficient number of offspring, the same husband was then allowed to have many wives together; but for this reason it was considered dishonorable for one wife to have many husbands; for this does not make a wife more fertile, and indiscriminately coveting children or any income is the most dishonorable thing. Given this state of morals among the ancients, Holy Scripture does not condemn such actions in the righteous people of that time, which at the present time cannot be performed otherwise than through lust. Therefore, all places of St. The Scriptures, in which something similar is described not only historically and strictly, but sometimes allegorically and as if prophetically, must be explained in such a way that everywhere the main goal is love for God and neighbor, or for both together, for, just as among the ancient Romans it was considered dishonorable to wear a long tunic with wide sleeves, now, on the contrary, it is considered dishonor not to wear it for a noble person, so it is necessary to judge about other things; What is not customary now was not always so. In general, the use of things is most often spoiled not by anything other than lust, through which a person not only shamefully abuses the custom of his fellow citizens, but often, transgressing the limits of it, brazenly reveals all his inner vileness, hitherto hidden under the roof of national customs. 21) Everything that in the actions of great and pious men is in accordance with the customs of the people in whose circle they lived out of necessity or duty, in all of this must presuppose a good goal, namely: either the true benefit of themselves, or charity in relation to others - and this, literally, is how we could act in their place, or, symbolically, as befits the Prophets. 22) Reading the description of such acts, people who are not familiar with foreign customs consider them reprehensible, unless the authority of the actors restrains them; Meanwhile, they do not notice that in their own behavior, in their marriage, feasts, in attire and in every other kind of life and customs, other people at another time would have found much reprehensible. Such an infinite variety of human customs even gave reason to some, so to speak, half-asleep people, who were not lulled into a completely deep sleep of stupidity, but were also far from the waking state of wise people - gave, I say, reason to conclude that there is nothing just in itself, but that each people considers its own customs to be fair. If, they say, the customs of peoples are different, but justice should be unchanged and the same, then it is clear that there is no justice anywhere. But to shame their short-sightedness, it is enough to say that the rule “what you don’t want for yourself, don’t do to someone else,” despite all the diversity of folk customs, remains unchanged everywhere. Apply this rule to the duty to love God and you will destroy everything immoral; apply it to the duty to love your neighbor, and everything criminal will fall. For example, no one wants to desecrate his home, therefore, no one should desecrate the church of God, that is, himself. No one wants anyone to harm him, therefore, no one himself should harm anyone. 23) After the overthrow of the tyranny of lust, love reigns over everything according to the most just laws, that is, it commands us to love God for God’s sake, and ourselves and our neighbors for God’s sake. And therefore, with any figurative speech, one must observe the rule that the passage being read should be examined with all attention until it can be interpreted in favor of the kingdom of love. If a passage directly and truly expresses love, then, all the more, there is no need to consider it allegorical. 24) When any saying of Scripture contains a commandment prohibiting depravity or crime, or instilling something beneficial and beneficial for others, then it must always be accepted in its proper sense. On the contrary, every saying that apparently prescribes something bad or criminal and prohibits charity or proper concern for one’s own benefit must be explained in a higher sense. This is what it says: “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you” (John 6:53). Apparently, something unnatural and even terrible is prescribed here, but for this reason one should not understand these words in such a crude way, but understand them more sublimely and spiritually. Scripture also says: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink” (Rom. 12:20) There is no doubt that charity to one’s neighbor is prescribed here; but in the subsequent words: “for by doing this you will heap burning coals on his head,” apparently instills ill-will towards your neighbor. Do not doubt at all that the last words are spoken figuratively and, although you can express them in two ways, that is, both to the harm and to the benefit of your neighbor, but love should force you to attribute them to charity, that is, by fiery coal you should mean nothing more than burning groans of repentance, healing the pride of the enemy and making him sympathize that he has become an enemy to such a person who helps him in poverty him. Likewise, when the Lord says: “He who loves his life will destroy it” (John 12:25), one should not think that He forbids a person to take care of himself, according to which everyone must preserve his soul. The words “will destroy it” are said figuratively; they suggest that everyone must abandon or change the present way of action of the soul, a perverse and carnal way, according to which the soul cleaves to the temporary and does not seek the eternal. Sirach writes: “Give to the pious, and do not help the sinner” (Sir. 12:4). The second part of this text apparently prohibits charity, for it says: “do not help a sinner.” Therefore, the word “sinner” should be understood figuratively, instead of the word “sin,” and the meaning will be this: do not commit sin. 25) But it happens that people who are at the highest level of spiritual life, or who only think of themselves that way, consider allegorical everything that is prescribed to people who are still at the lower levels of this life. So, for example, someone who has decided to lead a wifeless life and has saved himself (spiritually) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven can claim that everything said in Holy Scripture about the love of a husband for his wife and about the subordination of the latter to the former should be taken not literally, but allegorically; also, whoever decides not to give his daughter in marriage will begin to explain the words of Scripture: “Give your daughter in marriage, and you will do a great thing” (Sir. 7:27) in a figurative sense. Therefore, among other rules, we must remember that Holy Scripture prescribes something else for everyone in general, and something else, in particular, for those known only to people; in order to thus bring health not only to everyone in general, but also to provide healing against the partial weakness of each person separately. For what cannot be transferred to another, higher circle, must be treated in its own circle. 26) Likewise, one should not think that some actions that are spoken of in the Old Testament allegorically or actually, and which, according to the state of those times, were neither immoral nor criminal, could be introduced into use at the present time. Only one in whom lust reigns, and who seeks protection for it in Holy Scripture itself, which is supposed to destroy it, can think this way. Such an unfortunate person does not understand that such actions are narrated in Scripture for this reason, so that sensible people would know that a custom rejected in their time can have a good side, and a custom observed among them can be reprehensible, if we take into account pure love there, and the lust of the characters here. 27) Indeed, one in those days could use many wives chastely, but another now cannot use even one without voluptuousness. And I approve more of the one who took advantage of the fertility of many wives for the sake of a higher goal than of the one who is content with one wife for her own sake. For in the first case, what is meant is a need in accordance with the circumstances and the spirit of the time, in the latter, only the passion for temporary pleasures is satisfied. Why are those who, due to their intemperance, the Apostle allowed each to have his own wife, are much lower before God than those who, although they had many wives, when communicating with them had only the birth of children in mind, just as a prudent person has only the health of the body in mind when eating and drinking. And if the Coming of the Lord had found the Old Testament righteous alive, they would have been the first to accumulate themselves spiritually, (insensitively) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, since then it was no longer time to scatter, but to “gather up stones” (Eccl. 3:5). For it is not difficult to leave what we possess without partiality. Moreover, even in Old Testament times, people knew that excessive intemperance in spouses is abuse. This is evidenced by the words of Tobias, who, upon joining with his wife, says: “Blessed be the God of our fathers, and blessed be Thy holy and glorious Name forever, may the heavens and all Thy creatures bless Thee. You created Adam and gave him Eve as his helper... Now, O Lord, I have not taken this my sister for the sake of fornication, but in truth: command that she may receive mercy from me” (Tov.8:5-7). 28) Despite this, voluptuous people who indulge in sexual intercourse with many wives or have one, but transgress the measure required for the birth of children, and increase the vileness of extraordinary intemperance by completely shamelessly allowing themselves some kind of slavish freedom - these people consider it impossible for ancient men to use many wives in moderation and have in mind only one time-appropriate need - to give birth children. For, in their opinion, it is impossible to observe with many wives what they themselves, suppressed by lust, do not observe even with one. 29) But such people, perhaps, can also say that one should not praise and honor people of holy and immaculate life, because they themselves, during praise and honor, become puffed up with pride, and are the more greedy for empty glory, the more often and more the tongue of flattery weaves praises for them. Such pride makes them so frivolous that every wind of rumor, whether favorable or contrary, drags them into some abyss of wickedness or even plunges them and smashes them against the stones of crime. But, beloved, let us assume that it is difficult and difficult for you, on the one hand, not to be deceived by the lure of glory, and on the other hand, to feel the sorrow of reproach - just do not judge others by yourself. Remember that the apostles were subjected to both temptations, for they were both glorified by believers and blasphemed by opponents; however, they did not become arrogant when people praised them, and did not lose heart when they despised them. Therefore, just as the Apostles, who, due to the circumstances of the time, enjoyed praise, did not become worse, so the Old Testament men, using their wives, according to the custom and needs of the time, did not indulge in lust, which non-believers serve as slaves. 30) And this explains the fact that the Old Testament righteous did not consider it a shame to harbor constant indignation at their sons when they learned that they had made an attempt on their wives and concubines or communicated with them, as sometimes happened. Meanwhile, David, having suffered such a reproach from his wicked and disobedient son, not only endured it indifferently, but also bitterly mourned the death of this frantic son (2 Samuel 18:33). For it was not the feeling of carnal jealousy and personal resentment, but the thought of the son’s sins that weighed on the heart of this parent. That is why, in the event of victory, David forbade the killing of Absalom, so that after taming him, he would be given the opportunity to repent; but when this did not happen, David wept bitterly - not about the loss of his son, but about how severe punishment a soul so criminal and patricidal should be subjected to. For, before this, David did not mourn the death of another son, who was not at all guilty, and whose illness greatly saddened his father’s heart. 31) The following circumstance also proves how moderately and temperately the ancient husbands treated their wives. When the same David, carried away by the ardor of age and temporary prosperity, was inflamed with an unauthorized passion for a certain woman and, as a result, ordered the death of her husband, he was condemned, as is known, by the Prophet who, having come to him with the intention of accusing him of sin, offered a parable about a certain poor man, from whom a rich man, despite the fact that he had many sheep, took away the only one for treating the guest who came to him. sheep Irritated, David pronounced the death sentence over the rich man and the command to reward the poor man fourfold for his sheep. Thus, the Tsar, who committed the crime in full consciousness, condemned himself without knowing it. And when the Prophet explained the parable to him and announced God's punishment, he cleansed his sin with strict repentance. In this parable, however, only adultery was meant by taking away the poor neighbor's sheep; the killing of the husband or the fact that the poor man who had one sheep was killed was kept silent, so that David could determine his punishment for adultery alone. From now on, the discerning can see how moderately this Tsar used many wives, when he agreed to punish himself for one. Carnal lust in David was not dominant, but accidental; why the accuser - the Prophet - called unauthorized passion a guest; He did not say that the poor sheep was used for the table of the King, but for the guest. On the contrary, in David’s son Solomon this passion was no longer accidental like a guest, but dominated in him like a queen, which the Holy Scripture mentions when it calls Solomon a woman-lover (1 Kings 11:1-2). However, at the beginning of his reign, Solomon also ardently desired wisdom, which he acquired through spiritual love, but lost through carnal love. 32) So, although all, or almost all, of the acts described in the books of the Old Testament must be accepted not only in their own, but also in an allegorical sense, however, if the reader finds a description of any action of persons blessed in Scripture in the proper sense, which will be incompatible with the behavior of pious Christians, after the coming of the Savior, fulfilling the Divine commandments, then he should reveal here only what is typified, and not present the action itself rule for the present time. For from what in ancient times was sometimes done even out of duty, now something else cannot be done without passion. 33) If you happen to read about any sins of great people, then, although the reader can discover in them some kind of foreshadowing of the future, for all that, the own significance of wrong actions should admonish him so that he never dares to exalt himself with the righteousness of his own deeds and despise others as sinners, seeing that great men were exposed to storms, which should be avoided, and suffered shipwrecks, which should mourn. The fall of great men into sin is described for this reason, so that we constantly and with trembling remember the words of the Apostle: “If anyone thinks that he stands, beware lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). And that is why on almost every page of Holy Scripture it is instilled in us that God opposes the proud, but gives Grace to the humble. 34) So, most of all we must delve into whether the speech we are trying to understand is personal or allegorical. For if we find that it is allegorical, then with the help of the rules about the subjects that I set out in the first book, it will be easy to consider it, so to speak, from all sides, we will not reach the true meaning, especially when a skill is added to this, supported by true piety. And how to distinguish allegorical speech from your own, the rules that I spoke about above will help you. When the type of speech is revealed, it will also be revealed that the allegory that makes it up is taken either from the similarity of similar things, or from such things that come into contact with one another only due to some proximity. 35) Since objects that are similar to each other can have similarities in many respects, one should not think that a thing that has one or another meaning in a certain place due to some similarity, has the same thing in every other place. So, for example. The Lord used the same word “leaven” both in the sense of reproof, when he said, “I did not say to you about bread: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:11), and in the sense of approval, when he said: “It is like (the Kingdom of Heaven) leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened” (Luke 13:21). 36) Regarding the difference in the meaning of words, it should be noted that there are two types of it, namely: “a known thing can mean this or that in such a way that these meanings will either be completely opposite” (contraria) to one another, or only different (diversa) from each other. The meanings are opposite when some thing, due to a certain similarity, is taken either for good or for bad, such as kvass, which was mentioned above. In the same way, the lion means Christ when it is said: “Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has overcome” (Rev. 5:5), and the tempter when it is written: “...your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). Similarly, the serpent is taken in a good direction: “Be wise as serpents” ( Matthew 10:16), and for worse: “the serpent deceived Eve with his cunning” (2 Cor. 11:3). Bread is also accepted in a good way: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:51), and in a bad way: “bread hidden is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). There are many other examples of this kind. The passages I have cited are of such a nature that their meaning is not subject to any doubt (for for example, only what is clear should be cited); but there are also passages, when reading which it is not entirely clear in which direction they should be understood. This is the following: “Like a cup in the hand of the Lord, the wine is not dissolved, full of dissolution, and turn away from it into this; Otherwise his trembling will not be exhausted” (Ps. 74:9). You will not suddenly see what is meant here by the cup - the wrath of God, which does not extend to the last degree of punishment, that is, not extending to the “leaves,” or the grace of Holy Scripture, passed from the Jews to the pagans, for it is said, “turn away from this into this,” although at the same time the Jews still had rituals that they understood in a carnal way, “his yeast will not be exhausted.” And that one and the same thing can have not opposite, but only different meanings, an example of this is water, which means both the people, as can be seen in the Apocalypse, and the Holy Spirit, as in this text: “out of the belly will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38). If this word has other meanings, then they can be guessed depending on the place in which it is used. 37) Likewise, other objects, not separately and by themselves, but in connection with other words, can have not only two, but sometimes many different meanings, the meaning of which is determined by their very position, as can be seen from the previous example. If the meaning of an object is clearly defined in some place, then such places should be used to explain the darkest places. Thus, the expression “shield” in the words spoken to God: “Come a weapon and a shield, and arise to help me” (Ps. 34:2), cannot be better explained as through a connection with the following passage: “Lord, as if you have crowned us with weapons of favor” (Ps. 5:13). However, not in every place where a shield is used in the sense of some kind of protective weapon, it should mean only the favor of God. For, for example, it is said: “Take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one” (Eph. 6:16). And again, when depicting spiritual weapons, the concept of faith should not be combined with a shield alone, for in another place the armor of faith is also mentioned: “putting on the armor of faith and love” (1 Thess. 5:8) and so on. 38) If the same words of Holy Scripture give not one thought, but two or more, while it is unknown what exact meaning the Writer himself gave them, then there will be no danger in other places of Scripture to determine a meaning that is more suitable to the truth. Of course, one who tests Divine verbs must try by all means to find the true intention of the Writer himself, through whom the Holy Spirit spoke these verbs, but if he does not comprehend it, then he can extract another thought from the words under consideration, as long as this thought does not contradict the right faith and is confirmed by the clear evidence of Holy Scripture. For it may turn out that the Writer himself saw this thought in the words we expound. At least, the Spirit of God, acting through the Writer, undoubtedly foresaw that a certain thought would meet the reader or listener, and even, perhaps, intended for it to meet, since it is also a thought based on truth. And what could be more worthy of the importance of St. Scripture and the wisdom of God's providence, which gave it, how could it not be that the same words could be understood and explained through different ways, for the reliability of which the same Scripture would vouch for in its other places, more clear and definite? 39) If where it is impossible to discover the true meaning through the clear evidence of Holy Scripture, in this case it remains to explain a certain place, calling on reason to help, even if the revealed meaning was not the one that the Writer we are explaining had. However, this means of explaining texts with the assistance of reason alone is dangerous; it is much safer to adhere to Holy Scripture, which of itself can always protect us from contradictions or, if we fall into them, give us within ourselves the means to reconcile them. 40) Meanwhile, scholars should not forget that our Holy Writers used all kinds of expressions, known to grammarians under the Greek name of tropes, and, moreover, much more diverse and in greater abundance than those who do not know our Holy Writers and learned these tropes from only secular teachers can think or believe. Those familiar with the paths easily find them in Holy Scripture, and often use them to understand it. This is not the place to teach the rules of tropes to those who do not know, lest it seem that I am teaching grammar. I advise you to study this science from other mentors, although I, for my part, speaking in the second book about the need to know languages, offered several comments on the study of grammar. For the letters from which grammar itself gets its name (the Greeks call letters γράμματα) are the most common signs of the sounds of the articulate language we speak. In the sacred books there are not only examples of tropes, but there are even names of some of them, for example, allegory, riddle, parable. I will note here almost all those paths that are said to be taught only by the free sciences, and are found in the speeches of people who have not listened to any science; they are found in the most ordinary, common language. Who doesn’t say: “Bloom like this”? And this is a trope called metaphor. Who does not call a fish tank or fish planter a reservoir that does not have fish and was not made for fish, but received its name from fish? And this is again a trope called catachresis. 41) It will take too long to list all the ordinary tropes, because in the common language even not quite ordinary tropes are used, meaning something completely different than what the words themselves say, for example: irony and antiphrases. But irony, by its very pronunciation, shows what it wants to say, for example, when a person doing something bad is told: “You are doing well!” On the contrary, for an antiphrase to mean a completely different thought than what the words show, tone or pronunciation is not enough for this, but it is necessary that this trope either have its own special words in which the root meaning contradicts the derivative (for example, a grove is called lucus from luceo “candle,” while it does not shine at all), or that the use gives the words a double meaning: “one is direct, usually used, and the other is the opposite” (for example, when we want to take some thing in a place where it is not there, and they answer us: “There is a lot of it” (abundat),” or, finally, we need additional words to explain that our speech should be understood in the opposite direction (for example: “Beware of him, for he is a good man!”) What commoner does not use such figures of speech, although he does not know at all what kind of paths they are, or even that such turns are called paths? But, be that as it may, only knowledge of the tropes is necessary when resolving ambiguities found in Holy Scripture. If words taken in their proper meaning yield an incongruous meaning, then we need to look into whether this or that trope is used in a saying that we do not understand. This method explains a lot of things that previously seemed obscure. 42) A certain Tikhonius, who wrote with irrefutable force against the Donatists, because he himself was a Donatist, a man, meanwhile, of the most hostile spirit in those places where he did not want to completely abandon the opinion of these heretics, wrote a book called “The Book of Rules.” In this work, he set out seven rules, which, in his opinion, should be, as it were, the keys to discovering the secrets of Holy Scripture. The first rule he puts is the rule about the Lord and His body; the second is about the twofold body of the Lord; third, about the promises and the Law; fourth - about species and genus; fifth - about times; sixth - about repeating what was said; the seventh is about the devil and his body. Although these rules, being considered as their author reveals, help a lot to penetrate into the hidden meaning of Holy Scripture, however, with the help of them not everything can be penetrated, and not everything is as these rules prescribe. On the contrary, there are many other means for this that Tikhonius did not include in his septenary number; and he himself interprets many obscure passages, without using any of his rules to help himself, because there was no need for any of them. For in the passages he cites there is not a single subject or question to the resolution of which his rules could be applied; for example, explaining one passage from the Revelation of John, Tikhonius asks: what should be meant by the Angels of the seven Churches, to which he is commanded to write, and, after many and various conclusions, finally concludes that by Angels are meant the Churches themselves. In this overly prolific research, he did not make the slightest use of his own rules, although he was dealing with a very dark subject. One example will suffice; and to collect all the passages that are so obscure in the canonical books that they cannot be explained at all by means of the aforementioned seven rules would be too lengthy, and it is not necessary. 43) Meanwhile, Tikhonius, praising his rules, ascribes to them so much, as if everything that is dark in the Law, that is, in the sacred Books, can be easily understood by well understanding and properly using these rules. Thus, in the preface to his book, he says: “I considered it necessary first of all” (which seemed to me) to write a book of rules and arrange, so to speak, the keys and lamps for the secrets of the law. For there are some mystical rules that reveal all the depths of the Law and make treasures - invisible to some - visible. If these rules are accepted without envy, as I have communicated them, then everything imprisoned will be revealed, and everything dark will be illuminated, and everyone walking in the immeasurable forest of prophecies, being guided by my rules, as if by bright paths, will avoid error.” If instead of saying “there are some mysterious rules that reveal all the depths of the Law,” Tikhonius said that his rules reveal only some, or at least many, depths of the Law; further, if he had not assured that “everything contained will be revealed,” but wrote that much will be revealed, he would have told the truth and would not have deceived the expectations of the readers, attributing to his—however, useful and carefully crafted essay—more than enough to allow the essence of the matter. For my part, I considered it necessary to preface those studying the sciences so that they read the book of Tikhonius, as it greatly contributes to the understanding of Holy Scripture; but at the same time, they should not expect from her what she does not have. It should be read with caution, not only because of some errors that the writer made as a person, but especially because he says a lot in it like a Donatist. I will now briefly show what these seven rules teach and instill. 44) The first rule speaks about the Lord and His body. Knowing that in Holy Scripture about the head and body - i.e. about Christ and the Church - is sometimes spoken of in the same person (for it is not in vain that it is said to believers, “you are the seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:29), while the seed of Abraham is one, that is, Christ), I will not dwell long on this rule regarding when exactly in Scripture a transition is made from the head to the body, or when from the body to the head, but not the same person. For example, in the following words, although the same person speaks about himself: “as he laid a crown on the groom and adorned him with decorations like a bride” (Is. 61:10), we still need to look for what exactly here is attributed to the head and what to the body, that is, what to Christ and what to the Church. 45) The second rule in Tikhonius is about the twofold body of the Lord; but this rule should not be called that way, for it is not actually the body of the Lord, which will not abide with the Lord forever. One should have said: “about the Lord’s true and mixed body” (permixto), or about the real and imaginary body (simulato), or use some other expression: for the hypocrites will not only not be with the Lord in eternity, but now they are no longer with Him, although, apparently, they are in His Church. Hence the second rule could also be called this: about a mixed Church. This rule requires an attentive reader, for there are cases when Holy Scripture speaks, apparently, to the same persons to whom the speech was previously directed, while the speech is already addressed to others, or it seems that it speaks about the same persons, while it is already spoken about others. This happens because both of them, by temporary mixing and participation in the sacraments, constitute, as it were, one body. This includes the words from the Song of Songs: “I am black, but beautiful, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon” (Song. 1, 4). He doesn’t say “I was black as the villages of Kidarsk. and beautiful as the curtains of Solomon,” but he speaks of himself both together due to the temporary union of good and bad fish in the same sea (Matthew 13:48). (For the villages of Kidarsk belong to Ishmael, who will not be an heir along with the son of a free woman) (Gen. 21, 10; Gal. 4, 30). In another place, speaking of the good side: “I will lead the blind along a path they do not know, I will lead them along unknown paths; I will make darkness light before them, and the crooked ways straight: this is what I will do for them, and will not forsake them” (Is. 42:16). God immediately and suddenly speaks about the opposite side, which is mixed with the good: “Then they will turn back” (Is. 42:17). These words signify other persons than those at the beginning. Since in the present state both are one and the same, it seems as if what is being said here are the same ones that were mentioned above; Meanwhile, these two parts will not always be one. Proof of this is the slave mentioned in the Gospel, whom the master, when he comes, will cut him up and subject him to the same fate as the hypocrites (Matthew 24:51) 46) The third rule is written about the promises and the Law, which could otherwise be called “about the spirit and the letter,” as it was called in the book I wrote about this subject. You can also call it “on Grace and Commandment.” But the doctrine of Grace is, in my opinion, rather a great question than any rule that can serve to resolve questions. Not understanding this teaching about Grace, the Pelagians formed a well-known heresy or spread it. Tikhonius worked with praise to resolve the question of Grace, but did not fully explore it. Discussing faith and works, he says that God gives us only works as a merit of faith, but that faith itself depends solely on us, and is not a gift from God. He did not delve into the words of the Apostle: “Peace for the brethren and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 6:23). However, Tikhonius was not aware of the Pelagian heresy, which, having been born in our time, forced us to zealously defend against it the Grace of God, even in Christ Jesus our Lord, and which, in accordance with the words of the Apostle, “there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19), made us much more attentive and active. Therefore, we discovered in the Holy Scriptures what Tikhonius did not notice, who delved less deeply into the teaching of Grace and was less concerned - precisely because he did not have an enemy - we discovered, I say, that faith itself is also a gift of the One who gives to everyone a certain measure of it. In this sense, it is said to some of the Christians: “...it has been given to you for Christ’s sake not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him” (Phil. 1:29). After this, who will doubt that both are the gifts of God, when they clearly and distinctly hear that both are “given”? There is a lot of other evidence that proves the same truth, but I won’t expand on it now; on other occasions I talked about it quite often. 47) The fourth rule in Tikhonius is about species and genus. In this rule, the writer wants to understand by species a part, and by genus the whole, of which the part is what Tikhonius calls a species, for example, each city in particular is a part of the entire civil world, accordingly, its city has a species, and all nations are a genus. And indeed, here - that is, in relation to Holy Scripture - that sophistication is inappropriate, according to which Dialecticians very cleverly argue about what the difference between part and species consists of: inappropriate because Scripture is equally expressed in a certain way not only about one city, but also about an entire region, people, or state. I mean the way of expression that in Scripture not only cities, for example, Jerusalem or some other city, say Tire or Babylon, are sometimes attributed such signs that are much more extensive than these cities and more befitting of all nations in general; but also about entire countries, for example, about Judea, Egypt, Assyria or some other nation, which has many cities, but does not make up the entire globe, but only a part of it, something is said that also exceeds the measure of these countries and is more befitting the whole Universe of which they form parts, or, as Tikhonius says, the genus of which they are species. (Species and generic concepts have become known even to the people, so that the simplest people understand what, in particular, and what is generally prescribed by some State Law). What is said about cities, the same should be understood about people. For example, such signs are attributed to Solomon that are above his face and which become clear only at the time when we apply them to Christ or the Church, of which Solomon is a part. 48) And about the form in Holy Scripture it is not always said more than is appropriate for it; that is, such signs are attributed to him that he actually has, or those that are only so clear to him that they can befit. But if a transition is made from species to genus, and so insensitively that it seems as if Holy Scripture is still speaking about species; in this case, the reader must use the most intense attention, so as not to look for something in the form that can be better and more accurately found in the genus. It is not difficult to understand that in the following words of the Prophet Ezekiel: “When the house of Israel lived in its land, it desecrated it with its behavior and deeds; Their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a woman when she was cleansed. And I poured out My wrath on them for blood... And I scattered them among the nations, and they were scattered throughout the lands; I judged them according to their ways and according to their deeds" (Ezek. 36:17-19), - it is not difficult, I say, to understand that these words mean the house of Israel, about which the Apostle says: “You see Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10, 18), that is, the carnal people of Israel, who did and suffered everything described by the Prophet. It is also clear that further words befit the same people. But when the Prophet begins to say: “And I will sanctify My great name, which is dishonored among the nations, among whom you have dishonored it, and the nations will know that I am the Lord” (Ezek. 36:23), then the reader must carefully delve into how the signs of the species here go beyond the limits of this species and the transition is made to the genus. For it further says: “When I will show you My holiness before their eyes. And I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all countries, and bring you into your own land. And I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; And I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My commandments and keep My statutes and do them. And you will live in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you will be My people, and I will be your God. And I will free you from all your uncleanness” (Ezek.36:23-29). All this was predicted about the New Testament, which applies not only to the Jewish people in its remnant, as is written about this nowhere. “For even though your people, O Israel, were as many as the sand of the sea, only the remnant of them will be converted” (Is. 10:22) - but also other nations promised to the fathers of ancient Israel, who are also our fathers. No one will doubt this when they understand that here is a promise about the font of revival, to which, as we see, all nations are now called, and that the words of the Apostle, with which he inspires the superiority of the Grace of the New Testament 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 tablets of flesh of the heart” ( 2 Cor. 3, 2-3) - that these very words are both contained and derived from those words of the Prophet, where he says: “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and I will take out of their flesh the heart of stone, and will give them a heart of flesh” (Ezek. 11, 19). For the heart of flesh (from which the Apostle used the expression: “on the tables of flesh of the heart”) the Prophet wanted to distinguish it from the heart of stone by the fact that there is life and feeling in it, and by life and feeling he meant rational or spiritual power. Thus spiritual Israel is not composed of one nation, but of all the nations promised to the fathers in their seed, which is Christ. 49) Therefore, the new spiritual Israel differs from the ancient carnal Israel, which consisted of one people, not by the nobility of the fatherland, but by new Grace; not by origin, but by spirit and understanding. Meanwhile, the Prophets, due to the loftiness of their language, speaking about the ancient or to ancient Israel, imperceptibly and secretly move on to the new, and while they are already talking about the new or to the new, it still seems as if they are prophesying about the ancient, or to the ancient. The Prophets used such secretive transitions in their speeches not because they wanted to obscure the understanding of Scripture for us due to any hostility, but because they wanted to give our mind healing food for exercise. Therefore, we must understand the words of the Prophet “...I will bring you into your land...” and further ones, where he seems to repeat the above (“dwell in the land that your father gave”), not in a carnal way, like carnal Israel, but spiritually, like spiritual Israel. For the Church, having no filth or vice, gathered from all nations and destined to reign forever with Christ, is itself the land of the blessed, the land of the living; itself should be revered for the inheritance given to the fathers, when, according to the exact and immutable will of God, it was promised to them; since the very immutability of the promise or predestination shows that this land had already been given to them, although at one time the Fathers only still believed that it would be given to them. So about the grace itself communicated to the Saints, the Apostle says: “not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages, which has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior” (2 Tim. 1:9-10). He called grace given, when there were not yet those to whom it was given; and this is because by the very distribution and predestination of God what should have been done in due time had already been done, and, speaking of which, the Apostle used the word “revealed.” However, the quoted words of the Prophet can also be understood about the land of the coming age, when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where the wicked will not dwell (Rev. 21: 1). And therefore it is rightly said that this land is an inheritance given to the righteous, in which the wicked will not participate at all: this land should also be honored as already given by the very fact that there is an immutable promise about it. 50) As the fifth rule, Tikhonius lays down the rule about times, so that with its help one can discover or at least make plausible guesses about the reckoning of times hidden in Holy Scripture. According to Tikhonius, this rule has application in two cases, i.e. with the path of synecdoche and with the so-called legal numbers (legitimis) or definite. Synecdoche requires either that a part be understood as a whole, or, conversely, that a whole be understood as a part. So, for example, speaking about the Transfiguration of the Lord on the mountain, where in the presence of only three disciples the face of the Savior shone like the sun, and the vestments became white as snow, one Evangelist believes the Transfiguration happened after a well-known conversation after eight days, and another - only after six (Luke 9, 28. Matt. 17, 1). It is obvious that these legends about the number of days cannot both be true, unless we assume that one Evangelist, who says “the day is eight”, took the last part of the day on which the Lord predicted his Transfiguration, and the first part of the day on which He fulfilled his prediction, for two whole and full days; and the other, who used the words “six days,” meant all full and whole days, but only the average between the prediction and the Transfiguration. In a similar way of expression, putting the part for the whole, the question of the time of the Resurrection of Christ is resolved. For if the last part of the day on which the Lord suffered is not taken as a whole day, adding to it the previous night, and the last part of the night on which He was resurrected is not taken as a whole day, adding also the following Sunday day, then three days and three nights will not work out, during which the Savior, according to His prediction, was to remain in the heart of the earth. 51) Tikhonius calls legal or definite numbers the numbers predominantly and most often used by the Holy Writers, such as: seven, ten, twelve and some others well known to people who read Scripture. Such definite numbers are, for the most part, used instead of the whole indefinite time in general. For example, the words “I praised You seven days a day” (Ps. 119:164) mean the same as “I will bring His praise into my mouth” (Ps. 33:2). The same can be understood when numbers are multiplied either by ten - as seventy, seven hundred (from which the seventy years of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11) can be taken spiritually for the entire time in which the Church is among the pagans), or by themselves - as ten multiplied by ten is one hundred, twelve by twelve - one hundred and forty-four, a number signifying the entire community of saints (universitas sanctorum) in Apocalypse (Rev. 7:4). From this last circumstance it is clear that not only questions concerning time should be resolved by numbers, but that their meaning is much broader and can be applied to many subjects. For the indicated number in the Apocalypse does not refer to time, but to people. 52) Tikhonius calls the sixth rule repetition or return to what was said before (recapitulatio) - a rule that the writer quite vigilantly found in the darkness of Scripture. For there are places in which objects seem to follow in the order of time and are revealed in continuous connection, and yet in the thing itself the narrative secretly returns to what was previously omitted. If in such cases you are not guided by the said rule, then you can easily fall into error. So in the book of Genesis it is said: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man whom he had created. And the Lord God made every tree grow out of the ground, pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:8-9). Apparently, it is said here that the final planting of paradise took place after God introduced the man he created into paradise; and, meanwhile, the Holy Writer briefly mentioned both, i.e. that God planted paradise and brought created man into it, only resumes the narrative and supplements what he had previously omitted, namely, he describes in more detail how paradise was planted: God brought forth, he says, “out of the earth every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food,” then, following further, he adds: “and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Then he describes the river that watered paradise and was divided into four sources, which also refers to the structure of paradise. Finally, having described paradise, the Genesis writer repeats what he had already said, but that in the order of creation it followed the establishment of paradise, that is, he speaks about the introduction of man into paradise: “And the Lord God took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden” (Gen. 2:15). For first paradise was built, and then man was introduced into it, as the very order of things now shows, and not vice versa - man was not first introduced, and then paradise was built, as one might think at first glance, if one does not assume here a repetition (recapitulatio), according to which the narrator returns to what he had previously omitted. 53) Further, in the same book of Genesis, according to the number of generations of the sons of Noah, it is said: “These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands, in their nations” (Gen. 10:20). According to the number of the sons of Shem it is also said: “These are the sons of Shem according to their families, according to their languages” (secundum linguas suas), in their lands, according to their peoples.” Finally, about everyone in general it is added: “These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their Genealogy, among their nations. From them nations spread throughout the earth after the flood. Throughout the whole earth there was one language and one speech” (Gen. 10:32, 11:1). These last words: “There was one language and one dialect throughout the whole earth” - that is, everyone had one language - show that even at the time when the peoples were already scattered across the earth and even across the islands, everyone had one common language. But this obviously contradicts the previous words, where it is said: “according to their tribes, according to their languages” (secundum linguas suas).” The writer would not say that each tribe, constituting a separate people, had its own special language if all tribes had one common language. Consequently, the words “There was one language and one dialect throughout the whole earth” constitute nothing more than an imperceptible renewal of the narrative, made to explain how one and the same language was divided into many. Therefore, immediately after these words, the construction of that tower is narrated, for which the judgment of God disgraced the pride of the tribes with a confusion of languages; and after that the peoples were scattered throughout the earth “according to their own language.” 54) Sometimes repetition in a narrative (or a return to what was said before) is even darker and more imperceptible than in the examples we have given. So in the Gospel the Lord says: “But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the sky and destroyed everyone; so it will be on the day when the Son of Man appears. On that day, whoever is on the housetop and his belongings are in the house, do not go down to take them; and whoever is on the field, also do not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:29-32). Is it really possible that on the very day of the Lord’s appearance he should fulfill these words of the Savior, “let him not return back,” that is, he will not begin to examine his past life, with which he has already parted forever? On the contrary, shouldn’t it be now, that is, in the continuation of the present temporary existence on earth, that we should primarily delve into it, so that when the Lord appears, everyone will receive a reward according to what he has done and what he has neglected? Meanwhile, since it is said “on that day,” one might think that the Savior’s command should be fulfilled precisely on the day when the Lord appears, if we do not assume here the above-mentioned rule about repetition and call for help from another place of Holy Scripture, which even in the time of the Apostles said: “Children, this is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). Consequently, by the expression “that day” on which the above-mentioned words of the Savior must be fulfilled, we mean the entire continuation of the time of preaching the Gospel even until the last appearance of the Lord, for the very appearance of the Lord refers to the same time, which will end on the day of judgment. 55) The seventh and final rule in Tikhonius is about the devil and his body. For the devil is the head of the wicked, who in some way constitute his body and must go with him into eternal fire, just as Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body, which has to abide with Him in the eternal kingdom of glory. Consequently, just as with the first rule, which Tikhonius called “about the Lord and His body,” one must be attentive, so that in those cases where Scripture speaks of the Lord and His body in one person, one must understand what befits the head and what the body, so the same attention is equally necessary with the last rule. For sometimes something is said about the devil that befits not so much him as his body, which consists not only of those who are most obviously outside the Church, but also those who belong to the devil are considered in the Church until everyone leaves this present life or until the tares are separated from the wheat with the last shovel. So the following words of Isaiah: “How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Is. 14:12), etc., spoken to the same person or about the same person under the guise of the King of Babylon, make one mean the devil; however, in further words. “He was broken upon the earth, trampling down the nations” - not everything befits the devil as the head. For, although the devil sends his servants or angels to everyone with his tongue, it was not he himself who was broken on the ground, but his body; he himself is crushed only because he is in his body, which is perishing as dust, and the wind is sweeping it away from the face of the earth. 56) In general, all the rules of Tikhoniev, excluding one (promises and law), teach how to understand one thing as another, i.e. how to understand language or speech expressed in tropes; but this language, in my opinion, is much more extensive and varied than any rules of science. For wherever one thing is said and another is understood, everywhere there is a language of tropes, although in the science of speaking (rhetoric), perhaps there is not even a name for this or that trope. If paths are used as the accepted custom uses them, then reason easily follows them; but if they deviate from ordinary use, then our understanding becomes difficult, and we understand them - one more, the other less, because even the most mental gifts are communicated to people from God, some to a greater extent, and others to a lesser extent. Therefore, are there proper words, which I discussed above, in which objects should be understood as their proper words express them; Are there any figurative expressions, i.e. the language of tropes, in which one should be understood from the other, and about which, it seems, I have said enough now - in both cases it is necessary to instill in lovers of sacred writings so that they try to recognize in Scripture not only different images of expression, not only carefully observe what figures of speech it usually uses when speaking about this or that subject, and firmly keep them in memory; but the most important and very necessary thing is to convince them to pray to God to give them the mind to understand the Scripture. For in the same Scripture with which they seek to engage, it is said: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 2:6). From Him comes the very desire to exercise in the word of God, if only it is accompanied by the spirit of piety. But enough about signs in relation to words. In the next book, it remains for me to present my thoughts – whatever the Lord gives – about how to communicate the found meaning of Scripture to others. Book 4. Containing instructions for the church speaker 1) I divided my present creation, inscribed “On Christian Science,” in some way into two parts. For after the preface, which constitutes my answer to those who would intend to criticize my work, I, among other things, say that there are two subjects to which the scholarly study (tractatio) of Holy Scripture is limited: “the way to find the true meaning of Scripture and the way to communicate or expound this meaning to others” (modus proferendi). First, we explore how to find, and then how to communicate the found meaning. Since I have already said enough about the way to find the meaning of Scripture and wrote three scrolls (volumina), now, with the help of God, I will say a few words about the way to communicate or express the found meaning, so that, if possible, I can fit all the other subjects of my research in one book and limit the whole work to four scrolls. 2) However, I first advise my readers not to expect me to begin here to set out those rules of rhetoric that I myself taught and studied in secular schools; not because these rules are completely useless, but because both the benefits and the very rules of oratory should be studied separately: the instructions in them - which are not in the present or in any other of my works - you can demand not from me, but from another good writer, who, perhaps, has more leisure time than I do. 3) Generally speaking, the rules of rhetoric are necessary and useful; for if rhetoric is the art of convincing others of both the true and the false, then who would dare to assert that truth in the hands of its defenders should remain unarmed against lies? Who will demand that people who are trying to convincingly prove false objects should be able to make the listener either favorable, or attentive, or understanding in the very introduction to their speeches, while the defenders of truth, on the contrary, would not know such art? So that in the narrative the former would present lies briefly, clearly, plausibly, and the latter, on the contrary, would tell the very truth so badly that listening to them would be boring, difficult to understand, and therefore reluctant to believe them? So that the defenders of lies in research are able to refute the truth with false arguments and unshakably affirm a lie, and the defenders of the truth are not able to either defend the truth itself or refute a lie? So that in conclusion, finally, some, by the power of words, moving and leading the hearts of their listeners astray, could either terrify them and plunge them into despondency, or pour in joy and ardently exhort them, while others would doze over the truth, being lazy and cold in defending it? “Who, I say, would want to be so unwise? On the contrary, if the science of revolution stands, by its nature, as if in the middle of two extremes, exerting great power of persuasion in both false and correct concepts, then why should good people not engage in this science, so that in their hands it can fight for the truth, when bad people use it as an instrument of wickedness and error in defense of empty and worthless objects? 4) Rhetorical remarks and rules, being combined with a strong and subtle skill of expressing themselves clearly and abundantly, while using the beauty of words borrowed from the most educated language, constitute the so-called literature or eloquence (facundia vel eloquentia). But whatever the rules of this science, they, I repeat, are not part of my current work; To study them, a special period of time should be set aside, suitable for them, convenient and appropriate years of life, when it is possible to study them easily and quickly. The very heads of Roman eloquence felt this; for they did not hesitate to say that if someone cannot study the art of oratory in advance and quickly, he will never be able to completely succeed in it. I do not consider it necessary to investigate whether this opinion is completely fair. For, although Rhetoric could be studied successfully by people of a later age, whose mental abilities become slow, I do not consider it so important that it would be worth spending mature, much less advanced, years of human life to study it. It is enough to leave the care of this science to children - and not all children, whom I want to educate for successful service and the needs of the Church, but only to those of them who are not busy with something much more necessary and more preferable than Rhetoric. In fact, if someone has sharp and fiery spiritual gifts, it is easier to become eloquent by reading and listening to speakers than by strictly following the rules of oratory. And here, not to mention the canonical Holy books, which in their extreme importance are like a city standing at the top of a mountain, there is no shortage of works of the Church proper. Reading them, a perceptive person, if only he constantly delves into the subjects presented there, even without the special intention of becoming eloquent himself from handling these creations, imperceptibly becomes saturated with the very syllable or way of expressing them; especially if, along with reading, he engages in either copying them, or dictating, and, finally, making his own speeches about what he himself understands and feels according to the measure of faith and piety. If there are no quick talents, then, on the one hand, the rules of Rhetoric are completely incomprehensible, and on the other hand, even after much work it was possible to understand them to some extent, but they will be of little use. And those people who have firmly studied these rules, who now create eloquently and abundantly, do not all think about speaking according to the rules everywhere and everything, except in such cases when they are discussing the rules themselves; yes, I think there is hardly one among them who could do both - and speak eloquently, and at the same time think about the rules of eloquence at the moment when he speaks. For if we begin to delve into how to say everything according to science, then we are in danger of losing our minds on what should be said. Despite the fact that in the words and speeches of eloquent people, all the rules of eloquence are completely fulfilled, although these rules do not come to their minds at all when they were either just preparing to speak, or have actually spoken eloquently - have they ever learned these rules, or have not even touched them; that is, these people naturally and at the same time involuntarily follow the rules of the art of oratory, because they are orators, and do not obey the rules in order to become such. 5) If children become capable of simply speaking by quietly memorizing the words and expressions of those speaking in front of them, then why not become able to speak eloquently without listening to the rules of eloquence, but only by reading and listening to eloquent people, only by imitating where one can imitate? Don't we see examples of this in experience? We know quite a few men who - without knowing the rules of rhetoric at all - were more eloquent than people who carefully studied these rules. On the contrary, I do not know a single person who would become eloquent without reading and listening to speakers. And grammar itself, which teaches the correct and integral use of language, would not be too necessary for children if they happened to constantly live and grow among such people who speak a completely correct language. For in this case, children, not knowing any errors in the language, would warn themselves not according to grammatical rules, but according to natural skill alone, and in others would expose any error against the language in the same way as townspeople, even unlearned ones, expose villagers. 6) But let's turn to the subject. A Christian teacher and interpreter of Holy Scripture, a defender of the right faith and a persecutor of error is obliged, on the one hand, to teach good, on the other, to wean off evil; I am obliged in my teachings to reconcile those who are opposed, to excite the weak, to instill in the ignorant what they should do and what they should hope for. Having found or himself made his listeners well-disposed, attentive and understanding, he must then fulfill other requirements of the art of preaching. If the listeners first need to be taught (docendi), then in this case the most suitable type of speech is narrative or explanatory, depending, however, on the need, that is, on whether the subject being studied is clear or not. In order to present doubtful objects as reliable, one must use evidence and inferences in speeches. On the contrary, if listeners need to be touched (morendi) rather than taught, in this case, as much strength and persuasiveness in speech as possible is needed, so that the listeners are not insensitive and slow in carrying out what they already know, and the objects recognized by them as true are internalized forever in their hearts. And here the Christian mentor especially needs teachings, reproofs, incentives, prohibitions and all other means that can only contribute to the excitement of the soul. 7) Almost every mentor tries to observe everything that I have just said in his speeches: “but some do it rudely, ugly, coldly, while others do it too witty, beautifully, swiftly. The one who can reason and speak wisely” (sapienter), even if he could not speak eloquently (eloquenter), is more likely to be qualified for the title of preacher, for he can be truly useful to those listening, although not as much as he would use them if he also possessed the gift of eloquence. On the contrary, a person who is abundant and strong in violent and reckless fluttering should be all the more feared that the listener likes him even when he talks about subjects that are completely unworthy of hearing; since he always speaks eloquently, the listener thinks that he always speaks truly and wisely. This idea was known to those very people who considered the study of the science of eloquence essential, for they also admitted that if wisdom without eloquence brings little benefit to States, then eloquence without wisdom often causes great harm - on the contrary, it never brings benefit. Consequently, if, under the inspiration of one simple truth, people were forced to make such a confession, who themselves set out the rules of eloquence and did this in the very works they wrote about eloquence, not yet knowing the true wisdom that descends from above from the Father of lights, then how can we - the children of the servants of this wisdom - not think differently and more prudently about the dignity of eloquence? And a person speaks wisely, more or less, the more or less he has shown true success in the knowledge of Holy Scripture, i.e. not only in reading and committing it to memory, but, together, in good understanding and in carefully searching for its meaning. For there are people who willingly read the Word of God and, at the same time, neglect it: they read in order to retain it in memory, but they neglect to understand it. Much preferable to these people are those who do not remember the letters of Scripture, but whose heart - the spirit - clearly contemplates with the eyes of their own hearts. And the better and more honorable of all these people is the one who at the same time speaks from memory the passages of Scripture word for word, whenever he pleases, and understands them properly. 8) So, whoever cannot speak eloquently, but nevertheless must, in accordance with his calling, speak wisely, it is very necessary for him to keep in his memory the very words and expressions of Scripture. For the poorer he sees himself in relation to his own gifts, the more necessary it is for him to enrich himself with the knowledge of the Word of God, so that what he says weakly in his own words can be supported by the power of Scripture. Thus, the one who seems to be short in language will in some way gain growth from the testimony of great men and will be liked by evidence when he cannot be liked by the beauty of the word. Further, whoever wants to speak to the people not only wisely, but also eloquently (for there is no doubt that the combination of both will be more beneficial), I advise him to read, listen and imitate orators much better than to waste time with teachers of rhetoric without benefit: you just need to see that those whom you read or listen to according to truthful rumors are in fact not only eloquent in their words, but also wise. For it is only pleasant to listen to eloquent speakers, but to the wise it is salutary. For this reason, Scripture does not say “a multitude of eloquent ones,” but “a multitude of wise ones is the salvation of the world” (Wis. 6:26). Just as it is often necessary to take the most bitter medicines, because they are saving, so, on the other hand, sweets should always be avoided when they are disastrous. But what is better than sweetness, when it is at the same time saving, and savingness, which is at the same time sweet? For in this case, the more desirable the sweetness, the sooner and easier such salvation brings benefit. We have Church writers who have not only wisely, but also eloquently revealed the Word of God in their works; It is not that there is a shortage of such writers, but there is not enough time to re-read their writings even for such people who have great zeal and leisure to read. 9) Here, perhaps, someone will ask: Should the God-inspired Writers of the Holy Canonical books only be called wise or at the same time eloquent? This question, both I and everyone else who thinks the same way as me, can be resolved very easily. Where these Writers are understandable to me, there for me nothing can be not only wiser than them, but also more eloquent. And I dare to say that everyone who understands our Holy Writers also understands that these Writers should not have expressed themselves differently. Just as in eloquence in general there is floridity befitting youth, floridity befitting elders, and that floridity that is incongruous with the face of the speaker and therefore does not deserve the name of floridity, so there is a certain special kind of floridity, which alone is befitting of these Divine men worthy of the highest respect. This is the kind of oratory that the Inspired Writers spoke of; another generation is unworthy of them, and others are unworthy of it; He is in keeping with them, and far exceeds other people - not in pompousness, but in firmness and thoroughness, exceeding all the more so as he seems lower and more ordinary. But where I do not understand the God-inspired men, their ornateness is not entirely visible to me, but I am sure that it is exactly the same as it is in places that are understandable to me. To this kind of ornateness - so sublime - a certain darkness in the presentation of Divine and saving truths had to be mixed, of necessity, in order to force our minds to engage in the search and revelation of them. 10) If I had free time, I could, to some self-praisers who prefer their own language to the language of our Holy Writers - not because of true greatness, but because of the inflated nature of it - I could, I repeat, show all the perfections and beauties contained in the Holy Letters of men whom Providence has chosen to teach us and to bring us from the present corrupt age to blissful eternity. However, the perfections of language that these men share with pagan speakers and poets, one might say, do not surprise me too much. On the contrary, I am most amazed and amazed at how the Holy Writers, with their special and higher kind of oratory, were so skillfully able to use our human eloquence, that it is completely present in them, and, meanwhile, is not clearly expressed: for they should not have rejected human eloquence, nor been vain about it; if they avoided it, they would reject it, and, on the contrary, they would show vanity, when it would be easy to recognize the features of human flair in their creations. People familiar with science see clear traces of human eloquence in some places of Scripture, but in these places they speak of such objects that the words expressing them seem not to have been invented and used by the Writer, but spontaneously born from the essence of the objects themselves. Reading them, you involuntarily think that here only simple Wisdom comes from its abode, that is, from the chest of the sage, and eloquence follows it, like an inseparable slave, without being at all called to it. 11) For example, who will not see what he wanted to say, and as the Apostle wisely said in the following place: “We glory in tribulations, knowing that from tribulation comes patience, from patience comes experience, from experience hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us”? (Rom.5:3-5). If some, so to speak, unskilled artist began to argue that the Apostle in this place followed the rules of rhetoric, would he not seem ridiculous to both learned and unlearned Christians? Meanwhile, there is a rhetorical figure here, which the Greeks call κλίμαξ (ladder), and some Latin writers call it gradatio or gradual ascent (for these writers were not pleased to say scala (ladder) where words or thoughts are gradually connected with one another, as, for example, we see them connected here: from sorrow comes patience, from patience experience, from experience hope). There is also another rhetorical beauty of speech in this place, namely: “following several well-known ways of pronouncing certain sentences” (which our Latin writers call members and divisions (membra et caesa) or “commas”; among the Greeks κώλα and κόμματα) follows a volume or circle, called by the Greeks a period, the members of which, one after another, are gradually, as it were, weighed by the voice saying until the last of them ends. In the thoughts of the above-mentioned example, the members first precede the period: the first is “as sorrow perfecteth patience,” the second is “patience is an art,” the third is “the art of hope.” Then follows the period itself, consisting of three members, of which the first is “this hope does not put to shame,” the second is “for the love of God has been poured out into our hearts,” the third is “by the Holy Spirit given to us.” These and similar rules of eloquence are taught in the science of eloquence, but we affirm that the Apostle did not follow the rules of eloquence, but, on the contrary, eloquence followed his wisdom. 12) St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians denounces some false apostles from the Jews who humiliated him. Being forced to speak for himself, he at first ascribes to himself a certain kind of ignorance, and yet how wisely and eloquently he expresses himself! As a friend and confidant of wisdom, as a leader of eloquence - following the first, preceding the last, and not rejecting it when it itself follows - the Apostle says: “I will also say: almost no one makes me foolish; and if not so, then accept me, although as unreasonable, so that I too can boast in some way. What I say, I will say not in the Lord, but as if in foolishness, given such courage to praise. As many boast in the flesh, so will I boast. For you, reasonable people, willingly tolerate foolish people: you tolerate when someone enslaves you, when someone devours you, when someone robs you, when someone is arrogant, when someone hits you in the face. I am ashamed to say that we did not have enough strength for this. And if anyone dares to boast about anything, then (I will say foolishly) I dare too. Are they Jews? and I. Israelis? and I. Abraham's seed? and I. Servants of Christ? (I say in madness) I am more. I was much more in labor, immensely wounded, more in prison, and many times near death. Five times the Jews gave me forty stripes minus one; three times I was beaten with sticks, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the depths of the sea; I have been on journeys many times, in dangers on rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from fellow tribesmen, in dangers from pagans, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the desert, in dangers at sea, in dangers among false brothers, in labor and exhaustion, often in vigils, in hunger and thirst, often in fasting, in cold and nakedness. In addition to extraneous adventures, I have a daily gathering of people, caring for all the churches. Who is exhausted, with whom would I not be exhausted? Who is tempted, for whom would I not be inflamed? If I should boast, then I will boast in my weakness” (2 Cor. 11:16-30). The deep wisdom in these words is seen by people who are awake; and eloquence flowing like a river will be felt by those who slumber and sleep. 13) Further, the connoisseur will easily see that the whole such a beautiful view and, as it were, the face of this speech - a view that even uneducated people admire and are touched by - was formed here from what the Greeks call κόμματα, as well as from the members and periods about which I recently spoke and which represent the most decent variety in this place. For the example I gave forms periods: “the first of them is the smallest, that is, two-term” (since a period cannot have less than two terms, but it can have more): “I will also say: almost no one makes me unreasonable.” This is followed by another period – three-term: “and if not, then accept me, although as unreasonable, so that I too can boast in some way.” The third period following it has four members: “What I say, I will say not in the Lord, but as if in foolishness with such courage to praise.” The fourth has two members: “As many boast in the flesh, so will I boast.” The fifth is also two: “reasonable people, willingly tolerate the foolish.” The sixth period is also two-term: “you tolerate it when someone enslaves you.” It is followed by three divisions" (caesa): "when someone devours, when someone robs, when someone is arrogant, when someone hits you in the face." Then three members: “To shame I say that (for this) we did not have enough strength.” A three-term period is added to them: “And if anyone dares (to boast) of something, then (I will say foolishly) I dare too.” From here there are already three sections of questions and the same number of answers: “Are they Jews? and I. Israelis? and I. Abraham's seed? and I". The fourth branch, also proposed in the form of a question, is answered not by the branch" (caesa), but by the member (membrum): "Christ's servants? (in madness I say) I am more.” The four following sections flow quite decently in the form of a distant or hidden question: “I have been much more in labor, immensely in wounds, more in prisons and many times at the point of death.” Following them is placed a short period, which should mean here in an alternating tone (suspensa) in pronunciation: “From the Jews five times” - this will be one term to which another is added: “I was given forty (strikes) without one.” From here again there are three sections: “three times I was beaten with sticks, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked,” and the term follows: “I spent a night and a day in the depths (of the sea).” Fourteen sections flow behind him with the most pleasant speed: “many times (was) on journeys, in dangers on rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from fellow tribesmen, in dangers from pagans, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the desert, in dangers at sea, in dangers among false brethren, in labor and in exhaustion, often in vigils, in hunger and thirst, often in fasting, in cold and nakedness.” After them, the Apostle posits a three-part period: “Besides the external ones, the attack continues every day, and the care of all churches.” To this period he adds two terms in the form of an inquiry: “Who faints, and does not faint? Who is tempted, and I am not relieved?” Finally, this entire passage, as if in its last breath (angelans), ends with a two-term period: “Even though it is fitting for me to boast, I will boast about my weakness.” I cannot express how much beauty and how pleasant it is that the Apostle, after such a quick and impetuous speech, somehow rests in a short narrative and forces the listener to rest with him. For further he says: “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ declares, He is blessed forever, for I lie not,” and then very briefly tells how he was exposed to dangers and how he was freed from them. 14) There is no need to further analyze the beauties of this example or point them out in other places of Holy Scripture. If in the passage I cited from the Apostle I also wanted to find figures of speech that Rhetoric teaches, would this not seem too lengthy for people of stature and too insufficient for people partial to learning. Among the teachers of eloquence, such beautiful speeches are revered as great, bought at a high price and sold with exorbitant boasting. Speaking about them in this way, I myself fear the reproach of such boasting. But what to do, I had to give an answer to these learned ignoramuses, who despise our Holy Writers, not because these latter were not really eloquent, but because they do not like to boast of eloquence that is exorbitantly respected by learned scholars. 15) Perhaps someone will think that I chose the Apostle Paul with the intention of being the most eloquent of our Writers. (For, although he says about himself: “though I am ignorant in speech, yet not in knowledge” (2 Cor. 11:6), he says this, apparently making a concession (concedendo) to his critics, and not that he actually recognized himself as such, for, having called himself ignorant, he was not slow in recognizing in himself “reason,” that is, knowledge, without which he could not to be a teacher of languages). Indeed, I took the above-mentioned example of Pavlov’s eloquence from such Epistles, the importance and power of which could not be rejected by his very detractors, who assured that his Epistles are heavy and strong, but the coming of the body is weak, and his word is despised (2 Cor. 10, 10). In this case, I commit myself to say a few words about the eloquence of the Prophets, in whom many truths are expressed in figurative or figurative language (tropologia), not understandable to everyone - truths that are more hidden in the shell of figurative expressions, the more sweet when you reveal their exact meaning. But here I must cite a passage from the prophecies where I will not need to reveal what is said, but only how it is said. I will take a passage from the book of a Prophet who says about himself that he was a shepherd or a sheep keeper and that the Lord fed him from the flock and sent him to the people to prophesy (Am. 7, 14-15). I will not cite this passage from the translation of seventy interpreters, who themselves, translating at the inspiration of the Spirit of God, sometimes apparently deviate from the original in order to thus force the reader to seek the spiritual meaning (which is why some passages became darker among them, clothed in the language of tropes), but I will cite it from the translation from Hebrew into Latin made by Presbyter Jerome, skilled in both and in another language. 16) Having denounced people who are wicked, arrogant, devoted to luxury and therefore completely neglectful of mutual brotherly love, the Shepherd Prophet, or the Prophet from the common people, exclaimed: “Woe to those who are careless in Zion and to those who trust in Mount Samaria to the eminent leading people, to whom the house of Israel comes! Go to Kalneh and see, from there go to Hamath the great and go down to Gath of the Philistines: are they not better than these kingdoms? Are not their borders greater than your borders? You, who consider the day of disaster to be far off and bring the triumph of violence closer - you, who lie on beds of ivory and bask on your beds, eat the best rams from the herd and bulls from the fat pasture, sing to the sound of the harp, thinking that you wield a musical instrument like David, drink wine from cups, anoint yourself with the best ointments, and do not worry about Joseph’s disaster! (Am.6, 1–6). People who consider themselves learned and eloquent and despise our Prophets as unlearned Writers and ignorant of eloquence, would they express themselves differently if they happened to speak about such a subject or against the same corrupt people as Amos is rebelling against? 17) For what in this speech remains to be desired by a chaste ear? Get into it. From the very beginning, with what thunder this denunciation resonates, as if wanting to awaken sleepy feelings to wakefulness: “Woe to those who are careless in Zion and to those who trust in Mount Samaria to the eminent leading people, to whom the house of Israel comes!” Then, in order to show ingratitude for the benefits of God, who gave the people of Israel vast borders of the kingdom, a people who trusted in Mount Samaria, where they worshiped idols, the Prophet says: “Go to Kalneh and see, from there go to Hamath the great and go down to Gath of the Philistines: are they not better than these kingdoms? Are not their borders greater than your borders?” The proper names of places: Zion, Samaria, Kalneh, Hamath the Great and Gath of Palestine - these names, like luminaries, adorn the speech of the Prophet. Then - what a pleasant variety in the following words: "(Woe to you), you who consider the day of disaster far off and bring the triumph of violence closer - you who lie on beds of ivory and bask on your beds, eat the best rams from the herd and bulls from the fat pasture." 18) The Prophet announces the future captivity of the Jews (under the wicked King) with these words: “...(You) who are separated for the day of evil and are already close to the throne of wickedness.” Here he adds a description of luxury: “... you sleep on your elephant beds and bask on your beds, which you eat lambs from the flock and bulls from the midst of the flock.” Six members formed here three three-term periods. For the Prophet does not say: “You who are separated for the day of evil, you who are close to the throne of wickedness, who sleep on the beds of elephants, who luxuriate on your couches, who devour the lamb from the flock and the bullock from the midst of the flock.” If it were said this way, it would also be beautiful, because with the repetition of one pronoun “which” each of the six terms would begin and each would be determined by a certain change in the voice in pronunciation, but the Prophet has more beauty from the fact that two terms are assigned to the same pronoun, expressing three thoughts: the first is the prophecy of captivity: “you who are separated for the evil day, and are close to the throne of wickedness”; the second is about luxury: “whom you sleep on ivory beds, and luxuriate on your beds”; the third is about gluttony: “you devour the lamb from the flock, and the bullock from the midst of the flock”; so that it would depend on the will of the utterer whether to pronounce each member specifically, and then six members would come out; or, on the contrary, pronounce the first, third and fifth terms with arrangement, and the second, connecting with the first, the fourth - with the third, the sixth - with the fifth, thus arranging three very beautiful three-term periods: the first - about the threatening danger, the second - about the magnificent bed, the third - about the wasteful table. 19) Next, the Prophet condemns the luxurious pleasures of hearing. Having said: “You who sing to the voice of the psalter,” and knowing that smart people can engage in music, he wisely makes an amazingly beautiful turn of speech: he weakens the speed of reproof and does not address the luxurious in the second person, but speaks about them in the third, in order to teach us to distinguish the music of the sage from the music of the luxurious. He does not say, “You who hum the psalms to the voice, and like David think to have vessels of song,” but, having reproached them regarding the immoderate use of songs and music (“you who hum the psalms to the voice”), in the following words shows in some impersonal way their immoderation and lack of skill: they thought, like David, “to have vessels of song, drinking wine in vials and anointing themselves with the best suits...” It is better to pronounce these three terms in such a way that, having raised your voice with the first two terms in the period, you end with the third. 20) The last words of the Prophet: “et nihil patiebantur super contritione Ioseph - “and you do not grieve about Joseph’s calamity” - (whether you pronounce them continuously in one spirit, so that one member comes out, or at the words et nihil patiebantur (“and you do not grieve”) you take a breath and then with a new strength of tone add super contritione Ioseph (“about Joseph’s calamity”), in order to form a two-part period) - these words of the Prophet receive extraordinary beauty from what is not said in them - super contritione fratris ("in contrition of brothers"), but instead of the word fratris (brother) the word "Joseph" was used, so that each brother would be marked by the own name of the one among them who is more glorious than all his brothers - both in the misfortune that was paid, and in the happiness that he repaid. I don’t know whether our Rhetoric, which we ourselves have studied and taught others, teaches us to use such excellent tropes as the one used here - Joseph, who makes us mean each of his brothers. However, those who do not feel it themselves have nothing to say about how beautiful this trope is and how pleasant it is for those who read and understand. 21) According to the rules of Rhetoric, one could find many other beauties in the example of Holy eloquence I gave, but a good listener does not so much receive edification from careful analysis as warm his feeling when passages of Scripture are pronounced to him with fervor and skill. For this latter was not created by human efforts, but poured out from the Divine Mind, poured out wisely and eloquently, so that it was not wisdom that sought eloquence, but eloquence did not retreat one step from wisdom. If the rules of oratory, according to the precise opinion of the most eloquent and witty men, could only be compiled through observation and noticing the beauties found in the works of the best orators, and through bringing them into a known system or science, then what is so surprising about finding these rules and beauties in the writings of God-inspired men, whom He sent who creates great minds? For this reason, I boldly recognize our canonical Writers and Teachers as not only wise, but also eloquent in relation to this kind of oration, which was completely befitting of Divinely inspired persons. 22) But, borrowing examples of the Holy Spirit from such passages of Scripture, which can be understood without any difficulty, I strongly do not advise imitating the inspired men where they expressed themselves with useful and saving darkness, in order in any way to occupy and straighten the minds of the readers, in order to drive away boredom and sharpen the desire to learn those who want to, and in order to temporarily hide oneself from the wicked people - or to convert them to piety, or to hide the sacraments from them. In other words. The Holy Writers expressed themselves in darkness so that people of subsequent times, wanting to understand and explain them correctly, would try to find new grace for this in the Church of God - although not equal, but at least similar to that which was in themselves. As for their interpreters, they should not, in their interpretations, assume the same air of mysterious importance that befitted God-inspired men; they should not explain the Scriptures so darkly that their explanations again need to be explained. On the contrary, for a Christian teacher, the first and main duty is to be as intelligible as possible in all our teachings and to speak with such clarity that only the most incomprehensible person would be unable to understand us, or the reason for the incomprehensibility in speeches would not come from our words, but from the extreme difficulty and sophistication of the subjects that we want to explain and reveal to others. 23) For there are objects that, by their very essence, are incomprehensible or which you can barely comprehend, and even then very superficially, even if the teacher expressed them in the clearest words. Such items should either never be offered to the people for hearing, or offered very rarely - in case of any need. However, this requirement - necessary in social teachings - does not apply to the composition of books, which naturally attract the reader when he understands them, and are not boring when, due to lack of understanding, they do not even want to read them; does not apply to private conversations and discussions either. Here, on the contrary, we must not spare any labor in order to bring the truths, even the most difficult to understand, but well understood by us, in any way to the understanding of others and at any cost to pour them into the soul of the listener; especially if the listener or our interlocutor has a thirst for knowledge and if he has sufficient mental abilities, for in a simple conversation the mentor’s whole concern is not how to be more eloquent, but how to present his subject more clearly and obviously. 24) The zealous pursuit of this clarity (evidentia) sometimes does not bother about the grace of expression, caring not for what sounds good, but for what well expresses and manifests the truth that it is trying to put on display. Therefore, one Writer, discussing clarity of expression, says that it sometimes happens to be a kind of “careful negligence”; although, it goes without saying, this negligence does not so expose speech from its beautiful decoration as to clothe it in ugly veils. But, be that as it may, only good teachers in their teaching try most of all and should try for clarity; and therefore, if expressions, pure and correct in scholarly use, are dark and ambiguous, and in common folk use, although incorrect, are clear and precise, then in this case they no longer use these expressions as scientists use them, but as the common people pronounce them. Thus, if our translators were not ashamed to say: “Non congregabo conventicula eorum de sanguinibus” (“I will not gather their councils from the blood”) (Ps. 15:4), for they felt that the subject required the use here of the word sanguinibus (bloods) in the plural, although it is used in the learned Latin language only in the singular, then why should the teacher of the Faith speaking with uneducated people, be ashamed and not use the common folk ossum (bone) instead of the book os, in order to avoid ambiguity in a word that has two meanings - “bone” and “mouth” - and differs only in one accent in pronunciation - long or short (singular os - plural ora, singular os - plural ossa), - why, I say, not use when the rough African ear does not know how to judge either the contraction or the continuation of vowels? What is the use of correctness of language, which cannot be followed by the concept of a listener, while the only reason and purpose of our conversations is that we be understood by the people with whom we are talking? So, whoever teaches, let him avoid expressions that do not teach; let him choose correct expressions, if this can be done without harming clarity; if it’s impossible, either because they don’t exist at all, or because they don’t come to mind quickly, then let him use words that are not entirely correct, as long as the subject itself is taught correctly. 25) This requirement regarding clarity and intelligibility must be observed not only in private conversations with one or many persons, but even more so in public teachings to the people. For in private conversations there is an opportunity to ask when you don’t understand something, but where everyone is silent in order to listen to one, where everyone has strained their lips and ears, there to ask - when you don’t understand something - is neither customary nor decency, therefore, here the speaker’s greatest possible care must constantly come to the aid of the silent listener. The people, greedy for knowledge, usually express with an impatient movement whether they understand the preacher. Until this movement exists, until then the preacher must present the subject under study from various points of view and clothe it in all sorts of different types of speech. (This, I note in passing, is not possible for preachers who deliver teachings prepared in advance and memorized word for word). But as soon as the preacher realizes that everyone has completely understood him, then he must either end the teaching or move on to another subject. For just as the one who clarifies an unfamiliar subject is pleasant, so, on the contrary, the one who talks a lot about the known is painful. However, it is painful for some of them, for whom all their attention is held only by the expectation that the difficulty of the truth being developed will be resolved for them; and in other cases - when the attention of the listeners is drawn not to the object itself, but to the way of expression - and known objects are accepted by the listeners with pleasure. If the method of expression itself is known, which despite this pleases the listeners, then it makes almost no difference to them whether the preacher or a simple reader is talking to them. For works that are pleasantly written are usually read with pleasure not only by those who come across them for the first time, but they are also re-read not without pleasure by people to whom these works are completely familiar and are in their fresh memory; both of them listen to them just as willingly. Will any of them be forgotten? “They learn what they forgot again, just remind them of it.” However, I am not discussing the method of being liked in speech here: I am talking about one way to teach those who want to learn. And the best way is for the listener to hear one true thing and completely understand what is heard. Has this goal been achieved? Then there is no need to work hard to teach the known truth widely and for a long time. What if you work to convince her and impress her deeper in her heart? And in this case, one must act modestly and moderately so as not to cause boredom. 26) Truly, the true characteristic of eloquence in the way of teaching is not to make the harsh and unpleasant pleasant, and the boring to be entertaining, but to make the obscure clear. But on the other hand, if you express something unclear clearly, but not at all pleasantly, then only a few will receive the proper benefit - the most zealous listeners, those who sincerely want to know the truths they need, even if these truths were expressed basely and crudely. Having achieved this, they are sweetly satisfied with the truth; and the excellent quality of noble minds lies in the fact that they do not love words themselves, but in words they unconditionally love the truth. For what is the use of a golden key if it cannot unlock what we want to unlock? And, on the contrary, what harm is there from a wooden one, if it can open, when we do not require anything more from the key than to open what is locked? But we must not forget that students are in some way similar to eaters, who need to season well the most necessary food to support life, because people for the most part are prone to disgust and disgust 27) One eloquent Writer said - and he spoke the truth - that the speaker must speak in such a way as to teach, to please, to convince. Then he added that to teach is a duty of necessity, to please is a duty of pleasure, and to convince is a matter of victory. The first of these requirements, i.e. the need to teach relates to the essence of objects; the last two - to the way of expressing them. Thus, if a preacher speaks to teach, let him speak until he is completely understood by his hearer. For, although he apparently expressed everything that he himself understood, if others did not understand him, it means that he told them almost nothing; on the contrary, if he was quickly understood, then he said everything, no matter how he said it. Further, if the preacher wants to please or convince the listener, then he cannot act at random and speak somehow; on the contrary, he must carefully consider the way exactly how and what exactly he should say. The listener must please in order to keep him listening; convince - in order to motivate to action. He likes you if you speak pleasantly; you convince if you force him to love what you promise, to fear what you threaten, to hate what you reproach, to accept what you approve, to grieve where you arouse sorrow, to rejoice when you preach joy, to grieve for those whom you place in his eyes as worthy of pity, to run away from those whom you advise to turn away with horror, and in general, when you use all other means of the sublime a kind of eloquence that excites the souls of those being instructed, not so that they know what we should do, but so that by the very deed we fulfill what they already recognize as necessary for activity. 28) If the people are not yet versed in the truths of the faith, then, I repeat, it is necessary to first teach them and then convince them. Perhaps objects, well known, will themselves touch the listeners; so that subsequently there will be no need to use the strongest methods of eloquence. These methods should be used only when necessary - and it is necessary when the listeners know that a certain action should be done, but they do not do it. That is why the need to teach is a matter of necessity. For men may or may not do what they know; but can it be said that they must do what they do not know? The need to convince is not a matter of necessity, since it is not always necessary, as long as the listener on a certain subject completely agrees with the preacher, either teaching or liking. On the contrary, convincing is a matter of victory because the listener can be well taught, and he can like the teaching, and, meanwhile, he can persist and disagree with the preacher. What, in this case, will serve both the method of teaching and the method of pleasing, when there is no way to convince with them? The method of pleasing also does not have an absolute necessity: clearly reveal the truth in your speech, that is, use the method of teaching well, and you will like it by itself by its simple explanation, and not by a pleasant verbal expression. False things are often liked if they are successfully discovered and refuted; I like it, however, not because it is false, but insofar as it is true that it is false; as a result of which I like the very image of the presentation, which truly reveals that a lie is a lie. 29) The need to please occupies an important place in eloquence when we are dealing with squeamish people, who do not like the very truth except on the condition that they like the very syllable of the speaker. But the very method of pleasing is not at all sufficient when we are dealing with stubborn and closed-minded people who do not want to benefit from either the method of teaching or the method of pleasing. What use will both of these methods serve for such a person who recognizes the truth, praises the way of expressing it, and, meanwhile, does not at all apply it to his own feeling and does not accept it with his heart - for what exactly does the preacher work tirelessly, exhausting all kinds of conviction? For if subjects related to faith and knowledge are taught, then the listeners need nothing more than to learn the truth of them. On the contrary, when objects of activity are taught to them and taught in order to perform them, then in vain you try to assure them of the truth of these objects, and your pleasant way of expression is in vain if you do not tell them in such a way that they will certainly begin to act according to your words. Hence, when a Church speaker discusses subjects of activity, he must not only teach in order to be edifying, not only please in order to command attention, but also convince in order to be victorious. For in the latter case, with sublime and majestic eloquence, one is involuntarily inclined to convince one from whom neither the truth, clearly presented, nor the pleasantness with which it is expressed in speech could previously extort recognition. 30) People sacrificed pleasures in speech with great effort: but they should not imitate, but run away and abhor those harmful and worthless works, which were very eloquently written by harmful and worthless writers not for edification, but only for pleasure alone. May the Lord turn away from His Church the evil to which the Prophet Jeremiah points out, speaking about the synagogue of Judea: “Amazing and terrible things are happening in this land: the prophets prophesy lies, and the priests rule through them, and My people love it. What will you do after all this? (Jer.5, 30-31) (Oh, the more terrible, the purer, and the more thorough, the stronger - the oration, like a hammer, throwing down rocks! For God Himself, through Jeremiah, compared His word with a hammer (Jer. 23, 29), which He spoke through the mouth of the Holy Prophets). Let that evil be removed from us, let that evil be removed, so that the Priests applaud those who speak unrighteousness, and so that the people of God love such things - let such madness be removed, I say, from us, for what shall we do in the last of these? Let us better be less clear in our teachings, let us please less, touch less, but we must speak only what is true, and our listeners must admire what is just and not unjust. However, I will again note that this admiration cannot be achieved if the subject of our teaching does not have any pleasantness in presentation. 31) Powerful and important people, about whom it is said in the psalm: “...among a multitude of people I will praise You” (Ps. 34:18), however, do not like the pleasantness of speech, if in this speech they are depicted in an inflated and too abundant style - a style that is indecent and not suitable even for depicting the blessings of the sublime and unchangeable - although not false, but unimportant and impermanent things. Blessed Cyprian in his epistles presented an example of modest and important sophistication, an amiable example in itself, desirable for a pious mentor, but at the same time difficult to follow. Meanwhile, even in this great writer there are examples of an inflated syllable - perhaps by accident, and perhaps with the intention of using it, in order to show the reader, out of contrast, exactly what syllable and language is required by sound Christian science and how beneficially the language of Cyprian was transformed by it. So, for example, in one of his epistle Cyprian says “Come, let us sit in the shade of the gardens; there the neighboring lonely places give us a silent refuge; there, the pleasantly swaying young branches of the vines, hanging and twining around the stands laden with them, formed for you and me a vine gallery with a green leafy cover,” etc. These words reveal an amazing fecundity of eloquence; for all that, they cannot please a strict and sedate taste, for they are too stretched out and inflated. There are people who love too abundant and curly syllables; they think that writers who express themselves strictly and precisely shy away from profuse style, not as a result of mature judgment, but as a result of their inability to express themselves profusely. For this reason, St. Cyprian, in order to ward off criticism, showed on the one hand that he knows how to express himself abundantly, for he expressed himself this way in a certain place, on the other hand, that he does not want to speak in this way, for having said this once, he never again expressed himself prolifically. 32) So, our Church speaker acts worthy of himself when he offers the people one thing that is fair, holy and good, for he should not offer anything else; He acts with dignity when, if possible, he knows how to express what is just, holy and good in such a way that he is listened to with understanding, willingly and obediently (intelligenter, libenter, obedienter). But he should expect success in this action more from pious prayers than from oratorical abilities, and therefore let him, praying for himself and for his listeners, become a prayer booker rather than a preacher. And at that very moment when he comes to the pulpit, before he opens his mouth, let him lift up his thirsty soul to God, so that by His grace he may regurgitate what he has been given to drink, and may he pour out his fullness. For, if in any subject studied with faith and love, there are many sides from which it can be revealed; if people who know can express each subject in many and different ways, then who knows what exactly should be told to us at one time or another, what is more beneficial for our listeners - who, I say, knows this except the One who sees the hearts of all? Who will instruct us what we should say and how we should say it, except Him in whose right hand are we and our words? (Wisdom 7, 16). Therefore, whoever wants to learn himself and teach others, let him study the subjects of instruction, let him acquire the ability to speak as befits a Church person: but at the very moment of speaking, let him better bring to mind the words of the Lord: “When they betray you, do not worry about how or what to say; for in that hour it will be given to you what to say, for it is not you who will speak, but the Spirit of your Father who will speak in you” (Matthew 10:19-20). When the Holy Spirit speaks in those who for Christ’s sake are given over to persecutors, then why should He not speak in those who teach Christ to the disciples with the word of the gospel? 33) They will say: if the Holy Spirit produces teachers, then people should not prescribe rules for what and how to teach. But in this sense, perhaps, we can say that we should not pray, for the Lord says: “your Father knows what you need before you ask Him” (Matthew 6:8); one can perhaps say that the Apostle Paul did not have the right to command Timothy and Titus what and how they should have commanded others. Meanwhile, read all three Apostolic Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which a Church teacher must always have before his eyes. Isn’t it written in the First Epistle to Timothy: “Preach and teach these things”? (1 Tim. 4:11) As for what to teach, this is discussed above. – Isn’t there an instruction there: “Do not rebuke an elder, but exhort him as a father” (1 Tim. 5:1)? Doesn't the Second Epistle say: “Keep to the pattern of sound teaching which you heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13)? Doesn’t it say: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15)? Is there also the following instruction: “preach the word, be persistent in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2)? Further, in the Epistle to Titus, doesn’t the Apostle say: “For a bishop must be... holding to the true word, consistent with teaching, so that he may be able to teach sound doctrine and to reprove those who resist” (Titus 1:7,9)? There he says: “Speak therefore what is in accordance with sound teaching: so that the elders may be vigilant” (Titus 2:1-2) and so on. In the same place: “Speak, exhort and reprove this with all authority, so that no one despises you. Remind them to obey and submit to the authorities and authorities” (Titus 2:15–3:1) and so on. What to think after this? Do we think that the Apostle contradicts himself when, having said that teachers are produced by the Holy Spirit, he himself, meanwhile, prescribes rules for them, what and how they should teach? On the contrary, is it not better to agree that people, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, should not abandon the responsibility of teaching the teachers themselves? But you always need to be sure that “therefore, he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but God who makes everything grow” (1 Cor. 3:7). That is why neither the help of the most Holy people, nor even the assistance of the Holy Angels alone, by themselves, fully and correctly teach anyone the mysteries related to the inner life with God, unless someone is taught from God by God, to whom the Psalmist appeals: “Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God” (Ps. 142:10). That is why the Apostle commands Timothy, as a teacher speaking to a student: “continue in what you have been taught and in what has been entrusted to you, knowing by whom you were taught” (2 Tim. 3:14). Just as physical medicines given to people by people are used only by those to whom God brings health, who can heal even without medicines, and although medicines are ineffective without the help of God, people nevertheless use them, and diligent delivery of them in any case is considered a matter of mercy and beneficence, so the benefits of science, taught by the hand of man, only benefit the soul when God Himself makes them useful, Who is not from man and not through man. could, if he wanted, give a person the Gospel itself. 34) So, whoever tries by the power of his word to convince others of what is holy and good, without neglecting any of the three main duties of oration, that is, the duties of teaching, pleasing and convincing, let him first pray and only then act with his word so that they listen to him (as said above) clearly, willingly and obediently. If he does this with due precision and dignity, then he can rightfully be called an orator, even if the listener is still not convinced and does not agree with the orator. It seems to me that the head of Roman eloquence wanted to include the following words among the three above-mentioned needs of eloquence - to teach, to please and to convince: “A true orator will be the one who is able to express himself in a simple style about ordinary subjects, and in a moderate style about average ones. About the great and important - in a high style.” It seems that by adding these last requirements to the first three, he wanted to express the same idea: he will be a true speaker who is able to express himself about ordinary and unimportant subjects simply to teach; about average subjects he speaks in moderate language in order to please; speaks about important subjects in a sublime style in order to convince. 35) However, the teaching of the Roman Vitia on subjects of the three kinds of syllable can only be suitable in judicial or civil cases, and not in Church teachings, for which I want to form my orator. For in the rules about judicial speeches, ordinary is called that where one should talk about monetary transactions or about property in general, important is where the matter is about the value and life of people or about criminal matters, and where there is neither one nor the other, where they do not force the listener to do or determine anything, but only try to please him, there the objects that occupy the middle between the two above-mentioned types of matters are called as if average and therefore mediocre, or moderate (the name moderate comes from measure, and when we use the word “moderate” instead of “unimportant” (modica pro parvis), we are not speaking properly, but by abuse. On the contrary, in our Church teachings there are no ordinary or unimportant subjects, for all the truths offered from us to the people, especially the truths related to the last of the two above-mentioned types, we must measure by the relation to the salvation of people, not temporary, but eternal, or by the relation to their eternal destruction. In this case, even the word about the acquisition or loss of property and money, offered by the Church mentor, should not seem unimportant, whether the amount is large or small. For an important thing is fidelity, which we must maintain even in a small amount of money, according to the word of the Lord: “He who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much” (Luke 16:10). Consequently, in itself it is really small: “but it is great that you be faithful in small things. Just as the reason for roundness, that is, the drawing of all equal lines from the center to the extremities, is the same in a large circle (discus) and in the smallest coin, just as in matters of justice, the greatness of fidelity is not diminished by the fact that unimportant duties are performed correctly. 36) Discussing worldly litigation (for what more than money?), the Apostle says this: “How dare anyone among you, when dealing with another, sue the wicked, and not the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you really unworthy to judge unimportant matters? Do you not know that we will judge angels, much less the deeds of this life? And you, when you have everyday disputes, appoint as your judges those who mean nothing in the church. To your shame I say: is there really not a single reasonable person among you who could judge between his brothers? But brother and brother are suing, and, moreover, before the infidels. And it is already very humiliating for you that you have litigation among yourself. Why would you rather not remain offended? Why would you rather not endure hardship? But you yourself offend and take away, and from your brothers. Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God?” (1 Cor. 6:1-9) Why is the Apostle so indignant, why does he reproach so much, reproach him so much, denounce him so much, threaten him so much? For what reason does he pour out the passion of his soul in such frequent and strong impulses? Why, finally, does he express himself in sublime and intense language about the most insignificant objects? Did empty litigation over everyday matters really irritate him so much? - No, he does this out of justice, out of love and piety, which common sense will never consider unimportant even in relation to the most insignificant things. 37) In fact, if we were writing here rules for ordinary persons on how they should conduct worldly affairs for themselves or for their neighbors before Church judges, then we would say that their defensive speeches should be stated simply when they are dealing with unimportant subjects. But we are talking about the eloquence of such a person, in whose person we want to see a preacher of truth, saving us from eternal evil and helping us achieve eternal good; and such truths are always important, whenever and in whatever form they are presented - whether in public teachings to the people, or in private instructions offered to one or many, friends or foes, in constantly ongoing sermons, or in simple conversation, in reasoning in whole books, even in the shortest letters, as well as in the longest. What, for example, could be more insignificant than a cup of cold water? But did the Lord really speak a petty and insignificant truth when he said that he who gives a cup of ice water to His disciple will not lose his reward? And will a preacher act well if, when he offers this truth in the Church, he thinks that it is unimportant and therefore needs to be spoken about in simple and low language, and not in a middle or high syllable? On the contrary, wouldn’t we do better if, on occasion, when speaking to the people about this subject, we try to present it in a more decent style, showing how from that cold water flowed a certain sacred flame (2 Mac. 1:32), which, with the hope of a heavenly reward, could once inflame even the cold hearts of people to perform deeds of mercy? 38) However, the Church mentor, who is obliged to be a preacher of great and important truths, is not always obliged to express them in sublime language. On the contrary, he should use a simple syllable where he teaches something on an important subject, a moderate or average one where he praises or blames something, and where it is necessary to encourage action and where we are talking with people who should act, but do not want, there important subjects necessarily require a high syllable, commensurate with the need to convince stubborn minds. Hence, sometimes the same important subject is presented simply when it is taught; moderate or middle syllables when describing its qualities; It is expressed sublimely when they try to attract the listener’s feeling that has shied away from it to this subject. What object is greater and more important than God himself? But is it really because of His infinite greatness that we cannot direct our thoughts to Him? And shouldn’t the one who teaches, for example, the dogma of the unity of the Holy Trinity, express himself in just one simple syllable, so that the subject, in itself incomprehensible, can be presented as intelligibly as possible? Is it really beauty that is required here, not arguments? Is it really necessary here to persuade the listener to engage in some kind of activity, and not so that he, in fact, tries to learn a great subject? Further, when the purpose of the teaching is to glorify God or Himself in Himself, or in His deeds, then what kind of view opens up for the middle - beautiful and brilliant syllable for such a preacher who can (as much as he can) glorify Him Whom no one can praise according to His heritage - no one, I say, no matter how he praises Him! Finally, if it happens that they do not honor Him, or worship Him on a par with idols, or even prefer idols, demons, or some other creature to Him, then one must speak in exalted language in order to show how great this evil is, and in order to turn people away from it. 39) To make my points clearer, I will give a few examples here. The Apostle Paul has an example of the simple style in his Epistle to the Galatians, where he says: “Tell me, you who wish to be under the law: do you not listen to the law? For it is written: Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman, and the other by a freewoman. But he who is of a slave is born according to the flesh; and the one who is free, the one according to the promise. There is an allegory in this. These are two covenants: one from Mount Sinai, begetting into slavery, which is Hagar, for Hagar means Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, because he and his children are in slavery; and the Jerusalem above is free: she is the mother of us all” (Gal. 4:21-26). Here is another place from the same Epistle, where the Apostle, through inferences, explains it this way: “Brothers! I speak from human reasoning: even a will approved by a person cannot be canceled or added to by anyone. But promises were given to Abraham and to his seed. It is not said: and to descendants, as if about many, but as about one: and to your seed, which is Christ. What I say is that the covenant about Christ, previously established by God, is not abolished by the law, which appeared four hundred and thirty years later, so that the promise loses its validity. For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham according to the promise” (Gal. 3:15-18). Since here an objection might occur to the listener: why was the Law given, if the inheritance is not from the Law, then the Apostle warns the listener and objects to himself: “What then is the law?” - and then he answers: “It was given after because of the transgressions, until the time of the coming of the seed to which” (refers) the promise, and was given through Angels, by the hand of a mediator. But there is no mediator with one, but God is one.” Since here again another objection was encountered, the Apostle again asks himself: “So the law is contrary to the promises of God?” - and again answers: “No way!” Then he gives the reason, saying: “For if a law had been given that could give life, then true righteousness would have come from the law; but the Scripture has concluded all under sin, so that the promise might be given to those who believe through faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 3:19-22). From this last example it is clear that the duty to teach includes care not only to reveal what is concluded and resolve the knots of the main issues, but at the same time to prevent accidental contradictions or objections, so that they do not weaken or refute the main subject of our preaching; If we have a ready-made solution to a question, then we should not shy away from an objection that we cannot avoid. It happens that when you are in trouble with the main question and resolve random questions, and then with these random questions new random contradictions, then attention begins to be lost in a long chain of conclusions, and the researcher can only return to his main question or subject only with the help of the most solid and vivid memory. Despite, however, such cases, it is a very good thing to refute any random contradictions, so that they do not occur to the listener at a time when there is no one to answer them; and, on the other hand, even if there was someone to answer, since the listener stands silently while delivering the teaching, without offering his doubts, he can leave after the sermon unsatisfied if the slow-witted preacher does not resolve the contradictions that came to the mind of the silent listener. 40) An example of a moderate or middle syllable is represented by the following words of the Apostle: “Do not reproach an elder, but exhort him as a father; younger ones, like brothers; old women as mothers; young as sisters in all purity" (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Also: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1). And almost all of this exhortation is expressed in a moderate syllable; the most beautiful passages in it are those in which each object is given its own most decent feature, as a duty owed to everyone, as follows: “And since, according to the grace given to us, we have various gifts, then if you have prophecy, prophesy according to the measure of faith; If you have a ministry, remain in the service; whether a teacher, - in teaching; whether you are an exhorter, exhort; whether you are a distributor, distribute in simplicity; Whether you are a boss, lead with zeal; Whether you are a benefactor, do charity with cordiality. Let love be unfeigned; turn away from evil, cling to goodness; be kind to one another with brotherly love; warn one another in respect; do not slacken in zeal; be on fire in spirit; Serve the Lord; be comforted by hope; be patient in sorrow, constant in prayer; take part in the needs of the saints; be zealous for hospitality. Bless your persecutors; bless, not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind among yourselves; do not be arrogant, but follow the humble; do not dream about yourself” (Rom. 12:6-16). How beautifully all this speech flows, and then is blocked by a two-part period: “Do not be arrogant, but follow the humble; don't dream about yourself." A little later the Apostle says: “So give to everyone their due: to whom to give, to give; to whom quitrent, quitrent; to whom fear, fear; to whom is honor, honor” (Rom. 13:7). Here again, very decently, the speech, composed of individual members, concludes with a two-part period: “Do not owe anything to anyone except mutual love” (Rom. 13:8). Another example: “The night is past, and the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and put on the weapons of light. As during the day, let us behave decently, not indulging in feasting and drunkenness, nor in sensuality and debauchery, nor in quarrels and envy; But put on our Lord Jesus Christ, and do not turn the cares of the flesh into lust” (Rom. 13:12-14). If someone had said here like this: “Et carnis providentiam ne in concupisctntiis feceritis” (“do not turn cares for the flesh into lusts”), that is, the verb would have been put at the end, then, without a doubt, this ending would have been more pleasing to the ear in its smoothness, but our most famous and sedate translator did not even want to change the order of words in his translation from the original. Whether the arrangement of the words of the above-mentioned passage in Greek, to which the Apostle spoke, is beautiful and euphonious, let the experts of the Greek language discuss this, but it seems to me that in the original itself there is a lack of smoothness of endings where they are in the same exact order as they are in our translation. 41) Indeed, it must be admitted that our Holy Writers sometimes lack that beauty of speech that the smooth and measured endings (clausula) of periods impart to it. I don’t dare to say whether this shortcoming came from the Translators, or whether the Holy Writers themselves (of which I am more confident) intentionally avoided these unimportant decorations - I don’t dare, because, I admit, I myself don’t know for sure. But I know that if any expert in smoothness or regularity in speech wants to arrange the endings of periods and sentences in our Writers according to the law of harmony - and this is very easy to do by rearranging some words, which do not lose their meaning in the least from a change in order - then he will see that the God-inspired men did not lack in this small decoration of speech, which - as a very important subject - he studied in the schools of Grammarians and Rhetors. He will find a lot both in our Latin translation and, especially, in the original language of Scripture, he will find a lot, I say, of such decorations regarding syllables that are not at all in the writings of people who are predominantly vain of measured speech. But one must be careful not to take away their importance by imparting fluidity to Divine and lofty thoughts. And that our Prophets were very familiar with the structure and order of speech according to the method of musical art, which expounds in its entirety the science of a certain number or rhythm, is witnessed by Jerome, a most learned man, who in some books of Scripture even indicates the meter (foot), according to the Hebrew text, however; in his translation, he did not observe the meter in words in order to maintain accuracy in the meaning. My own thought about number and meter, which seems most plausible, perhaps only to me, is this: just as in my own style I do not like to omit the folding and measured endings, where I consider it decent and not beyond the bounds of modesty, so, on the contrary, in the Writings of God-inspired men I like more the fact that I very rarely find these endings in them. 42) A high syllable differs from a middle one especially in that it is not so much decorated with embellishments of words, but rather enlivened by strong feelings of the soul. He accepts into his composition almost all the beauties of the middle syllable, if they exist, but does not look for them if they themselves do not appear to him. He is impetuous with his own speed and impulses: he captures beautiful expressions only by the power of objects, without caring at all about decoration. He is content with mere decency of expressions; wants them to obey the inner heat of the heart, and not depend on the subtle calculations of the tongue. Thus, a hero armed with a gilded sword studded with precious stones is victorious on the battlefield not because his weapon is precious, but because it is a weapon; but even without weapons, he will still remain a hero, he will be powerful and strong, for indignation will turn into a weapon for him everything that comes to his hand. The Apostle argues in one place that because of the gospel of Christ it is sweet to endure all temporary disasters with the help and consolation of the gifts of God. The subject is sublime, but the style in which the Apostle expresses himself is also lofty and rich in the beauty of speech. “In an acceptable time I heard you and on the day of salvation I helped you. Behold, now is the favorable time, behold, now is the day of salvation. We do not cause anyone to stumble in anything, so that the service is not blamed, but in everything we show ourselves as servants of God, in great patience, in adversities, in needs, in difficult circumstances, under blows, in prisons, in exiles, in labors, in vigils, in fasting, in purity, in prudence, in generosity, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in unfeigned love, in the word truth, in the power of God, with the weapon of righteousness in the right and left hand, in honor and dishonor, with blame and praise: we are considered deceivers, but we are faithful; we are unknown, but we are recognized; we are considered dead, but behold, we are alive; we are punished, but we do not die; we are saddened, but we always rejoice; We are poor, but we enrich many; we have nothing, but we possess everything” (2 Cor. 6:2-10). Further, the Apostle expresses himself even more passionately: “Our lips are open to you, O Corinthians, our heart is enlarged” (2 Cor. 6:11) and so on. 43) Arguing in his Epistle to the Romans that the persecutions of the present world are overcome by love with the undoubted hope of God's help, the Apostle expresses himself in a similar manner as sublimely as eloquently. He says: “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God, who are the called according to (His) purpose.” For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. And those whom He predestined, those He also called, and those He called, them He also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified. What can I say to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His Son, but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also freely give us all things with Him? Who will accuse God's elect? God justifies (them). Who is judging? Christ Jesus died, but also rose again: He is also at the right hand of God, and He intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of God: “tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or the sword? as it is written: For Your sake we are killed every day; we are counted as sheep doomed to the slaughter. But we overcome all this through the power of Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the present, nor the future, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:28-39). 44) Although almost all of the Epistle to the Galatians is written in a simple syllable, with the exception of the last parts of it, written in a middle syllable, there is, however, a place in this Epistle that, in relation to the beauty of the language, although it is not equal to the above examples, with all that in relation to the strength of feelings, it is expressed in a high syllable. The Apostle says: “You observe the days, months, times and years. I am afraid for you, whether I worked for you in vain. I ask you, brothers, to be like me, because I am like you. You did not offend me in any way: you know that, although I preached the gospel to you the first time in the weakness of the flesh, you did not despise my temptation in my flesh and did not abhor it, but accepted me as an Angel of God, as Christ Jesus. How blessed you were! I testify about you that, if it had been possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. So, have I really become your enemy by telling you the truth? They are uncleanly jealous of you, but they want to excommunicate you so that you will be jealous of them. It is always good to be jealous in good things, and not only in my presence with you. My children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is portrayed in you! I wish I could now be with you and change my voice, because I am perplexed about you” (Gal. 4:10-20). Are there any striking contrasts in the words, is there a figurative gradualism, a harmonious structure and arrangement of commas, members and periods? - No; but this did not in the least cool the sublime feeling with which the Apostle’s speech burns here. 45) But the Apostolic Epistles, from which the above examples of syllables are borrowed, are, on the one hand, clear and bright, and on the other, deep; they are written and committed to the memory of posterity in such a way that they require not only a simple reader or listener, but at the same time an interpreter is also necessary if, without stopping at the surface, you want to penetrate into the depths of thoughts. So, from the Epistles of the Apostles, let us now turn to the types of syllables of such Writers, who by reading the word of God acquired a deep knowledge of Divine and saving things and bequeathed their knowledge to the Church in their Scriptures, which can be easily read without an interpreter. Blessed Cyprian, in his letter to Caecilius, discussing the sacrament of the Eucharist (de sacramento calicis), uses the syllable simply. He decides there the question: Should the Cup of the Lord have only water or should it also contain wine mixed with water? As an example, I will quote here a few words from this message. After the well-known thoughts at the beginning of the letter to St. Cyprian, beginning to resolve the proposed issue, says as follows: “And we, let it be known to you, have accepted the commandment to preserve the tradition of the Lord in the offering of the cup of the Lord and to do nothing other than what was done initially for our sake by the Lord himself, that is, to offer the cup in His remembrance only by dissolving it with wine. Christ says: “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). This means that the Blood of Christ is not water, but wine, and therefore it is impossible to think that the Blood of the Lord, by which we are redeemed and quickened, is in the cup of the Lord when there is no wine in it, because wine alone represents the Blood of Christ, as can be seen from the types and testimonies of all the Scriptures. Thus, we find the first prototype of this sacrament in the Book of Genesis in the person of Noah, in which the future suffering of the Lord is foreshadowed by the fact that he “drank from wine, and was drunk, and was naked in his house,” that his middle son, seeing his father’s nakedness, “went out of the way,” and the other two - the eldest and the youngest - covered his nakedness (Gen. 9, 21-23 ). This and many other circumstances of Noah’s life were prefigured, but we consider it unnecessary to count them, finding it sufficient to point out the most important of them, namely, that Noah, representing a prototype of the future truth, drank not water, but wine, and thereby prefigured the suffering of the Lord. In the same way, the sacrament of the Lord’s sacrifice was prefigured in the priest Melchizedek, as the following words of Divine Scripture testify to this: “And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the Most High God. And bless Abraham” (Gen. 14:18–19). And that Melchizedek would be a prototype of Christ, this is clear from the psalms, where the Holy Spirit speaks on behalf of the Father to the Son: “Before the virgins begat you, you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109:3-4). This and subsequent passages of Kiprianov’s message are presented in a simple style, which the readers themselves can easily discern. 46) St. Ambrose presents us with a similar example when he discusses the Holy Spirit in order to prove his equality with the Father and the Son. The subject is important, but the style used to express it by St. Ambrose is simple: for the subject itself, in its sublimity, requires not the beauty of words, not a strong feeling to convince the heart, but evidence and explanation. By the way, St. Ambrose says: “When Gideon, moved by prophecy, heard that the Lord was delivering His people from their enemies not with thousands of soldiers, but through one man, he brought a goat from the goats; According to the command of the Angel, he laid his meat and unleavened bread on a stone and poured it out near the yukha. The angel of the Lord touched the meat and unleavened bread with the end of his staff, and fire kindled from the stone and sang the sacrifice that Gideon offered. By this sign it seems to be explained that the above-mentioned stone was an image of the body of Christ; for it is written: “For they drank from the spiritual stone that followed; and the stone was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). These words of the Apostle refer not to the Divinity of the Savior, but to His flesh, which abundantly watered the hearts of thirsty peoples with the ever-flowing source of its blood. Thus, even from ancient times it was mysteriously foreshadowed that the crucified Lord Jesus in His flesh would take away the sins of the whole world, and not only the guilt and transgression of deeds, but even the lust of the hearts. For the meat of a goat refers to the cleansing of the guilt of deeds, and the meat of the goat refers to the washing away of the uncleanness of seductive lusts, according to this word of Scripture: “And the children of Israel sat and wept and said: Who will feed us with meat?” (Numbers 11:4) And the outstretched rod of the Angel and its touching the stone from which fire came, shows that the flesh of the Lord, filled with the Divine Spirit, burns all human sins. Why does the Lord say: “I have come to bring down fire on the earth...” (Luke 12:49) This is how St. Ambrose explains himself, trying to teach the reader and prove his subject. 47) An example of the middle syllable is presented to us by Cyprian in his famous “Praise of Virginity”: “To the virgins now is my word, to the virgins, who had the greater need of care, since the most exalted glory was granted to them. Virgins are the color of the Church's summerweeds, the glory and adornment of spiritual grace, a cheerful expression of praise and honor; this is an innocent and undamaged creature, the image of God, conformed to the shrine of the Lord; this is the most luminous part of the flock of Christ. They rejoice and in them the glorious fertility of the Mother Church blooms abundantly: and the more the number of glorious virginity increases, the more the joy of this Mother increases.” Here is another example, borrowed from the same epistle: And as we have put on the image of the ring, let us also be clothed in the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:49). This image of the Heavenly bears virginity, bears chastity, bears holiness and truth; worn by those who remember the justification of their God, who preserve truth and piety, who are constant in faith, humble in the fear of God, courageous in all patience, meek in enduring insults, easy to perform deeds of mercy, unanimous and agreeable in fraternal peace. Each of these virtues, O good virgins, must be revered, loved and fulfilled - you who are idle for God and Christ, who, having dedicated yourself to the Lord, come to Him along a more important and better path than we do. Seniors, imagine yourself as a school for the youngest; juniors, perform service to your elders, arouse zeal in your equals, encourage yourselves with mutual admonitions, call each other to glory, each in herself demonstrating a model of virtue worthy of competition; continue courageously, strive spiritually, achieve happily. Don’t forget about us at the time when your virginity begins to be glorified in you.” 48) St. Ambrose is also expressed in a beautiful middle syllable when he presents the following example of perfection to virgins who have succeeded in a virtuous life as an example to follow. “She was a virgin not only in body, but also in soul; even the shadow of pretense did not darken her inner pure disposition. Humble in heart, important in words, noble in intentions and, even more so, thrifty and cautious in conversations, most zealous in reading the Scriptures, placing her hopes not in unfaithful wealth, but in humble prayers, always devoted to her studies and chaste in speeches, she was accustomed to seeing the judge and mediator of her thoughts in God alone, and not in man; I am accustomed to wishing the best for everyone, not to offend anyone, to stand with respect before elders, not to envy peers, to run away from vanity, to follow reason, to love virtue. Has she ever insulted her parents with even one unpleasant expression? Have you ever disagreed with those close to you? Have you ever been vainglorious about anything in front of your inferiors? Have you ever mocked the weak? She loved to attend meetings only of such people who were not ashamed of deeds of mercy and whose actions were adorned with chastity. There was not the slightest severity in her eyes, not the slightest insolence in her words, not the slightest immodesty in her actions, her movements were meek, her gait was decent, her voice was always affectionate and pleasant; her pure soul poured out in her appearance, and her whole body represented an example of inner purity. So a beautiful house can be recognized by the front room, and the first step into it shows that there is no darkness inside! So the lamp, lit inside the lamp, brightly sheds its light outside! What can we say about her abstinence regarding food and about excess regarding the performance of many different duties - about excess, which exceeded the nature of abstinence, for which there was almost a lack of nature? There she did not know any interruptions in the performance of service, here all her days were combined and doubled with fasting; and if she felt the need to give herself rest and taste food, she would eat the first food she came across only so as not to completely exhaust herself with abstinence, but not in order to satisfy her whims.” I consider this passage to be an example of the middle syllable because Ambrose is discussing here not about how to convince those who have not yet dedicated themselves to virginity to virginity, but about what virgins who have already been dedicated should be like. If it were necessary to convince about this important undertaking, then a high syllable would have to be used, as it is most capable of exciting and igniting feelings. On the other hand, it should be noted that Blessed Cyprian the Martyr actually wrote about the clothing (habitus) of virgins, and not about the disposition to accept virginity and therefore expressed himself in the middle syllable, and St. Ambrose in other places of his essay about Virgins, with his sublime ornateness, arouses the very disposition to accept virginity. 49) I will now give examples of the high syllable from the two above-mentioned Writers. Both of them strongly attack those women who paint or, better yet, disfigure their faces with rouge. Cyprian, discussing this subject, among other things, says: “If a skilled painter had depicted the face and figure of a person in the picture with the most faithful bodily color; and if, at a time when the picture had already been drawn and finished, someone else, considering himself more skillful, had laid his hand on it in order, as it seemed to him, to correct what had already been correctly done and vividly presented, then the latter would have caused the first artist a grave offense and would have aroused justified indignation. Do you think you will escape punishment if, with your impudent and impious recklessness, you offend the Artist God? Under seductive flowers and embellishments you want to hide your shame and debauchery from people; but through this you become the most vile fornicator, having spoiled and corrupted in yourself what God created! Thinking of decorating your face and skillfully removing your hair, you are ruining God’s creation and betraying the truth. Here is the voice of the Apostle, convincing you: “Purge therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you are unleavened, for our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us celebrate, not with old leaven, not with the leaven of vice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of purity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:7-8). But can purity and truth triumph and celebrate where the pure is desecrated by counterfeit flowers, where the true and genuine is turned into a lie by apothecary tyrannies? Your Lord says: “that you cannot make a single hair white or black” (Matthew 5:36), but you want to be stronger than your Lord in order to gain victory over His word! You dye your hair with impudent care and sacrilegious carelessness: an ill-fated omen! By this you are prophesying the fiery hairs of hell for yourself in the future.” In order not to become extensive, I do not write out Cyprian’s further thoughts. 50) St. Ambrose, talking about the same subject, says: “From here come the first germs of vices, that women paint their faces with chosen colors; Fearing that men will not like them, they fake their outer appearance, and by faking their appearance they spoil their inner moral purity. How crazy it is to change your image of nature, look for disguises in painting and, fearing the judgment of men, flaunt your own unfavorable judgment about yourself! For she is the first to pronounce judgment on herself, who wants to change in herself what she was born with; and clearly shows that, first of all, she doesn’t like herself when she tries to please others. Oh woman, woman! Who is more truthful for us to look for as a judge of your ugliness, other than yourself, when you are afraid to appear to be what you really are? If you are beautiful, why do you hide in blush? If you are ugly, why do you lie that you are beautiful, when, moreover, by this pretense you cannot gain anything either in your own consciousness or from the mistake of another! For, look, you want to please one, but he loves another; and you get angry if he loves another, who learns from you the art of pretending. You are a bad teacher to your own detriment; since even one who herself once accepted a seducer will not seduce for the benefit of others: and even if she is the most empty woman, she makes a mistake for her own sake, and not for the sake of others. Thus, there is almost less of a crime in open adultery than in forgery; for there chastity is violated, and here fornication with nature itself is committed.” It seems to me that such eloquence is quite powerful to arouse in women shame and fear of not spoiling their faces with unnecessary decoration. Therefore, I classify the words I have cited not as a simple, not as a middle, but as a high syllable. In Cyprian and Ambrose, whom I presented as an example, as well as in other Church Writers, one can find a lot of examples for all three types of oratorical style, moreover, they have a lot of beautiful thoughts and a wonderful way of presentation, that is, according to the property of the revealed subjects, the presentation is smart, eloquent and fiery. A zealous lover of Church literature can transfer into himself both the spirit and the language of these Writers, if he carefully and tirelessly reads and listens to them, especially if he does experiments and exercises in imitation of them. 51) An important art is to be able to produce as much decent confusion in syllables as possible and to diversify your sermon in all ways of expression. If the teaching is expressed too long and at length by any one of the three above-mentioned syllables, then the listener will soon become bored. On the contrary, if you make decent ebbs and flows from one syllable to another, then a long sermon can be much more entertaining. Of course, in the speeches of skilled orators, each syllable itself receives its own special shades, its own variety, which does not allow one or another syllable to either become too cold or too warm in the feelings of the listeners; but, in general, it is much easier and longer to listen to and endure one simple syllable than one high-pitched syllable that drags on for a long time. And therefore, the more important the need to excite strong movements of the soul in order to wrest agreement and feeling from our listeners, the shorter this excitement should be in order to stop exactly where the soul of the listener is moved to the proper degree. One must always be careful so that - trying to raise higher and higher what has already been raised - not to drop the listener’s feeling from the point to which the power of speech raised it. But by the way, know how to mix a simple syllable into your sermon; then it will be good for you to move, where necessary, to a sublime syllable, so that the flow and swiftness of your speech alternately changes, like the ebb and flow of the sea. From here it happens that a high syllable (if there is a need to extend it over a significant space) should never be used alone, by itself, but should be diversified by the use of other syllables. For, in general, the way of expressing thoughts refers to the type of syllable that turns out to be predominant in speech. 52) Which syllable should be mixed with which syllable? In what cases is a mutual combination of these appropriate? A high syllable can always or almost always include the beginnings and bases of a middle syllable with dignity and decency. In the same way, it depends on the will of the speaker to express in a simple syllable some features of such objects, about which one can speak in a high syllable, so that the sublime syllable from comparison with a simple syllable appears even more sublime and, standing as if in a certain shadow, appears all the more luminous. Further, in each syllable it is necessary to resolve certain knots of questions and objections, therefore, in each syllable subtlety (acumen) or insight is needed; and subtlety is an intrinsic property of the simple syllable. Therefore, a simple syllable must necessarily be part of the other two syllables and precisely where the questions to be solved meet. Likewise, the middle syllable should also be part of both a simple and a high syllable in such cases where something needs to be either praised or blamed, but where, however, the main goal of speech is neither a decisive condemnation of something, nor justification, nor persuasion to a certain action. So, in a high syllable, a simple and middle syllable have their places; in simple there can also be medium and high; and the middle syllable, if not always, then sometimes has a need for a simple one, that is, (as said above) when it encounters questions necessary for solution, or when some thoughts, in themselves capable of beauty, are not decorated, but are expressed in simple language in order to give other thoughts, as it were, a most brilliant place in the nuptial church of beauty. But this same middle syllable does not need a high syllable; for the purpose of the average is to please, and not to convince the heart. 53) It is not a sign or proof of a sublime and strong style when the preacher is given loud praise and frequent applause: for the same effect is produced by the wit of a simple style, and the beauty of a moderate or middle style. On the contrary, a sublime syllable with its heaviness and strength suffocates cries of praise, but sheds sincere tears... In the Moorish city of Caesarea there was a barbaric custom called “katerva”; it was a folk game, similar to an internecine war, and even worse than an internecine war. At certain times of the year, not only citizens who were strangers to each other, but even close relatives, brothers, fathers and children gathered in a designated place; they were divided into two sides by lot and for several days in a row they solemnly carried out battles and struck - often to death - each other, whoever could with what they could. I had to use my teachings to deviate the people from this custom, and therefore I used, as much as possible, a strong and sublime tone of speech in order to purge and destroy in the hearts and morals of my listeners such a cruel and deeply rooted evil from long ago. But I learned about the proper effect of my teachings not when I heard the approving cries of the people, but when I noticed tears in their eyes. Popular clicks showed that my listeners understood me and that they liked me; and their tears testified that they were definitely convinced by me. As soon as I saw these sparkling tears, then I was fully convinced that this barbaric custom, passed on from fathers, departments, and even from further ancestors to poor descendants, had triumphed, a custom that had villainously besieged, or, better said, completely held captive the hearts of the people. Having immediately finished my speech, I turned my hearts and eyes to heaven in order to thank the Lord. And now, by the mercy of my Christ, almost eight or more years have passed since the barbaric fun has not been resumed. There are many other experiences that taught me that a similar effect on the listeners, produced by a high syllable, judiciously used in the word, was expressed not by exclamations of praise to the preacher, but by deeper sighs, sometimes even tears, and, finally, a change in the way of thinking. 54) The teachings, presented in a simple style, also changed many: but they changed only in relation to the objects of faith, and not in relation to the subject of activity, that is, the listeners took from these teachings what they did not know before, believed what had previously seemed incredible to them, but if they did not want to do what, however, they recognized as necessary for activity, then they did not do it. For in order to overcome the stubbornness of the laziness of the stubborn, convincing them to action, for this you need to use a high syllable. In the same way, the middle or moderate syllable, eloquently depicting objects of praise or blame, has such a strong effect on some people that they not only admire the eloquence in depicting praise and blame, but, at the same time, by their very deeds strive for what is praiseworthy and avoid a reproachful life. Meanwhile, do all those who admire the moderate syllable change their way of life, as all those who are convinced by the high syllable act properly, and all those taught by the simple syllable really know what they are taught, or do they truly accept as truth what they do not know? 55) It follows that high and simple syllables, intended to act on the soul, are generally necessary for such speakers who want to teach the people wisely and eloquently. But the middle or moderate syllable, which means to please with external eloquence alone, should not be used for oneself; on the contrary, it should be used only so that with its pleasantness of expression it somewhat more easily arouses and more firmly holds the listener’s thoughts and feelings on those subjects that are presented with benefit and dignity; and let preachers take this syllable as an aid to themselves when they do not see the need for an edifying and convincing syllable, already having knowledgeable and well-disposed listeners. For if the chief and universal duty of eloquence in each of the three designated syllables is to speak in a language capable of persuasion; if in general the main goal of oration is to really convince with one’s speech of what we intend to convince, then the speaker, no matter what three syllables he uses, will, of course, always speak in a language adapted to persuasion; but he will achieve the true goal of eloquence only when he completely and without doubt convinces the listener of the truths being proposed. The speaker convinces through a simple syllable when he tries to convince of the truth of the objects he proposes; convinces by means of a high syllable when it forces listeners to immediately do what they know but do not do; finally convinces through the middle syllable - but of what? Only that his speech is beautiful and elegant. What do we need for such a goal of persuasion? Let those who love to boast about the art and refinement of language strive for it; let them boast about it in panegyrics and such speeches where there is no need to edify or persuade to action, but only to please the listener. On the contrary, we, Christian teachers, must replace this goal with another, more significant goal; those. The middle syllable should have the same goal as the high syllable, namely, to arouse in the listeners love for good morals and aversion from bad morality. Let him be distinguished among us by the dignity of a sublime style, in order, on the one hand, to correct people who are not yet completely alien to immoral life, and on the other, to strengthen good people in virtue and more strongly encourage them to further Christian perfection. Then it will turn out that we will use the beauty of the middle syllable not for boasting, but out of prudence; We will not be content with just pleasing the listener, but we will use this syllable as an auxiliary means of convincing the truly good of which we want to convince the people. 56) So, the three requirements I proposed above, by virtue of which a person who speaks wisely and, together, who wants to speak eloquently, is obliged to speak clearly, decently and convincingly, these requirements should not be understood in such a way that each of them is separately acquired by each of the three syllables, that is, a simple syllable is assigned one intelligibility or intelligibility, a middle one - one pleasantness, a high one - one persuasiveness; but in such a way that, when using this or that syllable, in each of them you have in sight all the requirements together and in each, if possible, fulfill them. I don’t want to be neglected because in certain cases I speak in a simple syllable, and therefore here I want to speak not only clearly, but also pleasantly. What else do we seek when teaching the people the revelations of the Lord, if not to force them to listen to us with obedience, i.e. to produce firm faith in these revelations, affirming in the words of the Prophet: “Your revelations are undoubtedly true”? (Ps.93:5). What else, if not faith, does a teacher want to achieve from his students by presenting known subjects to them in a simple style? But, on the other hand, who would want to listen to him if even in his simple presentation he does not captivate the listener with a certain degree of pleasantness of the syllable? Finally, who does not know that one cannot listen to someone who speaks incomprehensibly, neither willingly nor with submission? Often a speech presented in the simplest syllable excites so much unfeigned praise that one almost completely forgets about the simplicity of the presentation. This happens when this speech, despite its simple style, resolves the most difficult questions and sheds unexpected light and clarity; when she brings out the wittiest thoughts, extracting them as if from some hidden depth, from where one could not at all hope to extract them; when she victoriously overthrows the enemy’s errors and accurately represents as false what seemed irrefutable to him; especially when there is a beauty in it that is not refined, but in some way innate, there is a smoothness at the end of periods, not used out of boasting, but as if necessary and from the properties of the objects themselves, so to speak, pulled out by force. Coming out to fight the enemy unkempt and unarmed, such Speech defeats him with its nakedness alone, with its inner strength and strength alone; with her mighty members she overthrows and destroys stubborn lies. Where does the frequent and numerous applause for the speaker come from in this case? Because the truth itself is liked here, being simply but truly explained, defended and presented as invincible. And this is how our Christian mentor and preacher in the simplest syllable can and should speak not only clearly, but at the same time pleasantly and convincingly. 57) Equally, the eloquence characteristic of the middle syllable of a skilled preacher does not tolerate either excessive negligence or indecent decoration, and does not strive to please, as is usually the case with secular speakers; on the contrary, by pleasantly depicting objects worthy of praise or blame, and trying to arouse the strongest desire and constancy in what is praiseworthy, as well as to produce disgust and contempt for what is worthy of contempt - this eloquence wants to be not only pleasant, but also intelligible and convincing. If it is unclear and unintelligible, then it cannot be pleasant to listen to. Hence, although the main character of the middle syllable is pleasantness, or entertaining (delectatio), it must combine in itself other requirements of eloquence, that is, it must strive to ensure that at the same time the listeners understand it, are captivated, and submit to it. 58) Further, when it is necessary to touch and convince the listener (and this happens when the listener himself admits that the preacher teaches him with due truth and pleasantness, but he, meanwhile, does not want to do what he is taught), in this case, without a doubt, one must use a sublime style or kind of eloquence. But is it possible to touch a listener if he does not understand what is being preached to him? Is it possible to make him listen willingly if the teaching does not captivate him with its pleasantness? - It is forbidden. Consequently, a high syllable, whose purpose is to captivate the hardened heart of the listener into obedience through a powerful orbit, will not be convincing if it is not at the same time intelligible and pleasant. 59) Meanwhile, no matter how lofty our preaching may be, in actual victory over the listeners the life of the preacher, and not his word, always has more weight and power. Truly, whoever preaches wisely and eloquently to others, but himself lives uselessly, he, without a doubt, teaches many zealous lovers of the truth, although “we do not have our own soul” (Sir. 37:22) according to Scripture. Why does the Apostle say: “Whether through guilt or through truth we preach Christ...” (Phil. 1:18) and so on. Christ is the truth; however, even this purest Truth can be proclaimed not by the truth, that is, the right and true can be preached by someone who has an unjust and deceitful heart. This is how Jesus Christ is usually preached by people who seek their own, and not Christ’s. Good Christians with humility listen in this case not to the person, whatever he may be, but to the Lord himself, who said: “everything that they tell you to observe, observe and do; But do not act according to their deeds, for they say and do not” (Matthew 23:3); Therefore, they listen with benefit and well to such teachers, who themselves live indecently. For these teachers, although they try to seek their own, do not dare to teach their own - they do not dare because of the holiness and greatness of the church see (throne), which sound Christian science has established. That is why the Lord himself, intending to speak about such teachers, first of all, added the following words: “...they sat down in the seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:2). That is, the pulpit, not the scribes, but belonging to Moses, forced them to teach only good things, although they themselves did not do good things; and although they led their lives in their own way, someone else’s department did not allow them to teach their own and in their own way. 60) So, many, I repeat, are benefited by preachers who preach to others what they themselves do not practice; but an incomparably greater number of people would receive significant benefits if they themselves practiced in advance what they preach to others. For how many listeners are there who seek protection for their wicked life in the behavior of their superiors and teachers themselves, thinking in their souls or in bad times - even saying to the preacher’s eyes: “Why don’t you yourself do what you command me?” This is where it comes from that people do not listen with obedience to someone who does not pay attention to himself; together with the preacher, they neglect the word of God that is preached to them. And this is why the Apostle, in his letter to Timothy, having said: “Let no one neglect your youth,” immediately added the reason why no one should care: “but be an image by faithful speech, by life, by love, by spirit, by faith, by purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). 61) In order to make one listen to oneself with obedience, a teacher who serves as a model for others, whether he preaches in a simple, medium or high style, always preaches without shame, for he lives impeccably. The good life he prudently manages does not in the least prevent him from earning a good reputation; on the contrary, fearing God and providing for people, he, to the best of his ability, always takes care of what is praiseworthy in the sight of God and people. And in his very teachings, it will always seem more pleasing to him to please with things than with words; he will honor one thing in expression better and more beautifully, what is expressed more truly and more accurately, and will not think that the teacher should be a slave to words, but that, on the contrary, words should be servile to the teacher. This is what the Apostle understands when he says: “It is not in the wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ be made void” (1 Cor. 1:17), but what power do the words he spoke to Timothy have: “Remind this, charging before the Lord not to enter into controversy over words, which in no way serves to benefit, but rather to upset, those who listen” (2 Tim. 2:14). It is not for this reason that it is said not to enter into verbal disputes, so that we remain completely without a word for the truth in front of opponents who attack the truth, for regarding the struggle for the truth there is another instruction from the Apostle, where he, depicting the character of the Bishop, among other things says: “... so that he may be able to instruct in sound doctrine and reprove those who resist” (Tit. 1, 9), but so that To advocate in words means to worry not about how to defeat lies with the truth, but about how your preaching, by its outward beauty, deserves preference over the preaching of others. But whoever advocates not with words, but with deeds, in both simple, medium, and high syllables always has one goal of words: so that in words the truth “reveals” itself, so that the truth “pleases,” so that the truth “touches.” Without truth, the most important subject, such as Christian love - the end of the commandment and the fulfillment of the Law - cannot in any way be fair if what you love is not true, but false. You look with regret at a person who is beautiful in body, but ugly in soul, and you think: “It would be better for him to be ugly in body too.” Likewise, orators who eloquently depict false subjects are more worthy of regret for their skill in expression than if, through lack of skill, they expressed these subjects badly and ugly. So, what does it mean to be a wise and at the same time eloquent preacher? That, on the one hand, to select subjects of preaching that are essentially true and worthy of hearing; on the other hand, to depict these objects using expressions in a simple syllable that are satisfactory (sufficientia), in the average - beautiful and brilliant (splendentia), in a high syllable - strong and amazing (vehementia). If anyone is unable to fulfill both requirements at once, he should rather say wisely what he cannot say eloquently, than say eloquently what he cannot say wisely. If someone cannot do either one thing or the other, let him behave in such a way that not only will he gain a heavenly reward for himself; but also to set an example for others; let his way of life and behavior be a constant silent lesson. 62) There are people who can preach sermons well, but cannot think of what to say—they cannot write sermons themselves. In this case, there is no sin or dishonor in borrowing wisely and eloquently written teachings from others, memorizing them and offering them to the people. This is one of the truly useful ways of spreading the truth, for through it suddenly many preachers and proclaimers of the truth are made without multiplying the number of teachers, if only they all preach the same teaching of the true Teacher and there are no divisions between them (Schismata). Preachers who speak the writings of others should not be at all embarrassed by the voice of the Prophet Jeremiah, through whom God denounces those “who steal my words from one another” (Jer. 23:30) For he who steals the things of others steals; and the word of God is not alien to those who obey God; rather, he speaks someone else's - stolen, who says his own well, but lives badly: everything that he said is good, although on the one hand it seems to be the product of his own mind, but, on the other hand, it is foreign to him in relation to his morals or heart. Consequently, God called the thieves of his word those who want to appear good, eloquently preaching what actually belongs to God, but who are evil in the thing itself, doing what actually belongs to them. And indeed, if you carefully delve into the words of such teachers, you will find that when they say good things, they seem to be speaking not themselves. For how is it that they say in words what they reject in practice? It is not in vain that the Apostle writes about them: “They say that they know God, but in works they deny” (Titus 1:16). Consequently, these people at the same time speak in some ways themselves, and in some ways not in themselves; both are true according to the testimony of Truth itself. For the Truth, speaking about such teachers, in one place says this: “everything they tell you to observe, observe and do; But do not act according to their deeds, for they say and do not” (Matthew 23:3); that is, whatever you hear from their mouth, do, whatever you see in their deeds, do not do - “for they say and do not do” - therefore, although they do not do, they nevertheless speak. In another place the same Truth, denouncing them, says: “You brood of vipers! how can you speak good when you are evil?” (Matthew 12:34). Consequently, whatever these teachers say, when they say good things, they do not say themselves, since their own will and actions decisively refute what they say. And from this it turns out that an eloquent, but bad person, against his will, as if for this very reason, composes a good teaching, so that another, although not so eloquent, but good person will preach it; and in this case, the writer himself produces and conveys something else from himself, and the preacher or storyteller receives his own from someone else. If good Christian teachers lend their works to Good Preachers, then both the writers and the storytellers preach their own, and not someone else’s, since they both have their own God, to whom belongs what they preach, and the works of others become their own for those who, not knowing how to compose their own, live decorously according to the works of others. 63) However, whether the Christian mentor intends to speak his word before the whole assembly or before several persons, whether he intends to dictate his sermon to others who are willing and able to speak it before the people - in any case, let him pray earnestly, that the Lord will give good words to his mouth. For, if Queen Esther, preparing to speak before King Artaxerxes about the temporary salvation of her people, prayed that the Lord would give a favorable word to her lips (Esther 4:17), then shouldn’t he who works on the word and teaching about the eternal salvation of people pray more for receiving this important gift? Further, those who intend to speak alien sermons - borrowed from others - before receiving them, let them pray for those from whom they think to receive, so that they will be given what they really want to receive; and upon receiving, let them pray, firstly, for themselves, so that they can pronounce it well; secondly, for the listeners, so that they may well receive what is spoken to them; finally, for the happy ending of the sermon, let them give thanks to the One on Whom their success, without a doubt, depended, so that the one who boasts may boast about that One, “...for in His hand we and our words” (Wisdom 7:16). 64) My book came out much more extensive than I wanted and thought. However, if it is pleasant for any of my readers or listeners, it will not seem extensive, but to whom it seems extensive, let him read it in parts if he wants to have the knowledge conveyed in it; If someone is lazy to acquire knowledge, there is no reason to complain about the vastness. And I, for my part, give thanks to my God for the fact that in four parts of my book I have expressed, to the best of my ability, my thoughts - not about my own, in many respects, insufficient preaching gifts, but about the proper character of one who zealously desires to work in the field of sound Christian teaching, both for himself and for others. You might be interested in: