The interpretation of Scripture depends
on the discovery and enunciation of the meaning, and is to be
undertaken in dependence on God's aid.
There are two things on which all interpretation of Scripture
depends: the mode of ascertaining the proper meaning, and the
mode of making known the meaning when it is ascertained. We shall
treat first of the mode of ascertaining, Next
of the mode of
making known, the meaning;--a great and arduous undertaking,
and one that, if difficult to carry out, it is, I fear, presumptuous
to enter upon. And presumptuous it would undoubtedly be, if I
were counting on my own strength; but since my hope of accomplishing
the work rests on Him who has already supplied me with many thoughts
on this subject, I do not fear but that He will go on to supply
what is yet wanting when once I have begun to use what He has
already given. For a possession which is not diminished by being
shared with others, if it is possessed and not shared, is not
yet possessed as it ought to be possessed. The Lord saith, "Whosoever
has, to him shall be given." I He will give, then, to those
who have; that is to say, if they use freely and cheerfully what
they have received, He will add to and perfect His gifts. The
loaves in the miracle were only five and seven in number before
the disciples began to divide them among the hungry people. But
when once they began to distribute them, though the wants of
so many thousands were satisfied, they filled baskets with the
fragments that were left. Now, just as that bread increased in
the very act of breaking it, so those thoughts which the Lord
has already vouchsafed to me with a view to undertaking this
work will, as soon as I begin to impart them to others, be multiplied
by His grace, so that, in this very work of distribution in which
I have engaged, so far from incurring loss and poverty, I shall
be made to rejoice in a marvellous increase of wealth.
What a thing is, and what a sign is
All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things
are learnt by means of signs. I now use the word "thing"
in a strict sense, to signify that which is never employed as
a sign of anything else: for example, wood, stone, cattle, and
other things of that kind. Not, however, the wood which we read
Moses cast into the bitter waters to make them sweet, nor the
stone which Jacob used as a pillow, nor the ram which Abraham
offered up instead of his son; for these, though they are things,
are also signs of other things. There are signs of another kind,
those which are never employed except as signs: for example,
words. No one uses words except as signs of something else; and
hence may be understood what I call signs: those things, to wit,
which are used to indicate something else. Accordingly, every
sign is also a thing; for what is not a thing is nothing at all.
Every thing, however, is not also a sign. And so, in regard to
this distinction between things and signs, I shall, when I speak
of things, speak in such a way that even if some of them may
be used as signs also, that will not interfere with the division
of the subject according to which I am to discuss things first
and signs afterwards. But we must carefully remember that what
we have now to consider about things is what they are in themselves,
not what other things they are signs of.
Some things are for use, some for enjoyment
There are some things, then, which are to be enjoyed, others
which are to be used, others still which enjoy and use. Those
things which are objects of enjoyment make us happy. Those things
which are objects of use assist, and (so to speak) support us
in our efforts after happiness, so that we can attain the things
that make us happy and rest in them. We ourselves, again, who
enjoy and use these things, being placed among both kinds of
objects, if we set ourselves to enjoy those which we ought to
use, are hindered in our course, and sometimes even led away
from it; so that, getting entangled in the love of lower gratifications,
we lag behind in, or even altogether turn back from, the pursuit
of the real and proper objects of enjoyment.
Difference of use and enjoyment
For to enjoy a thing is to rest with satisfaction in it for its
own sake. To use, on the other hand, is to employ whatever means
are at one's disposal to obtain what one desires, if it is a
proper object of desire; for an unlawful use ought rather to
be called an abuse. Suppose, then, we were wanderers in a strange
country, and could not live happily away from our fatherland,
and that we felt wretched in our wandering, and wishing to put
an end to our misery, determined to return home. We find, however,
that we must make use of some mode of conveyance, either by land
or water, in order to reach that fatherland where our enjoyment
is to commence. But the beauty of the country through which we
pass, and the very pleasure of the motion, charm our hearts,
and turning these things which we ought to use into objects of
enjoyment, we become unwilling to hasten the end of our journey;
and becoming engrossed in a factitious delight, our thoughts
are diverted from that home whose delights would make us truly
happy. Such is a picture of our condition in this life of mortality.
We have wandered far from God; and if we wish to return to our
Father's home, this world must be used, not enjoyed, that so
the invisible things of God may be clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made,--that is, that by means of what
is material and temporary we may lay hold upon that which is
spiritual and eternal.
The Trinity the true object of enjoyment
The true objects of enjoyment, then, are the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, who are at the same time the Trinity, one
Being, supreme above all, and common to all who enjoy Him, if
He is an object, and not rather the cause of all objects, or
indeed even if He is the cause of all. For it is not easy to
find a name that will suitably express so great excellence, unless
it is better to speak in this way: The Trinity, one God, of whom
are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all
things. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and
each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are
all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance,
and yet they are all one substance. The Father is not the Son
nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit;
the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father
is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only
Holy Spirit. To all three belong the same eternity, the same
unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father
is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony
of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one
because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all
harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.
In what sense God is ineffable
Have I spoken of God, or uttered His praise, in any worthy way?
Nay, I feel that I have done nothing more than desire to speak;
and if I have said anything, it is not what I desired to say.
How do I know this, except from the fact that God is unspeakable?
But what I have said, if it had been unspeakable, could not have
been spoken. And so God is not even to be called "unspeakable,"
because to say even this is to speak of Him. Thus there arises
a curious contradiction of words, because if the unspeakable
is what cannot be spoken of, it is not unspeakable if it can
be called unspeakable. And this opposition of words is rather
to be avoided by silence than to be explained away by speech.
And yet God, although nothing worthy of His greatness can be
said of Him, has condescended to accept the worship of men's
mouths, and has desired us through the medium of our own words
to rejoice in His praise. For on this principle it is that He
is called Deus (God). For the sound of those two syllables in
itself conveys no true knowledge of His nature; but yet all who
know the Latin tongue are led, when that sound reaches their
ears, to think of a nature supreme in excellence and eternal
in existence.
What all men understand by the term God
For when the one supreme God of gods is thought of, even by those
who believe that there are other gods, and who call them by that
name, and worship them as gods, their thought takes the form
of an endeavour to reach the conception of a nature, than which
nothing more excellent or more exalted exists. And since men
are moved by different kinds of pleasures, partly by those which
pertain to the bodily senses, partly by those which pertain to
the intellect and soul, those of them who are in bondage to sense
think that either the heavens, or what appears to be most brilliant
in the heavens, or the universe itself, is God of gods: or if
they try to get beyond the universe, they picture to themselves
something of dazzling brightness, and think of it vaguely as
infinite, or of the most beautiful form conceivable; or they
represent it in the form of the human body, if they think that
superior to all others. Or if they think that there is no one
God supreme above the rest, but that there are many or even innumerable
gods of equal rank, still these too they conceive as possessed
of shape and form, according to what each man thinks the pattern
of excellence. Those, on the other hand, who endeavour by an
effort of the intelligence to reach a conception of God, place
Him above all visible and bodily natures, and even above all
intelligent and spiritual natures that are subject to change.
All, however, strive emulously to exalt the excellence of God:
nor could any one be found to believe that any being to whom
there exists a superior is God. And so all concur in believing
that God is that which excels in dignity all other objects.
God to be esteemed above all else because He is unchangeable
Wisdom
And since all who think about God think of Him as living, they
only can form any conception of Him that is not absurd and unworthy
who think of Him as life itself; and, whatever may be the bodily
form that has suggested itself to them, recognize that it is
by life it lives or does not live, and prefer what is living
to what is dead; who understand that the living bodily form itself,
however it may outshine all others in splendour, overtop them
in size, and excel them in beauty, is quite a distinct thing
from the life by which it is quickened; and who look upon the
life as incomparably superior in dignity and worth to the mass
which is quickened and animated by it. Then, when they go on
to look into the nature of the life itself, if they find it mere
nutritive life, without sensibility, such as that of plants,
they consider it inferior to sentient life, such as that of cattle;
and above this, again, they place intelligent life, such as that
of men. And, perceiving that even this is subject to change,
they are compelled to place above it, again, that unchangeable
life, which is not at one time foolish, at another time wise,
but on the contrary is wisdom itself. For a wise intelligence,
that is, one that has attained to wisdom, was, previous to its
attaining wisdom, unwise. But wisdom itself never was unwise,
and never can become so. And if men never caught sight of this
wisdom, they could never with entire confidence prefer a life
which is unchangeably wise to one that is subject to change.
This will be evident, if we consider that the very rule of truth
by which they affirm the unchangeable life to be the more excellent,
is itself unchangeable: and they cannot find such a rule, except
by going beyond their own nature; for they find nothing in themselves
that is not subject to change