|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have committed His
doctrine to writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down
doctrine to posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure
for ever, according to Lk. 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall
pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Therefore it seems
that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing.
Objection 2: Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of
Christ, according to Heb. 10:1: "The Law has a shadow of the
good things to come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by
God, according to Ex. 24:12: "I will give thee" two
"tables of stone and the law, and the commandments which I have
written." Therefore it seems that Christ also should have put His
doctrine into writing.
Objection 3: Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that
sit in darkness (Lk. 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of
error, and to open out the road to faith. Now He would have done
this by putting His teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De
Consensu Evang. i) that "some there are who wonder why our Lord
wrote nothing, so that we have to believe what others have written
about Him. Especially do those pagans ask this question who dare not
blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe to Him most excellent,
but merely human, wisdom. These say that the disciples made out the
Master to be more than He really was when they said that He was the
Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all things were made."
And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were prepared to
believe whatever He might have written of Himself, but not what
others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems
that Christ should have Himself committed His doctrine to writing.
On the contrary, No books written by Him were to be found in the
canon of Scripture.
I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should not commit His
doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more
excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of
teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most
excellent of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby
His doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it
is written (Mt. 7:29) that "He was teaching them as one having
power." And so it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and
Socrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to
write anything. For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the
imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers.
Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which
cannot be expressed in writing; according to Jn. 21:25:
"There are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they
were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able
to contain the books that should be written." Which Augustine
explains by saying: "We are not to believe that in respect of space
the world could not contain them . . . but that by the capacity of
the readers they could not be comprehended." And if Christ had
committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had no deeper
thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface of the
writing.
Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner:
Himself teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently
teaching others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had
written, His doctrine would have reached all immediately.
Hence it is said of Wisdom (Prov. 9:3) that "she hath sent her
maids to invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however,
that, as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the
Gentiles thought that Christ wrote certain books treating of the magic
art whereby He worked miracles: which art is condemned by the
Christian learning. "And yet they who claim to have read those books
of Christ do none of those things which they marvel at His doing
according to those same books. Moreover, it is by a Divine judgment
that they err so far as to assert that these books were, as it were,
entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found them in
several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder that the
inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived
in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul was no disciple of
His."
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in the same book:
"Christ is the head of all His disciples who are members of His
body. Consequently, when they put into writing what He showed forth
and said to them, by no means must we say that He wrote nothing:
since His members put forth that which they knew under His dictation.
For at His command they, being His hands, as it were, wrote
whatever He wished us to read concerning His deeds and words."
Reply to Objection 2: Since the old Law was given under the form
of sensible signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with
sensible signs. But Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the
spirit of life" (Rm. 8:2), had to be "written not with ink,
but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but
in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle says (2 Cor.
3:3).
Reply to Objection 3: Those who were unwilling to believe what the
apostles wrote of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of
Christ, whom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art.
|
|