About to write upon the book of the Gospel which holy Luke set forth with a certain fuller distinction of the things of the Lord, we think the very style should first be explained; for it is historical. For although divine Scripture empties out the discipline of worldly wisdom, in that the latter is decked out with a greater pomp of words than it is supported by reasoning of things, yet if anyone seeks in the divine Scriptures even those things which they deem worthy of admiration, he will find them. For there are three things which the philosophers of this world deemed most excellent — namely, that wisdom is threefold, being either natural, or moral, or rational. These three we have already been able to observe even in the Old Testament.
For what else do those three wells signify — of which one is of vision, another of abundance, the third of the oath — except that this threefold virtue existed in the patriarchs? The well of vision is rational, because reason sharpens the sight of the mind and purges the gaze of the soul; the well of abundance is ethical, because, when the foreigners withdrew (by whose figure the vices of the body are represented), the living Isaac found the liquid of the mind — for good morals flow forth pure, and goodness itself, popular, abounds for others while it is more restrained towards itself; the third well, of the oath, that is, of natural wisdom, which comprehends those things that are above nature or of nature;
for that which is affirmed and as it were sworn with God as witness embraces also divine things, since the Lord of nature is brought in as witness of faith. What too of the three books of Solomon — one of Proverbs, another Ecclesiastes, the third of the Song of Songs — except that they show us that holy Solomon was skilled in this threefold wisdom? He wrote of the rational and ethical things in Proverbs, of the natural in Ecclesiastes, since 'vanity of vanities, and all is vanity' that is set up in this world;
for the creature was made subject to vanity; but of moral and rational things in the Song of Songs, because, when love of the heavenly Word is poured into our souls and the holy mind is joined to the rational by a certain fellowship, marvellous mysteries are revealed. Of the Evangelists too, how much wisdom do you think was lacking, of whom, although some are filled with various kinds, yet each excels in a different kind? For there is truly natural wisdom in the book of the Gospel which is written according to John. For no one, I dare to say, beheld the majesty of God with such sublimity of wisdom and disclosed it to us in his own discourse.
He transcended the clouds, transcended the virtues of the heavens, transcended the angels, and found the Word in the beginning, and beheld the Word with God. But who more morally, after the manner of man, pursued each thing than holy Matthew set forth for us the precepts of living? What more rational than that admirable conjunction by which holy Mark thought it should be placed at the very beginning: 'Behold, I send my angel,' and 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness' — that he might both stir admiration and teach that man ought to please by humility and abstinence and faith, just as that holy John the Baptist ascended by these steps to immortality — by raiment, by food, by message?
But holy Luke kept, as it were, a certain historical order, and revealed to us more of the miracles of the Lord's deeds, yet in such a way that the history of this Gospel embraced the virtues of all wisdom. For what is more excellent for natural wisdom than that he disclosed that the Holy Spirit was the creator even of the Lord's incarnation? He therefore teaches natural things, if the Spirit creates. Whence David too, teaching natural wisdom, says: 'Send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created.'
He teaches moral things in the same book, when in those beatitudes he teaches me manners — how I ought to love my enemy, how not to strike back and repay the one beating me, how to do good, to lend with despair of recovery and with the recompense of a reward; for a reward more easily follows the one who does not expect it. He taught rational things also, when I read that 'he who is faithful in the least is faithful also in the greater.' What shall I yet say of natural things — that he taught that the virtues of the heavens are moved, that the Lord of the sun is the only-begotten Son of God, in whose passion darkness was made by day, the earth was darkened, the sun fled away?
Therefore spiritual wisdom truly possesses all the primacy which worldly prudence falsely claims for itself, especially since — to usurp something rather boldly — our very faith, the very mystery of the Trinity, cannot exist without this threefold wisdom, unless we believe both that the Father is naturally he who begot for us a Redeemer, and that the Son is the ethical one, who, obedient to the Father even unto death according to man, redeemed us, and that the Spirit is the rational one, who poured into human breasts the reason of worshipping the Godhead and of governing life. And let no one think that we have made a difference of power or of virtue, since with this calumny one might even assail Paul. For neither did he make a difference, when he said:
'There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.' For the Son also worketh all and in all, as you have elsewhere that 'Christ is all and in all.' The Holy Spirit also worketh, since 'one and the same Spirit worketh all things, dividing to each one as he will.' There is therefore no difference of operations, no distinction, where in the Father or in the Son or in the Holy Spirit the fullness of virtue is second to none. Let us therefore consider these things diligently when we read, that they may shine forth better for us in their own places. For 'he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened.'
Diligence opens for itself the door of truth, and therefore let us obey the heavenly precepts. For it was not idly said to man, what was said to none of the other living creatures: 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread'; for to these animals, which are by nature irrational, the earth was bidden by God's command to supply pasture, but to man alone, that he might exercise the rational gift he received, the course of life is prescribed in labour.
For he who is not content with the pasture of the other animals, for whom the fruit-bearing tree, common to all and given for food, is not enough, but seeks for himself the delicacies of varied feasts, fetches delicacies for himself from lands beyond the sea, sweeps delicacies from the waters — he ought not to refuse, if he seeks his livelihood by labour, to undergo a brief labour in exchange for eternal life. And so, if anyone, coming into these contests of sacred disputations, strips off the anxiety of this life exposed to error, and, a naked athlete of malice, anointed as it were with the spiritual oil of piety over certain members of the soul, takes up the contests of truth, he will doubtless earn the everlasting rewards of sacred crowns.
For noble is the fruit of good labours, and the more numerous the contests, the more excellent the crown of virtues. But let us return to our subject. We have said that this book of the Gospel was set forth in a historical style. In short, we see that, in comparison with the others, a more abundant zeal was bestowed on describing things rather than on expressing precepts. And the Evangelist himself took the beginning of his exordium from a narrative, after the historical manner. 'There was,' he says, 'in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias,' and he pursues that history with full arrangement. Whence also those who have judged that the four books of the Gospel are to be understood by the four forms of the living creatures revealed in the Apocalypse, wish this book to be figured under the form of a calf;
for the calf is a priestly victim. And this book of the Gospel well agrees with the calf, because it began with priests and was consummated in the calf who, taking up the sins of all, was sacrificed for the life of the whole world; for that calf is priestly. For the same is both calf and priest: priest, because he is our propitiator — for we have him as advocate with the Father — calf, because by his own blood he washed and redeemed us; and it falls out well that, since we have said the book of the Gospel according to Matthew to be moral, an opinion of this kind should not be passed over; for manners are properly called human.
Yet very many think that our Lord himself is figured in the four books of the Gospel by the four forms of the living creatures — that the same is man, the same lion, the same calf, the same eagle: man, because he was born of Mary; lion, because he is strong; calf, because he is a victim; eagle, because he is the resurrection. And so in each book the form of a living creature is figured in such a way that the sequence of each book seems to suit the nature or the virtue or the grace or the miracle of the creatures set forth. Which things, although they all are in all, yet there is a certain fullness of single virtues in single books. One described more fully the origin of the man; he also instructed the manners of the man with fuller precepts;
One began from the expression of the divine power, in that 'from a king, a king; from the strong One, the strong; from the true One, the true' He despised death by His living virtue; a second set forth the priestly sacrifice and unfolded the very immolation of the calf with a fuller pen; a fourth, more copiously than the rest, expressed the miracles of the divine resurrection. One therefore is all and one in all, as has been read: not unlike in the several Gospels, but true in them all. But now let us approach the very text of the Gospel. BOOK ONE. 'Since,' it says, 'many have undertaken to set in order a narrative of the things.'
Very many things of ours are formed by like kinds and causes as those of the ancient Jews, and they agree by a like usage and outcome of similar examples, and accord in the beginning and the end of things.
For just as among that people many, filled with the divine Spirit, prophesied, while others promised that they would prophesy and forsook their profession by a lie — for they were pseudo-prophets rather than prophets, like Hananiah the son of Azzur, and it belonged to the grace of the people to discern spirits, that it might know whom it ought to enroll in the number of the prophets, and whom, like a good money-changer, it should reject, in whom corrupt matter was more squalid than the splendor of the true light shone forth — so also now in the New Testament many have undertaken to write gospels, which the good money-changers did not approve, but they judged that only one, arranged into four books out of them all, was to be chosen.
And indeed another gospel is circulated, which the Twelve are said to have written. Basilides too dared to write a gospel, which is called 'according to Basilides.' Yet another gospel is circulated, which is written 'according to Thomas.' I know of another written 'according to Matthias.' We have read certain things, that they may not be read; we have read them that we may not be ignorant; we have read them, not that we may hold them, but that we may reject them and may know what sort of things they are in which those vainglorious men exalt their heart. But the Church, since it has the four books of the Gospel, abounds in evangelists throughout the whole world; the heresies, though they have many, do not have the one;
for many undertook the task, but were forsaken by the grace of God. Most of them, even out of the four books of the Gospel, stuffed into one whatever they thought agreed with their poisonous assertions. Thus the Church, which has one Gospel, teaches one God; but those who assert one God of the Old Testament and another of the New, made out of many gospels not one God but many. 'Since,' it says, 'many have undertaken.' Those, surely, undertook who could not accomplish. Therefore that many began and did not accomplish, holy Luke too attests by a richer testimony when he says that very many have undertaken. For he who undertook to set in order undertook by his own labor and did not accomplish it.
For the gifts and grace of God are without striving, which, when it has poured itself in, is wont to water, so that the writer's talent does not lack but overflows. Matthew did not strive, Mark did not strive, John did not strive, Luke did not strive, but with the divine Spirit ministering an abundance of words and of all things, they accomplished what they had begun without any toil. And therefore he well says: 'Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative of the things which have been fulfilled among us' or 'which overflow among us.' For what overflows fails no one, and of what is fulfilled no one doubts, since the effect builds up faith and the outcome makes it manifest.
And so the Gospel has been fulfilled and overflows to all the faithful throughout the whole world, and waters the minds of all and strengthens the soul. Therefore one founded upon the rock, and who has received the full plenitude of faith and the firm support of constancy, rightly says: 'which have been fulfilled among us,' since they who describe the saving deeds of the Lord, or who direct the mind to His miracles, distinguish the true from the false not by signs and wonders but by the word. For what is so reasonable as that, when you read those deeds which are above man, you should believe them to be of a superior nature, but when you read those things which are moral, you should believe them to be the passions of an assumed body? Thus by the word and by reason, not by signs, is our faith founded.
'Just as they delivered to us,' it says, 'who from the beginning themselves saw and were ministers of the word.' That expression does not fit, that we should believe it to have been rather a ministry of the word than a hearing. But because not the uttered word but the substantial Word is signified — that Word which was made flesh and dwelt among us — let us understand not a common word but that heavenly one, to which the apostles ministered. And yet in Exodus it is read that the people saw the voice of the Lord; and surely a voice is not seen but heard. For what is a voice but a sound, which is not discerned by the eyes but perceived by the ear? But Moses, with most lofty genius, wished to declare that the voice of God is seen;
for it is seen by the gaze of the inner mind, while in the Gospel not a voice but that which is more excellent than a voice — the Word — is seen. Whence also the holy evangelist John says: 'What was from the beginning, what we have heard and what we have seen, we have beheld with our eyes and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life: and the life appeared, and we have seen and bear witness and announce to you concerning the life, which was with the Father and appeared to us.' You see, then, that the Word of God was both seen and heard by the apostles. For they saw the Lord not only according to the body, but also according to the Word; for they saw the Word who saw the glory of the Word with Moses and Elijah.
For these saw Jesus, who saw Him in His glory; the others did not see Him, who could see only the body; for Jesus is seen not by bodily but by spiritual eyes. In short, the Jews did not see Him, though they were looking. Abraham saw Him, for it is written: 'Abraham saw my day and rejoiced.' Therefore Abraham saw Him, who certainly did not see the Lord in the body, but he who saw Him in the spirit saw Him in the body; whereas he who saw Him in the body and did not see Him in the spirit, did not see, even in the body itself, what he was looking at. Isaiah saw Him and, because he saw Him in the spirit, saw Him also in the body. Finally, it says, 'He had no form nor comeliness.' The Jews did not see Him; for their foolish heart was blinded.
He Himself too testifies that He cannot be seen by the Jews, saying: 'Blind guides, straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel.' Pilate did not see Him; those did not see Him who cried 'Crucify, crucify Him'; for if they had seen, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty. He, then, who saw God saw Emmanuel, that is, saw 'God with us'; but he who did not see God with us could not see Him whom the Virgin bore. In short, those who did not believe Him to be the Son of God did not believe Him to be the Son of the Virgin either. What then is it to see God? Do not ask me: ask the Gospel, ask the Lord Himself; nay, hear Him saying: 'Philip, he who has seen me has seen also the Father who sent me. How do you say, Show us the Father?'
'Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?' Surely body is not seen in body, nor spirit seen in spirit, but only that Father is seen in the Son, or that Son is seen in the Father; for unlike are not seen in unlike, but where there is unity of operation and of power, both the Son is seen in the Father and the Father is seen in the Son. 'The works that I do,' He says, 'He also does.' In the works Jesus is seen; in the works of the Son the Father too is discerned. He saw the Law who saw that mystery in Galilee, which none but the Lord of the world could perform — to change the elements. I see Jesus when I read that He anointed the blind man's eyes with clay and restored his sight;
for I recognize Him who fashioned man from clay and breathed into him the spirit of living and the light of seeing. I see Jesus when He forgives sins; for no one can remit sins except God alone. I see Jesus when He raises Lazarus, and those who saw did not see. I see Jesus, I see also the Father, when I lift my eyes to heaven, turn them to the seas, bend them back to the earth; for His invisible things are clearly perceived, being understood through those things which are made. 'Just as they delivered to us who from the beginning saw and were ministers of the word.' There is a twofold virtue in the perfect man, that there be both contemplation and action. Both virtues, therefore, the holy evangelist attributes to the apostles;
for he says they not only saw but were also ministers of the word. The intention of vision is the ministry of action; the end of intention is action, and the beginning of action is intention. And to use the example proper to the apostles: intention is that Peter and Andrew, having heard the Lord's voice saying, 'I will make you fishers of men,' left their boat without any delay and followed the word. But there is not at once action in intention. Nor even there is there yet action, but intention, where Peter says: 'Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.' For there was the intention of passion, but there was not yet the action, although in fastings there was already action, in vigils there was, in the contempt of bodily pleasures there was;
for this is the action of the Christian. For not in all things is there at the same time both intention and action, but while there is the action of one matter, there is still the intention of another. For Peter himself, when he had carried through many things with continual apostolic virtue, yet afterward, when the Lord said to him, 'Follow me,' took up his cross and followed the Word, and underwent the action of his passion. But let there have been in Peter, Andrew, John, and the other apostles an equality of intention and of action: yet sometimes there is more in intention than in action, or more in action than in intention, as we discern in the Gospel that there was a difference between holy Mary and Martha. For the one was hearing the word, the other was hastening about the service. She stood and said:
'Lord, do you not care that she has left me to serve alone? Tell her, then, to help me.' And He said to her: 'Martha, Martha. Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.' Therefore in the one there overflowed the zeal of intention, in the other the ministry of action; yet to each there was supplied a zeal for the virtue of both, since Martha too, had she not heard the word, would not have undertaken the service, whose action is the proof of intention; and Mary brought back so much grace from the perfection of both virtues, that she anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair and filled the whole house with the fragrance of her faith.
There is also sometimes the greatest intention but an empty action, as if someone should direct his mind to medicine and, when he has learned all the precepts of healing, should not carry out the duties; and so it comes about that, because the action is empty, the intention too is empty. There is also in some at times a more abundant action but a slighter intention, as if someone should receive the sacraments of saving baptism and yet be unwilling to direct his mind to learning the precepts of the various virtues: it generally happens that through carelessness of intention he loses the fruit of action. Therefore the fullness of both virtues is to be sought, which the apostles were able to attain, of whom he says:
'who from the beginning saw and were ministers,' so that by that which they saw the intention of divine knowledge may be understood, and by that which they were ministers their action may be declared. 'It seemed good to me,' he says. What he declares to have seemed good to himself may not have seemed good to him alone. For it seemed good not by human will only, but, as it pleased Him 'who speaks in me' — Christ, he says — who works that what is good may seem good to us also; for whom He has compassion, He also calls. And therefore he who follows Christ, when asked why he wished to be a Christian, can answer: 'It seemed good to me.' And when he says this, he does not deny that it seemed good to God; for the will of men is prepared by God. For that God may be honored by a holy person, this is the grace of God.
In short, very many wished to write a gospel, but only four, who merited the divine grace, were received. 'It seemed good to me also,' he says, 'having followed up all things accurately from the beginning, in order.' No one will doubt that this book of the Gospel is more extensive than the others. And therefore he claims for himself not those things which are false, but those which are true. In short, he merited from the holy apostle Paul testimony of his diligence. For thus Paul praises Luke: 'whose praise,' he says, 'is in the Gospel throughout all the churches.' And truly he is praiseworthy who merited to be praised by so great a teacher of the nations. He says, then, that he has followed up not a few things but all, and to him who had followed up all it seemed good to write not all but out of all; for he did not write all, but followed up all.
For 'the things that Jesus did,' it says, 'if they should all be written, I do not think the world itself could contain them.' For you observe that he deliberately even passed over those things which were written by others, so that a varied grace might shine forth in the Gospel and the several books might be eminent each by certain proper mysteries and miracles of deeds. For the soldiers of Christ divided the garments among themselves — which will be more fully explained in its place. Now the Gospel was written to Theophilus, that is, to him whom God loves. If you love God, it was written to you; if it was written to you, receive the gift of the evangelist. Diligently preserve the pledge of your friend in the recesses of your soul; guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us; inspect it frequently, examine it often.
Faith is owed first to the pledge; diligence follows faith, lest the moth or rust consume the pledges entrusted to you; for what has been entrusted to you can be consumed. The Gospel is a good pledge, but see that neither moth nor rust consume it even in your soul. The moth consumes it if you believe wrongly what you have read well. The moth is the heretic; the moth is Photinus; your moth is Arius. He rends the garment who separates the Word from God. Photinus rends the garment when he reads: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was'; for the garment is whole if you read: 'and the Word was God.' He rends the garment who separates Christ from God. He rends the garment who reads:
'This is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God,' unless he also knows Christ. For not to know the Father alone as true God is eternal life, but also to know Christ as true God. 'True from the True, God from God' is everlasting life. It is a moth to know Christ without faith in His divinity or the sacrament of His body. The moth is Arius, the moth is Sabellius. The spirit of the wavering suffers these moths; that spirit suffers these moths which does not believe that the Father and the Son are one in divinity. He rends what is written, 'I and the Father are one,' who divides the one through separate substances. That spirit suffers this moth which does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and it is itself a moth:
for that one is antichrist. But those who are of God hold the faith and therefore cannot suffer the moth which divides the garment. For everything that is divided against itself, like the kingdom of Satan, cannot be perpetual. There is also a rust of the soul, when the keen edge of religious intention is overspread with the filth of worldly desires, or the purity of faith is discolored by the cloud of unbelief. The rust of the mind is the desire for household goods; the rust of the mind is carelessness; the rust of the mind is the craving for dignities, if in these the chief hope of the present life is placed.
And therefore, turned to divine things, let us sharpen our wit and exercise our affection, so that we may be able to keep that sword, which the Lord bids us buy by selling our garment, always ready and bright, as though stored in the sheath of the mind. For spiritual and mighty arms, mighty before God for the destruction of fortifications, ought always to be at hand for the soldiers of Christ, lest, when the Leader of the heavenly host comes, offended by the rust of our weapons, He separate us from the fellowship of His legions. 'There was,' it says, 'in the days of Herod king of Judaea a certain priest named Zechariah, of the course of Abijah, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without blame.'
Divine Scripture teaches us that not only the character of those who are praiseworthy, but also their parents, ought to be praised, so that, as it were, a handed-down inheritance of unstained purity may stand out preeminent in those whom we wish to praise. For what other intention has the holy evangelist in this place than that holy John the Baptist be ennobled by his parents, his miracles, his character, his office, his passion? Thus too the mother of holy Samuel, Hannah, is praised; thus Isaac received from his parents the nobility of piety which he left to his descendants. The priest Zechariah, then, is not only a priest, but even of the course of Abijah, that is, noble among the higher in his seed. 'And his wife,' it says, 'of the daughters of Aaron.'