Chapter XX.

67. But inasmuch as the word “guileless” may mislead some who are desirous of obeying God’s precepts, so that they may think it wrong, at times, to conceal the truth, just as it is wrong at times to speak a falsehood, and inasmuch as in this way,—by disclosing things which the parties to whom they are disclosed are unable to bear,—they may do more harm than if they were to conceal them altogether and always, He very rightly adds: “Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” For the Lord Himself, although He never told a lie, yet showed that He was concealing certain truths, when He said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”442    John xvi. 12. And the Apostle Paul, too, says: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal.”443    1 Cor. iii. 1, 2.

68. Now, in this precept by which we are forbidden to give what is holy to the dogs, and to cast our pearls before swine, we must carefully require what is meant by holy, what by pearls, what by dogs, what by swine. A holy thing is something which it is impious to violate and to corrupt; and the very attempt and wish to commit that crime is held to be criminal, although that holy thing should remain in its nature inviolable and incorruptible. By pearls, again, are meant whatever spiritual things we ought to set a high value upon, both because they lie hid in a secret place, are as it were brought up out of the deep, and are found in wrappings of allegory, as it were in shells that have been opened. We may therefore legitimately understand that one and the same thing may be called both holy and a pearl: but it gets the name of holy for this reason, that it ought not to be corrupted; of a pearl for this reason, that it ought not to be despised. Every one, however, endeavours to corrupt what he does not wish to remain uninjured: but he despises what he thinks worthless, and reckons to be as it were beneath himself; and therefore whatever is despised is said to be trampled on. And hence, inasmuch as dogs spring at a thing in order to tear it in pieces, and do not allow what they are tearing in pieces to remain in its original condition, “Give not,” says He, “that which is holy unto the dogs:” for although it cannot be torn in pieces and corrupted, and remains unharmed and inviolable, yet we must think of what is the wish of those parties who bitterly and in a most unfriendly spirit resist, and, as far as in them lies, endeavour, if it were possible, to destroy the truth. But swine, although they do not, like dogs, fall upon an object with their teeth, yet by recklessly trampling on it defile it: “Do not therefore cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” We may therefore not unsuitably understand dogs as used to designate the assailants of the truth, swine the despisers of it.

69. But when He says, “they turn again and rend you,” He does not say, they rend the pearls themselves. For by trampling on them, just when they turn in order that they may hear something more, they yet rend him by whom the pearls have just been cast before them which they have trampled on. For you would not easily find out what pleasure the man could have who has trampled pearls under foot, i.e. has despised divine things whose discovery is the result of great labour. But in regard to him who teaches such parties, I do not see how he would escape being rent in pieces through their anger and wrathfulness. Moreover, both animals are unclean, the dog as well as the swine. We must therefore be on our guard, lest anything should be opened up to him who does not receive it: for it is better that he should seek for what is hidden, than that he should either attack or slight at what is open. Neither, in fact, is any other cause found why they do not receive those things which are manifest and of importance, except hatred and contempt, the one of which gets them the name of dogs, the other that of swine. And all this impurity is generated by the love of temporal things, i.e. by the love of this world, which we are commanded to renounce, in order that we may be able to be pure. The man, therefore, who desires to have a pure and single heart, ought not to appear to himself blameworthy, if he conceals anything from him who is unable to receive it. Nor is it to be supposed from this that it is allowable to lie: for it does not follow that when truth is concealed, falsehood is uttered. Hence, steps are to be taken first, that the hindrances which prevent his receiving it may be removed; for certainly if pollution is the reason he does not receive it, he is to be cleansed either by word or by deed, as far as we can possibly do it.

70. Then, further, when our Lord is found to have made certain statements which many who were present did not accept, but either resisted or despised, He is not to be thought to have given that which is holy to the dogs, or to have cast pearls before swine: for He did not give such things to those who were not able to receive them, but to those who were able, and were at the same time present; whom it was not meet that He should neglect on account of the impurity of others. And when tempters put questions to Him, and He answered them, so that they might have nothing to gainsay, although they might pine away from the effects of their own poisons, rather than be filled with His food, yet others, who were able to receive His teaching, heard to their profit many things in consequence of the opportunity created by these parties. I have said this, lest any one, perhaps, when he is not able to reply to one who puts a question to him, should seem to himself excused, if he should say that he is unwilling to give that which is holy to the dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. For he who knows what to answer ought to do it, even for the sake of others, in whose minds despair arises, if they believe that the question proposed cannot be answered: and this in reference to matters that are useful, and that belong to saving instruction. For many things which may be the subject of inquiry on the part of idle people are needless and vain, and often hurtful, respecting which, however, something must be said; but this very point is to be opened up and explained, viz. why such things ought not to form the subject of inquiry. In reference, therefore, to things that are useful, we ought sometimes to give a reply to what is asked of us: just as the Lord did, when the Sadducees had asked Him about the woman who had seven husbands, to which of them she would belong in the resurrection. For He answered that in the resurrection they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but will be as the angels in heaven. But sometimes, he who asks is to be asked something else, by telling which he would answer himself as to the matter he asked about; but if he should refuse to make a statement, it would not seem to those who are present unfair, if he himself should not hear anything as to the matter he inquired about. For those who put the question, tempting Him, whether tribute was to be paid, were asked another question, viz. whose image the money bore which was brought forward by themselves; and because they told what they had been asked, i.e. that the money bore the image of Cæsar, they gave a kind of answer to themselves in reference to the question they had asked the Lord: and accordingly from their answer He drew this inference, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”444    Matt. xxii. 15–34. When, however, the chief priests and elders of the people had asked by what authority He was doing those things, He asked them about the baptism of John: and when they would not make a statement which they saw to be against themselves, and yet would not venture to say anything bad about John, on account of the bystanders, “Neither tell I you,” says He, “by what authority I do these things;”445    Chap. xxi. 23–27. a refusal which appeared most just to the bystanders. For they said they were ignorant of that which they really knew, but did not wish to tell. And, in truth, it was right that they who wished to have an answer to what they asked, should themselves first do what they required to be done toward them; and if they had done this, they would certainly have answered themselves. For they themselves had sent to John, asking who he was; or rather they themselves, being priests and Levites, had been sent, supposing that he was the very Christ, but he said that he was not, and gave forth a testimony concerning the Lord:446    John i. 19–27. a testimony respecting which if they chose to make a confession, they would teach themselves by what authority as the Christ He was doing those things; which as if ignorant of they had asked, in order that they might find an avenue for calumny.

CAPUT XX.---67. Sed quoniam potest nonnullos Dei praeceptis obtemperare cupientes nomen simplicitatis decipere, ut sic putent vitiosum esse aliquando verum occultare, quomodo vitiosum est aliquando falsum dicere, atque hoc modo aperiendo ea quae hi quibus aperiuntur sustinere non possunt, amplius noceant quam si ea penitus semperque occultarent, rectissime subjungit: Nolite sanctum dare canibus, neque miseritis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi disrumpant vos. Quia et Dominus quamvis nihil mentitus sit, vera tamen aliqua occultare se ostendit, dicens: Adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere; sed adhuc non potestis illa portare1300 (Joan. XVI, 12). Et apostolus Paulus: Non potui, inquit, vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus, sed quasi carnalibus. Tanquam parvulis in Christo, lac vobis potum dedi, non escam; neque enim poteratis: sed neque nunc potestis; adhuc enim estis carnales (I Cor. III, 1, 2).

68. In hoc autem praecepto quo prohibemur sanctum dare canibus, et mittere ante porcos margaritas nostras, diligenter quaerendum est quid sit sanctum, quid margaritae, quid canes, quid porci. Sanctum est, quod violare atque corrumpere nefas est: cujus utique sceleris conatus et voluntas tenetur rea, quamvis illud sanctum natura inviolabile atque incorruptibile maneat. Margaritae autem, quaecumque spiritualia magni aestimanda sunt; et quia in abdito latent, tanquam de profundo cruuntur, et allegoriarum integumentis quasi apertis conchis inveniuntur. Licet itaque intelligi quod una eademque res et sanctum et margarita dici potest: sed sanctum ex eo quod non debet corrumpi, margarita ex eo quod non debet contemni. Conatur autem quisque corrumpere quod non vult esse integrum: contemnit vero quod vile ducit, et quasi infra se esse existimat; et ideo calcari dicitur quidquid contemnitur. Quapropter canes quoniam insiliunt ad dilacerandum, quod autem dilacerant integrum esse non sinunt; Nolite, inquit, sanctum dare canibus: quia etsi dilacerari et corrumpi non potest, et manet integrum atque inviolabile; illi tamen quid velint cogitandum est, qui acriter atque inimicissime resistunt, et quantum in ipsis est, si fieri possit, conantur perimere veritatem. Porci vero quamvis non ita ut canes morsu appetant, passim tamen calcando coinquinant: «Non ergo miseritis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi disrumpant vos.» Canes ergo pro oppugnatoribus veritatis, porcos pro contemptoribus positos non incongrue accipimus.

69. Quod autem ait, Conversi disrumpant vos, non ait, ipsas margaritas disrumpant. Illas enim conculcando, etiam cum convertuntur ut adhuc aliquid audiant, disrumpunt tamen eum a quo jam missas margaritas conculcaverunt. Non enim facile inveneris quid gratum ei esse possit, qui margaritas calcaverit, id est, cum magno labore divina inventa contempserit. Qui autem tales docet quomodo non disrumpatur indignando et stomachando, non video. Utrumque autem animal immundum est, et canis et porcus. Cavendum est ergo ne quid aperiatur ei qui non capit: melius enim quaerit quod clausum est, quam id quod apertum est aut infestat aut negligit. Neque vero alia causa reperitur cur ea quae manifesta et magna sunt, non accipiant praeter odium et contemptum, quorum propter unum canes, propter alterum porci nominati sunt. Quae tamen omnis immunditia rerum temporalium dilectione concipitur, id est, dilectione hujus saeculi, cui jubemur renuntiare ut mundi esse possimus. Qui ergo mundum et simplex cor habere appetit, non debet sibi reus videri, si aliquid occultat, 1301 quod ille qui occultat, capere non potest. Nec ex eo arbitrandum est licere mentiri: non enim est consequens ut cum verum occultatur, falsum dicatur. Agendum ergo primum est ut impedimenta detrahantur, quibus efficitur ut non capiat; quia utique si propter sordes non capit, mundandus est vel verbo vel opere, quantum fieri a nobis potest.

70. Quod autem Dominus noster quaedam dixisse invenitur, quae multi qui aderant, vel resistendo vel contemnendo non acceperunt; non putandus est sanctum dedisse canibus, aut margaritas misisse ante porcos: non enim dedit eis qui capere non poterant, sed eis qui poterant, et simul aderant; quos propter aliorum immunditiam negligi non oportebat. Et cum eum tentatores interrogabant, respondebatque illis, ita ut quid contradicerent non haberent, quamvis venenis suis contabescerent potius, quam illius cibo saturarentur; alii tamen qui poterant capere, ex illorum occasione multa utiliter audiebant. Hoc dixi, ne quis forte, cum interroganti respondere non potuerit, hac sententia sibi excusatus videatur, si dicat nolle se sanctum dare canibus, vel ante porcos mittere margaritas. Qui enim novit quid respondeat, debet respondere, vel propter alios, quibus desperatio suboritur, si propositam quaestionem solvi non posse crediderint: et hoc de rebus utilibus, et ad instructionem salutis pertinentibus. Multa sunt enim quae inquiri ab otiosis possunt, supervacua et inania, et plerumque noxia, de quibus tamen nonnihil dicendum est: sed hoc ipsum aperiendum et explicandum, cur inquiri talia non oporteat. De rebus ergo utilibus aliquando ad id respondendum est quod interrogamur: sicut Dominus fecit, cum eum Sadducaei de muliere interrogassent, quae septem viros habuit, cujus corum in resurrectione futura esset. Respondit enim quod in resurrectione neque uxores ducent, neque nubent, sed erunt sicut Angeli in coelis. Aliquando autem ille qui interrogat, interrogandus est aliud, quod tamen si dixerit, ipse sibi ad id quod interrogavit, respondeat: si autem dicere noluerit, non videatur iis qui adsunt injustum, si et ipse quod interrogavit, non audiat. Nam et illi qui interrogaverunt tentantes, utrum reddendum esset tributum, interrogati sunt aliud, id est, cujus haberet nummus imaginem, qui ab ipsis prolatus est; et quia dixerunt quod interrogati erant, id est, Caesaris imaginem habere nummum, ipsi sibi quodammodo responderunt id quod Dominum interrogaverant: itaque ille ex eorum responsione ita conclusit, Reddite ergo Caesari quod Caesaris est, et Deo quod Dei est (Matth. XXII, 15-34). Cum autem principes sacerdotum et seniores populi interrogassent in qua potestate illa faceret, interrogavit eos de baptismate Joannis; et cum nollent dicere, quod contra se videbant dici, de Joanne autem nihil mali dicere auderent propter circumstantes; Nec ego vobis dicam, inquit, in qua potestate haec facio (Id. XXI, 23-27): quod justissimum apparuit circumstantibus. Hoc enim se dixerunt nescire quod non nesciebant, sed dicere nolebant. Et revera justum erat ut qui sibi volebant 1302 responderi quod interrogaverant, prius ipsi facerent quod erga se fieri postulabant: quod si fecissent, ipsi sibi utique respondissent. Ipsi enim miserant ad Joannem quaerentes quis esset; vel potius ipsi missi erant sacerdotes et levitae, putantes quod ipse esset Christus, quod ille se negavit esse, et de Domino testimonium perhibuit (Joan. I, 19-27): de quo testimonio si confiteri vellent, ipsi se docerent in qua potestate illa faceret Christus; quod quasi nescientes interrogaverant, ut calumniandi aditum reperirent.