Sermon 162C

SERMON 162/C "Do not hope to find perfect justice (or sanctity) in human affairs, much less in complex societies. It is Christ alone who gives the perfection that we seek; He, who is the just judge, will distribute to each according to his deeds."

Sermon of Blessed Augustine
on the words of the Apostle to the Galatians
where Paul rebukes Peter,
Where first he teaches what kind of person a bishop ought to be.

A just bishop makes the people of God joyful.

We know, brothers, and with sure love we trust that you rejoice with us when you see righteousness in us. For it is fitting that, when the holy ones of God see righteous priests, they rejoice over their shepherds and, in turn, gladden them with their conduct. And so also we have just sung to the Lord our God, with one voice and one heart: "May Your priests be clothed with righteousness, and Your saints will exult in joy"; seeing them clothed in righteousness, they will indeed rejoice with true joy and entirely genuine affection, without any flattery. Therefore, that you may exult with joy, holy ones of God, it is necessary that we be clothed with righteousness and offer you an example for every good work. But you who wish to rejoice over us, pray for us. For righteousness must be put on, as we have sung. And who gives this garment, if not He who, after the son's error and perdition, brought forth the first robe? For in the very matter that righteousness is commended as a garment, it is implied that we do not have it from ourselves ...

A fragment preserved by Bede.

It is therefore necessary for a bishop to be irreproachable. Who denies this? But since it is necessary for a bishop to be irreproachable, is it fitting for a Christian to be reprehensible? "Bishop" is a Greek name, but in Latin it can be said as "overseer" or "visitor." We are bishops, but with you, we are Christians. We are properly called from visitation, all are commonly from anointing. If the anointing is common, then the struggle is common. For why do we visit, if there is nothing good that we see in you?

Peter rebuked by Paul.

... may be found. If we were to desire this, if we were to dare this with headlong rashness, surely we would be frightened by today's reading. For we all heard when the epistle of the apostle Paul to the Galatians was read: "When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed." Peter was to be blamed, and shall I dare to profess myself without any blame at all? I, a weak sheep, should not fear this whirlpool, when I see the ram drying its fleece? He raised himself firmly from this whirlpool; if I fall in, who will find me? Therefore, I will avoid the swelling wave, I will not throw myself in, I will not plunge, even if I were entirely conscious that nothing could be found in me by men to blame. The eyes of God are different, those eyes are different to which it was truly said: "No one living will be justified in your sight." And yet Peter, as we heard just now when it was read, was blamed even by men. Therefore the Christian mind must be entirely free of this rashness, not daring to profess such a life that even men could not find anything to blame. Let a man blame, if there is something to blame; absolutely let him blame; if I take it badly, let him blame me twice. For Peter acted so that he was blamed once, when he bore his critic with equanimity; he did not provide an example of all-around perfection, like Christ, but he provided an example of complete humility. He accepted the critic with equanimity, not preceding in the apostleship, but following. Let the apostle Paul forgive: what he did is easy; what Peter did is difficult. We live in human affairs, we are surrounded by daily experiences: I have often seen a man criticizing, I don't know if I have ever seen a critic enduring with equanimity. Therefore Paul more purely, but Peter more admirably. However, I do not know if it is more pure to recognize another's fault than to willingly acknowledge one's own.

"Concerning those who deny that Peter was reproved by Paul."

But it troubles some that Peter is said to have been rebuked, and it troubles and they dispute; but they should not be scorned if their presumption does not trouble them, but their love for Peter. They do not want to believe that he was truly rebuked; they think this was feigned, shaded for the eyes of men. "Inside, they say, something else was being done, and something else was shown to the people." O man, you fear the fault of one: do you not want me to fear the deceit of both? Out of love for Peter, you do not believe he was rebuked. You do not believe he was rebuked out of love for Peter; I believe he was rebuked out of love for Paul and Peter. I do not want to believe that the apostles were doing one thing inside and pretending another to the people. We are bishops, we follow in their footsteps as best we can: I do not want it to be permissible for us to deceive you. If one thing is done inside and another is pretended to the people, what sanctity is not to be feared? Neither do we want to deceive you nor be deceived by you. For if you think that we deceive you and we think that you deceive us, where is the charity that believes all things? Charity, he says, believes all things. It is believed so that it may be had, not so that it may be deceived.

The dissimulation of Peter was justly rebuked by Paul.

"But answer: What did Paul reprove in Peter?" What did he reprove but what he himself said, he himself wrote? He himself preserved the letter in memory, he himself propagated it to be read in the Church for posterity. What in the divine books do I believe more securely, if I do not believe what is written in that letter? It is an apostolic letter, a canonical letter, a letter of Paul, who labored more than all of them, not he himself, but the grace of God with him. Therefore, it is the letter of the grace of God. And if we recall who spoke in him, it is the letter of Christ. Or do you want, he says, to take the proof of him who speaks in me, Christ? Hear and fear. He says proof, not fiction. If you think this is little, hear the preacher himself, even one who invokes God as a witness. He began to narrate what he insinuated, as if foreseeing certain future disputers: What I write to you, he says, behold, before God I do not lie. So does he, thus invoking God, lie, while you without the testimony of God: The mouth, he says, that lies, kills not the body, but the soul? I ask you: do not love Peter so as to kill Paul; I ask you: let not Paul be killed in soul for Peter, they were together killed in the flesh for Christ. And again you ask and say to me: "What did Paul reprove in Peter?" Again I answer you: Paul reproved in Peter what he said and wrote. With the testimony of God, Paul said he reproved Peter: what do you seek from me? The letter is read by all: recall with me. When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew, fearing those who were of the circumcision, and the other Jews also joined in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. Behold, you have heard what Paul reproved in Peter. Let us explain, and I will do this with the Lord's help, so that you understand. For I will do this not for you, but for those who hear both me and you.

The sacraments of the Jews are useless, yet not to be abominated.

The sacraments of the Jews: namely, circumcision, the Sabbath rest, the avoidance of certain foods and others of this kind, were divinely given, written in the law, and commanded by God as a figure of future times. These were not to be regarded as the abominable sacrileges of the Gentiles; these were not as the sacrifices of demons; this was not as if it were the worship of idols. God had commanded this through Moses to His people, the one God, the true God, He who said: I am who I am. But after the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, for He was also circumcised. [He was] born of a virgin woman, for by the custom of Hebrew speech, unless a virgin were called a woman, Eve would not have formed from a woman first. Therefore, after in the fullness of time God sent His Son, born of a woman through whom He made the woman, born under the law through whom He gave the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, the shadows began to be unnecessary with the coming of the light; nevertheless, because they were not unnecessary, they were not yet to be regarded, like the sacrileges of the Gentiles, as sacred condemnable. It was not right to tell a Jew: "Do not circumcise, because you have believed in Christ", as it was right to tell a pagan who became Christian: "Do not sacrifice to idols, because you have believed in Christ". For if you place two things: the sacrifice of the pagans and the sacrament of the Jews, one of these was never necessary, always pernicious; but the other was once necessary, later unnecessary, but for those who received the Gospel of the Jews, not yet pernicious. Therefore, when the sacraments of the Jews, after the advent of Christ, were no longer necessary, but were once necessary by those through whom [Christ] was foretold by whom they were not necessary, they were to be ended with honor, not to be rejected with horror. Therefore, as things stood, Paul the Apostle, who had been especially sent to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, had to take special care in fulfilling his vow, lest the salvation of the Gentiles be hindered by the sacraments of the Jews. Therefore, with Christ speaking in him, with God breathing and revealing in him, he decreed at that time, in the newness of the Gospel, not to prohibit any of the Jews from these sacraments at that time, nor to compel any Gentiles to these sacraments. So, like those paternal funerals soon to be abolished, now [considering them] as bodies without the soul of prophecy with due respect to be led to the grave, and yet, because they were unused and dead, he judged that they were not to be placed upon the shoulders of the Gentiles.

Why Peter was justly rebuked by Paul.

So then, in those sacraments at that time, the fault from which Peter was reproved, listen carefully, and assist our strength for such a great burden of a question, which then agitated the apostles themselves, perhaps less capable of breaking and solving it, but assist us: I implore you. Indeed, you have already heard many things, but listen as if anew to what more you want to hear, and I, standing, speak to you and am weak. Certainly, when the question seems to be newly proposed to you, our narration seems to pertain to this. For now, one who asked me just before, before I could explain through narration what I wanted, what Paul reproved Peter for, being made more cautious from my narration, says this: "If at that time and for those who came from Judaism abstaining from such sacraments was not imposed, and observing such sacraments was not imposed on the Gentiles, Peter who conducted such things from Judaisms, how did Paul rightly reprove him?" I say, brothers, the words themselves indicate it. Paul did not reprove Peter for observing Jewish sacraments but for imposing them on the Gentiles. For a Jew who believed in Christ at that time, if he wanted to observe those things, he was not prohibited; if he did not want to, he was not compelled. However, for any of the Gentiles who had believed, when he wanted to be circumcised, hearing that it was not necessary for salvation? Perhaps even the Jews themselves would scarcely be circumcised, unless the children underwent this. But what was it to compel the Gentiles to observe those sacraments, where we said Peter was reproved by Paul, if anyone were to ask, what was that compelling itself? Were they held involuntarily, bound and circumcised? Far from it! Therefore, what was it to compel, what do we think, except to say to them: "You cannot be saved unless you observe those lawful precepts like the Jews?" For with this condition proposed because they were seeking salvation and it was said to them that otherwise they could not attain to salvation, they were compelled involuntarily to observe those sacraments, not because they loved these things, but because they desired salvation.

The apostles decree that the ancient law must be observed.

Therefore, that moderation, namely that neither Jews were prohibited nor Gentiles compelled, was maintained by the apostles and decreed in the council. For when this question was agitating many and disturbing many, a meeting was held at Jerusalem, and with all the apostles and elders of the Church, that is, the presbyters and any preachers of the Gospel and the overseers of the Churches gathered, it was decided by common council, obviously inspired by the Lord, that Jews should not be prohibited from those practices, nor should Gentiles be compelled to them. Many recall that this is written in the Acts of the Apostles; let those who do not recall read it. Therefore, this manner was very temperate, very religious, very cautious. If those practices were ordered to be immediately rejected just like the sacrifices to idols, it would not be believed that the true God was the one who had commanded them. Therefore, Paul rebuked Peter, not because he observed these practices himself, but because he compelled the Gentiles to do so. How did he compel them? By consenting, though pretending, to those who said that Gentiles could not be saved otherwise unless they observed Jewish sacraments. This is also written in the Acts of the Apostles, narrated in the same book: "Then certain persons came to Antioch from James," that is, from Jerusalem, Jews who had already believed in Christ, "and they said to the brothers from the Gentiles who were coming, 'You cannot be saved otherwise unless you keep the lawful precepts.'" This is what it means to compel: to say that they cannot be saved otherwise.

Paul sometimes observed the sacraments of the law.

Against this, the Apostle Paul militated with the most ardent zeal. He removed this stone of horrendous oppression so that wretched nations might once rise again, as from the tomb of Lazarus. For if he reproached this observance and not compulsion, he would even reproach himself. For he also undertook these and celebrated certain Jewish sacraments in Jerusalem with the Jews in the temple; but he observed these things as one coming from the Jews, not compelling the nations to them. Paul, coming from the Jews, the evangelist of the nations, the counselor and executor of the holy apostles, by his example rather showed what pleased the Holy Spirit in such a question, what He decreed and established. For James said to him, already established in Jerusalem: "Many," he says, "think you oppose the legitimate ancestral practices and are an enemy and foe of the law. What then is it? Hear me. There are some here who have come to take purification: purify with them so that all may know" - it was not said "so that all may think": for devotion was commanded, not simulation suggested - "so that all," he says, "may know you are an emulator of the law and ancestral observances." Paul did this as a Jew from the Jews, not however that he might be justified by those very sacraments, but that he might not be thought to condemn them.

Why did Paul wish to circumcise Timothy, but not Titus?

Therefore, he did this. For he also circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother, because of the scandal of the Jews, willing, not coerced, so that through him he might show that he did not condemn those [practices] but did not impose them on the Gentiles as necessary for salvation. But after he circumcised Timothy with this indifference that I have often recommended and which I think you now appropriately understand, certain Jews, who did not lay down the old skin and therefore wanted to circumcise the Gentiles, said that without those sacraments salvation could not be for them. Hence also a heresy arose: for even today there are some who believe in Christ and circumcise their sons, believing that without those sacraments they cannot have salvation. When, therefore, through this indifference of devotion, not of necessity, he had circumcised Timothy, as I said, some of them, placing salvation in those [practices], which displeased Paul, for which he rebuked Peter, began to boast to deceive others, that Paul also holds this. They said: "What we say, he also believes, that without these sacraments there can be no salvation. For if he does not believe this, why did he circumcise Timothy?" When Paul heard this, who had done this out of freedom, not necessity, because of the scandal of the Jews, not for the salvation of Timothy, he saw that they had taken occasion for different preaching and for raising a bad suspicion against Paul, and he did not want to circumcise Titus. It appears, however, why he wanted the one, why he did not want the other. He wanted the one because of the scandal of the Jews, he did not want the other because of the occasions of those who wrongly believed.

The truth was vigorously defended by Paul.

And see how he clearly and evidently commends this in his letter. "But neither Titus," he says, "though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised like Timothy." And as if it were said to him: "Why was Titus not compelled to be circumcised, when Timothy, who was similarly a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised?" Why? Do you want to hear? Because of the false brothers secretly brought in who had slipped in to spy on our freedom. In the circumcision of Timothy, therefore, there was no necessity, but freedom; in Peter, however, necessity was reproved, not freedom. "Because of the false brothers," he says, "who had slipped in to spy on our freedom, so that they might bring us into slavery." "They," he says, "wanted to bring us into slavery by making freedom a necessity, to whom we did not yield submission even for a moment." Why? "So that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you." What is the truth of the Gospel? That the Jew should not be forbidden at that time, and the Gentile should not be compelled; the sacraments of the Jews should not be condemned by the Jews nor imposed on the Gentiles. What is the truth of the Gospel? That one can reach salvation through Christ without those sacraments. This they denied, to which Peter hypocritically consented. Hence it is added: "Other Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy." But when I saw, he said, that they were not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel, as he said there: "So that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you." You hear the truth commended everywhere, and you suspect deception everywhere, even among the apostles. He saw therefore that they were not acting in line with the truth. He saw moreover that the Gentiles thought those sacraments were necessary for their salvation. This is not the truth of the Gospel. These are no longer necessary for salvation: perhaps they were once necessary when they foreshadowed Christ to come. The petrine knife was necessary once, before the rock itself came.

Great in Paul is confidence, great in Peter is patience.

When I saw, he said, that they were not walking rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all: I said to Peter: Paul to Peter, the lesser to the greater, the follower to the predecessor; and I spoke both to Peter and in front of them all: great confidence, but great his patience. Since you have made them attentive, let us hear what you, Paul, said to Peter, and where. Let us understand what you did, what you arranged, since you never wanted to be deceitful. I said, he said, to Peter in front of them all: "If you, being a Jew"—what does "being a Jew" mean? To whom it was allowed to observe those things indifferently—"live like a Gentile and not like a Jew"—since before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles—"if you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew," he ought to have continued and said: "How do you now keep Jewish practices?" He did not say this, but where he was reprehensible, from where these matters were stirred, from where he was zealous for God, attempting to remove the obstacle from the Gospel, he said this confidently, he said this in front of them all: "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, how do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?" "You compel," he said, "to Judaize." I have already said how, by agreeing with those who said that the Gentiles could not otherwise be saved, "you compel the Gentiles to Judaize." Paul did not do this when he undertook purifications with certain people; he did not compel the Gentiles to Judaize when he circumcised Timothy according to that indifference, because both circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; he did not compel the Gentiles to Judaize. And lest he be believed to compel them, he did not circumcise Titus; Paul did not compel the Gentiles to Judaize. He himself did not do this, and therefore he rightly reprimanded Peter because he himself did not do it.

If Paul wrote something false in the letter, what truth will be retained?

But I will propose that he did this, even though it is not found or proven; I do not say this according to myself, but according to some, so that I may say for the moment, let us think that Paul did what Peter did, and that Paul criticized Peter for the same thing he himself had done: they would have been more easily corrected than allowing the detestable moth, that is the lie or suspicion of a lie, as a malignant worm to gnaw at every letter of Scripture, feared lest it persuade us that Paul lied in his canonical epistle, which he commended to the Church propagated by posterity. I ask you: fear this evil; let us all fear, lest we all later weep in vain. This is not a light evil: I warn you, fearing to frighten. Forgive my concern: we speak to you more rarely than you wish. They whisper to those who find your ears ready whenever they want - we are not permitted to speak often and from this place -, I do not say they malign in their minds, I do not do them injury, but beware of the erring, and deal with them in such a way that they themselves might rather be corrected, not that you be corrupted by them. For when they say to you: "Peter did this in pretense, Paul criticized him in pretense; Paul did not write the truth in his epistle that Peter was to be blamed; Paul did not write the truth in his epistle that he saw them not walking uprightly toward the truth of the Gospel; Paul did not write the truth in his epistle that Peter compelled the Gentiles to live as Jews, but everything was done in pretense," what truth will we hold, what page will we not suspect of lying?

In divine Scripture, feigned speech is not admitted.

Behold, humans, we are oppressed by the most evident authority, and scarcely do we yield to the thundering and flashing truth! Where shall we go? What shall we do when perhaps I say to someone: "It is good to marry, but it is better not to marry, as the Apostle Paul wrote," if the condemner of marriage says to me: "Paul indeed condemned marriage, but he wrote this dissimulatingly, because the truth itself could not be endured by the weak; since continence is imposed laboriously, therefore he said: It is good to marry, for he knew it was bad to marry"? How do you prove that Paul was lying when he said: He who gives in marriage does well? "How do I prove it?" he says: "how he lied when he said: When I saw that they were not walking correctly toward the truth of the Gospel - for Peter was not walking correctly toward the truth of the Gospel -; how I said to Peter in the presence of all: If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? - for Peter was not truly compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews. Just as Paul dissembled these things, so also, when he saw that the excellence of virginity could not be endured by carnal men, he said: He who gives in marriage does well. He was doing one thing, pretending another." If these things are so, where shall we go? What oracles shall we inquire? For the divine words in the canonical scriptures should be commanded to us as oracles indeed are. Is deceit to be feared there, where truth is found, where truth is presumed? I beseech you: foresee this little worm, to beware of it; do not admit it to the chamber of your heart. If you admit it, unless you quickly shake off the garments, you will find nothing whole there.

On the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.

I said what I thought with great concern needed to be said; I retained your love for a long time, your concern held me for a long time. Everything written in the holy canonical books, we who debate and write books, write far differently, we write by making progress, we learn daily, we dictate by investigating, we speak by knocking. Certainly, I do not rest, as much as I can, wherever I can be useful to the brothers, both by speaking and by writing. I advise your love, from me, unto me, not to want to regard any book or debate of anyone as canonical Scripture. In the holy Scriptures, we learn to judge; in our writings, we do not disdain to be judged. Indeed, it is to be chosen and this rather ought to be desired from two options, that either by writing or by speaking we may speak the truth, that we may never err. But since fulfilling this is difficult, therefore the canon has another foundation, like the heaven where the luminaries of the Scriptures are placed, as between the waters and the waters, between the peoples of the angels and the peoples of men: those above, these below. Let us hold the Scripture as Scripture, as God speaking; let us not seek a wandering man there. For the canon was not vainly instituted in the Church: this is the office of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if anyone reads my book, let him judge me: if I have said something reasonable, let him follow not me, but the reason itself; if I have proven this by the most evident and divine testimony, let him follow not me, but the divine Scripture. If, however, one wants to criticize something I have correctly said, he does not do rightly, but I am more irritated by such a praiser of mine who takes my book as if it were canonical, than by him who criticizes things in my book that should not be criticized. I ask you: although I see you are attentive and almost very recent, as if you have just begun to hear, yet I do not want to say anything more, so that you may strongly hold on to what I said last. Turned to the Lord, etc.