PL 39 · cols. 1735–1741

Augustine, Sermo 396 (Classis V, Sermones dubii); Sermonum quorumdam qui adhuc desiderantur fragmenta; Appendix, Sermo supposititius 1

Sermon I

et sacerdos, caeteri non ungebantur. Utramque personam gerebat Dominus, non in figura, sed jam in veritate, et regis et sacerdotis. Ob hoc de ipso Domino dicit Apostolus, Qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom. I, 3). Ecce ergo regium genus. Ex semine itaque David propter Mariam Christus dicitur, quia illa erat ex semine David. Sed quo genus in Maria? Scriptum est in Evangelio sacerdotem Zachariam habuisse uxorem Elisabeth de filiabus Aaron. Ergo de genere sacerdotali; quia tota ipsa tribus Levi. Dicitur autem in Evangelio Mariae virgini ab angelo, Cognata tua Elisabeth (Luc. I, 36). Si ergo Elisabeth una de filiabus Aaron sacerdotis cognata erat Mariae, non dubitatur virginem Mariam non tantum ad regalem, sed etiam ad sacerdotalem sanguinem pertinere. Quapropter inest in Domino secundum hominem quem suscepit, utraque persona, regia et sacerdotalis. Ideo ergo tunc in figura duo ungebantur, rex et sacerdos, quod in illo capite nostro completum est, cujus idem nos Ecclesiam totam corpus esse manifestum est. Unde merito genus regium et sacerdotale dicimur.

the priest too; the others were not anointed. The Lord bore both persons, not in figure but now in truth, both that of king and that of priest. On this account the Apostle says of the Lord Himself, Who was made for him of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). Behold, then, the royal lineage. Christ is therefore said to be of the seed of David on account of Mary, because she was of the seed of David. But how [is there] lineage in Mary? It is written in the Gospel that the priest Zachary had a wife Elizabeth of the daughters of Aaron. Therefore of the priestly lineage; since the whole tribe of Levi itself [was priestly]. Moreover it is said in the Gospel to the Virgin Mary by the angel, Your kinswoman Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). If therefore Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Aaron the priest, was a kinswoman of Mary, there is no doubt that the Virgin Mary belonged not only to royal but also to priestly blood. Wherefore there is in the Lord, according to the man whom He took up, both persons, the royal and the priestly. Therefore, then, at that time two were anointed in figure, king and priest, which has been fulfilled in that Head of ours, of Whom it is manifest that we, the whole Church, are likewise the body. Hence we are deservedly called a royal and priestly race.

Item ex Sermone de Calendis Januariis contra Paganos, Joannes diaconus, ibid.

Likewise from the Sermon on the Kalends of January against the Pagans, John the deacon, in the same place.

In illis veteribus sacramentis ille praefigurabatur unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus. Unus sacerdos intrabat in sancta sanctorum: populus autem omnis foris stabat. Numquid modo episcopis ad altare assistentibus vos foris estis, ac non intus? Intrabat tunc

In those ancient sacraments that one Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, was prefigured. One priest entered into the holy of holies, but all the people stood outside. Is it now the case, while the bishops stand at the altar, that you are outside and not within? There entered then

unus sacerdos in sancta sanctorum semel in anno. Annus totum tempus significat. Semel ergo in toto tempore intravit in sancta sanctorum, non figurata, sed vera, ultra velamenta coelorum, unus sacerdos noster resurgens a mortuis Dominus Jesus Christus, offerens se ipsum pro nobis. Intravit, et ibi est. Populus autem adhuc nobiscum foris stat: nondum resurreximus ire in obviam Christo, et semper cum illo interius permanere, cum dicturus est bono servo, Intra in gaudium Domini tui (Matth. XXV, 21). Hoc ergo figurabatur tunc per unum sacerdotem solum intrantem in sancta sanctorum et populum foris stantem, quod nunc impletum est per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum solum intrantem supra secreta coelorum, et populum adhuc foris gementem, spe salvum factum; exspectantem redemptionem corporis sui, quae futura est in resurrectione mortuorum.

one priest into the holy of holies once in the year. The year signifies the whole of time. Once, therefore, in the whole of time there entered into the holy of holies, not figurative but true, beyond the veils of the heavens, our one priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, rising from the dead, offering Himself for us. He has entered, and He is there. But the people still stand outside with us: we have not yet risen again so as to go out to meet Christ and to remain always within with Him, when He will say to the good servant, Enter into the joy of your lord (Matt. 25:21). This, then, was figured at that time by the one priest alone entering into the holy of holies and the people standing outside, which has now been fulfilled through our Lord Jesus Christ alone entering above the secret places of the heavens, and the people still groaning outside, saved in hope, awaiting the redemption of their body, which is to come in the resurrection of the dead.

Item ex Sermone de Calendis Januariis contra Paganos, Joannes diaconus, ibid.

Likewise from the Sermon on the Kalends of January against the Pagans, John the deacon, in the same place.

Ipse enim summus sacerdos preces nostras offert, qui semetipsum holocaustum pro nobis obtulit. Ipse est qui nos perducit, interponens se, non ut intercludat, sed ut dirigat; non ut separet, sed ut reconciliet; non ut impediat, sed ut impedimenta disrumpat. Ipse est pontifex unus et sacerdos unus, qui praefigurabatur in antiquis sacerdotibus Dei. Ideo quaerebatur sacerdos sine macula corporis; quia ille solus sine macula peccati vixit etiam in carne mortali. Nam quod in corpore praefigurabatur illorum, in illius vita significabatur futurum.

For He Himself, the high priest, offers our prayers, He Who offered Himself as a holocaust for us. It is He Who leads us through, placing Himself between, not to shut us out but to direct us; not to separate but to reconcile; not to hinder but to break through hindrances. He is the one pontiff and the one priest, Who was prefigured in the ancient priests of God. Therefore a priest was sought without blemish of body, because He alone lived without blemish of sin even in mortal flesh. For what was prefigured in their body was signified as to come in His life.

Appendix tomi quinti OPERUM S. AUGUSTINI COMPLECTENS SERMONES SUPPOSITITIOS, IN QUATUOR CLASSES SUBJECTO NUNC PRIMUM ORDINE DIGESTOS.

Appendix to the Fifth Volume of the Works of St Augustine, Comprising the Spurious Sermons, Now for the First Time Arranged in Four Classes in the Order Set Out Below.

PRIMA CLASSIS CONTINET SERMONES DE SCRIPTURIS VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI. SECUNDA, SERMONES DE TEMPORE. TERTIA, SERMONES DE SANCTIS. QUARTA, SERMONES DE DIVERSIS.

The first class contains sermons on the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. The second, sermons on the seasons. The third, sermons on the saints. The fourth, sermons on various subjects.

His classibus inserti sunt Sermones Caesarii episcopi Arelatensis, praeter eos qui inscribuntur ad Monachos.

Into these classes have been inserted the sermons of Caesarius, bishop of Arles, except those which are entitled "To Monks".

Comparavimus omnes eas editiones initio Retr. et Confess., t. 1, memoratas. M.

We have compared all those editions mentioned at the beginning of the Retractations and the Confessions, vol. 1. M.

CLASSIS PRIMA. DE VETERI ET NOVO TESTAMENTO.

The First Class. On the Old and New Testament.

SERMO PRIMUS. De ligno dignoscentiae boni et mali. Gen. II, 16, 17.

Sermon One. On the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen. 2:16–17.

1. Solvuntur vanae quaestiones de arbore paradisi.

1. Vain questions about the tree of paradise are resolved.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1735

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Sed quo genus in Maria› · call in col 1735

Forte: Sed quomodo sacerdotale genus in Maria?

Perhaps: "But how was the priestly lineage in Mary?"

(printed under page 130)

(a) ‹anchor: SERMO PRIMUS› · call in col 1735

Alias, in tomo nono.

Formerly in volume nine.

(printed under page 130)

(b) ‹anchor: Gen. II, 16, 17› · call in col 1735 (note runs on into col 1736)

Augustino in quibusdam e veteribus libris tributus. Bellarmini judicio dubius, Erasmi autem Verlini et Vindingi sententia est supposititius, atque in 9 tomi Appendicem per Lovanienses rejectus. Ambrosio quoque perperam adscriptus fuit, et in ejus operum tomo 1 cum insigni varietate excusus. Exstat sine auctoris nomine in veteri Corbeiensi libro ante annos mille, uti videtur, descripto.

Attributed to Augustine in some of the old books. In Bellarmine's judgement it is doubtful; in the opinion of Erasmus, Verlinus and Vindingus it is spurious, and it was relegated by the Louvain editors to the Appendix of volume 9. It was also wrongly ascribed to Ambrose, and printed in volume 1 of his works with notable variation. It survives without the author's name in an old Corbie book copied, as it seems, a thousand years ago.

(printed under page 130)

Editors' prose

(none here: the full-width band across cols 1735/1736 (Appendix tomi quinti OPERUM S. AUGUSTINI COMPLECTENS SERMONES SUPPOSITITIOS, IN QUATUOR CLASSES SUBJECTO NUNC PRIMUM ORDINE DIGESTOS; the list of the four classes; the note on Caesarius; the note on the editions compared, signed M.; CLASSIS PRIMA. DE VETERI ET NOVO TESTAMENTO.) is set once, as heading lines with their English, in parts/c1735_a.md at the move, after the text above the band ("… futurum.") and before SERMO PRIMUS (moved there from this section by QA Q2).)

Page

running head: 1735 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1735/1736 in mid-page: the 3 paragraph(s) above it in col 1736 are set here, after the 3 above it in col 1735 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set here, at the move (QA Q2)

PL 39:1736

Legimus in Genesi dixisse Dominum ad Adam, Ex omni ligno quod est in paradiso, edetis; de ligno autem dignoscentiae boni et mali, quod est in medio paradisi, non edetis: qua die autem ederitis, morte moriemini. Multos scimus, fratres charissimi, de hac arbore quaestiones

We read in Genesis that the Lord said to Adam, Of every tree that is in paradise you shall eat; but of the tree of the discerning of good and evil, which is in the middle of paradise, you shall not eat: and on the day that you eat, you shall die by death. We know, dearest brethren, that many have raised about this tree questions

Editors' notes and page, col. 1736

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the 3 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1735 (reading order, moved on receipt)

PL 39:1737

vanas movisse, qui dicant Adam non voluntate peccasse, quia in illa arbore fuit dignoscentia boni et mali: et dum hominis culpam excusare nituntur, sic Deo conditori injuriam faciunt. Quibus ratio reddenda est, ne diutius quaestiones vanas moveant, aut usque adhuc in errore taliter sentiendo lateant: sed si volunt nosse, taceant et audiant; ne stulta loquendo, Deo convicium faciant. Una arbor fuit in medio paradisi, explorans hominis voluntatem: in ea vita pendebat, in ea et mors per transgressionem latebat: in ea apparuit transgressio, in qua firmata fuerat legis praeceptio. Dixit Deus, Ex omni ligno quod est in paradiso, edetis; de illa vero arbore quae est in medio paradisi, non edetis, ne morte moriamini. In hoc verbo lex erat a Deo posita homini, in ea fuit praemium constitutum cum in terminatione sententiae Deus dixit, Si gustaveritis, morte moriemini; et diabolus dixit, Non morte moriemini; et stetit homo inter Deum factorem, et diabolum deceptorem. Deus mortem minatur, si arboris fructus tangatur; diabolus deos futuros esse eos promittit, si arbor illa violetur: et appetita est venenosa dulcedo, et contempta est salubritas perpetuae vitae.

that are vain, who say that Adam did not sin by his will, because in that tree was the discernment of good and evil: and while they strive to excuse the fault of man, they thus do injury to God the Creator. To them an account must be given, lest they raise vain questions any longer, or lie hidden even until now in error by thinking in this way: but if they wish to know, let them be silent and listen; lest by speaking foolishly they offer insult to God. One tree was in the middle of paradise, testing the will of man: on it life hung, in it also death lay hidden through transgression: in it transgression appeared, in which the precept of the law had been made firm. God said, Of every tree that is in paradise you shall eat; but of that tree which is in the middle of paradise you shall not eat, lest you die by death. In this word a law was laid down by God for man; in it a reward was set, when at the close of the sentence God said, If you taste, you shall die by death; and the devil said, You shall not die by death; and man stood between God the Maker and the devil the deceiver. God threatens death if the fruit of the tree is touched; the devil promises that they will be gods if that tree is violated: and the poisonous sweetness was desired, and the wholesomeness of perpetual life was despised.

2. Mors in arbore facta non fuit. Sed dicit aliquis calumniator, Vides quia in illa arbore fuit facta mors? Respondeamus vanae quaestioni. Non fuit plane in eadem arbore facta, sed inventa per hominem: haec probatio fuit hominis, non deceptio Salvatoris. Nam si Deus hominem non amasset, nec et fecisset; nec et antea praemoneret, si mortificare voluisset. Quod si antea non praemoneret, non erat misericordia, sed impietas; nec justitia, sed injustitia, ut ipse misericorditer fecisset hominem, et labi fecisset injuste. Haec impietas nec in homine esse debet: quanto magis nec in Deo fuisse credenda est, qui fons pietatis et bonitatis est? Quis hominum, fratres mei, opus suum perire patiatur, aut fabricam suam ruinae tradat, aut filium quem genuit in foveam mortis impingat? Si in homine ista crudelitas non est, nec in Deo credas fuisse, qui fabricam suam, id est hominem, bene disposuit, et imminenti ejus ruinae destinam praecepti suffulsit, ne caderet; sed stare non potuit. Quare? Quia audire Deum noluit. Quid ergo imputamus Deo, si Adam cecidit; qui ut caderet, Dei praeceptum contempsit?

2. Death was not made in the tree. But some slanderer says, Do you see that in that tree death was made? Let us answer the vain question. It was plainly not made in that same tree, but found by man: this was the testing of man, not a deception by the Saviour. For if God had not loved man, neither would He have made him; nor would He have warned him beforehand, if He had wished to put him to death. But if He had not warned him beforehand, it was not mercy, but impiety; not justice, but injustice, that He should have made man mercifully, and made him fall unjustly. This impiety ought not to be even in man: how much more must it not be believed to have been in God, Who is the fount of piety and goodness? Which of men, my brethren, would allow his own work to perish, or hand over his own building to ruin, or thrust the son whom he has begotten into the pit of death? If this cruelty is not in man, do not believe it to have been in God either, Who set His building, that is, man, in good order, and propped it against its impending ruin with the buttress of the precept, lest it should fall; but it could not stand. Why? Because it would not listen to God. Why then do we impute it to God, if Adam fell; who, so that he fell, despised the precept of God?

3. Arbor non erat mala. Res malae non natura, sed malo usu. Dic mihi, arbor ipsa bona fuit, an mala? Dicturus es, Mala: mala utique, de qua homo pomum rapiendo mulctatus est morte. Ergo, arbor fuit mala, an transgressio mandati? Plane arbor: nam si mala non fuisset, Adam non cecidisset. Haec dicis non intendens virtutem Scripturarum. Nam sicut scriptum est in illa arbore fuisse dignoscentiam boni et mali; ita scriptum est, Et vidit Deus quae fecit, et ecce bona valde (Gen. I, 31). Illud credis quod te in errorem inducat; et hoc non credis quod te ad salutem perducat? Vis nosse qui calumniaris, quia arbor illa non fuit mala, sed bona; nec in ea facta est a Deo mors, sed homo sibi mortem creavit? Dic mihi, calumniator, ferrum bonum est, an malum? Sine dubio dicturus es, Malum. Et quare malum, et non bonum; cum omnia quae Deus fecit, bona sint valde? Quale bonum

3. The tree was not evil. Things are evil not by nature, but by evil use. Tell me, was the tree itself good, or evil? You will say, Evil: evil indeed, from which man, by snatching the fruit, was punished with death. So, was the tree evil, or the transgression of the commandment? Plainly the tree: for if it had not been evil, Adam would not have fallen. This you say without attending to the force of the Scriptures. For just as it is written that in that tree was the discernment of good and evil; so it is written, And God saw the things that He had made, and behold, they were very good (Gen. 1:31). Do you believe that which would lead you into error; and do you not believe this which would lead you through to salvation? Do you who slander wish to know that that tree was not evil, but good; and that death was not made in it by God, but man created death for himself? Tell me, slanderer, is iron good, or evil? Without doubt you will say, Evil. And why evil, and not good; when all things that God made are very good? What sort of good

Editors' notes and page, col. 1737

Footnotes

(printed under page 131)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1737

In Mss. duobus, prævaricationi vitæ [?].

In two manuscripts: "prævaricationi vitæ" [?] [reading of the variant uncertain on the scan].

(printed under page 131)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1737

Aliquot Mss., dulcedo mortis.

Some manuscripts: "the sweetness of death".

(printed under page 131)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1737

In rm. Ms., salutis. At in gr. Vs. [?] et in Er., salutaris.

In the rm. manuscript: "salutis" [of salvation]. But in gr. Vs. [?] [siglum unclear on the scan] and in Erasmus: "salutaris" [saving].

(printed under page 131)

(4) ‹anchor: nam praecepti› · call in col 1737

Editi, destinatam præcepto. Melius Mss., destinam præcepti. Destina quippe sumitur pro fabricæ fulcimine. Sic Beda in Historia Anglorum, lib. 5, cap. 17: « Factum est ut acclinis destinæ, quæ extrinsecus ecclesiæ pro munimine erat apposita, » etc. In ejusdem capitis titulo editio nova substituit, « apposita Ecclesiæ; » ubi antiqua, « destina Ecclesiæ. » Utitur eadem voce Augustinus in fine serm. 12, S. Braulio in Vita S. Isidori Hispal. april. 4 apud Sur.

The printed editions: "destinatam præcepto" [fixed by the commandment]. The manuscripts are better: "destinam præcepti" [the prop of the commandment]. For "destina" is used for the shore that holds up a building. So Bede in the History of the English, book 5, chapter 17: "It happened that, leaning against a prop that had been set against the outside of the church to strengthen it," etc. In the title of the same chapter the new edition substitutes "set against the Church", where the old one has "the prop of the Church". Augustine uses the same word at the end of Sermon 12, and St Braulio in the Life of St Isidore of Seville, April 4, in Surius.

(printed under page 131)

(5) ‹anchor: mulctatus est morte› · call in col 1737

Ita duo Mss. At editi, mutatus est in mortem.

So two manuscripts. But the printed editions: "was changed into death".

(printed under page 131)

(6) ‹anchor: Adam non cecidisset› · call in col 1737

Ms. Cor., si mala non fuisset, homini mortem non propinasset.

The Corbie manuscript: "if it had not been bad, it would not have served death to man".

(printed under page 131)

Page

running head: 1737 SERMO I.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 39:1738

dicis esse ferrum, unde homines perimuntur? Audi ergo: non ferrum est malum; sed qui ad facinus utitur ferro, ipse malus est. Nam vis nosse quia bonum est ferrum? Unus eo utitur ad putandum vineam, et alius ad perpetrandum homicidium: alius se pascit ferro, alius innocentem perimit gladio: unus ferro agrum colit, alius in fauce ferro sanguinem fundit: unus operatur ferro ut vitam sustentet suam, alius autem ferro vitam eripit alienam. Nam et judex gladium portat, ut in reum animadvertat, innocentem absolvat. Adhuc audi, si vacat, calumniator. Vinum bonum dicis esse, an malum? Puto quod bonum dicas esse, non malum; et hoc aequitatis judicio, non ebrietatis beneficio. Ergo bonum est vinum. Bonum valde. Bene, quod in vino confessus es bonam esse Dei creaturam: et ego confiteor bonam esse. Quare ergo unus accipit cum sobrietate, alius ad ebrietatem? Numquid quia unus de eo ebriatur et turpis videtur, ideo mala dicenda est Dei creatura? Alius sobrie bibit, et Deum in ipsa sobrietate benedicit: nam qui inebriatur, in foveam cadit, et aliquoties mortem incurrit. Cibi quos nobis Dominus largiri dignatus est ad utendum, non sunt mali, sed boni: et tamen si amplius praesumantur, perniciosi sunt et nocivi. Numquid ideo dicenda est mala Dei creatura, quia nocet, aut aliquibus perniciosa est? Sed quia in perniciem salutis suae amplius praesumunt, et quod Deus generi humano largitus est, ipsis nocivum est. Et quae dicturus sum, bene omnibus nota sunt. Scimus aliquos multo vino et cibo praefocatos: numquid in vino aut in cibo fuit mors? Absit: sed intemperantia ciborum fecit eos in mortem cadere. Sic et ferrum non ideo dicendum est malum, quia de eo latro facit homicidium: sed ipse malus est, qui eo utitur ad perimendum hominem. Ita et illa arbor non fuit mala, sed bona; sed fuit plane malum quod homo Dei praeceptum transgressus est: nam bonum est quidquid Deus homini ad utendum tribuere dignatus est. Ecce de Novo Testamento profero testimonium, bona es⟨s⟩e omnia quae Deus fecit. In Actibus Apostolorum legimus, obdormisse Petrum, et visum v⟨i⟩disse, deponi de coelo vas quoddam candidum ut linteum, in quo erant quadrupedia, volatilia et serpentia terrae posita. Et dixit ad eum vox: Surge, Petre, victima et manduca. Et Petrus ait: Absit, Domine; quoniam nunquam comedi omne commune et immundum. Cui dixit: Quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris (Act. X, 11-15). Quid est, calumniator? Ecce non solum bona, sed et sanctificata esse omnia divino ore probavimus.

do you say that iron is, by which men are killed? Hear then: iron is not evil; but he who uses iron for a crime, he himself is evil. For do you wish to know that iron is good? One man uses it for pruning a vineyard, and another for committing murder: one feeds himself by iron, another kills an innocent man with the sword: one tills a field with iron, another sheds blood with iron in a narrow pass: one works with iron to sustain his own life, but another with iron snatches away the life of someone else. For the judge too carries a sword, that he may punish the guilty and acquit the innocent. Hear further, slanderer, if you have the leisure. Do you say that wine is good, or evil? I think that you say it is good, not evil; and this by the judgement of fairness, not by the favour of drunkenness. Therefore wine is good. Very good. Well done, that in the case of wine you have confessed that God's creature is good: and I too confess that it is good. Why then does one man take it with sobriety, another to the point of drunkenness? Surely, because one man gets drunk on it and is seen to be disgraceful, God's creature is not on that account to be called evil? Another drinks soberly, and blesses God in that very sobriety: for he who gets drunk falls into a pit, and sometimes incurs death. The foods which the Lord has deigned to bestow on us for use are not evil, but good: and yet if they are consumed to excess, they are pernicious and harmful. Is God's creature therefore to be called evil, because it does harm, or is pernicious to some? But because they consume to excess, to the ruin of their health, even what God has bestowed on the human race is harmful to them. And what I am about to say is well known to all. We know that some have been choked by much wine and food: was death, then, in the wine or in the food? Far from it: but intemperance in food made them fall into death. So too iron is not on that account to be called evil, because a robber commits murder with it: but he himself is evil who uses it for killing a man. So too that tree was not evil, but good; but it was plainly evil that man transgressed the commandment of God: for whatever God has deigned to grant to man for use is good. Behold, I bring forward testimony from the New Testament that all things which God made are good. In the Acts of the Apostles we read that Peter fell asleep, and saw a vision, a certain vessel let down from heaven, white like a linen sheet, in which were placed four-footed creatures, flying creatures and creeping things of the earth. And a voice said to him: Arise, Peter, sacrifice and eat. And Peter said: Far be it, Lord; for I have never eaten anything common and unclean. To whom it said: What God has sanctified, do not call common (Acts 10:11–15). What is it, slanderer? Behold, we have proved by the divine mouth that all things are not only good, but also sanctified.

4. Peccatum soli Adae imputandum, non arbori, aut Deo. Arbor haec non fuit mala, sed bona, nec in ea aliquid mali potuit reperiri: sed homo fuit a semetipso malus, qui male usus est bono quod fecerat Deus. In hoc mala voluntas hominis cognoscitur; ut cui omnis paradisus subjacuit, ad arborem interdictam manum extendens mortem incurrit. Si unam arborem ei divinitas largiretur, et omnis paradisus fuisset interdictus, sufficere debuerat quod ei largitus est Deus. Sed quia amplius voluit quam quod ei voluntas largientis indulsit; et hoc quod habuit amisit, et in mortem nihilominus incurrit. Peccatum Adae cui imputandum est? Deo qui monuit, aut ei qui audire noluit? medico qui vulnerato observandi praeceptum dedit, aut vulnerato qui contra medici praeceptum noxia poma gustando causam transgressionis incurrit? Medicorum ars est, ut eis quos viderint nimia aegritudine laborantes, ea prohibeant quae perniciosa saluti, aut periculum procurent. Quod si aegrotus contra medici praeceptum per intemperantiam contraria sumens, mortem inciderit, quid pertinet med⟨i⟩co, qui praevidens causam, observationem indixit? Ita

4. The sin is to be imputed to Adam alone, not to the tree, or to God. This tree was not evil, but good, nor could anything evil be found in it: but man was evil of himself, who made evil use of the good thing which God had made. In this the evil will of man is recognized; that he, to whom the whole of paradise was subject, by stretching out his hand to the forbidden tree incurred death. If the Godhead had granted him one tree, and the whole of paradise had been forbidden, what God had granted him ought to have sufficed. But because he wanted more than the will of the Giver allowed him, he both lost what he had and incurred death none the less. To whom is the sin of Adam to be imputed? To God Who warned, or to him who would not listen? To the physician who gave the wounded man a rule to observe, or to the wounded man who, against the physician's rule, by tasting harmful fruits incurred the cause of transgression? It is the art of physicians that, for those whom they see labouring under excessive sickness, they forbid the things which are pernicious to health or bring about danger. But if the sick man, against the physician's rule, taking contrary things through intemperance, falls into death, what concern is it of the physician, who, foreseeing the cause, enjoined observance? So

Editors' notes and page, col. 1738

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1738 (numeral as it appears on the scan; possibly 7)

Apud Ambrosium, in acie ferri. Melius codices nostri, in fauce; id est, in angusto viarum congressu, insidiis et latrociniis idoneo. Ea voce utitur Augustinus, enarr. in Psalm. 86, « Hoc fecit ille latro, fortior in cruce quam in fauce: » enarr. in Psalm. 55 [?], necnon in Evangelium Joannis Tract. 7, n. 12.

In Ambrose: "on the edge of the sword". Our manuscripts are better: "in fauce", that is, in a narrow meeting of roads, suited to ambushes and robberies. Augustine uses that word in his Exposition of Psalm 86, "This the thief did, braver on the cross than in the pass"; in his Exposition of Psalm 55 [?]; and also in his Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 7, no. 12.

(printed under page 131)

Page

running head: SERMO I. 1733
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 39:1739

nec medico animarum Deo imputandum est quod Adam cecidit, qui eum ante monendo in aeternum vivere voluit.

neither is it to be imputed to God, the physician of souls, that Adam fell, Who by warning him beforehand willed him to live for ever.

[5. Multa supersunt de istis quaestionibus quae dicenda sunt; sed hora praeteriit singula dicere, ne longitudo sermonis fastidium faciat auditoribus. Debitorem me dico, dilationem peto: sed vereor ne debitor occurrat, et creditor absentiam procuret. Debitum curo solvere sermonem, sed pristinos meos non invenio creditores: aliquos video, aliquos requiro. O creditor piger, cum veneris ut debitum exigas, quid tuam absentiam procuras? Debitor sati⟨s⟩facere creditori cupit, et creditor desidiosus ab⟨s⟩entem se facit. Novam rem video. Instat debitor creditori ut debitum recipiat, et ille excusat. Sed quid interest, si creditor venire noluit? Reddat debitor quod promisit.]

[5. Many things remain to be said on these questions; but the hour has passed for saying each of them, lest the length of the sermon cause weariness to the hearers. I declare myself a debtor, I ask for a postponement: but I fear lest the debtor should come and the creditor contrive his own absence. I am anxious to pay the debt of a sermon, but I do not find my former creditors: some I see, some I look for. O sluggish creditor, when you have come to exact the debt, why do you contrive your absence? The debtor desires to satisfy the creditor, and the idle creditor makes himself absent. I see a new thing. The debtor presses the creditor to receive the debt, and he excuses himself. But what does it matter, if the creditor has not wished to come? Let the debtor render what he promised.]

6. Cur Deus sciens Adam peccaturum, non eum revocavit a peccato. Adhuc calumniator ille pristinus tot probationibus convictus non acquiescit, sed dicit: Sciebat Deus hominem posse peccare, an non? Respondeamus ei, ne sibi videatur aliquid dixisse: Sciebat plane. Si ergo sciebat eum posse peccare, quare non eum revocavit a peccato? Quare? Quia invitum non decuit coronare. Quis unquam, fratres mei, praemium non pugnanti dat? aut quae corona non dimicanti? aut quae sine conflictu victoria? Audi Apostolum divino ore loquentem: Nemo coronatur, nisi qui legitime certaverit (II Tim. II, 5). Adam nec pugnavit, nec certamen cum diabolo suscepit; sed ad unam suggestionem praemium immortalitatis amisit. Victus est qui non pugnavit; succubuit voluntati, non necessitati. O calumniator qui signare te nescis, et Deo vis calumniari, quia Adam non voluntate peccavit! Nempe Job homo fuit similis illi, quanta perpessus est et toleravit? Pugnavit fortiter, et vicit: a Deo in potestatem diabolo datus est, et sustinuit. Et utique quem sciebat Deus penitus superari non posse, in potestatem non debuit dare: sed ideo taliter probare eum voluit Deus, ut nobis excusationis et calumniae articulum amputaret. Exspoliatus divitiis et censu, vinci non potuit; quia nec voluit. Filios amisit, et Dominum benedixit. Parum e⟨s⟩t hoc: postea ulceribus plenus, in stercore jacuit; et nihil mali adversus Dominum loqui potuit, licet doloribus urgebatur loqui; sed verba non fuerant improperii. Cui jam uxor non adjutorium, sed deceptio fuit; adjutorium quidem diaboli, sed deceptio mariti: subornata a diabolo talia persuadebat dicens, Quamdiu pateris haec? Dic verbum contra Dominum, ut indignetur tibi et moriaris (Job II, 9). O affectus uxoris! O malagma conjugalis! Quasi dixit, Confitere Deo, ut propitietur tibi, et vivas: Blasphema, inquit, Deum, ut indignetur tibi, et moriaris. O argumenta serpentis antiqui! Per uxorem putavit Job decipere, cujus animum vulneribus plenum nec sic quidem valuit ad blasphemiam incitare. Adam vero quid tale pertulit? quod cum diabolo certamen habuit? Nihil tale pertulit: quare diabolo potius quam Deo obedivit?

6. Why God, knowing that Adam would sin, did not call him back from sin. Still that former slanderer, though convicted by so many proofs, does not acquiesce, but says: Did God know that man could sin, or not? Let us answer him, lest he think he has said something: He plainly knew. If therefore He knew that he could sin, why did He not call him back from sin? Why? Because it was not fitting to crown one who was unwilling. Who ever, my brothers, gives a reward to one who does not fight? or what crown to one who does not contend? or what victory without a conflict? Hear the Apostle speaking with divine mouth: No one is crowned except he who has contended lawfully (2 Tim. 2:5). Adam neither fought nor undertook a contest with the devil; but at a single suggestion he lost the reward of immortality. He who did not fight was conquered; he succumbed to will, not to necessity. O slanderer, who do not know how to sign yourself, and wish to slander God, because Adam did not sin by will! Indeed Job was a man like him: how much did he suffer and endure? He fought bravely, and conquered: he was given by God into the power of the devil, and he held out. And certainly one whom God knew could not be overcome at all, He ought not to have given into [his] power: but God willed to test him in this way precisely so that He might cut off from us any pretext for excuse and slander. Stripped of riches and property, he could not be conquered, because he did not will it. He lost his sons, and blessed the Lord. This is little: afterwards, full of sores, he lay on the dunghill; and he could speak nothing evil against the Lord, although he was urged by his pains to speak; but his words were not words of reproach. To him his wife was now not a help but a deception; a help indeed to the devil, but a deception to her husband: suborned by the devil, she urged such things, saying, How long do you suffer these things? Say a word against the Lord, that He may be angry with you and you may die (Job 2:9). O affection of a wife! O conjugal poultice! As if she had said, Confess to God, that He may be propitious to you, and you may live: Blaspheme God, she says, that He may be angry with you, and you may die. O arguments of the ancient serpent! Through his wife he thought to deceive Job, whose mind, full of wounds, he was not able even so to incite to blasphemy. But what such thing did Adam endure? what contest did he have with the devil? He endured nothing such: why did he obey the devil rather than God?

7. Mors ex divini mandati contemptu. Scripturae quam reverenter accipiendae. Sed adhuc, calumniator, dicis: Quare dixit Deus, Morte moriemini, nisi quia Deus ipsam mortem fecit, quia eam non avertit? Respondetur

7. Death from contempt of the divine command. How reverently the Scriptures are to be received. But still, slanderer, you say: Why did God say, You shall die the death, unless because God made death itself, since He did not avert it? It is answered

Editors' notes and page, col. 1739

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1739

Er. et aliquot Mss., conveneris.

Erasmus and some manuscripts: "conveneris" [you will have met].

(printed under page 132)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1739

Quæ ansulis conclusimus, licet exstent in omnibus manuscriptis, addita tamen videntur, ut ex uno tractatu fierent sermones duo: quorum alter in manuscriptis aliquot incipit ab his verbis, Debitum curo solvere sermonem. Interpolator imitatur Ambrosium, qui librum de Incarnatione sic exorditur: « Debitum, fratres, curo solvendum: sed hesternos meos non invenio creditores. »

What we have enclosed in hooks, although it is found in all the manuscripts, nevertheless seems to have been added so that two sermons might be made out of one treatise; the second of these in some manuscripts begins with the words, "I take care to pay the sermon I owe." The interpolator imitates Ambrose, who opens his book On the Incarnation thus: "I take care, brothers, to pay what I owe; but I do not find yesterday's creditors of mine."

(printed under page 132)

(3) ‹anchor: subornata› · call in col 1739

Ms. cor., subrogata.

The Corbie manuscript: "subrogata" [substituted].

(printed under page 132)

(4) ‹anchor: malagma conjugalis› · call in col 1739

Ita Mss. At editi, O malignitas conjugalis! Et mox, Potuit enim dixisse, Confitere Deo, etc. At Mss., Quasi dixit, Confitere, etc., id est, blasphemiam Dei, ejusque iræ provocationem ea suasit fiducia, qua confessionem illius ac propitiationem suaderet.

So the manuscripts. But the printed editions: "O conjugal malice!" And soon after: "For she could have said, Confess to God," etc. But the manuscripts: "As if she said, Confess," etc.; that is, she urged blasphemy of God, and the provoking of his anger, with the same assurance with which she might have urged confession of him and the seeking of his favour.

(printed under page 132)

(5) ‹anchor: vulneribus plenum› · call in col 1739

Vox plenum desideratur in Ms. cor.

The word "plenum" is missing in the Corbie manuscript.

(printed under page 132)

Page

running head: 1739 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 39:1740

tibi et in hoc, calumniator ineptissime, si tu cum sis homo habens filios, omnes admones, omnibus praeceptum das, ut te sequantur et imitentur in omnibus; et si unus eorum contemptor exstiterit, et per malam conversationem mortem incurrerit; numquid ejus mors tibi imputanda est, et non potius ei qui tuam admonitionem contemnendo mortem incurrit? Sic nec Deo mors Adae adscribenda est, qui eum ante transgressionem ne in mortem incideret monuit. Nam manifestum est monuisse Dominum, atque noluisse hominem mori, nec ipsum fecisse mortem. Testificatur huic verbo sapientissimus Salomon dicens, Deus mortem non fecit, nec laetatur in perditione vivorum (Sap. I, 13). Adam Dei praeceptum neglexit, et in mortem incidit. Revera, fratres, imperatoris Sacram nemo sine periculo sui sanguinis contemnit; sed omnes suscipiunt cum tremore et veneratione, et adorant vilissimam chartulam atramento scriptam, et velut divinos adorant apices: Scripturae divinae leguntur, verba Dei tonant, ipse Dominus quodam modo praesens praesentibus loquitur; et non auditur, aut fastidiose homines audiunt, aut quod pejus est, sedentes fabulis vacant. Imperator longe positus de chartula loquitur; et tremitur, et quasi praesens in illa chartula adoratur: Testamentum Domini cum recitatur, ab aliquibus hominibus et contemnitur. Ipsum Prophetae clamant, Apostoli praedicant, Evangelia loquuntur, per se ipsum hominibus confabulatur, et non auditur. Audi praesentem Dominum et loquentem: Ubi fuerint, inquit, duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum (Matth. XVIII, 20).

to you in this too, most inept slanderer: if you, being a man who has sons, admonish them all and give a precept to all, that they should follow you and imitate you in all things; and if one of them turns out a despiser and through evil conduct incurs death, is his death to be imputed to you, and not rather to him who incurred death by despising your admonition? So neither is the death of Adam to be ascribed to God, Who before the transgression warned him not to fall into death. For it is manifest that the Lord warned, and did not wish man to die, nor did He Himself make death. The most wise Solomon bears witness to this word, saying, God did not make death, nor does He rejoice in the perdition of the living (Wis. 1:13). Adam neglected the precept of God, and fell into death. Truly, brethren, no one despises the emperor's Sacra without danger to his own blood; rather all receive it with trembling and veneration, and they adore a most worthless scrap of paper written in ink, and adore its letters as though they were divine. The divine Scriptures are read, the words of God thunder, the Lord Himself in a certain manner speaks, present, to those present; and He is not heard, or men listen with disdain, or, what is worse, they sit and give their time to idle tales. The emperor, placed far away, speaks from a scrap of paper; and he is trembled at, and he is adored in that scrap of paper as though present: when the Testament of the Lord is recited, it is even despised by some men. The Prophets proclaim Him, the Apostles preach, the Gospels speak, He converses with men in His own person, and He is not heard. Hear the Lord present and speaking: Where two or three, He says, shall have been gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20).

8. An debuit Deus permittere peccatum. Sed utique, inquiunt calumniosi homines, Deus non debuit permittere hominem ut peccaret. O stulti! Qui hoc dicunt, non considerant, quia Deus non statuam fecit lapideam, aut ligneam; sed hominem perfectum condidit, cui et liberi arbitrii potestatem dedit, ut consideraret quid boni appeteret, et quid mali contemneret. Debuit timere quod minatus est Deus, et contemnere quod persuaserat diabolus; et proposito sibi immortalitatis praemio ad hoc debuit habere cor paratum, et Creatoris sui servare praeceptum, non exterminatoris audire consilium. Non melius hominem culpo quam Deum? qui hominem fecit, injuriam faciat? O stulta et vana quaestio! Dicunt homines, Deus non debuit hominem permittere ut peccaret; et non dicunt, quia homo male fecit Dei praeceptum transgredi ut peccaret: quia utique ipse homo debuit mortem timere, et ad interdictam arborem non accedere. Si quisquam hominum (⟨v⟩olo dicere imperatoris saeculi) j⟨u⟩dicis praeconem contempserit, non rapitur ad supplicium? Dei praeceptum contempsit Adam, et ab aliquibus defenditur! Quare culpas Deum cum tuo judicio, et non hominem sine tuo periculo? Quare incusas artificem, qui bene fabricavit; et defendis hominem, qui aedificio suo adesse noluit, qui divini praecepti immemor fuit, in vulnus transgressionis incurrit?

8. Whether God ought to have permitted sin. But surely, say slanderous men, God ought not to have permitted man to sin. O fools! Those who say this do not consider that God did not make a statue of stone or of wood, but fashioned a perfect man, to whom He also gave the power of free will, so that he might consider what good he should seek and what evil he should despise. He ought to have feared what God threatened, and to have despised what the devil had urged; and with the reward of immortality set before him he ought to have had his heart prepared for this, and to have kept the precept of his Creator, not listened to the counsel of the destroyer. Do I not do better to blame man than God? Should one do injury to Him Who made man? O foolish and empty question! Men say, God ought not to have permitted man to sin; and they do not say that man did evil in transgressing the precept of God so as to sin: for surely man himself ought to have feared death and not approached the forbidden tree. If any man (I mean of the emperor of this world) despises the herald of a judge, is he not hurried off to punishment? Adam despised the precept of God, and he is defended by some! Why do you blame God, to your own judgement, and not man, without danger to yourself? Why do you accuse the craftsman, Who built well, and defend the man who would not stand by his own building, who was unmindful of the divine precept and ran into the wound of transgression?

9. Adam non ideo malus, quia genitor homicidae. O qui Adam defendis, et Deo injuriam facis, ad quod te interrogo, responde mihi. Adam bonus fuit, an malus? Dicturus es, Bonus, ut plena sit tua defensio. Si ergo bonus fuit, quare unum filium bonum, et alium latronem genuit? Debuit bonos ambos creare: aut si, ut tu dicis, Deo faciente peccavit, ambos malos debuit generare. Quare unum innocentem, et alium effundentem innocentis sanguinem genuit? Unus dedicavit martyrium, et alius initiavit parricidium. Ergo Cain quod germanum occidit, reus non est; quia genitor ejus suscepit reatum, qui filium creavit: ergo Cain

9. Adam was not evil on this account, that he was the father of a murderer. O you who defend Adam and do injury to God, answer me on what I ask you. Was Adam good or evil? You will say, Good, so that your defence may be complete. If then he was good, why did he beget one son good and the other a robber? He ought to have produced both good; or if, as you say, he sinned with God causing it, he ought to have begotten both evil. Why did he beget one innocent, and the other shedding the blood of the innocent? The one consecrated martyrdom, and the other inaugurated parricide. Therefore Cain, because he killed his brother, is not guilty, since his father, who produced the son, took on the guilt: therefore Cain

Editors' notes and page, col. 1740

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1740

Mss. et Er., Sacra. Melius Lov., Sacram, id est Imperatoriam epistolam.

The manuscripts and Erasmus: "Sacra". Better the Louvain edition: "Sacram", that is, the imperial letter.

(printed under page 132)

(2) ‹anchor: injuriam faciat› · call in col 1740

In Mss. cor. rm., Injuriam facio.

In the Corbie and rm. manuscripts: "I do injury".

(printed under page 132)

(3) ‹anchor: cum tuo judicio› · call in col 1740

Ms. rm., cum tuo periculo. Mox cor., et non hominem sine tuo præjudicio.

The rm. manuscript: "at your own peril". Just after, the Corbie manuscript: "and not the man, without prejudice to yourself".

(printed under page 132)

(4) ‹anchor: filium creavit› · call in col 1740

Additur in Ms. cor., latronem si Adam invitus peccavit: ergo, etc.

The Corbie manuscript adds: "a robber, if Adam sinned unwillingly: therefore," etc.

(printed under page 132)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 39:1741

invitus in jugulum fratris gladium fixit. Talem justitiam tenent, qui legi calumniari nituntur; ut geniti non sint rei, et horum genitores reatu teneantur obstricti. Ecce Adam qui genuit latronem, ecce Cain qui interfecit fratrem: qui ex his duobus reus est? pater qui genuit, aut filius qui germanum crudeli morte peremit? Cessit calumniator, tacuit calumniator: quamvis nunquam aliquid verius dicit, qui veritati calumniam facit. Ubi es, calumniator? Responde mihi pro suscepto tuo, qui de te erat securus, defende quem usquemodo defendebas. Quare cessisti? quid tacuisti? Ecce pro filii reatu reus tenetur Adam, qui genuit parricidam. Quare non dicis, Non est reus? Exsurrexit q⟨u⟩i tacebat: Non taceo, inquit; respondeo plane, et defendo: Nec filius pro patre, nec pater pro filio reus est; quia scriptum est, Anima patris mea est, et anima filii mea est; anima quae peccaverit sola punietur (Ezech. XVIII, 4). Quasi experrectus est calumniator ille, qui dormiebat, aperuit os suum, coepit loqui; sed modo tacebit. Dic ergo, nec pater pro filio, nec filius pro patre reus est. Responde pro suscepto tuo, et ego pro Deo meo. Defende Adae causam, et ego Dei mei injuriam. Tu dicis non esse justum ut reus sit Adam pro filio: et ego consentio. Si patrem non involvit filii reatus ad peccatum, et sicut non est judicandum pro Cain, sic nec Deo quod Adam peccavit imputemus; sed sic agamus, ut ad indulgentiam Dei veniamus.

unwillingly fixed the sword in his brother's throat. Such is the justice held by those who strive to bring false charges against the law: that the begotten should not be guilty, and that their begetters should be held bound by the guilt. Behold Adam, who begot a robber; behold Cain, who killed his brother: which of these two is guilty? The father who begot, or the son who destroyed his own brother by a cruel death? The false accuser has given way, the false accuser has fallen silent: although he who brings a false charge against the truth never says anything truer. Where are you, false accuser? Answer me on behalf of your client, who was confident in you; defend him whom you were defending until now. Why have you given way? Why have you fallen silent? Behold, Adam, who begot a parricide, is held guilty for his son's guilt. Why do you not say, "He is not guilty"? He who was silent has risen up: "I am not silent," he says; "I answer plainly, and I defend: neither is the son guilty for the father, nor the father for the son; for it is written, The soul of the father is Mine, and the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that has sinned, it alone shall be punished (Ezek. 18:4)." As if awakened, that false accuser who was sleeping has opened his mouth and begun to speak; but now he will be silent. Say, then, that neither is the father guilty for the son, nor the son for the father. Answer on behalf of your client, and I on behalf of my God. Defend the cause of Adam, and I [will defend] the wrong done to my God. You say that it is not just that Adam should be guilty for his son: and I agree. If the son's guilt does not entangle the father in sin, and just as [Adam] is not to be judged on account of Cain, so neither let us impute to God that Adam sinned; but let us so act that we may come to the indulgence of God.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1741

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: suscepto tuo› · call in col 1741

Apud Ambrosium additur, munere; sed male: nam, susceptus, vox antiqua pro cliente.

In Ambrose "munere" is added, but wrongly: for "susceptus" is an old word for "client".

(printed under page 133)

(a) ‹anchor: SERMO II› · call in col 1741

Olim, de Tempore 51; et post, in Appendice 51.

Formerly "de Tempore" 51; and later, in the Appendix, 51.

(printed under page 133)

(b) ‹anchor: Gen. XII, 1› · call in col 1741

Hunc Amerbachiana et Erasmiana editio repraesentat inter germanos Augustini sermones: inter supposititios collocat Lovaniensium censura, quae Verlino et Vindingo probatur. In manuscriptis praefert nomen Augustini, sed falso. Ex iis est, quos censemus Caesarii Arelatensis episcopi.

The Amerbach and Erasmus editions present this among Augustine's genuine sermons; the Louvain editors' judgement, approved by Verlinus and Vindingus, places it among the spurious ones. In the manuscripts it bears Augustine's name, but falsely. It is one of those we judge to be by Caesarius, bishop of Arles.

(printed under page 133)

Caesarius, homil. 10, et inter editas a Baluzio, 3.

Caesarius, homily 10, and among those published by Baluze, 3.

(printed under page 133)