Matthew 11:19

The whole of this speech is a reproach of unbelief, and arises out of the foregoing complaint; that the stiff-necked people had not learned by two different modes of teaching.

Whence He puts this question, shewing that nothing had been omitted that ought to be done for their salvation, saying, "To whom shall I liken this generation?

ap. Anselm: By "this generation" He means the Jews together with Himself and John. As though He had said; John is thus great; but ye would believe neither him nor Me, and therefore to whom shall I liken you?

And straightway He answers Himself, saying, "It is like unto children sitting in the market-place, crying unto their fellows, and saying, We have played music to you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned, and ye have not lamented."

By the "children" are meant the Prophets, who preached as children in singleness of meaning, and in the midst of the synagogue, that is "in the market-place", reprove them, that when they played to those to whom they had devoted the service of their body, they had not obeyed their words, as the movement of the dancers are regulated by the measures of the music. For the Prophets invited them to make confession by song to God, as it is contained in the song of Moses, of Isaiah, or of David.

They say therefore, "We have played music to you, and ye have not danced;" i. e. We have called on you to work good works to our songs, and ye would not. We have lamented and called you to repentance, and this ye would not, rejecting both preaching, as well of exhortation to virtue, as of repentance for sin.

What is that He says, "To their fellows?" Were the unbelieving Jews then fellows of the Prophets? He speaks thus only because they were sprung of one stock.

The children are they of whom Isaiah speaks, "Behold I, and the children whom the Lord has given me." [Isa 8:18] These children then sit in the market-place, where are many things for sale, and say,

"We have played music to you, and ye have not danced;" that is, I have shewed you an unrestricted life, and ye are not convinced; "We have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented;" that is, John lived a hard life, and ye heeded him not. Yet does not he speak one thing, and I another, but both speak the same thing, because both have one and the same object. "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. The Son of man came &c."

I would that the Manichaens would tell me what Christ ate and drank, who here speaks of Himself as eating and drinking in comparison of John, who did neither. Not indeed that John drank nothing at all, but that he drank neither wine nor strong drink, but water only. Not that he dispensed altogether with food, but that he ate only locusts and wild honey. Whence then is it said of him that he came neither eating nor drinking, except that he used not that food which the Jews used? Unless therefore the Lord had used this food, He would not have been said to have been, in comparison of John, "eating and drinking." It would be strange that he who ate locusts and honey, should be said to come "neither eating nor drinking," and that he who ate only bread and herbs, should be said to come eating and drinking.

He says therefore, "Jesus came," as much as to say, I and John came opposite ways, to do the same thing; as two hunters chasing the same animal from opposite sides, so that it might fall into, the hands of one of them. But all mankind admire fasting and severity of life; and for this reason it was ordained from his infancy that John should be so brought up, that the things that he should say should receive credit. The Lord also walked in this way when He fasted forty days;- but He had other means of teaching men to have confidence in Him; for it was a much greater thing that John who had walked in this way should bear witness to Him, than that He Himself should walk in that way. Again, John had nothing to shew besides his life, and his righteousness; whereas Christ had also the witness of His miracles. Leaving therefore to John the representation of fasting, He Himself walked in a contrary way, entering to the table of the publicans, and eating and drinking with them.

If fasting then pleases you, why were you not satisfied with John! If fulness, why not with the Son of man? Yet one of these ye said had a daemon, the other ye called a gluttonous man, and drunkard.

What excuse then shall be given for them? Therefore He adds, "And wisdom is justified of her children;" that is, though ye were not convinced, yet have ye nothing whereof to accuse me, as also of the Father the Prophet speaks, "That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings." [Ps 51:4] For though nought be effected in you by that goodness which is extended to you, yet He fulfils all His part that you may not have the shadow of excuse for your ungrateful doubt.

"Wisdom is justified of her children," i. e. The dispensation or doctrine of God, or Christ Himself who is the power and wisdom of God, is proved by the Apostles, who are His children, to have done righteously.

He is wisdom itself not by His acts, but by His nature. Many indeed evade that saying of the Apostle's, "Christ is the wisdom and power of God," [1 Cor 1:24] by saying, that truly in creating Him of a Virgin the Wisdom and Power of God were shewn mightily. Therefore that this might not be so explained, He calls Himself the Wisdom of God, shewing that it was verily He, and not the deeds relating to Him, of whom this was meant. For the power itself, and the effect of that power, are not the same thing; the efficient is known from the act.

Or, "Wisdom is justified of her children," because the holy Apostles understood that the kingdom of God was not in meat and drink, but in patient enduring; such persons neither does abundance lift up, nor want cast down, but as Paul spoke, "I know how to abound, and to suffer want." [Phil 4:12]

Some copies read, "Wisdom is justified of her works," for wisdom does not seek the witness of words, but of works.

You should not be surprised at His using trite instances, such as that respecting the children; for He spoke to the weakness of His hearers; as Ezekiel spoke many things adapted to the Jews, but unworthy of the greatness of God.

Mystically; Neither did the preaching of John bend the Jews, to whom the law seemed burdensome in prescribing meats and drinks, difficult and grievous, having in it sin which He calls having a demon, for from the difficulty of keeping it they must sin under the Law. Nor again did the preaching of the Gospel with freedom of life in Christ please them, by which the hardships and burdens of the Law were remitted, and publicans and sinners only believed in it. Thus, then, so many and so great warnings of all kinds having been offered them in vain, they are neither justified by the Law, and they are cast off from grace; "Wisdom," therefore, "is justified of her children," by those, that is, who seize the kingdom of heaven by the justification of faith, confessing the work of wisdom to be just, that it has transferred its gift from the rebellious to the faithful.

2. Thus, after their simplicity and innocence, did these daughters [of Lot] so speak, imagining that all mankind had perished, even as the Sodomites had done, and that the anger of God had come down upon the whole earth. Wherefore also they are to be held excusable, since they supposed that they only, along with their father, were left for the preservation of the human race; and for this reason it was that they deceived their father. Moreover, by the words they used this fact was pointed out, that there is no other one who can confer upon the elder and younger church the [power of] giving birth to children, besides our Father. …

In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, “Take, drink: this is my blood”, the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word “shed for many, for the remission of sins”, the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. …

Si resurrectionem itaque receperint, ut ipsi dienut, et ideo matrimonium infirmant et abrogant; nec comedant, nec bibant: “destrui” enim “ventrem et cibos,” dicit Apostolus in resurrectione. Quomodo ergo esuriunt, et sitiunt, et camis patiuntur affectiones, et alia, quæ non patietur, qui per Christum accepit perfectam, quæ speratur, resurrectionem? Quin etiam ii, qui colunt idola, a cibis et venere abstinent. “Non est” autem, inquit, “regnum Dei cibus est potus.” Certe magis quoque curæ est, qui angelos colunt et dæmones, simul a vino et animatis et rebus abstinere venereis. Quemadmodum autem humilitas est mansuetudo, non autem afflictio corporis: ita etiam continentia est animæ virtus, quæ non est in manifesto, sed in occulto. Sunt autem etiam, qui matrimonium aperte dicunt fornicationem, et decernunt id traditum esse a diabolo. …

Turning now to the law, which is properly ours, that is, to the Gospel, by what kind of examples are we met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting “more than a prophet,”, him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. …

We, however, who do not make the parables the sources whence we devise our subject-matters, but the subject-matters the sources whence we interpret the parables, do not labour hard, either, to twist all things (into shape) in the exposition, while we take care to avoid all contradictions. Why “an hundred sheep?” and why, to be sure, “ten drachmas?” And what is that “besom?” Necessary it was that He who was desiring to express the extreme pleasure which the salvation of one sinner gives to God, should name some special quantity of a numerical whole from which to describe that “one” had perished. …

For, so far as pertains to fasts, they oppose to us the definite days appointed by God: as when, in Leviticus, the Lord enjoins upon Moses the tenth day of the seventh month (as) a day of atonement, saying, “Holy shall be to you the day, and ye shall vex your souls; and every soul which shall not have been vexed in that day shall be exterminated from his people.” At all events, in the Gospel they think that those days were definitely appointed for fasts in which “the Bridegroom was taken away;” and that these are now the only legitimate days for Christian fasts, the legal and prophetical antiquities having been abolished: for wherever it suits their wishes, they recognise what is the meaning of “the Law and the prophets until John.” Accordingly, (they think) that, with regard to the future, fasting was to be indifferently observed, by the New Discipline, of choice, not of command, accord …

1. “ And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ” In the preceding section, my revered brother Ambrosius, brother formed according to the Gospel, we have discussed, as far as is at present in our power, what the Gospel is, and what is the beginning in which the Word was, and what the Word is which was in the beginning. We now come to consider the next point in the work before us, How the Word was with God. To this end it will be of service to remember that what is called the Word came to certain persons; as “The Word of the Lord which came to Hosea, the son of Beeri,” and “The Word which came to Isaiah, the son of Amos, concerning Judah and concerning Jerusalem,” and “The Word which came to Jeremiah concerning the drought.” We must enquire how this Word came to Hosea, and how it came also to Isaiah the son of Amos, and again to Jeremiah concerning the drought; the comparison may en …

26. In this question, however, of fasting or not fasting on the seventh day, nothing appears to me more safe and conducive to peace than the apostle’s rule: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth:” “for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse;” our fellowship with those among whom we live, and along with whom we live in God, being preserved undisturbed by these things. For as it is true that, in the words of the apostles, “it is evil for that man who eateth with offence,” it is equally true that it is evil for that man who fasteth with offence. …

26. But, in order that it may be more clearly understood, how there may be virtue in habit, although it be not in work, I speak of an example, about which no Catholic Christian can doubt. For that our Lord Jesus Christ in truth of flesh hungered and thirsted, ate and drank, no one doubts of such as out of the Gospel are believers. What, then, was there not in Him the virtue of continence from meat and drink, as great as in John Baptist? “For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they said, He hath a devil; the Son of Man came both eating and drinking; and they said, “Lo, a glutton and wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” What, are not such things said also against them of His household, our fathers, from another kind of using of things earthy, so far as pertains to sexual intercourse; “Lo, men lustful and unclean, lovers of women and lewdness?” And yet as in Him that was …

31. You follow Adimantus in saying that Christ made no distinction in food, except in entirely prohibiting the use of animal food to His disciples, while He allowed the laity to eat anything that is eatable; and declared that they were not polluted by what enters into the mouth, but that the unseemly things which come out of the mouth are the things which defile a man. These words of yours are unseemly indeed, for they express notorious falsehood. If Christ taught that the evil things which come out of the mouth are the only things that defile a man, why should they not be the only things to defile His disciples, so as to make it unnecessary that any food should be forbidden or unclean? Is it only the laity that are not polluted by what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out of it? In that case, they are better protected from impurity than the saints, who are polluted both by what go …

4. Faustus thinks himself wonderfully clever in proving that Matthew was not the writer of this Gospel, because, when speaking of his own election, he says not, He saw me, and said to me, Follow me; but, He saw him, and said to him, Follow me. This must have been said either in ignorance or from a design to mislead. Faustus can hardly be so ignorant as not to have read or heard that narrators, when speaking of themselves, often use a construction as if speaking of another. It is more probable that Faustus wished to bewilder those more ignorant than himself, in the hope of getting hold on not a few unacquainted with these things. It is needless to resort to other writings to quote examples of this construction from profane authors for the information of our friends, and for the refutation of Faustus. …

78. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding His twelve disciples, He departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities. Now, when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto Him, Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another?” and so on, until we come to the words, “And Wisdom is justified of her children.” This whole section relating to John the Baptist, touching the message which he sent to Jesus, and the tenor of the reply which those whom he despatched received, and the terms in which the Lord spoke of John after the departure of these persons, is introduced also by Luke. The order, however, is not the same. …