Chapter XIX — Certain Gospel texts are adduced, which are customarily brought forward in favor of mental restrictions, and are explained

I. Not only from the Old Testament, but also from the Gospel, some texts are objected in favor of mental restrictions. I shall report the three more celebrated. The first is held in John 7:8: "Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished. When he had said these things, he himself stayed in Galilee. But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." Another text is objected, from Matthew 24 and Mark 13:32: "But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the Angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." Another, finally, from Luke 24:28: "And he made as though he would go farther."

II. Before I give a response to the individual texts, I note, with St. Augustine, that Christ the Lord spoke very much figuratively in the Gospel, and under the coverings of parables. What seems to the inexperienced to be lies are mysteries, and figurative locutions. But let us hear Augustine, Book On Lying, ch. 21: "It is evident, then, all being discussed, that those testimonies of the Scriptures counsel nothing else, than that one must never lie at all — since neither are any examples of lies worthy of imitation found in the morals and deeds of the Saints, as far as concerns those Scriptures which refer to no figured signification, as are the deeds recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. AND ALL THINGS IN THE GOSPEL WHICH TO THE INEXPERIENCED SEEM TO BE LIES ARE FIGURED SIGNIFICATIONS."

III. Do not all confess that Scripture is subject to no error, some texts being clearer, others more obscure, some spiritual, others literal? Hence it is that God, so as to remove confusion, established his Church as the supreme judge, to decree and define the legitimate and genuine sense from the false one. But, since each professor of a false religion arrogates to himself the right of interpreting Scripture, among whom there is no order, no unity, no Church, but confusion, and the greatest disturbance — if, in our own discourse, it were licit to imitate the sacred Writers in the use of tropes, figures, and allegories, human commerce would be broken off, and everything would become confused and disturbed; and the human commonwealth would have to choose a supreme judge, or interpreter, of our locutions, just as God designated the Church for the interpretation of sacred Scripture. But he prescribed for us, in these words: "Let your speech be: yea, yea; no, no." These things premised, I respond to the individual texts.

IV. The first text objected presents no difficulty at all, if the whole context is considered. Nor is it necessary that we have recourse to the Greek text, in which, instead of "I go not up," it reads "I go not up yet," as Jansenius of Ghent observes in his Harmony, ch. 78, and Erasmus himself confesses. But we do not need this; because the sense of that narration is clear, and obvious. For Christ knew that the time of his passion had not yet come, and foresaw that his brethren, or kinsmen, would divulge his journey into Judea beforehand, and that consequently the Jews would seek his death, if it lay open to them by previous notice. All this is clear from the text. His brethren, then, said to him: "Pass from hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see thy works." What did Christ answer first? "My time is not yet come" (v. 7). He then adds (v. 8): "Go you up to this festival day: but I go not up (or, according to a text which coheres better, "not yet") to this festival day." Christ said, then, "I go not up," so as to conceal it; he added "this," lest they, having foreknowledge that he would come, might announce it, and prepare treacherous ambushes for him beforehand. This, then, was so that he might not be treacherously waylaid; he did not lie. He introduced something; he deferred something; he said nothing false.

V. This interpretation will emerge still clearer, if we consider the words by which Christ narrates his own journey to Jerusalem, and the reason which he adduces. He says: "Not to that festival day." He said this, so that he might not lie. This whole interpretation is Augustine's own, Sermon 143 in the new edition, n. 7, where it is gathered how, from Christ's own words, it stands that he did not deny absolutely, that he was going to proceed to Jerusalem; but only said that he did not wish to go up together with his brethren, and in a public, attended company: for he twice repeats that his own time had not yet come, or had not yet been fulfilled; and, with reference to this response, other words are understood: "I go not up" — because "my hour is not yet come." Does not anyone prudent gather from this response: therefore he will go up, when he himself shall judge that his time has come? All this is manifest, not by force of any internal restriction, but by force of the words. And this is confirmed, if we note that the Feast of Tabernacles, of which the discourse is now, consisted of several days, of which the third was more solemn, as it were — his brethren, then, do not betray this in their sense, so that Christ retained in his mind that he would ascend, not on the first, or second, day, but on the fourth, as it were, and afterward, not openly, but secretly; which words show that he had, indeed, retained in his mind, and therefore he said, "It is not yet come," etc. Christ, then, denied, as to the first, or second, day, to which his brethren were going... , since the true response, all being weighed, is that his brethren were going. This most false interpretation could at most be objected, unless Christ had ascended into the temple that same day; or unless he had declared, by external words, that he really would not go up to that feast to which his brethren were going. Indeed, Augustine says, he did not rashly say: "Go you up to this; I go not up to this," but he added "this," lest he lie — indicating that he would have lied, if he had retained that adverb manifestly in his mind, adding nothing externally; and he therefore added "this," lest he lie. All this Augustine again evidently confirms, tract. 28 on John: "'Not to this' — that is, to which you wish, that is, the first, or second day. He went up afterward, however, as the Gospel says, on the middle day of the feast — since already, by the time of that day of the feast, so many days of the feast as remained had passed. For the feast itself, as far as is to be understood, they used to celebrate for several days." This is the sole, and genuine, interpretation, which naturally, and from the literal sense, flows. Since Christ answered according to the mind of those asking, who demanded that he go up with them openly. "Pass from hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see thy works which thou doest." No one, indeed, does anything in secret, and himself seeks to be renowned. If thou do these things, manifest thyself to the world. Christ, then, responded that he was not going up, as they wished, at the same time as they. In the sense, then, in which they had said, "Come with us," and he had responded...

VI. To the second text, which is more difficult, the Fathers' response is manifold; none, however, favors mental restrictions. First, St. Ambrose (Bk. V, On Faith, ch. 7), with several others, doubted whether that particle "neither the Son" belongs to the text, or was slyly added by the Arians. For the Gospel text of Matthew has only this: "But of that day and hour no man knoweth, neither the Angels of heaven, but the Father only." Jerome, however, writes, on this passage of Matthew, that in some Latin codices of his own time, the particle "neither the Son" was found added to this same Matthew, which, however, was not had in the Greek exemplars, and especially those of Adamantius and Pierius; but, says Jerome, since it is read in some, it seems it must be discussed why he is said not to know. After the resurrection, questioned by the Apostles: "It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power." When he says, "It is not for you to know," he shows that he himself knows; but that it is not expedient for the Apostles to know. About the day, he answers more manifestly: nor is a further explanation needed — that this same reasoning compels the Gospel to be understood the same. They will also say that the Father alone knows; the Son too is comprehended in the Father. For every Father is the name of a Son.

VII. Fr. Domenico Sotus, and, after the Council of Trent, no one among Catholics dares, on this matter, to raise a question of heresy, doubting that this voice exists in Mark, on this account, that certain persons hesitate that it is not found in Irenaeus, in his book on this passage, saying: "Nonetheless it is not right, since no one of the Catholics moves this question." Sotus, in the place cited, compares Christ to a Confessor — for just as a Confessor knows many things as God's minister, which he is ignorant of as man in human commerce, so too Christ, as legate of the eternal Father, had many things under seal which, as he exercised the office of master of the Apostles, he said he did not know.

VIII. St. Augustine, in many places, explains the cited text. On Psalm 6, where it will be. "What, then, is it that the Son does not know this? Which is indeed said for this reason, because through the Son men do not learn this — not that he himself does not know it in himself, but according to that locution: 'The Lord thy God trieth thee, that he may know'" (Deuteronomy 13) — that is, that he may make you know; and: "Arise, O Lord" — that is, make us arise. So, then, it is said that the Son does not know this day, not that he is ignorant, but that he will make those ignorant for whom it is not expedient to know this — that is, he will not show it to them. Similarly Augustine writes (Bk. I, On the Trinity, ch. 12): "For this he does not know, which he makes not known" — that is, which he did not so know as to indicate to the disciples at that time — just as it was said to Abraham: "Now I know that thou fearest God" (Genesis 22) — that is, "Now I have made thee know" — since he too became known to himself in that trial. For that too, which he was going to tell the disciples at an opportune time, of which future thing, speaking as though of the past, he said: "I will not now call you servants, but friends. For the servant knoweth not the will of his lord. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you" (John 15). What he had not yet done, but because it was certainly to be done, he spoke as though he had already done it — not that he could not bear to say it, but "you cannot bear it now."

IX. If all those things which are related to have been said by Christ in the Gospel are explained literally, they will appear, to the inexperienced, contradictory, and lies; but to the experienced, mysteries, and prophetic locutions. Christ, says Augustine, not rarely uses the past for the future, and the reverse. Will it, then, be licit for us too to use such locutions, if we wish? Often, too, God uses the word "I know" for approval, and "I know not" for disapproval, as Augustine teaches, Bk. 83 On Various Questions, q. 60: "Thus also, when he makes one know, as it is written: 'The Lord thy God trieth thee, that he may know' — this is said, not that God may know, but that they themselves may know, whom he tries by temptations, that is, that they may know how much they have profited in the love of the Lord. And so, when he is said not to know, or to know, it is used for that which is called approval, so said because it does what makes them not know it, that is, it does not disclose to them what it would be useless for them to know — as it is said, 'I know you not,' because he does not accept them into his own discipline; and it is said that he alone knows the Father, only the Father knows the Son, because it is thus said, not that he knows the Father alone, that he does not know the Son, but because he makes men know that this is well received, that only the Father is said to know."

X. Other Fathers, such as Cyril (Bk. IX, Thesaurus, ch. 4), Origen (Homily 30 on Matthew), Gregory Nazianzen (Bk. II, On Faith, to Regina), Athanasius (Sermon 4 against the Arians; Ep. 36, n. 40), interpret the cited passage of Christ according to his humanity — not that Christ, as man, was ignorant of that day; but that he did not know that day as it pertains to humanity, although he knew it by infused knowledge. To this interpretation St. Basil also accedes (Epistle 8 to Amphilochius); Damascene (Bk. III, On the Faith, ch. 21). Wherefore, when some Fathers say that the Word did not know that day, they are to be understood as knowing it as man, but as God, blessed; although Christ, even as man, had that day manifest by infused knowledge, by reason and merit of his own human nature. The heretical Agnoetae, whom Gregory reports (Bk. VIII, Register, Epistle 27), attributed ignorance to Christ as man — an error which all Catholics condemn.

XI. St. Thomas (Part III, q. 10, art. 2, ad 1), the interpretation of the Arians and Eunomians, and other Fathers' interpretation refuted... he recounts. Origen, in the place cited, expounds the text of Christ according to his body, which is the Church. Others interpret it of an adopted, not a natural, son. Thus, indeed, says the Angelic Doctor: "Origen, however, expounds this of Christ according to his body, which is the Church, which is ignorant of this time. Some, however, say that this is to be understood of the adopted Son of God, not the natural one."

XII. Chrysostom (Homily 13, On the Trinity), Epiphanius (in the Ancoratus), and St. Bernard (Book On the Steps of Humility) expound that Christ spoke of practical knowledge, which brings execution with it; and because he had not yet exercised universal judgment, he therefore said that he practically did not know that day.

XIII. I have judged it fitting to recount all these various interpretations, so that the reader may gather from this how weak is that argument which the defenders of mental restrictions elicit from the cited text. For, according to all the Fathers, Christ used a figured locution there, although they explain that locution in various ways. Augustine's exposition, which, above the others, could be twisted in favor of mental restriction, is established, from what has been said, not only not to favor, but openly to oppose, these same restrictions. And first, if the cited text favored mental restrictions, it would certainly favor purely mental restrictions — and really the authors of these adduced that text as favoring them. For this locution, absolutely uttered, "I do not know this day," this addition being retained in the mind, "so as to say it," is a purely mental restriction, unless some exterior circumstance, affecting and moderating that same locution, constitutes it an exterior restriction. But the end of utility, or of inconvenience, is something altogether disparate from the locution itself. For this utility, or inutility, of communicating knowledge, or the necessity of concealing truth, is something universal with respect to any locution whatsoever, by which truth is covered; and, since locutions by which truth is concealed are various, that extrinsic end cannot determine one, rather than another, to a peculiar signification.

XIV. Second, the cited words of Christ the Lord can in no way be twisted to the defense of mental restrictions, which men are accustomed to employ, unlawfully, in civil commerce. For that locution which is true in Christ's mouth can become false in the mouth of man — just as that response uttered by the mouth of a Confessor is true, which, in the mouth of another man, is false. For, just as a Confessor bears the person both of man, and of God, and in civil commerce speaks as a man, not as God's minister (of which matter more below), so, in a more sublime manner, Christ the Lord exercised the offices both of divine legation, and of master of the peoples: God and man, legate of the eternal Father, and doctor of the human race, he really was. By reason of these dignities, he could put forth many things as true, which, in a private man, would be false. He put forth many things according to the mind of those questioning, which was known to him. There could have been several circumstances affecting that response, which rendered that response intelligible to the disciples asking. All of which, since they are unknown to us, and since no man possesses Christ's dignities, which are various, and infinite, it follows that no man can arrogate to himself all the formulas of speaking which Christ used — just as the rest of men cannot licitly employ all the locutions of a Confessor.

XV. Finally, I conclude with St. Augustine (Book On Lying, ch. 21): "ALL THINGS IN THE GOSPEL WHICH TO THE INEXPERIENCED SEEM TO BE LIES ARE FIGURED SIGNIFICATIONS." Wherefore, by right and merit, the Gallican Clergy, in the year 1700, censured, and rightly condemned, the following proposition: "The Patriarch, the Prophet, the Angels, Christ himself, used amphibologies, or restrictions, with the vulgar." This proposition, I say, they condemned in these words: "This proposition is scandalous, rash: it confuses the mystical, prophetic, parabolic, or economic significations for insinuating truth, whether uttered or unspoken, with the deeds of the Saints, and turns them into another's deeds; it is also injurious to the Angels themselves, contumelious toward Christ, and impious."

XVI. This aforesaid proposition is indeed impious; because it attributes sin to Christ the Lord — since all Doctors, and especially the defenders of restrictions, confess that it is a sin to use mental restrictions, or amphibologies, without necessity. What necessity, then, could be devised, that would drive our Lord to use figured locutions, and, above all, Christ's wisdom, and infinite sincerity? It remains, then, that we apply, with the most profound obedience, the responses and oracles of the Prophets, and of Christ, to our own affairs — none of which could ever, in innumerable ways, be violated, either by mental restrictions, or amphibologies, without necessity — but rather as mysteries, and figured locutions; and that formula, in our locutions, he prescribed: "Let your speech be: yea, yea; no, no."

XVII. To the last, Augustine responds (Book Against Lying, ch. 13): "Hence too is what you recalled, that they say the Lord Jesus, after he rose again, walked on the road with two disciples, and, as they approached the town to which they were going, feigned that he would go farther." Where the Evangelist, saying "he himself feigned that he would go farther," has even used that very word by which liars are too much delighted, so that they might lie with impunity, as though every lie were what is feigned — whereas so many things are feigned, and yet, if it is well understood for the sake of truly signifying something else, it is not a lie, but a certain figure of a matter; otherwise all those things which are figuratively said would be judged lies, since so many things are said other than as they are, so that they may be referred to what he wished to signify. If, then, Jesus signified nothing else by "feigning that he would go farther," than that his walking was to be understood by his companions as further than that town where he lodged with them, it would rightly be judged to be a lie — but, if it be otherwise, and he indicated that he wished by that figure to signify that his walk was in a further direction, in the sense of walking symbolically representing his own progress, and design, this is not a lie, but a figure of truth, as, indeed, sacred narratives frequently teach us to receive; and thus, when it is written of Jesus, that he did something, "wishing to have appeared to go farther," we say...

See how Augustine, always, if a deed or a saying is found to be free of a lie, or of amphibology, has recourse to mysteries, or to mystic and figured significations. Wherefore, he adds, no one, from this word, as the Priscillianists did, should think that lying is permitted, or, in addition, contend that Christ himself lied. Moreover, this Gospel text, and other adduced texts, which the Priscillianists twisted in patronage of lying, more recent writers likewise bend to the favor of mental restrictions: and not a few, in the very defense of restrictions, twist Christ's words, and the sayings of our Redeemer, no differently than those whom I have recounted among the patrons of lies. It seems to me, as I have often said, that there is this difference: the ancient defenders of lying (the Priscillianists excepted, who lied even in the business of religion) called the same locution, uttered for the same end, a lie; but the more recent writers call the restriction some purely mental, others not purely mental. But of these things enough, and more than enough.