In this book Augustin undertakes an orderly examination of the Gospel according to Matthew, on to the narrative of the Supper, and institutes a comparison between it and the other gospels by Mark, Luke, and John, with the view of demonstrating a complete harmony between the four evangelists throughout all these sections.
The Prologue.
1. Whereas, in a discourse of no small length and of imperative importance, which we have finished within the compass of one book, we have refuted the folly of those who think that the disciples who have given us these Gospel histories deserve only to be disparagingly handled, for the express reason that no writings are produced by us with the claim of being compositions which have proceeded immediately from the hand of that Christ whom they refuse indeed to worship as God, but whom, nevertheless, they do not hesitate to pronounce worthy to be honoured as a man far surpassing all other men in wisdom; and as, further, we have confuted those who strive to make Him out to have written in a strain suiting their perverted inclinations, but not in terms calculated, by their perusal and acceptance, to set men right, or to turn them from their perverse ways, let us now look into the accounts which the four evangelists have given us of Christ, with the view of seeing how self-consistent they are, and how truly in harmony with each other. And let us do so in the hope that no offence, even of the smallest order may be felt in this line of things in the Christian faith by those who exhibit more curiosity than capacity, in so far as they think that a study of the evangelical books, conducted not in the way of a merely cursory perusal, but in the form of a more than ordinarily careful investigation, has disclosed to them certain matters of an inapposite and contradictory nature, and in so far as their notion is, that these things are to be held up as objections in the spirit of contention, rather than pondered in the spirit of consideration.
Chapter I.-A Statement of the Reason Why the Enumeration of the Ancestors of Christ is Carried Down to Joseph, While Christ Was Not Born of that Man's Seed, But of the Virgin Mary.
2. The evangelist Matthew has commenced his narrative in these terms: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."hyperlink By this exordium he shows with sufficient clearness that his undertaking is to give an account of the generation of Christ according to the flesh. For, according to this, Christ is the Son of man, - a title which He also gives very frequently to Himself,hyperlink thereby commending to our notice what in His compassion He has condescended to be on our behalf. For that heavenly and eternal generation, in virtue of which He is the only-begotten Son of God, before every creature, because all things were made by Him, is so ineffable, that it is of it that the word of the prophet must be understood when he says, "Who shall declare His generation?"hyperlink Matthew therefore traces out the human generation of Christ, mentioning His ancestors from Abraham downwards, and carrying them on to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not held allowable to consider him dissociated from the married estate which was entered into with Mary, on the ground that she gave birth to Christ, not as the wedded wife of Joseph, but as a virgin. For by this example an illustrious recommendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle, that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the relation can still remain, and can still be called one of wedlock, inasmuch as, although there is no connection between the sexes of the body, there is the keeping of the affections of the mind; particularly so for this reason, that in their case we see how the birth of a son was a possibility apart from anything of that carnal intercourse which is to be practised with the purpose of the procreation of children only. Moreover, the mere fact that he had not begotten Him by act of his own, was no sufficient reason why Joseph should not be called the father of Christ; for indeed he could be in all propriety the father of one whom he had not begotten by his own wife, but had adopted from some other person.
3. Christ, it is true, was also supposed to be the son of Joseph in another way, as if He had been born simply of that man's seed. But this supposition was entertained by persons whose notice the virginity of Mary escaped. For Luke says: "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph."hyperlink This Luke, however, instead of naming Mary His only parent, had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as His parents, when he says: "And the boy grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him: and His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover."hyperlink But lest any one may fancy that by the "parents" here are rather to be understood the blood relations of Mary along with the mother herself, what shall be said to that preceding word of the same Luke, namely, "And His fatherhyperlink and mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him"?hyperlink Since, then, he also makes the statement that Christ was born, not in consequence of Joseph's connection with the mother, but simply of Mary the virgin, how can he call him His father, unless it be that we are to understand him to have been truly the husband of Mary, without the intercourse of the flesh indeed, but in virtue of the real union of marriage; and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party? And this makes it clear that the clause,"as was supposed,"hyperlink is inserted with a view to those who are of opinion that He was begotten by Joseph in the same way as other men are begotten.
Chapter II.-An Explanation of the Sense in Which Christ is the Son of David, Although He Was Not Begotten in the Way of Ordinary Generation by Joseph the Son of David.
4. Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent, according to the laws of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary, we should have warrant enough to hold Christ to be the son of David, on the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also Joseph is called His father. But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that "Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh,"hyperlink how much more ought we to accept without any hesitation the position that Mary herself also was descended in some way, according to the laws of blood, from the lineage of David? Moreover, since this woman's connection with the priestly family also is a matter not left in absolute obscurity, inasmuch as Luke inserts the statement that Elisabeth, whom he records to be of the daughters of Aaron,hyperlink was her cousin,hyperlink we ought most firmly to hold by the fact that the flesh of Christ sprang from both lines; to wit, from the line of the kings, and from that of the priests, in the case of which persons there was also instituted a certain mystical unction which was symbolically expressive among this people of the Hebrews. In other words, there was a chrism; which term makes the import of the name of Christ patent, and presents it as something indicated so long time ago by an intimation so very intelligible.
Chapter III.-A Statement of the Reason Why Matthew Enumerates One Succession of Ancestors for Christ, and Luke Another.
5. Furthermore, as to those critics who find a difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, beginning With David and travelling downwards to Joseph,hyperlink while Luke specifies a different succession, tracing it from Joseph upwards as far as to David,hyperlink they might easily perceive that Joseph may have had two fathers,-namely, one by whom he was begotten, and a second by whom he may have been adopted.hyperlink For it was an ancient custom also among that people to adopt children with the view of making sons for themselves of those whom they had not begotten. For, leaving out of sight the fact that Pharaoh's daughterhyperlink adopted Moses (as she was a foreigner), Jacob himself adopted his own grandsons, the sons of Joseph, in these very intelligible terms: "Now, therefore, thy two sons which were born unto thee before I came unto thee, are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon: and thy issue which thou begettest after them shall be thine."hyperlink Whence also it came to pass that there were twelve tribes of Israel, although the tribe of Levi was omitted, which did service in the temple; for along with that one the whole number was thirteen, the sons of Jacob themselves being twelve. Thus, too, we can understand how Luke, in the genealogy contained in his Gospel, has named a father for Joseph, not in the person of the father by whom he was begotten, but in that of the father by whom he was adopted, tracing the list of the progenitors upwards until David is reached. For, seeing that there is a necessity, as both evangelists give a true narrative,-to wit, both Matthew and Luke,-that one of them should hold by the line of the father who begat Joseph, and the other by the line of the father who adopted him, whom should we suppose more likely to have preserved the lineage of the adopting father, than that evangelist who has declined to speak of Joseph as begotten by the person whose son he has nevertheless reported him to be? For it is more appropriate that one should have been called the son of the man by whom he was adopted, than that he should be said to have been begotten by the man of whose flesh he was not descended. Now when Matthew, accordingly, used the phrases, "Abraham begat Isaac," "Isaac begat Jacob," and so on, keeping steadily by the term "begat," until he said at the close, "and Jacob begat Joseph," he gave us to know with sufficient clearness, that he had traced out the orderhyperlink of ancestors on to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten.
6. But even although Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by Heli, that expression ought not to disturb us to such an extent as to lead us to believe anything else than that by the one evangelist the father begetting was mentioned, and by the other the father adopting. For there is nothing absurd in saying that a person has begotten, not after the flesh, it may be, but in love, one whom he has adopted as a son. Those of us, to wit, to whom God has given power to become His sons, He did not beget of His own nature and substance, as was the case with His only Son; but He did indeed adopt us in His love. And this phrase the apostle is seen repeatedly to employ just in order to distinguish from us the only-begotten Son who is before every creature, by whom all things were made, who alone is begotten of the substance of the Father; who, in accordance with the equality of divinity, is absolutely what the Father is, and who is declared to have been sent with the view of assuming to Himself the flesh proper to that race to which we too belong according to our nature, in order that by His participation in our mortality, through His love for us, He might make us partakers of His own divinity in the way of adoption. For the apostle speaks thus: "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receivehyperlink the adoption of sons."hyperlink And vet we are also said to be born of God,-that is to say, in so far as we, who already were men, have received power to be made the sons of God,-to be made such, moreover, by grace, and not by nature. For if we were sons by nature, we never could have been aught else. But when John said, "To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name," he proceeded at once to add these words, "which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."hyperlink Thus, of the same persons he said, first, that having received power they became the sons of God, which is what is meant by that adoption which Paul mentions; and secondly, that they were born of God. And in order the more plainly to show by what grace this is effected, he continued thus: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,"hyperlink -as if he meant to say, What wonder is it that those should have been made sons of God, although they were flesh, on whose behalf the only Son was made flesh, although He was the Word? Howbeit there is this vast difference between the two cases, that when we are made the sons of God we are changed for the better; but when the Son of God was made the son of man, He was not indeed changed into the worse, but He did certainly assume to Himself what was below Him. James also speaks to this effect: "Of His own will begat He us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruitshyperlink of His creatures."hyperlink And to preclude our supposing, as it might appear from the use of this term "begat," that we are made what He is Himself, he here points out very plainly, that what is conceded to us in virtue of this adoption, is a kind of headshiphyperlink among the creatures.
7. It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really adopted. Even in that way he did in fact beget him, not indeed to be a man, but certainly to be a son; just as God has begotten us to be His sons, whom He had previously made to the effect of being men. But He begat only one to be not simply the Son, which the Father is not, but also God, which the Father in like manner is. At the same time, it is evident that if Luke had employed that phraseology, it would be altogether a matter of dubiety as to which of the two writers mentioned the father adopting, and which the father begetting of his own flesh; just as, on the other hand, although neither of them had used the word "begat," and although the former evangelist had called him the son of the one person, and the latter the son of the other, it would nevertheless be doubtful which of them named the father by whom he was begotten, and which the father by whom he was adopted. As the case stands now, however, -the one evangelist saying that "Jacob begat Joseph," and the other speaking of "Joseph who was the son of Heli,"-by the very distinction which they have made between the expressions, they have elegantly indicated the different objects which they have taken in hand. But surely it might easily suggest itself, as I have said, to a man of piety decided enough to make him consider it right to seek some worthier explanation than that of simply crediting the evangelist with stating what is false; it might, I repeat, readily suggest itself to such aperson to examine what reasons there might befor one man being (supposed) capable of havingtwo fathers This, indeed, might have suggested itself even to those detractors, were it not that they preferred contention to consideration.
Footnotes
1 Matt. i. 1.
2 Matt. viii. 20, ix. 6.
3 Isa. liii. 8.
4 Luke iii. 23. [Revised Version, "And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about," etc. The Latin, erat incipiens, conveys the same sense.-R.]
5 Luke ii. 40, 41.
6 Et erat pater ejus, etc., instead of Joseph, etc. [The correct text in Luke ii. 33 is undoubtedly that given by Augustin. Compare critical editions of the Greek text. So Revised Version, "And His father and His mother," etc.-R.]
7 Luke ii. 33.
8 [Compare Revised Version, where the parenthesis is correctly given.-R.]
9 Rom. i. 3.
10 Luke i. 5.
11 Luke i. 36.
12 Matt. i. 1-16.
13 Luke iii. 23-38.
14 In the Retractations (ii. 16), Augustin alludes to this passage with the view of correcting his statement regarding the adoption. He tells us that, in speaking of the two several fathers whom Joseph may have had, he should not have said that there "was one by whom Joseph was begotten, and another by whom he may have been adopted," but should rather have put it thus: "one by whom he was begotten, and another unto whom he was adopted " (alteri instead of ab altero adoptatus). And the reason indicated for the correction is the probability that the father who begat Joseph was the mother's second husband, who, according to the Levirate law, had married her on the death of his brother without issue. [That Luke gives the lineage of Mary, who was the daughter of Heli, has been held by many scholars. Weiss, in his edition of Meyer's Commentary, claims that this is the only grammatical view: see Robinson's Greek Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 207, 208. Augustin passes over this solution apparently because he was more concerned to press the priestly lineage of Mary.-R.]
15 Ex. ii. 10.
16 Gen. xlviii. 5, 6.
17 Reading ordinem; others have originem, descent.
18 Reciperemus. Most of the older Mss. give recipiamus, may receive.
