Seventeen questions on the Gospel of Matthew by St. Augustine

Delve into the circumstances of the time. Wait for the One who is above time. Hieromartyr IGNATIUS THE GOD-BEARER The name Quaestiones XVII in Euangelium secundum Matthaeum (Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum) used today goes back to the Moors, members of the Order of St. Benedicta. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina XLIV B. Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Quaestiones Evangeliorum cum appendice Quaestionum XVI in Matthaeum. Brepolis. 1980.P. XXIII–XXIV.: authorship, features of exegesis, polemical character The article is a commentary on the text published below by St. Augustine of Hippo, “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew,” and includes a study of the authorship of this work, exegesis and hermeneutics, especially a type of allegory called tropology. Its polemical nature is also considered. 1. Disputes about the authorship of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum. Arguments for and against the attribution of work to St. Augustine of Hippo For a long time, there has been controversy in science regarding the exact authorship of St. Augustine's Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum. Researchers were confused by two aspects regarding the “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew”: the first and main thing is that this work is not mentioned in the Retractationes 1, the second and less significant is the difference in the symbolic understanding of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) in the eleventh and twelfth questions of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum and in some other works of St. Augustine. In this case, the interpretations of field, chaff and straw turned out to be opposite in meaning. Because of this, one of the key parables about the wheat and tares, as it seemed, could lose its power in the polemic with the Donatists about the true concept of the Church. This contradiction was first noted by the Benedictine monks of the congregation of St. Maurus, the so-called Maurists 2. The Moorish monks were the first to publish the Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum in 1680, with the eleventh question divided into two parts and therefore a total of seventeen questions. Later editions began to combine the two parts of the eleventh question, and this work was published under the title Quaestiones XVI in Matthaeum 3. 1.1. Question of the absence of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum in Retractationes 1.1.1. Historical factor of the absence of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum in Retractationes The earliest manuscripts of the “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel” of Matthew known to science are such as the Paris Codex of the 9th century, the Codex from Troyes of the 12th century, as well as the first printed books in Europe - the incunabula of 1491 and 1497. contain Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum as part of the Quaestiones Evangeliorum under one title: "Evangelical Questions", consisting of two books devoted to the interpretation of the verses of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: Liber primus. Quaestiones in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. Liber secundus. Quaestiones in Evangelium secundum Lucam. Sometimes in manuscripts and incunabula the Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum is included in the Quaestiones Evangeliorum as a third book under the same title, and sometimes stands out as a third book, but without a title. In the first two cases, “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” under the same title “Gospel Questions” is always attributed to St. Augustine, but if found anonymously as the third book, it is never attributed to any other author. In connection with the last two options, Erasmus of Rotterdam and later researchers identified Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum as a separate work of St. Hippo. But how did “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” become an independent work? There are three hypotheses on this matter. The first hypothesis belongs to Erasmus, who considered the Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum to be a fragment cut off from the Quaestiones Evangeliorum due to some external circumstances. The second hypothesis belongs to the researcher Morin, who thought that St. Augustine at some point himself carried out the segregation of the “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” from the “Questions of the Gospels.” The third hypothesis belongs to researchers Zarb and Mark Vessey 4, who consider the selection of the “Seventeen Questions” from the “Questions of the Gospels” to be the work of the disciples of St. Augustine, done without his knowledge. If this is so, then it becomes clear why there is no mention of the “Seventeen Questions” as a separate work in the Retractationes, because this work did not have its own title, since it was part of the “Questions of the Gospels”. Thus, if the method of publication of “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” may have several options, then denying the authorship of St. Augustine seems hardly possible 5 . 1.1.2. Stilus tamen et res congruent Augustino The argument expressed by Erasmus of Rotterdam: stilus tamen et res congruent Augustino (literally: “after all, the style and content correspond to St. Augustine”) was not disputed by anyone. On the contrary, there is ample support for Erasmus' thesis in the form of numerous parallels of style and content with St. Hippo's major work Quaestiones Evangeliorum, as well as with his other works. As researchers note, Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum and Quaestiones Evangeliorum are similar in themes that are interpreted allegorically: Christ, the Church and, mainly, moral categories such as love, fear, humility and pride. Regarding the parallels with other works of Blessed Augustine, the most striking seems to be his hermeneutical reasoning about the Old and New Testaments in explaining the conclusion from all the parables of the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 13:51–52) in the “Seventeen Questions” with similar reasoning in the sermons of St. Hippo, the book “Against Faustus the Manichaean” and his "Treatises on the Gospel of John" 6. Let us cite his thoughts from the sixteenth question of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum for comparison with subsequent quotations from the designated works: “Have you understood all this? They say: already (understood). He said to them: therefore, every scribe who has learned in the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man, the father of a family, who brings out from his treasury old and new (Matthew 13:51-52). Did He want to express with this conclusion what He called the treasure hidden in the field, which is understood as the Holy Scripture, which is contained under the name of two Testaments - New and Old, just as with another evangelist, it seems that by such a conclusion he means a two-edged sword (Rev. 1:16) ... Perhaps, with this final likening to the father of a family, bringing out old and new from his treasury, He wanted to show that he should be considered taught in the Church, who understood the Old Scripture set out in parables, while accepting the rules of faith from the New Testament... Since the Jews took this literally, they did not want to be taught in the Kingdom of Heaven and did not want to come to Christ so that the veil that covers their heart would be torn off” 7 . The same theme of the New and Old Testaments is reflected with the same depth in the works indicated above: in one of the sermons on the Holy Scriptures, where Saint Hippo says: “For the New Testament is hidden in the Old: the Old Testament is revealed in the New (Novum enim Testamentum in veteri velabatur: vetus Testamentum in novo revelatur)” 8, also in the book “Against Faust” Manichaean": "When the New Testament was opened, then the images of the Old Testament were closed (ut Novum Testamentum revelaretur, quod figuris Veteris velabatur)" 9. The same principle is reflected in the Treatises on the Gospel of John: “So the heirs of the New Testament are sanctified in the Truth. The consecrations of the Old Testament were shadows of this Truth" 10. As a result, numerous stylistic and substantive intersections of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum with other works of the saint speak in favor of the authorship of St. Augustine. 1.2. The problem of symbolic understanding of the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24–30) in the interpretation of St. Augustine As researcher Almut Mutzenbecher testifies, the Moorish monks were greatly embarrassed by the interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24–30) in Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum, since it did not have an anti-Donatist context in this work and ceased to be one of the main arguments of Scripture in polemics with the schismatic Donatists. According to the Moors, St. Augustine could not have interpreted this parable in this way, and, therefore, the work “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” could not have been written by St. Hippo. So, the Moors, apparently, recognized only one interpretation of this parable, which is clearly expressed by St. Augustine in the anti-Donatist version in Psalmus contra partem Donati (written c. 394). Here Saint Hippo says that the field is the true Church: “Then the righteous, like wheat, piously fill the Church.” The tares are heretics: “These He raised up in the midst of the tares, for heretics are everywhere.” And schismatic Donatists and any other schismatics are straw that is outside the Church: “These unrighteous ones are straw, because they are not in unity with the Church” 11. However, in Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum, the field is not the Church, but the whole world: “So, since the Lord interprets the field itself not as the Church, but as this world, heretics are, of course, meant, because they will mix in this world with the righteous, not in the community of a single Church or a single faith, but in the community of the Christian name alone.” And schismatics, it turns out, are also in the Church, since they have the same root as wheat: “But they usually find out how schismatics differ from heretics, and they usually discover that it is not another faith that makes them schismatics, but a divided church community. But should they be counted among the chaff? This can be questioned. After all, it seems that they are more like damaged ears of corn, as it is written, but the unworthy son will be damaged by the wind (Wis. 4:4), either because the scales (of the ears) have broken off, or (by the wind) the ears will be torn apart and torn from the crops. After all, the higher (the ears), that is, the more proud people are, the more fragile and light they are” 12. In the case of the interpretation of this parable in “Seventeen Questions” there is no polemical component, but there is a pastoral-moral one, since under the guise of a heretic weed and schismatic straw we are talking about unrighteous Christians who have not yet shown their heretical or schismatic views due to lack of reason and for now remain physically in the Church. However, there is a similar interpretation in an early letter of St. Augustine entitled De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus manichaeorum (“On the morals of the Catholic Church and the morals of the Manichaeans”), written two years before the “Seventeen Questions”, in 388. Also, different elements of this parable are understood differently in other works of St. Augustine. For example, polemicizing with the same Donatists in Contra epistolam Parmeniani (“Against the Epistle of Parmenian,” 400), Blessed Augustine speaks out against the narrowly national church views of the schismatic Donatists and interprets the field as this world: “The Lord does not say: the field is Africa, but says: the field is this world... Or is Donatus really the great reaper? The harvest itself is the end of the age, the reapers themselves are angels” 13. Thus, Blessed Augustine approaches the interpretation of this parable quite differently, unlike the Donatists, who always understand Scripture narrowly and literally 14. 2. Exegetical features of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum In form, Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum are explanations of certain passages of the Gospel of Matthew in the form of seventeen passages of varying lengths. The longest are the eleventh and twelfth questions, the shortest is the sixth. Considering certain exegetical rules that St. Augustine reveals in his work “On the Benefit of Faith to Honoratum” (De utilitate credendi ad Honoratum, 392), the verses of the Gospel of Matthew in Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum, like all Holy Scripture, are understood on different levels, of which the first is historical (Historia), the second is etiological (Aetiologia), the third is analogical ( Analogia) and the fourth – allegorical (Allegoria). At the same time, the historical level describes what was actually done or written, as well as what was not actually done, but was written as if it had been done, i.e., it considers the literal level of perception of Holy Scripture. Etiology shows why something was said or done. The analogy demonstrates the absence of contradictions between the New and Old Testaments. And finally, the allegory speaks of a figurative, rather than literal understanding of Scripture 15. All levels are stages of ascent from the literal to the figurative, from the earthly to the transcendental 16, while each word, according to St. Augustine, is a sign behind which lies a deep spiritual meaning 17. Based on all this, almost each of the “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” represents a spiritual ascent from the literal meaning of Holy Scripture to the allegorical, which can be seen from the very first question, where, for example, the age of the infants killed by Herod from two years old and below is understood as pure grace: “And what was said that infants were beaten from two years old and below (Matthew 2:16), this means that humble people who have abundant grace, like little children of two years old, can die for Christ.” 18 This superiority of the spiritual understanding of Holy Scripture over the literal is quite acceptable for reading the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, but the same principle was transferred by St. Hippo to the interpretation of the New Testament itself 19 . The analogical level of understanding of the Holy Scriptures, better known as the typological principle of understanding the Bible, is very characteristically presented in “Seventeen Questions”. Moreover, of the five common categories of types that are currently identified by researchers 20 (persons-types, events-types, institutions-types, ministries-types, ministries-types, actions-types), the interpretation on the tenth question of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum is an example of a ministry-type, in which the royal ministry of the prophet David and the priestly ministry of the descendants of Aaron represents the royal and priestly ministry of Jesus Christ: “It is necessary to say about what The act should have seemed illegal to the Jews, namely, that the disciples plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath. One example (of such an act) is given from the royal power of David, another (example) is given from the priestly power, coming from those who, through the service in the church, violate the Sabbath: but also much less has to do with the crime itself - plucking the ears of grain on the Sabbath - He who is the true King and the true Priest, and therefore is the Lord of the Sabbath. In addition to typology, almost all of the “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” contain a moral conclusion from the allegorical understanding of Holy Scripture. This type of allegory is called tropology. Tropology, or monastic exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, develops after a period of persecution, when Christians formally cease to be distinguished from this world, but must live holyly in it 22. The tropological similarities in “Seventeen Questions on the Gospel of Matthew” can be presented in the form of a table, where the moral component is allegorically derived from specific gospel terms: Summarizing the tropology of these issues, it is possible to build a certain moral and ascetic program for a Christian, necessary in achieving the Kingdom of Heaven. In order to be with Christ and inherit eternal life, according to Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum, one must renounce the devil (perhaps, first of all, in the Sacrament of Baptism) and separate from the destructive race 23, in trust in the Truth, accept the Holy Spirit, trampling the habitation of the flesh and carnal fear 24. It is necessary to fulfill the commandments without a doubt 25, while it is necessary to be a humble Christian who has deep grace 26, but there is no place for humility in a deceiver and a proud person, i.e. one cannot be a disciple of Christ by following Him and at the same time desiring vain praise and having false obedience to Him 27 . After all, those who do not believe in Christ are dead men who, however, can turn to faith, but those of the unbelievers who do not convert are dead men of dead men 28 . In addition, it is impossible not only outwardly, but even in the heart to become a heretic or schismatic, since in this way a person is cut off from God 29 . It is necessary to put off the old man, avoiding evil in simplicity, but not resisting evil with force, so as not to harm anyone 30. You cannot seek anything earthly and have as your goal the hardships of this life, but you must desire the Kingdom of Heaven, striving to improve yourself, i.e. move with faith to Christ through death 31. 3. Polemical character of Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum 3.1. The difference between unrighteous Christians and schismatics and heretics In several questions, St. Augustine argues with various misconceptions. This differs from the general trend of questions that examine the Gospel of Matthew in a moral context. Thus, the entire eleventh question 32, which is an interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares, is devoted to St. Augustine’s understanding of the differences between heretics, schismatics and unrighteous Christians. At the same time, Saint Hippo, as the shepherd of his diocese, knows that in the church community there are latent heretics and schismatics: “However, it does not follow that every heretic or schismatic is physically separated from the Church.” These people do not oppose the Catholics only because “they do not defend their false opinions so strongly as to create a crowd of adherents; if they do this, then they are expelled” 33. However, formal being in the Church does not provide an opportunity for salvation if a person hides his heretical and schismatic views: “that heretic, with his soul he is as if outside (outside the Church), although he seems to be inside the Church bodily” 34. Belonging to the name of Christ does not automatically ensure salvation: “the heretics... will mingle in this world with the righteous, not in the community of a single Church or a single faith, but in the community of the Christian name alone” 35. Therefore, heretics, schismatics, and unrighteous Christians can belong to the Church of Christ only by name. The latter differ from the first two in that “although they truly believe in what belongs to the teachings of faith ... they nevertheless live shamefully and criminally” 36. 3.2. Disputes about the sinlessness of the Savior Holy Scripture reveals to us that the Savior is born immaculately, without a seed. Therefore, He perceives the fullness of human nature without sin: “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ who has come in the flesh is not from God, but it is the spirit of Antichrist” (1 John 4:3). The consequence of this is that the Savior, according to humanity, did not have passions, since he was deprived of original sin and its consequences. “Having assumed human nature, He did not accept the yoke of sin that rules over people,” says St. Cyril of Alexandria and affirms the tomos of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. However, the presence of blameless infirmities, corruption and mortality in the human nature of the Savior gave rise to some heretics, for example, Theodore of Mopsuestia, to teach that the flesh of Christ was upset by sin 37 . St. Augustine discusses this error in the ninth question. He analyzes in detail the meaning of the verb confiteor and shows that some people in his time believed that Christ needed to confess his sins to God, i.e. He himself had some sins and passions that He had to fight. Such heretical views were subsequently condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, where anathema was proclaimed to those who “defend the wicked Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says: one is God the Word, another is Christ, who, tormented by the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, gradually freed himself from base things; Who, having been made better by the perfection of his works, and having become blameless in His life, was, as a common man, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; Who through holy Baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit and was awarded (Divine) Adoption; Who, like a royal image, we worship in the Person of God the Word; Who after the Resurrection became unchangeable in thoughts and completely infallible” 38. To this, Blessed Augustine, a century and a half before the conciliar decision, answered: “I confess You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 11:25). It should be noted that confession is based on the praise of God. After all, the Lord did not confess sins, which He had none of, especially because another evangelist recalls (Luke 10:21) that He said this, rejoicing: however, the very words that He speaks, let there be no doubt, namely, that they are spoken in the praise of God. Consequently, Scripture calls confession in general everything that is openly proclaimed, since it is revealed... This is said due to the ignorance of the brothers, who, whenever they hear these words during the reading of the reader, immediately beat themselves on the chest, not paying attention to the context in which it is said, as if confession could not be anything other than a confession of sins” 39. 3.3. Brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and the dispute about the ever-virginity of the Virgin Mary In the seventeenth question, Blessed Augustine polemicizes with those who considered the brothers and sisters of the Lord mentioned in the Gospel as brothers and sisters born of the Virgin Mary. Thus, this statement refuted the ever-virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ and, accordingly, the Divinity of the Savior. This was not yet the heresy of Nestorius, condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council, held a year after the death of Blessed Augustine. This was a heresy, as St. John of Shanghai says, located in a chain of ancient errors aimed at discrediting the Most Holy Theotokos 40. This heresy was supported by Jews, Ebionites and Anti-Dacomarianites, and some who considered themselves Christians. By the time St. Augustine's Seventeen Questions appeared around 400, this heresy was especially popularized by a certain Helvidius, who may have been an Arian. Helvidius not only spread his beliefs orally, but wrote an entire book, known at that time in Rome. We learn about this from the remarkable work of Blessed Jerome “On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary” (De perpetua virginitate Mariae), written in 383. The main point of Helvidius’ theology was that the Virgin Mary after the Nativity of Jesus was in actual marriage with Joseph and had children from him, whom the evangelists called “brothers of the Lord.” The root of all Helvidius’s reasoning was his conviction about the superiority of married life over virgin life, in particular over monastic life, about which he wrote: “Are virgins really better than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who lived in a marriage union? Isn’t it the hands of God that create children in the womb every day? And by what right will we be ashamed of the fact that (the Most Holy) Mary got married after she gave birth to Christ? If this seems shameful to anyone, then they can only not believe that God was born through the womb of the Virgin.” That is, if the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to children after Jesus Christ, then, of course, the Mother of God Herself defined marriage above monasticism 41 . In his essay, Blessed Jerome notes that in the Divine Scriptures brothers are called in four ways: by nature, by nation, by kinship and by love 42 . And Blessed Augustine considers such an argument in the seventeenth question, polemicizing with those who try to present Jesus Christ as a simple Man, and the Mother of God as the One who subsequently had children from an alleged marriage with Joseph: “Are not His brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas, and sisters (sorores, soror - sister, or cousin) His all among us? Where did He get all this from? And they were offended because of Him (Matthew 13:55, 56). It is recognized that among the Jews it is customary to call relatives from the first degree of kinship brothers, which are the sons of brothers and sisters, who are also very often called brothers among us (the Romans), but even uncle and sister's son (nephew), which were the relatives of Jacob and Laban, who were called brothers, as can be found (in the Bible). Therefore, it is not surprising that any relatives from the maternal family are called brothers of the Lord, just as Joseph’s relatives could be called His brothers by those who believed that he (Joseph) was the father of the Lord” 43 . In his interpretation of the same passage in the Gospel of Matthew, written in 398, Blessed Jerome notes: “The error of the Jews is our salvation and condemnation for heretics: they see Jesus Christ as a man so much that they consider Him the son of a carpenter: Is this not the son of a carpenter? Is it surprising that they are mistaken about their brothers when they are mistaken about their father?” 44 1. Jerome of Stridon, blessed. Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew. M. Publisher: “Siberian Blagozvonnitsa”. 2018. 2. Possidius Calamensis. Indiculus Librorum. Tractatum et Epistolorum St. Augustini Hipponensis episcopi. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina. 46. ​​Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris. 1844–1864. 3.Sancti Aurelii Augustini. De utilitate credendi ad honoratum. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina. Vol.38. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris. 1844–1864. 4.Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Contra epistolam Parmeniani. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina. Vol.43. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris. 1844–1864. 5.Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Contra Faustum Manichaeum. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina. Vol.42. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris. 1844–1864. 6. Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Psalmus contra partem Donati. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina. Vol.43. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris. 1844–1864. 7.Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Questiones Evangeliorum cum appendice Questionum XVI in Matthaeum. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Vol. 36B. Brepolis. 1980. 8.Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Sermones de Scripturis. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina. Vol.38. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris. 1844–1864. 9.Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Tractatus in Ioannis Evangelium. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Vol. 36. Brepolis. Belgium. 1955. 1.Belolikov V.V. Literary activity of Blessed. Augustine against the Donatist split. Kyiv. 1912. 2. Verkler G.A. Hermeneutics. Principles and processes of biblical interpretation. M.: Baker Book House. 1995. 3. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T.3. SPb. Publisher: "Axion estin". 1996. 4. Butler I.Kh. Latin-Russian dictionary. M. Publishing house: “Russian language” 1976. 5. John (Maksimovich), St. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God. Villemoisson-SPb. 1992. 6.Lebedev A.P. Brothers of the Lord: Studies in the History of the Ancient Church. SPb. Publisher: "Oleg Abyshko". 2010. 7. Leonov V., prot. God in the flesh. M. Publisher: Drakkar. 2005. 8. Pitirim (Nechaev), Metropolitan. About St. Augustine // Theological works. Issue 15. M. Ed. Moscow Patriarchate. 1976. (SS. 3–24). 9. Stolyarov A.A. "Confession". History of creation. Genre. Problems of reliability // Augustine Aurelius. Confession. M.: “Canon+”. 2012. 10.Christian teaching. Dogmatic texts of the magisterium of the Church of the 3rd–20th centuries. SPb. 2002. 11.A companion to Augustine/ed. by Mark Vessey; with the assistance of Shelley Reid. 2012. 12.Augustin Handbuch // herausgegeben V. H. Drecoll. Mohr Siebeck Tubengen. 2007. 13.Bertrand de Margerie S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Vol.1. Saint Augustine. Petersham. Massachusetts. St. Bedès publications. 1993. 14. Bonner G. Augustine as Biblical Scholars. The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol 1. Cambridge. 15.Lubac de H. Medieval exegesis: the four senses of Scripture. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Mich., W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Edinburgh. T&T Clark, 1998. 16.Smalley B. Gospels in the Schools, c. 1100 c. 1280. Hambledon press. London. 1985. 17.The work of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century. New Testament I and II / ed. by B. Ramsey. New City Press. Hyde Park. New York. 2014. Blessed Augustine of Hippo Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum (Translation from Latin and publication by priest Alexy Sergeev) Quaestio I (Matth. cap. II, 16) And the fact that it was said that infants were beaten from two years of age and below means that humble people who have deep grace, like little two-year-old children, can die for Christ. Quaestio II (Matth. cap. X, 27) What I tell you in the dark means that you are still in carnal fear, because in darkness there is fear. Speak in the light, that is, in hope of the Truth, having received the Holy Spirit. And what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops - this means that in secret you hear, preach, trampling the dwelling of the flesh. Quaestio III (Matth. cap. X, 34–36) Do not think that I came to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword, I came to separate man from his father. Because he who was his son renounces the devil. And to separate the daughter from the mother: the people of God are separated from the worldly community, that is, from the destructive society of the human race, which Scripture calls Babylon, Egypt, Sodom, and many other names. Daughter-in-law from mother-in-law: Separate the Church from the synagogue, which according to the flesh gave birth to Christ - the Bridegroom of the Church. They are separated by the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17). And a man's enemies are his own household: he was associated with them before out of habit. Quaestio IV (Matth. cap. VIII, 1–3) About the fact that, coming down from the mountain, after having conveyed the Commandments there to the disciples and the multitude (of the people), he immediately heals the leper, stretching out His hand. He means that those who doubt that the Commandments must be fulfilled are cleansed with His help from vicissitudes of this kind. Quaestio V (Matt. cap. VIII, 20) About what the Lord said to the scribe who wanted to follow Him: foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. The implication is that, prompted by the miracles of the Lord because of the vain praise portrayed by the birds, he wanted to follow Him. However, he portrayed the obedience of the student, which lie is indicated by the name of foxes. By bowing His head He signifies His humility, which had no place in this deceiver and proud man. Quaestio VI (Matt. cap. VIII, 22) Leave the dead to bury their dead. Here He called the unbelievers dead, and their dead were those who left the body without faith at all. Quaestio VII (Matth. cap. X, 14) Shake off the dust from your feet: either to testify to those earthly burdens that they have taken upon themselves in vain, or to show that they do not seek anything earthly to such an extent that they cannot tolerate even the dust from their earth remaining on their feet. Quaestio VIII (Matth. cap. X, 16) Therefore, be wise as serpents when it comes to avoiding evil, in order to preserve the Head, which is Christ. The snake, after all, puts its entire body in defense of its head, throwing its body towards the pursuer, because, for example, by squeezing through narrow places, compressing itself, shedding its old skin, it is renewed. This is imitated by those to whom it was said: Enter through the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13), when every time they put off the old man. After all, if He had convinced that one must beware of evil in such a way as to resist evil with strength, He would not have said above: I am sending you like sheep among wolves, but He would have wished for them to be simple, like doves, so as not to harm anyone. After all, this genus of birds does not kill any of all the animals, not even one huge one, against which it has no strength, but also not one of the tiny ones on which very small sparrows feed. For all irrational animals have a certain one community among themselves, just as rational animals have the same, i.e. among people, not only with themselves, but also with angels. Consequently, they learn from the simplicity of the pigeons, using reason, to absolutely not harm anyone belonging to their community. Quaestio IX (Matth. cap. XI, 25) I confess (confiteor) You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. It should be noted that (the word) confession (confessionem) is used in the sense of praising God. After all, the Lord did not confess sins, of which he had none, especially because another evangelist recalls that He said this, rejoicing (Luke 10:21). However, let there be no doubt about the very words that He speaks, namely, that they are spoken in the praise of God. Consequently, Scripture calls confession (confessionem) in general everything that is openly proclaimed, since it is revealed. After all, what He says: If anyone confesses (glorifies) Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father (Matthew 10:32), or as in another (place) before the angels of God (Luke 12:8): after all, he who confesses (glorifies) Christ does not confess sins. Even if some believe that this is called confession because the use of the name of Christ was considered a crime during the persecution: can Christ really confess (glorify) the person who confessed (glorified) Himself in the same way before His Father or before the angels? After all, in the book of Jesus, the son of Sirach, it is used exactly like this: And this (the works of God) proclaim in confession (in praise), all the creations of the Lord, because they are very good (Sir. 39:20, 21). In this place, without a doubt, the praise of God is magnified. This is said due to the ignorance of the brothers, who, whenever they hear this word during the reading of the reader, immediately beat themselves in the chest, not paying attention to the context in which it is said, as if confession could not be anything other than a confession of sins. Quaestio X (Matth. cap. XII, 1–8) It is necessary to say what act should have seemed illegal to the Jews, namely, that the disciples plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath. One example (of such an act) is given from the royal power of David, another (example) from the priestly power, coming from those who, through the service in the church, violate the Sabbath: but also much less has to do with the crime itself - plucking the ears of grain on the Sabbath - He who is the true King and the true Priest and therefore is the Lord of the Sabbath. Quaestio XI (Matth. cap. XIII, 25–30, 36–43) 1. But while the people were sleeping, their enemy came and sowed tares again in the middle of the wheat and left. When the elders of the church carelessly led the flock, or after the apostles accepted the dormition of death, the devil came and again sowed those whom the Lord considered unworthy sons. However, one can rightly ask: are they heretics or poorly living Catholics? After all, bad sons can also be called heretics, since they came from the same gospel seed and name of Christ, but perverse ideas turned them to false dogmas. But what is said regarding their being planted among the wheat seems to indicate that they are meant to belong to the same ecclesiastical community. So, since the Lord interprets the field itself not as the Church, but as this world, heretics are, of course, meant, since they will mix in this world with the righteous, not in the community of a single Church or a single faith, but in the community of the Christian name alone. Just as those who in the same faith are bad, they must be thought of rather as stubble than as tares, since the chaff also has the very foundation of the grain and the common root. Obviously, in that net in which bad and good fish are imprisoned (Matthew 13:47-50), bad Catholics are meant, not without reason. After all, one is the sea, which rather signifies this world, the other is a net, which, as it seems, shows the community of one faith or one Church. The difference between heretics and bad Catholics is that heretics believe falsely, while heretics are true believers, but do not live as they believe. 2. But they usually find out how schismatics differ from heretics, and they usually discover that it is not another faith that makes them schismatics, but a divided church community. But should they be counted among the chaff? This can be questioned. After all, it seems that they are more like damaged ears of corn, as it is written, but the unworthy son will be damaged by the wind (Wis. 4:4), either because the scales (of the ears) have broken off, or (by the wind) the ears will be torn apart and torn from the crops. After all, the higher (the ears), that is, the more proud people are, the more fragile and light they are. However, it does not follow that every heretic or schismatic is physically separated from the Church. After all, if he thinks something erroneous about God or about some other part of the teaching that concerns the foundation of faith, thus he is retained (in the bosom of the Church) not by the delay of the seeker, but despite the fact that he (absolutely) does not agree with the erroneous opinion of one who firmly believes and at the same time knows nothing (about faith) at all - he is a heretic. With his soul he is, as it were, outside (outside the Church), although he appears to be inside the Church bodily. After all, the Church has many such (people), because they do not defend their false opinions so strongly as to create a crowd of adherents. If they do this, then they are expelled. Also, all those who envy the righteous so much as seek the possibility of their exclusion or humiliation, or those who are ready to defend their crimes if they become known, to such an extent that they even plot to incite the separation of small communities or a revolution in the Church, then they are schismatics, they have become separated from the unity in their hearts, even if they are united by bodily communion with the Sacrament of the Church, because an opportunity did not present itself, or they hid their secret deeds. 3. Therefore, only those can justly be considered bad Catholics who, although they truly believe in what pertains to the doctrine of faith, and despite the fact that they consider it necessary to find out what they happen to not know, and despite the fact that they argue, maintaining piety without any damage to the truth itself, and despite the fact that they love and honor the righteous as much as they can, or those whom they consider righteous, yet shamefully and criminally live contrary to how they think they should live. After all, such (people), even if they are proclaimed and accused, accused, they are either for the sake of church teaching and for the sake of their salvation, or dependent on the community, believe that in no case should they retreat from church society, no matter where they are persecuted. They will look for the possibility of redemption and finally, through repentance, they will turn into bread, either accused, or expelled, or frightened by God’s Word, despite the fact that no one accuses or condemns them by name. It also happens that under the guise of those who repent, they live as usual, sometimes repenting a little less, and some even repenting more, but they in no way deviate from Catholic unity. If death takes them from living thus, they are considered stubble until the very end. They themselves believe in ours, because if they believe differently and hold it (the faith) adamantly, then they should be considered heretics. They believe that God grants forgiveness to everyone, even those who persist in great distortion (in faith) until the end of their lives, only because they have preserved the unity of the Church, not by truly loving (then they would have lived well), but more out of fear of punishment. Consequently, these do not believe like us, or do not have a strong opinion, even if they are still searching, but the hope of a reprieve deceives them even more, while they think that they will continue to win, and one day change their destructive morals for the better. Against which it is said: do not hesitate to turn to God and do not refuse from day to day, because His wrath will suddenly come and in vengeance will destroy you (Sirach.5:8, 9). After all, those who convert are those who begin to live righteously, because this means returning to God. Those who persistently follow their lust, in a way, turn their backs on God, although they try to look at Him by turning their necks, established in the unity (of the Church). Consequently, they too, as the prophet said, are flesh and a spirit that wanders and does not return (Ps. 77:39). But, however, as has been said, due to the same faith and unity of the Church, they cannot be counted among the weeds, because they have other roots, and they should not be counted among the awns of the ears of corn, which, by sharp discord in opinions and fragile elevation, dare to place themselves even above the grain of bread, but, however, they should be counted among the straw, which, although located below the grain, must be separated by the last sifting. 4. Pious Catholics are those who follow both intact faith and good morals. But as for the rule of faith, they investigate in this way if they need to find out something, so that there is no dangerous dispute, either for the seeker, or for the one with whom the dispute is being waged, or for those who listen to those discussing. But in this way they teach, if something needs to be taught, that generally accepted and reliable (teachings) they instill in the utmost calm, decisively, meekly, as much as they can, but non-obvious (teachings), even if they have accepted them with all the indisputability of the truth, they rather investigate than instruct or affirm because of the instability of the listener. After all, if something true has such heaviness (difficulty for perception) that it exceeds the strength of the student, then it must be suspended so that it stretches the growing one, and not heaped on it so that it does not crush the little one. Hence those (words) of the Lord: But the Son of Man Himself, when He comes, do you think, will He find faith on Earth? (Luke 18:8). And sometimes it (faith) should be hidden, but with motivating hope, so that hopelessness does not make (them) cold, but desire makes them more receptive (to the truth). Hence those (words) of the same Lord: I have much to say to you, but you cannot bear it (John 16:12). As for morals, this is well and briefly said: either one must fight love for temporary goods so that it (love) does not win; either it must be tamed and subordinated so that it can be easily suppressed when it begins to rise, or it must be so extinguished (weakened) that it is not rekindled at all from any side. Indeed, because of this, it happens that some face death for the truth bravely, others with equanimity, and still others willingly. These three kinds are the fruits of the fertile land, thirty, sixty, and hundred (Matthew 13:8-23). If someone thinks of leaving this life righteously, he should be sought at the hour of his death in any of these generations. 5. But it is necessary to support not only the weeds until the harvest, which, when the devil sowed from above, scattering perverse errors and false opinions, that is, scattered heresies, following the name of Christ, and he himself hid deeper and became completely invisible (after all, too) and left. But the straw also needs to be stored until winnowing. After all, the heaviness of the loaves (the quality of the loaves) is not tested more strongly than by the shaking of the straw, which the one who cannot suppress (compress), defending the truth, will retreat, maintaining unity. However, he understands that in this parable the Lord did not designate just some weeds, but all temptations, and those who commit lawlessness he designates under the name weeds (Matthew 13:41). Quaestio XII (Matth. cap. XIII, 26–30) 1. However, after the grass sprang up and bore fruit, then the weeds also appeared. After all, when a person becomes spiritual, he begins to reason about everything (1 Cor. 2:15), then errors begin to show themselves to him. The slaves said to him: Do you want us to go and gather them? Are these the same slaves whom he calls the reapers a little later? Or, since in telling the parable, He says that the reapers are angels, and no one will easily dare to say that the angels did not know who sowed the weeds, and that the weeds appeared to the angels when the grass bore fruit. And should we not rather understand the believing people themselves, designated in this place by the name of slaves - those whom He also calls the good seed? It is not surprising that they themselves are called both the good seed and the slaves of the father of the family, just as He says about Himself that He Himself is the Door, He Himself is the Shepherd (John 10:7-11). Indeed, from the meanings themselves, one thing acquires many different analogies. Especially because when He spoke to the servants, He did not say: in the time of harvest I will tell you: gather the weeds first, but He says: I will tell the reapers. Whence it follows that there are other ministers to gather and destroy weeds, and none of the sons of the Church should consider that this duty concerns him. 2. So, when everyone becomes spiritual, he recognizes the errors of heretics and fully distinguishes and separates, so that he neither hears nor reads what is not in accordance with the rule of faith. But until he has improved in the same spiritual things and in some way has not ripened to the fruit that the grass has given, he himself can shake it (the fruit). Therefore, under the Christian name, so many false teachings of heretics arose. From this it follows that the servants say: Did You not plant good seed in Your field? Where did the weeds come from? Then, when he (the owner) found out that it was the devil who conceived this lie in order to cover up his intrigues with the same name, since the devil felt that he was unable to do anything against the power of such a great name. He may have a desire to remove such people from human affairs if he has time. But what should he do? He appeals to the justice of God. Does the Lord command him to do this or does he allow it? And does He want this responsibility to be the responsibility of people? From this it follows that the slaves say: Do you want us to go and gather them? Since the Truth Itself answers to them that man is not structured in this life in such a way that he can know exactly what everyone will be like in the future, whose error he sees in the present, or even what his mistake is for the benefit of the righteous. Such should not be excluded from this life, so as not to kill the righteous when he tries to destroy the unrighteous, since they may accidentally become one. Or it may hinder the righteous, for whom even those who do not want to are useful. But then this happens by the way, when there is no time left at the end (of life) either to change life or to come to the Truth, due to chance and due to the perception of someone else’s delusion. But then this is not done by people, but by angels. It follows that the father of the family answers: no, so that by accidentally gathering the weeds, you would not uproot the wheat at the same time, but during the harvest I will tell the reapers, and so on. And only this made them patient and calm. 3. As for what he says: bind (small) sheaves to burn, one can reason why he did not say: one (large) sheaf or one heap of weeds? Is it not because of the great diversity of heretics, differing not only from wheat, but also from each other? He designated under the name of sheaves the very private assemblies of each heresy, in which they are bound by their community separately from others, so that then they will begin to be bound for burning, when, having separated from the catholic community, they begin to establish their own false churches, so that the burning of them (the churches) will come at the end of the century, and now - only the binding of the bunches. But even if this were so, many could no longer escape their errors by repenting and returning to Catholicism. Therefore, the binding of the bundles will come at the end, so that perseverance is punished not in a jumble, but according to the perversity of each individual error taken separately. 4. So that when collecting weeds, you do not accidentally pull out the wheat at the same time. Is it because even the righteous have not yet established themselves, they need to mingle with some of the unrighteous, or so that with their help they improve, or so that, relying on the best, they have greater zeal through comparison with those. If they are destroyed, the depth of love, as if torn out, will wither, which means to be uprooted. For this is what the apostle really says: that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend (Eph. 3:17, 18). Or perhaps this is the reason why the wheat is uprooted at the same time as the tares are gathered, because many are weeds first and then become wheat. If they (weeds) are not patiently endured when they are unrighteous, then they do not achieve a commendable change, and thus, if they are pulled out (the tares), the wheat they will become if they are spared is immediately uprooted. Quaestio XIII (Matth. cap. XIII, 45, 46) The Kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant looking for good pearls. But having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold everything he found (he had) and bought it. The question is, why did He change from plural to singular? Namely, when a person is looking for good pearls, so that he will find one precious one, which he will buy after everything he has has been sold. Consequently, or a merchant, looking for righteous people in order to live profitably with them, finds one before all without sin, a mediator between God and people - the Man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:15). Or, looking for precepts (instructions) so that, having preserved them correctly, he should treat people, he finds love for his neighbors, which alone contains everything, as the apostle says: you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness, or if there are any other Commandments, they are single pearls that are repeated in this speech, but there is (the commandment) to love your neighbor as yourself (Rom. 3:8, 9). Or a person who understands seeks the righteous and finds only one thing by which they are all united: in the beginning is the Word, and the Word is with God, and the Word is God (John 1:1), which God should be understood as sparkling with the light of truth, and strong with the strength of eternity, and on all sides similar to Himself in divine beauty. Which Word is to be understood as God clothed in the armor of flesh. After all, He (Man) walked to that very pearl that he once hid under the cover of mortality, as if under the barrier of a shell, in the depths of this age and among the stone strongholds of the Jews. Consequently, he who speaks has already come to the pearl itself, and even if we knew Christ in the flesh, now we no longer know Him (2 Cor. 5:16). And no meaning at all is worthy of the name of a pearl, except that which is reached by destroying all the carnal veils with which He is hidden, either through human words, or through surrounding similarities, so that He is recognized by a pure and genuine mind, always in tune with Himself. However, all these meanings contain one meaning through which everything is accomplished, i.e. The Word of God (John 1:3). However, whichever of the three (meanings), if anything may be contrary to something, what could be better designated by the name of a pearl, unique and costly, its price is ourselves, we who are not free to possess it, except in the case where we have neglected everything for the sake of our salvation - that which is in temporary possession. After all, having sold our things, we do not receive any price for them greater than ourselves, since bound by these things, we were not ourselves, so that we would give ourselves for that pearl. Not because we have so much value, but because we cannot give more. Quaestio XIV (Matth. cap. XIII, 15) 1. And they closed their eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes - this means that they themselves were the reason that God closed their eyes. After all, the other evangelist says: he blinded their eyes. But he blinded them either so that they would never see, or so that they would not see, at least at one moment, because of their blindness, they felt hostility towards themselves and mourned themselves and because of this were humiliated and prompted to confess their sins and for a pious search for God. For this is how the holy Apostle Mark says it: let them never convert, and their sins be forgiven (Mark 4:12), where it is implied that they deserved by their sins, so that they do not understand. And yet this most merciful thing was done for them, so that they would recognize their sins and, having converted, deserve forgiveness. As for what John says in this place: therefore they could not believe what Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and would not be converted, and that I would heal them (John 12:39, 40). It seems that this contradicts the first statement and completely encourages us not to accept what was said here: let them never see with their eyes, or let them not see with their eyes at least once, but it is worth accepting what was said directly so that they do not see, since He says it clearly - so that they do not see with their eyes. And therefore he says: therefore they could not believe. He reveals quite clearly that this blinding was not done for the reason that they were prompted by it (by blinding) and distressed by what they do not understand, to turn one day through repentance, because they could not have done this if they had not first believed, so that by believing they would be converted, by conversion they would be healed, by healing they would realize, but rather they were blinded by what they did not believe. After all, he says more clearly than clear that they could not believe. 2. If this is so, who will not come to the defense of the Jews to declare that they were not guilty because they did not believe? Because they could not believe because He had blinded their eyes. But since God must be understood rather as not guilty, we are forced to admit that they deserved to be blinded because of their other sins, but because of this blindness they could not believe. The words of John are these: therefore they could not believe that, as Isaiah said, that He had blinded their eyes. So, in vain we try to understand that they were blinded for the reason that they were converted, when they could not be converted because they did not believe, and therefore they could not believe because they were blinded. Or we can say without absurdity that some of the Jews were healed. But they were so susceptible to the kindling of pride that it was useful for them not to believe at first. And they were so blind that they did not understand the Lord speaking in parables. Who (the parables) did not understand, did not believe in Him; not believing Him, they crucified Him with the other lost ones, and thus, after His Resurrection, so that they would convert, when they, humiliated, even more because of the death of the Lord associated with the trial, would love the One who had forgiven them such a crime. Because so great was their pride that it was turned to such great humiliation. Anyone may think that this was not properly said unless he reads in the Acts of the Apostles how it is said. After all, this does not contradict what John says: therefore they could not believe, because he blinded their eyes so that they could not see. From this statement, from where we believe that they were blinded so that they would be converted. That is, for this reason, the Lord’s sayings are hidden for them through the darkness of parables, so that after His Resurrection they would repent with more effective repentance, because, blinded by the obscurity of the sermon, they did not understand the words of the Lord and, not understanding this, did not believe in Him, and not believing, they crucified Him. And thus, after His Resurrection, terrified by His miracles, which were performed in His name, they would be tormented with even greater guilt for the crime, and driven to repentance and then received grace for obedience, they would be converted with even more ardent love. 3. As for those who were not helped by this blindness to conversion, which flowed through the language of parables, the prophet speaks about them in another place, which the apostle also mentioned when he spoke about the obscurity of tongues: I will speak to this people in other tongues and with other lips, and so they will not hear me, says the Lord (1 Cor. 14:2; Isa. 28:11), for it would not have been said, and so they will not hear Me, if it were not for this. done so that this would give them strength for humble confession and restless search, and humble conversion and ardent love. After all, the same is the method of bodily medicine (medicinae corporalis). Likewise, medicines in most cases initially attack in order to heal, and the ointments themselves, which are applied to the eyes, if it is necessary that they be applied inside the eye, cannot help unless they first obscure the sense of vision and disturb. 4. And do not be confused by the fact that the prophet says the same thing: if you do not believe, you will not understand (Is. 7:9), it may seem to contradict what John says: therefore they could not believe that He blinded their eyes, that is, because those parables were spoken in such a way that they (the parables) could not be understood by them. After all, someone says: if they had to believe in order to understand, how could they not believe because they did not understand, i.e. because He blinded their eyes. And what Isaiah says: if you do not believe, you will not understand - this speaks of the understanding of inexpressible things in which He will dwell. When something is said that should be believed, if what is being said is not understood, it cannot be believed. So, what was said must be understood in order to be believed, so that one can believe in what was said: one must believe in what could be expressed, so that what could not be expressed could be understood. Quaestio XV (Matth. cap. XIII, 34) And he did not speak to them without parables. Not because he did not say anything in the literal sense, but because he expressed almost everything through a parable, no matter how much he spoke in any other way and directly in this speech. Thus, although one can often find His speech, all expressed in parables, one cannot find one (speech) completely stated directly. I call interpreted speeches those when, by some chance, He begins to speak until He determines everything that relates to the thing itself and moves on to something else. In fact, sometimes one evangelist puts next to something that another labels as being said at another time. After all, everyone constructed a narrative, which they began not at all in accordance with the order of actions, but according to their memories. Quaestio XVI (Matth. cap. XIII, 44, 51, 52) Have you understood all this? They say: already (understood). He said to them: Therefore, every scribe who has learned in the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man, the father of a family, who brings out from his treasury old and new. Did He want to express with this conclusion what He called the treasure hidden in the field, which is understood as the Holy Scripture, which is concluded under the name of the two Testaments - New and Old, just as another evangelist seems to think that He means by such a conclusion a two-edged sword (Rev. 1:16). Or because He spoke this in parables, when He asked them if they understood, they answered that they understood, perhaps by this final likeness to the father of a family bringing out of his treasury old and new, He wanted to show that he should be considered taught in the Church who understood the Old Scripture set forth in parables, while accepting the rules of faith from the New Testament. Because the Lord spoke this too in parables, although Christ Himself was the end of them (parables), that is, so that in Him the Old Ones would be fulfilled, as if He Himself, in Whom all this is fulfilled and proclaimed, still speaks through parables until His Passion tears the veil, so that there is nothing secret left that will not be revealed. The fact that in order to bestow such a great salvation for so long was written about Him in parables, as we know, was much more hidden. Since the Jews took this literally, they did not want to be taught in the Kingdom of Heaven (in the Church) and did not want to come to Christ so that the veil that covers their heart would be torn off. Quaestio XVII (Matth. cap. XIII, 55 et 56) 1. His brothers Jacob, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judah, and his sisters (sorores, soror - sister, or cousin) Are not His all among us? Where did He get all this from? And they were offended because of Him. It is recognized that among the Jews it is customary to call relatives not only from the first degree of kinship, which are the sons of brothers and sisters, who are also very often called brothers among us (the Romans), but even uncle and sister’s son (nephew), which were the relatives of Jacob and Laban, who were called brothers, as can be seen (in the Bible) (Gen. 29:15). Therefore, it is not surprising that any relatives from the maternal family are called brothers of the Lord, just as Joseph’s relatives could be called His brothers by those who believed that he (Joseph) was the father of the Lord. 2. Only the one who does not violate universal justice is the one who does not have the desire to violate the norms of the human community, which actually means theft, robbery, adultery, incest, and the like; either he will transgress (human) nature, which is corruption, beating, murder of people, sodomy or bestiality, or he will transgress the limit of what is permitted, which is to scourge (scourge) a wayward slave or son more than he should; or eat in excess or drink more than you should; or with your spouse to recline more than what is proper, and the like. 3. It is very clear that the Holy Spirit first gave the gift of tongues to people in order to show them how easily He could make them wise, thanks to the Wisdom of God, Which is within them. These (languages) were established by agreement and with the consent of people, and they are learned from the outside through the bodily senses, thanks to the habit of hearing. 4. Thus, the desire of the Eternal Word is always unshakable, because it immediately contains everything, but our will is unstable for the reason that it does not contain everything at once, because we want one thing or another. Thus, everything that was created was contained in that Word. And the very perception of man was foreseen by Him, in the same way, if an artist wants to paint the whole house and thinks or finds out where he will also have to depict himself, he already has everything in art, and in preparation, and in desire, although he unfolds everything at his own specific time. So every creation and Man Himself, Who intended to bear the Hypostasis of the same Wisdom, with a mystically inexplicable perception, He was always in Wisdom Itself, as if in the eternal art of God, although (He) creates everything in its own time, which He does from beginning to end unshakably, and arranges everything beautifully, and renews everything, remaining in Himself (Wis. 7:27; 8:1). 5. In the same way, when someone wants to wish to die, if so he has come to the desire to die, which already contains strong faith and sees where he should come, he already comes to the point of willingly leaving this life. After all, it is not the same thing to understand where you should go, but also to love it and want to be there. As for what will happen in his soul, it is necessary that he die willingly. So, it is in vain that some who already have a strong faith say that they do not want to die in order to improve, while their very improvement lies in the fact that they want to die. Therefore, if they want to tell the truth, let them not say: “Because I don’t want to die in order to improve, but because I don’t want to die because I haven’t improved enough.” So, not wanting death for believers is not advice for them to improve, but it is an indication that they have not improved enough. Therefore, as for the fact that they do not want to improve, let them wish, and now they have already improved. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina LVII. Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Retractationum Libri II //ed. Mutzenbecher A. Brepolis. 1984. Thus, in almost all summary tables of the works of Blessed Augustine there is no Quaestiones XVII in Matthaeum, as, for example, in the modern reference book: Augustin Handbuch // herausgegeben V. H. Drecoll. Mohr Siebeck Tubengen. 2007. P. 256. Pitirim (Nechaev), Metropolitan. About St. Augustine // Theological works. Issue 15. M. Ed. Moscow Patriarchate. 1976. (SS. 3–24) P. 24. The work of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century. New Testament I and II //editor B. Ramsey. New City Press. Hyde Park. New York. 2014. P. 429. A companion to Augustine / edited by Mark Vessey; with the assistance of Shelley Reid. 2012. P. 433 Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina XLIV B. Sancti Aurelii Augustini. Questiones Evangeliorum cum appendice Questionum XVI in Matthaeum. Brepolis. 1980.P. XXIII–XXIV Aug. Questionum XVII in Matthaeum. Quest. XVI.–CCSL.44B. Aug. Serm. de Script. 160.6.–PL.38. Aug. Contra Faustum Manichaeum. Liber vigesimus secundus. Cap. 76.–PL. 42. Aug. In. John. Tract. 108.2.–CCSL.36. St. Aug. Psalmus contra partem Donati.–PL. 43 Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. XI.1.–CCSL 44B. Contra epistolam Parmeniani. Liber primus. Cap.14.21.–PL.43. Belolikov V.V. Literary activity of Blessed. Augustine against the Donatist split. Kyiv. 1912. P. 25. Aug. De utilit. creden. Cap.3,5.–PL. 42. Bertrand de Margerie S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Vol.1. Saint Augustine. Petersham. Massachusetts. St. Bedès publications. 1993. P. 15.16. Bonner G. Augustine as Biblical Scholars. The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol 1. Cambridge. 1963. P 543. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. II.–CCSL 44B. Smalley B. Gospels in the Schools, c. 1100 c. 1280. Hambledon press. London. 1985. P. 37.38. Verkler G.A. Hermeneutics. Principles and processes of biblical interpretation. M.: Baker Book House. 1995. pp. 132,133 Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. X.–CCSL 44B. Lubac de H. Medieval exegesis: the four senses of Scripture. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Mich., W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Edinburgh. T & T Clark, 1998. P. 143. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. III.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. IV.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. I.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. V.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. VI.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. XI.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. VIII.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. VII.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. XI.2.–CCSL 44B. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. XI.3.–CCSL 44B. Leonov V., prot. God in the flesh. M. Publisher: Drakkar. 2005. pp. 105, 113 Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T.3. SPb. Publisher: "Axion estin". 1996. P. 473. Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. IX.–CCSL 44B. “When those who condemned the immaculate life of the Blessed Virgin, those who denied Her ever-virginity, those who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, those who disdained Her icons were exposed - then, when the glory of the Mother of God illuminated the entire universe, then a teaching appeared that seemed to exalt highly the Virgin Mary, but in reality rejected all Her virtues. This doctrine is called the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.” John (Maksimovich), St. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God. Villemoisson - St. Petersburg. 1992. P. 32. Lebedev A.P. Brothers of the Lord: Studies on the history of the ancient Church. SPb. Publisher: "Oleg Abyshko". 2010. pp. 32, 33. Jerome of Stridon, blessed. About the ever-virginity of blessed Mary. Book against Gelvidius. Works of Blessed Jerome of Stridon. Part 4. Kyiv. 1880. P. 111 4Quest. XVII in Math. Quest. XVII.1.–CCSL 44B. Jerome of Stridon, blessed. Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew. M. Publisher: “Siberian Blagozvonnitsa”. 2018.