Chapter LXX.—Of the Two Sons Who Were Commanded by Their Father to Go into His Vineyard, and of the Vineyard Which Was Let Out to Other Husbandmen; Of the Question Concerning the Consistency of Matthew’s Version of These Passages with Those Given by the Other Two Evangelists, with Whom He Retains the Same Order; As Also, in Particular, Concerning the Harmony of His Version of the Parable, Which is Recorded by All the Three, Regarding the Vineyard that Was Let Out; And in Reference Specially to the Reply Made by the Persons to Whom that Parable Was Spoken, in Relating Which Matthew Seems to Differ Somewhat from the Others.

133. Matthew goes on thus: “But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard. But he answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and went not;” and so on, down to the words, “And whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”653    Matt. xxi. 28–44. Mark and Luke do not mention the parable of the two sons to whom the order was given to go and labour in the vineyard. But what is narrated by Matthew subsequently to that,—namely, the parable of the vineyard which was let out to the husbandmen, who persecuted the servants that were sent to them, and afterwards put to death the beloved son, and thrust him out of the vineyard,—is not left unrecorded also by those two. And in detailing it they likewise both retain the same order, that is to say, they bring it in after that declaration of their inability to tell which was made by the Jews when interrogated regarding the baptism of John, and after the reply which He returned to them in these words: “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.”654    Mark xii. 1–11; Luke xx. 9–18.

134. Now no question implying any contradiction between these accounts rises here, unless it be raised by the circumstance that Matthew, after telling us how the Lord addressed to the Jews this interrogation, “When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” adds, that they answered and said, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” For Mark does not record these last words as if they constituted the reply returned by the men; but he introduces them as if they were really spoken by the Lord immediately after the question which was put by Him, so that in a certain way He answered Himself. For [in this Gospel] He speaks thus: “What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.” But it is quite easy for us to suppose, either that the men’s words are subjoined herewithout the insertion of the explanatory clause “they said,” or “they replied,” that being left to be understood; or else that the said response is ascribed to the Lord Himself rather than to these men, because when they answered with such truth, He also, who is Himself the Truth, really gave the same reply in reference to the persons in question.

135. More serious difficulty, however, may be created by the fact that Luke not only does not speak of them as the parties who made that answer (for he, as well as Mark, attributes these words to the Lord), but even represents them to have given a contrary reply, and to have said, “God forbid.” For his narrative proceeds in these terms: “What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And He beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?”655    Luke xx. 15–17. How then is it that, according to Matthew’s version, the men to whom He spake these words said, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out this vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons;” whereas, according to Luke, they gave a reply inconsistent with any terms like these, when they said, “God forbid”? And, in truth, what the Lord proceeds immediately to say regarding the stone which was rejected by the builders, and yet was made the head of the corner, is introduced in a manner implying that by this testimony those were confuted who were gainsaying the real meaning of the parable. For Matthew, no less than Luke, records that passage as if it were intended to meet the gainsayers, when he says, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?” For what is implied by this question, “Did ye never read,” but that the answer which they had given was opposed to the real intention [of the parable]? This is also indicated by Mark, who gives these same words in the following manner: “And have ye not read this scripture, The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner?” This sentence, therefore, appears to occupy in Luke, rather than the others, the place which is properly assignable to it as originally uttered. For it is brought in by him directly after the contradiction expressed by those men when they said, “God forbid.” And the form in which it is cast by him,—namely, “What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?”—is equivalent in sense to the other modes of statement. For the real meaning of the sentence is indicated equally well, whichever of the three phrases is used, “Did ye never read?” or, “And have ye not read?” or, “What is this, then, that is written?”

136. It remains, therefore, for us to understand that among the people who were listening on that occasion, there were some who replied in the terms related by Matthew, when he writes thus: “They say unto Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen;” and that there were also some who answered in the way indicated by Luke, that is to say, with the words, “God forbid.” Accordingly, those persons who had replied to the Lord to the former effect, were replied to by these other individuals in the crowd with the explanation, “God forbid.” But the answer which was really given by the first of these two parties, to whom the second said in return, “God forbid,” has been ascribed both by Mark and by Luke to the Lord Himself, on the ground that, as I have already intimated, the Truth Himself spake by these men, whether as by persons who knew not that they were wicked, in the same way that He spake also by Caiaphas, who when he was high priest prophesied without realizing what he said,656    John xi. 49–51. or as by persons who did understand, and who had come by this time both to knowledge and to belief. For there was also present on this occasion that multitude of people at whose hand the prophecy had already received a fulfilment, when they met Him in a mighty concourse on His approach, and hailed Him with the acclaim, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.”657    Ps. cxviii. 26; Matt. xxi. 9.

137. Neither should we stumble at the circumstance that the same Matthew has stated that the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the Lord, and asked Him by what authority He did these things, and who gave Him this authority, on the occasion when He too, in turn, interrogated them concerning the baptism of John, inquiring whence it was, whether from heaven or of men; to whom also, on their replying that they did not know, He said, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do those things.” For he has followed up this with the words introduced in the immediate context, “But what think ye? A certain man had two sons,” and so forth. Thus this discourse is brought into a connection which is continued, uninterrupted by the interposition either of any thing or of any person, down to what is related regarding the vineyard which was let out to the husbandmen. It may, indeed, be supposed that He spake all these words to the chief priests and the elders of the people, by whom He had been interrogated with regard to His authority. But then, if these persons had indeed questioned Him with a view to tempt Him, and with a hostile intention, they could not be taken for men who had believed, and who cited the remarkable testimony in favour of the Lord which was taken from a prophet; and surely it is only if they had the character of those who believed, and not of those who were ignorant, that they could have given a reply like this: “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen.” This peculiarity [of Matthew’s account], however, should not by any means so perplex us as to lead us to imagine that there were none who believed among the multitudes who listened at this time to the Lord’s parables. For it is only for the sake of brevity that the same Matthew has passed over in silence what Luke does not fail to mention,—namely, the fact that the said parable was not spoken only to the parties who had interrogated Him on the subject of His authority, but to the people. For the latter evangelist puts it thus: “Then began He to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard,” and so on. Accordingly, we may well understand that among the people then assembled there might also have been persons who could listen to Him as those did who before this had said, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord;” and that either these, or some of them, were the individuals who replied in the words, “He will miserably destroy these wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen.” The answer actually returned by these men, moreover, has been attributed to the Lord Himself by Mark and Luke, not only because their words were really His words, inasmuch658    Keeping quia veritas est, for which the reading qui veritas est = “who is the truth,” also occurs. as He is the Truth that ofttimes speaks even by the wicked and the ignorant, moving the mind of man by a certain hidden instinct, not in the merit of man’s holiness, but by the right of His own proper power; but also because the men may have been of a character admitting of their being reckoned, not without reason, as already members in the true body of Christ, so that what was said by them might quite warrantably be ascribed to Him whose members they were. For by this time He had baptized more than John,659    John iv. 1. and had multitudes of disciples, as the same evangelists repeatedly testify; and from among these followers He also drew those five hundred brethren, to whom the Apostle Paul tells us that He showed Himself after His resurrection.660    1 Cor. xv. 6. And this explanation of the matter is supported by the fact that the phrase which occurs in the version by this same Matthew,—namely, “They say unto Him,661    Aiunt illi. He will miserably destroy those wicked men,”—is not put in a form necessitating us to take the pronoun illi in the plural number, as if it was intended to mark out the words expressly as the reply made by the persons who had craftily questioned Him on the subject of His authority; but the clause, “They say unto Him,”662    Aiunt illi. is so expressed that the term illi should be taken for the singular pronoun, and not the plural, and should be held to signify “unto Him,” that is to say, unto the Lord Himself, as is made clear in the Greek codices,663    That is to say, the aiunt illi is the rendering for λέγουσιν αὐτῷ. [This reading of the Greek text is abundantly attested.—R.] without a single atom of ambiguity.

138. There is a certain discourse of the Lord which is given by the evangelist John, and which may help us more readily to understand the statement I thus make. It is to this effect: “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in my word, then ye shall be my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. And they answered Him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be free?664    Liberi eritis. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the Son abideth for ever. If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”665    John viii. 31–37. Now surely it is not to be supposed that He spake these words, “Ye seek to kill me” to those persons who had already believed on Him, and to whom He had said, “If ye abide in my word, then shall ye be my disciples indeed.” But inasmuch as He had spoken in these latter terms to the men who had already believed on Him, and as, moreover, there was present on that occasion a multitude of people, among whom there were many who were hostile to Him, even although the evangelist does not tell us explicitly who those parties were who made the reply referred to, the very nature of the answer which they gave, and the tenor of the words which thereupon were rightly directed to them by Him, make it sufficiently clear what specific persons were then addressed, and what words were spoken to them in particular. Precisely, therefore, as in the multitude thus alluded to by John there were some who had already believed on Jesus, and also some who sought to kill Him, in that other concourse which we are discussing at present there were some who had craftily questioned the Lord on the subject of the authority by which He did these things; and there were also others who had hailed Him, not in deceit, but in faith, with the acclaim, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” And thus, too, there were persons present who could say, “He will destroy those men, and will give his vineyard to others.” This saying, furthermore, may be rightly understood to have been the voice of the Lord Himself, either in virtue of that Truth which in His own Person He is Himself, or on the ground of the unity which subsists between the members of His body and the head. There were also certain individuals present who, when these other parties gave that kind of answer, said to them, “God forbid,” because they understood the parable to be directed against themselves.

CAPUT LXX. De duobus quibus imperaverit pater ut irent in vineam, et de vinea quae locata est aliis agricolis, quomodo non adversetur Matthaeus illis duobus; cum quibus eumdem ordinem tenet, et maxime in hac parabola quam omnes tres dicunt de vinea locata, propter responsionem eorum quibus dicebatur, ubi aliquantum videtur variare.

133. Sequitur Matthaeus: Quid autem vobis videtur? Homo habebat duos filios, et accedens ad primum dixit, Fili, vade, hodie operare in vinea mea: ille autem respondens, ait, Nolo; postea autem poenitentia motus, abiit, Accedens autem ad alterum dixit similiter: at ille respondens, ait. Eo, Domine; et non iit, etc., usque ad illud ubi ait, Et qui ceciderit super lapidem istum, confringetur: super quem vero ceciderit, conteret eum (Matth. XXI, 28-44). Marcus et Lucas non commemorant de duobus istis filiis, quibus imperatum est ut irent atque operarentur in vinea: sed quod post hoc narrat Matthaeus de vinea quae locata est agricolis, qui persecuti sunt servos missos ad se, et postea dilectum filium occiderunt, et ejecerunt extra vineam, etiam illi ambo non tacent, eodem ordine custodito (Marc. XII, 1-11, et Luc. XX, 9-18), id est, posteaquam de baptismo Joannis interrogati Judaei se nescire dixerunt, et respondit eis, Nec ego dico vobis in qua potestate haec facio.

134. Nullius ergo hic repugnantiae quaestio nascitur, nisi quod Matthaeus, cum dixisset quod Dominus interrogaverit Judaeos, Cum venerit dominus vineae, quid faciet agricolis illis? illos respondisse subjungit atque dixisse, Malos male perdet, et vineam locabit aliis agricolis qui reddant ei fructum temporibus suis. Quod Marcus non ab ipsis responsum esse commemorat, sed Dominum hoc consequenter locutum post interrogationem suam, ipsum sibi quodammodo respondisse: ita enim dicit, Quid ergo faciet dominus vineae? Veniet, et perdet colonos, et dabit vineam aliis. Sed facile potest intelligi vel illorum vocem ita subjunctam, ut non interponeretur, Illi dixerunt, aut, Illi responderunt, sed tamen intelligeretur; aut ideo responsionem istam Domino potius attributam, quia cum verum dixerunt, etiam de illis hoc ipse respondit qui veritas est.

135. Sed illud magis movet, quod Lucas non solum 1143 eos hoc respondisse non dicit, haec etiam verba ipse quoque sicut Marcus Domino attribuens, verum etiam contrariam retulisse responsionem, dicentes, Absit. Ita enim narrat: Quid ergo faciet illis dominus vineae? Veniet, et perdet colonos istos, et dabit vineam aliis. Quo audito dixerunt illi: Absit. Ille autem aspiciens eos ait: Quid est ergo hoc quod scriptum est, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli? Quomodo ergo secundum Matthaeum illi, quibus haec loquebatur, dixerunt, Malos male perdet, et vineam locabit aliis agricolis, qui reddant ei fructum temporibus suis; cum secundum Lucam talibus verbis contradixerint dicentes, Absit? Et revera quod secutus Dominus ait de lapide reprobato ab aedificantibus, et facto in caput anguli, ita illatum est, ut hoc testimonio convincerentur illi parabolae contradicentes. Nam et ipse Matthaeus hoc sic commemorat dictum, tanquam contradicentibus, cum ait, Nunquam legistis in Scripturis, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli? Quid est enim, Nunquam legistis, nisi quia hoc responderant, quod esset contrarium? Hoc et Marcus significat, qui haec ipsa verba ita refert, Nec Scripturam hanc legistis, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli? Quae sententia secundum Lucam magis apparet loco suo dicta, post illorum contradictionem qua dixerunt, Absit. Tantumdem enim valet, sicut hoc etiam ipse ponit, Quid est ergo hoc quod scriptum est, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli? Hanc enim sententiae voluntatem intimat, sive Nunquam legistis, sive Nec hoc legistis, sive Quid est ergo hoc quod scriptum est.

136. Restat ergo ut intelligamus in plebe quae audiebat, quosdam respondisse quod Matthaeus commemorat dicens, Aiunt illi: Malos male perdet, et vineam suam locabit aliis agricolis; quosdam vero illud quod Lucas non tacuit, hoc est, Absit. Iis ergo qui illud Domino responderant, illi alii responderunt, Absit: sed illorum responsio quibus isti retulerunt, Absit, propterea Domino tributa est et a Marco et a Luca, quia, sicut dixi, per eos veritas ipsa locuta est, sive per nescientes si mali erant, sicut per Caipham, qui nesciens quid dixerit, cum esset pontifex, prophetavit (Joan. XI, 49-51); sive per scientes ac jam intelligentes atque credentes. Ibi enim erat etiam illa multitudo, per quam jam erat impleta illa prophetia, cum venienti magna celebritate occurrentes acclamarent, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini (Psal. CXVII, 26; Matth. XXI, 9).

137. Nec moveat quod idem Matthaeus principes sacerdotum et seniores populi dixit accessisse ad Dominum, et quaesivisse in qua potestate haec faceret, et quis ei dederit hanc potestatem, quando eos de baptismo Joannis vicissim interrogavit unde esset, de coelo an ex hominibus; quibus respondentibus quod nescirent, ait, Nec ego vobis dico in qua potestate haec facio. Inde enim secutus est contextim loquendo, et ait: Quid autem vobis videtur? Homo habebat duos filios, etc., sine ulla cujusquam rei vel personae interpositione, 1144 secundum Matthaeum sermo contexitur, usque ad hoc quod de locata agricolis vinea commemoratur. Potest enim putari omnia eum principibus sacerdotum et senioribus populi locutum fuisse, a quibus fuerat de sua potestate interrogatus. Qui utique si tentantes et inimici quaesierant, non in eis possunt intelligi qui crediderant, atque illud clarum ex propheta testimonium Domino perhibuerant; qui etiam modo respondere potuissent, non nescientes, sed credentes, Malos male perdet, et vineam locabit aliis agricolis. Hoc omnino movere non debet, ut ideo putemus non fuisse credentes in illa multitudine, quae tunc Domini parabolas audiebat. Tacuit namque idem Matthaeus brevitatis causa, quod Lucas non tacet, parabolam istam scilicet non ad eos solos dictam, qui de potestate interrogaverant, sed ad plebem. Sic enim ait, Coepit autem dicere ad plebem parabolam hanc: Homo plantavit vineam, etc. In hac ergo plebe intelligendum est etiam illos esse potuisse, qui sic eum audirent, quomodo qui dixerant, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini; et ipsos vel ex ipsis fuisse qui responderunt, Malos male perdet, et vineam locabit aliis agricolis. Quorum responsionem non solum propterea Domino tribuerunt Marcus et Lucas, quod hoc ipse dixisset, quia veritas est , quae etiam per malos atque nescientes saepe loquitur, occulto quodam instinctu mentem hominis movens, non sanctitatis illius merito, sed jure propriae potestatis: verum etiam quia tales esse potuerunt, ut non frustra in ipso corpore Domini jam sicut membra deputarentur, ut merito eorum vox illi tribueretur, cujus membra erant, quia jam baptizaverat plures quam Joannes (Joan. IV, 1), et habebat turbas discipulorum, sicut ipsi Evangelistae saepe testantur, et unde erant etiam illi quingenti fratres, quibus eum apostolus Paulus post resurrectionem praesentatum esse commemorat (I Cor. XV, 6): praesertim quia et secundum eumdem Matthaeum non ita dictum est, Aiunt illi, Malos male perdet, ut in eo quod positum est, illi, pluralis numerus accipiendus sit, tanquam eorum fuerit ista responsio, qui eum de sua potestate dolose interrogaverant; sed, Aiunt illi, dictum est, id est, illi ipsi Domino, singulari pronomine, non plurali, quod in codicibus graecis sine ullo scrupulo ambiguitatis apparet .

138. Est quidam sermo Domini apud evangelistam Joannem, ubi hoc quod dico, facilius possit intelligi. Dicebat ergo, inquit, Jesus ad eos qui crediderunt ei, Judaeos: Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis; et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos. Et responderunt ei: Semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam: quomodo tu dicis, Liberi eritis? Respondit eis Jesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, quia omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati: servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum; filius autem manet in aeternum: si ergo vos Filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis. Scio quia filii Abrahae estis, sed quaeritis 1145 me inter ficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis (Joan. VIII, 31-37). Non utique illis diceret, quaeritis me interficere, qui in eum jam crediderant, quibus dixerat, Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis: sed quia hoc ad eos dixerat, qui jam in eum crediderant, ea vero multitudo praesens erat quae plures habebat inimicos, etiam non exprimente Evangelista qui essent qui responderunt, ex hoc ipso quod responderunt, et quod deinde ab illo audire meruerunt, satis apparet quae verba quibus sint tribuenda personis. Sicut ergo in hac multitudine secundum Joannem erant qui jam crediderant in Jesum, erant etiam qui eum occidere quaerebant: sic in illa de qua nunc loquimur, erant qui dolose Dominum interrogaverant, in qua potestate illa faceret; erant etiam qui non dolose, sed fideliter acclamaverant, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini: ac per hoc erant qui dicerent, Perdet illos, et vineam suam dabit aliis. Quae vox recte etiam ipsius Domini fuisse intelligitur, sive propter veritatem quae ipse est , sive propter membrorum ejus cum suo capite unitatem. Erant etiam qui talia respondentibus dicerent, Absit, quia intelligebant in seipsos esse parabolam dictam.