Augustine's simile, where to find it?

NaphtaliPress · #1 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 10:39 AM

Gillespie refers to a similie of Augustine's but does not note the work, anyone familiar with where it may be found? The reference in bold below; and no, this is not an attempt to bring the subject in question up.

Quote:

Two other reasons the Apostle gives in this place against festi*val days; one (v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all hol*idays to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the Apostle says does militate as well against them as against any other holidays. For whereas it might be thought that the Apostle does not condemn all holidays, because both he per*mits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holidays have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge; and if they did, yet they must con*sider, that that which the Apostle either said or did here[about], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs. So that all this can make nothing for holidays after the full promulgation of the gos*pel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks.

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 04:56 PM

DTK might know. Perhaps it might be found here:

Amazon.com: Augustine on Romans: Propositions...

John Evans, one of Matthew Henry's continuators, wrote something similar on Romans 14.5:

Quote:

The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.

joshua · #3 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 05:06 PM

I found several of Augustine's smilies in the smilie section of our posting thingy.

DTK · #4 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Gillespie refers to a similie of Augustine's but does not note the work, anyone familiar with where it may be found? The reference in bold below; and no, this is not an attempt to bring the subject in question up.

Quote:

Two other reasons the Apostle gives in this place against festi*val days; one (v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all hol*idays to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the Apostle says does militate as well against them as against any other holidays. For whereas it might be thought that the Apostle does not condemn all holidays, because both he per*mits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holidays have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge; and if they did, yet they must con*sider, that that which the Apostle either said or did here[about], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs. So that all this can make nothing for holidays after the full promulgation of the gos*pel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks.

Dear Chris,

I suspect that you are editing and preparing for publication a certain work by Gillespie. This kind of allusion to a patristic reference is often very difficult to locate when the source is not cited more specifically. The best I can do is to venture the best guess I can muster. I have the work of Augustine that Andrew referenced at the URL for Amazon, but I do not believe that is the work of Augustine that Gillespie had in mind. I think it may be that Gillespie had in mind Letter #82 in the Augustinian corpus; and I also suspect that the reason Gillespie did not quote Augustine "word for word" in this instance is due to the fact that the Augustinian similie (simile) to which he referred in passing was rather long and drawn out. At any rate, the following is my best guess. Remember that the figure of speech, similie (simile), must employ the word "as" or "like" for it to fit the category of a similie (simile). I am giving you much more than you need here, but you can scroll down to the part in Augustine that I've emphasized in bold print...

Quote:

Augustine (354-430): 15. I maintain, therefore, that circumcision, and other things of this kind, were, by means of what is called the Old Testament, given to the Jews with divine authority, as signs of future things which were to be fulfilled in Christ; and that now, when these things have been fulfilled, the laws concerning these rights remained only to be read by Christians in order to their understanding the prophecies which had been given before, but not to be of necessity practiced by them, as if the coming of that revelation of faith which they prefigured was still future. Although, however, these rites were not to be imposed upon the Gentiles, the compliance with them, to which the Jews had been accustomed, was not to be prohibited in such a way as to give the impression that it was worthy of abhorrence and condemnation. Therefore slowly, and by degrees, all this observance of these types was to vanish away through the power of the sound preaching of the truth of the grace of Christ, to which alone believers would be taught to ascribe their justification and salvation, and not to those types and shadows of things which till then had been future, but which were now newly come and present, as at the time of the calling of those Jews whom the personal coming of our Lord and the apostolic times had found accustomed to the observance of these ceremonial institutions. The toleration, for the time, of their continuing to observe these was enough to declare their excellence as things which, though they were to be given up, were not, like the worship of idols, worthy of abhorrence; but they were not to be imposed upon others, lest they should be thought necessary, either as means or as conditions of salvation. This was the opinion of those heretics who, while anxious to be both Jews and Christians, could not be either the one or the other. Against this opinion you have most benevolently condescended to warn me, although I never entertained it. This also was the opinion with which, through fear, Peter fell into the fault of pretending to yield concurrence, though in reality he did not agree with it; for which reason Paul wrote most truly of him, that he saw him not walking up-rightly, according to the truth of the gospel, and most truly said of him that he was compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews. Paul did not impose this burden on the Gentiles through his sincerely complying, when it was needful, with these ceremonies, with the design of proving that they were not to be utterly condemned (as idol-worship ought to be); for he nevertheless constantly preached that not by these things, but by the grace revealed to faith, believers obtain salvation, lest he should lead any one to take up these Jewish observances as necessary to salvation. Thus, therefore, I believe that the Apostle Paul did all these things honestly, and without dissimulation; and yet if any one now leave Judaism and become a Christian, I neither compel nor permit him to imitate Paul’s example, and go on with the sincere observance of Jewish rites, any more than you, who think that Paul dissembled when he practiced these rites, would compel or permit such an one to follow the apostle in that dissimulation.
16. Shall I also sum up “the matter in debate, or rather your opinion concerning it “‘ (to quote your own expression)? It seems to me to be this: that after the gospel of Christ has been published, the Jews who believe do rightly if they offer sacrifices as Paul did, if they circumcise their children as Paul circumcised Timothy, and if they observe the “seventh day of the week, as the Jews have always done, provided only that they do all this as dissemblers and deceivers.” If this is your doctrine, we are now precipitated, not into the heresy of Ebion, or of those who are commonly called Nazarenes, or any other known heresy, but into some new error, which is all the more pernicious because it originates not in mistake, but in deliberate and designed endeavor to deceive. If, in order to clear yourself from the charge of entertaining such sentiments, you answer that the apostles were to be commended for dissimulation in these instances, their purpose being to avoid giving offense to the many weak Jewish believers who did not yet understand that these things were to be rejected, but that now, when the doctrine of Christ’s grace has been firmly established throughout so many nations, and when, by the reading of the Law and the Prophets throughout all the churches of Christ, it is well known that these are not read for our observance, but for our instruction, any man who should propose to feign compliance with these rites would be regarded as a madman. What objection can there be to my affirming that the Apostle Paul, and other sound and faithful Christians, were bound sincerely to declare the worth of these old observances by occasionally honoring them, lest it should be thought that these institutions, originally full of prophetic significance, and cherished sacredly by their most pious forefathers, were to be abhorred by their posterity as profane inventions of the devil? For now, when the faith had come, which, previously foreshadowed by these ceremonies, was revealed after the death and resurrection of the Lord, they became, so far as their office was concerned, defunct. But just as it is seemly that the bodies of the deceased be carried honorably to the grave by their kindred, so was it fitting that these rites should be removed in a manner worthy of their origin and history, and this not with pretense of respect, but as a religious duty, instead of being forsaken at once, or cast forth to be torn in pieces by the reproaches of their enemies, as by the teeth of dogs. To carry the illustration further, if now any Christian (though he may have been converted from Judaism) were proposing to imitate the apostles in the observance of these ceremonies, like one who disturbs the ashes of those who rest, he would be not piously performing his part in the obsequies, but impiously violating. the sepulcher. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, Chapter 2, §15-16.

That's my best guess.

Blessings,
DTK

NaphtaliPress · #5 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 09:20 PM

David,
That looks like a very good guess. I appreciate it very much indeed! The allusion to Augustine is from Gillespie's English Popish Ceremonies, which I published in a semi critical edition in 1993. For a second edition I'm trying to clean up the references and bibliography (see here). I know a bit more now than 15 years ago (maybe) and I want to tie up some loose ends that bug me that I didn't back then.

Thanks guys (but not you Josh

)

joshua · #6 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 09:23 PM

Trust me, I am sooooooooooooooooo thanked...you just don't know it yet.

DTK · #7 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

David,
That looks like a very good guess. I appreciate it very much indeed! The allusion to Augustine is from Gillespie's English Popish Ceremonies, which I published in a semi critical edition in 1993. For a second edition I'm trying to clean up the references and bibliography (see here). I know a bit more now than 15 years ago (maybe) and I want to tie up some loose ends that bug me that I didn't back then.

Thanks guys (but not you Josh

)

Chris,

I have one of the copies of this work by Gillespie that you published before (I believe I bought it in the book store of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville). If you could, give me the page number in the previous edition and I'll read Gillespie again.

Thanks,
DTK

NaphtaliPress · #8 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 09:32 PM

Thanks David,
See EPC (Naphtali Press, 1993) Part 1 Chapter 8, section 1, page 37-38.
Gillespie cited from Augustine's letters several times in this work, epistle 64, epistle 86, ad Casulan, and epistle 118, ad Januar. See the bilbiography for the Augstine works cited, pp. 481-482.

DTK · #9 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Thanks David,
See EPC (Naphtali Press, 1993) Part 1 Chapter 8, section 1, page 37-38.
Gillespie cited from Augustine's letters several times in this work, epistle 64, epistle 86, ad Casulan, and epistle 118, ad Januar. See the bilbiography for the Augstine works cited, pp. 481-482.

It took some work, but I finally found my copy of Gillespie's EPC in a box in my basement. The construction of the bookshelves in my study is almost complete, perhaps I'll be able to start shelving some of these books so I can find something when I look for it.

It is an interesting allusion to Augustine that Gillespie made. But Chris, I think you would be well served by comparing the citation I offered from the NPNF, First Series with another translation of this same Letter (#82) in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (Patristic series) published by CUA (Catholic University of America Press). Volume 26 is the one you want, and it contains another translation of this same letter by Augustine.

Blessings,
DTK

NaphtaliPress · #10 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:01 PM

Thanks very much David; I will hunt that v26 up as you suggest. How likely is it that the reference is in some work by Augustine dealing with Scripture passages previously adduced on the prior page by Gillespie, Gal. 4, Col. 2, etc? What is presently under consideration seems really on target, but just wondering.

NaphtaliPress · #11 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:06 PM

David,
Also, do you know if letter 82 has been known by a different number; i.e. in Gillespie's day? I've run into this with Augustine's letters cited by Gillespie in another work (Wholesome Severity).

DTK · #12 (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Thanks very much David; I will hunt that v26 up as you suggest. How likely is it that the reference is in some work by Augustine dealing with Scripture passages previously adduced on the prior page by Gillespie, Gal. 4, Col. 2, etc? What is presently under consideration seems really on target, but just wondering.

In the context of his letter, Augustine is dealing with Jewish ceremonies in general, while Gillespie is dealing with festival (or holy) days in particular. I think Gillespie has taken some liberty with Augustine, but the imagery (or analogy) of the unburied corpse still stands, and Gillespie really did no more than to borrow Augustine's simile. Augustine obviously has Paul's Epistle to the Galatians in mind because he is discussing the circumstances of it throughout his letter.

I doubt whether any numbering of Augustine's letters existed as such in Gillespie's day. Are you certain that Gillespie was really referencing a particular letter by number in that other work, and that it wasn't a note added by some editor? I have my doubts, but I can't speak with any intelligence on that matter.

DTK