LatineEnglish
TWELFTH DISPUTATION. On the Altar and the sacrifice which Noah made to God, and the divine approbation of his sacrifice: Upon those words: “And Noah built an altar to the Lord, and taking of all the clean cattle and birds, offered holocausts upon the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor.”1
DUODECIMA DISPUTATIO. De Altari et sacrificio quod Noë fecit Deo, et divina eius sacrificii approbatione: Super illis verbis: Aedificavit autem Noë altare Domino, tollens de cunctis pecoribus et volucribus mundis, obtulit holocausta super altare. Odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis.
ECCE tibi clarissimum grati et pii erga Deum animi specimen. Statim ut egressus Arca est Noë, ante omnia studet exsequi quod ad cultum Dei pertinet: memorque quanto Dei beneficio affectus esset, diluvii clade alioqui inevitabili liberatus, quam primum religionis et cultus divini officia atque opera amplectitur. Interea vero quae ad exteriorem Dei cultum spectant, primas tenet sacrificium: hoc quippe uni solique Deo competit. Inter sacrificia vero principatum habet holocaustum, quamobrem Noë aedificato altari de mundis animalibus holocausta Deo obtulit. Et hoc ut faceret Noë dignum utique et iustum erat: qui enim Arcam facere iusserat homini in qua salvaretur homo, inquit Rupertus, dignum profecto erat ut illi altare faceret homo in quo salvator hominis adoraretur ab homine. Hoc non tantum scripta, sed naturalis lex aequum esse docuit: hoc ratio naturalis dictat, ut de suis donis in primis honoretur ipse qui dedit.
Behold for thee a most clear specimen of a grateful and pious mind toward God. As soon as Noah went out of the Ark, before all else he is eager to perform what pertains to the worship of God: and mindful of how great a benefit of God he had received, being freed from the otherwise inevitable disaster of the flood, he embraces as soon as possible the duties and works of religion and divine worship. Now among those things which pertain to the exterior worship of God, sacrifice holds the first place, for this belongs to God alone. And among sacrifices the holocaust holds the chief place, wherefore Noah, having built an altar, offered holocausts to God of the clean animals. And that Noah should do this was assuredly worthy and just: for He who had commanded man to make an Ark in which man should be saved, says Rupert, it was surely fitting that man should make Him an altar on which the savior of man should be adored by man. This not only Scripture, but the natural law taught to be just: this natural reason dictates — that of one's own gifts He who gave them should in the first place be honored.2
NOTANDUM est primum hoc loco mentionem fieri altaris excitati ad cultum Dei: an autem fuerint antea usus altarium necne, incertum est. Id vero genus divini cultus cognovit Noë maiorum suo[rum]…
It is to be noted that here for the first time mention is made of an altar raised to the worship of God: but whether there had been uses of altars before or not, is uncertain. This kind of divine worship Noah knew by the tradition of his ances[tors]…3
…maiorum suorum traditione vel per expressam Dei revelationem, aut tacito Dei instinctu. Illud quoque dubium est quale fuerit illud altare, utrum ex terra an ex lapidibus impolitis: his enim tantum duobus modis altaria fieri debere a Iudaeis in Exodo praeceptum est. Hebraice pro voce illa altare est mizbeach, a radice Zabach, quod est mactare, quia victimae mactatae super altare offerebantur.
…by the tradition of his ancestors, or by an express revelation of God, or by a silent instinct of God. This too is doubtful: of what sort that altar was — whether of earth or of unpolished stones, for in these two ways only were altars commanded to be made by the Jews in Exodus. In Hebrew, for that word “altar,” it is mizbeach, from the root Zabach, which is “to slay,” because the slain victims were offered upon the altar.4
SEQUITUR: De cunctis pecoribus et volucribus mundis obtulit holocausta. An tempore Noë fuerit distinctio mundorum et immundorum animalium, vel quantum ad cibum vel quantum ad usum sacrificiorum vel quantum ad utrumque, et quatenus fuerit, num circa ea omnia animalia de quibus lege Mosis praeceptum est: nihil ad praesens dicturi sumus, quod ea de re supra libro undecimo quantum opus fuit disputatum a nobis est. Vocabulum holocausti Graecum est, significans totum incensum seu crematum, ad differentiam victimae pacificae et hostiae pro peccato, quae non ex toto incendebantur, ut scriptum est in Levitico. Graeca hoc loco habent, Et obtulit in holocaustum, qua voce saepe usi sunt Patres.
There follows: “Of all the clean cattle and birds he offered holocausts.” Whether in the time of Noah there was a distinction of clean and unclean animals — whether as to food, or as to the use of sacrifices, or as to both, and to what extent it existed, [and] whether it concerned all those animals about which a precept is given in the law of Moses: we shall say nothing at present, because on that matter we have disputed above in the eleventh book as much as was needful. The word “holocaust” is Greek, signifying wholly burnt or cremated, in distinction from the peace-victim and the sin-offering, which were not burnt wholly, as is written in Leviticus. The Greek here has, “And he offered for a holocaust,” which expression the Fathers often used.5
PONIT hic quaestionem Ambrosius cur Noë non iussus nec monitus a Deo altare aedificaverit et obtulerit holocausta, cum alia quae fecisse eum legimus non nisi monitu et iussu Dei fecisse eum constet? Respondet Ambrosius: Non debuit utique Dominus quasi avarus mercedem gratiae postulare: et iustus eam intellexit veram actionem gratiarum esse quae non iuberetur sed deferretur: itaque nec dilationem passus est. Etenim grati animi virtus passionem dubitationis excludit: qui autem debitum gratiae ut a se exigatur expectat, ingratus est. Nec vacat quod aedificasse dicitur altare non Domino sed Deo, ne coacta videretur illa fuisse gratiarum actio quasi Domino, sed virtus iusti morigera et grata quasi Deo. Ideo quod imperiale est sequestravit, quod beneficii nominavit. Exemplo autem Noë qui munda tantum animalia Deo obtulit, discamus ea tantum Deo quae incontaminata sunt offerri debere, scilicet in quibus affectus eluceat offerentis.
Ambrose here poses the question why Noah, not commanded nor admonished by God, built an altar and offered holocausts, when it is established that the other things which we read he did, he did only by the admonition and command of God. Ambrose answers: “The Lord ought not, like a miser, to demand the recompense of thanks: and the just man understood that to be a true act of thanksgiving which was not commanded but freely offered: and so he suffered no delay. For the virtue of a grateful mind excludes the suffering of doubt: but he who waits for the debt of thanks to be exacted from him is ungrateful. Nor is it without meaning that he is said to have built an altar not to the Lord (Dominus) but to God (Deus), lest that thanksgiving should seem to have been compelled as if to a Master, but [rather] the virtue of the just man, compliant and grateful as if to God. Therefore what is imperial [of a master] he set aside; what is of grace, he named.” And by the example of Noah, who offered only clean animals to God, let us learn that only those things which are undefiled ought to be offered to God — namely, in which the affection of the offerer shines forth.6
BEATUS Chrysostomus disputat hoc loco cur sibi Deus a sanctis illis Patriarchis corporalia sacrificia fieri passus sit, cum Deus spiritus sit et ab his qui eum vere ac digne adorant non corporalibus victimis sed spiritualibus hostiis adorandus sit? Immola Deo, inquit David, hostiam laudis; et rursus: Sacrificate sacrificium iustitiae; et item: holocaustis non delectaberis: Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus: cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicies. Duas eius rei causas B. Chrysostomus affert: alteram, quo illis sacrificiis iusti suam erga Deum grati animi virtutem pietatemque declararent; alteram, ne vulgus fidelium ad idololatriam delaberetur, cernens alias gentes exquisitis et magnificis sacrificiis atque oblationibus deos suos colere ac venerari. Propter hanc igitur causam sacrificia illa etiam a sanctis viris usurpabantur, non quod per se quicquam prodessent aut ullam animae utilitatem affer[rent]…
St. Chrysostom disputes in this place why God allowed corporeal sacrifices to be made to Him by those holy Patriarchs, when God is a spirit and is to be adored by those who adore Him truly and worthily not with corporeal victims but with spiritual offerings? “Sacrifice to God,” says David, “a sacrifice of praise”; and again: “Sacrifice the sacrifice of righteousness”; and likewise: “In holocausts thou wilt not delight: a sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” St. Chrysostom brings forward two causes of this matter: the one, that by those sacrifices the just might declare their virtue of a grateful mind and their piety toward God; the other, lest the common crowd of the faithful should slip into idolatry, seeing other nations worship and venerate their gods with exquisite and magnificent sacrifices and offerings. For this cause, therefore, those sacrifices were practiced even by holy men — not that they profited anything of themselves or brought any utility to the soul…7
…aut ullam animae utilitatem afferrent. Similiter, inquit Chrysostomus, legem circumcisionis indixit Deus posteris Abrahae, non quod circumciso aliquid proficeret ad salutem animae, nihil enim ad iustitiam illa conducebat, sed in testimonium iustitiae Abrahae, et quo per notam circumcisionis eius posteri a ceteris gentibus separarentur. Sic fere Chrysostomus.
…or brought any utility to the soul. “Similarly,” says Chrysostom, “God enjoined the law of circumcision on the posterity of Abraham — not that anything profited the circumcised toward the salvation of the soul, for it conduced nothing to righteousness, but in testimony of the righteousness of Abraham, and that by the mark of circumcision his posterity might be separated from the other nations.” So, roughly, Chrysostom.8
SIGNIFICAT igitur hoc loco Chrysostomus circumcisionis nullum fuisse spiritualem fructum et effectum, sed eam fuisse nudum signum corporale omni vacuum fructu spirituali. Nec id Chrysostomus hoc tantum loco dixit, sed idem postea repetit homilia vigesima nona et quadragesima in Genesim. Quin etiam similia Chrysostomo de Circumcisione leguntur apud alios Patres in primis graves ac nobiles, cum tamen communis sit Theologorum sententia ab Augustino usque recepta, Circumcisionem ante Christi adventum valuisse ad remissionem peccati originalis in infantibus, et in adultis etiam aliorum peccatorum. Sed quemadmodum argumenta quibus communis sententia vehementer oppugnatur repelli debeant, et verba Patrum ne communi sententiae videantur contraria exponi possint, tractabitur (Deo favente) infra, cum ventum erit ad caput decimum septimum libri Geneseos, ubi a Mose origo et institutio atque necessitas Circumcisionis describitur. Verum divinam Noëtici sacrificii approbationem deinceps videamus.
Chrysostom signifies, therefore, in this place that circumcision had no spiritual fruit and effect, but that it was a bare bodily sign empty of all spiritual fruit. Nor did Chrysostom say this in this place only, but he repeats the same afterward in the twenty-ninth and fortieth homily on Genesis. Nay, things similar to Chrysostom about Circumcision are read in other Fathers, grave and noble in the first rank — although the common opinion of the Theologians, received ever since Augustine, is that Circumcision before the coming of Christ availed for the remission of original sin in infants, and in adults also of other sins. But how the arguments by which the common opinion is vehemently assailed ought to be repelled, and how the words of the Fathers may be expounded so as not to seem contrary to the common opinion, will be treated (God willing) below, when we come to the seventeenth chapter of the book of Genesis, where by Moses the origin and institution and necessity of Circumcision is described. But let us now see the divine approbation of Noah's sacrifice.9
Translator’s notes
- Margin: Gen. 8, v. 20. ↩
- §98. Noah's first act on leaving: a thank-offering. Sacrifice is the chief external worship; the holocaust the chief sacrifice (Rupert; natural law). ↩
- §99. The first altar mentioned in Scripture. Margin: “The first altar of all raised to the worship of God is read to have been this of Noah.” Continues on p. 303. ↩
- §99 (cont.). How Noah learned of altars; what the altar was made of; the Hebrew ‘mizbeach’ from ‘to slay.’ Margin: Exodus 20. ↩
- §100. The clean animals (referred back to Lib. XI); the word ‘holocaust’ (wholly burnt) vs. peace- and sin-offerings. Margins: Leviticus [11]; Deut. 14; Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark. ↩
- §101. Why Noah sacrificed unbidden (Ambrose: true thanks is freely given; ‘to God’ not ‘to the Lord’). Margin: Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 22. ↩
- §102. Why God accepted bodily sacrifices though He is spirit (Chrysostom's two reasons: to express gratitude, and to forestall idolatry). Margins: Chrysostom, hom. 27 on Genesis; John 4; Ps. 49(50); Ps. 4; Ps. 50(51). Continues on p. 304. ↩
- §102 (cont.). Chrysostom's parallel: circumcision too was a mere outward mark, profiting nothing for salvation. Margins: Chrysostom; Gen. 17. ↩
- §103. The Fathers vs. the common theological view on circumcision's efficacy; Pererius defers the full treatment to Gen. 17. Margin: “Of circumcision [its use].” ↩