========================================================================
  WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANICHAEAN CONTROVERSY
  by St. Augustine
========================================================================

Augustine's theological writings against Manichaeism, refuting the dualistic
heresy and defending orthodox Christian teaching on creation, evil, and the
goodness of God.

  Chapters: 225

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    0. Writings In Connection With The Manichaean Controversy 
    1. Editor's Preface 
    2. Preface. 
    3. writings in connection with the Manichæan controversy 
    4. Introductory Essay on the Manichæan Heresy, 
    5. Chapter I. --Literature.
    6. Chapter II. --Philosophical Basis, and Antecedents of Manichæism. 
    7. Chapter III. --The Manichæan System. 
    8. Chapter IV. --Relation of Manichæism to Zoroastrianism. 
    9. Chapter V. --The Relation of Manichæism to the Old Babylonian Religion as Seen in Mandæism and Sabeanism. 
   10. Chapter VI. -- The Relation of Manichæism to Buddhism. 
   11. Chapter VII. --The Relation of Manichæism to Judaism. 
   12. Chapter VIII. --The Relation of Manichæism to Christianity. 
   13. Chapter IX. --Augustin and the Manichæans. 
   14. Chapter X. --Outline of Manichæan History. 
   15. Preface to the Anti-Manichæan Writings. 
   16. St. AUGUSTIN: on the morals of the catholic church. 
   17. Of the Morals of the Catholic Church. 
   18. Chapter 1. --How the Pretensions of the Manichæans are to Be Refuted. Two Manichæan Falsehoods. 
   19. Chapter 2. --He Begins with Arguments, in Compliance with the Mistaken Method of the Manichæans. 
   20. Chapter 3. --Happiness is in the Enjoyment of Man's Chief Good. Two Conditions of the Chief Good: 1st, Nothing is Better Than It; 2d, It Cannot Be Lost Against the Will. 
   21. Chapter 4. --Man--What? 
   22. Chapter 5. --Man's Chief Good is Not the Chief Good of the Body Only, But the Chief Good of the Soul. 
   23. Chapter 6. --Virtue Gives Perfection to the Soul; The Soul Obtains Virtue by Following God; Following God is the Happy Life. 
   24. Chapter 7. --The Knowledge of God to Be Obtained from the Scripture. The Plan and Principal Mysteries of the Divine Scheme of Redemption. 
   25. Chapter 8. --God is the Chief Good, Whom We are to Seek After with Supreme Affection. 
   26. Chapter 9. --Harmony of the Old and New Testament on the Precepts of Charity. 
   27. Chapter 10. --What the Church Teaches About God. The Two Gods of the Manichæans. 
   28. Chapter 11. --God is the One Object of Love; Therefore He is Man's Chief Good. Nothing is Better Than God. God Cannot Be Lost Against Our Will. 
   29. Chapter 12. --We are United to God by Love, in Subjection to Him. 
   30. Chapter 13. --We are Joined Inseparably to God by Christ and His Spirit. 
   31. Chapter 14. --We Cleave to the Trinity, Our Chief Good, by Love. 
   32. Chapter 15. --The Christian Definition of the Four Virtues. 
   33. Chapter 16. --Harmony of the Old and New Testaments. 
   34. Chapter 17. --Appeal to the Manichæans, Calling on Them to Repent. 
   35. Chapter 18. --Only in the Catholic Church is Perfect Truth Established on the Harmony of Both Testaments. 
   36. Chapter 19. --Description of the Duties of Temperance, According to the Sacred Scriptures. 
   37. Chapter 20. --We are Required to Despise All Sensible Things, and to Love God Alone. 
   38. Chapter 21. --Popular Renown and Inquisitiveness are Condemned in the Sacred Scriptures. 
   39. Chapter 22. --Fortitude Comes from the Love of God. 
   40. Chapter 23. --Scripture Precepts and Examples of Fortitude. 
   41. Chapter 24. --Of Justice and Prudence. 
   42. Chapter 25. --Four Moral Duties Regarding the Love of God, of Which Love the Reward is Eternal Life and the Knowledge of the Truth. 
   43. Chapter 26. --Love of Ourselves and of Our Neighbor. 
   44. Chapter 27. --On Doing Good to the Body of Our Neighbor. 
   45. Chapter 28. --On Doing Good to the Soul of Our Neighbor. Two Parts of Discipline, Restraint and Instruction. Through Good Conduct We Arrive at the Knowledge of the Truth. 
   46. Chapter 29. --Of the Authority of the Scriptures. 
   47. Chapter 30. --The Church Apostrophised as Teacher of All Wisdom. Doctrine of the Catholic Church. 
   48. Chapter 31. --The Life of the Anachoretes and Coenobites Set Against the Continence of the Manichæans. 
   49. Chapter 32. --Praise of the Clergy. 
   50. Chapter 33. --Another Kind of Men Living Together in Cities. Fasts of Three Days. 
   51. Chapter 34. --The Church is Not to Be Blamed for the Conduct of Bad Christians, Worshippers of Tombs and Pictures. 
   52. Chapter 35. --Marriage and Property Allowed to the Baptized by the Apostles. 
   53. St. AUGUSTIN: on the morals of the manichæans. 
   54. On the Morals of the Manichæans. 
   55. Chapter 1. --The Supreme Good is that Which is Possessed of Supreme Existence. 
   56. Chapter 2. --What Evil is. That Evil is that Which is Against Nature. In Allowing This, the Manichæans Refute Themselves. 
   57. Chapter 3. --If Evil is Defined as that Which is Hurtful, This Implies Another Refutation of the Manichæans. 
   58. Chapter 4. --The Difference Between What is Good in Itself and What is Good by Participation. 
   59. Chapter 5. --If Evil is Defined to Be Corruption, This Completely Refutes the Manichæan Heresy. 
   60. Chapter 6. --What Corruption Affects and What It is. 
   61. Chapter 7. --The Goodness of God Prevents Corruption from Bringing Anything to Non-Existence. The Difference Between Creating and Forming. 
   62. Chapter 8. --Evil is Not a Substance, But a Disagreement Hostile to Substance. 
   63. Chapter 9. --The Manichæan Fictions About Things Good and Evil are Not Consistent with Themselves. 
   64. Chapter 10. --Three Moral Symbols Devised by the Manichæans for No Good. 
   65. Chapter 11. --The Value of the Symbol of the Mouth Among the Manichæans, Who are Found Guilty of Blaspheming God. 
   66. Chapter 12. --Manichæan Subterfuge. 
   67. Chapter 13. --Actions to Be Judged of from Their Motive, Not from Externals. Manichæan Abstinence to Be Tried by This Principle. 
   68. Chapter 14. --Three Good Reasons for Abstaining from Certain Kinds of Food. 
   69. Chapter 15. --Why the Manichæans Prohibit the Use of Flesh. 
   70. Chapter 16. --Disclosure of the Monstrous Tenets of the Manichæans. 
   71. Chapter 17. --Description of the Symbol of the Hands Among the Manichæans. 
   72. Chapter 18. --Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans. 
   73. Chapter 19. --Crimes of the Manichæans. 
   74. Chapter 20. --Disgraceful Conduct Discovered at Rome. 
   75. St. AUGUSTIN: on two souls, against the manichæans. 
   76. Concerning Two Souls, Against the Manichæans. 
   77. Chapter 1. --By What Course of Reasoning the Error of the Manichæans Concerning Two Souls, One of Which is Not from God, is Refuted. Every Soul, Inasmuch as It is a Certain Life, Can Have Its Existence Only from God the Source of Life. 
   78. Chapter 2. --If the Light that is Perceived by Sense Has God for Its Author, as the Manichæans Acknowledge, Much More The Soul Which is Perceived by Intellect Alone. 
   79. Chapter 3. --How It is Proved that Every Body Also is from God. That the Soul Which is Called Evil by the Manichæans is Better Than Light. 
   80. Chapter 4. --Even the Soul of a Fly is More Excellent Than the Light. 
   81. Chapter 5. --How Vicious Souls, However Worthy of Condemnation They May Be, Excel the Light Which is Praiseworthy in Its Kind. 
   82. Chapter 6. --Whether Even Vices Themselves as Objects of Intellectual Apprehension are to Be Preferred to Light as an Object of Sense Perception, and are to Be Attributed to God as Their Author.
   83. Chapter 7. --How Evil Men are of God, and Not of God. 
   84. Chapter 8. --The Manichæans Inquire Whence is Evil and by This Question Think They Have Triumphed. Let Them First Know, Which is Most Easy to Do, that Nothing Can Live Without God. Consummate Evil Cannot Be Known Except by the Knowledge of Consummat
   85. Chapter 9. --Augustin Deceived by Familiarity with the Manichæans, and by the Succession of Victories Over Ignorant Christians Reported by Them. The Manichæans are Likewise Easily Refuted from the Knowledge of Sin and the Will. 
   86. Chapter 10. --Sin is Only from the Will. His Own Life and Will Best Known to Each Individual. What Will is. 
   87. Chapter 11. --What Sin is. 
   88. Chapter 12. --From the Definitions Given of Sin and Will, He Overthrows the Entire Heresy of the Manichæans. Likewise from the Just Condemnation of Evil Souls It Follows that They are Evil Not by Nature But by Will.
   89. Chapter 13. --From Deliberation on the Evil and on the Good Part It Results that Two Classes of Souls are Not to Be Held to.
   90. Chapter 14. --Again It is Shown from the Utility of Repenting that Souls are Not by Nature Evil. So Sure a Demonstration is Not Contradicted Except from the Habit of Erring. 
   91. Chapter 15. --He Prays for His Friends Whom He Has Had as Associates in Error. 
   92. St. AUGUSTIN: acts or disputation against fortunatus the manichæan. 
   93. Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus, the Manichæan. 
   94. Disputation of the Second Day. 
   95. St. AUGUSTIN: against the epistle of manichæus, called fundamental. 
   96. Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental. 
   97. Chapter 1. --To Heal Heretics is Better Than to Destroy Them. 
   98. Chapter 2. --Why the Manichæans Should Be More Gently Dealt with. 
   99. Chapter 3. --Augustin Once a Manichæan. 
  100. Chapter 4. --Proofs of the Catholic Faith. 
  101. Chapter 5. --Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus. 
  102. Chapter 6. --Why Manichæus Called Himself an Apostle of Christ. 
  103. Chapter 7. --In What Sense the Followers of Manichæus Believe Him to Be the Holy Spirit. 
  104. Chapter 8. --The Festival of the Birth-Day of Manichæus. 
  105. Chapter 9. --When the Holy Spirit Was Sent. 
  106. Chapter 10. --The Holy Spirit Twice Given. 
  107. Chapter 11. --Manichæus Promises Truth, But Does Not Make Good His Word. 
  108. Chapter 12. --The Wild Fancies of Manichæus. The Battle Before the Constitution of the World. 
  109. Chapter 13. --Two Opposite Substances. The Kingdom of Light. Manichæus Teaches Uncertainties Instead of Certainties. 
  110. Chapter 14. --Manichæus Promises the Knowledge of Undoubted Things, and Then Demands Faith in Doubtful Things. 
  111. Chapter 15. --The Doctrine of Manichæus Not Only Uncertain, But False. His Absurd Fancy of a Land and Race of Darkness Bordering on the Holy Region and the Substance of God.
  112. Chapter 16. --The Soul, Though Mutable, Has No Material Form. It is All Present in Every Part of the Body. 
  113. Chapter 17. --The Memory Contains the Ideas of Places of the Greatest Size. 
  114. Chapter 18. --The Understanding Judges of the Truth of Things, and of Its Own Action. 
  115. Chapter 19. --If the Mind Has No Material Extension, Much Less Has God. 
  116. Chapter 20. --Refutation of the Absurd Idea of Two Territories. 
  117. Chapter 21. --This Region of Light Must Be Material If It is Joined to the Region of Darkness. The Shape of the Region of Darkness Joined to the Region of Light. 
  118. Chapter 22. --The Form of the Region of Light the Worse of the Two. 
  119. Chapter 23. --The Anthropomorphites Not So Bad as the Manichæans. 
  120. Chapter 24. --Of the Number of Natures in the Manichæan Fiction. 
  121. Chapter 25. --Omnipotence Creates Good Things Differing in Degree. In Every Description Whatsoever of the Junction of the Two Regions There is Either Impropriety or Absurdity. 
  122. Chapter 26. --The Manichæans are Reduced to the Choice of a Tortuous, or Curved, or Straight Line of Junction. The Third Kind of Line Would Give Symmetry and Beauty Suitable to Both Regions. 
  123. Chapter 27. --The Beauty of the Straight Line Might Be Taken from the Region of Darkness Without Taking Anything from Its Substance. So Evil Neither Takes from Nor Adds to the Substance of the Soul.
  124. Chapter 28. --Manichæus Places Five Natures in the Region of Darkness. 
  125. Chapter 29. --The Refutation of This Absurdity. 
  126. Chapter 30. --The Number of Good Things in Those Natures Which Manichæus Places in the Region of Darkness. 
  127. Chapter 31. --The Same Subject Continued. 
  128. Chapter 32. --Manichæus Got the Arrangement of His Fanciful Notions from Visible Objects. 
  129. Chapter 33. --Every Nature, as Nature, is Good. 
  130. Chapter 34. --Nature Cannot Be Without Some Good. The Manichæans Dwell Upon the Evils. 
  131. Chapter 35. --Evil Alone is Corruption. Corruption is Not Nature, But Contrary to Nature. Corruption Implies Previous Good. 
  132. Chapter 36. --The Source of Evil or of Corruption of Good. 
  133. Chapter 37. --God Alone Perfectly Good. 
  134. Chapter 38. --Nature Made by God; Corruption Comes from Nothing. 
  135. Chapter 39. --In What Sense Evils are from God. 
  136. Chapter 40. --Corruption Tends to Non-Existence. 
  137. Chapter 41. --Corruption is by God's Permission, and Comes from Us. 
  138. Chapter 42. --Exhortation to the Chief Good. 
  139. Chapter 43. --Conclusion. 
  140. St. AUGUSTIN: 
  141. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan. 
  142. Who Faustus was. Faustus's object in writing the polemical treatise that forms the basis of Augustin's reply. Augustin's remarks thereon. 
  143. Faustus claims to believe the Gospel, yet refuses to accept the genealogical tables on various grounds which Augustin seeks to set aside. 
  144. Faustus objects to the incarnation of God on the ground that the evangelists are at variance with each other, and that incarnation is unsuitable to deity. Augustin attempts to remove the critical and theological difficulties. 
  145. Faustus's reasons for rejecting the Old Testament, and Augustin's animadversions thereon. 
  146. Faustus claims that the Manichæans and not the Catholics are consistent believers in the Gospel, and seeks to establish this claim by comparing Manichæan and Catholic obedience to the precepts of the Gospel. Augustin exposes the hypocrisy of t
  147. Faustus avows his disbelief in the Old Testament and his disregard of its precepts, and accuses Catholics of inconsistency in neglecting its ordinances, while claiming to accept it as authoritative. Augustin explains the Catholic view of the relation of t
  148. The genealogical question is again taken up and argued on both sides. 
  149. Faustus maintains that to hold to the Old Testament after the giving of the New is putting new cloth on an old garment. Augustin further explains the relation of the Old Testament to the New, and reproaches the Manichæans with carnality. 
  150. Faustus argues that if the apostles born under the old covenant could lawfully depart from it, much more can he having been born a Gentile. Augustin explains the relation of Jews and Gentiles alike to the Gospel. 
  151. Faustus insists that the Old Testament promises are radically different from those of the New. Augustin admits a difference, but maintains that the moral precepts are the same in both. 
  152. Faustus quotes passages to show that the Apostle Paul abandoned belief in the incarnation, to which he earlier held. Augustin shows that the apostle was consistent with himself in the utterances quoted. 
  153. Faustus denies that the prophets predicted Christ. Augustin proves such prediction from the New Testament, and expounds at length the principal types of Christ in the Old Testament. 
  154. Faustus asserts that even if the Old Testament could be shown to contain predictions, it would be of interest only to the Jews, pagan literature subserving the same purpose for Gentiles. Augustin shows the value of prophesy for Gentiles and Jews alike. 
  155. Faustus abhors Moses for the awful curse he has pronounced upon Christ. Augustin expounds the Christian doctrine of the suffering Saviour by comparing Old and New Testament passages. 
  156. Faustus rejects the Old Testament because it leaves no room for Christ. Christ the one Bridegroom suffices for His Bride the Church. Augustin answers as well as he can, and reproves the Manichæans with presumption in claiming to be the Bride of Chri
  157. Faustus willing to believe not only that the Jewish but that all Gentile prophets wrote of Christ, if it should be proved; but he would none the less insist upon rejecting their superstitions. Augustin maintains that all Moses wrote is of Christ, and that
  158. Faustus rejects Christ's declaration that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them
  159. The relation of Christ to prophecy, continued. 
  160. Faustus is willing to admit that Christ may have said that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them; but if He did, it was to pacify the Jews and in a modified sense. Augustin replies, and still further elaborates the Catholic 
  161. Faustus repels the charge of sun-worship
  162. Faustus denies that Manichæans believe in two gods. Hyle no god. Augustin discusses at large the doctrine of God and Hyle, and fixes the charge of dualism upon the Manichæans. 
  163. Faustus states his objections to the morality of the law and the prophets, and Augustin seeks by the application of the type and the allegory to explain away the moral difficulties of the Old Testament. 
  164. Faustus recurs to the genealogical difficulty and insists that even according to Matthew Jesus was not Son of God until His baptism. Augustin sets forth the Catholic view of the relation of the divine and the human in the person of Christ. 
  165. Faustus explains the Manichæan denial that man was made by God as applying to the fleshly man not to the spiritual. Augustin elucidates the Apostle Paul's contrasts between flesh and spirit so as to exclude the Manichæan view. 
  166. Faustus seeks to bring into ridicule the orthodox claim to believe in the infinity of God by caricaturing the anthropomorphic representations of the Old Testament. Augustin expresses his despair of being able to induce the Manichæans to adopt right 
  167. Faustus insists that Jesus might have died though not born, by the exercise of divine power, yet he rejects birth and death alike. Augustin maintains that there are some things that even God cannot do, one of which is to die. He refutes the docetism of th
  168. Faustus warns against pressing too far the argument, that if Jesus was not born He cannot have suffered. Augustin accepts the birth and death alike on the testimony of the Gospel narrative, which is higher authority than the falsehood of Manichæus. 
  169. Faustus recurs to the genealogy and insists upon examining it as regards its consistency with itself. Augustin takes his stand on Scripture authority and maintains that Matthew's statements as to the birth of Christ must be accepted as final. 
  170. Faustus seeks to justify the docetism of the Manichæans. Augustin insists that there is nothing disgraceful in being born. 
  171. Faustus repels the insinuation that the prophecy of Paul with reference to those that should forbid to marry
  172. The scripture passage: |To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure and defiled is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled,| is discussed from both the Manichæan and the Catholic points of view, Faustus objecting to its a
  173. Faustus fails to understand why he should be required either to accept or reject the New Testament as a whole, while the Catholics accept or reject the various parts of the Old Testament at pleasure. Augustin denies that the Catholics treat the Old Testam
  174. Faustus does not think it would be a great honor to sit down with Abraham
  175. St. AUGUSTIN: concerning the nature of good, against the manichæans. 
  176. Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans. 
  177. Chapter 1. --God the Highest and Unchangeable Good, from Whom are All Other Good Things, Spiritual and Corporeal. 
  178. Chapter 2. --How This May Suffice for Correcting the Manichæans. 
  179. Chapter 3. --Measure, Form, and Order, Generic Goods in Things Made by God. 
  180. Chapter 4. --Evil is Corruption of Measure, Form, or Order. 
  181. Chapter 5. --The Corrupted Nature of a More Excellent Order Sometimes Better Than an Inferior Nature Even Uncorrupted. 
  182. Chapter 6. --Nature Which Cannot Be Corrupted is the Highest Good; That Which Can, is Some Good. 
  183. Chapter 7. --The Corruption of Rational Spirits is on the One Hand Voluntary, on the Other Penal. 
  184. Chapter 8. --From the Corruption and Destruction of Inferior Things is the Beauty of the Universe. 
  185. Chapter 9. --Punishment is Constituted for the Sinning Nature that It May Be Rightly Ordered. 
  186. Chapter 10. --Natures Corruptible, Because Made of Nothing. 
  187. Chapter 11. --God Cannot Suffer Harm, Nor Can Any Other Nature Except by His Permission. 
  188. Chapter 12. --All Good Things are from God Alone. 
  189. Chapter 13. --Individual Good Things, Whether Small or Great, are from God. 
  190. Chapter 14. --Small Good Things in Comparison with Greater are Called by Contrary Names. 
  191. Chapter 15. --In the Body of the Ape the Good of Beauty is Present, Though in a Less Degree. 
  192. Chapter 16. --Privations in Things are Fittingly Ordered by God. 
  193. Chapter 17. --Nature, in as Far as It is Nature, No Evil. 
  194. Chapter 18. --Hyle, Which Was Called by the Ancients the Formless Material of Things, is Not an Evil. 
  195. Chapter 19. --To Have True Existence is an Exclusive Prerogative of God. 
  196. Chapter 20. --Pain Only in Good Natures. 
  197. Chapter 21. --From Measure Things are Said to Be Moderate-Sized. 
  198. Chapter 22. --Measure in Some Sense is Suitable to God Himself. 
  199. Chapter 23. --Whence a Bad Measure, a Bad Form, a Bad Order May Sometimes Be Spoken of. 
  200. Chapter 24. --It is Proved by the Testimonies of Scripture that God is Unchangeable. The Son of God Begotten, Not Made. 
  201. Chapter 25. --This Last Expression Misunderstood by Some. 
  202. Chapter 26. --That Creatures are Made of Nothing. 
  203. Chapter 27. --|From Him| And |Of Him| Do Not Mean The Same Thing. 
  204. Chapter 28. --Sin Not From God, But From The Will of Those Sinning. 
  205. Chapter 29. --That God is Not Defiled by Our Sins. 
  206. Chapter 30. --That Good Things, Even the Least, and Those that are Earthly, are by God. 
  207. Chapter 31. --To Punish and to Forgive Sins Belong Equally to God. 
  208. Chapter 32. --From God Also is the Very Power to Be Hurtful. 
  209. Chapter 33. --That Evil Angels Have Been Made Evil, Not by God, But by Sinning. 
  210. Chapter 34. --That Sin is Not the Striving for an Evil Nature, But the Desertion of a Better. 
  211. Chapter 35. --The Tree Was Forbidden to Adam Not Because It Was Evil, But Because It Was Good for Man to Be Subject to God. 
  212. Chapter 36. --No Creature of God is Evil, But to Abuse a Creature of God is Evil. 
  213. Chapter 37. --God Makes Good Use of the Evil Deeds of Sinners. 
  214. Chapter 38. --Eternal Fire Torturing the Wicked, Not Evil. 
  215. Chapter 39. --Fire is Called Eternal, Not as God Is, But Because Without End. 
  216. Chapter 40. --Neither Can God Suffer Hurt, Nor Any Other, Save by the Just Ordination of God. 
  217. Chapter 41. --How Great Good Things the Manichæans Put in the Nature of Evil, and How Great Evil Things in the Nature of Good. 
  218. Chapter 42. --Manichæan Blasphemies Concerning the Nature of God. 
  219. Chapter 43. --Many Evils Before His Commingling with Evil are Attributed to the Nature of God by the Manichæans. 
  220. Chapter 44. --Incredible Turpitudes in God Imagined by Manichæus. 
  221. Chapter 45. --Certain Unspeakable Turpitudes Believed, Not Without Reason, Concerning the Manichæans Themselves. 
  222. Chapter 46. --The Unspeakable Doctrine of the Fundamental Epistle. 
  223. Chapter 47. --He Compels to the Perpetration of Horrible Turpitudes. 
  224. Chapter 48. --Augustin Prays that the Manichæans May Be Restored to Their Senses. 

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 0: WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANICHAEAN CONTROVERSY 
========================================================================


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: EDITOR'S PREFACE 
========================================================================

This fourth volume of St. Augustin's Works contains his polemical writings in
vindication of the Catholic Church against the heresy of the Manichæans, and the
schism of the Donatists. The former are contained in Tom. II. and VIII., the
latter in Tom. IX., of the Benedictine edition. Like the preceding volumes, this
also is more than a reprint of older translations, and contains important
additions not previously published. I. -- Seven Writings Against the Manichæan
Heresy. Four of these were translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert, of Bombay,
for Dr. Dods' edition, published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1872, and revised
by Dr. Albert H. Newman, of Toronto, for the American ed The Edinburgh
translation, especially of the first two treatises, is sufficiently faithful and
idiomatic, and needed very little alteration by the American editor, who
compared it sentence by sentence with the Latin original, and made changes only
where they seemed necessary. This part of the volume is also enriched by an
introductory essay of Dr. Newman, which embodies the literature and the results
of the most recent as well as the earlier researches concerning that
anti-Christian heresy. II. -- The Writings Against the Donatists. These were
well translated by the Rev. J. R. King, of Oxford, and are slightly revised by
Dr. Hartranft, of Hartford, after a careful comparison with the Latin. The
literary introduction of Dr. Hartranft, in connection with the translator's
historical preface, will place the reader in the situation of the controversy
between the Catholic Church and the Donatists at the time of St. Augustin. In
both sections the treatises are arranged in chronological order. The fifth
volume will contain the writings of St. Augustin against the Pelagians and
Semi-Pelagians. It is in the hands of the printer and will be published in
October.Philip Schaff.New York, June, 1887.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: PREFACE. 
========================================================================

__________ Preface. I. THE ANTI-MANICHæAN WRITINGS. Translated by the Rev.
RICHARD STOTHERT, M.A., Bombay, and Prof. Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Toronto
Introductory essay on the Manichæan heresy. By Dr. Newman. On the Morals of the
Catholic Church (De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ), A.D.388. Translated by the Rev.
Richard Stothert. On the Morals of the Manichæans (De Moribus
Manichæorum),A.D.388.Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.On Two Souls,
against the Manichæans(De Duabus Animabus, contra Manichæos),A.D.391.Translated
by Dr. Newman.Acts or Disputation against Fortunatus the Manichæan(Acta seu
Disputatio contra Fortunatum Manichæum),A.D.392.Translated by Dr. Newman.Against
the Epistle of Manichæus called Fundamental(Contra Epistolam Manichæi quam
vocant Fundamenti),A.D.397.Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.Reply to Faustus
the Manichæan(Contra Faustus Manichæum, Libri XXXIII ),A.D.400.Translated by the
Rev. R. Stothert.Concerning the nature of good, against the Manichæans(De Natura
Boni contra Manichæos),A.D.404.Translated by Dr. Newman.II. THE ANTI-donatist
WRITINGS.Translated by the Rev. J.R. King, M.A., Vicar of St. Peter's in the
East, Oxford, and late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.The
Translation revised, with additional annotations, by the Rev. Chester D.
Hartranft, D.D., Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History in the
Theological Seminary at Hartford, Connecticut.Introductory to the Anti-Donatist
Writings.By Dr. Hartranft.On Baptism, against the Donatists(De Baptismo, contra
Donatistas, Libri VII ),Circa, A.D.400.Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of
Cirta(Contra Litteras Petiliani Donatistæ Cirtensis Episcopi, Libri III
),A.D.400.The Correction of the Donatists(De Correctione Donatistarum Liber seu
Epistola CLXXXV ),Circa, A.D.417.Index to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.Index to
the Anti-Donatist Writings.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANICHÆAN CONTROVERSY 
========================================================================

translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert, M.A., Bombay; and Albert H. Newman,
D.D., LL.D. Professor of Church History and Comparative Religion, in Toronto
Baptist (Theological) College, Toronto, Canada.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON THE MANICHÆAN HERESY, 
========================================================================

By Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER I. --LITERATURE.
========================================================================

I. Sources. The following bibliography of Manichæism is taken from Schaff's
History of the Christian Church, vol. II. pp.498-500 (new edition). Additions
are indicated by brackets. 1. Oriental Sources: The most important, though of
comparatively late date. (a) Mohammedan (Arabic): Kitâb al Fihrist. A history of
Arabic literature to 987, by an Arab of Bagdad, usually called Ibn Abi Jakub
An-Nadîm; brought to light by Flügel, and published after his death by Rödiger
and Müller, in 2 vols. Leipz.1871-'72. Book IX. section first, treats of
Manichæism. Flügel's translation, see below. Kessler calls the Fihrist a
"Fündstätte allerersten Ranges." Next to it comes the relation of the Mohammedan
philosopher, Al-Shahrastani (d.1153), in his History of Religious Parties and
Philosophical Sects, Ed. Cureton, Lond.1842, 2 vols. (I.188-192); German
translation by Haarbrücker, Halle, 1851. On other Mohammedan sources, see
Kessler in Herzog, IX., 225 sq. (b) Persian Sources: relating to the life of
Mani, the Shâhnâmeh (the King's Book) of Firdausi; ed. by Jul. Mohl, Paris, 1866
(V.472-475). See Kessler, ibid.225. [Albiruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations,
tr. by E. Sachau, and published by the Oriental Translation Fund, Lond.1879.
Albîrunî lived 973-1048, and is said to have possessed vast literary resources
no longer available to us. His work seems to be based on early Manichæan
sources, and strikingly confirms the narrative preserved by the Fihrist. See
also articles by West and Thomas in Journal of the Asiatic Society, 1868, 1870,
1871.] (c) Christian Sources: In Arabic, the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius
(d.916). Annales, ed. Pococke, Oxon.1628; Barhebræus (d.1286), in his Historia
Dynastiarum, ed. Pococke. In Syriac: Ephraem Syrus (d.393), in various writings.
Esnig or Esnik, an Armenian bishop of the 5th Century, who wrote against Marcion
and Mani (German translation from the Armenian by C. Fr. Neumann, in Illgen's
Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theologie, 1834, pp.77-78). 2. Greek Sources:
[Alexander of Lycopolis: The Tenets of the Manichæans (first published by
Combefis, with a Latin version, in the Auctararium Novissimum, Bibl. S. S.
Patrum; again by Gallandi, in his Bibl. Patrum, vol. IV. p.73 sq. An English
translation by Rev. James B.H. Hawkins, M .A ., appeared in Clark's Ante-Nicene
Library, Vol. XIV. p.236 sq.; Am. ed. vol. VI. p.237 sq. Alexander represents
himself as a convert from Paganism to Manichæism, and from Manichæism to
Orthodoxy. He claims to have learned Manichæism from those who were intimately
associated with Mani himself, and is, therefore, one of the earliest witnesses.
[1] ] Eusebius (H. E. VII.31, a brief account). Epiphanius (Haer.66). Cyril of
Jerusalem (Catech. VI.20 sq.). Titus of Bostra (pros Manichaious, ed P. de
Lagarde, 1859). Photius: Adv. Manichæos (Cod.179, Biblioth.). John of Damascus:
De Haeres. and Dial. [Petrus Siculus, Hist. Manichæorum.] 3. Latin Sources:
Archelaus (Bishop of Cascar in Mesopotamia, d. about 278): Acta Disputationis
cum Manete Hæresiarcha; first written in Syriac, and so far belonging to the
Oriental Christian Sources (Comp. Jerome, de Vir. Ill.72), but extant only in a
Latin translation, which seems to have been made from the Greek, edited by
Zacagni (Rome, 1698), and Routh (in Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. V.3-206); Eng. transl.
in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library (vol. XX.272-419). [Am. ed. vol. VI. p.173 sq.].
These Acts purport to contain the report of a disputation between Archelaus and
Mani before a large assembly, which was in full sympathy with the orthodox
bishop, but (as Beausobre first proved), they are in form a fiction from the
first quarter of the fourth century (about 320), by a Syrian ecclesiastic
(probably of Edessa), yet based upon Manichæan documents, and containing much
information about Manichæan doctrines. They consist of various pieces, and were
the chief source of information to the West. Mani is represented (ch.12), as
appearing in a many-colored cloak and trousers, with a sturdy staff of ebony, a
Babylonian book under his left arm, and with a mien of an old Persian master. In
his defense he quotes freely from the N.T. At the end, he makes his escape to
Persia (ch.55). Comp. H. V. Zittwitz: Die Acta Archelai et Manetis untersucht,
in Kahnis' Zeitschrift für d. Hist. Theol.1873, No. IV. Oblasinski: Acta Disput.
Arch., etc. Lips.1874 (inaugural dissert.). Ad. Harnack: Die Acta Archelai und
das Diatessaron Tatians, in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl.
Lit. vol. I. Heft 3 (1883), p.137-153. Harnack tries to prove that the Gospel
variations of Archelaus are taken from Tatian's Diatessaron. St. Augustin
(d.430, the chief Latin authority next to the translation of Archelaus).
[Besides the treatises published in Clark's series, Contra Fortunatum quendam
Manichæorum Presbyterum Disput. I. et II., Contra Adimantum Manichæi discipulum,
Contra Secundinum Manichæum, De Natura Boni, De duabus Animabus, De Utilitate
Credendi, De Haeres. XLVI. Of these, De duabus Animabus, Contra Fortunatum, and
De Natura Boni are added in the present edition, and De Utilitate Credendi has
been included among Augustin's shorter theological treatises in vol. III. of the
present series. In the Confessions and the Letters, moreover, the Manichæans
figure prominently. The treatises included in the present series may be said to
fairly represent Augustin's manner of dealing with Manichæism. The
Anti-Manichæan writings are found chiefly in vol. VIII. of the Benedictine
edition, and in volumes I. and XI. of the Migne reprint. Augustin's personal
connection with the sect extending over a period of nine years, and his
consummate ability in dealing with this form of error, together with the fact
that he quotes largely from Manichæan literature, render his works the highest
authority for Manichæism as it existed in the West at the close of the fifth
century.] Comp. also the Acts of Councils against the Manichæans from the fourth
century onwards, in Mansi and Hefele [and Hardouin]. II. Modern Works. Isaac de
Beausobre (b.1659 in France, pastor of the French church in Berlin, d.1738):
Histoire Crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst.1634 and '39, 2 vols.4to.
Part of the first volume is historical, the second doctrinal. Very full and
scholarly. He intended to write a third volume on the later Manichæans. F. Chr.
Baur: Das Manichäische Religions-system nach den Quellen neu untersucht und
entwickelt, Tüb.1831 (500 pages). A comprehensive, philosophical and critical
view. He calls the Manich. system a "glühend prächtiges Natur-und Weltgedicht."
[An able critique of Baur's work by Schneckenburger appeared in the "Theol.
Studien u. Kritiken," 1833, p.875 sq. Schneckenburger strives to make it appear
that Baur unduly minifies the Christian element in Manichæism. Later researches
have tended to confirm Baur's main position. The Oriental sources employed by
Flügel and Kessler have thrown much light upon the character of primitive
Manichæism, and have enabled us to determine more precisely than Beausobre and
Baur were able to do the constituent elements of Mani's system. A.V. Wegnern:
Manichæorum Indulgentiæ, Lips.1827. Wegnern points out the resemblance between
the Manichæan system, in accordance with which the "hearers" participate in the
merits of the "elect" without subjecting themselves to the rigorous asceticism
practiced by the latter, and the later doctrine and practice of indulgences in
the Roman Catholic church.] Trechsel: Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese der
Manichäer, Bern, 1832. D. Chwolson: Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, Petersb.1856,
2 vols. G. Flugel: Mani, seine Lehre und seine Scriften. Aus dem Fihrist des Abî
Jakub an-Nadîm (987), Leipz.1862. Text, translation and commentary, 440 pages.
[Of the highest value, the principal document on which the work is based being,
probably, the most authentic exposition of primitive Manichæan doctrine.] K.
Kessler: Untersuchungen zur Genesis des Manich. Rel. Systems, Leipz.1876. By the
same: Mânî oder Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Religionsmischung im Semitismus,
Leipz.1887. See also his thorough article, Mânî und die Manichær, in "Herzog,"
new ed. vol. IX.223-259 (abridged in Schaff's "Encyclop." II.1396-1398).
[Kessler has done more than any other writer to establish the relation between
the Manichæans and the earlier Oriental sects, and between these and the old
Babylonian religion. The author of this introduction wishes to express his deep
obligation to Kessler. The article on the "Mandäer" in "Herzog," by the same
author, is valuable in this connection, though his attempt to exclude all
historical connection between this Babylonian Gnostic sect and Palestine can
hardly be pronounced a success. J. B. Mozley: Ruling Ideas in Early Ages;
lecture on "The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers," with special reference to
Augustin's method of dealing with the cavils of the Manichæans.] G. T. Stokes:
Manes and Manichæans, in "Smith and Wace," III.792-801. A. Harnack: Manichæism
in 9th ed. of the "Encycl. Britannica," vol. XV. (1883), 481-487. [Also in
German, as a Beigabe to his Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, vol. I. p.681 sq.
Harnack follows Kessler in all essential particulars. Of Kessler's article in
"Herzog" he says: "This article contains the best that we possess on
Manichæism." In this we concur. W. Cunningham: S. Austin and his Place in the
History of Christian Thought, Hulsean Lectures, 1885, p.45-72, and passim,
Lond.1886. This treatise is of considerable value, especially as it regards the
philosophical attitude of Augustin towards Manichæism.] The accounts of Mosheim,
Lardner, Schröckh, Walch, Neander, Gieseler [and Wolf].


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER II. --PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS, AND ANTECEDENTS OF MANICHÆISM. 
========================================================================

"About 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era," writes Professor
Monier Williams, [2] "a great stir seems to have taken place in Indo-Aryan, as
in Grecian minds, and indeed in thinking minds everywhere throughout the then
civilized world. Thus when Buddha arose in India, Greece had her thinkers in
Pythagoras, Persia in Zoroaster, and China in Confucius. Men began to ask
themselves earnestly such questions as -- What am I? Whence have I come? Whither
am I going? How can I explain my consciousness of personal existence? What is
the relationship between my material and immaterial nature? What is the world in
which I find myself? did a wise, good and all-powerful Being create it out of
nothing? or did it evolve out of an eternal germ? or did it come together by the
combination of eternal atoms? If created by a Being of infinite wisdom, how can
I account for the inequality of condition in it -- good and evil, happiness and
misery. Has the Creator form or is he formless? Has he any qualities or none?"
It is true that such questions pressed themselves with special importunity upon
the thinkers of the age mentioned, but we should be far astray if we should
think for a moment that now for the first time they suggested themselves and
demanded solution. The fact is that the earliest literary records of the human
race bear evidence of high thinking on the fundamental problems of God, man, and
the world, and the relations of these to each other. Recent scholars have
brought to light facts of the utmost interest with reference to the
pre-Babylonian (Accadian) religion. A rude nature-worship, with a pantheistic
basis, but assuming a polytheistic form, seems to have prevailed in Mesopotamia
from a very early period. "Spirit everywhere dispersed produced all the
phenomena of nature, and directed and animated all created beings. They caused
evil and good, guided the movements of the celestial bodies, brought back the
seasons in their order, made the wind to blow and the rain to fall, and produced
by their influence atmospheric phenomena both beneficial and destructive; they
also rendered the earth fertile, and caused plants to germinate and to bear
fruit, presided over the births and preserved the lives of living beings, and
yet at the same time sent death and disease. There were spirits of this kind
everywhere, in the starry heavens, in the earth, and in the intermediate region
of the atmosphere; each element was full of them, earth, air, fire and water;
and nothing could exist without them...As evil is everywhere present in nature
side by side with good, plagues with favorable influences, death with life,
destruction with fruitfulness; an idea of dualism as decided as in the religion
of Zoroaster pervaded the conceptions of the supernatural world formed by the
Accadian magicians, the evil beings of which they feared more than they valued
the powers of good. There were essentially good spirits, and others equally bad.
These opposing troops constituted a vast dualism, which embraced the whole
universe and kept up a perpetual struggle in all parts of the creation." [3]
This primitive Turanian quasi-dualism (it was not dualism in the strictest sense
of the term) was not entirely obliterated by the Cushite and Semitic
civilizations and cults that successively overlaid it. So firmly rooted had this
early mode of viewing the world become that it materially influenced the
religions of the invaders rather than suffered extermination. In the Babylonian
religion of the Semitic period the dualistic element was manifest chiefly in the
magical rites of the Chaldean priests who long continued to use Accadian as
their sacred language. "Upon this dualistic conception rested the whole edifice
of sacred magic, of magic regarded as a holy and legitimate intercourse
established by rites of divine origin, between man and the supernatural beings
surrounding him on all sides. Placed unhappily in the midst of this perpetual
struggle between the good and bad spirits, man felt himself attacked by them at
every moment; his fate depended upon them....He needed then some aid against the
attacks of the bad spirits, against the plagues and diseases which they sent
upon him. This help he hoped to find in incantations, in mysterious and powerful
words, the secret of which was known only to the priests of magic, in their
prescribed rites and their talismans...The Chaldeans had such a great idea of
the power and efficacy of their formulæ, rites and amulets, that they came to
regard them as required to fortify the good spirits themselves in their combat
with the demons, and as able to give them help by providing them with invincible
weapons which should ensure success." [4] A large number of magical texts have
been preserved and deciphered, and among them "the favorable Alad,' the
favorable Lamma,' and the favorable Utuq,' are very frequently opposed...to the
evil Alad,' the evil Lamma,' the evil Utuq.'" [5] It would be interesting to
give in detail the results of the researches of George Smith, Lenormant, A.H.
Sayce, E. Schrader, Friedrich Delitzsch and others, with reference to the
elaborate mythological and cosmological systems of the Babylonians. Some of the
features thereof will be brought out further on by way of comparison with the
Manichæan mythology and cosmology. Suffice it to say that the dualistic element
is everywhere manifest, though not in so consistent and definite a form as in
Zoroastrianism, to say nothing of Manichæism. The Medo-Persian invasion brought
into Babylonia the Zoroastrian system, already modified, no doubt, by the
Elamitic (Cushite) cult. Yet the old Babylonian religion was too firmly rooted
to be supplanted, even by the religion of such conquerors as Darius and Cyrus.
Modifications, however, it undoubtedly underwent. The dualism inherent in the
system became more definite. The influence of the Jews in Mesopotamia upon the
ancient population cannot have been inconsiderable, especially as many of the
former, including probably most of the captives of the Northern tribes, were
absorbed by the latter. As a result of this blending of old Babylonian, Persian,
and Hebrew blood, traditions, and religious ideas, there was developed in
Mesopotamia a type of religious thought that furnished a philosophical basis and
a mythological and cosmological garnishing for the Manichæan system. Dualism,
therefore, arising from efforts of the unaided human mind to account for the
natural phenomena that appear beneficent and malignant, partly of old Babylonian
origin and partly of Persian, but essentially modified by Hebrew influence more
or less pure, furnished to Mani the foundation of his system. We shall attempt
at a later stage of the discussion to determine more accurately the relations of
Manichæism to the various systems with which correctly or incorrectly it has
been associated. Suffice it to say, at present, that no new problem presented
itself to Mani, and that he furnished no essentially new solution of the
problems that had occupied the attention of his countrymen for more than 2500
years. Before proceeding to institute a comparison between Manichæism and the
various systems of religious thought to which it stands related, it will be
advantageous to have before us an exposition of the Manichæan system itself,
based upon the most authentic sources.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: CHAPTER III. --THE MANICHÆAN SYSTEM. 
========================================================================

Earlier writers on Manichæism have, for the most part, made the Acta Disp.
Archelai et Manetis and the anti-Manichæan writings of Augustin the basis of
their representations. For later Manichæism in the West, Augustin is beyond
question the highest authority, and the various polemical treatises which he put
forth exhibit the system under almost every imaginable aspect. The "Acts of the
Disputation of Archelaus and Manes," while it certainly rests upon a somewhat
extensive and accurative knowledge of early Manichæism, is partially discredited
by its generally admitted spuriousness -- spuriousness in the sense that it is
not a genuine record of a real debate. It is highly probable that debates of
this kind occurred between Mani and various Christian leaders in the East, and
so Mani may at one time or other have given utterance to most of the statements
that are attributed to him in this writing; or these statements may have been
derived, for substance, from his numerous treatises, and have been artfully
adapted to the purposes of the writer of the "Acts." It is certain that most of
the representations are correct. But we can no longer rely upon it as an
authentic first-hand authority. Since Flügel published the treatise from the
Fihrist entitled "The Doctrines of the Manichæans, by Muhammad ben Ishâk," with
a German translation and learned annotations, it has been admitted that this
treatise must be made the basis for all future representations of Manichæism.
Kessler, while he has had access to many other Oriental documents bearing upon
the subject, agrees with Flügel in giving the first place to this writing. On
this exposition of the doctrines of the Manichæans, therefore, as expounded by
Flügel and Kessler, we must chiefly rely. The highly poetical mythological form
which Mani gave to his speculations renders it exceedingly difficult to arrive
at assured results with reference to fundamental principles. If we attempt to
state in a plain matter-of-fact way just what Mani taught we are in constant
danger of misrepresenting him. In fact one of the favorite methods employed
against Mani's doctrines by the writer of the "Acts of the Disputation," etc.,
as well as by Augustin and others, was to reduce Mani's poetical fancies to
plain language and thus to show their absurdity. The considerations which have
led experts like Flügel and Kessler to put so high an estimate upon this
document, and the discussions as to the original language in which the sources
of the document were written, are beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to
say, that so far as we are able to form a judgment on the matter, the reasons
for ascribing antiquity and authenticity to the representation of Manichæism
contained in the document are decisive. 1. Mani's Life. According to the
Fihrist, Mani's father, a Persian by race, resided at Coche on the Tigris, about
forty miles north of Babylon. Afterwards he removed into Babylonia and settled
at Modein, where he frequented an idol-temple like the rest of the people. He
next became associated with a party named Mugtasila (Baptizers), probably
identical with or closely related to the Mandæans and Sabeans, both of which
parties made much of ceremonial bathings. Mani, who was born after the removal
to Babylonia, is related to have been the recipient of angelic visitations at
the age of twelve. Even at this time he was forewarned that he must leave the
religion of his father at the age of twenty-four. At the appointed time the
angel At-Taum appeared again and announced to him his mission. "Hail, Mani, from
me and the Lord, who has sent me to thee and chosen thee for his mission. But he
commands thee to invite men to thy doctrine and to proclaim the glad tidings of
truth that comes from him, and to bestow thereon all thy zeal." Mani entered
upon his work, according to Flügel's careful computation, April 1, 238, or,
according to calculations based on another statement, in 252. Mani maintained
that he was the Paraclete promised by Jesus. He is said, in this document, to
have derived his teaching from the Magi and the Christians, and the characters
in which he wrote his books, from the Syriac and the Persian. After travelling
in many lands for forty years and disseminating his doctrines in India, China,
and Turkestan, he succeeded in impressing his views upon Fîrûz, brother of King
Sapor, who had intended to put him to death. Sapor became warmly attached to
Mani and granted toleration to his followers. Afterwards, according to some
accounts, Mani was imprisoned by Sapor and liberated by his successor Hormizd.
He is said to have been crucified by order of King Bahraîm I. (276-'7), and his
skin stuffed with straw is said to have been suspended at the city gate.
Eusebius (H. E. VII.31) describes Mani as "a barbarian in life, both in speech
and conduct, who attempted to form himself into a Christ, and then also
proclaimed himself to be the very Paraclete and the Holy Spirit. Then, as if he
had been Christ, he selected twelve disciples, the partners of his new religion,
and after patching together false and ungodly doctrines collected from a
thousand heresies long since extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison
from Persia, upon this part of the world." The account given in the Acta Archel
(written probably about 330-'40), is far more detailed than that of the Fihrist
and differs widely therefrom. It contains much that is highly improbable. Mani
is represented as having for his predecessors one Scythianus, an Egyptian
heretic of Apostolic times, and Terebinthus, who went with him to Palestine and
after the death of Scythianus removed to Babylonia. The writings of Terebinthus
or Scythianus came into the possession of a certain widow, who purchased Mani
when seven years of age (then named Cubricus) and made him heir of her property
and books. He changed his name to Mani (Manes), and, having become imbued with
the teachings of the books, began at about sixty years of age to promulgate
their teachings, choosing three disciples, Thomas, Addas and Hermas, to whom he
entrusted the writings mentioned above, along with some of his own. Up to this
time he knew little of Christianity, but having been imprisoned by the king for
failure in a promised cure of the king's son, he studied the Christian
Scriptures and derived therefrom the idea of the Paraclete, which he henceforth
applied to himself. After his escape the famous dialogue with Archelaus and that
with Diodorus occurred. Returning to Arabion he was arrested, carried to Persia,
flayed alive, and his skin stuffed and suspended as above. Some additional facts
from an Oriental source used by Beausobre have more or less verisimilitude.
According to this, Mani was born of Magian parents about 240 A.D. He became
skilled in music, mathematics, geography, astronomy, painting, medicine, and in
the Scriptures. The account of his ascendancy over Sapor and his subsequent
martyrdom is substantially the same as that of the Fihrist. Albîrunî's work (see
bibliography preceding) confirms the account given by the Fihrist. The
conversion of Sapor to Manichæism (in A.D.261) is said to be confirmed by
Sassanian inscriptions (see Journal of Asiat. Soc.1868 p.310-'41, and ibid.
p.376, and 1871 p.416). The Fihrist's account contains a long list of the works
of Mani, which is supplemented by other Oriental and Western notices. The list
is interesting as showing the wide range of Mani's literary activity, or at
least of the literature that was afterwards connected with his name. 2. Mani's
System. As the life of Mani has been the subject of diversified and
contradictory representations, so also have his doctrines. Here, too, we must
make the account given by the Fihrist fundamental. It will be convenient to
treat the subject under the following heads: Theology, Cosmogony, Anthropology,
Soteriology, Cultus, Eschatology, and Ethics. (1.) Theology. Mani taught dualism
in the most unqualified sense. Zoroastrianism is commonly characterized as
dualistic, yet it is so in no such sense as is Manichæism. According to the
Fihrist, "Mani teaches: Two subsistences form the beginning of the world, the
one light the other darkness; the two are separated from each other. The light
is the first most glorious being, limited by no number, God himself, the King of
the Paradise of Light. He has five members: meekness, knowledge, understanding,
mystery, insight; and five other spiritual members: love, faith, truth,
nobleness, and wisdom. He maintained furthermore that the God of light, with
these his attributes, is without beginning, but with him two equally eternal
things likewise exist, the one the atmosphere, the other the earth. Mani adds:
and the members of the atmosphere are five [the first series of divine
attributes mentioned above are enumerated]; and the members of the earth are
five [the second series]. The other being is the darkness, and his members are
five: cloud, burning, hot wind, poison, and darkness. Mani teaches: that the
light subsistence borders immediately on the dark subsistence, without a
dividing wall between them; the light touches with its (lowest) side the
darkness, while upwards to the right and left it is unbounded. Even so the
darkness is endless downwards and to the right and left." This represents Mani's
view of the eternally existent status quo, before the conflict began, and the
endless state after the conflict ceases. What does Mani mean, when he enumerates
two series of five attributes each as members of God, and straightway postulates
the co-eternity of atmosphere and earth and divides these self-same attributes
between the latter? Doubtless Mani's theology was fundamentally pantheistic,
i.e., pantheistic within the limits of each member of the dualism. The God of
Light himself is apparently conceived of as transcending thought. Atmosphere and
Earth (not the atmosphere and earth that we know, but ideal atmosphere and
earth) are the æons derived immediately from the Ineffable One and coëternal
with him. The ten attributes are æons which all belong primarily to the Supreme
Being and secondarily to the two great æons, half to each. The question may
arise, and has been often discussed, whether Mani meant to identify God (the
Prince of Light) with the Kingdom of Light? His language, in this treatise, is
wavering. He seems to struggle against such a representation, yet without
complete success. What do the other sources teach with reference to the
absoluteness of the dualism and with reference to the identification of the
Prince of Light with the Kingdom of Light? According to the Acts of the
Disputation of Archelaus and Manes, [6] Manes "worships two deities,
unoriginated, self-existent, eternal, opposed the one to the other. Of them he
represents the one as good, and the other as evil, and assigned the name of
Light to the former, and that of Darkness to the latter." Again, Manes is
represented as saying: "I hold that there are two natures, one good and another
evil; and that the one which is good dwells in a certain part proper to it, but
that the evil one is this world as well as all things in it, which are placed
there like objects imprisoned in the portion of the wicked one" (1 John 5, 19).
According to Alexander of Lycopolis, [7] "Mani laid down two principles, God and
matter (Hyle). God he called good, and matter he affirmed to be evil. But God
excelled more in good than matter in evil." Alexander goes on to show how Mani
used the word Hyle, comparing the Manichæan with the Platonic teaching.
Statements of substantially the same purport might be multiplied. As regards the
identification of God (the King of Light) with the Kingdom of Light, and of
Satan (the King of Darkness) with the Kingdom of Darkness, the sensuous poetical
way in which Mani expressed his doctrines may leave us in doubt. The probability
is, however, that he did pantheistically identify each element of the dualism
with his Kingdom. He personifies the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of
Darkness, and peoples these Kingdoms with fanciful beings, which are to be
regarded as personified attributes of the principles of darkness and light. A
word on the Manichæan conception of matter or Hyle may not be out of place in
this connection. It would seem that the Manichæans practically identified Hyle
or matter with the Kingdom of Darkness. At any rate Hyle is unoriginated and
belongs wholly to this Kingdom. (2.) Cosmogony. So much for the Manichæan idea
of the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness before the great conflict
that resulted in the present order of things. Why did not they remain separate?
Let us learn from the Fihrist's narrative: "Mani teaches further: Out of this
dark earth [the Kingdom of Darkness] arose Satan, not that he was in himself
eternal from the beginning, yet were his substances in his elements
unoriginated. These substances now united themselves out of his elements and
went forth as Satan, his head as the head of a lion, his body as the body of a
dragon, his wings as the wings of a bird, his tail as the tail of a great fish,
and his four feet as the feet of creeping animals. When this Satan under the
name Iblis, the (temporally considered) eternal (primeval), had arisen out of
the darkness, he devoured and consumed everything, spread destruction right and
left, and plunged into the deep, in all these movements bringing down from above
desolation and annihilation. Then he strove for the height, and descried the
beams of light; but they were opposed to him. When he saw later how exalted
these were, he was terrified, shrivelled up, and merged himself in his elements.
Hereupon he strove anew with such violence after the height, that the land of
light descried the doings of Satan and how he was bent upon murder and
destruction. After they had been apprised thereof, the world of Insight learned
of it, then the world of Knowledge, then the world of Mystery, then the world of
Understanding, then the world of Meekness. When at last, he further teaches, the
King of the Paradise of Light had also learned of it, he thought how he might
suppress Satan, and, Mani adds, those hosts of his would have been mighty enough
to overpower Satan. Yet he desired to do this by means of his own might.
Accordingly, he produced by means of the spirit of his right hand [i.e., the
Gentle Breeze], his five worlds, and his twelve elements, a creature, and this
is the (temporally considered) Eternal Man [Primordial Man], and summoned him to
do battle with the Darkness. But Primordial Man, Mani adds, armed himself with
the five races [natures], and these are the five gods, the Gentle Breeze, the
Wind, the Light, the Water and the Fire. Of them he made his armor, and the
first that he put on was the Gentle Breeze. He then covered the Gentle Breeze
with the burning Light as with a mantle. He drew over the Light Water filled
with atoms, and covered himself with the blowing Wind. Hereupon he took the Fire
as a shield and as a lance in his hand, and precipitated himself suddenly out of
Paradise until he reached the border of the region that is contiguous to the
battle-field. The Primordial Devil also took his five races [natures]: Smoke,
Burning, Darkness, Hot Wind and Cloud; armed himself with them; made of them a
shield for himself; and went to meet Primordial Man. After they had fought for a
long time the Primordial Devil vanquished the Primordial Man, devoured some of
his light, and surrounded him at the same time with his races and elements. Then
the King of the Paradise of Light sent other gods, freed him, and vanquished the
Darkness. But he who was sent by the King of Light to rescue Primordial Man is
called the Friend of the Light. This one made a precipitate descent, and
Primordial Man was freed from the hellish substances, along with that which he
had snatched from the spirit of Darkness and which had adhered to him. When,
therefore, Mani proceeds, Joyfulness and the Spirit of Life drew near to the
border, they looked down into the abyss of this deep hell and saw Primordial Man
and the angels [i.e., the races or natures with which he was armed], how Iblis,
the Proud Oppressors, and the Dark Life surrounded them. And the Spirit of Life,
says Mani, called Primordial Man with a loud voice as quick as lightning and
Primordial Man became another god. When the Primordial Devil had ensnared
Primordial Man in the battle, Mani further teaches, the five parts of the Light
were mingled with the five parts of the Darkness." Let us see if we can get at
the meaning of this great cosmological poem as far as we have gone. The thing to
be accounted for is the mixture of good and evil. The complete separation of the
eternally existent Kingdoms of Light and Darkness has been posited. How now are
we to account for the mixture of light and darkness, of good and evil, in the
present order of things? Mani would account for it by supposing that a conflict
had occurred between an insufficiently equipped representative of the King of
Light and the fully equipped ruler of the Kingdom of Darkness. His view of the
vastly superior power of the King of Light would not allow him to suppose that
the King of Light fully equipped had personally contended with the King of
Darkness, and suffered the loss and contamination of his elements. Yet he only
clumsily obviates this difficulty; for Primordial Man is produced and equipped
by the King of Light for the very purpose of combating the King of Darkness, and
Mani saves the King of Light from personal contamination only by impugning his
judgment. We have now reached the point where, as a result of the conflict, good
and evil are blended. We must beware of supposing that Mani meant to ascribe any
kind of materiality to the members of the Kingdom of Light. The Kingdom of
Light, on the contrary, he regarded as purely spiritual; the Kingdom of Darkness
as material. We have now the conditions for the creation of the present order of
things, including man. How does Mani picture the process and the results of this
mixing of the elements?"The smoke (or vapor) was mingled with the gentle breeze
(zephyr), and the present atmosphere resulted. So that whatever of agreeableness
and power to quicken the soul and animal life is found in it [resultant air], is
from the zephyr, and whatever of destructiveness and noisomeness is found in it,
proceeds from the smoke. The burning was mingled with the fire; therefore
whatever of conflagration, destruction and ruin is found, is from the burning,
but whatever of brightness and illumination is in it [the resultant fire],
springs from the fire. The light mingled itself with the darkness; therefore in
dense bodies as gold, silver and the like, whatever of brightness, beauty,
purity and other useful qualities occurs, is from the light, and whatever of
tarnish, impurity, density and hardness occurs, springs from the darkness. The
hot wind was mingled with the wind; whatever now is useful and agreeable in this
[resultant wind] springs from the wind, and whatever of uneasiness, hurtfulness
and deleterious property is found in it [resultant wind] is from the hot wind.
Finally, the mist was mingled with the water, so that what is found in this
[resultant water] of clearness, sweetness, and soul-satisfying property, is from
the water; whatever, on the contrary, of overwhelming, suffocating, and
destroying power, of heaviness, and corruption, is found in it, springs from the
mist."But we must from this point abbreviate the somewhat prolix account.
Primordial Man, after the blending of the elements, ascended on high accompanied
by "one of the angels of this intermingling;" in other words, snatching away a
part of the imprisoned elements of the Kingdom of Light.The next step is the
creation of the present world, which Mani ascribes to the King of the World of
Light, the object being to provide for the escape of the imprisoned elements of
Light. Through an angel he constructed ten heavens and eight earths, an angel
being appointed to hold heavens and earths in their places. A description of the
stairways, doors, and halls of the heavens is given in the Fihrist's narrative.
The stairways lead to the "height of heaven." The air was used as a medium for
connecting heaven and earth. A pit was formed to be the receptacle of darkness
from which the light should be liberated. The sun and the moon were created to
be the receptacles of the light that should be liberated from the darkness, the
sun for light that has been mingled with "hot devils," the moon for that which
had been mingled with "cold devils." The moon is represented as collecting light
during the first half-month, and during the second pouring it into the sun. When
the sun and moon have liberated all the light they are able, there will be a
fire kindled on the earth which will burn for 1468 years, when there will be no
light left. The King of Darkness and his hosts will thereupon withdraw into the
pit prepared for them.(3.) Anthropology. So much for the liberation of the
imprisoned light, which, according to Mani, was the sole object of creation. As
yet we have heard nothing of the creation of living creatures. What place do
man, the lower animals, and plants sustain in the Manichæan economy? We are to
keep constantly in mind that Primordial Man was not Adam, but a divine æon, and
that he ascended into the heights immediately after the blending of parts of his
armor with darkness. The creation of earthly man was an altogether different
affair. We must give the account of man's creation in Mani's own words, as
preserved by the Fihrist: "Hereupon one of those Arch-fiends and [one] of the
Stars, and Overmastering Violence, Avarice, Lust, and Sin, copulated, and from
their copulation sprang the first man, who is Adam, two Arch-fiends, a male and
a female, directing the process. A second copulation followed and from this
sprang the beautiful woman who is Eve."Man, therefore, unlike the world, is the
creature of demons, the aim of the demons being to imprison in man, through the
propagation of the race, as much as possible of the light, and so to hinder the
separating process by the sun and the moon. Avarice is represented as having
secretly seized some of the divine light and imprisoned it in man. The part
played by the Star in the production of man is somewhat obscure in the
narrative, yet the Star could hardly have been regarded as wholly evil. Probably
the Star was thought of as a detached portion of the light that had not entered
into the sun or the moon. "When, therefore, the five Angels saw what had taken
place, they besought the Messenger of Joyful Knowledge, the Mother of Life,
Primordial Man and the Spirit of Life, to send some one to liberate and save
man, to reveal to him knowledge and righteousness, and to free him from the
power of the devils. They sent, accordingly, Jesus, whom a god accompanied.
These seized the two Arch-fiends, imprisoned them and freed the two creatures
(Adam and Eve.)" Jesus warned Adam of Eve's violent importunity, and Adam obeyed
his injunction not to go near her. One of the Arch-fiends, however, begat with
her a son named Cain, who in turn begat Abel of his mother, and afterwards two
maidens Worldly wise and Daughter-of-Avarice. Cain took the first to wife and
gave the other to Abel. An angel having begotten of Worldly-wise two beautiful
daughters (Raufarjâd and Barfarjâd), Abel accused Cain of the act. Cain enraged
by the false accusation slew Abel and took Worldly-wise to wife. So far Adam had
kept himself pure, but Eve was instructed by a demon in the art of enchanting,
and she was enabled to excite his lust and to entrap him. By Adam she bore a
beautiful son, whom the demon urged Eve to destroy. Adam stole the child away
and brought it up on cow's milk and fruit. This son was named Seth (Schatil).
Adam once more yielded to Eve's fascinations, but through Seth's exhortations
was induced to flee "eastward to the light and the wisdom of God." Adam, Seth,
Raufarjâd, Barfarjâd, and Worldly-wise died and went to Paradise; while Eve,
Cain, and Daughter-of-Avarice went into Hell. This fantastic perversion of the
Biblical narrative of the creation and fall of man has many parallels in
Rabbinic literature, and doubtless Mani first became acquainted with the
narrative in a corrupted form. The teaching, however, of this mythologizing
evidently is that the indulgence of the flesh and the begetting of children
furnish the chief obstacle to the separation of light from darkness. Adam is
represented as striving to escape from the allurements of Eve, but Eve is aided
by demonic craft in overcoming him. Yet Adam does not become enslaved to lust,
and so at last is saved. Eve, lustful from the beginning, is lost along with
those of like disposition.(4.) Soteriology. Such was, apparently, Mani's
conception of the creation of man, and of the attempts to liberate the light
that was in him. What were his practical teachings to men of his time as to the
means of escape from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light? What
view did Mani take of the historical Jesus? The Jesus who warned Adam against
the seductions of Eve was evidently not the Jesus of the New Testament.
According to the narrative of the Fihrist, Mani "maintained that Jesus is a
devil." Such a statement occurs nowhere else, so far as we are aware, in the
literature of Manichæism. The sources, however, are unanimous in ascribing to
Mani a completely docetical view of the person of Christ. In using this
blasphemous language, he probably referred to the representations of Jesus as
God manifest in the flesh, which he regarded as Jewish and abominable. The New
Testament narratives Mani [or at least his followers] regarded as interpolated
in the interest of Judaism. Later Manichæans, under the influence of Marcionism
(and orthodoxy) gave to Jesus a far more prominent place in the economy of man's
salvation than did Mani himself.How then is man to be saved according to Mani?
It is by rigorous asceticism, and by the practice of certain ceremonial
observances. Mani does not rise above the plane of ordinary heathenism in his
plan of salvation. "It is incumbent upon him who will enter into the religion
that he prove himself, and that if he sees that he is able to subdue lust and
avarice, to leave off the eating of all kinds of flesh, the drinking of wine,
and connubial intercourse, and to withhold himself from what is injurious in
water, fire, magic and hypocrisy, he may enter into the religion; but if not let
him abstain from entering. But if he loves religion, yet is not able to repress
sensuality and avarice, yet he may make himself serviceable for the maintenance
of religion and of the Truthful [i.e. the Elect'], and may meet (offset) his
corrupt deeds through the use of opportunities where he wholly gives himself up
to activity, righteousness, zealous watchfulness, prayer and pious humiliation;
for this suffices him in this transitory world and in the future eternal world,
and his form in the last day will be the second form, of which, God willing, we
shall treat further below."The doctrine of indulgences of which the germs
appeared in the Catholic church even before the time of Mani, is here seen fully
developed. What the Greek and Latin sources call the Elect or Perfect and the
Hearers, are undoubtedly indicated here by those who are able to devote
themselves to rigidly ascetical living, and those who, without such
qualifications, are willing to exert themselves fully on behalf of the cause.
These latter evidently become partakers of the merits of those who carry out the
ascetical regulations. That this is primitive Manichæan doctrine is abundantly
proved by the general agreement of ancient writers of all classes. It is
noteworthy that nothing Christian appears among the conditions of Manichæan
discipleship. It is not faith in Christ, but the ability to follow a particular
kind of outward life that confers standing in the Manichæan society.(5.) Cultus.
Let us next look at the precepts of Mani to the initiated: "Mani imposed upon
his disciples commandments, namely, ten commandments, and to these are attached
three seals, and fasts of seven days in each month. The commandments are: Faith
in the four most glorious essences: God, his Light, his Power, and his Wisdom.
But God, whose name is glorious, is the King of the Paradise of Light; his Light
is the sun and the moon, his Power the five angels: Gentle Breeze, Wind, Light,
Water and Fire; and his Wisdom the Sacred Religion. This embraces five ideas:
that of teachers, the sons of Meekness; that of those enlightened by the Sun,
sons of Knowledge; that of the presbyters, sons of Reason; that of the Truthful,
sons of Mystery; that of Hearers, sons of Insight. The ten commandments are:
Abandoning of prayer to idols, of lies, avarice, murder, adultery, theft, of the
teaching of jugglery and magic, of duplicity of mind, which betrays doubt on
religion, of drowsiness and inertness in business; and the commandment of four
or seven prayers. In prayer one is to stand upright, rub himself with flowing
water or with something else, and turn while standing to the great light (the
Sun), then prostrate himself and in this position pray: Blessed be our Leader,
the Paraclete, the Ambassador of the Light, blessed be his angels, the
Guardians, and highly praised be his resplendent hosts.... In the second
prostration let him say: Thou highly praised, O thou enlightening one, Mani, our
Leader, thou root of enlightenment, stem of honorableness, thou great tree who
art altogether the means of salvation. In the third prostration let him say: I
fall down and praise with pure heart and upright tongue the great God, the
Father of Light, and their element, highly praised, Blessed One, thou and thy
whole glory and thy blessed world, which thou hast called into being. For he
praises thee who praises thy Host, thy Righteous Ones, thy Word, thy Glory, and
thy Good Pleasure, because thou art the God who is wholly truth, life and
righteousness. In the fourth prostration let him say: I praise and fall down
before all the gods, all the enlightening angels, before all Light and all
Hosts, who are from the great God. In the fifth prostration let him say: I fall
down and praise the great Host and the enlightening Gods, who with their wisdom
assail the Darkness, drive it out and triumph over it. In the sixth prostration
let him say: I fall down and praise the Father of Glory, the Exalted One, the
Enlightening One, who has come forth from the two sciences (see note in Flügel
p.310), and so on to the twelfth prostration. * * The first prayer is
accomplished at mid-day, the second between this hour and sunset; then follows
the prayer at eventide, after sunset, and hereupon the prayer in the first
quarter of the night, three hours after sunset. "As regards fasting, when the
sun is in Sagittarius, and the moon has its full light, fasting is to take place
for two days without interruption, also when the new moon begins to appear;
likewise when the moon first becomes visible again after the sun has entered
into the sign of Capricorn; then when the new moon begins to appear, the sun
stands in Aquarius and from the moon eight days have flowed, a fast of thirty
days occurs, broken, however, daily at sunset. The common Manichæans celebrate
Sunday, the consecrated ones (the Elect') Monday."Here we have a somewhat
detailed account of the cultus of the early Manichæans. The forms of invocation
do not differ materially from those of the Zoroastrians, of the early Indians,
of the Babylonians, and of the Egyptians. There is not the slightest evidence of
Christian influence. The times of worship and of fasting are determined by the
sun and the moon, and practically these are the principal objects of worship. It
is certain that Mani himself was regarded by his followers as the most perfect
revealer of God that had ever appeared among men, and, according to this
account, he taught his followers to worship him. We cannot fail to see in this
Manichæan cult the old Oriental pantheism modified by a dualism, of which the
most fully developed form was the Persian, but which, as we have seen, was by no
means confined to Zoroastrianism.(6.) Eschatology. We must conclude our
exposition of the doctrines of the Manichæans by quoting from the Fihrist Mani's
teachings on eschatology."When death approaches a Truthful One (Elect'), teaches
Mani, Primordial Man sends a Light-God in the form of a guiding Wise One, and
with him three gods, and along with these the water-vessel, clothing, head-gear,
crown, and garland of light. With them comes the maiden, like the soul of this
Truthful One. There appears to him also the devil of avarice and lust, along
with other devils. As soon as the Truthful Man sees these he calls the goddess
who has assumed the form of the Wise One and the three other gods to his help,
and they draw near him. As soon as the devils are aware of their presence they
turn and flee. The former, however, take this Truthful One, clothe him with the
crown, the garland and the robe, put the water-vessel in his hand and mount with
him upon the pillars of promise to the sphere of the moon, to Primordial Man,
and to Nahnaha, the Mother of the Living, to the position in which he was at
first in the Paradise of Light. But his body remains lying as before in order
that the sun, the moon, and the gods of Light may withdraw from it the powers,
i.e., the water, the fire and the gentle breeze, and he rises to the sun and
becomes a god. But the rest of his body, which is wholly darkness, is cast into
hell."In the case of Manichæans of the lower order, described above, the same
divine personages appear at his summons. "They free him also from devils, but he
ceases not to be like a man in the world, who in his dreams sees frightful forms
and sinks into filth and mire. In this condition he remains, until his light and
his spirit are liberated and he has attained to the place of union with the
Truthful, and after a long period of wandering to and fro puts on their
garments."To the sinful man, on the other hand, the divine personages appear,
not to free him from the devils that are tormenting him, but rather to
"overwhelm him with reproaches, to remind him of his deeds, and strikingly to
convince him that he has renounced help for himself, from the side of the
Truthful. Then wanders he round about in the world, unceasingly chased by
torments, until this order of things ceases, and along with the world he is cast
into hell."There is nothing original about the eschatology of Mani, and scarcely
anything Christian. We see in it a fully developed doctrine of purgatory,
somewhat like the Platonic, and still more like that of the later Catholic
church. Salvation consists simply in the liberation of the light from the
darkness. In the case of the Elect this takes place immediately after death; in
the case of adherents who have not practiced the prescribed forms of asceticism,
it takes place only after considerable torment. In the case of the ordinary
sensual man, there is no deliverance. Doubtless Mani would have held that in his
case, too, whatever particles of light may have been involved in his animal
structure are liberated from the dead body.(7.) Ethics. As regards ceremonies we
find little that enlightens us in the Fihrist's account. Water (that is, water
apart from the deleterious elements that have become blended with it) was
regarded by Mani as one of the divine elements. The ablutions in running water
mentioned above in connection with the prayers may have sustained some relation
to baptism, but can hardly be ascribed to Christian influence. The connection of
the Manichæans with the Mandæans, who made much of ceremonial bathing, will be
considered below. It is certain that Mani's father was connected with a
baptizing party, viz., the Mugtasilah. According to the Fihrist Mani was the
author of an Epistle on Baptism. The question whether Mani and his followers
practised water-baptism or not is by no means an easy one to solve. The passage
cited by Giesseler from Augustin to prove that the "Elect" were initiated by
baptism is inconclusive. Augustin acknowledges that God and the Manichæans
themselves alone know what takes place in the secret meetings of the "Elect."
Whatever ceremonies they performed, whether baptism or the Lord's supper, or
some other, were matters of profound secrecy, and so we need not wonder at the
lack of definite information. From a passage quoted by Augustin in his report of
a discussion with Felix the Manichæan, we should certainly infer that both
ordinances were practised in some form by the Manichæans of the West. But
Augustin himself says that Manichæans deny the saving efficacy of baptism,
maintain that it is superfluous, do not require it of those whom they win to
their views, etc. It is certain, therefore, that if they practised baptism and
the Lord's supper at all, they attached to it a meaning radically different from
that of Augustin. It is possible that a ceremonial anointing with oil took the
place of baptism. (Baur, p.277 sq.). Augustin mentions a disgusting ceremony in
which human semen was partaken of by the Elect in order to deliver the
imprisoned light contained therein (De Haeres.46), and he calls this ceremony a
sort of Eucharist. But his confessed ignorance of the doings of the "Elect"
discredits in some measure this accusation. The Fihrist gives us no definite
information about the three signacula. The seals (not signs) of the mouth, the
hand (or hands), and of the bosom. In these are contained symbolically the
Manichæan moral system. In the book Sadder (Hyde, p.492) we read: "It is taught
[by the Manichæans] to abstain from every sin, to eliminate every sin from hand,
and tongue and thought." Augustin explains the signacula more fully and
represents the Manichæans as attaching great importance to them: "When I name
the mouth, I mean all the senses that are in the head; when I name the hand I
mean every operation; when I name the bosom I mean every seminal lust."It is
confidently believed that the foregoing account of the Manichæan system, based
upon the Arabic narratives preserved by the Fihrist, supplemented by the
principal Eastern and Western sources, contains the essential facts with
reference to this strange system of religious thought. Our next task will to be
to ascertain, as precisely as possible, the relations that Manichæism sustained
to the various religious systems with which it has commonly been associated.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: CHAPTER IV. --RELATION OF MANICHÆISM TO ZOROASTRIANISM. 
========================================================================

The very close connection of these two systems has commonly been presupposed,
and is undeniable. In fact Manichæism has frequently been represented as
Zoroastrian dualism, slightly modified by contact with Christianity and other
systems. No one could possibly gain even a superficial view of the two systems
without being strongly impressed with their points of resemblance. A closer
examination, however, will reveal points of antagonism just as striking, and
will enable us to account for the fact that Mani was put to death by a zealous
Zoroastrian ruler on account of his recognized hostility to the state religion.
The leading features of the Manichæan system are already before us. Instead of
quoting at length from the Zend-Avesta, which is now happily accessible in an
excellent English translation, we may for the sake of brevity quote Tiele's
description of Zoroastrian dualism as a basis of comparison: [8] "Parsism is
decidedly dualistic, not in the sense of accepting two hostile deities, for it
recognizes no worship of evil beings, and teaches the adoration only of Ahura
Mazda and the spirits subject to him; but in the sense of placing in hostility
to each other two sharply divided kingdoms, that of light, of truth, and of
purity, and that of darkness, of falsehood, and of impurity. This division is
carried through the whole creation, organic and inorganic, material and
spiritual. Above, in the highest sphere, is the domain of the undisputed
sovereignty of the All-wise God; beneath, in the lowest abyss, the kingdom of
his mighty adversary; midway between the two lies this world, the theatre of the
contest.... This dualism further dominates the cosmogony, the cultus, and the
entire view of the moral order of the world held by the Mazda worshippers. Not
only does Anro-Maînyus (Ahriman) spoil by his counter-creations all the good
creations of Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd), but by slaying the protoplasts of man and
beast, he brings death into the world, seduces the first pair to sin, and also
brings forth noxious animals and plants. Man finds himself, in consequence,
surrounded on all sides by the works of the spirits of darkness and by his
hosts. It is the object of worship to secure the pious against their influence."
Let us bring in review some of the points of resemblance between the two
systems. Both are in a sense dualistic. In both the kingdoms of Light and
Darkness are set over against each other in the sharpest antagonism. In both we
have similar emanations from these kingdoms (or kings). Yet, while in the
Manichæan system the dualism is absolute and eternal, in the later Zoroastrian
system (as in the Jewish and Christian doctrine of Satan), Ahriman (Satan) if
not merely a fallen creature [9] of Ormuzd (the good and supreme God) was at
least an immeasurably inferior being. The supreme control of the universe, to
which it owes its perfect order, was ascribed by Zoroastrianism to Ormuzd. The
struggle between good and evil, beneficent and malevolent, was due to the
opposition of the mighty, but not almighty, Ahriman. Whatever form of Mazdeism
(Zoroastrianism) we take for purposes of comparison, we are safe in saying that
the Manichæan dualism was by far the more absolute. In both systems each side of
the dualism is represented by a series (or rather several series) of personified
principles. These agree in the two systems in some particulars. Yet the
variations are quite as noticeable as the agreements. There is much in common
between the Manichæan and the Zoroastrian delineations of the fearful conflict
between the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness, yet the beginning of
the conflict is quite differently conceived of in the two systems. In Manichæism
the creation is accounted for by the conflict in which Primordial Man was beaten
by the powers of Darkness and suffered the mixing of his elements with the
elements of darkness. The actual world was made by the good God, or rather by
his subordinates, as a means of liberating the imprisoned light. The creation of
man is ascribed, on the other hand, to the King of Darkness (or his
subordinates), with a view to hindering the escape of the mingled light by
diffusion thereof through propagation. Mazdeism derives the creation solely from
Ormuzd, from whose hand it issued "as pure and perfect as himself" (Lenormant,
Anc. Hist. II. p.30). It was the work of Ahriman to "spoil it by his evil
influence." The appellation "Maker of the material world" is constantly applied
to Ormuzd in the Vendîdâd and other sacred books. The most instructive Mazdean
account of the creation that has come down to us is that contained in the
Vendîdâd, Fargard I. Ahura Mazda (Ormuzd) is represented here as naming one by
one the sixteen good lands that he had created. Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) is
represented as coming to each, one by one, and creating in it noxious things.
Examples of these counter-creations are, the serpents, winter, venomous flies,
sinful lusts, mosquitoes, pride, unnatural sin, burying the dead, witchcraft,
the sin of unbelief, the burning of corpses, abnormal issues in women,
oppression of foreign rulers, excessive heat, etc. This jumble of physical evils
and sins is characteristic of Mazdeism. According to Mani matter is inherently
evil, and it only ceases to be absolutely evil by the mixture with it of the
elements of the Kingdom of Light. Creation is a process forced upon the King of
Light by the ravages of the King of Darkness, and is at best only partially
good. Zoroastrianism looked upon earth, fire, water, as sacred elements, to
defile which was sin of the most heinous kind. Manichæism regarded actual fire
and water as made up of a mixture of elements of light and darkness, and so, as
by no means wholly pure. Manichæans regarded earth, so far as it consisted of
dead matter, with the utmost contempt. The life-giving light in it was alone
thought of with respect. Zoroastrianism somewhat arbitrarily divided animals and
plants between the kingdoms of Ormuzd and Ahriman; but the idea that all
material things, so far as they are material, are evil, seems never to have
occurred to the early Mazdeists. Manichæans agreed with Mazdeists in their
veneration for the sun, but the principles underlying this veneration seem to
have been widely different in the two cases. The most radical opposition of the
two systems is seen in their views of human propagation. Mani regarded the
procreation of children as ministering directly to the designs of the King of
Darkness to imprison the light, and so absolutely condemned it. The Zend-Avesta
says: (Vendîdâd, Fargard IV.): "Verily I say unto thee, O Spitama Zarathustra;
the man who has a wife is far above him who begets no sons; he who keeps a house
is far above him who has none; he who has children is far above a childless
man." Mani made great merit of voluntary poverty. The Zend-Avesta (ibid.) says:
"He who has riches is far above him who has none." Mani forbade the use of
animal food as preventing the escape of the light contained in the bodies of
animals. The Zend-Avesta (ibid.): "And of two men, he who fills himself with
meat is filled with the good spirit much more than he who does not do so; the
latter is all but dead; the former is above him by the worth of an Asperena, by
the worth of a sheep, by the worth of an ox, by the worth of a man." [10] The
eschatology of the two systems might be shown to present just as striking
contrasts, and just as marked resemblances. In both systems the consummation of
the age is effected by means of a conflagration, the aim of the conflagration in
Mazdeism being the punishment and the purging of wicked men, the destruction of
wicked spirits, the renovation of the earth, and the inauguration of the sole
sovereignty of Ormuzd, while in Manichæism the aim of the conflagration is to
liberate the portions of light which the processes of animal and vegetable
growth, with the aid of sun and the moon have proved unable to liberate. But
enough has been said to make it evident that Manichæism was by no means a
slightly altered edition of Zoroastrianism. The points of similarity between the
two are certainly more apparent than real, though the historical relationship
can by no means be denied.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: CHAPTER V. --THE RELATION OF MANICHÆISM TO THE OLD BABYLONIAN RELIGION AS SEEN IN MANDÆISM AND SABEANISM. 
========================================================================

It would have been strange indeed if the old Babylonian religion, after
dominating the minds of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia for so many centuries,
had given place completely to the religion of the Medo-Persian conquerors of the
country. Magism itself was a mixture of old Babylonian, Medic and Persian
elements. But there is much reason for believing that the primitive Babylonian
faith, in a more or less pure form, persisted until long after the time of Mani,
nay, that it has maintained its ground even till the present day. The researches
of Chwolson, Nöldeke, Kessler and others, in the literature and history of the
Mandæans and the Sabeans, combined in the last case at least with accurate
knowledge of old Babylonian literature and religion, have rendered it highly
probable that representatives of the old Babylonian faith were numerous in
Mesopotomia and the adjoining regions at the time of Mani, and that Mani himself
was more or less closely connected with it. The Mandæans were a Gnostic sect of
the Ophitic type, without Christian elements. It is the opinion of Kessler, who
has devoted much attention to this sect and to the relations of occult religious
matters in general in Mesopotomia, that "the source of all Gnosis, and
especially the immediate source of Ophitic Gnosis, is not the doctrine of the
Persian Zoroaster, not Phoenicean heathenism, not the theory and practise of
Greek mysteries, but the old Babylonian-Chaldaic national religion, which
maintained itself in Mesopotomia and Babylonia, the abode of the Ophites,
Perates, Mandæans, until the post-Christian centuries, and was now opposed by
the Gentiles in a mystical-ascetical form to Christianity." The close connection
of the Mandæans with the Ophites, and of both with the old Babylonian religion,
would seem to be established beyond question. The relation of Manichæism to
Mandæism has been by no means so clearly shown. Let us look at some of the
supposed points of contact. Mani's connection with the Mugtasilah sect (or
Baptizers) has already been mentioned. Kessler seeks to identify this party with
the Mandæans, or at least to establish a community of origin and of fundamental
principles in the two parties. He would connect with the old Babylonian sect, of
which ceremonial baptism seems to have been a common characteristic, the
Palestinian Hemero-baptists, Elkesaites, Nazareans, Ebionites, etc. There is
nothing improbable about this supposition. Certainly we find elements in
Palestinian heresy during the early Christian centuries, which we can hardly
suppose to have been indigenous. And there is no more likely source of occult
religious influence than Babylonia, unless it be Egypt, and there is much reason
for supposing that even in Alexandria Babylonian influences were active before
and after the beginning of the Christian era. Besides, a large number of Gnostic
elements different from these can be traced to Egypt. How far the Mandæans of
modern times, and as they are described in extant literature, correspond with
representatives of the old Babylonian religion in the third century, cannot be
determined with complete certainty. Yet there is much about this party that has
a primitive appearance, and the tenacity with which it has held aloof from
Judaism, Manichæism, Mohammedanism, and Oriental Christianity, during centuries
of conflict and oppression, says much for its conservatism. It would extend this
chapter unduly to describe the elaborate cosmogony, mythology, hierarchy,
ceremonial, etc., of this interesting party. For the illustration of Christian
Gnosticism the facts that have been brought out are of the utmost value. As
compared with Manichæism, there is a remarkable parallelism between the two
kingdoms and their subordinates or æons; the conflict between Primordial Man and
the King of Darkness has its counterpart in Mandæism. The close connection of
the Mandæan and the Manichæan cosmogony, together with similar views about water
in the two parties, would make it highly probable that the Manichæans, like the
Mandæans, practised some kind of ceremonial ablutions. What, now, are the
grounds on which the connection of these systems with the old Babylonian
religion is based? The dualistic element in the old Babylonian system was
pointed out above. Kessler seeks to establish an almost complete parallelism
between the Mandæan and Manichæan cosmological and mythological systems on the
one hand, and the old Babylonian on the other. That there are points of striking
resemblance it is certain. There is ground to suspect, however, that he has been
led by partiality for a theory of his own to minimize unduly the Zoroastrian and
Buddhist influence and to magnify unduly the old Babylonian. Be that as it may,
there remains an important residuum of solid fact which must be taken account of
by all future students of Manichæism. There is reason to hope that future work
along the lines of Kessler's researches will bring to light much additional
material.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: CHAPTER VI. -- THE RELATION OF MANICHÆISM TO BUDDHISM. 
========================================================================

The extent of Mani's dependence on Buddhism is a matter that has been much
disputed. The attention of scholars was first directed to this possible source
of Manichæism by the discovery of important features that are radically opposed
to Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity, and by the traditional historical
connection of Mani with India and Turkestan. The antagonism of spirit and
matter, of light and darkness, the mixture of spirit and light with matter and
darkness in the formation of the world, the final catastrophe in which complete
simplicity shall be re-established, only inert matter and darkness remaining to
represent the Kingdom of Darkness, abstinence from bloody sacrifices, from
marriage, from killing or eating animals -- points in which Manichæism differs
widely from the other systems with which it stands historically related -- find
their counterpart in Buddhism. It is certain, moreover, that they were fully
developed in Buddhism centuries before the time of Mani. Baur, [11] though not
the first to suggest a connection of the two systems, was the first to show by a
somewhat detailed comparison the close parallelism that exists between
Manichæism and Buddhism. Baur's reasonings were still further elaborated and
confirmed by Neander. [12] External grounds in favor of Mani's dependence on
Buddhism are the traditions of Mani's journey to India and China, and of his
prolonged stay in Turkestan, where Buddhism flourished at that time. But it is
on internal grounds that we chiefly rely. If space permitted we could illustrate
the close parallelism that undoubtedly exists between Manichæism and Buddhism,
from Buddhist documents which have been made accessible through Professor Max
Müller and his collaborators in The Sacred Book of the East, far more completely
than was possible to Baur and Neander. It is certain that parallels can be found
in Buddhism for almost every feature of Manichæism that is sharply antagonistic
to Zoroastrianism. The Buddhist view of matter as antagonistic to spirit is
fundamental. It is the world of matter that deludes. It is the body and its
passions that prevent the longed-for Nirvana. Buddhist asceticism is the direct
outgrowth of the doctrine of the evil and delusive nature of matter. The
Buddhist doctrine of metempsychosis has its precise counterpart in Manichæism,
but it should be said that this doctrine was widely diffused in the West,
through Pythagoreanism, before the time of Mani. The Buddhist tenderness for
animal and plant life is paralleled by the Manichæan. But there is considerable
difference between the views on which this tenderness is based. The Buddhist
feeling was based, in part at least, upon the doctrine of metempsychosis,
animals and plants being regarded as the abodes of human spirits awaiting their
release into Nirvana. The Manichæan looked upon the elements of light (life)
contained in animals and plants as particles of God, and any injury done to them
as a hindrance to the escape of these elements, to be conveyed away into the
Kingdom of Light. Both looked upon sexual intercourse as among the greatest of
evils, though the theory in the two cases was slightly different. So of the
drinking of wine, the eating of animal food, etc. The final state was conceived
of in substantially the same way in the two systems. Nirvana, the blowing out of
man's life as an individual entity, is quite paralleled by the Manichæan view of
the gradual escape of the imprisoned particles of light into the Kingdom of
Light. In both cases the divine pleroma is to be restored in such a way as to
destroy individual consciousness. The Buddhist Bhikkhus (or ascetical monks)
correspond very closely with the Manichæan Truthful Ones (Elect), and the
relations of these to ordinary adherents of the parties was much the same in the
two cases. Both systems (like Christianity) had the proselyting spirit fully
developed. The position of Mani as a preacher or prophet corresponds with the
Buddhist idea of the manifestations of Buddha. The statement is attributed to
Mani that "as Buddha came in the land of India, Zoroaster in the land of Persia,
and Jesus in the land of the West, so at last in the epoch of the present this
preaching came through me [Mani] in the land of Babylonia." In the interest of
his theory, which makes the old Babylonian religion the chief source of
Manichæism, Kessler has attempted to detract from the significance of the
Buddhist influence. Yet he grants that the morality of the Manichæans (including
many of the features mentioned above) was Buddhist. The close connection of the
two systems cannot, it would seem, be successfully gainsaid. [13]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: CHAPTER VII. --THE RELATION OF MANICHÆISM TO JUDAISM. 
========================================================================

So far as a relation existed it was one of the intensest hostility. Like the
Gnostics in general, Manichæism looked upon the God of the Old Testament as an
evil, or at least imperfect being. On this matter we do not learn so much from
the Oriental as from the Western sources, but even from the former the radical
antagonism is manifest. The statement in the Fihrist's narrative, that "Mani
treated all the prophets disparagingly in his books, degraded them, accused them
of lying, and maintained that devils had possessed them and that these spoke out
of their mouths; nay, he goes so far as expressly to assert in some passages of
his books that the prophets were themselves devils," is precisely in the line of
the later Manichæan polemics against the Judaistic element in Christianity. The
Manichæan account of the creation shows some acquaintance with the Jewish
Scriptures or with Jewish tradition, yet the complete perversion of the Biblical
account is one of the clearest indications of hostility. It may be said in
general that it is impossible to conceive of two systems of religion that have
less in common, or more that is sharply antagonistic. One of the principal
points of controversy between Manichæans and Christians was the defense of the
Jewish Scriptures and religion by the latter. The Manichæan demanded the
elimination from the current Christianity, and from the New Testament itself, of
every vestige of Judaism. Their objections to the Old Testament Scriptures and
religion were in general substantially the same as those made by other Gnostics,
especially by the Marcionites. The Old Testament anthropomorphic representations
seem to have been offensive to them, notwithstanding their own crude conceptions
of the conflict between light and darkness, of the creation, etc. The relation
of God to the conquest of Canaan is a point that those inclined to cavil have
never failed to make the most of. The Old Testament encouragement of race
propagation, the narratives of polygamy as practised by those that enjoyed the
favor of the God of the Old Testament, the seeming approval of prevarication in
several well-known cases, the institution of animal sacrifices, the allowing of
the use of animal food, were among the standard objections that they raised
against Judaism and against Christians who accepted the Old Testament. Judaism
had, since the captivity, had many representatives in Mesopotamia, and Mani was
doubtless brought up to abominate the Jews. Some of his extreme positions may
have been primarily due to his radical anti-Judaistic tendencies. We shall see
hereafter how Augustin met the Manichæan objections to the Old Testament.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: CHAPTER VIII. --THE RELATION OF MANICHÆISM TO CHRISTIANITY. 
========================================================================

Far more superficial are the relations of Manichæism to Christianity than to any
of the heathen systems to which we have adverted. In fact no Christian idea has
been introduced into the system without being completely perverted. If Christian
language is used, it is utterly emptied of its meaning. If Christian practices
are introduced, a completely different motive lies at the basis. Indeed the
wildest of the Christian Gnostic systems kept immeasurably nearer to historical
Christianity than did the Manichæans. While he blasphemed against the historical
Jesus, Mani claimed to believe in Christ, a purely spiritual and divine
manifestation, whose teachings had been sadly perverted by the Jews. It is
scarcely possible to determine with any certainty what view Mani actually took
of New Testament history. That he claimed to be a follower of Christ, and the
Paraclete whom Christ had promised to send, or at least the organ of the
Paraclete, Eastern and Western authorities agree. Mani is said, by Augustin, to
have begun his Fundamental Epistle as follows: "Manichæus, an Apostle of Jesus
Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the
perennial and living fountain." So also in the Act. Archel., Mani is represented
as introducing a letter: "Manichæus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the
saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son: Grace,
mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus
Christ." There can be no doubt but that Mani and his followers, whether from
designed imposture or from less sinister motives, attempted to palm themselves
off as Christians, nay, as the only true Christians. It is certain, moreover,
that in this guise they gained many proselytes from the Christian ranks. As
previously remarked, Mani and his followers professed to accept the New
Testament Scriptures, yet they treated them in a purely subjective manner,
eliminating as Judaistic interpolation whatever they could not reconcile with
their own tenets. Their adherence to the New Testament, as well as their
adherence to Christ, was, therefore, virtually a mere pretence. In common with
Christianity, Manichæism laid much stress on redemption, yet there was nothing
in common between the Christian idea of redemption through the atoning suffering
of Jesus Christ and the Manichæan notion of redemption through the escape of
imprisoned light. Manichæans and Christians were at one in advocating
self-denial and the due subordination of the flesh. It need not be pointed out
how radically different the Christian view was from the Manichæan view, already
expounded. Yet pagan ascetical ideas had already invaded the Church long before
the time of Mani, and many Christians were in a position to be attracted
strongly by the Manichæan theory and practice. The later asceticism as it
appeared in the hermit life of the fourth and following centuries was
essentially pagan and had much in common with the Manichæan. Still more manifest
is the anatagonism between Manichæism and Christianity on the great fundamental
principles of religion. The Manichæan and Christian ideas of God are mutually
contradictory. Christianity holds fast at the same time to the unity, the
omnipotence, the omniscience, the perfect wisdom, the holiness and the goodness
of God. If He permits sin to exist in the world it is not because He looks upon
it with complacency, nor because He lacked wisdom to provide against its rise or
power to annihilate it at once when it appeared, nor because He did not foresee
its rise and its ravages, but because the permission of sin forms part of His
all-wise plan for the education of moral and spiritual beings. If the forces of
nature are under certain circumstances hurtful or destructive to man,
Christianity does not regard them as the operations of a malevolent power
thwarting God's purposes, but it sees underneath the destructive violence
purposes of goodness and of grace; or if it fails to see them in any given
instance it yet believes that God doeth all things well. Christianity admits the
existence of evil in men and in demons, yet of evil that ministers to the
purposes of the Most High. Christianity is the only religion that has been able
to arrive at a perfectly satisfactory theology, cosmology, anthropology, and
eschatology, and this is because Christianity alone has a true and satisfying
soteriology. It is God manifest in the flesh that meets all the conditions for
the solution of the problem of human existence. Manichæism openly antagonized
Christianity in its adherence to Old Testament revelation, including the Jewish
and Christian monotheism. The good God could not, they maintained, be the
creator of this world and of the universe of being. That God should be looked
upon as in any sense the creator of the devil and his angels, and of the
material world, was in their view an absurdity -- a monstrosity. The unchristian
character of the Manichæan view of matter, leading to unchristian asceticism,
has already been sufficiently indicated. The reader will only need to compare
the principles and practices of Manichæism, as delineated above, with those of
Christianity as they are delineated in the New Testament and in the evangelical
churches of to-day, to be impressed with the completely anti-Christian character
of the former. How then, it may well be asked, could Manichæism succeed as it
did in fascinating so many intelligent members of the Catholic Church during the
third, fourth and fifth centuries? In attempting to answer this question it
should be premised that the later Western Manichæism took far more account of
historical Christianity than did Mani and his immediate followers. In the West,
at least, Manichæism set itself up as the only genuine exponent of Christianity.
The Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, and Gnosticism its product, had done much
towards discrediting the Old Testament Scriptures, and the moral and religious
teachings therein contained. Devout Jewish and Christian thinkers who had
adopted this mode of thought, had attempted by means of the allegorical method
of interpretation to reconcile the seeming antagonism between Judaism and
philosophy. But the process was so forced that its results could not be expected
to satisfy those that felt no special interest in the removal of the
difficulties. Marcionism represents a stern refusal to apply the allegory, and a
determination to exhibit the antagonism between Judaism and current thought, and
especially the seeming antagonism between Judaism and Christianity, in the
harshest manner. Marcionism was still vigorous in the East when Manichæism
arose, and through this party unfavorable views of the Old Testament were widely
disseminated. Many Christians doubtless felt that the Old Testament and its
religion were burdensome and trammelling to Christianity. The very fact that
Mani set aside so summarily every element of Judaism that he encountered in the
current Christianity, doubtless commended his views to a large and influential
element in the East and the West alike. Mani claimed to set forth a spiritual
religion as opposed to a carnal. The asceticism of Manichæism was in the line of
a wide-spread popular ascetical movement that was already in progress, and so
commended it to many. The question as to the origin of evil, and as to the
relation of the good, wise and powerful God to the evil that appears in the
world, in man and in demons was never asked with more interest than during the
early Christian centuries, and any party that should advance a moderately
plausible theory was sure to receive its share of public attention. Mani
professed to have a solution and the only possible solution of questions of this
class, and however fantastic may have been the forms in which his speculations
were set forth, they were doubtless all the more acceptable on this account in
that semi-pagan age to many intelligent people. The fact that these forms
satisfied so able a thinker as Mani undoubtedly was, would guarantee their
acceptance by a large number both East and West. There was in the West at this
time, and had been for centuries, a hankering after Oriental theosophy, the more
extravagant the better. The wide-spread worship of Mithra was an excellent
preparation for the more complete system of Mani. Manichæism and Neo-Platonism
antagonized the Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries from opposite
sides, and those minds for whom Platonism had no charms were almost sure to be
attracted by the theosophy of Mani. "How are we to explain," asks Harnack, [14]
"the rapid spread of Manichæism, and the fact that it really became one of the
great religions? Our answer is, that Manichæism was the most complete Gnosis,
the richest, most consequent and most artistic system formed on the basis of the
ancient Babylonian religion.... What gave strength to Manichæism was... that it
united its ancient mythology and a thorough-going materialistic dualism with an
exceedingly simple spiritual worship and a strict morality. On comparing it with
the Semitic religions of nature, we perceive that it retained their mythologies,
after transforming them into doctrines, but abolished all their sensuous cultus,
substituting instead a spiritual worship as well as a strict morality.
Manichæism was thus able to satisfy the new wants of an old world. It offered
revelation, redemption, moral virtue, and immortality [this last is very
doubtful, if conscious immortality be meant], spiritual benefits on the basis of
the religion of nature. A further source of strength lay in the simple, yet firm
social organization which was given by Mani himself to his new institution. The
wise man and the ignorant, the enthusiast and the man of the world, could all
find acceptance here, and there was laid on no one more than he was able and
willing to bear." The question as to the secret of the fascination that
Manichæism was able to exercise even over the most intelligent Western minds,
may receive a more concrete answer from the autobiographical account of
Augustin's own relations to the party. What was it that attracted and
enthralled, for nine years, him who was to become the greatest theologian of the
age? In his Confessions (Book III. ch.6) he gives this impassioned account of
his first connection with Manichæism: "Therefore I fell among men proudly
railing, very carnal and voluble, in whose mouth were the snares of the devil --
the bird lime being composed of a mixture of the syllables of Thy Name, and of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.
These names departed not out of their mouths, but so far forth as the sound and
clatter of the tongue; for the heart was empty of truth. Still they cried Truth,
Truth,' and spoke much about it to me, yet it was not in them, but they spake
falsely not of Thee only -- who, verily art the Truth -- but also of the
elements of this world, Thy creatures... O Truth, Truth! how inwardly even then
did the marrow of my soul pant after Thee, when they frequently and in a
multiplicity of ways, and in numerous and huge books, sounded out Thy Name to
me, though it was but a voice. And these were the dishes in which to me,
hungering for Thee, they, instead of Thee, served up the sun and the moon, Thy
beauteous works -- but yet Thy works, not Thyself, nay, nor Thy first
works...Woe, woe, by what steps was I dragged down to the depths of hell! --
toiling and turmoiling through want of Truth, when I sought after Thee, my God,
-- to Thee I confess it, who hadst mercy on me when I had not yet confessed,
sought after Thee not according to the understanding of the mind in which Thou
desiredst that I should excel the beasts, but according to the sense of the
flesh."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: CHAPTER IX. --AUGUSTIN AND THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

In the preceding Chapter we have given in Augustin's own words some account of
the process by which he became ensnared in Manichæan error. In reading
Augustin's account of his experience among the Manichæans, we can not escape the
conviction that he was never wholly a Manichæan, that he never surrendered
himself absolutely to the system. He held it rather as a matter of opinion than
as a matter of heart-attachment. Doubtless the fact that he continued to occupy
himself with rhetorical and philosophical studies prevented his complete
enthrallment. His mind was not naturally of an Oriental cast, and the study of
the hard, common-sense philosophy of Aristotle, and of the Eclecticism of
Cicero, could hardly have failed to make him more or less conscious of the
absurdity of Manichæism. The influence of scientific studies on his mind is very
manifest from Confessions, Book V. ch.3, where he compares the accurate
astronomical knowledge with which he had become acquainted, with the absurd
cosmological fancies of Faustus, the great Manichæan teacher who appeared at
Carthage in Augustin's twenty-ninth year. "Many truths, however, concerning the
creation did I retain from these men [the philosophers], and the cause appeared
to confirm calculations, the succession of seasons, and the visible
manifestations of the stars; and I compared them with the sayings of Manichæus,
who in his frenzy has written most extensively on these subjects, but discovered
not any account either of the solstices, or the equinoxes, the eclipses of the
luminaries, or anything of the kind I had learned in the books of secular
philosophy. But therein I was ordered to believe, and yet it corresponded not
with those rules acknowledged by calculation and by our light, but was far
different." From this time Augustin's faith was shaken, and he was soon able to
throw off completely the yoke that had become too grievous to be borne. But to
reject Manichæism was not necessarily to become an orthodox Christian. Augustin
finds himself still greatly perplexed about the nature of God and the origin of
evil, problems the somewhat plausible Manichæan solutions of which had ensnared
him. It was through Platonism, or rather Neo-Platonism, that he was led to more
just and satisfying views, and through Platonism, along with other influences,
he was enabled at last to find peace in the bosom of the Catholic church. "And
Thou, willing to show me how Thou resistest the proud, but givest grace unto the
humble,' and by how great an act of mercy Thou hadst pointed out to men the path
of humility, in that Thy Word was made flesh and dwelt among men,' -- Thou
procuredst for me, by the instrumentality of one inflated with monstrous pride,
certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein I
read not indeed in the same words but to the self-same effect, enforced by many
and divers reasons, that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.'" [15] In
other words, Augustin thought that he discerned complete harmony between the
prologue of John's gospel and the teachings of the Platonists, and in this
teaching, thus corroborated, he found the solution of the problem that had
caused him such anguish of soul. In this connection Augustin points out in some
detail the features that Platonism and Christianity have in common. Thus
Neo-Platonism, not blindly followed, but adapted to his Christian purpose,
became not only a means of deliverance to Augustin himself, but a mighty weapon
for the combating of Manichæan error. Neo-Platonism enters so largely and
influentially into Augustin's polemics against Manichæism that it will be
apposite here to inquire into the extent and the nature of Augustin's dependence
on this system of thought. Much has been written on this subject, especially by
German and French scholars. A brief statement of some of the more important
points of contact is all that is allowable in an essay like this. Premising,
therefore, that Platonism essentially influenced the entire circle of Augustin's
theological and philosophical thinking, let us first examine the Neo-Platonic
and Augustinian conceptions of God. With Augustin God is absolutely simple and
immutable, incomprehensible by men in their present state of existence, exalted
above all human powers of thought or expression. All things may be said of God,
and yet nothing worthily; God is honored more by reverential silence than by any
human voice. He is better known by not being known; it is easier to say what He
is not, than what He is. God is wanting in qualities; has no variety and
multitude of properties and attributes; is absolutely simple. By no means is God
to be called substance, for the word substance pertains to a certain accident;
nor is it allowable to think of Him as composed of substance and of accidents.
Divine qualities are therefore purely subjective. There is no discrimination in
God of substance and accidents, of potency and act, of matter and form, of
universal and singular, of superior and inferior. To know, to will, to do, to
be, are in God equivalent and identical. Eternity itself is the substance of
God, which has nothing mutable, nothing past, nothing future. God makes new
things, without being Himself new, unchangeable He makes changeable things, He
always works and always rests. The changes that take place in the world do not
fall in the will of God, but solely in the things moved by God. God changes them
out of His unchangeable counsel. For nearly every one of these statements an
almost exact parallel can be pointed out in the writings of Plotinus, the
Neo-Platonic writer with whom Augustin was most conversant. [16] It would be
easy to point out that Augustin here goes to a dangerous extreme, and narrowly
escapes fatalism on the one hand, and denial of the true personality of God on
the other. But the effectiveness of this type of teaching against Manichæism is
what chiefly interests us in this connection. Readers of the following treatises
will have no difficulty in seeing for themselves how confidently and with what
telling effect Augustin employs this view of God against the crudities of
Manichæism, which thought of God as mutable, as capable of being successfully
assailed by evil, as rent asunder, as suffering miserable contamination and
imprisonment by mixture with matter, as painfully struggling for freedom, as
suffering with the suffering of plants and animals, as liberated by their decay
and by the digestive operations of the faithful, etc., etc. Again, while still a
Manichæan Augustin had thought and written much about beauty. On this point
also, the throwing off of Manichæism and the adoption of a Platonizing
Christianity brought about a revolution in his conceptions. The exactness with
which he has followed Plotinus in his ideas of the beauty of God and of his
creatures is remarkable. This we could fully illustrate by the citation of
parallel passages. But we must content ourselves with remarking that Augustin
himself acknowledged his indebtedness, and that his idea of beauty was an
important factor in his polemics against Manichæism. According to Augustin (and
Plotinus) God is the most beautiful and splendid of all beings. He is the beauty
of all beauties; all the beautiful things that are the objects of our vision and
love He Himself made. If these are beautiful what is He? All beauty is from the
highest beauty, which is God. Augustin follows Plato and Plotinus even in
neglecting the distinction between the good and the beautiful. The idea of
Divine beauty Augustin applies to Christ also. He speaks of Him as beautiful
God, beautiful Word with God, beautiful on earth, beautiful in the womb,
beautiful in the hands of his parents, beautiful in miracles, beautiful in being
scourged, beautiful when inciting to life, beautiful when not caring for death,
beautiful when laying down his life, beautiful when taking it up again,
beautiful in the sepulchre, beautiful in Heaven. The beauty of the creation,
which is simply a reflection of the beauty of God, is not even disturbed by evil
or sin. Beauty is with Augustin (and the Platonists) a comprehensive term, and
is almost equivalent to perfect harmony or symmetry of parts, perfect adaptation
of beings to the ends for which they exist. It is patent that this view of the
beauty of God and His creation is diametrically opposed to the crude conceptions
of Mani, with reference to the disorder of the universe, a disorder not confined
even to the Kingdom of Darkness, but invading the Realm of light itself. So also
Augustin's Platonizing views of the creation must be taken into consideration in
judging of his attitude towards Manichæism. It goes without saying that from
Augustin's theological point of view, to account for creation is a matter of
grave difficulty. How can there be a relation between the infinite and the
finite? Any substantial connection is unthinkable. The only thing left is a
relation of causality. The finite, according to Plotinus, is an accident, an
image and shadow of God. It is constituted, established, sustained, and
nourished by the Divine potency, and is therefore absolutely dependent upon God.
The power that flows from God permeates each and every finite thing. God as one,
whole, and indivisible, is perpetually present with his eternal process, to
everything, everywhere. When Augustin teaches that God of his own free will,
subject to no necessity, by His own Word created the world out of nothing, this
statement might be taken in connection with his view of the absolute simplicity
of God and the consequent denial of distinction between being, willing, doing,
etc. The easiest way to get over the difficulty involved in creation was to
maintain the simultaneous creation of all things. The six days of creation in
Genesis are an accommodation to human modes of thinking. In some expressions
Augustin approaches the Platonic doctrine of the ideal or archetypal world.
Finite things, so far as they exist, are essence, i.e., God; so far as they are
not essence they do not exist at all. Thus the distinction between God and the
world is almost obliterated. Again, whatever is finite and derivative is subject
to negation or nothingness. Thus he goes along with Plato and Plotinus to the
verge of denying the reality of derived existence, and so narrowly escapes
pantheism. It is easy to see how effectively this conception of creation might
be employed against the Manichæan notion of the creation as something forced
upon God by the powers of evil, and as a mere expedient for the gradual
liberation of his imprisoned elements. The Manichæan limitation of God and his
domain by the bordering Kingdom of Darkness, was in sheer opposition to
Augustin's view of the indivisibility of God and his presence as a whole
everywhere and always. Augustin's theory that nature or essence, as far as it
has existence is God, is quite the antithesis of Mani's dualism, especially of
his supposition that the Kingdom of Darkness is essentially and wholly evil.
Augustin argued that even the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Darkness, and the
King of Darkness himself, according to Mani's own representations, are good so
far as they have essence or nature, and evil only so far as they are
non-existent. With Augustin's Platonizing view of creation is closely connected
his theory of evil and his doctrine of divine providence. Evil with him, as with
the Platonists, has no substantial existence. It is only privation of good. It
is wanting in essence, substance, truth, -- is in short mere negation, and so
cannot have God for its efficient cause or author, or be referred to God. God
would not have permitted evil unless by His own supreme power he had been able
to make good use of it. He attempts, with some success, to show the advantages
of the permission of evil in the world. God made all things good from the angels
of heaven to the lowest beasts and herbs of the earth. Augustin delighted, with
the Platonists, in dwelling upon the goodness of nature as shown in the animal
and vegetable worlds, as well as in the great cosmical phenomena. Each creature
of God has its place, some a higher, some a lower, but all so far as they
conform to the idea of their creation, or to their nature, are good. So far as
they fall short of this idea they are evil. This principle Augustin applied with
great force to the confutation of the Manichæan view of the substantiality and
permanence of evil. This may be regarded as the central point in Augustin's
controversies with the Manichæans. He evidently felt that the Manichæan view of
evil was the citadel of their system, and he never wearied of assailing it. It
would be beyond the scope of the present essay to inquire whether and how far
Augustin himself became involved in error, in his efforts to dislodge the
Manichæans. Far less satisfactory than his confutation of the fundamental
principles of the Manichæan system were his answers to the Manichæan cavils
against the Old Testament. If we may judge from the prominence given in the
extant literature to the Old Testament question, this must have been the
favorite point of attack with the Manichæans. The importance of the questions
raised and the necessity of answering them was fully recognized by Augustin. His
principal reliance is the allegorical or typological method of interpretation.
It would be hard to find examples of more perverse allegorizing than Augustin's
Anti-Manichæan treatises furnish. It will not be needful to adduce instances
here, as readers of the treatises will discover them in abundance. Nothing more
wearisome and disgusting in Biblical interpretation can well be conceived of
than certain sections of The Reply to Faustus, the Manichæan. Yet Augustin did
not fail entirely to recognize the distinction between Old Testament times and
New, and he even suggests the theory "that God could in a former age and to a
people of a lower moral standard, give commands to do actions, which we should
think it wrong to do now.... There was a certain inward want, an
unenlightenment, a rudeness of moral conception, in those to whom such commands
were given; otherwise they would not have been given. God would not have given a
command to slaughter a whole nation to an enlightened people." [17] Yet with all
the defects of Augustin's polemics against the Manichæans, they seem to have
been adapted to the needs of the time. Well does Canon Mozley declare Augustin
to have been "the most marvellous controversial phenomenon which the whole
history of the Church from first to last presents.... Armed with superabundant
facility of expression, -- so that he himself observes that one who had written
so much must have a good deal to answer for, -- he was able to hammer any point
of view which he wanted, and which was desirable as a counteracting one to a
pervading heresy, with endless repetition upon the ear of the Church; at the
same time varying the forms of speech sufficiently to please and enliven."
Certainly he was one of the greatest debaters of any age. He doubtless deserves
the credit of completely checking the progress of Manichæism in the West, and of
causing its gradual but almost complete overthrow. His arguments were probably
more effective in guarding Christians against perversion by Manichæan
proselytizers, than in converting those that were already ensnared by Manichæan
error. Other controversies of a completely different character, especially the
Pelagian, caused Augustin to look to other aspects of truth and so led to
certain modifications in his own statements, nay led him on some occasions to
the verge of Manichæan error itself. But we are chiefly interested at present in
knowing that his earnest efforts against the Manichæans from A.D.388, the year
of his baptism, to A.D.405, were not in vain. [18]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: CHAPTER X. --OUTLINE OF MANICHÆAN HISTORY. 
========================================================================

In the East Mani's followers were involved in the persecution that resulted in
his death, and many of them fled to Transoxiania. Their headquarters and the
residence of the chief of the sect continued to be Babylon. They returned to
Persia in 661, but were driven back, 908-32. They seem to have become very
numerous in the Transoxiania. Albîrûnî, 973-1048, speaks of the Manichæans as
still existing in large numbers throughout all Mohammedan lands, and especially
in the region of Samarkand, where they were known as Sabeans. He also relates
that they were prevalent among the Eastern Turks, in China, Thibet and India. In
Armenia and Cappadocia they gained many followers, and thence made their way
into Europe. The Paulicians are commonly represented as a Manichæan party, but
the descriptions that have come down to us would seem to indicate Marcionitic
rather than Manichæan elements. Yet contemporary Catholic writers such as Peter
Siculus and Photius constantly assail them as Manichæans. In the West we have
traces of their existence from 287 onwards. Diocletian, according to a somewhat
doubtful tradition, condemned its leaders to the stake, and its adherents to
decapitation with confiscation of goods. The edict is supposed to have been
directed to the pro-consul of Africa where Manichæans were making great
progress. According to an early account, Mani sent a special envoy to Africa.
Valentinian (372) and Theodosius (381) issued bloody edicts against them, yet we
find them still aggressive in the time of Augustin. From Africa Manichæism
spread into Spain, Gaul and Aquitaine. Leo the Great and Valentinian III. took
measures against them in Italy (440 sq.). They appear, however, to have
continued their work, for Gregory the Great mentions them (590 sq.). From this
time onwards their influence is to be traced in such parties as the Euchites,
Enthusiasts, Bogomiles, Catharists, Beghards, etc. But it is not safe to attach
too much importance to the mere fact that these parties were stigmatized as
Manichæans by their enemies. Even in the Reformation time and since, individuals
and small parties have appeared which in some features strongly resembled the
ancient Manichæans. Manichæism was a product of the East, and in the East it met
with most acceptance. To the spirit of the West it was altogether foreign, and
only in a greatly modified form could it ever have flourished there. It might
persist for centuries as a secret society, but it could not endure the light.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: PREFACE TO THE ANTI-MANICHÆAN WRITINGS. 
========================================================================

No reader of the accompanying volume can be expected to take a very lively
interest in its contents, unless he has before his mind some facts regarding the
extraordinary genius to whom the heresy of Manichæism owes its origin and its
name. His history is involved in considerable obscurity, owing to the suspicious
nature of the documents from which it is derived, and the difficulty of
constructing a consistent and probable account out of the contradictory
statements of the Asiatics and the Greeks. The ascertained facts, therefore, are
few, and may be briefly stated. [20] According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Mani
was born A.D.240. [21] From his original name, Corbicius or Carcubius, Beausobre
conjectures that he was born in Carcub, a town of Chaldæa. He belonged to a
Magian family, and while still a youth won a distinguished place among the sages
of Persia. He was master of all the lore peculiar to his class, and was,
besides, so proficient a mathematician and geographer, that he was able to
construct a globe. He was a skilled musician, and had some knowledge of the
Greek language, -- an accomplishment rare among his countrymen. But his fame,
and even his ultimate success as a teacher, was due in great measure to his
skill in painting, which was so considerable as to earn for him among the
Persians the distinctive title, Mani the painter. His disposition was ardent and
lively but patient and self-restrained. His appearance was striking, as he wore
the usual dress of a Persian sage: the high-soled shoes, the one red, the other
green; the mantle of azure blue, that changed color as he moved; the ebony staff
in his right hand, and the Babylonish book under his left arm. The meaning of
his name, Mani, Manes, or Manichæus, has been the subject of endless
conjectures. Epiphanius supposes that he was providentially so named, that men
might be warned against the mania of his heresy. [22] Hyde, whose opinion on any
Oriental subject must have weight, tells us that in Persian mani means painter,
and that he was so called from his profession. Archbishop Usher conjectured that
it was a form of Manaem or Menahem, which means Paraclete or Comforter; founding
this conjecture on the fact that Sulpicius Severus calls the Israelitish king
Menahem, [23] Mane. Gataker supplements this idea by the conjecture that Mani
took this name at his own instance, and in pursuance of his claim to be the
Paraclete. It is more probable that, if his name was really given on account of
this meaning, he received it from the widow who seems to have adopted him when a
boy, and may have called him her Consolation. But it is also possible that Mani
was not an uncommon Persian name, and that he adopted it for some reason too
trifling to discover. [24] While still a young man he was ordained as a
Christian priest, and distinguished himself in that capacity by his knowledge of
Scripture, and the zeal with which he discharged his sacred functions. [25] His
heretical tendencies, however, were very soon manifested, stimulated, we may
suppose, by his anxiety to make the Christian religion more acceptable to those
who adhered to the Eastern systems. Excommunicated from the Christian Church,
Mani found asylum with Sapor, and won his confidence by presenting only the
Magian side of his system. But no sooner did he permit the Christian element to
appear, and call himself the apostle of the Lord, and show a desire to reform
Magianism, than his sovereign determined to put him to death as a revolutionist.
Forced to flee, he took refuge in Turkestan, and gained influence there, partly
by decorating the temples with paintings. To lend his doctrines the appearance
of divine authority, he adopted the same device as Zoroaster and Mohammed.
Having discovered a cave through which there ran a rill of water, he laid up in
it a store of provisions, and retired there for a year, giving out that he was
on a visit to heaven. In this retirement he produced his Gospel, [26] -- a work
illustrated with symbolical drawings the ingenuity of which has been greatly
praised. This book Mani presented to Hormizdas, the son and successor of Sapor,
who professed himself favorable to his doctrine, and even built him a castle as
a place of shelter and retirement. Unfortunately for Mani, Hormizdas died in the
second year of his reign; and though his successor, Varanes, was at first
willing to shield him from persecution, yet, finding that the Magians were
alarmed for their religion, he appointed a disputation to be held between the
opposing parties. Such trials of dialectic in Eastern courts have not
unfrequently resulted in very serious consequences to the parties engaged in
them. In this instance the result was fatal to Mani. Worsted in argument, he was
condemned to die, and thus perished in some sense as a martyr. The mode of his
death is uncertain, [27] but it seems that his skin was stuffed with chaff, and
hung up in public in terrorem. This occurred in the year 277, and the
anniversary was commemorated as the great religious festival of the Manichæans.
This is not the place to attempt any account or criticism of the strange
eclecticism of Mani. [28] An adequate idea of the system may be gathered from
the accompanying treatises. It may, however, be desirable to give some account
of the original sources of information regarding it. We study the systems of
heresiarchs at a disadvantage when our only means of ascertaining their opinions
is from the fragmentary quotations and hostile criticism which occur in the
writings of their adversaries. Such, however, is our only source of information
regarding the teaching of Mani. Originally, indeed, this heresy was specially
active in a literary direction, assailing the Christian Scriptures with an
ingenuity of unbelief worthy of a later age, and apparently ambitious of
promulgating a rival canon. Certainly the writings of its early supporters were
numerous; [29] and from the care and elegance with which they were transcribed,
the sumptuous character of the manuscripts, and the mysterious emblems with
which they were adorned, we should fancy it was intended to inspire the people
with respect for an authoritative though as yet undefined code. It is, indeed,
nowhere said or implied that the sacred books of the Manichæans were reserved
for the eye only of the initiated or elect; and their reception of the New
Testament Scriptures (subject to their own revision and emendation) would make
it difficult for them to establish any secret code apart from these writings.
They were certainly, however, doctrines of an esoteric kind, which were not
divulged to the catechumens or hearers; and many of their books, being written
in Persian, Syriac, or Greek, were practically unavailable for the instruction
of the Latin speaking population. It was not always easy, therefore, to obtain
an accurate knowledge of their opinions. Commentaries on the whole of the Old
and New Testaments were written by Hierax; [30] a Theosophy by Aristocritus; a
book of memoirs, or rather Memorabilia, of Mani, and other works, by Heraclides,
Aphthonius, Adas, and Agapius. Unfortunately all of these books have perished,
whether in the flames to which the Christian authorities commanded that all
Manichæan books should be consigned, or by the slower if not more critical and
impartial processes of time. Mani himself was the author of several works: a
Gospel, the Treasury of Life (and probably an abridgment of the same), the
Mysteries, the Foundation Fpistle, a book of Articles or heads of doctrine, one
or two works on astronomy or astrology, and a collection of letters so
dangerous, that Manichæans who sought restoration to the Church were required to
anathematize them. Probably the most important of these writings was the
Foundation Epistle, so called because it contained the leading articles of
doctrine on which the new system was built. This letter was written in Greek or
Syriac; but a Latin version of it was current in Africa, and came into the hands
of Augustin, who undertook its refutation. To accomplish this with the greater
precision and effect, he quotes the entire text of each passage of the Epistle
before proceeding to criticise it. Had Augustin accomplished the whole of his
task, we should accordingly have been in possession of the whole of this
important document. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, Augustin stops short at
an early point in the Epistle; and though he tells us he had notes on the
remainder, and would some day expand and publish them, this promise lay
unredeemed for thirty years till the day of his death. Extracts from the same
Epistle and from the Treasury are also given by Augustin in the treatise De
Natura Boni. [31] Next, we have in the Opus Imperfectum of Augustin some
extracts from a letter of Mani to Menoch, which Julian had unearthed and
republished to convict Augustin of being still tainted with Manichæan
sentiments. These extracts give us some insight into the heresiarch's opinions
regarding the corruption of nature and the evils of sexual love. Again, we have
Mani's letter to Marcel, preserved by Epiphanius, and given in full by
Beausobre; [32] which, however, merely reiterates two of the doctrines most
certainly identified with Mani, -- the assertion of two principles, and the
tenet that the Son of God was man only in appearance. Finally, Fabricius has
inserted in the fifth volume of his Bibliotheca Græca the fragments, such as
they are, collected by Grabe.Such is the fragmentary character of the literary
remains of Mani: for fuller information regarding his opinions we must depend on
Theodoret, Epiphanius, Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, and Augustin.
Beausobre is of opinion that the Fathers derived all that they knew of Manichæus
from the Acts of Archelaus. [33] This professes to be a report of a disputation
held between Manes and Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia. Grave doubts
have been cast on the authenticity of this document, and Burton and Milman seem
inclined to consider it an imaginary dialogue, and use it on the understanding
that while some of its statements are manifestly untrustworthy, a discriminating
reader may gather from it some reliable material. [34]In the works of Augustin
there are some other pieces which may well be reckoned among the original
sources. In the reply to Faustus, which is translated in this volume, the book
of Faustus is not indeed reproduced; but there is no reason for doubting that
his arguments are fairly represented, and we think there is evidence that even
the original expression of them is preserved. [35] Augustin had been acquainted
with Faustus for many years. He first met him at Carthage in 383, and found him
nothing more than a clever and agreeable talker, making no pretension to science
or philosophy, and with only slender reading. [36] His cleverness is
sufficiently apparent in his debate with Augustin; the objections he leads are
plausible, and put with acuteness, but at the same time with a flippancy which
betrays a want of earnestness and real interest in the questions. In his reply
to Faustus, Augustin is very much on the defensive, and his statements are
apologetic rather than systematic. [37]But in an age when the ability to read
was by no means commensurate with the interest taken in theological questions,
written discussions were necessarily supplemented by public disputations. These
theological contests seem to have been a popular entertainment in North Africa;
the people attending in immense crowds, while reporters took down what was said
on either side for the sake of appeal as well as for the information of the
absent. In two such disputations Augustin engaged in connection with Manichæism.
[38] The first was held on the 28th and 29th of August, 392, with a Manichæan
priest, Fortunatus. To this encounter Augustin was invited by a deputation of
Donatists and Catholics, [39] who were alike alarmed at the progress which this
heresy was making in the district of Hippo. Fortunatus at first showed some
reluctance to meet so formidable an antagonist, but was prevailed upon by his
own sectaries, and shows no nervousness during the debate. His incompetence,
however, was manifest to the Manichæans themselves; and so hopeless was it to
think of any further proselytizing in Hippo, that he left that city, and was too
much ashamed of himself ever to return. The character of his reasoning is
shifty; he evades Augustin's questions and starts fresh ones. Augustin pushes
his usual and fundamental objection to the Manichæan system. If God is
impassable and incorruptible, how could He be injured by the assaults of the
kingdom of darkness? In opposition to the statement of Fortunatus, that the
Almighty produces no evil, he explains that God made no nature evil, but made
man free, and that voluntary sin is the grand original evil. The most remarkable
circumstance in the discussion is the desire of Fortunatus to direct the
conversation to the conduct of the Manichæans, and the refusal of Augustin to
make good the charges which had been made against them, or to discuss anything
but the doctrine. [40]Twelve years after this, a similar disputation was held
between Augustin and one of the elect among the Manichæans, who had come to
Hippo to propagate his religion. This man, Felix, is described by Augustin [41]
as being ill-educated, but more adroit and subtle than Fortunatus. After a keen
discussion, which occupied two days, the proceedings terminated by Felix signing
a recantation of his errors in the form of an anathema on Mani, his doctrines,
and the seducing spirit that possessed him. These two disputations are valuable,
as exhibiting the points of the Manichæan system to which its own adherents were
accustomed to direct attention, and the arguments on which they specially relied
for their support.The works given in the accompanying volume comprehend by no
means the whole of Augustin's writings against this heresy. Before his
ordination he wrote five anti-Manichæan books, entitled, De Libero Arbitrio, De
Genesi contra Manichæos, De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, De Moribus Manichæorum,
and De Vera Religione. These Paulinus called his anti-Manichæan Pentateuch.
After his ordination he was equally diligent, publishing a little treatise in
the year 391, under the title De Utilitate Credendi, [42] which was immediately
followed by a small work, De Duabus Animabus. In the following year the report
of the Disputatio contra Fortunatum was published; and after this, at short
intervals, there appeared the books Contra Adimantum, Contra Epistolam Manichæi
quam vocant Fundamenti, Contra Faustum, Disputatio contra Felicem, De Naturo
Boni, and Contra Secundinum. Besides these writings, which are exclusively
occupied with Manichæism, there are others in which the Manichæan doctrines are
handled with more or less directness. These are the Confessions, the 79th and
236th Letters, the Lecture on Psalm 140, Sermons 1, 2, 12, 50, 153, 182, 237,
the Liber de Agone Christiano, and the De Continentia.Of these writings,
Augustin himself professed a preference for the reply to the letter of
Secundinus. [43] It is a pleasing feature of the times, that a heretic whom he
did not know even by sight should write to Augustin entreating him to abstain
from writing against the Manichæans, and reconsider his position, and ally
himself with those whom he had till now fancied to be in error. His language is
respectful, and illustrates the esteem in which Augustin was held by his
contemporaries; though he does not scruple to insinuate that his conversion from
Manichæism was due to motives not of the highest kind. We have not given this
letter and its reply, because the preference of Augustin has not been ratified
by the judgment of his readers.The present volume gives a fair sample of
Augustin's controversial powers. His nine years' personal experience of the
vanity of Manichæism made him thoroughly earnest and sympathetic in his efforts
to disentangle other men from its snares, and also equipped him with the
knowledge requisite for this task. No doubt the Pelagian controversy was more
congenial to his mind. His logical acuteness and knowledge of Scripture availed
him more in combating men who fought with the same weapons, than in dealing with
a system which threw around its positions the mist of Gnostic speculation, or
veiled its doctrine under a grotesque mythology, or based itself on a cosmogony
too fantastic for a Western mind to tolerate. [44] But however Augustin may have
misconceived the strange forms in which this system was presented, there is no
doubt that he comprehended and demolished its fundamental principles; [45] that
he did so as a necessary part of his own personal search for the truth; and that
in doing so he gained possession, vitally and permanently of ideas and
principles which subsequently entered into all he thought and wrote. In finding
his way through the mazes of the obscure region into which Mani had led him, he
once for all ascertained the true relation subsisting between God and His
creatures, formed his opinion regarding the respective provinces of reason and
faith, and the connection of the Old and New Testaments, and found the root of
all evil in the created will.The Editor.Some knowledge of the Magianism of the
time of Mani may be obtained from the sacred books of the Parsis, especially
from the Vendidad Sade, an account of which is given by Dr. Wilson, of Bombay,
in his book on the Parsi Religion. -- Tr.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
========================================================================

[de moribus ecclesiæ catholicæ]. A.D.388. translated by the rev. richard
stothert, m.a., bombay


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: OF THE MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
========================================================================

[De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ]. a.d.388. It is laid down at the outset that the
customs of the holy life of the Church should be referred to the chief good of
man, that is, God. We must seek after God with supreme affection; and this
doctrine is supported in the Catholic Church by the authority of both
Testaments. The four virtues get their names from different forms of this love.
Then follow the duties of love to our neighbor. In the Catholic Church we find
examples of continence and of true Christian conduct.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: CHAPTER 1. --HOW THE PRETENSIONS OF THE MANICHÆANS ARE TO BE REFUTED. TWO MANICHÆAN FALSEHOODS. 
========================================================================

1. Enough, probably, has been done in our other books [47] in the way of
answering the ignorant and profane attacks which the Manichæans make on the law,
which is called the Old Testament, in a spirit of vainglorious boasting, and
with the approval of the uninstructed. Here, too, I may shortly touch upon the
subject. For every one with average intelligence can easily see that the
explanation of the Scriptures should be sought for from those who are the
professed teachers of the Scriptures; and that it may happen, and indeed always
happens, that many things seem absurd to the ignorant, which, when they are
explained by the learned, appear all the more excellent, and are received in the
explanation with the greater pleasure on account of the obstructions which made
it difficult to reach the meaning. This commonly happens as regards the holy
books of the Old Testament, if only the man who meets with difficulties applies
to a pious teacher, and not to a profane critic, and if he begins his inquiries
from a desire to find truth, and not in rash opposition. And should the inquirer
meet with some, whether bishops or presbyters, or any officials or ministers of
the Catholic Church, who either avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or,
content with simple faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must
not despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case where neither are
all able to teach to whom the inquiry is addressed, nor are all inquirers worthy
of learning the truth. Diligence and piety are both necessary: on the one hand,
we must have knowledge to find truth, and, on the other hand, we must deserve to
get the knowledge. 2. But as the Manichæans have two tricks for catching the
unwary, so as to make them take them as teachers, -- one, that of finding fault
with the Scriptures, which they either misunderstand or wish to be
misunderstood, the other, that of making a show of chastity and of notable
abstinence, -- this book shall contain our doctrine of life and morals according
to Catholic teaching, and will perhaps make it appear how easy it is to pretend
to virtue, and how difficult to possess virtue. I will refrain, if I can, from
attacking their weak points, which I know well, with the violence with which
they attack what they know nothing of; for I wish them, if possible, to be cured
rather than conquered. And I will quote such testimonies from the Scriptures as
they are bound to believe, for they shall be from the New Testament; and even
from this I will take none of the passages which the Manichæans when hard
pressed are accustomed to call spurious, but passages which they are obliged to
acknowledge and approve. And for every testimony from apostolic teaching I will
bring a similar statement from the Old Testament, that if they ever become
willing to wake up from their persistent dreams, and to rise towards the light
of Christian faith, they may discover both how far from being Christian is the
life which they profess, and how truly Christian is the Scripture which they
cavil at.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: CHAPTER 2. --HE BEGINS WITH ARGUMENTS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MISTAKEN METHOD OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

3. Where, then, shall I begin? With authority, or with reasoning? In the order
of nature, when we learn anything, authority precedes reasoning. For a reason
may seem weak, when, after it is given, it requires authority to confirm it. But
because the minds of men are obscured by familiarity with darkness, which covers
them in the night of sins and evil habits, and cannot perceive in a way suitable
to the clearness and purity of reason, there is most wholesome provision for
bringing the dazzled eye into the light of truth under the congenial shade of
authority. But since we have to do with people who are perverse in all their
thoughts and words and actions, and who insist on nothing more than on beginning
with argument, I will, as a concession to them, take what I think a wrong method
in discussion. For I like to imitate, as far as I can, the gentleness of my Lord
Jesus Christ, who took on Himself the evil of death itself, wishing to free us
from it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: CHAPTER 3. --HAPPINESS IS IN THE ENJOYMENT OF MAN'S CHIEF GOOD. TWO CONDITIONS OF THE CHIEF GOOD: 1ST, NOTHING IS BETTER THAN IT; 2D, IT CANNOT BE LOST AGAINST THE WILL. 
========================================================================

4. How then, according to reason, ought man to live? We all certainly desire to
live happily; and there is no human being but assents to this statement almost
before it is made. But the title happy cannot, in my opinion, belong either to
him who has not what he loves, whatever it may be, or to him who has what he
loves if it is hurtful or to him who does not love what he has, although it is
good in perfection. For one who seeks what he cannot obtain suffers torture, and
one who has got what is not desirable is cheated, and one who does not seek for
what is worth seeking for is diseased. Now in all these cases the mind cannot
but be unhappy, and happiness and unhappiness cannot reside at the same time in
one man; so in none of these cases can the man be happy. I find, then, a fourth
case, where the happy life exists, -- when that which is man's chief good is
both loved and possessed. For what do we call enjoyment but having at hand the
objects of love? And no one can be happy who does not enjoy what is man's chief
good, nor is there any one who enjoys this who is not happy. We must then have
at hand our chief good, if we think of living happily. 5. We must now inquire
what is man's chief good, which of course cannot be anything inferior to man
himself. For whoever follows after what is inferior to himself, becomes himself
inferior. But every man is bound to follow what is best. Wherefore man's chief
good is not inferior to man. Is it then something similar to man himself? It
must be so, if there is nothing above man which he is capable of enjoying. But
if we find something which is both superior to man, and can be possessed by the
man who loves it, who can doubt that in seeking for happiness man should
endeavor to reach that which is more excellent than the being who makes the
endeavor. For if happiness consists in the enjoyment of a good than which there
is nothing better, which we call the chief good, how can a man be properly
called happy who has not yet attained to his chief good? or how can that be the
chief good beyond which something better remains for us to arrive at? Such,
then, being the chief good, it must be something which cannot be lost against
the will. For no one can feel confident regarding a good which he knows can be
taken from him, although he wishes to keep and cherish it. But if a man feels no
confidence regarding the good which he enjoys, how can he be happy while in such
fear of losing it?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: CHAPTER 4. --MAN--WHAT? 
========================================================================

6. Let us then see what is better than man. This must necessarily be hard to
find, unless we first ask and examine what man is. I am not now called upon to
give a definition of man. The question here seems to me to be, -- since almost
all agree, or at least, which is enough, those I have now to do with are of the
same opinion with me, that we are made up of soul and body, -- What is man? Is
he both of these? or is he the body only, or the soul only? For although the
things are two, soul and body, and although neither without the other could be
called man (for the body would not be man without the soul, nor again would the
soul be man if there were not a body animated by it), still it is possible that
one of these may be held to be man, and may be called so. What then do we call
man? Is he soul and body, as in a double harness, or like a centaur? Or do we
mean the body only, as being in the service of the soul which rules it, as the
word lamp denotes not the light and the case together, but only the case, yet it
is on account of the light that it is so called? Or do we mean only the mind,
and that on account of the body which it rules, as horseman means not the man
and the horse, but the man only, and that as employed in ruling the horse? This
dispute is not easy to settle; or, if the proof is plain, the statement requires
time. This is an expenditure of time and strength which we need not incur. For
whether the name man belongs to both, or only to the soul, the chief good of man
is not the chief good of the body; but what is the chief good either of both
soul and body, or of the soul only, that is man's chief good.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: CHAPTER 5. --MAN'S CHIEF GOOD IS NOT THE CHIEF GOOD OF THE BODY ONLY, BUT THE CHIEF GOOD OF THE SOUL. 
========================================================================

7. Now if we ask what is the chief good of the body, reason obliges us to admit
that it is that by means of which the body comes to be in its best state. But of
all the things which invigorate the body, there is nothing better or greater
than the soul. The chief good of the body, then, is not bodily pleasure, not
absence of pain, not strength, not beauty, not swiftness, or whatever else is
usually reckoned among the goods of the body, but simply the soul. For all the
things mentioned the soul supplies to the body by its presence, and, what is
above them all, life. Hence I conclude that the soul is not the chief good of
man, whether we give the name of man to soul and body together, or to the soul
alone. For as according to reason, the chief good of the body is that which is
better than the body, and from which the body receives vigor and life, so
whether the soul itself is man, or soul and body both, we must discover whether
there is anything which goes before the soul itself, in following which the soul
comes to the perfection of good of which it is capable in its own kind. If such
a thing can be found, all uncertainty must be at an end, and we must pronounce
this to be really and truly the chief good of man. 8. If, again, the body is
man, it must be admitted that the soul is the chief good of man. But clearly,
when we treat of morals, -- when we inquire what manner of life must be held in
order to obtain happiness, -- it is not the body to which the precepts are
addressed, it is not bodily discipline which we discuss. In short, the
observance of good customs belongs to that part of us which inquires and learns,
which are the prerogatives of the soul; so, when we speak of attaining to
virtue, the question does not regard the body. But if it follows, as it does,
that the body which is ruled over by a soul possessed of virtue is ruled both
better and more honorably, and is in its greatest perfection in consequence of
the perfection of the soul which rightfully governs it, that which gives
perfection to the soul will be man's chief good, though we call the body man.
For if my coachman, in obedience to me, feeds and drives the horses he has
charge of in the most satisfactory manner, himself enjoying the more of my
bounty in proportion to his good conduct, can any one deny that the good
condition of the horses, as well as that of the coachman, is due to me? So the
question seems to me to be not, whether soul and body is man, or the soul only,
or the body only, but what gives perfection to the soul; for when this is
obtained, a man cannot but be either perfect, or at least much better than in
the absence of this one thing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: CHAPTER 6. --VIRTUE GIVES PERFECTION TO THE SOUL; THE SOUL OBTAINS VIRTUE BY FOLLOWING GOD; FOLLOWING GOD IS THE HAPPY LIFE. 
========================================================================

9. No one will question that virtue gives perfection to the soul. But it is a
very proper subject of inquiry whether this virtue can exist by itself or only
in the soul. Here again arises a profound discussion, needing lengthy treatment;
but perhaps my summary will serve the purpose. God will, I trust, assist me, so
that, notwithstanding our feebleness, we may give instruction on these great
matters briefly as well as intelligibly. In either case, whether virtue can
exist by itself without the soul, or can exist only in the soul, undoubtedly in
the pursuit of virtue the soul follows after something, and this must be either
the soul itself, or virtue, or something else. But if the soul follows after
itself in the pursuit of virtue, it follows after a foolish thing; for before
obtaining virtue it is foolish. Now the height of a follower's desire is to
reach that which he follows after. So the soul must either not wish to reach
what it follows after, which is utterly absurd and unreasonable, or, in
following after itself while foolish, it reaches the folly which it flees from.
But if it follows after virtue in the desire to reach it, how can it follow what
does not exist? or how can it desire to reach what it already possesses? Either,
therefore, virtue exists beyond the soul, or if we are not allowed to give the
name of virtue except to the habit and disposition of the wise soul, which can
exist only in the soul, we must allow that the soul follows after something else
in order that virtue may be produced in itself; for neither by following after
nothing, nor by following after folly, can the soul, according to my reasoning,
attain to wisdom. 10. This something else then, by following after which the
soul becomes possessed of virtue and wisdom, is either a wise man or God. But we
have said already that it must be something that we cannot lose against our
will. No one can think it necessary to ask whether a wise man, supposing we are
content to follow after him, can be taken from us in spite of our unwillingness
or our persistence. God then remains, in following after whom we live well, and
in reaching whom we live both well and happily. If any deny God's existence, why
should I consider the method of dealing with them, when it is doubtful whether
they ought to be dealt with at all? At any rate, it would require a different
starting-point, a different plan, a different investigation from what we are now
engaged in. I am now addressing those who do not deny the existence of God, and
who, moreover, allow that human affairs are not disregarded by Him. For there is
no one, I suppose, who makes any profession of religion but will hold that
divine Providence cares at least for our souls.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: CHAPTER 7. --THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE SCRIPTURE. THE PLAN AND PRINCIPAL MYSTERIES OF THE DIVINE SCHEME OF REDEMPTION. 
========================================================================

11. But how can we follow after Him whom we do not see? or how can we see Him,
we who are not only men, but also men of weak understanding? For though God is
seen not with the eyes but with the mind, where can such a mind be found as
shall, while obscured by foolishness, succeed or even attempt to drink in that
light? We must therefore have recourse to the instructions of those whom we have
reason to think wise. Thus far argument brings us. For in human things reasoning
is employed, not as of greater certainty, but as easier from use. But when we
come to divine things, this faculty turns away; it cannot behold; it pants, and
gasps, and burns with desire; it falls back from the light of truth, and turns
again to its wonted obscurity, not from choice, but from exhaustion. What a
dreadful catastrophe is this, that the soul should be reduced to greater
helplessness when it is seeking rest from its toil! So, when we are hasting to
retire into darkness, it will be well that by the appointment of adorable Wisdom
we should be met by the friendly shade of authority, and should be attracted by
the wonderful character of its contents, and by the utterances of its pages,
which, like shadows, typify and attemper the truth. 12. What more could have
been done for our salvation? What can be more gracious and bountiful than divine
providence, which, when man had fallen from its laws, and, in just retribution
for his coveting mortal things, had brought forth a mortal offspring, still did
not wholly abandon him? For in this most righteous government, whose ways are
strange and inscrutable, there is, by means of unknown connections established
in the creatures subject to it, both a severity of punishment and a mercifulness
of salvation. How beautiful this is, how great, how worthy of God, in fine, how
true, which is all we are seeking for, we shall never be able to perceive,
unless, beginning with things human and at hand, and holding by the faith and
the precepts of true religion, we continue without turning from it in the way
which God has secured for us by the separation of the patriarchs, by the bond of
the law, by the foresight of the prophets, by the witness of the apostles, by
the blood of the martyrs, and by the subjugation of the Gentiles. From this
point, then, let no one ask me for my opinion, but let us rather hear the
oracles, and submit our weak inferences to the announcements of Heaven. [48]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: CHAPTER 8. --GOD IS THE CHIEF GOOD, WHOM WE ARE TO SEEK AFTER WITH SUPREME AFFECTION. 
========================================================================

13. Let us see how the Lord Himself in the gospel has taught us to live; how,
too, Paul the apostle, -- for the Manichæans dare not reject these Scriptures.
Let us hear, O Christ, what chief end Thou dost prescribe to us; and that is
evidently the chief end after which we are told to strive with supreme
affection. "Thou shalt love," He says, "the Lord thy God." Tell me also, I pray
Thee, what must be the measure of love; for I fear lest the desire enkindled in
my heart should either exceed or come short in fervor. "With all thy heart," He
says. Nor is that enough. "With all thy soul." Nor is it enough yet. "With all
thy mind." [49] What do you wish more? I might, perhaps, wish more if I could
see the possibility of more. What does Paul say on this? "We know," he says,
"that all things issue in good to them that love God." Let him, too, say what is
the measure of love. "Who then," he says, "shall separate us from the love of
Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness,
or peril, or the sword?" [50] We have heard, then, what and how much we must
love; this we must strive after, and to this we must refer all our plans. The
perfection of all our good things and our perfect good is God. We must neither
come short of this nor go beyond it: the one is dangerous, the other impossible.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: CHAPTER 9. --HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ON THE PRECEPTS OF CHARITY. 
========================================================================

14. Come now, let us examine, or rather let us take notice, -- for it is obvious
and can be seen, at once, -- whether the authority of the Old Testament too
agrees with those statements taken from the gospel and the apostle. What need to
speak of the first statement, when it is clear to all that it is a quotation
from the law given by Moses? For it is there written, "Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." [52]
And not to go farther for a passage of the Old Testament to compare with that of
the apostle, he has himself added one. For after saying that no tribulation, no
distress, no persecution, no pressure of bodily want, no peril, no sword,
separates us from the love of Christ, he immediately adds, "As it is written,
For Thy sake we are in suffering all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for
the slaughter." [53] The Manichæans are in the habit of saying that this is an
interpolation, -- so unable are they to reply, that they are forced in their
extremity to say this. But every one can see that this is all that is left for
men to say when it is proved that they are wrong. 15. And yet I ask them if they
deny that this is said in the Old Testament, or if they hold that the passage in
the Old Testament does not agree with that of the apostle. For the first, the
books will prove it; and as for the second, those prevaricators who fly off at a
tangent will be brought to agree with me, if they will only reflect a little and
consider what is said, or else I will press upon them the opinion of those who
judge impartially. For what could agree more harmoniously than these passages?
For tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, cause great
suffering to man while in this life. So all these words are implied in the
single quotation from the law, where it is said, "For Thy sake we are in
suffering." [54] The only other thing is the sword, which does not inflict a
painful life, but removes whatever life it meets with. Answering to this are the
words, "We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." And love could not have
been more plainly expressed than by the words, "For Thy sake." Suppose, then,
that this testimony is not found in the Apostle Paul, but is quoted by me, must
you not prove, you heretic, either that this is not written in the old law, or
that it does not harmonize with the apostle? And if you dare not say either of
these things (for you are shut up by the reading of the manuscript, which will
show that it is written, and by common sense, which sees that nothing could
agree better with what is said by the apostle), why do you imagine that there is
any force in accusing the Scriptures of being corrupted? And once more, what
will you reply to a man who says to you, This is what I understand, this is my
view, this is my belief, and I read these books only because I see that
everything in them agrees with the Christian faith? Or tell me at once if you
will venture deliberately to tell me to the face that we are not to believe that
the apostles and martyrs are spoken of as having endured great sufferings for
Christ's sake, and as having been accounted by their persecutors as sheep for
the slaughter? If you cannot say this, why should you bring a charge against the
book in which I find what you acknowledge I ought to believe?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: CHAPTER 10. --WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT GOD. THE TWO GODS OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

16. Will you say that you grant that we are bound to love God, but not the God
worshipped by those who acknowledge the authority of the Old Testament? In that
case you refuse to worship the God who made heaven and earth, for this is the
God set forth all through these books. And you admit that the whole of the
world, which is called heaven and earth, had God and a good God for its author
and maker. For in speaking to you about God we must make a distinction. For you
hold that there are two gods, one good and the other bad. But if you say that
you worship and approve of worshipping the God who made heaven and earth, but
not the God supported by the authority of the Old Testament, you act
impertinently in trying, though vainly, to attribute to us views and opinions
altogether unlike the wholesome and profitable doctrine we really hold. Nor can
your silly and profane discourses be at all compared with the expositions in
which learned and pious men of the Catholic Church open up those Scriptures to
the willing and worthy. Our understanding of the law and the prophets is quite
different from what you suppose. Mistake us no longer. We do not worship a God
who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes pleasure in the
blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt and crime, or whose possession
of the earth is limited to a little corner of it. These and such like are the
silly notions you are in the habit of denouncing at great length. Your
denunciation does not touch us. The fancies of old women or of children you
attack with a vehemence that is only ridiculous. Any one whom you persuade in
this way to join you shows no fault in the teaching of the Church, but only
proves his own ignorance of it. 17. If, then, you have any human feeling, -- if
you have any regard for your own welfare, -- you should rather examine with
diligence and piety the meaning of these passages of Scripture. You should
examine, unhappy beings that you are; for we condemn with no less severity and
copiousness any faith which attributes to God what is unbecoming Him, and in
those by whom these passages are literally understood we correct the mistake of
ignorance, and look upon persistence in it as absurd. And in many other things
which you cannot understand there is in the Catholic teaching a check on the
belief of those who have got beyond mental childishness, not in years, but in
knowledge and understanding -- old in the progress towards wisdom. For we learn
the folly of believing that God is bounded by any amount of space, even though
infinite; and it is held unlawful to think of God, or any part of Him, as moving
from one place to another. And should any one suppose that anything in God's
substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of
wild profanity. There are thus among us children who think of God as having a
human form, which they suppose He really has, which is a most degrading idea;
and there are many of full age to whose mind the majesty of God appears in its
inviolableness and unchangeableness as not only above the human body, but above
their own mind itself. These ages, as we said, are distinguished not by time,
but by virtue and discretion. [55] Among you, again, there is no one who will
picture God in a human form; but neither is there one who sets God apart from
the contamination of human error. As regards those who are fed like crying
babies at the breast of the Catholic Church, if they are not carried off by
heretics, they are nourished according to the vigor and capacity of each, and
arrive at last, one in one way and another in another, first to a perfect man,
and then to the maturity and hoary hairs of wisdom, when they may get life as
they desire, and life in perfect happiness.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: CHAPTER 11. --GOD IS THE ONE OBJECT OF LOVE; THEREFORE HE IS MAN'S CHIEF GOOD. NOTHING IS BETTER THAN GOD. GOD CANNOT BE LOST AGAINST OUR WILL. 
========================================================================

18. Following after God is the desire of happiness; to reach God is happiness
itself. We follow after God by loving Him; we reach Him, not by becoming
entirely what He is, but in nearness to Him, and in wonderful and immaterial
contact with Him, and in being inwardly illuminated and occupied by His truth
and holiness. He is light itself; we get enlightenment from Him. The greatest
commandment, therefore, which leads to happy life, and the first, is this: "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind." For to
those who love the Lord all things issue in good. Hence Paul adds shortly after,
"I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor virtue, nor things
present, nor things future, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
[56] If, then, to those who love God all things issue in good, and if, as no one
doubts, the chief or perfect good is not only to be loved, but to be loved so
that nothing shall be loved better, as is expressed in the words, "With all thy
soul, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind," who, I ask, will not at once
conclude, when these things are all settled and most surely believed, that our
chief good which we must hasten to arrive at in preference to all other things
is nothing else than God? And then, if nothing can separate us from His love,
must not this be surer as well as better than any other good? 19. But let us
consider the points separately. No one separates us from this by threatening
death. For that with which we love God cannot die, except in not loving God; for
death is not to love God, and that is when we prefer anything to Him in
affection and pursuit. No one separates us from this in promising life; for no
one separates us from the fountain in promising water. Angels do not separate
us; for the mind cleaving to God is not inferior in strength to an angel. Virtue
does not separate us; for if what is here called virtue is that which has power
in this world, the mind cleaving to God is far above the whole world. Or if this
virtue is perfect rectitude of our mind itself, this in the case of another will
favor our union with God, and in ourselves will itself unite us with God.
Present troubles do not separate us; for we feel their burden less the closer we
cling to Him from whom they try to separate us. The promise of future things
does not separate us; for both future good of every kind is surest in the
promise of God, and nothing is better than God Himself, who undoubtedly is
already present to those who truly cleave to Him. Height and depth do not
separate us; for if the height and depth of knowledge are what is meant, I will
rather not be inquisitive than be separated from God; nor can any instruction by
which error is removed separate me from Him, by separation from whom it is that
any one is in error. Or if what is meant are the higher and lower parts of this
world, how can the promise of heaven separate me from Him who made heaven? Or
who from beneath can frighten me into forsaking God, when I should not have
known of things beneath but by forsaking Him? In fine, what place can remove me
from His love, when He could not be all in every place unless He were contained
in none?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: CHAPTER 12. --WE ARE UNITED TO GOD BY LOVE, IN SUBJECTION TO HIM. 
========================================================================

20. "No other creature," he says, separates us. O man of profound mysteries! He
thought it not enough to say, no creature: but he says no other creature;
teaching that with which we love God and by which we cleave to God, our mind,
namely, and understanding, is itself a creature. Thus the body is another
creature; and if the mind is an object of intellectual perception, and is known
only by this means, the other creature is all that is an object of sense, which
as it were makes itself known through the eyes, or ears, or smell, or taste, or
touch, and this must be inferior to what is perceived by the intellect alone.
Now, as God also can be known by the worthy, only intellectually, [57] exalted
though He is above the intelligent mind as being its Creator and Author, there
was danger lest the human mind, from being reckoned among invisible and
immaterial things, should be thought to be of the same nature with Him who
created it, and so should fall away by pride from Him to whom it should be
united by love. For the mind becomes like God, to the extent vouchsafed by its
subjection of itself to Him for information and enlightenment. And if it obtains
the greatest nearness by that subjection which produces likeness, it must be far
removed from Him by that presumption which would make the likeness greater. It
is this presumption which leads the mind to refuse obedience to the laws of God,
in the desire to be sovereign, as God is. 21. The farther, then, the mind
departs from God, not in space, but in affection and lust after things below
Him, the more it is filled with folly and wretchedness. So by love it returns to
God, -- a love which places it not along with God, but under Him. And the more
ardor and eagerness there is in this, the happier and more elevated will the
mind be, and with God as sole governor it will be in perfect liberty. Hence it
must know that it is a creature. It must believe what is the truth, -- that its
Creator remains ever possessed of the inviolable and immutable nature of truth
and wisdom, and must confess, even in view of the errors from which it desires
deliverance, that it is liable to folly and falsehood. But then again, it must
take care that it be not separated by the love of the other creature, that is,
of this visible world, from the love of God Himself, which sanctifies it in
order to lasting happiness. No other creature, then, -- for we are ourselves a
creature, -- separates us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: CHAPTER 13. --WE ARE JOINED INSEPARABLY TO GOD BY CHRIST AND HIS SPIRIT. 
========================================================================

22. Let this same Paul tell us who is this Christ Jesus our Lord. "To them that
are called," he says, "we preach Christ the virtue of God, and the wisdom of
God." [58] And does not Christ Himself say, "I am the truth?" [59] If, then, we
ask what it is to live well, -- that is, to strive after happiness by living
well, -- it must assuredly be to love virtue, to love wisdom, to love truth, and
to love with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind; virtue
which is inviolable and immutable, wisdom which never gives place to folly,
truth which knows no change or variation from its uniform character. Through
this the Father Himself is seen; for it is said, "No man cometh unto the Father
but by me." To this we cleave by sanctification. For when sanctified we burn
with full and perfect love, which is the only security for our not turning away
from God, and for our being conformed to Him rather than to this world; for "He
has predestinated us," says the same apostle, "that we should be conformed to
the image of His Son." [60] 23. It is through love, then, that we become
conformed to God; and by this conformation, and configuration, and circumcision
from this world we are not confounded with the things which are properly subject
to us. And this is done by the Holy Spirit. "For hope," he says, "does not
confound us; for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit, which is given unto us." [61] But we could not possibly be restored to
perfection by the Holy Spirit, unless He Himself continued always perfect and
immutable. And this plainly could not be unless He were of the nature and of the
very substance of God, who alone is always possessed of immutability and
invariableness. "The creature," it is affirmed, not by me but by Paul, "has been
made subject to vanity." [62] And what is subject to vanity is unable to
separate us from vanity, and to unite us to the truth. But the Holy Spirit does
this for us. He is therefore no creature. For whatever is, must be either God or
the creature.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: CHAPTER 14. --WE CLEAVE TO THE TRINITY, OUR CHIEF GOOD, BY LOVE. 
========================================================================

24. We ought then to love God, the Trinity in unity, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit; for this must be said to be God Himself, for it is said of God, truly
and in the most exalted sense, "Of whom are all things, by whom are all things,
in whom are all things." Those are Paul's words. And what does he add? "To Him
be glory." [63] All this is exactly true. He does not say, To them; for God is
one. And what is meant by, To Him be glory, but to Him be chief and perfect and
widespread praise? For as the praise improves and extends, so the love and
affection increases in fervor. And when this is the case, mankind cannot but
advance with sure and firm step to a life of perfection and bliss. This, I
suppose, is all we wish to find when we speak of the chief good of man, to which
all must be referred in life and conduct. For the good plainly exists; and we
have shown by reasoning, as far as we were able, and by the divine authority
which goes beyond our reasoning, that it is nothing else but God Himself. For
how can any thing be man's chief good but that in cleaving to which he is
blessed? Now this is nothing but God, to whom we can cleave only by affection,
desire, and love.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: CHAPTER 15. --THE CHRISTIAN DEFINITION OF THE FOUR VIRTUES. 
========================================================================

25. As to virtue leading us to a happy life, I hold virtue to be nothing else
than perfect love of God. For the fourfold division of virtue I regard as taken
from four forms of love. For these four virtues (would that all felt their
influence in their minds as they have their names in their mouths!), I should
have no hesitation in defining them: that temperance is love giving itself
entirely to that which is loved; fortitude is love readily bearing all things
for the sake of the loved object; justice is love serving only the loved object,
and therefore ruling rightly; prudence is love distinguishing with sagacity
between what hinders it and what helps it. The object of this love is not
anything, but only God, the chief good, the highest wisdom, the perfect harmony.
So we may express the definition thus: that temperance is love keeping itself
entire and incorrupt for God; fortitude is love bearing everything readily for
the sake of God; justice is love serving God only, and therefore ruling well all
else, as subject to man; prudence is love making a right distinction between
what helps it towards God and what might hinder it. [64]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 33: CHAPTER 16. --HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 
========================================================================

26. I will briefly set forth the manner of life according to these virtues, one
by one, after I have brought forward, as I promised, passages from the Old
Testament parallel to those I have been quoting from the New Testament. For is
Paul alone in saying that we should be joined to God so that there should be
nothing between to separate us? Does not the prophet say the same most aptly and
concisely in the words, "It is good for me to cleave to God?" [65] Does not this
one word cleave express all that the apostle says at length about love? And do
not the words, It is good, point to the apostle's statement, "All things issue
in good to them that love God?" Thus in one clause and in two words the prophet
sets forth the power and the fruit of love. 27. And as the apostle says that the
Son of God is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, -- virtue being
understood to refer to action, and wisdom to teaching (as in the gospel these
two things are expressed in the words, "All things were made by Him," which
belongs to action and virtue; and then, referring to teaching and the knowledge
of the truth, he says, "The life was the light of men" [66] ), -- could anything
agree better with these passages than what is said in the Old Testament [67] of
wisdom, "She reaches from end to end in strength, and orders all things
sweetly?" For reaching in strength expresses virtue, while ordering sweetly
expresses skill and method. But if this seems obscure, see what follows: "And of
all," he says, "God loved her; for she teaches the knowledge of God, and chooses
His works." Nothing more is found here about action; for choosing works is not
the same as working, so this refers to teaching. There remains action to
correspond with the virtue, to complete the truth we wish to prove. Read then
what comes next: "But if," he says, "the possession which is desired in life is
honorable, what is more honorable than wisdom, which works all things?" Could
anything be brought forward more striking or more distinct than this, or even
more fully expressed? Or, if you wish more, hear another passage of the same
meaning. "Wisdom," he says, "teaches sobriety, and justice, and virtue." [68]
Sobriety refers, I think, to the knowledge of the truth, or to teaching; justice
and virtue to work and action. And I know nothing comparable to these two
things, that is, to efficiency in action and sobriety in contemplation, which
the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, that is, the Son of God, gives to them
that love Him, when the same prophet goes on to show their value; for it is thus
stated: "Wisdom teaches sobriety, and justice, and virtue, than which nothing is
more useful in life to man." [69] 28. Perhaps some may think that those passages
do not refer to the Son of God. What, then, is taught in the following words:
"She displays the nobility of her birth, having her dwelling with God?" [70] To
what does birth refer but to parentage? And does not dwelling with the Father
claim and assert equality? Again, as Paul says that the Son of God is the wisdom
of God, [71] and as the Lord Himself says, "No man knoweth the Father save the
only-begotten Son," [72] what could be more concordant than those words of the
prophet: "With Thee is wisdom which knows Thy works, which was present at the
time of Thy making the world, and knew what would be pleasing in Thine eyes?"
[73] And as Christ is called the truth, which is also taught by His being called
the brightness of the Father [74] (for there is nothing round about the sun but
its brightness which is produced from it), what is there in the Old Testament
more plainly and obviously in accordance with this than the words, "Thy truth is
round about Thee?" [75] Once more, Wisdom herself says in the gospel, "No man
cometh unto the Father but by me;" [76] and the prophet says, "Who knoweth Thy
mind, unless Thou givest wisdom?" and a little after, "The things pleasing to
Thee men have learned, and have been healed by wisdom." [77] 29. Paul says, "The
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto
us;" [78] and the prophet says, "The Holy Spirit of knowledge will shun guile."
[79] For where there is guile there is no love. Paul says that we are "conformed
to the image of the Son of God;" [80] and the prophet says, "The light of Thy
countenance is stamped upon us." [81] Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit is God,
and therefore is no creature; and the prophet says, "Thou sendest Thy Spirit
from the higher." [82] For God alone is the highest, than whom nothing is
higher. Paul shows that the Trinity is one God, when he says, "To Him be glory;"
[83] and in the Old Testament it is said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is
one God." [84]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 34: CHAPTER 17. --APPEAL TO THE MANICHÆANS, CALLING ON THEM TO REPENT. 
========================================================================

30. What more do you wish? Why do you resist ignorantly and obstinately? Why do
you pervert untutored minds by your mischievous teaching? The God of both
Testaments is one. For as there is an agreement in the passages quoted from
both, so is there in all the rest, if you are willing to consider them carefully
and impartially. But because many expressions are undignified, and so far
adapted to minds creeping on the earth, that they may rise by human things to
divine, [85] while many are figurative, that the inquiring mind may have the
more profit from the exertion of finding their meaning, and the more delight
when it is found, you pervert this admirable arrangement of the Holy Spirit for
the purpose of deceiving and ensnaring your followers. As to the reason why
divine Providence permits you to do this, and as to the truth of the apostle's
saying, "There must needs be many heresies, that they which are approved may be
made manifest among you," [86] it would take long to discuss these things, and
you, with whom we have now to do, are not capable of understanding them. I know
you well. To the consideration of divine things, which are far higher than you
suppose, you bring minds quite gross and sickly, from being fed with material
images. 31. We must therefore in your case try not to make you understand divine
things, which is impossible, but to make you desire to understand. This is the
work of the pure and guileless love of God, which is seen chiefly in the
conduct, and of which we have already said much. This love, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, leads to the Son, that is, to the wisdom of God, by which the Father
Himself is known. For if wisdom and truth are not sought for with the whole
strength of the mind, it cannot possibly be found. But when it is sought as it
deserves to be, it cannot withdraw or hide itself from its lovers. Hence its
words, which you too are in the habit of repeating, "Ask, and ye shall receive;
seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" [87] "Nothing
is hid which shall not be revealed." [88] It is love that asks, love that seeks,
love that knocks, love that reveals, love, too, that gives continuance in what
is revealed. From this love of wisdom, and this studious inquiry, we are not
debarred by the Old Testament, as you always say most falsely, but are exhorted
to this with the greatest urgency. 32. Hear, then, at length, and consider, I
pray you, what is said by the prophet: "Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth
away; yea, she is easily seen of them that love her, and found of such as seek
her. She preventeth them that desire her, in making herself first known unto
them. Whoso seeketh her early shall have no great travail; for he shall find her
sitting at his doors. To think, therefore, upon her is perfection of wisdom; and
whoso watcheth for her shall quickly be without care. For she goeth about
seeking such as are worthy of her, showeth herself favorably unto them in the
ways, and meeteth them in every thought. For the very true beginning of her is
the desire of discipline; and the care of discipline is love; and love is the
keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of
incorruption; and incorruption maketh us near unto God. Therefore the desire of
wisdom bringeth to a kingdom." [89] Will you still continue in dogged hostility
to these things? Do not things thus stated, though not yet understood, make it
evident to every one that they contain something deep and unutterable? Would
that you could understand the things here said! Forthwith you would abjure all
your silly legends and your unmeaning material imaginations, and with great
alacrity, sincere love, and full assurance of faith, would betake yourselves
bodily to the shelter of the most holy bosom of the Catholic Church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 35: CHAPTER 18. --ONLY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS PERFECT TRUTH ESTABLISHED ON THE HARMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS. 
========================================================================

33. I could, according to the little ability I have, take up the points
separately, and could expound and prove the truths I have learned, which are
generally more excellent and lofty than words can express; but this cannot be
done while you bark at it. For not in vain is it said, "Give not that which is
holy to dogs." [90] Do not be angry. I too barked and was a dog; and then, as
was right, instead of the food of teaching, I got the rod of correction. But
were there in you that love of which we are speaking, or should it ever be in
you as much as the greatness of the truth to be known requires, may God
vouchsafe to show you that neither is there among the Manichæans the Christian
faith which leads to the summit of wisdom and truth, the attainment of which is
the true happy life, nor is it anywhere but in the Catholic teaching. Is not
this what the Apostle Paul appears to desire when he says, "For this cause I bow
my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in
heaven and earth is named, that He would grant unto you, according to the riches
of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man: that
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in
love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the height, and length,
and breadth, and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,
that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God?" [91] Could anything be more
plainly expressed? 34. Wake up a little, I beseech you, and see the harmony of
both Testaments, making it quite plain and certain what should be the manner of
life in our conduct, and to what all things should be referred. To the love of
God we are incited by the gospel, when it is said, "Ask, seek, knock;" [92] by
Paul, when he says, "That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to
comprehend;" [93] by the prophet also, when he says that wisdom can easily be
known by those who love it, seek for it, desire it, watch for it, think about
it, care for it. The salvation of the mind [94] and the way of happiness is
pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures; and yet you choose rather to bark
at these things than to obey them. I will tell you in one word what I think. Do
you listen to the learned men of the Catholic Church with as peaceable a
disposition, and with the same zeal, that I had when for nine years I attended
on you: [95] there will be no need of so long a time as that during which you
made a fool of me. In a much, a very much, shorter time you will see the
difference between truth and vanity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 36: CHAPTER 19. --DESCRIPTION OF THE DUTIES OF TEMPERANCE, ACCORDING TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 
========================================================================

35. It is now time to return to the four virtues, and to draw out and prescribe
a way of life in conformity with them, taking each separately. First, then, let
us consider temperance, which promises us a kind of integrity and incorruption
in the love by which we are united to God. The office of temperance is in
restraining and quieting the passions which make us pant for those things which
turn us away from the laws of God and from the enjoyment of His goodness, that
is, in a word, from the happy life. For there is the abode of truth; and in
enjoying its contemplation, and in cleaving closely to it, we are assuredly
happy; but departing from this, men become entangled in great errors and
sorrows. For, as the apostle says, "The root of all evils is covetousness; which
some having followed, have made shipwreck of the faith, and have pierced
themselves through with many sorrows." [96] And this sin of the soul is quite
plainly, to those rightly understanding, set forth in the Old Testament in the
transgression of Adam in Paradise. Thus, as the apostle says, "In Adam we all
die, and in Christ we shall all rise again." [97] Oh, the depth of these
mysteries! But I refrain; for I am now engaged not in teaching you the truth,
but in making you unlearn your errors, if I can, that is, if God aid my purpose
regarding you. 36. Paul then says that covetousness is the root of all evils;
and by covetousness the old law also intimates that the first man fell. Paul
tells us to put off the old man and put on the new. [98] By the old man he means
Adam who sinned, and by the new man him whom the Son of God took to Himself in
consecration for our redemption. For he says in another place, "The first man is
of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also
that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also
bear the image of the heavenly," [99] -- that is, put off the old man, and put
on the new. The whole duty of temperance, then, is to put off the old man, and
to be renewed in God, -- that is, to scorn all bodily delights, and the popular
applause, and to turn the whole love to things divine and unseen. Hence that
following passage which is so admirable: "Though our outward man perish, our
inward man is renewed day by day." [100] Hear, too, the prophet singing, "Create
in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." [101] What can
be said against such harmony except by blind barkers?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 37: CHAPTER 20. --WE ARE REQUIRED TO DESPISE ALL SENSIBLE THINGS, AND TO LOVE GOD ALONE. 
========================================================================

37. Bodily delights have their source in all those things with which the bodily
sense comes in contact, and which are by some called the objects of sense; and
among these the noblest is light, in the common meaning of the word, because
among our senses also, which the mind uses in acting through the body, there is
nothing more valuable than the eyes, and so in the Holy Scriptures all the
objects of sense are spoken of as visible things. Thus in the New Testament we
are warned against the love of these things in the following words: "While we
look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for
the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are
eternal." [102] This shows how far from being Christians those are who hold that
the sun and moon are to be not only loved but worshipped. For what is seen if
the sun and moon are not? But we are forbidden to regard things which are seen.
The man, therefore, who wishes to offer that incorrupt love to God must not love
these things too. This subject I will inquire into more particularly elsewhere.
Here my plan is to write not of faith, but of the life by which we become worthy
of knowing what we believe. God then alone is to be loved; and all this world,
that is, all sensible things, are to be despised, -- while, however, they are to
be used as this life requires.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 38: CHAPTER 21. --POPULAR RENOWN AND INQUISITIVENESS ARE CONDEMNED IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 
========================================================================

38. Popular renown is thus slighted and scorned in the New Testament: "If I
wished," says St. Paul, "to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
[103] Again, there is another production of the soul formed by imaginations
derived from material things, and called the knowledge of things. In reference
to this we are fitly warned against inquisitiveness to correct which is the
great function of temperance. Thus it is said, "Take heed lest any one seduce
you by philosophy." And because the word philosophy originally means the love
and pursuit of wisdom, a thing of great value and to be sought with the whole
mind, the apostle, with great prudence, that he might not be thought to deter
from the love of wisdom, has added the words, "And the elements of this world."
[104] For some people, neglecting virtues, and ignorant of what God is, and of
the majesty of nature which remains always the same, think that they are engaged
in an important business when searching with the greatest inquisitiveness and
eagerness into this material mass which we call the world. This begets so much
pride, that they look upon themselves as inhabitants of the heaven of which they
often discourse. The soul, then, which purposes to keep itself chaste for God
must refrain from the desire of vain knowledge like this. For this desire
usually produces delusion, so that the soul thinks that nothing exists but what
is material; or if, from regard to authority, it confesses that there is an
immaterial existence, it can think of it only under material images, and has no
belief regarding it but that imposed by the bodily sense. We may apply to this
the precept about fleeing from idolatry. 39. To this New Testament authority,
requiring us not to love anything in this world, [105] especially in that
passage where it is said, "Be not conformed to this world," [106] -- for the
point is to show that a man is conformed to whatever he loves, -- to this
authority, then, if I seek for a parallel passage in the Old Testament, I find
several; but there is one book of Solomon, called Ecclesiastes, which at great
length brings all earthly things into utter contempt. The book begins thus:
"Vanity of the vain, saith the Preacher, vanity of the vain; all is vanity. What
profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?" [107] If all
these words are considered, weighed, and thoroughly examined, many things are
found of essential importance to those who seek to flee from the world and to
take shelter in God; but this requires time and our discourse hastens on to
other topics. But, after this beginning, he goes on to show in detail that the
vain [108] are those who are deceived by things of this sort; and he calls this
which deceives them vanity, -- not that God did not create those things, but
because men choose to subject themselves by their sins to those things, which
the divine law has made subject to them in well-doing. For when you consider
things beneath yourself to be admirable and desirable, what is this but to be
cheated and misled by unreal goods? The man, then, who is temperate in such
mortal and transient things has his rule of life confirmed by both Testaments,
that he should love none of these things, nor think them desirable for their own
sakes, but should use them as far as is required for the purposes and duties of
life, with the moderation of an employer instead of the ardor of a lover. These
remarks on temperance are few in proportion to the greatness of the theme, but
perhaps too many in view of the task on hand.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 39: CHAPTER 22. --FORTITUDE COMES FROM THE LOVE OF GOD. 
========================================================================

40. On fortitude we must be brief. The love, then, of which we speak, which
ought with all sanctity to burn in desire for God, is called temperance, in not
seeking for earthly things, and fortitude in bearing the loss of them. But among
all things which are possessed in this life, the body is, by God's most
righteous laws, for the sin of old, man's heaviest bond, which is well known as
a fact but most incomprehensible in its mystery. Lest this bond should be shaken
and disturbed, the soul is shaken with the fear of toil and pain; lest it should
be lost and destroyed, the soul is shaken with the fear of death. For the soul
loves it from the force of habit, not knowing that by using it well and wisely
its resurrection and reformation will, by the divine help and decree, be without
any trouble made subject to its authority. But when the soul turns to God wholly
in this love, it knows these things, and so will not only disregard death, but
will even desire it. 41. Then there is the great struggle with pain. But there
is nothing, though of iron hardness, which the fire of love cannot subdue. And
when the mind is carried up to God in this love, it will soar above all torture
free and glorious, with wings beauteous and unhurt, on which chaste love rises
to the embrace of God. Otherwise God must allow the lovers of gold, the lovers
of praise, the lovers of women, to have more fortitude than the lovers of
Himself, though love in those cases is rather to be called passion or lust. And
yet even here we may see with what force the mind presses on with unflagging
energy, in spite of all alarms, towards that it loves; and we learn that we
should bear all things rather than forsake God, since those men bear so much in
order to forsake Him.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 40: CHAPTER 23. --SCRIPTURE PRECEPTS AND EXAMPLES OF FORTITUDE. 
========================================================================

42. Instead of quoting here authorities from the New Testament, where it is
said, "Tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience and experience,
hope;" [109] and where, in addition to these words, there is proof and
confirmation of them from the example of those who spoke them; I will rather
summon an example of patience from the Old Testament, against which the
Manichæans make fierce assaults. Nor will I refer to the man who, in the midst
of great bodily suffering, and with a dreadful disease in his limbs, not only
bore human evils, but discoursed of things divine. Whoever gives considerate
attention to the utterances of this man, will learn from every one of them what
value is to be attached to those things which men try to keep in their power,
and in so doing are themselves brought by passion into bondage, so that they
become the slaves of mortal things, while seeking ignorantly to be their
masters. This man, in the loss of all his wealth, and on being suddenly reduced
to the greatest poverty, kept his mind so unshaken and fixed upon God, as to
manifest that these things were not great in his view, but that he was great in
relation to them, and God to him. [110] If this mind were to be found in men in
our day, we should not be so strongly cautioned in the New Testament against the
possession of these things in order that we may be perfect; for to have these
things without cleaving to them is much more admirable than not to have them at
all. [111] 43. But since we are speaking here of bearing pain and bodily
sufferings, I pass from this man, great as he was, indomitable as he was: this
is the case of a man. But these Scriptures present to me a woman of amazing
fortitude, and I must at once go on to her case. This woman, along with seven
children, allowed the tyrant and executioner to extract her vitals from her body
rather than a profane word from her mouth, encouraging her sons by her
exhortations, though she suffered in the tortures of their bodies, and was
herself to undergo what she called on them to bear. [112] What patience could be
greater than this? And yet why should we be astonished that the love of God,
implanted in her inmost heart, bore up against tyrant, and executioner, and
pain, and sex, and natural affection? Had she not heard, "Precious in the sight
of the Lord is the death of His saints?" [113] Had she not heard, "A patient man
is better than the mightiest?" [114] Had she not heard, "All that is appointed
thee receive; and in pain bear it; and in abasement keep thy patience: for in
fire are gold and silver tried?" [115] Had she not heard, "The fire tries the
vessels of the potter, and for just men is the trial of tribulation?" [116]
These she knew, and many other precepts of fortitude written in these books,
which alone existed at that time, by the same divine Spirit who writes those in
the New Testament.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 41: CHAPTER 24. --OF JUSTICE AND PRUDENCE. 
========================================================================

44. What of justice that pertains to God? As the Lord says, "Ye cannot serve two
masters," [117] and the apostle denounces those who serve the creature rather
than the Creator, [118] was it not said before in the Old Testament, "Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve?" [119] I need say no
more on this, for these books are full of such passages. The lover, then, whom
we are describing, will get from justice this rule of life, that he must with
perfect readiness serve the God whom he loves, the highest good, the highest
wisdom, the highest peace; [120] and as regards all other things, must either
rule them as subject to himself, or treat them with a view to their subjection.
This rule of life, is, as we have shown, confirmed by the authority of both
Testaments. 45. With equal brevity we must treat of prudence, to which it
belongs to discern between what is to be desired and what to be shunned. Without
this, nothing can be done of what we have already spoken of. It is the part of
prudence to keep watch with most anxious vigilance, lest any evil influence
should stealthily creep in upon us. Thus the Lord often exclaims, "Watch;" [121]
and He says, "Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you." [122]
And then it is said, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump?" [123] And no passage can be quoted from the Old Testament more expressly
condemning this mental somnolence, which makes us insensible to destruction
advancing on us step by step, than those words of the prophet, "He who despiseth
small things shall fall by degrees." [124] On this topic I might discourse at
length did our haste allow of it. And did our present task demand it, we might
perhaps prove the depth of these mysteries, by making a mock of which profane
men in their perfect ignorance fall, not certainly by degrees, but with a
headlong overthrow.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 42: CHAPTER 25. --FOUR MORAL DUTIES REGARDING THE LOVE OF GOD, OF WHICH LOVE THE REWARD IS ETERNAL LIFE AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. 
========================================================================

46. I need say no more about right conduct. For if God is man's chief good,
which you cannot deny, it clearly follows, since to seek the chief good is to
live well, that to live well is nothing else but to love God with all the heart,
with all the soul, with all the mind; and, as arising from this, that this love
must be preserved entire and incorrupt, which is the part of temperance; that it
give way before no troubles, which is the part of fortitude; that it serve no
other, which is the part of justice; that it be watchful in its inspection of
things lest craft or fraud steal in, which is the part of prudence. This is the
one perfection of man, by which alone he can succeed in attaining to the purity
of truth. This both Testaments enjoin in concert; this is commended on both
sides alike. Why do you continue to cast reproaches on Scriptures of which you
are ignorant? Do you not see the folly of your attack upon books which only
those who do not understand them find fault with, and which only those who find
fault fail in understanding? For neither can an enemy know them, nor can one who
knows them be other than a friend to them. 47. Let us then, as many as have in
view to reach eternal life, love God with all the heart, with all the soul, with
all the mind. For eternal life contains the whole reward in the promise of which
we rejoice; nor can the reward precede desert, nor be given to a man before he
is worthy of it. What can be more unjust than this, and what is more just than
God? We should not then demand the reward before we deserve to get it. Here,
perhaps, it is not out of place to ask what is eternal life; or rather let us
hear the Bestower of it: "This," He says, "is life eternal, that they should
know Thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." [125] So eternal
life is the knowledge of the truth. See, then, how perverse and preposterous is
the character of those who think that their teaching of the knowledge of God
will make us perfect, when this is the reward of those already perfect! What
else, then, have we to do but first to love with full affection Him whom we
desire to know? [126] Hence arises that principle on which we have all along
insisted, that there is nothing more wholesome in the Catholic Church than using
authority [127] before argument.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 43: CHAPTER 26. --LOVE OF OURSELVES AND OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 
========================================================================

48. To proceed to what remains. It may be thought that there is nothing here
about man himself, the lover. But to think this, shows a want of clear
perception. For it is impossible for one who loves God not to love himself. For
he alone has a proper love for himself who aims diligently at the attainment of
the chief and true good; and if this is nothing else but God, as has been shown,
what is to prevent one who loves God from loving himself? And then, among men
should there be no bond of mutual love? Yea, verily; so that we can think of no
surer step towards the love of God than the love of man to man. 49. Let the Lord
then supply us with the other precept in answer to the question about the
precepts of life; for He was not satisfied with one as knowing that God is one
thing and man another, and that the difference is nothing less than that between
the Creator and the thing created in the likeness of its Creator. He says then
that the second precept is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." [128] Now
you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then,
you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may
love God with a perfect affection. For you do not love him as yourself, unless
you try to draw him to that good which you are yourself pursuing. For this is
the one good which has room for all to pursue it along with thee. From this
precept proceed the duties of human society, in which it is hard to keep from
error. But the first thing to aim at is, that we should be benevolent, that is,
that we cherish no malice and no evil design against another. For man is the
nearest neighbor of man. 50. Hear also what Paul says: "The love of our
neighbor," he says, "worketh no ill." [129] The testimonies here made use of are
very short, but, if I mistake not, they are to the point, and sufficient for the
purpose. And every one knows how many and how weighty are the words to be found
everywhere in these books on the love of our neighbor. But as a man may sin
against another in two ways, either by injuring him or by not helping him when
it is in his power, and as it is for these things which no loving man would do
that men are called wicked, all that is required is, I think, proved by these
words, "The love of our neighbor worketh no ill." And if we cannot attain to
good unless we first desist from working evil, our love of our neighbor is a
sort of cradle of our love to God, so that, as it is said, "the love of our
neighbor worketh no ill," we may rise from this to these other words, "We know
that all things issue in good to them that love God." [130] 51. But there is a
sense in which these either rise together to fullness and perfection, or, while
the love of God is first in beginning, the love of our neighbor is first in
coming to perfection. For perhaps divine love takes hold on us more rapidly at
the outset, but we reach perfection more easily in lower things. However that
may be, the main point is this, that no one should think that while he despises
his neighbor he will come to happiness and to the God whom he loves. And would
that it were as easy to seek the good of our neighbor, or to avoid hurting him,
as it is for one well trained and kind-hearted to love his neighbor! These
things require more than mere good-will, and can be done only by a high degree
of thoughtfulness and prudence, which belongs only to those to whom it is given
by God, the source of all good. On this topic -- which is one, I think, of great
difficulty -- I will try to say a few words such as my plan admits of, resting
all my hope in Him whose gifts these are.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 44: CHAPTER 27. --ON DOING GOOD TO THE BODY OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 
========================================================================

52. Man, then, as viewed by his fellow-man, is a rational soul with a mortal and
earthly body in its service. Therefore he who loves his neighbor does good
partly to the man's body, and partly to his soul. What benefits the body is
called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline. Medicine here includes
everything that either preserves or restores bodily health. It includes,
therefore, not only what belongs to the art of medical men, properly so called,
but also food and drink, clothing and shelter, and every means of covering and
protection to guard our bodies against injuries and mishaps from without as well
as from within. For hunger and thirst, and cold and heat, and all violence from
without, produce loss of that health which is the point to be considered. 53.
Hence those who seasonably and wisely supply all the things required for warding
off these evils and distresses are called compassionate, although they may have
been so wise that no painful feeling disturbed their mind in the exercise of
compassion. [131] No doubt the word compassionate implies suffering in the heart
of the man who feels for the sorrow of another. And it is equally true that a
wise man ought to be free from all painful emotion when he assists the needy,
when he gives food to the hungry and water to the thirsty, when he clothes the
naked, when he takes the stranger into his house, when he sets free the
oppressed, when, lastly, he extends his charity to the dead in giving them
burial. Still the epithet compassionate is a proper one, although he acts with
tranquillity of mind, not from the stimulus of painful feeling, but from motives
of benevolence. There is no harm in the word compassionate when there is no
passion in the case. 54. Fools, again, who avoid the exercise of compassion as a
vice, because they are not sufficiently moved by a sense of duty without feeling
also distressful emotion, are frozen into hard insensibility, which is very
different from the calm of a rational serenity. God, on the other hand, is
properly called compassionate; and the sense in which He is so will be
understood by those whom piety and diligence have made fit to understand. There
is a danger lest, in using the words of the learned, we harden the souls of the
unlearned by leading them away from compassion instead of softening them with
the desire of a charitable disposition. As compassion, then, requires us to ward
off these distresses from others, so harmlessness forbids the infliction of
them.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 45: CHAPTER 28. --ON DOING GOOD TO THE SOUL OF OUR NEIGHBOR. TWO PARTS OF DISCIPLINE, RESTRAINT AND INSTRUCTION. THROUGH GOOD CONDUCT WE ARRIVE AT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. 
========================================================================

55. As regards discipline, by which the health of the mind is restored, without
which bodily health avails nothing for security against misery, the subject is
one of great difficulty. And as in the body we said it is one thing to cure
diseases and wounds, which few can do properly, and another thing to meet the
cravings of hunger and thirst, and to give assistance in all the other ways in
which any man may at any time help another; so in the mind there are some things
in which the high and rare offices of the teacher are not much called for, --
as, for instance, in advice and exhortation to give to the needy the things
already mentioned as required for the body. To give such advice is to aid the
mind by discipline, as giving the things themselves is aiding the body by our
resources. But there are other cases where diseases of the mind, many and
various in kind, are healed in a way strange and indescribable. Unless His
medicine were sent from heaven to men, so heedlessly do they go on in sin, there
would be no hope of salvation; and, indeed, even bodily health, if you go to the
root of the matter, can have come to men from none but God, who gives to all
things their being and their well-being. 56. This discipline, then, which is the
medicine of the mind, as far as we can gather from the sacred Scriptures,
includes two things, restraint and instruction. Restraint implies fear, and
instruction love, in the person benefited by the discipline; for in the giver of
the benefit there is the love without the fear. In both of these God Himself, by
whose goodness and mercy it is that we are anything, has given us in the two
Testaments a rule of discipline. For though both are found in both Testaments,
still fear is prominent in the Old, and love in the New; which the apostle calls
bondage in the one, and liberty in the other. Of the marvellous order and divine
harmony of these Testaments it would take long to speak, and many pious and
learned men have discoursed on it. The theme demands many books to set it forth
and explain it as far as is possible for man. He, then, who loves his neighbor
endeavors all he can to procure his safety in body and in soul, making the
health of the mind the standard in his treatment of the body. And as regards the
mind, his endeavors are in this order, that he should first fear and then love
God. This is true excellence of conduct, and thus the knowledge of the truth is
acquired which we are ever in the pursuit of. 57. The Manichæans agree with me
as regards the duty of loving God and our neighbor, but they deny that this is
taught in the Old Testament. How greatly they err in this is, I think, clearly
shown by the passages quoted above on both these duties. But, in a single word,
and one which only stark madness can oppose, do they not see the
unreasonableness of denying that these very two precepts which they commend are
quoted by the Lord in the Gospel from the Old Testament, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;"
and the other, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?" [132] Or if they dare
not deny this, from the light of truth being too strong for them, let them deny
that these precepts are salutary; let them deny, if they can, that they teach
the best morality; let them assert that it is not a duty to love God, or to love
our neighbor; that all things do not issue in good to them that love God; that
it is not true that the love of our neighbor worketh no ill (a two-fold
regulation of human life which is most salutary and excellent). By such
assertions they cut themselves off not only from Christians, but from mankind.
But if they dare not speak thus, but must confess the divinity of the precepts,
why do they not desist from assailing and maligning with horrible profanity the
books from which they are quoted? 58. Will they say, as they often do, that
although we find these precepts in the books, it does not follow that all is
good that is found there? How to meet and refute this quibble I do not well see.
Shall I discuss the words of the Old Testament one by one, to prove to stubborn
and ignorant men their perfect agreement with the New Testament? But when will
this be done? When shall I have time, or they patience? What, then, is to be
done? Shall I desert the cause, and leave them to escape detection in an opinion
which, though false and impious, is hard to disprove? I will not. God will
Himself be at hand to aid me; nor will He suffer me in those straits to remain
helpless or forsaken.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 46: CHAPTER 29. --OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
========================================================================

59. Attend, then, ye Manichæans, if perchance there are some of you of whom your
superstition has hold so as to allow you yet to escape. Attend, I say, without
obstinacy, without the desire to oppose, otherwise your decision will be fatal
to yourselves. No one can doubt, and you are not so lost to the truth as not to
understand that if it is good, as all allow, to love God and our neighbor,
whatever hangs on these two precepts cannot rightly be pronounced bad. What it
is that hangs on them it would be absurd to think of learning from me. Hear
Christ Himself; hear Christ, I say; hear the Wisdom of God: "On these two
commandments," He says, "hang all the law and the prophets." [133] 60. What can
the most shameless obstinacy say to this? That these are not Christ's words? But
they are written in the Gospel as His words. That the writing is false? Is not
this most profane blasphemy? Is it not most presumptuous to speak thus? Is it
not most foolhardy? Is it not most criminal? The worshippers of idols, who hate
even the name of Christ, never dared to speak thus against these Scriptures. For
the utter overthrow of all literature will follow, and there will be an end to
all books handed down from the past, if what is supported by such a strong
popular belief and established by the uniform testimony of so many men and so
many times, is brought into such suspicion, that it is not allowed to have the
credit and the authority of common history. In fine, what can you quote from any
writings of which I may not speak in this way if it is quoted against my opinion
and my purpose? [134] 61. And is it not intolerable that they forbid us to
believe a book widely known and placed now in the hands of all, while they
insist on our believing the book which they quote? If any writing is to be
suspected, what should be more so than one which has not merited notoriety, or
which may be throughout a forgery, bearing a false name? If you force such a
writing on me against my will, and make a display of authority to drive me into
belief, shall I, when I have a writing which I see spread far and wide for a
length of time, and sanctioned by the concordant testimony of churches scattered
over all the world, degrade myself by doubting, and, worse degradation, by
doubting at your suggestion? Even if you brought forward other readings, I
should not receive them unless supported by general agreement; and this being
the case, do you think that now, when you bring forward nothing to compare with
the text except your own silly and inconsiderate statement, mankind are so
unreasonable and so forsaken by divine Providence as to prefer to those
Scriptures not others quoted by you in refutation, but merely your own words?
You ought to bring forward another manuscript with the same contents, but
incorrupt and more correct, with only the passage wanting which you charge with
being spurious. For example, if you hold that the Epistle of Paul to the Romans
is spurious, you must bring forward another incorrupt, or rather another
manuscript with the same epistle of the same apostle, free from error and
corruption. You say you will not, lest you be suspected of corrupting it. This
is your usual reply, and a true one. Were you to do this, we should assuredly
have this very suspicion; and all men of any sense would have it too. See then
what you are to think of your own authority; and consider whether it is right to
believe your words against these Scriptures, when the simple fact that a
manuscript is brought forward by you makes it dangerous to put faith in it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 47: CHAPTER 30. --THE CHURCH APOSTROPHISED AS TEACHER OF ALL WISDOM. DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
========================================================================

62. But why say more on this? For who but sees that men who dare to speak thus
against the Christian Scriptures, though they may not be what they are suspected
of being, are at least no Christians? For to Christians this rule of life is
given, that we should love the Lord Our God with all the heart, with all the
soul, and with all the mind, and our neighbor as ourselves; for on these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Rightly, then, Catholic Church,
most true mother of Christians, dost thou not only teach that God alone, to find
whom is the happiest life, must be worshipped in perfect purity and chastity,
bringing in no creature as an object of adoration whom we should be required to
serve; and from that incorrupt and inviolable eternity to which alone man should
be made subject, in cleaving to which alone the rational soul escapes misery,
excluding everything made, everything liable to change, everything under the
power of time; without confounding what eternity, and truth, and peace itself
keeps separate, or separating what a common majesty unites: but thou dost also
contain love and charity to our neighbor in such a way, that for all kinds of
diseases with which souls are for their sins afflicted, there is found with thee
a medicine of prevailing efficacy. 63. Thy training and teaching are childlike
for children, forcible for youths, peaceful for the aged, taking into account
the age of the mind as well as of the body. Thou subjectest women to their
husbands in chaste and faithful obedience, not to gratify passion, but for the
propagation of offspring, [135] and for domestic society. Thou givest to men
authority over their wives, not to mock the weaker sex, but in the laws of
unfeigned love. Thou dost subordinate children to their parents in a kind of
free bondage, and dost set parents over their children in a godly rule. Thou
bindest brothers to brothers in a religious tie stronger and closer than that of
blood. Without violation of the connections of nature and of choice, thou
bringest within the bond of mutual love every relationship of kindred, and every
alliance of affinity. Thou teachest servants to cleave to their masters from
delight in their task rather than from the necessity of their position. Thou
renderest masters forbearing to their servants, from a regard to God their
common Master, and more disposed to advise than to compel. Thou unitest citizen
to citizen, nation to nation, yea, man to man, from the recollection of their
first parents, not only in society but in fraternity. Thou teachest kings to
seek the good of their peoples; thou counsellest peoples to be subject to their
kings. Thou teachest carefully to whom honor is due, to whom regard, to whom
reverence, to whom fear, to whom consolation, to whom admonition, to whom
encouragement, to whom discipline, to whom rebuke, to whom punishment; showing
both how all are not due to all, and how to all love is due, and how injury is
due to none. [136] 64. Then, after this human love has nourished and invigorated
the mind cleaving to thy breast, and fitted it for following God, when the
divine majesty has begun to disclose itself as far as suffices for man while a
dweller on the earth, such fervent charity is produced, and such a flame of
divine love is kindled, that by the burning out of all vices, and by the
purification and sanctification of the man, it becomes plain how divine are
these words, "I am a consuming fire," [137] and, "I have come to send fire on
the earth." [138] These two utterances of one God stamped on both Testaments,
exhibit with harmonious testimony, the sanctification of the soul, pointing
forward to the accomplishment of that which is also quoted in the New Testament
from the Old: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting?
Where, O death, is thy contest?" [139] Could these heretics understand this one
saying, no longer proud but quite reconciled, they would worship God nowhere but
with thee and in thy bosom. In thee, as is fit, divine precepts are kept by
widely-scattered multitudes. In thee, as is fit, it is well understood how much
more heinous sin is when the law is known than when it is unknown. For "the
sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law," [140] which adds to
the force with which the consciousness of disregard of the precept strikes and
slays. In thee it is seen, as is fit, how vain is effort under the law, when
lust lays waste the mind, and is held in check by fear of punishment, instead of
being overborne by the love of virtue. Thine, as is fit, are the many
hospitable, the many friendly, the many compassionate, the many learned, the
many chaste, the many saints, the many so ardent in their love to God, that in
perfect continence and amazing indifference to this world they find happiness
even in solitude.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 48: CHAPTER 31. --THE LIFE OF THE ANACHORETES AND COENOBITES SET AGAINST THE CONTINENCE OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

65. What must we think is seen by those who can live without seeing their
fellow-creatures, though not without loving them? It must be something
transcending human things in contemplating which man can live without seeing his
fellow-man. Hear now, ye Manichæans, the customs and notable continence of
perfect Christians, who have thought it right not only to praise but also to
practise the height of chastity, that you may be restrained, if there is any
shame in you, from vaunting your abstinence before uninstructed minds as if it
were the hardest of all things. I will speak of things of which you are not
ignorant, though you hide them from us. For who does not know that there is a
daily increasing multitude of Christian men of absolute continence spread all
over the world, especially in the East and in Egypt, as you cannot help knowing?
66. I will say nothing of those to whom I just now alluded, who, in complete
seclusion from the view of men, inhabit regions utterly barren, content with
simple bread, which is brought to them periodically, and with water, enjoying
communion with God, to whom in purity of mind they cleave, and most blessed in
contemplating His beauty, which can be seen only by the understanding of saints.
I will say nothing of them, because some people think them to have abandoned
human things more than they ought, not considering how much those may benefit us
in their minds by prayer, and in their lives by example, whose bodies we are not
permitted to see. But to discuss this point would take long, and would be
fruitless; for if a man does not of his own accord regard this high pitch of
sanctity as admirable and honorable, how can our speaking lead him to do so?
Only the Manichæans, who make a boast of nothing, should be reminded that the
abstinence and continence of the great saints of the Catholic Church has gone so
far, that some think it should be checked and recalled within the limits of
humanity, -- so far above men, even in the judgment of those who disapprove,
have their minds soared. 67. But if this is beyond our tolerance, who can but
admire and commend those who, slighting and discarding the pleasures of this
world, living together in a most chaste and holy society, unite in passing their
time in prayers, in readings, in discussions, without any swelling of pride, or
noise of contention, or sullenness of envy; but quiet, modest, peaceful, their
life is one of perfect harmony and devotion to God, an offering most acceptable
to Him from whom the power to do those things is obtained? No one possesses
anything of his own; no one is a burden to another. They work with their hands
in such occupations as may feed their bodies without distracting their minds
from God. The product of their toil they give to the decans or tithesmen, -- so
called from being set over the tithes, -- so that no one is occupied with the
care of his body, either in food or clothes, or in anything else required for
daily use or for the common ailments. These decans, again, arranging everything
with great care, and meeting promptly the demands made by that life on account
of bodily infirmities, have one called "father," to whom they give in their
accounts. These fathers are not only more saintly in their conduct, but also
distinguished for divine learning, and of high character in every way; and
without pride they superintend those whom they call their children, having
themselves great authority in giving orders, and meeting with willing obedience
from those under their charge. At the close of the day they assemble from their
separate dwellings before their meal to hear their father, assembling to the
number of three thousand at least for one father; for one may have even a much
larger number than this. They listen with astonishing eagerness in perfect
silence, and give expression to the feelings of their minds as moved by the
words of the preacher, in groans, or tears, or signs of joy without noise or
shouting. Then there is refreshment for the body, as much as health and a sound
condition of the body requires, every one checking unlawful appetite, so as not
to go to excess even in the poor, inexpensive fare provided. So they not only
abstain from flesh and wine, in order to gain the mastery over their passions,
but also from those things which are only the more likely to whet the appetite
of the palate and of the stomach, from what some call their greater cleanness,
which often serves as a ridiculous and disgraceful excuse for an unseemly taste
for exquisite viands, as distant from animal food. Whatever they possess in
addition to what is required for their support (and much is obtained, owing to
their industry and frugality), they distribute to the needy with greater care
than they took in procuring it for themselves. For while they make no effort to
obtain abundance, they make every effort to prevent their abundance remaining
with them, -- so much so, that they send shiploads to places inhabited by poor
people. I need say no more on a matter known to all. [141] 68. Such, too, is the
life of the women, who serve God assiduously and chastely, living apart and
removed as far as propriety demands from the men, to whom they are united only
in pious affection and in imitation of virtue. No young men are allowed access
to them, nor even old men, however respectable and approved, except to the
porch, in order to furnish necessary supplies. For the women occupy and maintain
themselves by working in wool, and hand over the cloth to the brethren, from
whom, in return, they get what they need for food. Such customs, such a life,
such arrangements, such a system, I could not commend as it deserves, if I
wished to commend it; besides, I am afraid that it would seem as if I thought it
unlikely to gain acceptance from the mere description of it, if I considered
myself obliged to add an ornamental eulogium to the simple narrative. Ye
Manichæans, find fault here if you can. Do not bring into prominence our tares
before men too blind to discriminate.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 49: CHAPTER 32. --PRAISE OF THE CLERGY. 
========================================================================

69. There is not, however, such narrowness in the moral excellence of the
Catholic Church as that I should limit my praise of it to the life of those here
mentioned. For how many bishops have I known most excellent and holy men, how
many presbyters, how many deacons, and ministers of all kinds of the divine
sacraments, whose virtue seems to me more admirable and more worthy of
commendation on account of the greater difficulty of preserving it amidst the
manifold varieties of men, and in this life of turmoil! For they preside over
men needing cure as much as over those already cured. The vices of the crowd
must be borne with in order that they may be cured, and the plague must be
endured before it is subdued. To keep here the best way of life and a mind calm
and peaceful is very hard. Here, in a word, we are among people who are learning
to live. There they live.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 50: CHAPTER 33. --ANOTHER KIND OF MEN LIVING TOGETHER IN CITIES. FASTS OF THREE DAYS. 
========================================================================

70. Still I would not on this account cast a slight upon a praiseworthy class of
Christians, -- those, namely, who live together in cities, quite apart from
common life. I saw at Milan a lodging-house of saints, in number not a few,
presided over by one presbyter, a man of great excellence and learning. At Rome
I knew several places where there was in each one eminent for weight of
character, and prudence, and divine knowledge, presiding over all the rest who
lived with him, in Christian charity, and sanctity, and liberty. These, too, are
not burdensome to any one; but, in the Eastern fashion, and on the authority of
the Apostle Paul, they maintain themselves with their own hands. I was told that
many practised fasts of quite amazing severity, not merely taking only one meal
daily towards night, which is everywhere quite common, but very often continuing
for three days or more in succession without food or drink. And this among not
men only, but women, who also live together in great numbers as widows or
virgins, gaining a livelihood by spinning and weaving, and presided over in each
case by a woman of the greatest judgment and experience, skilled and
accomplished not only in directing and forming moral conduct, but also in
instructing the understanding. [142] 71. With all this, no one is pressed to
endure hardships for which he is unfit; nothing is imposed on any one against
his will; nor is he condemned by the rest because he confesses himself too
feeble to imitate them: for they bear in mind how strongly Scripture enjoins
charity on all: they bear in mind "To the pure all things are pure," [143] and
"Not that which entereth into your mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out
of it." [144] Accordingly, all their endeavors are concerned not about the
rejection of kinds of food as polluted, but about the subjugation of inordinate
desire and the maintenance of brotherly love. They remember, "Meats for the
belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them;" [145]
and again, "Neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we refrain from eating
shall we be in want;" [146] and, above all, this: "It is good, my brethren, not
to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended;" for
this passage shows that love is the end to be aimed at in all these things. "For
one man," he says, "believes that he can eat all things: another, who is weak,
eateth herbs. He that eateth, let him not despise him that eateth not; and let
not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath approved him. Who
art thou that thou shouldest judge another man's servant? To his own master he
stands or fails; but he shall stand: for God is able to make him to stand." And
a little after: "He that eateth, to the Lord he eateth, and giveth God thanks;
and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." And
also in what follows: "So every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not, then, any more judge one another: but judge this rather, that ye
place no stumbling-block, or cause of offence, in the way of a brother. I know,
and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common in itself: but
to him that thinketh anything to be common, to him it is common." Could he have
shown better that it is not in the things we eat, but in the mind, that there is
a power able to pollute it, and therefore that even those who are fit to think
lightly of these things, and know perfectly that they are not polluted if they
take any food in mental superiority, without being gluttons, should still have
regard to charity? See what he adds: "For if thy brother be grieved with thy
meat, now walkest thou not charitably." [147] 72. Read the rest: it is too long
to quote all. You will find that those able to think lightly of such things, --
that is, those of greater strength and stability, -- are told that they must
nevertheless abstain, lest those should be offended who from their weakness are
still in need of such abstinence. The people I was describing know and observe
these things; for they are Christians, not heretics. They understand Scripture
according to the apostolic teaching, not according to the presumptuous and
fictitious name of apostle. [148] Him that eats not no one despises; him that
eats no one judges; he who is weak eats herbs. Many who are strong, however, do
this for the sake of the weak; with many the reason for so doing is not this,
but that they may have a cheaper diet, and may lead a life of the greatest
tranquillity, with the least expensive provision for the support of the body.
"For all things are lawful for me," he says; "but I will not be brought under
the power of any." [149] Thus many do not eat flesh, and yet do not
superstitiously regard it as unclean. And so the same people who abstain when in
health take it when unwell without any fear, if it is required as a cure. Many
drink no wine; but they do not think that wine defiles them; for they cause it
to be given with the greatest propriety and moderation to people of languid
temperament, and, in short, to all who cannot have bodily health without it.
When some foolishly refuse it, they counsel them as brothers not to let a silly
superstition make them weaker instead of making them holier. They read to them
the apostle's precept to his disciple to "take a little wine for his many
infirmities." [150] Then they diligently exercise piety; bodily exercise, they
know, profiteth for a short time, as the same apostle says. [151] 73. Those,
then who are able, and they are without number, abstain both from flesh and from
wine for two reasons: either for the weakness of their brethren, or for their
own liberty. Charity is principally attended to. There is charity in their
choice of diet, charity in their speech, charity in their dress, charity in
their looks. Charity is the point where they meet, and the plan by which they
act. To transgress against charity is thought criminal, like transgressing
against God. Whatever opposes this is attacked and expelled; whatever injures it
is not allowed to continue for a single day. They know that it has been so
enjoined by Christ and the apostles; that without it all things are empty, with
it all are fulfilled.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 51: CHAPTER 34. --THE CHURCH IS NOT TO BE BLAMED FOR THE CONDUCT OF BAD CHRISTIANS, WORSHIPPERS OF TOMBS AND PICTURES. 
========================================================================

74. Make objections against these, ye Manichæans, if you can. Look at these
people, and speak of them reproachfully, if you dare, without falsehood. Compare
their fasts with your fasts, their chastity with yours; compare them to
yourselves in dress, food, self-restraint, and, lastly, in charity. Compare,
which is most to the point, their precepts with yours. Then you will see the
difference between show and sincerity, between the right way and the wrong,
between faith and imposture, between strength and inflatedness, between
happiness and wretchedness, between unity and disunion; in short, between the
sirens of superstition and the harbor of religion. 75. Do not summon against me
professors of the Christian name, who neither know nor give evidence of the
power of their profession. [152] Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people,
who even in the true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to evil
passions as to forget what they have promised to God. I know that there are many
worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that there are many who drink to great
excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts which they make for corpses, bury
themselves over the buried, and give to their gluttony and drunkenness the name
of religion. I know that there are many who in words have renounced this world,
and yet desire to be burdened with all the weight of worldly things, and rejoice
in such burdens. Nor is it surprising that among so many multitudes you should
find some by condemning whose life you may deceive the unwary and seduce them
from Catholic safety; for in your small numbers you are at a loss when called on
to show even one out of those whom you call the elect who keeps the precepts,
which in your indefensible superstition you profess. How silly those are, how
impious, how mischievous, and to what extent they are neglected by most, nearly
all of you, I have shown in another volume. 76. My advice to you now is this:
that you should at least desist from slandering the Catholic Church, by
declaiming against the conduct of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking
daily to correct them as wicked children. Then, if any of them by good will and
by the help of God are corrected, they regain by repentance what they had lost
by sin. Those, again, who with wicked will persist in their old vices, or even
add to them others still worse, are indeed allowed to remain in the field of the
Lord, and to grow along with the good seed; but the time for separating the
tares will come. [153] Or if, from their having at least the Christian name,
they are to be placed among the chaff rather than among thistles, there will
also come One to purge the floor and to separate the chaff from the wheat, and
to assign to each part (according to its desert) the due reward. [154]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 52: CHAPTER 35. --MARRIAGE AND PROPERTY ALLOWED TO THE BAPTIZED BY THE APOSTLES. 
========================================================================

77. Meanwhile, why do you rage? why does party spirit blind your eyes? Why do
you entangle yourselves in a long defence of such great error? Seek for fruit in
the field, seek for wheat in the floor: they will be found easily, and will
present themselves to the inquirer. Why do you look so exclusively at the dross?
Why do you use the roughness of the hedge to scare away the inexperienced from
the fatness of the garden? There is a proper entrance, though known to but a
few; and by it men come in, though you disbelieve it, or do not wish to find it.
In the Catholic Church there are believers without number who do not use the
world, and there are those who "use it," in the words of the apostle, "as not
using it," [155] as was proved in those times when Christians were forced to
worship idols. For then, how many wealthy men, how many peasant householders,
how many merchants, how many military men, how many leading men in their own
cities, and how many senators, people of both sexes, giving up all these empty
and transitory things, though while they used them they were not bound down by
them, endured death for the salutary faith and religion, and proved to
unbelievers that instead of being possessed by all these things they really
possessed them? 78. Why do you reproach us by saying that men renewed in baptism
ought no longer to beget children, or to possess fields, and houses, and money?
Paul allows it. For, as cannot be denied, he wrote to believers, after
recounting many kinds of evil-doers who shall not possess the kingdom of God:
"And such were you," he says: "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye
are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
God." By the washed and sanctified, no one, assuredly, will venture to think any
are meant but believers, and those who have renounced this world. But, after
showing to whom he writes, let us see whether he allows these things to them. He
goes on: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all
things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meat
for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God will destroy both it and them.
Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the
body. But God raised up the Lord, and will raise us up also by His own power.
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the
members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Know ye
not that he which is joined to an harlot is made one body? for the twain, saith
He, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee
fornication. Whatever sin a man doeth is without the body: but he that
committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Know ye not that your
members are the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God,
and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a great price: glorify God, and
carry Him in your body." [156] "But of the things concerning which ye wrote to
me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also
the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the
husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the
wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that
ye may have leisure for prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you
not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself: but every man hath
his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." [157]
79. Has the apostle, think you, both shown sufficiently to the strong what is
highest, and permitted to the weaker what is next best? Not to touch a woman he
shows is highest when he says, "I would that all men were even as I myself." But
next to this highest is conjugal chastity, that man may not be the prey of
fornication. Did he say that these people were not yet believers because they
were married? Indeed, by this conjugal chastity he says that those who are
united are sanctified by one another, if one of them is an unbeliever, and that
their children also are sanctified. "The unbelieving husband," he says, "is
sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving woman by the believing
husband: otherwise your children would be unclean; but now are they holy." [158]
Why do you persist in opposition to such plain truth? Why do you try to darken
the light of Scripture by vain shadows? 80. Do not say that catechumens are
allowed to have wives, but not believers; that catechumens may have money, but
not believers. For there are many who use as not using. And in that sacred
washing the renewal of the new man is begun so as gradually to reach perfection,
in some more quickly, in others more slowly. The progress, however, to a new
life is made in the case of many, if we view the matter without hostility, but
attentively. As the apostle says of himself, "Though the outward man perish, the
inward man is renewed day by day." [159] The apostle says that the inward man is
renewed day by day that it may reach perfection; and you wish it to begin with
perfection! And it were well if you did wish it. In reality, you aim not at
raising the weak, but at misleading the unwary. You ought not to have spoken so
arrogantly, even if it were known that you are perfect in your childish
precepts. But when your conscience knows that those whom you bring into your
sect, when they come to a more intimate acquaintance with you, will find many
things in you which nobody hearing you accuse others would suspect, is it not
great impertinence to demand perfection in the weaker Catholics, to turn away
the inexperienced from the Catholic Church, while you show nothing of the kind
in yourself to those thus turned away? But not to seem to inveigh against you
without reason, I will now close this volume, and will proceed at last to set
forth the precepts of your life and your notable customs.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 53: ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE MORALS OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

[de moribus manichæorum]. A.D.388. translated by the rev. richard stothert,
m.a., bombay


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 54: ON THE MORALS OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

[De Moribus Manichæorum.] a.d.388. Containing a particular refutation of the
doctrine of these heretics regarding the origin and nature of evil; an exposure
of their pretended symbolical customs of the mouth, of the hands, and of the
breast; and a condemnation of their superstitious abstinence and unholy
mysteries. Lastly, some crimes brought to light among the Manichæans are
mentioned.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 55: CHAPTER 1. --THE SUPREME GOOD IS THAT WHICH IS POSSESSED OF SUPREME EXISTENCE. 
========================================================================

1. Every one, I suppose, will allow that the question of things good and evil
belongs to moral science, in which such terms are in common use. It is therefore
to be wished that men would bring to these inquiries such a clear intellectual
perfection as might enable them to see the chief good, than which nothing is
better or higher, next in order to which comes a rational soul in a state of
purity and perfection. [160] If this were clearly understood, it would also
become evident that the chief good is that which is properly described as having
supreme and original existence. For that exists in the highest sense of the word
which continues always the same, which is throughout like itself, which cannot
in any part be corrupted or changed, which is not subject to time, which admits
of no variation in its present as compared with its former condition. This is
existence in its true sense. For in this signification of the word existence
there is implied a nature which is self-contained, and which continues
immutably. Such things can be said only of God, to whom there is nothing
contrary in the strict sense of the word. For the contrary of existence is
non-existence. There is therefore no nature contrary to God. But since the minds
with which we approach the study of these subjects have their vision damaged and
dulled by silly notions, and by perversity of will, let us try as we can to gain
some little knowledge of this great matter by degrees and with caution, making
our inquiries not like men able to see, but like men groping the dark.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 56: CHAPTER 2. --WHAT EVIL IS. THAT EVIL IS THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE. IN ALLOWING THIS, THE MANICHÆANS REFUTE THEMSELVES. 
========================================================================

2. You Manichæans often, if not in every case, ask those whom you try to bring
over to your heresy, Whence is evil? Suppose I had now met you for the first
time, I would ask you, if you please, to follow my example in putting aside for
a little the explanation you suppose yourselves to have got of these subjects,
and to commence this great inquiry with me as if for the first time. You ask me,
Whence is evil? I ask you in return, What is evil? Which is the more reasonable
question? Are those right who ask whence a thing is, when they do not know what
it is; or he who thinks it necessary to inquire first what it is, in order to
avoid the gross absurdity of searching for the origin of a thing unknown? Your
answer is quite correct, when you say that evil is that which is contrary to
nature; for no one is so mentally blind as not to see that, in every kind, evil
is that which is contrary to the nature of the kind. But the establishment of
this doctrine is the overthrow of your heresy. For evil is no nature, if it is
contrary to nature. Now, according to you, evil is a certain nature and
substance. Moreover, whatever is contrary to nature must oppose nature and seek
its destruction. For nature means nothing else than that which anything is
conceived of as being in its own kind. Hence is the new word which we now use
derived from the word for being, -- essence namely, or, as we usually say,
substance, -- while before these words were in use, the word nature was used
instead. Here, then, if you will consider the matter without stubbornness, we
see that evil is that which falls away from essence and tends to non-existence.
3. Accordingly, when the Catholic Church declares that God is the author of all
natures and substances, those who understand this understand at the same time
that God is not the author of evil. For how can He who is the cause of the being
of all things be at the same time the cause of their not being, -- that is, of
their falling off from essence and tending to non-existence? For this is what
reason plainly declares to be the definition of evil. Now, how can that race of
evil of yours, which you make the supreme evil, be against nature, that is,
against substance, when it, according to you, is itself a nature and substance?
For if it acts against itself, it destroys its own existence; and when that is
completely done, it will come at last to be the supreme evil. But this cannot be
done, because you will have it not only to be, but to be everlasting. That
cannot then be the chief evil which is spoken of as a substance. [161] 4. But
what am I to do? I know that many of you can understand nothing of all this. I
know, too, that there are some who have a good understanding and can see these
things, and yet are so stubborn in their choice of evil, -- a choice that will
ruin their understanding as well, -- that they try rather to find what reply
they can make in order to impose upon inactive and feeble minds, instead of
giving their assent to the truth. Still I shall not regret having written either
what one of you may come some day to consider impartially, and be led to abandon
your error, or what men of understanding and in allegiance to God, and who are
still untainted with your errors, may read and so be kept from being led astray
by your addresses.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 57: CHAPTER 3. --IF EVIL IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH IS HURTFUL, THIS IMPLIES ANOTHER REFUTATION OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

5. Let us then inquire more carefully, and, if possible, more plainly. I ask you
again, What is evil? If you say it is that which is hurtful, here, too, you will
not answer amiss. But consider, I pray you; be on your guard, I beg of you; be
so good as to lay aside party spirit, and make the inquiry for the sake of
finding the truth, not of getting the better of it. Whatever is hurtful takes
away some good from that to which it is hurtful; for without the loss of good
there can be no hurt. What, I appeal to you, can be plainer than this? what more
intelligible? What else is required for complete demonstration to one of average
understanding, if he is not perverse? But, if this is granted, the consequence
seems plain. In that race which you take for the chief evil, nothing can be
liable to be hurt, since there is no good in it. But if, as you assert, there
are two natures, -- the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness; since you
make the kingdom of light to be God, attributing to it an uncompounded nature,
[162] so that it has no part inferior to another, you must grant, however
decidedly in opposition to yourselves, you must grant, nevertheless, that this
nature, which you not only do not deny to be the chief good, but spend all your
strength in trying to show that it is so, is immutable, incorruptible,
impenetrable, inviolable, for otherwise it would not be the chief good; for the
chief good is that than which there is nothing better, and for such a nature to
be hurt is impossible. Again, if, as has been shown, to hurt is to deprive of
good, there can be no hurt to the kingdom of darkness, for there is no good in
it. And as the kingdom of light cannot be hurt, as it is inviolable, what can
the evil you speak of be hurtful to?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 58: CHAPTER 4. --THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS GOOD IN ITSELF AND WHAT IS GOOD BY PARTICIPATION. 
========================================================================

6. Now, compare with this perplexity, from which you cannot escape, the
consistency of the statements in the teaching of the Catholic Church, according
to which there is one good which is good supremely and in itself, and not by the
participation of any good, but by its own nature and essence; and another good
which is good by participation, and by having something bestowed. Thus it has
its being as good from the supreme good, which, however, is still
self-contained, and loses nothing. This second kind of good is called a
creature, which is liable to hurt through falling away. But of this falling away
God is not the author, for He is author of existence and of being. Here we see
the proper use of the word evil; for it is correctly applied not to essence, but
to negation or loss. We see, too, what nature it is which is liable to hurt.
This nature is not the chief evil, for when it is hurt it loses good; nor is it
the chief good, for its falling away from good is because it is good not
intrinsically, but by possessing the good. And a thing cannot be good by nature
when it is spoken of as being made, which shows that the goodness was bestowed.
Thus, on the one hand, God is the good, and all things which He has made are
good, though not so good as He who made them. For what madman would venture to
require that the works should equal the workman, the creatures the Creator? What
more do you want? Could you wish for anything plainer than this?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 59: CHAPTER 5. --IF EVIL IS DEFINED TO BE CORRUPTION, THIS COMPLETELY REFUTES THE MANICHÆAN HERESY. 
========================================================================

7. I ask a third time, What is evil? Perhaps you will reply, Corruption.
Undeniably this is a general definition of evil; for corruption implies
opposition to nature, and also hurt. But corruption exists not by itself, but in
some substance which it corrupts; for corruption itself is not a substance. So
the thing which it corrupts is not corruption, is not evil; for what is
corrupted suffers the loss of integrity and purity. So that which has no purity
to lose cannot be corrupted; and what has, is necessarily good by the
participation of purity. Again, what is corrupted is perverted; and what is
perverted suffers the loss of order, and order is good. To be corrupted, then,
does not imply the absence of good; for in corruption it can be deprived of
good, which could not be if there was the absence of good. Therefore that race
of darkness, if it was destitute of all good, as you say it was, could not be
corrupted, for it had nothing which corruption could take from it; and if
corruption takes nothing away, it does not corrupt. Say now, if you dare, that
God and the kingdom of God can be corrupted, when you cannot show how the
kingdom of the devil, such as you make it, can be corrupted.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 60: CHAPTER 6. --WHAT CORRUPTION AFFECTS AND WHAT IT IS. 
========================================================================

8. What further does the Catholic light say? What do you suppose, but what is
the actual truth, that it is the created substance which can be corrupted, for
the uncreated, which is the chief good, is incorruptible; and corruption, which
is the chief evil, cannot be corrupted; besides, that it is not a substance? But
if you ask what corruption is, consider to what it seeks to bring the things
which it corrupts; for it affects those things according to its own nature. Now
all things by corruption fall away from what they were, and are brought to
non-continuance, to non-existence; for existence implies continuance. Thus the
supreme and chief existence is so called because it continues in itself, or is
self-contained. In the case of a thing changing for the better, the change is
not from continuance, but from perversion to the worse, that is, from falling
away from essence; the author of which falling away is not He who is the author
of the essence. So in some things there is change for the better, and so a
tendency towards existence. And this change is not called a perversion, but
reversion or conversion; for perversion is opposed to orderly arrangement. Now
things which tend towards existence tend towards order, and, attaining order
they attain existence, as far as that is possible to a creature. For order
reduces to a certain uniformity that which it arranges; and existence is nothing
else than being one. Thus, so far as anything acquires unity, so far it exists.
For uniformity and harmony are the effects of unity, and by these compound
things exist as far as they have existence. For simple things exist by
themselves, for they are one. But things not simple imitate unity by the
agreement of their parts; and so far as they attain this, so far they exist.
This arrangement is the cause of existence, disorder of non-existence; and
perversion or corruption are the other names for disorder. So whatever is
corrupted tends to non-existence. You may now be left to reflect upon the effect
of corruption, that you may discover what is the chief evil; for it is that
which corruption aims at accomplishing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 61: CHAPTER 7. --THE GOODNESS OF GOD PREVENTS CORRUPTION FROM BRINGING ANYTHING TO NON-EXISTENCE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATING AND FORMING. 
========================================================================

9. But the goodness of God does not permit the accomplishment of this end, but
so orders all things that fall away that they may exist where their existence is
most suitable, till in the order of their movements they return to that from
which they fell away. [163] Thus, when rational souls fall away from God,
although they possess the greatest amount of free-will, He ranks them in the
lower grades of creation, where their proper place is. So they suffer misery by
the divine judgment, while they are ranked suitably to their deserts. Hence we
see the excellence of that saying which you are always inveighing against so
strongly, "I make good things, and create evil things." [164] To create is to
form and arrange. So in some copies it is written, "I make good things and form
evil things." To make is used of things previously not in existence; but to form
is to arrange what had some kind of existence, so as to improve and enlarge it.
Such are the things which God arranges when He says, "I form evil things,"
meaning things which are falling off, and so tending to non-existence, -- not
things which have reached that to which they tend. For it has been said, Nothing
is allowed in the providence of God to go the length of non-existence. [165] 10.
These things might be discussed more fully and at greater length, but enough has
been said for our purpose in dealing with you. We have only to show you the gate
which you despair of finding, and make the uninstructed despair of it too. You
can be made to enter only by good-will, on which the divine mercy bestows peace,
as the song in the Gospel says, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace
to men of good-will." [166] It is enough, I say, to have shown you that there is
no way of solving the religious question of good and evil, unless whatever is,
as far as it is, is from God; while as far as it falls away from being it is not
of God, and yet is always ordered by Divine Providence in agreement with the
whole system. If you do not yet see this, I know nothing else that I can do but
to discuss the things already said with greater particularity. For nothing save
piety and purity can lead the mind to greater things.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 62: CHAPTER 8. --EVIL IS NOT A SUBSTANCE, BUT A DISAGREEMENT HOSTILE TO SUBSTANCE. 
========================================================================

11. For what other answer will you give to the question, What is evil? but
either that it is against nature, or that it is hurtful, or that it is
corruption, or something similar? But I have shown that in these replies you
make shipwreck of your cause, unless, indeed, you will answer in the childish
way in which you generally speak to children, that evil is fire, poison, a wild
beast, and so on. For one of the leaders of this heresy, whose instructions we
attended with great familiarity and frequency, used to say with reference to a
person who held that evil was not a substance, "I should like to put a scorpion
in the man's hand, and see whether he would not withdraw his hand; and in so
doing he would get a proof, not in words but in the thing itself, that evil is a
substance, for he would not deny that the animal is a substance." He said this
not in the presence of the person, but to us, when we repeated to him the remark
which had troubled us, giving, as I said, a childish answer to children. For who
with the least tincture of learning or science does not see that these things
hurt by disagreement with the bodily temperament, while at other times they
agree with it, so as not only not to hurt, but to produce the best effects? For
if this poison were evil in itself, the scorpion itself would suffer first and
most. In fact, if the poison were quite taken from the animal, it would die. So
for its body it is evil to lose what it is evil for our body to receive; and it
is good for it to have what it is good for us to want. Is the same thing then
both good and evil? By no means; but evil is what is against nature, for this is
evil both to the animal and to us. This evil is the disagreement, which
certainly is not a substance, but hostile to substance. Whence then is it? See
what it leads to, and you will learn, if any inner light lives in you. It leads
all that it destroys to non-existence. Now God is the author of existence; and
there is no existence which, as far as it is existing, leads to non-existence:
Thus we learn whence disagreement is not; as to whence it is, nothing can be
said. 12. We read in history of a female criminal in Athens, who succeeded in
drinking the quantity of poison allotted as a fatal draught for the condemned
with little or no injury to her health, by taking it at intervals. So being
condemned, she took the poison in the prescribed quantity like the rest, but
rendered it powerless by accustoming herself to it, and did not die like the
rest. And as this excited great wonder, she was banished. If poison is an evil,
are we to think that she made it to be no evil to her? What could be more absurd
than this? But because disagreement is an evil, what she did was to make the
poisonous matter agree with her own body by a process of habituation. For how
could she by any amount of cunning have brought it about that disagreement
should not hurt her? Why so? Because what is truly and properly an evil is
hurtful both always and to all. Oil is beneficial to our bodies, but very much
the opposite to many six-footed animals. And is not hellebore sometimes food,
sometimes medicine, and sometimes poison. Does not every one maintain that salt
taken in excess is poisonous? And yet the benefits to the body from salt are
innumerable and most important. Sea-water is injurious when drunk by land
animals, but it is most suitable and useful to many who bathe their bodies in it
and to fish it is useful and wholesome in both ways. Bread nourishes man, but
kills hawks. And does not mud itself, which is offensive and noxious when
swallowed or smelt, serve as cooling to the touch in hot weather, and as a cure
for wounds from fire? What can be nastier than dung, or more worthless than
ashes? And yet they are of such use to the fields, that the Romans thought
divine honors due to the discoverer, Stercutio, from whose name the word for
dung [stercus] is derived. 13. But why enumerate details which are countless? We
need not go farther than the four elements themselves, which, as every one
knows, are beneficial when there is agreement, and bitterly opposed to nature
when there is disagreement in the objects acted upon. We who live in air die
under earth or under water, while innumerable animals creep alive in sand or
loose earth, and fish die in our air. Fire consumes our bodies, but, when
suitably applied, it both restores from cold, and expels diseases without
number. The sun to which you bow the knee, and than which, indeed, there is no
fairer object among visible things, strengthens the eyes of eagles, but hurts
and dims our eyes when we gaze on it; and yet we too can accustom ourselves to
look upon it without injury. Will you, then, allow the sun to be compared to the
poison which the Athenian woman made harmless by habituating herself to it?
Reflect for once, and consider that if a substance is an evil because it hurts
some one, the light which you worship cannot be acquitted of this charge. See
the preferableness of making evil in general to consist in this disagreement,
from which the sun's ray produces dimness in the eyes, though nothing is
pleasanter to the eyes than light. [167]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 63: CHAPTER 9. --THE MANICHÆAN FICTIONS ABOUT THINGS GOOD AND EVIL ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THEMSELVES. 
========================================================================

14. I have said these things to make you cease, if that is possible, giving the
name of evil to a region boundless in depth and length; to a mind wandering
through the region; to the five caverns of the elements, -- one full of
darkness, another of waters, another of winds, another of fire, another of
smoke; to the animals born in each of these elements, -- serpents in the
darkness, swimming creatures in the waters, flying creatures in the winds,
quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds in the smoke. For these things, as you describe
them, cannot be called evil; for all such things, as far as they exist, must
have their existence from the most high God, for as far as they exist they are
good. If pain and weakness is an evil, the animals you speak of were of such
physical strength that their abortive offspring, after, as your sect believes,
the world was formed of them, fell from heaven to earth, according to you, and
could not die. If blindness is an evil, they could see; if deafness, they could
hear. If to be nearly or altogether dumb is an evil, their speech was so clear
and intelligible, that, as you assert, they decided to make war against God in
compliance with an address delivered in their assembly. If sterility is an evil,
they were prolific in children. If exile is an evil, they were in their own
country, and occupied their own territories. If servitude is an evil, some of
them were rulers. If death is an evil, they were alive, and the life was such
that, by your statement, even after God was victorious, it was impossible for
the mind ever to die. 15. Can you tell me how it is that in the chief evil so
many good things are to be found, the opposites of the evils above mentioned?
and if these are not evils, can any substance be an evil, as far as it is a
substance? If weakness is not an evil, can a weak body be an evil? If blindness
is not an evil, can darkness be an evil? If deafness is not an evil, can a deaf
man be an evil? If dumbness is not an evil, can a fish be an evil? If sterility
is not an evil, how can we call a barren animal an evil? If exile is not an
evil, how can we give that name to an animal in exile, or to an animal sending
some one into exile? If servitude is not an evil, in what sense is a subject
animal an evil, or one enforcing subjection? If death is not an evil, in what
sense is a mortal animal an evil, or one causing death? Or if these are evils,
must we not give the name of good things to bodily strength, sight, hearing,
persuasive speech, fertility, native land, liberty, life, all which you hold to
exist in that kingdom of evil, and yet venture to call it the perfection of
evil? 16. Once more, if, as has never been denied, unsuitableness is an evil,
what can be more suitable than those elements to their respective animals, --
the darkness to serpents, the waters to swimming creatures, the winds to flying
creatures, the fire to voracious animals, the smoke to soaring animals? Such is
the harmony which you describe as existing in the race of strife; such the order
in the seat of confusion. If what is hurtful is an evil, I do not repeat the
strong objection already stated, that no hurt can be suffered where no good
exists; but if that is not so clear, one thing at least is easily seen and
understood as following from the acknowledged truth, that what is hurtful is an
evil. The smoke in that region did not hurt bipeds: it produced them, and
nourished and sustained them without injury in their birth, their growth, and
their rule. But now, when the evil has some good mixed with it, the smoke has
become more hurtful, so that we, who certainly are bipeds, instead of being
sustained by it, are blinded, and suffocated, and killed by it. Could the
mixture of good have given such destructiveness to evil elements? Could there be
such confusion in the divine government? 17. In the other cases, at least, how
is it that we find that congruity which misled your author and induced him to
fabricate falsehoods? Why does darkness agree with serpents, and waters with
swimming creatures, and winds with flying creatures, though the fire burns up
quadrupeds, and smoke chokes us? Then, again, have not serpents very sharp
sight, and do they not love the sunshine, and abound most where the calmness of
the air prevents the clouds from gathering much or often? How very absurd that
the natives and lovers of darkness should live most comfortably and agreeably
where the clearest light is enjoyed! Or if you say that it is the heat rather
than the light that they enjoy, it would be more reasonable to assign to fire
serpents, which are naturally of rapid motion, than the slow-going asp. [168]
Besides, all must admit that light is agreeable to the eyes of the asp, for they
are compared to an eagle's eyes. But enough of the lower animals. Let us, I
pray, attend to what is true of ourselves without persisting in error, and so
our minds shall be disentangled from silly and mischievous falsehoods. For is it
not intolerable perversity to say that in the race of darkness, where there was
no mixture of light, the biped animals had so sound and strong, so incredible
force of eyesight, that even in their darkness they could see the perfectly pure
light (as you represent it) of the kingdom of God? for, according to you, even
these beings could see this light, and could gaze at it, and study it, and
delight in it, and desire it; whereas our eyes, after mixture with light, with
the chief good, yea, with God, have become so tender and weak, that we can
neither see anything in the dark, nor bear to look at the sun, but, after
looking, lose sight of what we could see before. 18. The same remarks are
applicable if we take corruption to be an evil, which no one doubts. The smoke
did not corrupt that race of animals, though it corrupts animals now. Not to go
over all the particulars, which would be tedious, and is not necessary, the
living creatures of your imaginary description were so much less liable to
corruption than animals are now, that their abortive and premature offspring,
cast headlong from heaven to earth, both lived and were productive, and could
band together again, having, forsooth, their original vigor, because they were
conceived before good was mixed with the evil; for, after this mixture, the
animals born are, according to you, those which we now see to be very feeble and
easily giving way to corruption. Can any one persist in the belief of error like
this, unless he fails to see these things, or is affected by your habit and
association in such an amazing way as to be proof against all the force of
reasoning?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 64: CHAPTER 10. --THREE MORAL SYMBOLS DEVISED BY THE MANICHÆANS FOR NO GOOD. 
========================================================================

19. Now that I have shown, as I think, how much darkness and error is in your
opinions about good and evil things in general, let us examine now those three
symbols which you extol so highly, and boast of as excellent observances. What
then are those three symbols? That of the mouth, that of the hands, and that of
the breast. What does this mean? That man, we are told, should be pure and
innocent in mouth, in hands, and in breast. But what if he sins with eyes, ears,
or nose? What if he hurts some one with his heels, or perhaps kills him? How can
he be reckoned criminal when he has not sinned with mouth, hands, or breast?
But, it is replied, by the mouth we are to understand all the organs of sense in
the head; by the hands, all bodily actions; by the breast, all lustful
tendencies. To what, then, do you assign blasphemies? To the mouth or to the
hand? For blasphemy is an action of the tongue. And if all actions are to be
classed under one head, why should you join together the actions of the hands
and the feet, and not those of the tongue. Do you wish to separate the action of
the tongue, as being for the purpose of expressing something, from actions which
are not for this purpose, so that the symbol of the hands should mean abstinence
from all evil actions which are not for the purpose of expressing something? But
then, what if some one sins by expressing something with his hands, as is done
in writing or in some significant gesture? This cannot be assigned to the tongue
and the mouth, for it is done by the hands. When you have three symbols of the
mouth, the hands, and the breast, it is quite inadmissible to charge against the
mouth sins found in the hands. And if you assign action in general to the hands,
there is no reason for including under this the action of the feet and not that
of the tongue. Do you see how the desire of novelty, with its attendant error,
lands you in great difficulties? For you find it impossible to include
purification of all sins in these three symbols, which you set forth as a kind
of new classification.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 65: CHAPTER 11. --THE VALUE OF THE SYMBOL OF THE MOUTH AMONG THE MANICHÆANS, WHO ARE FOUND GUILTY OF BLASPHEMING GOD. 
========================================================================

20. Classify as you please, omit what you please, we must discuss the doctrines
you insist upon most. You say that the symbol of the mouth implies refraining
from all blasphemy. But blasphemy is speaking evil of good things. So usually
the word blasphemy is applied only to speaking evil of God; for as regards man
there is uncertainty, but God is without controversy good. If, then, you are
proved guilty of saying worse things of God than any one else says, what becomes
of your famous symbol of the mouth? The evidence is not obscure, but clear and
obvious to every understanding, and irresistible, the more so that no one can
remain in ignorance of it, that God is incorruptible, immutable, liable to no
injury, to no want, to no weakness, to no misery. All this the common sense of
rational beings perceives, and even you assent when you hear it. 21. But when
you begin to relate your fables, that God is corruptible, and mutable, and
subject to injury, and exposed to want and weakness, and not secure from misery,
this is what you are blind enough to teach, and what some are blind enough to
believe. And this is not all; for, according to you, God is not only
corruptible, but corrupted; not only changeable, but changed; not only subject
to injury, but injured; not only liable to want, but in want; not only possibly,
but actually weak; not only exposed to misery, but miserable. You say that the
soul is God, or a part of God. I do not see how it can be part of God without
being God. A part of gold is gold; of silver silver; of stone stone; and, to
come to greater things, part of earth is earth, part of water is water, and of
air air; and if you take part from fire, you will not deny it to be fire; and
part of light can be nothing but light. Why then should part of God not be God?
Has God a jointed body, like man and the lower animals? For part of man is not
man. 22. I will deal with each of these opinions separately. If you view God as
resembling light, you must admit that part of God is God. Hence, when you make
the soul part of God, though you allow it to be corrupted as being foolish, and
changed as having once been wise, and in want as needing health, and feeble as
needing medicine, and miserable as desiring happiness, all these things you
profanely attribute to God. Or if you deny these things of the mind, it follows
that the Spirit is not required to lead the soul into truth, since it is not in
folly; nor is the soul renewed by true religion, since it does not need renewal;
nor is it perfected by your symbols, since it is already perfect; nor does God
give it assistance, since it does not need it; nor is Christ its physician,
since it is in health; nor does it require the promise of happiness in another
life. Why then is Jesus called the deliverer, according to His own words in the
Gospel, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?" [169] And the
Apostle Paul says, "Ye have been called to liberty." [170] The soul, then, which
has not attained this liberty is in bondage. Therefore, according to you, God,
since part of God is God, is both corrupted by folly, and is changed by falling,
and is injured by the loss of perfection, and is in need of help, and is
weakened by disease, and bowed down with misery, and subject to disgraceful
bondage. 23. Again, if part of God is not God, still He is not incorrupt when
His part is corrupted, nor unchanged when there is change in any part, nor
uninjured when He is not perfect in every part, nor free from want when He is
busily endeavoring to recover part of Himself, nor quite whole when He has a
weak part, nor perfectly happy when any part is suffering misery, nor entirely
free when any part is under bondage. These are conclusions to which you are
driven, because you say that the soul, which you see to be in such a calamitous
condition, is part of God. If you can succeed in making your sect abandon these
and many similar opinions, then you may speak of your mouth being free from
blasphemies. Better still, leave the sect; for if you cease to believe and to
repeat what Manichæus has written, you will be no longer Manichæans. 24. That
God is the supreme good, and that than which nothing can be or can be conceived
better, we must either understand or believe, if we wish to keep clear of
blasphemy. There is a relation of numbers which cannot possibly be impaired or
altered, nor can any nature by any amount of violence prevent the number which
comes after one from being the double of one. This can in no way be changed; and
yet you represent God as changeable! This relation preserves its integrity
inviolable; and you will not allow God an equality even in this! Let some race
of darkness take in the abstract the number three, consisting of indivisible
units, and divide it into two equal parts. Your mind perceives that no hostility
could effect this. And can that which is unable to injure a numerical relation
injure God? If it could not, what possible necessity could there be for a part
of him to be mixed with evil, and driven into such miseries?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 66: CHAPTER 12. --MANICHÆAN SUBTERFUGE. 
========================================================================

25. For this gives rise to the question, which used to throw us into great
perplexity even when we were your zealous disciples, nor could we find any
answer, -- what the race of darkness would have done to God, supposing He had
refused to fight with it at the cost of such calamity to part of Himself. For if
God would not have suffered any loss by remaining quiet, we thought it hard that
we had been sent to endure so much. Again, if He would have suffered, His nature
cannot have been incorruptible, as it behoves the nature of God to be. Sometimes
the answer was, that it was not for the sake of escaping evil or avoiding
injury, but that God in His natural goodness wished to bestow the blessing of
order on a disturbed and disordered nature. This is not what we find in the
Manichæan books: there it is constantly implied and constantly asserted that God
guarded against an invasion of His enemies. But supposing this answer, which was
given from want of a better, to represent the opinion of the Manichæans, is God,
in their view, vindicated from the charge of cruelty or weakness? For this
goodness of His to the hostile race proved most pernicious to His own subjects.
Besides, if God's nature could not be corrupted nor changed, neither could any
destructive influence corrupt or change us; and the order to be bestowed on the
race of strangers might have been bestowed without robbing us of it. 26. Since
those times, however, another answer has appeared which I heard recently at
Carthage. For one, whom I wish much to see brought out of this error, when
reduced to this same dilemma, ventured to say that the kingdom had its own
limits, which might be invaded by a hostile race, though God Himself could not
be injured. But this is a reply which your founder would never consent to give;
for he would be likely to see that such an opinion would lead to a still
speedier demolition of his heresy. And in fact any one of average intellect, who
hears that in this nature part is subject to injury and part not, will at once
perceive that this makes not two but three natures, -- one violable, a second
inviolable, and a third violating.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 67: CHAPTER 13. --ACTIONS TO BE JUDGED OF FROM THEIR MOTIVE, NOT FROM EXTERNALS. MANICHÆAN ABSTINENCE TO BE TRIED BY THIS PRINCIPLE. 
========================================================================

27. Having every day in your mouth these blasphemies which come from your heart,
you ought not to continue holding up the symbol of the mouth as something
wonderful, to ensnare the ignorant. But perhaps you think the symbol of the
mouth excellent and admirable because you do not eat flesh or drink wine. But
what is your end in this? For according as the end we have in view in our
actions, on account of which we do whatever we do, is not only not culpable but
also praiseworthy, so only can our actions merit any praise. If the end we have
regard to in any performance is unlawful and blameworthy, the performance itself
will be unhesitatingly condemned as improper. 28. We are told of Catiline that
he could bear cold, thirst, and hunger. [171] This the vile miscreant had in
common with our apostles. What then distinguishes the parricide from our
apostles but the precisely opposite end which he followed? He bore these things
in order to gratify his fierce and ungoverned passions; they, on the other hand,
in order to restrain these passions and subdue them to reason. You often say,
when you are told of the great number of Catholic virgins, a she-mule is a
virgin. This, indeed, is said in ignorance of the Catholic system, and is not
applicable. Still, what you mean is that this continence is worthless unless it
leads, on right principles, to an end of high excellence. Catholic Christians
might also compare your abstinence from wine and flesh to that of cattle and
many small birds, as likewise of countless sorts of worms. But, not to be
impertinent like you, I will not make this comparison prematurely, but will
first examine your end in what you do. For I suppose I may safely take it as
agreed on, that in such customs the end is the thing to look to. Therefore, if
your end is to be frugal and to restrain the appetite which finds gratification
in eating and drinking, I assent and approve. But this is not the case. 29.
Suppose, what is quite possible, that there is one so frugal and sparing in his
diet, that, instead of gratifying his appetite or his palate, he refrains from
eating twice in one day, and at supper takes a little cabbage moistened and
seasoned with lard, just enough to keep down hunger; and quenches his thirst,
from regard to his health, with two or three draughts of pure wine; and this is
his regular diet: whereas another of different habits never takes flesh or wine,
but makes an agreeable repast at two o'clock on rare and foreign vegetables,
varied with a number of courses, and well sprinkled with pepper, and sups in the
same style towards night; and drinks honey-vinegar, mead, raisin-wine, and the
juices of various fruits, no bad imitation of wine, and even surpassing it in
sweetness; and drinks not for thirst but for pleasure; and makes this provision
for himself daily, and feasts in this sumptuous style, not because he requires
it, but only gratifying his taste; -- which of these two do you regard as living
most abstemiously in food and drink? You cannot surely be so blind as not to put
the man of the little lard and wine above this glutton! 30. This is the true
view; but your doctrine sounds very differently. For one of your elect
distinguished by the three symbols may live like the second person in this
description, and though he may be reproved by one or two of the more sedate, he
cannot be condemned as abusing the symbols. But should he sup with the other
person, and moisten his lips with a morsel of rancid bacon, or refresh them with
a drink of spoilt wine, he is pronounced a transgressor of the symbol, and by
the judgment of your founder is consigned to hell, while you, though wondering,
must assent. Will you not discard these errors? Will you not listen to reason?
Will you not offer some little resistance to the force of habit? Is not such
doctrine most unreasonable? Is it not insanity? Is it not the greatest absurdity
that one, who stuffs and loads his stomach every day to gratify his appetite
with mushrooms, rice, truffles, cake, mead, pepper, and assafoetida, and who
fares thus every day, cannot be convicted of transgressing the three symbols,
that is, the rule of sanctity; whereas another, who seasons his dish of the
commonest herbs with some smoky morsel of meat, and takes only so much of this
as is needed for the refreshment of his body, and drinks three cups of wine for
the sake of keeping in health, should, for exchanging the former diet for this,
be doomed to certain punishment?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 68: CHAPTER 14. --THREE GOOD REASONS FOR ABSTAINING FROM CERTAIN KINDS OF FOOD. 
========================================================================

31. But, you reply, the apostle says, "It is good, brethren, neither to eat
flesh, nor to drink wine." [172] No one denies that this is good, provided that
it is for the end already mentioned, of which it is said, "Make not provision
for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof;" [173] or for the ends pointed out
by the apostle, namely, either to check the appetite, which is apt to go to a
more wild and uncontrollable excess in these things than in others, or lest a
brother should be offended, or lest the weak should hold fellowship with an
idol. For at the time when the apostle wrote, the flesh of sacrifices was often
sold in the market. And because wine, too, was used in libations to the gods of
the Gentiles, many weaker brethren, accustomed to purchase such things,
preferred to abstain entirely from flesh and wine rather than run the risk of
having fellowship, as they considered it, with idols, even ignorantly. And, for
their sakes, even those who were stronger, and had faith enough to see the
insignificance of these things, knowing that nothing is unclean except from an
evil conscience, and holding by the saying of the Lord, "Not that which entereth
into your mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out of it," [174] still,
lest these weaker brethren should stumble, were bound to abstain from these
things. And this is not a mere theory, but is clearly taught in the epistles of
the apostle himself. For you are in the habit of quoting only the words, "It is
good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine," without adding what
follows, "nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended or is made
weak." These words show the intention of the apostle in giving the admonition.
32. This is evident from the preceding and succeeding context. The passage is a
long one to quote, but, for the sake of those who are indolent in reading and
searching the sacred Scriptures, we must give the whole of it. "Him that is weak
in the faith," says the apostle, "receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth
herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that
eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that
judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he
shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day
above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord.
He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth
not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to
himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the
Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live, therefore, or
die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both lived, and died and rose
again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou
judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all
stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. [175]
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not,
therefore, judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a
stumbling-block, or occasion to fall, in his brother's way. I know, and am
persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of itself: but to him
that esteemeth anything to be common, to him it is common. But if thy brother be
grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy
meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then our good be evil spoken of. For the
kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in
the Holy Ghost. For he who in this serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and
approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace,
and things whereby one may edify another. For meat destroys not the work of God.
All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to
thyself before God. Happy is he who condemneth not himself in that thing which
he alloweth. And he that distinguishes is damned if he eats, because he eateth
not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong
ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let
every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ
pleased not Himself." [176] 33. Is it not clear that what the apostle required
was, that the stronger should not eat flesh nor drink wine, because they gave
offense to the weak by not going along with them, and made them think that those
who in faith judged all things to be pure, did homage to idols in not abstaining
from that kind of food and drink? This is also set forth in the following
passage of the Epistle to the Corinthians: "As concerning, therefore, the eating
of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol
is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though
there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, but to us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. Howbeit there is not in
every man that knowledge: for some, with conscience of the idol unto this hour,
eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience being weak is
defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, shall we
abound; neither, if we eat not, shall we suffer want. But take heed, lest by any
means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For
if any man see one who has knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not
his conscience being weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to
idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ
died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience,
ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat
no flesh forever, lest I make my brother to offend." [177] 34. Again, in another
place: "What say I then? that the idol is anything? or that which is offered in
sacrifice to idols is anything? But the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they
sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of
devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils.
Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He? All things are
lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man what is
another's. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for
conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto
idols, eat not for his sake that shows it, and for conscience sake: conscience,
I say, not thine own, but another's: for why is my liberty judged of another
man's conscience? For if I be a partaker with thanksgiving, why am I evil spoken
of for that for which I give thanks? Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or
whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the
Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God: even as I please all men in
all things not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many that they may be
saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." [178] 35. It is
clear, then, I think, for what end we should abstain from flesh and wine. The
end is threefold: to check indulgence, which is mostly practised in this sort of
food, and in this kind of drink goes the length of intoxication; to protect
weakness, on account of the things which are sacrificed and offered in libation;
and, what is most praiseworthy of all, from love, not to offend the weakness of
those more feeble than ourselves, who abstain from these things. You, again,
consider a morsel of meat unclean; whereas the apostle says that all things are
clean, but that it is evil to him that eateth with offence. And no doubt you are
defiled by such food, simply because you think it unclean. For the apostle says,
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of
itself: but to him that esteemeth anything common, to him it is common." And
every one can see that by common he means unclean and defiled. But it is folly
to discuss passages of Scripture with you; for you both mislead people by
promising to prove your doctrines, and those books which possess authority to
demand our homage you affirm to be corrupted by spurious interpolations. Prove
then to me your doctrine that flesh defiles the eater, when it is taken without
offending any one, without any weak notions, and without any excess. [179]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 69: CHAPTER 15. --WHY THE MANICHÆANS PROHIBIT THE USE OF FLESH. 
========================================================================

36. It is worth while to take note of the whole reason for their superstitious
abstinence, which is given as follows: -- Since, we are told, the member of God
has been mixed with the substance of evil, to repress it and to keep it from
excessive ferocity, -- for that is what you say, -- the world is made up of both
natures, of good and evil, mixed together. But this part of God is daily being
set free in all parts of the world, and restored to its own domain. But in its
passage upwards as vapor from earth to heaven, it enters plants, because their
roots are fixed in the earth, and so gives fertility and strength to all herbs
and shrubs. From these animals get their food, and, where there is sexual
intercourse, fetter in the flesh the member of God, and, turning it from its
proper course, they come in the way and entangle it in errors and troubles. So
then, if food consisting of vegetables and fruits comes to the saints, that is,
to the Manichæans by means of their chastity, and prayers, and psalms, whatever
in it is excellent and divine is purified, and so is entirely perfected, in
order to restoration, free from all hindrance, to its own domain. Hence you
forbid people to give bread or vegetables, or even water, which would cost
nobody anything, to a beggar, if he is not a Manichæan, lest he should defile
the member of God by his sins, and obstruct its return. 37. Flesh, you say, is
made up of pollution itself. For, according to you, some portion of that divine
part escapes in the eating of vegetables and fruits: it escapes while they
undergo the infliction of rubbing, grinding, or cooking, as also of biting or
chewing. It escapes, too, in all motions of animals, in the carriage of burdens,
in exercise, in toil, or in any sort of action. It escapes, too, in our rest,
when digestion is going on in the body by means of internal heat. And as the
divine nature escapes in all these ways, some very unclean dregs remain, from
which, in sexual intercourse, flesh is formed. These dregs, however, fly off, in
the motions above mentioned, along with what is good in the soul; for though it
is mostly, it is not entirely good. So, when the soul has left the flesh, the
dregs are utterly filthy, and the soul of those who eat flesh is defiled.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 70: CHAPTER 16. --DISCLOSURE OF THE MONSTROUS TENETS OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

38. O the obscurity of the nature of things! How hard to expose falsehood! Who
that hears these things, if he is one who has not learned the causes of things,
and who, not yet illuminated by any ray of truth, is deceived by material
images, would not think them true, precisely because the things spoken of are
invisible, and are presented to the mind under the form of visible things, and
can be eloquently expressed? Men of this description exist in numbers and in
droves, who are kept from being led away into these errors more by a fear
grounded on religious feeling than by reason. I will therefore endeavor, as God
may please to enable me, so to refute these errors, as that their falsehood and
absurdity will be manifest not only in the judgment of the wise, who reject them
on hearing them, but also to the intelligence of the multitude. 39. Tell me
then, first, where you get the doctrine that part of God, as you call it, exists
in corn, beans, cabbage, and flowers and fruits. From the beauty of the color,
say they, and the sweetness of the taste; this is evident; and as these are not
found in rotten substances, we learn that their good has been taken from them.
Are they not ashamed to attribute the finding of God to the nose and the palate?
But I pass from this. For I will speak, using words in their proper sense; and,
as the saying is, this is not so easy in speaking to you. Let us see rather what
sort of mind is required to understand this; how, if the presence of good in
bodies is shown by their color, the dung of animals, the refuse of flesh itself,
has all kinds of bright colors, sometimes white, often golden; and so on, though
these are what you take in fruits and flowers as proofs of the presence and
indwelling of God. Why is it that in a rose you hold the red color to be an
indication of an abundance of good, while the same color in blood you condemn?
Why do you regard with pleasure in a violet the same color which you turn away
from in cases of cholera, or of people with jaundice, or in the excrement of
infants? Why do you believe the light, shining appearance of oil to be a sign of
a plentiful admixture of good, which you readily set about purifying by taking
the oil into your throats and stomachs, while you are afraid to touch your lips
with a drop of fat, though it has the same shining appearance as oil? Why do you
look upon a yellow melon as part of the treasures of God, and not rancid bacon
fat or the yolk of an egg? Why do you think that whiteness in a lettuce
proclaims God, and not in milk? So much for colors, as regards which (to mention
nothing else) you cannot compare any flower-clad meadow with the wings and
feathers of a single peacock, though these are of flesh and of fleshly origin.
40. Again, if this good is discovered also by smell, perfumes of excellent smell
are made from the flesh of some animals. And the smell of food, when cooked
along with flesh of delicate flavor, is better than if cooked without it. Once
more, if you think that the things that have a better smell than others are
therefore cleaner, there is a kind of mud which you ought to take to your meals
instead of water from the cistern; for dry earth moistened with rain has an odor
most agreeable to the sense, and this sort of mud has a better smell than
rain-water taken by itself. But if we must have the authority of taste to prove
the presence in any object of part of God, he must dwell in dates and honey more
than in pork, but more in pork than in beans. I grant that He dwells more in a
fig than in a liver; but then you must allow that He is more in liver than in
beet. And, on this principle, must you not confess that some plants, which none
of you can doubt to be cleaner than flesh, receive God from this very flesh, if
we are to think of God as mixed with the flavor? For both cabbages taste better
when cooked along with flesh; and, while we cannot relish the plants on which
cattle feed, when these are turned into milk we think them improved in color,
and find them very agreeable to the taste. 41. Or must we think that good is to
be found in greater quantity where the three good qualities -- a good color, and
smell, and taste -- are found together? Then you must not admire and praise
flowers so much, as you cannot admit them to be tried at the tribunal of the
palate. At least you must not prefer purslain to flesh, since flesh when cooked
is superior in color, smell, and taste. A young pig roasted (for your ideas on
this subject force us to discuss good and evil with you as if you were cooks and
confectioners, instead of men of reading or literary taste) is bright in color,
and agreeable in smell, and pleasant in taste. Here is a perfect evidence of the
presence of the divine substance. You are invited by this threefold testimony,
and called on to purify this substance by your sanctity. Make the attack. Why do
you hold back? What objection have you to make. In color alone the excrement of
an infant surpasses lentils; in smell alone a roast morsel surpasses a soft
green fig; in taste alone a kid when slaughtered surpasses the plant which it
fed on when alive: and we have found a kind of flesh in flavor of which all
three give evidence. What more do you require? What reply will you make? Why
should eating meat make you unclean, if using such monstrosities in discussion
does not? And, above all, the rays of the sun, which you surely think more of
than all animal or vegetable food, have no smell or taste, and are remarkable
among other substances only by their eminently bright color; which is a loud
call to you, and an obligation, in spite of yourselves, to place nothing higher
than a bright color among the evidences of an admixture of good. 42. Thus you
are forced into this difficulty, that you must acknowledge the part of God as
dwelling more in blood, and in the filthy but bright-colored animal refuse which
is thrown out in the streets, than in the pale leaves of the olive. If you
reply, as you actually do, that olive leaves when burnt give out a flame, which
proves the presence of light, while flesh when burnt does not, what will you say
of oil, which lights nearly all the lamps in Italy? What of cow dung (which
surely is more unclean than the flesh), which peasants use when dry as fuel, so
that the fire is always at hand, and the liberation of the smoke is always going
on? And if brightness and lustre prove a greater presence of the divine part,
why do you yourselves not purify it, why not appropriate it, why not liberate
it? For it is found chiefly in flowers, not to speak of blood and countless
things almost the same as blood in flesh or coming from it, and yet you cannot
feed on flowers. And even if you were to eat flesh, you would certainly not take
with your gruel the scales of fish, or some worms and flies, though these all
shine with a light of their own in the dark. 43. What then remains, but that you
should cease saying that you have in your eyes, nose, and palate sufficient
means of testing the presence of the divine part in material objects? And,
without these means, how can you tell not only that there is a greater part of
God in plants than in flesh, but that there is any part in plants at all? Are
you led to think this by their beauty -- not the beauty of agreeable color, but
that of agreement of parts? An excellent reason, in my opinion. For you will
never be so bold as to compare twisted pieces of wood with the bodies of
animals, which are formed of members answering to one another. But if you choose
the testimony of the senses, as those must do who cannot see with their mind the
full force of existence, how do you prove that the substance of good escapes
from bodies in course of time, and by some kind of attrition, but because God
has gone out of it, according to your view, and has left one place for another?
The whole is absurd. But, as far as I can judge, there are no marks or
appearances to give rise to this opinion. For many things plucked from trees, or
pulled out of the ground, are the better of some interval of time before we use
them for food, as leeks and endive, lettuce, grapes, apples, figs, and some
pears; and there are many other things which get a better color when they are
not used immediately after being plucked, besides being more wholesome for the
body, and having a finer flavor to the palate. But these things should not
possess all these excellent and agreeable qualities, if, as you say, they become
more destitute of good the longer they are kept after separation from their
mother earth. Animal food itself is better and more fit for use the day after
the animal is killed; but this should not be, if, as you hold, it possessed more
good immediately after the slaughter than next day, when more of the divine
substance had escaped. 44. Who does not know that wine becomes purer and better
by age? Nor is it, as you think, more tempting to the destruction of the senses,
but more useful for invigorating the body, -- only let there be moderation,
which ought to control everything. The senses are sooner destroyed by new wine.
When the must has been only a short time in the vat, and has begun to ferment,
it makes those who look down into it fall headlong, affecting their brain, so
that without assistance they would perish. And as regards health, every one
knows that bodies are swollen up and injuriously distended by new wine? Has it
these bad properties because there is more good in it? Are they not found in
wine when old because a good deal of the divine substance has gone? An absurd
thing to say, especially for you, who prove the divine presence by the pleasing
effect produced on your eyes, nose, and palate! And what a contradiction it is
to make wine the poison of the princes of darkness, and yet to eat grapes! Has
it more of the poison when in the cup than when in the cluster? Or if the evil
remains unmixed after the good is gone, and that by the process of time, how is
it that the same grapes, when hung up for awhile, become milder, sweeter, and
more wholesome? or how does the wine itself, as already mentioned, become purer
and brighter when the light has gone, and more wholesome by the loss of the
beneficial substance? 45. What are we to say of wood and leaves, which in course
of time become dry, but cannot be the worse on that account in your estimation?
For while they lose that which produces smoke, they retain that from which a
bright flame arises; and, to judge by the clearness, which you think so much of,
there is more good in the dry than in the green. Hence you must either deny that
there is more of God in the pure light than in the smoky one, which will upset
all your evidences; or you must allow it to be possible that, when plants are
plucked up, or branches plucked off, and kept for a time, more of the nature of
evil may escape from them than of the nature of good. And, on the strength of
this, we shall hold that more evil may go off from plucked fruits; and so more
good may remain in animal food. So much on the subject of time. 46. As for
motion, and tossing, and rubbing, if these give the divine nature the
opportunity of escaping from these substances, many things of the same kind are
against you, which are improved by motion. In some grains the juice resembles
wine, and is excellent when moved about. Indeed, as must not be overlooked, this
kind of drink produces intoxication rapidly; and yet you never called the juice
of grain the poison of the princes of darkness. There is a preparation of water,
thickened with a little meal, which is the better of being shaken, and, strange
to say, is lighter in color when the light is gone. The pastry cook stirs honey
for a long time to give it this light color, and to make its sweetness milder
and less unwholesome: you must explain how this can come from the loss of good.
Again, if you prefer to test the presence of God by the agreeable effects on the
hearing, and not sight, or smell, or taste, harps get their strings and pipes
their bones from animals; and these become musical by being dried, and rubbed,
and twisted. So the pleasures of music, which you hold to have come from the
divine kingdom, are obtained from the refuse of dead animals, and that, too,
when they are dried by time, and lessened by rubbing, and stretched by twisting.
Such rough treatment, according to you, drives the divine substance from living
objects; even cooking them, you say, does this. Why then are boiled thistles not
unwholesome? Is it because God, or part of God, leaves them when they are
cooked? 47. Why mention all the particulars, when it is difficult to enumerate
them? Nor is it necessary; for every one knows how many things are sweeter and
more wholesome when cooked. This ought not to be, if, as you suppose, things
lose the good by being thus moved about. I do not suppose that you will find any
proof from your bodily senses that flesh is unclean, and defiles the souls of
those who eat it, because fruits, when plucked and shaken about in various ways,
become flesh; especially as you hold that vinegar, in its age and fermentation,
is cleaner than wine, and the mead you drink is nothing else than cooked wine,
which ought to be more impure than wine, if material things lose the divine
members by being moved about and cooked. But if not, you have no reason to think
that fruits, when plucked, kept, handled, cooked, and digested, are forsaken by
the good, and therefore supply most unclean matter for the formation of bodies.
48. But if it is not from their color and appearance, and smell and taste, that
you think the good to be in these things, what else can you bring forward? Do
you prove it from the strength and vigor which those things seem to lose when
they are separated from the earth and put to use? If this is your reason (though
its erroneousness is seen at once, from the fact that the strength of some
things is increased after their separation from the earth, as in the case
already mentioned of wine, which becomes stronger from age), -- if the strength,
then, is your reason, it would follow that the part of God is to be found in no
food more abundantly than in flesh. For athletes, who especially require vigor
and energy, are not in the habit of feeding on cabbage and fruit without animal
food.49. Is your reason for thinking the bodies of trees better than our bodies,
that flesh is nourished by trees and not trees by flesh. You forget the obvious
fact that plants, when manured with dung, become richer and more fertile and
crops heavier, though you think it your gravest charge against flesh that it is
the abode of dung. This then gives nourishment to things you consider clean,
though it is, according to you, the most unclean part of what you consider
unclean. But if you dislike flesh because it springs from sexual intercourse,
you should be pleased with the flesh of worms, which are bred in such numbers,
and of such a size, in fruits, in wood, and in the earth itself, without any
sexual intercourse. But there is some insincerity in this. For if you were
displeased with flesh because it is formed from the cohabitation of father and
mother, you would not say that those princes of darkness were born from the
fruits of their own trees; for no doubt you think worse of these princes than of
flesh, which you refuse to eat.50. Your idea that all the souls of animals come
from the food of their parents, from which confinement you pretend to liberate
the divine substance which is held bound in your viands, is quite inconsistent
with your abstinence from flesh, and makes it a pressing duty for you to eat
animal food. For if souls are bound in the body by those who eat animal food,
why do you not secure their liberation by being beforehand in eating the food?
You reply, it is not from the animal food that the good part comes which those
people bring into bondage, but from the vegetables which they take with their
meat. What will you say then of the souls of lions, who feed only on flesh? They
drink, is the reply, and so the soul is drawn in from the water and confined in
flesh. But what of birds without number? What of eagles, which eat only flesh,
and need no drink? Here you are at a loss, and can find no answer. For if the
soul comes from food, and there are animals which neither drink anything nor
have any food but flesh, and yet bring forth young, there must be some soul in
flesh; and you are bound to try your plan of purifying it by eating the flesh.
Or will you say that a pig has a soul of light, because it eats vegetables, and
drinks water; and that the eagle, because it eats only flesh, has a soul of
darkness, though it is so fond of the sun? [180]51. What a confusion of ideas!
What amazing fatuity! All this you would have escaped, if you had rejected idle
fictions, and had followed what truth sanctions in abstinence from food, which
would have taught you that sumptuous eating is to be avoided, not to escape
pollution, as there is nothing of the kind, but to subdue the sensual appetite.
For should any one, from inattention to the nature of things, and the properties
of the soul and body, allow that the soul is polluted by animal food, you will
admit that it is much much more defiled by sensuality. Is it reasonable, then,
or rather, is it not most unreasonable, to expel from the number of the elect a
man who, perhaps for his health's sake, takes some animal food without sensual
appetite; while, if a man eagerly devours peppered truffles, you can only
reprove him for excess, but cannot condemn him as abusing your symbol? So one
who has been induced, not by sensuality, but for health, to eat part of a fowl,
cannot remain among your elect; though one may remain who has yielded
voluntarily to an excessive appetite for comfits and cakes without animal
matter. You retain the man plunged in the defilements of sensuality, and dismiss
the man polluted, as you think, by the mere food; though you allow that the
defilement of sensuality is far greater than that of meat. You keep hold of one
who gloats with delight over highly-seasoned vegetables, unable to keep
possession of himself; while you shut out one who, to satisfy hunger, takes
whatever comes, if suitable for nourishment, ready either to use the food, or to
let it go. Admirable customs! Excellent morals! Notable temperance!52. Again,
the notion that it is unlawful for any one but the elect to touch as food what
is brought to your meals for what you call purification, leads to shameful and
sometimes to criminal practices. For sometimes so much is brought that it cannot
easily be eaten up by a few; and as it is considered sacrilege to give what is
left to others, or, at least, to throw it away, you are obliged to eat to
excess, from the desire to purify, as you call it, all that is given. Then, when
you are full almost to bursting, you cruelly use force in making the boys of
your sect eat the rest. So it was charged against some one at Rome that he
killed some poor children, by compelling them to eat for this superstitious
reason. This I should not believe, did I not know how sinful you consider it to
give this food to those who are not elect, or, at any rate, to throw it away. So
the only way is to eat it; and this leads every day to gluttony, and may
sometimes lead to murder. 53. For the same reason you forbid giving bread to
beggars. By way of showing compassion, or rather of avoiding reproach, you
advise to give money. The cruelty of this is equalled by its stupidity. For
suppose a place where food cannot be purchased: the beggar will die of
starvation, while you, in your wisdom and benevolence, have more mercy on a
cucumber than on a human being! This is in truth (for how could it be better
designated) pretended compassion, and real cruelty. Then observe the stupidity.
What if the beggar buys bread for himself with the money you give him? Will the
divine part, as you call it, not suffer the same in him when he buys the food as
it would have suffered if he had taken it as a gift from you? So this sinful
beggar plunges in corruption part of God eager to escape, and is aided in this
crime by your money! But you in your great sagacity think it enough that you do
not give to one about to commit murder a man to kill, though you knowingly give
him money to procure somebody to be killed. Can any madness go beyond this? The
result is, that either the man dies if he cannot get food for his money, or the
food itself dies if he gets it. The one is true murder; the other what you call
murder: though in both cases you incur the guilt of real murder. Again, there is
the greatest folly and absurdity in allowing your followers to eat animal food,
while you forbid them to kill animals. If this food does not defile, take it
yourselves. If it defiles, what can be more unreasonable than to think it more
sinful to separate the soul of a pig from its body than to defile the soul of a
man with the pig's flesh.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 71: CHAPTER 17. --DESCRIPTION OF THE SYMBOL OF THE HANDS AMONG THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

54. We must now notice and discuss the symbol of the hands. And, in the first
place, your abstaining from the slaughter of animals and from injuring plants is
shown by Christ to be mere superstition; for, on the ground that there is no
community of rights between us and brutes and trees, He both sent the devils
into an herd of swine, [181] and withered by His curse a tree in which He had
found no fruit. [182] The swine assuredly had not sinned, nor had the tree. We
are not so insane as to think that a tree is fruitful or barren by its own
choice. Nor is it any reply to say that our Lord wished in these actions to
teach some other truths; for every one knows that. But assuredly the Son of God
would not commit murder to illustrate truth, if you call the destruction of a
tree or of an animal murder. The signs which Christ wrought in the case of men,
with whom we certainly have a community of rights, were in healing, not in
killing them. And it would have been the same in the case of beasts and trees,
if we had that community with them which you imagine. 55. I think it right to
refer here to the authority of Scripture, because we cannot here enter on a
profound discussion about the soul of animals, or the kind of life in trees. But
as you preserve the right to call the Scriptures corrupted, in case you should
find them too strongly opposed to you, -- although you have never affirmed the
passages about the tree and the herd of swine to be spurious, -- still, lest
some day you should wish to say this of them too, when you find how much they
are against you, I will adhere to my plan, and will ask you, who are so liberal
in your promises of evidence and truth, to tell me first what harm is done to a
tree, I say not by plucking a leaf or an apple, -- for which, however, one of
you would be condemned at once as having abused the symbol, if he did it
intentionally, and not accidentally, -- but if you tear it up by the root. For
the soul in trees, which, according to you, is a rational soul, is, in your
theory, freed from bondage when the tree is cut down, -- a bondage, too, where
it suffered great misery and got no profit. For it is well known that you, in
the words of your founder, threaten as a great, though not the greatest
punishment, the change from a man to a tree; and it is not probable that the
soul in a tree can grow in wisdom as it does in a man. There is the best reason
for not killing a man, in case you should kill one whose wisdom or virtue might
be of use to many, or one who might have attained to wisdom, whether by the
advice of another without himself, or by divine illumination in his own mind.
And the more wisdom the soul has when it leaves the body, the more profitable is
its departure, as we know both from well-grounded reasoning and from wide-spread
belief. Thus to cut down a tree is to set free the soul from a body in which it
makes no progress in wisdom. You -- the holy men, I mean -- ought to be mainly
occupied in cutting down trees, and in leading the souls thus emancipated to
better things by prayers and psalms. Or can this be done only with the souls
which you take into your belly, instead of aiding them by your understanding?
56. And you cannot escape the admission that the souls in trees make no progress
in wisdom while they are there, when you are asked why no apostle was sent to
teach trees as well as men, or why the apostle sent to men did not preach the
truth to trees also. Your reply must be, that the souls while in such bodies
cannot understand the divine precepts. But this reply lands you in great
difficulties; for you declare that these souls can hear your voices and
understand what you say, and see bodies and their motions, and even discern
thoughts. If this is true, why could they learn nothing from the apostle of
light? Why could they not learn even much better than we, since they can see
into the mind? Your master, who, as you say, has difficulty in teaching you by
speech, might have taught these souls by thought; for they could see his ideas
in his mind before he expressed them. But if this is untrue, consider into what
errors you have fallen. 57. As for your not plucking fruits or pulling up
vegetables yourselves, while you get your followers to pluck and pull and bring
them to you, that you may confer benefits not only on those who bring the food
but on the food which is brought, what thoughtful person can bear to hear this?
For, first, it matters not whether you commit a crime yourself, or wish another
to commit it for you. You deny that you wish this! How then can relief be given
to the divine part contained in lettuce and leeks, unless some one pull them and
bring them to the saints to be purified. And again, if you were passing through
a field where the right of friendship permitted you to pluck anything you
wished, what would you do if you saw a crow on the point of eating a fig? Does
not, according to your ideas, the fig itself seem to address you and to beg of
you piteously to pluck it yourself and give it burial in a holy belly, where it
may be purified and restored, rather than that the crow should swallow it and
make it part of his cursed body, and then hand it over to bondage and torture in
other forms? If this is true, how cruel you are! If not, how silly! What can be
more contrary to your opinions than to break the symbol? What can be more unkind
to the member of God than to keep it? 58. This supposes the truth of your false
and vain ideas. But you can be shown guilty of plain and positive cruelty
flowing from the same error. For were any one lying on the road, his body wasted
with disease, weary with journeying, and half-dead from his sufferings, and able
only to utter some broken words, and if eating a pear would do him good as an
astringent, and were he to beg you to help him as you passed by, and were he to
implore you to bring the fruit from a neighboring tree, with no divine or human
prohibition to prevent your doing so, while the man is sure to die for the want
of it, you, a Christian man and a saint, will rather pass on and abandon a man
thus suffering and entreating, lest the tree should lament the loss of its
fruit, and you should be doomed to the punishment threatened by Manichæus for
breaking the symbol. Strange customs, and strange harmlessness! 59. Now, as
regards killing animals, and the reasons for your opinion, much that has been
said will apply also to this. For what harm will be done to the soul of a wolf
by killing the wolf, since the wolf, as long as it lives, will be a wolf, and
will not listen to any preacher, or give up, in the least, shedding the blood of
sheep; and, by killing it, the rational soul, as you think, will be set free
from its confinement in the body? But you make this slaughter unlawful even for
your followers; for you think it worse than that of trees. And in this there is
not much fault to be found with your senses, -- that is, your bodily senses. For
we see and hear by their cries that animals die with pain, although man
disregards this in a beast, with which, as not having a rational soul, we have
no community of rights. But as to your senses in the observation of trees, you
must be entirely blind. For not to mention that there are no movements in the
wood expressive of pain, what is clearer than that a tree is never better than
when it is green and flourishing, gay with flowers, and rich in fruit? And this
comes generally and chiefly from pruning. But if it felt the iron, as you
suppose, it ought to die of wounds so many, so severe, instead of sprouting at
the places, and reviving with such manifest delight. 60. But why do you think it
a greater crime to destroy animals than plants, although you hold that plants
have a purer soul than animals? There is a compensation, we are told, when part
of what is taken from the fields is given to the elect and the saints to be
purified. This has already been refuted; and it has, I think, been proved
sufficiently that there is no reason for saying that more of the good part is
found in vegetables than in flesh. But should any one support himself by selling
butcher-meat, and spend the whole profit of his business in purchasing food for
your elect, and bring larger supplies for those saints than any peasant or
farmer, will he not plead this compensation as a warrant for his killing
animals? But there is, we are told, some other mysterious reason; for a cunning
man can always find some resource in the secrets of nature when addressing
unlearned people. The story, then, is that the heavenly princes who were taken
from the race of darkness and bound, and have a place assigned them in this
region by the Creator of the world, have animals on the earth specially
belonging to them, each having those coming from his own stock and class; and
they hold the slaughterers of those animals guilty, and do not allow them to
leave the earth, but harass them as much as they can with pains and torments.
What simple man will not be frightened by this, and, seeing nothing in the
darkness shrouding these things, will not think that the fact is as described?
But I will hold to my purpose, with God's help, to rebut mysterious falsehood by
the plainest truth. 61. Tell me, then, if animals on land and in water come in
regular succession by ordinary generation from this race of princes, since the
origin of animal life is traced to the abortive births in that race; -- tell me,
I say, whether bees and frogs, and many other creatures not sprung from sexual
intercourse, [183] may be killed with impunity. We are told they cannot. So it
is not on account of their relation to certain princes that you forbid your
followers to kill animals. Or if you make a general relationship to all bodies,
the princes would be equally concerned about trees, which you do not require
your followers to spare. You are brought back to the weak reply, that the
injuries done in the case of plants are atoned for by the fruits which your
followers bring to your church. For this implies that those who slaughter
animals, and sell their flesh in the market, if they are your followers, and if
they bring to you vegetables bought with their gains, may think nothing of the
daily slaughter, and are cleared of any sin that may be in it by your repasts.
62. But if you say that, in order to expiate the slaughter, the thing must be
given as food, as in the case of fruits and vegetables, -- which cannot be done,
because the elect do not eat flesh, and so your followers must not slaughter
animals, -- what reply will you give in the case of thorns and weeds, which
farmers destroy in clearing their fields, while they cannot bring any food to
you from them? How can there be pardon for such destruction, which gives no
nourishment to the saints? Perhaps you also put away any sin committed, for the
benefit of the fruits and vegetables, by eating some of these. What then if the
fields are plundered by locusts, mice, or rats, as we see often happen? Can your
rustic follower kill these with impunity, because he sins for the good of his
crops? Here you are at a loss; for you either allow your followers to kill
animals, which your founder prohibited, or you forbid them to be cultivators,
which he made lawful. Indeed, you sometimes go so far as to say that an usurer
is more harmless than a cultivator, -- you feel so much more for melons than for
men. Rather than hurt the melons, you would have a man ruined as a debtor. Is
this desirable and praiseworthy justice, or not rather atrocious and damnable
error? Is this commendable compassion, or not rather detestable barbarity? 63.
What, again, of your not abstaining yourselves from the slaughter of lice, bugs,
and fleas? You think it a sufficient excuse for this to say that these are the
dirt of our bodies. But this is clearly untrue of fleas and bugs; for every one
knows that these animals do not come from our bodies. Besides, if you abhor
sexual intercourse as much as you pretend to do, you should think those animals
all the cleaner which come from our bodies without any other generation; for
although they produce offspring of their own, they are not produced in ordinary
generation from us. Again, if we must consider as most filthy the production of
living bodies, still worse must be the production of dead bodies. There must be
less harm, therefore, in killing a rat, a snake, or a scorpion, which you
constantly say come from our dead bodies. But to pass over what is less plain
and certain, it is a common opinion regarding bees that they come from the
carcases of oxen; so there is no harm in killing them. Or if this too is
doubted, every one allows that beetles, at least, are bred in the ball of mud
which they make and bury. [184] You ought therefore to consider these animals,
and others that it would be tedious to specify, more unclean than your lice; and
yet you think it sinful to kill them, though it would be foolish not to kill the
lice. Perhaps you hold the lice cheap because they are small. But if an animal
is to be valued by its size, you must prefer a camel to a man. 64. Here we may
use the gradation which often perplexed us when we were your followers. For if a
flea may be killed on account of its small size, so may the fly which is bred in
beans. And if this, so also may one of a little larger size, for its size at
birth is even less. Then again, a bee may be killed, for its young is no larger
than a fly. So on to the young of a locust, and to a locust; and then to the
young of a mouse, and to a mouse. And, to cut short, it is clear we may come at
last to an elephant; so that one who thinks it no sin to kill a flea, because of
its small size, must allow that it would be no sin in him to kill this huge
creature. But I think enough has been said of these absurdities.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 72: CHAPTER 18. --OF THE SYMBOL OF THE BREAST, AND OF THE SHAMEFUL MYSTERIES OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable
chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the
apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the
only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this,
and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve
perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers -- that is,
those in the second grade among you -- are allowed to have wives. After you have
said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold
that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin
than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as
possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to
conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be
entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the
procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as
the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation
of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin
than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a
mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify
his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no
marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In
this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from
this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit. 66.
Moreover, when you are so eager in your desire to prevent the soul from being
confined in flesh by conjugal intercourse, and so eager in asserting that the
soul is set free from seed by the food of the saints, do you not sanction,
unhappy beings, the suspicion entertained about you? For why should it be true
regarding corn and beans and lentils and other seeds, that when you eat them you
wish to set free the soul, and not true of the seeds of animals? For what you
say of the flesh of a dead animal, that it is unclean because there is no soul
in it, cannot be said of the seed of the animal; for you hold that it keeps
confined the soul which will appear in the offspring, and you avow that the soul
of Manichæus himself is thus confined. And as your followers cannot bring these
seeds to you for purification, who will not suspect that you make this
purification secretly among yourselves, and hide it from your followers, in case
they should leave you? [185] If you do not these things, as it is to be hoped
you do not, still you see how open to suspicion your superstition is, and how
impossible it is to blame men for thinking what your own profession suggests,
when you maintain that you set free souls from bodies and from senses by eating
and drinking. I wish to say no more about this: you see yourselves what room
there is here for denunciation. But as the matter is one rather to repress than
to invite remark, and also as throughout my discourse my purpose appears of
exaggerating nothing, and of keeping to bare facts and arguments, we shall pass
on to other matters.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 73: CHAPTER 19. --CRIMES OF THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

67. We see then, now, the nature of your three symbols. These are your customs.
This is the end of your notable precepts, in which there is nothing sure,
nothing steadfast, nothing consistent, nothing irreproachable, but all doubtful,
or rather undoubtedly and entirely false, all contradictory, abominable, absurd.
In a word, evil practices are detected in your customs so many and so serious,
that one wishing to denounce them all, if he were at all able to enlarge, would
require at least a separate treatise for each. Were you to observe these, and to
act up to your profession, no childishness, or folly, or absurdity would go
beyond yours; and when you praise and teach these things without doing them, you
display craft and deceit and malevolence equal to anything that can be described
or imagined. 68. During nine full years that I attended you with great
earnestness and assiduity, I could not hear of one of your elect who was not
found transgressing these precepts, or at least was not suspected of doing so.
Many were caught at wine and animal food, many at the baths; but this we only
heard by report. Some were proved to have seduced other men's wives, so that in
this case I could not doubt the truth of the charge. But suppose this, too, a
report rather than a fact. I myself saw, and not I only, but others who have
either escaped from that superstition, or will, I hope, yet escape, -- we saw, I
say, in a square in Carthage, on a road much frequented, not one, but more than
three of the elect walking behind us, and accosting some women with such
indecent sounds and gestures as to outdo the boldness and insolence of all
ordinary rascals. And it was clear that this was quite habitual, and that they
behaved in this way to one another, for no one was deterred by the presence of a
companion, showing that most of them, if not all, were affected with this evil
tendency. For they did not all come from one house, but lived in quite different
places, and quite accidentally left together the place where they had met. It
was a great shock to us, and we lodged a complaint about it. But who thought of
inflicting punishment, -- I say not by separation from the church, but even by
severe rebuke in proportion to the heinousness of the offence? 69. All the
excuse given for the impunity of those men was that, at that time, when their
meetings were forbidden by law, it was feared that the persons suffering
punishment might retaliate by giving information. What then of their assertion
that they will always have persecution in this world, for which they suppose
that they will be thought the more of? for this is the application they make of
the words about the world hating them. [186] And they will have it that truth
must be sought for among them, because, in the promise of the Holy Spirit, the
Paraclete, it is said that the world cannot receive Him. [187] This is not the
place to discuss this question. But clearly, if you are always to be persecuted,
even to the end of the world, there will be no end to this laxity, and to the
unchecked spread of all this immorality, from your fear of giving offence to men
of this character. 70. This answer was also given to us, when we reported to the
very highest authorities that a woman had complained to us that in a meeting,
where she was along with other women, not doubting of the sanctity of these
people, some of the elect came in, and when one of them had put out the lamp,
one, whom she could not distinguish, tried to embrace her, and would have forced
her into sin, had she not escaped by crying out. How common must we conclude the
practice to have been which led to the misdeed on this occasion! And this was
done on the night when you keep the feast of vigils. Forsooth, besides the fear
of information being given, no one could bring the offender before the bishop,
as he had so well guarded against being recognized. As if all who entered along
with him were not implicated in the crime; for in their indecent merriment they
all wished the lamp to be put out. 71. Then what wide doors were opened for
suspicions, when we saw them full of envy, full of covetousness, full of greed
for costly foods, constantly at strife, easily excited about trifles! We
concluded that they were not competent to abstain from the things they professed
to abstain from, if they found an opportunity in secret or in the dark. There
were two of sufficiently good character, of active minds, and leaders in their
debates, with whom we had a more particular and intimate acquaintance than with
the rest. One of them was much associated with us, because he was also engaged
in liberal studies; he is said to be now an elder there. These two were very
jealous of one another, and one accused the other -- not openly, but in
conversation, as he had opportunity, and in whispers -- of having made a
criminal assault on the wife of one of the followers. He again, in clearing
himself to us, brought the same charge against another of the elect, who lived
with this follower as his most trusted friend. He had, going in suddenly, caught
this man with the woman, and his enemy and rival had advised the woman and her
paramour to raise this false report about him, that he might not be believed if
he gave any information. We were much distressed, and took it greatly to heart,
that although there was a doubt about the assault on the woman, the jealous
feeling in those two men, than whom we found none better in the place, showed
itself so keenly, and inevitably raised a suspicion of other things. [188] 72.
Another thing was, that we very often saw in theatres men belonging to the
elect, men of years and, it was supposed, of character, along with a
hoary-headed elder. We pass over the youths, whom we used to come upon
quarrelling about the people connected with the stage and the races; from which
we may safely conclude how they would be able to refrain in secret, when they
could not subdue the passion by which they were exposed in the eyes of their
followers, bringing on them disgrace and flight. In the case of the saint, whose
discussions we attended in the street of the fig-sellers, would his atrocious
crime have been discovered if he had been able to make the dedicated virgin his
wife without making her pregnant? The swelling womb betrayed the secret and
unthought-of iniquity. When her brother, a young man, heard of it from his
mother, he felt keenly the injury, but refrained, from regard to religion, from
a public accusation. He succeeded in getting the man expelled from that church,
for such conduct cannot always be tolerated; and that the crime might not be
wholly unpunished, he arranged with some of his friends to have the man well
beaten and kicked. When he was thus assailed, he cried out that they should
spare him, from regard to the authority of the opinion of Manichæus, that Adam
the first hero had sinned, and was a greater saint after his sin. 73. This, in
fact, is your notion about Adam and Eve. [189] It is a long story; but I will
touch only on what concerns the present matter. You say that Adam was produced
from his parents, the abortive princes of darkness; that he had in his soul the
most part of light, and very little of the opposite race. So while he lived a
holy life, on account of the prevalence of good, still the opposite part in him
was stirred up, so that he was led away into conjugal intercourse. Thus he fell
and sinned, but afterwards lived in greater holiness. Now, my complaint is not
so much about this wicked man, who, under the garb of an elect and holy man,
brought such shame and reproach on a family of strangers by his shocking
immorality. I do not charge you with this. Let it be attributed to the abandoned
character of the man, and not to your habits. I blame the man for the atrocity,
and not you. Still there is this in you all that cannot, as far as I can see, be
admitted or tolerated, that while you hold the soul to be part of God, you still
maintain that the mixture of a little evil prevailed over the superior force and
quantity of good. Who that believes this, when incited by passion, will not find
here an excuse, instead of checking and controlling his passion?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 74: CHAPTER 20. --DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT DISCOVERED AT ROME. 
========================================================================

74. What more shall I say of your customs? I have mentioned what I found myself
when I was in the city when the things were done. To go through all that
happened at Rome in my absence would take a long time. I will, however, give a
short account of it; for the matter became so notorious, that even the absent
could not remain in ignorance of it. And when I was afterwards in Rome, I
ascertained the truth of all I had heard, although the story was told me by an
eye-witness whom I knew so well and esteemed so highly, that I could not feel
any doubt about it. One of your followers, then, quite equal to the elect in
their far-famed abstinence, for he was both liberally educated, and was in the
habit of defending your sect with great zeal, took it very ill that he had cast
in his teeth the vile conduct of the elect, who lived in all kinds of places,
and went hither and thither for lodging of the worst description. He therefore
desired, if possible, to assemble all who were willing to live according to the
precepts into his own house, and to maintain them at his own expense; for he was
above the average in carelessness as to spending money, besides being above the
average in the amount he had to spend. He complained that his efforts were
hindered by the remissness of the bishops, whose assistance he required for
success. At last one of your bishops was found, -- a man, as I know, very rude
and unpolished, but somehow, from his very moroseness, the more inclined to
strict observance of morality. The follower eagerly lays hold of this man as the
person he had long wished for and found at last, and relates his whole plan. He
approves and assents, and agrees to be the first to take up his abode in the
house. When this was done, all the elect who could be at Rome were assembled
there. The rule of life in the epistle of Manichæus was laid before them. Many
thought it intolerable, and left; not a few felt ashamed, and stayed. They began
to live as they had agreed, and as this high authority enjoined. The follower
all the time was zealously enforcing everything on everybody, though never, in
any case, what he did not undertake himself. Meanwhile quarrels constantly arose
among the elect. They charged one another with crimes, all which he lamented to
hear, and managed to make them unintentionally expose one another in their
altercations. The revelations were vile beyond description. Thus appeared the
true character of those who were unlike the rest in being willing to bend to the
yoke of the precepts. What then is to be suspected, or rather, concluded, of the
others? To come to a close, they gathered together on one occasion and
complained that they could not keep the regulations. Then came rebellion. The
follower stated his case most concisely, that either all must be kept, or the
man who had given such a sanction to such precepts, which no one could fulfill,
must be thought a great fool. But, as was inevitable, the wild clamor of the mob
prevailed over the opinion of one man. The bishop himself gave way at last, and
took to flight with great disgrace; and he was said to have got in provisions by
stealth, contrary to rule, which were often discovered. He had a supply of money
from his private purse, which he carefully kept concealed. 75. If you say these
things are false, you contradict what is too clear and public. But you may say
so if you like. For, as the things are certain, and easily known by those who
wish to know them, those who deny that they are true show what their habit of
telling the truth is. But you have other replies with which I do not find fault.
For you either say that some do keep your precepts, and that they should not be
mixed up with the guilty in condemning the others; or that the whole inquiry
into the character of the members of your sect is wrong, for the question is of
the character of the profession. Should I grant both of these (although you can
neither point out those faithful observers of the precepts, nor clear your
heresy of all those frivolities and iniquities), still I must insist on knowing
why you heap reproaches on Christians of the Catholic name on seeing the immoral
life of some, while you either have the effrontery to repel inquiry about your
members, or the still greater effrontery not to repel it, wishing it to be
understood that in your scanty membership there are some unknown individuals who
keep the precepts they profess, but that among the multitudes in the Catholic
Church there are none.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 75: ST. AUGUSTIN: ON TWO SOULS, AGAINST THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

[de duabus animabus contra manichæos]. A.D.391. translated by albert h. newman,
d.d., ll.d., professor of church history and comparative religion, in toronto
baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 76: CONCERNING TWO SOULS, AGAINST THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

[De Duabus Animabus Contra Manichæos.] a.d.391. [190] __________ One Book.
__________


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 77: CHAPTER 1. --BY WHAT COURSE OF REASONING THE ERROR OF THE MANICHÆANS CONCERNING TWO SOULS, ONE OF WHICH IS NOT FROM GOD, IS REFUTED. EVERY SOUL, INASMUCH AS IT IS A CERTAIN LIFE, CAN HAVE ITS EXISTENCE ONLY FROM GOD THE SOURCE OF LIFE. 
========================================================================

1. Through the assisting mercy of God, the snares of the Manichæans having been
broken to pieces and left behind, having been restored at length to the bosom of
the Catholic Church, I am disposed now at least to consider and to deplore my
recent wretchedness. For there were many things that I ought to have done to
prevent the seeds of the most true religion wholesomely implanted in me from
boyhood, from being banished from my mind, having been uprooted by the error and
fraud of false and deceitful men. For, in the first place, if I had soberly and
diligently considered, with prayerful and pious mind, those two kinds of souls
to which they attributed natures and properties so distinct that they wished one
to be regarded as of the very substance of God, but were not even willing that
God should be accepted as the author of the other; perhaps it would have
appeared to me, intent on learning, that there is no life whatsoever, which, by
the very fact of its being life and in so far as it is life at all, does not
pertain to the supreme source and beginning of life, [191] which we must
acknowledge to be nothing else than the supreme and only and true God. Wherefore
there is no reason why we should not confess, that those souls which the
Manichæans call evil are either devoid of life and so not souls, neither will
anything positively or negatively, neither follow after nor flee from anything;
or, if they live so that they can be souls, and act as the Manichæans suppose,
in no way do they live unless by life, and if it be an established fact, as it
is, that Christ has said: "I am the life," [192] that all souls seeing that they
cannot be souls except by living were created and fashioned by Christ, that is,
by the Life.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 78: CHAPTER 2. --IF THE LIGHT THAT IS PERCEIVED BY SENSE HAS GOD FOR ITS AUTHOR, AS THE MANICHÆANS ACKNOWLEDGE, MUCH MORE THE SOUL WHICH IS PERCEIVED BY INTELLECT ALONE. 
========================================================================

2. But if at that time [193] my thought was not able to bear and sustain the
question concerning life and partaking of life, which is truly a great question,
and one that requires much calm discussion among the learned, I might perchance
have had power to discover that which to every man considering himself, without
a study of the individual parts, is perfectly evident, namely, that everything
we are said to know and to understand, we comprehend either by bodily sense or
by mental operation. That the five bodily senses are commonly enumerated as
sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, than all of which intellect is immeasurably
more noble and excellent, who would have been so ungrateful and impious as not
to concede to me; which being established and confirmed, we should have seen how
it follows, that whatsoever things are perceived by touch or sight or in any
bodily manner at all, are by so much inferior to those things that we comprehend
intellectually as the senses are inferior to the intellect. Wherefore, since all
life, and so every soul, can be perceived by no bodily sense, but by the
intellect alone, whereas while yonder sun and moon and every luminary that is
beheld by these mortal eyes, the Manichæans themselves also say must be
attributed to the true and good God, it is the height of madness to claim that
that belongs to God which we observe bodily; but, on the other hand, to think
that what we receive not only by the mind, but by the highest form of mind,
[194] namely, reason and intellect, [195] that is life, whatsoever it may be
called, nevertheless life, should be deprived and bereft of the same God as its
author. For if having invoked God, I had asked myself what living is, how
inscrutable it is to every bodily sense, how absolutely incorporeal it is, could
not I have answered? Or would not the Manichæans also confess not only that the
souls they detest live, but that they live also immortally? and that Christ's
saying: "Send the dead to bury their dead," [196] was uttered not with reference
to those not living at all, but with reference to sinners, which is the only
death of the immortal soul; as when Paul writes: "The widow that giveth herself
to pleasure is dead while she liveth," [197] he says that she at the same time
is dead, and alive. Wherefore I should have directed attention not to the great
degree of contamination in which the sinful soul lives, but only to the fact
itself that it lives. But if I cannot perceive except by an act of intelligence,
I believe it would have come into the mind, that by as much as any mind whatever
is to be preferred to the light which we see through these eyes, by so much we
should give to intellect the preference over the eyes themselves.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 79: CHAPTER 3. --HOW IT IS PROVED THAT EVERY BODY ALSO IS FROM GOD. THAT THE SOUL WHICH IS CALLED EVIL BY THE MANICHÆANS IS BETTER THAN LIGHT. 
========================================================================

They also affirm that the light is from the Father of Christ: should I then have
doubted that every soul is from Him? But not even then, as a man forsooth so
inexperienced and so youthful as I was, should I have been in doubt as to the
derivation not only of the soul, but also of the body, nay of everything
whatsoever, from Him, if I had reverently and cautiously reflected on what form
is, or what has been formed, what shape is and what has been endued with shape.
3. But not to speak at present concerning the body, I lament concerning the
soul, concerning spontaneous and vivid movement, concerning action, concerning
life, concerning immortality; in fine, I lament that I, miserable, should have
believed that anything could have all these properties apart from the goodness
of God, which properties, great as they are, I sadly neglected to consider; this
I think, should be to me a matter of groaning and of weeping. I should have
inwardly pondered these things, I should have discussed them with myself, I
should have referred them to others, I should have propounded the inquiry, what
the power of knowing is, seeing there is nothing in man that we can compare to
this excellency? And as men, if only they had been men, would have granted me
this, I should have inquired whether seeing with these eyes is knowing? In case
they had answered negatively, I should first have concluded, that mental
intelligence is vastly inferior to ocular sensation; then I should have added,
that what we perceive by means of a better thing must needs be judged to be
itself better. Who would not grant this? I should have gone on to inquire,
whether that soul which they call evil is an object of ocular sensation or of
mental intelligence? They would have acknowledged that the latter is the case.
All which things having been agreed upon and confirmed between us, I should have
shown how it follows, that that soul forsooth which they execrate, is better
than that light which they venerate, since the former is an object of mental
knowledge, the latter an object of corporeal sense perception. But here perhaps
they would have halted, and would have refused to follow the lead of reason, so
great is the power of inveterate opinion and of falsehood long defended and
believed. But I should have pressed yet more upon them halting, not harshly, not
in puerile fashion, not obstinately; I should have repeated the things that had
been conceded, and have shown how they must be conceded. I should have exhorted
that they consult in common, that they may see clearly what must be denied to
us; whether they think it false that intellectual perception is to be preferred
to these carnal organs of sight, or that what is known by means of the
excellency of the mind is more excellent than what is known by vile corporeal
sensation; whether they would be unwilling to confess that those souls which
they think heterogenous, can be known only by intellectual perception, that is,
by the excellency itself of the mind; whether they would wish to deny that the
sun and the moon are made known to us only by means of these eyes. But if they
had replied that no one of these things could be denied otherwise than most
absurdly and most impudently, I should have urged that they ought not to doubt
but that the light whose worthiness of worship they proclaim, is viler than that
soul which they admonish men to flee.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 80: CHAPTER 4. --EVEN THE SOUL OF A FLY IS MORE EXCELLENT THAN THE LIGHT. 
========================================================================

4. And here, if perchance in their confusion they had inquired of me whether I
thought that the soul even of a fly [198] surpasses that light, I should have
replied, yes, nor should it have troubled me that the fly is little, but it
should have confirmed me that it is alive. For it is inquired, what causes those
members so diminutive to grow, what leads so minute a body here and there
according to its natural appetite, what moves its feet in numerical order when
it is running, what regulates and gives vibration to its wings when flying? This
thing whatever it is in so small a creature towers up so prominently to one well
considering, that it excels any lightning flashing upon the eyes.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 81: CHAPTER 5. --HOW VICIOUS SOULS, HOWEVER WORTHY OF CONDEMNATION THEY MAY BE, EXCEL THE LIGHT WHICH IS PRAISEWORTHY IN ITS KIND. 
========================================================================

Certainly nobody doubts that whatever is an object of intellectual perception,
by virtue of divine laws surpasses in excellence every sensible object and
consequently also this light. For what, I ask, do we perceive by thought, if not
that it is one thing to know with the mind, and another thing to experience
bodily sensations, and that the former is incomparably more sublime than the
latter, and so that intelligible things must needs be preferred to sensible
things, since the intellect itself is so highly exalted above the senses? 5.
Hence this also I should perchance have known, which manifestly follows, since
injustice and intemperance and other vices of the mind are not objects of sense,
but of intellect, how it comes about that these too which we detest and consider
condemnable, yet in as much as they are objects of intellect, can outrank this
light however praiseworthy it may be in its kind. For it is borne in upon the
mind subjecting itself well to God, that, first of all, not everything that we
praise is to be preferred to everything that we find fault with. For in praising
the purest lead, I do not therefore put a higher value upon it than upon the
gold that I find fault with. For everything must be considered in its kind. I
disapprove of a lawyer ignorant of many statutes, yet I so prefer him to the
most approved tailor, that I should think him incomparably superior. But I
praise the tailor because he is thoroughly skilled in his own craft, while I
rightly blame the lawyer because he imperfectly fulfills the functions of his
profession. Wherefore I should have found out that the light which in its own
kind is perfect, is rightly to be praised; yet because it is included in the
number of sensible things, which class must needs yield to the class of
intelligible things, it must be ranked below unjust and intemperate souls, since
these are intelligible; although we may without injustice judge these to be most
worthy of condemnation. For in the case of these we ask that they be reconciled
to God, not that they be preferred to that lightning. Wherefore, if any one had
contended that this luminary is from God, I should not have opposed; but rather
I should have said, that souls, even vicious ones, not in so far as they are
vicious, but in so far as they are souls, must be acknowledged to be creatures
of God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 82: CHAPTER 6. --WHETHER EVEN VICES THEMSELVES AS OBJECTS OF INTELLECTUAL APPREHENSION ARE TO BE PREFERRED TO LIGHT AS AN OBJECT OF SENSE PERCEPTION, AND ARE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO GOD AS THEIR AUTHOR.
========================================================================

At this point, in case some one of them, cautious and watchful, now also more
studious than pertinacious, had admonished me that the inquiry is not about
vicious souls but about vices themselves, which, seeing that they are not known
by corporeal sense, and yet are known, can only be received as objects of
intellectual apprehension, which if they excel all objects of sense, why can we
not agree in attributing light to God as its author, but only a sacrilegious
person would say that God is the author of vices; I should have replied to the
man, if either on the spur of the moment, as is customary to the worshippers of
the good God, a solution of this question had darted like lightning from on
high, or a solution had been previously prepared. If I had not deserved or was
unable to avail myself of either of these methods, I should have deferred the
undertaking, and should have confessed that the thing propounded was difficult
to discern and arduous. I should have withdrawn to myself, prostrated myself
before God, groaned aloud asking Him not to suffer me to halt in mid space, when
I should have moved forward with assured arguments, asking Him that I might not
be compelled by a doubtful question either to subordinate intelligible things to
sensible, and to yield, or to call Himself the author of vices; since either of
these alternatives would have been absolutely full of falsehood and impiety. I
can by no means suppose that He would have deserted me in such a frame of mind.
Rather, in His own ineffable way, He would have admonished me to consider again
and again whether vices of mind concerning which I was so troubled should be
reckoned among intelligible things. But that I might find out, on account of the
weakness of my inner eye, which rightly befell me on account of my sins, I
should have devised some sort of stage for gazing upon spiritual things in
visible things themselves, of which we have by no means a surer knowledge, but a
more confident familiarity. Therefore I should straightway have inquired, what
properly pertains to the sensation of the eyes. I should have found that it is
the color, the dominion of which the light holds. For these are the things that
no other sense touches, for the motions and magnitudes and intervals and figures
of bodies, although they also can be perceived by the eyes, yet to perceive such
is not their peculiar function, but belongs also to touch. Whence I should have
gathered that by as much as yonder light excels other corporeal and sensible
things, by so much is sight more noble than the other senses. The light
therefore having been selected from all the things that are perceived by bodily
sense, by this [light] I should have striven, and in this of necessity I should
have placed that stage of my inquiry. I should have gone on to consider what
might be done in this way, and thus I should have reasoned with myself: If
yonder sun, conspicuous by its brightness and sufficing for day by its light,
should little by little decline in our sight into the likeness of the moon,
would we perceive anything else with our eyes than light however refulgent, yet
seeking light by reason of not seeing what had been, and using it for seeing
what was present? Therefore we should not see the decline, but the light that
should survive the decline. But since we should not see, we should not perceive;
for whatever we perceive by sight must necessarily be seen; wherefore if that
decline were perceived neither by sight nor by any other sense, it cannot be
reckoned among objects of sense. For nothing is an object of sense that cannot
be perceived by sense. Let us apply now the consideration to virtue, by whose
intellectual light we most fittingly say the mind shines. Again, a certain
decline from this light of virtue, not destroying the soul, but obscuring it, is
called vice. Therefore also vice can by no means be reckoned among objects of
intellectual perception, as that decline of light is rightly excluded from the
number of objects of sense perception. Yet what remains of soul, that is that
which lives and is soul is just as much an object of intellectual perception as
that is an object of sense perception which should shine in this visible
luminary after any imaginable degree of decline. And so the soul, in so far as
it is soul and partakes of life, without which it can in no way be soul, is most
correctly to be preferred to all objects of sense perception. Wherefore it is
most erroneous to say that any soul is not from God, from whom you boast that
the sun and moon have their existence. 7. But if now it should be thought fit to
designate as objects of sense perception not only all those things that we
perceive by the senses, but also all those things that though not perceiving by
the senses we judge of by means of the body, as of darkness through the eyes, of
silence through the ears, -- for not by seeing darkness and not by hearing
silence do we know of their existence, -- and again, in the case of objects of
intellectual perception, not those things only which we see illuminated by the
mind, as is wisdom itself, but also those things which by the illumination
itself we avoid, such as foolishness, which I might fittingly designate mental
darkness; I should have made no controversy about a word, but should have
dissolved the whole question by an easy division, and straightway I should have
proved to those giving good attention, that by the divine law of truth
intelligible subsistences are to be preferred to sensible subsistences, not the
decline of these subsistences, even though we should choose to call these
intelligible, those sensible. Wherefore, that those who acknowledge that these
visible luminaries and those intelligible souls are subsistences, are in every
way compelled to grant and to attribute the sublimer part to souls; but that
defects of either kind cannot be preferred the one to the other, for they are
only privative and indicate nonexistence, and therefore have precisely the same
force as negations themselves. For when we say, It is not gold, and, It is not
virtue, although there is the greatest possible difference between gold and
virtue, yet there is no difference between the negations that we adjoin to them.
But that it is worse indeed not to be virtue than not to be gold, no sane man
doubts. Who does not know that the difference lies not in the negations
themselves, but in the things to which they are adjoined? For by as much as
virtue is more excellent than gold, by so much is it more wretched to be in want
of virtue than of gold. Wherefore, since intelligible things excel sensible
things, we rightly feel greater repugnance towards defect in intelligible than
in sensible things, esteeming not the defects, but the things that are deficient
more or less precious. From which now it appears, that defect of light, which is
intelligible, is far more wretched than defect of the sensible light, because,
forsooth, life which is known is by far more precious than yonder light which is
seen. 8. This being the case, who will dare, while attributing sun and moon, and
whatever is refulgent in the stars, nay in this fire of ours and in this visible
earthly life, to God, to decline to grant that any souls whatsoever, which are
not souls except by the fact of their being perfectly alive, since in this fact
alone life has the precedence of light, are from God. And since he speaks truth
who says, In as far as a thing shines it is from God, would I speak falsely,
mighty God, if I should say, In so far as a thing lives it is from God? Let not,
I beseech thee, blindness of intellect and perversions of mind be increased to
such an extent that men may fail to know these things. But however great their
error and pertinacity might have been, trusting in these arguments and armed
therewith, I believe that when I should have laid the matter before them thus
considered and canvassed, and should have calmly conferred with them, I should
have feared lest any one of them should have seemed to me to be of any
consequence, should he endeavor to subordinate or even to compare to bodily
sense, or to those things that pertain to bodily sense as objects of knowledge,
either intellect or those things that are perceived (not by way of defect) by
the intellect. Which point having been settled, how would he or any other have
dared to deny that such souls as he would consider evil, yet since they are
souls, are to be reckoned in the number of intelligible things, nor are objects
of intellectual perception by way of defect? This is on the supposition that
souls are souls only by being alive. For if they were intellectually perceived
as vicious through defect, being vicious by lack of virtue, yet they are
perceived as souls not through defect, for they are souls by reason of being
alive. Nor can it be maintained that presence of life is a cause of defect, for
by as much as anything is defective, by so much is it severed from life. 9.
Since therefore it would have been every way evident that no souls can be
separated from that Author from whom yonder light is not separated, whatever
they might have now adduced I should not have accepted, and should rather have
admonished them that they should choose with me to follow those who maintain
that whatever is, since it is, and in whatever degree it is, has its existence
from the one God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 83: CHAPTER 7. --HOW EVIL MEN ARE OF GOD, AND NOT OF GOD. 
========================================================================

They might have cited against me those words of the gospel: "Ye therefore do not
hear, because ye are not of God;" "Ye are of your father the devil." [199] I
also should have cited: "All things were made by Him and without Him was not
anything made," [200] and this of the Apostle: "One God of whom are all things,
and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things," [201] and again from the
same Apostle: "Of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are
all things, to Him be glory." [202] I should have exhorted those men (if indeed
I had found them men), that we should presume upon nothing as if we had found it
out, but should rather inquire of the masters who would demonstrate the
agreement and harmony of those passages that seem to be discordant. For when in
one and the same Scriptural authority we read: "All things are of God," [203]
and elsewhere: "Ye are not of God," since it is wrong rashly to condemn books of
Scripture, who would not have seen that a skilled teacher should be found who
would know a solution of this problem, from whom assuredly if endowed with good
intellectual powers, and a "spiritual man," as is said by divine inspiration
[204] (for he would necessarily have favored the true arguments concerning the
intelligible and sensible nature, which, as far as I can, I have conducted and
handled, nay he would have disclosed them far better and more convincingly); we
should have heard nothing else concerning this problem, except, as might happen,
that there is no class of souls but has its existence from God, and that it is
yet rightly said to sinners and unbelievers: "Ye are not of God." For we also,
perchance, Divine aid having been implored, should have been able easily to see,
that it is one thing to live and another to sin, and (although life in sin may
be called death in comparison with just life, [205] and while in one man it may
be found, that he is at the same time alive and a sinner) that so far as he is
alive, he is of God, so far as he is a sinner he is not of God. In which
division we use that alternative that suits our sentiment; so that when we wish
to insist upon the omnipotence of God as Creator, we may say even to sinners
that they are of God. For we are speaking to those who are contained in some
class, we are speaking to those having animal life, we are speaking to rational
beings, we are speaking lastly -- and this applies especially to the matter in
hand -- to living beings, all which things are essentially divine functions. But
when our purpose is to convict evil men, we rightly say: "Ye are not of God."
For we speak to them as averse to truth, unbelieving, criminal, infamous, and,
to sum up all in one term -- sinners, all of which things are undoubtedly not of
God. Therefore what wonder is it, if Christ says to sinners, convicting them of
this very thing that they were sinners and did not believe in Him: "Ye are not
of God;" and on the other hand, without prejudice to the former statement: "All
things were made through Him," and "All things are of God?" For if not to
believe Christ, to repudiate Christ's advent, not to accept Christ, was a sure
mark of souls that are not of God; and so it was said: "Ye therefore hear not,
because ye are not of God;" how would that saying of the apostle be true that
occurs in the memorable beginning of the gospel: "He came unto his own things,
and his own people did not receive him?" [206] Whence his own if they did not
receive him; or whence therefore not his own because they did not receive him,
unless that sinners by virtue of being men belong to God, but by virtue of being
sinners belong to the devil? He who says: "His own people received him not" had
reference to nature; but he who says: "Ye are not of God." had reference to
will; for the evangelist was commending the works of God, Christ was censuring
the sins of men.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 84: CHAPTER 8. --THE MANICHÆANS INQUIRE WHENCE IS EVIL AND BY THIS QUESTION THINK THEY HAVE TRIUMPHED. LET THEM FIRST KNOW, WHICH IS MOST EASY TO DO, THAT NOTHING CAN LIVE WITHOUT GOD. CONSUMMATE EVIL CANNOT BE KNOWN EXCEPT BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF CONSUMMAT
========================================================================

Here perchance some one may say: Whence are sins themselves, and whence is evil
in general? If from man, whence is man? if from an angel, whence is the angel?
When it is said, however truly and rightly, that these are from God, it
nevertheless seems to those unskillful and possessed of little power to look
into recondite matters, that evils and sins are thereby connected, as by a sort
of chain, to God. By this question they think themselves triumphant, as if
forsooth to ask were to know; -- would it were so, for in that case no one would
be more knowing than myself. Yet very often in controversy the propounder of a
great question, while impersonating the great teacher, is himself more ignorant
in the matter concerning which he would frighten his opponent, than he whom he
would frighten. These therefore suppose that they are superior to the common
run, because the former ask questions that the latter cannot answer. If
therefore when I most unfortunately was associated with them, not in the
position in which I have now for some time been, they had raised these
objections when I had brought forward this argument, I should have said: I ask
that you meanwhile agree with me, which is most easy, that if nothing can shine
without God, much less can anything live without God. Let us not persist in such
monstrous opinions as to maintain that any souls whatsoever have life apart from
God. For perchance it may so happen that with me you are ignorant as to this
thing, namely whence is evil, let us then learn either simultaneously or in any
order, I care not what. For what if knowledge of the perfection of evil is
impossible to man without knowledge of the perfection of good? For we should not
know darkness if we were always in darkness. But the notion of light does not
allow its opposite to be unknown. But the highest good is that than which there
is nothing higher. But God is good and than Him nothing can be higher. God
therefore is the highest good. Let us therefore together so recognize God, and
thus what we seek too hastily will not be hidden from us. Do you suppose then
that the knowledge of God is a matter of small account or desert. For what other
reward is there for us than life eternal, which is to know God? For God the
Master says: "But this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only and
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." [207] For the soul, although it
is immortal, yet because aversion from the knowledge of God is rightly called
its death, when it is converted to God, the reward of eternal life to be
attained is that knowledge; so that this is, as has been said, eternal life. But
no one can be converted to God, except he turn himself away from this world.
This for myself I feel to be arduous and exceedingly difficult, whether it is
easy to you, God Himself would have seen. I should have been inclined to think
it easy to you, had I not been moved by the fact, that, since the world from
which we are commanded to turn away is visible, and the apostle says: "The
things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are unseen are eternal,"
[208] you ascribe more importance to the judgment of these eyes than to that of
the mind, asserting and believing as you do that there is no shining feather
that does not shine from God; and that there are living souls that do not live
from God. These and like things I should either have said to them or considered
with myself, for even then, supplicating God with all my bowels, so to speak,
and examining as attentively as possible the Scriptures, I should perchance have
been able either to say such things or to think them, so far as was necessary
for my salvation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 85: CHAPTER 9. --AUGUSTIN DECEIVED BY FAMILIARITY WITH THE MANICHÆANS, AND BY THE SUCCESSION OF VICTORIES OVER IGNORANT CHRISTIANS REPORTED BY THEM. THE MANICHÆANS ARE LIKEWISE EASILY REFUTED FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN AND THE WILL. 
========================================================================

But two things especially, which easily lay hold upon that unwary age, urged me
through wonderful circuits. One of these was familiarity, suddenly, by a certain
false semblance of goodness, wrapped many times around my neck as a certain
sinuous chain. The other was, that I was almost always noxiously victorious in
arguing with ignorant Christians who yet eagerly attempted, each as he could, to
defend their faith. [209] By which frequent success the ardor of youth was
kindled, and by its own impulse rashly verged upon the great evil of
stubbornness. For this kind of wrangling, after I had become an auditor among
them, whatever I was able to do either by my own genius, such as it was, or by
reading the works of others, I most gladly devoted to them alone. Accordingly
from their speeches ardor in disputations was daily increased, from success in
disputations love for them [the Manichæans]. Whence it resulted that whatever
they said, as if affected by certain strange disorders, I approved of as true,
not because I knew it to be true, but because I wished it to be. So it came
about that, however slowly and cautiously, yet for a long time I followed men
that preferred a sleek straw to a living soul. 12. So be it, I was not able at
that time to distinguish and discern sensible from intelligible things, carnal
forsooth from spiritual. It did not belong to age, nor to discipline, nor even
to any habit, nor, finally, to any deserts; for it is a matter of no small joy
and felicitation: had I not thus been able at length even to grasp that which in
the judgment of all men nature itself by the laws of the most High God has
established?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 86: CHAPTER 10. --SIN IS ONLY FROM THE WILL. HIS OWN LIFE AND WILL BEST KNOWN TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. WHAT WILL IS. 
========================================================================

For let any men whatever, if only no madness has broken them loose from the
common sense of the human race, bring whatever zeal they like for judging,
whatever ignorance, nay whatever slowness of mind, I should like to find out
what they would have replied to me had I asked, whether a man would seem to them
to have sinned by whose hand while he was asleep another should have written
something disgraceful? Who doubts that they would have denied that it is a sin,
and have exclaimed against it so vehemently that they might perchance have been
enraged that I should have thought them proper objects of such a question? Of
whom reconciled and restored to equanimity, as best I could do it, I should have
begged that they would not take it amiss if I asked them another thing just as
manifest, just as completely within the knowledge of all. Then I should have
asked, if some stronger person had done some evil thing by the hand of one not
sleeping but conscious, yet with the rest of his members bound and in
constraint, whether because he knew it, though absolutely unwilling, he should
be held guilty of any sin? And here all marvelling that I should ask such
questions, would reply without hesitation, that he had absolutely not sinned at
all. Why so? Because whoever has done anything evil by means of one unconscious
or unable to resist, the latter can by no means be justly condemned. And
precisely why this is so, if I should inquire of the human nature in these men,
I should easily bring out the desired answer, by asking in this manner: Suppose
that the sleeper already knew what the other would do with his hand, and of
purpose aforethought, having drunk so much as would prevent his being awakened,
should go to sleep, in order to deceive some one with an oath. Would any amount
of sleep suffice to prove his innocence? What else than a guilty man would one
pronounce him? But if he has also willingly been bound that he may deceive some
one by this pretext, in what respect then would those chains profit as a means
of relieving him of sin? Although bound by these he was really not able to
resist, as in the other case the sleeper was absolutely ignorant of what he was
then doing. Is there therefore any possibility of doubting that both should be
judged to have sinned? Which things having been conceded, I should have argued,
that sin is indeed nowhere but in the will, [210] since this consideration also
would have helped me, that justice holds guilty those sinning by evil will
alone, although they may have been unable to accomplish what they willed. 13.
For who could have said that, in adducing these considerations, I was dwelling
upon obscure and recondite things, where on account of the fewness of those able
to understand, either fraud or suspicion of ostentation is accustomed to arise?
Let that distinction between intelligible and sensible things withdraw for a
little: let me not be found fault with for following up slow minds with the
stimuli of subtle disputations. Permit me to know that I live, permit me to know
that I will to live. If in this the human race agrees, as our life is known to
us, so also is our will. Nor when we become possessed of this knowledge, is
there any occasion to fear lest any one should convince us that we may be
deceived; for no one can be deceived as to whether he does not live, or wishes
nothing. I do not think that I have adduced anything obscure, and my concern is
rather lest some should find fault with me for dwelling on things that are too
manifest. But let us consider the bearing of these things. 14. Sinning therefore
takes place only by exercise of will. But our will is very well known to us; for
neither should I know that I will, if I did not know what will itself is.
Accordingly, it is thus defined: will is a movement of mind, no one compelling,
either for not losing or for obtaining something. [211] Why therefore could not
I have so defined it then? Was it difficult to see that one unwilling is
contrary to one willing, just as the left hand is contrary to the right, not as
black to white? For the same thing cannot be at the same time black and white.
But whoever is placed between two men is on the left hand with reference to one,
on the right with reference to the other. One man is both on the right hand and
on the left hand at the same time, but by no means both to the one man. So
indeed one mind may be at the same time unwilling and willing, but it cannot be
at the same time unwilling and willing with reference to one and the same thing.
For when any one unwillingly does anything; if you ask him whether he wished to
do it, he says that he did not. Likewise if you ask whether he wished not to do
it, he replies that he did. So you will find him unwilling with reference to
doing, willing with reference to not doing, that is to say, one mind at the same
time having both attitudes, but each referring to different things. Why do I say
this? Because if we should again ask wherefore though unwilling he does this, he
will say that he is compelled. For every one also who does a thing unwillingly
is compelled, and every one who is compelled, if he does a thing, does it only
unwillingly. It follows that he that is willing is free from compulsion, even if
any one thinks himself compelled. And in this manner every one who willingly
does a thing is not compelled, and whoever is not compelled, either does it
willingly or not at all. Since nature itself proclaims these things in all men
whom we can interrogate without absurdity, from the boy even to the old man,
from literary sport even to the throne of the wise, why then should I not have
seen that in the definition of will should be put, "no one compelling," which
now as if with greater experience most cautiously I have done. But if this is
everywhere manifest, and promptly occurs to all not by instruction but by
nature, what is there left that seems obscure, unless perchance it be concealed
from some one, that when we wish for something, we will, and our mind is moved
towards it, and we either have it or do not have it, and if we have it we will
to retain it, if we have it not, to acquire it? Wherefore everyone who wills,
wills either not to lose something or to obtain it. Hence if all these things
are clearer than day, as they are, nor are they given to my conception alone,
but by the liberality of truth itself to the whole human race, why could I not
have said even at that time: Will is a movement of the mind, no one compelling,
either for not losing or for obtaining something?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 87: CHAPTER 11. --WHAT SIN IS. 
========================================================================

Some one will say: What assistance would this have furnished you against the
Manichæans? Wait a moment; permit me first also to define sin, which, every mind
reads divinely written in itself, cannot exist apart from will. Sin therefore is
the will to retain and follow after what justice forbids, and from which it is
free to abstain. [212] Although if it be not free, it is not will. But I have
preferred to define more roughly than precisely. Should I not also have
carefully examined those obscure books, whence I might have learned that no one
is worthy of blame or punishment who either wills what justice does not prohibit
him from willing, or does not do what he is not able to do? Do not shepherds on
mountains, poets in theatres, unlearned in social intercourse, learned in
libraries, masters in schools, priests in consecrated places, and the human race
throughout the whole world, sing out these things? But if no one is worthy of
blame and condemnation, who either does not act against the prohibition of
justice, or who does not do what he cannot do, yet every sin is blameworthy and
condemnable, who doubts then that it is sin, when willing is unjust, and not
willing is free. And hence that definition is both true and easy to understand,
and not only now but then also could have been spoken by me: Sin is the will of
retaining or of obtaining, what justice forbids, and whence it is free to
abstain?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 88: CHAPTER 12. --FROM THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN OF SIN AND WILL, HE OVERTHROWS THE ENTIRE HERESY OF THE MANICHÆANS. LIKEWISE FROM THE JUST CONDEMNATION OF EVIL SOULS IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE EVIL NOT BY NATURE BUT BY WILL.
========================================================================

16. Come now, let us see in what respect these things would have aided us. Much
every way, so that I should have desired nothing more; for they end the whole
cause; for whoever consulting in the inner mind, where they are more pronounced
and assured, the secrets of his own conscience, and the divine laws absolutely
imposed upon nature, grants that these two definitions of will and sin are true,
condemns without any hesitation by the fewest and the briefest, but plainly the
most invincible reasons, the whole heresy of the Manichæans. Which can be thus
considered. They say that there are two kinds of souls, the one good, which is
in such a way from God, that it is said not to have been made by Him out of any
material or out of nothing, but to have proceeded as a certain part from the
very substance itself of God; the other evil, which they believe and strive to
get others to believe pertains to God in no way whatever; and so they maintain
that the one is the perfection of good, but the other the perfection of evil,
and that these two classes were at one time distinct but are now commingled. The
character and the cause of this commingling I had not yet heard; but
nevertheless I could have inquired whether that evil kind of souls, before it
was mingled with the good, had any will. For if not, it was without sin and
innocent, and so by no means evil. [213] But if evil in such a way, that though
without will, as fire, yet if it should touch the good it would violate and
corrupt it; how impious it is to believe that the nature of evil is powerful
enough to change any part of God, and that the Highest Good is corruptible and
violable! But if the will was present, assuredly there was present, no one
compelling, a movement of the mind either towards not losing something or
obtaining something. But this something was either good, or was thought to be
good, for not otherwise could it be earnestly desired. But in supreme evil,
before the commingling which they maintain, there never was any good. Whence
then could there be in it either the knowledge or the thought of good? Did they
wish for nothing that was in themselves, and earnestly desire that true good
which was without? That will must truly be declared worthy of distinguished and
great praise by which is earnestly desired the supreme and true good. Whence
then in supreme evil was this movement of mind most worthy of so great praise?
Did they seek it for the sake of injuring it? In the first place, the argument
comes to the same thing. For he who wishes to injure, wishes to deprive another
of some good for the sake of some good of his own. There was therefore in them
either a knowledge of good or an opinion of good, which ought by no means to
belong to supreme evil. In the second place, whence had they known, that good
placed outside of themselves, which they designed to injure, existed at all. If
they had intellectually perceived it, what is more excellent than such a mind?
Is there anything else for which the whole energy of good men is put forth
except the knowledge of that supreme and sincere good? What therefore is now
scarcely conceded to a few good and just men, was mere evil, no good assisting,
then able to accomplish? But if those souls bore bodies and saw the supreme good
with their eyes, what tongues, what hearts, what intellects suffice for lauding
and proclaiming those eyes, with which the minds of just men can scarcely be
compared? How great good things we find in supreme evil! For if to see God is
evil, God is not a good; but God is a good; therefore to see God is good; and I
know not what can be compared to this good. Since to see anything is good,
whence can it be made out that to be able to see is evil? Therefore whatever in
those eyes or in those minds brought it about, that the divine essence could be
seen by them, brought about a great thing and a good thing most worthy of
ineffable praise. But if it was not brought about, but it was such in itself and
eternal, it is difficult to find anything better than this evil. 17. Lastly,
that these souls may have nothing of these praiseworthy things which by the
reasonings of the Manichæans they are compelled to have, I should have asked,
whether God condemns any or no souls. If none, there is no judgment of rewards
and punishments, no providence, and the world is administered by chance rather
than by reason, or rather is not administered at all. For the name
administration must not be given to chances. But if it is impious for all those
that are bound by any religion to believe this, it remains either that there is
condemnation of some souls, or that there are no sins. But if there are no sins,
neither is there any evil. Which if the Manichæans should say, they would slay
their heresy with a single blow. Therefore they and I agree that some souls are
condemned by divine law and judgment. But if these souls are good, what is that
justice? If evil, are they so by nature, or by will? But by nature souls can in
no way be evil. Whence do we teach this. From the above definitions of will and
sin. For to speak of souls, and that they are evil, and that they do not sin, is
full of madness; but to say that they sin without will, is great craziness, and
to hold any one guilty of sin for not doing what he could not do, belongs to the
height of iniquity and insanity. Wherefore whatever these souls do, if they do
it by nature not by will, that is, if they are wanting in a movement of mind
free both for doing and not doing, if finally no power of abstaining from their
work is conceded to them; we cannot hold that the sin is theirs. [214] But all
confess both that evil souls are justly, and souls that have not sinned are
unjustly condemned; therefore they confess that those souls are evil that sin.
But these, as reason teaches, do not sin. Therefore the extraneous class of evil
souls of the Manichæans, whatever it may be, is a non-entity. 18. Let us now
look at that good class of souls, which again they exalt to such a degree as to
say that it is the very substance of God. But how much better it is that each
one should recognize his own rank and merit, nor be so puffed up with
sacrilegious pride as to believe that as often as he experiences a change in
himself it is the substance of that supreme good, which devout reason holds and
teaches to be unchangeable! For behold! since it is manifest that souls do not
sin in not being such as they cannot be; it follows that these supposititious
souls, whatever they may be, do not sin at all, and moreover that they are
absolutely non-existent; it remains that since there are sins, they find none to
whom to attribute them except the good class of souls and the substance of God.
But especially are they pressed by Christian authority; for never have they
denied that forgiveness of sins is granted when any one has been converted to
God; never have they said (as they have said of many other passages) that some
corrupter has interpolated this into the divine Scriptures. To whom then are
sins attributed? If to those evil souls of the alien class, these also can
become good, can possess the kingdom of God with Christ. Which denying, they
[the Manichæans] have no other class except those souls which they maintain are
of the substance of God. It remains that they acknowledge that not only these
latter also, but these alone sin. But I make no contention about their being
alone in sinning; yet they sin. But are they compelled to sin by being
commingled with evil? If so compelled that there was no power of resisting, they
do not sin. If it is in their power to resist, and they voluntarily consent, we
are compelled to find out through their [the Manichæan] teaching, why so great
good things in supreme evil, why this evil in supreme good, unless it be that
neither is that which they bring into suspicion evil, nor is that which they
pervert by superstition supreme good?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 89: CHAPTER 13. --FROM DELIBERATION ON THE EVIL AND ON THE GOOD PART IT RESULTS THAT TWO CLASSES OF SOULS ARE NOT TO BE HELD TO.
========================================================================

19. But if I had taught, or at any rate had myself learned, that they rave and
err regarding those two classes of souls, why should I have thenceforth thought
them worthy of being heard or consulted about anything? That I might learn
hence, that these two kinds of souls are pointed out, which in the course of
deliberation assent puts now on the evil side, now on the good? Why is not this
rather the sign of one soul which by free will can be borne here and there,
swayed hither and thither? For it was my own experience to feel that I am one,
considering evil and good and choosing one or the other, but for the most part
the one pleases, the other is fitting, placed in the midst of which we
fluctuate. Nor is it to be wondered at, for we are now so constituted that
through the flesh we can be affected by sensual pleasure, and through the spirit
by honorable considerations. Am I not therefore compelled to acknowledge two
souls? Nay, we can better and with far less difficulty recognize two classes of
good things, of which neither is alien from God as its author, one soul acted
upon from diverse directions, the lower and the higher, or to speak more
correctly, the external and the internal. These are the two classes which a
little while ago we considered under the names sensible and intelligible, which
we now prefer to call more familiarly carnal and spiritual. But it has been made
difficult for us to abstain from carnal things, since our truest bread is
spiritual. For with great labor we now eat this bread. For neither without
punishment for the sin of transgression have we been changed from immortal into
mortal. So it happens, that when we strive after better things, habit formed by
connection with the flesh and our sins in some way begin to militate against us
and to put obstacles in our way, some foolish persons with most obtuse
superstition suspect that there is another kind of souls which is not of God.
20. However even if it be conceded to them that we are enticed to shameful deeds
by another inferior kind of souls, they do not thence make it evident that those
enticing are evil by nature, or those enticed, supremely good. For it may be,
the former of their own will, by striving after what was not lawful, that is, by
sinning, from being good have become evil; and again they may be made good, but
in such manner that for a long time they remain in sin, and by a certain occult
suasion traduce to themselves other souls. Then, they may not be absolutely
evil, but in their own kind, however inferior, they may exercise their own
functions without any sin. But those superior souls to whom justice, the
directress of things, has assigned a far more excellent activity, if they should
wish to follow and to imitate those inferior ones, become evil, not because they
imitate evil souls, but because they imitate in an evil way. By the evil souls
is done what is proper to them, by the good what is alien to them is striven
after. Hence the former remain in their own grade, the latter are plunged into a
lower. It is as when men copy after beasts. For the four-footed horse walks
beautifully, but if a man on all fours should imitate him, who would think him
worthy even of chaff for food? Rightly therefore we generally disapprove of one
who imitates, while we approve of him whom he imitates. But we disapprove not
because he has not succeeded, but for wishing to succeed at all. For in the
horse we approve of that to which by as much as we prefer man, by so much are we
offended that he copies after inferior creatures. So among men, however well the
crier may do in sending forth his voice, would not the senator be insane, if he
should do it even more clearly and better than the crier? Take an illustration
from the heavenly bodies: The moon when shining is praised, and by its course
and its changes is quite pleasing to those that pay attention to such things.
But if the sun should wish to imitate it (for we may feign that it has desires
of this sort [215] ), who would not be greatly and rightly displeased. From
which illustrations I wish it to be understood, that even if there are souls
(which meanwhile is left an open question [216] ) devoted to bodily offices not
by sin but by nature, and even if they are related to us, however inferior they
may be, by some inner affinity, they should not be esteemed evil simply because
we are evil ourselves in following them and in loving corporeal things. For we
sin by loving corporeal things, because by justice we are required and by nature
we are able to love spiritual things, and when we do this we are, in our kind,
the best and the happiest. [217] 21. Wherefore what proof does deliberation,
violently urged in both directions, now prone to sin, now borne on toward right
conduct, furnish, that we are compelled to accept two kinds of souls, the nature
of one of which is from God, of the other not; when we are free to conjecture so
many other causes of alternating states of mind? But that these things are
obscure and are to no purpose pried into by blear-eyed minds, whoever is a good
judge of things sees. Wherefore those things rather which have been said
regarding the will and sin, those things, I say, that supreme justice permits no
man using his reason to be ignorant of, those things which if they were taken
from us, there is nothing whence the discipline of virtue may begin, nothing
whence it may rise from the death of vices, those things I say considered again
and again with sufficient clearness and lucidity convince us that the heresy of
the Manichæans is false.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 90: CHAPTER 14. --AGAIN IT IS SHOWN FROM THE UTILITY OF REPENTING THAT SOULS ARE NOT BY NATURE EVIL. SO SURE A DEMONSTRATION IS NOT CONTRADICTED EXCEPT FROM THE HABIT OF ERRING. 
========================================================================

22. Like the foregoing considerations is what I shall now say about repenting.
For as among all sane people it is agreed, and this the Manichæans themselves
not only confess but also teach, that to repent of sin is useful. Why shall I
now, in this matter, collect the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, which are
scattered throughout their pages? It is also the voice of nature; notice of this
thing has escaped no fool. We should be undone, if this were not deeply imbedded
in our nature. Some one may say that he does not sin; but no barbarity will dare
to say, that if one sins he should not repent of it. This being the case, I ask
to which of the two kinds of souls does repenting pertain? I know indeed that it
can pertain neither to him who does ill nor to him who cannot do well.
Wherefore, that I may use the words of the Manichæans, if a soul of darkness
repent of sin, it is not of the substance of supreme evil, if a soul of light,
it is not of the substance of supreme good; that disposition of repenting which
is profitable testifies alike that the penitent has done ill, and that he could
have done well. How, therefore, is there from me nothing of evil, if I have
acted unadvisedly, or how can I rightly repent if I have not so done? Hear the
other part. How is there from me nothing of good, if in me there is good will,
or how do I rightly repent if there is not? Wherefore, either let them deny that
there is great utility in repenting, so that they may be driven not only from
the Christian name, but from every even imaginary argument for their views, or
let them cease to say and to teach that there are two kinds of souls, one of
which has nothing of evil, the other nothing of good; for that whole sect is
propped up by this two-headed [218] or rather headlong [219] variety of souls.
23. And to me indeed it is sufficient thus to know that the Manichæans err, that
I know that sin must be repented of; and yet if now by right of friendship I
should accost some one of my friends who still thinks that they are worthy of
being listened to, and should say to him: Do you not know that it is useful,
when any one has sinned, to repent? Without hesitation he will swear that he
knows. If then I shall have convinced you that Manichæism is false, will you not
desire anything more? Let him reply what more he can desire in this matter. Very
well, so far. But when I shall have begun to show the sure and necessary
arguments which, bound to it with adamantine chains, as the saying is, follow
that proposition, and shall have conducted to its conclusion the whole process
by which that sect is overthrown, he will deny perhaps that he knows the utility
of repenting, which no learned man, no unlearned, is ignorant of, and will
rather contend, when we hesitate and deliberate, that two souls in us furnish
each its own proper help to the solution of the different parts of the question.
O habit of sin! O accompanying penalty of sin! Then you turned me away from the
consideration of things so manifest, but you injured me when I did not discern.
But now, among my most familiar acquaintances who do not discern, you wound and
torment me discerning.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 91: CHAPTER 15. --HE PRAYS FOR HIS FRIENDS WHOM HE HAS HAD AS ASSOCIATES IN ERROR. 
========================================================================

24. Give heed to these things, I beseech you, dearly beloved. Your dispositions
I have well known. If you now concede to me the mind and the reason of any sort
of man, these things are far more certain than the things that we seemed to
learn or rather were compelled to believe. Great God, God omnipotent, God of
supreme goodness, whose right it is to be believed and known to be inviolable
and unchangeable. Trinal Unity, whom the Catholic Church worships, as one who
have experienced in myself Thy mercy, I supplicate Thee, that Thou wilt not
permit those with whom from boyhood I have lived most harmoniously in every
relation to dissent from me in Thy worship. I see how it was especially to be
expected in this place that I should either even then have defended the Catholic
Scriptures attacked by the Manichæans, if as I say, I had been cautious; or I
should now show that they can be defended. But in other volumes God will aid my
purpose, for the moderate length of this, as I suppose, already asks to be
spared. [220]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 92: ST. AUGUSTIN: ACTS OR DISPUTATION AGAINST FORTUNATUS THE MANICHÆAN. 
========================================================================

[acta seu disputatio contra fortunatum manichæum]. A.D.392. translated by albert
h. newman, d.d., ll.d., professor of church history and comparative religion, in
toronto baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 93: ACTS OR DISPUTATION AGAINST FORTUNATUS, THE MANICHÆAN. 
========================================================================

[Acta Seu Disputatio Contra Fortunatum Manichæum.] a.d.392. [221] Disputation of
the First Day. On the fifth of September, the most renowned men Arcadius
Augustus (the second time) and Rufinus being consuls, a disputation against
Fortunatus, an elder of the Manichæans, was held in the city of Hippo Regius, in
the baths of Sossius, in the presence of the people. 1. Augustin said: I now
regard as error what formerly I regarded as truth. I desire to hear from you who
are present whether my supposition is correct. First of all I regard it as the
height of error to believe that Almighty God, in whom is our one hope, is in any
part either violable, or contaminable, or corruptible. This I know your heresy
affirms, not indeed in the words that I now use; for when you are questioned you
confess that God is incorruptible, and absolutely inviolable, and
incontaminable; but when you begin to expound the rest of your system, we are
compelled to declare Him corruptible, penetrable, contaminable. For you say that
another race of darkness, whatever it may be, has rebelled against the kingdom
of God; but that Almighty God, when He saw what ruin and desolation threatened
his domains, unless he should make some opposition to the adverse race and
resist it, sent this virtue, from whose commingling with evil and the race of
darkness the world was framed. Hence it is that here good souls labor, serve,
err, are corrupted: that they may see the need of a liberator, who should purge
them from error, loose them from this commingling with evil, and liberate them
from servitude. I think it impious to believe that Almighty God ever feared any
adverse race, or was under necessity to precipitate us into afflictions.
Fortunatus said: Because I know that you have been in our midst, that is, have
lived as an adherent among the Manichæans, these are the principles of our
faith. The matter now to be considered is our mode of living, the falsely
alleged crimes for which we are maltreated. Therefore let the good men present
hear from you whether these things with which we are charged and which we have
thrown in our teeth are true or false. For from your instruction, and from your
exposition and explanation, they will have been able to gain more correct
information about our mode of life, if it shall have been set forth by you. 2.
Augustin said: I was among you, but faith and morals are different questions. I
proposed to discuss faith. But if those present prefer to hear about morals, I
do not decline that question. Fortunatus said: I wish first to purge myself in
your conscience in which we are polluted, by the testimony of a competent man,
(who even now is competent for me), and in view of the future examination of
Christ, the just judge, whether he saw in us, or himself practiced by imitation,
the things that are now thrown in our teeth? 3. Augustin said: You call me to
something else, when I had proposed to discuss faith, but concerning your morals
only those who are your Elect can fully know. But you know that I was not your
Elect, but an Auditor. Hence though I was present at your prayer meetings, [222]
as you have asked (whether separately among yourselves you have any prayer
meetings, God alone and yourselves can know); yet in your prayer meetings where
I have been present I have seen nothing shameful take place; but only that the
faith that I afterwards learned and approved is denounced, and that you perform
your services facing the sun. Besides this I found out nothing new in your
meetings, but whoever raises any question of morals against you, raises it
against your Elect. But what you who are Elect do among yourselves, I have no
means of knowing. For I have often heard from you that you receive the
Eucharist. But since the time of receiving it was concealed from me, how could I
know what you receive? [223] So keep the question about morals, if you please,
for discussion among your Elect, if it can be discussed. You gave me a faith
that I today disapprove. This I proposed to discuss. Let a response be made to
my proposition. Fortunatussaid: And our profession is this very thing: that God
is incorruptible, lucid, unapproachable, intenible, impassible, that He inhabits
His own eternal lights, that nothing corruptible proceeds from Him, neither
darkness, demons, Satan, nor anything adverse can be found in His kingdom. But
that He sent forth a Saviour like Himself; that the Word born from the
foundation of the world, when He had formed the world, after the formation of
the world came among men; that He has chosen souls worthy of Himself according
to His own holy will, sanctified by celestial command, imbued with the faith and
reason of celestial things; that under His leadership those souls will return
hence again to the kingdom of God according to the holy promise of Him who said:
"I am the way, the truth, and the door;" [224] and "No one can come unto the
Father, except through me." These things we believe because otherwise, that is,
through another mediator, souls cannot return to the kingdom of God, unless they
find Him as the way, the truth, and the door. For Himself said: "He that hath
seen me, hath seen my Father also;" [225] and "whosoever shall have believed on
me shall not taste death forever, but has passed from death unto life, and shall
not come into judgment." [226] These things we believe and this is the reason of
our faith, and according to the strength of our mind we endeavor to act
according to His commandments, following after the one faith of this Trinity,
Father and Son and Holy Spirit. [227] 4. Augustin said: What was the cause of
those souls being precipitated into death, whom you confess come through Christ
from death to life? Fortunatus said: Hence now deign to go on and to contradict,
if there is nothing besides God. 5. Augustin said: Nay, do you deign to answer
the question put to you: What cause has given these souls to death?Fortunatus
said: Nay but do you deign to say whether there is anything besides God, or all
things are in God.6. Augustin said: This I can reply, that the Lord wished me to
know that God cannot suffer any necessity, nor be violated or corrupted in any
part. Which, since you also acknowledge, I ask by what necessity He sent hither
souls that you say return through Christ?Fortunatus said: What you have said:
that thus far God has revealed to you, that He is incorruptible, as He has also
revealed to me; the reason must be sought, how and wherefore souls have come
into this world, so that now of right God should liberate them from this world
through his Son only begotten and like Himself, if besides Himself there is
nothing?7. Augustin said: We ought not to disappoint those present, being men of
note, and from the question proposed for discussion go to another. So we both
confess, so we concede to ourselves, that God is incorruptible and inviolable,
and could have in no way suffered. From which it follows, that your heresy is
false, which says that God, when He saw desolation and ruin threaten His
kingdom, sent forth a power that should do battle with the race of darkness, and
that out of this commingling our souls are laboring. My argument is brief, and
as I suppose, perfectly clear to any one. If God could have suffered nothing
from the race of darkness because He is inviolable, without cause He sent us
hither that we might here suffer distress. But if anything can suffer, it is not
inviolable, and you deceive those to whom you say that God is inviolable. For
this your heresy denies when you expound the rest of it.Fortunatussaid: We are
of that mind in which the Apostle Paul instructs us, who says: "Let this mind be
in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who when He had been constituted in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself
receiving the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men, and
having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and was made obedient
even unto death." [228] We have this mind therefore about ourselves, which we
have also about Christ, who when He was constituted in the form of God, was made
obedient even unto death that He might show the similitude of our souls. And
like as He showed in Himself the similitude of death, and having been raised
from the midst of the dead showed that He was from the Father, in the same
manner we think it will be with our souls, because through Him we shall have
been able to be freed from this death, which is either alien from God, or if it
belongs to God, His mercy ceases, and the name of liberator, and the works of
Him who liberates. [229]8. Augustin said: I ask how we came into death, and you
tell how we may be liberated from death.Fortunatus said: So the apostle said
that we ought to have that mind concerning ourselves which Christ has shown us.
If Christ was in suffering and death, so also are we.9. Augustin said: It is
known to all that the Catholic faith is to the effect that our Lord, that is the
Power and Wisdom of God, [230] and the Word through whom all things have been
made and without whom was not anything made, [231] took upon Himself man to
liberate us. In the man whom He took upon Himself, He demonstrated those things
that you spoke of. But we now ask concerning the substance of God Himself and of
Unspeakable Majesty, whether anything can injure it or not. For if anything can
injure it, He is not inviolable. If nothing can injure the substance of God,
what was the race of darkness about to do to it, against which you say war was
waged by God before the foundation of the world; in which war you assert that
we, that is souls that are now manifestly in need of a liberator, have been
commingled with every evil and implicated in death. For I return to that very
brief statement: If He could be injured, He is not inviolable; if He could not,
He acted cruelly in sending us hither to suffer these things.Fortunatus said:
Does the soul belong to God, or not?10. Augustin said: If it is just that you
should fail to respond to my questions, and that I should be questioned, I will
reply.Fortunatus said: Does the soul act independently? This I ask of you.11.
Augustin said: I indeed will tell what you have asked; only remember this, that
while you have refused to respond to my questions, I have responded to yours. If
you ask whether the soul descended from God, it is indeed a great question; but
whether it descends from God or not, I make this reply concerning the soul, that
it is not God; that God is one thing, the soul another. That God is inviolable,
incorruptible, and impenetrable, and incontaminable, who also could be corrupted
in no part and to whom no injury can be done in any part. But we see also that
the soul is sinful, and is conversant with misery, and seeks the truth, and is
in want of a liberator. This changing condition of the soul shows me that the
soul is not God. For if the soul is the substance of God, the substance of God
errs, the substance of God is corrupted, the substance of God is violated, the
substance of God is deceived; which it is impious to say. Fortunatus said:
Therefore you have denied that the soul is of God, so long as it serves sins,
and vices, and earthly things, and is led by error, because it cannot happen
that either God or His substance should suffer this thing. For God is
incorruptible and His substance immaculate and holy. But here it is inquired of
you whether the soul is of God, or not? Which we confess, and show from the
advent of the Saviour, from His holy preaching, from His election; while He
pitied souls, and the soul is said to have come according to His will, that He
might free it from death and might bring it to eternal glory, and restore it to
the Father. But what do you say and hope concerning the soul; is it from God or
not? Can the substance of God, from which you deny that the soul has its being,
be subject to no passions?12. Augustin said: I have denied that the soul is the
substance of God in the sense of its being God; but yet I hold that it is from
God as its author, because it was made by God. The Maker is one thing, the thing
made is another. He who made cannot be corruptible at all, but what He made
cannot be at all equal to Him who made it.Fortunatus said: Nor have I said that
the soul is like God. But because you have said that the soul is an artificial
thing, and that there is nothing besides God, I ask whence then God invented the
substance of the soul?13. Augustin said: Only bear in mind that I reply to your
interrogations, but that you do not reply to mine. I say that the soul was made
by God as all other things that were made by God; and that among the things that
God Almighty made the principal place was given to the soul. But if you ask
whence God made the soul, remember that you and I agree in confessing that God
is almighty. But he is not almighty who seeks the assistance of any material
whence he may make what he will. From which it follows, that according to our
faith, all things that God made through His Word and Wisdom, He made out of
nothing. For so we read: "He ordered and they were made; He commanded and they
were created." [232]Fortunatus said: Do all things have their existence from
God's command?14. Augustin said: So I believe, but all things which were
made.Fortunatus said: As things made they agree, but because they are unsuitable
to themselves, therefore on this account it follows, that there is not one
substance, although from the same order of the One they came to the composition
and fashioning of this world. But it is plain in the things themselves that
there is no similarity between darkness and light, truth and falsehood, death
and life, soul and body, and other similar things which differ from each other
both in names and appearances. And for good reason did our Lord say: "The tree
which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up and cast into the
fire, because it brings not forth good fruit:" [233] ^ and that the tree has
been rooted up. Hence truly it follows from the reason of things that there are
two substances in this world which agree in forms and in names, of which one
belongs to corporeal natures, but the other is the eternal substance of the
omnipotent Father, which we believe to be God's substance.15. Augustin said:
Those contrary things that move you so that we think adversely, have happened on
account of our sin, that is, on account of the sin of man. For God made all
things good, and ordered them well; but He did not make sin, and our voluntary
sin is the only thing that is called evil. There is another kind of evil, which
is the penalty of sin. Since therefore there are two kinds of evil, sin and the
penalty of sin, sin does not pertain to God; the penalty of sin pertains to the
avenger. For as God is good who constituted all things, so He is just in taking
vengeance on sin. Since therefore all things are ordered in the best possible
way, which seem to us now to be adverse, it has deservedly happened to fallen
man who was unwilling to keep the law of God. For God gave free will to the
rational soul which is in man. For thus it would have been possible to have
merit, if we should be good voluntarily and not of necessity. Since therefore it
behooves us to be good not of necessity but voluntarily, it behooved God to give
to the soul free will. But to this soul obeying His laws, He subjected all
things without adversity, so that the rest of the things that God made should
serve it, if also the soul itself had willed to serve God. But if it should
refuse to serve God, those things that served it should be converted into its
punishment. Wherefore if all things are rightly ordered by God, and are good,
neither does God suffer evil.Fortunatus said: He does not suffer, but prevents
evil.16. Augustin said: From whom then was He about to suffer it?Fortunatus
said: This is my point, that He wished to prevent it, not rashly, but by power
and prescience. But deny evil to be apart from God, when other precepts can be
shown which are done apart from His will. A precept is not introduced, unless
where there is contrariety. The free faculty of living is not given except where
there is a fall according to the argument of the apostle who says: "And you did
he quicken, when ye were dead in your trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime ye
walked according to the rulership of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the souls of disobedience;
among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires
of the counsels of the flesh, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the
rest: but God, who is rich in all mercy, had mercy on us. And when we were dead
by sins, quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace ye have been saved; and
at the same time also raised us up, and made us to sit with Him in the heavenly
places with Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding
riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace have ye
been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God;
not of works, lest any one should glory. For we are his workmanship created in
Christ Jesus in good works, which God prepared that we should walk in them.
Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye were Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
uncircumcision, by that which is called circumcision in flesh made by hands,
because ye were at that time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers of the covenant, having no hope of the promise, and
without God in this world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye that once were far off
are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who made both one,
and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in His flesh,
making void by His decrees the law of commandments, that in Himself He might
unite the two into one new man, making peace, that He might reconcile them both
in one body unto God through the cross, slaying the enmities in Himself. And He
came and preached peace unto you that were far off, and peace to them that were
nigh. For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father."
[234] 17. Augustin said: This passage from the apostle, which you have thought
fit to recite, if I mistake not, makes very strongly for my faith and against
yours. In the first place, because free will itself, on which I have said that
the possibility of the soul's sinning depends, is here sufficiently expressed,
when sins are mentioned, and it is said that our reconciliation with God takes
place through Jesus Christ. For by sinning we were brought into opposition to
God; but by holding to the precepts of Christ we are reconciled to God; so that
we who were dead in sins may be made alive by keeping His precepts, and may have
peace with Him in one Spirit, from whom we were alienated, by failure to keep
His precepts; as is set forth in our faith concerning the man who was first
created. I ask of you, therefore, according to that passage which has been read,
how can we have sins if contrary nature compels us to do what we do? For he who
is compelled by nature to do anything, does not sin. But he who sins, sins by
free will. Wherefore would repentance be enjoined upon us, if we have done
nothing evil, but only the race of darkness? Likewise, I ask, to whom is
forgiveness of sins granted, to us or to the race of darkness? If to the race of
darkness, their race will also reign with Him, receiving the forgiveness of sin;
but if to us it is manifest that we have sinned voluntarily. For it is the
height of folly for him to be pardoned who has done no evil. But he has done no
evil, who has done nothing of his own will. Therefore the soul that today
promises itself forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God, if it should
cease to sin, and repent of past sins: if it should answer according to your
faith and should say: In what have I sinned? In what am I guilty? Why hast Thou
expelled me from Thy domains, that I might do battle with some sort of race? I
have been trodden under foot, I have been mixed up, I have been corrupted, I am
worn out, [235] my free will has not been preserved. Thou knowest the necessity
by which I am preserved: Why dost Thou impute to me the wounds that I have
received? Wherefore dost Thou compel me to repentance when Thou art the cause of
my wounds; when Thou knowest what I have suffered, what the race of darkness has
done against me, Thou being the author who couldst suffer no harm and yet
wishing to save the domains which nothing could injure, Thou didst thrust me
down into these miseries. If indeed I am a part of Thee, who have proceeded from
Thy bowels, if I am from Thy kingdom and Thy mouth, I ought not to suffer
anything in this race of darkness, so that I being uncorrupted that race should
be subjected, if I was a part of the Lord. But now since it cannot be controlled
except by my corruption, how can I either be said to be a part of Thee, or Thou
remain inviolable, or not be cruel in wishing me to suffer for those domains,
that could in no way be injured by that race of darkness? Respond to this if you
please, and deign also to explain to me how it was said by the apostle, "We were
by nature children of wrath," who, he says, have been reconciled to God. If
therefore they were by nature children of wrath, how do you say that the soul is
by nature a daughter and portion of God?Fortunatussaid: If with regard to the
soul the apostle had said that we are by nature children of wrath, the soul
would have been alienated by the mouth of the apostle from God. From this
argument you only show that the soul does not belong to God, because, the
apostle says, "We are by nature children of wrath." But if it is said in view of
the fact that the apostle [236] was held by the law, descending as he himself
testifies, from the seed of Abraham, it follows that he has said corporeally,
that we [i.e., Jews] were children of wrath even as the rest of mankind. But he
shows that the substance of the soul is of God, and that the soul cannot
otherwise be reconciled to God than through the Master, who is Christ Jesus. For
the enmity having been slain, the soul seemed to God unworthy to have existed.
But that it was sent, this we confess, by God yet omnipotent, both deriving its
origin from Him and sent for the sealing of His will. In the same way we believe
also that Christ the Saviour came from heaven to fulfill the will of the Father.
Which will of the Father was this, to free our souls from the same enmity, this
enmity having been slain, which if it had not been opposed to God could neither
be called enmity where there was unity, nor could slaying be spoken of or take
place where there was life.18. Augustin said: Remember that the apostle said
that we are alienated from God by our manner of life.Fortunatus said: I submit,
that there were two substances. In the substance of light, as we have above
said, God is to be held incorruptible; but that there was a contrary nature of
darkness, that which I also today confess is vanquished by the power of God, and
that Christ has been sent forth as a Saviour for my restoration, as previously
the same apostle says. 19. Augustin said: That we should discuss on rational
grounds the belief in two natures, has been made obligatory by those who are
hearing us. But inasmuch as you have again betaken yourself to the Scriptures, I
descend to them, and demand that nothing be passed by, lest using certain
statements we should bring confusion into the minds of those to whom the
Scriptures are not well known. Let us therefore consider a statement that the
apostle has in his epistle to the Romans. For on the first page is what is
strongly against you. For he says: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to
be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which He promised aforetime by
His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made unto Him
of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated to be the Son
of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection
from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ." [237] We see that the apostle teaches
us concerning our Lord Jesus Christ that before the flesh he was predestinated
by the power of God, and according to the flesh was made unto Him of the seed of
David. Since you have always denied and always will deny this, how do you so
earnestly demand the Scriptures that we should discuss rather according to
them.Fortunatussaid: You assert that according to the flesh Christ was of the
seed of David, when it should be asserted that he was born of a virgin, [238]
and should be magnified as Son of God. For this cannot be, unless as what is
from spirit may be held to be spirit, so also what is from flesh may be known to
be flesh. [239] Against which is the authority of the Gospel in which it is
said, that "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall
corruption inherit incorruption." [240]Here a clamor was made by the audience
who wished the argument to be conducted on rational grounds, because they saw
that Fortunatus was not willing to receive all things that are written in the
Codex of the apostle. Then little discussions began to be held here and there by
all, until Fortunatus said that the Word of God has been fettered in the race of
darkness. At which, when those present had expressed their horror, the meeting
was closed. [241]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 94: DISPUTATION OF THE SECOND DAY. 
========================================================================

The next day, a notary having again been summoned, the discussion was conducted
as follows: Fortunatus said: I say that God Almighty brings forth from Himself
nothing evil, and that the things that are His remain incorrupt, having sprung
and being born from an inviolable source; but other contrary things which have
their being in this world, do not flow from God nor have appeared in this world
with God as their author; that is to say, they do not derive their origin from
God. These things therefore we have received in the belief that evil things are
foreign to God. 20. Augustin said: And our faith is this, that God is not the
progenitor of evil things, neither has He made any evil nature. But since both
of us agree that God is incorruptible and incontaminable, it is the part of the
prudent and faithful to consider, which faith is purer and worthier of the
majesty of God; that in which it is asserted that either the power of God, or
some part of God, or the Word of God, can be changed, violated, corrupted,
fettered; or that in which it is said that Almighty God and His entire nature
and substance can never be corrupted in any part, but that evils have their
being by the voluntary sin of the soul, to which God gave free will. Which free
will if God had not given, there could be no just penal judgment, nor merit of
righteous conduct, nor divine instruction to repent of sins, nor the forgiveness
of sins itself which God has bestowed upon us through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Because he who sins not voluntarily, sins not at all. This I suppose to be open
and perspicuous to all. Wherefore it ought not to trouble us if according to our
deserts we suffer some inconveniences in the things God has made. For as He is
good, that He should constitute all things; so He is just, that He may not spare
sins, which sins, as I have said, unless free will were in us, would not be
sins. For if any one, so to speak, should be bound by some one in his other
members, and with his hand something false should be written without his own
will, I ask whether if this were laid open before a judge, he could condemn this
one for the crime of falsehood. Wherefore, if it is manifest that there is no
sin where there is not free exercise of will, [242] I wish to hear what evil the
soul which you call either part, or power, or word, or something else, of God,
has done, that it should be punished by God, or repent of sin, or merit
forgiveness, since it has in no way sinned? Fortunatus said: I proposed
concerning substances, that God is to be regarded as creator only of good
things, but as the avenger of evil things, for the reason that evil things are
not of Him. Therefore for good reason I think this, and that God avenges evil
things because they are not of Himself. But if they were from Him, either He
would give them license to sin, as you say that God has given free will, He
would be already found a participator in my fault, because He would be the
author of my fault; or ignorant what I should be, he left me whom he did not
constitute worthy of Himself. This therefore is proposed by me, and what I ask
now is, whether God instituted evil or not? and whether He Himself instituted
the end of evils. For it appears from these things, and the evangelical faith
teaches, that the things which we have said were made by God Himself as God the
Creator, as having been created and begotten by Him, are to be esteemed
incorruptible. These things I also proposed which belong to our belief, and
which can be confirmed by you in that profession of ours, without prejudice to
the authority of the Christian faith. And because I can in no way show that I
rightly believe, unless I should confirm that belief by the authority of the
Scriptures, this is therefore what I have insinuated, what I have said. Either
if evil things have appeared in the world with God as their author, deign to say
so yourself; or if it is right to believe that evil things are not of God, this
also the contemplation of those present ought to honor and receive. I have
spoken about substances, not about sin that dwells in us. For if what we think
to make faults had no origin, we should not be compelled to come to sin or to
fault. For because we sinned unwillingly, and are compelled by a substance
contrary and hostile to ourselves, therefore we follow the knowledge of things.
By which knowledge the soul admonished and restored to pristine memory,
recognizes the source from which it derives its existence, in what evil it
dwells, by what good works emending again that in which unwillingly it sinned,
it may be able through the emendation of its faults, for the sake of good works,
to secure for itself the merit of reconciliation with God, our Saviour being the
author of it, who teaches us also to practice good things and to flee from evil.
For you ask us to believe that not by some contrary nature, but by his own
choice, man either serves righteousness or becomes involved in sins; since, no
contrary race existing, if the soul, to which as you say God has given free
will, having been constituted in the body, dwells alone, it would be without
sin, nor would it become involved in sins. 21. Augustin said: I say it is not
sin, if it be not committed by one's own will; hence also there is reward,
because of our own will we do right. Or if he who sins unwillingly deserves
punishment, he who unwillingly does well ought to deserve reward. But who doubts
that reward is only bestowed upon him who does something of good will? From
which we know that punishment also is inflicted upon him who does something of
ill will. But since you recall me to primordial natures and substances, my faith
is that God Almighty -- which must especially be attended to and fixed in the
mind -- that God Almighty has made good things. But the things made by Him
cannot be such as is He who made them. For it is unjust and foolish to believe
that works are equal to the workman, things made to the maker. Wherefore if it
is reverential to believe that God made all good things, than which nevertheless
He is by far more excellent and by far more pre-eminent; the origin and head of
evil is sin, as the apostle said: "Covetousness is the root of all evils; which
some following after have made shipwreck of the faith, and have pierced
themselves through with many sorrows." [243] For if you seek the root of all
evils, you have the apostle saying that covetousness is the root of all evils.
But the root of a root I cannot seek. Or if there is another evil, whose root
covetousness is not, covetousness will not be the root of all evils. But if it
is true that covetousness is the root of all evils, in vain do we seek some
other kind of evil. But as regards that contrary nature of yours which you
introduce, since I have responded to your objections, I ask that you deign to
tell me whether it is wholly evil, whether there can be no sin apart from it,
whether by this alone punishment is deserved, not by the soul by which no sin
has been committed. But if you say that this contrary nature alone deserves
punishment, and not the soul, I ask to which is repentance, which is commanded,
vouchsafed. If the soul is commanded to repent, sin is from the soul, and the
soul has sinned voluntarily. For if the soul is compelled to do evil, that which
it does is not evil. Is it not foolish and most absurd to say that the race of
darkness has sinned and that I repent of the sins. Is it not most absurd to say
that the race of darkness has sinned and that forgiveness of sins is vouchsafed
to me, who according to your faith may well say: What have I done? What have I
committed? I was with Thee, I was in a state of integrity, I was contaminated
with no pollution. Thou didst send me hither, Thou didst suffer necessity, Thou
didst protect Thy domains when great pollution and desolation threatened them.
Since therefore Thou knowest the necessity by which I have been here oppressed,
by reason of which I could not breathe, which I could not resist; why dost Thou
accuse me as if sinning? or why dost Thou promise forgiveness of sins? Reply to
this without evasion, if you please, as I have replied to you. Fortunatussaid:
We say this, that the soul is compelled by contrary nature to transgress, for
which transgression you maintain there is no root save the evil that dwells in
us; for it is certain that apart from our bodies evil things dwell in the whole
world. For not those things alone that we have in our bodies, dwell in the whole
world, and are known by their names as good; an evil root also inheres. For your
dignity said that this covetousness that dwells in our bodies is the root of
evils; since therefore there is no desire of evil out of our bodies, from that
source contrary nature dwells in the whole world. For the apostle designated
that, namely covetousness, as the root of evils, not one evil which you have
called the root of all evils. But not in one manner is covetousness, which you
have said is the root of all evils, understood, as if of that which dwells in
our bodies alone; for it is certain that this evil which dwells in us descends
from an evil author and that this root as you call it is a small portion of
evil, so that it is not the root itself, but is a small portion of evil, of that
evil which dwells everywhere. Which root and tree our Lord called evil, as never
bearing good fruit, which his Father did not plant, and which is deservedly
rooted up and cast into the fire. [244] For as you say, that sin ought to be
imputed to the contrary nature, that nature belongs to evil; and that this is
sin of the soul, if after the warning of our Saviour and his wholesome
instruction, the soul shall have segregated itself from its contrary and hostile
race, adorning itself also with purer things; that otherwise it cannot be
restored to its own substance. For it is said: "If I had not come and spoken
unto them, they had not had sin. But now that I have come and spoken, and they
have refused to believe me, they shall have no excuse for their sin." [245]
Whence it is perfectly plain, that repentance has been given after the Saviour's
advent, and after this knowledge of things, by which the soul can, as if washed
in a divine fountain from the filth and vices as well of the whole world as of
the bodies in which the same soul dwells, be restored to the kingdom of God
whence it has gone forth. For it is said by the apostle, that "the mind of the
flesh is hostile to God; is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be." [246] Therefore it is evident from these things that the good soul seems to
sin not voluntarily, but by the doing of that which is not subject to the law of
God. For it likewise follows that "the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the
spirit against the flesh; so that ye may not do the things that ye will." [247]
Again: "I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and
leading me captive in the law of sin and of death. Therefore I am a miserable
man; who shall deliver me from the body of this death, unless it be the grace of
God through our Lord Jesus Christ," [248] "through whom the world has been
crucified to me and I to the world?" [249] 22. Augustin said: I recognize and
embrace the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, and I will show in a few
words, as God may deign to grant, how they are consistent with my faith. I say
that there was free exercise of will in that man who was first formed. He was so
made that absolutely nothing could resist his will, if he had willed to keep the
precepts of God. But after he voluntarily sinned, we who have descended from his
stock were plunged into necessity. But each one of us can by a little
consideration find that what I say is true. For today in our actions before we
are implicated by any habit, we have free choice of doing anything or not doing
it. But when by that liberty we have done something and the pernicious sweetness
and pleasure of that deed has taken hold upon the mind, by its own habit the
mind is so implicated that afterwards it cannot conquer what by sinning it has
fashioned for itself. We see many who do not wish to swear, but because the
tongue has already become habituated, they are not able to prevent those things
from going forth from the mouth which we cannot but ascribe to the root of evil.
For that I may discuss with you those words, which as they do not withdraw from
your mouth so may they be understood by your heart: you swear by the Paraclete.
If therefore you wish to find out experimentally whether what I say is true,
determine not to swear. You will see, that that habit is borne along as it has
become accustomed to be. And this is what wars against the soul, habit formed in
the flesh. This is indeed the mind of the flesh, which, as long as it cannot
thus be subject to the law of God, so long is it the mind of the flesh; but when
the soul has been illuminated it ceases to be the mind of the flesh. For thus it
is said the mind of the flesh cannot be subject to the law of God, just as if it
were said, that snow cannot be warm. For so long as it is snow, it can in no way
be warm. But as the snow is melted by heat, so that it may become warm, so the
mind of the flesh, that is, habit formed with the flesh, when our mind has
become illuminated, that is, when God has subjected for Himself the whole man to
the choice of the divine law, instead of the evil habit of the soul, makes a
good habit. Accordingly it is most truly said by the Lord of the two trees, the
one good and the other evil, which you have called to mind, that they have their
own fruits; that is, neither can the good tree yield evil fruit, nor the evil
tree good fruit, but so long as it is evil. Let us take two men, a good and a
bad. As long as he is good he cannot yield evil fruit; as long as he is bad he
cannot yield good fruit. But that you may know that those two trees are so
placed by the Lord, that free choice may be there signified, that these two
trees are not natures but our wills, He Himself says in the gospel: "Either make
the tree good, or make the tree evil." [250] Who is it that can make nature? If
therefore we are commanded to make a tree either good or evil, it is ours to
choose what we will. Therefore concerning that sin of man and concerning that
habit of soul formed with the flesh the apostle says: "Let no one seduce you;"
[251] "Every creature that has been made by God is good." [252] The same apostle
whom you also have cited says: "As through the disobedience of the one the many
were constituted sinners; so also through the obedience of the one the many are
constituted righteous." [253] "Since through man is death, through man also is
resurrection of the dead." As long therefore as we bear the image of the earthly
man, [254] that is, as long as we live according to the flesh, which is also
called the old man, we have the necessity of our habit, so that we may not do
what we will. But when the grace of God has breathed the divine love into us and
has made us subject to His will, to us it is said: "Ye are called for freedom,"
[255] and "the grace of God has made me free from the law of sin and of death."
[256] But the law of sin is that whoever has sinned shall die. From this law we
are freed when we have begun to be righteous. The law of death is that by which
it was said to man: "Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt go." [257] For
from this very fact we are all so born, because we are earth, and from the fact
that we are all so born because we are earth, we shall all go into earth on
account of the desert of the sins of the first man. But on account of the grace
of God, which frees us from the law of sin and of death, having been converted
to righteousness we are freed; so that afterwards this same flesh tortures us
with its punishment so long as we remain in sins, is subjected to us in
resurrection, and shakes us by no adversity from keeping the law of God and His
precepts. Whence, since I have replied to your questions, deign to reply as I
desire, how it can happen, that if nature is contrary to God, sin should be
imputed to us, who were sent into that nature not voluntarily, but by God
Himself, whom nothing could injure? Fortunatussaid: Just as also the Lord said
to His disciples: "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves." [258]
Hence it must be known that not with hostile intent did our Saviour send forth
His lambs, that is His disciples, into the midst of wolves, unless there had
been some contrariety, which He would indicate by the similitude of wolves,
where also He had sent His disciples; that the souls which perchance might be
deceived in the midst of wolves might be recalled to their proper substance.
Hence also may appear the antiquity of our times to which we return, and of our
years, that before the foundation of the world souls were sent in this way
against the contrary nature, that subjecting the same by their passion, victory
might be restored to God. For the same apostle said, that not only there should
be a struggle against flesh and blood, but also against principalities and
powers, and the spiritual things of wickedness, and the domination of darkness."
[259] If therefore in both places evils dwell and are esteemed wickednesses, not
only now is evil in our bodies, but in the whole world, where souls appear to
dwell, which dwell beneath yonder heaven and are fettered. 23. Augustin said:
The Lord sent His lambs into the midst of wolves, that is, just men into the
midst of sinners for the preaching of the gospel received in the time of man
from the inestimable divine Wisdom, that He might call us from sin to
righteousness. But what the apostle says, that our struggle is not against flesh
and blood, but against principalities and powers, and the other things that have
been quoted, this signifies that the devil and his angels, as also we, have
fallen and lapsed by sin, and have secured possession of earthly things, that
is, sinful men, who, as long as we are sinners, are under their yoke, just as
when we shall be righteous, we shall be under the yoke of righteousness; and
against them we have a struggle, that passing over to righteousness we may be
freed from their dominion. Do you also therefore deign to reply to the one
question that I ask: Could God suffer injury, or not? But I ask you to reply: He
could not. Fortunatus said: He could not suffer injury. 24. Augustin said:
Wherefore then did He send us hither, according to your faith? Fortunatus said:
My profession is this, that God could not be injured, and that He directed us
hither. But since this is contrary to your view, do you tell how you account for
the soul being here, which our God desires to liberate both by His commandments
and by His own Son whom He has sent.25. Augustin said: Since I see that you
cannot answer my inquiries, and wish to ask me something, behold I satisfy you,
provided only that you bear in mind that you have not replied to my question.
Why the soul is here in this world involved in miseries has been explained by me
not just now, but again and again a little while ago. The soul sinned, and
therefore is miserable. It accepted free choice, used free choice, as it willed;
it fell, was cast out from blessedness, was implicated in miseries. As bearing
upon this I recited to you the testimony of the apostle who says: "As through
one man death, so also through one man came the resurrection of the dead." What
more do you ask? Hence do you reply, wherefore did He, who could not suffer
injury, send us hither?Fortunatus said: The cause must be sought, why the soul
came hither, or wherefore God desires hence to liberate the soul that lives in
the midst of evils?26. Augustin said: This cause I ask of you, that is, if God
could not suffer injury, wherefore He sent us hither?Fortunatus said: It is
inquired of us, if evil cannot injure God, wherefore the soul was sent hither,
or for what reason was it mingled with the world? Which is manifest in what the
apostle says: "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou
formed me thus?" [260] If therefore this cause must be pleaded, He must be
asked, why He sent the soul, no necessity compelling Him. But if there was
necessity for sending the soul, of right is there also the will of liberating
it.27. Augustin said: Then God is pressed by necessity, is He?Fortunatus said:
Now this is it. Do not seek to bring odium upon what has been said because we do
not make God subject to necessity, but to have voluntarily sent the soul.28.
Augustin said: Recall what was said above. And it runs: "But if there was
necessity for sending the soul, of right is there also the will of liberating
it. Augustin said: We have heard: But if there was necessity for sending the
soul, of right is there also the will of liberating it." You, therefore, said
that there was necessity for sending the soul. But if you only wish to say "a
will to send," I add this also: He who could suffer no injury, had the cruel
will to send the soul to so great miseries. Because I speak for the sake of
refuting this statement, I ask pardon from the mercy of that One in whom we have
hope of liberation from all the errors of heretics.Fortunatus said: You
asseverate that we say that God is cruel in sending the soul, but that God made
man, breathed into him a soul which assuredly He foreknew to be involved in
future misery, and not to be able by reason of evils to be restored to its
inheritance. This belongs either to one who is ignorant, or who gives the soul
up to these aforesaid evils. This I have cited because you said not long since,
that God adopted the soul, not that it is from Him; for to adopt is a different
matter.29. Augustin said: Concerning adoption I remember that I spoke some days
ago according to the testimony of the apostle, who says that we have been called
into the adoption of sons. [261] This was not my reply, therefore, but the
apostle's, concerning which thing, that is, that adoption, we may inquire, if we
please, in its own time; and concerning that I will reply without delay, when
you shall have answered my objections.Fortunatus said: I say that there was a
going forth of the soul against a contrary nature, which nature could not injure
God.30. Augustin said: What need was there for that going forth, when God whom
nothing could injure had nothing to protect?Fortunatus said: Do you
conscientiously hold that Christ came from God?31. Augustin said: Again you are
questioning me. Reply to my inquiries.Fortunatus said: So I have received in
faith, that by the will of God He came hither.32. Augustin said: And I say: Why
did God, omnipotent, inviolable, immutable, whom nothing could injure, send
hither the soul, to miseries, to error, to those things that we
suffer?Fortunatussaid: For it has been said: "I have power to lay down my soul
and I have power to take it again." [262] Now He said that by the will of God
the soul went forth.33. Augustin said: I ask for the reason why God, when He can
in no way suffer injury, sent the soul hither?Fortunatus said: We have already
said that God can in no way suffer injury, and we have said that the soul is in
a contrary nature, therefore that it imposes a limit on the contrary nature. The
restraint having been imposed on the contrary nature, God takes the same. For He
Himself said, "I have power to lay down my soul and power to take it." The
Father gave to me the power of laying down my soul, and of taking it. To what
soul, therefore, did God who spoke in the Son refer? Evidently our soul, which
is held in these bodies,which came of His will, and of His will is again taken
up. 34. Augustin said: Why our Lord said: "I have power to lay down my soul and
power to take it," is known to all; because He was about to suffer and to rise
again. But I ask of you again and again, If God could in no way suffer injury,
why did he send souls hither?Fortunatus said: To impose a limit on contrary
nature.35. Augustin said: And did God omnipotent, merciful and supreme, that He
might impose a restraint on contrary nature, wish it to be limited so that He
might make us unrestrained?Fortunatus said: But so He calls us back to
Himself.36. Augustin said: If He recalls to Himself from an unrestrained state,
if from sin, from error, from misery, what need was there for the soul to suffer
so great evils through so long a time till the world ends? since God by whom you
say it was sent could in no way suffer injury.Fortunatus said: What then am I to
say?37. Augustin said: I know that you have nothing to say, and that I, when I
was among you, never found anything to say on this question, and that I was thus
admonished from on high to leave that error and to be converted to the Catholic
faith or rather to recall it, by the indulgence of Him who did not permit me to
inhere forever in this fallacy. But if you confess that you have nothing to
reply, I will expound the Catholic faith to all those hearing and investigating,
seeing that they are believers, if they permit and wish.Fortunatus said: Without
prejudice to my profession I might say: when I shall have reconsidered with my
superiors the things that have been opposed by you, if they fail to respond to
this question of mine, which is now in like manner proposed to me by you, it
will be in my contemplation (since I desire my soul to be liberated by an
assured faith) to come to the investigation of this thing that you have proposed
to me and that you promise you will show.Augustin said: Thanks be to God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 95: ST. AUGUSTIN: AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHÆUS, CALLED FUNDAMENTAL. 
========================================================================

[contra epistolam manichæi quam vocant fundamentum]. A.D.397. translated by rev.
richard stothert, m.a., bombay


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 96: AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHÆUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL. 
========================================================================

[Contra Epistolam Manichæi Quam Vocant Fundamentum.] a.d.397.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 97: CHAPTER 1. --TO HEAL HERETICS IS BETTER THAN TO DESTROY THEM. 
========================================================================

1. My prayer to the one true, almighty God, of whom, and through whom, and in
whom are all things, has been, and is now, that in opposing and refuting the
heresy of you Manichæans, as you may after all be heretics more from
thoughtlessness than from malice, He would give me a mind calm and composed, and
aiming at your recovery rather than at your discomfiture. For while the Lord, by
His servants, overthrows the kingdoms of error, His will concerning erring men,
as far as they are men, is that they should be amended rather than destroyed.
And in every case where, previous to the final judgment, God inflicts
punishment, whether through the wicked or the righteous, whether through the
unintelligent or through the intelligent, whether in secret or openly, we must
believe that the designed effect is the healing of men, and not their ruin;
while there is a preparation for the final doom in the case of those who reject
the means of recovery. Thus, as the universe contains some things which serve
for bodily punishment, as fire, poison, disease, and the rest, and other things,
in which the mind is punished, not by bodily distress, but by the entanglements
of its own passions, such as loss, exile, bereavement, reproach, and the like;
while other things, again, without tormenting are fitted to comfort and soothe
the languishing, as, for example, consolations, exhortations, discussions, and
such things; in all these the supreme justice of God makes use sometimes even of
wicked men, acting in ignorance, and sometimes of good men, acting
intelligently. It is ours, accordingly, to desire in preference the better part,
that we might attain our end in your correction, not by contention, and strife,
and persecutions, but by kindly consolation, by friendly exhortation, by quiet
discussion; as it is written, "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be
gentle toward all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that
oppose themselves." [264] It is ours, I say, to desire to obtain this part in
the work; it belongs to God to give what is good to those who desire it and ask
for it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 98: CHAPTER 2. --WHY THE MANICHÆANS SHOULD BE MORE GENTLY DEALT WITH. 
========================================================================

2. Let those rage against you who know not with what labor the truth is to be
found and with what difficulty error is to be avoided. Let those rage against
you who know not how rare and hard it is to overcome the fancies of the flesh by
the serenity of a pious disposition. Let those rage against you who know not the
difficulty of curing the eye of the inner man that he may gaze upon his Sun, --
not that sun which you worship, and which shines with the brilliance of a
heavenly body in the eyes of carnal men and of beasts, -- but that of which it
is written through the prophet, "The Sun of righteousness has arisen upon me;"
[265] and of which it is said in the gospel, "That was the true Light, which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world." [266] Let those rage against you
who know not with what sighs and groans the least particle of the knowledge of
God is obtained. And, last of all, let those rage against you who have never
been led astray in the same way that they see that you are.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 99: CHAPTER 3. --AUGUSTIN ONCE A MANICHÆAN. 
========================================================================

3. For my part, I, -- who, after much and long-continued bewilderment, attained
at last, to the discovery of the simple truth, which is learned without being
recorded in any fanciful legend; who, unhappy that I was, barely succeeded, by
God's help, in refuting the vain imaginations of my mind, gathered from theories
and errors of various kinds; who so late sought the cure of my mental
obscuration, in compliance with the call and the tender persuasion of the
all-merciful Physician; who long wept that the immutable and inviolable
Existence would vouchsafe to convince me inwardly of Himself, in harmony with
the testimony of the sacred books; by whom, in fine, all those fictions which
have such a firm hold on you, from your long familiarity with them, were
diligently examined, and attentively heard, and too easily believed, and
commended at every opportunity to the belief of others, and defended against
opponents with determination and boldness, -- I can on no account rage against
you; for I must bear with you now as formerly I had to bear with myself, and I
must be as patient towards you as my associates were with me, when I went madly
and blindly astray in your beliefs. 4. On the other hand, all must allow that
you owe it to me, in return, to lay aside all arrogance on your part too, that
so you may be the more disposed to gentleness, and may not oppose me in a
hostile spirit, to your own hurt. Let neither of us assert that he has found
truth; let us seek it as if it were unknown to us both. For truth can be sought
with zeal and unanimity if by no rash presumption it is believed to have been
already found and ascertained. But if I cannot induce you to grant me this, at
least allow me to suppose myself a stranger now for the first time hearing you,
for the first time examining your doctrines. I think my demand a just one. And
it must be laid down as an understood thing that I am not to join you in your
prayers, or in holding conventicles, or in taking the name of Manichæus, unless
you give me a clear explanation, without any obscurity, of all matters touching
the salvation of the soul.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 100: CHAPTER 4. --PROOFS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. 
========================================================================

5. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the
knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in
the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any
uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not
from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,) -- not to speak of
this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are
many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples
and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by
miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The
succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle
Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His
sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of
Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus
retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a
stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point
to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious
ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic
Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our
understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully
disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or
keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the
truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set
before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only
a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which
binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 101: CHAPTER 5. --AGAINST THE TITLE OF THE EPISTLE OF MANICHÆUS. 
========================================================================

6. Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine
that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in which almost all that
you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in
your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus: -- "Manichæus, an apostle of
Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words
from the perennial and living fountain." Now, if you please, patiently give heed
to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I
beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to
believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is
this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now
you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the
truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a
testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the
gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my
part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the
Catholic Church. [267] So when those on whose authority I have consented to
believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but
consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me
is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from
believing you; -- If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly
use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command
of the Catholics that I believed the gospel; -- Again, if you say, You were
right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in
believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to
believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is
therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in
the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you
make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince
me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep
to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I
will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the
gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will
weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe
you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe
the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it;
and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with
me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the
gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence
some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you:
not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that
Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it
that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of
believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, [268] do
not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer
was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; [269] which book I must needs believe
if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends
to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and
apostleship of Paul. [270] Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where
Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed
to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as
a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how
great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 102: CHAPTER 6. --WHY MANICHÆUS CALLED HIMSELF AN APOSTLE OF CHRIST. 
========================================================================

7. For I am at a loss to see why this epistle begins, "Manichæus, an apostle of
Jesus Christ," and not Paraclete, an apostle of Jesus Christ. Or if the
Paraclete sent by Christ sent Manichæus, why do we read, "Manichæus, an apostle
of Jesus Christ," instead of Manichæus, an apostle of the Paraclete? If you say
that it is Christ Himself who is the Holy Spirit, you contradict the very
Scripture, where the Lord says, "And I will send you another Paraclete." [271]
Again, if you justify your putting of Christ's name, not because it is Christ
Himself who is also the Paraclete, but because they are both of the same
substance, -- that is, not because they are one person, but one existence [non
quia unus est, sed quia unum sunt], -- Paul too might have used the words, Paul,
an apostle of God the Father; for the Lord said, "I and the Father are one."
[272] Paul nowhere uses these words; nor does any of the apostles write himself
an apostle of the Father. Why then this new fashion? Does it not savor of
trickery of some kind or other? For if he thought it made no difference, why did
he not for the sake of variety in some epistles call himself an apostle of
Christ, and in others of the Paraclete? But in every one that I know of, he
writes, of Christ; and not once, of the Paraclete. What do we suppose to be the
reason of this, but that pride, the mother of all heretics, impelled the man to
desire to seem to have been sent by the Paraclete, but to have been taken into
so close a relation as to get the name of Paraclete himself? As the man Jesus
Christ was not sent by the Son of God, that is, the power and wisdom of God --
by which all things were made, but, according to the Catholic faith, was taken
into such a relation as to be Himself the Son of God -- that is, that in Himself
the wisdom of God was displayed in the healing of sinners, -- so Manichæus
wished it to be thought that he was so taken up by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ
promised, that we are henceforth to understand that the names Manichæus and Holy
Spirit alike signify the apostle of Jesus Christ, -- that is, one sent by Jesus
Christ, who promised to send him. Singular audacity this! and unutterable
sacrilege!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 103: CHAPTER 7. --IN WHAT SENSE THE FOLLOWERS OF MANICHÆUS BELIEVE HIM TO BE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
========================================================================

8. Besides, you should explain how it is that, while the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are united in equality of nature, as you also acknowledge, you are not
ashamed to speak of Manichæus, a man taken into union with the Holy Spirit, as
born of ordinary generation; and yet you shrink from believing that the man
taken into union with the only-begotten Wisdom of God was born of a Virgin. If
human flesh, if generation [concubitus viri], if the womb of a woman could not
contaminate the Holy Spirit, how could the Virgin's womb contaminate the Wisdom
of God? This Manichæus, then, who boasts of a connection with the Holy Spirit,
and of being spoken of in the gospel, must produce his claim to either of these
two things, -- that he was sent by the Spirit, or that he was taken into union
with the Spirit. If he was sent, let him call himself the apostle of the
Paraclete; if taken into union, let him allow that He whom the only-begotten Son
took upon Himself had a human mother, since he admits a human father as well as
mother in the case of one taken up by the Holy Spirit. Let him believe that the
Word of God was not defiled by the virgin womb of Mary, since he exhorts us to
believe that the Holy Spirit could not be defiled by the married life of his
parents. But if you say that Manichæus was united to the Spirit, not in the womb
or before conception, but after his birth, still you must admit that he had a
fleshly nature derived from man and woman. And since you are not afraid to speak
of the blood and the bodily substance of Manichæus as coming from ordinary
generation, or of the internal impurities contained in his flesh, and hold that
the Holy Spirit, who took on Himself, as you believe, this human being, was not
contaminated by all those things, why should I shrink from speaking of the
Virgin's womb and body undefiled, and not rather believe that the Wisdom of God
in union with the human being in his mother's flesh still remained free from
stain and pollution? Wherefore, as, whether your Manichæus professes to be sent
by or to be united with the Paraclete, neither statement can hold good, I am on
my guard, and refuse to believe either in his mission or in his susception.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 104: CHAPTER 8. --THE FESTIVAL OF THE BIRTH-DAY OF MANICHÆUS. 
========================================================================

9. In adding the words, "by the providence of God the Father," what else did
Manichæus design but that, having got the name of Jesus Christ, whose apostle he
calls himself, and of God the Father, by whose providence he says he was sent by
the Son, we should believe himself, as the Holy Spirit, to be the third person?
His words are: "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God
the Father." The Holy Spirit is not named, though He ought specially to have
been named by one who quotes to us in favor of his apostleship the promise of
the Paraclete, that he may prevail upon ignorant people by the authority of the
gospel. In reply to this, you of course say that in the name of the Apostle
Manichæus we have the name of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, because He
condescended to come into Manichæus. Why then, I ask again, should you cry out
against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, that He in whom divine Wisdom came
was born of a virgin, when you do not scruple to affirm the birth by ordinary
generation of him in whom you say the Holy Spirit came? I cannot but suspect
that this Manichæus, who uses the name of Christ to gain access to the minds of
the ignorant, wished to be worshipped instead of Christ Himself. I will state
briefly the reason of this conjecture. At the time when I was a student of your
doctrines, to my frequent inquiries why it was that the Paschal feast of the
Lord was celebrated generally with no interest, though sometimes there were a
few languid worshippers, but no watchings, no prescription of any unusual fast,
-- in a word, no special ceremony, -- while great honor is paid to your Bema,
that is, the day on which Manichæus was killed, when you have a platform with
fine steps, covered with precious cloth, placed conspicuously so as to face the
votaries, -- the reply was, that the day to observe was the day of the passion
of him who really suffered, and that Christ, who was not born, but appeared to
human eyes in an unreal semblance of flesh, only feigned suffering, without
really bearing it. Is it not deplorable, that men who wish to be called
Christians are afraid of a virgin's womb as likely to defile the truth, and yet
are not afraid of falsehood? But to go back to the point, who that pays
attention can help suspecting that the intention of Manichæus in denying
Christ's being born of a woman, and having a human body, was that His passion,
the time of which is now a great festival all over the world, might not be
observed by the believers in himself, so as to lessen the devotion of the solemn
commemoration which he wished in honor of the day of his own death? For to us it
was a great attraction in the feast of the Bema that it was held during Pascha,
since we used all the more earnestly to desire that festal day [the Bema], that
the other which was formerly most sweet had been withdrawn.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 105: CHAPTER 9. --WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS SENT. 
========================================================================

10. Perhaps you will say to me, When, then, did the Paraclete promised by the
Lord come? As regards this, had I nothing else to believe on the subject, I
should rather look for the Paraclete as still to come, than allow that He came
in Manichæus. But seeing that the advent of the Holy Spirit is narrated with
perfect clearness in the Acts of the Apostles, where is the necessity of my so
gratuitously running the risk of believing heretics? For in the Acts it is
written as follows: "The former treatise have we made, O Theophilus, of all that
Jesus began both to do and teach, in the day in which He chose the apostles by
the Holy Spirit, and commanded them to preach the gospel. By those to whom He
showed Himself alive after His passion by many proofs in the daytime, He was
seen forty days, teaching concerning the kingdom of God. And how He conversed
with them, and commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but
wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of me. For
John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall begin to be baptized with the Holy
Spirit, whom also ye shall receive after not many days, that is, at Pentecost.
When they had come, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou at this time
manifest Thyself? And when will be the kingdom of Israel? And He said unto them,
No one can know the time which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye
shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost part of the earth." [273] Behold you have here the Lord reminding
His disciples of the promise of the Father, which they had heard from His mouth,
of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Let us now see when He was sent; for shortly
after we read as follows: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they
were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from
heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it
sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began
to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were
dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. And
when the sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all
amazed, and marvelled, saying one to another, Are not all these which speak
Galilæans? and how heard we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Armenia,
and in Cappadocia, in Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the
regions of Africa about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews, natives, Cretes,
and Arabians, they heard them speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of
God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt on account of what had
happened, saying, What meaneth this? But others, mocking, said, These men are
full of new wine." [274] You see when the Holy Spirit came. What more do you
wish? If the Scriptures are credible, should not I believe most readily in these
Acts, which have the strongest testimony in their support, and which have had
the advantage of becoming generally known, and of being handed down and of being
publicly taught along with the gospel itself, which contains the promise of the
Holy Spirit, which also we believe? On reading, then, these Acts of the
Apostles, which stand, as regards authority, on a level with the gospel, I find
that not only was the Holy Spirit promised to these true apostles, but that He
was also sent so manifestly, that no room was left for errors on this subject.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 106: CHAPTER 10. --THE HOLY SPIRIT TWICE GIVEN. 
========================================================================

11. For the glorification of our Lord among men is His resurrection from the
dead and His ascension to heaven. For it is written in the Gospel according to
John: "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified." [275] Now if the reason why He was not given was that Jesus was not
yet glorified, He was given immediately on the glorification of Jesus. And since
that glorification was twofold, as regards man and as regards God, twice also
was the Holy Spirit given: once, when, after His resurrection from the dead, He
breathed on the face of His disciples, saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost;"
[276] and again, ten days after His ascension to heaven. This number ten
signifies perfection; for to the number seven which embraces all created things,
is added the trinity of the Creator. [277] On these things there is much pious
and sober discourse among spiritual men. But I must keep to my point; for my
business at present is not to teach you, which you might think presumptuous, but
to take the part of an inquirer, and learn from you, as I tried to do for nine
years without success. Now, therefore, I have a document to believe on the
subject of the Holy Spirit's advent; and if you bid me not to believe this
document, as your usual advice is not to believe ignorantly, without
consideration, [278] much less will I believe your documents. Away, then, with
all books, and disclose the truth with logical clearness, so as to leave no
doubt in my mind; or bring forward books where I shall find not an imperious
demand for my belief, but a trustworthy statement of what I may learn. Perhaps
you say this epistle is also of this character. Let me, then, no longer stop at
the threshold: let us see the contents.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 107: CHAPTER 11. --MANICHÆUS PROMISES TRUTH, BUT DOES NOT MAKE GOOD HIS WORD. 
========================================================================

12. "These," he says, "are wholesome words from the perennial and living
fountain; and whoever shall have heard them, and shall have first believed them,
and then shall have observed the truths they set forth, shall never suffer
death, but shall enjoy eternal life in glory. For he is to be judged truly
blessed who has been instructed in this divine knowledge, by which he is made
free and shall abide in everlasting life." And this, as you see, is a promise of
truth, but not the bestowal of it. And you yourselves can easily see that any
errors whatever might be dressed up in this fashion, so as under cover of a
showy exterior to steal in unawares into the minds of the ignorant. Were he to
say, These are pestiferous words from a poisonous fountain; and whoever shall
have heard them, and shall have first believed them, and then have observed what
they set forth, shall never be restored to life, but shall suffer a woful death
as a criminal: for assuredly he is to be pronounced miserable who falls into
this infernal error, in which he will sink so as to abide in everlasting
torments; -- were he to say this, he would say the truth; but instead of gaining
any readers for his book, he would excite the greatest aversion in the minds of
all into whose hands the book might come. Let us then pass on to what follows;
nor let us be deceived by words which may be used alike by good and bad, by
learned and unlearned. What, then, comes next? 13. "May the peace," he says, "of
the invisible God, and the knowledge of the truth, be with the holy and beloved
brethren who both believe and also yield obedience to the divine precepts."
Amen, say we. For the prayer is a most amiable and commendable one. Only we must
bear in mind that these words might be used by false teachers as well as by good
ones. So, if he said nothing more than this, all might safely read and embrace
it. Nor should I disapprove of what follows: "May also the right hand of light
protect you, and deliver you from every hostile assault, and from the snares of
the world." In fact, I have no fault to find with the beginning of this epistle,
till we come to the main subject of it. For I wish not to spend time on minor
points. Now, then, for this writer's plain statement of what is to be expected
from him.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 108: CHAPTER 12. --THE WILD FANCIES OF MANICHÆUS. THE BATTLE BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD. 
========================================================================

14. "Of that matter," he says, "beloved brother of Patticus, of which you told
me, saying that you desired to know the manner of the birth of Adam and Eve,
whether they were produced by a word or sprung from matter, I will answer you as
is fit. For in various writings and narratives we find different assertions made
and different descriptions given by many authors. Now the real truth on the
subject is unknown to all peoples, even to those who have long and frequently
treated of it. For had they arrived at a clear knowledge of the generation of
Adam and Eve, they would not have remained liable to corruption and death."
Here, then, is a promise to us of clear knowledge of this matter, so that we
shall not be liable to corruption and death. And if this does not suffice, see
what follows: "Necessarily," he says, "many things have to be said by way of
preface, before a discovery of this mystery free from all uncertainty can be
made." This is precisely what I asked for, to have such evidence of the truth as
to free my knowledge of it from all uncertainty. And even were the promise not
made by this writer himself, it was proper for me to demand and to insist upon
this, so that no opposition should make me ashamed of becoming a Manichæan from
a Catholic Christian, in view of such a gain as that of perfectly clear and
certain truth. Now, then, let us hear what he has to state. 15. "Accordingly,"
he says, "hear first, if you please, what happened before the constitution of
the world, and how the battle was carried on, that you may be able to
distinguish the nature of light from that of darkness." Such are the utterly
false and incredible statements which this writer makes. Who can believe that
any battle was fought before the constitution of the world? And even supposing
it credible, we wish now to get something to know, not to believe. For to say
that the Persians and Scythians long ago fought with one another is a credible
statement; but while we believe it when we read or hear it, we cannot know it as
a fact of experience or as a truth of the understanding. So, then, as I would
repudiate any such statement on the ground that I have been promised something,
not that I must believe on authority, but that I shall understand without any
ambiguity; still less will I receive statements which are not only uncertain,
but incredible. But what if he have some evidence to make these things clear and
intelligible? Let us hear, then, if we can, what follows with all possible
patience and forbearance.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 109: CHAPTER 13. --TWO OPPOSITE SUBSTANCES. THE KINGDOM OF LIGHT. MANICHÆUS TEACHES UNCERTAINTIES INSTEAD OF CERTAINTIES. 
========================================================================

16. "In the beginning, then," he says, "these two substances were divided. The
empire of light was held by God the Father, who is perpetual in holy origin,
magnificent in virtue, true in His very nature, ever rejoicing in His own
eternity, possessing in Himself wisdom and the vital senses, by which He also
includes the twelve members of His light, which are the plentiful resources of
his kingdom. Also in each of His members are stored thousands of untold and
priceless treasures. But the Father Himself, chief in praise, incomprehensible
in greatness, has united to Himself happy and glorious worlds, incalculable in
number and duration, along with which this holy and illustrious Father and
Progenitor resides, no poverty or infirmity being admitted in His magnificent
realms. And these matchless realms are so founded on the region of light and
bliss, that no one can ever move or disturb them." [279] 17. Where is the proof
of all this? And where did Manichæus learn it? Do not frighten me with the name
of the Paraclete. For, in the first place, I have come not to put faith in
unknown things, but to get the knowledge of undoubted truths, according to the
caution enjoined on me by yourselves. For you know how bitterly you taunt those
who believe without consideration. And what is more, this writer, who here
begins to tell of very doubtful things, himself promised a little before to give
complete and well-grounded knowledge.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 110: CHAPTER 14. --MANICHÆUS PROMISES THE KNOWLEDGE OF UNDOUBTED THINGS, AND THEN DEMANDS FAITH IN DOUBTFUL THINGS. 
========================================================================

In the next place, if faith is what is required of me, I should prefer to keep
to the Scripture, which tells me that the Holy Spirit came and inspired the
apostles, to whom the Lord had promised to send Him. You must therefore prove,
either that what Manichæus says is true, and so make clear to me what I am
unable to believe; or that Manichæus is the Holy Spirit, and so lead me to
believe in what you cannot make clear. For I profess the Catholic faith, and by
it I expect to attain certain knowledge. Since, then, you try to overthrow my
faith, you must supply me with certain knowledge, if you can, that you may
convict me of having adopted my present belief without consideration. You make
two distinct propositions, -- one when you say that the speaker is the Holy
Spirit, and another when you say that what the speaker teaches is evidently
true. I might fairly ask undeniable proof for both propositions. But I am not
greedy and require to be convinced only of one. Prove this person to be the Holy
Spirit, and I will believe what he says to be true, even without understanding
it; or prove that what he says is true, and I will believe him to be the Holy
Spirit, even without evidence. Could anything be fairer or kinder than this? But
you cannot prove either one or other of these propositions. You can find nothing
better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my
turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall
arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with
those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us
faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin
with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this
very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward
illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God
Himself. 18. And as I have asked this writer to prove these things to me, I ask
him now where he learned them himself. If he replies that they were revealed to
him by the Holy Spirit, and that his mind was divinely enlightened that he might
know them to be certain and evident, he himself points to the distinction
between knowing and believing. The knowledge is his to whom these things are
fully made known as proved; but in the case of those who only hear his account
of these things, there is no knowledge imparted, but only a believing
acquiescence required. Whoever thoughtlessly yields this becomes a Manichæan,
not by knowing undoubted truth, but by believing doubtful statements. Such were
we when in our inexperienced youth we were deceived. Instead, therefore, of
promising knowledge, or clear evidence, or the settlement of the question free
from all uncertainty, Manichæus ought to have said that these things were
clearly proved to him, but that those who hear his account of them must believe
him without evidence. But were he to say this, who would not reply to him, If I
must believe without knowing, why should I not prefer to believe those things
which have a widespread notoriety from the consent of learned and unlearned, and
which among all nations are established by the weightiest authority? From fear
of having this said to him, Manichæus bewilders the inexperienced by first
promising the knowledge of certain truths, and then demanding faith in doubtful
things. And then, if he is asked to make it plain that these things have been
proved to himself, he fails again, and bids us believe this too. Who can
tolerate such imposture and arrogance?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 111: CHAPTER 15. --THE DOCTRINE OF MANICHÆUS NOT ONLY UNCERTAIN, BUT FALSE. HIS ABSURD FANCY OF A LAND AND RACE OF DARKNESS BORDERING ON THE HOLY REGION AND THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD.
========================================================================

19. What if I shall have shown, with the help of God and of our Lord, that this
writer's statements are false as well as uncertain? What more unfortunate thing
can be found than that superstition which not only fails to impart the knowledge
and the truth which it promises, but also teaches what is directly opposed to
knowledge and truth? This will appear more clearly from what follows: "In one
direction on the border of this bright and holy land there was a land of
darkness deep and vast in extent, where abode fiery bodies, destructive races.
Here was boundless darkness, flowing from the same source in immeasurable
abundance, with the productions properly belonging to it. Beyond this were muddy
turbid waters with their inhabitants; and inside of them winds terrible and
violent with their prince and their progenitors. Then again a fiery region of
destruction, with its chiefs and peoples. And similarly inside of this a race
full of smoke and gloom, where abode the dreadful prince and chief of all,
having around him innumerable princes, himself the mind and source of them all.
Such are the five natures of the pestiferous land." 20. To speak of God as an
aerial or even as an ethereal body is absurd in the view of all who, with a
clear mind, possessing some measure of discernment, can perceive the nature of
wisdom and truth as not extended or scattered in space, but as great, and
imparting greatness without material size, nor confined more or less in any
direction, but throughout co-extensive with the Father of all, nor having one
thing here and another there, but everywhere perfect, everywhere present. [280]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 112: CHAPTER 16. --THE SOUL, THOUGH MUTABLE, HAS NO MATERIAL FORM. IT IS ALL PRESENT IN EVERY PART OF THE BODY. 
========================================================================

But why speak of truth and wisdom which surpass all the powers of the soul, when
the nature of the soul itself, which is known to be mutable, still has no kind
of material extension in space? For whatever consists of any kind of gross
matter must necessarily be divisible into parts, having one in one place, and
another in another. Thus, the finger is less than the whole hand, and one finger
is less than two; and there is one place for this finger, and another for that,
and another for the rest of the hand. And this applies not to organized bodies
only, but also to the earth, each part of which has its own place, so that one
cannot be where the other is. So in moisture, the smaller quantity occupies a
smaller space, and the larger quantity a larger space; and one part is at the
bottom of the cup, and another part near the mouth. So in air, each part has its
own place; and it is impossible for the air in this house to have along with
itself, in the same house at the same moment, the air that the neighbors have.
And even as regards light itself, one part pours through one window, and another
through another; and a greater through the larger, and a smaller through the
smaller. Nor, in fact, can there be any bodily substance, whether celestial or
terrestrial, whether aerial or moist, which is not less in part than in whole,
or which can possibly have one part in the place of another at the same time;
but, having one thing in one place and another in another, its extension in
space is a substance which has distinct limits and parts, or, so to speak,
sections. The nature of the soul, on the other hand, though we leave out of
account its power of perceiving truth, and consider only its inferior power of
giving unity to the body, and of sensation in the body, does not appear to have
any material extension in space. For it is all present in each separate part of
its body when it is all present in any sensation. There is not a smaller part in
the finger, and a larger in the arm, as the bulk of the finger is less than that
of the arm; but the quantity everywhere is the same, for the whole is present
everywhere. For when the finger is touched, the whole mind feels, though the
sensation is not through the whole body. No part of the mind is unconscious of
the touch, which proves the presence of the whole. And yet it is not so present
in the finger or in the sensation as to abandon the rest of the body, or to
gather itself up into the one place where the sensation occurs. For when it is
all present in the sensation in a finger, if another part, say the foot, be
touched, it does not fail to be all present in this sensation too: so that at
the same moment it is all present in different places, without leaving one in
order to be in the other, and without having one part in one, and another in the
other; but by this power showing itself to be all present at the same moment in
separate places. Since it is all present in the sensations of these places, it
proves that it is not bound by the conditions of space. [281]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 113: CHAPTER 17. --THE MEMORY CONTAINS THE IDEAS OF PLACES OF THE GREATEST SIZE. 
========================================================================

Again, if we consider the mind's power of remembering not the objects of the
intellect, but material objects, such as we see brutes also remembering (for
cattle find their way without mistake in familiar places, and animals return to
their cribs, and dogs recognize the persons of their masters, and when asleep
they often growl, or break out into a bark, which could not be unless their mind
retained the images of things before seen or perceived by some bodily sense),
who can conceive rightly where these images are contained, where they are kept,
or where they are formed? If, indeed, these images were no larger than the size
of our body, it might be said that the mind shapes and retains them in the
bodily space which contains itself. But while the body occupies a small material
space, the mind revolves images of vast extent, of heaven and earth, with no
want of room, though they come and go in crowds; so that clearly, the mind is
not diffused through space: for instead of being contained in images of the
largest spaces, it rather contains them; not, however, in any material
receptacle, but by a mysterious faculty or power, by which it can increase or
diminish them, can contract them within narrow limits, or expand them
indefinitely, can arrange or disarrange them at pleasure, can multiply them or
reduce them to a few or to one.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 114: CHAPTER 18. --THE UNDERSTANDING JUDGES OF THE TRUTH OF THINGS, AND OF ITS OWN ACTION. 
========================================================================

What, then, must be said of the power of perceiving truth, and of making a
vigorous resistance against these very images which take their shape from
impressions on the bodily senses, when they are opposed to the truth? This power
discerns the difference between, to take a particular example, the true Carthage
and its own imaginary one, which it changes as it pleases with perfect ease. It
shows that the countless worlds of Epicurus, in which his fancy roamed without
restraint, are due to the same power of imagination, and, not to multiply
examples, that we get from the same source that land of light, with its
boundless extent, and the five dens of the race of darkness, with their inmates,
in which the fancies of Manichæus have dared to usurp for themselves the name of
truth. What then is this power which discerns these things? Clearly, whatever
its extent may be, it is greater than all these things, and is conceived of
without any such material images. Find, if you can, space for this power; give
it a material extension; provide it with a body of huge size. Assuredly if you
think well, you cannot. For of everything of this corporeal nature your mind
forms an opinion as to its divisibility, and you make of such things one part
greater and another less, as much as you like; while that by which you form a
judgment of these things you perceive to be above them, not in local loftiness
of place, but in dignity of power.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 115: CHAPTER 19. --IF THE MIND HAS NO MATERIAL EXTENSION, MUCH LESS HAS GOD. 
========================================================================

21. So then, if the mind, so liable to change, whether from a multitude of
dissimilar desires, or from feelings varying according to the abundance or the
want of desirable things, or from these endless sports of the fancy, or from
forgetfulness and remembrance, or from learning and ignorance; if the mind, I
say, exposed to frequent change from these and the like causes, is perceived to
be without any local or material extension, and to have a vigor of action which
surmounts these material conditions, what must we think or conclude of God
Himself, who remains superior to all intelligent beings in His freedom from
perturbation and from change, giving to every one what is due? Him the mind
dares to express more easily than to see; and the clearer the sight, the less is
the power of expression. And yet this God, if, as the Manichæan fables are
constantly asserting, He were limited in extension in one direction and
unlimited in others, could be measured by so many subdivisions or fractions of
greater or less size, as every one might fancy; so that, for example, a division
of the extent of two feet would be less by eight parts than one of ten feet. For
this is the property of all natures which have extension in space, and therefore
cannot be all in one place. But even with the mind this is not the case; and
this degrading and perverted idea of the mind is found among people who are
unfit for such investigations.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 116: CHAPTER 20. --REFUTATION OF THE ABSURD IDEA OF TWO TERRITORIES. 
========================================================================

22. But perhaps, instead of thus addressing carnal minds, we should rather
descend to the views of those who either dare not or are as yet unfit to turn
from the consideration of material things to the study of an immaterial and
spiritual nature, and who thus are unable to reflect upon their own power of
reflection, so as to see how it forms a judgment of material extension without
itself possessing it. Let us descend then to these material ideas, and let us
ask in what direction, and on what border of the shining and sacred territory,
to use the expressions of Manichæus, was the region of darkness? For he speaks
of one direction and border, without saying which, whether the right or the
left. In any case, it is clear that to speak of one side implies that there is
another. But where there are three or more sides, either the figure is bounded
in all directions, or if it extends infinitely in one direction, still it must
be limited in the directions where it has sides. If,then, on one side of the
region of light there was the race of darkness, what bounded it on the other
side or sides? The Manichæans say nothing in reply to this; but when pressed,
they say that on the other sides the region of light, as they call it, is
infinite, that is, extends throughout boundless space. They do not see, what is
plain to the dullest understanding, that in that case there could be no sides?
For the sides are where it is bounded. What, then, he says, though there are no
sides? But what you said of one direction or side, implied of necessity the
existence of another direction and side, or other directions and sides. For if
there was only one side, you should have said, on the side, not on one side; as
in reference to our body we say properly, By one eye, because there is another;
or on one breast, because there is another. But if we spoke of a thing as being
on one nose, or one navel, we should be ridiculed by learned and unlearned,
since there is only one. But I do not insist on words, for you may have used one
in the sense of the only one.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 117: CHAPTER 21. --THIS REGION OF LIGHT MUST BE MATERIAL IF IT IS JOINED TO THE REGION OF DARKNESS. THE SHAPE OF THE REGION OF DARKNESS JOINED TO THE REGION OF LIGHT. 
========================================================================

What, then, bordered on the side of the region which you call shining and
sacred? The region, you reply, of darkness. Do you then allow this latter region
to have been material? Of course you must, since you assert that all bodies
derive their origin from it. How then is it that, dull and carnal as you are,
you do not see that unless both regions were material, they could not have their
sides joined to one another? How could you ever be so blinded in mind as to say
that only the region of darkness was material, and that the so-called region of
light was immaterial and spiritual? My good friends, let us open our eyes for
once, and see, now that we are told of it, what is most obvious, that two
regions cannot be joined at their sides unless both are material. 23. Or if we
are too dull and stupid to see this, let us hear whether the region of darkness
too has one side, and is boundless in the other directions, like the region of
light. They do not hold this from fear of making it seem equal to God.
Accordingly they make it boundless in depth and in length; but upwards, above
it, they maintain that there is an infinity of empty space. And lest this region
should appear to be a fraction equal in amount to half of that representing the
region of light, they narrow it also on two sides. As if, to give the simplest
illustration, a piece of bread were made into four squares, three white and one
black; then suppose the three white pieces joined as one, and conceive them as
infinite upwards and downwards, and backwards in all directions: this represents
the Manichæan region of light. Then conceive the black square infinite downwards
and backwards, but with infinite emptiness above it: this is their region of
darkness. But these are secrets which they disclose to very eager and anxious
inquirers.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 118: CHAPTER 22. --THE FORM OF THE REGION OF LIGHT THE WORSE OF THE TWO. 
========================================================================

Well, then, if this is so, the region of darkness is clearly touched on two
sides by the region of light. And if it is touched on two sides, it must touch
on two. So much for its being on one side, as we were told before. 24. And what
an unseemly appearance is this of the region of light! -- like a cloven arch,
with a black wedge inserted below, bounded only in the direction of the cleft,
and having a void space interposed where the boundless emptiness stretches above
the region of darkness. Indeed, the form of the region of darkness is better
than that of the region of light: for the former cleaves, the latter is cloven;
the former fills the gap which is made in the latter; the former has no void in
it, while the latter is undefined in all directions, except that where it is
filled up by the wedge of darkness. In an ignorant and greedy notion of giving
more honor to a number of pans than to a single one, so that the region of light
should have six, three upwards and three downwards, they have made this region
be split up, instead of sundering the other. For, according to this figure,
though there may be no commixture of darkness with light, there is certainly
penetration.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 119: CHAPTER 23. --THE ANTHROPOMORPHITES NOT SO BAD AS THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

25. Compare, now, not spiritual men of the Catholic faith, whose mind, as far as
is possible in this life, perceives that the divine substance and nature has no
material extension, and has no shape bounded by lines, but the carnal and weak
of our faith, who, when they hear the members of the body used figuratively, as,
when God's eyes or ears are spoken of, are accustomed, in the license of fancy,
to picture God to themselves in a human form; compare these with the Manichæans,
whose custom it is to make known their silly stories to anxious inquirers as if
they were great mysteries: and consider who have the most allowable and
respectable ideas of God, -- those who think of Him as having a human form which
is the most excellent of its kind, or those who think of Him as having boundless
material extension, yet not in all directions, but with three parts infinite and
solid, while in one part He is cloven, with an empty void, and with undefined
space above, while the region of darkness is inserted wedge-like below. Or
perhaps the proper expression is, that He is unconfined above in His own nature,
but encroached on below by a hostile nature. I join with you in laughing at the
folly of carnal men, unable as yet to form spiritual conceptions, who think of
God as having a human form. Do you too join me, if you can, in laughing at those
whose unhappy conceptions represent God as having a shape cloven or cut in such
an unseemly and unbecoming way, with such an empty gap above, and such a
dishonorable curtailment below. Besides, there is this difference, that these
carnal people, who think of God as having a human form, if they are content to
be nourished with milk from the breast of the Catholic Church, and do not rush
headlong into rash opinions, but cultivate in the Church the pious habit of
inquiry, and there ask that they may receive, and knock that it may be opened to
them, begin to understand spiritually the figures and parables of the
Scriptures, and gradually to perceive that the divine energies are suitably set
forth under the name, sometimes of ears, sometimes of eyes, sometimes of hands
or feet, or even of wings and feathers a shield too, and sword, and helmet, and
all the other innumerable things. And the more progress they make in this
understanding, the more are they confirmed as Catholics. The Manichæans, on the
other hand, when they abandon their material fancies, cease to be Manichæans.
For this is the chief and special point in their praises of Manichæus, that the
divine mysteries which were taught figuratively in books from ancient times were
kept for Manichæus, who was to come last, to solve and demonstrate; and so after
him no other teacher will come from God, for he has said nothing in figures or
parables, but has explained ancient sayings of that kind, and has himself taught
in plain, simple terms. Therefore, when the Manichæans hear these words of their
founder, on one side and border of the shining and sacred region was the region
of darkness, they have no interpretations to fall back on. Wherever they turn,
the wretched bondage of their own fancies brings them upon clefts or sudden
stoppages and joinings or sunderings of the most unseemly kind, which it would
be shocking to believe as true of any immaterial nature, even though mutable,
like the mind, not to speak of the immutable nature of God. And yet if I were
unable to rise to higher things, and to bring my thoughts from the entanglement
of false imaginations which are impressed on the memory by the bodily senses,
into the freedom and purity of spiritual existence, how much better would it be
to think of God as in the form of a man, than to fasten that wedge of darkness
to His lower edge, and, for want of a covering for the boundless vacuity above
to leave it void and unoccupied throughout infinite space! What notion could be
worse than this? What darker error can be taught or imagined?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 120: CHAPTER 24. --OF THE NUMBER OF NATURES IN THE MANICHÆAN FICTION. 
========================================================================

26. Again, I wish to know, when I read of God the Father and His kingdoms
founded on the shining and happy region, whether the Father and His kingdoms,
and the region, are all of the same nature and substance. If they are, then it
is not another nature or sort of body of God which the wedge of the race of
darkness cleaves and penetrates, which itself is an unspeakably revolting thing,
but it is actually the very nature of God which undergoes this. Think of this, I
beseech you: as you are men, think of it, and flee from it; and if by tearing
open your breasts you can cast out by the roots such profane fancies from your
faith, I pray you to do it. Or will you say that these three are not of one and
the same nature, but that the Father is of one, the kingdoms of another, and the
region of another, so that each has a peculiar nature and substance, and that
they are arranged according to their degree of excellence? If this is true,
Manichæus should have taught that there are four natures, not two; or if the
Father and the kingdoms have one nature, and the region only one of its own, he
should have made three. Or if he made only two, because the region of darkness
does not belong to God, in what sense does the region of light belong to God?
For if it has a nature of its own, and if God neither generated nor made it, it
does not belong to Him, and the seat of His kingdom is in what belongs to
another. Or if it belongs to Him because of its vicinity, the region of darkness
must do so too; for it not only borders on the region of light, but penetrates
it so as to sever it in two. Again, if God generated it, it cannot have a
separate nature. For what is generated by God must be what God is, as the
Catholic Church believes of the only begotten Son. So you are brought back of
necessity to that shocking and detestable profanity, that the wedge of darkness
sunders not a region distinct and separate from God, but the very nature of God.
Or if God did not generate, but make it, of what did He make it? Or if of
Himself, what is this but to generate? If of some other nature, was this nature
good or evil? If good, there must have been some good nature not belonging to
God; which you will scarcely have the boldness to assert. If evil, the race of
darkness cannot have been the only evil nature. Or did God take a part of that
region and turn it into a region of light, in order to found His kingdom upon
it? If He had, He would have taken the whole, and there would have been no evil
nature left. If God, then, did not make the region of light of a substance
distinct from His own, He must have made it of nothing. [282]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 121: CHAPTER 25. --OMNIPOTENCE CREATES GOOD THINGS DIFFERING IN DEGREE. IN EVERY DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER OF THE JUNCTION OF THE TWO REGIONS THERE IS EITHER IMPROPRIETY OR ABSURDITY. 
========================================================================

27. If, then, you are now convinced that God is able to create some good thing
out of nothing, come into the Catholic Church, and learn that all the natures
which God has created and founded in their order of excellence from the highest
to the lowest are good, and some better than others; and that they were made of
nothing, though God, their Maker, made use of His own wisdom as an instrument,
so to speak, to give being to what was not, and that as far as it had being it
might be good, and that the limitation of its being might show that it was not
begotten by God, but made out of nothing. If you examine the matter, you will
find nothing to keep you from agreeing to this. For you cannot make your region
of light to be what God is, without making the dark section an infringement on
the very nature of God. Nor can you say that it was generated by God, without
being reduced to the same enormity, from the necessity of concluding that as
begotten of God, it must be what God is. Nor can you say that it was distinct
from Him, lest you should be forced to admit that God placed His kingdom in what
did not belong to Him, and that there are three natures. Nor can you say that
God made it of a substance distinct from His own, without making something good
besides God, or something evil besides the race of darkness. It remains,
therefore that you must confess that God made the region of light out of
nothing: and you are unwilling to believe this; because if God could make out of
nothing some great good which yet was inferior to Himself, He could also, since
He is good, and grudges no good, make another good inferior to the former, and
again a third inferior to the second, and so on, in order down to the lowest
good of created natures, so that the whole aggregate, instead of extending
indefinitely without number or measure should have a fixed and definite
consistency. Again, if you will not allow this either, that God made the region
of light out of nothing, you will have no escape from the shocking profanities
to which your opinions lead. 28. Perhaps, since the carnal imagination can fancy
any shapes it likes, you might be able to devise some other form for the
junction of the two regions, instead of presenting to the mind such a
disagreeable and painful description as this, that the region of God, whether it
be of the same nature as God or not, where at least God's kingdoms are founded,
lies through immensity in such a huge mass that its members stretch loosely to
an infinite extent, and that on their lower part that wedge of the region of
darkness, itself of boundless size encroaches upon them. But whatever other form
you contrive for the junction of these two regions, you cannot erase what
Manichæus has written. I refer not to other treatises where a more particular
description is given, -- for perhaps, because they are in the hands of only a
few, there might not be so much difficulty with them, -- but to this Fundamental
Epistle which we are now considering, with which all of you who are called
enlightened are usually quite familiar. Here the words are: "On one side the
border of the shining and sacred region was the region of darkness, deep and
boundless in extent."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 122: CHAPTER 26. --THE MANICHÆANS ARE REDUCED TO THE CHOICE OF A TORTUOUS, OR CURVED, OR STRAIGHT LINE OF JUNCTION. THE THIRD KIND OF LINE WOULD GIVE SYMMETRY AND BEAUTY SUITABLE TO BOTH REGIONS. 
========================================================================

What more is to be got? we have now heard what is on the border. Make what shape
you please, draw any kind of lines you like, it is certain that the junction of
this boundless mass of the region of darkness to the region of light must have
been either by a straight line, or a curved, or a tortuous one. If the line of
junction is tortuous the side of the region of light must also be tortuous;
otherwise its straight side joined to a tortuous one would leave gaps of
infinite depth, instead of having vacuity only above the land of darkness, as we
were told before. And if there were such gaps, how much better it would have
been for the region of light to have been still more distant, and to have had a
greater vacuity between, so that the region of darkness might not touch it at
all! Then there might have been such a gap of bottomless depth, that, on the
rise of any mischief in that race, although the chiefs of darkness might have
the foolhardy wish to cross over, they would fall headlong into the gap (for
bodies cannot fly without air to support them); and as there is infinite space
downwards, they could do no more harm, though they might live for ever, for they
would be for ever falling. Again, if the line of junction was a curved one, the
region of light must also have had the disfigurement of a curve to answer it. Or
if the land of darkness were curved inwards like a theatre, there would be as
much disfigurement in the corresponding line in the region of light. Or if the
region of darkness had a curved line, and the region of light a straight one,
they cannot have touched at all points. And certainly, as I said before, it
would have been better if they had not touched, and if there was such a gap
between that the regions might be kept distinctly separate, and that rash
evildoers might fall headlong so as to be harmless. If, then, the line of
junction was a straight one, there remain, of course, no more gaps or grooves,
but, on the contrary, so perfect a junction as to make the greatest possible
peace and harmony between the two regions. What more beautiful or more suitable
than that one side should meet the other in a straight line, without bends or
breaks to disturb the natural and permanent connection throughout endless space
and endless duration? And even though there was a separation, the straight sides
of both regions would be beautiful in themselves, as being straight; and
besides, even in spite of an interval, their correspondence, as running
parallel, though not meeting, would give a symmetry to both. With the addition
of the junction, both regions become perfectly regular and harmonious; for
nothing can be devised more beautiful in description or in conception than this
junction of two straight lines. [283]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 123: CHAPTER 27. --THE BEAUTY OF THE STRAIGHT LINE MIGHT BE TAKEN FROM THE REGION OF DARKNESS WITHOUT TAKING ANYTHING FROM ITS SUBSTANCE. SO EVIL NEITHER TAKES FROM NOR ADDS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SOUL.
========================================================================

29. What is to be done with unhappy minds, perverse in error, and held fast by
custom? These men do not know what they say when they say those things; for they
do not consider. Listen to me; no one forces you, no one quarrels with you, no
one taunts you with past errors, unless some one who has not experienced the
divine mercy in deliverance from error: all we desire is that the errors should
some time or other be abandoned. Think a little without animosity or bitterness.
We are all human beings: let us hate, not one another, but errors and lies.
Think a little, I pray you. God of mercy, help them to think, and kindle in the
minds of inquirers the true light. If anything is plain, is not this, that right
is better than wrong? Give me, then, a calm and quiet answer to this, whether
making crooked the right line of the region of darkness which joins on to the
right line of the region of light, would not detract from its beauty. If you
will not be dogged, you must confess that not only is beauty taken from it by
its being made crooked, but also the beauty which it might have had from
connection with the right line of the region of light. Is it the case, then,
that in this loss of beauty, in which right is made crooked, and harmony becomes
discord, and agreement disagreement, there is any loss of substance? Learn,
then, from this that substance is not evil; but as in the body, by change of
form for the worse, beauty is lost, or rather lessened, and what was called fair
before is said to be ugly, and what was pleasing becomes displeasing, so in the
mind the seemliness of a right will, which makes a just and pious life, is
injured when the will changes for the worse; and by this sin the mind becomes
miserable, instead of enjoying as before the happiness which comes from the
ornament of a right will, without any gain or loss of substance. 30. Consider,
again, that though we admit that the border of the region of darkness was evil
for other reasons, such as that it was dim and dark, or any other reason, still
it was not evil in being straight. So, if I admit that there was some evil in
its color, you must admit that there was some good in its straightness. Whatever
the amount of this good, it is not allowable to attribute it to any other than
God the Maker, from whom we must believe that all good in whatsoever nature
comes, if we are to escape deadly error. It is absurd, then, to say that this
region is perfect evil, when in its straightness of border is found the good of
not a little beauty of a material kind; and also to make this region to be
altogether estranged, from the almighty and good God, when this good which we
find in it can be attributed to no other but the author of all good things. But
this border, too, we are told, was evil. Well, suppose it evil: it would surely
have been worse had it been crooked instead of straight. And how can that be the
perfection of evil than which something worse than itself can be thought of? And
to be worse implies that there is some good, the want of which makes the thing
worse. Here the want of straightness would make the line worse. Therefore its
straightness is something good. And you will never answer the question whence
this goodness comes, without reference to Him from whom we must acknowledge that
all good things come, whether small or great. But now we shall pass on from
considering this border to something else.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 124: CHAPTER 28. --MANICHÆUS PLACES FIVE NATURES IN THE REGION OF DARKNESS. 
========================================================================

31. "There dwelt," he says, "in that region fiery bodies, destructive races." By
speaking of dwelling, he must mean that those bodies were animated and in life.
But, not to appear to cavil at a word, let us see how he divides into five
classes all these inhabitants of this region. "Here," he says, "was boundless
darkness, flowing from the same source in immeasurable abundance, with the
productions properly belonging to it. Beyond this were muddy turbid waters, with
their inhabitants; and inside of them winds terrible and violent, with their
prince and their progenitors. Then, again, a fiery region of destruction, with
its chiefs and peoples. And, similarly, inside of this a race full of smoke and
gloom, where abode the dreadful prince and chief of all, having around him
innumerable princes, himself the mind and source of them all. Such are the five
natures of the pestiferous region." We find here five natures mentioned as part
of one nature, which he calls the pestiferous region. The natures are darkness,
waters, winds, fire, smoke; which he so arranges as to make darkness first,
beginning at the outside. Inside of darkness he puts the waters; inside of the
waters, the winds; inside of the winds, the fire; inside of the fire, the smoke.
And each of these natures had its peculiar kind of inhabitants, which were
likewise five in number. For to the question, Whether there was only one kind in
all, or different kinds corresponding to the different natures; the reply is,
that they were different: as in other books we find it stated that the darkness
had serpents; the waters swimming creatures, such as fish; the winds flying
creatures, such as birds; the fire quadrupeds, such as horses, lions, and the
like; the smoke bipeds, such as men.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 125: CHAPTER 29. --THE REFUTATION OF THIS ABSURDITY. 
========================================================================

32. Whose arrangement, then, is this? Who made the distinctions and the
classification? Who gave the number, the qualities, the forms, the life? For all
these things are in themselves good, nor could each of the natures have them
except from the bestowal of God, the author of all good things. For this is not
like the descriptions or suppositions of poets about an imaginary chaos, as
being a shapeless mass, without form, without quality, without measurement,
without weight and number, without order and variety; a confused something,
absolutely destitute of qualities, so that some Greek writers call it apoion. So
far from being like this is the Manichæan description of the region of darkness,
as they call it, that, in a directly contrary style, they add side to side, and
join border to border; they number five natures; they separate, arrange, and
assign to each its own qualities. Nor do they leave the natures barren or waste,
but people them with their proper inhabitants; and to these, again, they give
suitable forms, and adapted to their place of habitation, besides giving the
chief of all endowments, life. To recount such good things as these, and to
speak of them as having no connection with God, the author of all good things,
is to lose sight of the excellence of the order in the things, and of the great
evil of the error which leads to such a conclusion.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 126: CHAPTER 30. --THE NUMBER OF GOOD THINGS IN THOSE NATURES WHICH MANICHÆUS PLACES IN THE REGION OF DARKNESS. 
========================================================================

33. "But," is the reply, "the orders of beings inhabiting those five natures
were fierce and destructive." As if I were praising their fierceness and
destructiveness. I, you see, join with you in condemning the evils you attribute
to them; join you with me in praising the good things which you ascribe to them:
so it will appear that there is a mixture of good and evil in what you call the
last extremity of evil. If I join you in condemning what is mischievous in this
region, you must join with me in praising what is beneficial. For these beings
could not have been produced, or nourished, or have continued to inhabit that
region, without some salutary influence. I join with you in condemning the
darkness; join with me in praising the productiveness. For while you call the
darkness immeasurable, you speak of "suitable productions." Darkness, indeed, is
not a real substance, and means no more than the absence of light, as nakedness
means the want of clothing, and emptiness the want of material contents: so that
darkness could produce nothing, although a region in darkness -- that is, in the
absence of light -- might produce something. But passing over this for the
present, it is certain that where productions arise there must be a beneficent
adaptation of substances, as well as a symmetrical arrangement and construction
in unity of the members of the beings produced, -- a wise adjustment making them
agree with one another. And who will deny that all these things are more to be
praised than darkness is to be condemned? If I join with you in condemning the
muddiness of the waters, you must join with me in praising the waters as far as
they possessed the form and quality of water, and also the agreement of the
members of the inhabitants swimming in the waters, their life sustaining and
directing their body, and every particular adaptation of substances for the
benefit of health. For though you find fault with the waters as turbid and
muddy, still, in allowing them the quality of producing and maintaining their
living inhabitants, you imply that there was some kind of bodily form, and
similarity of parts, giving unity and congruity of character; otherwise there
could be no body at all: and, as a rational being, you must see that all these
things are to be praised. And however great you make the ferocity of these
inhabitants, and their massacrings and devastations in their assaults, you still
leave them the regular limits of form, by which the members of each body are
made to agree together, and their beneficial adaptations, and the regulating
power of the living principle binding together the parts of the body in a
friendly and harmonious union. And if all these are regarded with common sense
it will be seen that they are more to be commended than the faults are to be
condemned. I join with you in condemning the frightfulness of the winds; join
with me in praising their nature, as giving breath and nourishment, and their
material form in its continuousness and diffusion by the connection of its
parts: for by these things these winds had the power of producing and
nourishing, and sustaining in vigor these inhabitants you speak of; and also in
these inhabitants -- besides the other things which have already been commended
in all animated creatures -- this particular power of going quickly and easily
whence and whither they please, and the harmonious stroke of their wings in
flight, and their regular motion. I join with you in condemning the
destructiveness of fire; join with me in commending the productiveness of this
fire, and the growth of these productions, and the adaptation of the fire to the
beings produced, so that they had coherence, and came to perfection in measure
and shape, and could live and have their abode there: for you see that all these
things deserve admiration and praise, not only in the fire which is thus
habitable, but in the inhabitants too. I join with you in condemning the
denseness of smoke, and the savage character of the prince who, as you say,
abode in it; join with me in praising the similarity of all the parts in this
very smoke, by which it preserves the harmony and proportion of its parts among
themselves, according to its own nature, and has an unity which makes it what it
is: for no one can calmly reflect on these things without wonder and praise.
Besides, even to the smoke you give the power and energy of production, for you
say that princes inhabited it; so that in that region the smoke is productive,
which never happens here, and, moreover, affords a wholesome dwelling place to
its inhabitants.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 127: CHAPTER 31. --THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
========================================================================

34. And even in the prince of smoke himself, instead of mentioning only his
ferocity as a bad quality, ought you not to have taken notice of the other
things in his nature which you must allow to be commendable? For he had a soul
and a body; the soul life-giving, and the body endowed with life. Since the soul
governed and the body obeyed, the soul took the lead and the body followed; the
soul gave consistency, the body was not dissolved; the soul gave harmonious
motion, and the body was constructed of a well-proportioned framework of
members. In this single prince are you not induced to express approval of the
orderly peace or the peaceful order? And what applies to one applies to all the
rest. You say he was fierce and cruel to others. This is not what I commend, but
the other important things which you will not take notice of. Those things, when
perceived and considered, -- after advice by any one who has without
consideration put faith in Manichæus, -- lead him to a clear conviction that, in
speaking of those natures, he speaks of things good in a sense, not perfect and
un-created, like God the one Trinity, nor of the higher rank of created things,
like the holy angels and the ever-blessed powers; but of the lowest class, and
ranked according to the small measure of their endowments. These things are
thought to be blameworthy by the uninstructed when they compare them with higher
things; and in view of their want of some good, the good they have gets the name
of evil, because it is defective. My reason also for thus discussing the natures
enumerated by Manichæus is that the things named are things familiar to us in
this world. We are familiar with darkness, waters, winds, fire, smoke; we are
familiar, too, with animals, creeping, swimming, flying; with quadrupeds and
biped. With the exception of darkness (which, as I have said already, is nothing
but the absence of light, and the perception of it is only the absence of sight,
as the perception of silence is the absence of hearing; not that darkness is
anything, but that light is not, as neither that silence is anything, but that
sound is not), all the other things are natural qualities and are familiar to
all; and the form of those natures, which is commendable and good as far as it
exists, no wise man attributes to any other author than God, the author of all
good things. [284]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 128: CHAPTER 32. --MANICHÆUS GOT THE ARRANGEMENT OF HIS FANCIFUL NOTIONS FROM VISIBLE OBJECTS. 
========================================================================

35. For in giving to these natures which he has learned from visible things, an
arrangement according to his fanciful ideas, to represent the race of darkness,
Manichæus is clearly in error. First of all, he makes darkness productive, which
is impossible. But, he replies, this darkness was unlike what you are familiar
with. How, then, can you make me understand about it? After so many promises to
give knowledge, will you force me to take your word for it? Suppose I believe
you, this at least is certain, that if the darkness had no form, as darkness
usually has not, it could produce nothing; if it had form, it was better than
ordinary darkness: whereas, when you call it different from the ordinary kind,
you wish us to believe that it is worse. You might as well say that silence,
which is the same to the ear as darkness to the eyes, produced some deaf or dumb
animals in that region; and then, in reply to the objection that silence is not
a nature, you might say that it was different silence from ordinary silence; in
a word, you might say what you pleased to those whom you have once misled into
believing you. No doubt, the obvious facts relating to the origin of animal life
led Manichæus to say that serpents were produced in darkness. However, there are
serpents which have such sharp sight, and such pleasure in light, that they seem
to give evidence of the most weighty kind against this idea. Then the idea of
swimming things in the water might easily be got here, and applied to the
fanciful objects in that region; and so of flying things in the winds, for the
motion of the lower air in this world, where birds fly, is called wind. Where he
got the idea of the quadrupeds in fire, no one can tell. Still he said this
deliberately, though without sufficient thought, and from great misconception.
The reason usually given is, that quadrupeds are voracious and salacious. But
many men surpass any quadruped in voracity, though they are bipeds, and are
called children of the smoke, and not of fire. Geese, too, are as voracious as
any animal; and though he might place them in fire as bipeds, or in the water
because they love to swim, or in the winds because they have wings and sometimes
fly, they certainly have nothing to do with fire in this classification. As
regards salaciousness, I suppose he was thinking of neighing horses, which
sometimes bite through the bridle and rush at the mares; and writing hastily,
with this in his mind, he forgot the common sparrow, in comparison of which the
hottest stallion is cold. The reason they give for assigning bipeds to the smoke
is, that bipeds are conceited and proud, for men are derived from this class;
and the idea, which is a plausible one, is that smoke resembles proud people in
rising up into the air, round and swelling. This idea might warrant a figurative
description of proud men, or an allegorical expression or explanation, but not
the belief that bipeds are born in smoke and of smoke. They might with equal
reason be said to be born in dust, for it often rises up to the heaven with a
similar circling and lofty motion; or in the clouds, for they are often drawn up
from the earth in such a way, that those looking from a distance are uncertain
whether they are clouds or smoke. Once more, why, in the case of the waters and
the winds, does he suit the inhabitants to the character of the place, as we see
swimming things in water, and flying things in the wind; whereas, in the face of
fire and smoke, this bold liar is not ashamed to assign to these places the most
unlikely inhabitants? For fire burns quadrupeds, and consumes them, and smoke
suffocates and kills bipeds. At least he must acknowledge that he has made these
natures better in the race of darkness than they are here, though he wishes us
to think everything to be worse. For, according to this, the fire there produced
and nourished quadrupeds, and gave them a lodging not only harmless, but most
convenient. The smoke, too, provided room for the offspring of its own benign
bosom, and cherished them up to the rank of prince. Thus we see that these lies,
which have added to the number of heretics, arose from the perception by carnal
sense, only without care or discernment, of visible objects in this world, and
when thus conceived, were brought forth by fancy, and then presumptuously
written and published.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 129: CHAPTER 33. --EVERY NATURE, AS NATURE, IS GOOD. 
========================================================================

36. But the consideration we wish most to urge is the truth of the Catholic
doctrine, if they can understand it, that God is the author of all natures. I
urged this before when I said, I join with you in your condemnation of
destructiveness, of blindness, of dense muddiness, of terrific violence, of
perishableness, of the ferocity of the princes, and so on; join with me in
commending form, classification, arrangement, harmony, unity of structure,
symmetry and correspondence of members, provision for vital breath and
nourishment, wholesome adaptation, regulation and control by the mind, and the
subjection of the bodies, and the assimilation and agreement of parts in the
natures, both those inhabiting and those inhabited, and all the other things of
the same kind. From this, if they would only think honestly, they would
understand that it implies a mixture of good and evil, even in the region where
they suppose evil to be alone and in perfection: so that if the evils mentioned
were taken away, the good things will remain, without anything to detract from
the commendation given to them; whereas, if the good things are taken away, no
nature is left. From this every one sees, who can see, that every nature, as far
as it is nature, is good; since in one and the same thing in which I found
something to praise, and he found something to blame, if the good things are
taken away, no nature will remain; but if the disagreeable things are taken
away, the nature will remain unimpaired. Take from waters their thickness and
muddiness, and pure clear water remains; take from them the consistence of their
parts, and no water will be left. If then, after the evil is removed, the nature
remains in a purer state, and does not remain at all when the good is taken
away, it must be the good which makes the nature of the thing in which it is,
while the evil is not nature, but contrary to nature. Take from the winds their
terribleness and excessive force, with which you find fault, you can conceive of
winds as gentle and mild; take from them the similarity of their parts which
gives them continuity of substance, and the unity essential to material
existence, and no nature remains to be conceived of. It would be tedious to go
through all the cases; but all who consider the subject free from party spirit
must see that in their list of natures the disagreeable things mentioned are
additions to the nature; and when they are removed, the natures remain better
than before. This shows that the natures, as far as they are natures, are good;
for when you take from them the good instead of the evil, no natures remain. And
attend, you who wish to arrive at a correct judgment, to what is said of the
fierce prince himself. If you take away his ferocity, see how many excellent
things will remain; his material frame, the symmetry of the members on one side
with those on the other, the unity of his form, the settled continuity of his
parts, the orderly adjustment of the mind as ruling and animating, and the body
as subject and animated. The removal of these things, and of others I may have
omitted to mention, will leave no nature remaining.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 130: CHAPTER 34. --NATURE CANNOT BE WITHOUT SOME GOOD. THE MANICHÆANS DWELL UPON THE EVILS. 
========================================================================

37. But perhaps you will say that these evils cannot be removed from the
natures, and must therefore be considered natural. The question at present is
not what can be taken away, and what cannot; but it certainly helps to a clear
perception that these natures, as far as they are natures, are good, when we see
that the good things can be thought of without these evil things, while without
these good things no nature can be conceived of. I can conceive of waters
without muddy commotion; but without settled continuity of parts no material
form is an object of thought or of sensation in any way. Therefore even these
muddy waters could not exist without the good which was the condition of their
material existence. As to the reply that these evil things cannot be taken from
such natures, I rejoin that neither can the good things be taken away. Why,
then, should you call these things natural evils, on account of the evil things
which you suppose cannot be taken away, and yet refuse to call them natural good
things, on account of the good things which, as has been proved, cannot be taken
away? 38. You may next ask, as you usually do for a last resource, whence come
these evils which I have said that I too disapprove of. I shall perhaps tell
you, if you first tell me whence are those good things which you too are obliged
to commend, if you would not be altogether unreasonable. But why should I ask
this, when we both acknowledge that all good things whatever, and how great
soever, are from the one God, who is supremely good? You must therefore
yourselves oppose Manichæus who has placed all these important good things which
we have mentioned and justly commended, -- the continuity and agreement of parts
in each nature, the health and vigor of the animated creatures, and the other
things which it would be wearisome to repeat, -- (in an imaginary region of
darkness, so as to separate them altogether from that God whom he allows to be
the author of all good things.) He lost sight of those good things, while taking
notice only of what was disagreeable; as if one, frightened by a lion's roaring,
and seeing him dragging away and tearing the bodies of cattle or human beings
which he had seized, should from childish pusillanimity be so overpowered with
fear as to see nothing but the cruelty and ferocity of the lion; and overlooking
or disregarding all the other qualities, should exclaim against the nature of
this animal as not only evil, but a great evil, his fear adding to his
vehemence. But were he to see a tame lion, with its ferocity subdued, especially
if he had never been frightened by a lion, he would have leisure, in the absence
of danger and terror, to observe and admire the beauty of the animal. My only
remark on this is one closely connected with our subject: that any nature may be
in some case disagreeable, so as to excite hatred towards the whole nature;
though it is clear that the form of a real living beast, even when it excites
terror in the woods, is far better than that of the artificial imitation which
is commended in a painting on the wall. We must not then be misled into this
error by Manichæus, or be hindered from observing the forms of the natures, by
his finding fault with some things in them in such a way as to make us
disapprove of them entirely, when it is impossible to show that they deserve
entire disapproval. And when our minds are thus composed and prepared to form a
just judgment, we may ask whence come those evils which I have said that I
condemn. It will be easier to see this if we class them all under one name.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 131: CHAPTER 35. --EVIL ALONE IS CORRUPTION. CORRUPTION IS NOT NATURE, BUT CONTRARY TO NATURE. CORRUPTION IMPLIES PREVIOUS GOOD. 
========================================================================

39. For who can doubt that the whole of that which is called evil is nothing
else than corruption? Different evils may, indeed, be called by different names;
but that which is the evil of all things in which any evil is perceptible is
corruption. So the corruption of an educated mind is ignorance; the corruption
of a prudent mind is imprudence; the corruption of a just mind, injustice; the
corruption of a brave mind, cowardice; the corruption of a calm, peaceful mind,
cupidity, fear, sorrow, pride. Again, in a living body, the corruption of health
is pain and disease; the corruption of strength is exhaustion; the corruption of
rest is toil. Again, in any corporeal thing, the corruption of beauty is
ugliness; the corruption of straightness is crookedness; the corruption of order
is confusion; the corruption of entireness is disseverance, or fracture, or
diminution. It would be long and laborious to mention by name all the
corruptions of the things here mentioned, and of countless other things; for in
many cases the words may apply to the mind as well as to the body, and in
innumerable cases the corruption has a distinct name of its own. But enough has
been said to show that corruption does harm only as displacing the natural
condition; and so, that corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if
corruption is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not
nature, no nature is evil. 40. But if, perchance, you cannot follow this,
consider again, that whatever is corrupted is deprived of some good: for if it
were not corrupted, it would be incorrupt; or if it could not in any way be
corrupted, it would be incorruptible. Now, if corruption is an evil, both
incorruption and incorruptibility must be good things. We are not, however,
speaking at present of incorruptible nature, but of things which admit of
corruption, and which, while not corrupted, may be called incorrupt, but not
incorruptible. That alone can be called incorruptible which not only is not
corrupted, but also cannot in any part be corrupted. Whatever things, then,
being incorrupt, but liable to corruption, begin to be corrupted, are deprived
of the good which they had as incorrupt. Nor is this a slight good, for
corruption is a great evil. And the continued increase of corruption implies the
continued presence of good, of which they may be deprived. Accordingly, the
natures supposed to exist in the region of darkness must have been either
corruptible or incorruptible. If they were incorruptible, they were in
possession of a good than which nothing is higher. If they were corruptible,
they were either corrupted or not corrupted. If they were not corrupted, they
were incorrupt, to say which of anything is to give it great praise. If they
were corrupted, they were deprived of this great good of incorruption; but the
deprivation implies the previous possession of the good they are deprived of;
and if they possessed this good, they were not the perfection of evil, and
consequently all the Manichæan story is a falsehood.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 132: CHAPTER 36. --THE SOURCE OF EVIL OR OF CORRUPTION OF GOOD. 
========================================================================

41. After thus inquiring what evil is, and learning that it is not nature, but
against nature, we must next inquire whence it is. If Manichæus had done this,
he might have escaped falling into the snare of these serious errors. Out of
time and out of order, he began with inquiring into the origin of evil, without
first asking what evil was; and so his inquiry led him only to the reception of
foolish fancies, of which the mind, much fed by the bodily senses, with
difficulty rids itself. Perhaps, then, some one, desiring no longer argument,
but delivery from error, will ask, Whence is this corruption which we find to be
the common evil of good things which are not incorruptible? Such an inquirer
will soon find the answer if he seeks for truth with great earnestness, and
knocks reverently with sustained assiduity. For while man can use words as a
kind of sign for the expression of his thoughts, teaching is the work of the
incorruptible Truth itself, who is the one true, the one internal Teacher. He
became external also, that He might recall us from the external to the internal;
and taking on Himself the form of a servant, that He might bring down His height
to the knowledge of those rising up to Him, He condescended to appear in
lowliness to the low. In His name let us ask, and through Him let us seek mercy
of the Father while making this inquiry. For to answer in a word the question,
Whence is corruption? it is hence, because these natures that are capable of
corruption were not begotten by God, but made by Him out of nothing; and as we
already proved that those natures are good, no one can say with propriety that
they were not good as made by God. If it is said that God made them perfectly
good, it must be remembered that the only perfect good is God Himself, the maker
of those good things.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 133: CHAPTER 37. --GOD ALONE PERFECTLY GOOD. 
========================================================================

42. What harm, you ask, would follow if those things too were perfectly good?
Still, should any one, who admits and believes the perfect goodness of God the
Father, inquire what source we should reverently assign to any other perfectly
good thing, supposing it to exist, our only correct reply would be, that it is
of God the Father, who is perfectly good. And we must bear in mind that what is
of Him is born of Him, and not made by Him out of nothing, and that it is
therefore perfectly, that is, incorruptibly, good like God Himself. So we see
that it is unreasonable to require that things made out of nothing should be as
perfectly good as He who was begotten of God Himself, and who is one as God is
one, otherwise God would have begotten something unlike Himself. Hence it shows
ignorance and impiety to seek for brethren for this only-begotten Son through
whom all good things were made by the Father out of nothing, except in this,
that He condescended to appear as man. Accordingly in Scripture He is called
both only-begotten and first-begotten; only-begotten of the Father, and
first-begotten from the dead. "And we beheld," says John, "His glory, the glory
as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." [285] And Paul
says, "that He might be the first-born among many brethren." [286] 43. But
should we say, These things made out of nothing are not good things, but only
God's nature is good, we shall be unjust to good things of great value. And
there is impiety in calling it a defect in anything not to be what God is, and
in denying a thing to be good because it is inferior to God. Pray submit then,
thou nature of the rational soul, to be somewhat less than God, but only so far
less, that after Him nothing else is above thee. Submit, I say, and yield to
Him, lest He drive thee still lower into depths where the punishment inflicted
will continually detract more and more from the good which thou hast. Thou
exaltest thyself against God, if thou art indignant at His preceding thee; and
thou art very contumacious in thy thoughts of Him, if thou dost not rejoice
unspeakably in the possession of this good, that He alone is above thee. This
being settled as certain, thou art not to say, God should have made me the only
nature: there should be no good thing after me. It could not be that the next
good thing to God should be the last. And in this is seen most clearly how great
dignity God conferred on thee, that He who in the order of nature alone rules
over thee, made other good things for thee to rule over. Nor be surprised that
they are not now in all respects subject to thee, and that sometimes they pain
thee; for thy Lord has greater authority over the things subject to thee than
thou hast, as a master over the servants of his servants. What wonder, then, if,
when thou sinnest, that is, disobeyest thy Lord, the things thou before ruledst
over are made instrumental in thy punishment? For what is so just, or what is
more just than God? For this befell human nature in Adam, of whom this is not
the place to speak. Suffice it to say, the righteous Ruler acts in character
both in just rewards and in just punishments, in the happiness of those who live
rightly, and in the penalty inflicted on sinners. Nor yet art thou [287] left
without mercy, since by an appointed distribution of things and times thou art
called to return. Thus the righteous control of the supreme Creator extends even
to earthly good things, which are corrupted and restored, that thou mightest
have consolations mingled with punishments; that thou mightest both praise God
when delighted by the order of good things, and mightest take refuge in Him when
tried by experience of evils. So, as far as earthly things are subject to thee,
they teach thee that thou art their ruler; as far as they distress thee, they
teach thee to be subject to thy Lord.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 134: CHAPTER 38. --NATURE MADE BY GOD; CORRUPTION COMES FROM NOTHING. 
========================================================================

44. In this way, though corruption is an evil, and though it comes not from the
Author of natures, but from their being made out of nothing, still, in God's
government and control over all that He has made, even corruption is so ordered
that it hurts only the lowest natures, for the punishment of the condemned, and
for the trial and instruction of the returning, that they may keep near to the
incorruptible God, and remain incorrupt, which is our only good; as is said by
the prophet, "But it is good for me that I keep near to God." [288] And you must
not say, God did not make corruptible natures: for, as far as they are natures,
God made them; but as far as they are corruptible, God did not make them: for
corruption cannot come from Him who alone is incorruptible. If you can receive
this, give thanks to God; if you cannot, be quiet and do not condemn what you do
not yet understand, but humbly wait on Him who is the light of the mind that
thou mayest know. For in the expression "corruptible nature" there are two
words, and not one only. So, in the expression, God made out of nothing, "God"
and "nothing" are two separate words. Render therefore to each of these words
that which belongs to each, so that the word "nature" may go with the word
"God,"and the word "corruptible" with the word "nothing." And yet even the
corruptions, though they have not their origin from God, are to be overruled by
Him in accordance with the order of inanimate things and the deserts of His
intelligent creatures. Thus we say rightly that reward and punishment are both
from God. For God's not making corruption is consistent with His giving over to
corruption the man who deserves to be corrupted, that is, who has begun to
corrupt himself by sinning, that he who has wilfully yielded to the allurements
of corruption may, against his will, suffer its pains.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 135: CHAPTER 39. --IN WHAT SENSE EVILS ARE FROM GOD. 
========================================================================

45. Not only is it written in the Old Testament, "I make good, and create evil;"
[289] but more clearly in the New Testament, where the Lord says, "Fear not them
which kill the body, and have no more that they can do; but fear him who, after
he has killed the body, has power to cast the soul into hell." [290] And that to
voluntary corruption penal corruption is added in the divine judgment, is
plainly declared by the Apostle Paul, when he says, "The temple of God is holy,
which temple ye are; whoever corrupts the temple of God, him will God corrupt."
[291] If this had been said in the Old Law, how vehemently would the Manichæans
have denounced it as making God a corrupter! And from fear of the word, many
Latin translators make it, "him shall God destroy," instead of corrupt, avoiding
the offensive word without any change of meaning. Although these would inveigh
against any passage in the Old Law or the prophets if God was called in it a
destroyer. But the Greek original here shows that corrupt is the true word; for
it is written distinctly, "Whoever corrupts the temple of God, him will God
corrupt." If the Manichæans are asked to explain the words, they will say, to
escape making God a corrupter, that corrupt here means to give over to
corruption, or some such explanation. Did they read the Old Law in this spirit,
they would both find many admirable things in it; and instead of spitefully
attacking passages which they did not understand, they would reverently postpone
the inquiry.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 136: CHAPTER 40. --CORRUPTION TENDS TO NON-EXISTENCE. 
========================================================================

46. But if any one does not believe that corruption comes from nothing, let him
place before himself existence and non-existence -- one, as it were, on one
side, and the other on the other (to speak so as not to outstrip the slow to
understand); then let him set something, say the body of an animal, between
them, and let him ask himself whether, while the body is being formed and
produced, while its size is increasing, while it gains nourishment, health,
strength, beauty, stability, it is tending, as regards its duration and
permanence, to this side or that, to existence or non-existence. He will see
without difficulty, that even in the rudimentary form there is an existence, and
that the more the body is established and built up in form, and figure and
strength, the more does it come to exist, and to tend to the side of existence.
Then, again, let the body begin to be corrupted; let its whole condition be
enfeebled, let its vigor languish, its strength decay, its beauty be defaced,
its framework be sundered, the consistency of its parts give way and go to
pieces; and let him ask now where the body is tending in this corruption,
whether to existence or non-existence: he will not surely be so blind or stupid
as to doubt how to answer himself, or as not to see that, in proportion as
anything is corrupted, in that proportion it approaches decease. But whatever
tends to decease tends to non-existence. Since, then, we must believe that God
exists immutably and incorruptibly, while what is called nothing is clearly
altogether nonexistent; and since, after setting before yourself existence and
non-existence, you have observed that the more a visible object increases the
more it tends towards existence, while the more it is corrupted the more it
tends towards non-existence, why are you at a loss to tell regarding any nature
what in it is from God, and what from nothing; seeing that visible form is
natural, and corruption against nature? The increase of form leads to existence,
and we acknowledge God as supreme existence; the increase of corruption leads to
non-existence, and we know that what is non-existent is nothing. Why then, I
say, are you at a loss to tell regarding a corruptible nature, when you have
both the words nature and corruptible, what is from God, and what from nothing?
And why do you inquire for a nature contrary to God, since, if you confess that
He is the supreme existence, it follows that non-existence is contrary to Him?
[292]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 137: CHAPTER 41. --CORRUPTION IS BY GOD'S PERMISSION, AND COMES FROM US. 
========================================================================

47. You ask, Why does corruption take from nature what God has given to it? It
takes nothing but where God permits; and He permits in righteous and
well-ordered judgment, according to the degrees of non-intelligent and the
deserts of intelligent creatures. The word uttered passes away as an object of
sense, and perishes in silence; and yet the coming and going of these passing
words make our speech, and the regular intervals of silence give pleasing and
appropriate distinction; and so it is with temporal natures which have this
lowest form of beauty, that transition gives them being, and the death of what
they give birth to gives them individuality. And if our sense and memory could
rightly take in the order and proportions of this beauty, it would so please us,
that we should not dare to give the name of corruptions to those imperfections
which give rise to the distinction. And when distress comes to us through their
peculiar beauty, by the loss of beloved temporal things passing away, we both
pay the penalty of our sins, and are exhorted to set our affection on eternal
things.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 138: CHAPTER 42. --EXHORTATION TO THE CHIEF GOOD. 
========================================================================

48. Let us, then, not seek in this beauty for what has not been given to it (and
from not having what we seek for, this is the lowest form of beauty); and in
that which has been given to it, let us praise God, because He has bestowed this
great good of visible form even on the lowest degree of beauty. And let us not
cleave as lovers to this beauty, but as praisers of God let us rise above it;
and from this superior position let us pronounce judgment on it, instead of so
being bound up in it as to be judged along with it. And let us hasten on to that
good which has no motion in space or advancement in time, from which all natures
in space and time receive their sensible being and their form. To see this good
let us purify our heart by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, "Blessed
are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." [293] For the eyes needed in
order to see this good are not those with which we see the light spread through
space, which has part in one place and part in another, instead of being all in
every place. The sight and the discernment we are to purify is that by which we
see, as far as is allowed in this life, what is just, what is pious, what is the
beauty of wisdom. He who sees these things, values them far above the fullness
of all regions in space, and finds that the vision of these things requires not
the extension of his perception through distances in space, but its invigoration
by an immaterial influence. [294]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 139: CHAPTER 43. --CONCLUSION. 
========================================================================

49. And as this vision is greatly hindered by those fancies which are originated
by the carnal sense, and are retained and modified by the imagination, let us
abhor this heresy which has been led by faith in its fancies to represent the
divine substance as extended and diffused through space, even through infinite
space, and to cut short one side so as to make room for evil, -- not being able
to perceive that evil is not nature, but against nature; and to beautify this
very evil with such visible appearance, and forms, and consistency of parts
prevailing in its several natures, not being able to conceive of any nature
without those good things, that the evils found fault with in it are buried
under a countless abundance of good things. Here let us close this part of the
treatise. The other absurdities of Manichæus will be exposed in what follows, by
the permission and help of God. [295]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 140: ST. AUGUSTIN: 
========================================================================

Reply to Faustus the Manichæan. faustus the manichæan, [contra faustum
manichæum]. A.D.400. translated by rev. richard stothert, m.a., bombay


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 141: REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHÆAN. 
========================================================================

[Contra Faustum Manichæum.] a.d.400. Written about the year 400. [Faustus was
undoubtedly the acutest, most determined and most unscrupulous opponent of
orthodox Christianity in the age of Augustin. The occasion of Augustin's great
writing against him was the publication of Faustus' attack on the Old Testament
Scriptures, and on the New Testament so far as it was at variance with Manichæan
error. Faustus seems to have followed in the footsteps of Adimantus, against
whom Augustin had written some years before, but to have gone considerably
beyond Adimantus in the recklessness of his statements. The incarnation of
Christ, involving his birth from a woman, is one of the main points of attack.
He makes the variations in the genealogical records of the Gospels a ground for
rejecting the whole as spurious. He supposed the Gospels, in their present form,
to be not the works of the Apostles, but rather of later Judaizing falsifiers.
The entire Old Testament system he treats with the utmost contempt, blaspheming
the Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets, etc., on the ground of their private lives
and their teachings. Most of the objections to the morality of the Old Testament
that are now current were already familiarly used in the time of Augustin.
Augustin's answers are only partially satisfactory, owing to his imperfect view
of the relation of the old dispensation to the new; but in the age in which they
were written they were doubtless very effective. The writing is interesting from
the point of view of Biblical criticism, as well as from that of polemics
against Manichæism. -- A.H.N.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 142: WHO FAUSTUS WAS. FAUSTUS'S OBJECT IN WRITING THE POLEMICAL TREATISE THAT FORMS THE BASIS OF AUGUSTIN'S REPLY. AUGUSTIN'S REMARKS THEREON. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus was an African by race, a citizen of Mileum; he was eloquent and
clever, but had adopted the shocking tenets of the Manichæan heresy. He is
mentioned in my Confessions, [296] where there is an account of my acquaintance
with him. This man published a certain volume against the true Christian faith
and the Catholic truth. A copy reached us, and was read by the brethren, who
called for an answer from me, as part of the service of love which I owe to
them. Now, therefore, in the name and with the help of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, I undertake the task, that all my readers may know that acuteness
of mind and elegance of style are of no use to a man unless the Lord directs his
steps. [297] In the mysterious equity of divine mercy, God often bestows His
help on the slow and the feeble; while from the want of this help, the most
acute and eloquent run into error only with greater rapidity and willfulness. I
will give the opinions of Faustus as if stated by himself, and mine as if in
reply to him. 2. Faustus said: As the learned Adimantus, the only teacher since
the sainted Manichæus deserving of our attention, has plentifully exposed and
thoroughly refuted the errors of Judaism and of semi-Christianity, I think it
not amiss that you should be supplied in writing with brief and pointed replies
to the captious objections of our adversaries, that when, like children of the
wily serpent, they try to bewilder you with their quibbles, you may be prepared
to give intelligent answers. In this way they will be kept to the subject,
instead of wandering from one thing to another. And I have placed our opinions
and those of our opponent over against one another, as plainly and briefly as
possible, so as not to perplex the reader with a long and intricate discourse.
3. Augustin replies: You warn against semi-Christians, which you say we are; but
we warn against pseudo-Christians, which we have shown you to be.
Semi-Christianity may be imperfect without being false. So, then, if the faith
of those whom you try to mislead is imperfect, would it not be better to supply
what is lacking than to rob them of what they have? It was to imperfect
Christians that the apostle wrote, "joying and beholding your conversation," and
"the deficiency in your faith in Christ." [298] The apostle had in view a
spiritual structure, as he says elsewhere, "Ye are God's building;" [299] and in
this structure he found both a reason for joy and a reason for exertion. He
rejoiced to see part already finished; and the necessity of bringing the edifice
to perfection called for exertion. Imperfect Christians as we are, you pursue us
with the desire to pervert what you call our semi-Christianity by false
doctrine; while even those who are so deficient in faith as to be unable to
reply to all your sophisms, are wise enough at least to know that they must not
have anything at all to do with you. You look for semi-Christians to deceive: we
wish to prove you pseudo-Christians, that Christians may learn something from
your refutation, and that the less advanced may learn to avoid you. Do you call
us children of the serpent? You have surely forgotten how often you have found
fault with the prohibition in Paradise, and have praised the serpent for opening
Adam's eyes. You have the better claim to the title which you give us. The
serpent owns you as well when you blame him as when you praise him.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 143: FAUSTUS CLAIMS TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, YET REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH AUGUSTIN SEEKS TO SET ASIDE. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that
Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not follow that because I believe the
gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born. This I do not
believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel,
both in name and in fact, begins with Christ's preaching. As for the genealogy,
the author himself does not venture to call it the gospel. For what did he
write? "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David." [300] The
book of the generation is not the book of the gospel. It is more like a
birth-register, the star confirming the event. Mark, on the other hand, who
recorded the preaching of the Son of God, without any genealogy, begins most
suitably with the words, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." It is
plain that the genealogy is not the gospel. Matthew himself says, that after
John was put in prison, Jesus began to preach the gospel of the kingdom; so that
what is mentioned before this is the genealogy, and not the gospel. Why did not
Matthew begin with, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God," but because he
thought it sinful to call the genealogy the gospel? Understand, then, what you
have hitherto overlooked -- the distinction between the genealogy and the
gospel. Do I then admit the truth of the gospel? Yes; understanding by the
gospel the preaching of Christ. I have plenty to say about the generations too,
if you wish. But you seem to me now to wish to know not whether I accept the
gospel, but whether I accept the generations. 2. Augustin replied: Well, in
answer to your own questions, you tell us first that you believe the gospel, and
next, that you do not believe in the birth of Christ; and your reason is, that
the birth of Christ is not in the gospel. What, then, will you answer the
apostle when he says, "Remember that Christ Jesus rose from the dead, of the
seed of David, according to my gospel?" [301] You surely are ignorant, or
pretend to be ignorant, what the gospel is. You use the word, not as the apostle
teaches, but as suits your own errors. What the apostles call the gospel you
depart from; for you do not believe that Christ was of the seed of David. This
was Paul's gospel; and it was also the gospel of the other apostles, and of all
faithful stewards of so great a mystery. For Paul says elsewhere, "Whether,
therefore, I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." [302] They did not all
write the gospel, but they all preached it. The name evangelist is properly
given to the narrators of the birth, the actions, the words, the sufferings of
our Lord Jesus Christ. The word gospel means good news, and might be used of any
good news, but is properly applied to the narrative of the Saviour. If, then,
you teach something different, you must have departed from the gospel. Assuredly
those babes whom you despise as semi-Christians will oppose you, when they hear
their mother Charity declaring by the mouth of the apostle, "If any one preach
another gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
[303] Since, then, Paul, according to his gospel, preached that Christ was of
the seed of David, and you deny this and preach something else, may you be
accursed! And what can you mean by saying that Christ never declares Himself to
have been born of men, when on every occasion He calls Himself the Son of man?
3. You learned men, forsooth, dress up for our benefit some wonderful First Man,
who came down from the race of light to war with the race of darkness, armed
with his waters against the waters of the enemy, and with his fire against their
fire, and with his winds against their winds. And why not with his smoke against
their smoke, and with his darkness against their darkness? According to you, he
was armed against smoke with air, and against darkness with light. So it appears
that smoke and darkness are bad, since they could not belong to his goodness.
The other three, again -- water, wind, and fire -- are good. How, then, could
these belong to the evil of the enemy? You reply that the water of the race of
darkness was evil, while that which the First Man brought was good; and so, too,
his good wind and fire fought against the evil wind and fire of the adversary.
But why could he not bring good smoke against evil smoke? Your falsehoods seem
to vanish in smoke. Well, your First Man warred against an opposite nature. And
yet only one of the five things he brought was the opposite of what the hostile
race had. The light was opposed to the darkness, but the four others are not
opposed to one another. Air is not the opposite of smoke, and still less is
water the opposite of water, or wind of wind, or fire of fire. 4. One is shocked
at your wild fancies about this First Man changing the elements which he
brought, that he might conquer his enemies by pleasing them. So you make what
you call the kingdom of falsehood keep honestly to its own nature, while truth
is changeable in order to deceive. Jesus Christ, according to you, is the son of
this First Man. Truth springs, forsooth, from your fiction. You praise this
First Man for using changeable and delusive forms in the contest. If you, then,
speak the truth, you do not imitate him. If you imitate him, you deceive as he
did. But our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the true and truthful Son of God,
the true and truthful Son of man, both of which He testifies of Himself, derived
the eternity of His godhead from true God, and His incarnation from true man.
Your First Man is not the first man of the apostle. "The first man," he says,
"was of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the
earthy, such are they also that are earthy; as is the heavenly, such are they
also that are heavenly. As we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also
bear the image of the heavenly." [304] The first man of the earth, earthy, is
Adam, who was made of dust. The second man from heaven, heavenly, is the Lord
Jesus Christ; for, being the Son of God, He became flesh that He might be a man
outwardly, while He remained God within; that He might be both the true Son of
God, by whom we were made, and the true Son of man, by whom we are made anew.
Why do you conjure up this fabulous First Man of yours, and refuse to
acknowledge the first man of the apostle? Is this not a fulfillment of what the
apostle says: "Turning away their ears from the truth, they will give heed to
fables?" [305] According to Paul, the first man is of the earth, earthy;
according to Manichæus, he is not earthy, and is equipped with five elements of
some unreal, unintelligible kind. Paul says: "If any one should have announced
to you differently from what we have announced let him be accursed." Therefore
lest Paul be a liar, let Manichæus be accursed. 5. Again, you find fault with
the star by which the Magi were led to worship the infant Christ, which you
should be ashamed of doing, when you represent your fabulous Christ, the son of
your fabulous First Man not as announced by a star, but as bound up in all the
stars. [306] For you say that he mingled with the principles of darkness in his
conflict with the race of darkness, that by capturing these principles the world
might be made out of the mixture. So that, by your profane fancies, Christ is
not only mingled with heaven and all the stars, but conjoined and compounded
with the earth and all its productions, [307] -- a Saviour no more, but needing
to be saved by you, by your eating and disgorging Him. This foolish custom of
making your disciples bring you food, that your teeth and stomach may be the
means of relieving Christ, who is bound up in it, is a consequence of your
profane fancies. You declare that Christ is liberated in this way -- not,
however, entirely; for you hold that some tiny particles of no value still
remain in the excrement, to be mixed up and compounded again and again in
various material forms, and to be released and purified at any rate by the fire
in which the world will be burned up, if not before. Nay, even then, you say,
Christ is not entirely liberated; but some extreme particles of His good and
divine nature, which have been so defiled that they cannot be cleansed, are
condemned to stay for ever in the horrid mass of darkness. And these people
pretend to be offended with our saying that a star announced the birth of the
Son of God, as if this were placing His birth under the influence of a
constellation; while they subject Him not to stars only, but to such polluting
contact with all material things, with the juices of all vegetables, and with
the decay of all flesh, and with the decomposition of all food, in which He is
bound up, that the only way of releasing Him, at least one great means, is that
men, that is the Elect of the Manichæans, should succeed in digesting their
dinner. We, too, deny the influence of the stars upon the birth of any man; for
we maintain that, by the just law of God, the free-will of man, which chooses
good or evil, is under no constraint of necessity. How much less do we subject
to any constellation the incarnation of the eternal Creator and Lord of all!
When Christ was born after the flesh, the star which the Magi saw had no power
as governing, but attended as a witness. Instead of assuming control over Him,
it acknowledged Him by the homage it did. Besides, this star was not one of
those which from the beginning of the world continue in the course ordained by
the Creator. Along with the new birth from the Virgin appeared a new star, which
served as a guide to the Magi who were themselves seeking for Christ; for it
went before them till they reached the place where they found the Word of God in
the form of a child. But what astrologer ever thought of making a star leave its
course, and come down to the child that is born, as they imagine, under it? They
think that the stars affect the birth, not that the birth changes the course of
the stars; so, if the star in the Gospel was one of those heavenly bodies, how
could it determine Christ's action, when it was compelled to change its own
action at Christ's birth? But if, as is more likely, a star which did not exist
before appeared to point out Christ, it was the effect of Christ's birth, and
not the cause of it. Christ was not born because the star was there; but the
star was there because Christ was born. If there was any fate, it was in the
birth, and not in the star. The word fate is derived from a word which means to
speak; and since Christ is the Word of God by which all things were spoken
before they were, the conjunction of stars is not the fate of Christ, but Christ
is the fate of the stars. The same will that made the heavens took our earthly
nature. The same power that ruled the stars laid down His life and took it
again. 6. Why, then, should the narrative of the birth not be the gospel, since
it conveys such good news as heals our malady? Is it because Matthew begins, not
like Mark, with the words, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," but,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ?" In this way, John, too, might be
said not to have written the gospel, for he has not the words, Beginning of the
gospel, or Book of the gospel, but, "In the beginning was the Word." Perhaps the
clever word-maker Faustus will call the introduction in John a Verbidium, as he
called that in Matthew a Genesidium. The wonder is, that you are so impudent as
to give the name of gospel to your silly stories. What good news is there in
telling us that, in the conflict against some strange hostile nation, God could
protect His own kingdom only by sending part of His own nature into the greedy
jaws of the former, and to be so defiled, that after all those toils and
tortures it cannot all be purged? Is this bad news the gospel? Every one who has
even a slender knowledge of Greek knows that gospel means good news. But where
is your good news, when your God himself is said to weep as under eclipse till
the darkness and defilement are removed from his members? And when he ceases to
weep, it seems he becomes cruel. For what has that part of him which is to be
involved in the mass done to deserve this condemnation? This part must go on
weeping for ever. But no; whoever examines this news will not weep because it is
bad, but will laugh because it is not true.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 144: FAUSTUS OBJECTS TO THE INCARNATION OF GOD ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVANGELISTS ARE AT VARIANCE WITH EACH OTHER, AND THAT INCARNATION IS UNSUITABLE TO DEITY. AUGUSTIN ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THE CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Do I believe in the incarnation? For my part, this is the very
thing I long tried to persuade myself of, that God was born; but the discrepancy
in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew stumbled me, as I knew not which to
follow. For I thought it might happen that, from not being omniscient, I might
take the true for false, and the false for true. So, in despair of settling this
dispute, I betook myself to Mark and John, two authorities still, and
evangelists as much as the others. I approved with good reason of the beginning
of Mark and John, for they have nothing of David, or Mary, or Joseph. John says,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God," meaning Christ. Mark says, "The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,"
as if correcting Matthew, who calls him the Son of David. Perhaps, however, the
Jesus of Matthew is a different person from the Jesus of Mark. This is my reason
for not believing in the birth of Christ. Remove this difficulty, if you can, by
harmonizing the accounts, and I am ready to yield. In any case, however, it is
hardly consistent to believe that God, the God of Christians, was born from the
womb. 2. Augustin replied: Had you read the Gospel with care, and inquired into
those places where you found opposition, instead of rashly condemning them, you
would have seen that the recognition of the authority of the evangelists by so
many learned men all over the world, in spite of this most obvious discrepancy,
proves that there is more in it than appears at first sight. Any one can see, as
well as you, that the ancestors of Christ in Matthew and Luke are different;
while Joseph appears in both, at the end in Matthew and at the beginning in
Luke. Joseph, it is plain, might be called the father of Christ, on account of
his being in a certain sense the husband of the mother of Christ; and so his
name, as the male representative, appears at the beginning or end of the
genealogies. Any one can see as well as you that Joseph has one father in
Matthew and another in Luke, and so with the grandfather and with all the rest
up to David. Did all the able and learned men, not many Latin writers certainly,
but innumerable Greek, who have examined most attentively the sacred Scriptures,
overlook this manifest difference? Of course they saw it. No one can help seeing
it. But with a due regard to the high authority of Scripture, they believed that
there was something here which would be given to those that ask, and denied to
those that snarl; would be found by those that seek, and taken away from those
that criticise; would be open to those that knock, and shut against those that
contradict. They asked, sought, and knocked; they received, found, and entered
in. 3. The whole question is how Joseph had two fathers. Supposing this
possible, both genealogies may be correct. With two fathers, why not two
grandfathers, and two great-grandfathers, and so on, up to David, who was the
father both of Solomon, who is mentioned in Matthew's list, and of Nathan, who
occurs in Luke? This is the difficulty with many people who think it impossible
that two men should have one and the same son, forgetting the very obvious fact
that a man may be called the son of the person who adopted him as well as of the
person who begot him. Adoption, we know, was familiar to the ancients; for even
women adopted the children of other women, as Sarah adopted Ishmael, and Leah
her handmaid's son, and Pharaoh's daughter Moses. Jacob, too, adopted his
grandsons, the children of Joseph. Moreover, the word adoption is of great
importance in the system of our faith, as is seen from the apostolic writings.
For the Apostle Paul, speaking of the advantages of the Jews, says: "Whose are
the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law; whose
are the fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed for ever." [308] And again: "We ourselves also groan within
ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, even the redemption of
the body." [309] Again, elsewhere: "But in the fullness of time, God sent His
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons." [310] These passages show clearly that adoption is a significant symbol.
God has an only Son, whom He begot from His own substance, of whom it is said,
"Being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal to God." [311]
Us He begot not of His own substance, for we belong to the creation which is not
begotten, but made; but that He might make us the brothers of Christ, He adopted
us. That act, then, by which God, when we were not born of Him, but created and
formed, begot us by His word and grace, is called adoption. So John says, "He
gave them power to become the sons of God." [312] Since, therefore; the practice
of adoption is common among our fathers, and in Scripture, is there not
irrational profanity in the hasty condemnation of the evangelists as false
because the genealogies are different, as if both could not be true, instead of
considering calmly the simple fact that frequently in human life one man may
have two fathers, one of whose flesh he is born, and another of whose will he is
afterwards made a son by adoption? If the second is not rightly called father,
neither are we right in saying, "Our Father which art in heaven," to Him of
whose substance we were not born, but of whose grace and most merciful will we
were adopted, according to apostolic doctrine, and truth most sure. For one is
to us God, and Lord, and Father: God, for by Him we are created, though of human
parents; Lord, for we are His subjects; Father, for by His adoption we are born
again. Careful students of sacred Scripture easily saw, from a little
consideration, how, in the different genealogies of the two evangelists, Joseph
had two fathers, and consequently two lists of ancestors. You might have seen
this too, if you had not been blinded by the love of contradiction. Other things
far beyond your understanding have been discovered in the careful investigation
of all parts of these narratives. The familiar occurrence of one man begetting a
son and another adopting him, so that one man has two fathers, you might, in
spite of Manichæan error, have thought of as an explanation, if you had not been
reading in a hostile spirit. 4. But why Matthew begins with Abraham and descends
to Joseph, while Luke begins with Joseph and ascends, not to Abraham, but to
God, who made man, and, by giving a commandment, gave him power to become, by
believing, a son of God; and why Matthew records the generations at the
commencement of his book, Luke after the baptism of the Saviour by John; and
what is the meaning of the number of the generations in Matthew, who divides
them into three sections of fourteen each, though in the whole sum there appears
to be one wanting; while in Luke the number of generations recorded after the
baptism amount to seventy-seven, which number the Lord Himself enjoins in
connection with the forgiveness of sins, saying, "Not only seven times, but
seventy-seven times;" -- these things you will never understand, unless either
you are taught by some Catholic of superior stamp, who has studied the sacred
Scriptures, and has made all the progress possible, or you yourselves turn from
your error, and in a Christian spirit ask that you may receive, seek that you
may find, and knock that it may be opened to you. 5. Since, then, this double
fatherhood of nature and adoption removes the difficulty arising from the
discrepancy of the genealogies, there is no occasion for Faustus to leave the
two evangelists and betake himself to the other two, which would be a greater
affront to those he betook himself to than to those he left. For the sacred
writers do not desire to be favored at the expense of their brethren. For their
joy is in union, and they are one in Christ; and if one says one thing, and
another another, or one in one way and another in another, still they all speak
truth, and in no way contradict one another; only let the reader be reverent and
humble, not in an heretical spirit seeking occasion for strife, but with a
believing heart desiring edification. Now, in this opinion that the evangelists
give the ancestors of different fathers, as it is quite possible for a man to
have two fathers, there is nothing inconsistent with truth. So the evangelists
are harmonized, and you, by Faustus's promise are bound to yield at once. 6. You
may perhaps be troubled by that additional remark which he makes: "In any case,
however, it is hardly consistent to believe that God, the God of Christians, was
born from the womb." As if we believed that the divine nature came from the womb
of a woman. Have I not just quoted the testimony of the apostle, speaking of the
Jews: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came,
who is God over all, blessed for ever?" Christ, therefore, our Lord and Saviour,
true Son of God in His divinity, and true son of man according to the flesh, not
as He is God over all was born of a woman, but in that feeble nature which He
took of us, that in it He might die for us, and heal it in us: not as in the
form of God, in which He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, was He born
of a woman, but in the form of a servant, in taking which He emptied Himself. He
is therefore said to have emptied Himself because He took the form of a servant,
not because He lost the form of God. For in the unchangeable possession of that
nature by which in the form of God He is equal to the Father, He took our
changeable nature, by which He might be born of a virgin. You, while you protest
against putting the flesh of Christ in a virgin's womb, place the very divinity
of God in the womb not only of human beings, but of dogs and swine. You refuse
to believe that the flesh of Christ was conceived in the Virgin's womb, in which
God was not found nor even changed; while you assert that in all men and beasts,
in the seed of male and in the womb of female, in all conceptions on land or in
water, an actual part of God and the divine nature is continually bound, and
shut up, and contaminated, never to be wholly set free. [313]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 145: FAUSTUS'S REASONS FOR REJECTING THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND AUGUSTIN'S ANIMADVERSIONS THEREON. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the Old Testament? If it bequeaths anything to me,
I believe it; if not, I reject it. It would be an excess of forwardness to take
the documents of others which pronounce me disinherited. Remember that the
promise of Canaan in the Old Testament is made to Jews, that is, to the
circumcised, who offer sacrifice, and abstain from swine's flesh, and from the
other animals which Moses pronounces unclean, and observe Sabbaths, and the
feast of unleavened bread, and other things of the same kind which the author of
the Testament enjoined. Christians have not adopted these observances, and no
one keeps them; so that if we will not take the inheritance, we should surrender
the documents. This is my first reason for rejecting the Old Testament, unless
you teach me better. My second reason is, that this inheritance is such a poor
fleshly thing, without any spiritual blessings, that after the New Testament,
and its glorious promise of the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, I think it
not worth the taking. 2. Augustin replied: No one doubts that promises of
temporal things are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason it is
called the Old Testament; or that the kingdom of heaven and the promise of
eternal life belong to the New Testament. But that in these temporal things were
figures of future things which should be fulfilled in us upon whom the ends of
the ages are come, is not my fancy, but the judgment of the apostle, when he
says of such things, "These things were our examples;" and again, "These things
happened to them for an example, and they are written for us on whom the ends of
the ages are come." [314] We receive the Old Testament, therefore, not in order
to obtain the fulfillment of these promises, but to see in them predictions of
the New Testament; for the Old bears witness to the New. Whence the Lord, after
He rose from the dead, and allowed His disciples not only to see but to handle
Him, still, lest they should doubt their mortal and fleshly senses, gave them
further confirmation from the testimony of the ancient books, saying, "It was
necessary that all things should be fulfilled which were written in the law of
Moses, and in the Prophets and Psalms, concerning me." [315] Our hope,
therefore, rests not on the promise of temporal things. Nor do we believe that
the holy and spiritual men of these times -- the patriarchs and prophets -- were
taken up with earthly things. For they understood, by the revelation of the
Spirit of God, what was suitable for that time, and how God appointed all these
sayings and actions as types and predictions of the future. Their great desire
was for the New Testament; but they had a personal duty to perform in those
predictions, by which the new things of the future were foretold. So the life as
well as the tongue of these men was prophetic. The carnal people, indeed,
thought only of present blessings, though even in connection with the people
there were prophecies of the future. These things you do not understand,
because, as the prophet said, "Unless you believe, you shall not understand."
[316] For you are not instructed in the kingdom of heaven, -- that is, in the
true Catholic Church of Christ. If you were, you would bring forth from the
treasure of the sacred Scriptures things old as well as new. For the Lord
Himself says, "Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is
like an householder who brings forth from his treasure things new and old."
[317] And so, while you profess to receive only the new promises of God, you
have retained the oldness of the flesh, adding only the novelty of error; of
which novelty the apostle says, "Shun profane novelties of words, for they
increase unto more ungodliness, and their speech eats like a cancer. Of whom is
Hymenæus and Philetus, who concerning the faith have erred, saying that the
resurrection is past already, and have overthrown the faith of some." [318] Here
you see the source of your false doctrine, in teaching that the resurrection is
only of souls by the preaching of the truth, and that there will be no
resurrection of the body. But how can you understand spiritual things of the
inner man, who is renewed in the knowledge of God, when in the oldness of the
flesh, if you do not possess temporal things, you concoct fanciful notions about
them in those images of carnal things of which the whole of your false doctrine
consists? You boast of despising as worthless the land of Canaan, which was an
actual thing, and actually given to the Jews; and yet you tell of a land of
light cut asunder on one side, as by a narrow wedge, by the land of the race of
darkness, -- a thing which does not exist, and which you believe from the
delusion of your minds; so that your life is not supported by having it, and
your mind is wasted in desiring it. [319]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 146: FAUSTUS CLAIMS THAT THE MANICHÆANS AND NOT THE CATHOLICS ARE CONSISTENT BELIEVERS IN THE GOSPEL, AND SEEKS TO ESTABLISH THIS CLAIM BY COMPARING MANICHÆAN AND CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE TO THE PRECEPTS OF THE GOSPEL. AUGUSTIN EXPOSES THE HYPOCRISY OF T
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? You ask me if I believe it, though my
obedience to its commands shows that I do. I should rather ask you if you
believe it, since you give no proof of your belief. I have left my father,
mother, wife, and children, and all else that the gospel requires; [320] and do
you ask if I believe the gospel? Perhaps you do not know what is called the
gospel. The gospel is nothing else than the preaching and the precept of Christ.
I have parted with all gold and silver, and have left off carrying money in my
purse; content with daily food; without anxiety for tomorrow; and without
solicitude about how I shall be fed, or where-withal I shall be clothed: and do
you ask if I believe the gospel? You see in me the blessings of the gospel;
[321] and do you ask if I believe the gospel? You see me poor, meek, a
peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing persecutions
and enmity for righteousness' sake; and do you doubt my belief in the gospel?
One can understand now how John the Baptist, after seeing Jesus, and also
hearing of His works, yet asked whether He was Christ. Jesus properly and justly
did not deign to reply that He was; but reminded him of the works of which he
had already heard: "The blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised." [322] In
the same way, I might very well reply to your question whether I believe the
gospel, by saying, I have left all, father, mother, wife, children, gold,
silver, eating, drinking, luxuries, pleasures; take this as a sufficient answer
to your questions, and believe that you will be blessed if you are not offended
in me. [323] 2. But, according to you, to believe the gospel is not only to obey
its commands, but also to believe in all that is written in it; and, first of
all, that God was born. But neither is believing the gospel only to believe that
Jesus was born, but also to do what He commands. So, if you say that I do not
believe the gospel because I disbelieve the incarnation, much more do you not
believe because you disregard the commandments. At any rate, we are on a par
till these questions are settled. If your disregard of the precepts does not
prevent you from professing faith in the gospel, why should my rejection of the
genealogy prevent me? And if, as you say, to believe the gospel includes both
faith in the genealogies and obedience to the precepts, why do you condemn me,
since we both are imperfect? What one wants the other has. But if, as there can
be no doubt, belief in the gospel consists solely in obedience to the commands
of God, your sin is twofold. As the proverb says, the deserter accuses the
soldier. But suppose, since you will have it so, that there are these two parts
of perfect faith, one consisting in word, or the confession that Christ was
born, the other in deed or the observance of the precepts; it is plain that my
part is hard and painful, yours light and easy. It is natural that the multitude
should flock to you and away from me, for they know not that the kingdom of God
is not in word, but in power. Why, then, do you blame me for taking the harder
part, and leaving to you, as to a weak brother, the easy part? You have the idea
that your part of faith, or confessing that Christ was born, has more power to
save the soul than the other parts. 3. Let us then ask Christ Himself, and learn
from His own mouth, what is the chief means of our salvation. Who shall enter, O
Christ, into Thy kingdom? He that doeth the will of my Father in heaven, [324]
is His reply; not, "He that confesses that I was born." And again, He says to
His disciples, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things which
I have commanded you." [325] It is not, "teaching them that I was born," but,
"to observe my commandments." Again, "Ye are my friends if ye do what I command
you;" [326] not, "if you believe that I was born." Again, "If ye keep my
commandments, ye shall abide in my love," [327] and in many other places. Also
in the sermon on the mount, when He taught, "Blessed are the poor, blessed are
the meek, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed
are they that mourn, blessed are they that hunger, blessed are they that are
persecuted for righteousness' sake," [328] He nowhere says, "Blessed are they
that confess that I was born." And in the separation of the sheep from the goats
in the judgment, He says that He will say to them on the right hand, "I was
hungry, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink," [329] and so
on; therefore "inherit the kingdom." Not, "Because ye believe that I was born,
inherit the kingdom." Again, to the rich man seeking for eternal life, He says,
"Go, sell all that thou hast, and follow me;" [330] not, "Believe that I was
born, that you may have eternal life." You see, the kingdom, life, happiness,
are everywhere promised to the part I have chosen of what you call the two parts
of faith, and nowhere to your part. Show, if you can, a place where it is
written that whoso confesses that Christ was born of a woman is blessed, or
shall inherit the kingdom, or have eternal life. Even supposing, then, that
there are two parts of faith, your part has no blessing. But what if we prove
that your part is not a part of faith at all? It will follow that you are
foolish, which indeed will be proved beyond a doubt. At present, it is enough to
have shown that our part is crowned with the beatitudes. Besides, we have also a
beatitude for a confession in words: for we confess that Jesus Christ is the Son
of the living God; and Jesus declares with His own lips that this confession has
a benediction, when He says to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for
flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven." [331] So that we have not one, but both these parts of faith, and in
both alike are we pronounced blessed by Christ; for in one we reduce faith to
practice, while in the other our confession is unmixed with blasphemy. 4.
Augustin replied: I have already said that the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly
calls Himself the Son of man, and that the Manichæans have contrived a silly
story about some fabulous First Man, who figures in their impious heresy, not
earthly, but combined with spurious elements, in opposition to the apostle, who
says, "The first man is of the earth, earthy;" [332] and that the apostle
carefully warns us, "If any one preaches to you differently from what we have
preached, let him be accursed." [333] So that we must believe Christ to be the
Son of man according to apostolic truth, not according to Manichæan error. And
since the evangelists assert that Christ was born of a woman, of the seed of
David, and Paul writing to Timothy says, "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the
seed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel," [334] it is
clear what sense we must believe Christ to be the Son of man; for being the Son
of God by whom we were made, He also by His incarnation became the Son of man,
that He might die for our sins, and rise again for our justification. [335]
Accordingly He calls Himself both Son of God and Son of man. To take only one
instance out of many, in the Gospel of John it is written, "Verily, verily, I
say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of
the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in
Himself, so He hath given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him
power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." [336] He says,
"They shall hear the voice of the Son of God;" and He says, "because He is the
Son of man." As the Son of man, He has received power to execute judgment,
because He will come to judgment in human form, that He may be seen by the good
and the wicked. In this form He ascended into heaven, and that voice was heard
by His disciples, "He shall so come as ye have seen Him go into heaven." [337]
As the Son of God, as God equal to and one with the Father, He will not be seen
by the wicked; for "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
Since, then, He promises eternal life to those that believe in Him, and since to
believe in Him is to believe in the true Christ, such as He declares Himself and
His apostles declare Him to be, true Son of God and true Son of man; you,
Manichæans, who believe on a false and spurious son of a false and spurious man,
and teach that God Himself, from fear of the assault of the hostile race, gave
up His own members to be tortured, and after all not to be wholly liberated, are
plainly far from that eternal life which Christ promises to those who believe in
Him. It is true, He said to Peter when he confessed Him to be the Son of God,
"Blessed art thou, Simon. Barjona." But does He promise nothing to those who
believe Him to be the Son of man, when the Son of God and the Son of man are the
same? Besides, eternal life is expressly promised to those who believe in the
Son of man. "As Moses," He says, "lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so
must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have eternal life." [338] What more do you wish? Believe then in the
Son of man, that you may have eternal life; for He is also the Son of God, who
can give eternal life: for He is "the true God and eternal life," as the same
John says in his epistle. John also adds, that he is antichrist who denies that
Christ has come in the flesh. [339] 5. There is no need, then that you should
extol so much the perfection of Christ's commands, because you obey the precepts
of the gospel. For the precepts, supposing you really to fulfill them, would not
profit you without true faith. Do you not know that the apostle says, "If I
distribute all my goods to the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have not
charity, it profiteth me nothing?" [340] Why do you boast of having Christian
poverty, when you are destitute of Christian charity? Robbers have a kind of
charity to one another, arising from a mutual consciousness of guilt and crime;
but this is not the charity commended by the apostle. In another passage he
distinguishes true charity from all base and vicious affections, by saying, "Now
the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good
conscience, and faith unfeigned." [341] How then can you have true charity from
a fictitious faith? [342] You persist in a faith corrupted by falsehood: for
your First Man, according to you, used deceit in the conflict by changing his
form, while his enemies remained in their own nature; and, besides, you maintain
that Christ, who says, "I am the truth," feigned His incarnation, His death on
the cross, the wounds of His passion, the marks shown after His resurrection. If
you speak the truth, and your Christ speaks falsehood, you must be better than
he. But if you really follow your own Christ, your truthfulness may be doubted,
and your obedience to the precepts you speak of may be only a pretence. Is it
true, as Faustus says, that you have no money in your purses? He means,
probably, that your money is in boxes and bags; nor would we blame you for this,
if you did not profess one thing and practise another. Constantius, who is still
alive, and is now our brother in Catholic Christianity, once gathered many of
your sect into his house at Rome, to keep these precepts of Manichæus, which you
think so much of, though they are very silly and childish. The precepts proved
too much for your weakness, and the gathering was entirely broken up. Those who
persevered separated from your communion, and are called Mattarians, because
they sleep on mats, -- a very different bed from the feathers of Faustus and his
goatskin coverlets, and all the grandeur that made him despise not only the
Mattarians, but also the house of his poor father in Mileum. Away, then, with
this accursed hypocrisy from your writing, if not from your conduct; or else
your language will conflict with your life by your deceitful words, as your
First Man with the race of darkness by his deceitful elements. 6. I am, however,
addressing not merely men who fail to do what they are commanded, but the
members of a deluded sect. For the precepts of Manichæus are such that, if you
do not keep them, you are deceivers; if you do keep them, you are deceived.
Christ never taught you that you should not pluck a vegetable for fear of
committing homicide; for when His disciples were hungry when passing through a
field of corn, He did not forbid them to pluck the ears on the Sabbath-day;
which was a rebuke to the Jews of the time since the action was on Sabbath; and
a rebuke in the action itself to the future Manichæans. The precept of
Manichæus, however, only requires you to do nothing while others commit homicide
for you; though the real homicide is that of ruining miserable souls by such
doctrines of devils. 7. The language of Faustus has the typhus of heresy in it,
and is the language of overweening arrogance. "You see in me" he says, "the
beatitudes of the gospel; and do you ask if I believe the gospel? You see me
poor, meek, a peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing
persecution and enmity for righteousness' sake; and do you doubt my belief in
the gospel?" If to justify oneself were to be just, Faustus would have flown to
heaven while uttering these words. I say nothing of the luxurious habits of
Faustus, known to all the followers of the Manichæans, and especially to those
at Rome. I shall suppose a Manichæan such as Constantius sought for, when he
enforced the observance of these precepts with the sincere desire to see them
observed. How can I see him to be poor in spirit, when he is so proud as to
believe that his own soul is God, and is not ashamed to speak of God as in
bondage? How can I see him meek, when he affronts all the authority of the
evangelists rather than believe? How a peacemaker, when he holds that the divine
nature itself by which God is whatever is, and is the only true existence, could
not remain in lasting peace? How pure in heart, when his heart is filled with so
many impious notions? How mourning, unless it is for his God captive and bound
till he be freed and escape, with the loss, however, of a part which is to be
united by the Father to the mass of darkness, and is not to be mourned for? How
hungering and thirsting for righteousness, which Faustus omits in his writings
lest, no doubt, he should be thought destitute of righteousness? But how can
they hunger and thirst after righteousness, whose perfect righteousness will
consist in exulting over their brethren condemned to darkness, not for any fault
of their own, but for being irremediably contaminated by the pollution against
which they were sent by the Father to contend? 8. How do you suffer persecution
and enmity for righteousness' sake, when, according to you, it is righteous to
preach and teach these impieties? The wonder is, that the gentleness of
Christian times allows such perverse iniquity to pass wholly or almost
unpunished. And yet, as if we were blind or silly, you tell us that your
suffering reproach and persecution is a great proof of your righteousness. If
people are just according to the amount of their suffering, atrocious criminals
of all kinds suffer much more than you. But, at any rate, if we are to grant
that suffering endured on account of any sort of profession of Christianity
proves the sufferer to be in possession of true faith and righteousness, you
must admit that any case of greater suffering that we can show proves the
possession of truer faith and greater righteousness. Of such cases you know many
among our martyrs, and chiefly Cyprian himself, whose writings also bear witness
to his belief that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. For this faith, which you
abhor, he suffered and died along with many Christian believers of that day, who
suffered as much, or more. Faustus, when shown to be a Manichæan by evidence, or
by his own confession, on the intercession of the Christians themselves, who
brought him before the proconsul, was, along with some others, only banished to
an island, which can hardly be called a punishment at all, for it is what God's
servants do of their own accord every day when they wish to retire from the
tumult of the world. Besides, earthly sovereigns often by a public decree give
release from this banishment as an act of mercy. And in this way all were
afterwards released at once. Confess, then, that they were in possession of a
truer faith and a more righteous life, who were accounted worthy to suffer for
it much more than you ever suffered. Or else, cease boasting of the abhorrence
which many feel for you, and learn to distinguish between suffering for
blasphemy and suffering for righteousness. What it is you suffer for, your own
books will show in a way that deserves your most particular attention. 9. Those
evangelical precepts of peculiar sublimity which you make people who know no
better believe that you obey, are really obeyed by multitudes in our communion.
Are there not among us many of both sexes who have entirely refrained from
sexual intercourse, and many formerly married who practise continence? Are there
not many others who give largely of their property, or give it up altogether,
and many who keep the body in subjection by fasts, either frequent or daily, or
protracted beyond belief? Then there are fraternities whose members have no
property of their own, but all things common, including only things necessary
for food and clothing, living with one soul and one heart towards God, inflamed
with a common feeling of charity. In all such professions many turn out to be
deceivers and reprobates, while many who are so are never discovered; many, too,
who at first walk well, fall away rapidly from willfulness. Many are found in
times of trial to have adopted this kind of life with another intention than
they professed; and again, many in humility and steadfastness persevere in their
course to the end, and are saved. There are apparent diversities in these
societies; but one charity unites all who, from some necessity, in obedience to
the apostle's injunction, have their wives as if they had them not, and buy as
if they bought not, and use this world as if they used it not. With these are
joined, in the abundant riches of God's mercy, the inferior class of those to
whom it is said, "Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt
you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment." [343] To such the same apostle also says, "Now therefore there is
utterly a fault among you, that ye go to law one with another;" while, in
consideration of their infirmity, he adds, "If ye have judgments of things
pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the
Church." [344] For in the kingdom of heaven there are not only those who, that
they may be perfect, sell or leave all they have and follow the Lord; but others
in the partnership of charity are joined like a mercenary force to the Christian
army, to whom it will be said at last, "I was hungry, and ye gave me meat," and
so on. Otherwise, there would be no salvation for those to whom the apostle
gives so many anxious and particular directions about their families, telling
the wives to be obedient to their husbands, and husbands to love their wives;
children to obey their parents, and parents to bring up their children in the
instruction and admonition of the Lord; servants to obey with fear their masters
according to the flesh, and masters to render to their servants what is just and
equal. The apostle is far from condemning such people as regardless of gospel
precepts, or unworthy of eternal life. For where the Lord exhorts the strong to
attain perfection, saying, "If any man take not up his cross and follow me, he
cannot be my disciple," He immediately adds, for the consolation of the weak,
"Whoso receiveth a just man in the name of a just man shall receive a just man's
reward; and whoso receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a
prophet's reward." So that not only he who gives Timothy a little wine for his
stomach's sake, and his frequent infirmities, but he who gives to a strong man a
cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward.
[345] 10. If it is true that a man cannot receive the gospel without giving up
everything, why do you delude your followers, by allowing them to keep in your
service their wives, and children, and households, and houses, and fields?
Indeed, you may well allow them to disregard the precepts of the gospel: for all
you promise them is not a resurrection, but a change to another mortal
existence, in which they shall live the silly, childish, impious life of those
you call the Elect, the life you live yourself, and are so much praised for; or
if they possess greater merit, they shall enter into melons or cucumbers, or
some eatables which you will masticate, that they may be quickly purified by
your digestion. Least of all should you who teach such doctrines profess any
regard for the gospel. For if the faith of the gospel had any connection with
such nonsense, the Lord should have said, not, "I was hungry, and ye gave me
meat;" but, "Ye were hungry, and ye ate me," or, "I was hungry, and I ate you."
For, by your absurdities, a man will not be received into the kingdom of God for
the service of giving food to the saints, but, because he has eaten them and
belched them out, or has himself been eaten and belched into heaven. Instead of
saying, "Lord, when saw we Thee hungry, and fed Thee?" the righteous must say,
"When saw we Thee hungry, and were eaten by Thee?" And He must answer, not,
"When ye gave food to one of the least of these my brethren, you gave to me;"
but, "When you were eaten by one of the least of these my brethren, you were
eaten by me." 11. Believing and teaching such monstrosities, and living
accordingly, you yet have the boldness to say that you obey the precepts of the
gospel, and to decry the Catholic Church, which includes many weak as well as
strong, both of whom the Lord blesses, because both according to their measure
obey the precepts of the gospel and hope in its promises. The blindness of
hostility makes you see only the tares in our harvest: for you might easily see
wheat too, if you were willing that there should be any. But among you, those
who are pretended Manichæans are wicked, and those who are really Manichæans are
silly. For where the faith itself is false, he who hypocritically professes it
acts deceitfully, while he who truly believes is deceived. Such a faith cannot
produce a good life, for every man's life is good or bad according as his heart
is engaged. If your affections were set upon spiritual and intellectual good,
instead of material forms, you would not pay homage to the material sun as a
divine substance, and as the light of wisdom, which every one knows you do,
though I now only mention it in passing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 147: FAUSTUS AVOWS HIS DISBELIEF IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HIS DISREGARD OF ITS PRECEPTS, AND ACCUSES CATHOLICS OF INCONSISTENCY IN NEGLECTING ITS ORDINANCES, WHILE CLAIMING TO ACCEPT IT AS AUTHORITATIVE. AUGUSTIN EXPLAINS THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF THE RELATION OF T
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: You ask if I believe the Old Testament. Of course not, for I do
not keep its precepts. Neither, I imagine, do you. I reject circumcision as
disgusting; and if I mistake not, so do you. I reject the observance of Sabbaths
as superfluous: I suppose you do the same. I reject sacrifice as idolatry, as
doubtless you also do. Swine's flesh is not the only flesh I abstain from; nor
is it the only flesh you eat. I think all flesh unclean: you think none unclean.
Both alike, in these opinions, throw over the Old Testament. We both look upon
the weeks of unleavened bread and the feast of tabernacles as unnecessary and
useless. Not to patch linen garments with purple; to count it adultery to make a
garment of linen and wool; to call it sacrilege to yoke together an ox and an
ass when necessary; not to appoint as priest a bald man, or a man with red hair,
or any similar peculiarity, as being unclean in the sight of God, are things
which we both despise and laugh at, and rank as of neither first nor second
importance; and yet they are all precepts and judgments of the Old Testament.
You cannot blame me for rejecting the Old Testament; for whether it is right or
wrong to do so, you do it as much as I. As for the difference between your faith
and mine, it is this, that while you choose to act deceitfully, and meanly to
praise in words what in your heart you hate, I, not having learned the art of
deception, frankly declare that I hate both these abominable precepts and their
authors. 2. Augustin replied: How and for what purpose the Old Testament is
received by the heirs of the New Testament has been already explained. [346] But
as the remarks of Faustus were then about the promises of the Old Testament, and
now he speaks of the precepts, I reply that he displays ignorance of the
difference between moral and symbolical precepts. For example, "Thou shalt not
covet" is a moral precept; "Thou shalt circumcise every male on the eighth day"
is a symbolical precept. From not making this distinction, the Manichæans, and
all who find fault with the writings of the Old Testament, not seeing that
whatever observance God appointed for the former dispensation was a shadow of
future things, because these observances are now discontinued, condemn them,
though no doubt what is unsuitable now was perfectly suitable then as
prefiguring the things now revealed. In this they contradict the apostle who
says, "All these things happened to them for an example, and they were written
for our learning, on whom the end of the world is come." [347] The apostle here
explains why these writings are to be received, and why it is no longer
necessary to continue the symbolical observances. For when he says, "They were
written for our learning," he clearly shows that we should be very diligent in
reading and in discovering the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures, and that
we should have great veneration for them, since it was for us that they were
written. Again, when he says, "They are our examples," and "these things
happened to them for an example," he shows that, now that the things themselves
are clearly revealed, the observance of the actions by which these things were
prefigured is no longer binding. So he says elsewhere, "Let no man judge you in
meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon or of the
sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to come." [348] Here also, when he
says, "Let no one judge you" in these things, he shows that we are no longer
bound to observe them. And when he says, "which are a shadow of things to come,"
he explains how these observances were binding at the time when the things fully
disclosed to us were symbolized by these shadows of future things. 3. Assuredly,
if the Manichæans were justified by the resurrection of the Lord, -- the day of
whose resurrection, the third after His passion, was the eighth day, coming
after the Sabbath, that is, after the seventh day, -- their carnal minds would
be delivered from the darkness of earthly passions which rests on them; and
rejoicing in the circumcision of the heart, they would not ridicule it as
prefigured in the Old Testament by circumcision in the flesh, although they
should not enforce this observance under the New Testament. But, as the apostle
says, "To the pure all things are pure. But to the impure and unbelieving
nothing is pure, but both their mind and conscience are defiled." [349] So these
people, who are so pure in their own eyes, that they regard, or pretend to
regard, as impure these members of their bodies, are so defiled with unbelief
and error, that, while they abhor the circumcision of the flesh, -- which the
apostle calls a seal of the righteousness of faith, -- they believe that the
divine members of their God are subjected to restraint and contamination in
these very carnal members of theirs. For they say that flesh is unclean; and it
follows that God, in the part which is detained by the flesh, is made unclean:
for they declare that He must be cleansed, and that till this is done, as far as
it can be done, He undergoes all the passions to which flesh is subject, not
only in suffering pain and distress, but also in sensual gratification. For it
is for His sake, they say, that they abstain from sexual intercourse, that He
may not be bound more closely in the bondage of the flesh, nor suffer more
defilement. The apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure." And if this is
true of men, who may be led into evil by a perverse will, how much more must all
things be pure to God, who remains for ever immutable and immaculate! In those
books which you defile with your violent reproaches, it is said of the divine
wisdom, that "no defiled thing falleth into it, and it goeth everywhere by
reason of its pureness." [350] It is mere prurient absurdity to find fault with
the sign of human regeneration appointed by that God, to whom all things are
pure, to be put on the organ of human generation, while you hold that your God,
to whom nothing is pure, is in a part of his nature subjected to taint and
corruption by the vicious actions in which impure men employ the members of
their body. For if you think there is pollution in conjugal intercourse, what
must there be in all the practices of the licentious? If you ask, then, as you
often do, whether God could not find some other way of sealing the righteousness
of faith, the answer is, Why not this way, since all things are pure to the
pure, much more to God? And we have the authority of the apostle for saying that
circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of the faith of Abraham. As for
you, you must try not to blush when you are asked whether your God had nothing
better to do than to entangle part of his nature with these members that you
revile so much. These are delicate subjects to speak of, on account of the penal
corruption attending the propagation of man. They are things which call into
exercise the modesty of the chaste, the passions of the impure, and the justice
of God. 4. The rest of the Sabbath we consider no longer binding as an
observance, now that the hope of our eternal rest has been revealed. But it is a
very useful thing to read of, and to reflect on. In prophetic times, when things
now manifested were prefigured and predicted by actions as well as words, this
sign of which we read was a presage of the reality which we possess. But I wish
to know why you observe a sort of partial rest. The Jews, on their Sabbath,
which they still keep in a carnal manner, neither gather any fruit in the field,
nor dress and cook it at home. But you, in your rest, wait till one of your
followers takes his knife or hook to the garden, to get food for you by
murdering the vegetables, and brings back, strange to say, living corpses. For
if cutting plants is not murder, why are you afraid to do it? And yet, if the
plants are murdered, what becomes of the life which is to obtain release and
restoration from your mastication and digestion? Well, you take the living
vegetables, and certainly you ought, if it could be done to swallow them whole;
so that after the one wound your follower has been guilty of inflicting in
pulling them, of which you will no doubt consent to absolve him, they may reach
without loss or injury your private laboratory, where your God may be healed of
his wound. Instead of this, you not only tear them with your teeth, but, if it
pleases your taste, mince them, inflicting a multitude of wounds in the most
criminal manner. Plainly it would be a most advantageous thing if you would rest
at home too, and not only once a week, like the Jews, but every day of the week.
The cucumbers suffer while you are cooking them, without any benefit to the life
that is in them: for a boiling pot cannot be compared to a saintly stomach. And
yet you ridicule as superfluous the rest of the Sabbath. Would it not be better,
not only to refrain from finding fault with the fathers for this observance, in
whose case it was not superfluous, but, even now that it is superfluous, to
observe this rest yourselves instead of your own, which has no symbolical use,
and is condemned as grounded on falsehood? According to your own foolish
opinions, you are guilty of a defective observance of your own rest, though the
observance itself is foolish in the judgment of truth. You maintain that the
fruit suffers when it is pulled from the tree, when it is cut and scraped, and
cooked, and eaten. So you are wrong in eating anything that can not be swallowed
raw and unhurt, so that the wound inflicted might not be from you, but from your
follower in pulling them. You declare that you could not give release to so
great a quantity of life, if you were to eat only things which could be
swallowed without cooking or mastication. But if this release compensates for
all the pains you inflict, why is it unlawful for you to pull the fruit? Fruit
may be eaten raw, as some of your sect make a point of eating raw vegetables of
all kinds. But before it can be eaten at all, it must be pulled or fall off, or
be taken in some way from the ground or from the tree. You might well be
pardoned for pulling it, since nothing can be done without that, but not for
torturing the members of your God to the extent you do in dressing your food.
One of your silly notions is that the tree weeps when the fruit is pulled.
Doubtless the life in the tree knows all things, and perceives who it is that
comes to it. If the elect were to come and pull the fruit, would not the tree
rejoice to escape the misery of having its fruit plucked by others, and to gain
felicity by enduring a little momentary pain? And yet, while you multiply the
pains and troubles of the fruit after it is plucked, you will not pluck it.
Explain that, if you can! Fasting itself is a mistake in your case. There should
be no intermission in the task of purging away the dross of the excrements from
the spiritual gold, and of releasing the divine members from confinement. The
most merciful man among you is he who keeps himself always in good health, takes
raw food, and eats a great deal. But you are cruel when you eat, in making your
food undergo so much suffering; and you are cruel when you fast, in desisting
from the work of liberating the divine members. [351] 5. With all this, you
venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and to call them
idolatry, and to attribute to us the same impious notion. To answer for
ourselves in the first place, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer
sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by
which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and
in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now
commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in
due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains
its symbolical authority. For these things "were written for our learning, upon
whom the end of the world is come." [352] What you object to in sacrifice is the
slaughter of animals, though the whole animal creation is intended conditionally
in some way for the use of man. You are merciful to beasts, believing them to
contain the souls of human beings, while you refuse a piece of bread to a hungry
beggar. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand, was cruel to the swine when He
granted the request of the devils to be allowed to enter into them. [353] The
same Lord Jesus, before the sacrifice of His passion, said to a leper whom He
had cured, "Go, show thyself to the priest, and give the offering, as Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them." [354] When God, by the prophets,
repeatedly declares that He needs no offering, as indeed reason teaches us that
offerings cannot be needed by Him who stands in need of nothing, the human mind
is led to inquire what God wished to teach us by these sacrifices. For,
assuredly, He would not have required offerings of which He had no need, except
to teach us something that it would profit us to know, and which was suitably
set forth by means of these symbols. How much better and more honorable it would
be for you to be still bound by these sacrifices, which have an instructive
meaning, though they are not now necessary, than to require your followers to
offer to you as food what you believe to be living victims. The Apostle Paul
says most appropriately of some who preached the gospel to gratify their
appetite, that their "god was their belly." [355] But the arrogance of your
impiety goes much beyond this; for, instead of making your belly your god, you
do what is far worse in making your belly the purifier of God. Surely it is
great madness to make a pretence of piety in not slaughtering animals, while you
hold that the souls of animals inhabit all the food you eat, and yet make what
you call living creatures suffer such torture from your hands and teeth. 6. If
you will not eat flesh why should you not slay animals in sacrifice to your God,
in order that their souls, which you hold to be not only human, but so divine as
to be members of God Himself, may be released from the confinement of flesh, and
be saved from returning by the efficacy of your prayers? Perhaps, however, your
stomach gives more effectual aid than your intellect, and that part of divinity
which has had the advantage of passing through your bowels is more likely to be
saved than that which has only the benefit of your prayers. Your objection to
eating flesh will be that you cannot eat animals alive, and so the operation of
your stomach will not avail for the liberation of their souls. Happy vegetables,
that, torn up with the hand, cut with knives, tortured in fire, ground by teeth,
yet reach alive the altars of your intestines! Unhappy sheep and oxen, that are
not so tenacious of life, and therefore are refused entrance into your bodies!
Such is the absurdity of your notions. And you persist in making out an
opposition in us to the Old Testament, because we consider no flesh unclean:
according to the opinion of the apostle, "To the pure all things are pure;"
[356] and according to the saying of our Lord Himself, "Not that which goeth
into your mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out." [357] This was not
said to the crowd only, as your Adimantus, whom Faustus, in his attack on the
Old Testament, praises as second only to Manichæus, wishes us to understand; but
when retired from the crowd, the Lord repeated this still more plainly and
pointedly to His disciples. Adimantus quotes this saying of our Lord in
opposition to the Old Testament, where the people are prohibited from eating
some animals which are pronounced unclean; and doubtless he was afraid that he
should be asked why, since he quotes a passage from the Gospel about man not
being defiled by what enters into his mouth and passes into his belly, and out
into the draft, he yet considers not some only, but all flesh unclean, and
abstains from eating it. It is in order to escape from this strait, when the
plain truth is too much for his error, that he makes the Lord say this to the
crowd; as if the Lord were in the habit of speaking the truth only in small
companies, while He blurted out falsehoods in public. To speak of the Lord in
this way is blasphemy. And all who read the passage can see that the Lord said
the same thing more plainly to His disciples in private. Since Faustus praises
Adimantus so much at the beginning of this book of his, placing him next to
Manichæus, let him say in a word whether it is true or false that a man is not
defiled by what enters into his mouth. If it is false, why does this great
teacher Adimantus quote it against the Old Testament? If it is true, why, in
spite of this, do you believe that eating any flesh will defile you? It is true,
if you choose this explanation, that the apostle does not say that all things
are pure to heretics, but, "to the pure all things are pure." The apostle also
goes on to explain why all things are not pure to heretics: "To the impure and
unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and conscience are defiled."
[358] So to the Manichæans there is absolutely nothing pure; for they hold that
the very substance or nature of God not only may be, but has actually been
defiled, and so defiled that it can never be wholly restored and purified. What
do they mean when they call animals unclean, and refrain from eating them, when
it is impossible for them to think anything, whether food or whatever it may be,
clean? According to them, vegetables too, fruits, all kinds of crops, the earth
and sky, are defiled by mixture with the race of darkness. Why do they not act
up to their opinions about other things as well as about animals? Why do they
not abstain altogether, and starve themselves to death, instead of persisting in
their blasphemies? If they will not repent and reform, this is evidently the
best thing that they could do. 7. The saying of the apostle, that "to the pure
all things are pure," and that "every creature of God is good," is not opposed
to the prohibitions of the Old Testament; and the explanation, if they can
understand it, is this. The apostle speaks of the natures of the things, while
the Old Testament calls some animals unclean, not in their nature, but
symbolically, on account of the prefigurative character of that dispensation.
For instance, a pig and a lamb are both clean in their nature, for every
creature of God is good; but symbolically, a lamb is clean, and a pig unclean.
So the words wise and fool are both clean in their nature, as words composed of
letters but fool may be called symbolically unclean, because it means an unclean
thing. Perhaps a pig is the same among symbols as a fool is among real things.
The animal, and the four letters which compose the word, may mean the same
thing. No doubt the animal is pronounced unclean by the law, because it does not
chew the cud; which is not a fault but its nature. But the men of whom this
animal is a symbol are unclean, not by nature, but from their own fault;
because, though they gladly hear the words of wisdom, they never reflect on them
afterwards. For to recall, in quiet repose, some useful instruction from the
stomach of memory to the mouth of reflection, is a kind of spiritual rumination.
The animals above mentioned are a symbol of those people who do not do this. And
the prohibition of the flesh of these animals is a warning against this fault.
Another passage of Scripture speaks of the precious treasure of wisdom, and
describes ruminating as clean, and not ruminating as unclean: "A precious
treasure resteth in the mouth of a wise man; but a foolish man swallows it up."
[359] Symbols of this kind, either in words or in things, give useful and
pleasant exercise to intelligent minds in the way of inquiry and comparison. But
formerly people were required not only to hear, but to practise many such
things. For at that time it was necessary that, by deeds as well as by words,
those things should be foreshadowed which were in after times to be revealed.
After the revelation by Christ and in Christ, the community of believers is not
burdened with the practice of the observances, but is admonished to give heed to
the prophecy. This is our reason for accounting no animals unclean, in
accordance with the saying of the Lord and of the apostle, while we are not
opposed to the Old Testament, where some animals are pronounced unclean. Now let
us hear why you consider all animal food unclean. 8. One of your false doctrines
is, that flesh is unclean on account of mixture with the race of darkness. But
this would make not only flesh unclean, but your God himself, in that part which
he sent to become subject to absorption and contamination, in order that the
enemy might be conquered and taken captive. Besides, on account of this mixture,
all that you eat must be unclean. But you say flesh is especially unclean. It
requires patience to listen to all their absurd reasons for this peculiar
impurity of flesh. I will mention only what will suffice to show the inveterate
folly of these critics of the Old Testament, who, while they denounce flesh,
savor only fleshly things, and have no sort of spiritual perception. And a
lengthy discussion of this question may perhaps enable us to dispense with
saying much on some other points. The following, then, is an account of their
vain delusions in this matter: -- In that battle, when the First Man ensnared
the race of darkness by deceitful elements, princes of both sexes belonging to
this race were taken. By means of these princes the world was constructed; and
among those used in the formation of the heavenly bodies, were some pregnant
females. When the sky began to rotate, the rapid circular motion made these
females give birth to abortions, which, being of both sexes, fell on the earth,
and lived, and grew, and came together, and produced offspring. Hence sprang all
animal life in earth, air, and sea. [360] Now if the origin of flesh is from
heaven, that is no reason for thinking it especially unclean. Indeed, in this
construction of the world, they hold that these principles of darkness were
arranged higher or lower, according to the greater or less amount of good mixed
with them in the construction of the various parts of the world. So flesh ought
to be cleaner than vegetables which come out of the earth, for it comes from
heaven. And how irrational to suppose that the abortions, before becoming
animate, were so lively, though in an abortive state, that after falling from
the sky, they could live and multiply; whereas, after becoming animate, they die
if brought forth prematurely, and a fall from a very moderate height is enough
to kill them! The kingdom of life in contest with the kingdom of death ought to
have improved them, by giving them life instead of making them more perishable
than before. If the perishableness is a consequence of a change of nature, it is
wrong to say that there is a bad nature. The change is the only cause of the
perishableness. Both natures are good, though one is better than the other.
Whence then comes the peculiar impurity of flesh as it exists in this world,
sprung, as they say, from heaven? They tell us, indeed, of the first bodies of
these principles of darkness being generated like worms from trees of darkness;
and the trees, they say, are produced from the five elements. But supposing that
the bodies of animals come in the first place from trees, and afterwards from
heaven, why should they be more unclean than the fruit of trees? Perhaps it will
be said that what remains after death is unclean, because the life is no longer
there. For the same reason fruits and vegetables must be unclean, for they die
when they are pulled or cut. As we saw before, the elect get others to bring
their food to them, that they may not be guilty of murder. Perhaps, since they
say that every living being has two souls, one of the race of light, and the
other of the race of darkness, the good soul leaves at death, and the bad soul
remains. But, in that case, the animal would be as much alive as it was in the
kingdom of darkness, when it had only the soul of its own race, with which it
had rebelled against the kingdom of God. So, since both souls leave at death,
why call the flesh unclean, as if only the good soul had left? Any life that
remains must be of both kinds; for some remains of the members of God are found,
we are told, even in filth. There is therefore no reason for making flesh more
unclean than fruits. The truth is, they pretend to great chastity in holding
flesh unclean because it is generated. But if the divine body is more grossly
shut in by flesh, there is all the more reason that they should liberate it by
eating. And there are innumerable kinds of worms not produced from sexual
intercourse; some in the neighborhood of Venice come from trees, which they
should eat, since there is not the same reason for their being unclean. Besides,
there are the frogs produced by the earth after a shower of rain. [361] Let them
liberate the members of their God from these. Let them rebuke the mistake of
mankind in preferring fowls and pigeons produced from males and females to the
pure frogs, daughters of heaven and earth. By this theory, the first principles
of darkness produced from trees must be purer than Manichæus, who was produced
by generation; and his followers, for the same reason, must be less pure than
the lice which spring from the perspiration of their bodies. But if everything
that comes from flesh is unclean, because the origin of flesh itself is unclean,
fruits and vegetables must also be unclean, because they are manured with dung.
After this, what becomes of the notion that fruits are cleaner than flesh? Dung
is the most unclean product of flesh, and also the most fertilizing manure.
Their doctrine is, that the life escapes in the mastication and digestion of the
food, so that only a particle remains in the excrement. How is it, then, that
this particle of life has such an effect on the growth and the quality of your
favorite food? Flesh is nourished by the productions of the earth, not by its
excrements; while the earth is nourished by the excrements of flesh, not by its
productions. Let them say which is the cleaner. Or let them turn from being
unbelieving and impure to whom nothing is clean, and join with us in embracing
the doctrine of the apostle, that to the pure all things are pure; that the
earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; that every creature of God is
good. All things in nature are good in their own order; and no one sins in using
them, unless, by disobedience to God, he transgresses his own order, and
disturbs their order by using them amiss. 9. The elders who pleased God kept
their own order by their obedience, in observing, according to God's
arrangement, what was appointed as suitable to certain times. So, although all
animals intended for food are by nature clean, they abstained from some which
had then a symbolical uncleanness, in preparation for the future revelation of
the things signified. And so with regard to unleavened bread and all such
things, in which the apostle says there was a shadow of future things, neglect
of their observance under the old dispensation, when this observance was
enjoined, and was employed to prefigure what was afterwards to be revealed,
would have been as criminal, as it would now be foolish in us, after the light
of the New Testament has arisen, to think that these predictive observances
could be of any use to us. On the other hand, since the Old Testament teaches us
that the things now revealed were so long ago prefigured, that we may be firm
and faithful in our adherence to them, it would be blasphemy and impiety to
discard these books, simply because the Lord requires of us now not a literal,
but a spiritual and intelligent regard to their contents. They were written, as
the apostle says, for our admonition, on whom the end of the world is come.
[362] "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our
learning." [363] Not to eat unleavened bread in the appointed seven days was a
sin in the time of the Old Testament; in the time of the New Testament it is not
a sin. But having the hope of a future world through Christ, who makes us
altogether new by clothing our souls with righteousness and our bodies with
immortality, to believe that the bondage and infirmity of our original
corruption will prevail over us or over our actions, must continue to be a sin,
till the seven days of the course of time are accomplished. In the time of the
Old Testament, this, under the disguise of a type, was perceived by some saints.
In the time of the New Testament it is fully declared and publicly preached.
[364] What was then a precept of Scripture is now a testimony. Formerly, not to
keep the feast of tabernacles was a sin, which is not the case now. But not to
form part of the building of God's tabernacle, which is the Church, is always a
sin. Formerly this was acted in a figure; now the record serves as testimony.
The ancient tabernacle, indeed, would not have been called the tabernacle of the
testimony, unless as an appropriate symbol it had borne testimony to some truth
which was to be revealed in its own time. To patch linen garments with purple,
or to wear a garment of woollen and linen together, is not a sin now. But to
live intemperately, and to wish to combine opposite modes of life, -- as when a
woman devoted to religion wears the ornaments of married women, or when one who
has not abstained from marriage dresses like a virgin, -- is always sin. So it
is sin whenever inconsistent things are combined in any man's life. This, which
is now a moral truth, was then symbolized in dress. What was then a type is now
revealed truth. So the same Scripture which then required symbolical actions,
now testifies to the things signified. The prefigurative observance is now a
record for the confirmation of our faith. Formerly it was unlawful to plough
with an ox and an ass together; now it is lawful. The apostle explains this when
he quotes the text about not muzzling the ox that is treading out the corn. He
says, "Does God care for oxen?" What, then, have we to do with an obsolete
prohibition? The apostle teaches us in the following words, "For our sakes it is
written." [365] It must be impiety in us not to read what was written for our
sakes; for it is more for our sakes, to whom the revelation belongs, than for
theirs who had only the figure. There is no harm in joining an ox with an ass
where it is required. But to put a wise man and a fool together, not that one
should teach and the other obey, but that both with equal authority should
declare the word of God, cannot be done without causing offence. So the same
Scripture which was once a command enjoining the shadow in which future things
were veiled, is now an authoritative witness to the unveiled truth. In what he
says of the uncleanness of a man that is bald or has red hair, Faustus is
inaccurate, or the manuscript he has used is incorrect. [366] Would that Faustus
were not ashamed to bear on his forehead the cross of Christ, the want of which
is baldness, instead of maintaining that Christ, who says, "I am the truth,"
showed unreal marks, after His resurrection, of unreal wounds! Faustus says he
has not learned the art of deceiving, and speaks what he thinks. He cannot
therefore be a disciple of his Christ, whom he madly declares to have shown
false marks of wounds to his disciples when they doubted. Are we to believe
Faustus, not only in his other absurdities, but also when he tells us that he
does not deceive us in calling Christ a deceiver? Is he better than Christ? Is
he not a deceiver, while Christ is? Or does he prove himself to be a disciple
not of the truthful Christ, but of the deceiver Manichæus, by this very
falsehood, when he boasts that he has not learned the art of deceiving?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 148: THE GENEALOGICAL QUESTION IS AGAIN TAKEN UP AND ARGUED ON BOTH SIDES. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: You ask why I do not believe in the genealogy of Jesus. There
are many reasons; but the principal is, that He never declares with His own lips
that He had an earthly father or descent, but on the contrary, that he is not of
this world, that He came forth from God the Father, that He descended from
heaven, that He has no mother or brethren except those who do the will of His
Father in heaven. Besides, the framers of these genealogies do not seem to have
known Jesus before His birth or soon after it, so as to have the credibility of
eye-witnesses of what they narrate. They became acquainted with Jesus as a young
man of about thirty years of age, if it is not blasphemy to speak of the age of
a divine being. Now the question regarding a witness is always whether he has
seen or heard what he testifies to. But the writers of these genealogies never
assert that they heard the account from Jesus Himself, nor even the fact of His
birth; nor did they see Him till they came to know Him after his baptism, many
years after the time of His birth. To me, therefore, and to every sensible man,
it appears as foolish to believe this account, as it would be to call into court
a blind and deaf witness. 2. Augustin replied: As regards what Faustus calls his
principal reason for not receiving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a complete
refutation is found in the passages formerly quoted, where Christ declares
Himself to be the Son of man, and in what we have said of the identity of the
Son of man with the Son of God: that in His Godhead He has no earthly descent,
while after the flesh He is of the seed of David, as the apostle teaches. We are
to believe, therefore, that He came forth from the Father, that He descended
from heaven, and also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst men. If the
words, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" [367] are quoted to show
that Christ had no earthly mother or descent, it follows that we must believe
that His disciples, whom He here teaches by His own example to set no value on
earthly relationship, as compared with the kingdom of heaven, had no fathers,
because Christ says to them, "Call no man father upon earth; for one is your
Father, even God." [368] What He taught them to do with reference to their
fathers, He Himself first did in reference to His own mother and brethren; as in
many other things He condescended to set us an example, and to go before that we
might follow in His footsteps. Faustus' principal objection to the genealogy
fails completely; and after the defeat of this invincible force, the rest is
easily routed. He says that the apostles who declared Christ to be the Son of
man as well as the Son of God are not to be believed, because they were not
present at the birth of Christ, whom they joined when He had reached manhood,
nor heard of it from Christ Himself. Why then do they believe John when he says,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without
Him was not anything made," [369] and such passages, which they agree to,
without understanding them? Where did John see this, or did he ever hear it from
the Lord Himself? In whatever way John learned this, those who narrate the
nativity may have learned also. Again, how do they know that the Lord said, "Who
is my mother, and who are my brethren?" If on the authority of the evangelist,
why do they not also believe that the mother and the brethren of Christ were
seeking for Him? They believe that Christ said these words, which they
misunderstand, while they deny a fact resting on the same authority. Once more,
if Matthew could not know that Christ was born, because he knew Him only in His
manhood, how could Manichæus, who lived so long after, know that He was not
born? They will say that Manichæus knew this from the Holy Spirit which was in
him. Certainly the Holy Spirit would make him speak the truth. But why not
rather believe what Christ's own disciples tell us, who were personally
acquainted with Him, and who not only had the gift of inspiration to supply
defects in their knowledge, but in a purely natural way obtained information of
the birth of Christ, and of His descent, when the event was fresh in memory? And
yet he dares to call the apostles deaf and blind. Why were you not deaf and
blind, to prevent you from learning such profane nonsense, and dumb too, to
prevent you from uttering it?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 149: FAUSTUS MAINTAINS THAT TO HOLD TO THE OLD TESTAMENT AFTER THE GIVING OF THE NEW IS PUTTING NEW CLOTH ON AN OLD GARMENT. AUGUSTIN FURTHER EXPLAINS THE RELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW, AND REPROACHES THE MANICHÆANS WITH CARNALITY. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Another reason for not receiving the Old Testament is, that I
am provided with the New; and Scripture says that old and new do not agree. For
"no one putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, otherwise the rent is
made worse." [370] To avoid making a worse rent, as you have done, I do not mix
Christian newness with Hebrew oldness. Every one accounts it mean, when a man
has got a new dress, not to give the old one to his inferiors. So, even if I
were a Jew by birth, as the apostles were, it would be proper for me, on
receiving the New Testament, to discard the Old, as the apostles did. And having
the advantage of being born free from the yoke of bondage, and being early
introduced into the full liberty of Christ, what a foolish and ungrateful wretch
I should be to put myself again under the yoke! This is what Paul blames the
Galatians for; because, going back to circumcision, they turned again to the
weak and beggarly elements, whereunto they desired again to be in bondage. [371]
Why should I do what I see another blamed for doing? My going into bondage would
be worse than their returning to it. 2. Augustin replied: We have already shown
sufficiently why and how we maintain the authority of the Old Testament, not for
the imitation of Jewish bondage, but for the confirmation of Christian liberty.
It is not I, but the apostle, who says, "All these things happened to them as an
example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world
are come." [372] We do not therefore, as bondmen, observe what was enjoined as
predictive of us; but as free, we read what was written to confirm us. So any
one may see that the apostle remonstrates with the Galatians not for devoutly
reading what Scripture says of circumcision, but for superstitiously desiring to
be circumcised. We do not put a new cloth to an old garment, but we are
instructed in the kingdom of heaven, like the householder, whom the Lord
describes as bringing out of his treasure things new and old. [373] He who puts
a new cloth to an old garment is the man who attempts spiritual self-denial
before he has renounced fleshly hope. Examine the passage, and you will see
that, when the Lord was asked about fasting, He replied, "No man putteth a new
cloth to an old garment." The disciples had still a carnal affection for the
Lord; for they were afraid that, if He died, they would lose Him. So He calls
Peter Satan for dissuading Him from suffering, because he understood not the
things of God, but the things of men. [374] The fleshly character of your hope
is evident from your fancies about the kingdom of God, and from your paying
homage and devotion to the light of the sun, which the carnal eye perceives, as
if it were an image of heaven. So your carnal mind is the old garment to which
you join your fasts. Moreover, if a new cloth and an old garment do not agree,
how do the members of your God come to be not only joined or fastened, but to be
united far more intimately by mixture and coherence to the principles of
darkness? Perhaps both are old, because both are false, and both of the carnal
mind. Or perhaps you wish to prove that one was new and the other old, by the
rent being made worse, in tearing away the unhappy piece of the kingdom of
light, to be doomed to eternal imprisonment in the mass of darkness. So this
pretended artist in the fashions of the sacred Scriptures is found stitching
together absurdities, and dressing himself in the rags of his own invention.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 150: FAUSTUS ARGUES THAT IF THE APOSTLES BORN UNDER THE OLD COVENANT COULD LAWFULLY DEPART FROM IT, MUCH MORE CAN HE HAVING BEEN BORN A GENTILE. AUGUSTIN EXPLAINS THE RELATION OF JEWS AND GENTILES ALIKE TO THE GOSPEL. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Another reason for not receiving the Old Testament is, that if
it was allowable for the apostles, who were born under it, to abandon it, much
more may I, who was not born under it, be excused for not thrusting myself into
it. We Gentiles are not born Jews, nor Christians either. Out of the same
Gentile world some are induced by the Old Testament to become Jews, and some by
the New Testament to become Christians. It is as if two trees, a sweet and a
bitter, drew from one soil the sap which each assimilates to its own nature. The
apostle passed from the bitter to the sweet; it would be madness in me to change
from the sweet to the bitter. 2. Augustin replied: You say that the apostle, in
leaving Judaism, passed from the bitter to the sweet. But the apostle himself
says that the Jews, who would not believe in Christ, were branches broken off,
and that the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the good olive, that
is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might partake of the fatness of the
olive. For, in warning the Gentiles not to be proud on account of the fall of
the Jews, he says: "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of
the Gentiles. I magnify my office; if by any means I may provoke to emulation
them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of
them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but
life from the dead? For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and
if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches are broken
off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with
them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the
branches: but if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou
wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well;
because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not
high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed
lest He also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:
on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His
goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not
still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert
grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these,
which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I would
not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery (lest ye should be
wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until
the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved."
[375] It appears from this, that you, who do not wish to be graffed into this
root, though you are not broken off, like the carnal unbelieving Jews, remain
still in the bitterness of the wild olive. Your worship of the sun and moon has
the true Gentile flavor. You are none the less in the wild olive of the
Gentiles, because you have added thorns of a new kind, and worship along with
the sun and moon a false Christ, the fabrication not of your hands, but of your
perverse heart. Come, then, and be grafted into the root of the olive tree, in
his return to which the apostle rejoices, after by unbelief he had been among
the broken branches. He speaks of himself as set free, when he made the happy
transition from Judaism to Christianity. For Christ was always preached in the
olive tree, and those who did not believe on Him when He came were broken off,
while those who believed were grafted in. These are thus warned against pride:
"Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches,
neither will He spare thee." And to prevent despair of those broken off, he
adds: "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in;
for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive
tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good
olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted
into their own olive tree." The apostle rejoices in being delivered from the
condition of a broken branch, and in being restored to the fatness of the olive
tree. So you who have been broken off by error should return and be grafted in
again. Those who are still in the wild olive should separate themselves from its
barrenness, and become partakers of fertility.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 151: FAUSTUS INSISTS THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE NEW. AUGUSTIN ADMITS A DIFFERENCE, BUT MAINTAINS THAT THE MORAL PRECEPTS ARE THE SAME IN BOTH. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Another reason for not receiving the Old Testament is, that
both the Old and the New teach us not to covet what belongs to others.
Everything in the Old Testament is of this kind. It promises riches, and plenty,
and children, and children's children, and long life, and withal the land of
Canaan; but only to the circumcised, the Sabbath observers, those offering
sacrifices, and abstaining from swine's flesh. Now I, like every other
Christian, pay no attention to these things, as being trifling and useless for
the salvation of the soul. I conclude, therefore, that the promises do not
belong to me. And mindful of the commandment, Thou shall not covet, I gladly
leave to the Jews their own property, and content myself with the gospel, and
with the bright inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. If a Jew were to claim
part in the gospel, I should justly reproach him with claiming what he had no
right to, because he does not obey its precepts. And a Jew might say the same to
me if I professed to receive the Old Testament while I disregard its
requirements. 2. Augustin replied: Faustus is not ashamed to repeat the same
nonsense again and again. But it is tiresome to repeat the same answers, though
it is to repeat truth. What Faustus says here has already been answered. [376]
But if a Jew asks me why I profess to believe the Old Testament while I do not
observe its precepts, my reply is this: The moral precepts of the law are
observed by Christians; the symbolical precepts were properly observed during
the time that the things now revealed were prefigured. Accordingly, those
observances, which I regard as no longer binding, I still look upon as a
testimony, as I do also the carnal promises from which the Old Testament derives
its name. For although the gospel teaches me to hope for eternal blessings, I
also find a confirmation of the gospel in those things which "happened to them
for an example, and were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the
world are come." So much for our answer to the Jews. And now we have something
to say to the Manichæans. 3. By showing the way in which we regard the authority
of the Old Testament we have answered the Jews, by whose question about our not
observing the precepts Faustus thought we would be puzzled. But what answer can
you give to the question, why you deceive simple-minded people by professing to
believe in the New Testament, while you not only do not believe it, but assail
it with all your force? It will be more difficult for you to answer this than it
was for us to answer the Jews. We hold all that is written in the Old Testament
to be true, and enjoined by God for suitable times. But in your inability to
find a reason for not receiving what is written in the New Testament, you are
obliged, as a last resource, to pretend that the passages are not genuine. This
is the last gasp of a heretic in the clutches of truth; or rather it is the
breath of corruption itself. Faustus, however, confesses that the Old Testament
as well as the New teaches him not to covet. His own God could never have taught
him this. For if this God did not covet what belonged to another, why did he
construct new worlds in the region of darkness? Perhaps the race of darkness
first coveted his kingdom. But this would be to imitate their bad example.
Perhaps the kingdom of light was previously of small extent, and war was
desirable in order to enlarge it by conquest. In that case, no doubt, there was
covetousness, though the hostile race was allowed to begin the wars to justify
the conquest. If there had been no such desire, there was no necessity to extend
the kingdom beyond its old limits into the region of the conquered foe. If the
Manichæans would only learn from these Scriptures the moral precepts, one of
which is, Do not covet, instead of taking offence at the symbolical precept,
they would acknowledge in meekness and candor that they suited the time then
present. We do not covet what belongs to another, when we read in the Old
Testament what "happened to them for examples, and was written for our
admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come." It is surely not coveting
when a man reads what is written for his benefit.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 152: FAUSTUS QUOTES PASSAGES TO SHOW THAT THE APOSTLE PAUL ABANDONED BELIEF IN THE INCARNATION, TO WHICH HE EARLIER HELD. AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT THE APOSTLE WAS CONSISTENT WITH HIMSELF IN THE UTTERANCES QUOTED. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Assuredly I believe the apostle. And yet I do not believe that
the Son of God was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, [377]
because I do not believe that God's apostle could contradict himself, and have
one opinion about our Lord at one time, and another at another. But, granting
that he wrote this, -- since you will not hear of anything being spurious in his
writings, -- it is not against us. For this seems to be Paul's old belief about
Jesus, when he thought, like everybody else, that Jesus was the son of David.
Afterwards, when he learned that this was false, he corrects himself; and in his
Epistle to the Corinthians he says: "We know no man after the flesh; yea, though
we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more."
[378] Observe the difference between these two verses. In one he asserts that
Jesus was the son of David after the flesh; in the other he says that now he
knows no man after the flesh. If Paul wrote both, it can only have been in the
way I have stated. In the next verse he adds: "Therefore, if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new." The belief that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to
the flesh is of this old transitory kind; whereas the faith which knows no man
after the flesh is new and permanent. So, he says elsewhere: "When I was a
child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but
when I became a man, I put away childish things." [379] We are thus warranted in
preferring the new and amended confession of Paul to his old and faulty one. And
if you hold by what is said in the Epistle to the Romans, why should not we hold
by what is said to the Corinthians? But it is only by your insisting on the
correctness of the text that we are made to represent Paul as building again the
things which he destroyed, in spite of his own repudiation of such
prevarication. If the verse is Paul's, he has corrected himself. If Paul should
not be supposed to have written anything requiring correction, the verse is not
his. 2. Augustin replied: As I said a little ago, when these men are beset by
clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare
that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the
truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of
Scripture, they deny their genuineness. But if this answer is admitted, or
allowed to have any weight, it will be useless to quote any book or any passage
against your errors. It is one thing to reject the books themselves, and to
profess no regard for their authority, as the Pagans reject our Scriptures, and
the Jews the New Testament, and as we reject any books peculiar to your sect, or
any other heretical sect, and also the apocryphal books, which are so called,
not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but because they are
mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence, have only some
obscure presumption to rest upon; and it is another thing to say, This holy man
wrote only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are his, and some
are not. And then, when you are asked for a proof, instead of referring to more
correct or more ancient manuscripts, or to a greater number, or to the original
text, your reply is, This verse is his, because it makes for me; and this is not
his, because it is against me. Are you, then, the rule of truth? Can nothing be
true that is against you? But what answer could you give to an opponent as
insane as yourself, if he confronts you by saying, The passage in your favor is
spurious, and that against you is genuine? Perhaps you will produce a book, all
of which can be explained so as to support you. Then, instead of rejecting a
passage, he will reply by condemning the whole book as spurious. You have no
resource against such an opponent. For all the testimony you can bring in favor
of your book from antiquity or tradition will avail nothing. In this respect the
testimony of the Catholic Church is conspicuous, as supported by a succession of
bishops from the original seats of the apostles up to the present time, and by
the consent of so many nations. Accordingly, should there be a question about
the text of some passage, as there are a few passages with various readings well
known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the
manuscripts of the country where the religion was first taught; and if these
still varied, we should take the text of the greater number, or of the more
ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we should consult the original text.
This is the method employed by those who, in any question about the Scriptures,
do not lose sight of the regard due to their authority, and inquire with the
view of gaining information, not of raising disputes. [380] 3. As regards the
passage from Paul's epistle which teaches, in opposition to your heresy, that
the Son of God was born of the seed of David, it is found in all manuscripts
both new and old of all Churches, and in all languages. So the profession which
Faustus makes of believing the apostle is hypocritical. Instead of saying,
"Assuredly I believe," he should have said, Assuredly I do not believe, as he
would have said if he had not wished to deceive people. What part of his belief
does he get from the apostle? Not the first man, of whom the apostle says that
he is of the earth, earthy; and again, "The first man Adam was made a living
soul." Faustus' First Man is neither of the earth, earthy, nor made a living
soul, but of the substance of God, and the same in essence as God; and this
being is said to have mixed up with the race of darkness his members, or
vesture, or weapons, that is, the five elements, which also are part of the
substance of God, so that they became subject to confinement and pollution. Nor
does Faustus get from Paul his Second Man, of whom Paul says that He is from
heaven, and that He is the last Adam, and a quickening spirit; and also that He
was born of the seed of David after the flesh, that He was made of a woman, made
under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law. [381] Of Him
Paul says to Timothy: "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was
raised from the dead, according to my gospel." [382] And this resurrection he
quotes as an example of our resurrection: "I delivered unto you first of all
that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the
Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day,
according to the Scriptures." And a little further on he draws an inference from
this doctrine: "Now, if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say
some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" [383] Our professed
believer in Paul believes nothing of all this. He denies that Jesus was born of
the seed of David, that He was made of a woman (by the word woman is not meant a
wife in the common sense of the word, but merely one of the female sex, as in
the book of Genesis, where it is said that God made a woman before she was
brought to Adam [384] ); he denies His death, His burial, and His resurrection.
He holds that Christ had not a mortal body, and therefore could not really die;
and that the marks of His wounds which He showed to His disciples when He
appeared to them alive after His resurrection, which Paul also mentions, [385]
were not real. He denies, too, that our mortal body will be raised again,
changed into a spiritual body; as Paul teaches: "It is sown a natural body, it
is raised a spiritual body." To illustrate this distinction between the natural
and the spiritual body, the apostle adds what I have quoted already about the
first and the last Adam. Then he goes on: "But this I say, brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And to explain what he means by
flesh and blood, that it is not the bodily substance, but corruption, which will
not enter into the resurrection of the just, he immediately says, "Neither shall
corruption inherit incorruption." And in case any one should still suppose that
it is not what is buried that is to rise again, but that it is as if one garment
were laid aside and a better taken instead, he proceeds to show distinctly that
the same body will be changed for the better, as the garments of Christ on the
mount were not displaced, but transfigured: "Behold, I show you a mystery; we
shall not all be changed, but we shall all rise." [386] Then he shows who are to
be changed: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for
the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be
changed." And if it should be said that it is not as regards our mortal and
corruptible body, but as regards our soul, that we are to be changed, it should
be observed that the apostle is not speaking of the soul, but of the body, as is
evident from the question he starts with: "But some one will say, How are the
dead raised, and with what body do they come?" So also, in the conclusion of his
argument, he leaves no doubt of what he is speaking: "This corruptible must put
on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." [387] Faustus denies
this; and the God whom Paul declares to be "immortal, incorruptible, to whom
alone is glory and honor," [388] he makes corruptible. For in this monstrous and
horrible fiction of theirs, the substance and nature of God was in danger of
being wholly corrupted by the race of darkness, and to save the rest part
actually was corrupted. And to crown all this, he tries to deceive the ignorant
who are not learned in the sacred Scriptures, by making this profession: I
assuredly believe the Apostle Paul; when he ought to have said, I assuredly do
not believe. 4. But Faustus has a proof to show that Paul changed his mind, and,
in writing to the Corinthians, corrected what he had written to the Romans; or
else that he never wrote the passage which appears as his, about Jesus Christ
being born of the seed of David according to the flesh. And what is this proof?
If the passage, he says, in the Epistle to the Romans is true, "the Son of God,
who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," what he says to the
Corinthians cannot be true, "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no
more." We must therefore show that both these passages are true, and not opposed
to one another. The agreement of the manuscripts proves both to be genuine. In
some Latin versions the word "born" [389] is used instead of "made," [390] which
is not so literal a rendering, but gives the same meaning. For both these
translations, as well as the original, teach that Christ was of the seed of
David after the flesh. We must not for a moment suppose that Paul corrected
himself on account of a change of opinion. Faustus himself felt the impropriety
and impiety of such an explanation, and preferred to say that the passage was
spurious, instead of that Paul was mistaken. 5. As regards our writings, which
are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may
suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and
recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in
subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if ye
be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." [391] Such writings
are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In
order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions,
there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to
apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New
Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles
through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a
position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious
mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not
allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript
is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the
innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same
truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a
sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own
opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him,
and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In
such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some
clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or
statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive
peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the
canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist.
Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility,
if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an
end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion. [392] 6.
With regard, then, to this apparent contradiction between the passage which
speaks of the Son of God being of the seed of David, to the words, "Though we
have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more," even
though both quotations were not from the writings of one apostle, -- though one
were from Paul, and the other from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or
prophet, -- such is the equality of canonical authority, that it would not be
allowable to doubt of either. For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if
from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate
and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the
calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research. In the case before us both
quotations are from the canonical, that is, the genuine epistles of Paul. We
cannot say that the manuscript is faulty, for the best Latin translations
substantially agree; or that the translations are wrong, for the best texts have
the same reading. So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent
contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand. Accordingly
it remains for me to explain how both passages, instead of being contradictory,
may be harmonized by one rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer will find all
perplexity removed by a careful examination. 7. That the Son of God was made man
of the seed of David, is not only said in other places by Paul, but is taught
elsewhere in sacred Scripture. As regards the words, "Though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more," the context
shows what is the apostle's meaning. Here, or elsewhere, he views with an
assured hope, as if it were already present and in actual possession, our future
life, which is now fulfilled in our risen Head and Mediator, the man Christ
Jesus. This life will certainly not be after the flesh, even as Christ's life is
now not after the flesh. For by flesh the apostle here means not the substance
of our bodies, in which sense the Lord used the word when, after His
resurrection, He said, "Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have," [393] but the corruption and mortality of flesh,
which will then not be in us, as now it is not in Christ. The apostle uses the
word flesh in the sense of corruption in the passage about the resurrection
quoted before: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall
corruption inherit incorruption." So, after the event described in the next
verse, "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall all rise, but we shall not all be
changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (for the
trumpet shall sound); and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall
be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality," [394] -- then flesh, in the sense of the substance of the
body, will, after this change, no longer have flesh, in the sense of the
corruption of mortality; and yet, as regards its own nature, it will be the same
flesh, the same which rises and which is changed. What the Lord said after His
resurrection is true, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have;" and what the apostle says is true, "Flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The first is said of the bodily substance,
which exists as the subject of the change: the second is said of the corruption
of the flesh, which will cease to exist, for, after its change, flesh will not
be corrupted. So, "we have known Christ after the flesh," that is, after the
mortality of flesh, before His resurrection; "now henceforth we know Him no
more," because, as the same apostle says, "Christ being risen from the dead,
dieth no more, and death hath no more dominion over Him." [395] The words, "we
have known Christ after the flesh," strictly speaking, imply that Christ was
after the flesh, for what never was cannot be known. And it is not "we have
supposed," but "we have known." But not to insist on a word, in case some one
should say that known is used in the sense of supposed, it is astonishing, if
one could be surprised at want of sight in a blind man, that these blind people
do not perceive that if what the apostle says about not knowing Christ after the
flesh proves that Christ had not flesh, then what he says in the same place of
not knowing any one henceforth after the flesh proves that all those here
referred to had not flesh. For when he speaks of not knowing any one, he cannot
intend to speak only of Christ; but in his realization of the future life with
those who are to be changed at the resurrection, he says, "Henceforth we know no
man after the flesh;" that is, we have such an assured hope of our future
incorruption and immortality, that the thought of it makes us rejoice even now.
So he says elsewhere: "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things that
are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affections
upon things above, and not on things on the earth." [396] It is true we have not
yet risen as Christ has, but we are said to have risen with Him on account of
the hope which we have in Him. So again he says: "According to His mercy He
saved us, by the washing of regeneration." [397] Evidently what we obtain in the
washing of regeneration is not the salvation itself, but the hope of it. And
yet, because this hope is certain, we are said to be saved, as if the salvation
were already bestowed. Elsewhere it is said explicitly: "We groan within
ourselves, waiting for the adoption, even the redemption of our body. For we are
saved by hope. But hope which is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why
doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for what we see not, then do we with
patience wait for it." [398] The apostle says not, "we are to be saved," but,
"We are now saved," that is, in hope, though not yet in reality. And in the same
way it is in hope, though not yet in reality, that we now know no man after the
flesh. This hope is in Christ, in whom what we hope for as promised to us has
already been fulfilled. He is risen, and death has no more dominion over Him.
Though we have known Him after the flesh, before His death, when there was in
His body that mortality which the apostle properly calls flesh, now henceforth
know we Him no more; for that mortal of His has now put on immortality, and His
flesh, in the sense of mortality, no longer exists. 8. The context of the
passage containing this clause of which our adversaries make such a bad use,
brings out its real meaning. "The love of Christ," we read, "constrains us,
because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died; and He died for
all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to Him
who died for them, and rose again. Therefore henceforth know we no man after the
flesh; and though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know
we Him no more." The words, "that they which live should not henceforth live
unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them, and rose again," show plainly
that the resurrection of Christ is the ground of the apostle's statement. To
live not to themselves, but to Him, must mean to live not after the flesh, in
the hope of earthly and perishable goods, but after the spirit, in the hope of
resurrection, -- a resurrection already accomplished in Christ. Of those, then,
for whom Christ died and rose again, and who live henceforth not to themselves,
but to Him, the Apostle says that he knows no one after the flesh, on account of
the hope of future immortality to which they were looking forward, -- a hope
which in Christ was already a reality. So, though he has known Christ after the
flesh, before His death, now he knows Him no more; for he knows that He has
risen, and that death has no more dominion over Him. And because in Christ we
all are even now in hope, though not in reality, what Christ is, he adds:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who has
reconciled us to Himself by Christ." [399] What the new creature -- that is, the
people renewed by faith -- hopes for regarding itself, it has already in Christ;
and the hope will also hereafter be actually realized. And, as regards this
hope, old things have passed away, because we are no longer in the times of the
Old Testament, expecting a temporal and carnal kingdom of God; and all things
are become new, making the promise of the kingdom of heaven, where there shall
be no death or corruption, the ground of our confidence. But in the resurrection
of the dead it will not be as a matter of hope, but in reality, that old things
shall pass away, when the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed; and all things
shall become new when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal
has put on immortality. This has already taken place in Christ, whom Paul
accordingly, in reality, knew no longer after the flesh. But not yet in reality,
but only in hope, did he know no one after the flesh of those for whom Christ
died and rose again. For, as he says to the Ephesians, we are already saved by
grace. The whole passage is to the purpose: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for
His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ, by whose grace we have been saved." The
words, "hath quickened us together with Christ," correspond to what he said to
the Corinthians, "that they which live should no longer live to themselves, but
to Him that died for them and rose again." And in the words, "by whose grace we
have been saved," he speaks of the thing hoped for as already accomplished. So,
in the passage quoted above, he says explicitly, "We have been saved by hope."
And here he proceeds to specify future events as if already accomplished. "And
has raised us up together," he says, "and has made us sit together in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus." Christ is certainly already seated in heavenly places,
but we not yet. But as in an assured hope we already possess the future, he says
that we sit in heavenly places, not in ourselves, but in Him. And to show that
it is still future, in case it should be thought that what is spoken of as
accomplished in hope has been accomplished in reality, he adds, "that He might
show in the ages to come the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness
towards us in Christ Jesus." [400] So also we must understand the following
passage: "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the
law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." [401] He says,
"when we were in the flesh," as if they were no longer in the flesh. He means to
say, when we were in the hope of fleshly things, referring to the time when the
law, which can be fulfilled only by spiritual love, was in force, in order that
by transgression the offence might abound, that after the revelation of the New
Testament, grace and the gift by grace might much more abound. And to the same
effect he says elsewhere, "They which are in the flesh cannot please God;" and
then, to show that he does not mean those not yet dead, he adds, "But ye are not
in the flesh, but in the Spirit." [402] The meaning is, those who are in the
hope of fleshly good cannot please God; but you are not in the hope of fleshly
things, but in the hope of spiritual things, that is, of the kingdom of heaven,
where the body itself, which now is natural, will, by the change in the
resurrection, be, according to the capacity of its nature, a spiritual body. For
"it is sown a natural body, it will be raised a spiritual body." If, then, the
apostle knew no one after the flesh of those who were said to be not in the
flesh, because they were not in the hope of fleshly things, although they still
were burdened with corruptible and mortal flesh; how much more significantly
could he say of Christ that he no longer knew Him after the flesh, seeing that
in the body of Christ what they hoped for had already been accomplished! Surely
it is better and more reverential to examine the passages of sacred Scripture so
as to discover their agreement with one another, than to accept some as true,
and condemn others as false, whenever any difficulty occurs beyond the power of
our weak intellect to solve. As to the apostle in his childhood understanding as
a child, this is said merely as an illustration. [403] And when he was a child
he was not a spiritual man, as he was when he produced for the edification of
the churches those writings which are not, as other books, merely a profitable
study, but which authoritatively claim our belief as part of the ecclesiastical
canon.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 153: FAUSTUS DENIES THAT THE PROPHETS PREDICTED CHRIST. AUGUSTIN PROVES SUCH PREDICTION FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND EXPOUNDS AT LENGTH THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Why do I not believe the prophets? Rather why do you believe
them? On account, you will reply, of their prophecies about Christ. For my part,
I have read the prophets with the most eager attention, and have found no such
prophecies. And surely it shows a weak faith not to believe in Christ without
proofs and testimonies. Indeed, you yourselves are accustomed to teach that
Christian faith is so simple and absolute as not to admit of laborious
investigations. Why, then, should you destroy the simplicity of faith by
buttressing it with evidences, and Jewish evidences too? Or if you are changing
your opinion about evidences, what more trustworthy witness could you have than
God Himself testifying to His own Son when He sent Him on earth, -- not by a
prophet or an interpreter, -- by a voice immediately from heaven: "This is my
beloved Son, believe Him?" [404] And again He testifies of Himself: "I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world;" [405] and in many similar
passages. When the Jews quarrelled with this testimony, saying "Thou bearest
witness of thyself, thy witness is not true," He replied: "Although I bear
witness of myself, my witness is true. It is written in your law, The witness of
two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent
me beareth witness of me." [406] He does not mention the prophets. Again He
appeals to the testimony of His own works, saying, "If ye believe not me,
believe the works;" [407] not, "If ye believe not me, believe the prophets."
Accordingly we require no testimonies concerning our Saviour. All we look for in
the prophets is prudence and virtue, and a good example, which, you are well
aware, are not to be found in the Jewish prophets. This, no doubt, explains your
referring me at once to their predictions as a reason for believing them,
without a word about their actions. This may be good policy, but it is not in
harmony with the declaration of Scripture, that it is impossible to gather
grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. This may serve meanwhile as a brief
and sufficient reply to the question, why we do not believe the prophets. The
fact that they did not prophesy of Christ is abundantly proved in the writings
of our fathers. I shall only add this, that if the Hebrew prophets knew and
preached Christ, and yet lived such vicious lives, what Paul says of the wise
men among the Gentiles might be applied to them: "Though they knew God, they
glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful; but they became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." [408] You see the knowledge
of great things is worth little, unless the life corresponds. 2. Augustin
replied: The meaning of all this is, that the Hebrew prophets foretold nothing
of Christ, and that, if they did, their predictions are of no use to us, and
they themselves did not live suitably to the dignity of such prophecies. We must
therefore prove the fact of the prophecies; and their use for the truth and
steadfastness of our faith; and that the lives of the prophets were in harmony
with their words. In this threefold discussion, it would take a long time under
the first head to quote from all the books the passages in which Christ may be
shown to have been predicted. Faustus' frivolity may be met effectually by the
weight of one great authority. Although Faustus does not believe the prophets,
he professes to believe the apostles. Above, as if to satisfy the doubts of some
opponent, he declares that he assuredly believes the Apostle Paul. [409] Let us
then hear what Paul says of the prophets. His words are: "Paul, a servant of
Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which
He had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His
Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." [410] What more
does Faustus wish? Will he maintain that the apostle is speaking of some other
prophets, and not of the Hebrew prophets? In any case, the gospel spoken of as
promised was concerning the Son of God, who was made for Him of the seed of
David according to the flesh: and to this gospel the apostle says that he was
separated. So that the Manichæan heresy is opposed to faith in the gospel, which
teaches that the Son of God was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh. Besides, there are many passages where the apostle plainly testifies in
behalf of the Hebrew prophets, with an authority by which the necks of these
proud Manichæans are broken. 3. "I speak the truth in Christ," says the apostle,
"I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have
great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart. For I could wish that myself were
accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who
are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service and the promises; whose
are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed for ever." [411] Here is the most abundant and express
testimony and the most solemn commendation. The adoption here spoken of is
evidently through the Son of God; as the apostle says to the Galatians: "In the
fullness of time, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the
adoption of sons." [412] And the glory spoken of is chiefly that of which he
says in the same Epistle to the Romans: "What advantage hath the Jew? or what
profit is there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because unto them were
committed the oracles of God." [413] Can the Manichæans tell us of any oracles
of God committed to the Jews besides those of the Hebrew prophets? And why are
the covenants said to belong especially to the Israelites, but because not only
was the Old Testament given to them, but also the New was prefigured in the Old?
Our opponents often display much ignorant ferocity in attacking the dispensation
of the law given to the Israelites, not understanding that God wishes us to be
not under the law, but under grace. They are here answered by the apostle
himself, who, in speaking of the advantages of the Jews, mentions this as one,
that they had the giving of the law. If the law had been bad, the apostle would
not have referred to it in praise of the Jews. And if Christ had not been
preached by the law, the Lord Himself would not have said, "If ye believe Moses,
ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me;" [414] nor would He have borne
the testimony He did after His resurrection, saying, "All things must needs be
fulfilled that were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the
Psalms, concerning me." [415] 4. But because the Manichæans preach another
Christ, and not Him whom the apostles preached, but a false Christ of their own
false contrivance, in imitation of whose falsehood they themselves speak lies,
though they may perhaps be believed when they are not ashamed to profess to be
the followers of a deceiver, that has befallen them which the apostle asserts of
the unbelieving Jews: "When Moses is read, a veil is upon their heart." Neither
will this veil which keeps them from understanding Moses be taken away from them
till they turn to Christ; not a Christ of their own making, but the Christ of
the Hebrew prophets. For, as the apostle says, "When thou shalt turn to the
Lord, the veil shall be taken away." [416] We cannot wonder that they do not
believe in the Christ who rose from the dead, and who said, "All things must
needs be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the Psalms, concerning me;" for this Christ has Himself told us what
Abraham said to a hard-hearted rich man when he was in torment in hell, and
asked Abraham to send some one to his brothers to teach them, that they might
not come too into that place of torment. Abraham's reply was: "They have Moses
and the prophets, let them hear them." And when the rich man said that they
would not believe unless some one rose from the dead, he received this most
truthful answer: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they
believe even though one rose from the dead." [417] Wherefore, the Manichæans
will not hear Moses and the prophets, and so they do not believe Christ, though
He rose from the dead. Indeed, they do not even believe that Christ rose from
the dead. For how can they believe that He rose, when they do not believe that
He died? For, again, how can they believe that He died, when they deny that He
had a mortal body? 5. But we reject those false teachers whose Christ is false,
or rather, whose Christ never existed. For we have a Christ true and truthful,
foretold by the prophets, preached by the apostles, who in innumerable places
refer to the testimonies of the law and the prophets in support of their
preaching. Paul, in one short sentence, gives the right view of this subject.
"Now," he says, "the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets." [418] What prophets, if not of Israel,
to whom, as he expressly says, pertain the covenants, and the giving of the law,
and the promises? And what promises, but about Christ? Elsewhere, speaking of
Christ, he says concisely: "All the promises of God are in Him yea." [419] Paul
tells me that the giving of the law pertained to the Israelites. He also tells
me that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth. He also tells me that all the promises of God are in Christ yea. And
you tell me that the prophets of Israel foretold nothing of Christ. Shall I
believe the absurdities of Manichæus relating a vain and long fable in
opposition to Paul? or shall I believe Paul when he forewarns us: "If any man
preach to you another gospel than that which we have preached, let him be
accursed?" 6. Our opponents may perhaps ask us to point out passages where
Christ is predicted by the prophets of Israel. One would think they might be
satisfied with the authority of the apostles, who declare that what we read in
the writings of the Hebrew prophets was fulfilled in Christ, or with that of
Christ Himself, who says that these things were written of Him. Whoever is
unable to point out the passages should lay the blame on his own ignorance; for
the apostles and Christ and the sacred Scriptures are not chargeable with
falsehood. However, one instance out of many may be adduced. The apostle, in the
verses following the passage quoted above, says: "The word of God cannot fail.
For they are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither, because they are the
seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called:
that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God; but the children of promise are counted for the seed." [420] What can our
opponent say against this, in view of the declaration made to Abraham: "In thy
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed?" At the time when the
apostle gave the following exposition of this promise, "To Abraham and to his
seed were the promises made. He saith not, To seed, as of many, but as of one,
To thy seed, which is Christ," [421] a doubt on this point might then have been
less inexcusable, for at that time all nations had not yet believed on Christ,
who is preached as of the seed of Abraham. But now that we see the fulfillment
of what we read in the ancient prophecy, -- now that all nations are actually
blessed in the seed of Abraham, to whom it was said thousands of years ago, "In
thy seed shall all nations be blessed," -- it is mere obstinate folly to try to
bring in another Christ, not of the seed of Abraham, or to hold that there are
no predictions of Christ in the prophetical books of the children of Abraham. 7.
To enumerate all the passages in the Hebrew prophets referring to our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, would exceed the limits of a volume, not to speak of the
brief replies of which this treatise consists. The whole contents of these
Scriptures are either directly or indirectly about Christ. Often the reference
is allegorical or enigmatical, perhaps in a verbal allusion, or in a historical
narrative, requiring diligence in the student, and rewarding him with the
pleasure of discovery. Other passages, again, are plain; for, without the help
of what is clear, we could not understand what is obscure. And even the
figurative passages, when brought together, will be found so harmonious in their
testimony to Christ as to put to shame the obtuseness of the sceptic. 8. In the
creation God finished His works in six days, and rested on the seventh. The
history of the world contains six periods marked by the dealings of God with
men. The first period is from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham;
the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the captivity in
Babylon; the fifth, from the captivity to the advent of lowliness of our Lord
Jesus Christ; the sixth is now in progress, and will end in the coming of the
exalted Saviour to judgment. What answers to the seventh day is the rest of the
saints, -- not in this life, but in another, where the rich man saw Lazarus at
rest while he was tormented in hell; where there is no evening, because there is
no decay. On the sixth day, in Genesis, man is formed after the image of God; in
the sixth period of the world there is the clear discovery of our transformation
in the renewing of our mind, according to the image of Him who created us, as
the apostle says. [422] As a wife was made for Adam from his side while he
slept, the Church becomes the property of her dying Saviour, by the sacrament of
the blood which flowed from His side after His death. The woman made out of her
husband's side is called Eve, or Life, and the mother of living beings; and the
Lord says in the Gospel: "Except a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he has
no life in him." [423] The whole narrative of Genesis, in the most minute
details, is a prophecy of Christ and of the Church with reference either to the
good Christians or to the bad. There is a significance in the words of the
apostle when he calls Adam "the figure of Him that was to come;" [424] and when
he says, "A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning
Christ and the Church." [425] This points most obviously to the way in which
Christ left His Father; for "though He was in the form of God, and thought it
not robbery to be equal with God, He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form
of a servant." [426] And so, too, He left His mother, the synagogue of the Jews
which cleaved to the carnality of the Old Testament, and was united to the
Church His holy bride, that in the peace of the New Testament they two might be
one flesh. For though with the Father He was God, by whom we were made, He
became in the flesh partaker of our nature, that we might become the body of
which He is the head. 9. As Cain's sacrifice of the fruit of the ground is
rejected, while Abel's sacrifice of his sheep and the fat thereof is accepted,
so the faith of the New Testament praising God in the harmless service of grace
is preferred to the earthly observances of the Old Testament. For though the
Jews were right in practising these things, they were guilty of unbelief in not
distinguishing the time of the New Testament when Christ came, from the time of
the Old Testament. God said to Cain, "If thou offerest well, yet if thou
dividest not well, thou hast sinned." [427] If Cain had obeyed God when He said,
"Be content, for to thee shall be its reference, and thou shalt rule over it,"
he would have referred his sin to himself, by taking the blame of it, and
confessing it to God; and so assisted by supplies of grace, he would have ruled
over his sin, instead of acting as the servant of sin in killing his innocent
brother. So also the Jews, of whom all these things are a figure, if they had
been content, instead of being turbulent, and had acknowledged the time of
salvation through the pardon of sins by grace, and heard Christ saying, "They
that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance;" [428] and, "Every one that committeth
sin is the servant of sin;" and, "If the Son make you free, ye shall be free
indeed," [429] -- they would in confession have referred their sin to
themselves, saying to the Physician, as it is written in the Psalm, "I said,
Lord, be merciful to me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." [430]
And being made free by the hope of grace, they would have ruled over sin as long
as it continued in their mortal body. But now, being ignorant of God's
righteousness, and wishing to establish a righteousness of their own, proud of
the works of the law, instead of being humbled on account of their sins, they
have not been content; and in subjection to sin reigning in their mortal body,
so as to make them obey it in the lusts thereof, they have stumbled on the stone
of stumbling, and have been inflamed with hatred against him whose works they
grieved to see accepted by God. The man who was born blind, and had been made to
see, said to them, "We know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man serve
Him, and do His will, him He heareth;" [431] as if he had said, God regardeth
not the sacrifice of Cain, but he regards the sacrifice of Abel. Abel, the
younger brother, is killed by the elder brother; Christ, the head of the younger
people, is killed by the elder people of the Jews. Abel dies in the field;
Christ dies on Calvary. 10. God asks Cain where his brother is, not as if He did
not know, but as a judge asks a guilty criminal. Cain replies that he knows not,
and that he is not his brother's keeper. And what answer can the Jews give at
this day, when we ask them with the voice of God, that is, of the sacred
Scriptures, about Christ, except that they do not know the Christ that we speak
of? Cain's ignorance was pretended, and the Jews are deceived in their refusal
of Christ. Moreover, they would have been in a sense keepers of Christ, if they
had been willing to receive and keep the Christian faith. For the man who keeps
Christ in his heart does not ask, like Cain, Am I my brother's keeper? Then God
says to Cain, "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto
me from the ground." So the voice of God in the Holy Scriptures accuses the
Jews. For the blood of Christ has a loud voice on the earth, when the responsive
Amen of those who believe in Him comes from all nations. This is the voice of
Christ's blood, because the clear voice of the faithful redeemed by His blood is
the voice of the blood itself. 11. Then God says to Cain: "Thou art cursed from
the earth, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood at thy
hand. For thou shalt till the earth, and it shall no longer yield unto thee its
strength. A mourner and an abject shalt thou be on the earth." It is not, Cursed
is the earth, but, Cursed art thou from the earth, which hath opened its mouth
to receive thy brother's blood at thy hand. So the unbelieving people of the
Jews is cursed from the earth, that is, from the Church, which in the confession
of sins has opened its mouth to receive the blood shed for the remission of sins
by the hand of the people that would not be under grace, but under the law. And
this murderer is cursed by the Church; that is, the Church admits and avows the
curse pronounced by the apostle: "Whoever are of the works of the law are under
the curse of the law." [432] Then, after saying, Cursed art thou from the earth,
which has opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood at thy hand, what
follows is not, For thou shalt till it, but, Thou shalt till the earth, and it
shall not yield to thee its strength. The earth he is to till is not necessarily
the same as that which opened its mouth to receive his brother's blood at his
hand. From this earth he is cursed, and so he tills an earth which shall no
longer yield to him its strength. That is, the Church admits and avows the
Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till
the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover,
while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling
contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and
unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they will not turn to
God, the veil which is on their minds in reading the Old Testament is not taken
away. This veil is taken away only by Christ, who does not do away with the
reading of the Old Testament, but with the covering which hides its virtue. So,
at the crucifixion of Christ, the veil was rent in twain, that by the passion of
Christ hidden mysteries might be revealed to believers who turn to Him with a
mouth opened in confession to drink His blood. In this way the Jewish people,
like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal observance of the law,
which does not yield to them its strength, because they do not perceive in it
the grace of Christ. So too, the flesh of Christ was the ground from which by
crucifying Him the Jews produced our salvation, for He died for our offences.
But this ground did not yield to them its strength, for they were not justified
by the virtue of His resurrection, for He arose again for our justification. As
the apostle says: "He was crucified in weakness, but He liveth by the power of
God." [433] This is the power of that ground which is unknown to the ungodly and
unbelieving. When Christ rose, He did not appear to those who had crucified Him.
So Cain was not allowed to see the strength of the ground which he tilled to sow
his seed in it; as God said, "Thou shalt till the ground, and it shall no longer
yield unto thee its strength."12. "Groaning and trembling shalt thou be on the
earth." Here no one can fail to see that in every land where the Jews are
scattered they mourn for the loss of their kingdom, and are in terrified
subjection to the immensely superior number of Christians. So Cain answered, and
said: "My case is worse, if Thou drivest me out this day from the face of the
earth, and from Thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a mourner and an outcast
on the earth; and it shall be that every one that findeth me shall slay me."
Here he groans indeed in terror, lest after losing his earthly possession he
should suffer the death of the body. This he calls a worse case than that of the
ground not yielding to him its strength, or than that of spiritual death. For
his mind is carnal; for he thinks little of being hid from the face of God, that
is, of being under the anger of God, were it not that he may be found and slain.
This is the carnal mind that tills the ground, but does not obtain its strength.
To be carnally minded is death; but he, in ignorance of this, mourns for the
loss of his earthly possession, and is in terror of bodily death. But what does
God reply? "Not so," He says; "but whosoever shall kill Cain, vengeance shall be
taken on him sevenfold." That is, It is not as thou sayest; not by bodily death
shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish. For whoever destroys them in this
way shall suffer sevenfold vengeance, that is, shall bring upon himself the
sevenfold penalty under which the Jews lie for the crucifixion of Christ. So to
the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will
be a proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in
the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.13. "And the Lord God set a
mark upon Cain, lest any one finding him should slay him." It is a most notable
fact, that all the nations subjugated by Rome adopted the heathenish ceremonies
of the Roman worship; while the Jewish nation, whether under Pagan or Christian
monarchs, has never lost the sign of their law, by which they are distinguished
from all other nations and peoples. No emperor or monarch who finds under his
government the people with this mark kills them, that is, makes them cease to be
Jews, and as Jews to be separate in their observances, and unlike the rest of
the world. Only when a Jew comes over to Christ, he is no longer Cain, nor goes
out from the presence of God, nor dwells in the land of Nod, which is said to
mean commotion. Against this evil of commotion the Psalmist prays, "Suffer not
my feet to be moved;" [434] and again, "Let not the hands of the wicked remove
me;" [435] and, "Those that trouble me will rejoice when I am moved:" [436] and,
"The Lord is at my right hand, that I should not be moved;" [437] and so in
innumerable places. This evil comes upon those who leave the presence of God,
that is, His loving-kindness. Thus the Psalmist says, "I said in my prosperity,
I shall never be moved." But observe what follows, "Lord, by Thy favor Thou hast
given strength to my honor; Thou didst hide Thy face, and I was troubled;" [438]
which teaches us that not in itself, but by participation in the light of God,
can any soul possess beauty, or honor, or strength. The Manichæans should think
of this, to keep them from the blasphemy of identifying themselves with the
nature and substance of God. But they cannot think, because they are not
content. The Sabbath of the heart they are strangers to. If they were content,
as Cain was told to be, they would refer their sin to themselves; that is, they
would lay the blame on themselves, and not on a race of darkness that no one
ever heard of, and so by the grace of God they would prevail over their sin. But
now the Manichæans, and all who oppose the truth by their various heresies,
leave the presence of God, like Cain and the scattered Jews, and inhabit the
land of commotion, that is, of carnal disquietude, instead of the enjoyment of
God, that is instead of Eden, which is interpreted Feasting, where Paradise was
planted. But not to depart too much from the argument of this treatise I must
limit myself to a few, short remarks under this head. 14. Omitting therefore
many passages in these Books where Christ may be found, but which require longer
explanation and proof, although the most hidden meanings are the sweetest,
convincing testimony may be obtained from the enumeration of such things as the
following: -- That Enoch, the seventh from Adam, pleased God, and was
translated, as there is to be a seventh day of rest into which all will be
translated who, during the sixth day of the world's history, are created anew by
the incarnate Word. That Noah, with his family is saved by water and wood, as
the family of Christ is saved by baptism, as representing the suffering of the
cross. That this ark is made of beams formed in a square, as the Church is
constructed of saints prepared unto every good work: for a square stands firm on
any side. That the length is six times the breadth, and ten times the height,
like a human body, to show that Christ appeared in a human body. That the
breadth reaches to fifty cubits; as the apostle says, "Our heart is enlarged,"
[439] that is, with spiritual love, of which he says again, "The love of God is
shed abroad in our heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." [440] For
in the fiftieth day after His resurrection, Christ sent His Holy Spirit to
enlarge the hearts of His disciples. That it is three hundred cubits long, to
make up six times fifty; as there are six periods in the history of the world
during which Christ has never ceased to be preached, -- in five foretold by the
prophets, and in the sixth proclaimed in the gospel. That it is thirty cubits
high, a tenth part of the length; because Christ is our height, who in his
thirtieth year gave His sanction to the doctrine of the gospel, by declaring
that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Now the ten commandments
are to be the heart of the law; and so the length of the ark is ten times
thirty. Noah himself, too, was the tenth from Adam. That the beams of the ark
are fastened within and without with pitch, to signify by compact union the
forbearance of love, which keeps the brotherly connection from being impaired,
and the bond of peace from being broken by the offences which try the Church
either from without or from within. For pitch is a glutinous substance, of great
energy and force, to represent the ardor of love which, with great power of
endurance, beareth all things in the maintenance of spiritual communion.15. That
all kinds of animals are inclosed in the ark; as the Church contains all
nations, which was also set forth in the vessel shown to Peter. That clean and
unclean animals are in the ark; as good and bad take part in the sacraments of
the Church. That the clean are in sevens, and the unclean in twos; not because
the bad are fewer than the good, but because the good preserve the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace; and the Spirit is spoken of in Scripture as having
a sevenfold operation, as being "the Holy Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of
counsel and might, of knowledge and piety, and of the fear of God." [441] So
also the number fifty, which is connected with the advent of the Holy Spirit, is
made up of seven times seven, and one over; whence it is said, "Endeavoring to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." [442] The bad, again, are in
twos, as being easily divided, from their tendency to schism. That Noah,
counting his family, was the eighth; because the hope of our resurrection has
appeared in Christ, who rose from the dead on the eighth day, that is, on the
day after the seventh, or Sabbath day. This day was the third from His passion;
but in the ordinary reckoning of days, it is both the eighth and the first.16.
That the whole ark together is finished in a cubit above; as the Church, the
body of Christ gathered into unity, is raised to perfection. So Christ says in
the Gospel: "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth." [443] That the entrance
is on the side; as no man enters the Church except by the sacrament of the
remission of sins which flowed from Christ's opened side. That the lower spaces
of the ark are divided into two and three chambers: as the multitude of all
nations in the Church is divided into two, as circumcised and uncircumcised; or
into three, as descended from the three sons of Noah. And these parts of the ark
are called lower, because in this earthly state there is a difference of races,
and above we are completed in one. Above there is no diversity; for Christ is
all and in all, finishing us, as it were, in one cubit above with heavenly
unity.17. That the flood came seven days after Noah entered the ark; as we are
baptized in the hope of the future rest, which was denoted by the seventh day.
That all flesh on the face of the earth, outside the ark, was destroyed by the
flood; as, beyond the communion of the Church, though the water of baptism is
the same, it is efficacious only for destruction, and not for salvation. That it
rained for forty days and forty nights; as the sacrament of heavenly baptism
washes away all the guilt of the sins against the ten commandments throughout
all the four quarters of the world (four times ten is forty), whether that guilt
has been contracted in the day of prosperity or in the night of adversity. 18.
That Noah was five hundred years old when God told him to make the ark, and six
hundred when he entered the ark; which shows that the ark was made during one
hundred years, which seem to correspond to the years of an age of the world. So
the sixth age is occupied with the construction of the Church by the preaching
of the gospel. The man who avails himself of the offer of salvation is made like
a square beam, fitted for every good work, and forms part of the sacred fabric.
Again, it was the second month of the six hundredth year when Noah entered the
ark, and in two months there are sixty days; so that here, as in every multiple
of six, we have the number denoting the sixth age.19. That mention is made of
the twenty seventh day of the month; as we have already seen the significance of
the square in the beams. Here especially it is significant; for as twenty-seven
is the cube of three, there is a trinity in the means by which we are, as it
were, squared, or fitted for every good work. By the memory we remember God; by
the understanding we know Him; by the will we love Him. That in the seventh
month the ark rested; reminding us again of the seventh day of rest. And here
again, to denote the perfection of those at rest, the twenty-seventh day of the
month is mentioned for the second time. So what is promised in hope is realized
in experience. There is here a combination of seven and eight; for the water
rose fifteen cubits above the mountains, pointing to a profound mystery in
baptism, -- the sacrament of our regeneration. For the seventh day of rest is
connected with the eighth of resurrection. For when the saints receive again
their bodies after the rest of the intermediate state, the rest will not cease;
but rather the whole man, body and soul united, renewed in the immortal health,
will attain to the realization of his hope in the enjoyment of eternal life.
Thus the sacrament of baptism, like the waters of Noah, rises above all the
wisdom of the proud. Seven and eight are also combined in the number of one
hundred and fifty, made up of seventy and eighty, which was the number of days
during which the water prevailed, pointing out the deep import of baptism in
consecrating the new man to hold the faith of rest and resurrection.20. That the
raven sent out after forty days did not return, being either prevented by the
water or attracted by some floating carcase; as men defiled by impure desire,
and therefore eager for things outside in the world, are either baptized, or are
led astray into the company of those to whom, as they are outside the ark, that
is, outside the Church, baptism is destructive. That the dove when sent forth
found no rest, and returned; as in the New Testament rest is not promised to the
saints in this world. The dove was sent forth after forty days, a period
denoting the length of human life. When again sent forth after seven days,
denoting the sevenfold operation of the Spirit, the dove brought back a fruitful
olive branch; as some even who are baptized outside of the Church, if not
destitute of the fatness of charity, may come after all, as it were in the
evening, and be brought into the one communion by the mouth of the dove in the
kiss of peace. That, when again sent forth after seven days, the dove did not
return; as, at the end of the world, the rest of the saints shall no longer be
in the sacrament of hope, as now, while in the communion of the Church, they
drink what flowed from the side of Christ, but in the perfection of eternal
safety, when the kingdom shall be delivered up to God and the Father, and when,
in that unclouded contemplation of unchangeable truth, we shall no longer need
natural symbols.21. There are many other points which we cannot take notice of
even in this cursory manner. Why in the six hundred and first year of Noah's
life -- that is, after six hundred years were completed -- the covering of the
ark is removed, and the hidden mystery, as it were, disclosed. Why the earth is
said to have dried on the twenty-seventh day of the second month; as if the
number fifty-seven denoted the completion of the rite of baptism. For the
twenty-seventh day of the second month is the fifty-seventh day of the year; and
the number fifty-seven is seven times eight, which are the numbers of the spirit
and the body, with one over, to denote the bond of unity. Why they leave the ark
together, though they entered separately. For it is said: "Noah went in, and his
sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark;" the men and the
women being spoken of separately; which denotes the time when the flesh lusteth
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. But they go forth, Noah
and his wife, and his sons and their wives, -- the men and women together. For
in the end of the world, and in the resurrection of the just, the body will be
united to the spirit in perfect harmony, undisturbed by the wants and the
passions of mortality. Why, after leaving the ark, only clean animals are
offered in sacrifice to God, though both clean and unclean were in the ark. 22.
Then, again, it is significant that when God speaks to Noah, and begins anew, as
it were, in order, by repetition in various forms, to draw attention to the
figure of the Church, the sons of Noah are blessed, and told to replenish the
earth, and all animals are given to them for food; as was said to Peter of the
vessel, "Kill and eat." That they are told to pour out the blood when they eat;
that the former life may not be kept shut up in the conscience, but may be, as
it were, poured out in confession. That God makes the bow, which appears in the
clouds only when the sun shines, the sign of His covenant with men, and with
every living thing, that He will not destroy them with a flood; as those do not
perish by the flood, in separation from the Church, who in the clouds of God --
that is, in the prophets and in all the sacred Scriptures -- discern the glory
of Christ, instead of seeking their own glory. The worshippers of the sun,
however, need not pride themselves on this; for they must understand that the
sun, as also a lion, a lamb, and a stone, are used as types of Christ because
they have some resemblance, not because they are of the same substance.23.
Again, the sufferings of Christ from His own nation are evidently denoted by
Noah being drunk with the wine of the vineyard he planted, and his being
uncovered in his tent. For the mortality of Christ's flesh was uncovered, to the
Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them that are
called, both Jews and Greeks, both Shem and Japhet, the power of God and the
wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the
weakness of God is stronger than men. [444]Moreover, the two sons, the eldest
and the youngest, carrying the garment backwards, are a figure of the two
peoples, and the sacrament of the past and completed passions of the Lord. They
do not see the nakedness of their father, because they do not consent to
Christ's death; and yet they honor it with a covering, as knowing whence they
were born. The middle son is the Jewish people, for they neither held the first
place with the apostles, nor believed subsequently with the Gentiles. They saw
the nakedness of their father, because they consented to Christ's death; and
they told it to their brethren outside, for what was hidden in the prophets was
disclosed by the Jews. And thus they are the servants of their brethren. For
what else is this nation now but a desk for the Christians, bearing the law and
the prophets, and testifying to the doctrine of the Church, so that we honor in
the sacrament what they disclose in the letter?24. Again, every one must be
impressed, and be either enlightened or confirmed in the faith, by the blessing
of the two sons who honored the nakedness of their father, though they turned
away their faces, as displeased with the evil done by the vine. "Blessed," he
says, "be the Lord God of Shem." For although God is the God of all nations,
even the Gentiles acknowledge Him to be in a peculiar sense the God of Israel.
And how is this to be explained but by the blessing of Japhet? The occupation of
all the world by the Church among the Gentiles was exactly foretold in the
words: "Let God enlarge Japhet, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem." That is
for the Manichæan to attend to. You see what the state of the world actually is.
The very thing that you are astonished and grieved at in us is this, that God is
enlarging Japhet. Is He not dwelling in the tents of Shem? -- that is, in the
churches built by the apostles, the sons of the prophets. Hear what Paul says to
the believing Gentiles: "Ye were at that time without Christ, being aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants; having no hope of
the promise, and without God in the world." In these words there is a
description of the state of Japhet before he dwelt in the tents of Shem. But
observe what follows: "Now then;" he says, "ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief corner-stone." [445] Here we have Japhet enlarged, and
dwelling in the tents of Shem. These testimonies are taken from the epistles of
the apostles, which you yourselves acknowledge, and read, and profess to follow.
You occupy an unhappy middle position in a building of which Christ is not the
chief corner-stone. For you do not belong to the wall of those who, like the
apostles, being of the circumcision, believed in Christ; nor to the wall of
those who, being of the uncircumcision, like all the Gentiles, are joined in the
unity of faith, as in the fellowship of the corner-stone. However, all who
accept and read any books of our canon in which Christ is spoken of as having
been born and having suffered in the flesh, and who do not unite with us in a
common veiling with the sacrament of the mortality, uncovered by the passion,
but without the knowledge of piety and charity make known that from which we all
are born, -- although they differ among themselves, whether as Jews and
heretics, or as heretics of one kind or other, -- are still all useful to the
Church, as being all alike servants, either in bearing witness to or in proving
some truth. For of heretics it is said: "There must be heresies, that those who
are approved among you may be manifested." [446] Go on, then, with your
objections to the Old Testament Scriptures! Go on, ye servants of Ham! You have
despised the flesh from which you were born when uncovered. For you could not
have called yourselves Christians unless Christ had come into the world, as
foretold by the prophets, and had drunk of His own vine that cup which could not
pass from Him, and had slept in His passion, as in the drunkenness of the folly
which is wiser than men; and so, in the hidden counsel of God, the disclosure
had been made of that infirmity of mortal flesh which is stronger than men. For
unless the Word of God had taken on Himself this infirmity, the name of
Christian, in which you also glory, would not exist in the earth. Go on, then,
as I have said. Declare in mockery what we may honor with reverence. Let the
Church use you as her servants to make manifest those members who are approved.
So particular are the predictions of the prophets regarding the state and the
sufferings of the Church, that we can find a place even for you in what is said
of the destructive error by which the reprobate are to perish, while the
approved are to be manifested. 25. You say that Christ was not foretold by the
prophets of Israel, when, in fact, their Scriptures teem with such predictions,
if you would only examine them carefully, instead of treating them with levity.
Who in Abraham leaves his country and kindred that he may become rich and
prosperous among strangers, but He who, leaving the land and country of the
Jews, of whom He was born in the flesh, is now extending His power, as we see,
among the Gentiles? Who in Isaac carried the wood for His own sacrifice, but He
who carried His own cross? Who is the ram for sacrifice, caught by the horns in
a. bush, but He who was fastened to the cross as an offering for us?26. Who in
the angel striving with Jacob, on the one hand is constrained to give him a
blessing, as the weaker to the stronger, the conquered to the conqueror, and on
the other hand puts his thigh-bone out of joint, but He who, when He suffered
the people of Israel to prevail against Him, blessed those among them who
believed, while the multitude, like Jacob's thigh-bone, halted in their
carnality? Who is the stone placed under Jacob's head, but Christ the head of
man? And in its anointing the very name of Christ is expressed, for, as all
know, Christ means anointed. Christ refers to this in the Gospel, and declares
it to be a type of Himself, when He said of Nathanael that he was an Israelite
indeed, in whom was no guile, and when Nathanael, resting his head, as it were,
on this Stone, or on Christ, confessed Him as the Son of God and the King of
Israel anointing the Stone by his confession, in which he acknowledged Jesus to
be Christ. On this occasion the Lord made appropriate mention of what Jacob saw
in his dream "Verily I say unto you, Ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels
of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." [447] This Jacob saw, who
in the blessing was called Israel, when he had the stone for a pillow, and had
the vision of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of
God were ascending and descending. [448] The angels denote the evangelists, or
preachers of Christ. They ascend when they rise above the created universe to
describe the supreme majesty of the divine nature of Christ as being in the
beginning God with God, by whom all things were made. They descend to tell of
His being made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that
were under the law. Christ is the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, or from
the carnal to the spiritual: for by His assistance the carnal ascend to
spirituality; and the spiritual may be said to descend to nourish the carnal
with milk when they cannot speak to them as to spiritual, but as to carnal.
[449] There is thus both an ascent and a descent upon the Son of man. For the
Son of man is above as our head, being Himself the Saviour; and He is below in
His body, the Church. He is the ladder, for He says, "I am the way." We ascend
to Him to see Him in heavenly places; we descend to Him for the nourishment of
His weak members. And the ascent and descent are by Him as well as to Him.
Following His example, those who preach Him not only rise to behold Him exalted,
but let themselves down to give a plain announcement of the truth. So the
apostle ascends, "Whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God;" and descends,
"Whether we be sober, it is for your sake." And by whom did he ascend and
descend? "For the love of Christ constraineth us: for we thus judge, that if one
died for all, then all died; and that He died for all, that they which live
should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for them, and rose
again." [450]27. The man who does not find pleasure in these views of sacred
Scripture is turned away to fables, because he cannot bear sound doctrine. The
fables have an attraction for childish minds in people of all ages; but we who
are of the body of Christ should say with the Psalmist; "O Lord, the wicked have
spoken to me pleasing things, but they are not after Thy law." [451] In every
page of these Scriptures, while I pursue my search as a son of Adam in the sweat
of my brow, Christ either openly or covertly meets and refreshes me. Where the
discovery is laborious my ardor is increased, and the spoil obtained is eagerly
devoured, and is hidden in my heart for my nourishment.28. Christ appears to me
in Joseph, who was persecuted and sold by his brethren, and after his troubles
obtained honor in Egypt. We have seen the troubles of Christ in the world, of
which Egypt was a figure, in the sufferings of the martyrs. And now we see the
honor of Christ in the same world which He subdues to Himself, in exchange for
the food which He bestows. Christ appears to me in the rod of Moses, which
became a serpent when cast on the earth as a figure of His death, which came
from the serpent. Again, when caught by the tail it became a rod, as a figure of
His return after the accomplishment of His work in His resurrection to what He
was before, destroying death by His new life, so as to leave no trace of the
serpent. We, too, who are His body, glide along in the same mortality through
the folds of time; but when at last the tail of this course of things is laid
hold of by the hand of judgment that it shall go no further, we shall be
renewed, and rising from the destruction of death, the last enemy, we shall be
the sceptre of government in the right hand of God. 29. Of the departure of
Israel from Egypt, let us hear what the apostle himself says: "I would not,
brethren, that ye should be ignorant that all our fathers were under the cloud,
and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud
and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of
the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed
them, and that rock was Christ." [452] The explanation of one thing is a key to
the rest. For if the rock is Christ from its stability, is not the manna Christ,
the living bread which came down from heaven, which gives spiritual life to
those who truly feed on it? The Israelites died because they received the figure
only in its carnal sense. The apostle, by calling it spiritual food, shows its
reference to Christ, as the spiritual drink is explained by the words, "That
rock was Christ," which explain the whole. Then is not the cloud and the pillar
Christ, who by His uprightness and strength supports our feebleness; who shines
by night and not by day, that they who see not may see, and that they who see
may be made blind? In the clouds and the Red Sea there is the baptism
consecrated by the blood of Christ. The enemies following behind perish, as past
sins are put away.30. The Israelites are led through the wilderness, as those
who are baptized are in the wilderness while on the way to the promised land,
hoping and patiently waiting for that which they see not. In the wilderness are
severe trials, lest they should in heart return to Egypt. Still Christ does not
leave them; the pillar does not go away. The bitter waters are sweetened by
wood, as hostile people become friendly by learning to honor the cross of
Christ. The twelve fountains watering the seventy palm trees are a figure of
apostolic grace watering the nations. As seven is multiplied by ten, so the
decalogue is fulfilled in the sevenfold operation of the Spirit. The enemy
attempting to stop them in their way is overcome by Moses stretching out his
hands in the figure of the cross. The deadly bites of serpents are healed by the
brazen serpent, which was lifted up that they might look at it. The Lord Himself
gives the explanation of this: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him
may not perish, but have everlasting life." [453] So in many other things we may
find a protest against the obstinacy of unbelieving hearts. In the passover a
lamb is killed, representing Christ, of whom it is said in the Gospel, "Behold
the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!" [454] In the passover
the bones of the lamb were not to be broken; and on the cross the bones of the
Lord were not broken. The evangelist, in reference to this, quotes the words, "A
bone of Him shall not be broken." [455] The posts were marked with blood to keep
away destruction, as people are marked on their foreheads with the sign of the
Lord's passion for their salvation. The law was given on the fiftieth day after
the passover; so the Holy Spirit came on the fiftieth day after the passion of
the Lord. The law is said to have been written with the finger of God; and the
Lord says of the Holy Spirit, "With the finger of God I cast out devils." [456]
Such are the Scriptures in which Faustus, after shutting his eyes, declares that
he can see no prediction of Christ. But we need not wonder that he should have
eyes to read and yet no heart to understand, since, instead of knocking in
devout faith at the door of the heavenly secret, he dares to act in profane
hostility. So let it be, for so it ought to be. Let the gate of salvation be
shut to the proud. The meek, to whom God teaches His ways, will find all these
things in the Scriptures, and those things which he does not see he will believe
from what he sees.31. He will see Jesus leading the people into the land of
promise; for this name was given to the leader of Israel, not at first, or by
chance, but on account of the work to which he was called. He will see the
cluster from the land of promise hanging from a wooden pole. He will see in
Jericho, as in this perishing world, an harlot, one of those of whom the Lord
says that they go before the proud into the kingdom of heaven, putting out of
her window a scarlet line symbolical of blood, as confession is made with the
mouth for the remission of sins. He will see the walls of Jericho, like the
frail defences of the world, fall when compassed seven times by the ark of the
covenant; as now in the course of the seven days of time the covenant of God
compasses the whole globe, that in the end, death, the last enemy, may be
destroyed, and the Church, like one single house, be saved from the destruction
of the ungodly, purified from the defilement of fornication by the window of
confession in the blood of remission.32. He will see the times of the judges
precede those of the kings, as the judgment will precede the kingdom. And under
both the judges and the kings he will see Christ and the Church repeatedly
prefigured in many and various ways. Who was in Samson, when he killed the lion
that met him as he went to get a wife among strangers, but He who, when going to
call His Church from among the Gentiles, said, "Be of good cheer, I have
overcome the world?" [457] What means the hive in the mouth of the slain lion,
but that, as we see, the very laws of the earthly kingdom which once raged
against Christ have now lost their fierceness, and have become a protection for
the preaching of gospel sweetness? What is that woman boldly piercing the
temples of the enemy with a wooden nail, but the faith of the Church casting
down the kingdom of the devil by the cross of Christ? What is the fleece wet
while the ground was dry, and again the fleece dry while the ground was wet, but
the Hebrew nation at first possessing alone in its typical institution Christ
the mystery of God, while the whole world was in ignorance? And now the whole
world has this mystery revealed, while the Jews are destitute of it. 33. To
mention only a few things in the times of the kings, at the very outset does not
the change in the priesthood when Eli was rejected and Samuel chosen, and in the
kingdom when Saul was rejected and David chosen, clearly predict the new
priesthood and kingdom to come in our Lord Jesus Christ, when the old, which was
a shadow of the new, was rejected? Did not David, when he ate the shew-bread,
which it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat, prefigure the union of
the kingdom and priesthood in one person, Jesus Christ? In the separation of the
ten tribes from the temple while two were left, is there not a figure of what
the apostle asserts of the whole nation: "A remnant is saved by the election of
grace."? [458]34. In the time of famine, Elijah is fed by ravens bringing bread
in the morning and flesh in the evening; but the Manichæans cannot in this
perceive Christ, who, as it were, hungers for our salvation, and to whom sinners
come in confession, having now the first-fruits of the Spirit, while in the end,
that is to say in the evening of the age, they will have the resurrection of
their bodies also. Elijah is sent to be fed by a widow woman of another nation,
who was going to gather two sticks before she died, denoting the two wooden
beams of the cross. Her meal and oil are blessed, as the fruit and cheerfulness
of charity do not diminish by expenditure, for God loveth a cheerful giver.
[459]35. The children that mocked Elisha by calling out Baldhead, are devoured
by wild beasts, as those who in childish folly scoff at Christ crucified on
Calvary are destroyed by devils. Elisha sends his servants to lay his staff on
the dead body, but it does not revive; he comes himself, and lays himself
exactly upon the dead body, and it revives: as the Word of God sent the law by
His servant, without any profit to mankind dead in sins; and yet it was not sent
without purpose by Him who knew the necessity of its being first sent. Then He
Himself came, conformed Himself to us by participation in our death, and we were
revived. When they were cutting down wood with axes, the iron, flying off the
wood, sank to the bottom of the river, and came up again when the wood was
thrown in by Elisha. So, when Christ's bodily presence was cutting down the
unfruitful trees among the unbelieving Jews, according to the saying of John,
"Behold, the axe is laid to the roots of the tree," [460] by the death they
inflicted, Christ was separated from His body, and descended to the depths of
the infernal world; and then, when His body was laid in the tomb, like the wood
on the water, His spirit returned, like the iron to the handle, and He rose. The
reader will observe how many things of this kind are omitted for the sake of
brevity.36. As regards the departure to Babylon, where the Spirit of God by the
prophet Jeremiah enjoins them to go, telling them to pray for the people in
whose land they dwell as strangers, because in their peace they would find
peace, and to build houses, and plant vineyards and gardens, -- the figurative
meaning is plain, when we consider that the true Israelites, in whom is no
guile, passed over in the ministry of the apostles with the ordinances of the
gospel into the kingdom of the Gentiles. So the apostle, like an echo of
Jeremiah, says to us, "I will first of all that prayer, supplications,
intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men, and for those in
authority, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
charity; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who
will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." [461]
Accordingly the basilicas of Christian congregations have been built by
believers as abodes of peace, and vineyards of the faithful have been renewed,
and gardens planted, where chief among the plants is the mustard tree, in whose
wide-spreading branches the pride of the Gentiles, like the birds of heaven, in
its soaring ambition, takes shelter. Again, in the return from captivity after
seventy years, according to Jeremiah's prophecy, and in the restoration of the
temple, every believer in Christ must see a figure of our return as the Church
of God from the exile of this world to the heavenly Jerusalem, after the seven
days of time have fulfilled their course. Joshua the high priest, after the
captivity, who rebuilt the temple, was a figure of Jesus Christ, the true High
Priest of our restoration. The prophet Zechariah saw this Joshua in a filthy
garment; and after the devil who stood by to accuse him was defeated, the filthy
garment was taken from him, and a dress of honor and glory given him. So the
body of Jesus Christ, which is the Church, when the adversary is conquered in
the judgment at the end of the world, will pass from the pains of exile to the
glory of everlasting safety. This is the song of the Psalmist at the dedication
of his house: "Thou hast turned for me my mourning into gladness; Thou hast
removed my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness, that my glory may sing praise
unto Thee, and not be silent." [462] 37. It is impossible, in a digression like
this, to refer, however briefly, to all the figurative predictions of Christ
which are to be found in the law and the prophets. Will it be said that these
things happened in the regular course of things, and that it is a mere ingenious
fancy to make them typical of Christ? Such an objection might come from Jews and
Pagans; but those who wish to be considered Christians must yield to the
authority of the apostle when he says, "All these things happened to them for an
example;" and again, "These things are our examples." [463] For if two men,
Ishmael and Isaac, are types of the two covenants, can it be supposed that there
is no significance in the vast number of particulars which have no historical or
natural value? Suppose we were to see some Hebrew characters written on the wall
of a noble building, should we be so foolish as to conclude that, because we
cannot understand the characters, they are not intended to be read, and are mere
painting, without any meaning? So, whoever with a candid mind reads all these
things that are contained in the Old Testament Scriptures, must feel constrained
to acknowledge that they have a meaning.38. As an example of those particulars
which have no meaning at all if not a symbolical one: Granting that it was
necessary that woman should be made as an help meet for man, what natural reason
can be assigned for her being taken from his side while he slept? Granting that
an ark was required in order to escape from the flood, why should it have
precisely these dimensions, and why should they be recorded for the devout study
of future generations? Granting that the animals were brought into the ark to
preserve the various races, why should there be seven clean and two unclean?
Granting that the ark must have a door, why should it be in the side, and why
should this fact be committed to writing? Abraham is commanded to sacrifice his
son: we may allow that this proof of his obedience was required in order to make
it conspicuous in all ages; we may allow, too, that it was a proper thing for
the son to carry the wood instead of the aged father, and that in the end the
fatal stroke was forbidden, lest the father should be left childless. But what
had the shedding of the ram's blood to do with Abraham's trial? or if it was
necessary to complete the sacrifice, was the ram any the better of being caught
by the horns in a bush? The human mind, that is to say, a rational mind, is led
by the consideration of the way in which these apparently superfluous things are
blended with what is necessary, first to acknowledge their significance, and
then to try to discover it.39. The Jews themselves, who scoff at the crucified
Saviour in whom we believe, and who consequently will not allow that Christ is
predicted in the sayings and actions recorded in the Old Testament, are
compelled to come to us for an explanation of those things which, if not
explained, must appear trifling and ridiculous. This led Philo, a Jew of great
learning, whom the Greeks speak of as rivalling Plato in eloquence, to attempt
to explain some things without any reference to Christ, in whom he did not
believe. His attempt only shows the inferiority of all ingenious speculations,
when made without keeping Christ in view, to whom all the predictions really
point. So true is that saying of the apostle: "When they shall turn to the Lord,
the veil shall be taken away." [464] For instance, Noah's ark is, according to
Philo, a type of the human body, member by member: with this view, he shows that
the numerical proportions agree perfectly. For there is no reason why a type of
Christ should not be a type of the human body, too, since the Saviour of mankind
appeared in a human body, though what is typical of a human body is not
necessarily typical of Christ. Philo's explanation fails, however, as regards
the door in the side of the ark. He actually, for the sake of saying something,
makes this door represent the lower apertures of the body. He has the hardihood
to put this in words, and on paper. Indeed, he knew not the door and could not
understand the symbol. Had he turned to Christ the veil would have been taken
away, and he would have found the sacraments of the Church flowing from the side
of Christ's human body. For, according to the announcement, "They two shall be
one flesh," some things in the ark which is a type of Christ, refer to Christ,
and some to the Church. This contrast between the explanations which keep Christ
in view, and all other ingenious perversions, is the same in every particular of
all the figures in Scripture.40. The Pagans, too, cannot deny our right to give
a figurative meaning to both words and things, especially as we can point to the
fulfillment of the types and figures. For the Pagans themselves try to find in
their own fables figures of natural and religious truth. Sometimes they give
clear explanations, while at other times they disguise their meaning, and what
is sacred in the temples becomes a jest in the theatres. They unite a
disgraceful licentiousness to a degrading superstition. 41. Besides this
wonderful agreement between the types and the things typified, the adversary may
be convinced by plain prophetic intimations, such as this: "In thy seed shall
all nations be blessed." This was said to Abraham, [465] and again to Isaac,
[466] and again to Jacob. [467] Hence the significance of the words "I am the
God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob." [468] God fulfills His promise to their
seed in blessing all nations. With a like significance, Abraham himself, when he
made his servant swear, told him to put his hand under his thigh; [469] for he
knew that thence would come the flesh of Christ, in whom we have now, not the
promise of blessing to all nations, but the promise fulfilled.42. I should like
to know, or rather, it would be well not to know, with what blindness of mind
Faustus reads the passage where Jacob calls his sons, and says, "Assemble, that
I may tell you the things that are to happen in the last day. Assemble and hear,
ye sons of Jacob; give ear to Israel, your father." Surely these are the words
of a prophet. What, then, does he say of his son Judah, of whose tribe Christ
came of the seed of David according to the flesh, as the apostle teaches?
"Judah," he says, "thy brethren shall praise thee: thy hand shall be upon the
backs of thine enemies; the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. Judah is
a lion's whelp; my son and offspring: bowing down, thou hast gone up: thou
sleepest as a lion, and as a young lion, who will rouse him up? A prince shall
not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, till those things come which
have been laid up for him. He also is the desire of nations: binding his foal
unto the vine, and his ass's colt with sackcloth, he shall wash his garment in
wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: his eyes are bright with wine, and
his teeth whiter than milk." [470] There is no falsehood or obscurity in these
words when we read them in the clear light of Christ. We see His brethren the
apostles and all His joint-heirs praising Him, seeking, not their own glory, but
His. We see His hands on the backs of His enemies, who are bent and bowed to the
earth by the growth of the Christian communities in spite of their opposition.
We see Him worshipped by the sons of Jacob, the remnant saved according to the
election of grace. Christ, who was born as an infant, is the lion's whelp, as it
is added, My son and offspring, to show why this whelp, in whose praise it is
said, "The lion's whelp is stronger than the herd," [471] is even in infancy
stronger than its elders. We see Christ ascending the cross, and bowing down
when He gave up His spirit. We see Him sleeping as a lion, because in death
itself He was not the conquered, but the conqueror, and as a lion's whelp; for
the reason of His birth and of His death was the same. And He is raised from the
dead by Him whom no man hath seen or can see; for the words, "Who will raise Him
up?" point to an unknown power. A prince did not depart from Judah, nor a leader
from his loins, till in due time those things came which had been laid up in the
promise. For we learn from the authentic history of the Jews themselves, that
Herod, under whom Christ was born, was their first foreign king. So the sceptre
did not depart from the seed of Judah till the things laid up for him came.
Then, as the promise is not only to the believing Jews, it is added: "He is the
desire of the nations." Christ bound His foal -- that is, His people -- to the
vine, when He preached in sackcloth, crying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand." The Gentiles made subject to Him are represented by the ass's colt,
on which He also sat, leading it into Jerusalem, that is, the vision of peace
teaching the meek His ways. We see Him washing His garments in wine; for He is
one with the glorious Church, which He presents to Himself, not having spot or
wrinkle; to whom also it is said by Isaiah: "Though your sins be as scarlet, I
will make them white as snow." [472] How is this done but by the remission of
sins? And the wine is none other than that of which it is said that it is "shed
for many, for the remission of sins." Christ is the cluster that hung on the
pole. So it is added, "and His clothes in the blood of the grape." Again, what
is said of His eyes being bright with wine, is understood by those members of
His body who are enabled, in holy aberration of mind from the current of earthly
things, to gaze on the eternal light of wisdom. So Paul says in a passage quoted
before: "If we be beside ourselves, it is to God." Those are the eyes bright
with wine. But he adds: "If we be sober, it is for your sakes." The babes
needing to be fed with milk are not forgotten, as is denoted by the words, "His
teeth are whiter than milk."43. What can our deluded adversaries say to such
plain examples, which leave no room for perverse denial, or even for sceptical
uncertainty? I call on the Manichæans to begin to inquire into these subjects,
and to admit the force of these evidences, on which I have no time to dwell; nor
do I wish to make a selection, in case the ignorant reader should think there
are no others, while the Christian student might blame me for the omission of
many points more striking than those which occur to me at the moment. You will
find many passages which require no such explanation as has been given here of
Jacob's prophecy. For instance, every reader can understand the words, "He was
led as a lamb to the slaughter," and the whole of that plain prophecy, "With His
stripes we are healed" -- "He bore our sins." [473] We have a poetical gospel in
the words: "They pierced my hands and feet. They have told all my bones. They
look and stare upon me. They divided my garments among them, and cast lots on my
vesture." [474] The blind even may now see the fulfillment of the words: "All
the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all kingdoms of
the nations shall worship before Him." The words in the Gospel, "My soul is
sorrowful, even unto death," "My soul is troubled," are a repetition of the
words in the Psalm, "I slept in trouble." [475] And who made Him sleep? Whose
voices cried, Crucify him, crucify him? The Psalm tells us: "The sons of men,
their teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword." [476] But
they could not prevent His resurrection, or His ascension above the heavens, or
His filling the earth with the glory of His name; for the Psalm says: "Be Thou
exalted, O God, above the heavens, and let Thy glory be above all the earth."
Every one must apply these words to Christ: "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen
for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."
[477] And what Jeremiah says of wisdom plainly applies to Christ: "Jacob
delivered it to his son, and Israel to his chosen one. Afterwards He appeared on
earth, and conversed with men." [478] 44. The same Saviour is spoken of in
Daniel, where the Son of man appears before the Ancient of days, and receives a
kingdom without end, that all nations may serve Him. [479] In the passage quoted
from Daniel by the Lord Himself, "When ye shall see the abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him
that readeth understand," [480] the number of weeks points not only to Christ,
but to the very time of His advent. With the Jews, who look to Christ for
salvation as we do, but deny that He has come and suffered, we can argue from
actual events. Besides the conversion of the heathen, now so universal, as
prophesied of Christ in their own Scriptures, there are the events in the
history of the Jews themselves. Their holy place is thrown down, the sacrifice
has ceased, and the priest, and the ancient anointing; which was all clearly
foretold by Daniel when he prophesied of the anointing of the Most Holy. [481]
Now, that all these things have taken place, we ask the Jews for the anointed
Most Holy, and they have no answer to give. But it is from the Old Testament
that the Jews derive all the knowledge they have of Christ and His advent. Why
do they ask John whether he is Christ? Why do they say to the Lord, "How long
dost thou make us to doubt? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly." Why do
Peter and Andrew and Philip say to Nathanael, "We have found Messias, which is
interpreted Christ," but because this name was known to them from the prophecies
of their Scriptures? In no other nation were the kings and priests anointed, and
called Anointed or Christs. Nor could this symbolical anointing be discontinued
till the coming of Him who was thus prefigured. For among all their anointed
ones the Jews looked for one who was to save them. But in the mysterious justice
of God they were blinded; and thinking only of the power of the Messiah, they
did not understand His weakness, in which He died for us. In the book of Wisdom
it is prophesied of the Jews: "Let us condemn him to an ignominious death; for
he will be proved in his words. If he is truly the Son of God, He will aid him;
and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Thus they thought, and erred; for
their wickedness blinded them." [482] These words apply also to those who, in
spite of all these evidences, in spite of such a series of prophecies, and of
their fulfillment, still deny that Christ is foretold in the Scriptures. As
often as they repeat this denial, we can produce fresh proofs, with the help of
Him who has made such provision against human perversity, that proofs already
given need not be repeated.45. Faustus has an evasive objection, which he no
doubt thinks a most ingenious way of eluding the force of the clearest evidence
of prophecy, but of which one is unwilling to take any notice, because answering
it may give it an appearance of importance which it does not really possess.
What could be more irrational than to say that it is weak faith which will not
believe in Christ without evidence? Do our adversaries, then, believe in
testimony about Christ? Faustus wishes us to believe the voice from heaven as
distinguished from human testimony. But did they hear this voice? Has not the
knowledge of it come to us through human testimony? The apostle describes the
transmission of this knowledge, when he says: "How shall they call on Him on
whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on Him of whom they have
not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach
except they be sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of them who
publish peace, who bring good tidings!" [483] Clearly, in the preaching of the
apostles there was a reference to prophetic testimony. The apostles quoted the
predictions of the prophets, to prove the truth and importance of their
doctrines. For although their preaching was accompanied with the power of
working miracles, the miracles would have been ascribed to magic, as some even
now venture to insinuate, unless the apostles had shown that the authority of
the prophets was in their favor. The testimony of prophets who lived so long
before could not be ascribed to magical arts. Perhaps the reason why Faustus
will not have us believe the Hebrew prophets as witnesses of the true Christ, is
because he believes Persian heresies about a false Christ.46. According to the
teaching of the Catholic Church, the Christian mind must first be nourished in
simple faith, in order that it may become capable of understanding things
heavenly and eternal. Thus it is said by the prophet: "Unless ye believe, ye
shall not understand." [484] Simple faith is that by which, before we attain to
the height of the knowledge of the love of Christ, that we may be filled with
all the fullness of God, we believe that not without reason was the dispensation
of Christ's humiliation, in which He was born and suffered as man, foretold so
long before by the prophets through a prophetic race, a prophetic people, a
prophetic kingdom. This faith teaches us, that in the foolishness which is wiser
than men, and in the weakness which is stronger than men, is contained the
hidden means of our justification and glorification. There are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, which are opened to no one who despises the
nourishment transmitted through the breast of his mother that is, the milk of
apostolic and prophetic instruction; or who, thinking himself too old for
infantile nourishment, devours heretical poison instead of the food of wisdom,
for which he rashly thought himself prepared. To require simple faith is quite
consistent with requiring faith in the prophets. The very use of simple faith is
to believe the prophets at the outset, while the understanding of the person who
speaks in the prophets is attained after the mind has been purified and
strengthened. 47. But, it is said, if the prophets foretold Christ, they did not
live in a way becoming their office. How can you tell whether they did or not?
You are bad judges of what it is to live well or ill, whose justice consists in
giving relief to an inanimate melon by eating it, instead of giving food to the
starving beggar. It is enough for the babes in the Catholic Church, who do not
yet know the perfect justice of the human soul, and the difference between the
justice aimed at and that actually attained, to think of those men according to
the wholesome doctrine of the apostles, that the just lives by faith. "Abraham
believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. For the scripture,
foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached before the
gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all nations be blessed." [485]
These are the words of the apostle. If you would, at his clear well-known voice,
wake up from your unprofitable dreams, you would follow in the footsteps of our
father Abraham, and would be blessed, along with all nations, in his seed. For,
as the apostle says, "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might
be the father of all that believe in uncircumcision; that he might be the father
of circumcision not only to those who are of the circumcision, but also to those
who follow the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham in uncircumcision."
[486] Since the righteousness of Abraham's faith is thus set forth as an example
to us, that we too, being justified by faith, may have peace with God, we ought
to understand his manner of life, without finding fault with it; lest, by a
premature separation from mother-Church, we prove abortions, instead of being
brought forth in due time, when the conception has arrived at completeness.48.
This is a brief reply to Faustus in behalf of the character of the patriarchs
and prophets. It is the reply of the babes of our faith, among whom I would
reckon myself, inasmuch as I would not find fault with the life of the ancient
saints, even if I did not understand its mystical character. Their life is
proclaimed to us with approval by the apostles in their Gospel, as they
themselves in their prophecy foretold the future apostles, that the two
Testaments, like the seraphim, might cry to one another, "Holy, holy, holy is
the Lord God of hosts." [487] When Faustus, instead of the vague general
accusation which he makes here, condemns particular actions in the lives of the
patriarchs and the prophets, the Lord their God, and ours also, will assist me
to reply suitably and appropriately to the separate charges. For the present,
the reader must choose whether to believe the commendation of the Apostle Paul
or the accusations of Faustus the Manichæan. [488]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 154: FAUSTUS ASSERTS THAT EVEN IF THE OLD TESTAMENT COULD BE SHOWN TO CONTAIN PREDICTIONS, IT WOULD BE OF INTEREST ONLY TO THE JEWS, PAGAN LITERATURE SUBSERVING THE SAME PURPOSE FOR GENTILES. AUGUSTIN SHOWS THE VALUE OF PROPHESY FOR GENTILES AND JEWS ALIKE. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: We are asked how we worship Christ when we reject the prophets,
who declared the promise of His advent. It is doubtful whether, on examination,
it can be shown that the Hebrew prophets foretold our Christ, that is, the Son
of God. But were it so, what does it matter to us? If these testimonies of the
prophets that you speak of were the means of converting any one from Judaism to
Christianity, and if he should afterwards neglect these prophets, he would
certainly be in the wrong, and would be chargeable with ingratitude. But we are
by nature Gentiles, of the uncircumcision; as Paul says, born under another law.
Those whom the Gentiles call poets were our first religious teachers, and from
them we were afterwards converted to Christianity. We did not first become Jews,
so as to reach Christianity through faith in their prophets; but were attracted
solely by the fame, and the virtues, and the wisdom of our liberator Jesus
Christ. If I were still in the religion of my fathers, and a preacher were to
come using the prophets as evidence in favor of Christianity, I should think him
mad for attempting to support what is doubtful by what is still more doubtful to
a Gentile of another religion altogether. He would require first to persuade me
to believe the prophets, and then through the prophets to believe Christ. And to
prove the truth of the prophets, other prophets would be necessary. For if the
prophets bear witness to Christ, who bears witness to the prophets? You will
perhaps say that Christ and the prophets mutually support each other. But a
Pagan, who has nothing to do with either, would believe neither the evidence of
Christ to the prophets, nor that of the prophets to Christ. If the Pagan becomes
a Christian, he has to thank his own faith, and nothing else. Let us, for the
sake of illustration, suppose ourselves conversing with a Gentile inquirer. We
tell him to believe in Christ, because He is God. He asks for proof. We refer
him to the prophets. He asks, What prophets? We reply, The Hebrew. He smiles,
and says that he does not believe them. We remind him that Christ testifies to
them. He replies, laughing, that we must first make him believe in Christ. The
result of such a conversation is that we are silenced, and the inquirer departs,
thinking us more zealous than wise. Again, I say, the Christian Church, which
consists more of Gentiles than of Jews, can owe nothing to Hebrew witnesses. If,
as is said, any prophecies of Christ are to be found in the Sibyl, [489] or in
Hermes, [490] called Trismegistus, or Orpheus, or any heathen poet, they might
aid the faith of those who, like us, are converts from heathenism to
Christianity. But the testimony of the Hebrews is useless to us before
conversion, for then we cannot believe them; and superfluous after, for we
believe without them. 2. Augustin replied: After the long reply of last book, a
short answer may suffice here. To one who has read that reply, it must seem
insanity in Faustus to persist in denying that Christ was foretold by the Hebrew
prophets, when the Hebrew nation was the only one in which the name Christ had a
peculiar sacredness as applied to kings and priests; in which sense it continued
to be applied till the coming of Him whom those kings and priests typified.
Where did the Manichæan learn the name of Christ? If from Manichæus, it is very
strange that Africans, not to speak of others, should believe the Persian
Manichæus, since Faustus finds fault with the Romans and Greeks, and other
Gentiles, for believing the Hebrew prophets as belonging to another race.
According to Faustus, the predictions of the Sibyl, or Orpheus, or any heathen
poet, are more suitable for leading Gentiles to believe in Christ. He forgets
that none of these are read in the churches, whereas the voice of the Hebrew
prophets, sounding everywhere, draws swarms of people to Christianity. When it
is so evident that men are everywhere led to Christ by the Hebrew prophets, it
is great absurdity to say that those prophets are not suitable for the Gentiles.
3. Christ as foretold by the Hebrew prophets does not please you; but this is
the Christ in whom the Gentile nations believe, with whom, according to you,
Hebrew prophecy should have no weight. They receive the gospel which, as Paul
says, "God had promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures of His
Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." [491] So we read
in Isaiah: "There shall be a Root of Jesse, which shall rise to reign in the
nations; in Him shall the Gentiles trust." [492] And again: "Behold, a virgin
shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel," [493]
which is, being interpreted, God with us. Nor let the Manichæan think that
Christ is foretold only as a man by the Hebrew prophets; for this is what
Faustus seems to insinuate when he says, "Our Christ is the Son of God," as if
the Christ of the Hebrews was not the Son of God. We can prove Christ the
virgin's son of Hebrew prophecy to be God. For the Lord Himself teaches the
carnal Jews not to think that, because He is foretold as the son of David, He is
therefore no more than that. He asks: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is
He?" They reply: "Of David." Then, to remind them of the name Emmanuel, God with
us, He says: "How does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool?" [494] Here, then, Christ appears as God in Hebrew prophecy. What
prophecy can the Manichæans show with the name of Christ in it? 4. Manichæus
indeed was not a prophet of Christ, but calls himself an apostle, which is a
shameless falsehood; for it is well known that this heresy began not only after
Tertullian, but after Cyprian. In all his letters Manichæus begins thus:
"Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ." Why do you believe what Manichæus says
of Christ? What evidence does he give of his apostleship? This very name of
Christ is known to us only from the Jews, who, in their application of it to
their kings and priests, were not individually, but nationally, prophets of
Christ and Christ's kingdom. What right has he to use this name, who forbids you
to believe the Hebrew prophets, that he may make you the heretical disciples of
a false Christ, as he himself is a false and heretical apostle? And if Faustus
quotes as evidence in his own support some prophets who, according to him,
foretell Christ, how will he satisfy his supposed inquirer, who will not believe
either the prophets or Faustus? Will he take our apostles as witnesses? Unless
he can find some apostles in life, he must read their writings; and these are
all against him. They teach our doctrine that Christ was born of the Virgin
Mary, that He was the Son of God, of the seed of David according to the flesh.
He cannot pretend that the writings have been tampered with, for that would be
to attack the credit of his own witnesses. Or if he produces his own manuscripts
of the apostolic writings, he must also obtain for them the authority of the
churches founded by the apostles themselves, by showing that they have been
preserved and transmitted with their sanction. It will be difficult for a man to
make me believe him on the evidence of writings which derive all their authority
from his own word, which I do not believe. 5. But perhaps you believe the common
report about Christ. Faustus makes a feeble suggestion of this kind as a last
resource, to escape being obliged either to produce his worthless authorities,
or to come under the power of those opposed to him. Well, if report is your
authority, you should consider the consequences of trusting to such evidence.
There are many bad things reported of you which you do not wish people to
believe. Is it reasonable to make the same evidence true about Christ and false
about yourselves? In fact, you deny the common report about Christ. For the
report most widely spread, and which every one has heard repeated, is that which
distinctly asserts that Christ was born of the seed of David, according to the
promise made in the Hebrew Scriptures to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: "In thy
seed shall all nations be blessed." You will not admit this Hebrew testimony,
but you do not seem to have any other. The authority of our books, which is
confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of
apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you. Your books have no authority,
for it is an authority maintained by only a few, and these the worshippers of an
untruthful God and Christ. If they are not following the example of the beings
they worship, their testimony must be against their own false doctrine. And,
once more, common report gives a very bad account of you, and invariably
asserts, in opposition to you, that Christ was of the seed of David. You did not
hear the voice of the Father from heaven. You did not see the works by which
Christ bore witness to Himself. The books which tell of these things you profess
to receive, that you may maintain a delusive appearance of Christianity; but
when anything is quoted against you, you say that the books have been tampered
with. You quote the passage where Christ says, "If ye believe not me, believe
the works;" and again, "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father
that sent me beareth witness of me;" but you will not let us quote in reply such
passages as these: "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think that ye have
eternal life, and they are they that testify of me;" "If ye believed Moses, ye
would believe me, for he wrote of me;" "They have Moses and the prophets, let
them hear them;" "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they
believe though one rose from the dead." What have you to say for yourselves?
Where is your authority? If you reject these passages of Scripture, in spite of
the weighty authority in their favor, what miracles can you show? However, if
you did work miracles, we should be on our guard against receiving their
evidence in your case; for the Lord has forewarned us: "Many false Christs and
false prophets shall arise, and shall do many signs and wonders, that they may
deceive, if it were possible, the very elect: behold, I have told you before."
[495] This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every
other; for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen,
as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long before their
occurrence. 6. Are, then, your doctrines so manifestly true, that they require
no support from miracles or from any testimony? Show us these self-evident
truths, if you have anything of the kind to show. Your legends, as we have
already seen, are long and silly, old wives fables for the amusement of women
and children. The beginning is detached from the rest, the middle is unsound,
and the end is a miserable failure. If you begin with the immortal, invisible,
incorruptible God, what need was there of His fighting with the race of
darkness? And as for the middle of your theory, what becomes of the
incorruptibility and unchangeableness of God, when His members in fruits and
vegetables are purified by your mastication and digestion? And for the end, is
it just that the wretched soul should be punished with lasting confinement in
the mass of darkness, because its God is unable to cleanse it of the defilement
contracted from evil external to itself in the fulfillment of His own
commission? You are at a loss for a reply. See the worthlessness of your boasted
manuscripts, numerous and valuable as you say they are! Alas for the toils of
the antiquaries! Alas for the property of the unhappy owners! Alas for the food
of the deluded followers! Destitute as you are of Scripture authority, of the
power of miracles, of moral excellence, and of sound doctrine, depart ashamed,
and return penitent, confessing that true Christ, who is the Saviour of all who
believe in Him, whose name and whose Church are now displayed as they were of
old foretold, not by some being issuing from subterranean darkness, but by a
nation in a distinct kingdom established for this purpose, that there those
things might be figuratively predicted of Christ which are now in reality
fulfilled, and the prophets might foretell in writing what the apostles now
exhibit in their preaching. 7. Let us suppose, then, a conversation with a
heathen inquirer, in which Faustus described us as making a poor appearance,
though his own appearance was much more deplorable. If we say to the heathen,
Believe in Christ, for He is God, and, on his asking for evidence, produce the
authority of the prophets, if he says that he does not believe the prophets,
because they are Hebrew and he is a Gentile, we can prove the truth of the
prophets from the actual fulfillment of their prophecies. He could scarcely be
ignorant of the persecutions suffered by the early Christians from the kings of
this world; or if he was ignorant, he could be informed from history and the
records of imperial laws. But this is what we find foretold long ago by the
prophet, saying, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the princes take counsel together
against the Lord, and against His Christ." The rest of the Psalm shows that this
is not said of David. For what follows might convince the most stubborn
unbeliever: "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten
Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the
ends of the earth for Thy possession." [496] This never happened to the Jews,
whose king, David was, but is now plainly fulfilled in the subjection of all
nations to the name of Christ. This and many similar prophecies, which it would
take too long to quote, would surely impress the mind of the inquirer. He would
see these very kings of the earth now happily subdued by Christ, and all nations
serving Him; and he would hear the words of the Psalm in which this was so long
before predicted: "All the kings of the earth shall bow down to Him; all nations
shall serve Him." [497] And if he were to read the whole of that Psalm, which is
figuratively applied to Solomon, he would find that Christ is the true King of
peace, for Solomon means peaceful; and he would find many things in the Psalm
applicable to Christ, which have no reference at all to the literal King
Solomon. Then there is that other Psalm where God is spoken of as anointed by
God, the very word anointed pointing to Christ, showing that Christ is God, for
God is represented as being anointed. [498] In reading what is said in this
Psalm of Christ and of the Church, he would find that what is there foretold is
fulfilled in the present state of the world. He would see the idols of the
nations perishing from off the earth, and he would find that this is predicted
by the prophets, as in Jeremiah, "Then shall ye say unto them, The gods that
have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth, and from
under heaven;" [499] and again, "O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my
refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto Thee from the ends
of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and
things wherein there is no profit. Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they
are no gods? Therefore, behold, I will at that time cause them to know, I will
cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that I am the
Lord." [500] Hearing these prophecies, and seeing their actual fulfillment, I
need not say that he would be affected; for we know by experience how the hearts
of believers are confirmed by seeing ancient predictions now receiving their
accomplishment. 8. In the same prophet the inquirer would find clear proof that
Christ is not merely one of the great men that have appeared in the world. For
Jeremiah goes on to say: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord: for he shall be like the
heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the
parched places of the wilderness, in a salt land not inhabited. Blessed is the
man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is: for he shall be as a
tree beside the water, that spreadeth out its roots by the river: he shall not
fear when heat cometh, but his leaf shall be green; he shall not be careful in
the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit." [501] On hearing
this curse pronounced in the figurative language of prophecy on him that trusts
in man, and the blessing in similar style on him that trusts in God, the
inquirer might have doubts about our doctrine, in which we teach not only that
Christ is God, so that our trust is not in man, but also that He is man because
He took our nature. So some err by denying Christ's humanity, while they allow
His divinity. Others, again, assert His humanity, but deny His divinity, and so
either become infidels or incur the guilt of trusting in man. The inquirer,
then, might say that the prophet says only that Christ is God, without any
reference to His human nature; whereas, in our apostolic doctrine, Christ is not
only God in whom we may safely trust, but the Mediator between God and man --
the man Jesus. The prophet explains this in the words in which he seems to check
himself, and to supply the omission: "His heart," he says "is sorrowful
throughout; and He is man, and who shall know Him?" [502] He is man, in order
that in the form of a servant He might heal the hard in heart, and that they
might acknowledge as God Him who became man for their sakes, that their trust
might be not in man, but in God-man. He is man taking the form of a servant. And
who shall know Him? For "He was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery
to be equal to God." [503] He is man, for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us." And who shall know Him? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." [504] And truly His heart was
sorrowful throughout. For even as regards His own disciples His heart was
sorrowful, when He said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not
known me?" "Have I been so long time with you" answers to the words "He is man,"
and "Have ye not known me?" to "Who shall know Him?" And the person is none
other but He who says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." [505] So
that our trust is not in man, to be under the curse of the prophet, but in
God-man, that is, in the Son of God, the Saviour Jesus Christ, the Mediator
between God and man. In the form of a servant the Father is greater than He; in
the form of God He is equal with the Father. 9. In Isaiah we read: "The pride of
man shall be brought low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And
they shall hide the workmanship of their hands in the clefts of the rocks, and
in dens and caves of the earth, from fear of the Lord, and from the glory of His
power, when He shall arise to shake terribly the earth. For in that day a man
shall cast away his idols of gold and silver, which they have made to worship,
as useless and hurtful." [506] Perhaps the inquirer himself, who, as Faustus
supposes, would laugh and say that he does not believe the Hebrew prophets, has
hid idols made with hands in some cleft, or cave, or den. Or he may know a
friend, or neighbor, or fellow-citizen who has done this from the fear of the
Lord, who by the severe prohibition of the kings of the earth, now serving and
bowing down to him, as the prophet predicted, shakes the earth, that is, breaks
the stubborn heart of worldly men. The inquirer is not likely to disbelieve the
Hebrew prophets, when he finds their predictions fulfilled, perhaps in his own
person. 10. One might rather fear that the inquirer, in the midst of such
copious evidence, would say that the Christians composed those writings when the
events described had already begun to take place, in order that those
occurrences might appear to be not due to a merely human purpose, but as if
divinely foretold. One might fear this, were it not for the widely spread and
widely known people of the Jews; that Cain, with the mark that he should not be
killed by any one; that Ham, the servant of his brethren, carrying as a load the
books for their instruction. From the Jewish manuscripts we prove that these
things were not written by us to suit the event, but were long ago published and
preserved as prophecies in the Jewish nation. These prophecies are now explained
in their accomplishment: for even what is obscure in them -- because these
things happened to them as an example, and were written for our benefit, on whom
the ends of the world are come -- is now made plain; and what was hidden in the
shadows of the future is now visible in the light of actual experience. 11. The
inquirer might bring forward as a difficulty the fact that those in whose books
these prophecies are found are not united with us in the gospel. But when
convinced that this also is foretold, he would feel how strong the evidence is.
The prophecies of the unbelief of the Jews no one can avoid seeing, no one can
pretend to be blind to them. No one can doubt that Isaiah spoke of the Jews when
he said, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel
hath not known, and my people hath not considered;" [507] or again, in the words
quoted by the apostle, "I have stretched out my hands all the day to a wicked
and gainsaying people;" [508] and especially where he says, "God has given them
the spirit of remorse, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should
not hear, and should not understand," [509] and many similar passages. If the
inquirer objected that it was not the fault of the Jews if God blinded them so
that they did not know Christ, we should try in the simplest manner possible to
make him understand that this blindness is the just punishment of other secret
sins known to God. We should prove that the apostle recognizes this principle
when he says of some persons, "God gave them up to the lusts of their own
hearts, and to a reprobate mind, to do things not convenient;" [510] and that
the prophets themselves speak of this. For, to revert to the words of Jeremiah,
"He is man, and who shall know Him?" lest it should be an excuse for the Jews
that they did not know, -- for if they had known, as the apostle says, "they
would not have crucified the Lord of glory," [511] -- the prophet goes on to
show that their ignorance was the result of secret criminality; for he says: "I
the Lord search the heart and try the reins, to give to every one according to
his ways, and according to the fruits of his doings."12. If the next difficulty
in the mind of the inquirer arose from the divisions and heresies among those
called Christians, he would learn that this too is taken notice of by the
prophets. For, as if it was natural that, after being satisfied about the
blindness of the Jews, this objection from the divisions among Christians should
occur, Jeremiah, observing this order in his prophecy, immediately adds in the
passage already quoted: "The partridge is clamorous, gathering what it has not
brought forth, making riches without judgment." For the partridge is notoriously
quarrelsome, and is often caught from its eagerness in quarreling. So the
heretics discuss not to find the truth, but with a dogged determination to gain
the victory one way or another, that they may gather, as the prophet says, what
they have not brought forth. For those whom they lead astray are Christians
already born of the gospel, whom the Christian profession of the heretics
misleads. Thus they make riches not with judgment, but with inconsiderate haste.
For they do not consider that the followers whom they gather as their riches are
taken from the genuine original Christian society, and deprived of its benefits;
and as the apostle describes these heretics in the words: "As Jannes and Jambres
withstood Moses, so they also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate
concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall
be manifest to all men, as theirs also was." [512] So the prophet goes on to say
of the partridge, which gathers what it has not brought forth: "In the midst of
his days they shall leave him, and in the end he shall be a fool;" that is, he
who at first misled people by a promising display of superior wisdom, shall be a
fool, that is, shall be seen to be a fool. He will be seen when his folly is
manifest to all men, and to those to whom he was at first a wise man he will
then be a fool.13. As if anticipating that the inquirer would ask next by what
plain mark a young disciple, not yet able to distinguish the truth among so many
errors, might find the true Church of Christ, since the clear fulfillment of so
many predictions compelled him to believe in Christ, the prophet answers this
question in what follows, and teaches that the Church of Christ, which he
describes prophetically, is conspicuously visible. His words are: "A glorious
high throne is our sanctuary." [513] This glorious throne is the Church of which
the apostle says: "The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." [514] The
Lord also, foreseeing the conspicuousness of the Church as a help to young
disciples who might be misled, says, "A city that is set on an hill cannot be
hid." [515] Since, then, a glorious high throne is our sanctuary, no attention
is to be paid to those who would lead us into sectarianism, saying, "Lo, here is
Christ," or "Lo there." Lo here, lo there, speaks of division; but the true city
is on a mountain, and the mountain is that which, as we read in the prophet
Daniel, grew from a little stone till it filled the whole earth. [516] And no
attention should be paid to those who, professing some hidden mystery confined
to a small number, say, Behold, He is in the chamber; behold, in the desert: for
a city set on an hill cannot be hid, and a glorious high throne is our
sanctuary. 14. After considering these instances of the fulfillment of prophecy
about kings and people acting as persecutors, and then becoming believers, about
the destruction of idols, about the blindness of the Jews, about their testimony
to the writings which they have preserved, about the folly of heretics, about
the dignity of the Church of true and genuine Christians, the inquirer would
most reasonably receive the testimony of these prophets about the divinity of
Christ. No doubt, if we were to begin by urging him to believe prophecies yet
unfulfilled, he might justly answer, What have I to do with these prophets, of
whose truth I have no evidence? But, in view of the manifest accomplishment of
so many remarkable predictions, no candid person would despise either the things
which were thought worthy of being predicted in those early times with so much
solemnity, or those who made the predictions. To none can we trust more safely,
as regards either events long past or those still future, than to men whose
words are supported by the evidence of so many notable predictions having been
fulfilled.15. If any truth about God or the Son of God is taught or predicted in
the Sibyl or Sibyls, or in Orpheus, or in Hermes, if there ever was such a
person, or in any other heathen poets, or theologians, or sages, or
philosophers, it may be useful for the refutation of Pagan error, but cannot
lead us to believe in these writers. For while they spoke, because they could
not help it, of the God whom we worship, they either taught their
fellow-countrymen to worship idols and demons, or allowed them to do so without
daring to protest against it. But our sacred writers, with the authority and
assistance of God, were the means of establishing and preserving among their
people a government under which heathen customs were condemned as sacrilege. If
any among this people fell into idolatry or demon-worship, they were either
punished by the laws, or met by the awful denunciations of the prophets. They
worshipped one God, the maker of heaven and earth. They had rites; but these
rites were prophetic, or symbolical of things to come, and were to cease on the
appearance of the things signified. The whole state was one great prophet, with
its king and priest symbolically anointed which was discontinued, not by the
wish of the Jews themselves, who were in ignorance through unbelief, but only on
the coming of Him who was God, anointed with spiritual grace above His fellows,
the holy of holies, the true King who should govern us, the true Priest who
should offer Himself for us. In a word, the predictions of heathen ingenuity
regarding Christ's coming are as different from sacred prophecy as the
confession of devils from the proclamation of angels.16. By such arguments,
which might be expanded if we were discussing with one brought up in heathenism,
and might be supported by proofs in still greater number, the inquirer whom
Faustus has brought before us would certainly be led to believe, unless he
preferred his sins to his salvation. As a believer, he would be taken to be
cherished in the bosom of the Catholic Church, and would be taught in due course
the conduct required of him. He would see many who do not practise the required
duties; but this would not shake his faith, even though these people should
belong to the same Church and partake of the same sacraments as himself. He
would understand that few share in the inheritance of God, while many partake in
its outward signs; that few are united in holiness of life, and in the gift of
love shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us, which is a
hidden spring that no stranger can approach; and that many join in the solemnity
of the sacrament, which he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks
judgment to himself, while he who neglects to eat it shall not have life in him,
[517] and so shall never reach eternal life. He will understand, too, that the
good are called few as compared with the multitude of the evil, but that as
scattered over the world there are very many growing among the tares, and mixed
with the chaff, till the day of harvest and of purging. As this is taught in the
Gospel, so is it foretold by the prophets. We read, "As a lily among thorns, so
is my beloved among the daughters;" [518] and again, "I have dwelt in the
tabernacles of Kedar; peaceful among them that hated peace;" [519] and again,
"Mark in the forehead those who sigh and cry for the iniquities of my people,
which are done in the midst of them." [520] The inquirer would be confirmed by
such passages; and being now a fellow-citizen with the saints and of the
household of God, no longer an alien from Israel, but an Israelite indeed, in
whom is no guile, would learn to utter from a guileless heart the words which
follow in the passage of Jeremiah already quoted, "O Lord, the patience of
Israel: let all that forsake Thee be dismayed." After speaking of the partridge
that is clamorous, and gathers what it has not brought forth; and after
extolling the city set on an hill which cannot be hid, to prevent heretics from
drawing men away from the Catholic Church; after the words, "A glorious high
throne is our sanctuary," he seems to ask himself, What do we make of all those
evil men who are found mixed with the Church, and who become more numerous as
the Church extends, and as all nations are united in Christ? And then follow the
words, "O Lord, the patience of Israel." Patience is necessary to obey the
command, "Suffer both to grow together till the harvest." [521] Impatience
towards the evil might lead to forsaking the good, who in the strict sense are
the body of Christ, and to forsake them would be to forsake Him. So the prophet
goes on to say, "Let all that forsake Thee be dismayed; let those who have
departed to the earth be confounded." The earth is man trusting in himself, and
inducing others to trust in him. So the prophet adds: "Let them be overthrown,
for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of life." This is the cry of the
partridge, that it has got the fountain of life, and will give it; and so men
are gathered to it, and depart from Christ, as if Christ, whose name they had
professed, had not fulfilled His promise. The partridge gathers those whom it
has not brought forth. And in order to do this, it declares, The salvation which
Christ promises is with me; I will give it. In opposition to this the prophet
says: "Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved."
So we read in the apostle, "Let no man glory in men;" [522] or in the words of
the prophet, "Thou art my praise." [523] Such is a specimen of instruction in
apostolic and prophetic doctrine, by which a man may be built on the foundation
of the apostles and prophets. 17. Faustus has not told us how he would prove the
divinity of Christ to the heathen, whom he makes to say: I believe neither the
prophets in support of Christ, nor Christ in support of the prophets. It would
be absurd to suppose that such a man would believe what Christ says of Himself,
when he disbelieves what He says of others. For if he thinks Him unworthy of
credit in one case, he must think Him so in all, or at least more so when
speaking of Himself than when speaking of others. Perhaps, failing this, Faustus
would read to him the Sibyls and Orpheus, and any heathen prophecies about
Christ that he could find. But how could he do this, when he confesses that he
knows none? His words are: "If, as is said, any prophecies of Christ are to be
found in the Sibyl, or in Hermes, called Trismegistus, or Orpheus, or any
heathen poet." How could he read writings of which he knows nothing, and which
he supposes to exist only from report, to one who will not believe either the
prophets or Christ? What, then, would he do? Would he bring forward Manichæus as
a witness to Christ? The opposite of this is what the Manichæans do. They take
advantage of the widespread fragrance of the name of Christ to gain acceptance
for Manichæus, that the edge of their poisoned cup may be sweetened with this
honey. Taking hold of the promises of Christ to His disciples that He would send
the Paraclete, that is, the Comforter or Advocate, they say that this Paraclete
is Manichæus, or in Manichæus, and so steal an entrance into the minds of men
who do not know when He who was promised by Christ really came. Those who have
read the canonical book called the Acts of the Apostles find a reference to
Christ's promise, and an account of its fulfillment. Faustus, then, has no proof
to give to the inquirer. It is not likely that any one will be so infatuated as
to take the authority of Manichæus when he rejects that of Christ. Would he not
reply in derision, if not in anger, Why do you ask me to believe Persian books,
when you forbid me to believe Hebrew books? The Manichæan has no hold on the
inquirer, unless he is already in some way convinced of the truth of
Christianity. When he finds him willing to believe Christ, then he deludes him
with the representation of Christ given by Manichæus. So the partridge gathers
what it has not brought forth. When will you whom he gathers leave him? When
will you see him to be a fool, who tells you that Hebrew testimony is worthless
in the case of unbelievers, and superfluous to believers?18. If believers are to
throw away all the books which have led them to believe, I see no reason why
they should continue reading the Gospel itself. The Gospel, too, must be
worthless to this inquirer, who, according to Faustus' pitiful supposition,
rejects with ridicule the authority of Christ. And to the believer it must be
superfluous, if true notices of Christ are superfluous to believers. And if the
Gospel should be read by the believer, that he may not forget what he has
believed, so should the prophets, that he may not forget why he believed. For if
he forgets this his faith cannot be firm. By this principle, you should throw
away the books of Manichæus, on the authority of which you already believe that
light -- that is, God -- fought with darkness, and that, in order to bind
darkness, the light was first swallowed up and bound, and polluted and mangled
by darkness, to be restored, and liberated, and purified, and healed by your
eating, for which you are rewarded by not being condemned to the mass of
darkness for ever, along with that part of the light which cannot be extricated.
This fiction is sufficiently published by your practice and your words. Why do
you seek for the testimony of books, and add to the embarrassment of your God by
the consumption of strength in the needless task of writing manuscripts? Burn
all your parchments, with their finely-ornamented binding; so you will be rid of
a useless burden, and your God who suffers confinement in the volume will be set
free. What a mercy it would be to the members of your God, if you could boil
your books and eat them! There might be a difficulty, however, from the
prohibition of animal food. Then the writing must share in the impurity of the
sheepskin. Indeed, you are to blame for this, for, like what you say was done in
the first war between light and darkness, you brought what was clean in the pen
in contact with the uncleanness of the parchment. Or perhaps, for the sake of
the colors, we may put it the other way; and so the darkness would be yours, in
the ink which you brought against the light of the white pages. If these remarks
irritate you, you should rather be angry with yourselves for believing doctrines
of which these are the necessary consequences. As for the books of the apostles
and prophets, we read them as a record of our faith, to encourage our hope and
animate our love. These books are in perfect harmony with one another; and their
harmony, like the music of a heavenly trumpet, wakens us from the torpor of
worldliness, and urges us on to the prize of our high calling. The apostle,
after quoting from the prophets the words, "The reproaches of them that
reproached Thee fell on me," goes on to speak of the benefit of reading the
prophets: "For whatsoever things were written beforetime were written for our
learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have
hope." [524] If Faustus denies this, we can only say with Paul, "If any one
shall preach to you another doctrine than that ye have received, let him be
accursed." [525]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 155: FAUSTUS ABHORS MOSES FOR THE AWFUL CURSE HE HAS PRONOUNCED UPON CHRIST. AUGUSTIN EXPOUNDS THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR BY COMPARING OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: If you ask why we do not believe Moses, it is on account of our
love and reverence for Christ. The most reckless man cannot regard with pleasure
a person who has cursed his father. So we abhor Moses, not so much for his
blasphemy of everything human and divine, as for the awful curse he has
pronounced upon Christ the Son of God, who for our salvation hung on the tree.
Whether Moses did this intentionally or not is your concern. Either way, he
cannot be excused, or considered worthy of belief. His words are, "Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree." [526] You tell me to believe this man,
though, if he was inspired, he must have cursed Christ knowingly and
intentionally; and if he did it in ignorance, he cannot have been divine. Take
either alternative. Moses was no prophet, and while cursing in his usual manner,
he fell ignorantly into the sin of blasphemy against God. Or he was indeed
divine, and foresaw the future; and from ill-will to our salvation, he directs
the venom of his malediction against Him who was to accomplish that salvation on
a tree. He who thus injures the Son cannot surely have seen or known the Father.
He who knew nothing of the final ascension of the Son, cannot surely have
foretold His advent. Moreover, the extent of the injury inflicted by this curse
is to be considered. For it denounces all the righteous men and martyrs, and
sufferers of every kind, who have died in this way, as Peter and Andrew, and the
rest. Such a cruel denunciation could never have come from Moses if he had been
a prophet, unless he was a bitter enemy of these sufferers. For he pronounces
them cursed not only of men but of God. What hope, then, of blessing remains to
Christ, or his apostles, or to us if we happen to be crucified for Christ's
sake? It indicates great thoughtlessness in Moses, and the want of all divine
inspiration, that he overlooked the fact that men are hung on a tree for very
different reasons, some for their crimes, and others who suffer in the cause of
God and of righteousness. In this thoughtless way lie heaps all together without
distinction under the same curse; whereas if he had had any sense, not to say
inspiration, if he wished to single out the punishment of the cross from all
others as specially detestable, he would have said, Cursed is every guilty and
impious person that hangeth on a tree. This would have made a distinction
between the guilty and the innocent. And yet even this would have been
incorrect, for Christ took the malefactor from the cross along with himself into
the Paradise of his Father. What becomes of the curse on every one that hangeth
on a tree? Was Barabbas, the notorious robber, who certainly was not hung on a
tree, but was set free from prison at the request of the Jews, more blessed than
the thief who accompanied Christ from the cross to heaven? Again, there is a
curse on the man that worships the sun or the moon. Now if under a heathen
monarch I am forced to worship the sun, and if from fear of this curse I refuse,
shall I incur this other curse by suffering the punishment of crucifixion?
Perhaps Moses was in the habit of cursing everything good. We think no more of
his denunciation than of an old wife's scolding. So we find him pronouncing a
curse on all youths of both sexes, when he says: "Cursed is every one that
raiseth not up a seed in Israel." [527] This is aimed directly at Jesus, who,
according to you, was born among the Jews, and raised up no seed to continue his
family. It points too at his disciples, some of whom he took from the wives they
had married, and some who were unmarried he forbade to take wives. We have good
reason, you see, for expressing our abhorrence of the daring style in which
Moses hurls his maledictions against Christ, against light, against chastity,
against everything divine. You cannot make much of the distinction between
hanging on a tree and being crucified, as you often try to do by way of apology;
for Paul repudiates such a distinction when he says, "Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as it is written, Cursed
is every one that hangeth on a tree." [528] 2. Augustin replied: The pious
Faustus is pained because Christ is cursed by Moses. His love for Christ makes
him hate Moses. Before explaining the sacred import and the piety of the words,
"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," I would ask these pious people why
they are angry with Moses, since his curse does not affect their Christ. If
Christ hung on the tree, He must have been fastened to it with nails, the marks
of which He showed to His doubting disciple after His resurrection. Accordingly
He must have had a vulnerable and mortal body, which the Manichæans deny. Call
the wounds and the marks false, and it follows that His hanging on the tree was
false. This Christ is not affected by the curse, and there is no occasion for
this indignation against the person uttering the curse. If they pretend to be
angry with Moses for cursing what they call the false death of Christ, what are
we to think of themselves, who do not curse Christ, but, what is much worse,
make Him a liar? If it is wrong to curse mortality, it is a much more heinous
offense to sully the purity of truth. But let us make these heretical cavils an
occasion for explaining this mystery to believers. 3. Death comes upon man as
the punishment of sin, and so is itself called sin; not that a man sins in
dying, but because sin is the cause of his death. So the word tongue, which
properly means the fleshy substance between the teeth and the palate, is applied
in a secondary sense to the result of the tongue's action. In this sense we
speak of a Latin tongue and a Greek tongue. The word hand, too, means both the
members of the body we use in working, and the writing which is done with the
hand. In this sense we speak of writing as being proved to be the hand of a
certain person, or of recognizing the hand of a friend. The writing is certainly
not a member of the body, but the name hand is given to it because it is the
hand that does it. So sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and
death the consequence of sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death,
but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature
by sin. This is what hung on the tree; this is what was cursed by Moses. Thus
was death condemned that its reign might cease, and cursed that it might be
destroyed. By Christ's taking our sin in this sense, its condemnation is our
deliverance, while to remain in subjection to sin is to be condemned. 4. What
does Faustus find strange in the curse pronounced on sin, on death, and on human
mortality, which Christ had on account of man's sin, though He Himself was
sinless? Christ's body was derived from Adam, for His mother the Virgin Mary was
a child of Adam. But God said in Paradise, "On the day that ye eat, ye shall
surely die." This is the curse which hung on the tree. A man may deny that
Christ was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who believes that Christ
died, and acknowledges that death is the fruit of sin, and is itself called sin,
will understand who it is that is cursed by Moses, when he hears the apostle
saying "For our old man is crucified with Him." [529] The apostle boldly says of
Christ, "He was made a curse for us;" for he could also venture to say, "He died
for all." "He died," and "He was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of
the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits
punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our
punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. 5.
These things are not my conjectures, but are affirmed constantly by the apostle,
with an emphasis sufficient to rouse the careless and to silence the gainsayers.
"God," he says, "sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He
might condemn sin in the flesh." [530] Christ's flesh was not sinful, because it
was not born of Mary by ordinary generation; but because death is the effect of
sin, this flesh, in being mortal, had the likeness of sinful flesh. This is
called sin in the following words, "that by sin He might condemn sin in the
flesh." Again he says: "He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that
we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." [531] Why should not Moses
call accursed what Paul calls sin? In this prediction the prophet claims a share
with the apostle in the reproach of the heretics. For whoever finds fault with
the word cursed in the prophet, must find fault with the word sin in the
apostle; for curse and sin go together. 6. If we read, "Cursed of God is every
one that hangeth on a tree," the addition of the words "of God" creates no
difficulty. For had not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His
Son to bear and to abolish it. And there is nothing strange in God's cursing
what He hates. For His readiness to give us the immortality which will be had at
the coming of Christ, is in proportion to the compassion with which He hated our
death when it hung on the cross at the death of Christ. And if Moses curses
every one that hangeth on a tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee
that righteous men would be crucified, but rather because He foresaw that
heretics would deny the death of the Lord to be real, and would try to disprove
the application of this curse to Christ, in order that they might disprove the
reality of His death. For if Christ's death was not real, nothing cursed hung on
the cross when He was crucified, for the crucifixion cannot have been real.
Moses cries from the distant past to these heretics: Your evasion in denying the
reality of the death of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree; not this one or that, but absolutely every one. What! the Son of God? Yes,
assuredly. This is the very thing you object to, and that you are so anxious to
evade. You will not allow that He was cursed for us, because you will not allow
that He died for us. Exemption from Adam's curse implies exemption from his
death. But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as
He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He
submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as
He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while
ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the
death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. And these words "every one"
are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference
of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would
lead to the denial of the true death of Christ. 7. The believer in the true
doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses
when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on
the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised
by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real
death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ's humility, while
in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If,
then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you
have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may
also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment. Now the
punishment of sin cannot be blessed, or else it would be a thing to be desired.
The curse is pronounced by divine justice, and it will be well for us if we are
redeemed from it. Confess then that Christ died, and you may confess that He
bore the curse for us; and that when Moses said, "Cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree," he said in fact, To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or
actually to die. He might have said, "Cursed is every one that is mortal," or
"Cursed is every one dying;" but the prophet knew that Christ would suffer on
the cross, and that heretics would say that He hung on the tree only in
appearance, without really dying. So he exclaims, Cursed; meaning that He really
died. He knew that the death of sinful man, which Christ though sinless bore,
came from that curse, "If ye touch it, ye shall surely die." Thus also, the
serpent hung on the pole was intended to show that Christ did not feign death,
but that the real death into which the serpent by his fatal counsel cast mankind
was hung on the cross of Christ's passion. The Manichæans turn away from the
view of this real death, and so they are not healed of the poison of the
serpent, as we read that in the wilderness as many as looked were healed. 8. It
is true, some ignorantly distinguish between hanging on a tree and being
crucified. So some explain this passage as referring to Judas. But how do they
know whether he hung himself from wood or from stone? Faustus is right in saying
that the apostle obliges us to refer the words to Christ. Such ignorant
Catholics are the prey of the Manichæans. Such they get hold of and entangle in
their sophistry. Such were we when we fell into this heresy, and adhered to it.
Such were we, when, not by our own strength, but by the mercy of God, we were
rescued. 9. What attacks on divine things does Faustus speak of when he charges
Moses with sparing nothing human or divine? He makes the charge without stopping
to prove it. We know, on the contrary, that Moses gave due praise to everything
really divine, and in human affairs was a just ruler, considering his times and
the grace of his dispensation. It will be time to prove this when we see any
proof of Faustus' charges. It may be clever to make such charges cautiously, but
there is great incaution in the cleverness which ruins its possessor. It is good
to be clever on the side of truth, but it is a poor thing to be clever in
opposition to the truth. Faustus says that Moses spared nothing human or divine;
not that he spared no god or man. If he said that Moses did not spare God, it
could easily be shown in reply that Moses everywhere does honor to the true God,
whom he declares to be the Maker of heaven and earth. Again, if he said that
Moses spared none of the gods, he would betray himself to Christians as a
worshipper of the false gods that Moses denounces; and so he would be prevented
from gathering what he has not brought forth, by the brood taking refuge under
the wings of the Mother Church. Faustus tries to ensnare the babes, by saying
that Moses spared nothing divine, wishing not to frighten Christians with a
profession of belief in the gods, which would be plainly opposed to
Christianity, and at the same time appearing to take the side of the Pagans
against us; for they know that Moses has said many plain and pointed things
against the idols and gods of the heathen, which are devils. 10. If the
Manichæans disapprove of Moses on this account, let them confess that they are
worshippers of idols and devils. This, indeed, may be the case without their
being aware of it. The apostle tells us that "in the last days some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils,
speaking lies in hypocrisy." [532] Whence but from devils, who are fond of
falsehood, could the idea have come that Christ's sufferings and death were
unreal, and that the marks which He showed of His wounds were unreal? Are these
not the doctrines of lying devils, which teach that Christ, the Truth itself,
was a deceiver? Besides, the Manichæans openly teach the worship, if not of
devils, still of created things, which the apostle condemns in the words, "They
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." [533] 11. As there
is an unconscious worship of idols and devils in the fanciful legends of the
Manichæans, so they knowingly serve the creature in their worship of the sun and
moon. And in what they call their service of the Creator they really serve their
own fancy, and not the Creator at all. For they deny that God created those
things which the apostle plainly declares to be the creatures of God, when he
says of food, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it
is received with thanksgiving." [534] This is sound doctrine, which you cannot
bear, and so turn to fables. The apostle praises the creature of God, but
forbids the worship of it; and in the same way Moses gives due praise to the sun
and moon, while at the same time he states the fact of their having been made by
God, and placed by Him in their courses, -- the sun to rule the day, and the
moon to rule the night. Probably you think Moses spared nothing divine, simply
because he forbade the worship of the sun and moon, whereas you turn towards
them in all directions in your worship. But the sun and moon take no pleasure in
your false praises. It is the devil, the transgressor, that delights in false
praises. The powers of heaven, who have not fallen by sin, wish their Creator to
be praised in them; and their true praise is that which does no wrong to their
Creator. He is wronged when they are said to be His members, or parts of His
substance. For He is perfect and independent, underived, not divided or
scattered in space, but unchangeably self-existent, self-sufficient, and blessed
in Himself. In the abundance of His goodness, He by His word spoke, and they
were made: He commanded, and they were created. And if earthly bodies are good,
of which the apostle spoke when he said that no food is unclean, because every
creature of God is good, much more the heavenly bodies, of which the sun and
moon are the chief; for the apostle says again, "The glory of the terrestrial is
one, and the glory of the celestial is another." [535]12. Moses, then, casts no
reproach on the sun and moon when he prohibits their worship. He praises them as
heavenly bodies; while he also praises God as the Creator of both heavenly and
earthly, and will not allow of His being insulted by giving the worship due to
Him to those who are praised only as dependent upon Him. Faustus prides himself
on the ingenuity of his objection to the curse pronounced by Moses on the
worship of the sun and moon. He says, "If under a heathen monarch I am forced to
worship the sun, and if from fear of this curse I refuse, shall I incur this
other curse by suffering the punishment of crucifixion?" No heathen monarch is
forcing you to worship the sun: nor would the sun itself force you, if it were
reigning on the earth, as neither does it now wish to be worshipped. As the
Creator bears with blasphemers till the judgment, so these celestial bodies bear
with their deluded worshippers till the judgment of the Creator. It should be
observed that no Christian monarch could enforce the worship of the sun. Faustus
instances a heathen monarch, for he knows that their worship of the sun is a
heathen custom. Yet, in spite of this opposition to Christianity, the partridge
takes the name of Christ, that it may gather what it has not brought forth. The
answer to this objection is easy, and the force of truth will soon break the
horns of this dilemma. Suppose, then, a Christian threatened by royal authority
with being hung on a tree if he will not worship the sun. If I avoid, you say,
the curse pronounced by the law on the worshipper of the sun, I incur the curse
pronounced by the same law on him that hangs on a tree. So you will be in a
difficulty; only that you worship the sun without being forced by anybody. But a
true Christian, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
distinguishes the curses, and the reasons of them. He sees that one refers to
the mortal body which is hung on the tree, and the other to the mind which
worships the sun. For though the body bows in worship, -- which also is a
heinous offence, -- the belief or imagination of the object worshipped is an act
of the mind. The death implied in both curses is in one case the death of the
body, and in the other the death of the soul. It is better to have the curse in
bodily death, -- which will be removed in the resurrection, -- than the curse in
the death of the soul, condemning it along with the body to eternal fire. The
Lord solves this difficulty in the words: "Fear not them that kill the body, but
cannot kill the soul; but fear him who has power to cast both soul and body into
hell-fire." [536] In other words, fear not the curse of bodily death, which in
time is removed; but fear the curse of spiritual death, which leads to the
eternal torment of both soul and body. Be assured, Cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree is no old wife's railing, but a prophetical utterance. Christ,
by the curse, takes the curse away, as He takes away death by death, and sin by
sin. In the words, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," there is no
more blasphemy than in the words of the apostle, "He died," or, "Our old man was
crucified along with Him," [537] or, "By sin He condemned sin," [538] or, "He
made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin," [539] and in many similar passages.
Confess, then, that when you exclaim against the curse of Christ, you exclaim
against His death. If this is not an old wife's railing on your part, it is
devilish delusion, which makes you deny the death of Christ because your own
souls are dead. You teach people that Christ's death was feigned, making Christ
your leader in the falsehood with which you use the name of Christian to mislead
men. 13. If Faustus thinks Moses an enemy of continence or virginity because he
says, "Cursed is everyone that raiseth not up seed in Israel," let them hear the
words of Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord to all eunuchs; To them who keep my
precepts, and choose the things that please me, and regard my covenant, will I
give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and
of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off."
[540] Though our adversaries disagree with Moses, if they agree with Isaiah it
is something gained. It is enough for us to know that the same God spoke by both
Moses and Isaiah, and that every one is cursed who raiseth not up seed in
Israel, both then when begetting children in marriage (for the continuation of
the people was a civil duty), and now because no one spiritually born should
rest content without seeking spiritual increase in the production of Christians
by preaching Christ, each one according to his ability. So that the times of
both Testaments are briefly described in the words, "Cursed is every one that
raiseth not up seed in Israel." [541]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 156: FAUSTUS REJECTS THE OLD TESTAMENT BECAUSE IT LEAVES NO ROOM FOR CHRIST. CHRIST THE ONE BRIDEGROOM SUFFICES FOR HIS BRIDE THE CHURCH. AUGUSTIN ANSWERS AS WELL AS HE CAN, AND REPROVES THE MANICHÆANS WITH PRESUMPTION IN CLAIMING TO BE THE BRIDE OF CHRI
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Why do we not receive the Old Testament? Because when a vessel
is full, what is poured on it is not received, but allowed to run over; and a
full stomach rejects what it cannot hold. So the Jews, satisfied with the Old
Testament, reject the New; and we who have received the New Testament from
Christ, reject the Old. You receive both because you are only half filled with
each, and the one is not completed, but corrupted by the other. For vessels half
filled should not be filled up with anything of a different nature from what
they already contain. If it contains wine, it should be filled up with wine,
honey with honey, vinegar with vinegar. For to pour gall on honey, or water on
wine, or alkalies on vinegar, is not addition, but adulteration. This is why we
do not receive the Old Testament. Our Church, the bride of Christ, the poor
bride of a rich bridegroom, is content with the possession of her husband, and
scorns the wealth of inferior lovers, and despises the gifts of the Old
Testament and of its author, and from regard to her own character, receives only
the letters of her husband. We leave the Old Testament to your Church, that,
like a bride faithless to her spouse, delights in the letters and gifts of
another. This lover who corrupts your chastity, the God of the Hebrews in his
stone tablets promises you gold and silver, and abundance of food, and the land
of Canaan. Such low rewards have tempted you to be unfaithful to Christ, after
all the rich dowry bestowed by him. By such attractions the God of the Hebrews
gains over the bride of Christ. You must know that you are cheated, and that
these promises are false. This God is in poverty and beggary, and cannot do what
he promises. For if he cannot give these things to the synagogue, his proper
wife, who obeys him in all things like a servant, how can he bestow them on you
who are strangers, and who proudly throw off his yoke from your necks? Go on,
then, as you have begun, join the new cloth to the old garment, put the new wine
in old bottles, serve two masters without pleasing either, make Christianity a
monster, half horse and half man; but allow us to serve only Christ, content
with his immortal dower, and imitating the apostle who says, "Our sufficiency is
of God, who has made us able ministers of the New Testament." [542] In the God
of the Hebrews we have no interest whatever; for neither can he perform his
promises, nor do we desire that he should. The liberality of Christ has made us
indifferent to the flatteries of this stranger. This figure of the relation of
the wife to her husband is sanctioned by Paul, who says: "The woman that has a
husband is bound to her husband as long as he liveth; but if her husband die,
she is freed from the law of her husband. So, then, if while her husband liveth
she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her
husband be dead, she is not an adulteress, though she be married to another
man." [543] Here he shows that there is a spiritual adultery in being united to
Christ before repudiating the author of the law, and counting him, as it were,
as dead. This applies chiefly to the Jews who believe in Christ, and who ought
to forget their former superstition. We who have been converted to Christ from
heathenism, look upon the God of the Hebrews not merely as dead, but as never
having existed, and do not need to be told to forget him. A Jew, when he
believes, should regard Adonai as dead; a Gentile should regard his idol as
dead; and so with everything that has been held sacred before conversion. One
who, after giving up idolatry, worships both the God of the Hebrews and Christ,
is like an abandoned woman, who after the death of one husband marries two
others. 2. Augustin replied: Let all who have given their hearts to Christ say
whether they can listen patiently to these things, unless Christ Himself enable
them. Faustus, full of the new honey, rejects the old vinegar; and Paul, full of
the old vinegar, has poured out half that the new honey may be poured in, not to
be kept, but to be corrupted. When the apostle calls himself a servant of Jesus
Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, this is the
new honey. But when he adds, "which He promised before by His prophets in the
Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh," [544] this is the old vinegar. Who could bear to hear this, unless the
apostle himself consoled us by saying: "There must be heresies, that they which
are approved may be made manifest among you?" [545] Why should we repeat what we
said already? [546] -- that the new cloth and the old garment, the new wine and
the old bottles, mean not two Testaments, but two lives and two hopes, -- that
the relation of the two Testaments is figuratively described by the Lord when He
says: "Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of God is like an
householder bringing out of his treasure things new and old." [547] The reader
may remember this as said before, or he may find it on looking back. For if any
one tries to serve God with two hopes, one of earthly felicity, and the other of
the kingdom of heaven, the two hopes cannot agree; and when the latter is shaken
by some affliction, the former will be lost too. Thus it is said, No man can
serve two masters; which Christ explains thus: "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
[548] But to those who rightly understand it, the Old Testament is a prophecy of
the New. Even in that ancient people, the holy patriarchs and prophets, who
understood the part they performed, or which they were instrumental in
performing, had this hope of eternal life in the New Testament. They belonged to
the New Testament, because they understood and loved it, though revealed only in
figure. Those belonging to the Old Testament were the people who cared for
nothing else but the temporal promises, without understanding them as
significant of eternal things. But all this has already been more than enough
insisted on. 3. It is amazingly bold in the impious and impure sect of the
Manichæans to boast of being the chaste bride of Christ. All the effect of such
a boast on the really chaste members of the holy Church is to remind them of the
apostle's warning against deceivers: "I have joined you to one husband, to
present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear lest, as the serpent
deceived Eve by his guile, so your minds also should be corrupted from the
purity which is in Christ." [549] What else do those preachers of another gospel
than that which we have received try to do, but to corrupt us from the purity
which we preserve for Christ, when they stigmatize the law of God as old, and
praise their own falsehoods as new, as if all that is new must be good, and all
that is old bad? The Apostle John, however, praises the old commandment, and the
Apostle Paul bids us avoid novelties in doctrine. As an unworthy son and servant
of the Catholic Church, the true bride of the true Christ, I too, as appointed
to give out food to my fellow-servants, would speak to her a word of counsel.
Continue ever to shun the profane errors of the Manichæans, which have been
tried by the experience of thine own children, and condemned by their recovery.
By that heresy I was once separated from thy fellowship, and after running into
danger which ought to have been avoided, I escaped. Restored to thy service, my
experience may perhaps be profitable to thee. Unless thy true and truthful
Bridegroom, from whose side thou wert made, had obtained the remission of sins
through His own real blood, the gulf of error would have swallowed me up; I
should have become dust, and been devoured by the serpent. Be not misled by the
name of truth. The truth is in thine own milk, and in thine own bread. They have
the name only, and not the thing. Thy full-grown children, indeed, are secure;
but I speak to thy babes, my brothers, and sons, and masters, whom thou, the
virgin mother, fertile as pure, dost cherish into life under thine anxious
wings, or dost nourish with the milk of infancy. I call upon these, thy tender
offspring, not to be seduced by noisy vanities, but rather to pronounce accursed
any one that preaches to them another gospel than that which they have received
in thee. I call upon these not to leave the true and truthful Christ, in whom
are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; not to forsake the abundance
of His goodness which He has laid up for them that fear Him, and has wrought for
them that trust in Him. [550] How can they expect to find truthful words in one
who preaches an untruthful Christ? Scorn the reproaches cast on thee, for thou
knowest well that the gift which thou desirest from thy Bridegroom is eternal
life, for He Himself is eternal life. 4. It is a silly falsehood that thou hast
been seduced to another God, who promises abundance of food and the land of
Canaan. For thou canst perceive how the saints of old, who were also thy
children, were enlightened by these figures which were prophecies of thee. Thou
needest not regard the poor jest against the stone tablets, for the stony heart
of which they were in old times a figure is not in thee. For thou art an epistle
of the apostles, "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;
not on tables of stone, but on the fleshy tables of the heart." [551] Our
opponents ignorantly think that these words are in their favor, and that the
apostle finds fault with the dispensation of the Old Testament, whereas they are
the words of the prophet. This utterance of the apostles was a fulfillment of
the long anterior utterances of the prophet whom the Manichæans reject, for they
believe the apostles without understanding them. The prophet says: "I will take
away from them the stony heart, and I will give them a heart of flesh." [552]
What is this but "Not on tables of stones but on the fleshy tables of the
heart"? For by the heart of flesh and the fleshy tables is not meant a carnal
understanding: but as flesh feels, whereas a stone cannot, the insensibility of
stone signifies an unintelligent heart, and the sensibility of flesh signifies
an intelligent heart. Instead, then, of scoffing at thee, they deserve to be
ridiculed who say that earth, and wood, and stones have sense, and that their
life is more intelligent than animal life. So, not to speak of the truth, even
their own fiction obliges them to confess that the law written on tables of
stone was purer than their sacred parchments. Or perhaps they prefer sheepskin
to stone, because their legends make stones the bones of princes. In any case,
the ark of the Old Testament was a cleaner covering for the tables of stone than
the goatskin of their manuscripts. Laugh at these things, while pitying them, to
show their falsehood and absurdity. With a heart no longer stony, thou canst see
in these stone tablets a suitableness to that hard-hearted people; and at the
same time thou canst find even there the stone, thy Bridegroom, described by
Peter as "a living stone, rejected by men, but chosen of God, and precious." To
them He was "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence;" but to thee, "the
stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." [553] This
is all explained by Peter, and is quoted from the prophets, with whom these
heretics have nothing to do. Fear not, then, to read these tablets -- they are
from thy Husband; to others the stone was a sign of insensibility, but to thee
of strength and stability. With the finger of God these tablets were written;
with the finger of God thy Lord cast out devils; with the finger of God drive
thou away the doctrines of lying devils which sear the conscience. With these
tablets thou canst confound the seducer who calls himself the Paraclete, that he
may impose upon thee by a sacred name. For on the fiftieth day after the
passover the tables were given; and on the fiftieth day after the passion of thy
Bride-groom -- of whom the passover was a type -- the finger of God, the Holy
Spirit, the promised Paraclete, was given. Fear not the tablets which convey to
thee ancient writings now made plain. Only be not under the law, lest fear
prevent thy fulfilling it; but be under grace, that love, which is the
fulfilling of the law, may be in thee. For it was in a review of these very
tablets that the friend of thy Bridegroom said: "For thou shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other
commandment, it is contained in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law." [554] One table contains the precept of love to God, and the other
of love to man. And He who first sent these tablets Himself came to enjoin those
precepts on which hang the law and the prophets. [555] In the first precept is
the chastity of thy espousals; in the second is the unity of thy members. In the
one thou art united to divinity; in the other thou dost gather a society. And
these two precepts are identical with the ten, of which three relate to God, and
seven to our neighbor. Such is the chaste tablet in which thy Lover and thy
Beloved of old prefigured to thee the new song on a psaltery of ten strings;
Himself to be extended on the cross for thee, that by sin He might condemn sin
in the flesh, and that the righteouness of the law might be fulfilled in thee.
Such is the conjugal tablet, which may well be hated by the unfaithful wife. 5.
I turn now to thee, thou deluded and deluding congregation of Manichæus, --
wedded to so many elements, or rather prostituted to so many devils, and
impregnated with blasphemous falsehoods, -- dost thou dare to slander as
unchaste the marriage of the Catholic Church with thy Lord? Behold thy lovers,
one balancing creation, and the other bearing it up like Atlas. For one, by thy
account, holds the sources of the elements, and hangs the world in space; while
the other keeps him up by kneeling down and carrying the weight on his
shoulders. Where are those beings? And if they are so occupied, how can they
come to visit thee, to spend an idle hour in getting their shoulders or their
fingers relieved by thy soft, soothing touch? But thou art deceived by evil
spirits which commit adultery with thee, that thou mayest conceive falsehoods
and bring forth vanities. Well mayest thou reject the message of the true God,
as opposed to thy parchments, where in the vain imaginations of a wanton mind
thou hast gone after so many false gods. The fictions of the poets are more
respectable than thine, in this at least, that they deceive no one; while the
fables in thy books, by assuming an appearance of truth, mislead the childish,
both young and old, and pervert their minds. As the apostle says, they have
itching ears, and turn away from hearing the truth to listen to fables. [556]
How shouldest thou bear the sound doctrine of these tables, where the first
commandment is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord," [557] when thy
corrupt affections find shameful delight in so many false deities? Dost thou not
remember thy love-song, where thou describest the chief ruler in perennial
majesty, crowned with flowers, and of fiery countenance? To have even one such
lover is shameful; for a chaste wife seeks not a husband crowned with flowers.
And thou canst not say that this description or representation has a typical
meaning, for thou art wont to praise Manichæus for nothing more than for
speaking to thee the simple naked truth without the disguise of figures. So the
God of thy song is a real king, bearing a sceptre and crowned with flowers. When
he wears a crown of flowers, he ought to put aside his sceptre; for effeminacy
and majesty are incongruous. And then he is not thy only lover; for the song
goes on to tell of twelve seasons clothed in flowers, and filled with song,
throwing their flowers at their father's face. These are twelve great gods of
thine, three in each of the four regions surrounding the first deity. How this
deity can be infinite, when he is thus circumscribed, no one can say. Besides,
there are countless principalities, and hosts of gods, and troops of angels,
which thou sayest were not created by God, but produced from His substance. 6.
Thou art thus convicted of worshipping gods without number; for thou canst not
bear the sound doctrine which teaches that there is one Son of one God, and one
Spirit of both. And these, instead of being without number, are not three Gods;
for not only is their substance one and the same, but their operation by means
of this substance is also one and the same, while they have a separate
manifestation in the material creation. These things thou dost not understand,
and canst not receive. Thou art full, as thou sayest, for thou art steeped in
blasphemous absurdities. Will thou continue burying thyself under such
crudities? Sing on, then, and open thine eyes, if thou canst, to thine own
shame. In this doctrine of lying devils thou art invited to fabulous dwellings
of angels in a happy clime, and to fragrant fields where nectar flows for ever
from trees and hills, in seas and rivers. These are the fictions of thy foolish
heart, which revels in such idle fancies. Such expressions are sometimes used as
figurative descriptions of the abundance of spiritual enjoyments; and they lead
the mind of the student to inquire into their hidden meaning. Sometimes there is
a material representation to the bodily senses, as the fire in the bush, the rod
becoming a serpent, and the serpent a rod, the garment of the Lord not divided
by His persecutors, the anointing of His feet or of His head by a devout woman,
the branches of the multitude preceding and following Him when riding on the
ass. Sometimes, either in sleep or in a trance, the spirit is informed by means
of figures taken from material things, as Jacob's ladder, and the stone in
Daniel cut out without hands and growing into a mountain, and Peter's vessel,
and all that John saw. Sometimes the figures are only in the language; as in the
Song of Songs, and in the parable of a householder making a marriage for his
son, or that of the prodigal son, or that of the man who planted a vineyard and
let it out to husbandmen. Thou boastest of Manichæus as having come last, not to
use figures, but to explain them. His expositions throw light on ancient types,
and leave no problem unsolved. This idea is supported by the assertion that the
ancient types, in vision or in action or in words, had in view the coming of
Manichæus, by whom they were all to be explained; while he, knowing that no one
is to follow him, makes use of a style free from all figurative expressions.
What, then, are those fields, and shady hills, and crowns of flowers, and
fragrant odors, in which the desires of thy fleshly mind take pleasure? If they
are not significant figures, they are either idle fancies or delirious dreams.
If they are figures, away with the impostor who seduces thee with the promise of
naked truth, and then mocks thee with idle tales. His ministers and his wretched
deluded followers are wont to bait their hook with that saying of the apostle,
"Now we see through a glass in a figure, but then face to face." [558] As if,
forsooth, the Apostle Paul knew in part, and prophesied in part, and saw through
a glass in a figure; whereas all this is removed at the coming of Manichæus, who
brings that which is perfect, and reveals the truth face to face. O fallen and
shameless! still to continue uttering such folly, still feeding on the wind,
still embracing the idols of thine own heart. Hast thou, then, seen face to face
the king with the sceptre, and the crown of flowers, and the hosts of gods, and
the great worldholder with six faces and radiant with light, and that other
exalted ruler surrounded with troops of angels, and the invincible warrior with
a spear in his right hand and a shield in his left, and the famous sovereign who
moves the three wheels of fire, water, and wind, and Atlas, chief of all,
bearing the world on his shoulders, and supporting himself on his arms? These,
and a thousand other marvels, hast thou seen face to face, or are thy songs
doctrines learned from lying devils, though thou knowest it not? Alas! miserable
prostitute to these dreams, such are the vanities which thou drinkest up instead
of the truth; and, drunk with this deadly poison, thou darest with this jest of
the tablets to affront the matronly purity of the spouse of the only Son of God;
because no longer under the tutorship of the law, but under the control of
grace, neither proud in activity nor crouching in fear, she lives by faith, and
hope, and love, the Israel in whom there is no guile, who hears what is written:
"The Lord thy God is one God." This thou hearest not, and art gone a whoring
after a multitude of false gods. 7. Of necessity these tables are against thee,
for the second commandment is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God
in vain;" whereas thou dost attribute the vanity of falsehood to Christ Himself,
who, to remove the vanity of the fleshly mind, rose in a true body, visible to
the bodily eye. So also the third commandment about the rest of the Sabbath is
against thee, for thou art tossed about by a multitude of restless fancies. How
these three commandments relate to the love of God, thou hast neither the power
nor the will to understand. Shamefully headstrong and turbulent, thou hast
reached the height of folly, vanity, and worthlessness; thy beauty is spoiled,
and thine order perished. I know thee, for I was once the same. How shall I now
teach thee that these three precepts relate to the love of God, of whom, and by
whom, and in whom are all things? How canst thou understand this, when thy
pernicious doctrines prevent thee from understanding and from obeying the seven
precepts relating to the love of our neighbor, which is the bond of human
society? The first of these precepts is, "Honor thy father and mother;" which
Paul quotes as the first commandment with promise, and himself repeats the
injunction. But thou art taught by thy doctrine of devils to regard thy parents
as thine enemies, because their union brought thee into the bonds of flesh, and
laid impure fetters even on thy god. The doctrine that the production of
children is an evil, directly opposes the next precept, "Thou shall not commit
adultery;" for those who believe this doctrine, in order that their wives may
not conceive, are led to commit adultery even in marriage. They take wives, as
the law declares, for the procreation of children; but from this erroneous fear
of polluting the substance of the deity, their intercourse with their wives is
not of a lawful character; and the production of children, which is the proper
end of marriage, they seek to avoid. As the apostle long ago predicted of thee,
thou dost indeed forbid to marry, for thou seekest to destroy the purpose of
marriage. Thy doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the
bed-chamber into a brothel. This false doctrine leads in a similar way to the
transgression of the commandment, "Thou shall not kill." For thou dost not give
bread to the hungry, from fear of imprisoning in flesh the member of thy God.
From fear of fancied murder, thou dost actually commit murder. For if thou wast
to meet a beggar starving for want of food, by the law of God to refuse him food
would be murder; while to give food would be murder by the law of Manichæus. Not
one commandment in the decalogue dost thou observe. If thou wert to abstain from
theft, thou wouldst be guilty of allowing bread or food, whatever it might be,
to undergo the misery of being devoured by a man of no merit, instead of running
off with it to the laboratory of the stomach of thine elect; and so by theft
saving thy god from the imprisonment with which he is threatened, and also from
that from which he already suffers. Then, if thou art caught in the theft, wilt
thou not swear by this god that thou art not guilty? For what will he do to thee
when thou sayest to him, I swore by thee falsely, but it was for thy benefit; a
regard for thine honor would have been fatal to thee? So the precept, Thou shall
not bear false witness, will be broken, not only in thy testimony, but in thine
oath, for the sake of the liberation of the members of thy god. The commandment,
"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife," is the only one which thy false
doctrine does not oblige thee to break. But if it is unlawful to covet our
neighbor's wife, what must it be to excite covetousness in others? Remember thy
beautiful gods and goddesses presenting themselves with the purpose of exciting
desire in the male and female leaders of darkness, in order that the
gratification of this passion might effect the liberation of this god, who is in
confinement everywhere, and who requires the assistance of such
self-degradation. The last commandment, "Thou shall not covet the possessions of
thy neighbor," it is wholly impossible for thee to obey. Does not this god of
thine delude thee with the promise of making new worlds in a region belonging to
another, to be the scene of thine imaginary triumph after thine imaginary
conquest? In the desire for the accomplishment of these wild fancies, while at
the same time thou believest that this land of darkness is in the closest
neighborhood with thine own substance, thou certainly covetest the possessions
of thy neighbor. Well indeed mayest thou dislike the tables which contain such
good precepts in opposition to thy false doctrine. The three relating to the
love of God thou dost entirely set aside. The seven by which human society is
preserved thou keepest only from a regard to the opinion of men, or from fear of
human laws; or good customs make thee averse to some crimes; or thou art
restrained by the natural principle of not doing to another what thou wouldst
not have done to thyself. But whether thou doest what thou wouldst not have done
to thyself, or refrainest from doing what thou wouldst not have done to thyself,
thou seest the opposition of the heresy to the law, whether thou actest
according to it or not. 8. The true bride of Christ, whom thou hast the audacity
to taunt with the stone tablets, knows the difference between the letter and the
spirit, or in other words, between law and grace; and serving God no longer in
the oldness of the letter, but in newness of spirit, she is not under the law,
but under grace. She is not blinded by a spirit of controversy, but learns
meekly from the apostle what is this law which we are not to be under; for "it
was given," he says, "on account of transgression, till the seed should come to
whom the promise was made." [559] And again: "It entered, that the offence might
abound; but where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded." [560] Not that
the law is sin, though it cannot give life without grace, but rather increases
the guilt; for "where there is no law, there is no transgression." [561] The
letter without the spirit, the law without grace, can only condemn. So the
apostle explains his meaning, in case any should not understand: "What shall we
say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. For I had not known sin but by the law.
For I had not known lust unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin,
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Therefore
the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that
which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin,
wrought death in me by that which is good." [562] She at whom thou scoffest
knows what this means; for she asks earnestly, and seeks humbly, and knocks
meekly. She sees that no fault is found with the law, when it is said, "The
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," any more than with knowledge, when
it is said, "Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth." [563] The passage runs
thus: "We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love
edifieth." The apostle certainly had no desire to be puffed up; but he had
knowledge, because knowledge joined with love not only does not puff up, but
strengthens. So the letter when joined with the spirit, and the law when joined
with grace, is no longer the letter and the law in the same sense as when by
itself it kills by abounding sin. In this sense the law is even called the
strength of sin, because its strict prohibitions increase the fatal pleasure of
sin. Even thus, however, the law is not evil; but "sin, that it may appear sin,
works death by that which is good." So things that are not evil may often be
hurtful to certain people. The Manichæans, when they have sore eyes, will shut
out their god the sun. The bride of Christ, then, is dead to the law, that is,
to sin, which abounds more from the prohibition of the law; for the law apart
from grace commands, but does not enable. Being dead to the law in this sense,
that she may be married to another who rose from the dead, she makes this
distinction without any reproach to the law, which would be blasphemy against
its author. This is thy crime; for though the apostle tells thee that the law is
holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good, thou dost not acknowledge it
as the production of a good being. Its author thou makest to be one of the
princes of darkness. Here the truth confronts thee. They are the words of the
Apostle Paul: "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
Such is the law given by Him who appointed for a great symbolical use the
tablets which thou foolishly deridest. The same law which was given by Moses
becomes through Jesus Christ grace and truth; for the spirit is joined to the
letter, that the righteousness of the law might begin to be fulfilled, which
when unfulfilled only added the guilt of transgression. The law which is holy,
and just, and good, is the same law by which sin works death, and to which we
must die, that we may be married to another who rose from the dead. Hear what
the apostle adds: "But sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me by
that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."
Deaf and blind, dost thou not now hear and see? "Sin wrought death in me," he
says, "by that which is good." The law is always good: whether it hurts those
who are destitute of grace, or benefits those who are filled with grace, itself
is always good; as the sun is always good, for every creature of God is good,
whether it hurts weak eyes or gladdens the sight of the healthy. Grace fits the
mind for keeping the law, as health fits the eyes for seeing the sun. And as
healthy eyes die not to the pleasure of seeing the sun, but to that painful
effect of the rays which beat upon the eye so as to increase the darkness; so
the mind, healed by the love of the spirit, dies not to the justice of the law,
but to the guilt and transgression which followed on the law in the absence of
grace. So it is said "The law is good, if used lawfully;" and immediately after
of the same law, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man."
The man who delights in righteousness itself, does not require the restraint of
the letter. 9. The bride of Christ rejoices in the hope of full salvation, and
desires for thee a happy conversion from fables to truth. She desires that the
fear of Adoneus, as if he were a strange lover, may not prevent thy escape from
the seductions of the wily serpent. Adonai is a Hebrew word, meaning Lord, as
applied only to God. In the same way the Greek word latria means service, in the
sense of the service of God; and Amen means true, in a special sacred sense.
This is to be learned only from the Hebrew Scriptures, or from a translation.
The Church of Christ understands and loves these names, without regarding the
evils of those who scoff because they are ignorant. What she does not yet
understand, she believes may be explained, as similar things have already been
explained to her. If she is charged with loving Emmanuel, she laughs at the
ignorance of the accuser, and holds fast by the truth of this name. If she is
charged with loving Messiah, she scorns her powerless adversary, and clings to
her anointed Master. Her prayer for thee is, that thou also mayest be cured of
thy errors, and be built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The
monstrosity with which thou ignorantly chargest the true doctrine, is really to
be found in the world which, according to thy fanciful stories, is made partly
of thy god and partly of the world of darkness. This world, half savage and half
divine, is worse than monstrous. The view of such follies should make thee
humble and penitent, and should lead thee to shun the serpent, who seduces thee
into such errors. If thou dost not believe what Moses says of the guile of the
serpent, thou mayest be warned by Paul, who, when speaking of presenting the
Church as a chaste virgin to Christ, says, "I fear lest, as the serpent beguiled
Eve through his craftiness, your minds also should be corrupted from the
simplicity and purity which is in Christ." [564] In spite of this warning, thou
hast been so misled, so infatuated by the serpent's fatal enchantments, that
while he has persuaded other heretics to believe various falsehoods, he has
persuaded thee to believe that he is Christ. Others, though fallen into the maze
of manifold error, still admit the truth of the apostle's warning. But thou art
so far gone in corruption, and so lost to shame, that thou holdest as Christ the
very being by whom the apostle declares that Eve was beguiled, and against whom
he thus seeks to put the virgin bride of Christ on her guard. Thy heart is
darkened by the deceiver, who intoxicates thee with dreams of glittering groves.
What are these promises but dreams? What reason is there to believe them true? O
drunken, but not with wine! 10. Thou hast the impious audacity to accuse the God
of the prophets of not fulfilling His promises even to His servants the Jews.
Thou dost not mention, however, any promise that is unfulfilled; otherwise it
might be shown, either that the promise has been fulfilled, and so that thou
dost not understand it, or that it is yet to be fulfilled, and so that thou dost
not believe it. What promise has been fulfilled to thee, to make it probable
that thou wilt obtain new worlds gained from the region of darkness? If there
are prophets who predict the Manichæans with praise, and if it is said that the
existence of the sect is a fulfillment of this prediction, it must first be
proved that these predictions were not forged by Manichæus in order to gain
followers. He does not consider falsehood sinful. If he declares in praise of
Christ that He showed false marks of wounds in His body, he can have no scruple
about showing false predictions in his sheepskin volumes. Assuredly there are
predictions of the Manichæans, less clear in the prophets, and most explicit in
the apostle. For example: "The Spirit," he says, "speaketh expressly, that in
the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and to doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their
conscience seared, forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats, which God has
created to be received with thanksgiving by believers, and those who know the
truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be
received with thanksgiving." [565] The fulfillment of this in the Manichæans is
as clear as day to all that know them, and has already been proved as fully as
time permits. 11. She whom the apostle warns against the guile of the serpent by
which thou hast been corrupted, that he may present her as a chaste virgin to
Christ, her only husband, acknowledges the God of the prophets as the true God,
and her own God. So many of His promises have already been fulfilled to her,
that she looks confidently for the fulfillment of the rest. Nor can any one say
that these prophecies have been forged to suit the present time, for they are
found in the books of the Jews. What could be more unlikely than that all
nations should be blessed in Abraham's seed, as it was promised? And yet how
plainly is this promise now fulfilled! The last promise is made in the following
short prophecy: "Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house: they shall ever
praise Thee." [566] When trial is past, and death, the last enemy, is destroyed,
there will be rest in the constant occupation of praising God, where there shall
be no arrivals and no departures. So the prophet says elsewhere: "Praise the
Lord, O Jerusalem; celebrate thy God, O Zion: for He hath strengthened the bars
of thy gates; He hath blessed thy children within thee." [567] The gates are
shut, so that none can go in or out. The Bridegroom Himself says in the Gospel,
that He will not open to the foolish virgins though they knock. This Jerusalem,
the holy Church, the bride of Christ, is described fully in the Revelation of
John. And that which commends the promises of future bliss to the belief of this
chaste virgin is, that now she is in possession of what was foretold of her by
the same prophets. For she is thus described: "Hearken, O daughter, and regard,
and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house. For
the King hath greatly desired thy beauty; and He is thy God. The daughters of
Tyre shall worship Him with gifts; the rich among the people shall entreat thy
favor. The daughter of the King is all glorious within; her clothing is of
wrought gold. The virgins following her shall be brought unto the King: her
companions shall be brought unto thee; with gladness and rejoicing shall they be
brought into the temple of the King. Instead of thy fathers, children shall be
born to thee, whom thou shall make princes over all the earth. Thy name shall be
remembered to all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever
and ever." [568] Unhappy victim of the serpent's guile, the inward beauty of the
daughter of the King is not for thee even to think of. For this purity of mind
is that which thou hast lost in opening thine eyes to love and worship the sun
and moon. And so by the just judgment of God thou art estranged from the tree of
life, which is eternal and internal wisdom; and with thee nothing is called or
accounted truth or wisdom but that light which enters the eyes opened to evil,
and which in thy impure mind expands and shapes itself into fanciful images.
These are thy abominable whoredoms. Still the truth calls on thee to reflect and
return. Return to me, and thou shall be cleansed and restored, if thy shame
leads thee to repentance. Hear these words of the true Truth, who neither with
feigned shapes fought against the race of darkness, nor with feigned blood
redeemed thee.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 157: FAUSTUS WILLING TO BELIEVE NOT ONLY THAT THE JEWISH BUT THAT ALL GENTILE PROPHETS WROTE OF CHRIST, IF IT SHOULD BE PROVED; BUT HE WOULD NONE THE LESS INSIST UPON REJECTING THEIR SUPERSTITIONS. AUGUSTIN MAINTAINS THAT ALL MOSES WROTE IS OF CHRIST, AND THAT
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: You ask why we do not believe Moses, when Christ says, "Moses
wrote of me; and if ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me." I should be
glad if not only Moses, but all prophets, Jew and Gentile, had written of
Christ. It would be no hindrance, but a help to our faith, if we could cull
testimonies from all hands agreeing in favor of our God. You could extract the
prophecies of Christ out of the superstition which we should hate as much as
ever. I am quite willing to believe that Moses, though so much the opposite of
Christ, may seem to have written of Him. No one but would gladly find a flower
in every thorn, and food in every plant, and honey in every insect, although we
would not feed on insects or on grass, nor wear thorns as a crown. No one but
would wish pearls to be found in every deep, and gems in every land, and fruit
on every tree. We may eat fish from the sea without drinking the water. We may
take the useful, and reject what is hurtful. And why may we not take the
prophecies of Christ from a religion the rites of which we condemn as useless?
This need not make us liable to be led into the bondage of the errors; for we do
not hate the unclean spirits less because they confessed plainly and openly that
Jesus was the Son of God. If any similar testimony is found in Moses, I will
accept it. But I will not on this account be brought into subjection to his law,
which to my mind is pure Paganism. There is no reason whatever for thinking that
I can have any objections to receiving prophecies of Christ from every spirit.
2. Since you have proved that Christ declared that Moses wrote of him, I should
be very grateful if you would show me what he has written. I have searched the
Scriptures, as we are told to do, and have found no prophecies of Christ, either
because there are none, or because I could not understand them. The only escape
from this perplexity was in one or other of two conclusions. Either this verse
must be spurious, or Jesus a liar. As it is not consistent with piety to suppose
God a liar, I preferred to attribute falsehood to the writers, rather than to
the Author, of truth. Moreover, He Himself tells that those who came before him
were thieves and robbers, which applies first of all to Moses. And when, on the
occasion of His speaking of His own majesty, and calling Himself the light of
the world, the Jews angrily rejoined, "Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy
witness is not true," I do not find that He appealed to the prophecies of Moses,
as might have been expected. Instead of this, as having no connection with the
Jews, and receiving no testimony from their fathers, He replied: "It is written
in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of
myself, and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me." [569] He referred to
the voice from heaven which all had heard: "This is my beloved Son, believe
Him." I think it likely that if Christ had said that Moses wrote of Him, the
ingenious hostility of the Jews would have led them at once to ask what He
supposed Moses to have written. The silence of the Jews is a proof that Jesus
never made such a statement. 3. My chief reason, however, for suspecting the
genuineness of this verse is what I said before, that in all my search of the
writings of Moses I have found no prophecy of Christ. But now that I have found
in you a reader of superior intelligence, I hope to learn something; and I
promise to be grateful if no feeling of ill-will prevents you from giving me the
benefit of your higher attainments, as your lofty style of reproof entitles me
to expect from you. I ask for instruction in whatever the writings of Moses
contain about our God and Lord which has escaped me in reading. I beseech you
not to use the ignorant argument that Christ affirms Moses to have written of
Him. For suppose you had not to deal with me, as in my case there is an
obligation to believe Him whom I profess to follow, but with a Jew or a Gentile,
in reply to the statement that Moses wrote of Christ, they will ask for proofs.
What shall we say to them? We cannot quote Christ's authority, for they do not
believe in Him. We must point out what Moses wrote. 4. What, then, shall we
point to? Shall it be that passage which you often quote where the God of Moses
says to him: "I will raise up unto them from among their brethren a prophet like
unto thee?" [570] But the Jew can see that this does not refer to Christ, and
there is every reason against our thinking that it does. Christ was not a
prophet, nor was He like Moses: for Moses was a man, and Christ was God; Moses
was a sinner, and Christ sinless; Moses was born by ordinary generation, and
Christ of a virgin according to you, or, as I hold, not born at all: Moses, for
offending his God, was put to death on the mountain; and Christ suffered
voluntarily, and the Father was well pleased in Him. If we were to assert that
Christ was a prophet like Moses, the Jew would either deride us as ignorant or
pronounce us untruthful. 5. Or shall we take another favorite passage of yours:
"They shall see their life hanging, and shall not believe their life?" [571] You
insert the words "on a tree," which are not in the original. Nothing can be
easier than to show that this has no reference to Christ. Moses is uttering dire
threatenings in case the people should depart from his law, and says among other
things that they would be taken captive by their enemies, and would be expecting
death day and night, having no confidence in the life allowed them by their
conquerors, so that their life would hang in uncertainty from fear of impending
danger. This passage will not do, we must try others. I cannot admit that the
words, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," refer to Christ, or when it
is said that the prince or prophet must be killed who should try to turn away
the people from their God, or should break any of the commandments. [572] That
Christ did this I am obliged to grant. But if you assert that these things were
written of Christ, it may be asked in reply, What spirit dictated these
prophecies in which Moses curses Christ and orders him to be killed? If he had
the Spirit of God, these things are not written of Christ; if they are written
of Christ, he had not the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God would not curse
Christ, or order Him to be killed. To vindicate Moses, you must confess that
these passages too have no reference to Christ. So, if you have no others to
show, there are none. If there are none, Christ could not have said that there
were; and if Christ did not say so, that verse is spurious. 6. The next verse
too is suspicious, "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me;" for the
religion of Moses is so entirely different from that of Christ, that if the Jews
believed one, they could not believe the other. Moses strictly forbids any work
to be done on Sabbath, and gives as a reason for this prohibition that God made
the world and all that is therein in six days, and rested on the seventh day,
which is Sabbath; and therefore blessed or sanctified it as His haven of repose
after toil, and commanded that breaking the Sabbath should be punished with
death. The Jews, in obedience to Moses, insisted strongly on this, and so would
not even listen to Christ when He told them that God always works, and that no
day is appointed for the intermission of His pure and unwearied energy, and that
accordingly He Himself had to work incessantly even on Sabbath. "My Father," he
says, "worketh always, and I too must work." [573] Again, Moses places
circumcision among the rites pleasing to God, and commands every male to be
circumcised in the foreskin of his flesh, and declares that this is a necessary
sign of the covenant which God made with Abraham, and that every male not
circumcised would be cut off from his tribe, and from his part in the
inheritance promised to Abraham and to his seed. [574] In this observance, too,
the Jews were very zealous, and consequently could not believe in Christ, who
made light of these things, and declared that a man when circumcised became
twofold a child of hell. [575] Again, Moses is very particular about the
distinction in animal foods, and discourses like an epicure on the merits of
fish, and birds, and quadrupeds, and orders some to be eaten as clean, and
others which are unclean not to be touched. Among the unclean he reckons the
swine and the hare, and fish without scales, and quadrupeds that neither divide
the hoof nor chew the cud. In this also the Jews carefully obeyed Moses, and so
could not believe in Christ, who taught that all food is alike, and though he
allowed no animal food to his own disciples, gave full liberty to the laity to
eat whatever they pleased, and taught that men are polluted not by what goes
into the mouth, but by the evil things which come out of it. In these and many
other things the doctrine of Jesus, as everybody knows, contradicts that of
Moses. 7. Not to enumerate all the points of difference, it is enough to mention
this one fact, that most Christian sects, and, as is well known, the Catholics,
pay no regard to what is prescribed in the writings of Moses. If this does not
originate in some error, but in the doctrine correctly transmitted from Christ
and His disciples, you surely must acknowledge that the teaching of Jesus is
opposed to that of Moses, and that the Jews did not believe in Christ on account
of their attachment to Moses. How can it be otherwise than false that Jesus said
to the Jews, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me also," when it is
perfectly clear that their belief in Moses prevented them from believing in
Jesus, which they might have done if they had left off believing in Moses? Again
I ask you to show me anything that Moses wrote of Christ. 8. Elsewhere Faustus
says: When you find no passage to point to, you use this weak and inappropriate
argument, that a Christian is bound to believe Christ when he says that Moses
wrote of Him, and that whoever does not believe this is not a Christian. It
would be far better to confess at once that you cannot find any passage. This
argument might be used with me, because my reverence for Christ compels me to
believe what He says. Still it may be a question whether this is Christ's own
declaration, requiring absolute belief, or only the writer's, to be carefully
examined. And disbelief in falsehood is no offence to Christ, but to impostors.
But of whatever use this argument may be with Christians, it is wholly
inapplicable in the case of the Jew or Gentile, with whom we are supposed to be
discussing. And even with Christians the argument is objectionable. When the
Apostle Thomas was in doubt, Christ did not spurn him from Him. Instead of
saying, "Believe, if thou art a disciple; whoever does not believe is not a
disciple," Christ sought to heal the wounds of his mind by showing him the marks
of the wounds in His own body. Does it become you then to tell me that I am not
a Christian because I am in doubt, not about Christ, but about the genuineness
of a remark attributed to Christ? But, you say, He calls those especially
blessed, who have not seen, and yet have believed. If you think that this refers
to believing without the use of judgment and reason, you are welcome to this
blind blessedness. I shall be content with rational blessedness. 9. Augustin
replied: Your idea of taking any prophecies of Christ to be found in Moses, as a
fish out of the sea, while you throw away the water from which the fish is
taken, is a clever one. But since all that Moses wrote is of Christ, or relates
to Christ, either as predicting Him by words and actions, or as illustrating His
grace and glory, you, with your faith in the untrue and untruthful Christ from
the writings of Manichæus, and your unbelief in Moses, will not even eat the
fish. Moreover, though you are sincere in your hostility to Moses, you are
hypocritical in your praise of fish. For how can you say that there is no harm
in eating a fish taken out of the sea, when your doctrine is that such food is
so hurtful, that you would rather starve than make use of it? If all flesh is
unclean, as you say it is, and if the wretched life of your god is confined in
all water or plants, from which it is liberated by your using them for food,
according to your own vile superstition, you must throw away the fish you have
praised, and drink the water and eat the thistles you speak of as useless. As
for your comparison of the servant of God to devils, as if his prophecies of
Christ resembled their confession, the servant does not refuse to bear the
reproach of his master. If the Master of the house was called Beelzebub, how
much more they of His household! [576] You have learned this reproach from
Christ's enemies; and you are worse than they were. They did not believe that
Jesus was Christ, and therefore thought Him an impostor. But the only doctrine
you believe in is that which dares to make Christ a liar. 10. What reason have
you for saying that the law of Moses is pure Paganism? Is it because it speaks
of a temple, and an altar of sacrifices, and priests? But all these names are
found also in the New Testament. "Destroy," Christ says, "this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up;" [577] and again, "When thou offerest thy gift at
the altar;" [578] and again, "Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer for
thyself a sacrifice as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." [579] What
these things prefigured the Lord Himself partly tells us, when He calls His own
body the temple; and we learn also from the apostle, who says, "The temple of
God is holy, which temple ye are;" [580] and again, "I beseech you therefore by
the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God;" [581] and in similar passages. As the same apostle says, in
words which cannot be too often quoted, these things were our examples, for they
were not the work of devils, but of the one true God who made heaven and earth,
and who, though not needing such things, yet, suiting His requirements to the
time, made ancient observances significant of future realities. Since you
pretend to abhor Paganism, though it is only that you may lead astray by your
deception unlearned Christians or those not established in the faith, show us
any authority in Christian books for your worship and service of the sun and
moon. Your heresy is liker Paganism than the law of Moses is. For you do not
worship Christ, but only something that you call Christ, a fiction of your own
fancy; and the gods you serve are either the bodies visible in the heavens, or
hosts of your own contrivance. If you do not build shrines for these worthless
idols, the creatures of the imagination, you make your hearts their temple. 11.
You ask me to show what Moses wrote of Christ. Many passages have already been
pointed out. But who could point out all? Besides, when any quotation is made,
you are ready perversely to try to give the words another meaning; or if the
evidence is too strong to be resisted, you will say that you take the passage as
a sweet fish out of the salt water, and that you will not therefore consent to
drink all the brine of the books of Moses. It will be enough, then, to take
those passages in the Hebrew law which Faustus has chosen for criticism, and to
show that, when rightly understood, they apply to Christ. For if the things
which our adversary ridicules and condemns are made to prove that he himself is
condemned by Christian truth, it will be evident that either the mere quotation
or the careful examination of the other passages will be enough to show their
agreement with Christian faith. Well, then, O thou full of all subtilty, when
the Lord in the Gospel says, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me also,
for he wrote of me," [582] there is no occasion for the great perplexity you
pretend to be in, or for the alternative of either pronouncing this verse
spurious or calling Jesus a liar. The verse is as genuine as its words are true.
I preferred, says Faustus, to attribute falsehood to the writers, rather than to
the Author of truth. What sort of faith can you have in Christ as the author of
truth, when your doctrine is that His flesh and His death, His wounds and their
marks, were feigned? And where is your authority for saying that Christ is the
author of truth, if you dare to attribute falsehood to those who wrote of Him,
whose testimony has come down to us with the confirmation of those immediately
succeeding them? You have not seen Christ, nor has He conversed with you as with
the apostles, nor called you from heaven as He did Saul. What knowledge or
belief can we have of Christ, but on the authority of Scripture? Or if there is
falsehood in the Gospel which has been widely published among all nations, and
has been held in such high sacredness in all churches since the name of Christ
was first preached, where shall we find a trustworthy record of Christ? If the
Gospel is called in question in spite of the general consent regarding it, there
can be no writing which a man may not call spurious if he does not wish to
believe it.12. You go on to quote Christ's words, that all who came before Him
were thieves and robbers. How do you know that these were Christ's words, but
from the Gospel? You profess faith in these words, as if you had heard them from
the mouth of the Lord Himself. But if any one declares the verse to be spurious,
and denies that Christ said this, you will have, in reply, to exert yourself in
vindication of the authority of the Gospel. Unhappy being! what you refuse to
believe is written in the same place as that which you quote as spoken by the
Lord Himself. We believe both, for we believe the sacred narrative in which both
are contained. We believe both that Moses wrote of Christ, and that all that
came before Christ were thieves and robbers. By their coming He means their not
being sent. Those who were sent, as Moses and the holy prophets, came not before
Him, but with Him. They did not proudly wish to precede Him, but were the humble
bearers of the message which He uttered by them. According to the meaning which
you give to the Lord's words, it is plain that with you there can be no
prophets. And so you have made a Christ for yourselves who should prophesy a
Christ to come. If you have any prophets of your own, they will have, of course,
no authority, as not being recognized by any others; but if there are any that
you dare to quote as prophesying that Christ would come in an unreal body, and
would suffer an unreal death, and would show to His doubting disciples unreal
marks of wounds, not to speak of the abominable nature of such prophecies, and
of the evident untruthfulness of those who commend falsehood in Christ, by your
own interpretation those prophets must have been thieves and robbers, for they
could not have spoken of Christ as coming in any manner unless they had come
before Him. If by those who came before Christ we understand those who would not
come with Him, -- that is, with the Word of God, -- but without being sent by
God brought their own falsehoods to men, you yourselves, although you are born
in this world after the death and the resurrection of Christ, are thieves and
robbers. For, without waiting for His illumination that you might preach His
truth, you have come before Him to preach up your own deceits.13. In the passage
where we read of the Jews saying to Christ, Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy
witness is not true, you do not see that Christ replies by saying that Moses
wrote of Him, simply because you have not got the eye of piety to see with. The
answer of Christ is this: "It is written in your law, that the testimony of two
men is true; I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me
beareth witness of me." [583] What does this mean, if rightly understood, but
that this number of witnesses required by the law was fixed upon and consecrated
in the spirit of prophecy, that even thus might be prefigured the future
revelation of the Father and Son, whose spirit is the Holy Spirit of the
inseparable Trinity? So it is written: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses
shall every word be established." [584] As a matter of fact, one witness
generally speaks the truth, while a number tell lies. And the world, in its
conversion to Christianity, believed one apostle preaching the gospel rather
than the mistaken multitude who persecuted him. There was a special reason for
requiring this number of witnesses, and in His answer the Lord implied that
Moses prophesied of Him. Do you carp at His saying your law instead of the law
of God? But, as every one knows, this is the common expression in Scripture.
Your law means the law given to you. So the apostle speaks of his gospel, while
at the same time he declares that he received it not from man, but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ. You might as well say that Christ denies God to be
His Father, when He uses the words your Father instead of our Father. Again, you
should refuse to believe the voice which you allude to as having come from
heaven, This is my beloved Son, believe Him, because you did not hear it. But if
you believe this because you find it in the sacred Scriptures, you will also
find there what you deny, that Moses wrote of Christ, besides many other things
that you do not acknowledge as true. Do you not see that your own mischievous
argument may be used to prove that this voice never came from heaven? To your
own destruction, and to the detriment of the welfare of mankind, you try to
weaken the authority of the gospel, by arguing that it cannot be true that
Christ said that Moses wrote of Him; because if He had said this, the ingenious
hostility of the Jews would have led them at once to ask what He supposed Moses
to have written of Him. In the same way, it might be impiously argued that if
that voice had really come from heaven, all the Jews who heard it would have
believed. Why are you so unreasonable as not to consider that, as it was
possible for the Jews to remain hardened in unbelief after hearing the voice
from heaven, so it was possible for them, when Christ said that Moses wrote of
Him, to refrain from asking what Moses wrote, because in their ingenious
hostility they were afraid of being proved to be in the wrong? 14. Besides that
this argument is an impious assault on the gospel, Faustus himself is aware of
its feebleness, and therefore insists more on what he calls his chief
difficulty, -- that in all his search of the writings of Moses he has found no
prophecies of Christ. The obvious reply is, that he does not understand. And if
any one asks why he does not understand, the answer is that he reads with a
hostile, unbelieving mind; he does not search in order to know, but thinks he
knows when he is ignorant. This vainglorious presumption either blinds the eye
of his understanding so as to prevent his seeing anything, or distorts his
vision, so that his remarks of approval or disapproval are misdirected. I ask,
he says, for instruction in whatever the writings of Moses contain about our God
and Lord, which has escaped me in reading. I reply at once that it has all
escaped him, for all is written of Christ. As we cannot go through the whole, I
will, with the help of God, comply with your request, to the extent I have
already promised, by showing that the passages which you specially criticise
refer to Christ. You tell me not to use the ignorant argument that Christ
affirms Moses to have written of Him. But if I use this argument, it is not
because I am ignorant, but because I am a believer. I acknowledge that this
argument will not convince a Gentile or a Jew. But, in spite of all your
evasions, you are obliged to confess that it tells against you, who boast of
possessing a kind of Christianity. You say, Suppose you had not to deal with me,
as in my case there is an obligation to believe Him whom I profess to follow,
but with a Jew or a Gentile. This is as much as to say that you, at any rate,
with whom I have at present to do, are satisfied that Moses wrote of Christ; for
you are not bold enough to discard altogether the well-grounded authority of the
Gospel where Christ's own declaration is recorded. Even when you attack this
authority indirectly, you feel that you are attacking your own position. You are
aware that if you refuse to believe the Gospel, which is so generally known and
received, you must fail utterly in the attempt to substitute for it any
trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Christ. You are afraid that the
loss of the Christian name might lead to the exposure of your absurdities to
universal scorn and condemnation. Accordingly you try to recover yourself, by
saying that your profession of Christianity obliges you to believe these words
of the Gospel. So you, at any rate, which is all that we need care for just now,
are caught and slain in this death blow to your errors. You are forced to
confess that Moses wrote of Christ, because the Gospel, which your profession
obliges you to believe, states that Christ said so. As regards a discussion with
a Jew or a Gentile, I have already shown as well as I could how I think it
should be conducted.15. I still hold that there is a reference to Christ in the
passage which you select for refutation, where God says to Moses, "I will raise
up unto them from among their brethren a prophet like unto thee." [585] The
string of showy antitheses with which you try to ornament your dull discourse
does not at all affect my belief of this truth. You attempt to prove, by a
comparison of Christ and Moses, that they are unlike, and that therefore the
words, "I will raise up a prophet like unto thee," cannot be understood of
Christ. You specify a number of particulars in which you find a diversity: that
the one is man, and the other God; that one is a sinner, the other sinless; that
one is born of ordinary generation, the other, as we hold, of a virgin, and, as
you hold, not even of a virgin; the one incurs God's anger, and is put to death
on a mountain, the other suffers voluntarily, having throughout the approval of
His Father. But surely things may be said to be like, although they are not like
in every respect. Besides the resemblance between things of the same nature, as
between two men, or between parents and children, or between men in general, or
any species of animals, or in trees, between one olive and another, or one
laurel and another, there is often a resemblance in things of a different
nature, as between a wild and a tame olive, or between wheat and barley. These
things are to some extent allied. But there is the greatest possible distance
between the Son of God, by whom all things were made, and a beast or a stone.
And yet in the Gospel we read, "Behold the Lamb of God," [586] and in the
apostle, "That rock was Christ." [587] This could not be said except on the
supposition of some resemblance. What wonder, then, if Christ condescended to
become like Moses, when He was made like the lamb which God by Moses commanded
His people to eat as a type of Christ, enjoining that its blood should be used
as a means of protection, and that it should be called the Passover, which every
one must admit to be fulfilled in Christ? The Scripture, I acknowledge, shows
points of difference; and the Scripture also, as I call on you to acknowledge,
shows points of resemblance. There are points of both kinds, and one can be
proved as well as the other. Christ is unlike man, for He is God; and it is
written of Him that He is "over all, God blessed for ever." [588] Christ is also
like man, for He is man; and it is likewise written of Him, that He is the
"Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." [589] Christ is unlike a
sinner, for He is ever holy; and He is like a sinner, for "God sent His Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh."
[590] Christ is unlike a man born in ordinary generation, for He was born of a
virgin; and yet He is like, for He too was born of a woman, to whom it was said,
"That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
[591] Christ is unlike a man, who dies on account of his own sin, for He died
without sin, and of His own free-will; and again, He is like, for He too died a
real death of the body. 16. You ought not to say, in disparagement of Moses,
that he was a sinner, and that he was put to death on a mountain because his God
was angry with him. For Moses could glory in the Lord as his Saviour, who is
also the Saviour of him who says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners, of whom I am chief." [592] Moses, indeed, is accused by the voice of
God, because his faith showed signs of weakness when he was commanded to draw
water out of the rock. [593] In this he may have sinned as Peter did, when from
the weakness of his faith he became afraid in the midst of the waves. [594] But
we cannot think from this, that he who, as the Gospel tells us, was counted
worthy to be present with the Lord along with holy Elias on the mount of
transfiguration, was separated from the eternal fellowship of the saints. The
sacred history shows in what favor he was with God even after his sin. But since
you may ask why God speaks of this sin as deserving the punishment of death, and
as I have promised to point out prophecies of Christ in those passages which you
select for criticism, I will try, with the Lord's help, to show that what you
object to in the death of Moses is, when rightly understood, prophetical of
Christ.17. We often find in the symbolical passages of Scripture, that the same
person appears in different characters on different occasions. So, on this
occasion, Moses represents and prefigures the Jewish people as placed under the
law. As, then, Moses, when he struck the rock with his rod, doubted the power of
God, so the people who were under the law given by Moses, when they nailed
Christ to the cross, did not believe Him to be the power of God. And as water
flowed from the smitten rock for those that were athirst, so life comes to
believers from the stroke of the Lord's passion. The testimony of the apostle is
clear and decisive on this point, when he says, "This rock was Christ." [595] In
the command of God, that the death of the flesh of Moses should take place on
the mountain, we see the divine appointment that the carnal doubt of the
divinity of Christ should die on Christ's exaltation. As the rock is Christ, so
is the mountain. The rock is the fortitude of His humiliation; the mountain the
height of His exaltation. For as the apostle says, "This rock was Christ," so
Christ Himself says, "A city set upon an hill cannot be hid," [596] showing that
He is the hill, and believers the city built upon the glory of His name. The
carnal mind lives when, like the smitten rock, the humiliation of Christ on the
cross is despised. For Christ crucified is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to
the Greeks foolishness. And the carnal mind dies when, like the mountain-top,
Christ is seen in His exaltation. "For to them that are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God." [597] Moses
therefore ascended the mount, that in the death of the flesh he might be
received by the living spirit. If Faustus had ascended, he would not have
uttered carnal objections from a dead mind. It was the carnal mind that made
Peter dread the smiting of the rock, when, on the occasion of the Lord's
foretelling His passion, he said, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; spare Thyself."
And this sin too was severely rebuked, when the Lord replied, "Get thee behind
me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things which
be of God, but those which be of men." [598] And where did this carnal distrust
die but in the glorification of Christ, as on a mountain height? If it was alive
when Peter timidly denied Christ, it was dead when he fearlessly preached Him.
It was alive in Saul, when, in his aversion to the offense of the cross, he made
havoc of the Christian faith, and where but on this mountain had it died, when
Paul was able to say, "I live no longer, but Christ liveth in me?" [599]18. What
other reason has your heretical folly to give for thinking that there is no
prophecy of Christ in the words, "I will raise up unto them a Prophet from among
their brethren, like unto thee?" Your showing Christ to be unlike Moses is no
reason; for we can show that in other respects He is like. How can you object to
Christ's being called a prophet, since He condescended to be a man, and actually
foretold many future events? What is a prophet, but one who predicts events
beyond human foresight? So Christ says of Himself: "A prophet is not without
honor, save in his own country." [600] But, turning from you, since you have
already acknowledged that your profession of Christianity obliges you to believe
the Gospel, I address myself to the Jew, who enjoys the poor privilege of
liberty from the yoke of Christ, and who therefore thinks it allowable to say:
Your Christ spoke falsely; Moses wrote nothing of him.19. Let the Jews say what
prophet is meant in this promise of God to Moses: "I will raise up unto them a
Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee." Many prophets appeared after
Moses; but one in particular is here pointed out. The Jews will perhaps
naturally think of the successor of Moses, who led into the promised land the
people that Moses had brought out of Egypt. Having this successor of Moses in
his mind, he may perhaps laugh at me for asking to what prophet the words of the
promise refer, since it is recorded who followed Moses in ruling and leading the
people. When he has laughed at my ignorance, as Faustus supposes him to do, I
will still continue my inquiries, and will desire my laughing opponent to give
me a serious answer to the question why Moses changed the name of this
successor, who was preferred to himself as the leader of the people into the
promised land, to show that the law given by Moses not to save, but to convince
the sinner, cannot lead us into heaven, but only the grace and truth which are
by Jesus Christ. This successor was called Osea, and Moses gave him the name of
Jesus. Why then did he give him this name when he sent him from the valley of
Pharan into the land into which he was to lead the people? [601] The true Jesus
says, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you
unto myself." [602] I will ask the Jew if the prophet does not show the
prophetical meaning of these things when he says, "God shall come from Africa,
and the Holy One from Pharan." Does this not mean that the holy God would come
with the name of him who came from Africa by Pharan, that is, with the name of
Jesus? Then, again, it is the Word of God Himself who speaks when He promises to
provide this successor to Moses, speaking of him as an angel, -- a name commonly
given in Scripture to those carrying any message. The words are: "Behold I send
my angel before thy face, to preserve thee in the way, and to bring thee into
the land which I have sworn to give thee. Take heed unto him, and obey, and
beware of unbelief in him; for he will not take anything from thee wrongfully,
for my name is in him." [603] Consider these words. Let the Jew, not to speak of
the Manichæan, say what other angel he can find in Scripture to whom these words
apply, but this leader who was to bring the people into the land of promise.
Then let him inquire who it was that succeeded Moses, and brought in the people.
He will find that it was Jesus, and that this was not his name at first, but
after his name was changed. It follows that He who said, "My name is in him," is
the true Jesus, the leader who brings His people into the inheritance of eternal
life, according to the New Testament, of which the Old was a figure. No event or
action could have a more distinctly prophetical character than this, where the
very name is a prediction. 20. It follows that this Jew, if he wishes to be a
Jew inwardly, in the spirit, and not in the letter, if he wishes to be thought a
true Israelite, in whom is no guile, will recognize in this dead Jesus, who led
the people into the land of mortality, a figure of the true living Jesus, whom
he may follow into the land of life. In this way, he will no longer in a hostile
spirit resist so plain a prophecy, but, influenced by the allusion to the Jesus
of the Old Testament, he will be prepared to listen meekly to Him whose name he
bore, and who leads to the true land of promise; for He says, "Blessed are the
meek, for they shall inherit the land." [604] The Gentile also, if his heart is
not too stony, if he is one of those stones from which God raises up children
unto Abraham, must allow it to be wonderful that in the ancient books of the
people of whom Jesus was born, so plain a prophecy, including His very name, is
found recorded; and must remark at the same time, that it is not any man of the
name of Jesus who is prophesied of, but a divine person, because God said that
His name was in that man who was appointed to rule the people, and to lead them
into the kingdom, and who by a change of name was called Jesus. In His being
sent with this new name, He brings a great and divine message, and is therefore
called an Angel, which, as every tyro in Greek knows, means messenger. No
Gentile, therefore, if he were not perverse and obstinate, would despise these
books merely because he is not subject to the law of the Hebrews, to whom the
books belong; but would think highly of the books, no matter whose they were, on
finding in them prophecies of such ancient date, and of what he sees now taking
place. Instead of despising Christ Jesus because He is foretold in the Hebrew
Scriptures, he would conclude that one thought worthy of being the subject of
prophetic description, whoever the writers might be, for so many ages before His
coming into the world, -- sometimes in plain announcements, sometimes in figure
by symbolic actions and utterances, -- must claim to be regarded with profound
admiration and reverence, and to be followed with implicit reliance. Thus the
facts of Christian history would prove the truth of the prophecy, and the
prophecy would prove the claims of Christ. Call this fancy, if it is not
actually the case that men all over the world have been led, and are now led, to
believe in Christ by reading these books.21. In view of the multitudes from all
nations who have become zealous believers in these books, it is laughably absurd
to tell us that it is impossible to persuade a Gentile to learn the Christian
faith from Jewish books. Indeed, it is a great confirmation of our faith that
such important testimony is borne by enemies. The believing Gentiles cannot
suppose these testimonies to Christ to be recent forgeries; for they find them
in books held sacred for so many ages by those who crucified Christ, and still
regarded with the highest veneration by those who every day blaspheme Christ. If
the prophecies of Christ were the production of the preachers of Christ, we
might suspect their genuineness. But now the preacher expounds the text of the
blasphemer. In this way the Most High God orders the blindness of the ungodly
for the profit of the saint, in His righteous government bringing good out of
evil, that those who by their own choice live wickedly may be, in His just
judgment, made the instruments of His will. So, lest those that were to preach
Christ to the world should be thought to have forged the prophecies which speak
of Christ as to be born, to work miracles, to suffer unjustly, to die, to rise
again, to ascend to heaven, to publish the gospel of eternal life among all
nations, the unbelief of the Jews has been made of signal benefit to us; so that
those who do not receive in their heart for their own good these truths, carry,
in their hands for our benefit the writings in which these truths are contained.
And the unbelief of the Jews increases rather than lessens the authority of the
books, for this blindness is itself foretold. They testify to the truth by their
not understanding it. By not understanding the books which predict that they
would not understand, they prove these books to be true.22. In the passage,
"Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," [605] Faustus
is deceived by the ambiguity of the words. The words may be differently
interpreted; but that they cannot be understood of Christ is not said by
Faustus, nor can be said by anyone who does not deny that Christ is life, or
that He was seen by the Jews hanging on the cross, or that they did not believe
Him. Since Christ Himself says, "I am the life," [606] and since there is no
doubt that He was seen hanging by the unbelieving Jews, I see no reason for
doubting that this was written of Christ; for, as Christ says, Moses wrote of
Him. Since we have already refuted Faustus' arguments by which he tries to show
that the words, "I will raise up from among their brethren a prophet like unto
thee," do not apply to Christ, because Christ is not like Moses, we need not
insist on this other prophecy. Since, in the one case, his argument is that
Christ is unlike Moses, so here he ought to argue that Christ is not the life,
or that He was not seen hanging by the unbelieving Jews. But as he has not said
this, and as no one will now venture to say so, there should be no difficulty in
accepting this too as a prophecy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, uttered
by His servant. These words, says Faustus, occur in a chapter of curses. But why
should it be the less a prophecy because it occurs in the midst of prophecies?
Or why should it not be a prophecy of Christ, although the context does not seem
to refer to Christ? Indeed, among all the curses which the Jews brought on
themselves by their sinful pride, nothing could be worse than this, that they
should see their Life -- that is, the Son of God -- hanging, and should not
believe their Life. For the curses of prophecy are not hostile imprecations, but
announcements of coming judgment. Hostile imprecations are forbidden, for it is
said, "Bless, and curse not." [607] But prophetic announcements are often found
in the writings of the saints, as when the Apostle Paul says: "Alexander the
coppersmith has done me much evil; the Lord shall reward him according to his
works." [608] So it might be thought that the apostle was prompted by angry
feeling to utter this imprecation: "I would that they were even made eunuchs
that trouble you." [609] But if we remember who the writer is, we may see in
this ambiguous expression an ingenious style of benediction. For there are
eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
[610] If Faustus had a pious appetite for Christian food, he would have found a
similar ambiguity in the words of Moses. By the Jews the declaration, "Thou
shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," may have been
understood to mean that they would see their life to be in danger from the
threats and plots of their enemies, and would not expect to live. But the child
of the Gospel, who has heard Christ say, "He wrote of me," distinguishes in the
ambiguity of the prophecy between what is thrown to swine and what is addressed
to man. To his mind the thought immediately suggests itself of Christ hanging as
the life of man, and of the Jews not believing in Him for this very reason, that
they saw Him hanging. As to the objection that these words, "Thou shalt see thy
life hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," are the only words referring to
Christ in a passage containing maledictions not applicable to Christ, some might
grant that this is true. For this prophecy might very well occur among the
curses pronounced by the prophet upon the ungodly people, for these curses are
of different kinds. But I, and those who with me consider more closely the
saying of the Lord in His Gospel, which is not, He wrote also of me, as
admitting that Moses wrote other things not referring to Christ, but, "He wrote
of me," as teaching that in searching the Scriptures we should view them as
intended solely to illustrate the grace of Christ, see a reference to Christ in
the rest of the passage also. But it would take too much time to explain this
here. 23. So far from these words of Faustus' quotation being proved not to
refer to Christ by their occurring among the other curses, these curses cannot
be rightly understood except as prophecies of the glory of Christ, in which lies
the happiness of man. And what is true of these curses is still more true of
this quotation. If it could be said of Moses that his words have a different
meaning from what was in his mind, I would rather suppose him to have prophesied
without knowing it, than allow that the words, "Thou shalt see thy life hanging,
and shalt not believe thy life," are not applicable to Christ. So the words of
Caiaphas had a different meaning from what he intended, when, in his hostility
to Christ, he said that it was expedient that one man should die for the people,
and that the whole nation should not perish, where the Evangelist added that he
said this not of himself, but, since he was high priest, he prophesied. [611]
But Moses was not Caiaphas; and therefore when Moses said to the Hebrew people,
"Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," he not only
spoke of Christ, as he certainly did, even though he spoke without knowing the
meaning of what he said, but he knew that he spoke of Christ. For he was a most
faithful steward of the prophetic mystery, that is, of the priestly unction
which gives the knowledge of the name of Christ; and in this mystery even
Caiaphas, wicked as he was, was able to prophesy without knowing it. The
prophetic unction enabled him to prophesy, though his wicked life prevented him
from knowing it. Who then can say that there are no prophecies of Christ in
Moses, with whom began that unction to which we owe the knowledge of Christ's
name, and by which even Caiaphas, the persecutor of Christ, prophesied of Christ
without knowing it?24. We have already said as much as appeared desirable of the
curse pronounced on every one that hangs on a tree. Enough has been said to show
that the command to kill any prophet or prince who tried to turn away the
children of Israel from their God, or to break any commandment, is not directed
against Christ. The more we consider the words and actions of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the more clearly will this appear; for Christ never tried to turn away
any of the Israelites from their God. The God whom Moses taught the people to
love and serve, is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, whom the Lord
Jesus Christ speaks of by this name, using the name in refutation of the
Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead. He says, "Of the
resurrection of the dead, have ye not read what God said from the bush to Moses,
I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the
God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him." [612] In the same
words with which Christ answered the Sadducees we may answer the Manichæans, for
they too deny the resurrection, though in a different way. Again, when Christ
said, in praise of the centurion's faith, "Verily I say unto you, I have not
found so great faith, no, not in Israel," He added, "And I say unto you, that
many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the
kingdom shall go into outer darkness." [613] If, then, as Faustus must admit,
the God of whom Moses spoke was the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, of
whom Christ also spoke, as these passages prove, it follows that Christ did not
try to turn away the people from their God. On the contrary, He warned them that
they would go into outer darkness, because He saw that they were turned away
from their God, in whose kingdom He says the Gentiles called from the whole
world will sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; implying that they would
believe in the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. So the apostle also
says: "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,
preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all nations
be blessed." [614] It is implied that those who are blessed in the seed of
Abraham shall imitate the faith of Abraham. Christ, then, did not try to turn
away the Israelites from their God, but rather charged them with being turned
away. The idea that Christ broke one of the commandments given by Moses is not a
new one, for the Jews thought so; but it is a mistake, for the Jews were in the
wrong. Let Faustus mention the commandment which he supposes the Lord to have
broken, and we will point out his mistake, as we have done already, when it was
required. Meanwhile it is enough to say, that if the Lord had broken any
commandment, He could not have found fault with the Jews for doing so. For when
the Jews blamed His disciples for eating with unwashen hands, in which they
transgressed not a commandment of God, but the traditions of the elders, Christ
said, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God, that ye may observe
your traditions?" He then quotes a commandment of God, which we know to have
been given by Moses. "For God said," He adds, "Honor thy father and mother, and
he that curseth father or mother shall die the death. But ye say, Whoever shall
say to his father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be
profited by me, is not obliged to honor his father. So ye make the word of God
of none effect by your traditions." [615] From this several things maybe
learned: that Christ did not turn away the Jews from their God; that He not only
did not Himself break God's commandments, but found fault with those who did so;
and that it was God Himself who gave these commandments by Moses. 25. In
fulfillment of our promise that we would prove the reference to Christ in those
passages selected by Faustus from the writings of Moses for adverse criticism,
since we cannot here point out the reference to Christ which we believe to exist
in all the writings of Moses, it becomes our duty to show that this commandment
of Moses, that every prophet or prince should be killed who tried to turn away
the people from their God, or to break any commandment, refers to the
preservation of the faith which is taught in the Church of Christ. Moses no
doubt knew in the spirit of prophecy, and from what he himself heard from God,
that many heretics would arise to teach errors of all kinds against the doctrine
of Christ, and to preach another Christ than the true Christ. For the true
Christ is He that was foretold in the prophecies uttered by Moses himself, and
by the other holy men of that nation. Moses accordingly commanded that whoever
tried to teach another Christ should be put to death. In obedience to this
command, the voice of the Catholic Church, as with the spiritual two-edged sword
of both Testaments, puts to death all who try to turn us away from our God, or
to break any of the commandments. And chief among these is Manichæus himself;
for the truth of the law and the prophets convinces him of error as trying to
turn us away from our God, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, whom Christ
acknowledges, and as trying to break the commandments of the law, which, even
when they are only figurative, we regard as prophetic of Christ.26. Faustus uses
an argument which is either very deceitful or very stupid. And as Faustus is not
stupid, it is probable that he used the argument intentionally, with the design
of misleading the careless reader. He says: If these things are not written of
Christ, and if you cannot show any others, it follows that there are none at
all. The proposition is true; but it remains to be proved, both that these
things are not written of Christ, and that no other can be shown. Faustus has
not proved this; for we have shown both how these things are to be understood of
Christ, and that there are many other things which have no meaning but as
applied to Christ. So it does not follow, as Faustus says, that nothing was
written by Moses of Christ. Let us repeat Faustus' argument: If these things are
not written of Christ, and if you cannot show any others, it follows that there
are none at all. Perfectly so. But as both these things and many others have
been shown to be written of Christ, or with reference to Christ, the true
conclusion is that Faustus' argument is worthless. In the passages quoted by
Faustus, he has tried, though without success, to show that they were not
written of Christ. But in order to draw the conclusion that there are none at
all, he should first have proved that no others can be shown. Instead of this,
he takes for granted that the readers of his book will be blind, or the hearers
deaf, so that the omission will be overlooked, and runs on thus: If there are
none, Christ could not have asserted that there were any. And if Christ did not
make this assertion, it follows that this verse is spurious. Here is a man who
thinks so much of what he says himself, that he does not consider the
possibility of another person saying the opposite. Where is your wit? Is this
all you could say for a bad cause? But if the badness of the cause made you
utter folly, the bad cause was your own choice. To prove your antecedent false,
we have only to show some other things written of Christ. If there are some, it
will not be true that there are none. And if there are some, Christ may have
asserted that there were. And if Christ may have asserted this, it follows that
this verse of the Gospel is not spurious. Coming back, then, to Faustus'
proposition, If you cannot show any other, it follows that there are none at
all, it requires to be proved that we cannot show any other. We need only refer
to what we showed before, as sufficient to prove the truth of the text in the
Gospel, in which Christ says, "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me;
for he wrote of me." And even though from dullness of mind we could find nothing
written of Christ by Moses, still, so strong is the evidence in support of the
authority of the Gospel, that it would be incumbent on us to believe that not
only some things, but everything written by Moses, refers to Christ; for He says
not, He wrote also of me, but, He wrote of me. The truth then is this, that even
though there were doubts, which God forbid, of the genuineness of this verse,
the doubt would be removed by the number of testimonies to Christ which we find
in Moses; while, on the other hand, even if we could find none, we should still
be bound to believe that these are to be found, because no doubts can be
admitted regarding any verse in the Gospel.27. As to your argument that the
doctrine of Moses was unlike that of Christ, and that therefore it was
improbable that if they believed Moses, they would believe Christ too; and that
it would rather follow that their belief in one would imply of necessity
opposition to the other, -- you could not have said this if you had turned your
mind's eye for a moment to see men all the world over, when they are not blinded
by a contentious spirit, learned and unlearned, Greek and barbarian, wise and
unwise, to whom the apostle called himself a debtor, [616] believing in both
Christ and Moses. If it was improbable that the Jews would believe both Christ
and Moses, it is still more improbable that all the world would do so. But as we
see all nations believing both, and in a common and well-grounded faith holding
the agreement of the prophecy of the one with the gospel of the other, it was no
impossible thing to which this one nation was called, when Christ said to them,
"If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me." Rather we should be amazed at
the guilty obstinacy of the Jews, who refused to do what we see the whole world
has done. 28. Regarding the Sabbath and circumcision, and the distinction in
foods, in which you say the teaching of Moses differs from what Christians are
taught by Christ, we have already shown that, as the apostle says, "all those
things were our examples." [617] The difference is not in the doctrine, but in
the time. There was a time when it was proper that these things should be
figuratively predicted; and there is now a different time when it is proper that
they should be openly declared and fully accomplished. It is not surprising that
the Jews, who understood the Sabbath in a carnal sense, should oppose Christ,
who began to open up its spiritual meaning. Reply, if you can, to the apostle,
who declares that the rest of the Sabbath was a shadow of something future.
[618] If the Jews opposed Christ because they did not understand what the true
Sabbath is, there is no reason why you should oppose Him, or refuse to learn
what true innocence is. For on that occasion when Jesus appears especially to
set aside the Sabbath, when His disciples were hungry, and pulled the ears of
corn through which they were passing, and ate them, Jesus, in replying to the
Jews, declared His disciples to be innocent. "If you knew," He said "what this
meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the
innocent." [619] They should rather have pitied the wants of the disciples, for
hunger forced them to do what they did. But pulling ears of corn, which is
innocence in the teaching of Christ, is murder in the teaching of Manichæus. Or
was it an act of charity in the apostles to pull the ears of corn, that they
might in eating set free the members of God, as in your foolish notions? Then it
must be cruelty in you not to do the same. Faustus' reason for setting aside the
Sabbath is because he knows that God's power is exercised without cessation, and
without weariness. It is for those to say this, who believe that all times are
the production of an eternal act of God's will. But you will find it difficult
to reconcile this with your doctrine, that the rebellion of the race of darkness
broke your god's rest, which was also disturbed by a sudden attack of the enemy;
or perhaps God never had rest, as he foresaw this from eternity, and could not
feel at ease in the prospect of so dire a conflict, with such loss and disaster
to his members.29. Unless Christ had considered this Sabbath -- which in your
want of knowledge and of piety you laugh at -- one of the prophecies written of
Himself, He would not have borne such a testimony to it as He did. For when, as
you say in praise of Christ, He suffered voluntarily, and so could choose His
own time for suffering and for resurrection, He brought it about that His body
rested from all its works on Sabbath in the tomb, and that His resurrection on
the third day, which we call the Lord's day, the day after the Sabbath, and
therefore the eighth, proved the circumcision of the eighth day to be also
prophetical of Him. For what does circumcision mean, but the eradication of the
mortality which comes from our carnal generation? So the apostle says: "Putting
off from Himself His flesh, He made a show of principalities and powers,
triumphing over them in Himself." [620] The flesh here said to be put off is
that mortality of flesh on account of which the body is properly called flesh.
The flesh is the mortality, for in the immortality of the resurrection there
will be no flesh; as it is written, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the
kingdom of God." You are accustomed to argue from these words against our faith
in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which has already taken place
in the Lord Himself. You keep out of view the following words, in which the
apostle explains his meaning. To show what he here means by flesh, he adds,
"Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption." For this body, which from its
mortality is properly called flesh, is changed in the resurrection, so as to be
no longer corruptible and mortal. This is the apostle's statement, and not a
supposition of ours, as his next words prove. "Lo" he says, "I show you a
mystery: we shall all rise again, but we shall not all be changed. In a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the last trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."
[621] To put on immortality, the body puts off mortality. This is the mystery of
circumcision, which by the law took place on the eighth day; and on the eighth
day, the Lord's day, the day after the Sabbath, was fulfilled in its true
meaning by the Lord. Hence it is said, "Putting off His flesh, He made a show of
principalities and powers." For by means of this mortality the hostile powers of
hell ruled over us. Christ is said to have made a show or example of these,
because in Himself, our Head, He gave an example which will be fully realized in
the liberation of His whole body, the Church, from the power of the devil at the
last resurrection. This is our faith. And according to the prophetic declaration
quoted by Paul, "The just shall live by faith." This is our justification. [622]
Even Pagans believe that Christ died. But only Christians believe that Christ
rose again. "If thou confess with thy mouth," says the apostle, "that Jesus is
the Lord, and believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved." [623] Again, because we are justified by faith in Christ's
resurrection, the apostle says, "He died for our offenses, and rose again for
our justification." [624] And because this resurrection by faith in which we are
justified was prefigured by the circumcision of the eighth day, the apostle says
of Abraham, with whom the observance began, "He received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith." [625] Circumcision, then,
is one of the prophecies of Christ, written by Moses, of whom Christ said, "He
wrote of me." In the words of the Lord, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is
made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves," [626] it is
not the circumcision of the proselyte which is meant, but his imitation of the
conduct of the scribes and Pharisees, which the Lord forbids His disciples to
imitate, when He says: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat: what they
say unto you, do; but do not after their works; for they say, and do not." [627]
These words of the Lord teach us both the honor due to the teaching of Moses, in
whose seat even bad men were obliged to teach good things, and the reason of the
proselyte becoming a child of hell, which was not that he heard from the
Pharisees the words of the law, but that he copied their example. Such a
circumcised proselyte might have been addressed in the words of Paul:
"Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law." [628] His imitation of
the Pharisees in not keeping the law made him a child of hell. And he was
twofold more than they, probably because of his neglecting to fulfill what he
voluntarily undertook, when, not being born a Jew, he chose to become a Jew. 30.
Your scoff is very inappropriate, when you say that Moses discusses like a
glutton what should be eaten, and commands some things to be freely used as
clean, and other things as unclean to be not even touched. A glutton makes no
distinction, except in choosing the sweetest food. Perhaps you wish to commend
to the admiration of the uninitiated the innocence of your abstemious habits, by
appearing not to know, or to have forgotten, that swine's flesh tastes better
than mutton. But as this too was written by Moses of Christ in figurative
prophecy, in which the flesh of animals signifies those who are to be united to
the body of Christ, which is the Church, or who are to be cast out, you are
typified by the unclean animals; for your disagreement with the Catholic faith
shows that you do not ruminate on the word of wisdom, and that you do not divide
the hoof, in the sense of making a correct distinction between the Old Testament
and the New. But you show still more audacity in adopting the erroneous opinions
of your Adimantus.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 goes in and by what
comes out. But as Christ, comparing Himself with John, who came neither eating
nor drinking, says that He came eating and drinking, I should like to know what
He ate and drank. When exposing the perversity which found fault with both, He
says: "John came neither eating nor drinking; and ye say, He hath a devil. The
Son of man cometh eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a glutton and a
wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." [629] We know what John ate and
drank. For it is not said that he drank nothing, but that he drank no wine or
strong drink; so he must have drunk water. He did not live without food, but his
food was locusts and wild honey. [630] When Christ says that John did not eat or
drink, He means that he did not use the food which the Jews used. And because
the Lord used this food, He is spoken of, in contrast with John, as eating and
drinking. Will it be said that it was bread and vegetables which the Lord ate,
and which John did not eat? It would be strange if one was said not to eat,
because he used locusts and honey, while the other is said to eat simply because
he used bread and vegetables. But whatever may be thought of the eating,
certainly no one could be called a wine-bibber unless he used wine. Why then do
you call wine unclean? It is not in order to subdue the body by abstinence that
you prohibit these things, but because they are unclean, for you say that they
are the poisonous filth of the race of darkness; whereas the apostle says, "To
the pure all things are pure." [631] Christ, according to this doctrine, taught
that all food was alike, but forbade His disciples to use what the Manichæans
call unclean. Where do you find this prohibition? You are not afraid to deceive
men by falsehood; but in God's righteous providence, you are so blinded that you
provide us with the means of refuting you. For I cannot resist quoting for
examination the whole of that passage of the Gospel which Faustus uses against
Moses; that we may see from it the falsehood of what was said first by
Adimantus, and here by Faustus, that the Lord Jesus forbade the use of animal
food to His disciples, and allowed it to the laity. After Christ's reply to the
accusation that His disciples ate with unwashen hands, we read in the Gospel as
follows: "And He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand.
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but that which cometh out of
the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came His disciples, and said unto Him,
Knowest Thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?"
Here, when addressed by His disciples, He ought certainly, according to the
Manichæans, to have given them special instructions to abstain from animal food,
and to show that His words, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,
but that which goeth out of the mouth," applied to the multitude only. Let us
hear, then, what, according to the evangelist, the Lord replied, not to the
multitude, but to His disciples: "But He answered and said, Every plant which my
heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be
blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall
into the ditch." The reason of this was, that in their desire to observe their
own traditions, they did not understand the commandments of God. As yet the
disciples had not asked the Master how they were to understand what He had said
to the multitude. But now they do so; for the evangelist adds: "Then answered
Peter and said unto Him, Declare unto us this parable." This shows that Peter
thought that when the Lord said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a
man, but that which goeth out of the mouth," He did not speak plainly and
literally, but, as usual, wished to convey some instruction under the guise of a
parable. When His disciples, then, put this question in private, does He tell
them, as the Manichæans say, that all animal food is unclean, and that they must
never touch it? Instead of this, He rebukes them for not understanding His plain
language, and for thinking it a parable when it was not. We read: "And Jesus
said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that
whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into
the drought? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the
heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are
the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a
man." [632] 32. Here we have a complete exposure of the falsehood of the
Manichæans: for it is plain that the Lord did not in this matter teach one thing
to the multitude, and another in private to His disciples. Here is abundant
evidence that the error and deceit are in the Manichæans, and not in Moses, nor
in Christ, nor in the doctrine taught figuratively in one Testament and plainly
in the other, -- prophesied in one, and fulfilled in the other. How can the
Manichæans say that the Catholics regard none of the things that Moses wrote,
when in fact they observe them all, not now in the figures, but in what the
figures were intended to foretell? No one would say that one who reads the
Scripture subsequently to its being written does not observe it because he does
not form the letters which he reads. The letters are the figures of the sounds
which he utters; and though he does not form the letters, he cannot read without
examining them. The reason why the Jews did not believe in Christ, was because
they did not observe even the plain literal precepts of Moses. So Christ says to
them: "Ye pay tithe of mint and cummin, and omit the weightier matters of the
law, mercy and judgment. Ye strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. These ought
ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." [633] So also He told them
that by their traditions they made of none effect the commandment of God to give
honor to parents. On account of this pride and perversity in neglecting what
they understood, they were justly blinded, so that they could not understand the
other things.33. You see, my argument is not that if you are a Christian you
must believe Christ when He says that Moses wrote of Him, and that if you do not
believe this you are no Christian. The account you give of yourself in asking to
be dealt with as a Jew or a Gentile is your own affair. My endeavor is to leave
no avenue of error open to you. I have shut you out, too, from that precipice to
which you rush as a last resort, when you say that these are spurious passages
in the Gospel; so that, freed from the pernicious influence of this opinion, you
may be reduced to the necessity of believing in Christ. You say you wish to be
taught like the Christian Thomas, whom Christ did not spurn from Him because he
doubted of Him, but, in order to heal the wounds of his mind, showed him the
marks of the wounds in His own body. These are your own words. It is well that
you desire to be taught as Thomas was. I feared you would make out this passage
too to be spurious. Believe, then, the marks of Christ's wounds. For if the
marks were real, the wounds must have been real. And the wounds could not have
been real, unless His body had been capable of real wounds; which upsets at once
the whole error of the Manichæans. If you say that the marks were unreal which
Christ showed to His doubting disciple, it follows that He must be a deceitful
teacher, and that you wish to be deceived in being taught by Him. But as no one
wishes to be deceived, while many wish to deceive, it is probable that you would
rather imitate the teaching which you ascribe to Christ than the learning you
ascribe to Thomas. If, then, you believe that Christ deceived a doubting
inquirer by false marks of wounds, you must yourself be regarded, not as a safe
teacher, but as a dangerous impostor. On the other hand, if Thomas touched the
real marks of Christ's wounds, you must confess that Christ had a real body. So,
if you believe as Thomas did, you are no more a Manichæan. If you do not believe
even with Thomas, you must be left to your infidelity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 158: FAUSTUS REJECTS CHRIST'S DECLARATION THAT HE CAME NOT TO DESTROY THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS BUT TO FULFILL THEM
========================================================================

Faustus rejects Christ's declaration that He came not to destroy the law and the
prophets but to fulfill them, on the ground that it is found only in Matthew,
who was not present when the words purport to have been spoken. Augustin rebukes
the folly of refusing to believe Matthew and yet believing Manichæus, and shows
what the passage of scripture really means. 1. Faustus said: You ask why we do
not receive the law and the prophets, when Christ said that he came not to
destroy them, but to fulfill them. Where do we learn that Jesus said this? From
Matthew, who declares that he said it on the mount. In whose presence was it
said? In the presence of Peter, Andrew, James, and John -- only these four; for
the rest, including Matthew himself, were not yet chosen. Is it not the case
that one of these four -- John, namely -- wrote a Gospel? It is. Does he mention
this saying of Jesus? No. How, then, does it happen that what is not recorded by
John, who was on the mount, is recorded by Matthew, who became a follower of
Christ long after He came down from the mount? In the first place, then, we must
doubt whether Jesus ever said these words, since the proper witness is silent on
the matter, and we have only the authority of a less trustworthy witness. But,
besides this, we shall find that it is not Matthew that has imposed upon us, but
some one else under his name, as is evident from the indirect style of the
narrative. Thus we read: "As Jesus passed by, He saw a man, named Matthew,
sitting at the receipt of custom, and called him; and he immediately rose up,
and followed Him." [634] No one writing of himself would say, He saw a man, and
called him; and he followed Him; but, He saw me, and called me, and I followed
Him. Evidently this was written not by Matthew himself, but by some one else
under his name. Since, then, the passage already quoted would not be true even
if it had been written by Matthew, since he was not present when Jesus spoke on
the mount; much more is its falsehood evident from the fact that the writer was
not Matthew himself, but some one borrowing the names both of Jesus and of
Matthew. 2. The passage itself, in which Christ tells the Jews not to think that
He came to destroy the law, is rather designed to show that He did destroy it.
For, had He not done something of the kind, the Jews would not have suspected
Him. His words are: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law." Suppose the
Jews had replied, What actions of thine might lead us to suspect this? Is it
because thou exposest circumcision, breakest the Sabbath, discardest sacrifices,
makest no distinction in foods? this would be the natural answer to the words,
Think not. The Jews had the best possible reason for thinking that Jesus
destroyed the law. If this was not to destroy the law, what is? But, indeed, the
law and the prophets consider themselves already so faultlessly perfect, that
they have no desire to be fulfilled. Their author and father condemns adding to
them as much as taking away anything from them; as we read in Deuteronomy:
"These precepts which I deliver unto thee this day, O Israel, thou shalt observe
to do; thou shalt not turn aside from them to the right hand or to the left;
thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it, that thy God may bless thee."
[635] Whether, therefore, Jesus turned aside to the right by adding to the law
and the prophets in order to fulfill them, or to the left in taking away from
them to destroy them, either way he offended the author of the law. So this
verse must either have some other meaning, or be spurious. 3. Augustin replied:
What amazing folly, to disbelieve what Matthew records of Christ, while you
believe Manichæus! If Matthew is not to be believed because he was not present
when Christ said, "I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to
fulfill," was Manichæus present, was he even born, when Christ appeared among
men? According, then, to your rule, you should not believe anything that
Manichæus says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to believe what Manichæus
says of Christ; not because he was not present as a witness of Christ's words
and actions, but because he contradicts Christ's disciples, and the Gospel which
rests on their authority. The apostle, speaking in the Holy Spirit, tells us
that such teachers would arise. With reference to such, he says to believers:
"If any man preaches to you another gospel than that ye have received, let him
be accursed." [636] If no one can say what is true of Christ unless he has
himself seen and heard Him, no one now can be trusted. But if believers can now
say what is true of Christ because the truth has been handed down in word or
writing by those who saw and heard, why might not Matthew have heard the truth
from his fellow-disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as
from the writings of John both we who are born so long after and those who shall
be born after us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels of
Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the Gospel of
Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides, the Lord Himself
might have told Matthew what those called before him had already been witnesses
of. Your idea is, that John should have recorded this saying of the Lord, as he
was present on the occasion. As if it might not happen that, since it was
impossible to write all that be heard from the Lord, he set himself to write
some, omitting this among others. Does he not say at the close of his Gospel:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the
books that should be written"? [637] This proves that he omitted many things
intentionally. But if you choose John as an authority regarding the law and the
prophets, I ask you only to believe his testimony to them. It is John who writes
that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ. [638] It is in his Gospel we find the text
already treated of: "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me; for he
wrote of me." [639] Your evasions are met on every side. You ought to say
plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you
please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not
the gospel. 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. We find examples in passages quoted above
from Moses by Faustus himself, without any denial, or rather with the assertion,
that they were written by Moses, only not written of Christ. When Moses, then,
writes of himself, does he say, I said this, or I did that, and not rather,
Moses said, and Moses did? Or does he say, The Lord called me, The Lord said to
me, and not rather, The Lord called Moses, The Lord said to Moses, and so on? So
Matthew, too, speaks of himself in the third person. And John does the same; for
towards the end of his book he says: "Peter, turning, saw the disciple whom
Jesus loved, who also lay on His breast at supper, and who said to the Lord, Who
is it that shall betray Thee?" Does he say, Peter, turning, saw me? Or will you
argue from this that John did not write this Gospel? But he adds a little after:
"This is the disciple that testifies of Jesus, and has written these things; and
we know that his testimony is true." [640] Does he say, I am the disciple who
testify of Jesus, and who have written these things, and we know that my
testimony is true? Evidently this style is common in writers of narratives.
There are innumerable instances in which the Lord Himself uses it. "When the Son
of man," He says, "cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" [641] Not, When I
come, shall I find? Again, "The Son of man came eating and drinking;" [642] not,
I came. Again, "The hour shall come, and now is, when the dead shall hear the
voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live;" [643] not, My voice.
And so in many other places. This may suffice to satisfy inquirers and to refute
scoffers. 5. Every one can see the weakness of the argument that Christ could
not have said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets: I
came not to destroy, but to fulfill," unless He had done something to create a
suspicion of this kind. Of course, we grant that the unenlightened Jews may have
looked upon Christ as the destroyer of the law and the prophets; but their very
suspicion makes it certain that the true and truthful One, in saying that He
came not to destroy the law and the prophets, referred to no other law than that
of the Jews. This is proved by the words that follow: "Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven." This applied to the Pharisees, who
taught the law in word, while they broke it in deed. Christ says of the
Pharisees in another place, "What they say, that do; but do not after their
works: for they say, and do not." [644] So here also He adds, "For I say unto
you, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven;" [645] that is, Unless
ye shall both do and teach what they teach without doing, ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven. This law, therefore, which the Pharisees taught
without keeping it, Christ says He came not to destroy, but to fulfill; for this
was the law connected with the seat of Moses in which the Pharisees sat, who
because they said without doing, are to be heard, but not to be imitated. 6.
Faustus does not understand, or pretends not to understand, what it is to
fulfill the law. He supposes the expression to mean the addition of words to the
law, regarding which it is written that nothing is to be added to or taken away
from the Scriptures of God. From this Faustus argues that there can be no
fulfillment of what is spoken of as so perfect that nothing can be added to it
or taken from it. Faustus requires to be told that the law is fulfilled by
living as it enjoins. "Love is the fulfilling of the law," [646] as the apostle
says. The Lord has vouchsafed both to manifest and to impart this love, by
sending the Holy Spirit to His believing people. So it is said by the same
apostle: "The love of God is shed abroad in our heart by the Holy Ghost, which
is given unto us." [647] And the Lord Himself says: "By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." [648] The law, then,
is fulfilled both by the observance of its precepts and by the accomplishment of
its prophecies. For "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ." [649] The law itself, by being fulfilled, becomes grace and
truth. Grace is the fulfillment of love, and truth is the accomplishment of the
prophecies. And as both grace and truth are by Christ, it follows that He came
not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; not by supplying any defects in the
law, but by obedience to what is written in the law. Christ's own words declare
this. For He does not say, One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law till its defects are supplied, but "till all be fulfilled."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 159: THE RELATION OF CHRIST TO PROPHECY, CONTINUED. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." If these
are Christ's words, unless they have some other meaning, they are as much
against you as against me. Your Christianity as well as mine is based on the
belief that Christ came to destroy the law and the prophets. Your actions prove
this, even though in words you deny it. It is on this ground that you disregard
the precepts of the law and the prophets. It is on this ground that we both
acknowledge Jesus as the founder of the New Testament, in which is implied the
acknowledgment that the Old Testament is destroyed. How, then, can we believe
that Christ said these words without first confessing that hitherto we have been
wholly in error, and without showing our repentance by entering on a course of
obedience to the law and the prophets, and of careful observance of their
requirements, whatever they may be? This done, we may honestly believe that
Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As it is, you
accuse me of not believing what you do not believe yourself, and what therefore
is false. 2. But grant that we have been in the wrong hitherto. What is to be
done now? Shall we come under the law, since Christ has not destroyed, but
fulfilled it? Shall we by circumcision add shame to shame, and believe that God
is pleased with such sacraments? Shall we observe the rest of the Sabbath, and
bind ourselves in the fetters of Saturn? Shall we glut the demon of the Jews,
for he is not God, with the slaughter of bulls, rams, and goats, not to say of
men; and adopt, only with greater cruelty, in obedience to the law and the
prophets, the practices on account of which we abandoned idolatry? Shall we, in
fine, call the flesh of some animals clean, and that of others unclean, among
which, according to the law and the prophets, swine's flesh has a particular
defilement? Of course you will allow that as Christians we must not do any of
these things, for you remember that Christ says that a man when circumcised
becomes twofold a child of hell. [650] It is plain also that Christ neither
observed the Sabbath himself, nor commanded it to be observed. And regarding
foods, he says expressly that man is not defiled by anything that goes into his
mouth, but rather by the things which come out of it. [651] Regarding
sacrifices, too, he often says that God desires mercy, and not sacrifice. [652]
What becomes, then, of the statement that he came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it? If Christ said this, he must have meant something else, or, what is
not to be thought of, he told a lie, or he never said it. No Christian will
allow that Jesus spoke falsely; therefore he must either not have said this, or
said it with another meaning. 3. For my part, as a Manichæan, this verse has
little difficulty for me, for at the outset I am taught to believe that many
things which pass in Scripture under the name of the Saviour are spurious, and
that they must therefore be tested to find whether they are true, and sound, and
genuine; for the enemy who comes by night has corrupted almost every passage by
sowing tares among the wheat. So I am not alarmed by these words,
notwithstanding the sacred name affixed to them; for I still claim the liberty
to examine whether this comes from the hand of the good sower, who sows in the
day-time, or of the evil one, who sows in the night. But what escape from this
difficulty can there be for you, who receive everything without examination,
condemning the use of reason, which is the prerogative of human nature, and
thinking it impiety to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and as much
afraid of separating between what is good and what is not as children are of
ghosts? For suppose a Jew or any one acquainted with these words should ask you
why you do not keep the precepts of the law and the prophets, since Christ says
that he came not to destroy but to fulfill them: you will be obliged either to
join in the superstitious follies of the Jews, or to declare this verse false,
or to deny that you are a follower of Christ. 4. Augustin replied: Since you
continue repeating what has been so often exposed and refuted, we must be
content to repeat the refutation. The things in the law and the prophets which
Christians do not observe, are only the types of what they do observe. These
types were figures of things to come, and are necessarily removed when the
things themselves are fully revealed by Christ, that in this very removal the
law and the prophets may be fulfilled. So it is written in the prophets that God
would give a new covenant, "not as I gave to their fathers." [653] Such was the
hardness of heart of the people under the Old Testament, that many precepts were
given to them, not so much because they were good, as because they suited the
people. Still, in all these things the future was foretold and prefigured,
although the people did not understand the meaning of their own observances.
After the manifest appearance of the things thus signified, we are not required
to observe the types; but we read them to see their meaning. So, again, it is
foretold in the prophets, "I will take away their stony heart, and will give
them a heart of flesh," [654] -- that is, a sensible heart, instead of an
insensible one. To this the apostle alludes in the words: "Not in tables of
stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart." [655] The fleshy tables of the
heart are the same as the heart of flesh. Since, then, the removal of these
observances is foretold, the law and the prophets could not have been fulfilled
but by this removal. Now, however, the prediction is accomplished, and the
fulfillment of the law and the prophets is found in what at first sight seems
the very opposite. 5. We are not afraid to meet your scoff at the Sabbath, when
you call it the fetters of Saturn. It is a silly and unmeaning expression, which
occurred to you only because you are in the habit of worshipping the sun on what
you call Sunday. What you call Sunday we call the Lord's day, and on it we do
not worship the sun, but the Lord's resurrection. And in the same way, the
fathers observed the rest of the Sabbath, not because they worshipped Saturn,
but because it was incumbent at that time, for it was a shadow of things to
come, as the apostle testifies. [656] The Gentiles, of whom the apostle says
that they "worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator," [657]
gave the names of their gods to the days of the week. And so far you do the
same, except that you worship only the two brightest luminaries, and not the
rest of the stars, as the Gentiles did. Besides, the Gentiles gave the names of
their gods to the months. In honor of Romulus, whom they believed to be the son
of Mars, they dedicated the first month to Mars, and called it March. The next
month, April, is named not from any god, but from the word for opening, because
the buds generally open in this month. The third month is called May, in honor
of Maia the mother of Mercury. The fourth is called June, from Juno. The rest to
December used to be named according to their number. The fifth and sixth,
however, got the names of July and August from men to whom divine honors were
decreed; while the others, from September to December, continued to be named
from their number. January, again, is named from Janus, and February from the
rites of the Luperci called Februæ. Must we say that you worship the god Mars in
the month of March? But that is the month in which you hold the feast you call
Bema with great pomp. But if you think it allowable to observe the month of
March without thinking of Mars, why do you try to bring in the name of Saturn in
connection with the rest of the seventh day enjoined in Scripture, merely
because the Gentiles call the day Saturday? The Scripture name for the day is
Sabbath, which means rest. Your scoff is as unreasonable as it is profane. 6. As
regards animal sacrifices, every Christian knows that they were enjoined as
suitable to a perverse people, and not because God had any pleasure in them.
Still, even in these sacrifices there were types of what we enjoy; for we cannot
obtain purification or the propitiation of God without blood. The fulfillment of
these types is in Christ, by whose blood we are purified and redeemed. In these
figures of the divine oracles, the bull represents Christ, because with the
horns of His cross He scatters the wicked; the lamb, from His matchless
innocence; the goat, from His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that
by sin He might condemn sin. [658] Whatever kind of sacrifice you choose to
specify, I will show you a prophecy of Christ in it. Thus we have shown
regarding circumcision, and the Sabbath, and the distinction of food, and the
sacrifice of animals, that all these things were our examples, and our
prophecies, which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, by fulfilling what
was thus foretold. Your opponent is the apostle, whose opinion I give in his own
words: "All these things were our examples." [659] 7. If you have learned from
Manichæus the willful impiety of admitting only those parts of the Gospel which
do not contradict your errors, while you reject the rest, we have learned from
the apostle the pious caution of looking on every one as accursed that preaches
to us another gospel than that which we have received. Hence Catholic Christians
look upon you as among the tares; for, in the Lord's exposition of the meaning
of the tares, they are not falsehood mixed with truth in the Scriptures, but
children of the wicked one -- that is, people who imitate the deceitfulness of
the devil. It is not true that Catholic Christians believe everything; for they
do not believe Manichæus or any of the heretics. Nor do they condemn the use of
human reason; but what you call reasoning they prove to be fallacious. Nor do
they think it profane to distinguish truth from falsehood; for they distinguish
between the truth of the Catholic faith and the falsehood of your doctrines. Nor
do they fear to separate good from evil; but they contend that evil, instead of
being natural, is unnatural. They know nothing of your race of darkness, which,
you say, is produced from a principle of its own, and fights against the kingdom
of God, and of which your god seems really to be more frightened than children
are of ghosts; for, according to you, he covered himself with a veil, that he
might not see his own members taken and plundered by the assault of the enemy.
To conclude, Catholic Christians are in no difficulty regarding the words of
Christ, though in one sense they may be said not to observe the law and the
prophets; for by the grace of Christ they keep the law by their love to God and
man; and on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [660]
Besides, they see in Christ and the Church the fulfillment of all the prophecies
of the Old Testament, whether in the form of actions, or of symbolic rites, or
of figurative language. So we neither join in superstitious follies, nor declare
this verse false; nor deny that we are followers of Christ; for on those
principles which I have set forth to the best of my power, the law and the
prophets which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, are no other than
those recognized by the Church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 160: FAUSTUS IS WILLING TO ADMIT THAT CHRIST MAY HAVE SAID THAT HE CAME NOT TO DESTROY THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL THEM; BUT IF HE DID, IT WAS TO PACIFY THE JEWS AND IN A MODIFIED SENSE. AUGUSTIN REPLIES, AND STILL FURTHER ELABORATES THE CATHOLIC 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: I will grant that Christ said that he came not to destroy the
law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. But why did Jesus say this? Was it to
pacify the Jews, who were enraged at seeing their sacred institutions trampled
upon by Christ, and regarded him as a wild blasphemer, not to be listened to,
much less to be followed? Or was it for our instruction as Gentile believers,
that we might learn meekly and patiently to bear the yoke of commandment laid on
our necks by the law and the prophets of the Jews? You yourself can hardly
suppose that Christ's words were intended to bring us under the authority of the
law and the prophets of the Hebrews. So that the other explanation which I have
given of the words must be the true one. Every one knows that the Jews were
always ready to attack Christ, both with words and with actual violence.
Naturally, then, they would be enraged at the idea that Christ was destroying
their law and their prophets; and, to appease them, Christ might very well tell
them not to think that he came to destroy the law, but that he came to fulfill
it. There was no falsehood or deceit in this, for he used the word law in a
general sense, not of any particular law. 2. There are three laws. One is that
of the Hebrews, which the apostle calls the law of sin and death. [661] The
second is that of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature. "For the
Gentiles," he says, "do by nature the things contained in the law; and, not
having the law, they are a law into themselves; who show the work of the law
written on their hearts." [662] The third law is the truth of which the apostle
speaks when he says, "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death." [663] Since, then, there are three laws, we
must carefully inquire which of the three Christ spoke of when He said that He
came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. In the same way, there are
prophets of the Jews, and prophets of the Gentiles, and prophets of truth. With
the prophets of the Jews, of course, every one is acquainted. If any one is in
doubt about the prophets of the Gentiles, let him hear what Paul says when
writing of the Cretans to Titus: "A prophet of their own has said, The Cretans
are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." [664] This proves that the
Gentiles also had their prophets. The truth also has its prophets, as we learn
from Jesus as well as from Paul. Jesus says: "Behold, I send unto you wise men
and prophets, and some of them ye shall kill in divers places." [665] And Paul
says: "The Lord Himself appointed first apostles, and then prophets." [666] 3.
As "the law and the prophets" may have three different meanings, it is uncertain
in what sense the words are used by Jesus, though we may form a conjecture from
what follows. For if Jesus had gone on to speak of circumcision, and Sabbaths,
and sacrifices, and the observances of the Hebrews, and had added something as a
fulfillment, there could have been no doubt that it was the law and the prophets
of the Jews of which He said that He came not to destroy, but to fulfill them.
But Christ, without any allusion to these, speaks only of commandments which
date from the earliest times: "Thou shall not kill; Thou shalt not commit
adultery; Thou shalt not bear false witness." These, it can be proved, were of
old promulgated in the world by Enoch and Seth, and the other righteous men, to
whom the precepts were delivered by angels of lofty rank, in order to tame the
savage nature of men. From this it appears that Jesus spoke of the law and the
prophets of truth. And so we find him giving a fulfillment of those precepts
already quoted. "Ye have heard," He says, "that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you, Be not even angry." This is the
fulfillment. Again: "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit
adultery; but I say unto you, Do not lust even." This is the fulfillment. Again:
"It has been said, Thou shalt not bear false witness; but I say unto you, Swear
not." This too is the fulfillment. He thus both confirms the old precepts and
supplies their defects. Where He seems to speak of some Jewish precepts, instead
of fulfilling them, He substitutes for them precepts of an opposite tendency. He
proceeds thus: "Ye have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also." This is not fulfillment, but destruction.
Again: "It has been said, Thou shall love thy friend, and hate thine enemy; but
I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for your persecutors." This too is
destruction. Again: "It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let
him give her a writing of divorcement; but I say unto you, That whosoever shall
put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery, and is himself an adulterer if he afterwards marries another woman."
[667] These precepts are evidently destroyed because they are the precepts of
Moses; while the others are fulfilled because they are the precepts of the
righteous men of antiquity. If you agree to this explanation, we may allow that
Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If you
disapprove of this explanation, give one of your own. Only beware of making
Jesus a liar, and of making yourself a Jew, by binding yourself to fulfill the
law because Christ did not destroy it. 4. If one of the Nazareans, or
Symmachians, as they are sometimes called, were arguing with me from these words
of Jesus that he came not to destroy the law, I should find some difficulty in
answering him. For it is undeniable that, at his coming, Jesus was both in body
and mind subject to the influence of the law and the prophets. Those people,
moreover, whom I allude to, practise circumcision, and keep the Sabbath, and
abstain from swine's flesh and such like things, according to the law, although
they profess to be Christians. They are evidently misled as well as you, by this
verse in which Christ says that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill
it. It would not be easy to reply to such opponents without first getting rid of
this troublesome verse. But with you I have no difficulty, for you have nothing
to go upon; and instead of using arguments, you seem disposed, in mere mischief,
to induce me to believe that Christ said what you evidently do not yourself
believe him to have said. On the strength of this verse you accuse me of
dullness and evasiveness, without yourself giving any indication of keeping the
law instead of destroying it. Do you too, like a Jew or a Nazarean, glory in the
obscene distinction of being circumcised? Do you pride yourself in the
observance of the Sabbath? Can you congratulate yourself on being innocent of
swine's flesh? Or can you boast of having gratified the appetite of the Deity by
the blood of sacrifices and the incense of Jewish offerings? If not, why do you
contend that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it? 5. I give
unceasing thanks to my teacher, who prevented me from falling into this error,
so that I am still a Christian. For I, like you, from reading this verse without
sufficient consideration, had almost resolved to become a Jew. And with reason;
for if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and as a vessel in
order to be filled full must not be empty, but partly filled already, I
concluded that no one could become a Christian but an Israelite, nearly filled
already with the law and the prophets, and coming to Christ to be filled to the
full extent of his capacity. I concluded, too, that in thus coming he must not
destroy what he already possesses; otherwise it would be a case, not of
fulfilling, but of emptying. Then it appeared that I, as a Gentile, could get
nothing by coming to Christ, for I brought nothing that he could fill up by his
additions. This preparatory supply is found, on inquiry, to consist of Sabbaths,
circumcision, sacrifices, new moons, baptisms, feasts of unleavened bread,
distinctions of foods, drink, and clothes, and other things, too many to
specify. This, then, it appeared, was what Christ came not to destroy, but to
fulfill. Naturally it must appear so: for what is a law without precepts, or
prophets without predictions? Besides, there is that terrible curse pronounced
upon those who abide not in all things that are written in the book of the law
to do them. [668] With the fear of this curse appearing to come from God on the
one side, and with Christ on the other side, seeming, as the Son of God, to say
that he came not to destroy these things, but to fulfill them, what was to
prevent me from becoming a Jew? The wise instruction of Manichæus saved me from
this danger. 6. But how can you venture to quote this verse against me? Or why
should it be against me only, when it is as much against yourself? If Christ
does not destroy the law and the prophets, neither must Christians do so. Why
then do you destroy them? Do you begin to perceive that you are no Christian?
How can you profane with all kinds of work the day pronounced sacred in the law
and in all the prophets, on which they say that God, the maker of the world,
himself rested, without dreading the penalty of death pronounced against
Sabbath-breakers, or the curse on the transgressor? How can you refuse to
receive in your person the unseemly mark of circumcision, which the law and all
the prophets declare to be honorable, especially in the case of Abraham, after
what was thought to be his faith; for does not the God of the Jews proclaim that
whosoever is without this mark of infamy shall perish from his people? How can
you neglect the appointed sacrifices, which were made so much of both by Moses
and the prophets under the law, and by Abraham in his faith? And how can you
defile your souls by making no distinction in foods, if you believe that Christ
came not to destroy these things, but to fulfill them? Why do you discard the
annual feast of unleavened bread, and the appointed sacrifice of the lamb,
which, according to the law and the prophets, is to be observed for ever? Why,
in a word, do you treat so lightly the new moons, the baptisms, and the feast of
tabernacles, and all the other carnal ordinances of the law and the prophets, if
Christ did not destroy them? I have therefore good reason for saying that, in
order to justify your neglect of these things, you must either abandon your
profession of being Christ's disciple, or acknowledge that Christ himself has
already destroyed them; and from this acknowledgment it must follow, either that
this text is spurious in which Christ is made to say that he came not to destroy
the law, but to fulfill it, or that the words have an entirely different meaning
from what you suppose. 7. Augustin replied: If you allow, in consideration of
the authority of the Gospel, that Christ said that He came not to destroy the
law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, you should show the same
consideration to the authority of the apostle, when he says, "All these things
were our examples;" and again of Christ, "He was not yea and nay, but in Him was
yea; for all the promises of God are in Him yea;" [669] that is, they are set
forth and fulfilled in Him. In this way you will see in the clearest light both
what law Christ fulfilled, and how He fulfilled it. It is a vain attempt that
you make to escape by your three kinds of law and your three kinds of prophets.
It is quite plain, and the New Testament leaves no doubt on the matter, what law
and what prophets Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. The law given by
Moses is that which by Jesus Christ became grace and truth. [670] The law given
by Moses is that of which Christ says, "He wrote of me." [671] For undoubtedly
this is the law which entered that the offence might abound; [672] words which
you often ignorantly quote as a reproach to the law. Read what is there said of
this law: "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was
then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might
appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is good." [673] The entrance of
the law made the offense abound, not because the law required what was wrong,
but because the proud and self-confident incurred additional guilt as
transgressors after their acquaintance with the holy, and just, and good
commandments of the law; so that, being thus humbled, they might learn that only
by grace through faith could they be freed from subjection to the law as
transgressors, and be reconciled to the law as righteous. So the same apostle
says: "For before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith
which was afterwards revealed. Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ
Jesus; but after faith came, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." [674] That
is, we are no longer subject to the penalty of the law, because we are set free
by grace. Before we received in humility the grace of the Spirit, the letter was
only death to us, for it required obedience which we could not render. Thus Paul
also says: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." [675] Again, he
says: "For if a law had been given which could have given life, verily
righteousness should have been by the law; but the Scripture hath concluded all
under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe." [676] And once more: "What the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin
He might condemn sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." [677] Here
we see Christ coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As the law
brought the proud under the guilt of transgression, increasing their sin by
commandments which they could not obey, so the righteousness of the same law is
fulfilled by the grace of the Spirit in those who learn from Christ to be meek
and lowly in heart; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
Moreover, because even for those who are under grace it is difficult in this
mortal life perfectly to keep what is written in the law, Thou shall not covet,
Christ, by the sacrifice of His flesh, as our Priest obtains pardon for us. And
in this also He fulfills the law; for what we fail in through weakness is
supplied by His perfection, who is the Head, while we are His members. Thus John
says: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not; and
if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
He is the propitiation for our sins." [678] 8. Christ also fulfilled the
prophecies, because the promises of God were made good in Him. As the apostle
says in the verse quoted above, "The promises of God are in Him yea." Again, he
says: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." [679] Whatever,
then, was promised in the prophets, whether expressly or in figure, whether by
words or by actions, was fulfilled in Him who came not to destroy the law and
the prophets, but to fulfill them. You do not perceive that if Christians were
to continue in the use of acts and observances by which things to come were
prefigured, the only meaning would be that the things prefigured had not yet
come. Either the thing prefigured has not come, or if it has, the figure becomes
superfluous or misleading. Therefore, if Christians do not practise some things
enjoined in the Hebrews by the prophets, this, so far from showing, as you
think, that Christ did not fulfill the prophets, rather shows that He did. So
completely did Christ fulfill what these types prefigured, that it is no longer
prefigured. So the Lord Himself says: "The law and the prophets were until
John." [680] For the law which shut up transgressors in increased guilt, and to
the faith which was afterwards revealed, became grace through Jesus Christ, by
whom grace superabounded. Thus the law, which was not fulfilled in the
requirement of the letter, was fulfilled in the liberty of grace. In the same
way, everything in the law that was prophetic of the Saviour's advent, whether
in words or in typical actions, became truth in Jesus Christ. For "the law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." [681] At Christ's
advent the kingdom of God began to be preached; for the law and the prophets
were until John: the law, that its transgressors might desire salvation; the
prophets, that they might foretell the Saviour. No doubt there have been
prophets in the Church since the ascension of Christ. Of these prophets Paul
says: "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,
thirdly teachers," and so on. [682] It is not of these prophets that it was
said, "The law and the prophets were until John," but of those who prophesied
the first coming of Christ, which evidently cannot be prophesied now that it has
taken place. 9. Accordingly, when you ask why a Christian is not circumcised if
Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is, that a
Christian is not circumcised precisely for this reason, that what was prefigured
by circumcision is fulfilled in Christ. Circumcision was the type of the removal
of our fleshly nature, which was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, and
which the sacrament of baptism teaches us to look forward to in our own
resurrection. The sacrament of the new life is not wholly discontinued, for our
resurrection from the dead is still to come; but this sacrament has been
improved by the substitution of baptism for circumcision, because now a pattern
of the eternal life which is to come is afforded us in the resurrection of
Christ, whereas formerly there was nothing of the kind. So, when you ask why a
Christian does not keep the Sabbath, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but
to fulfill it, my reply is, that a Christian does not keep the Sabbath precisely
because what was prefigured in the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. For we have
our Sabbath in Him who said, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I
am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls." [683] 10.
When you ask why a Christian does not observe the distinction in food as
enjoined in the law, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, I
reply, that a Christian does not observe this distinction precisely because what
was thus prefigured is now fulfilled in Christ, who admits into His body, which
in His saints He has predestined to eternal life, nothing which in human conduct
corresponds to the characteristics of the forbidden animals. When you ask,
again, why a Christian does not offer sacrifices to God of the flesh and blood
of slain animals, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, I
reply, that it would be improper for a Christian to offer such sacrifices, now
that what was thus prefigured has been fulfilled in Christ's offering of His own
body and blood. When you ask why a Christian does not keep the feast of
unleavened bread as the Jews did, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it, I reply, that a Christian does not keep this feast precisely because
what was thus prefigured is fulfilled in Christ, who leads us to a new life by
purging out the leaven of the old life. [684] When you ask why a Christian does
not keep the feast of the paschal lamb, if Christ came not to destroy the law,
but to fulfill it, my reply is, that he does not keep it precisely because what
was thus prefigured has been fulfilled in the sufferings of Christ, the Lamb
without spot. When you ask why a Christian does not keep the feasts of the new
moon appointed in the law, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill
it, I reply, that he does not keep them precisely because what was thus
prefigured is fulfilled in Christ. For the feast of the new moon prefigured the
new creature, of which the apostle says: "If therefore there is any new creature
in Christ Jesus, the old things have passed away; behold, all things are become
new." [685] When you ask why a Christian does not observe the baptisms for
various kinds of uncleanness according to the law, if Christ came not to destroy
the law, but to fulfill it, I reply, that he does not observe them precisely
because they were figures of things to come, which Christ has fulfilled. For He
came to bury us with Himself by baptism into death, that as Christ rose again
from the dead, so we also should walk in newness of life. [686] When you ask why
Christians do not keep the feast of tabernacles, if the law is not destroyed,
but fulfilled by Christ, I reply that believers are God's tabernacle, in whom,
as they are united and built together in love, God condescends to dwell, so that
Christians do not keep this feast precisely because what was thus prefigured is
now fulfilled by Christ in His Church. 11. I touch upon these things merely in
passing with the utmost brevity, rather than omit them altogether. The subjects,
taken separately, have filled many large volumes, written to prove that these
observances were typical of Christ. So it appears that all the things in the Old
Testament which you think are not observed by Christians because Christ
destroyed the law, are in fact not observed because Christ fulfilled the law.
The very intention of the observances was to prefigure Christ. Now that Christ
has come, instead of its being strange or absurd that what was done to prefigure
His advent should not be done any more, it is perfectly right and reasonable.
The typical observances intended to prefigure the coming of Christ would be
observed still, had they not been fulfilled by the coming of Christ; so far is
it from being the case that our not observing them now is any proof of their not
being fulfilled by Christ's coming. There can be no religious society, whether
the religion be true or false, without some sacrament or visible symbol to serve
as a bond of union. The importance of these sacraments cannot be overstated, and
only scoffers will treat them lightly. For if piety requires them, it must be
impiety to neglect them.12. It is true, the ungodly may partake in the visible
sacraments of godliness, as we read that Simon Magus received holy baptism. Such
are they of whom the apostle says that "they have the form of godliness, but
deny the power of it." [687] The power of godliness is the end of the
commandment, that is, love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of
faith unfeigned. [688] So the Apostle Peter, speaking of the sacrament of the
ark, in which the family of Noah was saved from the deluge, says, "So by a
similar figure baptism also saves you." And lest they should rest content with
the visible sacrament, by which they had the form of godliness, and should deny
its power in their lives by profligate conduct, he immediately adds, "Not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience."
[689]13. Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were celebrated in
obedience to the law, were types of Christ who was to come; and when Christ
fulfilled them by His advent they were done away, and were done away because
they were fulfilled. For Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. And now
that the righteousness of faith is revealed, and the children of God are called
into liberty, and the yoke of bondage which was required for a carnal and
stiffnecked people is taken away, other sacraments are instituted, greater in
efficacy, more beneficial in their use, easier in performance, and fewer in
number.14. And if the righteous men of old, who saw in the sacraments of their
time the promise of a future revelation of faith, which even then their piety
enabled them to discern in the dim light of prophecy, and by which they lived,
for the just can live only by faith; [690] if, then, these righteous men of old
were ready to suffer, as many actually did suffer, all trials and tortures for
the sake of those typical sacraments which prefigured things in the future; if
we praise the three children and Daniel, because they refused to be defiled by
meat from the king's table, from their regard for the sacrament of their day; if
we feel the strongest admiration for the Maccabees, who refused to touch food
which Christians lawfully use; [691] how much more should a Christian in our day
be ready to suffer all things for Christ's baptism, for Christ's Eucharist, for
Christ's sacred sign, since these are proofs of the accomplishment of what the
former sacraments only pointed forward to in the future! For what is still
promised to the Church, the body of Christ, is both clearly made known, and in
the Saviour Himself, the Head of the body, the Mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus, has already been accomplished. Is not the promise of eternal
life by resurrection from the dead? This we see fulfilled in the flesh of Him of
whom it is said, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. [692] In former
days faith was dim, for the saints and righteous men of those times all believed
and hoped for the same things, and all these sacraments and ceremonies pointed
to the future; but now we have the revelation of the faith to which the people
were shut up under the law; [693] and what is now promised to believers in the
judgment is already accomplished in the example of Him who came not to destroy
the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.15. It is a question among the
students of the sacred Scriptures, whether the faith in Christ before His
passion and resurrection, which the righteous men of old learned by revelation
or gathered from prophecy, had the same efficacy as faith has now that Christ
has suffered and risen; or whether the actual shedding of the blood of the Lamb
of God, which was, as He Himself says, for many for the remission of sins, [694]
conferred any benefit in the way of purifying or adding to the purity of those
who looked forward in faith to the death of Christ, but left the world before it
took place; whether, in fact, Christ's death reached to the dead, so as to
effect their liberation. To discuss this question here, or to prove what has
been ascertained on the subject, would take too long, besides being foreign from
our present purpose. 16. Meanwhile it is sufficient to prove, in opposition to
Faustus' ignorant cavils, how greatly they mistake who conclude, from the change
in signs and sacraments, that there must be a difference in the things which
were prefigured in the rites of a prophetic dispensation, and which are declared
to be accomplished in the rites of the gospel; or those, on the other hand, who
think that as the things are the same, the sacraments which announce their
accomplishment should not differ from the sacraments which foretold that
accomplishment. For if in language the form of the verb changes in the number of
letters and syllables according to the tense, as done signifies the past, and to
be done the future, why should not the symbols which declare Christ's death and
resurrection to be accomplished, differ from those which predicted their
accomplishment, as we see a difference in the form and sound of the words, past
and future, suffered and to suffer, risen and to rise? For material symbols are
nothing else than visible speech, which, though sacred, is changeable and
transitory. For while God is eternal, the water of baptism, and all that is
material in the sacrament, is transitory: the very word "God," which must be
pronounced in the consecration, is a sound which passes in a moment. The actions
and sounds pass away, but their efficacy remains the same, and the spiritual
gift thus communicated is eternal. To say, therefore, that if Christ had not
destroyed the law and the prophets, the sacraments of the law and the prophets
would continue to be observed in the congregations of the Christian Church, is
the same as to say that if Christ had not destroyed the law and the prophets, He
would still be predicted as about to be born, to suffer, and to rise again;
whereas, in fact, it is proved that He did not destroy, but fulfill those
things, because the prophecies of His birth, and passion, and resurrection,
which were represented in these ancient sacraments, have ceased, and the
sacraments now observed by Christians contain the announcement that He has been
born, has suffered, has risen. He who came not to destroy the law and the
prophets, but to fulfill them, by this fulfillment did away with those things
which foretold the accomplishment of what is thus shown to be now accomplished.
Precisely in the same way, he might substitute for the expressions, "He is to be
born, is to suffer, is to rise," which were in these times appropriate, the
expressions, "He has been born, has suffered, has risen," which are appropriate
now that the others are accomplished, and so done away.17. Corresponding to this
change in words is the change which naturally took place in the substitution of
new sacraments instead of those of the Old Testament. In the case of the first
Christians, who came to the faith as Jews, it was by degrees that they were
brought to change their customs, and to have a clear perception of the truth;
and permission was given them by the apostle to preserve their hereditary
worship and belief, in which they had been born and brought up; and those who
had to do with them were required to make allowance for this reluctance to
accept new customs. So the apostle circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish
mother and a Greek father, when they went among people of this kind; and he
himself accommodated his practice to theirs, not hypocritically, but for a wise
purpose. For these practices were harmless in the case of those born and brought
up in them, though they were no longer required to prefigure things to come. It
would have done more harm to condemn them as hurtful in the case of those to
whose time it was intended that they should continue. Christ, who came to
fulfill all these prophecies, found those people trained in their own religion.
But in the case of those who had no such training, but were brought to Christ,
the corner-stone, from the opposite wall of circumcision, there was no
obligation to adopt Jewish customs. If, indeed, like Timothy, they chose to
accommodate themselves to the views of those of the circumcision who were still
wedded to their old sacraments, they were free to do so. But if they supposed
that their hope and salvation depended on these works of the law, they were
warned against them as a fatal danger. So the apostle says: "Behold, I Paul say
unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;" [695]
that is, if they were circumcised, as they were intending to be, in compliance
with some corrupt teachers, who told them that without these works of the law
they could not be saved. For when, chiefly through the preaching of the Apostle
Paul, the Gentiles were coming to the faith of Christ, as it was proper that
they should come, without being burdened with Jewish observances -- for those
who were grown up were deterred from the faith by fear of ceremonies to which
they were not accustomed, especially of circumcision; and if they who had not
been trained from their birth to such observances had been made proselytes in
the usual way, it would have implied that the coming of Christ still required to
be predicted as a future event; -- when, then, the Gentiles were admitted
without these ceremonies, those of the circumcision who believed, not
understanding why the Gentiles were not required to adopt their customs, nor why
they themselves were still allowed to retain them, began to disturb the Church
with carnal contentions, because the Gentiles were admitted into the people of
God without being made proselytes in the usual way by circumcision and the other
legal observances. Some also of the converted Gentiles were bent on these
ceremonies, from fear of the Jews among whom they lived. Against these Gentiles
the Apostle Paul often wrote, and when Peter was carried away by their
hypocrisy, he corrected him with a brotherly rebuke. [696] Afterwards, when the
apostles met in council, decreed that these works of the law were not obligatory
in the case of the Gentiles, [697] some Christians of the circumcision were
displeased, because they failed to understand that these observances were
permissible only in those who had been trained in them before the revelation of
faith, to bring to a close the prophetic life in those who were engaged in it
before the prophecy was fulfilled, lest by a compulsory abandonment it should
seem to be condemned rather than closed; while to lay these things on the
Gentiles would imply either that they were not instituted to prefigure Christ,
or that Christ was still to be prefigured. The ancient people of God, before
Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, were required to observe all
these things by which Christ was prefigured. It was freedom to those who
understood the meaning of the observance, but it was bondage to those who did
not. But the people in those latter times who come to believe in Christ as
having already come, and suffered, and risen, in the case of those whom this
faith found trained to those sacraments, are neither required to observe them,
nor prohibited from doing so; while there is a prohibition in the case of those
who were not bound by the ties of custom, or by any necessity, to accommodate
themselves to the practice of others, so that it might become manifest that
these things were instituted to prefigure Christ, and that after His coming they
were to cease, because the promises had been fulfilled. Some believers of the
circumcision who did not understand this were displeased with this tolerant
arrangement which the Holy Spirit effected through the apostles, and stubbornly
insisted on the Gentiles becoming Jews. These are the people of whom Faustus
speaks under the name of Symmachians or Nazareans. Their number is now very
small, but the sect still continues. 18. The Manichæans, therefore have no
ground for saying, in disparagement of the law and the prophets, that Christ
came to destroy rather than to fulfill them, because Christians do not observe
what is there enjoined: for the only things which they do not observe are those
that prefigured Christ, and these are not observed because their fulfillment is
in Christ, and what is fulfilled is no longer prefigured; the typical
observances having properly come to a close in the time of those who, after
being trained in such things, had come to believe in Christ as their
fulfillment. Do not Christians observe the precept of Scripture "Hear, O Israel;
the Lord thy God is one God;" "Thou shalt not make unto thee an image," and so
on? Do make Christians not observe the precept, "Thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord thy God in vain?" Do Christians not observe the Sabbath, even in the
sense of a true rest? Do Christians not honor their parents, according to the
commandment? Do Christians not abstain from fornication, and murder, and theft,
and false witness, from coveting their neighbor's wife, and from coveting his
property, -- all of which things are written in the law? These moral precepts
are distinct from typical sacraments: the former are fulfilled by the aid of
divine grace, the latter by the accomplishment of what they promise. Both are
fulfilled in Christ, who has ever been the bestower of this grace, which is also
now revealed in Him, and who now makes manifest the accomplishment of what He in
former times promised; for "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came
by Jesus Christ." [698] Again, these things which concern the keeping of a good
conscience are fulfilled in the faith which worketh by love; [699] while types
of the future pass away when they are accomplished. But even the types are not
destroyed, but fulfilled; for Christ, in bringing to light what the types
signified, does not prove them vain or illusory.19. Faustus, therefore, is wrong
in supposing that the Lord Jesus fulfilled some precepts of righteous men who
lived before the law of Moses, such as, "Thou shall not kill," which Christ did
not oppose, but rather confirmed by His prohibition of anger and abuse; and that
He destroyed some things apparently peculiar to the Hebrew law, such as, "An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which Christ seems rather to abolish than
to confirm, when He says, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but if
any one smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," [700] and so
on. But we say that even these things which Faustus thinks Christ destroyed by
enjoining the opposite, were suitable to the times of the Old Testament, and
were not destroyed, but fulfilled by Christ.20. In the first place let me ask
our opponents if these ancient righteous men, Enoch and Seth, whom Faustus
mentions particularly, and any others who lived before Moses, or even, if you
choose, before Abraham, were angry with their brother without a cause, or said
to their brother, Thou fool. If not, why may they not have taught these things
as well as preached them? And if they taught these things, how can Christ be
said to have fulfilled their righteousness or their teaching, any more than that
of Moses, by adding, "But I say unto you, if any man is angry with his brother,
or if he says Racha, or if he says, Thou fool, he shall be in danger of the
judgment, or of the council, or of hell-fire," since these men did these very
things themselves, and enjoined them upon others? Will it be said that they were
ignorant of its being the duty of a righteous man to restrain his passion, and
not to provoke his brother with angry abuse; or that, knowing this, they were
unable to act accordingly? In that case, they deserved the punishment of hell,
and could not have been righteous. But no one will venture to say that in their
righteousness there was such ignorance of duty, and such a want of self-control,
as to make them liable to the punishment of hell. How, then, can Christ be said
to have fulfilled the law, by which these men lived by means of adding things
without which they could have had no righteousness at all? Will it be said that
a hasty temper and bad language are sinful only since the time of Christ, while
formerly such qualities of the heart and speech were allowable; as we find some
institutions vary according to the times, so that what is proper at one time is
improper at another, and vice versa? You will not be so foolish as to make this
assertion. But even were you to do so, the reply will be that, according to this
idea, Christ came not to fulfill what was defective in the old law, but to
institute a law which did not previously exist; if it is true that with the
righteous men of old it was not a sin to say to their brother, Thou fool, which
Christ pronounces so sinful, that whoever does so is in danger of hell. So,
then, you have not succeeded in finding any law of which it can be said that
Christ supplied its defect by these additions.21. Will it be said that the law
in these early times was incomplete as regards not committing adultery, till it
was completed by the Lord, who added that no one should look on a woman to lust
after her? This is what you imply in the way you quote the words, "Ye have heard
that it has been said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, Do
not lust even." "Here," you say, "is the fulfillment." But let us take the words
as they stand in the Gospel, without any of your modifications, and see what
character you give to those righteous men of antiquity. The words are: "Ye have
heard that it has been said, thou shall not commit adultery; but I say unto you,
that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart." [701] In your opinion, then, Enoch and Seth, and
the rest, committed adultery in their hearts; and either their heart was not the
temple of God, or they committed adultery in the temple of God. But if you dare
not say this, how can you say that Christ, when He came, fulfilled the law,
which was already in the time of those men complete? 22. As regards not
swearing, in which also you say that Christ completed the law given to these
righteous men of antiquity, I cannot be certain that they did not swear, for we
find that Paul the apostle swore. With you, swearing is still a common practice,
for you swear by the light, which you love as flies do; for the light of the
mind which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, as distinct from mere
natural light, you know nothing of. You swear, too, by your master Manichæus,
whose name in his own tongue was Manes. As the name Manes seemed to be connected
with the Greek word for madness, you have changed it by adding a suffix, which
only makes matters worse, by giving the new meaning of pouring forth madness.
One of your own sect told me that the name Manichæus was intended to be derived
from the Greek words for pouring forth manna; for cheein means to pour. But, as
it is, you only express the idea of madness with greater emphasis. For by adding
the two syllables, while you have forgotten to insert another letter in the
beginning of the word, you make it not Mannichæus, but Manichæus; which must
mean that he pours forth madness in his long unprofitable discourses. Again, you
often swear by the Paraclete, -- not the Paraclete promised and sent by Christ
to His disciples, but this same madness-pourer himself. Since, then, you are
constantly swearing, I should like to know in what sense you make Christ to have
fulfilled this part of the law, which is one you mention as belonging to the
earliest times. And what do you make of the oaths of the apostle? For as to your
authority, it cannot weigh much with yourselves, not to speak of me or any other
person. It is therefore evident that Christ's words, "I am come not to destroy
the law, but to fulfill it," have not the meaning which you give them. Christ
makes no reference in these words to His comments on the ancient sayings which
He quotes, and of which His discourse was an explanation, but not a
fulfillment.23. Thus, as regards murder, which was understood to mean merely the
destruction of the body, by which a man is deprived of life, the Lord explained
that every unjust disposition to injure our brother is a kind of murder. So John
also says, "He that hateth his brother is a murderer." [702] And as it was
thought that adultery meant only the act of unlawful intercourse with a woman,
the Master showed that the lust He describes is also adultery. Again, because
perjury is a heinous sin, while there is no sin either in not swearing at all or
in swearing truly, the Lord wished to secure us from departing from the truth by
not swearing at all, rather than that we should be in danger of perjury by being
in the habit of swearing truly. For one who never swears is less in danger of
swearing falsely than one who is in the habit of swearing truly. So, in the
discourses of the apostle which are recorded, he never used an oath, lest he
should ever fall unawares into perjury from being in the habit of swearing. In
his writings, on the other hand, where he had more leisure and opportunity for
caution, we find him using oaths in several places, [703] to teach us that there
is no sin in swearing truly, but that, on account of the infirmity of human
nature, we are best preserved from perjury by not swearing at all. These
considerations will also make it evident that the things which Faustus supposes
to be peculiar to Moses were not destroyed by Christ, as he says they were.24.
To take, for instance, this saying of the ancients, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor, and hate thine enemy," how does Faustus make out that this is peculiar
to Moses? Does not the Apostle Paul speak of some men as hateful to God? [704]
And, indeed, in connection with this saying, the Lord enjoins on us that we
should imitate God. His words are: "That ye may be the children of your Father
in heaven, who maketh the sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and the unjust." [705] In one sense we must hate our enemies,
after the example of God, to whom Paul says some men are hateful; while, at the
same time, we must also love our enemies after the example of God, who makes the
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the
unjust. If we understand this, we shall find that the Lord, in explaining to
those who did not rightly understand the saying, Thou shalt hate thine enemy,
made use of it to show that they should love their enemy, which was a new idea
to them. It would take too long to show the consistency of the two things here.
But when the Manichæans condemn without exception the precept, Thou shall hate
thine enemy, they may easily be met with the question whether their god loves
the race of darkness. Or, if we should love our enemies now, because they have a
part of good, should we not also hate them as having a part of evil? So even in
this way it would appear that there is no opposition between the saying of
ancient times, Thou shall hate thine enemy, and that of the Gospel, Love your
enemies. For every wicked man should be hated as far as he is wicked; while he
should be loved as a man. The vice which we rightly hate in him is to be
condemned, that by its removal the human nature which we rightly love in him may
be amended. This is precisely the principle we maintain, that we should hate our
enemy for what is evil in him, that is, for his wickedness; while we also love
our enemy for that which is good in him, that is, for his nature as a social and
rational being. The difference between us and the Manichæans is, that we prove
the man to be wicked, not by nature, either his own or any other, but by his own
will; whereas they think that a man is evil on account of the nature of the race
of darkness, which, according to them, was an object of dread to God when he
existed entire, and by which also he was partly conquered, so that he cannot be
entirely set free. The intention of the Lord, then, is to correct those who,
from knowing without understanding what was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
hate thine enemy, hated their fellow-men instead of only hating their
wickedness; and for this purpose He says, Love your enemies. Instead of
destroying what is written about hatred of enemies in the law, of which He said,
"I am come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it," He would have us learn,
from the duty of loving our enemies, how it is possible in the case of one and
the same person, both to hate him for his sin, and to love him for his nature.
It is too much to expect our perverse opponents to understand this. But we can
silence them, by showing that by their irrational objection they condemn their
own god, of whom they cannot say that he loves the race of darkness; so that in
enjoining on every one to love his enemy, they cannot quote his example. There
would appear to be more love of their enemy in the race of darkness than in the
god of the Manichæans. The story is, that the race of darkness coveted the
domain of light bordering on their territory, and, from a desire to possess it,
formed the plan of invading it. Nor is there any sin in desiring true goodness
and blessedness. For the Lord says, "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence,
and the violent take it by force." [706] This fabulous race of darkness, then,
wished to take by force the good they desired, for its beautiful and attractive
appearance. But God, instead of returning the love of those who wished to
possess Him, hated it so as to endeavor to annihilate them. If, therefore, the
evil love the good in the desire to possess it, while the good hate the evil in
fear of being defiled, I ask the Manichæans, which of these obeys the precept of
the Lord, "Love your enemies"? If you insist on making these precepts opposed to
one another, it will follow that your god obeyed what is written in the law of
Moses, "Thou shall hate thine enemy"; while the race of darkness obeyed what is
written in the Gospel, "Love your enemies." However, you have never succeeded in
explaining the difference between the flies that fly in the day-time and the
moths that fly at night; for both, according to you, belong to the race of
darkness. How is it that one kind love the light, contrary to their nature;
while the other kind avoid it, and prefer the darkness from which they sprung?
Strange, that filthy sewers should breed a cleaner sort than dark closets! 25.
Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which was said by them of old
time, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and what the Lord says, "But I
say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but if any one smiteth thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also," and so on. [707] The old precept as well as
the new is intended to check the vehemence of hatred, and to curb the
impetuosity of angry passion. For who will of his own accord be satisfied with a
revenge equal to the injury? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt, eager for
slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make their enemy suffer
enough? If a man receives a blow, does he not summon his assailant, that he may
be condemned in the court of law? Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he
not fall upon the man with hand and heel, or perhaps with a weapon, if he can
get hold of one? To put a restraint upon a revenge so unjust from its excess,
the law established the principle of compensation, that the penalty should
correspond to the injury inflicted. So the precept, "an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a fire that was quenched, was
rather a covering to prevent the fire already kindled from spreading. For there
is a just revenge due to the injured person from his assailant; so that when we
pardon, we give up what we might justly claim. Thus, in the Lord's prayer, we
are taught to forgive others their debts that God may forgive us our debts.
There is no injustice in asking back a debt, though there is kindness in
forgiving it. But as, in swearing, one who swears, even though truly, is in
danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger who never swears; and while
swearing truly is not a sin, we are further from sin by not swearing; so that
the command not to swear is a guard against perjury: in the same way since it is
sinful to wish to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is no sin in
wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no
revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge. It is sin to demand
more than is due, though it is no sin to demand a debt. And the best security
against the sin of making an unjust demand is to demand nothing, especially
considering the danger of being compelled to pay the debt to Him who is indebted
to none. Thus, I would explain the passage as follows: It has been said by them
of old time, Thou shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take no revenge at
all: here is the fulfillment. It is thus that Faustus, after quoting, "It has
been said, Thou shall not swear falsely; but I say unto you, swear not at all,"
adds: here is the fulfillment. I might use the same expression if I thought that
by the addition of these words Christ supplied a defect in the law, and not
rather that the intention of the law to prevent unjust revenge is best secured
by not taking revenge at all, in the same way as the intention to prevent
perjury is best secured by not swearing at all. For if "an eye for an eye" is
opposed to "If any one smite thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also," is
there not as much opposition between "Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine
oath," and "Swear not at all?" [708] If Faustus thinks that there is not
destruction, but fulfillment, in the one case, he ought to think the same of the
other. For if "Swear not" is the fulfillment of "Swear truly," why should not
"Take no revenge" be the fulfillment of "Take revenge justly"?So, according to
my interpretation, there is in both cases a guard against sin, either of false
swearing or of unjust revenge; though, as regards giving up the right to
revenge, there is the additional consideration that, by forgiving such debts, we
shall obtain the forgiveness of our debts. The old precept was required in the
case of a self-willed people, to teach them not to be extravagant in their
demands. Thus, when the rage eager for unrestrained vengeance, was subdued,
there would be leisure for any one so disposed to consider the desirableness of
having his own debt cancelled by the Lord, and so to be led by this
consideration to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant.26. Again, we shall find
on examination, that there is no opposition between the precept of the Lord
about not putting away a wife, and what was said by them of old time: "Whosoever
putteth away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." [709] The
Lord explains the intention of the law, which required a bill of divorce in
every case where a wife was put away. The precept not to put away a wife is the
opposite of saying that a man may put away his wife if he pleases; which is not
what the law says. On the contrary, to prevent the wife from being put away, the
law required this intermediate step, that the eagerness for separation might be
checked by the writing of the bill, and the man might have time to think of the
evil of putting away his wife; especially since, as it is said, among the
Hebrews it was unlawful for any but the scribes to write Hebrew: for the scribes
claimed the possession of superior wisdom; and if they were men of upright and
pious character, their pursuits might justly entitle them to make this claim. In
requiring, therefore, that in putting away his wife, a man should give her a
writing of divorcement, the design was that he should be obliged to have
recourse to those from whom he might expect to receive a cautious interpretation
of the law, and suitable advice against separation. Having no other way of
getting the bill written, the man should be obliged to submit to their
direction, and to allow of their endeavors to restore peace and harmony between
him and his wife. In a case where the hatred could not be overcome or checked,
the bill would of course be written. A wife might with reason be put away when
wise counsel failed to restore the proper feeling and affection in the mind of
her husband. If the wife is not loved, she is to be put away. And that she may
not be put away, it is the husband's duty to love her. Now, while a man cannot
be forced to love against his will, he may be influenced by advice and
persuasion. This was the duty of the scribe, as a wise and upright man; and the
law gave him the opportunity, by requiring the husband in all cases of quarrel
to go to him, to get the bill of divorcement written. No good or prudent man
would write the bill unless it were a case of such obstinate aversion as to make
reconciliation impossible. But according to your impious notions, there can be
nothing in putting away a wife; for matrimony, according to you, is a criminal
indulgence. The word "matrimony" shows that a man takes a wife in order that she
may become a mother, which would be an evil in your estimation. According to
you, this would imply that part of your god is overcome and captured by the race
of darkness, and bound in the fetters of flesh. 27. But, to explain the point in
hand: If Christ, in adding the words, "But I say unto you," to the quotations He
makes of ancient sayings, neither fulfilled the law of primitive times by His
additions, nor destroyed the law given to Moses by opposite precepts, but rather
paid such deference to the Hebrew law in all the quotations He made from it, as
to make His own remarks chiefly explanatory of what the law stated less
distinctly, or a means of securing the design intended by the law, it follows
that from the words, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" we are
not to understand that Christ by His precepts filled up what was wanting in the
law; but that what the literal command failed in doing from the pride and
disobedience of men, is accomplished by grace in those who are brought to
repentance and humility. The fulfillment is not in additional words, but in acts
of obedience. So the apostle says "Faith worketh by love;" [710] and again, He
that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." [711] This love, by which also the
righteousness of the law can be fulfilled was bestowed in its significance by
Christ in His coming, through the spirit which He sent according to His promise;
and therefore He said, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." This
is the New Testament in which the promise of the kingdom of heaven is made to
this love; which was typified in the Old Testament, suitably to the times of
that dispensation. So Christ says again; "A new commandment I give unto you,
that ye love one another." [712]28. So we find in the Old Testament all or
nearly all the counsels and precepts which Christ introduces with the words "But
I say unto you." Against anger it is written, "Mine eyes troubled because of
anger;" [713] and again, "Better is he that conquers his anger, than he that
taketh a city." [714] Against hard words, "The stroke of a whip maketh a wound;
but the stroke of the tongue breaketh the bones." [715] Against adultery in the
heart, "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife." [716] It is not, "Thou shall
not commit adultery;" but, "Thou shall not covet." The apostle, in quoting this,
says: "I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
[717] Regarding patience in not offering resistance, a man is praised who
"giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him, and who is filled full with
reproach." [718] Of love to enemies it is said: "If thine enemy hunger, feed
him; if he thirst, give him drink." [719] This also is quoted by the apostle.
[720] In the Psalm, too, it is said, "I was a peace maker among them that hated
peace;" [721] and in many similar passages. In connection also with our
imitating God in refraining from taking revenge, and in loving even the wicked,
there is a passage containing a full description of God in this character; for
it is written: "To Thee alone ever belongeth great strength, and who can
withstand the power of Thine arm? For the whole world before Thee is as a little
grain of the balance; yea, as a drop of the morning dew that falleth down upon
the earth. But Thou hast mercy upon all, for Thou canst do all things, and
winkest at the sins of men, because of repentance. For Thou lovest all things
that are, and abhorrest nothing which Thou hast made; for never wouldest Thou
have made anything if Thou hadst hated it. And how could anything have endured,
if it had not been Thy will? or been preserved, if not called by Thee? But Thou
sparest all; for they are Thine, O Lord, Thou lover of souls. For Thy good
Spirit is in all things; therefore chastenest Thou them by little and little
that offend, and warnest them by putting them in remembrance wherein they have
offended, that learning their wickedness, they may believe in Thee, O Lord."
[722] Christ exhorts us to imitate this long-suffering goodness of God, who
maketh the sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust; that we may not be careful to revenge, but may do good to
them that hate us, and so may be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is
perfect. [723] From another passage in these ancient books we learn that, by not
exacting the vengeance due to us, we obtain the remission of our own sins; and
that by not forgiving the debts of others, we incur the danger of being refused
forgiveness when we pray for the remission of our own debts: "He that revengeth
shall find vengeance from the Lord, and He will surely keep his sin in
remembrance. Forgive thy neighbor the hurt that he hath done to thee; so shall
thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest. One man beareth hatred against
another, and doth he seek pardon of the Lord? He showeth no mercy to a man who
is like himself; and doth he ask forgiveness of his own sins? If he that is but
flesh nourishes hatred, and asks for favor from the Lord, who will entreat for
the pardon of his sins?" [724]29. As regards not putting away a wife, there is
no need to quote any other passage of the Old Testament than that referred to
most appropriately in the Lord's reply to the Jews when they questioned Him on
this subject. For when they asked whether it is lawful for a man to put away his
wife for any reason, the Lord answered: "Have ye not read, that He that made
them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall
a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two
shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no longer twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined, let no man put asunder." [725] Here the Jews, who
thought that they acted according to the intention of the law of Moses in
putting away their wives, are made to see from the book of Moses that a wife
should not be put away. And, by the way, we learn here, from Christ's own
declaration, that God made and joined male and female; so that by denying this,
the Manichæans are guilty of opposing the gospel of Christ as well as the
writings of Moses. And supposing their doctrine to be true, that the devil made
and joined male and female, we see the diabolical cunning of Faustus in finding
fault with Moses for dissolving marriages by granting a bill of divorce, and
praising Christ for strengthening the union by the precept in the Gospel.
Instead of this, Faustus, consistently with his own foolish and impious notions,
should have praised Moses for separating what was made and joined by the devil,
and should have blamed Christ for ratifying a bond of the devil's workmanship.
To return, let us hear the good Master explain how Moses, who wrote of the
conjugal chastity in the first union of male and female as so holy and
inviolable, afterwards allowed the people to put away their wives. For when the
Jews replied, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and
to put her away?" Christ said unto them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your
heart, suffered you to put away your wives." [726] This passage we have already
explained. [727] The hardness must have been great indeed which could not be
induced to admit the restoration of wedded love, even though by means of the
writing an opportunity was afforded for advice to be given to this effect by
wise and upright men. Then the Lord quoted the same law, to show both what was
enjoined on the good and what was permitted to the hard; for, from what is
written of the union of male and female, He proved that a wife must not be put
away, and pointed out the divine authority for the union; and shows from the
same Scriptures that a bill of divorcement was to be given because of the
hardness of the heart, which might be subdued or might not. 30. Since, then, all
these excellent precepts of the Lord, which Faustus tries to prove to be
contrary to the old books of the Hebrews, are found in these very books, the
only sense in which the Lord came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, is
this, that besides the fulfillment of the prophetic types, which are set aside
by their actual accomplishment, the precepts also, in which the law is holy, and
just, and good, are fulfilled in us, not by the oldness of the letter which
commands, and increases the offence of the proud by the additional guilt of
transgression, but by the newness of the Spirit, who aids us, and by the
obedience of the humble, through the saving grace which sets us free. For, while
all these sublime precepts are found in the ancient books, still the end to
which they point is not there revealed; although the holy men who foresaw the
revelation lived in accordance with it, either veiling it in prophecy as suited
the time, or themselves discovering the truth thus veiled.31. I am disposed,
after careful examination, to doubt whether the expression so often used by the
Lord, "the kingdom of heaven," can be found in these books. It is said, indeed,
"Love wisdom, that ye may reign for ever." [728] And if eternal life had not
been clearly made known in the Old Testament, the Lord would not have said, as
He did even to the unbelieving Jews: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye
think that ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me." [729]
And to the same effect are the words of the Psalmist: "I shall not die, but
live, and declare the works of the Lord." [730] And again: "Enlighten mine eyes,
lest I sleep the sleep of death." [731] Again, we read, "The souls of the
righteous are in the hand of the Lord, and pain shall not touch them;" and
immediately following: "They are in peace; and if they have suffered torture
from men, their hope is full of immortality; and after a few trouble, they shall
enjoy many rewards." [732] Again, in another place: "The righteous shall live
for ever, and their reward is with the Lord, and their concern with the Highest;
therefore shall they receive from the hand of the Lord a kingdom of glory and a
crown of beauty." [733] These and many similar declarations of eternal life, in
more or less explicit terms, are found in these writings. Even the resurrection
of the body is spoken of by the prophets. The Pharisees, accordingly, were
fierce opponents of the Sadducees, who disbelieved the resurrection. This we
learn not only from the canonical Acts of the Apostles, which the Manichæans
reject, because it tells of the advent of the Paraclete promised by the Lord,
but also from the Gospel, when the Sadducees question the Lord about the woman
who married seven brothers, one dying after the other, whose wife she would be
in the resurrection. [734] As regards, then, eternal life and the resurrection
of the dead, numerous testimonies are to be found in these Scriptures. But I do
not find there the expression, "the kingdom of heaven." This expression belongs
properly to the revelation of the New Testament, because in the resurrection our
earthly bodies shall, by that change which Paul fully describes, become
spiritual bodies, and so heavenly, that thus we may possess the kingdom of
heaven. And this expression was reserved for Him whose advent as King to govern
and Priest to sanctify His believing people, was ushered in by all the symbolism
of the old covenant, in its genealogies, its typical acts and words, its
sacrifices and ceremonies and feasts, and in all its prophetic utterances and
events and figures. He came full of grace and truth, in His grace helping us to
obey the precepts, and in His truth securing the accomplishment of the promises.
He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 161: FAUSTUS REPELS THE CHARGE OF SUN-WORSHIP
========================================================================

Faustus repels the charge of sun-worship, and maintains that while the
Manichæans believe that God's power dwells in the sun and his wisdom in the
moon, they yet worship one deity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are not a
schism of the Gentiles, nor a sect. Augustin emphasizes the charge of
polytheism, and goes into an elaborate comparison of Manichæan and pagan
mythology. 1. Faustus said: You ask why we worship the sun, if we are a sect or
separate religion, and not Pagans, or merely a schism of the Gentiles. It may
therefore be as well to inquire into the matter, that we may see whether the
name of Gentiles is more applicable to you or to us. Perhaps, in giving you in a
friendly way this simple account of my faith, I shall appear to be making an
apology for it, as if I were ashamed, which God forbid, of doing homage to the
divine luminaries. You may take it as you please; but I shall not regret what I
have done if I succeed in conveying to some at least this much knowledge, that
our religion has nothing in common with that of the Gentiles. 2. We worship,
then, one deity under the threefold appellation of the Almighty God the Father,
and his son Christ, and the Holy Spirit. While these are one and the same, we
believe also that the Father properly dwells in the highest or principal light,
which Paul calls "light inaccessible," [735] and the Son in his second or
visible light. And as the Son is himself twofold, according to the apostle, who
speaks of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God, [736] we believe
that His power dwells in the sun, and His wisdom in the moon. We also believe
that the Holy Spirit, the third majesty, has His seat and His home in the whole
circle of the atmosphere. By His influence and spiritual infusion, the earth
conceives and brings forth the mortal Jesus, who, as hanging from every tree, is
the life and salvation of men. [737] Though you oppose these doctrines so
violently, your religion resembles ours in attaching the same sacredness to the
bread and wine that we do to everything. This is our belief, which you will have
an opportunity of hearing more of, if you wish to do so. Meanwhile there is some
force in the consideration that you or any one that is asked where his God
dwells, will say that he dwells in light; so that the testimony in favor of my
worship is almost universal. 3. As to your calling us a schism of the Gentiles,
and not a sect, I suppose the word schism applies to those who have the same
doctrines and worship as other people, and only choose to meet separately. The
word sect, again, applies to those whose doctrine is quite unlike that of
others, and who have made a form of divine worship peculiar to themselves. If
this is what the words mean, in the first place, in our doctrine and worship we
have no resemblance to the Pagans. We shall see presently whether you have. The
Pagan doctrine is, that all things good and evil, mean and glorious, fading and
unfading, changeable and unchangeable, material and divine, have only one
principle. In opposition to this, my belief is that God is the principle of all
good things, and Hyle [matters] of the opposite. Hyle is the name given by our
master in divinity to the principle or nature of evil. The Pagans accordingly
think it right to worship God with altars, and shrines, and images, and
sacrifices, and incense. Here also my practice differs entirely from theirs: for
I look upon myself as a reasonable temple of God, if I am worthy to be so; and I
consider Christ his Son as the living image of his living majesty; and I hold a
mind well cultivated to be the true altar, and pure and simple prayers to be the
true way of paying divine honors and of offering sacrifices. Is this being a
schism of the Pagans? 4. As regards the worship of the Almighty God, you might
call us a schism of the Jews, for all Jews are bold enough to profess this
worship, were it not for the difference in the form of our worship, though it
may be questioned whether the Jews really worship the Almighty. But the doctrine
I have mentioned is common to the Pagans in their worship of the sun, and to the
Jews in their worship of the Almighty. Even in relation to you, we are not
properly a schism, though we acknowledge Christ and worship Him; for our worship
and doctrine are different from yours. In a schism, little or no change is made
from the original; as, for instance, you, in your schism from the Gentiles, have
brought with you the doctrine of a single principle, for you believe that all
things are of God. The sacrifices you change into love-feasts, the idols into
martyrs, to whom you pray as they do to their idols. You appease the shades of
the departed with wine and food. You keep the same holidays as the Gentiles; for
example, the calends and the solstices. In your way of living you have made no
change. Plainly you are a mere schism; for the only difference from the original
is that you meet separately. In this you have followed the Jews, who separated
from the Gentiles, but differed only in not having images. For they used
temples, and sacrifices, and altars, and a priesthood, and the whole round of
ceremonies the same as those of the Gentiles, only more superstitious. Like the
Pagans, they believe in a single principle; so that both you and the Jews are
schisms of the Gentiles, for you have the same faith, and nearly the same
worship, and you call yourselves sects only because you meet separately. The
fact is, there are only two sects, the Gentiles and ourselves. We and the
Gentiles are as contrary in our belief as truth and falsehood, day and night,
poverty and wealth, health and sickness. You, again, are not a sect in relation
either to truth or to error. You are merely a schism and a schism not of truth,
but of error. 5. Augustin replied: O hateful mixture of ignorance and cunning!
Why do you put arguments in the mouth of your opponent, which no one that knows
you would use? We do not call you Pagans, or a schism of Pagans; but we say that
you resemble them in worshipping many gods. But you are far worse than Pagans,
for they worship things which exist, though they should not be worshipped: for
idols have an existence, though for salvation they are nought. So, to worship a
tree with prayers, instead of improving it by cultivation, is not to worship
nothing, but to worship in a wrong way. When the apostle says that "the things
which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God," [738]
he means that these demons exist to whom the sacrifices are made, and with whom
he wishes us not to be partakers. So, too, heaven and earth, the sea and air,
the sun and moon, and the other heavenly bodies, are all objects which have a
sensible existence. When the Pagans worship these as gods, or as parts of one
great God (for some of them identify the universe with the Supreme Deity), they
worship things which have an existence. In arguing with Pagans, we do not deny
the existence of these things, but we say that they should not be worshipped;
and we recommend the worship of the invisible Creator of all these things, in
whom alone man can find the happiness which all allow that he desires. To those,
again, who worship what is invisible and immaterial, but still is created, as
the soul or mind of man, we say that happiness is not to be found in the
creature even under this form, and that we must worship the true God, who is not
only invisible, but unchangeable; for He alone is to be worshipped, in the
enjoyment of whom the worshipper finds happiness, and without whom the soul must
be wretched, whatever else it possesses. You, on the other hand, who worship
things which have no existence at all except in your fictitious legends, would
be nearer true piety and religion if you were Pagans, or if you were worshippers
of what has an existence, though not a proper object of worship. In fact, you do
not properly worship the sun, though he carries your prayers with him in his
course round the heavens. 6. Your statements about the sun himself are so false
and absurd, that if he were to repay you for the injury done to him, he would
scorch you to death. First of all, you call the sun a ship, so that you are not
only astray worlds off, as the saying is, but adrift. Next, while every one sees
that the sun is round, which is the form corresponding from its perfection to
his position among the heavenly bodies, you maintain that he is triangular, that
is, that his light shines on the earth through a triangular window in heaven.
Hence it is that you bend and bow your heads to the sun, while you worship not
this visible sun, but some imaginary ship which you suppose to be shining
through a triangular opening. Assuredly this ship would never have been heard
of, if the words required for the composition of heretical fictions had to be
paid for, like the wood required for the beams of a ship. All this is
comparatively harmless, however ridiculous or pitiable. Very different is your
wicked fancy about youths of both sexes proceeding from this ship, whose beauty
excites eager desire in the princes and princesses of darkness; and so the
members of your god are released from this humiliating confinement in the
members of the race of darkness, by means of sinful passion and sensual
appetite. And to these filthy rags of yours you would unite the mystery of the
Trinity; for you say that the Father dwells in a secret light, the power of the
Son in the sun, and His wisdom in the moon, and the Holy Spirit in the air. 7.
As for this threefold or rather fourfold fiction, what shall I say of the secret
light of the Father, but that you can think of no light except what you have
seen? From your knowledge of visible light, with which beasts and insects as
well as men are familiar, you form some vague idea in your mind, and call it the
light in which God the Father dwells with His subjects. How can you distinguish
between the light by which we see, and that by which we understand, when,
according to your ideas, to understand truth is nothing else than to form the
conception of material forms, either finite or in some cases infinite; and you
actually believe in these wild fancies? It is manifest that the act of my mind
in thinking of your region of light which has no existence, is entirely
different from my conception of Alexandria, which exists, though I have not seen
it. And, again, the act of forming a conception of Alexandria, which I have
never seen, is very different from thinking of Carthage, which I know. But this
difference is insignificant as compared with that between my thinking of
material things which I know from seeing them, and my understanding justice,
chastity, faith, truth, love, goodness, and things of this nature. Can you
describe this intellectual light, which gives us a clear perception of the
distinction between itself and other things, as well as of the distinction
between those things themselves? And yet even this is not the sense in which it
can be said that God is light, for this light is created, whereas God is the
Creator; the light is made, and He is the Maker; the light is changeable. For
the intellect changes from dislike to desire, from ignorance to knowledge, from
forgetfulness to recollection; whereas God remains the same in will, in truth,
and in eternity. From God we derive the beginning of existence, the principle of
knowledge, the law of affection. From God all animals, rational and irrational,
derive the nature of their life, the capacity of sensation, the faculty of
emotion. From God all bodies derive their subsistence in extension, their beauty
in number, and their order in weight. This light is one divine being, in an
inseparable triune existence; and yet, without supposing the assumption of any
bodily form, you assign to separate places parts of the immaterial, spiritual,
and unchangeable substance. And instead of three places for the Trinity, you
have four: one, the light inaccessible, which you know nothing about, for the
Father; two, the sun and moon, for the Son; and again one, the circle of the
atmosphere, for the Holy Spirit. Of the inaccessible light of the Father I shall
say nothing further at present, for orthodox believers do not separate the Son
and the Spirit from the Father in relation to this light. 8. It is difficult to
understand how you have been taken with the absurd idea of placing the power of
the Son in the sun, and His wisdom in the moon. For, as the Son remains
inseparably in the Father, His wisdom and power cannot be separated from one
another, so that one should be in the sun and the other in the moon. Only
material things can be thus assigned to separate places. If you only understood
this, it would have prevented you from taking the productions of a diseased
fancy as the material for so many fictions. But there is inconsistency and
improbability as well as falsehood in your ideas. For, according to you, the
seat of wisdom is inferior in brightness to the seat of power. Now energy and
productiveness are the qualities of power, whereas light teaches and manifests;
so that if the sun had the greater heat, and the moon the greater light, these
absurdities might appear to have some likelihood to men of carnal minds, who
know nothing except through material conceptions. From the connection between
great heat and motion, they might identify power with heat; while light from its
brightness, and as making things discernible, they might represent wisdom. But
what folly as well as profanity, in placing power in the sun, which excels so
much in light, and wisdom in the moon, which is so inferior in brightness! And
while you separate Christ from Himself, you do not distinguish between Christ
and the Holy Spirit; whereas Christ is one, the power of God, and the wisdom of
God, and the Spirit is a distinct person. But according to you, the air, which
you make the seat of the Spirit, fills and pervades the universe. So the sun and
moon in their course are always united to the air. But the moon approaches the
sun at one time, and recedes from it at another. So that, if we may believe you,
or rather, if we may allow ourselves to be imposed on by you, wisdom recedes
from power by half the circumference of a circle, and again approaches it by the
other half. And when wisdom is full, it is at a distance from power. For when
the moon is full, the distance between the two bodies is so great, that the moon
rises in the east while the sun is setting in the west. But as the loss of power
produces weakness, the fuller the moon is, the weaker must wisdom be. If, as is
certainly true, the wisdom of God is unchangeable in power, and the power of God
unchangeable in wisdom, how can you separate them so as to assign them to
different places? And how can the place be different when the substance is the
same? Is this not the infatuation of subjection to material fancies; showing
such a want of power and wisdom that your wisdom is as weak as your power is
foolish? This execrable absurdity would divide Christ between the sun and the
moon, -- His power in one, and His wisdom in the other; so that He would be
incomplete in both, lacking wisdom in the sun, and power in the moon, while in
both He supplies youths, male and female, to excite the affection of the princes
and princesses of darkness. Such are the tenets which you learn and profess.
Such is the faith which directs your conduct. And can you wonder that you are
regarded with abhorrence? 9. But besides your errors regarding these conspicuous
and familiar luminaries, which you worship not for what they are, but for what
your wild fancy makes them to be, your other absurdities are still worse than
this. Your illustrious World-bearer, and Atlas who helps to hold him up, are
unreal beings. Like innumerable other creatures of your fancy, they have no
existence, and yet you worship them. For this reason we say that you are worse
than Pagans, while you resemble them in worshipping many gods. You are worse,
because, while they worship things which exist though they are not gods, you
worship things which are neither gods nor anything else, for they have no
existence. The Pagans, too, have fables, but they know them to be fables; and
either look upon them as amusing poetical fancies, or try to explain them as
representing the nature of things, or the life of man. Thus they say that Vulcan
is lame, because flame in common fire has an irregular motion: that Fortune is
blind, because of the uncertainty of what are called fortuitous occurrences:
that there are three Fates, with distaff, and spindle, and fingers spinning wool
into thread, because there are three times, -- the past, already spun and wound
on the spindle; the present, which is passing through the fingers of the
spinner; and the future, still in wool bound to the distaff, and soon to pass
through the fingers to the spindle, that is, through the present into the
future: and that Venus is the wife of Vulcan, because pleasure has a natural
connection with heat; and that she is the mistress of Mars, because pleasure is
not properly the companion of warriors: and that Cupid is a boy with wings and a
bow, from the wounds inflicted by thoughtless, inconstant passion in the hearts
of unhappy beings: and so with many other fables. The great absurdity is in
their continuing to worship these beings, after giving such explanations; for
the worship without the explanations, though criminal, would be a less heinous
crime. The very explanations prove that they do not worship that God, the
enjoyment of whom can alone give happiness, but things which He has created. And
even in the creature they worship not only the virtues, as in Minerva, who
sprang from the head of Jupiter, and who represents prudence, -- a quality of
reason which, according to Plato, has its seat in the head, -- but their vices,
too, as in Cupid. Thus one of their dramatic poets says, "Sinful passion, in
favor of vice, made Love a god." [739] Even bodily evils had temples in Rome, as
in the case of pallor and fever. Not to dwell on the sin of the worshippers of
these idols, who are in a way affected by the bodily forms, so that they pay
homage to them as deities, when they see them set up in some lofty place, and
treated with great honor and reverence, there is greater sin in the very
explanations which are intended as apologies for these dumb, and deaf, and
blind, and lifeless objects. Still, though, as I have said, these things are
nothing in the way of salvation or of usefulness, both they and the things they
are said to represent are real existences. But your First Man, warring with the
five elements; and your Mighty Spirit, who constructs the world from the captive
bodies of the race of darkness, or rather from the members of your god in
subjection and bondage; and your World-holder, who has in his hand the remains
of these members, and who bewails the capture and bondage and pollution of the
rest; and your giant Atlas, who keeps up the World-holder on his shoulders, lest
he should from weariness throw away his burden, and so prevent the completion of
the final imitation of the mass of darkness, which is to be the last scene in
your drama; -- these and countless other absurdities are not represented in
painting or sculpture, or in any explanation; and yet you believe and worship
things which have no existence, while you taunt the Christians with being
credulous for believing in realities with a faith which pacifies the mind under
its influence. The objects of your worship can be shown to have no existence by
many proofs, which I do not bring forward here, because, though I could without
difficulty discourse philosophically on the construction of the world, it would
take too long to do so here. One proof suffices. If these things are real, God
must be subject to change, and corruption, and contamination; a supposition as
blasphemous as it is irrational. All these things, therefore, are vain, and
false, and unreal. Thus you are much worse than those Pagans, with whom all are
familiar, and who still preserve traces of their old customs, of which they
themselves are ashamed; for while they worship things which are not gods, you
worship things which do not exist. 10. If you think that your doctrines are true
because they are unlike the errors of the Pagans, and that we are in error
because we perhaps differ more from you than from them, you might as well say
that a dead man is in good health because he is not sick; or that good health is
undesirable, because it differs less from sickness than from death. Or if the
Pagans should be viewed in many cases as rather dead than sick, you might as
well praise the ashes in the tomb because they have no longer the human shape,
as compared with the living body, which does not differ so much from a corpse as
from ashes. It is thus we are reproached for having more resemblance to the dead
body of Paganism than to the ashes of Manichæism. But in division, it often
happens that a thing is placed in different classes, according to the point of
resemblance on which the division proceeds. For instance, if animals are divided
into those that fly and those that cannot fly, in this division men and beasts
are classed together as distinct from birds, because they are both unable to
fly. But if they are divided into rational and irrational, beasts and birds are
classed together as distinct from men, for they are both destitute of reason.
Faustus did not think of this when he said: There are in fact only two sects,
the Gentiles and ourselves, for we are directly opposed to them in our belief.
The opposition he means is this, that the Gentiles believe in a single
principle, whereas the Manichæans believe also in the principle of the race of
darkness. Certainly, according to this division we agree in general with the
Pagans. But if we divide all who have a religion into those who worship one God
and those who worship many gods, the Manichæans must be classed along with the
Pagans, and we along with the Jews. This is another distinction, which may be
said to make only two sects. Perhaps you will say that you hold all your gods to
be of one substance, which the Pagans do not. But you at least resemble them in
assigning to your gods different powers, and functions, and employments. One
does battle with the race of darkness; another constructs the world from the
part which is captured; another, standing above, has the world in his hand;
another holds him up from below; another turns the wheels of the fires and winds
and waters beneath; another, in his circuit of the heavens, gathers with his
beams the members of your god from cesspools. Indeed, your gods have innumerable
occupations, according to your fabulous descriptions, which you neither explain
nor represent in a visible form. But again, if men were divided into those who
believe that God takes an interest in human affairs and those who do not, the
Pagans and Jews, and you and all heretics that have anything of Christianity,
will be classed together, as opposed to the Epicureans, and any others holding
similar views. As this is a principle of importance, here again we may say that
there are only two sects, and you belong to the same sect as we do. You will
hardly venture to dissent from us in the opinion that God is concerned in human
affairs, so that in this matter your opposition to the Epicureans makes you side
with us. Thus, according to the nature of the division, what is in one class at
one time, is in another at another time: things joined here are separated there:
in some things we are classed with others, and they with us; in other things we
are classed separately, and stand alone. If Faustus thought of this, he would
not talk such eloquent nonsense. 11. But what are we to make of these words of
Faustus: The Holy Spirit, by his influence and spiritual infusion, makes the
earth conceive and bring forth the mortal Jesus, who, as hanging from every
tree, is the life and salvation of men? Letting pass for a moment the absurdity
of this statement, we observe the folly of believing that the mortal Jesus can
be conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit by the earth, but not by the
Virgin Mary. Dare you compare the holiness of that chaste virgin's womb with any
piece of ground where trees and plants grow? Do you pretend to look with
abhorrence upon a pure virgin, while you do not shrink from believing that Jesus
is produced in gardens watered by the filthy drains of a city? For plants of all
kinds spring up and are nourished in such moisture. You will have Jesus to be
born in this way, while you cry out against the idea of His being born of a
virgin. Do you think flesh more unclean than the excrements which its nature
rejects? Is the filth cleaner than the flesh which expels it? Are you not aware
how fields are manured in order to make them productive? Your folly comes to
this, that the Holy Spirit, who, according to you, despised the womb of Mary,
makes the earth conceive more fruitfully in proportion as it is carefully
enriched with animal off-scourings. Do you reply that the Holy Spirit preserves
His incorruptible purity everywhere? I ask again, Why not also in the virgin's
womb? Passing from the conception, you maintain in regard to the mortal Jesus --
who, as you say, is born from the earth, which has conceived by the power of the
Holy Spirit -- that He hangs in the shape of fruit from every tree: so that,
besides this pollution, He suffers additional defilement from the flesh of the
countless animals that eat the fruit; except, indeed, the small amount that is
purified by your eating it. While we believe and confess Christ the Son of God,
and the Word of God, to have become flesh without suffering defilement, because
the divine substance is not defiled by flesh, as it is not defiled by anything,
your fanciful notions would make Jesus to be defiled even as hanging on the
tree, before entering the flesh of any animal; for if He were not defiled, there
would be no need of His being purified by your eating Him. And if all trees are
the cross of Christ, as Faustus seems to imply when he says that Jesus hangs
from every tree, why do you not pluck the fruit, and so take Jesus down from
hanging on the tree to bury Him in your stomach, which would correspond to the
good deed of Joseph of Arimathea, when he took down the true Jesus from the
cross to bury Him? [740] Why should it be impious to take Christ from the tree,
while it is pious to lay Him in the tomb? Perhaps you wish to apply to
yourselves the words quoted from the prophet by Paul, "Their throat is an open
sepulchre:" [741] and so you wait with open mouth till some one comes to use
your throat as the best sepulchre for Christ. Once more, how many Christs do you
make? Is there one whom you call the mortal Christ, whom the earth conceives and
brings forth by the power of the Holy Spirit; and another crucified by the Jews
under Pontius Pilate; and a third whom you divide between the sun and the moon?
Or is it one and the same person, part of whom is confined in the trees, to be
released by the help of the other part which is not confined? If this is the
case, and you allow that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, though it is
difficult to see how he could have suffered without flesh, as you say he did,
the great question is, with whom he left those ships you speak of, that he might
come down and suffer these things, which he certainly could not have suffered
without having a body of some kind. A mere spiritual presence could not have
made him liable to these sufferings, and in his bodily presence he could not be
at the same time in the sun, in the moon, and on the cross. So, then, if he had
not a body, he was not crucified; and if he had a body, the question is, where
he got it: for, according to you, all bodies belong to the race of darkness,
though you cannot think of the divine substance except as being material. Thus
you must say either that Christ was crucified without a body; which is utterly
absurd; or that he was crucified in appearance and not in reality, which is
blasphemy; or that all bodies do not belong to the race of darkness, but that
the divine substance has also a body, and that not an immortal body, but liable
to crucifixion and death, which, again, is altogether erroneous; or that Christ
had a mortal body from the race of darkness, so that, while you will not allow
that Christ's body came from the Virgin Mary, you derive it from the race of
demons. Finally, as in Faustus' statement, in which he alludes in the briefest
manner possible to the lengthy stories of Manichæan invention, the earth by the
power of the Holy Spirit conceives and brings forth the mortal Jesus, who,
hanging from every tree, is the life and salvation of men, why should this
Saviour be represented by whatever is hanging, because he hung on the tree, and
not by whatever is born, because he was born? But if you mean that the Jesus on
the trees, and the Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate, and the Jesus divided
between the sun and the moon, are all one and the same substance, why do you not
give the name of Jesus to your whole host of deities? Why should not your
World-holder be Jesus too, and Atlas, and the King of Honour, and the Mighty
Spirit, and the First Man, and all the rest, with their various names and
occupations? 12. So, with regard to the Holy Spirit, how can you say that he is
the third person, when the persons you mention are innumerable? Or why is he not
Jesus himself? And why does Faustus mislead people, in trying to make out an
agreement between himself and true Christians, from whom he differs only too
widely, by saying, We worship one God under the threefold appellation of the
Almighty God the Father, Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why is the
appellation only threefold, instead of being manifold? And why is the
distinction in appellation only, and not in reality, if there are as many
persons as there are names? For it is not as if you gave three names to the same
thing, as the same weapon may be called a short sword, a dagger, or a dirk; or
as you give the name of moon, and the lesser ship, and the luminary of night,
and so on, to the same thing. For you cannot say that the First Man is the same
as the Mighty Spirit, or as the World-Holder, or as the giant Atlas. They are
all distinct persons, and you do not call any of them Christ. How can there be
one Deity with opposite functions? Or why should not Christ himself be the
single person, if in one substance Christ hangs on the trees, and was persecuted
by the Jews, and exists in the sun and moon? The fact is, your fancies are all
astray, and are no better than the dreams of insanity.13. How can Faustus think
that we resemble the Manichæans in attaching sacredness to bread and wine, when
they consider it sacrilege to taste wine? They acknowledge their god in the
grape, but not in the cup; perhaps they are shocked at his being trampled on and
bottled. It is not any bread and wine that we hold sacred as a natural
production, as if Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as the Manichæans
fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol. What is not consecrated,
though it is bread and wine, is only nourishment or refreshment, with no
sacredness about it; although we bless and thank God for every gift, bodily as
well as spiritual. According to your notion, Christ is confined in everything
you eat, and is released by digestion from the additional confinement of your
intestines. So, when you eat, your god suffers; and when you digest, you suffer
from his recovery. When he fills you, your gain is his loss. This might be
considered kindness on his part, because he suffers in you for your benefit,
were it not that he gains freedom by escaping and leaving you empty. There is
not the least resemblance between our reverence for the bread and wine, and your
doctrines, which have no truth in them. To compare the two is even more foolish
than to say, as some do, that in the bread and wine we worship Ceres and
Bacchus. I refer to this now, to show where you got your silly idea that our
fathers kept the Sabbath in honor of Saturn. For as there is no connection with
the worship of the Pagan deities Ceres and Bacchus in our observance of the
sacrament of the bread and wine, which you approve so highly that you wish to
resemble us in it, so there was no subjection to Saturn in the case of our
fathers, who observed the rest of the Sabbath in a manner suitable to prophetic
times.14. You might have found a resemblance in your religion to that of the
Pagans as regards Hyle [matter], which the Pagans often speak of. You, on the
contrary, maintain that you are directly opposed to them in your belief in the
evil principle which your teacher in theology calls Hyle. But here you only show
your ignorance, and, with an affectation of learning, use this word without
knowing what it means. The Greeks, when speaking of nature, give the name Hyle
to the subject-matter of things, which has no form of its own, but admits of all
bodily forms, and is known only through these changeable phenomena, not being
itself an object of sensation or perception. Some Gentiles, indeed, erroneously
make this matter co-eternal with God, as not being derived from Him, though the
bodily forms are. In this manifest error you resemble the Pagans, for you hold
that Hyle has a principle of its own, and does not come from God. It is only
ignorance that leads you to deny this resemblance. In saying that Hyle has no
form of its own, and can take its forms only from God, the Pagans come near to
the truth which we believe in contradistinction from your errors. Not knowing
what Hyle or the subject-matter of things is, you make it the race of darkness,
in which you place not only innumerable bodily forms of five different kinds,
but also a formative mind. Such, indeed, is your ignorance or insanity, that you
call this mind Hyle, and make it give forms instead of taking them. If there
were such a formative mind as you speak of, and bodily elements capable of form,
the word Hyle would properly be applicable to the bodily elements, which would
be the matter to be formed by the mind, which you make the principle of evil.
Even this would not be a quite accurate use of the word Hyle, which has no form
of any kind; whereas these elements, although capable of new forms, have already
the form of elements, and belong to different kinds. Still this use of the word
would not be so much amiss, notwithstanding your ignorance; for it would thus be
applied, as it properly is, to that which takes form, and not to that which
gives it. Even here, however, your folly and impiety would appear in tracing so
much that is good to the evil principle, from your not knowing that all natures
of every kind, all forms in their proportion, and all weights in their order,
can come only from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As it is, you know
neither what Hyle is, nor what evil is. Would that I could persuade you to
refrain from misleading people still more ignorant than yourselves! 15. Every
one must see the folly of your boasting of superiority to the Pagans because
they use altars and temples, images and sacrifices and incense, in the worship
of God, which you do not. As if it were not better to build an altar and offer
sacrifice to a stone, which has some kind of existence, than to employ a heated
imagination in worshipping things which have no existence at all. And what do
you mean by saying that you are a rational temple of God? Can that be God's
temple which is partly the construction of the devil? And is this not true of
you, as you say that all your members and your whole body were formed by the
evil principle which you call Hyle, and that part of this formative mind dwells
in the body along with part of your god? And as this part of your god is bound
and confined, you should be called the prison of God rather than his temple.
Perhaps it is your soul that is the temple of God, as you have it from the
region of light. But you generally call your soul not a temple, but a part or
member of God. So, when you say you are the temple of God, it must be in your
body, which, you say, was formed by the devil. Thus you blaspheme the temple of
God, calling it not only the workmanship of Satan, but the prison-house of God.
The apostle, on the other hand, says: "The temple of God is holy, which temple
ye are." And to show that this refers not merely to the soul, he says expressly:
"Know ye not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you,
which ye have of God?" [742] You call the workmanship of devils the temple of
God, and there, to use Faustus' words, you place Christ, the Son of God, the
living image of living majesty. Your impiety may well contrive a fabulous temple
for a fabulous Christ. The image you speak of must be so called, because it is
the creature of your imagination.16. If your mind is an altar, you see whose
altar it is. You may see from the very doctrines and duties in which you say you
are trained. You are taught not to give food to a beggar; and so your altar
smokes with the sacrifice of cruelty. Such altars the Lord destroys; for in
words quoted from the law He tells us what offering pleases God: "I desire
mercy, and not sacrifice." Observe on what occasion the Lord uses these words.
It was when, in passing through a field, the disciples plucked the ears of corn
because they were hungry. Your doctrine would lead you to call this murder. Your
mind is an altar, not of God, but of lying devils, by whose doctrines the evil
conscience is seared as with a hot iron, [743] calling murder what the truth
calls innocence. For in His words to the Jews, Christ by anticipation deals a
fatal blow to you: "If ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." [744]17. Nor can you say
that you honor God with sacrifices in the shape of pure and simple prayers: for,
in your low, dishonoring notions about the divine nature and substance, you make
your god to be the victim in the sacrifices of Pagans; so far are you from
pleasing the true God with your sacrifices. For you hold that God is confined
not only in trees and plants, or in the human body, but also in the flesh of
animals, which contaminates Him with its impurity. And how can your soul give
praise to God, when you actually reproach Him by calling your soul a particle of
His substance taken captive by the race of darkness; as if God could not
maintain the conflict except by this corruption of His members, and this
dishonorable captivity? Instead of honoring God in your prayers, you insult Him.
For what sin did you commit, when you belonged to Him, that you should be thus
punished by the god you cry to, not because you left Him sinfully of your own
choice; for he himself gave you to His enemies, to obtain peace for His kingdom?
You are not even given as hostages to be honorably guarded. Nor is it as when a
shepherd lays a snare to catch a wild beast: for he does not put one of his own
members in the snare, but some animal from his flock; and generally, so that the
wild beast is caught before the animal is hurt. You, though you are the members
of your god, are given to the enemy, whose ferocity you keep off from your god
only by being contaminated with their impurity, infected with their corruptions,
without any fault of your own. You cannot in your prayers use the words: "Free
us, O Lord, for the glory of Thy name; and for Thy name's sake pardon our sins."
[745] Your prayer is: "Free us by Thy skill, for we suffer here oppression, and
torture, and pollution, only that Thou mayest mourn unmolested in Thy kingdom."
These are words of reproach, not of entreaty. Nor can you use the words taught
us by the Master of truth: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
[746] For who are the debtors who have sinned against you? If it is the race of
darkness, you do not forgive their debts, but make them be utterly cast out and
shut up in eternal imprisonment. And how can God forgive your debts, when He
rather sinned against you by sending you into such a state, than you against
Him, whom you obeyed by going? If this was not a sin in Him, because He was
compelled to do it, this excuse must apply you, now that you have been
overthrown in the conflict, more than to Him before the conflict began. You
suffer now from the mixture of evil, which was not the case with Him when
nevertheless He was compelled to send you. So either He requires that you should
forgive Him his debt; or, if He is not in debt to you, still less are you to
Him. It appears that your sacrifices and your pure and simple prayers are false
and vile blasphemies. 18. How is it, by the way, that you use the words temple,
altar, sacrifice, for the purpose of commending your own practices? If such
things can be spoken of as properly belonging to true religion, they must
constitute the true worship of the true God. And if there is such a thing as
true sacrifice to the true God, which is implied in the expression divine
honors, there must be some one true sacrifice of which the rest are imitations.
On the one hand, we have the spurious imitations in the case of false and lying
gods, that is, of devils, who proudly demand divine honors from their deluded
votaries, as is or was the case in the temples and idols of the Gentiles. On the
other hand, we have the prophetic intimations of one most true sacrifice to be
offered for the sins of all believers, as in the sacrifices enjoined by God on
our fathers; along with which there was also the symbolical anointing typical of
Christ, as the name Christ itself means anointed. The animal sacrifices,
therefore, presumptuously claimed by devils, were an imitation of the true
sacrifice which is due only to the one true God, and which Christ alone offered
on His altar. Thus the apostle says: "The sacrifices which the Gentiles offer,
they offer to devils, and not to God." [747] He does not find fault with
sacrifices, but with offering to devils. The Hebrews, again, in their animal
sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the
significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This
sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and
participation of the body and blood of Christ. The Manichæans understand neither
the sinfulness of the Gentile sacrifices, nor the importance of the Hebrew
sacrifices, nor the use of the ordinance of the Christian sacrifice. Their own
errors are the offering they present to the devil who has deceived them. And
thus they depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to
doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy.19. It may be well that Faustus,
or at least that those who are charmed with Faustus' writings, should know that
the doctrine of a single principle did not come to us from the Gentiles; for the
belief in one true God, from whom every kind of nature is derived, is a part of
the original truth retained among the Gentiles, notwithstanding their having
fallen away to many false gods. For the Gentile philosophers had the knowledge
of God, because, as the apostle says, "the invisible things of God, from the
creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." But,
as the apostle adds, "when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither
were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." [748] These are the
idols of the Gentiles, which they cannot explain except by referring to the
creatures made by God; so that this very explanation of their idolatry, on which
the more enlightened Gentiles were wont to pride themselves as a proof of their
superiority, shows the truth of the following words of the apostle: "They
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever." [749] Where you differ from the Gentiles, you are in error; where you
resemble them, you are worse than they. You do not believe, as they do, in a
single principle; and so you fall into the impiety of believing the substance of
the one true God to be liable to subjugation and corruption. As regards the
worship of a plurality of gods, the doctrine of lying devils has led the
Gentiles to worship many idols, and you to worship many phantasms.20. We do not
turn the sacrifices of the Gentiles into love-feasts, as Faustus says we do. Our
love-feasts are rather a substitute for the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord, in
the words already quoted: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." At our
love-feasts the poor obtain vegetable or animal food; and so the creature of God
is used, as far as it is suitable, for the nourishment of man, who is also God's
creature. You have been led by lying devils, not in self-denial, but in
blasphemous error, "to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature
of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."
[750] In return for the bounties of the Creator, you ungratefully insult Him
with your impiety; and because in our love-feasts flesh is often given to the
poor, you compare Christian charity to Pagan sacrifices. This indeed, is another
point in which you resemble some Pagans. You consider it a crime to kill
animals, because you think that the souls of men pass into them; which is an
idea found in the writings of some Gentile philosophers, although their
successors appear to have thought differently. But here again you are most in
error: for they dreaded slaughtering a relative in the animal; but you dread the
slaughter of your god, for you hold even the souls of animals to be his members.
21. As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of
Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such
a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast
reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichæan inventions, and has fallen
heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so
anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned
the idols into martyrs, he speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites,
and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food. Do you, then,
believe in shades? We never heard you speak of such things, nor have we read of
them in your books. In fact, you generally oppose such ideas: for you tell us
that the souls of the dead, if they are wicked, or not purified, are made to
pass through various changes, or suffer punishment still more severe; while the
good souls are placed in ships, and sail through heaven to that imaginary region
of light which they died fighting for. According to you, then, no souls remain
near the burying-place of the body; and how can there be any shades of the
departed? What and where are they? Faustus' love of evil-speaking has made him
forget his own creed; or perhaps he spoke in his sleep about ghosts, and did not
wake up even when he saw his words in writing. It is true that Christians pay
religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them
and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But
we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to
the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints'
burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O
Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it
is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations
of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and
towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs
with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this
life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering
for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the
martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with
greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those
still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call
latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in
practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of
sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this
worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer,
sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into
this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of
caution. For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept
what they know to be due to God alone. We see this in Paul and Barnabas, when
the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to them as gods, on account of the
miracles they performed. They rent their clothes, and restrained the people,
crying out to them, and persuading them that they were not gods. We see it also
in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow
himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, "I am thy fellow-servant,
and of thy brethen." [751] Those who claim this worship are proud spirits, the
devil and his angels, as we see in all the temples and rites of the Gentiles.
Some proud men, too, have copied their example; as is related of some kings of
Babylon. Thus the holy Daniel was accused and persecuted, because when the king
made a decree that no petition should be made to any god, but only to the king,
he was found worshipping and praying to his own God, that is, the one true God.
[752] As for those who drink to excess at the feasts of the martyrs, we of
course condemn their conduct; for to do so even in their own houses would be
contrary to sound doctrine. But we must try to amend what is bad as well as
prescribe what is good, and must of necessity bear for a time with some things
that are not according to our teaching. The rules of Christian conduct are not
to be taken from the indulgences of the intemperate or the infirmities of the
weak. Still, even in this, the guilt of intemperance is much less than that of
impiety. To sacrifice to the martyrs, even fasting, is worse than to go home
intoxicated from their feast: to sacrifice to the martyrs, I say, which is a
different thing from sacrificing to God in memory of the martyrs, as we do
constantly, in the manner required since the revelation of the New Testament,
for this belongs to the worship or latria which is due to God alone. But it is
vain to try to make these heretics understand the full meaning of these words of
the Psalmist: "He that offereth the sacrifice of praise glorifieth me, and in
this way will I show him my salvation." [753] Before the coming of Christ, the
flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the
passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the
ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament. Between
the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the Hebrews there is all the difference that
there is between a false imitation and a typical anticipation. We do not despise
or denounce the virginity of holy women because there were vestal virgins. And,
in the same way, it is no reproach to the sacrifices of our fathers that the
Gentiles also had sacrifices. The difference between the Christian and vestal
virginity is great, yet it consists wholly in the being to whom the vow is made
and paid; and so the difference in the being to whom the sacrifices of the
Pagans and Hebrews are made and offered makes a wide difference between them. In
the one case they are offered to devils, who presumptuously make this claim in
order to be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honor. In the other case
they are offered to the one true God, as a type of the true sacrifice, which
also was to be offered to Him in the passion of the body and blood of Christ.
22. Faustus is wrong in saying that our Jewish forefathers, in their separation
from the Gentiles, retained the temple, and sacrifices, and altars, and
priesthood, and abandoned only graven images or idols, for they might have
sacrificed, as some do, without any graven image, to trees and mountains, or
even to the sun and moon and the stars. If they had thus rendered to these
objects the worship called latria, they would have served the creature instead
of the Creator, and so would have fallen into the serious error of heathenish
superstition; and even without idols, they would have found devils ready to take
advantage of their error, and to accept their offerings. For these proud and
wicked spirits feed not, as some foolishly suppose, on the smell of the
sacrifice, and the smoke, but on the errors of men. They enjoy not bodily
refreshment, but a malevolent gratification, when they in any way deceive
people, or when, with a bold assumption of borrowed majesty, they boast of
receiving divine honors. It was not, therefore, only the idols of the Gentiles
that our Jewish forefathers abandoned. They sacrificed neither to the earth nor
to any earthly thing, nor to the sea, nor to heaven, nor to the hosts of heaven,
but laid the victims on the altar of the one God, Creator of all, who required
these offerings as a means of foreshadowing the true victim, by whom He has
reconciled us to Himself in the remission of sins through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So Paul, addressing believers, who are made the body of which Christ is the
Head, says: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God." [754] The
Manichæans, on the other hand, say that human bodies are the workmanship of the
race of darkness, and the prison in which the captive deity is confined. Thus
Faustus' doctrine is very different from Paul's. But since whosover preaches to
you another gospel than that ye have received must be accursed, what Christ says
in Paul is the truth, while Manichæus in Faustus is accursed.23. Faustus says
also, without knowing what he says, that we have retained the manners of the
Gentiles. But seeing that the just lives by faith, and that the end of the
commandment is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith
unfeigned, and that these three, faith, hope, and love, abide to form the life
of believers, it is impossible that there should be similarity in the manners of
those who differ in these three things. Those who believe differently, and hope
differently, and love differently, must also live differently. And if we
resemble the Gentiles in our use of such things as food and drink, and houses
and clothes and baths, and those of us who marry, in taking and keeping wives,
and in begetting and bringing up children as our heirs, there is still a great
difference between the man who uses these things for some end of his own, and
the man who, in using them, gives thanks to God, having no unworthy or erroneous
ideas about God. For as you, according to your own heresy, though you eat the
same bread as other men, and live upon the produce of the same plants and the
water of the same fountain, and are clothed like others in wool and linen, yet
lead a different life, not because you eat or drink, or dress differently, but
because you differ from others in your ideas and in your faith, and in all these
things have in view an end of your own -- the end, namely, set forth in your
false doctrines; in the same way we, though we resemble the Gentiles in the use
of this and other things, do not resemble them in our life; for while the things
are the same, the end is different: for the end we have in view is, according to
the just commandment of God, love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience,
and faith unfeigned; from which some having erred, are turned to vain jangling.
In this vain jangling you bear the palm, for you do not attend to the fact that
so great is the difference of life produced by a different faith, even when the
things in possession and use are the same, that though your followers have
wives, and in spite of themselves get children, for whom they gather and store
up wealth; though they eat flesh, drink wine, bathe, reap harvests, gather
vintages, engage in trade, and occupy high official positions, you nevertheless
reckon them as belonging to you, and not to the Gentiles, though in their
actions they approach nearer to the Gentiles than to you. And though some of the
Gentiles in some things resemble you more than your own followers, -- those, for
instance, who in superstitious devotion abstain from flesh, and wine, and
marriage, -- you still count your own followers, even though they use all these
things, and so are unlike you, as belonging to the flock of Manichæus rather
than those who resemble you in their practices. You consider as belonging to you
a woman that believes in Manichæus, though she is a mother, rather than a Sibyl,
though she never marries. But you will say that many who are called Catholic
Christians are adulterers, robbers, misers, drunkards, and whatever else is
contrary to sound doctrine. I ask if none such are to be found in your company,
which is almost too small to be called a company. And because there are some
among the Pagans who are not of this character, do you consider them as better
than yourselves? And yet, in fact, your heresy is so blasphemous, that even your
followers who are not of such a character are worse than the Pagans who are. It
is therefore no impeachment to sound doctrine, which alone is Catholic, that
many wish to take its name, who will not yield to its beneficial influence. We
must bear in mind the true meaning of the contrast which the Lord makes between
the little company and the mass of mankind, as spread over all the world; for
the company of saints and believers is small, as the amount of grain is small
when compared with the heap of chaff; and yet the good grain is quite sufficient
far to outnumber you, good and bad together, for good and bad are both strangers
to the truth. In a word, we are not a schism of the Gentiles, for we differ from
them greatly for the better; nor are you, for you differ from them greatly for
the worse. [755]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 162: FAUSTUS DENIES THAT MANICHÆANS BELIEVE IN TWO GODS. HYLE NO GOD. AUGUSTIN DISCUSSES AT LARGE THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HYLE, AND FIXES THE CHARGE OF DUALISM UPON THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Do we believe in one God or in two? In one, of course. If we
are accused of making two gods, I reply that it cannot be shown that we ever
said anything of the kind. Why do you suspect us of this? Because, you say, you
believe in two principles, good and evil. It is true, we believe in two
principles; but one we call God, and the other Hyle, or, to use common popular
language, the devil. If you think this means two gods, you may as well think
that the health and sickness of which doctors speak are two kinds of health, or
that good and evil are two kinds of good, or that wealth and poverty are two
kinds of wealth. If I were describing two things, one white and the other black,
or one hot and the other cold, or one sweet and the other bitter, it would
appear like idiocy or insanity in you to say that I was describing two white
things, or two hot things, or two sweet things. So, when I assert that there are
two principles, God and Hyle, you have no reason for saying that I believe in
two gods. Do you think that we must call them both gods because we attribute, as
is proper, all the power of evil to Hyle, and all the power of good to God? If
so, you may as well say that a poison and the antidote must both be called
antidotes, because each has a power of its own, and certain effects follow from
the action of both. So also, you may say that a physician and a poisoner are
both physicians; or that a just and an unjust man are both just, because both do
something. If this is absurd, it is still more absurd to say that God and Hyle
must both be gods, because they both produce certain effects. It is a very
childish and impotent way of arguing, when you cannot refute my statements, to
make a quarrel about names. I grant that we, too, sometimes call the hostile
nature God; not that we believe it to be God, but that this name is already
adopted by the worshippers of this nature, who in their error suppose it to be
God. Thus the apostle says: "The god of this world has blinded the minds of them
that believe not." [756] He calls him God, because he would be so called by his
worshippers; adding that he blinds their minds, to show that he is not the true
God. 2. Augustin replied: You often speak in your discourses of two gods, as
indeed you acknowledge, though at first you denied it. And you give as a reason
for thus speaking the words of the apostle: "The god of this world has blinded
the minds of them that believe not." Most of us punctuate this sentence
differently, and explain it as meaning that the true God has blinded the minds
of unbelievers. They put a stop after the word God, and read the following words
together. Or without this punctuation you may, for the sake of exposition,
change the order of the words, and read, "In whom God has blinded the minds of
unbelievers of this world," which gives the same sense. The act of blinding the
minds of unbelievers may in one sense be ascribed to God, as the effect not of
malice, but of justice. Thus Paul himself says elsewhere, "Is God unjust, who
taketh vengeance?" [757] and again, "What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For Moses saith, I will have mercy on whom
I will have mercy, and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Observe what he adds, after asserting the undeniable truth that there is no
unrighteousness with God: "But what if God, willing to show His wrath, and to
make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath
fitted for destruction, and that He might manifest the riches of His grace
towards the vessels of mercy, which He hath before prepared unto glory?" [758]
etc. Here it evidently cannot be said that it is one God who shows his wrath,
and makes known his power in the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and
another God who shows his riches in the vessels of mercy. According to the
apostle's doctrine, it is one and the same God who does both. Hence he says
again, "For this cause God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart, to
uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves;" and immediately
after, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;" and again, "And
even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over
to a reprobate mind." [759] Here we see how the true and just God blinds the
minds of unbelievers. For in all these words quoted from the apostle no other
God is understood than He whose Son, sent by Him, came saying, "For judgment am
I come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which
see might be made blind." [760] Here, again, it is plain to the minds of
believers how God blinds the minds of unbelievers. For among the secret things,
which contain the righteous principles of God's judgment, there is a secret
which determines that the minds of some shall be blinded, and the minds of some
enlightened. Regarding this, it is well said of God, "Thy judgments are a great
deep." [761] The apostle, in admiration of the unfathomable depth of this abyss,
exclaims: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of
God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" [762]
3. You cannot distinguish between what God does in mercy and what He does in
judgment, because you can neither understand nor use the words of our Psalter:
"I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord." [763] Accordingly,
whatever in the feebleness of your frail humanity seems amiss to you, you
separate entirely from the will and judgment of God: for you are provided with
another evil god, not by a discovery of truth, but by an invention of folly; and
to this god you attribute not only what you do unjustly, but also what you
suffer justly. Thus you assign to God the bestowal of blessings, and take from
Him the infliction of judgments, as if He of whom Christ says that He has
prepared everlasting fire for the wicked were a different being from Him who
makes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and
on the unjust. Why do you not understand that this great goodness and great
severity belong to one God, but because you have not learned to sing of mercy
and judgment? Is not He who causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
sends rain on the just and on the unjust, the same who also breaks off the
natural branches, and engrafts contrary to nature the wild olive tree? Does not
the apostle, in reference to this, say of this one God: "Thou seest, then, the
goodness and severity of God: to them which were broken off, severity; but
toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness?" [764] Here it is to be
observed how the apostle takes away neither judicial severity from God, nor
free-will from man. It is a profound mystery, impenetrable by human thought, how
God both condemns the ungodly and justifies the ungodly; for both these things
are said of Him in the truth of the Holy Scriptures. But is the mysteriousness
of the divine judgments any reason for taking pleasure in cavilling against
them? How much more becoming, and more suitable to the limitation of our powers,
to feel the same awe which the apostle felt, and to exclaim, "O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His
judgments, and His ways past finding out!" How much better thus to admire what
you cannot explain, than to try to make an evil god in addition to the true God,
simply because you cannot understand the one good God! For it is not a question
of names, but of actions. 4. Faustus glibly defends himself by saying, "We speak
not of two gods, but of God and Hyle." But when you ask for the meaning of Hyle,
you find that it is in fact another god. If the Manichæans gave the name of
Hyle, as the ancients did, to the unformed matter which is susceptible of bodily
forms, we should not accuse them of making two gods. But it is pure folly and
madness to give to matter the power of forming bodies, or to deny that what has
this power is God. When you give to some other being the power which belongs to
the true God of making the qualities and forms, by which bodies, elements, and
animals exist, according to their respective modes, whatever name you choose to
give to this being, you are chargeable with making another god. There are indeed
two errors in this blasphemous doctrine. In the first place, you ascribe the act
of God to a being whom you are ashamed to call god; though you must call him god
as long as you make him do things which only God can do. In the second place,
the good things done by a good God you call bad, and ascribe to an evil god,
because you feel a childish horror of whatever shocks the frailty of fallen
humanity, and a childish pleasure in the opposite. So you think snakes are made
by an evil being; while you consider the sun so great a good, that you believe
it to be not the creature of God, but an emission from His substance. You must
know that the true God, in whom, alas, you have not yet come to believe, made
both the snake along with the lower creatures, and the sun along with other
exalted creatures. Moreover, among still more exalted creatures, not heavenly
bodies, but spiritual beings, He has made what far surpasses the light of the
sun, and what no carnal man can perceive, much less you, who, in your
condemnation of flesh, condemn the very principle by which you determine good
and evil. For your only idea of evil is from the disagreeableness of some things
to the fleshly sense; and your only idea of good is from sensual gratification.
5. When I consider the things lowest in the scale of nature, which are within
our view, and which, though earthly, and feeble, and mortal, are still the works
of God, I am lost in admiration of the Creator, who is so great, in the great
works and no less great in the small. For the divine skill seen in the formation
of all creatures in heaven and earth is always like itself, even in those things
that differ from one another; for it is everywhere perfect, in the perfection
which it gives to everything in its own kind. We see each creature made not as a
whole by itself, but in relation to the rest of the creation; so that the whole
divine skill is displayed in the formation of each, arranging each in its proper
place and order, and providing what is suitable for all, both separately and
unitedly. See here, lowest in the scale, the animals which fly, and swim, and
walk, and creep. These are mortal creatures, whose life, as it is written, "is
as a vapor which appeareth for a little time." [765] Each of these, according to
the capacity of its kind, contributes the measure appointed in the goodness of
the Creator to the completeness of the whole, so that the lowest partake in the
good which the highest possess in a greater degree. Show me, if you can, any
animal, however despicable, whose soul hates its own flesh, and does not rather
nourish and cherish it, by its vital motion minister to its growth and direct
its activity, and exercise a sort of management over a little universe of its
own, which it makes subservient to its own preservation. Even in the discipline
of his own body by a rational being, who brings his body under, that earthly
passion may not hinder his perception of wisdom, there is love for his own
flesh, which he then reduces to obedience, which is its proper condition.
Indeed, you yourselves, although your heresy teaches you a fleshly abhorrence of
the flesh, cannot help loving your own flesh, and caring for its safety and
comfort, both by avoiding all injury from blows, and falls, and inclement
weather, and by seeking for the means of keeping it in health. Thus the law of
nature is too strong for your false doctrine. 6. Looking at the flesh itself, do
we not see in the construction of its vital parts, in the symmetry of form, in
the position and arrangement of the limbs of action and the organs of sensation,
all acting in harmony; do we not see in the adjustment of measures, in the
proportion of numbers, in the order of weights, the handiwork of the true God,
of whom it is truly said, "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number,
and weight"? [766] If your heart was not hardened and corrupted by falsehood,
you would understand the invisible things of God from the things which He has
made, even in these feeble creatures of flesh. For who is the author of the
things I have mentioned, but He whose unity is the standard of all measure,
whose wisdom is the model of all beauty, and whose law is the rule of all order?
If you are blind to these things, hear at least the words of the apostle. 7. For
the apostle, in speaking of the love which husbands ought to have for their
wives gives, as an example, the love of the soul for the body. The words are:
"He that loveth his wife, loveth himself: for no man ever yet hated his own
flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the Church." [767] Look
at the whole animal creation, and you find in the instinctive self-preservation
of every animal this natural principle of love to its own flesh. It is so not
only with men, who, when they live aright, both provide for the safety of their
flesh, and keep their carnal appetites in subjection to the use of reason; the
brutes also avoid pain, and shrink from death, and escape as rapidly as they can
from whatever might break up the construction of their bodies, or dissolve the
connection of spirit and flesh; for the brutes, too, nourish and cherish their
own flesh. "For no one ever yet," says the apostle, "hated his own flesh, but
nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the Church." See where the apostle
begins, and to what he ascends. Consider, if you can, the greatness which
creation derives from its Creator, embracing as it does the whole extent from
the host of heaven down to flesh and blood, with the beauty of manifold form,
and the order of successive gradations. 8. The same apostle again, when speaking
of spiritual gifts as diverse, and yet tending to harmonious action, to
illustrate a matter so great, and divine, and mysterious, makes a comparison
with the human body, -- thus plainly intimating that this flesh is the handiwork
of God. The whole passage, as found in the Epistle to the Corinthians, is so
much to the point, that though it is long, I think it not amiss to insert it
all: "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye
were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit
of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
And there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But
the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge
by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of
healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another
prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues;
to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the
self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will. For as the body is
one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been
all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If
the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I
am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an
eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath
pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are
they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I
have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are
necessary; and those members of the body which we think to be less honorable,
upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more
abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need; but God hath tempered
the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked:
that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the
same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer
with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." [768] Apart
altogether from Christian faith, which would lead you to believe the apostle, if
you have common sense to perceive what is self-evident, let each examine and see
for himself the plain truth regarding those things of which the apostle speaks,
-- what greatness belongs to the least, and what goodness to the lowest; for
these are the things which the apostle extols, in order to illustrate by means
of these common and visible bodily objects, unseen spiritual realities of the
most exalted nature. 9. Whoever, then, denies that our body and its members,
which the apostle so approves and extols, are the handiwork of God, you see whom
he contradicts, preaching contrary to what you have received. So, instead of
refuting his opinions, I may leave him to be accursed of all Christians. The
apostle says, God tempered the body. Faustus says, Not God, but Hyle. Anathemas
are more suitable than arguments to such contradictions. You cannot say that God
is here called the God of this world. And if any one understands the passage
where this expression does occur to mean that the devil blinds the minds of
unbelievers, we grant that he does so by his evil suggestions, from yielding to
which, men lose the light of righteousness in God's righteous retribution. This
is all in accordance with sacred Scripture. The apostle himself speaks of
temptation from without: "I fear lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that
is in Christ." [769] To the same purpose are the words, "Evil communications
corrupt good manners;" [770] and when he speaks of a man deceiving himself,
"Whoever thinketh himself to be anything, when he is nothing, deceiveth
himself;" [771] or again, in the passage already quoted of the judgment of God,
"God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient." [772] Similarly, in the Old Testament, after the words, "God did
not create death, nor hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living," we
read, "By the envy of the devil death entered into the world." [773] And again
of death, that men may not put the blame from themselves, "The wicked invite her
with hands and voice; and thinking her a friend, they are drawn down." [774]
Elsewhere, however, it is said, "Good and evil, life and death, riches and
poverty, are from the Lord God." [775] This seems perplexing to people who do
not understand that, apart from the manifest judgment to follow hereafter upon
every evil work, there is an actual judgment at the time; so that in one action,
besides the craft of the deceiver and the wickedness of the voluntary agent,
there is also the just penalty of the judge: for while the devil suggests, and
man consents, God abandons. So, if you join the words, God of this world, and
understand that the devil blinds unbelievers by his mischievous delusions, the
meaning is not a bad one. For the word God is not used by itself, but with the
qualification of this world, that is, of wicked men, who seek to prosper only in
this age. In this sense the world is also called evil, where it is written,
"that He might deliver us from this present evil age." [776] In the same way, in
the expression, "whose god is their belly," it is only in connection with the
word whose that the belly is called god. So also, in the Psalms, the devils
would not be called gods without adding "of the nations." [777] But in the
passage we are now considering it is not said, The god of this world, or, Whose
god is their belly, or, The gods of the nations are devils; but simply, God has
tempered the body, which can be understood only of the true God, the Creator of
all. There is no disparaging addition here, as in the other cases. But perhaps
Faustus will say that God tempered the body, not as the maker of it, in the
arrangement of its members, but by mixing His light with it. Thus Faustus would
attribute to some other being than God the construction of the body, and the
arrangement of its members, while God tempered the evil of the construction by
the mixture of His goodness. Such are the inventions with which the Manichæans
cram feeble minds. But God, in aid of the feeble, by the mouth of the sacred
writers rebukes this opinion. For we read a few verses before: "God has placed
the members every one of them in the body, as it has pleased Him." Evidently,
God is said to have tempered the body, because He has constructed it of many
members, which in their union preserve the variety of their respective
functions. 10. Do the Manichæans suppose that the animals which, according to
their wild notions, were constructed by Hyle in the race of darkness, had not
this harmonious action of their members, commended by the apostle, before God
mixed His light with them; so that then the head did say to the feet, or the eye
to the hand, I have no need of thee? This is not and cannot be the Manichæan
doctrine, for they describe the animals as using all these members, and speak of
them as creeping, walking, swimming, flying, each in its own kind. They could
all see, too, and hear, and use the other senses, and nourish and cherish their
own bodies with appropriate means and appliances. Hence, moreover, they had the
power of reproduction, for they are spoken of as having offspring. All these
things, of which Faust speaks disparagingly as the works of Hyle, could not be
done without that harmonious arrangement which the apostle praises and ascribes
to God. Is it not now plain who is to be followed, and who is to be pronounced
accursed? Indeed, the Manichæans tell us of animals that could speak; and their
speeches were heard and understood and approved of by all creatures, whether
creeping things, or quadrupeds, or birds, or fish. Amazing and supernatural
eloquence! Especially as they had no grammarian or elocutionist to teach them,
and had not passed through the painful experience of the cane and the birch.
Why, Faustus himself began late in life to learn oratory, that he might
discourse eloquently on these absurdities; and with all his cleverness, after
ruining his health by study, his preaching has gained a mere handful of
followers. What a pity that he was born in the light, and not in that region of
darkness! If he had discoursed there against the light, the whole animal
creation, from the biped to the centipede, from the dragon to the shell-fish,
would have listened eagerly, and obeyed at once; whereas, when he discourses
here against the race of darkness, he is oftener called eloquent than learned,
and oftener still a false teacher of the worst kind. And among the few
Manichæans who extol him as a great teacher, he has none of the lower animals as
his disciples; and not even his horse is any the wiser for his master's
instructions, so that the mixture of a part of deity seems only to make the
animals more stupid. What absurdity is this! When will these deluded beings have
the sense to compare the description in the Manichæan fiction of what the
animals were formerly in their own region, with what they are now in this world?
Then their bodies were strong, now they are feeble; then their power of vision
was such that they were induced to invade the region of God on account of the
beauty which they saw, now it is too weak to face the rays of the sun; then they
had intelligence sufficient to understand a discourse addressed to them, now
they have no ability of the kind; then this astonishing and effective eloquence
was natural, now eloquence of the most meagre kind requires diligent study and
preparation. How many good things did the race of darkness lose by the mixture
of good! 11. Faustus has displayed his ingenuity, in the remarks to which I am
now replying, by making for himself a long list of opposites -- health and
sickness, riches and poverty, white and black, cold and hot, sweet and bitter.
We need not say much about black and white. Or, if there is a character for good
or evil in colors, so that white must be ascribed to God and black to Hyle; if
God threw a white color on the wings of birds, when Hyle, as the Manichæans say,
created them, where had the crows gone to when the swans got whitened? Nor need
we discuss heat and cold, for both are good in moderation, and dangerous in
excess. With regard to the rest, Faustus probably intended that good and evil,
which he might as well have put first, should be understood as including the
rest, so that health, riches, white, hot, sweet, should belong to good; and
sickness, poverty, black, cold, bitter, to evil. The ignorance and folly of this
is obvious. It might look like reviling if I were to take up separately white
and black, hot and cold, sweet and bitter, health and sickness. For if white and
sweet are both good, and black and bitter evil, how is it that most grapes and
all olives become black as they become sweet, and so get good by getting evil?
And if heat and health are both good, and cold and sickness evil, why do bodies
become sick when heated? Is it healthy to have fever? But I let these things
pass, for they may have been put down hastily, or they may have been given as
merely instances of opposition, and not as being good and bad, especially as it
is nowhere stated that the fire among the race of darkness is cold, so that heat
in this case must unquestionably be evil.12. We pass on, then, to health,
riches, sweetness, which Faustus evidently accounts good in his contrasts. Was
there no health of body in the race of darkness where animals were born and grew
up and brought forth, and had such vitality, that when some that were with child
were taken, as the story is, and were put in bonds in heaven, even the abortive
offspring of a premature birth, falling from heaven to earth, nevertheless
lived, and grew, and produced the innumerable kinds of animals which now exist?
Or were there no riches where trees could grow not only in water and wind, but
in smoke and fire, and could bear such a rich produce, that animals, according
to their several kinds, sprang from the fruit, and were provided with the means
of subsistence from those fertile trees, and showed how well fed they were by a
numerous progeny? And all this where there was no toil in cultivation, and no
inclement change from summer to winter, for there was no sun to give variety to
the seasons by his annual course. There must have been perennial productiveness
where the trees were not only born in their own element, but had a supply of
appropriate nourishment to make them constantly fertile; as we see orange-trees
bearing fruit all the year round if they are well watered. The riches must have
been abundant, and they must have been secure from harm; for there could be no
fear of hailstorms when there were no light-gatherers who, in your fable, set
the thunder in motion.13. Nor would the beings in this race of darkness have
sought for food if it had not been sweet and pleasant, so that they would have
died from want. For we find that all bodies have their peculiar wants, according
to which food is either agreeable or offensive. If it is agreeable, it is said
to be sweet or pleasant; if it is offensive, it is said to be bitter or sour, or
in some way disagreeable. In human beings we find that one desires food which
another dislikes, from a difference in constitution or habit or state of health.
Still more, animals of quite different make can find pleasure in food which is
disagreeable to us. Why else should the goats feed so eagerly on the wild
olives? This food is sweet to them, as in some sicknesses honey tastes bitter to
us. To a thoughtful inquirer these things suggest the beauty of the arrangement
in which each finds what suits it, and the greatness of the good which extends
from the lowest to the highest, and from the material to the spiritual. As for
the race of darkness, if an animal sprung from any element fed on what was
produced by that element, doubtless the food must have been sweet from its
appropriateness. Again, if this animal had found food of another element, the
want of appropriateness would have appeared in its offensiveness to the taste.
Such offensiveness is called sourness, or bitterness, or disagreeableness, or
something of the kind; or if its adverse nature is such as to destroy the
harmony of the bodily constitution, and so take away life or reduce the
strength, it is called poison, simply on account of this want of
appropriateness, while it may nourish the kind of life to which it is
appropriate. So, if a hawk eat the bread which is our daily food, it dies; and
we die if we eat hellebore, which cattle often feed on, and which may itself in
a certain form be used as a medicine. If Faustus had known or thought of this,
he would not have given poison and antidote as an example of the two natures of
good and evil, as if God were the antidote and Hyle the poison. For the same
thing, of one and the same nature, kills or cures, as it is used appropriately
or inappropriately. In the Manichæan legends, their god might be said to have
been poison to the race of darkness; for he so injured their bodies, that from
being strong, they became utterly feeble. But then again, as the light was
itself taken, and subjected to loss and injury, it may be said to have been
poison to itself. 14. Instead of one good and one evil principle, you seem to
make both good or both evil, or rather two good and two evil; for they are good
in themselves, and evil to one another. We may see afterwards which is the
better or the worse; but meanwhile we may think of them as both good in
themselves. Thus God reigned in one region, while Hyle reigned in the other.
There was health in both kingdoms, and rich produce in both; both had a numerous
progeny, and both tasted the sweetness of pleasures suitable to their respective
natures. But the race of darkness, say the Manichæans, excepting the part which
was evil to the light which it bordered on, was also evil to itself. As,
however, I have already pointed out many good things in it, if you can point out
its evils, there will still be two good kingdoms, though the one where there are
no evils will be the better of the two. What, then, do you call its evils? They
plundered, and killed, and devoured one another, according to Faustus. But if
they did nothing else than this, how could such numerous hosts be born and grow
up to maturity? They must have enjoyed peace and tranquillity too. But, allowing
the kingdom where there is no discord to be the better of the two, still they
should both be called good, rather than one good and the other bad. Thus the
better kingdom will be that where they killed neither themselves nor one
another; and the worse, or less good, where, though they fought with one
another, each separate animal preserved its own nature in health and safety. But
we cannot make much difference between your god and the prince of darkness, whom
no one opposed, whose reign was acknowledged by all, and whose proposals were
unanimously agreed to. All this implies great peace and harmony. Those kingdoms
are happy where all agree heartily in obedience to the king. Moreover, the rule
of this prince extended not only to his own species, or to bipeds whom you make
the parents of mankind, but to all kinds of animals, who waited in his presence,
obeying his commands, and believing his declarations. Do you think people are so
stupid as not to recognize the attributes of deity in your description of this
prince, or to think it possible that you can have another? If the authority of
this prince rested on his resources, he must have been very powerful; if on his
fame, he must have been renowned; if on love, the regard must have been
universal; if on fear, he must have kept the strictest order. If some evils,
then, were mixed with so many good things, who that knows the meaning of words
would call this the nature of evil? Besides, if you call this the nature of
evil, because it was not only evil to the other nature, but was also evil in
itself, was there no evil, think you, in the dire necessity to which your god
was subjected before the mixture with the opposite nature, so that he was
compelled to fight with it, and to send his own members to be swallowed up so
mercilessly as to be beyond the hope of complete recovery? This was a great evil
in that nature before its mixture with the only thing you allow to be evil. Your
god must either have had it in his power not to be injured and sullied by the
race of darkness, in which case his own folly must have brought him into
trouble; or if his substance was liable to corruption, the object of your
worship is not the incorruptible God of whom the apostle speaks. [778] Does not,
then this liability to corruption, even apart from the actual experience, seem
to you to be an evil in your god?15. It is plain, moreover, that either he must
have been destitute of prescience, -- a great defect, surely, in the Deity, not
to know what is coming; or if he had prescience, he can never have felt secure,
but must have been in constant terror, which you must allow to be a serious
evil. There must have been the fear at every moment, that the time might be come
for that conflict in which his members suffered such loss and contamination,
that to liberate and purify them costs infinite labor, and, after all, can be
done only partially. If it is going too far to attribute this state of alarm to
the Deity himself, his members at least must have dreaded the prospect of
suffering all these evils. Then, again, if they were ignorant of what was to
happen, the substance of your god must have been so far wanting in prescience.
How many evils do you reckon in your chief good? Perhaps you will say that they
had no fear, because they foresaw, along with the suffering, their liberation
and triumph. But still they must have feared for their companions, if they knew
that they were to be cut off from their kingdom, and bound for ever in the mass
of darkness.16. Had they not the charity to feel a kindly sympathy for those who
were doomed to suffer eternal punishment, without having committed any sin?
These souls that were to be bound up with the mass, were not they too part of
your god? Were they not of the same origin, the same substance? They at least
must have felt grief or fear in the prospect of their own eternal bondage. To
say that they did not know what was to happen, while the others did, is to make
one and the same substance partly acquainted with the future, and partly
ignorant. How can you call this substance the pure, and perfect, and supreme
good, if there were such evils in it, even before its mixture with the evil
principle? You will have to confess your two principles either both good or both
evil. If you make two evils, you may make either of them the worse, as you
please. But if you make two goods, we shall have to inquire which you make the
better. Meanwhile there is an end to your doctrine of two principles, one good
and the other evil, which are in fact two gods, one good and the other evil. But
if hurting another is evil, they both hurt one another. Perhaps the greater evil
was in the principle that first began the attack. But if one began the injury,
the other returned it; and not by the law of compensation, an eye for an eye,
which you are foolish enough to find fault with, but with far greater severity.
You must choose which you will call the worse, -- the one that began the injury,
or the one that had the will and the power to do still greater injury. The one
tried to get a share in the enjoyment of light; the other effected the entire
overthrow of its opponent. If the one had got what it desired, it would
certainly have done no harm to itself. But the other, in the discomfiture of its
adversary, did great mischief to part of itself; reminding us of the well-known
passionate exclamation, which is on record as having been actually used, "Perish
our friends, if that will rid us of our enemies." [779] For part of your god was
sent to suffer hopeless contamination, that there might be a covering for the
mass in which the enemy is to be buried for ever alive. So much will he continue
to be dreaded even when conquered and bound, that the security, such as it is,
of one part of the deity must be purchased by the eternal misery of the other
parts. Such is the harmlessness of the good principle! Your god, it appears, is
guilty of the crime with which you charge the race of darkness -- of injuring
both friends and enemies. The charge is proved in the case of your god, by that
final mass in which his enemies are confined, while his own subjects are
involved in it. In fact, the principle that you call god is the more injurious
of the two, both to friends and to enemies. In the case of Hyle, there was no
desire to destroy the opposite kingdom, but only to possess it; and though some
of its subjects were put to death by the violence of others, they appeared again
in other forms, so that in the alternation of life and death they had intervals
of enjoyment in their history. But your god, with all the omnipotence and
perfect excellence that you ascribe to him, dooms his enemies to eternal
destruction, and his friends to eternal punishment. And the height of insanity
is in believing that while internal contest occasions the injury of the members
of Hyle, victory brings punishment to the members of God. What means this folly?
To use Faustus' comparison of God and Hyle to the antidote and poison, the
antidote seems to be more mischievous than the poison. We do not hear of Hyle
shutting up God for ever in a mass of darkness, or driving its own members into
it; or, which is worst of all, slandering this unfortunate remnant, as an excuse
for not effecting its purification. For Manichæus, in his Fundamental Epistle,
says that these souls deserved to be thus punished, because they allowed
themselves to be led away from their original brightness, and became enemies of
holy light; whereas it was God himself that sent them to lose themselves in the
region of darkness, that light might be opposed to light: which was unjust, if
he forced them against their will; while, if they went willingly, he is
ungrateful in punishing them. These souls can never have been happy, if they
were tormented with fear before the conflict, from knowing that they were to
become enemies to their original principle, and then in the conflict were
hopelessly contaminated, and afterwards eternally condemned. On the other hand,
they can never have been divine, if before the conflict they were unaware of
what was coming, from want of prescience, and then showed feebleness in the
conflict, and suffered misery afterwards. And what is true of them must be true
of God, since they are of the same substance. Is there any hope of your seeing
the folly of these blasphemies? You attempt, indeed, to vindicate the goodness
of God, by asserting that Hyle when shut up is prevented from doing any more
injury to itself. Hyle, it seems, is to get some good, when it has no longer any
good mixed with it. Perhaps, as God before the conflict had the evil of
necessity, when the good was unmixed with evil, so Hyle after the conflict is to
have the good of rest, when the evil is unmixed with good. Your principles are
thus either two evils, one worse than the other; or two goods, both imperfect,
but one better than the other. The better, however, is the more miserable; for
if the issue of this great conflict is that the enemy gets some good by the
cessation of mutual injuries in Hyle, while God's own subjects suffer the
serious evil of being driven into the mass of darkness, we may ask who has got
the victory. The poison, we are to understand, is Hyle, where, nevertheless,
animal life found a plentiful supply of the means of growth and productiveness;
while the antidote is God, who could condemn his own members, but could not
restore them. In reality, it is as absurd to call the one Hyle, as it is to call
the other God. These are the follies of men who turn to fables because they
cannot bear sound doctrine. [780]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 163: FAUSTUS STATES HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE MORALITY OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, AND AUGUSTIN SEEKS BY THE APPLICATION OF THE TYPE AND THE ALLEGORY TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE MORAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: You ask why we blaspheme the law and the prophets. We are so
far from professing or feeling any hostility to the law and the prophets, that
we are ready, if you will allow us, to declare the falsehood of all the writings
which make the law and the prophets appear objectionable. But this you refuse to
admit, and by maintaining the authority of your writers, you bring a perhaps
unmerited reproach upon the prophets; you slander the patriarchs, and dishonor
the law. You are so unreasonable as to deny that your writers are false, while
you uphold the piety and sanctity of those who are described in these writings
as guilty of the worst crimes, and as leading wicked lives. These opinions are
inconsistent; for either these were bad characters, or the writers were
untruthful. 2. Supposing, then, that we agree in condemning the writers, we may
succeed in vindicating the law and the prophets. By the law must be understood
not circumcision, or Sabbaths, or sacrifices, or the other Jewish observances,
but the true law, viz., Thou shall not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not bear false witness, and so on. To this law, promulgated
throughout the world, that is, at the commencement of the present constitution
of the world, the Hebrew writers did violence, by infecting it with the
pollution of their disgusting precepts about circumcision and sacrifice. As a
friend of the law, you should join with me in condemning the Jews for injuring
the law by this mixture of unsuitable precepts. Plainly, you must be aware that
these precepts are not the law, or any part of the law, since you claim to be
righteous, though you make no attempt to keep the precepts. In seeking to lead a
righteous life, you pay great regard to the commandments which forbid sinful
actions, while you take no notice of the Jewish observances; which would be
unjustifiable if they were one and the same law. You resent as a foul reproach
being called negligent of the precept, "Thou shalt not kill," or "Thou shall not
commit adultery." And if you showed the same resentment at being called
uncircumcised, or negligent of the Sabbath, it would be evident that you
considered both to be the law and the commandment of God. In fact, however, you
consider the honor and glory of keeping the one no way endangered by disregard
of the other. It is plain, as I have said, that these observances are not the
law, but a disfigurement of the law. If we condemn them, it is not as being
genuine, but as spurious. In this condemnation there is no reproach of the law,
or of God its author, but only of those who published their shocking
superstitions under these names. If we sometimes abuse the venerable name of law
in attacking the Jewish precepts, the fault is yours, for refusing to
distinguish between Hebrew observances and the law. Only restore to the law its
proper dignity, by removing these foul Israelitish blots; grant that these
writers are guilty of disfiguring the law, and you will see at once that we are
the enemies not of the law, but of Judaism. You are misled by the word law; for
you do not know to what that name properly belongs. 3. For my part, I see no
reason for your thinking that we blaspheme your prophets and patriarchs. There
would indeed be some ground for the charge, if we had been directly or remotely
the authors of the account given of their actions. But as this account is
written either by themselves, in a criminal desire to be famous for their
misdeeds, or by their companions and coevals, why should you blame us? You
condemn them in abhorrence of the wicked actions of which they have voluntarily
declared themselves guilty, though there was no occasion for such a confession.
Or if the narrative is only a malicious fiction, let its authors be punished,
let the books be condemned, let the prophetic name be cleared from this foul
reproach, let the patriarchs recover the respect due to their simplicity and
purity of managers. 4. These books, moreover, contain shocking calumnies against
God himself. We are told that he existed from eternity in darkness, and admired
the light when he saw it; that he was so ignorant of the future, that he gave
Adam a command, not foreseeing that it would be broken; that his perception was
so limited that he could not see Adam when, from the knowledge of his nakedness,
he hid himself in a corner of Paradise; that envy made him afraid lest his
creature man should taste of the tree of life, and live for ever; that
afterwards he was greedy for blood, and fat from all kinds of sacrifices, and
jealous if they were offered to any one but himself; that he was enraged
sometimes against his enemies, sometimes against his friends; that he destroyed
thousands of men for a slight offense, or for nothing; that he threatened to
come with a sword and spare nobody, righteous or wicked. The authors of such
bold libels against God might very well slander the men of God. You must join
with us in laying the blame on the writers if you wish to vindicate the
prophets. 5. Again, we are not responsible for what is said of Abraham, that in
his irrational craving to have children, and not believing God, who promised
that his wife Sara should have a son, he defiled himself with a mistress, with
the knowledge of his wife, which only made it worse; [781] or that, in
sacrilegious profanation of his marriage, he on different occasions, from
avarice and greed, sold his wife Sara for the gratification of the kings
Abimelech and Pharas, telling them that she was his sister, because she was very
fair. [782] The narrative is not ours, which tells how Lot, Abraham's brother,
after his escape from Sodom, lay with his two daughters on the mountain [783]
(better for him to have perished in the conflagration of Sodom, than to have
burned with incestuous passion); or how Isaac imitated his father's conduct, and
called his wife Rebecca his sister, that he might gain a shameful livelihood by
her; [784] or how his son Jacob, husband of four wives -- two full sisters,
Rachel and Leah, and their handmaids -- led the life of a goat among them, so
that there was a daily strife among his women who should be the first to lay
hold of him when he came from the field, ending sometimes in their hiring him
from one another for the night; [785] or, again, how his son Judah slept with
his daughter-in-law Tamar, after she had been married to two of his sons,
deceived, we are told, by the harlot's dress which Tamar put on, knowing that
her father-in-law was in the habit of associating with such characters; [786] or
how David, after having a number of wives, seduced the wife of his soldier
Uriah, and caused Uriah himself to be killed in the battle; [787] or how his son
Solomon had three hundred wives, and seven hundred concubines, and princesses
without number; [788] or how the first prophet Hosea got children from a
prostitute, and, what is worse, it is said that this disgraceful conduct was
enjoined by God; [789] or how Moses committed murder, [790] and plundered Egypt,
[791] and waged wars, and commanded, or himself perpetrated, many cruelties.
[792] And he too was not content with one wife. We are neither directly nor
remotely the authors of these and similar narratives, which are found in the
books of the patriarchs and the prophets. Either your writers forged these
things, or the fathers are really guilty. Choose which you please; the crime in
either case is detestable, for vicious conduct and falsehood are equally
hateful. 6. Augustin replied: You understand neither the symbols of the law nor
the acts of the prophets, because you do not know what holiness or righteousness
means. We have repeatedly shown at great length, that the precepts and symbols
of the Old Testament contained both what was to be fulfilled in obedience
through the grace bestowed in the New Testament, and what was to be set aside as
a proof of its having been fulfilled in the truth now made manifest. For in the
love of God and of our neighbor is secured the accomplishment of the precepts of
the law, while the accomplishment of its promises is shown in the abolition of
circumcision, and of other typical observances formerly practised. By the
precept men were led, through a sense of guilt to desire salvation; by the
promise they were led to find in the typical observances the assurance that the
Saviour would come. The salvation desired was to be obtained through the grace
bestowed on the appearance of the New Testament; and the fulfillment of the
expectation rendered the types no longer necessary. The same law that was given
by Moses became grace and truth in Jesus Christ. By the grace in the pardon of
sin, the precept is kept in force in the case of those supported by divine help.
By the truth the symbolic rites are set aside, that the promise might, in those
who trust in the divine faithfulness, be brought to pass. 7. Those, accordingly,
who, finding fault with what they do not understand, call the typical
institutions of the law disfigurements and excrescences, are like men displeased
with things of which they do not know the use. As if a deaf man, seeing others
move their lips in speaking, were to find fault with the motion of the mouth as
needless and unsightly; or as if a blind man, on hearing a house commended, were
to test the truth of what he heard by passing his hand over the surface of the
wall, and on coming to the windows were to cry out against them as flaws in the
level, or were to suppose that the wall had fallen in. 8. How shall I make those
whose minds are full of vanity understand that the actions of the prophets were
also mystical and prophetic? The vanity of their minds is shown in their
thinking that we believe God to have once existed in darkness, because it is
written, "Darkness was over the deep." [793] As if we called the deep God, where
there was darkness, because the light did not exist there before God made it by
His word. From their not distinguishing between the light which is God, and the
light which God made, they imagine that God must have been in darkness before He
made light, because darkness was over the deep before God said, "Let there be
light, and there was light." In the New Testament both these things are ascribed
to God. For we read, "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all;" [794] and
again, "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in
our hearts." [795] So also, in the Old Testament, the name "Brightness of
eternal light" [796] is given to the wisdom of God, which certainly was not
created, for by it all things were made; and of the light which exists only as
the production of this wisdom it is said, "Thou wilt light my candle, O Lord; my
God, Thou wilt enlighten my darkness." [797] In the same way, in the beginning,
when darkness was over the deep, God said, "Let there be light, and there was
light," which only the light-giving light, which is God Himself, could have
made. 9. For as God is His own eternal happiness, and is besides the bestower of
happiness, so He is His own eternal light, and is also the bestower of light. He
envies the good of none, for He is Himself the source of happiness to all good
beings; He fears the evil of none, for the loss of all evil beings is in their
being abandoned by Him. He can neither be benefited by those on whom He Himself
bestows happiness, nor is He afraid of those whose misery is the doom awarded by
His own judgment. Very different, O Manichæus, is the object of your worship.
You have departed from God in the pursuit of your own fancies, which of all
kinds have increased and multiplied in your foolish roving hearts, drinking in
through the sense of sight the light of the heavenly bodies. This light, though
it too is made by God, is not to be compared to the light created in the minds
of the pious, whom God brings out of darkness into light, as He brings them out
of sinfulness into righteousness. Still less can it be compared to that
inaccessible light from which all kinds of light are derived. Nor is this light
inaccessible to all; for "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God." [798] "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all;" but the wicked
shall not see light, as is said in Isaiah. [799] To them the light-giving light
is inaccessible. From the light comes not only the spiritual light in the minds
of the pious, but also the material light, which is not denied to the wicked,
but is made to rise on the evil and on the good. 10. So, when darkness was over
the deep, He who was light said, "Let there be light." From what light this
light came is clear; for the words are, "God said." What light is that which was
made, is not so clear. For there has been a friendly discussion among students
of the sacred Scriptures, whether God then made the light in the minds of the
angels, or, in other words, these rational spirits themselves, or some material
light which exists in the higher regions of the universe beyond our ken. For on
the fourth day He made the visible luminaries of heaven. And it is also a
question whether these bodies were made at the same time as their light, or were
somehow kindled from the light made already. But whoever reads the sacred
writings in the pious spirit which is required to understand them, must be
convinced that whatever the light was which was made when, at the time that
darkness was over the deep, God said, "Let there be light," it was created
light, and the creating Light was the maker of it. 11. Nor does it follow that
God, before He made light, abode in darkness, because it is said that darkness
was over the deep, and then that the Spirit of God moved on the waters. The deep
is the unfathomable abyss of the waters. And the carnal mind might suppose that
the Spirit abode in the darkness which was over the deep, because it is said
that He moved on the waters. This is from not understanding how the light
shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not, till by the word of
God those who were darkness are made light, and it is said to them, "Ye were
once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." [800] But if rational minds
which are in darkness through a sinful will cannot comprehend the light of the
wisdom of God, though it is present everywhere, because they are separated from
it not in place, but in disposition: why may not the Spirit of God have moved on
the darkness of the waters, when He moved on the waters, though at an
immeasurable distance from it, not in place, but in nature?12. In all this I
know I am singing to deaf ears; but the Lord, from whom is the truth which we
speak, can open some ears to catch the strain. But what shall we say of those
critics of the Holy Scriptures who object to God's being pleased with His own
works, and find fault with the words, "God saw the light that it was good," as
if this meant that God admired the light as something new? God's seeing His
works that they were good, means that the Creator approved of His own works as
pleasing to Himself. For God cannot be forced to do anything against His will,
so that He should not be pleased with His own work; nor can He do anything by
mistake, so that He should regret having done it. Why should the Manichæans
object to our God seeing His work that it was good, when their god placed a
covering before himself when he mingled his own members with the darkness? For
instead of seeing his work that it is good, he refuses to look at it because it
is evil.13. Faustus speaks of our God as astonished, which is not said in
Scripture; nor does it follow that one must be astonished when he sees anything
to be good. There are many good things which we see without being astonished, as
if they were better than we expected; we merely approve of them as being what
they ought to be. We can, however, give an instance of God being astonished, not
from the Old Testament, which the Manichæans assail with undeserved reproach,
but from the New Testament, which they profess to believe in order to entrap the
unwary. For they acknowledge Christ as God, and use this as a bait to entice
Christ's followers into their snares. God, then, was astonished when Christ was
astonished. For we read in the Gospel, that when Christ heard the faith of a
certain centurion, He was astonished, and said to His disciples, "Verily I have
not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." [801] We have already given our
explanation of the words, "God saw that it was good." Better men may give a
better explanation. Meanwhile let the Manichæans explain Christ's being
astonished at what He foresaw before it happened, and knew before He heard it.
For though seeing a thing to be good is quite different from being astonished at
it, in this case there is some resemblance, for Jesus was astonished at the
light of faith which He Himself had created in the heart of the centurion; for
Jesus is the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the
world.14. Thus an irreligious Pagan might bring the same reproaches against
Christ in the Gospel, as Faustus brings against God in the Old Testament. He
might say that Christ lacked foresight, not only because He was astonished at
the faith of the centurion, but because He chose Judas as a disciple who proved
disobedient to His commands; as Faustus objects to the precept given in
Paradise, which, as it turned out, was not obeyed. He might also cavil at
Christ's not knowing who touched Him, when the woman suffering from an issue of
blood touched the hem of His garment; as Faustus blames God for not knowing
where Adam had hid himself. If this ignorance is implied in God's saying, "Where
art thou, Adam?" [802] the same may be said of Christ's asking, "Who touched
me?" [803] The Pagans also might call Christ timid and envious, in not wishing
five of the ten virgins to gain eternal life by entering into His kingdom, and
in shutting them out, so that they knocked in vain in their entreaty to have the
door opened, as if forgetful of His own promise, "Knock, and it shall be opened
unto you;" [804] as Faustus charges God with fear and envy in not admitting man
after his sin to eternal life. Again, he might call Christ greedy of the blood,
not of beasts, but of men, because he said, "He that loseth his life for my
sake, shall keep it unto life eternal;" [805] as Faustus reproaches God in
reference to those animal sacrifices which prefigured the sacrifice of
blood-shedding by which we are redeemed. He might also accuse Christ of
jealousy, because in narrating His driving the buyers and sellers out of the
temple, the evangelist quotes as applicable to Him the words, "The jealousy of
Thine house hath eaten me up;" [806] as Faustus accuses God of jealousy in
forbidding sacrifices to be offered to other gods. He might say that Christ was
angry with both His friends and His enemies: with His friends, because He said,
"The servant that knows his lord's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with
many stripes;" and with His enemies, because He said, "If any one shall not
receive you, shake off against him the dust of your shoes; verily I say unto
you, that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment than for
that city;" [807] as Faustus accuses God of being angry at one time with His
friends, and at another with His enemies; both of whom are spoken of thus by the
apostle: "They that have sinned without law shall perish without law, and they
that have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." [808] Or he might say
that Christ shed the blood of many without mercy, for a slight offense or for
nothing. For to a Pagan there would appear to be little or no harm in not having
a wedding garment at the marriage feast, for which our King in the Gospel
commanded a man to be bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness; [809]
or in not wishing to have Christ for a king, which is the sin of which Christ
says, "Those that would not have me to reign over them, bring hither and slay
before me;" [810] as Faustus blames God in the Old Testament for slaughtering
thousands of human beings for slight offenses, as Faustus calls them, or for
nothing. Again, if Faustus finds fault with God's threatening to come with the
sword, and to spare neither the righteous nor the wicked, might not the Pagan
find as much fault with the words of the Apostle Paul, when he says of our God,"
He spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all;" [811] or of Peter, when,
in exhorting the saints to be patient in the midst of persecution and slaughter,
he says, "It is time that judgment begin from the house of God; and if it first
begin at us, what shall the end be of them that believe not the gospel of the
Lord? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner
appear?" [812] What can be more righteous than the Only-Begotten, whom
nevertheless the Father did not spare? And what can be plainer than that the
righteous also are not spared, but chastised with manifold afflictions, as is
clearly implied in the words, "If the righteous scarcely are saved"? As it is
said in the Old Testament, "Whom the Lord loveth He correcteth, and chastiseth
every son whom He receiveth;" [813] and, "If we receive good at the hand of the
Lord, shall we not also receive evil?" [814] So we read also in the New
Testament, "Whom I love I rebuke and chasten;" [815] and, "If we judge
ourselves, we shall not be judged of the Lord; but when we are judged, we are
corrected of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." [816] If a
Pagan were to make such objections to the New Testament, would not the
Manichæans try to answer them, though they themselves make similar objections to
the Old Testament? But supposing them able to answer the Pagan, how absurd it
would be to defend in the one Testament what they find fault with in the other!
But if they could not answer the objections of the Pagan, why should they not
allow in both Testaments, instead of in one only, that what appears wrong to
unbelievers, from their ignorance, should be believed to be right by pious
readers even when they also are ignorant? 15. Perhaps our opponents will
maintain that these parallel passages quoted from the New Testament are
themselves neither authoritative nor true: for they claim the impious liberty of
holding and teaching, that whatever they deem favorable to their heresy was said
by Christ and the apostles; while they have the profane boldness to say, that
whatever in the same writings is unfavorable to them is a spurious
interpolation. I have already at some length, as far as the intention of the
present work required, exposed the unreasonableness of this assault upon the
authority of the whole of Scripture.16. At present I would call attention to the
fact, that when the Manichæans, although they disguise their blasphemous
absurdities under the name of Christianity, bring such objections against the
Christian Scriptures, we have to defend the authority of the divine record in
both Testaments against the Manichæans as much as against the Pagans. A Pagan
might find fault with passages in the New Testament in the same way as Faustus
does with what he calls unworthy representations of God in the Old Testament;
and the Pagan might be answered by the quotation of similar passages from his
own authors, as in Paul's speech at Athens. [817] Even in Pagan writings we
might find the doctrine that God created and constructed the world, and that He
is the giver of light, which does not imply that before light was made He abode
in darkness; and that when His work was finished He was elated with joy, which
is more than saying that He saw that it was good; and that He made a law with
rewards for obedience, and punishments for disobedience, by which they do not
mean to say that God was ignorant of the future, because He gave a law to those
by whom it was to be broken. Nor could they make asking questions a proof of a
want of foresight even in a human being; for in their books many questions are
asked only for the purpose of using the answers for the conviction of the
persons addressed: for the questioner knows not only what answer he desires, but
what will actually be given. Again, if the Pagan tried to make out God to be
envious of any one, because He will not give happiness to the wicked, he would
find many passages in the writings of his own authors in support of this
principle of the divine government.17. The only objection that a Pagan would
make on the subject of sacrifice would refer to our reason for finding fault
with Pagan sacrifices, when in the Old Testament God is described as requiring
men to offer sacrifice to Him. If I were to reply at length on this subject, I
might prove to him that sacrifice is due only to the one true God, and that this
sacrifice was offered by the one true Priest, the Mediator of God and man; and
that it was proper that this sacrifice should be pre-figured by animal
sacrifices, in order to foreshadow the flesh and blood of the one sacrifice for
the remission of sins contracted by flesh and blood, which shall not inherit the
kingdom of God: for the natural body will be endowed with heavenly attributes,
as the fire in the sacrifice typified the swallowing up of death in victory.
Those observances properly belonged to the people whose kingdom and priesthood
were prophetic of the King and Priest who should come to govern and to
consecrate believers in all nations, and to lead them into the kingdom of
heaven, and the holy society of angels and eternal life. And as this true
sacrifice was piously set forth in the Hebrew observances, so it was impiously
caricatured by the Pagans, because, as the apostle says, what they offer they
offer to devils, and not to God. [818] The typical rite of blood-shedding in
sacrifice dates from the earliest ages, pointing forward from the outset of
human history to the passion of the Mediator. For Abel is mentioned in the
sacred Scripture as the first who offered such sacrifices. [819] We need not
therefore wonder that fallen angels who occupy the air, and whose chief sins are
pride and falsehood, should demand from their worshippers by whom they wished to
be considered as gods what they knew to be due to God only. This deception was
favored by the folly of the human heart, especially when regret for the dead led
to the making of likenesses, and so to the use of images. [820] By the increase
of this homage, divine honors came to be paid to the dead as dwelling in heaven,
while devils took their place on earth as the objects of worship, and required
that their deluded and degraded votaries should present sacrifices to them. Thus
the nature of sacrifice as due only to God appears not only when God righteously
claims it, but also when a false god proudly arrogates it. If the Pagan was slow
to believe these things, I should argue from the prophecies, and point out that,
though uttered long ago, they are now fulfilled. If he still remained in
unbelief, this is rather to be expected than to be wondered at; for the prophecy
itself intimates that all would not believe.18. If the Pagan, in the next place,
were to find fault with both Testaments as attributing jealousy to God and
Christ, he would only show his own ignorance of literature, or his
forgetfulness. For though their philosophers distinguish between desire and
passion, joy and gratification, caution and fear, gentleness and
tender-heartedness, prudence and cunning, boldness and daring, and so on, giving
the first name in each pair to what is good, and the second to what is bad,
their books are notwithstanding full of instances in which, by the abuse of
these words, virtues are called by the names which properly belong to vices; as
passion is used for desire, gratification for joy, fear for caution,
tender-heartedness for gentleness, cunning for prudence, daring for boldness.
The cases are innumerable in which speech exhibits similar inaccuracies.
Moreover, each language has its own idioms. For in religious writings I remember
no instance of the word tender-heartedness being used in a bad sense. And common
usage affords examples of similar peculiarities in the use of words. In Greek,
one word stands for two distinct things, labor and pain; while we have a
separate name for each. Again, we use the word in two senses, as when we say of
what is not dead, that it has life; and again, of any one that he is a man of
good life, whereas in Greek each of these meanings has a word of its own. So
that, apart from the abuse of words which prevails in all languages, it may be
an Hebrew idiom to use jealousy in two senses, as a man is called jealous when
he suffers from a diseased state of mind caused by distress on account of the
faithlessness of his wife, in which sense the word cannot be applied to God; or
as when diligence is manifested in guarding conjugal chastity, in which sense it
is profitable for us not only unhesitatingly to admit, but thankfully to assert,
that God is jealous of His people when He calls them His wife, and warns them
against committing adultery with a multitude of false gods. The same may be said
of the anger of God. For God does not suffer perturbation when He visits men in
anger; but either by an abuse of the word, or by a peculiarity of idiom, anger
is used in the sense of punishment. 19. The slaughter of multitudes would not
seem strange to the Pagan, unless he denied the judgment of God, which Pagans do
not; for they allow that all things in the universe, from the highest to the
lowest, are governed by God's providence. But if he would not allow this, he
would be convinced either by the authority of Pagan writers, or by the more
tedious method of demonstration; and if still obstinate and perverse, he would
be left to the judgment which he denies. Then, if he were to give instances of
the destruction of men for no offense, or for a very slight one, we should show
that these were offenses, and that they were not slight. For instance, to take
the case already referred to of the wedding garment, we should prove that it was
a great crime in a man to attend the sacred feast, seeking not the bridegroom's
glory, but his own, or whatever the garment may be found on better
interpretation to signify. And in the case of the slaughter before the king of
those who would not have him to reign over them, we might perhaps easily prove
that, though it may be no sin in a man to refuse to obey his fellow-man, it is
both a fault and a great one to reject the reign of Him in whose reign alone is
there righteousness, and happiness, and continuance.20. Lastly, as regards
Faustus' crafty insinuation, that the Old Testament misrepresents God as
threatening to come with a sword which will spare neither the righteous nor the
wicked, if the words were explained to the Pagan, he would perhaps disagree
neither with the Old Testament nor with the New; and he might see the beauty of
the parable in the Gospel, which people who pretend to be Christians either
misunderstand from their blindness, or reject from their perversity. The great
husbandman of the vine uses his pruning-hook differently in the fruitful and in
the unfruitful branches; yet he spares neither good nor bad, pruning one and
cutting off the other. [821] There is no man so just as not to require to be
tried by affliction to advance, or to establish, or to prove his virtue. Do the
Manichæans not reckon Paul as righteous, who, while confessing humbly and
honestly his past sins, still gives thanks for being justified by faith in Jesus
Christ? Was Paul then spared by Him whom fools misunderstand, when He says, "I
will spare neither the righteous nor the sinner"? Hear the apostle himself:
"Lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelation,
there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me. For
this I besought the Lord thrice, that He would remove it from me; and He said
unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for strength is perfected in
weakness." [822] Here a just man is not spared that his strength might be
perfected in weakness by Him who had given him an angel of Satan to buffet him.
If you say that the devil gave this angel, it follows that the devil sought to
prevent Paul's being exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelation,
and to perfect his strength. This is impossible. Therefore He who gave up this
righteous man to be buffeted by the messenger of Satan, is the same as He who,
through Paul, gave up to Satan himself the wicked persons of whom Paul says: "I
have delivered them to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." [823] Do
you see now how the Most High spares neither the righteous nor the wicked? Or is
it the sword that frightens you? For to be buffeted is not so bad as to be put
to death. But did not the thousands of martyrs suffer death in various forms?
And could their persecutors have had this power against them except it had been
given them by God, who thus spared neither the righteous nor the wicked? For the
Lord Himself, the chief martyr, says expressly to Pilate: "Thou couldst have no
power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." [824] Paul also,
besides recording his own experience, says that the afflictions and persecutions
of the righteous exhibit the judgment of God. [825] This truth is set forth at
length by the Apostle Peter in the passage already quoted, where he says: "It is
time that judgment should begin at the house of the Lord. And if it first begin
at us, what shall the end be of those that believe not the gospel of God? And if
the righteous scarcely are saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner
appear?" [826] Peter also explains how the wicked are not spared, for they are
branches broken off to be burnt; while the righteous are not spared, because
their purification is to be brought to perfection. He ascribes these things to
the will of Him who says in the Old Testament, I will spare neither the
righteous nor the wicked; for he says: "It is better, if the will of the Spirit
of God be so, that we suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing." [827] So, when
by the will of the Spirit of God men suffer for well-doing, the righteous are
not spared; when they suffer for evil-doing, the wicked are not spared. In both
cases it is according to the will of Him who says: I will spare neither the
righteous nor the wicked; correcting the one as a son, and punishing the other
as a transgressor. 21. I have thus shown, to the best of my power, that the God
we worship did not abide from eternity in darkness, but is Himself light, and in
Him is no darkness at all; and in Himself dwells in light inaccessible; and the
brightness of this light is His coeternal wisdom. From what we have said, it
appears that God was not taken by surprise by the unexpected appearance of
light, but that light owes its existence to Him as its Creator, as its owes its
continued existence to His approval. Neither was God ignorant of the future, but
the author of the precept as well as the punisher of disobedience; that by
showing His righteous anger against transgression, He might provide a restraint
for the time, and a warning for the future. Nor does He ask questions from
ignorance, but by His very inquiry declares His judgment. Nor is He curious or
timid, but excludes the transgressor from eternal life, which is the just reward
of obedience. Nor is He greedy for blood and fat; but by requiring from a carnal
people sacrifices, suited to their character, He by certain types prefigures the
true sacrifice. Nor is His jealousy an emotion of pale anxiety, but of quiet
benevolence, in desire to keep the soul, which owes chastity to the one true
God, from being defiled and prostituted by serving many false gods. Nor is He
enraged with a passion similar to human anger, but is angry, not in the sense of
desiring vengeance, but in the peculiar sense of giving full effect to the
sentence of a righteous retribution. Nor does He destroy thousands of men for
trifling offenses, or for nothing, but manifests to the world the benefit to be
obtained from fearing Him, by the temporal death of those already mortal. Nor
does He punish the righteous and sinners indiscriminately, but chastises the
righteous for their good, in order to perfect them, and gives to sinners the
punishment justly due to them. Thus, ye Manichæans, do your suspicions lead you
astray, when, by misunderstanding our Scriptures, or by hearing bad
interpreters, you form a mistaken judgment of Catholics. Hence you leave sound
doctrine, and turn to impious fables; and in your perversity and estrangement
from the society of saints, you reject the instruction of the New Testament,
which, as we have shown, contains statements similar to those which you condemn
in the Old Testament. So we are obliged to defend both Testaments against you as
well as against the Pagans.22. But supposing that there is some one so deluded
by carnality as to worship not the God whom we worship, who is one and true, but
the fiction of your suspicions or your slanders, whom you say we worship, is not
even this god better than yours? Observe, I beseech you, what must be plain to
the feeblest understanding; for here there is no need of great perspicacity. I
address all, wise and unwise. I appeal to the common sense and judgment of all
alike. Hear, consider, judge. Would it not have been better for your god to have
remained in darkness from eternity, than to have plunged the light coeternal
with him and cognate to him into darkness? Would it not have been better to have
expressed admiration in surprise at the appearance of a new light coming to
scatter the darkness, than to have been unable to baffle the assault of darkness
except by the concession of his own light? Unhappy if he did this in alarm, and
cruel if there was no need of it. Surely it would have been better to see light,
made by himself, and to admire it as good, than to make the light begotten by
himself evil; better than that his own light should become hostile to himself in
repelling the forces of darkness. For this will be the accusation against those
who will be condemned for ever to the mass of darkness, that they suffered
themselves to lose their original brightness, and became the enemies of sacred
light. If they did not know from eternity that they would be thus condemned,
they must have suffered the darkness of eternal ignorance; or if they did know,
the darkness of eternal fear. Thus part of the substance of your god really did
remain from eternity in its own darkness; and instead of admiring new light on
its appearance, it only met with another and a hostile darkness, of which it had
always been in fear. Indeed, God himself must have been in the darkness of fear
for this part of himself, if he was dreading the evil coming upon it. If he did
not foresee the evil, he must have been in the darkness of ignorance. If he
foresaw it, and was not in fear, the darkness of such cruelty is worse than the
darkness either of ignorance or of fear. Your god appears to be destitute of the
quality which the apostle commends in the body, which you insanely believe to be
made not by God, but by Hyle: "If one member suffers, all the members suffer
with it." [828] But suppose he did suffer; he foresaw, he feared, he suffered,
but he could not help himself. Thus he remained from eternity in the darkness of
his own misery; and then, instead of admiring a new light which was to drive
away the darkness, he came in contact, to the injury of his own light, with
another darkness which he had always dreaded. Again, would it not have been much
better, I say, not to have given a commandment like God, but even to have
received a commandment like Adam, which he would be rewarded for keeping and
punished for breaking, acting either way by his own free-will, than to be forced
by inevitable necessity to admit darkness into his light in spite of himself?
Surely it would have been better to have given a precept to human nature, not
knowing that it would become sinful, than to have been driven by necessity to
sin contrary to his own divine nature. Think for a moment, and say how darkness
could be conquered by one who was himself conquered by necessity. Conquered
already by this greater enemy, he fought under his conqueror's orders against a
less formidable opponent. Would it not have been better not to know where Adam
had hid himself, than to have been himself destitute of any means of escape,
first from a hard and hateful necessity, and then from a dissimilar and hostile
race? Would it not have been better to grudge eternal life to human nature, than
to consign to misery the divine nature; to desire the blood and fat of
sacrifices, than to be himself slaughtered in so many forms, on account of his
mixture with the blood and fat of every victim; to be disturbed by jealousy at
these sacrifices being offered to other gods as well as to himself, than to be
himself offered on all altars to all devils, as mixed up not only with all
fruits, but also with all animals? Would it not have been much better to be
affected even with human anger, so as to be enraged against both his friends and
his enemies for their sins, than to be himself influenced by fear as well as by
anger wherever these passions exist, or than to share in all the sin that is
committed, and in all punishment that is suffered? For this is the doom of that
part of your god which is in confinement everywhere, condemned to this by
himself, not as guilty, but in order to conquer his dreaded enemy. Doomed
himself to such a fatal necessity, the part of himself which he has given over
to condemnation might pardon him, if he were as humble as he is miserable. But
how can you pretend to find fault with God for His anger against both friends
and enemies when they sin, when the god of your fancies first under compulsion
compels his own members to go to be devoured by sin, and then condemns them to
remain in darkness? Though he does this, you say that it will not be in anger.
But will he not be ashamed to punish, or to appear to punish, those from whom he
should ask pardon in words such as these: "Forgive me, I beseech you. You are my
members; could I treat you thus, except from necessity? You know yourselves,
that you were sent here because a formidable enemy had arisen; and now you must
remain here to prevent his rising again"? Again, is it not better to slay
thousands of men for trifling faults, or for nothing, than to cast into the
abyss of sin, and to condemn to the punishment of eternal imprisonment, God's
own members, his substance -- in fact, God himself? It cannot properly be said
of the real substance of God that it has the choice of sinning or not sinning,
for God's substance is absolutely unchangeable. God cannot sin, as He cannot
deny Himself. Man, on the contrary, can sin and deny God, or he can choose not
to do so. But suppose the members of your god had, like a rational human soul,
the choice of sinning or not sinning; they might perhaps be justly punished for
heinous offenses by confinement in the mass of darkness. But you cannot
attribute to these parts a liberty which you deny to God himself. For if God had
not given them up to sin, he would have been forced to sin himself, by the
prevalence of the race of darkness. But if there was no danger of being thus
forced, it was a sin to send these parts to a place where they incurred this
danger. To do so, indeed, from free choice is a crime deserving the torment
which your god unnaturally inflicts upon his own parts, more than the conduct of
these parts in going by his command to a place where they lost the power of
living in righteousness. But if God himself was in danger of being forced to sin
by invasion and capture, unless he had secured himself first by the misconduct
and then by the punishment of his own parts, there can have been no free-will
either in your god or in his parts. Let him not set himself up as judge, but
confess himself a criminal. For though he was forced against his own will, he
professes to pass a righteous sentence in condemning those whom he knows to have
suffered evil rather than done it; making this profession that he may not be
thought of as having been conquered; as if it could do a beggar any good to be
called prosperous and happy. Surely it would have been better for your god to
have spared neither righteous nor wicked in indiscriminate punishment (which is
Faustus' last charge against our God), than to have been so cruel to his own
members, -- first giving them up to incurable contamination, and then, as if
that was not enough, accusing them falsely of misconduct. Faustus declares that
they justly suffer this severe and eternal punishment, because they allowed
themselves to be led astray from their original brightness, and became hostile
to sacred light. But the reason of this, as Faustus says, was that they were so
greedily devoured in the first assault of the princes of darkness, that they
were unable to recover themselves, or to separate themselves from the hostile
principle. These souls, therefore, did no evil themselves, but in all this were
innocent sufferers. The real agent was he who sent them away from himself into
this wretchedness. They suffered more from their father than from their enemy.
Their father sent them into all this misery; while their enemy desired them as
something good, wishing not to hurt them, but to enjoy them. The one injured
them knowingly, the other in ignorance. This god was so weak and helpless that
he could not otherwise secure himself first against an enemy threatening attack,
and then against the same enemy in confinement. Let him, then, not condemn those
parts whose obedience defended him, and whose death secures his safety. If he
could not avoid the conflict, why slander his defenders? When these parts
allowed themselves to be led astray from their original brightness, and became
hostile to sacred light, this must have been from the force of the enemy; and if
they were forced against their will, they are innocent; while, if they could
have resisted had they chosen, there is no need of the origin of evil in an
imaginary evil nature, since it is to be found in free-will. Their not
resisting, when they could have done so, is plainly their own fault, and not
owing to any force from without. For, supposing them able to do a thing, to do
which is right, while not to do it is great and heinous sin, their not doing it
is their own choice. So, then, if they choose not to do it, the fault is in
their will not in necessity. The origin of sin is in the will; therefore in the
will is also the origin of evil, both in the sense of acting against a just
precept, and in the sense of suffering under a just sentence. There is thus no
reason why, in your search for the origin of evil, you should fall into so great
an evil as that of calling a nature so rich in good things the nature of evil,
and of attributing the terrible evil of necessity to the nature of perfect good,
before any commixture with evil. The cause of this erroneous belief is your
pride, which you need not have unless you choose; but in your wish to defend at
all hazards the error into which you have fallen, you take away the origin of
evil from free-will, and place it in a fabulous nature of evil. And thus you
come at last to say, that the souls which are to be doomed to eternal
confinement in the mass of darkness became enemies to sacred light not from
choice, but by necessity; and to make your god a judge with whom it is of no use
to prove, in behalf of your clients. that they were under compulsion, and a king
who will make no allowance for your brethren, his own sons and members, whose
hostility against you and against himself you ascribe not to choice, but to
necessity. What shocking cruelty! unless you proceed in the next place to defend
your god, as also acting not from choice, but by necessity. So, if there could
be found another judge free from necessity, who could decide the question on the
principles of equity, he would sentence your god to be bound to this mass, not
by being fastened on the outside, but by being shut up inside along with the
formidable enemy. The first in the guilt of necessity ought to be first in the
sentence of condemnation. Would it not be much better, then, in comparison with
such a god as this, to choose the god whom we indeed do not worship, but whom
you think or pretend to think we worship? Though he spares not his servants,
whether righteous or sinful, making no proper separation, and not distinguishing
between punishment and discipline, is he not better than the god who spares not
his own members though innocent, if necessity is no crime, or guilty from their
obedience to him, if necessity itself is criminal; so that they are condemned
eternally by him, along with whom they should have been released, if any liberty
was recovered by the victory, while he should have been condemned along with
them if the victory reduced the force of necessity even so far as to give this
small amount of force to justice? Thus the god whom you represent us as
worshipping, though he is not the one true God whom we really worship, is far
better than your god. Neither, indeed, has any existence; but both are the
creatures of your imaginations. But, according to your own representations, the
one whom you call ours, and find fault with, is better than the one whom you
call your own, and whom you worship. [829] 23. So also the patriarchs and
prophets whom you cry out against are not the men whom we honor, but men whose
characters are drawn from your fancy, prompted by ill-will. And yet even thus as
you paint them, I will not be content with showing them to be superior to your
elect, who keep all the precepts of Manichæus, but will prove their superiority
to your god himself. Before proving this, however, I must, with the help of God,
defend our holy fathers the patriarchs and prophets against your accusations, by
a clear exposition of the truth as opposed to the carnality of your hearts. As
for you Manichæans, it would be enough to say that the faults you impute to our
fathers are preferable to what you praise in your own, and to complete your
shame by adding that your god can be proved far inferior to our fathers as you
describe them. This would be a sufficient reply for you. But as, even apart from
your perversities, some minds are of themselves disturbed when comparing the
life of the prophets in the Old Testament with that of the apostles in the New,
-- not discerning between the manner of the time when the promise was under a
veil, and that of the time when the promise is revealed, -- I must first of all
reply to those who either have the boldness to pride themselves as superior in
temperance to the prophets, or quote the prophets in defence of their own bad
conduct.24. First of all, then, not only the speech of these men, but their life
also, was prophetic; and the whole kingdom of the Hebrews was like a great
prophet, corresponding to the greatness of the Person prophesied. So, as regards
those Hebrews who were made wise in heart by divine instruction, we may discover
a prophecy of the coming of Christ and of the Church, both in what they said and
in what they did; and the same is true as regards the divine procedure towards
the whole nation as a body. For, as the apostle says, "all these things were our
examples."25. Those who find fault with the prophets, accusing them of adultery
for instance, in actions which are above their comprehension, are like those
Pagans who profanely charge Christ with folly or madness because He looked for
fruit from a tree out of the season; [830] or with childishness, because He
stooped down and wrote on the ground, and, after answering the people who were
questioning Him, began writing again. [831] Such critics are incapable of
understanding that certain virtues in great minds resemble closely the vices of
little minds, not in reality, but in appearance. Such criticism of the great is
like that of boys at school, whose learning consists in the important rule, that
if the nominative is in the singular, the verb must also be in the singular; and
so they find fault with the best Latin author, because he says, Pars in frusta
secant. [832] He should have written, say they, secat. And again, knowing that
religio is spelt with one l, they blame him for writing relligio, when he says,
Relligione patrum. [833] Hence it may with reason be said, that as the poetical
usage of words differs from the solecisms and barbarisms of the unlearned, so,
in their own way, the figurative actions of the prophets differ from the impure
actions of the vicious. Accordingly, as a boy guilty of a barbarism would be
whipped if he pled the usage of Virgil; so any one quoting the example of
Abraham begetting a son from Hagar, in defence of his own sinful passion for his
wife's handmaid, ought to be corrected not by caning only, but by severe
scourging, that he may not suffer the doom of adulterers in eternal punishment.
This indeed is a comparison of great and important subjects with trifles; and it
is not intended that a peculiar usage in speech should be put on a level with a
sacrament, or a solecism with adultery. Still, allowing for the difference in
the character of the subjects, what is called learning or ignorance in the
proprieties and improprieties of speech, resembles wisdom or the want of it in
reference to the grand moral distinction between virtue and vice. [834]26.
Instead of entering on the distinctions between the praiseworthy and the
blameworthy, the criminal and the innocent, the dangerous and the harmless, the
guilty and the guiltless, the desirable and the undesirable, which are all
illustrations of the distinction between sin and righteousness, we must first
consider what sin is, and then examine the actions of the saints as recorded in
the holy books, that, if we find these saints described as sinning, we may if
possible discover the true reason for keeping these sins in memory by putting
them on record. Again, if we find things recorded which, though they are not
sins, appear so to the foolish and the malevolent, and in fact do not exhibit
any virtues, here also we have to see why these things are put into the
Scriptures which we believe to contain wholesome doctrine as a guide in the
present life, and a title to the inheritance of the future. As regards the
examples of righteousness found among the acts of the saints, the propriety of
recording these must be plain even to the ignorant. The question is about those
actions the mention of which may seem useless if they are neither righteous nor
sinful, or even dangerous if the actions are really sinful, as leading people to
imitate them, because they are not condemned in these books, and so may be
supposed not to be sinful, or because, though they are condemned, men may copy
them from the idea that they must be venial if saints did them. 27. Sin, then,
is any transgression in deed, or word, or desire, of the eternal law. And the
eternal law is the divine order or will of God, which requires the preservation
of natural order, and forbids the breach of it. But what is this natural order
in man? Man, we know, consists of soul and body; but so does a beast. Again, it
is plain that in the order of nature the soul is superior to the body. Moreover,
in the soul of man there is reason, which is not in a beast. Therefore, as the
soul is superior to the body, so in the soul itself the reason is superior by
the law of nature to the other parts which are found also in beasts; and in
reason itself, which is partly contemplation and partly action, contemplation is
unquestionably the superior part. The object of contemplation is the image of
God, by which we are renewed through faith to sight. Rational action ought
therefore to be subject to the control of contemplation, which is exercised
through faith while we are absent from the Lord, as it will be hereafter through
sight, when we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. [835] Then in a
spiritual body we shall by His grace be made equal to angels, when we put on the
garment of immortality and incorruption, with which this mortal and corruptible
shall be clothed, that death may be swallowed up of victory, when righteousness
is perfected through grace. For the holy and lofty angels have also their
contemplation and action. They require of themselves the performance of the
commands of Him whom they contemplate, whose eternal government they freely
because sweetly obey. We, on the other hand, whose body is dead because of sin,
till God quicken also our mortal bodies by His Spirit dwelling in us, live
righteously in our feeble measure, according to the eternal law in which the law
of nature is preserved, when we live by that faith unfeigned which works by
love, having in a good conscience a hope of immortality and incorruption laid up
in heaven, and of the perfecting of righteousness to the measure of an
inexpressible satisfaction, for which in our pilgrimage we must hunger and
thirst, while we walk by faith and not by sight.28. A man, therefore, who acts
in obedience to the faith which obeys God, restrains all mortal affections, and
keeps them within the natural limit, regulating his desires so as to put the
higher before the lower. If there was no pleasure in what is unlawful, no one
would sin. To sin is to indulge this pleasure instead of restraining it. And by
unlawful is meant what is forbidden by the law in which the order of nature is
preserved. It is a great question whether there is any rational creature for
which there is no pleasure in what is unlawful. If there is such a class of
creatures, it does not include man, nor that angelic nature which abode not in
the truth. These rational creatures were so made, that they had the potentiality
of restraining their desires from the unlawful; and in not doing this they
sinned. Great, then, is the creature man, for he is restored by this
potentiality, by which, if he had so chosen, he would not have fallen. And great
is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, who created man. For He created also
inferior natures which cannot sin, and superior natures which will not sin.
Beasts do not sin, for their nature agrees with the eternal law from being
subject to it, without being in possession of it. And again, angels do not sin,
because their heavenly nature is so in possession of the eternal law that God is
the only object of its desire, and they obey His will without any experience of
temptation. But man, whose life on this earth is a trial on account of sin,
subdues to himself what he has in common with beasts, and subdues to God what he
has in common with angels; till, when righteousness is perfected and immortality
attained, he shall be raised from among beasts and ranked with angels.29. The
exercise or indulgence of the bodily appetites is intended to secure the
continued existence and the invigoration of the individual or of the species. If
the appetites go beyond this, and carry the man, no longer master of himself,
beyond the limits of temperance, they become unlawful and shameful lusts, which
severe discipline must subdue. But if this unbridled course ends in plunging the
man into such a depth of evil habits that he supposes that there will be no
punishment of his sinful passions, and so refuses the wholesome discipline of
confession and repentance by which he might be rescued; or, from a still worse
insensibility, justifies his own indulgences in profane opposition to the
eternal law of Providence; and if he dies in this state, that unerring law
sentences him now not to correction, but to damnation.30. Referring, then, to
the eternal law which enjoins the preservation of natural order and forbids the
breach of it, let us see how our father Abraham sinned, that is, how he broke
this law, in the things which Faustus has charged him with as highly criminal.
In his irrational craving to have children, says Faustus, and not believing God,
who promised that his wife Sara should have a son, he defiled himself with a
mistress. But here Faustus, in his irrational desire to find fault, both
discloses the impiety of his heresy, and in his error and ignorance praises
Abraham's intercourse with the handmaid. For as the eternal law -- that is, the
will of God the Creator of all -- for the preservation of the natural order,
permits the indulgence of the bodily appetite under the guidance of reason in
sexual intercourse, not for the gratification of passion, but for the
continuance of the race through the procreation of children; so, on the
contrary, the unrighteous law of the Manichæans, in order to prevent their god,
whom they bewail as confined in all seeds, from suffering still closer
confinement in the womb, requires married people not on any account to have
children, their great desire being to liberate their god. Instead, therefore, of
an irrational craving in Abraham to have children, we find in Manichæus an
irrational fancy against having children. So the one preserved the natural order
by seeking in marriage only the production of a child; while the other,
influenced by his heretical notions, thought no evil could be greater than the
confinement of his god. 31. So, again, when Faustus says that the wife's being
privy to her husband's conduct made the matter worse, while he is prompted only
by the uncharitable wish to reproach Abraham and his wife, he really, without
intending it, speaks in praise of both. For Sara did not connive at any criminal
action in her husband for the gratification of his unlawful passions; but from
the same natural desire for children that he had, and knowing her own
barrenness, she warrantably claimed as her own the fertility of her handmaid;
not consenting with sinful desires in her husband, but requesting of him what it
was proper in him to grant. Nor was it the request of proud assumption; for
every one knows that the duty of a wife is to obey her husband. But in reference
to the body, we are told by the apostle that the wife has power over her
husband's body, as he has over hers; [836] so that, while in all other social
matters the wife ought to obey her husband, in this one matter of their bodily
connection as man and wife their power over one another is mutual, -- the man
over the woman, and the woman over the man. So, when Sara could not have
children of her own, she wished to have them by her handmaid, and of the same
seed from which she herself would have had them, if that had been possible. No
woman would do this if her love for her husband were merely an animal passion;
she would rather be jealous of a mistress than make her a mother. So here the
pious desire for the procreation of children was an indication of the absence of
criminal indulgence.32. Abraham, indeed, cannot be defended, if, as Faustus
says, he wished to get children by Hagar, because he had no faith in God, who
promised that he should have children by Sara. But this is an entire mistake:
this promise had not yet been made. Any one who reads the preceding chapters
will find that Abraham had already got the promise of the land with a countless
number of inhabitants, [837] but that it had not yet been made known to him how
the seed spoken of was to be produced, whether by generation from his own body,
or from his choice in the adoption of a son, or, in the case of its being from
his own body, whether it would be by Sara or another. Whoever examines into this
will find that Faustus has made either an imprudent mistake or an impudent
misrepresentation. Abraham, then, when he saw that he had no children, though
the promise was to his seed, thought first of adoption. This appears from his
saying of his slave, when speaking to God, "This is mine heir;" as much as to
say, As Thou hast not given me a seed of my own, fulfill Thy promise in this
man. For the word seed may be applied to what has not come out of a man's own
body, else the apostle could not call us the seed of Abraham: for we certainly
are not his descendants in the flesh; but we are his seed in following his
faith, by believing in Christ, whose flesh did spring from the flesh of Abraham.
Then Abraham was told by the Lord "This shall not be thine heir; but he that
cometh out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." [838] The thought of
adoption was thus removed; but it still remained uncertain whether the seed
which was to come from himself would be by Sara or another. And this God was
pleased to keep concealed, till a figure of the Old Testament had been supplied
in the handmaid. We may thus easily understand how Abraham, seeing that his wife
was barren, and that she desired to obtain from her husband and her handmaid the
offspring which she herself could not produce, acted not in compliance with
carnal appetite, but in obedience to conjugal authority, believing that Sara had
the sanction of God for her wish; because God had already promised him an heir
from his own body, but had not foretold who was to be the mother. Thus, when
Faustus shows his own infidelity in accusing Abraham of unbelief, his groundless
accusation only proves the madness of the assailant. In other cases, Faustus'
infidelity has prevented him from understanding; but here, in his love of
slander, he has not even taken time to read.33. Again, when Faustus accuses a
righteous and faithful man of a shameless profanation of his marriage from
avarice and greed, by selling his wife Sara at different times to the two kings
Abimelech and Pharaoh, telling them that she was his sister, because she was
very fair, he does not distinguish justly between right and wrong, but unjustly
condemns the whole transaction. Those who think that Abraham sold his wife
cannot discern in the light of the eternal law the difference between sin and
righteousness; and so they call perseverance obstinacy, and confidence
presumption, as in these and similar cases men of wrong judgment are wont to
blame what they suppose to be wrong actions. Abraham did not become partner in
crime with his wife by selling her to others: but as she gave her handmaid to
her husband, not to gratify his passion, but for the sake of offspring, in the
authority she had consistently with the order of nature, requiring the
performance of a duty, not complying with a sinful desire; so in this case, the
husband, in perfect assurance of the chaste attachment of his wife to himself,
and knowing her mind to be the abode of modest and virtuous affection, called
her his sister, without saying that she was his wife, lest he himself should be
killed, and his wife fall into the hands of strangers and evil-doers: for he was
assured by his God that He would not allow her to suffer violence or disgrace.
Nor was he disappointed in his faith and hope; for Pharaoh, terrified by strange
occurrences, and after enduring many evils on account of her, when he was
informed by God that Sara was Abraham's wife, restored her with honor uninjured.
Abimelech also did the same, after learning the truth in a dream. 34. Some
people, not scoffers and evil-speakers like Faustus, but men who pay due honor
to the Scriptures, which Faustus finds fault with because he does not understand
them, or which he fails to understand because of his fault-finding, in
commenting on this act of Abraham, are of opinion that he stumbled from weakness
of faith, and denied his wife from fear of death, as Peter denied the Lord. If
this is the correct view, we must allow that Abraham sinned; but the sin should
not cancel or obliterate all his merits, any more than in the case of the
apostle. Besides, to deny his wife is not the same as to deny the Saviour. But
when there is another explanation, why not abide by it, instead of giving blame
without cause, since there is no proof that Abraham told a lie from fear? He did
not deny that Sara was his wife in answer to any question on the subject; but
when asked who she was, he said she was his sister, without denying her to be
his wife: he concealed part of the truth, but said nothing false.35. It is waste
of time to observe Faustus' remark, that Abraham falsely called Sara his sister;
as if Faustus had discovered the family of Sara, though it is not mentioned in
Scripture. In a matter which Abraham knew, and we do not, it is surely better to
believe the patriarch when he says what he knows, than to believe Manichæus when
he finds fault with what he knows nothing about. Since, then, Abraham lived at
that period in human history, when, though marriage had become unlawful between
children of the same parents, or of the same father or mother, no law or
authority interfered with the custom of marriage between the children of
brothers, or any less degree of consanguinity, why should he not have had as
wife his sister, that is, a woman descended from his father? For he himself told
the king, when he restored Sara, that she was his sister by his father, and not
by his mother. And on this occasion he could not have been led to tell a
falsehood from fear, for the king knew that she was his wife, and was restoring
her with honor, because he had been warned by God. We learn from Scripture that,
among the ancients, it was customary to call cousins brothers and sisters. Thus
Tobias says in his prayer to God, before having intercourse with his wife, "And
now, O Lord, Thou knowest that not in wantonness I take to wife my sister;"
[839] though she was not sprung immediately from the same father or the same
mother, but only belonged to the same family. And Lot is called the brother of
Abraham, though Abraham was his uncle. [840] And, by the same use of the word,
those called in the Gospel the Lord's brothers are certainly not children of the
Virgin Mary, but all the blood relations of the Lord. [841]36. Some may say, Why
did not Abraham's confidence in God prevent his being afraid to confess his
wife? God could have warded off from him the death which he feared, and could
have protected both him and his wife while among strangers, so that Sara,
although very fair, should not have been desired by any one, nor Abraham killed
on account of her. Of course, God could have done this; it would be absurd to
deny it. But if, in reply to the people, Abraham had told them that Sara was his
wife, his trust in God would have included both his own life and the chastity of
Sara. Now it is part of sound doctrine, that when a man has any means in his
power, he should not tempt the Lord his God. So it was not because the Saviour
was unable to protect His disciples that He told them, "When ye are persecuted
in one city, flee to another." [842] And He Himself set the example. For though
He had the power of laying down His own life, and did not lay it down till He
chose to do so, still when an infant He fled to Egypt, carried by His parents;
[843] and when He went up to the feast, He went not openly, but secretly, though
at other times He spoke openly to the Jews, who in spite of their rage and
hostility could not lay hands on Him, because His hour was not come, [844] --
not the hour when He would be obliged to die, but the hour when He would
consider it seasonable to be put to death. Thus He who displayed divine power by
teaching and reproving openly, without allowing the rage of his enemies to hurt
Him, did also, by escaping and concealing Himself, exhibit the conduct becoming
the feebleness of men, that they should not tempt God when they have any means
in their power of escaping threatened danger. So also in the apostle, it was not
from despair of divine assistance and protection, or from loss of faith, that he
was let down over the wall in a basket, in order to escape being taken by his
enemies: [845] not from want of faith in God did he thus escape, but because not
to escape, when this escape was possible, would have been tempting God.
Accordingly, when Abraham was among strangers, and when, on account of the
remarkable beauty of Sara, both his life and her chastity were in danger, since
it was in his power to protect not both of these, but one only, -- his life,
namely, -- to avoid tempting God he did what he could; and in what he could not
do, he trusted to God. Unable to conceal his being a man, he concealed his being
a husband, lest he should be put to death; trusting to God to preserve his
wife's purity. 37. There might also be a difference of opinion on the nice point
whether Sara's chastity would have been violated even if some one had
intercourse with her, since she submitted to this to save her husband's life,
both with his knowledge and by his authority. In this there would be no
desertion of conjugal fidelity or rebellion against her husband's authority; in
the same way as Abraham was not an adulterer, when, in submission to the lawful
authority of his wife, he consented to be made a father by his wife's handmaid.
But, from the nature of the relationship, for a wife to have two husbands, both
in life, is not the same thing as for a man to have two wives: so that we regard
the explanation already given of Abraham's conduct as the most correct and
unobjectionable; that our father Abraham avoided tempting God by taking what
measures he could for the preservation of his own life, and that he showed his
hope in God by entrusting to Him the chastity of his wife.38. But a pleasure
which all must feel is obtained from this narrative so faithfully recorded in
the Holy Scriptures, when we examine into the prophetic character of the action,
and knock with pious faith and diligence at the door of the mystery, that the
Lord may open, and show us who was prefigured in the ancient personage, and
whose wife this is, who, while in a foreign land and among strangers, is not
allowed to be stained or defiled, that she may be brought to her own husband
without spot or wrinkle. Thus we find that the righteous life of the Church is
for the glory of Christ, that her beauty may bring honor to her husband, as
Abraham was honored on account of the beauty of Sara among the inhabitants of
that foreign land. To the Church, to whom it is said in the Song of Songs, "O
thou fairest among women," [846] kings offer gifts in acknowledgment of her
beauty; as king Abimelech offered gifts to Sara, admiring the grace of her
appearance; all the more that, while he loved, he was not allowed to profane it.
The holy Church, too is in secret the spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ. For it is
secretly, and in the hidden depths of the Spirit, that the soul of man is joined
to the word of God, so that they two are one flesh; of which the apostle speaks
as a great mystery in marriage, as referring to Christ and the Church. [847]
Again, the earthly kingdom of this world, typified by the kings which were not
allowed to defile Sara, had no knowledge or experience of the Church as the
spouse of Christ, that is, of how faithfully she maintained her relation to her
Husband, till it tried to violate her, and was compelled to yield to the divine
testimony borne by the faith of the martyrs, and in the person of later monarchs
was brought humbly to honor with gifts the Bride whom their predecessors had not
been able to humble by subduing her to themselves. What, in the type, happened
in the reign of one and the same king, is fulfilled in the earlier monarchs of
this era and their successors.39. Again, when it is said that the Church is the
sister of Christ, not by the mother but by the father, we learn the excellence
of the relation, which is not of the temporary nature of earthly descent, but of
divine grace, which is everlasting. By this grace we shall no longer be a race
of mortals when we receive power to be called and to become sons of God. This
grace we obtain not from the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ after the
flesh, but from God the Father. And when Christ calls us into another life where
there is no death, He teaches us, instead of acknowledging, to deny the earthly
relationship, where death soon follows upon birth; for He says to His disciples,
"Call no man your father upon earth; for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
[848] And He set us an example of this when He said, "Who is my mother, and who
are my brethren? And stretching forth His hand to His disciples, He said, These
are my brethren." And lest any one should think that He referred to an earthly
relationship, He added, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is
my brother, and sister, and mother;" [849] as much as to say, I derive this
relationship from God my Father, not from the Synagogue my mother; I call you to
eternal life, where I have an immortal birth, not to earthly life, for to call
you away from this life I have taken mortality.40. As for the reason why, though
it is concealed among strangers whose wife the Church is, it is not hidden whose
sister she is, it is plainly because it is obscure and hard to understand how
the human soul and the Word of God are united or mingled, or whatever word may
be used to express this connection between God and the creature. It is from this
connection that Christ and the Church are called bridegroom and bride, or
husband and wife. The other relationship, in which Christ and all the saints are
brethren by divine grace and not by earthly consanguinity, or by the father and
not by the mother, is more easily expressed in words, and more easily
understood. For the same grace makes all the saints to be also brethren of one
another; while in their society no one is the bridegroom of all the rest. So
also, notwithstanding the surpassing justice and wisdom of Christ, His manhood
was much more plainly and readily recognized by strangers, who, indeed, were not
wrong in believing Him to be man, but they did not understand His being God as
well as man. Hence Jeremiah says: "He is both a man, and who shall know Him?"
[850] He is a man, for it is made manifest that He is a brother. And who shall
know Him? for it is concealed that He is a husband. This must suffice as a
defense of our father Abraham against Faustus' impudence and ignorance and
malice. 41. Lot also, the brother of Abraham, was just and hospitable in Sodom,
and was found worthy to escape the conflagration which prefigured the future
judgment; for he was free from all participation in the corruption of the people
of Sodom. He was a type of the body of Christ, which in the person of all the
saints both groans now among the ungodly and wicked, to whose evil deeds it does
not consent, and will at the end of the world be rescued from their society,
when they are doomed to the punishment of eternal fire. Lot's wife was the type
of a different class of men, -- of those, namely, who, when called by the grace
of God, look back, instead of, like Paul, forgetting the things that are behind,
and looking forward to the things that are before. [851] The Lord Himself says:
"No man that putteth his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is fit for the
kingdom of Heaven." [852] Nor did He omit to mention the case of Lot's wife; for
she, for our warning, was turned into a pillar of salt, that being thus seasoned
we might not trifle thoughtlessly with this danger, but be on our guard against
it. So, when the Lord was admonishing every one to get rid of the things that
are behind by the most strenuous endeavor to reach the things that are before,
He said, "Remember Lot's wife." [853] And, in addition to these, there is still
a third type in Lot, when his daughters lay with him. For here Lot seems to
prefigure the future law; for those who spring from the law, and are placed
under the law, by misunderstanding it, stupefy it, as it were, and bring forth
the works of unbelief by an unlawful use of the law. "The law is good" says the
apostle, "if a man use it lawfully." [854]42. It is no excuse for this action of
Lot or of his daughters that it represented the perversity which was afterwards
in certain cases to be displayed. The purpose of Lot's daughters is one thing,
and the purpose of God is another, in allowing this to happen that He might make
some truth manifest; for God both pronounces judgment on the actions of the
people of those times, and arranges in His providence for the prefigurement of
the future. As a part of Scripture, this action is a prophecy; as part of the
history of those concerned, it is a crime.43. At the same time there is in this
transaction no reason for the torrent of abuse which Faustus' blind hostility
discharges on it. By the eternal law which requires the preservation of the
order of nature and condemns its violation, the judgment in this case is not
what it would have been if Lot had been prompted by a criminal passion to commit
incest with his daughters, or if they had been inflamed with unnatural desires.
In justice, we must ask not only what was done, but with what motive, in order
to obtain a fair view of the action as the effect of that motive. The resolution
of Lot's daughters to lie with their father was the effect of the natural desire
for offspring in order to preserve the race; for they supposed that there were
no other men to be found, thinking that the whole world had been consumed in
that conflagration, which, for all they knew, had left no one alive but
themselves. It would have been better for them never to have been mothers, than
to have become mothers by their own father. But still, the fulfillment of a
desire like this is very different from the accursed gratification of lust.44.
Knowing that their father would condemn their design, Lot's daughters thought it
necessary to fulfill it without his knowledge. We are told that they made him
drunk, so that he was unaware of what happened. His guilt therefore is not that
of incest, but of drunkenness. This, too, is condemned by the eternal law, which
allows meat and drink only as required by nature for the preservation of health.
There is, indeed, a great difference between a drunk man and an habitual
drunkard; for the drunkard is not always drunk, and a man may be drunk on one
occasion without being a drunkard. However, in the case of a righteous man, we
require to account for even one instance of drunkenness. What can have made Lot
consent to receive from his daughters all the cups of wine which they went on
mixing for him, or perhaps giving him unmixed? Did they feign excessive grief,
and did he resort to this consolation in their loneliness, and in the loss of
their mother, thinking that they were drinking too, while they only pretended to
drink? But this does not seem a proper method for a righteous man to take in
consoling his friends when in trouble. Had the daughters learned in Sodom some
vile art which enabled them to intoxicate their father with a few cups, so that
in his ignorance he might sin, or rather be sinned against? But it is not likely
that the Scripture would have omitted all notice of this, or that God would have
allowed His servant to be thus abused without any fault of his own.45. But we
are defending the sacred Scriptures, not man's sins. Nor are we concerned to
justify this action, as if our God had either commanded it or approved of it; or
as if, when men are called just in Scripture, it meant that they could not sin
if they chose. And as, in the books which those critics find fault with, God
nowhere expresses approval of this action, what thoughtless folly it is to bring
a charge from this narrative against these writings, when in other places such
actions are condemned by express prohibitions! In the story of Lot's daughters
the action is related, not commended. And it is proper that the judgment of God
should be declared in some cases, and concealed in others, that by its
manifestation our ignorance may be enlightened, and that by its concealment our
minds may be improved by the exercise of recalling what we already know, or our
indolence stimulated to seek for an explanation. Here, then, God, who can bring
good out of evil, made nations arise from this origin, as He saw good, but did
not bring upon His own Scriptures the guilt of man's sin. It is God's writing,
but not His doing; He does not propose these things for our imitation, but holds
them up for our warning. 46. Faustus' effrontery appears notably in his accusing
Isaac also, the son of Abraham of pretending that his wife Rebecca was his
sister. [855] For as regards the family of Rebecca Scripture is not silent, and
it appears that she was his sister in the well-known sense of the word. His
concealing that she was his wife is not surprising, nor is it insignificant, if
he did it in imitation of his father, so that he can be justified on the same
grounds. We need only refer to the answer already given to Faustus' charge
against Abraham, as being equally applicable to Isaac. Perhaps, however some
inquirer will ask what typical significance there is in the foreign king
discovering Rebecca to be the wife of Isaac by seeing him playing with her; for
he would not have known, had he not seen Isaac playing with Rebecca as it would
have been improper to do with a woman not his wife. When holy men act thus as
husbands, they do it not foolishly, but designedly: for they accommodate
themselves to the nature of the weaker sex in words and actions of gentle
playfulness; not in effeminacy, but in subdued manliness. But such behavior
towards any woman except a wife would be disgraceful. This is a question in good
manners, which is referred to only in case some stern advocate of insensibility
should find fault with the holy man even for playing with his wife. For if these
men without humanity see a sedate man chatting playfully with children that he
may adapt himself to the childish understanding with kindly sympathy, they think
that he is insane; forgetting that they themselves were once children, or
unthankful for their maturity. The typical meaning, as regards Christ and His
Church, which is to be found in this great patriarch playing with his wife, and
in the conjugal relation being thus discovered, will be seen by every one who,
to avoid offending the Church by erroneous doctrine, carefully studies in
Scripture the secret of the Church's Bridegroom. He will find that the Husband
of the Church concealed for a time in the form of a servant the majesty in which
He was equal to the Father, as being in the form of God, that feeble humanity
might be capable of union with Him, and that so He might accommodate Himself to
His spouse. So far from being absurd, it has a symbolic suitableness that the
prophet of God should use a playfulness which is of the flesh to meet the
affection of his wife, as the Word of God Himself became flesh that He might
dwell among us.47. Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having
committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground
for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the
custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are
sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In
which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As
regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the
procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time
in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of
its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.
Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get
children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the
sake of which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present
altered state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of
wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing
that no one could ever have had many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence
of sinful desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind is beyond
their conception, they compare themselves with themselves, as the apostle says,
[856] and so make mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with one
wife only, they are often influenced by mere animal passion instead of an
intelligent motive, they think it an obvious inference that, if the limits of
moderation are not observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be
aggravated where there are more than one.48. But those who have not the virtues
of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more
than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. Nourishment must
be provided not by the dictates of the sickly taste, but rather by the judgment
and direction of health, so as to cure the sickness. If our critics, then, wish
to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let
them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of
saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the
reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to
allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits
of deliberate intention. By a similar misunderstanding, this criticism, which
consists rather in dishonest slander than in honest judgment, might accuse the
holy apostles too of preaching the gospel to so many people, not from the desire
of begetting children to eternal life, but from the love of human praise. There
was no lack of renown to these our fathers in the gospel, for their praise was
spread in numerous tongues through the churches of Christ. In fact, no greater
honor and glory could have been paid by men to their fellow-creatures. It was
the sinful desire for this glory in the Church which led the reprobate Simon in
his blindness to wish to purchase for money what was freely bestowed on the
apostles by divine grace. [857] There must have been this desire of glory in the
man whom the Lord in the Gospel checks in his desire to follow Him, saying, "The
foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath
not where to lay His Head." [858] The Lord saw that his mind was darkened by
false appearances and elated by sudden emotion, and that there was no ground of
faith to afford a lodging to the Teacher of humility; for in Christ's
discipleship the man sought not Christ's grace, but his own glory. By this love
of glory those were led away whom the Apostle Paul characterizes as preaching
Christ not sincerely, but of contention and envy; and yet the apostle rejoices
in their preaching, knowing that it might happen that, while the preachers
gratified their desire for human praise, believers might be born among their
hearers, -- not as the result of the envious feeling which made them wish to
rival or surpass the fame of the apostles, but by means of the gospel which they
preached, though not sincerely; so that God might bring good out of their evil.
So a man may be induced to marry by sensual desire, and not to beget children;
and yet a child may be born, a good work of God, due to the natural power, not
to the misconduct of the parent. As, therefore, the holy apostles were gratified
when their doctrine met with acceptance from their hearers, not because they
were greedy for praise, but because they desired to spread the truth; so the
holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of
pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family.
Thus the number of their hearers did not make the apostles ambitious; nor did
the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the
husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony, when
it appears that the wives themselves looked upon their connection with their
husbands only as a means of getting sons? So, when they found themselves barren,
they gave their handmaids to their husbands; so that while the handmaids had the
fleshly motherhood, the wives were mothers in intention. 49. Faustus makes a
most groundless statement when he accuses the four women of quarreling like
abandoned characters for the possession of their husband. Where Faustus read
this I know not, unless it was in his own heart, as in a book of impious
delusions, in which Faustus himself is seduced by that serpent with regard to
whom the apostle feared for the Church, which he desired to present as a chaste
virgin to Christ; lest, as the serpent had deceived Eve by his subtlety, so he
should also corrupt their minds by turning them away from the simplicity of
Christ. [859] The Manichæans are so fond of this serpent, that they assert that
he did more good than harm. From him Faustus must have got his mind corrupted
with the lies instilled into it, which he now reproduces in these infamous
calumnies, and is even bold enough to put down in writing. It is not true that
one of the handmaids carried off Jacob from the other, or that they quarreled
about possessing him. There was arrangement, because there was no licentious
passion; and the law of conjugal authority was all the stronger that there was
none of the lawlessness of fleshly desire. His being hired by one of his wives
proves what is here said, in plain opposition to the libels of the Manichæans.
Why should one have hired him, unless by the arrangement he was to have gone in
to the other? It does not follow that he would never have gone in to Leah unless
she had hired him. He must have gone to her always in her turn, for he had many
children by her; and in obedience to her he had children by her hand-maid, and
afterwards, without any hiring, by herself. On this occasion it was Rachel's
turn, so that she had the power so expressly mentioned in the New Testament by
the apostle, "The husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife." [860]
Rachel had a bargain with her sister, and, being in her sister's debt, she
referred her to Jacob, her own debtor. For the apostle uses this figure when he
says, "Let the husband render unto the wife what is due." [861] Rachel gave what
was in her power as due from her husband, in return for what she had chosen to
take from her sister.50. If Jacob had been of such a character as Faustus in his
incurable blindness supposes, and not a servant of righteousness rather than of
concupiscence, would he not have been looking forward eagerly all day to the
pleasure of passing the night with the more beautiful of his wives, whom he
certainly loved more than the other, and for whom he paid the price of twice
seven years of gratuitous service? How, then, at the close of the day, on his
way to his beloved, could he have consented to be turned aside, if he had been
such as the ignorant Manichæans represent him? Would he not have disregarded the
wish of the women, and insisted upon going to the fair Rachel, who belonged to
him that night not only as his lawful wife, but also as coming in regular order?
He would thus have used his power as a husband, for the wife also has not power
over her own body, but the husband; and having on this occasion the arrangement
in their obedience in favor of the gratification of his love of beauty, he might
have enforced his authority the more successfully. In that case it would be to
the credit of the women, that while he thought of his own pleasure they
contended about having a son. As it was, this virtuous man, in manly control of
sensual appetite, thought more of what was due from him than to him, and instead
of using his power for his own pleasure, consented to be only the debtor in this
mutual obligation. So he consented to pay the debt to the person to whom she to
whom it was due wished him to pay it. When, by this private bargain of his
wives, Jacob was suddenly and unexpectedly forced to turn from the beautiful
wife to the plain one, he did not give way either to anger or to disappointment,
nor did he try to persuade his wives to let him have his own way; but, like a
just husband and an intelligent parent, seeing his wives concerned about the
production of children, which was all he himself desired in marriage, he thought
it best to yield to their authority, in desiring that each should have a child:
for, since all the children were his, his own authority was not impaired. As if
he had said to them: Arrange as you please among yourselves which is to be the
mother; it matters not to me, since in any case I am the father. This control
over the appetites, and simple desire to beget children, Faustus would have been
clever enough to see and approve, unless his mind had been corrupted by the
shocking tenets of his sect, which lead him to find fault with everything in the
Scripture, and, moreover, teach him to condemn as the greatest crime the
procreation of children, which is the proper design of marriage.51. Now, having
defended the character of the patriarch, and refuted an accusation arising from
these detestable errors, let us avail ourselves of the opportunity of searching
out the symbolical meaning, and let us knock with the reverence of faith, that
the Lord may open to us the typical significance of the four wives of Jacob, of
whom two were free, and two slaves. We see that, in the wife and bond-slaves of
Abraham, the apostle understands the two Testaments. [862] But there, one
represents each; here, the application does not suit so well, as there are two
and two. There, also, the son of the bond-slave is disinherited; but here the
sons of the slaves receive the land of promise along with the sons of the free
women: so that this type must have a different meaning. 52. Supposing that the
two free wives point to the New Testament, by which we are called to liberty,
what is the meaning of there being two? Perhaps because in Scripture, as the
attentive reader will find, we are said to have two lives in the body of Christ,
-- one temporal, in which we suffer pain, and one eternal, in which we shall
behold the blessedness of God. We see the one in the Lord's passion, and the
other in His resurrection. The names of the women point to this meaning: It is
said that Leah means Suffering, and Rachel the First Principle made visible, or
the Word which makes the First Principle visible. The action, then, of our
mortal human life, in which we live by faith, doing many painful tasks without
knowing what benefit may result from them to those in whom we are interested, is
Leah, Jacob's first wife. And thus she is said to have had weak eyes. For the
purposes of mortals are timid, and our plans uncertain. Again, the hope of the
eternal contemplation of God, accompanied with a sure and delightful perception
of truth, is Rachel. And on this account she is described as fair and
well-formed. This is the beloved of every pious student, and for this he serves
the grace of God, by which our sins, though like scarlet, are made white as
snow. [863] For Laban means making white; and we read that Jacob served Laban
for Rachel. [864] No man turns to serve righteousness, in subjection to the
grace of forgiveness, but that he may live in peace in the Word which makes
visible the First Principle, or God; that is, he serves for Rachel, not for
Leah. For what a man loves in the works of righteousness is not the toil of
doing and suffering. No one desires this life for its own sake; as Jacob desired
not Leah, who yet was brought to him, and became his wife, and the mother of
children. Though she could not be loved of herself, the Lord made her be borne
with as a step to Rachel; and then she came to be approved of on account of her
children. Thus every useful servant of God, brought into His grace by which his
sins are made white, has in his mind, and heart, and affection, when he thus
turns to God, nothing but the knowledge of wisdom. This we often expect to
attain as a reward for practising the seven precepts of the law which concern
the love of our neighbor, that we injure no one: namely, Honor thy father and
mother; Thou shall not commit adultery; Thou shall not kill; Thou shalt not
steal; Thou shall not bear false witness; Thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's
wife; Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's property. When a man has obeyed these
to the best of his ability, and, instead of the bright joys of truth which he
desired and hoped for, finds in the darkness of the manifold trials of this
world that he is bound to painful endurance, or has embraced Leah instead of
Rachel, if there is perseverance in his love, he bears with the one in order to
attain the other; and as if it were said to him, Serve seven other years for
Rachel, he hears seven new commands, -- to be poor in spirit, to be meek, to be
a mourner, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, to be merciful, pure, and a
peacemaker. [865] A man would desire, if it were possible, to obtain at once the
joys of lovely and perfect wisdom, without the endurance of toil in action and
suffering; but this is impossible in mortal life. This seems to be meant, when
it is said to Jacob: "It is not the custom in our country to marry the younger
before the elder." [866] The elder may very well mean the first in order of
time. So, in the discipline of man, the toil of doing the work of righteousness
precedes the delight of understanding the truth.53. To this purpose it is
written: "Thou hast desired wisdom; keep the commandments, and the Lord shall
give it thee." [867] The commandments are those concerning righteousness, and
the righteousness is that which is by faith, surrounded with the uncertainty of
temptations; so that understanding is the reward of a pious belief of what is
not yet understood. The meaning I have given to these words, "Thou hast desired
wisdom; keep the commandments, and the Lord shall give it thee," I find also in
the passage, "Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand;" [868] showing that as
righteousness is by faith, understanding comes by wisdom. Accordingly, in the
case of those who eagerly demand evident truth, we must not condemn the desire,
but regulate it, so that beginning with faith it may proceed to the desired end
through good works. The life of virtue is one of toil; the end desired is
unclouded wisdom. Why should I believe, says one, what is not clearly proved?
Let me hear some word which will disclose the first principle of all things.
This is the one great craving of the rational soul in the pursuit of truth. And
the answer is, What you desire is excellent, and well worthy of your love; but
Leah is to be married first, and then Rachel. The proper effect of your
eagerness is to lead you to submit to the right method, instead of rebelling
against it; for without this method you cannot attain what you so eagerly long
for. And when it is attained, the possession of the lovely form of knowledge
will be in this world accompanied with the toils of righteousness. For however
clear and true our perception in this life may be of the unchangeable good, the
mortal body is still a weight on the mind and the earthly tabernacle is a clog
on the intellect in its manifold activity. The end then, is one, but many things
must be gone through for the sake of it. 54. Thus Jacob has two free wives; for
both are daughters of the remission of sins, or of whitening, that is, of Laban.
One is loved, the other is borne. But she that is borne is the most and the
soonest fruitful, that she may be loved, if not for herself, at least for her
children. For the toil of the righteous is specially fruitful in those whom they
beget for the kingdom of God, by preaching the gospel amid many trials and
temptations; and they call those their joy and crown [869] for whom they are in
labors more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths often, [870] -- for
whom they have fightings without and fears within. [871] Such births result most
easily and plentifully from the word of faith, the preaching of Christ
crucified, which speaks also of His human nature as far as it can be easily
understood, so as not to hurt the weak eyes of Leah. Rachel, again, with clear
eye, is beside herself to God, [872] and sees in the beginning the Word of God
with God, and wishes to bring forth, but cannot; for who shall declare His
generation? So the life devoted to contemplation, in order to see with no feeble
mental eye things invisible to flesh, but understood by the things that are
made, and to discern the ineffable manifestation of the eternal power and
divinity of God, seeks leisure from all occupation, and is therefore barren. In
this habit of retirement, where the fire of meditation burns bright, there is a
want of sympathy with human weakness, and with the need men have of our help in
their calamities. This life also burns with the desire for children (for it
wishes to teach what it knows, and not to go with the corruption of envy [873]
), and sees its sister-life fully occupied with work and with bringing forth;
and it grieves that men run after that virtue which cares for their wants and
weaknesses, instead of that which has a divine imperishable lesson to impart.
This is what is meant when it is said, "Rachel envied her sister." [874]
Moreover, as the pure intellectual perception of that which is not matter, and
so is not the object of the bodliy sense, cannot be expressed in words which
spring from the flesh, the doctrine of wisdom prefers to get some lodging for
divine truth in the mind by whatever material figures and illustrations occur,
rather than to give up teaching these things; and thus Rachel preferred that her
husband should have children by her handmaid, rather than that she should be
without any children. Bilhah, the name of her handmaid, is said to mean old; and
so, even when we speak of the spiritual and unchangeable nature of God, ideas
are suggested relating to the old life of the bodily senses.55. Leah, too, got
children by her handmaid, from the desire of having a numerous family. Zilpah,
her handmaid, is, interpreted, an open mouth. So Leah's handmaid represents
those who are spoken of in Scripture as engaging in the preaching of the gospel
with open mouth, but not with open heart. Thus it is written of some: "This
people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." [875] To such
the apostle says: "Thou that preachest that a man should not steal, dost thou
steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit
adultery?" [876] But that even by this arrangement the free wife of Jacob, the
type of labor or endurance, might obtain children to be heirs of the kingdom,
the Lord says: "What they say, do; but do not after their works." [877] And
again, the apostolic life, when enduring imprisonment, says: "Whether Christ is
preached in pretence or in truth, I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."
[878] It is the joy of the mother over her numerous family, though born of her
handmaid.56. In one instance Leah owed her becoming a mother to Rachel, who, in
return for some mandrakes, allowed her husband to give her night to her sister.
Some, I know, think that eating this fruit has the effect of making barren women
productive, and that Rachel, from her desire for children, was thus bent on
getting the fruit from her sister. But I should not agree to this, even had
Rachel conceived at the time. As Leah then conceived, and, besides, had two
other children before God opened Rachel's womb, there is no reason for supposing
any such quality in the mandrake, without any experience to prove it. I will
give my explanation; those better able than I may give a better. Though this
fruit is not often met with, I had once, to my great satisfaction, on account of
its connection with this passage of Scripture, an opportunity of seeing it. I
examined the fruit as carefully as I could, not with the help of any recondite
knowledge of the nature of roots or the virtues of plants, but only as to what I
or any one might learn from the sight, and smell, and taste. I thought it a
nice-looking fruit, and sweet-smelling, but insipid; and I confess it is hard to
say why Rachel desired it so much, unless it was for its rarity and its sweet
smell. Why the incident should be narrated in Scripture, in which the fancies of
women would not be mentioned as important unless it was intended that we should
learn some important lesson from them, the only thing I can think of is the very
simple idea that the fruit represents a good character; not the praise given a
man by a few just and wise people, but popular report, which bestows greatness
and renown on a man, and which is not desirable for its own sake, but is
essential to the success of good men in their endeavors to benefit their
fellow-men. So the apostle says, that it is proper to have a good report of
those that are without; [879] for though they are not infallible, the lustre of
their praise and the odor of their good opinion are a great help to the efforts
of those who seek to benefit them. And this popular renown is not obtained by
those that are highest in the Church, unless they expose themselves to the toils
and hazards of an active life. Thus the son of Leah found the mandrakes when he
went out into the field, that is, when walking honestly towards those that are
without. The pursuit of wisdom, on the other hand, retired from the busy crowd,
and lost in calm meditation, could never obtain a particle of this public
approval, except through those who take the management of public business, not
for the sake of being leaders, but in order to be useful. These men of action
and business exert themselves for the public benefit, and by a popular use of
their influence gain the approval of the people even for the quiet life of the
student and inquirer after truth; and thus through Leah the mandrakes come into
the hands of Rachel. Leah herself got them from her first-born son, that is, in
honor of her fertility, which represents all the useful result of a laborious
life exposed to the common vicissitudes; a life which many avoid on account of
its troublesome engagements, because, although they might be able to take the
lead, they are bent on study, and devote all their powers to the quiet pursuit
of knowledge, in love with the beauty of Rachel. 57. But as it is right that
this studious life should gain public approval by letting itself be known, while
it cannot rightly gain this approval if it keeps its follower in retirement,
instead of using his powers for the management of ecclesiastical affairs, and so
prevents his being generally useful; to this purpose Leah says to her sister,
"Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take
away my son's mandrakes also?" [880] The husband represents all those who,
though fit for active life, and able to govern the Church, in administering to
believers the mystery of the faith, from their love of learning and of the
pursuit of wisdom, desire to relinquish all troublesome occupations, and to bury
themselves in the classroom. Thus the words, "Is it a small matter that thou
hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also?"
mean, "Is it a small matter that the life of study keeps in retirement men
required for the toils of public life? and does it ask for popular renown as
well?"58. To get this renown justly, Rachel gives her husband to her sister for
the night; that is, those who, by a talent for business, are fitted for
government, must for the public benefit consent to bear the burden and suffer
the hardships of public life; lest the pursuit of wisdom, to which their leisure
is devoted, should be evil spoken of, and should not gain from the multitude the
good opinion, represented by the fruit, which is necessary for the encouragement
of their pupils. But the life of business must be forced upon them. This is
clearly shown by Leah's meeting Jacob when coming from the field, and laying
hold of him, saying, "Thou shalt come in to me; for I have hired thee with my
son's mandrakes." [881] As if she said, Dost thou wish the knowledge which thou
lovest to be well thought of? Do not shirk the toil of business. The same thing
happens constantly in the Church. What we read is explained by what we meet with
in our own experience. Do we not everywhere see men coming from secular
employments, to seek leisure for the study and contemplation of truth, their
beloved Rachel, and intercepted mid-way by ecclesiastical affairs, which require
them to be set to work, as if Leah said to them, You must come in to me? When
such men minister in sincerity the mystery of God, so as in the night of this
world to beget sons in the faith, popular approval is gained also for that life,
in love for which they were led to abandon worldly pursuits, and from the
adoption of which they were called away to undertake the benevolent task of
government. In all their labors they aim chiefly at this, that their chosen way
of life may have greater and wider renown, as having supplied the people with
such leaders; as Jacob consents to go with Leah, that Rachel may obtain the
sweet-smelling and good-looking fruit. Rachel, too, in course of time, by the
mercy of God, brings forth a child herself, but not till after some time; for it
seldom happens that there is a sound, though only partial, apprehension, without
fleshly ideas, of such sacred lessons of wisdom as this: "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [882]59. This must
suffice as a reply to the false accusations brought by Faustus against the three
fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from whom the God whom the Catholic Church
worship was pleased to take His name. This is not the place to discourse on the
merits and piety of these three men, or on the dignity of their prophetic
character, which is beyond the comprehension of carnal minds. It is enough in
this treatise to defend them against the calumnious attacks of malevolence and
falsehood, in case those who read the Scriptures in a carping and hostile spirit
should fancy that they have proved anything against the sacredness and the
profitableness of these books, by their attempts to blacken the character of men
who are there mentioned so honorably.60. It should be added that Lot, the
brother, that is the blood relation, of Abraham, is not to be ranked as equal to
those of whom God says, "I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob;" nor
does he belong to those testified to in Scripture as having continued righteous
to the end, although in Sodom he lived a pious and virtuous life, and showed a
praiseworthy hospitality, so that he was rescued from the fire, and a land was
given by God to his seed to dwell in, for the sake of his uncle Abraham. On
these accounts he is commended in Scripture -- not for intemperance or incest.
But when we find bad and good actions recorded of the same person, we must take
warning from the one, and example from the other. As, then, the sin of Lot, of
whom we are told that he was righteous previous to this sin, instead of bringing
a stain on the character of God, or the truth of Scripture, rather calls on us
to approve and admire the record in its resemblance to a faithful mirror, which
reflects not only the beauties and perfections, but also the faults and
deformities, of those who approach it; still more, in the case of Judah, who lay
with his daughter-in-law, we may see how groundless are the reproaches cast on
the narrative. The sacred record has an authority which raises it far above not
merely the cavils of a handful of Manichæans, but the determined enmity of the
whole Gentile world; for, in confirmation of its claims, we see that already it
has brought nearly all people from their idolatrous superstitions to the worship
of one God, according to the rule of Christianity. It has conquered the world,
not by violence and warfare, but by the resistless force of truth. Where, then,
is Judah praised in Scripture? Where is anything good said of him, except that
in the blessing pronounced by his father he is distinguished above the rest,
because of the prophecy that Christ would come in the flesh from his tribe?
[883] 61. Judah, as Faustus says, committed fornication; and besides that, we
can accuse him of selling his brother into Egypt. Is it any disparagement to
light, that in revealing all things it discloses what is unsightly? So neither
is the character of Scripture affected by the evil deeds of which we are
informed by the record itself. Undoubtedly, by the eternal law, which requires
the preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, conjugal
intercourse should take place only for the procreation of children, and after
the celebration of marriage, so as to maintain the bond of peace. Therefore, the
prostitution of women, merely for the gratification of sinful passion, is
condemned by the divine and eternal law. To purchase the degradation of another,
disgraces the purchaser; so that, though the sin would have been greater if
Judah had knowingly lain with his daughter-in-law (for if, as the Lord says, man
and wife are no more two, but one flesh, [884] a daughter-in-law is the same as
a daughter); still, it is plain that, as regards his own intention, he was
disgraced by his intercourse with an harlot. The woman, on the other hand, who
deceived her father-in-law, sinned not from wantonness, or because she loved the
gains of iniquity, but from her desire to have children of this particular
family. So, being disappointed in two of the brothers, and not obtaining the
third, she succeeded by craft in getting a child by their father; and the reward
which she got was kept, not as an ornament, but as a pledge. It would certainly
have been better to have remained childless than to become a mother without
marriage. Still, her desire to have her father-in-law as the father of her
children was very different from having a criminal affection for him. And when,
by his order, she was brought out to be killed, on her producing the staff and
necklace and ring, saying that the father of the child was the man who had given
her those pledges, Judah acknowledged them, and said, "She hath been more
righteous than I" -- not praising her, but condemning himself. He blamed her
desire to have children less than his own unlawful passion, which had led him to
one whom he thought to be an harlot. In a similar sense, it is said of some that
they justified Sodom; [885] that is, their sin was so great, that Sodom seemed
righteous in comparison. And even allowing that this woman is not spoken of as
comparatively less guilty, but is actually praised by her father-in-law, while,
on account of her not observing the established rites of marriage, she is a
criminal in the eye of the eternal law of right, which forbids the transgression
of natural order, both as regards the body, and first and chiefly as regards the
mind, what wonder though one sinner should praise another?62. The mistake of
Faustus and of Manichæism generally, is in supposing that these objections prove
anything against us, as if our reverence for Scripture, and our profession of
regard for its authority, bound us to approve of all the evil actions mentioned
in it; whereas the greater our homage for the Scripture, the more decided must
be our condemnation of what the truth of Scripture itself teaches us to condemn.
In Scripture, all fornication and adultery are condemned by the divine law;
accordingly, when actions of this kind are narrated, without being expressly
condemned, it is intended not that we should praise them, but that we should
pass judgment on them ourselves. Every one execrates the cruelty of Herod in the
Gospel, when, in his uneasiness on hearing of the birth of Christ, he commanded
the slaughter of so many infants. [886] But this is merely narrated without
being condemned. Or if Manichæan absurdity is bold enough to deny the truth of
this narrative, since they do not admit the birth of Christ, which was what
troubled Herod, let them read the account of the blind fury of the Jews, which
is related without any expression of reproach, although the feeling of
abhorrence is the same in all.63. But, it is said, Judah, who lay with his
daughter-in-law, is reckoned as one of the twelve patriarchs. And was not Judas,
who betrayed the Lord, reckoned among the twelve apostles? And was not this one
of them, who was a devil, sent along with them to preach the gospel? [887] In
reply to this, it will be said that after his crime Judas hanged himself, and
was removed from the number of the apostles; while Judah, after his evil
conduct, was not only blessed along with his brethren, but got special honor and
approval from his father, who is so highly spoken of in Scripture. But the main
lesson to be learned from this is, that this prophecy refers not to Judah, but
to Christ, who was foretold as to come in the flesh from his tribe; and the very
reason for the mention of this crime of Judah is to be found in the
desirableness of teaching us to look for another meaning in the words of his
father, which are seen not to be applicable to him in his misconduct, from the
praise which they express.64. Doubtless, the intention of Faustus' calumnies is
to damage this very assertion, that Christ was born of the tribe of Judah.
Especially, as in the genealogy given by Matthew we find the name of Zara, whom
this woman Tamar bore to Judah. Had Faustus wished to reproach Jacob's family
merely, and not Christ's birth, he might have taken the case of Reuben the
first-born, who committed the unnatural crime of defiling his father's bed, of
which fornication the apostle says, that it was not so much as named among the
Gentiles. [888] Jacob also mentions this in his blessing, charging his son with
the infamous deed. Faustus might have brought up this, as Reuben seems to have
been guilty of deliberate incest, and there was no harlot's disguise in this
case, were it not that Tamar's conduct in desiring nothing but to have children
is more odious to Faustus than if she had acted from criminal passion, and did
he not wish to discredit the incarnation, by bringing reproach on Christ's
progenitors. Faustus unhappily is not aware that the most true and truthful
Saviour is a teacher, not only in His words, but also in His birth. In His
fleshly origin there is this lesson for those who should believe on Him from all
nations, that the sins of their fathers need be no hindrance to them. Besides,
the Bridegroom, who was to call good and bad to His marriage, [889] was pleased
to assimilate Himself to His guests, in being born of good and bad. He thus
confirms as typical of Himself the symbol of the Passover, in which it was
commanded that the lamb to be eaten should be taken from the sheep or from the
goats -- that is, from the righteous or the wicked. [890] Preserving throughout
the indication of divinity and humanity, as man He consented to have both bad
and good as His parents, while as God He chose the miraculous birth from a
virgin. 65. The impiety, therefore, of Faustus' attacks on Scripture can injure
no one but himself; for what he thus assails is now deservedly the object of
universal reverence. As has been said already, the sacred record, like a
faithful mirror, has no flattery in its portraits, and either itself passes
sentence upon human actions as worthy of approval or disapproval, or leaves the
reader to do so. And not only does it distinguish men as blameworthy or
praiseworthy, but it also takes notice of cases where the blameworthy deserve
praise, and the praiseworthy blame. Thus, although Saul was blameworthy, it was
not the less praiseworthy in him to examine so carefully who had eaten food
during the curse, and to pronounce the stern sentence in obedience to the
commandment of God. [891] So, too, he was right in banishing those that had
familiar spirits and wizards out of the land. [892] And although David was
praiseworthy, we are not called on to approve or imitate his sins, which God
rebukes by the prophet. And so Pontius Pilate was not wrong in pronouncing the
Lord innocent, in spite of the accusations of the Jews; [893] nor was it
praiseworthy in Peter to deny the Lord thrice; nor, again, was he praiseworthy
on that occasion when Christ called him Satan because, not understanding the
things of God, he wished to withhold Christ from his passion, that is, from our
salvation. Here Peter, immediately after being called blessed, is called Satan.
[894] Which character most truly belonged to him, we may see from his
apostleship, and from his crown of martyrdom.66. In the case of David also, we
read of both good and bad actions. But where David's strength lay, and what was
the secret of his success, is sufficiently plain, not to the blind malevolence
with which Faustus assails holy writings and holy men, but to pious discernment,
which bows to the divine authority, and at the same time judges correctly of
human conduct. The Manichæans will find, if they read the Scriptures, that God
rebukes David more than Faustus does. [895] But they will read also of the
sacrifice of his penitence, of his surpassing gentleness to his merciless and
bloodthirsty enemy, whom David, pious as he was brave, dismissed unhurt when now
and again he fell into his hands. [896] They will read of his memorable humility
under divine chastisement, when the kingly neck was so bowed under the Master's
yoke, that he bore with perfect patience bitter taunts from his enemy, though he
was armed, and had armed men with him. And when his companion was enraged at
such things being said to the king, and was on the point of requiting the insult
on the head of the scoffer, he mildly restrained him, appealing to the fear of
God in support of his own royal order, and saying that this bad happened to him
as a punishment from God, who had sent the man to curse him. [897] They will
read how, with the love of a shepherd for the flock entrusted to him, he was
willing to die for them, when, after he had numbered the people, God saw good to
punish his sinful pride by lessening the number he boasted of. In this
destruction, God, with whom there is no iniquity, in His secret judgment, both
took away the lives of those whom He knew to be unworthy of life, and by this
diminution cured the vainglory which had prided itself on the number of the
people. They will read of that scrupulous fear of God in his regard for the
emblem of Christ in the sacred anointing, which made David's heart smite him
with regret for having secretly cut off a small piece of Saul's garment, that he
might prove to him that he had no wish to kill him, when he might have done it.
They will read of his judicious behavior as regards his children, and also of
his tenderness toward them -- how, when one was sick, he entreated the Lord for
him with many tears and with much self-abasement, but when he died, an innocent
child, he did not mourn for him; and again, how, when his youthful son was
carried away with unnatural hostility to an infamous violation of his father's
bed, and in a parricidal war, he wished him to live, and wept for him when he
was killed; for he thought of the eternal doom of a soul guilty of such crimes,
and desired that he should live to escape this doom by being brought to
submission and repentance. These, and many other praiseworthy and exemplary
things, may be seen in this holy man by a candid examination of the Scripture
narrative, especially if in humble piety and unfeigned faith we regard the
judgment of God, who knew the secrets of David's heart, and who, in His
infallible inspection, so approves of David as to commend him as a pattern to
his sons.67. It must have been on account of this inspection of the depths of
David's heart by the Spirit of God that, when on being reproved by the prophet,
he said, I have sinned, he was considered worthy to be told, immediately after
this brief confession, that he was pardoned -- that is, that he was admitted to
eternal salvation. For he did not escape the correction of the fatherly rod, of
which God spoke in His threatening, that, while by his confession he obtained
eternal exemption, he might be tried by temporal chastisement. And it is a
remarkable evidence of the strength of David's faith, and of his meek and
submissive spirit, that, when he had been told by the prophet that God had
forgiven him, although the threatened consequences were still permitted to
follow, he did not accuse the prophet of having deluded him, or murmur against
God as having mocked him with a declaration of forgiveness. This deeply holy
man, whose soul was lifted up unto God, and not against God, knew that had not
the Lord mercifully accepted his confession and repentance, his sins would have
deserved eternal punishment. So when, instead of this, he was made to smart
under temporal correction, he saw that, while the pardon remained good,
wholesome discipline was also provided. Saul, too, when he was reproved by
Samuel, said, I have sinned. [898] Why, then, was he not considered fit to be
told, as David was, that the Lord had pardoned his sin? Is there acceptance of
persons with God? Far from it. While to the human ear the words were the same,
the divine eye saw a difference in the heart. The lesson for us to learn from
these things is, that the kingdom of heaven is within us, [899] and that we must
worship God from our inmost feelings, that out of the abundance of the heart the
mouth may speak, instead of honoring Him with our lips, like the people of old,
while our hearts are far from Him. We may learn also to judge of men, whose
hearts we cannot see, only as God judges, who sees what we cannot, and who
cannot be biased or misled. Having, on the high authority of sacred Scripture,
the plainest announcement of God's opinion of David, we may regard as absurd or
deplorable the rashness of men who hold a different opinion. The authority of
Scripture, as regards the character of these men of ancient times, is supported
by the evidence from the prophecies which they contain, and which are now
receiving their fulfillment. 68. We see the same thing in the Gospel, where the
devils confess that Christ is the Son of God in the words used by Peter, but
with a very different heart. So, though the words were the same, Peter is
praised for his faith, while the impiety of the devils is checked. For Christ,
not by human sense, but by divine knowledge, could inspect and infallibly
discriminate the sources from which the words came. Besides, there are
multitudes who confess that Christ is the Son of the living God, without
meriting the same approval as Peter -- not only of those who shall say in that
day, "Lord, Lord," and shall receive the sentence, "Depart from me," but also of
those who shall be placed on the right hand. They may probably never have denied
Christ even once; they may never have opposed His suffering for our salvation;
they may never have forced the Gentiles to do as the Jews; [900] and yet they
shall not be honored equally with Peter, who, though he did all these things,
will sit on one of the twelve thrones, and judge not only the twelve tribes, but
the angels. So, again, many who have never desired another man's wife, or
procured the death of the husband, as David did, will never reach the place
which David nevertheless held in the divine favor. There is a vast difference
between what is in itself so undesirable that it must be utterly rejected, and
the rich and plenteous harvest which may afterwards appear. For farmers are best
pleased with the fields from which, after weeding them, it may be, of great
thistles, they receive an hundred-fold; not with fields which have never had any
thistles, and hardly bear thirty-fold.69. So Moses, too, who was so faithful a
servant of God in all his house; the minister of the holy, just, and good law;
of whose character the apostle speaks in the words here quoted; [901] the
minister also of the symbols which, though not conferring salvation, promised
the Saviour, as the Saviour Himself shows, when He says, "If ye believed Moses,
ye would also believe me, for he wrote of me," -- from which passage we have
already sufficiently answered the presumptuous cavils of the Manichæans; -- this
Moses, the servant of the living, the true, the most high God, that made heaven
and earth, not of a foreign substance, but of nothing -- not from the pressure
of necessity, but from plenitude of goodness -- not by the suffering of His
members, but by the power of His word; -- this Moses, who humbly put from him
this high ministry, but obediently accepted it, and faithfully kept it, and
diligently fulfilled it; who ruled the people with vigilance, reproved them with
vehemence, loved them with fervor, and bore with them in patience, standing for
his subjects before God to receive His counsel, and to appease His wrath; --
this great and good man is not to be judged of from Faustus' malicious
representations, but from what is said by God, whose word is a true expression
of His true opinion of this man, whom He knew because He made him. For the sins
of men are also known to God, though He is not their author; but He takes notice
of them as a judge in those who refuse to own them, and pardons them as a father
in those who make confession. His servant Moses, as thus described, we love and
admire and to the best of our power imitate, coming indeed far short of his
merits, though we have killed no Egyptian, nor plundered any one, nor carried on
any war; which actions of Moses were in one case prompted by the zeal of the
future champion of his people, and in the other cases commanded by God.70. It
might be shown that, though Moses slew the Egyptian, without being commanded by
God, the action was divinely permitted, as, from the prophetic character of
Moses, it prefigured something in the future. Now however, I do not use this
argument, but view the action as having no symbolical meaning. In the light,
then, of the eternal law, it was wrong for one who had no legal authority to
kill the man, even though he was a bad character, besides being the aggressor.
But in minds where great virtue is to come, there is often an early crop of
vices, in which we may still discern a disposition for some particular virtue,
which will come when the mind is duly cultivated. For as farmers, when they see
land bringing forth huge crops, though of weeds, pronounce it good for corn; or
when they see wild creepers, which have to be rooted out, still consider the
land good for useful vines; and when they see a hill covered with wild olives,
conclude that with culture it will produce good fruit: so the disposition of
mind which led Moses to take the law into his own hands, to prevent the wrong
done to his brother, living among strangers, by a wicked citizen of the country
from being unrequited, was not unfit for the production of virtue, but from want
of culture gave signs of its productiveness in an unjustifiable manner. He who
afterwards, by His angel, called Moses on Mount Sinai, with the divine
commission to liberate the people of Israel from Egypt, and who trained him to
obedience by the miraculous appearance in the bush burning but not consumed, and
by instructing him in his ministry, was the same who, by the call addressed from
heaven to Saul when persecuting the Church, humbled him, raised him up, and
animated him; or in figurative words, by this stroke He cut off the branch,
grafted it, and made it fruitful. For the fierce energy of Paul, when in his
zeal for hereditary traditions he persecuted the Church, thinking that he was
doing God service, was like a crop of weeds showing great signs of
productiveness. It was the same in Peter, when he took his sword out of its
sheath to defend the Lord, and cut off the right ear of an assailant, when the
Lord rebuked him with something like a threat, saying, "Put up thy sword into
its sheath; for he that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword." [902] To
take the sword is to use weapons against a man's life, without the sanction of
the constituted authority. The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a
sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should
become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after
smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. In both
cases the trespass originated not in inveterate cruelty, but in a hasty zeal
which admitted of correction. In both cases there was resentment against injury,
accompanied in one case by love for a brother, and in the other by love, though
still carnal, of the Lord. Here was evil to be subdued or rooted out; but the
heart with such capacities needed only, like good soil, to be cultivated to make
it fruitful in virtue. 71. Then, as for Faustus' objection to the spoiling of
the Egyptians, he knows not what he says. In this Moses not only did not sin,
but it would have been sin not to do it. It was by the command of God, [903]
who, from His knowledge both of the actions and of the hearts of men, can decide
on what every one should be made to suffer, and through whose agency. The people
at that time were still carnal, and engrossed with earthly affections; while the
Egyptians were in open rebellion against God, for they used the gold, God's
creature, in the service of idols, to the dishonor of the Creator, and they had
grievously oppressed strangers by making them work without pay. Thus the
Egyptians deserved the punishment, and the Israelites were suitably employed in
inflicting it. Perhaps, indeed, it was not so much a command as a permission to
the Hebrews to act in the matter according to their own inclinations; and God,
in sending the message by Moses, only wished that they should thus be informed
of His permission. There may also have been mysterious reasons for what God said
to the people on this matter. At any rate, God's commands are to be submissively
received, not to be argued against. The apostle says, "Who hath known the mind
of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor?" [904] Whether, then, the reason
was what I have said, or whether in the secret appointment of God, there was
some unknown reason for His telling the people by Moses to borrow things from
the Egyptians, and to take them away with them, this remains certain, that this
was said for some good reason, and that Moses could not lawfully have done
otherwise than God told him, leaving to God the reason of the command, while the
servant's duty is to obey.72. But, says Faustus, it cannot be admitted that the
true God, who is also good, ever gave such a command. I answer, such a command
can be rightly given by no other than the true and good God, who alone knows the
suitable command in every case, and who alone is incapable of inflicting
unmerited suffering on any one. This ignorant and spurious goodness of the human
heart may as well deny what Christ says, and object to the wicked being made to
suffer by the good God, when He shall say to the angels, "Gather first the tares
into bundles to burn them." The servants, however, were stopped when they wished
to do this prematurely: "Lest by chance, when ye would gather the tares, ye root
up the wheat also with them." [905] Thus the true and good God alone knows when,
to whom, and by whom to order anything, or to permit anything. In the same way,
this human goodness, or folly rather, might object to the Lord's permitting the
devils to enter the swine, which they asked to be allowed to do with a
mischievous intent, [906] especially as the Manichæans believe that not only
pigs, but the vilest insects, have human souls. But setting aside these absurd
notions, this is undeniable, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only son of God,
and therefore the true and good God, permitted the destruction of swine
belonging to strangers, implying loss of life and of a great amount of property,
at the request of devils. No one can be so insane as to suppose that Christ
could not have driven the devils out of the men without gratifying their malice
by the destruction of the swine. If, then, the Creator and Governor of all
natures, in His superintendence, which, though mysterious, is ever just,
indulged the violent and unjust inclination of those lost spirits already doomed
to eternal fire, why should not the Egyptians, who were unrighteous oppressors,
be spoiled by the Hebrews, a free people, who would claim payment for their
enforced and painful toil, especially as the earthly possessions which they thus
lost were used by the Egyptians in their impious rites, to the dishonor of the
Creator? Still, if Moses had originated this order, or if the people had done it
spontaneously, undoubtedly it would have been sinful; and perhaps the people did
sin, not in doing what God commanded or permitted, but in some desire of their
own for what they took. The permission given to this action by divine authority
was in accordance with the just and good counsel of Him who uses punishments
both to restrain the wicked and to educate His own people; who knows also how to
give more advanced precepts to those able to bear them, while He begins on a
lower scale in the treatment of the feeble. As for Moses, he can be blamed
neither for coveting the property, nor for disputing, in any instance, the
divine authority.73. According to the eternal law, which requires the
preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, some actions
have an indifferent character, so that men are blamed for presumption if they do
them without being called upon, while they are deservedly praised for doing them
when required. The act, the agent, and the authority for the action are all of
great importance in the order of nature. For Abraham to sacrifice his son of his
own accord is shocking madness. His doing so at the command of God proves him
faithful and submissive. This is so loudly proclaimed by the very voice of
truth, that Faustus, eagerly rummaging for some fault, and reduced at last to
slanderous charges, has not the boldness to attack this action. It is scarcely
possible that he can have forgotten a deed so famous, that it recurs to the mind
of itself without any study or reflection, and is in fact repeated by so many
tongues, and portrayed in so many places, that no one can pretend to shut his
eyes or his ears to it. If, therefore, while Abraham's killing his son of his
own accord would have been unnatural, his doing it at the command of God shows
not only guiltless but praiseworthy compliance, why does Faustus blame Moses for
spoiling the Egyptians? Your feeling of disapproval for the mere human action
should be restrained by a regard for the divine sanction. Will you venture to
blame God Himself for desiring such actions? Then "Get thee behind me, Satan,
for thou understandest not the things which be of God, but those which be of
men." Would that this rebuke might accomplish in you what it did in Peter, and
that you might hereafter preach the truth concerning God, which you now, judging
by feeble sense, find fault with! as Peter became a zealous messenger to
announce to the Gentiles what he objected to at first, when the Lord spoke of it
as His intention. 74. Now, if this explanation suffices to satisfy human
obstinacy and perverse misinterpretation of right actions of the vast difference
between the indulgence of passion and presumption on the part of men, and
obedience to the command of God, who knows what to permit or to order, and also
the time and the persons, and the due action or suffering in each case, the
account of the wars of Moses will not excite surprise or abhorrence, for in wars
carried on by divine command, he showed not ferocity but obedience; and God in
giving the command, acted not in cruelty, but in righteous retribution, giving
to all what they deserved, and warning those who needed warning. What is the
evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others
may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any
religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful
cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power,
and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is
required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful
authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position
as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to
act, or to make others act in this way. Otherwise John, when the soldiers who
came to be baptized asked, What shall we do? would have replied, Throw away your
arms; give up the service; never strike, or wound, or disable any one. But
knowing that such actions in battle were not murderous but authorized by law,
and that the soldiers did not thus avenge themselves, but defend the public
safety, he replied, "Do violence to no man, accuse no man falsely, and be
content with your wages." [907] But as the Manichæans are in the habit of
speaking evil of John, let them hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordering this
money to be given to Cæsar, which John tells the soldiers to be content with.
"Give," He says, "to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's." [908] For tribute-money
is given on purpose to pay the soldiers for war. Again, in the case of the
centurion who said, "I am a man under authority, and have soldiers under me: and
I say to one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my
servant, Do this, and he doeth it," Christ gave due praise to his faith; [909]
He did not tell him to leave the service. But there is no need here to enter on
the long discussion of just and unjust ways.75. A great deal depends on the
causes for which men undertake wars, and on the authority they have for doing
so; for the natural order which seeks the peace of mankind, ordains that the
monarch should have the power of undertaking war if he thinks it advisable, and
that the soldiers should perform their military duties in behalf of the peace
and safety of the community. When war is undertaken in obedience to God, who
would rebuke, or humble, or crush the pride of man, it must be allowed to be a
righteous war; for even the wars which arise from human passion cannot harm the
eternal well-being of God, nor even hurt His saints; for in the trial of their
patience, and the chastening of their spirit, and in bearing fatherly
correction, they are rather benefited than injured. No one can have any power
against them but what is given him from above. For there is no power but of God,
[910] who either orders or permits. Since, therefore, a righteous man, serving
it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty belonging to his position in
the State in fighting by the order of his sovereign, -- for in some cases it is
plainly the will of God that he should fight, and in others, where this is not
so plain, it may be an unrighteous command on the part of the king, while the
soldier is innocent, because his position makes obedience a duty, -- how much
more must the man be blameless who carries on war on the authority of God, of
whom every one who serves Him knows that He can never require what is wrong?76.
If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare, because in after times it
was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, "I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
if any one strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also," [911] the
answer is, that what is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward
disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart, and such were the hearts of
our fathers, the righteous men of old. But order required such a regulation of
events, and such a distinction of times, as to show first of all that even
earthly blessings (for so temporal kingdoms and victory over enemies are
considered to be, and these are the things which the community of the ungodly
all over the world are continually begging from idols and devils) are entirely
under the control and at the disposal of the one true God. Thus, under the Old
Testament, the secret of the kingdom of heaven, which was to be disclosed in due
time, was veiled, and so far obscured, in the disguise of earthly promises. But
when the fullness of time came for the revelation of the New Testament, which
was hidden under the types of the Old, clear testimony was to be borne to the
truth, that there is another life for which this life ought to be disregarded,
and another kingdom for which the opposition of all earthly kingdoms should be
patiently borne. Thus the name martyrs, which means witnesses, was given to
those who, by the will of God, bore this testimony, by their confessions, their
sufferings, and their death. The number of such witnesses is so great, that if
it pleased Christ -- who called Saul by a voice from heaven, and having changed
him from a wolf to a sheep, sent him into the midst of wolves -- to unite them
all in one army, and to give them success in battle, as He gave to the Hebrews,
what nation could withstand them? what kingdom would remain unsubdued? But as
the doctrine of the New Testament is, that we must serve God not for temporal
happiness in this life, but for eternal felicity hereafter, this truth was most
strikingly confirmed by the patient endurance of what is commonly called
adversity for the sake of that felicity. So in fullness of time the Son of God,
made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that were under
the law, made of the seed of David according to the flesh sends His disciples as
sheep into the midst of wolves, and bids them not fear those that can kill the
body, but cannot kill the soul, and promises that even the body will be entirely
restored, so that not a hair shall be lost. [912] Peter's sword He orders back
into its sheath, restoring as it was before the ear of His enemy that had been
cut off. He says that He could obtain legions of angels to destroy His enemies,
but that He must drink the cup which His Father's will had given Him. [913] He
sets the example of drinking this cup, then hands it to His followers,
manifesting thus, both in word and deed, the grace of patience. Therefore God
raised Him from the dead, and has given Him a name which is above every name;
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and of
things in earth, and of things under the earth; and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [914] The patriarchs
and prophets, then, have a kingdom in this world, to show that these kingdoms,
too, are given and taken away by God: the apostles and martyrs had no kingdom
here, to show the superior desirableness of the kingdom of heaven. The prophets,
however, could even in those times die for the truth, as the Lord Himself says,
"From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharia; [915] and in these days, since
the commencement of the fulfillment of what is prophesied in the psalm of
Christ, under the figure of Solomon, which means the peacemaker, as Christ is
our peace, [916] "All kings of the earth shall bow to Him, all nations shall
serve Him," [917] we have seen Christian emperors, who have put all their
confidence in Christ, gaining splendid victories over ungodly enemies, whose
hope was in the rites of idolatry and devil-worship. There are public and
undeniable proofs of the fact, that on one side the prognostications of devils
were found to be fallacious, and on the other, the predictions of saints were a
means of support; and we have now writings in which those facts are recorded.
77. If our foolish opponents are surprised at the difference between the
precepts given by God to the ministers of the Old Testament, at a time when the
grace of the New was still undisclosed, and those given to the preachers of the
New Testament, now that the obscurity of the Old is removed, they will find
Christ Himself saying one thing at one time, and another at another. "When I
sent you," He says, "without scrip, or purse, or shoes, did ye lack anything?
And they said, Nothing. Then saith He to them, But now, he that hath a scrip,
let him take it, and also a purse; and he that hath not a sword, let him sell
his garment, and buy one." If the Manichæans found passages in the Old and New
Testaments differing in this way, they would proclaim it as a proof that the
Testaments are opposed to each other. But here the difference is in the
utterances of one and the same person. At one time He says, "I sent you without
scrip, or purse, or shoes, and ye lacked nothing;" at another, "Now let him that
hath a scrip take it, and also a purse; and he that hath a tunic, let him sell
it and buy a sword." Does not this show how, without any inconsistency, precepts
and counsels and permissions may be changed, as different times require
different arrangements? If it is said that there was a symbolical meaning in the
command to take a scrip and purse, and to buy a sword, why may there not be a
symbolical meaning in the fact, that one and the same God commanded the prophets
in old times to make war, and forbade the apostles? And we find in the passage
that we have quoted from the Gospel, that the words spoken by the Lord were
carried into effect by His disciples. For, besides going at first without scrip
or purse, and yet lacking nothing, as from the Lord's question and their answer
it is plain they did, now that He speaks of buying a sword, they say, "Lo, here
are two swords;" and He replied, "It is enough." Hence we find Peter with a
weapon when he cut off the assailant's ear, on which occasion his spontaneous
boldness was checked, because, although he had been told to take a sword, he had
not been told to use it. [918] Doubtless, it was mysterious that the Lord should
require them to carry weapons, and forbid the use of them. But it was His part
to give the suitable precepts, and it was their part to obey without reserve.78.
It is therefore mere groundless calumny to charge Moses with making war, for
there would have been less harm in making war of his own accord, than in not
doing it when God commanded him. And to dare to find fault with God Himself for
giving such a command, or not to believe it possible that a just and good God
did so, shows, to say the least, an inability to consider that in the view of
divine providence, which pervades all things from the highest to the lowest,
time can neither add anything nor take away; but all things go, or come, or
remain according to the order of nature or desert in each separate case, while
in men a right will is in union with the divine law, and ungoverned passion is
restrained by the order of divine law; so that a good man wills only what is
commanded, and a bad man can do only what he is permitted, at the same time that
he is punished for what he wills to do unjustly. Thus, in all the things which
appear shocking and terrible to human feebleness, the real evil is the
injustice; the rest is only the result of natural properties or of moral
demerit. This injustice is seen in every case where a man loves for their own
sake things which are desirable only as means to an end, and seeks for the sake
of something else things which ought to be loved for themselves. For thus, as
far as he can, he disturbs in himself the natural order which the eternal law
requires us to observe. Again, a man is just when he seeks to use things only
for the end for which God appointed them, and to enjoy God as the end of all,
while he enjoys himself and his friend in God and for God. For to love in a
friend the love of God is to love the friend for God. Now both justice and
injustice, to be acts at all, must be voluntary; otherwise, there can be no just
rewards or punishments; which no man in his senses will assert. The ignorance
and infirmity which prevent a man from knowing his duty, or from doing all he
wishes to do, belong to God's secret penal arrangement, and to His unfathomable
judgments, for with Him there is no iniquity. Thus we are informed by the sure
word of God of Adam's sin; and Scripture truly declares that in him all die, and
that by him sin entered into the world, and death by sin. [919] And our
experience gives abundant evidence, that in punishment for this sin our body is
corrupted, and weighs down the soul, and the clay tabernacle clogs the mind in
its manifold activity; [920] and we know that we can be freed from this
punishment only by gracious interposition. So the apostle cries out in distress,
"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The
grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord." [921] So much we know; but the
reasons for the distribution of divine judgment and mercy, why one is in this
condition, and another in that, though just, are unknown. Still, we are sure
that all these things are due either to the mercy or the judgment of God, while
the measures and numbers and weights by which the Creator of all natural
productions arranges all things are concealed from our view. For God is not the
author, but He is the controller of sin; so that sinful actions, which are
sinful because they are against nature, are judged and controlled, and assigned
to their proper place and condition, in order that they may not bring discord
and disgrace on universal nature. This being the case, and as the judgments of
God and the movements of man's will contain the hidden reason why the same
prosperous circumstances which some make a right use of are the ruin of others,
and the same afflictions under which some give way are profitable to others, and
since the whole mortal life of man upon earth is a trial, [922] who can tell
whether it may be good or bad in any particular case -- in time of peace, to
reign or to serve, or to be at ease or to die -- or in time of war, to command
or to fight, or to conquer or to be killed? At the same time, it remains true,
that whatever is good is so by the divine blessing, and whatever is bad is so by
the divine judgment. 79. Let no one, then, be so daring as to make rash charges
against men, not to say against God. If the service of the ministers of the Old
Testament, who were also heralds of the New, consisted in putting sinners to
death, and that of the ministers of the New Testament, who are also interpreters
of the Old, in being put to death by sinners, the service in both cases is
rendered to one God, who, varying the lesson to suit the times, teaches both
that temporal blessings are to be sought from Him, and that they are to be
forsaken for Him, and that temporal distress is both sent by Him and should be
endured for Him. There was, therefore, no cruelty in the command, or in the
action of Moses, when, in his holy jealousy for his people, whom he wished to be
subject to the one true God, on learning that they had fallen away to the
worship of an idol made by their own hands, he impressed their minds at the time
with a wholesome fear, and gave them a warning for the future, by using the
sword in the punishment of a few, whose just punishment God, against whom they
had sinned, appointed in the depth of His secret judgment to be immediately
inflicted. That Moses acted as he did, not in cruelty, but in great love, may be
seen from the words in which he prayed for the sins of the people: "If Thou wilt
forgive their sin, forgive it; and if not, blot me out of Thy book." [923] The
pious inquirer who compares the slaughter with the prayer will find in this the
clearest evidence of the awful nature of the injury done to the soul by
prostitution to the images of devils, since such love is roused to such anger.
We see the same in the apostle, who, not in cruelty, but in love, delivered a
man up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus. [924] Others, too, he delivered up, that they
might learn not to blaspheme. [925] In the apocryphal books of the Manichæans
there is a collection of fables, published by some unknown authors under the
name of the apostles. The books would no doubt have been sanctioned by the
Church at the time of their publication, if holy and learned men then in life,
and competent to determine the matter, had thought the contents to be true. One
of the stories is, that the Apostle Thomas was once at a marriage feast in a
country where he was unknown, when one of the servants struck him, and that he
forthwith by his curse brought a terrible punishment on this man. For when he
went out to the fountain to provide water for the guests, a lion fell on him and
killed him, and the hand with which he had given a slight blow to the apostle
was torn off, in fulfillment of the imprecation, and brought by a dog to the
table at which the apostle was reclining. What could be more cruel than this?
And yet, if I mistake not, the story goes on to say, that the apostle made up
for the cruelty by obtaining for the man the blessing of pardon in the next
world; so that, while the people of this strange country learned to fear the
apostle as being so dear to God, the man's eternal welfare was secured in
exchange for the loss of this mortal life. It matters not whether the story is
true or false. At any rate, the Manichæans, who regard as genuine and authentic
books which the canon of the Church rejects, must allow, as shown in the story,
that the virtue of patience, which the Lord enjoins when He says, "If any one
smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him thy left also," may be in the inward
disposition, though it is not exhibited in bodily action or in words. For when
the apostle was struck, instead of turning his other side to the man, or telling
him to repeat the blow, he prayed to God to pardon his assailant in the next
world, but not to leave the injury unpunished at the time. Inwardly he preserved
a kindly feeling, while outwardly he wished the man to be punished as an
example. As the Manichæans believe this, rightly or wrongly, they may also
believe that such was the intention of Moses, the servant of God, when he cut
down with the sword the makers and worshippers of the idol; for his own words
show that he so entreated for pardon for their sin of idolatry as to ask to be
blotted out of God's book if his prayer was not heard. There is no comparison
between a stranger being struck with the hand, and the dishonor done to God by
forsaking Him for an idol, when He had brought the people out of the bondage of
Egypt, had led them through the sea, and had covered with the waters the enemy
pursuing them. Nor, as regards the punishment, is there any comparison between
being killed with the sword and being torn in pieces by wild beasts. For judges
in administering the law condemn to exposure to wild beasts worse criminals than
are condemned to be put to death by the sword.80. Another of Faustus' malicious
and impious charges which has to be answered, is about the Lord's saying to the
prophet Hosea, "Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms."
[926] As regards this passage, the impure mind of our adversaries is so blinded
that they do not understand the plain words of the Lord in His gospel, when He
says to the Jews, "The publicans and harlots shall go into the kingdom of heaven
before you." [927] There is nothing contrary to the mercifulness of truth, or
inconsistent with Christian faith, in a harlot leaving fornication, and becoming
a chaste wife. Indeed, nothing could be more unbecoming in one professing to be
a prophet than not to believe that all the sins of the fallen woman were
pardoned when she changed for the better. So when the prophet took the harlot as
his wife, it was both good for the woman to have her life amended, and the
action symbolized a truth of which we shall speak presently. But it is plain
what offends the Manichæans in this case; for their great anxiety is to prevent
harlots from being with child. It would have pleased them better that the woman
should continue a prostitute, so as not to bring their god into confinement,
than that she should become the wife of one man, and have children. 81. As
regards Solomon, it need only be said that the condemnation of his conduct in
the faithful narrative of holy Scripture is much more serious than the childish
vehemence of Faustus' attacks. The Scripture tells us with faithful accuracy
both the good that Solomon had at first, and the evil actions by which he lost
the good he began with; while Faustus, in his attacks, like a man closing his
eyes, or with no eyes at all, seeks no guidance from the light, but is prompted
only by violent animosity. To pious and discerning readers of the sacred
Scriptures evidence of the chastity of the holy men who are said to have had
several wives is found in this, that Solomon, who by his polygamy gratified his
passions, instead of seeking for offspring, is expressly noted as chargeable
with being a lover of women. This, as we are informed by the truth which accepts
no man's person, led him down into the abyss of idolatry.82. Having now gone
over all the cases in which Faustus finds fault with the Old Testament, and
having attended to the merit of each, either defending men of God against the
calumnies of carnal heretics, or, where the men were at fault, showing the
excellence and the majesty of Scripture, let us again take the cases in the
order of Faustus' accusations, and see the meaning of the actions recorded, what
they typify, and what they foretell. This we have already done in the case of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of whom God said that He was their God, as if the God
of universal nature were the God of none besides them; not honoring them with an
unmeaning title, but because He, who could alone have a full and perfect
knowledge, knew the sincere and remarkable charity of these men; and because
these three patriarchs united formed a notable type of the future people of God,
in not only having free children by free women, as by Sarah, and Rebecca, and
Leah, and Rachel, but also bond children, as of this same Rebecca was born Esau,
to whom it was said, "Thou shalt serve thy brother;" [928] and in having by bond
women not only bond children, as by Hagar, but also free children, as by Bilhah
and Zilphah. Thus also in the people of God, those spiritually free not only
have children born into the enjoyment of liberty, like those to whom it is said,
"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ," [929] but they have also
children born into guilty bondage, as Simon was born of Philip. [930] Again,
from carnal bondmen are born not only children of guilty bondage, who imitate
them, but also children of happy liberty, to whom it is said, "What they say,
do; but do not after their works." [931] Whoever rightly observes the
fulfillment of this type in the people of God, keeps the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, by continuing to the end in union with some, and in patient
endurance of others. Of Lot, also, we have already spoken, and have shown what
the Scripture mentions as praiseworthy in him, and what as blameworthy and the
meaning of the whole narrative.83. We have next to consider the prophetic
significance of the action of Judah in lying with his daughter-in-law. But, for
the sake of those whose understanding is feeble, we shall begin with observing,
that in sacred Scripture evil actions are sometimes prophetic not of evil, but
of good. Divine providence preserves throughout its essential goodness, so that,
as in the example given above, from adulterous intercourse a man-child is born,
a good work of God from the evil of man, by the power of nature, and not due to
the misconduct of the parents; so in the prophetic Scriptures, where both good
and evil actions are recorded, the narrative being itself prophetic, foretells
something good even by the record of what is evil, the credit being due not to
the evil-doer, but to the writer. Judah, when, to gratify his sinful passion, he
went in to Tamar, had no intention by his licentious conduct to typify anything
connected with the salvation of men, any more than Judas, who betrayed the Lord,
intended to produce any result connected with the salvation of men. So then if
from the evil deed of Judas the Lord brought the good work of our redemption by
His own passion, why should not His prophet, of whom He Himself says "He wrote
of me," for the sake of instructing us make the evil action of Judah significant
of something good? Under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the
prophet has compiled a narrative of actions so as to make a continuous prophecy
of the things he designed to foretell. In foretelling good, it is of no
consequence whether the typical actions are good or bad. If it is written in red
ink that the Ethiopians are black, or in black ink that the Gauls are white,
this circumstance does not affect the information which the writing conveys. No
doubt, if it was a painting instead of a writing, the wrong color would be a
fault; so when human actions are represented for example or for warning much
depends on whether they are good or bad. But when actions are related or
recorded as types, the merit or demerit of the agents is a matter of no
importance, as long as there is a true typical relation between the action and
the thing signified. So in the case of Caiaphas in the Gospel as regards his
iniquitous and mischievous intention, and even as regards his words in the sense
in which he used them, that a just man should be put to death unjustly,
assuredly they were bad; and yet there was a good meaning in his words which he
did not know of when he said, "It is expedient that one man should die for the
people and that the whole nation perish not." So it is written of Him, "This he
spake not of himself; but being the high priest, he prophesied that Jesus should
die for the people." [932] In the same way the action of Judah was bad as
regards his sinful passion, but it typified a great good he knew nothing of. Of
himself he did evil while it was not of himself that he typified good. These
introductory remarks apply not only to Judah, but also to all the other cases
where in the narrative of bad actions is contained a prophecy of good. 84. In
Tamar, then, the daughter-in-law of Judah, we see the people of the kingdom of
Judah, whose kings, answering to Tamar's husbands, were taken from this tribe.
Tamar means bitterness; and the meaning is suitable, for this people gave the
cup of gall to the Lord. [933] The two sons of Judah represent two classes of
kings who governed ill -- those who did harm and those who did no good. One of
these sons was evil or cruel before the Lord; the other spilled the seed on the
ground that Tamar might not become a mother. There are only those two kinds of
useless people in the world -- the injurious and those who will not give the
good they have but lose it or spill it on the ground. And as injury is worse
than not doing good, the evil-doer is called the elder and the other the
younger. Er, the name of the elder, means a preparer of skins, which were the
coats given to our first parents when they were punished with expulsion from
paradise. [934] Onan, the name of the younger, means, their grief; that is, the
grief of those to whom he does no good, wasting the good he has on the earth.
The loss of life implied in the name of the elder is a greater evil than the
want of help implied in the name of the younger. Both being killed by God
typifies the removal of the kingdom from men of this character. The meaning of
the third son of Judah not being joined to the woman, is that for a time the
kings of Judah were not of that tribe. So this third son did not become the
husband of Tamar; as Tamar represents the tribe of Judah, which continued to
exist, although the people received no king from it. Hence the name of this son,
Selom, means, his dismission. None of those types apply to the holy and
righteous men who, like David, though they lived in those times, belong properly
to the New Testament, which they served by their enlightened predictions. Again,
in the time when Judah ceased to have a king of its own tribe, the elder Herod
does not count as one of the kings typified by the husbands of Tamar; for he was
a foreigner, and his union with the people was never consecrated with the holy
oil. His was the power of a stranger, given him by the Romans and by Cæsar. And
it was the same with his sons, the tetrarchs, one of whom, called Herod, like
his father, agreed with Pilate at the time of the Lord's passion. [935] So
plainly were these foreigners considered as distinct from the sacred monarchy of
Judah, that the Jews themselves, when raging against Christ, exclaimed openly,
"We have no king but Cæsar." [936] Nor was Cæsar properly their king, except in
the sense that all the world was subject to Rome. The Jews thus condemned
themselves, only to express their rejection of Christ, and to flatter Cæsar.85.
The time when the kingdom was removed from the tribe of Judah was the time
appointed for the coming of Christ our Lord, the true Saviour, who should come
not for harm, but for great good. Thus was it prophesied, "A prince shall not
fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, till He come for whom it is
reserved: He is the desire of nations." [937] Not only the kingdom, but all
government, of the Jews had ceased, and also, as prophesied by Daniel, the
sacred anointing from which the name Christ or Anointed is derived. Then came He
for whom it was reserved, the desire of nations; and the holy of holies was
anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows. [938] Christ was born in
the time of the elder Herod, and suffered in the time of Herod the tetrarch. He
who thus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was typified by Judah
when he went to shear his sheep in Thamna, which means, failing. For then the
prince had failed from Judah, with all the government and anointing of the Jews,
that He might come for whom it was reserved. Judah, we are told, came with his
Adullamite shepherd, whose name was Iras; and Adullamite means, a testimony in
water. So it was with this testimony that the Lord came, having indeed greater
testimony than that of John; [939] but for the sake of his feeble sheep he made
use of the testimony in water. The name Iras, too, means, vision of my brother.
So John saw his brother, a brother in the family of Abraham, and from the
relationship of Mary and Elisabeth; and the same person he recognised as his
Lord and his God, for, as he himself says, he received of His fullness. [940] On
account of this vision, among those born of woman, there has arisen no greater
than he; [941] because, of all who foretold Christ, he alone saw what many
righteous men and prophets desired to see and saw not. He saluted Christ from
the womb; [942] he knew Him more certainly from seeing the dove; and therefore,
as the Adullamite, he gave testimony by water. The Lord came to shear His sheep,
in releasing them from painful burdens, as it is said in praise of the Church in
the Song of Songs, that her teeth are like a flock of sheep after shearing.
[943]86. Next, we have Tamar changing her dress; for Tamar also means changing.
Still, the name of bitterness must be retained -- not that bitterness in which
gall was given to the Lord, but that in which Peter wept bitterly. [944] For
Judah means confession; and bitterness is mingled with confession as a type of
true repentance. It is this repentance which gives fruitfulness to the Church
established among all nations. For "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead, and that repentance and the remission of sins be preached among
all nations in His name, beginning at Jerusalem." [945] In the dress Tamar put
on there is a confession of sins; and Tamar sitting in this dress at the gate of
Ænan or Ænaim, which means fountain, is a type of the Church called from among
the nations. She ran as a hart to the springs of water, to meet with the seed of
Abraham; and there she is made fruitful by one who knows her not, as it is
foretold, "A people whom I have not known shall serve me." [946] Tamar received
under her disguise a ring, a bracelet, a staff; she is sealed in her calling,
adorned in her justification, raised in her glorification. For "whom He
predestinated, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified:
and whom He justified, them He also glorified." [947] This was while she was
still disguised, as I have said; and in the same state she conceives, and
becomes fruitful in holiness. Also the kid promised is sent to her as to a
harlot. The kid represents rebuke for sin, and it is sent by the Adullamite
already mentioned, who, as it were, uses the reproachful words, "O generation of
vipers!" [948] But this rebuke for sin does not reach her, for she has been
changed by the bitterness of confession. Afterwards, by exhibiting the pledges
of the ring and bracelet and staff, she prevails over the Jews, in their hasty
judgment of her, who are now represented by Judah himself; as at this day we
hear the Jews saying that we are not the people of Christ, and have not the seed
of Abraham. But when we exhibit the sure tokens of our calling and justification
and glorification, they will immediately be confounded, and will acknowledge
that we are justified rather than they. I should enter into this more
particularly, taking, as it were, each limb and joint separately, as the Lord
might enable me, were it not that such minute inquiry is prevented by the
necessity of bringing this work to a close, for it is already longer than is
desirable. 87. As regards the prophetic significance of David's sin, a single
word must suffice. The names occurring in the narrative show what it typifies.
David means, strong of hand, or desirable; and what can be stronger than the
Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has conquered the world, or more desirable than
He of whom the prophet says, "The desire of all nations shall come?" [949]
Bersabee means, well of satisfaction, or seventh well: either of these
interpretations will suit our purpose. So, in the Song of Songs, the spouse, who
is the Church, is called a well of living water; [950] or again, the number
seven represents the Holy Spirit, as in the number of days in Pentecost, when
the Holy Spirit came from heaven. We learn also from the book of Tobit, that
Pentecost was the feast of seven weeks. [951] To forty-nine, which is seven
times seven, one is added to denote unity. To this effect is the saying of the
apostle: "Bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace." [952] The Church becomes a well of satisfaction by
this gift of the Spirit, the number seven denoting its spirituality; for it is
in her a fountain of living water springing up unto everlasting life, and he who
has it shall never thirst. [953] Uriah, Bersabee's husband, must, from the
meaning of his name, be understood as representing the devil. It is in union to
the devil that all are bound whom the grace of God sets free, that the Church
without spot or wrinkle may be married to her true Saviour. Uriah means, my
light of God; and Hittite means, cut off, referring either to his not abiding in
the truth, when he was cut off on account of his pride from the celestial light
which he had of God, or to his transforming himself into an angel of light,
because after losing his real strength by his fall, he still dares to say, My
light is of God. The literal David, then, was guilty of a heinous crime, which
God by the prophet condemned in the rebuke addressed to David, and which David
atoned for by his repentance. On the other hand, He who is the desire of all
nations loved the Church when washing herself on the roof, that is, when
cleansing herself from the pollution of the world, and in spiritual
contemplation mounting above her house of clay, and trampling upon it; and after
commencing an acquaintance, He puts to death the devil, whom He first entirely
removes from her, and joins her to Himself in perpetual union. While we hate the
sin, we must not overlook the prophetical significance; and while we love, as is
His due, that David who in His mercy has freed us from the devil, we may also
love the David who by the humility of his repentance healed the wound made by
his transgression.88. Little need be said of Solomon, who is spoken of in Holy
Scripture in terms of the strongest disapproval and condemnation, while nothing
is said of his repentance and restoration to the divine favor. Nor can I find in
his lamentable fall even a symbolical connection with anything good. Perhaps the
strange women he lusted after may be thought to represent the Churches chosen
from among the Gentiles. This idea might have been admissible, if the women had
left their gods for Solomon's sake to worship his God. But as he for their sakes
offended his God and worshipped their gods, it seems impossible to think of any
good meaning. Doubtless, something is typified, but it is something bad, as in
the case already explained of Lot's wife and daughters. We see in Solomon a
notable pre-eminence and a notable fall. Now, this good and evil which we see in
him at different periods, first good and then evil, are in our day found
together in the Church. What is good in Solomon represents, I think, the good
members of the Church; and what was bad in him represents the bad members. Both
are in one man, as the bad and the good are in the chaff and grain of one floor,
or in the tares and wheat of one field. A closer inquiry into what is said of
Solomon in Scripture might disclose, either to me or to others of greater
learning and greater worth, some more probable interpretation. But as we are now
engaged on a different subject, we must not allow this matter to break the
connection of our discourse.89. As regards the prophet Hosea, it is unnecessary
for me to explain the meaning of the command, or of the prophet's conduct, when
God said to him, "Go and take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and produce children
of whoredoms," for the Scripture itself informs us of the origin and purpose of
this direction. It proceeds thus: "For the land hath committed great whoredom,
departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim;
which conceived, and bare him a son. And the Lord said unto him, Call his name
Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the
house of Judah, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And
it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the
valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said
unto him, Call her name No-mercy: for I will no more have mercy upon the house
of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the
house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them
by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she
had weaned No-mercy, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said God, Call his name
Not-my-people: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the
number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot
be measured for multitude; and it shall come to pass that in the place where it
was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye
are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Israel and the
children of Judah be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and
they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel. Say
ye unto your brethren, My people; and to your sister, She hath found mercy."
[954] Since the typical meaning of the command and of the prophet's conduct is
thus explained in the same book by the Lord Himself, and since the writings of
the apostles declare the fulfillment of this prophecy in the preaching of the
New Testament, every one must accept the explanation thus given of the command
and of the action of the prophet as the true explanation. Thus it is said by the
Apostle Paul, "That He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels
of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. As He saith also in Hosea, I
will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was
not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto
them, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the
living God." [955] Here Paul applies the prophecy to the Gentiles. So also
Peter, writing to the Gentiles, without naming the prophet, borrows his
expressions when he says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye might show forth the praises of Him who
has called you out of darkness into His marvellous light; which in time past
were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy,
but now have obtained mercy." [956] From this it is plain that the words of the
prophet, "And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the
sea, which cannot be measured for multitude," and the words immediately
following, "And it shall be that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye
are not my people, there they shall be called the children of the living God,"
do not apply to that Israel which is after the flesh, but to that of which the
apostle says to the Gentiles, "Ye therefore are the seed of Abraham, and heirs
according to the promise." [957] But, as many Jews who were of the Israel after
the flesh have believed, and will yet believe; for of these were the apostles,
and all the thousands in Jerusalem of the company of the apostles, as also the
churches of which Paul speaks, when he says to the Galatians, "I was unknown by
face to the churches of Judæa which were in Christ;" [958] and again, he
explains the passage in the Psalms, where the Lord is called the cornerstone,
[959] as referring to His uniting in Himself the two walls of circumcision and
uncircumcision, "that He might make in Himself of twain one new man, so making
peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby: and that He might come and preach peace to them
that are far off, and to them that are nigh," that is, to the Gentiles and to
the Jews; "for He is our peace, who hath made of both one;" [960] to the same
purpose we find the prophet speaking of the Jews as the children of Judah, and
of the Gentiles as children of Israel, where he says, "The children of Judah and
the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall make to themselves
one head, and shall go up from the land." Therefore, to speak against a prophecy
thus confirmed by actual events, is to speak against the writings of the
apostles as well as those of the prophets; and not only to speak against
writings, but to impugn in the most reckless manner the evidence clear as
noonday of established facts. In the case of the narrative of Judah, it is
perhaps not so easy to recognize, under the disguise of the woman called Tamar,
the harlot representing the Church gathered from among the corruption of Gentile
superstition; but here, where Scripture explains itself, and where the
explanation is confirmed by the writings of the apostles, instead of dwelling
longer on this, we may proceed at once to inquire into the meaning of the very
things to which Faustus objects in Moses the servant of God. 90. Moses killing
the Egyptian in defending one of his brethren reminds us naturally of the
destruction of the devil, our assailant in this land of strangers, by our
defender the Lord Christ. And as Moses hid the dead body in the sand, even so
the devil, though slain, remains concealed in those who are not firmly settled.
The Lord, we know, builds the Church on a rock; and those who hear His word and
do it, He compares to a wise man who builds his house upon a rock, and who does
not yield or give way before temptation; and those who hear and do not, He
compares to a foolish man who builds on the sand, and when his house is tried
its ruin is great. [961]91. Of the prophetic significance of the spoiling of the
Egyptians, which was done by Moses at the command of the Lord his God, who
commands nothing but what is most just, I remember to have set down what
occurred to me at the time in my book entitled On Christian Doctrine; [962] to
the effect that the gold and silver and garments of the Egyptians typified
certain branches of learning which may be profitably learned or taught among the
Gentiles. This may be the true explanation; or we may suppose that the vessels
of gold and silver represent the precious souls, and the garments the bodies, of
those from among the Gentiles who join themselves to the people of God, that
along with them they may be freed from the Egypt of this world. Whatever the
true interpretation may be, the pious student of the Scriptures will feel
certain that in the command, in the action, and in the narrative there is a
purpose and a symbolic meaning.92. It would take too long to go through all the
wars of Moses. It is enough to refer to what has already been said, as
sufficient for the purpose in this reply to Faustus of the prophetic and
symbolic character of the war with Amalek. [963] There is also the charge of
cruelty made against Moses by the enemies of Scriptures, or by those who have
never read anything. Faustus does not make any specific charge, but speaks of
Moses as commanding and doing many cruel things. But, knowing the things they
are in the habit of bringing forward and of misrepresenting, I have already
taken a particular case and have defended it, so that any Manichæans who are
willing to be corrected, and all other ignorant and irreligious people, may see
that there is no ground for their accusations. We must now inquire into the
prophetic significance of the command, that many of those who, while Moses was
absent, made an idol for themselves should be slain without regard to
relationship. It is easy to see that the slaughter of these men represents the
warfare against the evil principles which led the people into the same idolatry.
Against such evil we are commanded to wage war in the words of the psalm, "Be ye
angry and sin not." [964] And a similar command is given by the apostle, when he
says, "Mortify your members which are on earth fornication, uncleanness, luxury,
evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry." [965]93. It requires
closer examination to see the meaning of the first action of Moses in burning
the calf in fire, and grinding it to powder, and sprinkling it in the water for
the people to drink. The tables given to him, written with the finger of God,
that is, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, he may have broken, because he judged
the people unworthy of having them read to them; and he may have burned the
calf, and ground it, and scattered it so as to be carried away by the water, in
order to let nothing of it remain among the people. But why should he have made
them drink it? Every one must feel anxious to discover the typical significance
of this action. Pursuing the inquiry, we may find that in the calf there was an
embodiment of the devil, as there is in men of all nations who have the devil as
their head or leader in their impious rites. The calf is gold, because there is
a semblance of wisdom in the institution of idolatrous worship. Of this the
apostle says, "Knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful;
but they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became foolish, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of corruptible man, and of
birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things." [966] From this
so-called wisdom came the golden calf, which was one of the forms of idolatry
among the chief men and professed sages of Egypt. The calf, then, represents
every body or society of Gentile idolaters. This impious society the Lord Christ
burns with that fire of which He says in the Gospel, "I am come to send fire on
the earth;" [967] for, as there is nothing hid from His heat, [968] when the
Gentiles believe in Him they lose the form of the devil in the fire of divine
influence. Then all the body is ground, that is, after the dissolution of the
combination in the membership of iniquity comes humiliation under the word of
truth. Then the dust is sprinkled in the water, that the Israelites, that is,
the preachers of the gospel, may in baptism admit those formerly idolaters into
their own body, that is, the body of Christ. To Peter, who was one of those
Israelites, it was said of the Gentiles, "Kill, and eat." [969] To kill and eat
is much the same as to grind and drink. So this calf, by the fire of zeal, and
the keen penetration of the word, and the water of baptism, was swallowed up by
the people, instead of their being swallowed up by it. 94. Thus, when the very
passages on which the heretics found their objections to the Scriptures are
studied and examined, the more obscure they are the more wonderful are the
secrets which we discover in reply to our questions; so that the mouths of
blasphemers are completely stopped, and the evidence of the truth so stifles
them that they cannot even utter a sound. The unhappy men who will not receive
into their hearts the sweetness of the truth must feel its force as a gag in
their mouths. All those passages speak of Christ. The head now ascended into
heaven along with the body still suffering on earth is the full development of
the whole purpose of the authors of Scripture, which is well called Sacred
Scripture. Every part of the narrative in the prophetical books should be viewed
as having a figurative meaning, except what serves merely as a framework for the
literal or figurative predictions of this king and of his people. For as in
harps and other musical instruments the musical sound does not come from all
parts of the instrument, but from the strings, and the rest is only for
fastening and stretching the strings so as to tune them, that when they are
struck by the musician they may give a pleasant sound; so in these prophetical
narratives the circumstances selected by the prophetic spirit either predict
some future event, or if they have no voice of their own, they serve to connect
together other significant utterances.95. Should the heretics reject our
exposition of those allegorical narratives, or even insist on understanding them
only in a literal sense, to dispute about such a difference of understanding
would be as useless as to dispute about a difference of taste. Only, the fact
that the divine precepts have either a moral and religious character or a
prophetic meaning must be believed, whether intelligently or not. Moreover, the
figurative interpretations must all be in the interest of morality and religion.
So, if the Manichæans or any others disagree with our interpretation, or differ
from us in method or in any particular opinion, suffice it that the character of
the fathers whom God commends for their conduct and obedience to His precepts is
vindicated on a principle which all but those inveterate in their hostility will
acknowledge to be true; and that the purity and dignity of the Scriptures are
maintained in reference to those passages which the enemies of the truth find
fault with, where certain actions are either praised or blamed, or merely
narrated for us to form a judgment of them.96. In fact, nothing could have been
devised more likely to instruct and benefit the pious reader of sacred Scripture
than that, besides describing praiseworthy characters as examples, and
blameworthy characters as warnings, it should also narrate cases where good men
have gone back and fallen into evil, whether they are restored to the right path
or continue irreclaimable; and also where bad men have changed, and have
attained to goodness, whether they persevere in it or relapse into evil; in
order that the righteous may be not lifted up in the pride of security, nor the
wicked hardened in despair of cure. And even those passages in Scripture which
contain no examples or warnings are either required for connection, so as to
pass on to essential matters, or, from their very appearance of superfluity,
indicate the presence of some secret symbolical meaning. For in the books we
speak of, so far from there being a want or a scarcity of prophetical
announcements, such announcements are numerous and distinct; and now that the
fulfillment has actually taken place, the testimony thus borne to the divine
authority of the books is irresistibly strong, so that it is mere madness to
suppose that there can be any useless or unmeaning passages in books to which
all classes of men and of minds do homage, and which themselves predict what we
see thus actually coming to pass.97. If, then, any one reading of the action of
David, of which he repented when the Lord rebuked and threatened him, find in
the narrative an encouragement to sin, is Scripture to be blamed for this? Is
not the man's own guilt in proportion to the abuse which he makes for his own
injury or destruction of what was written for his recovery and release? David is
set forth as a great example of repentance, because men who fall into sin either
proudly disregard the cure of repentance, or lose themselves in despair of
obtaining salvation or of meriting pardon. The example is for the benefit of the
sick, not for the injury of those in health. If madmen destroy themselves, or if
evil-doers destroy others, with surgical instruments, it is not the fault of
surgery.98. Even supposing that our fathers the patriarchs and prophets, of
whose devout and religious habits so good a report is given in that Scripture
which every one who knows it, and has not lost entirely the use of his reason,
must admit to have been provided by God for the salvation of men, were as
lustful and cruel as the Manichæans falsely and fanatically allege, they might
still be shown to be superior not only to those whom the Manichæans call the
Elect, but also to their god himself. Is there in the licentious intercourse of
man with woman anything so bad as the self-abasement of unclouded light by
mixture with darkness? Here, is a man prompted by avarice and greed to pass off
his wife as his sister and sell her to her lover; but worse still and more
shocking, that one should disguise his own nature to gratify criminal passion,
and submit gratuitously to pollution and degradation. Why, even one who
knowingly lies with his own daughters is not equally criminal with one who lets
his members share in the defilement of all sensuality as gross as this, or
grosser. And is not the Manichæan god a partaker in the contamination of the
most atrocious acts of uncleanness? Again, if it were true, as Faustus says,
that Jacob went from one to another of his four wives, not desiring offspring,
but resembling a he-goat in licentiousness, he would still not be sunk so low as
your god, who must not only have shared in this degradation, from his being
confined in the bodies of Jacob and his wives so as to be mixed up with all
their movements, but also, in union with this very he-goat of Faustus' coarse
comparison, must have endured all the pains of animal appetite, incurring fresh
defilement at every step, as partaking in the passion of the male, the
conception of the female, and the birth of the kid. And, in the same way,
supposing Judah to have been guilty not only of fornication, but of incest, a
share in the heats and impurities of this incestuous passion would also belong
to your god. David repented of his sin in loving the wife of another, and in
ordering the death of her husband; but when will your god repent of giving up
his members to the wanton passion of the male and female chiefs of the race of
darkness, and of putting to death not the husband of his mistress, but his own
children, whom he confines in the members of the very demons who were his own
lovers? Even if David had not repented, nor been thus restored to righteousness,
he would still have been better than your god. David may have been defiled by
this one act, or to the extent to which one man is capable of such defilement;
but your god suffers the pollution of his members in all such actions by
whomsoever committed. The prophet Hosea, too, is accused by Faustus: and,
supposing him to have taken the harlot to wife because he had a criminal
affection for her, if he is licentious and she a prostitute, their souls,
according to your own assertion, are parts and members of your god and of his
nature. In plain language, the harlot herself must be your god. You cannot
pretend that your god is not confined in the contaminated body, or that he is
only present, while preserving entire the purity of his own nature; and you
acknowledge that the members of your god are so defiled as to require a special
purification. This harlot, then, for whom you venture to find fault with the man
of God, even if she had not been changed for the better by becoming a chaste
wife, would still have been your god; at least you must admit her soul to have
been a part, however small, of your god. But one single harlot is not so bad as
your god, for he on account of his mixture with the race of darkness shares in
every act of prostitution; and wherever such impurities are perpetrated, he goes
through the corresponding experiences of abandonment, of release, and of
confinement, and this from generation to generation, till this most corrupt part
reaches its final state in the mass of darkness, like an irreclaimable harlot.
Such are the evils and such the shameful abominations which your god could not
ward off from his members, and to which he was brought irresistibly by his
merciless enemy; for only by the sacrifice of his own subjects, or rather his
own parts, could he effect the destruction of his formidable assailant. Surely,
there was nothing so bad as this in killing an Egyptian so as to preserve
uninjured a fellow-countryman. Yet Faustus finds fault with this most absurdly,
while with amazing infatuation he overlooks the case of his own god. Would it
not have been better for him to have carried off the gold and silver vessels of
the Egyptians, than to let his members be carried off by the race of darkness?
And yet the worshippers of this unfortunate god find fault with the servant of
our God for carrying on wars, in which he with his followers were always
victorious, so that, under the leadership of Moses, the children of Israel
carried captive their enemies, men and women, as your god would have done too,
if he had been able. You profess to accuse Moses of doing wrong, while in fact
you envy his success. There was no cruelty in punishing with the sword those who
had sinned grievously against God. Indeed, Moses entreated pardon for this sin,
even offering to bear himself in their stead the divine anger. But even had he
been cruel instead of compassionate, he would still have been better than your
god. For if any of his followers had been sent to break the force of the enemy
and had been taken captive, he would never, if victorious, have condemned him
when he had done no wrong, but acted in obedience to orders. And yet this is
what your god is to do with the part of himself which is to be fastened in the
mass of darkness, because it obeyed orders, and advanced at the risk of its own
life in defence of his kingdom against the body of the enemy. But, says the
Manichæan, this part, after mixture and combination with evil during the course
of ages, has not been obedient. But why? If the obedience was voluntary, the
guilt is real, and the punishment just. But from this it would follow that there
is no nature opposed to sin; otherwise it would not sin voluntarily; and so the
whole system of Manichæism falls at once. If, again, this part suffers from the
power of this enemy against whom it was sent, and is subdued by a force it was
unable to resist, the punishment is unjust, and flagrantly cruel. The god who is
defended on the plea of necessity is a fit object of worship to those who refuse
to worship the one true God. Still, it must be allowed that, however debasing
the worship of this god may be, the worshippers are so far better than their
deity, that they have an existence, while he is nothing more than a fabulous
invention. Proceed we now to the rest of Faustus' vagaries. [970]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 164: FAUSTUS RECURS TO THE GENEALOGICAL DIFFICULTY AND INSISTS THAT EVEN ACCORDING TO MATTHEW JESUS WAS NOT SON OF GOD UNTIL HIS BAPTISM. AUGUSTIN SETS FORTH THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF THE RELATION OF THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: On one occasion, when addressing a large audience, I was asked
by one of the crowd, Do you believe that Jesus was born of Mary? I replied,
Which Jesus do you mean? for in the Hebrew it is the name of several people. One
was the son of Nun, the follower of Moses; [971] another was the son of Josedech
the high priest; [972] again, another is spoken of as the son of David; [973]
and another is the Son of God. [974] Of which of these do you ask whether I
believe him to have been born of Mary? His answer was, The Son of God, of
course. On what evidence, said I, oral or written, am I to believe this? He
replied, On the authority of Matthew. What, said I, did Matthew write? He
replied, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son
of Abraham" (Matt. i.1). Then said I, I was afraid you were going to say, The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and I was prepared to
correct you. Now that you have quoted the verse accurately, you must
nevertheless be advised to pay attention to the words. Matthew does not profess
to give an account of the generation of the Son of God, but of the son of David.
2. I will, for the present, suppose that this person was right in saying that
the son of David was born of Mary. It still remains true, that in this whole
passage of the generation no mention is made of the Son of God till we come to
the baptism; so that it is an injurious misrepresentation on your part to speak
of this writer as making the Son of God the inmate of a womb. The writer,
indeed, seems to cry out against such an idea, and in the very title of his book
to clear himself of such blasphemy, asserting that the person whose birth he
describes is the son of David, not the Son of God. And if you attend to the
writer's meaning and purpose, you will see that what he wishes us to believe of
Jesus the Son of God is not so much that He was born of Mary, as that He became
the Son of God by baptism at the river Jordan. He tells us that the person of
whom he spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and became
the Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thirty years old,
according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to Him, "Thou art my
Son; this day have I begotten Thee." [975] It appears from this, that what was
born, as is supposed, of Mary thirty years before, was not the Son of God, but
what was afterwards made so by baptism at Jordan, that is, the new man, the same
as in us when we were converted from Gentile error, and believe in God. This
doctrine may or may not agree with what you call the Catholic faith; at all
events, it is what Matthew says, if Matthew is the real author. The words, Thou
art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee, or, This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased, do not occur in connection with the story of Mary's motherhood,
but with the putting away of sin at Jordan. This is what is written; and if you
believe this doctrine, you must be called a Matthæan, for you will no longer be
a Catholic. The Catholic doctrine is well known; and it is as unlike Matthew's
representations as it is unlike the truth. In the words of your creed, you
declare that you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the
Virgin Mary. According to you, therefore, the Son of God comes from Mary;
according to Matthew, from the Jordan; while we believe Him to come from God.
Thus the doctrine of Matthew, if we are right in assigning the authorship to
him, is as different from yours as from ours; only we acknowledge that he is
more cautious than you in ascribing the being born of a woman to the son of
David, and not to the Son of God. As for you, your only alternative is to deny
that those statements were made, as they appear to be, by Matthew, or to allow
that you have abandoned the faith of the apostles. 3. For our part, while no one
can alter our conviction that the Son of God comes from God, we might indulge a
credulous disposition, to the extent of admitting the fiction, that Jesus became
the Son of God at Jordan, but not that the Son of God was born of a woman. Then,
again, the son said to have been born of Mary cannot properly be called the son
of David, unless it is ascertained that he was begotten by Joseph. You say he
was not, and therefore you must allow him not to have been the son of David,
even though he were the son of Mary. The genealogy proceeds in the line of
Hebrew fathers from Abraham to David, and from David to Joseph; and as we are
told that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus, Jesus cannot be said to be
the son of David. To begin with calling Jesus the son of David, and then to go
on to tell of his being born of Mary before the consummation of her marriage
with Joseph, is pure madness. And if the son of Mary cannot be called the son of
David, on account of his not being the son of Joseph, still less can the name be
given to the Son of God. 4. Moreover, the Virgin herself appears to have
belonged not to the tribe of Judah, to which the Jewish kings belonged, and
which all agree was David's tribe, but to the priestly tribe of Levi. This
appears from the fact that the Virgin's father Joachim was a priest; and his
name does not occur in the genealogy. How, then, can Mary be brought within the
pale of relationship to David, when she has neither father nor husband belonging
to it? Consequently, Mary's son cannot possibly be the son of David, unless you
can bring the mother into some connection with Joseph, so as to be either his
wife or his daughter. 5. Augustin replied: The Catholic, which is also the
apostolic, doctrine, is, that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is both the Son
of God in His divine nature, and the Son of David after the flesh. This we prove
from the writings of the evangelists and apostles, so that no one can reject our
proofs without also rejecting these writings. Faustus' plan is to represent some
one as saying a few words, without bringing forward any evidence in answer to
Faustus' fertile sophistry. But with all his ingenuity, the proofs I have to
give will leave Faustus no reply, but that these passages are spurious
interpolations in the sacred record, -- a reply which serves as a means of
escaping, or of trying to escape, the force of the plainest statements in Holy
Scripture. We have already in this treatise sufficiently exposed the irrational
absurdity, as well as the daring profanity, of such criticism; and not to exceed
all limits, we must avoid repetition. It cannot be necessary that we should
bring together all the passages scattered throughout Scripture, which show, in
answer to Faustus, that in the books of the highest and most sacred authority He
who is called the only-begotten Son of God, even God with God, is also called
the Son of David, on account of His taking the form of a servant from the Virgin
Mary, the wife of Joseph. To instance only Matthew, since Faustus' argument
refers to this Gospel, as the whole book cannot be quoted here, let whoever
choose read it, and see how Matthew carries on to the passion and the
resurrection the narrative of Him whom He calls the Son of David in the
introduction to the genealogy. Of this same Son of David he speaks as being
conceived and born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost. He also applies to this
the declaration of the prophet, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear
a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God
with us." [976] Again, He who was called, even from the Virgin's womb,
God-with-us, is said to have heard, when He was baptized by John, a voice from
heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." [977] Will
Faustus say that to be called God is less than to be called the Son of God? He
seems to think so, for he tries to prove that because this voice came from
heaven at the time of the baptism, therefore, according to Matthew, He must then
have become the Son of God; whereas the same evangelist, in a previous passage,
quotes the sacred announcement made by the prophet, in which the child born of
the Virgin is called God-with-us. 6. It is remarkable how, amid his wild
irrelevancies, this wretched trifler loses no available opportunity of darkening
the declarations of Scripture by the fabulous creations of his own fancy. Thus
he says of Abraham, that when he took his handmaid to wife he disbelieved God's
promise that he should have a child by Sarah; whereas, in fact, this promise had
not at that time been given. Then he accuses Abraham of falsehood in calling
Sarah his sister, not having read what may be learned on the authority of
Scripture about the family of Sarah. Abraham's son Isaac also he accuses of
falsely calling his wife his sister, though a distinct account is given of her
family. Then he accuses Jacob of there being a daily quarrel among his four
wives, which should be the first to appropriate him on his return from the
field, while nothing of this is said in Scripture. And this is the man who
pretends to hate the writers of the sacred books for their falsehood, and who
has the effrontery so to misrepresent even the gospel record, though its
authority is admitted by all as possessing the most abundant confirmation, as to
try to make it appear, not indeed that Matthew himself, -- for in that case he
would have been forced to yield to apostolic authority, -- but that some one
under the name of Matthew, has written about Christ what he refuses to believe,
and attempts to refute with a contumelious ingenuity! 7. The voice from heaven
at the Jordan should be compared with the voice heard on the Mount. [978] In
neither case do the words, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,"
imply that He was not the Son of God before; for He who from the Virgin's womb
took the form of a servant "was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to
be equal with God." [979] And the same Apostle Paul himself says distinctly
elsewhere, "But in the fullness of time, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made
under the law;" [980] that is, a woman in the Hebrew sense, not a wife, but one
of the female sex. The Son of God is both Lord of David in His divine nature,
and Son of David as being of the seed of David after the flesh. And if it were
not profitable for us to believe this, the same apostle would not have made it
so prominent as he does, when he says to Timothy, "Remember that Christ Jesus,
of the seed of David, rose from the dead, according to my gospel." [981] And he
carefully enjoins believers to regard as accursed whoever preaches another
gospel contrary to this. 8. This assailant of the holy Gospel need find no
difficulty in the fact that Christ is called the Son of David, though He was
born of a virgin, and though Joseph was not His real father; while the genealogy
is brought down by the evangelist Matthew, not to Mary, but to Joseph. First of
all, the husband, as the man, is the more honorable; and Joseph was Mary's
husband, though she did not live with him, for Matthew himself mentions that she
was called Joseph's wife by the angel; as it is also from Matthew that we learn
that Mary conceived not by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit. But if this, instead
of being a true narrative written by Matthew the apostle, was a false narrative
written by some one else under his name, is it likely that he would have
contradicted himself in such an apparent manner, and in passages so immediately
connected, as to speak of the Son of David as born of Mary without conjugal
intercourse, and then, in giving His genealogy, to bring it down to the very man
with whom the Virgin is expressly said not to have had intercourse, unless he
had some reason for doing so? Even supposing there were two writers, one calling
Christ the Son of David, and giving an account of Christ's progenitors from
David down to Joseph; while the other does not call Christ the Son of David, and
says that He was born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse with any man; those
statements are not irreconcilable, so as to prove that one or both writers must
be false. It will appear on reflection that both accounts might be true; for
Joseph might be called the husband of Mary, though she was his wife only in
affection, and in the intercourse of the mind, which is more intimate than that
of the body. In this way it might be proper that the husband of the
virgin-mother of Christ should have a place in the list of Christ's ancestors.
It might also be the case that some of David's blood flowed in Mary herself, so
that the flesh of Christ, although produced from a virgin, still owed its origin
to David's seed. But as, in fact, both statements are made by one and the same
writer, who informs us both that Joseph was the husband of Mary and that the
mother of Christ was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of David, and
that Joseph is in the list of Christ's progenitors in the line of David, those
who prefer the authority of the sacred Gospel to that of heretical fiction must
conclude that Mary was not unconnected with the family of David, and that she
was properly called the wife of Joseph, because being a woman she was in
spiritual alliance with him, though there was no bodily connection. Joseph, too,
it is plain, could not be omitted in the genealogy; for, from the superiority of
his sex, such an omission would be equivalent to a denial of his relation to the
woman with whom he was inwardly united; and believers in Christ are taught not
to think carnal connection the chief thing in marriage, as if without this they
could not be man and wife, but to imitate in Christian wedlock as closely as
possible the parents of Christ, that so they may have the more intimate union
with the members of Christ. 9. We believe that Mary, as well as Joseph, was of
the family of David, because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that
Christ was of the seed of David after the flesh, and that His mother was the
Virgin Mary, He having no human father. Therefore, whoever denies the
relationship of Mary to David, evidently opposes the pre-eminent authority of
these passages of Scripture; and to maintain this opposition he must bring
evidence in support of his statement from writings acknowledged by the Church as
canonical and catholic, not from any writings he pleases. In the matters of
which we are now treating, only the canonical writings have any weight with us;
for they only are received and acknowledged by the Church spread over all the
world, which is itself a fulfillment of the prophecies regarding it contained in
these writings. Accordingly, I am not bound to admit the uncanonical account of
Mary's birth which Faustus adopts, that her father was a priest of the tribe of
Levi, of the name of Joachim. But even were I to admit this account, I should
still contend that Joachim must have in some way belonged to the family of
David, and had somehow been adopted from the tribe of Judah into that of Levi;
or if not he, one of his ancestors; or, at least, that while born in the tribe
of Levi, he had still some relation to the line of David; as Faustus himself
acknowledges that Mary, though belonging to the tribe of Levi, could be given to
a husband of the tribe of Judah; and he expressly says that if Mary were
Joseph's daughter, the name Son of David would be applicable to Christ. In this
way, by the marriage of Joseph's daughter in the tribe of Levi, her son, though
born in the tribe of Levi, might not improperly be called the Son of David. And
so, if the mother of that Joachim, who in the passage quoted by Faustus is
called the father of Mary, married in the tribe of Levi while she belonged to
the tribe of Judah and to the family of David, there would thus be a sufficient
reason for speaking of Joachim and Mary and Mary's son as belonging to the seed
of David. If I felt obliged to pay any regard to the apocryphal scripture in
which Joachim is called the father of Mary, I should adopt some such explanation
as the above, rather than admit any falsehood in the Gospel, where it is written
both that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and our Saviour, was of the seed of
David after the flesh, and that He was born of the Virgin Mary. It is enough for
us that the enemies of these Scriptures, which record these truths and which we
believe, cannot prove against them any charge of falsehood. 10. Faustus cannot
pretend then I am unable to prove that Mary was of the family of David, as I
have shown him unable to prove that she was not. I produce the strongest
evidence from Scriptures of established authority, which declare that Christ was
of the seed of David, and that He was born without a father of the Virgin Mary.
Faustus expresses what he considers a most becoming indignation against
impropriety when he says, It is an injurious misrepresentation of the writer to
make him speak of the Son of God as the inmate of a womb. Of course, the
Catholic doctrine which teaches that Christ the Son of God was born in the flesh
of a virgin, does not make the Son of God the inmate of her womb in the sense of
having no existence beyond it, as if He had abandoned the government of heaven
and earth, or as if He had left the presence of the Father. The mistake is with
the Manichæans, whose understanding is so incapable of forming a conception of
anything except what is material, that they cannot comprehend how the Word of
God, who is the virtue and wisdom of God, while remaining in Himself and with
the Father, and while governing the universe, reaches from end to end in
strength, and sweetly orders all things. [982] In the faultless procedure of
this adorable providence, He appointed for Himself an earthly mother; and to
free His servants from the bondage of corruption He took in this mother the form
of a servant, that is, a mortal body; and this body which He took He showed
openly, and when it had been exposed, even to suffering and death, He raised it
again from the dead, and built again the temple which had been destroyed. You
who shrink from this doctrine as blasphemous, make the members of your god to be
confined not in a virgin's womb, but in the wombs of all female animals, from
elephants down to flies. Perhaps you think the less of the true Christ, because
the Word is said so to have become incarnate in the Virgin's womb as to provide
a temple for Himself in human nature, while His own nature continued unaltered
in its integrity; and, on the other hand, you think the more of your god,
because in the bonds and pollution of his confinement in flesh, in the part
which is to be made fast to the mass of darkness, he seeks for help to no
purpose, or is even rendered powerless to ask for help.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 165: FAUSTUS EXPLAINS THE MANICHÆAN DENIAL THAT MAN WAS MADE BY GOD AS APPLYING TO THE FLESHLY MAN NOT TO THE SPIRITUAL. AUGUSTIN ELUCIDATES THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONTRASTS BETWEEN FLESH AND SPIRIT SO AS TO EXCLUDE THE MANICHÆAN VIEW. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: We are asked the reason for our denial that man is made by God.
But we do not assert that man is in no sense made by God; we only ask in what
sense, and when, and how. For, according to the apostle, there are two men, one
of whom he calls sometimes the outer man, generally the earthy, sometimes, too,
the old man: the other he calls the inner or heavenly or new man. [983] The
question is, Which of these is made by God? For there are likewise two times of
our nativity; one when nature brought us forth into this light, binding us in
the bonds of flesh; and the other, when the truth regenerated us on our
conversion from error and our entrance into the faith. It is this second birth
of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel, when He says, "Except a man be born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of God." [984] Nicodemus, not knowing what Christ
meant, was at a loss, and inquired how this could be, for an old man could not
enter into his mother's womb and be born a second time. Jesus said in reply,
"Except a man be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom
of God." Then He adds, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit." Hence, as the birth in which our bodies
originate is not the only birth, but there is another in which we are born again
in spirit, an important question arises from this distinction as to which of
those births it is in which God makes us. The manner of birth also is twofold.
In the humiliating process of ordinary generation, we spring from the heat of
animal passion; but when we are brought into the faith, we are formed under good
instruction in honor and purity in Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit. For this
reason, in all religion, and especially in the Christian religion, young
children are invited to membership. This is hinted at in the words of His
apostle: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be
formed in you." [985] The question, then, is not whether God makes man, but what
man He makes, and when, and how. For if it is when we are fashioned in the womb
that God forms us after His own image, which is the common belief of Gentiles
and Jews, and which is also your belief, then God makes the old man, and
produces us by means of sensual passion, which does not seem suitable to His
divine nature. But if it is when we are converted and brought to a better life
that we are formed by God, which is the general doctrine of Christ and His
apostles, and which is also our doctrine, in this case God makes us new men, and
produces us in honor and purity, which would agree perfectly with His sacred and
adorable majesty. If you do not reject Paul's authority, we will prove to you
from him what man God makes, and when, and how. He says to the Ephesians, "That
ye put off according to your former conversation the old man, which is corrupt
through deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and put on
the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness of truth."
[986] This shows that in the creation of man after the image of God, it is
another man that is spoken of, and another birth, and another manner of birth.
The putting off and putting on of which he speaks, point to the time of the
reception of the truth; and the assertion that the new man is created by God
implies that the old man is created neither by God nor after God. And when he
adds, that this new man is made in holiness and righteousness and truth, he thus
points to another manner of birth of which this is the character, and which, as
I have said, differs widely from the manner in which bodily generation is
effected. And as he declares that only the former is of God, it follows that the
latter is not. Again, writing to the Colossians, he uses words to the same
effect: "Put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man, which is
renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of Him who created Him in
you." Here he not only shows that it is the new man that God makes, but he
declares the time and manner of the formation, for the words in the knowledge of
God point to the time of believing. Then he adds, according to the image of Him
who created him, to make it clear that the old man is not the image of God, nor
formed by God. Moreover, the following words, "Where there is neither male nor
female, Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian," [987] show more plainly still
that the birth by which we are made male and female, Greeks and Jews, Scythians
and Barbarians, is not the birth in which God effects the formation of man; but
that the birth with which God has to do is that in which we lose the difference
of nation and sex and condition, and become one like Him who is one, that is,
Christ. So the same apostle says again, "As many as have been baptized in Christ
have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor
female, there is neither bond nor free; but all are one in Christ." [988] Man,
then, is made by God, not when from one he is divided into many, but when from
many he becomes one. The division is in the first birth, or that of the body;
union comes by the second, which is immaterial and divine. This affords
sufficient ground for our opinion, that the birth of the body should be ascribed
to nature, and the second birth to the Supernal Majesty. So the same apostle
says again to the Corinthians, "I have begotten you in Christ Jesus by the
gospel;" [989] and, speaking of himself, to the Galatians, "When it pleased Him,
who separated me from my mother's womb, to reveal His Son in me, that I might
preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and
blood." [990] It is plain that everywhere he speaks of the second or spiritual
birth as that in which we are made by God, as distinct from the indecency of the
first birth, in which we are on a level with other animals as regards dignity
and purity, as we are conceived in the maternal womb, and are formed, and
brought forth. You may observe that in this matter the dispute between us is not
so much about a question of doctrine as of interpretation. For you think that it
is the old or outer or earthy man that is said to have been made by God; while
we apply this to the heavenly man, giving the superiority to the inner or new
man. And our opinion is not rash or groundless, for we have learned it from
Christ and His apostles, who are proved to have been the first in the world who
thus taught. 2. Augustin replied: The Apostle Paul certainly uses the expression
the inner man for the spirit of the mind, and the outer man for the body and for
this mortal life; but we nowhere find him making these two different men, but
one, which is all made by God, both the inner and the outer. However, it is made
in the image of God only as regards the inner, which, besides being immaterial,
is rational, and is not possessed by the lower animals. God, then, did not make
one man after His own image, and another man not after that image; but the one
man, which includes both the inner and the outer, He made after His own image,
not as regards the possession of a body and of mortal life, but as regards the
rational mind with the power of knowing God, and with the superiority as
compared with all irrational creatures which the possession of reason implies.
Faustus allows that the inner man is made by God, when, as he says, it is
renewed in the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him. I
readily admit this on the apostle's authority. Why does not Faustus admit on the
same authority that "God has placed the members every one in the body, as it has
pleased Him"? [991] Here we learn from the same apostle that God is the framer
of the outer man too. Why does Faustus take only what he thinks to be in his own
favor, while he leaves out or rejects what upsets the follies of the Manichæans?
Moreover, in treating of the earthy and the heavenly man, and making the
distinction between the mortal and the immortal, between that which we are in
Adam and that which we shall be in Christ, the apostle quotes the declaration of
the law regarding the earthy or natural body, referring to the very book and the
very passage where it is written that God made the earthy man too. Speaking of
the manner in which the dead shall rise again, and of the body with which they
shall come, after using the similitude of the seeds of corn, that they are sown
bare grain, and that God gives them a body as it pleases Him, and to every seed
his own body, -- thus, by the way, overthrowing the error of the Manichæans, who
say that grains and plants, and all roots and shoots, are created by the race of
darkness, and not by God, who, according to them, instead of exerting power in
the production of these objects, is Himself subject to confinement in them, --
he goes on, after this refutation of Manichæan impieties, to describe the
different kinds of flesh. "All flesh," he says, "is not the same flesh." Then he
speaks of celestial and terrestrial bodies, and then of the change of our body
by which it will become spiritual and heavenly. "It is sown," he says, "in
dishonor, it shall rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, it shall rise in
power; it is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body." Then, in
order to show the origin of the animal body, he says, "There is a natural body,
and there is a spiritual body; as it is written, The first man, Adam, was made a
living soul." [992] Now this is written in Genesis, [993] where it is related
how God made man, and animated the body which He had formed of the earth. By the
old man the apostle simply means the old life, which is a life in sin, and is
after the manner of Adam, of whom it is said, "By one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in that all have
sinned." [994] Thus the whole of this man, both the inner and the outer part,
has become old because of sin, and liable to the punishment of mortality. There
is, however, a restoration of the inner man, when it is renewed after the image
of its Creator, in the putting off of unrighteousness -- that is, the old man,
and putting on righteousness -- that is, the new man. But when that which is
sown a natural body shall rise a spiritual body, the outer man too shall attain
the dignity of a celestial character; so that all that has been created may be
created anew, and all that has been made be remade by the Creator and Maker
Himself. This is briefly explained in the words: "The body is dead because of
sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him
who raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from
the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit dwelling in you."
[995] No one instructed in the Catholic doctrine but knows that it is in the
body that some are male and some female, not in the spirit of the mind, in which
we are renewed after the image of God. But elsewhere the apostle teaches that
God is the Maker of both; for he says, "Neither is the woman without the man,
nor the man without the woman, in the Lord; for as the woman is of the man, so
is the man by the woman; but all things are of God." [996] The only reply given
to this, by the perverse stupidity of those who are alienated from the life of
God by the ignorance which is in them, on account of the blindness of their
heart, is, that whatever pleases them in the apostolic writings is true, and
whatever displeases them is false. This is the insanity of the Manichæans, who
will be wise if they cease to be Manichæans. As it is, if they are asked whether
it is He that remakes and renews the inner man (which they acknowledge to be
renewed after the image of God, and they themselves quote the passage in support
of this; and, according to Faustus, God makes man when the inner man is renewed
in the image of God), they will answer, yes. And if we then go on to ask when
God made what He now renews, they must devise some subterfuge to prevent the
exposure of their absurdities. For, according to them, the inner man is not
formed or created or originated by God, but is part of His own substance sent
against His enemies; and instead of becoming old by sin, it is through necessity
captured and damaged by the enemy. Not to repeat all the nonsense they talk, the
first man they speak of is not the man of the earth earthy that the apostle
speaks of, [997] but an invention proceeding from their own magazine of
untruths. Faustus, though he chooses man as a subject for discussion, says not a
word of this first man; for he is afraid that his opponents in the discussion
might come to know something about him.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 166: FAUSTUS SEEKS TO BRING INTO RIDICULE THE ORTHODOX CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN THE INFINITY OF GOD BY CARICATURING THE ANTHROPOMORPHIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. AUGUSTIN EXPRESSES HIS DESPAIR OF BEING ABLE TO INDUCE THE MANICHÆANS TO ADOPT RIGHT 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Is God finite or infinite? He must be finite unless you are
mistaken in addressing Him as the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; unless,
indeed, the being thus addressed is different from the God you call infinite. In
the case of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the mark of circumcision,
which separated these men from fellowship with other people, marked also the
limit of God's power as extending only to them. And a being whose power is
finite cannot himself be infinite. Moreover, in this address, you do not mention
even the ancients before Abraham, such as Enoch, Noah, and Shem, and others like
them, whom you allow to have been righteous though in uncircumcision; but
because they lacked this distinguishing mark, you will not call God their God,
but only of Abraham and his seed. Now, if God is one and infinite, what need of
such careful particularity in addressing Him, as if it was not enough to name
God, without adding whose God He is -- Abraham's, namely, and Isaac's and
Jacob's; as if Abraham were a landmark to steer by in your invocation, to escape
shipwreck among a shoal of deities? The Jews, who are circumcised, may very
properly address this deity, as having a reason for it, because they call God
the God of circumcision, in contrast to the gods of uncircumcision. But why you
should do the same, it is difficult to understand; for you do not pretend to
have Abraham's sign, though you invoke his God. If we understand the matter
rightly, the Jews and their God seem to have set marks upon one another for the
purpose of recognition, that they might not lose each other. So God gave them
the disgusting mark of circumcision, that, in whatever land or among whatever
people they might be, they might by being circumcised be known to be His. They
again marked God by calling Him the God of their fathers, that, wherever He
might be, though among a crowd of gods, He might, on hearing the name God of
Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, know at once that He was addressed. So we
often see, in a number of people of the same name, that no one answers till
called by his surname. In the same way the shepherd or herdsman makes use of a
brand to prevent his property being taken by others. In thus marking God by
calling Him the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, you show not only that He is
finite, but also that you have no connection with Him, because you have not the
mark of circumcision by which He recognizes His own. Therefore, if this is the
God you worship, there can be no doubt of His being finite. But if you say that
God is infinite, you must first of all give up this finite deity, and by
altering your invocation, show your penitence for your past errors. We have thus
proved God to be finite, taking you on your own ground. But to determine whether
the supreme and true God is infinite or not, we need only refer to the
opposition between good and evil. If evil does not exist, then certainly God is
infinite; otherwise He must be finite. Evil, however, undoubtedly exists;
therefore God is not infinite. It is where good stops that evil begins. 2.
Augustin replied: No one that knows you would dream of asking you about the
infinitude of God, or of discussing the matter with you. For, before there can
be any degree of spirituality in any of your conceptions, you must first have
your minds cleared by simple faith, and by some elementary knowledge, from the
illusions of carnal and material ideas. This your heresy prevents you from
doing, for it invariably represents the body and the soul and God as extended in
space, either finite or infinite, while the idea of space is applicable only to
the body. As long as this is the case, it will be better for you to leave this
matter alone; for you can teach no truth regarding it, any more than in other
matters; and in this you are unfit for learning, as you might do in other
things, if you were not proud and quarrelsome. For in such questions as how God
can be finite, when no space can contain Him; how He can be infinite, when the
Son knows Him perfectly; how He can be finite, and yet unbounded; how He can be
infinite, and yet perfect; how He can be finite, who is without measure; how He
can be infinite, who is the measure of all things -- all carnal ideas go for
nothing; and if the carnality is to be removed, it must first become ashamed of
itself. Accordingly, your best way of ending the matter you have brought forward
of God as finite or infinite, is to say no more about it till you cease going so
far astray from Christ, who is the end of the law. Of the God of Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob we have already said enough to show why He who is the true God
of all creatures wished to be familiarly known by His people under this name. On
circumcision, too, we have already spoken in several places in answer to
ignorant reproaches. The Manichæans would find nothing to ridicule in this sign
if they would view it as appointed by God, to be an appropriate symbol of the
putting off of the flesh. They ought thus to consider the rite with a Christian
instead of a heretical mind; as it is written, "To the pure all things are
pure." But, considering the truth of the following words, "To the unclean and
unbelieving nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience are defiled,"
[998] we must remind our witty opponents, that if circumcision is indecent, as
they say it is, they should rather weep than laugh at it; for their god is
exposed to restraint and contamination in conjunction both with the skin which
is cut and with the blood which is shed.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 167: FAUSTUS INSISTS THAT JESUS MIGHT HAVE DIED THOUGH NOT BORN, BY THE EXERCISE OF DIVINE POWER, YET HE REJECTS BIRTH AND DEATH ALIKE. AUGUSTIN MAINTAINS THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT EVEN GOD CANNOT DO, ONE OF WHICH IS TO DIE. HE REFUTES THE DOCETISM OF TH
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: You ask, If Jesus was not born, how did He die? Well this is a
probability, such as one makes use of in want of proofs. We will, however,
answer the question by examples taken from what you generally believe. If they
are true, they will prove our case; if they are false, they will help you no
more than they will us. You say then, How could Jesus die, if He were not man?
In return, I ask you, How did Elias not die, though he was a man? Could a mortal
encroach upon the limits of immortality, and could not Christ add to His
immortality whatever experience of death was required? If Elias, contrary to
nature, lives for ever, why not allow that Jesus, with no greater contrariety to
nature, could remain in death for three days? Besides that, it is not only
Elias, but Moses and Enoch you believe to be immortal, and to have been taken up
with their bodies to heaven. Accordingly, if it is a good argument that Jesus
was a man because He died, it is an equally good argument that Elias was not a
man because he did not die. But as it is false that Elias was not a man,
notwithstanding his supposed immortality, so it is false that Jesus was a man,
though He is considered to have died. The truth is, if you will believe it, that
the Hebrews were in a mistake regarding both the death of Jesus and the
immortality of Elias. For it is equally untrue that Jesus died and that Elias
did not die. But you believe whatever you please; and for the rest, you appeal
to nature. And, allowing this appeal, nature is against both the death of the
immortal and the immortality of the mortal. And if we refer to the power of
effecting their purpose as possessed by God and by man, it seems more possible
for Jesus to die than for Elias not to die; for the power of Jesus is greater
than that of Elias. But if you exalt the weaker to heaven, though nature is
against it, and, forgetting his condition as a mortal, endow him with eternal
felicity, why should I not admit that Jesus could die if He pleased, even though
I were to grant His death to have been real, and not a mere semblance? For, as
from the outset of His taking the likeness of man He underwent in appearance all
the experiences of humanity, it was quite consistent that He should complete the
system by appearing to die. 2. Moreover, it is to be remembered that this
reference to what nature grants as possible, should be made in connection with
all the history of Jesus, and not only with His death. According to nature, it
is impossible that a man blind from his birth should see the light; and yet
Jesus appears to have performed a miracle of this kind, so that the Jews
themselves exclaimed that from the beginning of the world it was not seen that
one opened the eyes of a man born blind. [999] So also healing a withered hand,
giving the power of utterance and expression to those born dumb, restoring
animation to the dead, with the recovery of their bodily frame after dissolution
had begun, produce a feeling of amazement, and must seem utterly incredible in
view of what is naturally possible and impossible. And yet, as Christians, we
believe all the things to have been done by the same person; for we regard not
the law of nature, but the powerful operation of God. There is a story, too, of
Jesus having been cast from the brow of a hill, and having escaped unhurt. If,
then, when thrown down from a height He did not die, simply because He chose not
to die, why should He not have had the power to die when He pleased? We take
this way of answering you because you have a fancy for discussion, and affect to
use logical weapons not properly belonging to you. As regards our own belief, it
is no more true that Jesus died than that Elias is immortal. 3. Augustin
replied: As to Enoch and Elias and Moses, our belief is determined not by
Faustus' suppositions, but by the declarations of Scripture, resting as they do
on foundations of the strongest and surest evidence. People in error, as you
are, are unfit to decide what is natural, and what contrary to nature. We admit
that what is contrary to the ordinary course of human experience is commonly
spoken of as contrary to nature. Thus the apostle uses the words, "If thou art
cut out of the wild olive, and engrafted contrary to nature in the good olive."
[1000] Contrary to nature is here used in the sense of contrary to human
experience of the course of nature; as that a wild olive engrafted in a good
olive should bring forth the fatness of the olive instead of wild berries. But
God, the Author and Creator of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature; for
whatever is done by Him who appoints all natural order and measure and
proportion must be natural in every case. And man himself acts contrary to
nature only when he sins; and then by punishment he is brought back to nature
again. The natural order of justice requires either that sin should not be
committed or that it should not go unpunished. In either case, the natural order
is preserved, if not by the soul, at least by God. For sin pains the conscience,
and brings grief on the mind of the sinner, by the loss of the light of justice,
even should no physical sufferings follow, which are inflicted for correction,
or are reserved for the incorrigible. There is, however, no impropriety in
saying that God does a thing contrary to nature, when it is contrary to what we
know of nature. For we give the name nature to the usual common course of
nature; and whatever God does contrary to this, we call a prodigy, or a miracle.
But against the supreme law of nature, which is beyond the knowledge both of the
ungodly and of weak believers, God never acts, any more than He acts against
Himself. As regards spiritual and rational beings, to which class the human soul
belongs, the more they partake of this unchangeable law and light, the more
clearly they see what is possible, and what impossible; and again, the greater
their distance from it, the less their perception of the future, and the more
frequent their surprise at strange occurrences. 4. Thus of what happened to
Elias we are ignorant; but still we believe the truthful declarations of
Scripture regarding him. Of one thing we are certain, that what God willed
happened, and that except by God's will nothing can happen to any one. So, if I
am told that it is possible that the flesh of a certain man shall be changed
into a celestial body, I allow the possibility, but I cannot tell whether it
will be done; and the reason of my ignorance is, that I am not acquainted with
the will of God in the matter. That it will be done if it is God's will, is
perfectly clear and indubitable. Again, if I am told that something would happen
if God did not prevent it from happening, I reply confidently that what is to
happen is the action of God, not the event which might otherwise have happened.
For God knows His own future action, and therefore He knows also the effect of
that action in preventing the happening of what would otherwise have happened;
and, beyond all question, what God knows is more certain than what man thinks.
Hence it is as impossible for what is future not to happen, as for what is past
not to have happened; for it can never be God's will that anything should, in
the same sense, be both true and false. Therefore all that is properly future
cannot but happen; what does not happen never was future; even as all things
which are properly in the past did indubitably take place. 5. Accordingly, to
say, if God is almighty, let Him make what has been done to be undone, is in
fact to say, if God is almighty, let Him make a thing to be in the same sense
both true and false. God can put an end to the existence of anything, when the
thing to be put an end to has a present existence; as when He puts an end by
death to the existence of any one who has been brought into existence in birth;
for in this case there is an actual existence which may be put a stop to. But
when a thing does not exist, the existence cannot be put a stop to. Now, what is
past no longer exists and whatever has an existence which can be put an end to
cannot be past. What is truly past is no longer present; and the truth of its
past existence is in our judgment, not in the thing itself which no longer
exists. The proposition asserting anything to be past is true when the thing no
longer exists. God cannot make such a proposition false, because He cannot
contradict the truth. The truth in this case, or the true judgment, is first of
all in our own mind, when we know and give expression to it. But should it
disappear from our minds by our forgetting it, it would still remain as truth.
It will always be true that the past thing which is no longer present had an
existence; and the truth of its past existence after it has stopped is the same
as the truth of its future existence before it began to be. This truth cannot be
contradicted by God, in whom abides the supreme and unchangeable truth, and
whose illumination is the source of all the truth to be found in any mind or
understanding. Now God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to die; nor
does this inability prevent His being omnipotent. True omnipotence belongs to
Him who truly exists, and who alone is the source of all existence, both
spiritual and corporeal. The Creator makes what use He pleases of all His
creatures; and His pleasure is in harmony with true and unchangeable justice, by
which, as by His own nature, He, Himself unchangeable, brings to pass the
changes of all changeable things according to the desert of their natures or of
their actions. No one, therefore, would be so foolish as to deny that Elias
being a creature of God could be changed either for the worse or for the better;
or that by the will of the omnipotent God he could be changed in a manner
unusual among men. So we can have no reason for doubting what on the high
authority of Scripture is related of him, unless we limit the power of God to
things which we are familiar with. 6. Faustus' argument is, If Elias who was a
man could escape death, why might not Christ have the power of dying, since He
was more than man? This is the same as to say, If human nature can be changed
for the better, why should not the divine nature be changed for the worse? -- a
weak argument, seeing that human nature is changeable, while the divine nature
is not. Such a method of inference would lead to the glaring absurdity, that if
God can bestow eternal glory on man, He must also have the power of consigning
Himself to eternal misery. Faustus will reply that his argument refers only to
three days of death for God, as compared with eternal life for man. Well, if you
understood the three days of death in the sense of the death of the flesh which
God took as a part of our mortal nature, you would be quite correct; for the
truth of the gospel makes known that the death of Christ for three days was for
the eternal life of men. But in arguing that there is no impropriety in
asserting a death of three days of the divine nature itself, without any
assumption of mortality, because human nature can be endowed with immortality,
you display the folly of one who knows neither God nor the gifts of God. And
indeed, since you make part of your god to be fastened to the mass of darkness
for ever, how can you escape the absurd conclusion already mentioned, that God
consigns Himself to eternal misery? You will then require to prove that part of
light is light, while part of God is not God. To give you in a word, without
argument, the true reason of our faith, as regards Elias having been caught up
to heaven from the earth, though only a man, and as regards Christ being truly
born of a virgin, and truly dying on the cross, our belief in both cases is
grounded on the declaration of Holy Scripture, [1001] which it is piety to
believe, and impiety to disbelieve. What is said of Elias you pretend to deny,
for you will pretend anything. Regarding Christ, although even you do not go the
length of saying that He could not die, though He could be born, still you deny
His birth from a virgin, and assert His death on the cross to have been feigned,
which is equivalent to denying it too, except as a mockery for the delusion of
men; and you allow so much merely to obtain indulgence for your own falsehoods
from the believers in these fictions. 7. The question which Faustus makes it
appear that he is asked by a Catholic, If Jesus was not born, how could He die?
could be asked only by one who overlooked the fact that Adam died, though he was
not born. Who will venture to say that the Son of God could not, if He had
pleased, have made for Himself a true human body in the same way as He did for
Adam; for all things were made by Him? [1002] or who will deny that He who is
the Almighty Son of the Almighty could, if He had chosen, have taken a body from
a heavenly substance, or from air or vapor, and have so changed it into the
precise character of a human body, as that He might have lived as a man, and
have died in it? Or, once more, if He had chosen to take a body of none of the
material substances which He had made, but to create for Himself from nothing
real flesh, as all things were created by Him from nothing, none of us will
oppose this by saying that He could not have done it. The reason of our
believing Him to have been born of the Virgin Mary, is not that He could not
otherwise have appeared among men in a true body, but because it is so written
in the Scripture, which we must believe in order to be Christians, or to be
saved. We believe, then, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, because it is
so written in the Gospel; we believe that He died on the cross, because it is so
written in the Gospel; we believe that both His birth and death were real,
because the Gospel is no fiction. Why He chose to suffer all these things in a
body taken from a woman is a matter known only to Himself. Perhaps He took this
way of giving importance and honor to both the sexes which He had created,
taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman; or there may have been some
other reason, we cannot tell. But this may be confidently affirmed, that what
took place was exactly as we are told in the Gospel narrative, and that what the
wisdom of God determined upon was exactly what ought to have happened. We place
the authority of the Gospel above all heretical discussions; and we admire the
counsel of divine wisdom more than any counsel of any creature. 8. Faustus calls
upon us to believe him, and says, The truth is, if you will believe it, that the
Hebrews were in a mistake regarding both the death of Jesus and the immortality
of Elias. And a little after he adds, As from the outset of His taking the
likeness of man He underwent in appearance all the experiences of humanity, it
was quite consistent that He should seal the dispensation by appearing to die.
How can this infamous liar, who declares that Christ feigned death, expect to be
believed? Did Christ utter falsehood when He said, "It behoves the Son of man to
be killed, and to rise the third day?" [1003] And do you tell us to believe what
you say, as if you utter no falsehoods? In that case, Peter was more truthful
than Christ when he said to Him, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be
unto Thee;" for which it was said to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan." [1004]
This rebuke was not lost upon Peter, for, after his correction and full
preparation, he preached even to his own death the truth of the death of Christ.
But if Peter deserved to be called Satan for thinking that Christ would not die,
what should you be called, when you not only deny that Christ died, but assert
that He feigned death? You give, as a reason for Christ's appearing to die, that
He underwent in appearance all the experiences of humanity. But that He feigned
all the experiences of humanity is only your opinion in opposition to the
Gospel. In reality, when the evangelist says that Jesus slept, [1005] that He
was hungry, [1006] that He was thirsty, [1007] that He was sorrowful, [1008] or
glad, and so on, -- these things are all true in the senseof not being feigned,
but actual experiences; only that they were undergone, not from a mere natural
necessity, but in the exercise of a controlling will, and of divine power. In
the case of a man, anger, sorrow, sleeping, being hungry and thirsty, are often
involuntary; in Christ they were acts of His own will. So also men are born
without any act of their own will, and suffer against their will; while Christ
was born and suffered by His own will. Still, the things are true; and the
accurate narrative of them is intended to instruct whoever believes in Christ's
gospel in the truth, not to delude him with falsehoods.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 168: FAUSTUS WARNS AGAINST PRESSING TOO FAR THE ARGUMENT, THAT IF JESUS WAS NOT BORN HE CANNOT HAVE SUFFERED. AUGUSTIN ACCEPTS THE BIRTH AND DEATH ALIKE ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE, WHICH IS HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN THE FALSEHOOD OF MANICHÆUS. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: If Jesus was not born, He cannot have suffered; but since He
did suffer, He must have been born. I advise you not to have recourse to logical
inference in these matters, or else your whole faith will be shaken. For, even
according to you, Jesus was born miraculously of a virgin; which the argument
from consequents to antecedents shows to be false. For your argument might thus
be turned against you: If Jesus was born of a woman, He must have been begotten
by a man; but He was not begotten by a man, therefore He was not born of a
woman. If, as you believe, He could be born without being begotten, why could He
not also suffer without being brought forth? 2. Augustin replied: The argument
which you here reply to is one which could be used only by such ignorant people
as you succeed in misleading, not by those who know enough to refute you. Jesus
could both be born without being begotten and suffer without being brought
forth. His being one and not the other was the effect of His own will. He chose
to be born without being begotten, and not to suffer without being brought
forth. And if you ask how I know that He was brought forth, and that He
suffered, I read this in the faithful Gospel narrative. If I ask how you know
what you state, you bring forward the authority of Manichæus, and charge the
Gospel with falsehood. Even if Manichæus did not set forth falsehood as an
excellence in Christ, I should not believe his statements. His praise of
falsehood comes from nothing that he found in Christ, but from his own moral
character.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 169: FAUSTUS RECURS TO THE GENEALOGY AND INSISTS UPON EXAMINING IT AS REGARDS ITS CONSISTENCY WITH ITSELF. AUGUSTIN TAKES HIS STAND ON SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY AND MAINTAINS THAT MATTHEW'S STATEMENTS AS TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST MUST BE ACCEPTED AS FINAL. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: Christ, you say, could not have died, had He not been born. I
reply, If He was born, He cannot have been God; or if He could both be God and
be born, why could He not both be born and die? Plainly, arguments and necessary
consequences are not applicable to those matters, where the question is of the
account to be given of Jesus. The answer must be obtained from His own
statements, or from the statements of His apostles regarding Him. The genealogy
must be examined as regards its consistency with itself, instead of arguing from
the supposition of Christ's death to the fact of His birth; for He might have
suffered without having been born, or He might have been born, and yet never
have suffered; for you yourselves acknowledge that with God nothing is
impossible, which is inconsistent with the denial that Christ could have
suffered without having been born. 2. Augustin replied: You are always answering
arguments which no one uses, instead of our real arguments, which you cannot
answer. No one says that Christ could not die if He had not been born; for Adam
died though he had not been born. What we say is, Christ was born, because this
is said not by this or that heretic, but in the holy Gospel; and He died, for
this too is written, not in some heretical production, but in the holy Gospel.
You set aside argument on the question of the true account to be given of Jesus,
and refer to what He says of Himself, and what His apostles say of Him; and yet,
when I begin to quote the Gospel of His apostle Matthew, where we have the whole
narrative of Christ's birth, you forthwith deny that Matthew wrote the
narrative, though this is affirmed by the continuous testimony of the whole
Church, from the days of apostolic presidency to the bishops of our own time.
What authority will you quote against this? Perhaps some book of Manichæus,
where it is denied that Jesus was born of a virgin. As, then, I believe your
book to be the production of Manichæus, since it has been kept and handed down
among the disciples of Manichæus, from the time when he lived to the present
time, by a regular succession of your presidents, so I ask you to believe the
book which I quote to have been written by Matthew, since it has been handed
down from the days of Matthew in the Church, without any break in the connection
between that time and the present. The question then is, whether we are to
believe the statements of an apostle who was in the company of Christ while He
was on earth, or of a man away in Persia, born long after Christ. But perhaps
you will quote some other book bearing the name of an apostle known to have been
chosen by Christ; and you will find there that Christ was not born of Mary.
Since, then, one of the books must be false, the question in this case is,
whether we are to yield our belief to a book acknowledged and approved as handed
down from the beginning in the Church founded by Christ Himself, and maintained
through the apostles and their successors in an unbroken connection all over the
world to the present day; or to a book which this Church condemns as unknown,
and which, moreover, is brought forward by men who prove their veracity by
praising Christ for falsehood. 3. Here you will say, Examine the genealogy as
given in the two Gospels, and see if it is consistent with itself. The answer to
this has been given already. [1009] Your difficulty is how Joseph could have two
fathers. But even if you could not have thought of the explanation, that one was
his own father, and the other adopted, you should not have been so ready to put
yourself in opposition to such high authority. Now that this explanation has
been given you, I call upon you to acknowledge the truth of the Gospel, and
above all to cease your mischievous and unreasonable attacks upon the truth. 4.
Faustus most plausibly refers to what Jesus said of Himself. But how is this to
be known except from the narratives of His disciples? And if we do not believe
them when they tell us that Christ was born of a virgin, how shall we believe
what they record as said by Christ of Himself? For, as regards any writing
professing to come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how
is it not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the
Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His apostles, who
were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and extended to our own day,
and in which is found the fulfillment of many former predictions, while those
concerning the last days are sure to be accomplished in the future? In regard to
the appearance of such a writing, it would require to be considered from what
quarter it issued. Supposing it to have issued from Christ Himself, those in
immediate connection with Him might very well have received it, and have
transmitted it to others. In this case, the authority of the writing would be
fully established by the traditions of various communities, and of their
presidents, as I have already said. Who, then, is so infatuated as in our day to
believe that the Epistle of Christ issued by Manichæus is genuine, or to
disbelieve Matthew's narrative of Christ's words and actions? Or, if the
question is of Matthew being the real author, who would not, in this also,
believe what he finds in the Church, which has a distinct history in unbroken
connection from the days of Matthew to the present time, rather than a Persian
interloper, who comes more than two hundred years after, and wishes us to
believe his account of Christ's words and actions rather than that of Matthew;
whereas, even in the case of the Apostle Paul, who was called from heaven after
the Lord's ascension, the Church would not have believed him, had there not been
apostles in life with whom he might communicate, and compare his gospel with
theirs, so as to be recognized as belonging to the same society? When it was
ascertained that Paul preached what the apostles preached, and that he lived in
fellowship and harmony with them, and when God's testimony was added by Paul's
working miracles like those done by the apostles, his authority became so great,
that his words are now received in the Church, as if, to use his own appropriate
words, Christ were speaking in him. [1010] Manichæus, on the other hand, thinks
that the Church of Christ should believe what he says in opposition to the
Scriptures, which are supported by such strong and continuous evidence, and in
which the Church finds an emphatic injunction, that whoever preaches to her
differently from what she has received must be anathema. [1011] 5. Faustus tells
us that he has good grounds for concluding that these Scriptures are unworthy of
credit. And yet he speaks of not using arguments. But the argument too shall be
refuted. The end of the whole argument is to bring the soul to believe that the
reason of its misery in this world is, that it is the means of preventing God
from being deprived of His kingdom, and that God's substance and nature is so
exposed to change, corruption, injury, and contamination, that part of it is
incurably defiled, and is consigned by Himself to eternal punishment in the mass
of darkness, though, when it was in harmless union with Himself, and guilty of
no crime, He knowingly sent it where it was to suffer defilement. This is the
end of all your arguments and fictions; and would that there were an end of them
as regards your heart and your lips, that you might sometime desist from
believing and uttering those execrable blasphemies! But, says Faustus, I prove
from the writings themselves that they cannot be in all points trustworthy, for
they contradict one another. Why not say, then, that they are wholly
untrustworthy, if their testimony is inconsistent and self-contradictory? But,
says Faustus, I say what I think to be in accordance with truth. With what
truth? The truth is only your own fiction, which begins with God's battle, goes
on to His contamination, and ends with His damnation. No one, says Faustus,
believes writings which contradict themselves. But if you think they do this, it
is because you do not understand them; for your ignorance has been manifested in
regard to the passages you have quoted in support of your opinion, and the same
will appear in regard to any quotations you may still make. So there is no
reason for our not believing these writings, supported as they are by such
weighty testimony; and this is itself the best reason for pronouncing accursed
those whose preaching differs from what is there written.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 170: FAUSTUS SEEKS TO JUSTIFY THE DOCETISM OF THE MANICHÆANS. AUGUSTIN INSISTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING DISGRACEFUL IN BEING BORN. 
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: If Christ was visible, and suffered without having been born,
this was sorcery. This argument of yours may be turned against you, by replying
that it was sorcery if He was conceived or brought forth without being begotten.
It is not in accordance with the law of nature that a virgin should bring forth,
and still less that she should still be a virgin after bringing forth. Why,
then, do you refuse to admit that Christ, in a preternatural manner, suffered
without submitting to the condition of birth? Believe me: in substance, both our
beliefs are contrary to nature; but our belief is decent, and yours is not. We
give an explanation of Christ's passion which is at least probable, while the
only explanation you give of His birth is false. In fine, we hold that He
suffered in appearance, and did not really die; you believe in an actual birth,
and conception in the womb. If it is not so, you have only to acknowledge that
the birth too was a delusion, and our whole dispute will be at an end. As to
what you frequently allege, that Christ could not have appeared or spoken to men
without having been born, it is absurd; for, as our teachers have shown, angels
have often appeared and spoken to men. 2. Augustin replied: We do not say that
to die without having been born is sorcery; for, as we have said already, this
happened in the case of Adam. But, though it had never happened, who will
venture to say that Christ could not, if He had so pleased, have come without
taking His body from a virgin, and yet appearing in a true body to redeem us by
a true death? However, it was better that He should be, as He actually was, born
of a virgin, and, by His condescension, do honor to both sexes, for whose
deliverance He was to die, by taking a man's body born of a woman. In this He
testifies emphatically against you, and refutes your doctrine, which makes the
sexes the work of the devil. What we call sorcery in your doctrine is your
making Christ's passion and death to have been only in appearance, so that, by a
spectral illusion, He seemed to die when He did not. Hence you must also make
His resurrection spectral and illusory and false; for if there was no true
death, there could not be a real resurrection. Hence also the marks which He
showed to His doubting disciples must have been false; and Thomas was not
assured by truth, but cheated by a lie, when he exclaimed, "My Lord, and my
God." [1012] And yet you would have us believe that your tongue utters truth,
though Christ's whole body was a falsehood. Our argument against you is, that
the Christ you make is such that you cannot be His true disciples unless you too
practise deceit. The fact that Christ's body was the only one born of a virgin
does not prove that there was sorcery in His birth, any more than there is
sorcery in its being the only body to rise again on the third day, never to die
any more. Will you say that there was sorcery in all the Lord's miracles because
they were unusual? They really happened, and their appearance, as seen by men,
was true, and not an illusion; and when they are said to be contrary to nature,
it is not that they oppose nature, but that they transcend the method of nature
to which we are accustomed. May God keep the minds of His people who are still
babes in Christ from being influenced by Faustus, when he recommends as a duty
that we should acknowledge Christ's birth to have been illusory and not real,
that so we may end our dispute! Nay, verily, rather let us continue to contend
for the truth against them, than agree with them in falsehood. 3. But if we are
to end the controversy by saying this, why do not our opponents themselves say
it? While they assert the death of Christ to have been not real but feigned, why
do they make out that He had no birth at all, not even of the same kind as His
death? If they had so much regard for the authority of the evangelist as to
oblige them to admit that Christ suffered, at least in appearance, it is the
same authority which testifies to His birth. Two evangelists, indeed, give the
story of the birth; [1013] but in all we read of Jesus having a mother. [1014]
Perhaps Faustus was unwilling to make the birth an illusion, because the
difference of the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke causes an apparent
discrepancy. But, supposing a man ignorant, there are many things also relating
to the passion of Christ in which he will think the evangelists disagree;
suppose him instructed, he finds entire agreement. Can it be right to feign
death, and wrong to feign birth? And yet Faustus will have us acknowledge the
birth to be feigned, in order to put an end to the dispute. It will appear
presently in our reply to another objection what we think to be the reason why
Faustus will not admit of any birth, even a feigned one. 4. We deny that there
is anything disgraceful in the bodies of saints. Some members, indeed, are
called uncomely, because they have not so pleasing an appearance as those
constantly in view. [1015] But attend to what the apostle says, when from the
unity and harmony of the body he enjoins charity on the Church: "Much more those
members of the body, which seem to be feeble, are necessary: and those members
of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more
abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our
comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given
more abundant honor to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism in
the body." [1016] The licentious and intemperate use of those members is
disgraceful, but not the members themselves; for they are preserved in purity
not only by the unmarried, but also by wedded fathers and mothers of holy life,
in whose case the natural appetite, as serving not lust, but an intelligent
purpose in the production of children, is in no way disgraceful. Still more, in
the holy Virgin Mary, who by faith conceived the body of Christ, there was
nothing disgraceful in the members which served not for a common natural
conception, but for a miraculous birth. In order that we might conceive Christ
in sincere hearts, and, as it were, produce Him in confession, it was meet that
His body should come from the substance of His mother without injury to her
bodily purity. We cannot suppose that the mother of Christ suffered loss by His
birth, or that the gift of productiveness displaced the grace of virginity. If
these occurrences, which were real and no illusion, are new and strange, and
contrary to the common course of nature, the reason is, that they are great, and
amazing, and divine; and all the more on this account are they true, and firm,
and sure. Angels, says Faustus, appeared and spoke without having been born. As
if we held that Christ could not have appeared or spoken without having been
born of a woman! He could, but He chose not; and what He chose was best. And
that He chose to do what He did is plain, because He acted, not like your god,
from necessity, but voluntarily. That He was born we know, because we put faith
not in a heretic, but in Christ's gospel.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 171: FAUSTUS REPELS THE INSINUATION THAT THE PROPHECY OF PAUL WITH REFERENCE TO THOSE THAT SHOULD FORBID TO MARRY
========================================================================

Faustus repels the insinuation that the prophecy of Paul with reference to those
that should forbid to marry, abstain from meats, etc., applies to the Manichæans
more than to the Catholic ascetics, who are held in the highest esteem in the
Church. Augustin justifies this application of the prophecy, and shows the
difference between Manichæan and Christian asceticism. 1. Faustus said: You
apply to us the words of Paul: "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
lying spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
consciences seared as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, abstaining from
meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by believers."
[1017] I refuse to admit that the apostle said this, unless you first
acknowledge that Moses and the prophets taught doctrines of devils, and were the
interpreters of a lying and malignant spirit; since they enjoin with great
emphasis abstinence from swine's flesh and other meats, which they call unclean.
This case must first be settled; and you must consider long and carefully how
their teaching is to be viewed: whether they said these things from God, or from
the devil. As regards these matters, either Moses and the prophets must be
condemned along with us; or we must be acquitted along with them. You are unjust
in condemning us, as you do now, as followers of the doctrine of devils, because
we require the priestly class to abstain from animal food; for we limit the
prohibition to the priesthood, while you hold that your prophets, and Moses
himself, who forbade all classes of men to eat the flesh of swine, and hares,
and conies, besides all varieties of cuttle-fish, and all fish wanting scales,
said this not in a lying spirit, nor in the doctrine of devils, but from God,
and in the Holy Spirit. Even supposing, then, that Paul said these words, you
can convince me only by condemning Moses and the prophets; and so, though you
will not do it for reason or truth, you will contradict Moses for the sake of
your belly. 2. Besides, you have in your Book of Daniel the account of the three
youths, which you will find it difficult to reconcile with the opinion that to
abstain from meats is the doctrine of devils. For we are told that they
abstained not only from what the law forbade, but even from what it allowed;
[1018] and you are wont to praise them, and count them as martyrs; though they
too followed the doctrine of devils, if this is to be taken as the apostle's
opinion. And Daniel himself declares that he fasted for three weeks, not eating
flesh or drinking wine, while he prayed for his people. [1019] How is it that he
boasts of this doctrine of devils, and glories in the falsehood of a lying
spirit? 3. Again, what are we to think of you, or of the better class of
Christians among you, some of whom abstain from swine's flesh, some from the
flesh of quadrupeds, and some from all animal food, while all the Church admires
them for it, and regards them with profound veneration, as only not gods? You
obstinately refuse to consider that if the words quoted from the apostle are
true and genuine, these people too are misled by doctrines of devils. And there
is another observance which no one will venture to explain away or to deny, for
it is known to all, and is practised yearly with particular attention in the
congregation of Catholics all over the world -- I mean the fast of forty days,
in the due observance of which a man must abstain from all the things which,
according to this verse, were created by God that we might receive them, while
at the same time he calls this abstinence a doctrine of devils. So, my dear
friends, shall we say that you too, during this fast, while celebrating the
mysteries of Christ's passion, live after the manner of devils, and are deluded
by a seducing spirit, and speak lies in hypocrisy, and have your conscience
seared with a hot iron? If this does not apply to you, neither does it apply to
us. What is to be thought of this verse, or its author; or to whom does it
apply, since it agrees neither with the traditions of the Old Testament, nor
with the institutions of the New? As regards the New Testament, the proof is
from your own practice; and though the Old requires abstinence only from certain
things, still it requires abstinence. On the other hand, this opinion of yours
makes all abstinence from animal food a doctrine of devils. If this is your
belief, once more I say it, you must condemn Moses, and reject the prophets, and
pass the same sentence on yourselves; for, as they always abstained from certain
kinds of food, so you sometimes abstain from all food. 4. But if you think that
in making a distinction in food, Moses and the prophets established a divine
ordinance, and not a doctrine of devils; if Daniel in the Holy Spirit observed a
fast of three weeks; if the youths Ananias, Azarias, and Mishael, under divine
guidance, chose to live on cabbage or pulse; if, again, those among you who
abstain, do it not at the instigation of devils; if your abstinence from wine
and flesh for forty days is not superstitious, but by divine command, --
consider, I beseech you, if it is not perfect madness to suppose these words to
be Paul's that abstinence from food and forbidding to marry are doctrines of
devils. Paul cannot have said that to dedicate virgins to Christ is a doctrine
of devils. But you read the words, and inconsiderately, as usual, apply them to
us, without seeing that this stamps your virgins too as led away by the doctrine
of devils, and that you are the functionaries of the devils in your constant
endeavors to induce virgins to make this profession, so that in all your
churches the virgins nearly outnumber the married women. Why do you still adhere
to such practises? Why do you ensnare wretched young women, if it is the will of
devils, and not of Christ, that they fulfill? But, first of all, I wish to know
if making virgins is, in all cases, the doctrine of devils, or only the
prohibition of marriage. If it is the prohibition, it does not apply to us, for
we too hold it equally foolish to prevent one who wishes, as it is criminal and
impious to force one who has some reluctance. But if you say that to encourage
the proposal, and not to resist such a desire, is all the doctrine of devils, to
say nothing of the consequence as regards you, the apostle himself will be thus
brought into danger, if he must be considered as having introduced the doctrines
of devils into Iconium, when Thecla, after having been betrothed, was by his
discourse inflamed with the desire of perpetual virginity. [1020] And what shall
we say of Jesus, the Master Himself, and the source of all sanctity, who is the
unwedded spouse of the virgins who make this profession, and who, when
specifying in the Gospel three kinds of eunuchs, natural, artificial, and
voluntary, gives the palm to those who have "made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven," [1021] meaning the youths of both sexes who have extirpated
from their hearts the desire of marriage, and who in the Church act as eunuchs
of the King's palace? Is this also the doctrine of devils? Are those words, too,
spoken in a seducing spirit? And if Paul and Christ are proved to be priests of
devils, is not their spirit the same that speaks in God? I do not mention the
other apostles of our Lord, Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and the example of celibacy,
the blessed John, who in various ways commended to young men and maidens the
excellence of this profession, leaving to us, and to you too, the form for
making virgins. I do not mention them, because you do not admit them into the
canon, and so you will not scruple impiously to impute to them doctrines of
devils. But will you say the same of Christ, or of the Apostle Paul, who, we
know, everywhere expressed the same preference for unmarried women to the
married, and gave an example of it in the case of the saintly Thecla? But if the
doctrine preached by Paul to Thecla, and which the other apostles also preached,
was not the doctrine of devils, how can we believe that Paul left on record his
opinion, that the very exhortation to sanctity is the injunction and the
doctrine of devils? To make virgins simply by exhortation, without forbidding to
marry, is not peculiar to you. That is our principle too; and he must be not
only a fool, but a madman, who thinks that a private law can forbid what the
public law allows. As regards marriage, therefore, we too encourage virgins to
remain as they are when they are willing to do so; we do not make them virgins
against their will. For we know the force of will and of natural appetite when
opposed by public law; much more when the law is only private, and every one is
at liberty to disobey it. If, then, it is no crime to make virgins in this
manner, we are guiltless as well as you. If it is wrong to make virgins in any
way, you are guilty as well as we. So that what you mean, or intend, by quoting
this verse against us, it is impossible to say. 5. Augustin replied: Listen, and
you shall hear what we mean and intend by quoting this verse against you, since
you say that you do not know. It is not that you abstain from animal food; for,
as you observe, our ancient fathers abstained from some kinds of food, not,
however, as condemning them, but with a typical meaning, which you do not
understand, and of which I have said already in this work all that appeared
necessary. Besides, Christians, not heretics, but Catholics, in order to subdue
the body, that the soul may be more humbled in prayer, abstain not only from
animal food, but also from some vegetable productions, without, however,
believing them to be unclean. A few do this always; and at certain seasons or
days, as in Lent, almost all, more or less, according to the choice or ability
of individuals. You, on the other hand, deny that the creature is good, and call
it unclean, saying that animals are made by the devil of the worst impurities in
the substance of evil and so you reject them with horror, as being the most
cruel and loathsome places of confinement of your god. You, as a concession,
allow your followers, as distinct from the priests, to eat animal food; as the
apostle allows, in certain cases, not marriage in the general sense, but the
indulgence of passion in marriage. [1022] It is only sin which is thus made
allowance for. This is the feeling you have toward all animal food; you have
learned it from your heresy, and you teach it to your followers. You make
allowance for your followers, because, as I said before, they supply you with
necessaries; but you grant them indulgence without saying that it is not sinful.
For yourselves, you shun contact with this evil and impurity; and hence our
reason for quoting this verse against you is found in the words of the apostle
which follow those with which you end the quotation. Perhaps it was for this
reason that you left out the words, and then say that you do not know what we
mean or intend by the quotation; for it suited you better to omit the account of
our intention than to express it. For, after speaking of abstaining from meats,
which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by believers, the apostle
goes on, "And by them who know the truth; for every creature of God is good, and
nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified
by the word of God and prayer." [1023] This you deny; for your idea, and motive,
and belief in abstaining from such food is, that they are not typically, but
naturally, evil and impure. In this assuredly you blaspheme the Creator; and in
this is the doctrine of devils. You need not be surprised that, so long before
the event, this prediction regarding you was made by the Holy Spirit. 6. So,
again, if your exhortations to virginity resembled the teaching of the apostle,
"He who giveth in marriage doeth well, and he who giveth not in marriage doeth
better;" [1024] if you taught that marriage is good, and virginity better, as
the Church teaches which is truly Christ's Church, you would not have been
described in the Spirit's prediction as forbidding to marry. What a man forbids
he makes evil; but a good thing may be placed second to a better thing without
being forbidden. Moreover, the only honorable kind of marriage, or marriage
entered into for its proper and legitimate purpose, is precisely that you hate
most. So, though you may not forbid sexual intercourse, you forbid marriage; for
the peculiarity of marriage is, that it is not merely for the gratification of
passion, but, as is written in the contract, for the procreation of children.
And, though you allow many of your followers to retain their connection with you
in spite of their refusal, or their inability, to obey you, you cannot deny that
you make the prohibition. The prohibition is part of your false doctrine, while
the toleration is only for the interests of the society. And here we see the
reason, which I have delayed till now to mention, for your making not the birth
but only the death of Christ feigned and illusory. Death being the separation of
the soul, that is, of the nature of your god, from the body which belongs to his
enemies, for it is the work of the devil, you uphold and approve of it; and
thus, according to your creed, it was meet that Christ, though He did not die,
should commend death by appearing to die. In birth, again, you believe your god
to be bound instead of released; and so you will not allow that Christ was born
even in this illusory fashion. You would have thought better of Mary had she
ceased to be a virgin without being a mother, than as being a mother without
ceasing to be a virgin. You see, then, that there is a great difference between
exhorting to virginity as the better of two good things, and forbidding to marry
by denouncing the true purpose of marriage; between abstaining from food as a
symbolic observance, or for the mortification of the body, and abstaining from
food which God has created for the reason that God did not create it. In one
case, we have the doctrine of the prophets and apostles; in the other, the
doctrine of lying devils.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 172: THE SCRIPTURE PASSAGE: |TO THE PURE ALL THINGS ARE PURE, BUT TO THE IMPURE AND DEFILED IS NOTHING PURE; BUT EVEN THEIR MIND AND CONSCIENCE ARE DEFILED,| IS DISCUSSED FROM BOTH THE MANICHÆAN AND THE CATHOLIC POINTS OF VIEW, FAUSTUS OBJECTING TO ITS A
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: "To the pure all things are pure. But to the impure and defiled
is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." As regards
this verse, too, it is very doubtful whether, for your own sake, you should
believe it to have been written by Paul. For it would follow that Moses and the
prophets were not only influenced by devils in making so much in their laws of
the distinctions in food, but also that they themselves were impure and defiled
in their mind and conscience, so that the following words also might properly be
applied to them: "They profess to know God, but in works deny Him." [1025] This
is applicable to no one more than to Moses and the prophets, who are known to
have lived very differently from what was becoming in men knowing God. Up to
this time I have thought only of adulteries and frauds and murders as defiling
the conscience of Moses and the prophets; but now, from what this verse says, it
is plain that they were also defiled, because they looked upon something as
defiled. How, then, can you persist in thinking that the vision of the divine
majesty can have been bestowed on such men, when it is written that only the
pure in heart can see God? Even supposing that they had been pure from unlawful
crimes, this superstitious abstinence from certain kinds of food, if it defiles
the mind, is enough to debar them from the sight of deity. Gone for ever, too,
is the boast of Daniel, and of the three youths, who, till now that we are told
that nothing is unclean, have been regarded among the Jews as persons of great
purity and excellence of character, because, in observance of hereditary
customs, they carefully avoided defiling themselves with Gentile food,
especially that of sacrifices. [1026] Now it appears that they were defiled in
mind and conscience most of all when they were closing their mouth against blood
and idol-feasts. 2. But perhaps their ignorance may excuse them; for, as this
Christian doctrine of all things being pure to the pure had not then appeared,
they may have thought some things impure. But there can be no excuse for you in
the face of Paul's announcement, that there is nothing which is not pure, and
that abstinence from certain food is the doctrine of devils, and that those who
think anything defiled are polluted in their mind, if you not only abstain, as
we have said, but make a merit of it, and believe that you become more
acceptable to Christ in proportion as you are more abstemious, or, according to
this new doctrine, as your minds are defiled and your conscience polluted. It
should also be observed that, while there are three religions in the world
which, though in a very different manner, appoint chastity and abstinence as the
means of purification of the mind, the religions, namely, of the Jews, the
Gentiles, and the Christians, the opinion that everything is pure cannot have
come from any one of the three. It is certainly not from Judaism, nor from
Paganism, which also makes a distinction of food; the only difference being,
that the Hebrew classification of animals does not harmonize with the Pagan.
Then as to the Christian faith, if you think it peculiar to Christianity to
consider nothing defiled, you must first of all confess that there are no
Christians among you. For things offered to idols, and what dies of itself, to
mention nothing else, are regarded by you all as great defilement. If, again,
this is a Christian practice, on your part, the doctrine which is opposed to all
abstinence from impurities cannot be traced to Christianity either. How, then,
could Paul have said what is not in keeping with any religion? In fact, when the
apostle from a Jew became a Christian, it was a change of customs more than of
religion. As for the writer of this verse, there seems to be no religion which
favors his opinion. 3. Be sure, then, whenever you discover anything else in
Scripture to assail our faith with, to see, in the first place, that it is not
against you, before you commence your attack on us. For instance, there is the
passage you continually quote about Peter, that he once saw a vessel let down
from heaven in which were all kinds of animals and serpents, and that, when he
was surprised and astonished, a voice was heard, saying to him, Peter, kill and
eat whatsoever thou seest in the vessel, and that he replied, Lord I will not
touch what is common or unclean. On this the voice spoke again, What I have
cleansed, call not unclean. [1027] This, indeed, seems to have an allegorical
meaning, and not to refer to the absence of distinction in food. But as you
choose to give it this meaning, you are bound to feed upon all wild animals, and
scorpions, and snakes, and reptiles in general, in compliance with this vision
of Peter's. In this way, you will show that you are really obedient to the voice
which Peter is said to have heard. But you must never forget that you at the
same time condemn Moses and the prophets, who considered many things polluted
which, according to this utterance, God has sanctified. 4. Augustin replied:
When the apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure," he refers to the
natures which God had created, -- as it is written by Moses in Genesis, "And God
made all things; and behold they were very good," [1028] -- not to the typical
meanings, according to which God, by the same Moses, distinguished the clean
from the unclean. Of this we have already spoken at length more than once, and
need not dwell on it here. It is clear that the apostle called those impure who,
after the revelation of the New Testament, still advocated the observance of the
shadows of things to come, as if without them the Gentiles could not obtain the
salvation which is in Christ, because in this they were carnally minded; and he
called them unbelieving, because they did not distinguish between the time of
the law and the time of grace. To them, he says, nothing is pure, because they
made an erroneous and sinful use both of what they received and of what they
rejected; which is true of all unbelievers, but especially of you Manichæans,
for to you nothing whatever is pure. For, although you take great care to keep
the food which you use separate from the contamination of flesh, still it is not
pure to you, for the only creator of it you allow is the devil. And you hold,
that, by eating it, you release your god, who suffers confinement and pollution
in it. One would think you might consider yourselves pure, since your stomach is
the proper place for purifying your god. But even your own bodies, in your
opinion, are of the nature and handiwork of the race of darkness; while your
souls are still affected by the pollution of your bodies. What, then, is pure to
you? Not the things you eat; not the receptacle of your food; not yourselves, by
whom it is purified. Thus you see against whom the words of the apostle are
directed; he expresses himself so as to include all who are impure and
unbelieving, but first and chiefly to condemn you. To the pure, therefore, all
things are pure, in the nature in which they were created; but to the ancient
Jewish people all things were not pure in their typical significance; and, as
regards bodily health, or the customs of society, all things are not suitable to
us. But when things are in their proper places, and the order of nature is
preserved, to the pure all things are pure; but to the impure and unbelieving,
among whom you stand first, nothing is pure. You might make a wholesome
application to yourselves of the following words of the apostle, if you desired
a cure for your seared consciences. The words are: "Their very mind and
conscience are defiled."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 173: FAUSTUS FAILS TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE SHOULD BE REQUIRED EITHER TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE, WHILE THE CATHOLICS ACCEPT OR REJECT THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT PLEASURE. AUGUSTIN DENIES THAT THE CATHOLICS TREAT THE OLD TESTAM
========================================================================

1. Faustus said: You say, that if we believe the Gospel, we must believe
everything that is written in it. Why, then, since you believe the Old
Testament, do you not believe all that is found in any part of it? Instead of
that, you cull out only the prophecies telling of a future King of the Jews, for
you suppose this to be Jesus, along with a few precepts of common morality, such
as, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and all the rest you
pass over, thinking of the other things as Paul thought of the things which he
held to be dung. [1029] Why, then, should it seem strange or singular in me that
I select from the New Testament whatever is purest, and helpful for my
salvation, while I set aside the interpolations of your predecessors, which
impair its dignity and grace? 2. If there are parts of the Testament of the
Father which we are not bound to observe (for you attribute the Jewish law to
the Father, and it is well known that many things in it shock you, and make you
ashamed, so that in heart you no longer regard it as free from corruption,
though, as you believe, the Father Himself partly wrote it for you with His own
finger while part was written by Moses, who was faithful and trustworthy), the
Testament of the Son must be equally liable to corruption, and may equally well
contain objectionable things; especially as it is allowed not to have been
written by the Son Himself, nor by His apostles, but long after, by some unknown
men, who, lest they should be suspected of writing of things they knew nothing
of, gave to their books the names of the apostles, or of those who were thought
to have followed the apostles, declaring the contents to be according to these
originals. In this, I think, they do grievous wrong to the disciples of Christ,
by quoting their authority for the discordant and contradictory statements in
these writings, saying that it was according to them that they wrote the
Gospels, which are so full of errors and discrepancies, both in facts and in
opinions, that they can be harmonized neither with themselves nor with one
another. This is nothing else than to slander good men, and to bring the charge
of dissension on the brotherhood of the disciples. In reading the Gospels, the
clear intention of our heart perceives the errors, and, to avoid all injustice,
we accept whatever is useful, in the way of building up our faith, and promoting
the glory of the Lord Christ, and of the Almighty God, His Father, while we
reject the rest as unbecoming the majesty of God and Christ, and inconsistent
with our belief. 3. To return to what I said of your not accepting everything in
the Old Testament. You do not admit carnal circumcision, though that is what is
written; [1030] nor resting from all occupation on the Sabbath, though that is
enjoined; [1031] and instead of propitiating God, as Moses recommends, by
offerings and sacrifices, you cast these things aside as utterly out of keeping
with Christian worship, and as having nothing at all to recommend them. In some
cases, however, you make a division, and while you accept one part, you reject
the other. Thus, in the Passover, which is also the annual feast of the Old
Testament, while it is written that in this observance you must slay a lamb to
be eaten in the evening, and that you must abstain from leaven for seven days,
and be content with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, [1032] you accept the
feast, but pay no attention to the rules for its observance. It is the same with
the feast of Pentecost, or seven weeks, and the accompaniment of a certain kind
and number of sacrifices which Moses enjoins: [1033] you observe the feast, but
you condemn the propitiatory rites, which are part of it, because they are not
in harmony with Christianity. As regards the command to abstain from Gentile
food, you are zealous believers in the uncleanness of things offered to idols,
and of what has died of itself; but you are not so ready to believe the
prohibition of swine's flesh, and hares, and conies, and mullets, and
cuttle-fish, and all the fish that you have a relish for, although Moses
pronounces them all unclean. 4. I do not suppose that you will consent, or even
listen, to such things as that a father-in-law should lie with his
daughter-in-law, as Judah did; or a father with his daughters, like Lot; or
prophets with harlots, like Hosea; or that a husband should sell his wife for a
night to her lover, like Abraham; or that a man should marry two sisters, like
Jacob; or that the rulers of the people and the men you consider as most
inspired should keep their mistresses by hundreds and thousands; or, according
to the provision made in Deuteronomy about wives, that the wife of one brother,
if he dies without children, should marry the surviving brother, and that he
should raise up seed from her instead of his brother; and that if the man
refuses to do this, the fair plaintiff should bring her case before the elders,
that the brother may be called and admonished to perform this religious duty;
and that, if he persists in his refusal, he must not go unpunished, but the
woman must loose his shoe from his right foot, and strike him in the face, and
send him away, spat upon and accursed, to perpetuate the reproach in his family.
[1034] These, and such as these, are the examples and precepts of the Old
Testament. If they are good, why do you not practise them? If they are bad, why
do you not condemn the Old Testament, in which they are found? But if you think
that these are spurious interpolations, that is precisely what we think of the
New Testament. You have no right to claim from us an acknowledgment for the New
Testament which you yourselves do not make for the Old. 5. Since you hold to the
divine authorship of the Old as well as of the New Testament, it would surely be
more consistent and more becoming, as you do not obey its precepts, to confess
that it has been corrupted by improper additions, than to treat it so
contemptuously, if it is genuine and uncorrupted. Accordingly, my explanation of
your neglect of the requirements of the Old Testament has always been, and still
is, that you are either wise enough to reject them as spurious, or that you have
the boldness and irreverence to disregard them if they are true. At any rate,
when you would oblige me to believe everything contained in the documents of the
New Testament because I receive the Testament itself, you should consider that,
though you profess to receive the Old Testament, you in your heart disbelieve
many things in it. Thus, you do not admit as true or authoritative the
declaration of the Old Testament, that every one that hangeth on a tree is
accursed, [1035] for this would apply to Jesus; or that every man is accursed
who does not raise up seed in Israel, [1036] for that would include all of both
sexes devoted to God; or that whoever is not circumcised in the flesh of his
foreskin will be cut off from among his people, [1037] for that would apply to
all Christians; or that whoever breaks the Sabbath must be stoned to death;
[1038] or that no mercy should be shown to the man who breaks a single precept
of the Old Testament. If you really believe these things as certainly enjoined
by God, you would, in the time of Christ, have been the first to assail Him, and
you would now have no quarrel with the Jews, who, in persecuting Christ with
heart and soul, acted in obedience to their own God. 6. I am aware that instead
of boldly pronouncing these passages spurious, you make out that these things
were required of the Jews till the coming of Jesus; and that now that He is
come, according, as you say, to the predictions of this Old Testament, He
Himself teaches what we should receive, and what we should set aside as
obsolete. Whether the prophets predicted the coming of Jesus we shall see
presently. Meanwhile, I need say no more than that if Jesus, after being
predicted in the Old Testament, now subjects it to this sweeping criticism, and
teaches us to receive a few things and to throw over many things, in the same
way the Paraclete who is promised in the New Testament teaches us what part of
it to receive, and what to reject; as Jesus Himself says in the Gospel, when
promising the Paraclete, "He shall guide you into all truth, and shall teach you
all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." [1039] So then, with the
help of the Paraclete, we may take the same liberties with the New Testament as
Jesus enables you to take with the Old, unless you suppose that the Testament of
the Son is of greater value than that of the Father, if it is really the
Father's; so that while many parts of the one are to be condemned, the other
must be exempted from all disapproval; and that, too, when we know, as I said
before, that it was not written by Christ or by His apostles. 7. Hence, as you
receive nothing in the Old Testament except the prophecies and the common
precepts of practical morality, which we quoted above, while you set aside
circumcision, and sacrifices, and the Sabbath and its observance, and the feast
of unleavened bread, why should not we receive nothing in the New Testament but
what we find said in honor and praise of the majesty of the Son, either by
Himself or by His apostles, with the proviso, in the case of the apostles, that
it was said by them after reaching perfection, and when no longer in unbelief;
while we take no notice of the rest, which, if said at the time, was the
utterance of ignorance or inexperience, or, if not, was added by crafty
opponents with a malicious intention, or was stated by the writers without due
consideration, and so handed down as authentic? Take as examples, the shameful
birth of Jesus from a woman, His being circumcised like the Jews, His offering
sacrifice like the Gentiles, His being baptized in a humiliating manner, His
being led about by the devil in the wilderness, and His being tempted by him in
the most distressing way. With these exceptions, besides whatever has been
inserted under the pretence of being a quotation from the Old Testament, we
believe the whole, especially the mystic nailing to the cross, emblematic of the
wounds of the soul in its passion; as also the sound moral precepts of Jesus,
and His parables, and the whole of His immortal discourse, which sets forth
especially the distinction of the two natures, and therefore must undoubtedly be
His. There is, then, no reason for your thinking it obligatory in me to believe
all the contents of the Gospels; for you, as has been proved, take so dainty a
sip from the Old Testament, that you hardly, so to speak, wet your lips with it.
8. Augustin replied: We give to the whole Old Testament Scriptures their due
praise as true and divine; you impugn the Scriptures of the New Testament as
having been tampered with and corrupted. Those things in the Old Testament which
we do not observe we hold to have been suitable appointments for the time and
the people of that dispensation, besides being symbolical to us of truths in
which they have still a spiritual use, though the outward observance is
abolished; and this opinion is proved to be the doctrine of the apostolic
writings. You, on the other hand, find fault with everything in the New
Testament which you do not receive, and assert that these passages were not
spoken or written by Christ or His apostles. In these respects there is a
manifest difference between us. When, therefore, you are asked why you do not
receive all the contents of the New Testament, but, while you approve of some
things, reject a great many in the very same books as false and spurious
interpolations, you must not pretend to imitate us in the distinction which we
make, reverently and in faith, but must give account of your own presumption. 9.
If we are asked why we do not worship God as the Hebrew fathers of the Old
Testament worshipped Him, we reply that God has taught us differently by the New
Testament fathers, and yet in no opposition to the Old Testament, but as that
Testament itself predicted. For it is thus foretold by the prophet: "Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made
with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt." [1040] Thus it was foretold that that covenant would not continue, but
that there would be a new one. And to the objection that we do not belong to the
house of Israel or to the house of Judah, we answer according to the teaching of
the apostle, who calls Christ the seed of Abraham, and says to us, as belonging
to Christ's body, "Therefore ye are Abraham's seed." [1041] Again, if we are
asked why we regard that Testament as authoritative when we do not observe its
ordinances, we find the answer to this also in the apostolic writings; for the
apostle says, "Let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a
holiday, or a new moon, or of Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come."
[1042] Here we learn both that we ought to read of these observances, and
acknowledge them to be of divine institution, in order to preserve the memory of
the prophecy, for they were shadows of things to come; and also that we need pay
no regard to those who would judge us for not continuing the outward observance;
as the apostle says elsewhere to the same purpose, "These things happened to
them for an example; and they are written for our admonition, on whom the end of
the ages are come." [1043] So, when we read anything in the books of the Old
Testament which we are not required to observe in the New Testament, or which is
even forbidden, instead of finding fault with it, we should ask what it means;
for the very discontinuance of the observance proves it to be, not condemned,
but fulfilled. On this head we have already spoken repeatedly. 10. To take, for
example, this requirement on which Faustus ignorantly grounds his charge against
the Old Testament, that a man should take his brother's wife to raise up seed
for his brother, to be called by his name; what does this prefigure, but that
every preacher of the gospel should so labor in the Church as to raise up seed
to his deceased brother, that is, Christ, who died for us, and that this seed
should bear His name? Moreover, the apostle fulfills this requirement not now in
the typical observance, but in the spiritual reality, when he reproves those of
whom he says that he had begotten them in Christ Jesus by the gospel, [1044] and
points out to them their error in wishing to be of Paul. "Was Paul," he says,
"crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" [1045] As if he
should say, I have begotten you for my deceased brother; your name is Christian,
not Paulian. Then, too, whoever refuses the ministry of the gospel when chosen
by the Church, justly deserves the contempt of the Church. So we see that the
spitting in the face is accompanied with a sign of reproach in loosing a shoe
from one foot, to exclude the man from the company of those to whom the apostle
says, "Let your feet be shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;"
[1046] and of whom the prophet thus speaks, "How beautiful are the feet of them
who publish peace, who bring good tidings of good!" [1047] The man who holds the
faith of the gospel so as both to profit himself and to be ready when called to
serve the Church, is properly represented as shod on both feet. But the man who
thinks it enough to secure his own safety by believing, and shirks the duty of
benefiting others, has the reproach of being unshod, not in type, but in
reality. 11. Faustus needlessly objects to our observance of the passover,
taunting us with differing from the Jewish observance: for in the gospel we have
the true Lamb, not in shadow, but in substance; and instead of prefiguring the
death, we commemorate it daily, and especially in the yearly festival. Thus also
the day of our paschal feast does not correspond with the Jewish observance, for
we take in the Lord's day, on which Christ rose. And as to the feast of
unleavened bread, all Christians sound in the faith keep it, not in the leaven
of the old life, that is, of wickedness, but in the truth and sincerity of the
faith; [1048] not for seven days, but always, as was typified by the number
seven, for days are always counted by sevens. And if this observance is somewhat
difficult in this world since the way which leads to life is strait and narrow,
[1049] the future reward is sure; and this difficulty is typified in the bitter
herbs, which are a little distasteful.12. The Pentecost, too, we observe, that
is, the fiftieth day from the passion and resurrection of the Lord, for on that
day He sent to us the Holy Paraclete whom He had promised; as was prefigured in
the Jewish passover, for on the fiftieth day after the slaying of the lamb,
Moses on the mount received the law written with the finger of God. [1050] If
you read the Gospel, you will see that the Spirit is there called the finger of
God. [1051] Remarkable events which happened on certain days are annually
commemorated in the Church, that the recurrence of this festival may preserve
the recollection of things so important and salutary. If you ask, then, why we
keep the passover, it is because Christ was then sacrificed for us. If you ask
why we do not retain the Jewish ceremonies, it is because they prefigured future
realities which we commemorate as past; and the difference between the future
and the past is seen in the different words we use for them. Of this we have
already said enough.13. Again, if you ask why, of all the kinds of food
prohibited in the former typical dispensation, we abstain only from food offered
to idols and from what dies of itself, you shall hear, if for once you will
prefer the truth to idle calumnies. The reason why it is not expedient for a
Christian to eat food offered to idols is given by the apostle: "I would not,"
he says, "that ye should have fellowship with demons." Not that he finds fault
with sacrifice itself, as offered by the fathers to typify the blood of the
sacrifice with which Christ has redeemed us. For he first says, "The things
which the Gentiles offer, they offer to demons, and not to God;" and then adds
these words: "I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons." [1052] If
the uncleanness were in the nature of sacrificial flesh, it would necessarily
pollute even when eaten in ignorance. But the reason for not partaking knowingly
is not in the nature of the food, but, for conscience sake, not to seem to have
fellowship with demons. As regards what dies of itself, I suppose the reason why
such food was prohibited was that the flesh of animals which have died of
themselves is diseased, and is not likely to be wholesome, which is the chief
thing in food. The observance of pouring out the blood which was enjoined in
ancient times upon Noah himself after the deluge, [1053] the meaning of which we
have already explained, is thought by many to be what is meant in the Acts of
the Apostles, where we read that the Gentiles were required to abstain from
fornication, and from things sacrificed, and from blood, [1054] that is, from
flesh of which the blood has not been poured out. Others give a different
meaning to the words, and think that to abstain from blood means not to be
polluted with the crime of murder. It would take too long to settle this
question, and it is not necessary. For, allowing that the apostles did on that
occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat
of things strangled, they seem to me to have consulted the time in choosing an
easy observance that could not be burdensome to any one, and which the Gentiles
might have in common with the Israelities, for the sake of the Corner-stone, who
makes both one in Himself; [1055] while at the same time they would be reminded
how the Church of all nations was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave
this command, -- a type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles
by the accession of the Gentiles to the faith. But since the close of that
period during which the two walls of the circumcision and the uncircumcision,
although united in the Corner-stone, still retained some distinctive
peculiarities, and now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none
who are outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to
abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured
out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without
shedding their blood. Any who still are afraid to touch these things are laughed
at by the rest: so general is the conviction of the truth, that "not what
entereth into the mouth defileth you, but what cometh out of it;" [1056] that
evil lies in the commission of sin, and not in the nature of any food in
ordinary use. 14. As regards the deeds of the ancients, both those which seem
sinful to foolish and ignorant people, when they are not so, and those which
really are sinful, we have already explained why they have been written, and how
this rather adds to than impairs the dignity of Scripture. So, too, about the
curse on him who hangeth on a tree, and on him who raises not up seed in Israel,
our reply has already been given in the proper place, when meeting Faustus'
objections. [1057] And in reply to all objections whatsoever, whether we have
already answered them separately, or whether they are contained in the remarks
of Faustus which we are now considering, we appeal to our established
principles, on which we maintain the authority of sacred Scripture. The
principle is this, that all things written in the books of the Old Testament are
to be received with approval and admiration, as most true and most profitable to
eternal life; and that those precepts which are no longer observed outwardly are
to be understood as having been most suitable in those times, and are to be
viewed as having been shadows of things to come, of which we may now perceive
the fulfillments. Accordingly, whoever in those times neglected the observance
of these symbolical precepts was righteously condemned to suffer the punishment
required by the divine statute, as any one would be now if he were impiously to
profane the sacraments of the New Testament, which differ from the old
observances only as this time differs from that. For as praise is due to the
righteous men of old who refused not to die for the Old Testament sacraments, so
it is due to the martyrs of the New Testament. And as a sick man should not find
fault with the medical treatment, because one thing is prescribed to-day and
another to-morrow, and what was at first required is afterwards forbidden, since
the method of cure depends on this; so the human race, sick and sore as it is
from Adam to the end of the world, as long as the corrupted body weighs down the
mind, [1058] should not find fault with the divine prescriptions, if sometimes
the same observances are enjoined, and sometimes an old observance is exchanged
for one of a different kind; especially as there was a promise of a change in
the appointments.15. Hence there is no force in the analogy which Faustus
institutes between Christ's pointing out to us what to believe and what to
reject in the Old Testament, in which He Himself is predicted, and the
Paraclete's doing the same to you as regards the New Testament, where there is a
similar prediction of Him. There might have been some plausibility in this, had
there been anything in the Old Testament which we denounced as a mistake, or as
not of divine authority, or as untrue. We do nothing of the kind; we receive
everything, both what we observe as rules of conduct, and what we no longer
observe, but still recognize as having been prophetical observances, once
enjoined and now fulfilled. And besides, the promise of the Paraclete is found
in those books, all the contents of which you do not accept; and His mission is
recorded in the book which you shrink from even naming. For, as is stated above,
and has been said repeatedly, there is a distinct narrative in the Acts of the
Apostles of the mission of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the effect
produced showed who it was. For all who first received Him spoke with tongues;
[1059] and in this sign there was a promise that in all tongues, or in all
nations, the Church of after times would faithfully proclaim the doctrine of the
Spirit as well as of the Father and of the Son.16. Why, then, do you not accept
everything in the New Testament? Is it because the books have not the authority
of Christ's apostles, or because the apostles taught what was wrong? You reply
that the books have not the authority of the apostles. That the apostles were
wrong in their teaching is what Pagans say. But what can you say to prove that
the publication of these books cannot be traced to the apostles? You reply that
in many things they contradict themselves and one another. Nothing could be more
untrue; the fact is, you do not understand. In every case where Faustus has
brought forward what you think a discrepancy, we have shown that there was none;
and we will do the same in every other case. It is intolerable that the reader
or learner should dare to lay the blame on Scriptures of such high authority,
instead of confessing his own stupidity. Did the Paraclete teach you that these
writings are not of the apostles' authorship, but written by others under their
names? But where is the proof that it was the Paraclete from whom you learned
this? If you say that the Paraclete was promised and sent by Christ, we reply
that your Paraclete was neither promised nor sent by Christ; and we also show
you when He sent the Paraclete whom He promised. What proof have you that Christ
sent your Paraclete? Where do you get the evidence in support of your informant,
or rather misinformant? You reply that you find the proof in the Gospel. In what
Gospel? You do not accept all the Gospel, and you say that it has been tampered
with. Will you first accuse your witness of corruption, and then call for his
evidence? To believe him when you wish it, and then disbelieve him when you wish
it, is to believe nobody but yourself. If we were prepared to believe you, there
would be no need of a witness at all. Moreover, in the promise of the Holy
Spirit as the Paraclete, it is said, "He shall lead you into all truth;" [1060]
but how can you be led into all truth by one who teaches you that Christ was a
deceiver? And again, if you were to prove that all that is said in the Gospel of
the promise of the Paraclete could apply to no one but Manichæus, as the
predictions of the prophets are applicable to Christ; and if you quoted passages
from those manuscripts which you say are genuine, we might say that on this very
point, as proving Manichæus to be the only person intended, the passages have
been altered in the interest of your sect. Your only answer to this would be,
that you could not possibly alter documents already in the possession of all
Christians; for at the very outset of such an attempt, it would be met by an
appeal to older copies. But if this proves that the books could not be corrupted
by you, it also proves that they could not be corrupted by any one. The first
person who ventured to do such a thing would be convicted by a comparison of
older manuscripts; especially as the Scripture is to be found not in one
language only, but in many. As it is, false readings are sometimes corrected by
comparing older copies or the original language. Hence you must either
acknowledge these documents as genuine, and then your heresy cannot stand a
moment; or if they are spurious, you cannot use their authority in support of
your doctrine of the Paraclete, and so you refute yourselves. 17. Further, what
is said in the promise of the Paraclete shows that it cannot possibly refer to
Manichæus, who came so many years after. For it is distinctly said by John, that
the Holy Spirit was to come immediately after the resurrection and ascension of
the Lord: "For the Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified." [1061] Now, if the reason why the Spirit was not given was, that
Jesus was not glorified, He would necessarily be given immediately on the
glorification of Jesus. In the same way, the Cataphrygians [1062] said that they
had received the promised Paraclete; and so they fell away from the Catholic
faith, forbidding what Paul allowed, and condemning second marriages, which he
made lawful. They turned to their own use the words spoken of the Spirit, "He
shall lead you into all truth," as if, forsooth, Paul and the other apostles had
not taught all the truth, but had left room for the Paraclete of the
Cataphrygians. The same meaning they forced from the words of Paul: "We know in
part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away;" [1063] making out that the apostle knew
and prophesied in part, when he said, "Let him do what he will; if he marries,
he sinneth not," [1064] and that this is done away by the perfection of the
Phrygian Paraclete. [1065] And if they are told that they are condemned by the
authority of the Church, which is the subject of such ancient promises, and is
spread all over the world, they reply that this is in exact fulfillment of what
is said of the Paraclete, that the world cannot receive Him. [1066] And are not
those passages, "He shall lead you into all truth," and, "When that which is
perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away," and, "The world
cannot receive Him," precisely those in which you find a prediction of
Manichæus? And so every heresy arising under the name of the Paraclete will have
the boldness to make an equally plausible application to itself of such texts.
For there is no heresy but will call itself the truth; and the prouder it is,
the more likely it will be to call itself perfect truth: and so it will profess
to lead into all truth; and since that which is perfect has come by it, it will
try to do away with the doctrine of the apostles, to which its own errors are
opposed. And as the Church holds by the earnest admonition of the apostle, that
"whoever preaches another gospel to you than that which ye have received, let
him be accursed;" [1067] when the heretical preacher begins to be pronounced
accursed by all the world, will he not forthwith exclaim, This is what is
written, "The world cannot receive Him"?18. Where, then, will you find the proof
required to show that it is from the Paraclete that you have learned that the
Gospels were not written by the apostles? On the other hand, we have proof that
the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, came immediately after the glorification of
Jesus. For "He was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." We
have proof also that He leads into all truth, for the only way to truth is by
love, and "the love of God," says the apostle, "is shed abroad in our hearts by
the Holy Ghost who is given unto us." [1068] We show, too, that in the words,
"when that which is perfect is come," Paul spoke of the perfection in the
enjoyment of eternal life. For in the same place he says: "Now we see through a
glass darkly, but then face to face." [1069] You cannot reasonably maintain that
we see God face to face here. Therefore that which is perfect has not come to
you. It is thus clear what the apostle thought on this subject. This perfection
will not come to the saints till the accomplishment of what John speaks of: "Now
we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know
that when it shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."
[1070] Then we shall be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, of which we have
now received the pledge. Again, the words, "The world cannot receive Him,"
plainly point to those who are usually called the world in Scripture -- the
lovers of the world, the wicked, or carnal; of whom the apostle says: "The
natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God." [1071]
Those are said to be of this world who can understand nothing beyond material
things, which are the objects of sense in this world; as is the case with you,
when, in your admiration of the sun and moon, you suppose all divine things to
resemble them. Deceivers, and being deceived, you call the author of this silly
theory the Paraclete. But as you have no proof of his being the Paraclete, you
have no reliable ground for the statement that the Gospel writings, which you
receive only in part, are not of apostolic authorship. Thus your only remaining
argument is, that these writings contain things disparaging to the glory of
Christ; such as, that He was born of a virgin, that He was circumcised, that the
customary sacrifice was offered for Him, that He was baptized, that He was
tempted of the devil. 19. With those exceptions, including also the testimonies
quoted from the Old Testament, you profess, to use the words of Faustus, to
receive all the rest, especially the mystic nailing to the cross, emblematic of
the wounds of the soul in its passion; as also the sound moral precepts of
Jesus, and the whole of His immortal discourse, which sets forth especially the
distinction of the two natures, and therefore must undoubtedly be His. Your
design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority, and to make every man's
mind the judge what passage of Scripture he is to approve of, and what to
disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture in matters of faith, but
to make Scripture subject to you. Instead of making the high authority of
Scripture the reason of approval, every man makes his approval the reason for
thinking a passage correct. If, then, you discard authority, to what, poor
feeble soul, darkened by the mists of carnality, to what, I beseech you, will
you betake yourself? Set aside authority, and let us hear the reason of your
beliefs. Is it by a logical process that your long story about the nature of God
concludes necessarily with this startling announcement, that this nature is
subject to injury and corruption? And how do you know that there are eight
continents and ten heavens, and that Atlas bears up the world, and that it hangs
from the great world-holder, and innumerable things of the same kind? Who is
your authority? Manichæus, of course, you will say. But, unhappy being, this is
not sight, but faith. If, then, you submit to receive a load of endless fictions
at the bidding of an obscure and irrational authority, so that you believe all
those things because they are written in the books which your misguided judgment
pronounces trustworthy, though there is no evidence of their truth, why not
rather submit to the authority of the Gospel, which is so well founded, so
confirmed, so generally acknowledged and admired, and which has an unbroken
series of testimonies from the apostles down to our own day, that so you may
have an intelligent belief, and may come to know that all your objections are
the fruit of folly and perversity; and that there is more truth in the opinion
that the unchangeable nature of God should take part of mortality, so as,
without injury to itself from this union, to do and to suffer not feignedly, but
really, whatever it behoved the mortal nature to do and to suffer for the
salvation of the human race from which it was taken, than in the belief that the
nature of God is subject to injury and corruption, and that, after suffering
pollution and captivity, it cannot be wholly freed and purified, but is
condemned by a supreme divine necessity to eternal punishment in the mass of
darkness?20. You say, in reply, that you believe in what Manichæus has not
proved, because he has so clearly proved the existence of two natures, good and
evil, in this world. But here is the very source of your unhappy delusion; for
as in the Gospels, so in the world, your idea of what is evil is derived
entirely from the effect on your senses of such disagreeable things as serpents,
fire, poison, and so on; and the only good you know of is what has an agreeable
effect on your senses, as pleasant flavors, and sweet smells, and sunlight, and
whatever else recommends itself strongly to your eyes, or your nostrils, or your
palate, or any other organ of sensation. But had you begun with looking on the
book of nature as the production of the Creator of all, and had you believed
that your own finite understanding might be at fault wherever anything seemed to
be amiss, instead of venturing to find fault with the works of God, you would
not have been led into these impious follies and blasphemous fancies with which,
in your ignorance of what evil really is, you heap all evils upon God.21. We can
now answer the question, how we know that these books were written by the
apostles. In a word, we know this in the same way that you know that the books
whose authority you are so deluded as to prefer were written by Manichæus. For,
suppose some one should raise a question on this point, and should contend, in
arguing with you, that the books which you attribute to Manichæus are not of his
authorship; your only reply would be, to ridicule the absurdity of thus
gratuitously calling in question a matter confirmed by successive testimonies of
such wide extent. As, then, it is certain that these books are the production of
Manichæus, and as it is ridiculous in one born so many years after to start
objections of his own, and so raise a discussion on the point; with equal
certainty may we pronounce it absurd, or rather pitiable, in Manichæus or his
followers to bring such objections against writings originally well
authenticated, and carefully handed down from the times of the apostles to our
own day through a constant succession of custodians.22. We have now only to
compare the authority of Manichæus with that of the apostles. The genuineness of
the writings is equally certain in both cases. But no one will compare Manichæus
to the apostles, unless he ceases to be a follower of Christ, who sent the
apostles. Who that did not misunderstand Christ's words ever found in them the
doctrine of two natures opposed to one another, and having each its own
principle? Again, the apostles, as becomes the disciples of truth, declare the
birth and passion of Christ to have been real events; while Manichæus, who
boasts that he leads into all truth, would lead us to a Christ whose very
passion he declares to have been an illusion. The apostles say that Christ was
circumcised in the flesh which He took of the seed of Abraham; Manichæus says
that God, in his own nature, was cut in pieces by the race of darkness. The
apostles say that a sacrifice was offered for Christ as an infant in our nature,
according to the institutions of the time; Manichæus, that a member, not of
humanity, but of the divine substance itself, must be sacrificed to the whole
host of demons by being introduced into the nature of the hostile race. The
apostles say that Christ, to set us an example, was baptized in the Jordan;
Manichæus, that God immersed himself in the pollution of darkness, and that he
will never wholly emerge, but that the part which cannot be purified will be
condemned to eternal punishment. The apostles say that Christ, in our nature,
was tempted by the chief of the demons; Manichæus, that part of God was taken
captive by the race of demons. And in the temptation of Christ He resists the
tempter; while in the captivity of God, the part taken captive cannot be
restored to its origin even after victory. To conclude, Manichæus, under the
guise of an improvement, preaches another gospel, which is the doctrine of
devils; and the apostles, after the doctrine of Christ, enjoin that whoever
preaches another gospel shall be accursed. [1072]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 174: FAUSTUS DOES NOT THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT HONOR TO SIT DOWN WITH ABRAHAM
========================================================================

Faustus does not think it would be a great honor to sit down with Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, whose moral characters as set forth in the Old Testament he detests.
He justifies his subjective criticism of Scripture. Augustin sums up the
argument, claims the victory, and exhorts the Manichæans to abandon their
opposition to the Old Testament notwithstanding the difficulties that it
presents, and to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. 1. Faustus
said: You quote from the Gospel the words, "Many shall come from the east and
the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom
of heaven," [1073] and ask why we do not acknowledge the patriarchs. Now, we
should be the last to grudge to any human being that God should have compassion
on him, and bring him out of perdition to salvation. At the same time, we should
acknowledge in such a case the clemency shown in this act of compassion, and not
the merit of the person whose life is undeniably blameworthy. Thus, in the case
of the Jewish fathers, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who are mentioned by
Christ in this verse, supposing it to be genuine, although they led wicked
lives, as we may learn from their descendant Moses, or whoever was the author of
the history called Genesis, which describes their conduct as having been most
shocking and detestable; we are ready to allow that they may, after all, be in
the kingdom of heaven, in the place which they neither believed in, nor hoped
for, as is plain enough from their books. But then it must be kept in mind that,
as you yourselves confess, if they did attain to what is spoken of in this
verse, it was something very different from the nether dungeons of woe to which
their own deserts consigned them, and that their deliverance was the work of our
Lord Christ, and the result of His mystic passion. Who would grudge to the thief
on the cross that deliverance was granted to him by the same Lord, and that
Christ said that on that very day he should be with Him in the paradise of His
Father? [1074] Who is so hard-hearted as to disapprove of this act of
benevolence? Still, it does not follow that, because Jesus pardoned a thief, we
must approve of the habits and practices of thieves; any more than of the
publicans and harlots, whose faults Jesus pardoned, declaring that they would go
into the kingdom of heaven before those who behaved proudly. [1075] For, when He
acquitted the woman accused by the Jews as sinful, and as having been caught in
adultery, He told her to sin no more. [1076] If, then, He has done something of
the same kind in the case of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, all the praise is
His; for such actions towards souls are becoming in Him who maketh His sun to
rise upon the evil and upon the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
unjust. [1077] One thing perplexes me in your doctrine: why you limit your
statements to the fathers of the Jews, and are not of opinion that the Gentile
patriarchs had also a share in this grace of our Redeemer; especially as the
Christian Church consists of their children more than of the seed of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. You will say that the Gentiles worshipped idols, and the Jews
the Almighty God, and that therefore Jesus had regard only to the Jews. It would
seem from this that the worship of the Almighty God is the sure way to hell, and
that the Son must come to the aid of the worshipper of the Father. That is as
you please. For my part, I am ready to join you in the belief that the fathers
reached heaven, not by any merit of their own, but by that divine mercy which is
stronger than sin. 2. However, there is a difficulty in deciding as regards this
verse too, whether the words were really spoken to Christ, for there is a
discrepancy in the narratives. For while two evangelists, Matthew and Luke, both
alike tell of the centurion whose servant was sick, and to whom these words of
Jesus are supposed to have applied, that He had not seen so great faith, no, not
in Israel, as in this man, though a Gentile and a Pagan, because he said that he
was not worthy that Jesus should come under his roof, but wished Him only to
speak the word, and his servant should be healed; Matthew alone adds that Jesus
went on to say, "Verily I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and
from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the
kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer
darkness." By the many who should come are meant the Pagans, on account of the
centurion, in whom, although he was a Gentile, so great faith was found; and the
children of the kingdom are the Jews, in whom there was no faith found. Luke,
again, though he too mentions the occurrence in his Gospel as part of the
narrative of the miracles of Christ, says nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
If it is said that he omitted it because it had been already said by Matthew,
why does he tell the story at all of the centurion and his servant, since that,
too, has the advantage of being recorded at length in Matthew's ingenious
narrative? But the passage is corrupt. For, in describing the centurion's
application to Jesus, Matthew says that he came himself to ask for a cure; while
Luke says he did not, but sent elders of the Jews, and that they, in case Jesus
should despise the centurion as a Gentile (for they will have Jesus to be a
thorough Jew), set about persuading Him, by saying that he was worthy for whom
He should do this, because he loved their nation, and had built them a
synagogue; [1078] here again taking for granted that the Son of God was
concerned in a pagan centurion having thought it proper to build a synagogue for
the Jews. The words in question are, indeed, found in Luke also, perhaps because
on reflection he thought they might be genuine; but they are found in another
place, and in a connection altogether different. The passage is where Jesus says
to His disciples, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many shall come
seeking to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the Master of the house
has entered in, and has shut to the door, ye shall begin to stand without, and
to knock, saying Lord, open to us. And He shall answer and say, I know you not.
Then ye shall begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou
hast taught in our streets and synagogues; but He shall say unto you, I know not
whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
and all the prophets, entering into the kingdom of God, and you yourselves cast
out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north,
and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." [1079] The part
where it is said that many shall be shut out of the kingdom of God, who have
only borne the name of Christ, without doing His works, is not left out by
Matthew; but he makes no mention here of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. In the
same way, Luke mentions the centurion and his servant, without alluding in that
connection to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Since it is uncertain when the
words were spoken, we are at liberty to doubt whether they were spoken at all.
3. It is not without reason that we bring a critical judgment to the study of
Scriptures where there are such discrepancies and contradictions. By thus
examining everything, and comparing one passage with another, we determine which
contains Christ's actual words, and what may or may not be genuine. For your
predecessors have made many interpolations in the words of our Lord, which thus
appear under His name, while they disagree with His doctrine. Besides, as we
have proved again and again, the writings are not the production of Christ or of
His apostles, but a compilation of rumors and beliefs, made, long after their
departure, by some obscure semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and
published by them under the name of the apostles, or of those considered the
followers of the apostles, so as to give the appearance of apostolic authority
to all these blunders and falsehoods. But whatever you make of that, as regards
this verse, I repeat that I do not insist on rejecting it. It is enough for my
position, that, as I said before, and as you are obliged to confess, before the
coming of our Lord all the patriarchs and prophets of Israel lay in infernal
darkness for their sins. Even though they may have been restored to light and
liberty by Christ, that has nothing to do with the hateful character of their
lives. We hate and eschew not their persons, but their characters; not as they
are now, when they are purified, but as they were, when impure. So, whatever you
think of this verse, it does not affect us: for if it is genuine, it only
illustrates Christ's goodness and compassion; and if it is spurious, those who
wrote it are to blame. Our cause is as safe as it always is. 4. Augustin
replied: Poor safety, indeed! when you contradict yourself by hating the
patriarchs as impure, at the same time that you grieve for your impure god. You
allow that, since the advent of the Saviour, the patriarchs have had purity
restored, and have enjoyed the rest of the blessed; while your god, even after
the Saviour's advent, still lies in darkness, is still sunk in the ocean of
iniquity, still wallows in the mire of all uncleanness. These men, therefore,
were not only better than your god in their lives, but also happier in their
death. Where was the abode of the just who departed from this life before
Christ's coming in the flesh, and whether their condition also was improved by
the passion of Christ, in whom they had believed as to come, and to suffer, and
to rise again, and had, moreover, foretold this in suitable language under the
guidance of the Spirit of prophecy, is to be discovered from the Holy
Scriptures, if any clear discovery in this matter is possible; we are not called
on to adopt the crude notions of all and sundry, still less the heretical
opinions of men who have gone astray into such egregious error. There is a vain
attempt here on the part of Faustus to introduce by a side-door the idea that we
may obtain something after this life besides the due reward of our conduct in
this life. It will be better for you to abandon your error while you are still
alive, and to embrace and hold the truths of the Catholic faith. Otherwise the
expectations of the unrighteous will be sadly disappointed when God begins to
fulfill His threatenings to the unrighteous. 5. I have already given what I
considered a sufficient answer to Faustus' calumnies of the lives of the
patriarchs. That they were punished at their death, or that they were justified
after the Lord's passion, is not what we learn from His commendation of them,
when He admonished the Jews that, if they were Abraham's children, they should
do the works of Abraham, and said that Abraham desired to see His day, and was
glad when he saw it; [1080] and that it was into his bosom, that is, some deep
recess of blissful repose, that the angels carried the poor sufferer who was
despised by the proud rich man. [1081] And what are we to make of the Apostle
Paul? Is there any idea of justification after death in his praise of Abraham,
when he says that before he was circumcised he believed God, and that it was
counted to him for righteousness? [1082] And so much importance does he attach
to this, that the single ground which he specifies for our becoming Abraham's
children, though not descended from him in the flesh, is, that we follow the
footsteps of his faith. 6. You are so hardened in your errors against the
testimonies of Scripture, that nothing can be made of you; for whenever anything
is quoted against you, you have the boldness to say that it is written not by
the apostle, but by some pretender under his name. The doctrine of demons which
you preach is so opposed to Christian doctrine, that you could not continue, as
professing Christians, to maintain it, unless you denied the truth of the
apostolic writings. How can you thus do injury to your own souls? Where will you
find any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings? How can we be
sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic origin of those
books which are attributed to the apostles by the Church which the apostles
themselves founded, and which occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands, and
if at the same time we acknowledge as the undoubted production of the apostles
what is brought forward by heretics in opposition to the Church, whose authors,
from whom they derive their name, lived long after the apostles? And do we not
see in profane literature that there are well-known authors under whose names
many things have been published after their time which have been rejected,
either from inconsistency with their ascertained writings, or from their not
having been known in the lifetime of the authors, so as to be banded down with
the confirmatory statement of the authors themselves, or of their friends? To
give a single example, were not some books published lately under the name of
the distinguished physician Hippocrates, which were not received as
authoritative by physicians? And this decision remained unaltered in spite of
some similarity in style and matter: for, when compared to the genuine writings
of Hippocrates, these books were found to be inferior; besides that they were
not recognized as his at the time when his authorship of his genuine productions
was ascertained. Those books, again, from a comparison with which the
productions of questionable origin were rejected, are with certainty attributed
to Hippocrates; and any one who denies their authorship is answered only by
ridicule, simply because there is a succession of testimonies to the books from
the time of Hippocrates to the present day, which makes it unreasonable either
now or hereafter to have any doubt on the subject. How do we know the authorship
of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other similar writers, but
by the unbroken chain of evidence? So also with the numerous commentaries on the
ecclesiastical books, which have no canonical authority, and yet show a desire
of usefulness and a spirit of inquiry. How is the authorship ascertained in each
case, except by the author's having brought his work into public notice as much
as possible in his own lifetime, and, by the transmission of the information
from one to another in continuous order, the belief becoming more certain as it
becomes more general, up to our own day; so that, when we are questioned as to
the authorship of any book, we have no difficulty in answering? But why speak of
old books? Take the books now before us: should any one, after some years, deny
that this book was written by me, or that Faustus' was written by him, where is
evidence for the fact to be found but in the information possessed by some at
the present time, and transmitted by them through successive generations even to
distant times? From all this it follows, that no one who has not yielded to the
malicious and deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can be so blinded by
passion as to deny the ability of the Church of the apostles -- a community of
brethren as numerous as they were faithful -- to transmit their writings
unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have been occupied
by a continuous succession of bishops to the present day, especially when we are
accustomed to see this happen in the case of ordinary writings both in the
Church and out of it. 7. But Faustus finds contradictions in the Gospels. Say,
rather, that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too foolish
to understand, and too blind to see. If you were animated with piety instead of
being misled by party spirit, you might easily, by examining these passages,
discover a wonderful and most instructive harmony among the writers. Who, in
reading two narratives of the same event, would think of charging one or both of
the authors with error or falsehood, because one omits what the other mentions,
or one tells concisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other relates
in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also how it was done?
This is what Faustus does in his attempt to impeach the truth of the Gospels; as
if Luke's omitting some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial on
the part of Luke of Matthew's statement. There is no real difficulty in the
case; and to make a difficulty shows want of thought, or of the ability to
think. There is, indeed, a point in the narrative of the centurion which is
discussed among believers, and on which objections are raised by unbelievers of
no great learning, who prove their quarrelsomeness, when, after being
instructed, they do not give up their errors. The point is, that Matthew says
that the centurion came to Jesus "beseeching Him, and saying;" while Luke says
that he sent to Jesus the elders of the Jews with this same request, that He
would heal his servant who was sick; and that when He came near the house he
sent others, through whom he said that he was not worthy that Jesus should come
into his house, and that he was not worthy to come himself to Jesus. How, then,
do we read in Matthew, "He came to Him, beseeching Him, and saying, My servant
lieth at home sick of the palsy, and grievously tormented?" [1083] The
explanation is, that Matthew's narrative is correct, but brief, mentioning the
centurion's coming to Jesus, without saying whether he came himself or by
others, or whether the words about his servant were spoken by himself or through
others. But is it not common to speak of a person as coming near to a thing,
although he may not reach it? And even the word reach, which is the strongest
form of expression, is frequently used in cases where the person spoken of acts
through others, as when we say he took his case to court, he reached the
presence of the judge; or, again, he reached the presence of some man in power,
although it may probably have been through his friends, and the person may not
have seen him whose presence he is said to have reached. And from the word for
to reach we give the name of Perventors to those who by ambitious arts gain
access, either personally or through friends, to the, so to speak, inaccessible
minds of the great. Are we, then, in reading to forget the common usage of
speech? Or must the sacred Scripture have a language of its own? The cavils of
forward critics are thus met by a reference to the usual forms of speech. 8.
Those who examine this matter not in a disputatious but in a calm believing
spirit are invited to come to Jesus, not outwardly but in heart, not in bodily
presence but in the power of faith, as the centurion did, and then they will
better understand Matthew's narrative. To such it is said in the Psalm "Come
unto Him, and be enlightened; and your faces shall not be ashamed." [1084] Hence
we learn that the centurion, whose faith was so highly spoken of, came to Christ
more truly than the people who carried his message. We find an analogous case in
the woman with the issue of blood, who was healed by touching the hem of
Christ's garment, when Christ said, "Some one hath touched me." The disciples
wondered what Christ meant by saying, "Who hath touched me?" "Some one hath
touched me," when the crowd was thronging Him. In fact, they made this reply:
"The crowd throngeth Thee, and sayest Thou, Who hath touched me?" [1085] Now, as
the people thronged Christ while the woman touched Him, so the messengers were
sent to Christ, but the centurion really came to Him. In Matthew we have a not
infrequent form of expression, and at the same time a symbolical import; while
in Luke there is a simple narrative of the whole event, such as to draw our
attention to the manner in which Matthew has recorded it. I wish one of those
people who found their silly objections to the Gospels on such trifling
difficulties would himself tell a story twice over, honestly giving a true
account of what happened, and that his words were written down and read over to
him. We should then see whether he would not say more or less at one time than
at another; and whether the order would not be changed, not only of words, but
of things; and whether he would not put some opinion of his own into the mouth
of another, because, though he never heard him say it, he knew it perfectly well
to be in his mind; and whether he would not sometimes put in a few words what he
had before related at length. In these and other ways, which might perhaps be
reduced to rule, the narratives of the same thing by two persons, or two
narratives by the same person, might differ in many things without being
opposed, might be unlike without being contradictory. Thus are undone all the
bandages with which poor Manichæans stifle themselves to keep in the spirit of
error, and to keep out all that might lead to their salvation. 9. Now that all
Faustus' calumnies have been refuted, those at least on the subjects here
treated of at large and explained fully as the Lord has enabled me, I close with
a word of counsel to you who are implicated in those shocking and damnable
errors, that, if you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should
recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the
ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the
seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole
world, with a reputation known to all. There the Old Testament too has its
difficulties solved, and its predictions fulfilled. If you ask for
demonstration, consider first what you are, how unfit for comprehending the
nature of your own soul, not to speak of God; I mean an intelligent
comprehension, such as you profess to desire, or to have once desired, and not
the notions of a credulous fancy. Admitting this incompetency, which must
continue while you remain as you are, you may at least be referred to the
natural conviction of every human mind, unless it is corrupted by error, of the
perfect unchangeableness and incorruptibility of the nature and substance of
God. Admit this, or believe it, and you will no longer be Manichæans, so that in
course of time you may become Catholics.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 175: ST. AUGUSTIN: CONCERNING THE NATURE OF GOOD, AGAINST THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

[de natura boni contra manichæos]. circa A.D.495. translated by albert h.
newman, d.d., ll.d., professor of church history and comparative religion, in
toronto baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 176: CONCERNING THE NATURE OF GOOD, AGAINST THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

[De Natura Boni Contra Manichæos.] c. a.d.405. In One Book. Written after the
year 404. It is put in the Retractations immediately after the De Actis cum
Felice Manichæo, which was written about the end of the year 404. It is one of
the most argumentative of the Anti-Manichæan treatises, and so one of the most
abstruse and difficult. The lines of argument here pursued have already been
employed in part in the earlier treatises. The most interesting portions of the
contents of the treatise, and the most damaging to the Manichæans, are the long
extracts from Mani's Thesaurus, and his Fundamental Epistle. -- A.H.N.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 177: CHAPTER 1. --GOD THE HIGHEST AND UNCHANGEABLE GOOD, FROM WHOM ARE ALL OTHER GOOD THINGS, SPIRITUAL AND CORPOREAL. 
========================================================================

The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God, and consequently He is
unchangeable good, hence truly eternal and truly immortal. All other good things
are only from Him, not of Him. For what is of Him, is Himself. And consequently
if He alone is unchangeable, all things that He has made, because He has made
them out of nothing, are changeable. For He is so omnipotent, that even out of
nothing, that is out of what is absolutely non-existent, He is able to make good
things both great and small, both celestial and terrestrial, both spiritual and
corporeal. But because He is also just, He has not put those things that He has
made out of nothing on an equality with that which He begat out of Himself.
Because, therefore, no good things whether great or small, through whatever
gradations of things, can exist except from God; but since every nature, so far
as it is nature, is good, it follows that no nature can exist save from the most
high and true God: because all things even not in the highest degree good, but
related to the highest good, and again, because all good things, even those of
most recent origin, which are far from the highest good, can have their
existence only from the highest good. Therefore every spirit, though subject to
change, and every corporeal entity, is from God, and all this, having been made,
is nature. For every nature is either spirit or body. Unchangeable spirit is
God, changeable spirit, having been made, is nature, but is better than body;
but body is not spirit, unless when the wind, because it is invisible to us and
yet its power is felt as something not inconsiderable, is in a certain sense
called spirit.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 178: CHAPTER 2. --HOW THIS MAY SUFFICE FOR CORRECTING THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

But for the sake of those who, not being able to understand that all nature,
that is, every spirit and every body, is naturally good, are moved by the
iniquity of spirit and the mortality of body, and on this account endeavor to
bring in another nature of wicked spirit and mortal body, which God did not
make, we determine thus to bring to their understanding what we say can be
brought. For they acknowledge that no good thing can exist save from the highest
and true God, which also is true and suffices for correcting them, if they are
willing to give heed.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 179: CHAPTER 3. --MEASURE, FORM, AND ORDER, GENERIC GOODS IN THINGS MADE BY GOD. 
========================================================================

For we Catholic Christians worship God, from whom are all good things whether
great or small; from whom is all measure great or small; from whom is all form
great or small; from whom is all order great or small. For all things in
proportion as they are better measured, formed, and ordered, are assuredly good
in a higher degree; but in proportion as they are measured, formed, and ordered
in an inferior degree, are they the less good. These three things, therefore,
measure, form, and order, -- not to speak of innumerable other things that are
shown to pertain to these three, -- these three things, therefore, measure,
form, order, are as it were generic goods in things made by God, whether in
spirit or in body. God is, therefore, above every measure of the creature, above
every form, above every order, nor is He above by local spaces, but by ineffable
and singular potency, from whom is every measure, every form, every order. These
three things, where they are great, are great goods, where they are small, are
small goods; where they are absent, there is no good. And again where these
things are great, there are great natures, where they are small, there are small
natures, where they are absent, there is no nature. Therefore all nature is
good.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 180: CHAPTER 4. --EVIL IS CORRUPTION OF MEASURE, FORM, OR ORDER. 
========================================================================

When accordingly it is inquired, whence is evil, it must first be inquired, what
is evil, which is nothing else than corruption, either of the measure, or the
form, or the order, that belong to nature. Nature therefore which has been
corrupted, is called evil, for assuredly when incorrupt it is good; but even
when corrupt, so far as it is nature it is good, so far as it is corrupted it is
evil.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 181: CHAPTER 5. --THE CORRUPTED NATURE OF A MORE EXCELLENT ORDER SOMETIMES BETTER THAN AN INFERIOR NATURE EVEN UNCORRUPTED. 
========================================================================

But it may happen, that a certain nature which has been ranked as more excellent
by reason of natural measure and form, though corrupt, is even yet better than
another incorrupt which has been ranked lower by reason of an inferior natural
measure and form: as in the estimation of men, according to the quality which
presents itself to view, corrupt gold is assuredly better than incorrupt silver,
and corrupt silver than incorrupt lead; so also in more powerful spiritual
natures a rational spirit even corrupted through an evil will is better than an
irrational though incorrupt, and better is any spirit whatever even corrupt than
any body whatever though incorrupt. For better is a nature which, when it is
present in a body, furnishes it with life, than that to which life is furnished.
But however corrupt may be the spirit of life that has been made, it can furnish
life to a body, and hence, though corrupt, it is better than the body though
incorrupt.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 182: CHAPTER 6. --NATURE WHICH CANNOT BE CORRUPTED IS THE HIGHEST GOOD; THAT WHICH CAN, IS SOME GOOD. 
========================================================================

But if corruption take away all measure, all form, all order from corruptible
things, no nature will remain. And consequently every nature which cannot be
corrupted is the highest good, as is God. But every nature that can be corrupted
is also itself some good; for corruption cannot injure it, except by taking away
from or diminishing that which is good.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 183: CHAPTER 7. --THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONAL SPIRITS IS ON THE ONE HAND VOLUNTARY, ON THE OTHER PENAL. 
========================================================================

But to the most excellent creatures, that is, to rational spirits, God has
offered this, that if they will not they cannot be corrupted; that is, if they
should maintain obedience under the Lord their God, so should they adhere to his
incorruptible beauty; but if they do not will to maintain obedience, since
willingly they are corrupted in sins, unwillingly they shall be corrupted in
punishment, since God is such a good that it is well for no one who deserts Him,
and among the things made by God the rational nature is so great a good, that
there is no good by which it may be blessed except God. Sinners, therefore, are
ordained to punishment; which ordination is punishment for the reason that it is
not conformable to their nature, but it is justice because it is conformable to
their fault.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 184: CHAPTER 8. --FROM THE CORRUPTION AND DESTRUCTION OF INFERIOR THINGS IS THE BEAUTY OF THE UNIVERSE. 
========================================================================

But the rest of things that are made of nothing, which are assuredly inferior to
the rational soul, can be neither blessed nor miserable. But because in
proportion to their fashion and appearance are things themselves good, nor could
there be good things in a less or the least degree except from God, they are so
ordered that the more infirm yield to the firmer, the weaker to the stronger,
the more impotent to the more powerful; and so earthly things harmonize with
celestial, as being subject to the things that are pre-eminent. But to things
falling away, and succeeding, a certain temporal beauty in its kind belongs, so
that neither those things that die, or cease to be what they were, degrade or
disturb the fashion and appearance and order of the universal creation; as a
speech well composed is assuredly beautiful, although in it syllables and all
sounds rush past as it were in being born and in dying.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 185: CHAPTER 9. --PUNISHMENT IS CONSTITUTED FOR THE SINNING NATURE THAT IT MAY BE RIGHTLY ORDERED. 
========================================================================

What sort of punishment, and how great, is due to each fault, belongs to Divine
judgment, not to human; which punishment assuredly when it is remitted in the
case of the converted, there is great goodness on the part of God, and when it
is deservedly inflicted, there is no injustice on the part of God; because
nature is better ordered by justly smarting under punishment than by rejoicing
with impunity in sin; which nature nevertheless, even thus having some measure,
form, and order, in whatever extremity there is as yet some good, which things,
if they were absolutely taken away, and utterly consumed, there will be
accordingly no good, because no nature will remain.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 186: CHAPTER 10. --NATURES CORRUPTIBLE, BECAUSE MADE OF NOTHING. 
========================================================================

All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as they are
from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him; because they would
be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever measure, of whatever form, of
whatever order, they are, they are so because it is God by whom they were made;
but they are not immutable, because it is nothing of which they were made. For
it is sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish to
make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him out of nothing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 187: CHAPTER 11. --GOD CANNOT SUFFER HARM, NOR CAN ANY OTHER NATURE EXCEPT BY HIS PERMISSION. 
========================================================================

Wherefore neither can God's nature suffer harm, nor can any nature under God
suffer harm unjustly: for when by sinning unjustly some do harm, an unjust will
is imputed to them; but the power by which they are permitted to do harm is from
God alone, who knows, while they themselves are ignorant, what they ought to
suffer, whom He permits them to harm.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 188: CHAPTER 12. --ALL GOOD THINGS ARE FROM GOD ALONE. 
========================================================================

All these things are so perspicuous, so assured, that if they who introduce
another nature which God did not make, were willing to give attention, they
would not be filled with so great blasphemies, as that they should place so
great good things in supreme evil, and so great evil things in God. For what the
truth compels them to acknowledge, namely, that all good things are from God
alone, suffices for their correction, if they were willing to give heed, as I
said above. Not, therefore, are great good things from one, and small good
things from another; but good things great and small are from the supremely good
alone, which is God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 189: CHAPTER 13. --INDIVIDUAL GOOD THINGS, WHETHER SMALL OR GREAT, ARE FROM GOD. 
========================================================================

Let us, therefore, bring before our minds good things however great, which it is
fitting that we attribute to God as their author, and these having been
eliminated let us see whether any nature will remain. All life both great and
small, all power great and small, all safety great and small, all memory great
and small, all virtue great and small, all intellect great and small, all
tranquillity great and small, all plenty great and small, all sensation great
and small, all light great and small, all suavity [1086] great and small, all
measure great and small, all beauty great and small, all peace great and small,
and whatever other like things may occur, especially such as are found
throughout all things, whether spiritual or corporeal, every measure, every
form, every order both great and small, are from the Lord God. All which good
things whoever should wish to abuse, pays the penalty by divine judgment; but
where none of these things shall have been present at all, no nature will
remain.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 190: CHAPTER 14. --SMALL GOOD THINGS IN COMPARISON WITH GREATER ARE CALLED BY CONTRARY NAMES. 
========================================================================

But in all these things, whatever are small are called by contrary names in
comparison with greater things; as in the form of a man because the beauty is
greater, the beauty of the ape in comparison with it is called deformity. And
the imprudent are deceived, as if the former is good, and the latter evil, nor
do they regard in the body of the ape its own fashion, the equality of members
on both sides, the agreement of parts, the protection of safety, and other
things which it would be tedious to enumerate.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 191: CHAPTER 15. --IN THE BODY OF THE APE THE GOOD OF BEAUTY IS PRESENT, THOUGH IN A LESS DEGREE. 
========================================================================

But that what we have said may be understood, and may satisfy those too slow of
comprehension, or that even the pertinacious and those repugnant to the most
manifest truth may be compelled to confess what is true, let them be asked,
whether corruption can harm the body of an ape? But if it can, so that it may
become more hideous, what diminishes but the good of beauty? Whence as long as
the nature of the body subsists, so long something will remain. If, accordingly,
good having been consumed, nature is consumed, the nature is therefore good. So
also we say that slow is contrary to swift, but yet he who does not move at all
cannot even be called slow. So we say that a heavy voice is contrary to a sharp
voice, or a harsh to a musical; but if you completely remove any kind of voice,
there is silence where there is no voice, which silence, nevertheless, for the
simple reason that there is no voice, is usually opposed to voice as something
contrary thereto. So also lucid and obscure are called as it were two contrary
things, yet even obscure things have something of light, which being absolutely
wanting, darkness is the absence of light in the same way in which silence is
the absence of voice.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 192: CHAPTER 16. --PRIVATIONS IN THINGS ARE FITTINGLY ORDERED BY GOD. 
========================================================================

Yet even these privations of things are so ordered in the universe of nature,
that to those wisely considering they not unfittingly have their vicissitudes.
For by not illuminating certain places and times, God has also made the darkness
as fittingly as the day. For if we by restraining the voice fittingly interpose
silence in speaking, how much more does He, as the perfect framer of all things,
fittingly make privations of things? Whence also in the hymn of the three
children, light and darkness alike praise God, [1087] that is, bring forth
praise in the hearts of those who well consider.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 193: CHAPTER 17. --NATURE, IN AS FAR AS IT IS NATURE, NO EVIL. 
========================================================================

No nature, therefore, as far as it is nature, is evil; but to each nature there
is no evil except to be diminished in respect of good. But if by being
diminished it should be consumed so that there is no good, no nature would be
left; not only such as the Manichæans introduce, where so great good things are
found that their exceeding blindness is wonderful, but such as any one can
introduce.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 194: CHAPTER 18. --HYLE, WHICH WAS CALLED BY THE ANCIENTS THE FORMLESS MATERIAL OF THINGS, IS NOT AN EVIL. 
========================================================================

For neither is that material, which the ancients called Hyle, to be called an
evil. I do not say that which Manichæus with most senseless vanity, not knowing
what he says, denominates Hyle, namely, the former of corporeal beings; whence
it is rightly said to him, that he introduces another god. For nobody can form
and create corporeal beings but God alone; for neither are they created unless
there subsist with them measure, form, and order, which I think that now even
they themselves confess to be good things, and things that cannot be except from
God. But by Hyle I mean a certain material absolutely formless and without
quality, whence those qualities that we perceive are formed, as the ancients
said. For hence also wood is called in Greek hule, because it is adapted to
workmen, not that itself may make anything, but that it is the material of which
something may be made. Nor is that Hyle, therefore, to be called an evil which
cannot be perceived through any appearance, but can scarcely be thought of
through any sort of privation of appearance. For this has also a capacity of
forms; for if it cannot receive the form imposed by the workman, neither
assuredly may it be called material. Hence if form is some good, whence those
who excel in it are called beautiful, [1088] as from appearance they are called
handsome, [1089] even the capacity of form is undoubtedly something good. As
because wisdom is a good, no one doubts that to be capable of wisdom is a good.
And because every good is from God, no one ought to doubt that even matter, if
there is any, has its existence from God alone.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 195: CHAPTER 19. --TO HAVE TRUE EXISTENCE IS AN EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF GOD. 
========================================================================

Magnificently and divinely, therefore, our God said to his servant: "I am that I
am," and "Thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me to you."
[1090] For He truly is because He is unchangeable. For every change makes what
was not, to be: therefore He truly is, who is unchangeable; but all other things
that were made by Him have received being from Him each in its own measure. To
Him who is highest, therefore nothing can be contrary, save what is not; and
consequently as from Him everything that is good has its being, so from Him is
everything that by nature exists; since everything that exists by nature is
good. Thus every nature is good, and everything good is from God; therefore
every nature is from God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 196: CHAPTER 20. --PAIN ONLY IN GOOD NATURES. 
========================================================================

But pain which some suppose to be in an especial manner an evil, whether it be
in mind or in body, cannot exist except in good natures. For the very fact of
resistance in any being leading to pain, involves a refusal not to be what it
was, because it was something good; but when a being is compelled to something
better, the pain is useful, when to something worse, it is useless. Therefore in
the case of the mind, the will resisting a greater power causes pain; in the
case of the body, sensation resisting a more powerful body causes pain. But
evils without pain are worse: for it is worse to rejoice iniquity than to bewail
corruption; yet even such rejoicing cannot exist save from the attainment of
inferior good things. But iniquity is the desertion of better things. Likewise
in a body, a wound with pain is better than painless putrescence, which is
especially called the corruption which the dead flesh of the Lord did not see,
that is, did not suffer, as was predicted in prophecy: "Thou shall not suffer
Thy Holy one to see corruption." [1091] For who denies that He was wounded by
the piercing of the nails, and that He was stabbed with the lance? [1092] But
even what is properly called by men corporeal corruption, that is, putrescence
itself, if as yet there is anything left to consume, increases by the diminution
of the good. But if corruption shall have absolutely consumed it, so that there
is no good, no nature will remain, for there will be nothing that corruption may
corrupt; and so there will not even be putrescence, for there will be nowhere at
all for it to be.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 197: CHAPTER 21. --FROM MEASURE THINGS ARE SAID TO BE MODERATE-SIZED. 
========================================================================

Therefore now by common usage things small and mean are said to have measure,
because some measure remains in them, without which they would no longer be
moderate-sized, but would not exist at all. But those things that by reason of
too much progress are called immoderate, are blamed for very excessiveness; but
yet it is necessary that those things themselves be restrained in some manner
under God who has disposed all things in extension, number, and weight. [1094]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 198: CHAPTER 22. --MEASURE IN SOME SENSE IS SUITABLE TO GOD HIMSELF. 
========================================================================

But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be spoken of as
limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is bestowed upon all things,
so that they may in any measure exist. Nor again ought God to be called
measured, as if He received measure from any one. But if we say that He is the
highest measure, by chance we say something; if indeed in speaking of the
highest measure we mean the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a
measure is good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified,
without praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak of
no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with praise as when
it is said: "And of His kingdom there shall be no limit." [1095] For it might
also be said, "There shall be no measure," so that measure might be used in the
sense of limit; for He who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at
all.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 199: CHAPTER 23. --WHENCE A BAD MEASURE, A BAD FORM, A BAD ORDER MAY SOMETIMES BE SPOKEN OF. 
========================================================================

Therefore a bad measure, a bad form, a bad order, are either so called because
they are less than they should be, or because they are not adapted to those
things to which they should be adapted; so that they may be called bad as being
alien and incongruous; as if any one should be said not to have done in a good
measure because he has done less than he ought, or because he has done in such a
thing as he ought not to have done, or more than was fitting, or not
conveniently; so that the very fact of that being reprehended which is done in a
bad measure, is justly reprehended for no other cause than that the measure is
not there maintained. Likewise a form is called bad either in comparison with
something more handsome or more beautiful, this form being less, that greater,
not in size but in comeliness; or because it is out of harmony with the thing to
which it is applied, so that it seems alien and unsuitable. As if a man should
walk forth into a public place naked, which nakedness does not offend if seen in
a bath. Likewise also order is called bad when order itself is maintained in an
inferior degree. Hence not order, but rather disorder, is bad; since either the
ordering is less than it should be, or not as it should be. Yet where there is
any measure, any form, any order, there is some good and some nature; but where
there is no measure, no form, no order, there is no good, no nature.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 200: CHAPTER 24. --IT IS PROVED BY THE TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE THAT GOD IS UNCHANGEABLE. THE SON OF GOD BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE. 
========================================================================

Those things which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way has traced
out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, so that those
who by reason of feebler intellect are not able to comprehend these things, may
believe the divine authority, and so may deserve to know. But let not those who
understand, but are less instructed in ecclesiastical literature, suppose that
we set forth these things from our own intellect rather than what are in those
Books. Accordingly, that God is unchangeable is written in the Psalms: "Thou
shalt change them and they shall be changed; but Thou thyself art the same."
[1096] And in the book of Wisdom, concerning wisdom: "Remaining in herself, she
renews all things." [1097] Whence also the Apostle Paul: "To the invisible,
incorruptible, only God." [1098] And the Apostle James: "Every best giving and
every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of light, with whom
there is no changeableness, neither obscuring of influence." [1099] Likewise
because what He begat of Himself is what He Himself is, it is said in brief by
the Son Himself: "I and the Father are one." [1100] But because the Son was not
made, since through Him were all things made, thus it is written: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word; this
was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him
was made nothing;" [1101] that is, without Him was not anything made.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 201: CHAPTER 25. --THIS LAST EXPRESSION MISUNDERSTOOD BY SOME. 
========================================================================

For no attention should be paid to the ravings of men who think that nothing
should be understood to mean something, and moreover think to compel any one to
vanity of this kind on the ground that nothing is placed at the end of the
sentence. Therefore, they say, it was made, and because it was made, nothing is
itself something. They have lost their senses by zeal in contradicting, and do
not understand that it makes no difference whether it be said: "Without Him was
made nothing," or "without Him nothing was made." For even if the order were the
last mentioned, they could nevertheless say, that nothing is itself something
because it was made. For in the case of what is in truth something, what
difference does it make if it be said "Without him a house was made," so long as
it is understood that something was made without him, which something is a
house? So also because it is said: "Without Him was made nothing," since nothing
is assuredly not anything, when it is truly and properly spoken, it makes no
difference whether it be said: "Without Him was made nothing or Without Him
nothing was made," or "nothing was made." But who cares to speak with men who
can say of this very expression of mine "It makes no difference," "Therefore it
makes some difference, for nothing itself is something?" But those whose brains
are not addled, see it as a thing most manifest that this something is to be
understood when it says "It makes no difference," as when I say "It matters in
no respect." But these, if they should say to any one, "What hast thou done?"
and he should reply that he has done nothing, would, according to this mode of
disputation, falsely accuse him saying, "Thou hast done something, therefore,
because thou hast done nothing; for nothing is itself something." But they have
also the Lord Himself placing this word at the end of a sentence, when He says:
"And in secret have I spoken nothing." [1102] Let them read, therefore, and be
silent. [1103]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 202: CHAPTER 26. --THAT CREATURES ARE MADE OF NOTHING. 
========================================================================

Because therefore God made all things which He did not beget of Himself, not of
those things that already existed, but of those things that did not exist at
all, that is, of nothing," the Apostle Paul says: "Who calls the things that are
not as if they are." [1104] But still more plainly it is written in the book of
Maccabees: "I pray thee, son, look at the heaven and the earth and all the
things that are in them; see and know that it was not these of which the Lord
God made us." [1105] And from this that is written in the Psalm: "He spake, and
they were made." [1106] It is manifest, that not of Himself He begat these
things, but that He made them by word and command. But what is not of Himself is
assuredly of nothing. For there was not anything of which he should make them,
concerning which the apostle says most openly: "For from Him, and through Him,
and in Him are all things." [1107]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 203: CHAPTER 27. --|FROM HIM| AND |OF HIM| DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. 
========================================================================

But "from Him" does not mean the same as "of Him." [1108] For what is of Him may
be said to be from Him; but not everything that is from Him is rightly said to
be of Him. For from Him are heaven and earth, because He made them; but not of
Him because they are not of His substance. As in the case of a man who begets a
son and makes a house, from himself is the son, from himself is the house, but
the son is of him, the house is of earth and wood. But this is so, because as a
man he cannot make something even of nothing; but God of whom are all things,
through whom are all things, in whom are all things, had no need of any material
which He had not made to assist His omnipotence.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 204: CHAPTER 28. --SIN NOT FROM GOD, BUT FROM THE WILL OF THOSE SINNING. 
========================================================================

But when we hear: "All things are from Him, and through Him, and in Him," we
ought assuredly to understand all natures which naturally exist. For sins, which
do not preserve but vitiate nature, are not from Him; which sins, Holy Scripture
in many ways testifies, are from the will of those sinning, especially in the
passage where the apostle says: "But dost thou suppose this, O man, that judgest
those who do such things, and doest them, that thou shall escape the judgment of
God? Or dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and
long-suffering, not knowing that the patience of God leadeth thee to repentance?
But according to the hardness of thy heart and thy impenitent heart, thou
treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day of wrath and of the revelation
of the just judgment of God, who will render unto every one according to his
works." [1109]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 205: CHAPTER 29. --THAT GOD IS NOT DEFILED BY OUR SINS. 
========================================================================

And yet, though all things that He established are in Him, those who sin do not
defile Him, of whose wisdom it is said: "She touches all things by reason of her
purity, and nothing defiled assails her." [1110] For it behooves us to believe
that as God is incorruptible and unchangeable, so also is He consequently
undefilable.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 206: CHAPTER 30. --THAT GOOD THINGS, EVEN THE LEAST, AND THOSE THAT ARE EARTHLY, ARE BY GOD. 
========================================================================

But that God made even the least things, that is, earthly and mortal things,
must undoubtedly be understood from that passage of the apostle, where, speaking
of the members of our flesh: "For if one member is glorified, all the members
rejoice with it, and if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it;"
also this he then says: "God has placed the members each one of them in the body
as he willed;" and "God has tempered the body, giving to that to which it was
wanting greater honor, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the
members should have the same care one for another." [1111] But what the apostle
thus praises in the measure and form and order of the members of the flesh, you
find in the flesh of all animals, alike the greatest and the least; for all
flesh is among earthly goods, and consequently is esteemed among the least.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 207: CHAPTER 31. --TO PUNISH AND TO FORGIVE SINS BELONG EQUALLY TO GOD. 
========================================================================

Likewise because it belongs to divine judgment, not human, what sort of
punishment and how great is due to every fault, it is thus written: "O the
height of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how inscrutable are
His judgments and his ways past finding out!" [1112] Likewise because by the
goodness of God sins are forgiven to the converted, the very fact that Christ
was sent sufficiently shows, who not in His own nature as God, but in our
nature, which He assumed from a woman, died for us; which goodness of God with
reference to us, and which love of God, the apostle thus sets forth: "But God
commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for
us; much more now being justified in His blood we shall be saved from wrath
through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the
death of His Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved in His life."
[1113] But because even when due punishment is rendered to sinners, there is no
unrighteousness on God's part, he thus says: "What shall we say? Is God
unrighteous who visiteth with wrath?" [1114] But in one place he has briefly
admonished that goodness and severity are alike from Him, saying: "Thou seest
then the goodness and severity of God; toward them that have fallen, severity,
but towards thee goodness, if thou shouldst continue in goodness." [1115]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 208: CHAPTER 32. --FROM GOD ALSO IS THE VERY POWER TO BE HURTFUL. 
========================================================================

Likewise because the power even of those that are hurtful is from God alone,
thus it stands written, Wisdom speaking: "Through me kings reign and tyrants
hold the land through me." [1116] The apostle also says: "For there is no power
but of God." [1117] But that it is worthily done is written in the book of Job:
"Who maketh to reign a man that is a hypocrite, on account of the perversity of
the people." [1118] And concerning the people of Israel God says: "I gave them a
king in my wrath." [1119] For it is not unrighteous, that the wicked receiving
the power of being hurtful, both the patience of the good should be proved and
the iniquity of the evil punished. For through power given to the Devil both Job
was proved so that he might appear righteous, [1120] and Peter was tempted lest
he should be presumptuous, [1121] and Paul was buffeted lest he should be
exalted, [1122] and Judas was damned so that he should hang himself. [1123]
When, therefore, through the power which He has given the Devil, God Himself
shall have done all things righteously, nevertheless punishment shall at last be
rendered to the Devil not for these things justly done, but for the unrighteous
willing to be hurtful, which belonged to himself, when it shall be said to the
impious who persevered in consenting to his wickedness, "Go ye into everlasting
fire which my God has prepared for the Devil and his angels." [1124]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 209: CHAPTER 33. --THAT EVIL ANGELS HAVE BEEN MADE EVIL, NOT BY GOD, BUT BY SINNING. 
========================================================================

But because evil angels also were not constituted evil by God, but were made
evil by sinning, Peter in his epistle says: "For if God spared not angels when
they sinned, but casting them down into the dungeons of smoky hell, He delivered
them to be reserved for punishment in judgment." [1125] Hence Peter shows that
there is still due to them the penalty of the last judgment, concerning which
the Lord says: "Go ye into everlasting fire, which has been prepared for the
Devil and his angels." Although they have already penally received this hell,
that is, an inferior smoky air as a prison, which nevertheless since it is also
called heaven, is not that heaven in which there are stars, but this lower
heaven by the smoke of which the clouds are conglobulated, and where the birds
fly; for both a cloudy heaven is spoken of, and flying things are called
heavenly. As when the Apostle Paul calls those evil angels, against whom as
enemies by living piously we contend, "spiritual things of wickedness in
heavenly places." [1126] That this may not be understood of the upper heavens,
he plainly says elsewhere: "According to the presence of the prince of this air,
who now worketh in the sons of disobedience." [1127]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 210: CHAPTER 34. --THAT SIN IS NOT THE STRIVING FOR AN EVIL NATURE, BUT THE DESERTION OF A BETTER. 
========================================================================

Likewise because sin, or unrighteousness, is not the striving after evil nature
but the desertion of better, it is thus found written in the Scriptures: "Every
creature of God is good." [1128] And accordingly every tree also which God
planted in Paradise is assuredly good. Man did not therefore strive after an
evil nature when he touched the forbidden tree; but by deserting what was
better, he committed an evil deed. Since the Creator is better than any creature
which He has made, His command should not have been deserted, that the thing
forbidden, however good, might be touched; since the better having been
deserted, the good of the creature was striven for, which was touched contrary
to the command of the Creator. God did not plant an evil tree in Paradise; but
He Himself was better who prohibited its being touched.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 211: CHAPTER 35. --THE TREE WAS FORBIDDEN TO ADAM NOT BECAUSE IT WAS EVIL, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD FOR MAN TO BE SUBJECT TO GOD. 
========================================================================

For besides, He had made the prohibition, in order to show that the nature of
the rational soul ought not to be in its own power, but in subjection to God,
and that it guards the order of its salvation through obedience, corrupting it
through disobedience. Hence also He called the tree, the touching of which He
forbade, the tree "of the knowledge of good and evil;" [1129] because when man
should have touched it in the face of the prohibition, he would experience the
penalty of sin, and so would know the difference between the good of obedience,
and the evil of disobedience.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 212: CHAPTER 36. --NO CREATURE OF GOD IS EVIL, BUT TO ABUSE A CREATURE OF GOD IS EVIL. 
========================================================================

For who is so foolish as to think a creature of God, especially one planted in
Paradise, blameworthy; when indeed not even thorns and thistles, which the earth
brought forth, according to the judiciary judgment of God, for wearing out the
sinner in labor, should be blamed? For even such herbs have their measure and
form and order, which whoever considers soberly will find praiseworthy; but they
are evil to that nature which ought thus to be restrained as a recompense for
sin. Therefore, as I have said, sin is not the striving after an evil nature,
but the desertion of a better, and so the deed itself is evil, not the nature
which the sinner uses amiss. For it is evil to use amiss that which is good.
Whence the apostle reproves certain ones as condemned by divine judgment, "Who
have worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." [1130] He does
not reprove the creature, which he who should do would act injuriously towards
the Creator, but those who, deserting the better, have used amiss the good.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 213: CHAPTER 37. --GOD MAKES GOOD USE OF THE EVIL DEEDS OF SINNERS. 
========================================================================

Accordingly, if all natures should guard their own proper measure and form and
order, there would be no evil: but if any one should wish to misuse these good
things, not even thus does he vanquish the will of God, who knows how to order
righteously even the unrighteous; so that if they themselves through the
iniquity of their will should misuse His good things, He through the
righteousness of His power may use their evil deeds, rightly ordaining to
punishment those who have perversely ordained themselves to sins.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 214: CHAPTER 38. --ETERNAL FIRE TORTURING THE WICKED, NOT EVIL. 
========================================================================

For neither is eternal fire itself, which is to torture the impious, an evil
nature, since it has its measure, its form and its order depraved by no
iniquity; but it is an evil torture for the damned, to whose sins it is due. For
neither is yonder light, because it tortures the blear-eyed, an evil nature.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 215: CHAPTER 39. --FIRE IS CALLED ETERNAL, NOT AS GOD IS, BUT BECAUSE WITHOUT END. 
========================================================================

But fire is eternal, not as God is eternal, because, though without end, yet is
not without beginning; but God is also without beginning. Then, although it may
be employed perpetually for the punishment of sinners, yet it is mutable nature.
But that is true eternity which is true immortality, that is that highest
immutability, which cannot be changed at all. For it is one thing not to suffer
change, when change is possible, and another thing to be absolutely incapable of
change. Therefore, just as man is called good, yet not as God, of whom it was
said, "There is none good save God alone;" [1131] and just as the soul is called
immortal, yet not as God, of whom it was said, "Who alone hath immortality;"
[1132] and just as a man is called wise, yet not as God, of whom it was said,
"To God the only wise;" [1133] so fire is called eternal, yet not as God, whose
alone is immortality itself and true eternity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 216: CHAPTER 40. --NEITHER CAN GOD SUFFER HURT, NOR ANY OTHER, SAVE BY THE JUST ORDINATION OF GOD. 
========================================================================

Since these things are so, according to the Catholic faith, and wholesome
doctrine, and truth perspicuous to those of good understanding, neither can any
one hurt the nature of God, nor can the nature of God unrighteously hurt any
one, or suffer any one to do hurt with impunity. "For he that doeth hurt shall
receive," says the apostle, "according to the hurt that he has done; and there
is no accepting of persons with God." [1134]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 217: CHAPTER 41. --HOW GREAT GOOD THINGS THE MANICHÆANS PUT IN THE NATURE OF EVIL, AND HOW GREAT EVIL THINGS IN THE NATURE OF GOOD. 
========================================================================

But if the Manichæans were willing, without pernicious zeal for defending their
error, and with the fear of God, to think, they would not most criminally
blaspheme by supposing two natures, the one good, which they call God, the other
evil, which God did not make: so erring, so delirious, nay so insane, are they
that they do not see, that even in what they call the nature of supreme evil
they place so great good things: life, power, safety, memory, intellect,
temperance, virtue, plenty, sense, light, suavity, extensions, numbers, peace,
measure, form, order; but in what they call supreme good, so many evil things:
death, sickness, forgetfulness, foolishness, confusion, impotence, need,
stolidity, blindness, pain, unrighteousness, disgrace, war, intemperance,
deformity, perversity. For they say that the princes of darkness also have been
alive in their own nature, and in their own kingdom were safe, and remembered
and understood. For they say that the Prince of Darkness harangued in such a
manner, that neither could he have said such things, nor could he have been
heard by those by whom he was said to have been heard, without memory and
understanding; and to have had a temper suitable to his mind and body, and to
have ruled by virtue of power, and to have had abundance and fruitfulness with
respect to his elements, and they are said to have perceived themselves mutually
and the light as near at hand, and to have had eyes by which they could see the
light afar off; which eyes assuredly could not have seen the light without some
light (whence also they are rightly called light); and they are said to have
enjoyed exceedingly the sweetness of their pleasures, and to have been
determined by measured members and dwelling-places. But unless there had been
some sort of beauty there, they would not have loved their wives, nor would
their bodies have been steady by adaptation of parts; without which, those
things could not have been done there which the Manichæans insanely say were
done. And unless some peace had been there, they would not have obeyed their
Prince. Unless measure had been there, they would have done nothing else than
eat or drink, or rage, or whatever they might have done, without any society:
although not even those that did these things would have had determinate forms,
unless measure had been there. But now the Manichæans say that they did such
things that they cannot be denied to have had in all their actions measures
suitable to themselves. But if form had not been there, no natural quality would
have there subsisted. But if there had been no order there, some would not have
ruled, others been ruled; they would not have lived harmoniously in their
element; in fine, they would not have had their members adapted to their places,
so that they could not do all those things that the Manichæans vainly fable. But
if they say that God's nature does not die, what according to their vanity does
Christ raise from the dead? If they say that it does not grow sick, what does He
cure? If they say that it is not subject to forgetfulness, what does He remind?
If they say that it is not deficient in wisdom, what does He teach? If they say
that it is not confused, what does He restore? If they say that it was not
vanquished and taken captive, what does He liberate? If they say that it was not
in need, to what does He minister aid? If they say that it did not lose feeling,
what does He animate? If they say that it has not been blinded, what does He
illuminate? If it is not in pain, to what does He give relief? If it is not
unrighteous, what does He correct through precepts? If it is not in disgrace,
what does He cleanse? If it is not in war, to what does He promise peace? If it
is not deficient in moderation, upon what does He impose the measure of law? If
it is not deformed, what does He reform? If it is not perverse, what does He
emend? For all these things done by Christ, they say, are to be attributed not
to that thing which was made by God, and which has become depraved by its own
free choice in sinning, but to the very nature, yea to the very substance of
God, which is what God Himself is.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 218: CHAPTER 42. --MANICHÆAN BLASPHEMIES CONCERNING THE NATURE OF GOD. 
========================================================================

What can be compared to those blasphemies? Absolutely nothing, unless the errors
of other sectaries be considered; but if that error be compared with itself in
another aspect, of which we have not yet spoken, it will be convicted of far
worse and more execrable blasphemy. For they say that some souls, which they
will have to be of the substance of God and of absolutely the same nature, which
have not sinned of their own accord, but have been overcome and oppressed by the
race of darkness, which they call evil, for combating which they descended not
of their own accord, but at the command of the Father, are fettered forever in
the horrible sphere of darkness. So according to their sacrilegious vaporings,
God liberated Himself in a certain part from a great evil, but again condemned
Himself in another part, which He could not liberate, and triumphed over the
enemy itself as if it had been vanquished from above. O criminal, incredible
audacity, to believe, to speak, to proclaim such things about God! Which when
they endeavor to defend, that with their eyes shut they may rush headlong into
yet worse things, they say that the commingling of the evil nature does these
things, in order that the good nature of God may suffer so great evils: for that
this good nature in its own sphere could or can suffer no one of these things.
As if a nature were lauded as incorruptible, because it does not hurt itself,
and not because it cannot suffer hurt from another. Then if the nature of God
hurt the nature of darkness, and the nature of darkness hurt the nature of God,
there are therefore two evil things which hurt each other in turn, and the race
of darkness was the better disposed, because if it committed hurt it did it
unwillingly; for it did not wish to commit hurt, but to enjoy the good which
belonged to God. But God wished to extinguish it, as Manichæus most openly raves
forth in his epistle of the ruinous Foundation. For forgetting that he had
shortly before said: "But His most resplendent realms were so founded upon the
shining and happy land, that they could never be either moved or shaken by any
one;" he afterwards said: "But the Father of the most blessed light, knowing
that great ruin and desolation which would arise from the darkness, threaten his
holy worlds, unless he should send in opposition a deity excellent and renowned,
mighty in strength, by whom he might at the same time overcome and destroy the
race of darkness, which having been extinguished, the inhabitants of light would
enjoy perpetual rest." Behold, he feared ruin and desolation that threatened his
worlds! Assuredly they were so founded upon the shining and happy land that they
never could be either moved or shaken by any one? Behold, from fear he wished to
hurt the neighboring race, which he endeavored to destroy and extinguish, in
order that the inhabitants of light might enjoy perpetual rest. Why did he not
add, and perpetual bondage? Were not these souls that he fettered forever in the
sphere of darkness, the inhabitants of light, of whom he says plainly, that
"they have suffered themselves to err from their former bright nature?" when
against his will he is compelled to say, that they sinned by free will, while he
wishes to ascribe sin only to the necessity of the contrary nature: everywhere
ignorant what to say, and as if he were himself already in the sphere of
darkness which he invented, seeking, and not finding, how he may escape. But let
him say what he will to the seduced and miserable men by whom he is honored far
more highly than Christ, that at this price he may sell to them such long and
sacrilegious fables. Let him say what he will, let him shut up, as it were, in a
sphere, as in a prison, the race of darkness, and let him fasten outside the
nature of light, to which he promised perpetual rest on the extinction of the
enemy: behold, the penalty of light is worse than that of darkness; the penalty
of the divine nature is worse than that of the adverse race. But since although
the latter is in the midst of darkness it pertains to its nature to dwell in
darkness; but souls which are the very same thing that God is, cannot be
received, he says, into those peaceful realms, and are alienated from the life
and liberty of the holy light, and are fettered in the aforesaid horrible
sphere: whence he says, "Those souls shall adhere to the things that they have
loved, having been left in the same sphere of darkness, bringing this upon
themselves by their own deserts." Is not this assuredly free voluntary choice?
See how insanely he ignores what he says, and by making self-contradictory
statements wages a worse war against himself than against the God of the race of
darkness itself. Accordingly, if the souls of light are damned, because they
loved darkness, the race of darkness, which loved light, is unjustly damned. And
the race of darkness indeed loved light from the beginning, violently, it may
be, but yet so as to wish for its possession, not its extinction: but the nature
of light wished to extinguish in war the darkness; therefore when vanquished it
loved darkness. Choose which you will: whether it was compelled by necessity to
love darkness, or seduced by free will. If by necessity, wherefore is it damned?
if by free will, wherefore is the nature of God involved in so great iniquity?
If the nature of God was compelled by necessity to love darkness, it did not
vanquish, but was vanquished: if by free will, why do the wretches hesitate any
longer to attribute the will to sin to the nature which God made out of nothing,
lest they should thereby attribute it to the light which He begat?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 219: CHAPTER 43. --MANY EVILS BEFORE HIS COMMINGLING WITH EVIL ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE NATURE OF GOD BY THE MANICHÆANS. 
========================================================================

What if we should also show that before the commingling of evil, which stupid
fable they have most madly believed, great evils were in what they call the
nature of light? what will it seem possible to add to these blasphemies? For
before the conflict, there was the hard and inevitable necessity of fighting:
here is truly a great evil, before evil is commingled with good. Let them say
whence this is, when as yet no commingling had taken place? But if there was no
necessity, there was therefore free will: whence also this so great evil, that
God himself should wish to hurt his own nature, which could not be hurt by the
enemy, by sending it to be cruelly commingled, to be basely purged, to be
unjustly damned? Behold, the great evil of a pernicious, noxious, and savage
will, before any evil from the contrary nature was mingled with it! Or perchance
he did not know that this would happen to his members, that they should love
darkness and become hostile to holy light, as Manichæus says, that is, not only
to their own God, but also to the Father from whom they had their being? Whence
therefore this so great evil of ignorance, before any evil from the nature of
darkness was mingled with it? But if he knew that this would happen, either
there was in him everlasting cruelty, if he did not grieve over the
contamination and damnation of his own nature that was to take place, or
everlasting misery, if he did so grieve: whence also this so great evil of your
supreme good before any commingling with your supreme evil? Assuredly that part
of the nature itself which was fettered in the eternal chain of that sphere, if
it knew not that this fate awaited it, even so was there everlasting ignorance
in the nature of God, but if it knew, then everlasting misery: whence this so
great evil before any evil from the contrary nature was commingled? Or perchance
did it, in the greatness of its love (charity), rejoice that through its
punishment perpetual rest was prepared for the residue of the inhabitants of
light? Let him who sees how abominable it is to say this, pronounce an anathema.
But if this should be done so that at least the good nature itself should not
become hostile to the light, it might be possible, perchance, not for the nature
of God indeed, but for some man, as it were, to be regarded as praiseworthy, who
for the sake of his country should be willing to suffer something of evil, which
evil indeed could be only for a time, and not forever: but now also they speak
of that fettering in the sphere of darkness as eternal, and not indeed of a
certain thing but of the nature of God; and assuredly it were a most
unrighteous, and execrable, and ineffably sacrilegious joy, if the nature of God
rejoiced that it should love darkness, and should become hostile to holy light.
Whence this so monstrous and abominable evil before any evil from the contrary
nature was commingled? Who can endure insanity so perverse and so impious, as to
attribute so great good things to supreme evil, and so great evils to supreme
good, which is God?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 220: CHAPTER 44. --INCREDIBLE TURPITUDES IN GOD IMAGINED BY MANICHÆUS. 
========================================================================

But now when they speak of that part of the nature of God as everywhere mixed up
in heaven, in earth, in all bodies dry and moist, in all sorts of flesh, in all
seeds of trees, herbs, men, and animals: not as present by the power of
divinity, for administering and ruling all things, undefilably, inviolably,
incorruptibly, without any connection with them, which we say of God; but
fettered, oppressed, polluted, to be loosed and liberated, as they say, not only
through the running to and fro of the sun and the moon, and through the powers
of light, but also through their Elect: what sacrilegious and incredible
turpitudes this kind of error recommends to them even if it does not induce them
to accept, it is horrible to speak of. For they say that the powers of light are
transformed into beautiful males and are set over against the women of the race
of darkness; and that the same powers again are transformed into beautiful
females and are set over against the males of the race of darkness; that through
their beauty they enkindle the foulest lust of the princes of darkness, and in
this manner vital substance, that is, the nature of God, which they say is held
fettered in their bodies, having been loosed from their members relaxed through
lust, flies away, and when it has been taken up or cleansed, is liberated. This
the wretches read, this they say, this they hear, this they believe, this they
put as follows, in the seventh book of their Thesaurus (for so they call a
certain writing of Manichæus, in which these blasphemies stand written): "Then
the blessed Father, who has bright ships, little apartments, dwelling-places, or
magnitudes, according to his indwelling clemency, brings the help by which he is
drawn out and liberated from the impious bonds, straits, and torments of his
vital substance. And so by his own invisible nod he transforms those powers of
his, which are held in this most brilliant ship, and makes them to bring forth
adverse powers, which have been arranged in the various tracts of the heavens.
Since these consist of both sexes, male and female, he orders the aforesaid
powers to bring forth partly in the form of beardless youths, for the adverse
race of females, partly in the form of bright maidens, for the contrary race of
males: knowing that all these hostile powers on account of the deadly and most
foul lust innate in them, are very easily taken captive, delivered up to these
most beautiful forms which appear, and in this manner they are dissolved. But
you may know that this same blessed Father of ours is identical with his powers,
which for a necessary reason he transforms into the undefiled likeness of youths
and maidens. But these he uses as his own arms, and through them he accomplishes
his will. But there are bright ships full of these divine powers, which are
stationed after the likeness of marriage over against the infernal races, and
who with alacrity and ease effect at the very moment what they have planned.
Therefore, when reason demands that these same holy powers should appear to
males, straightway also they show by their dress the likeness of most beautiful
maidens. Again when females are to be dealt with, putting aside the forms of
maidens, they show the forms of beardless youths. But by this handsome
appearance of theirs, ardor and lust increase, and in this way the chain of
their worst thoughts is loosed, and the living soul which was held by their
members, relaxed by this occasion escapes, and is mingled with its own most pure
air; when the souls thoroughly cleansed ascend to the bright ships, which have
been prepared for conveying them and for ferrying them over to their own
country. But that which still bears the stains of the adverse race, descends
little by little through billows and fires, and is mingled with trees and other
plants and with all seeds, and is plunged into divers fires. And in what manner
the figures of youths and maidens from that great and most glorious ship appear
to the contrary powers which live in the heavens and have a fiery nature; and
from that handsome appearance, part of the life which is held in their members
having been released is conducted away through fires into the earth: in the same
manner also, that most high power, which dwells in the ship of vital waters
appears in the likeness of youths and holy maidens to those powers whose nature
is cold and moist, and which are arranged in the heavens. And indeed to those
that are females, among these the form of youths appears, but to the males, the
form of maidens. By his changing and diversity of divine and most beautiful
persons, the princes male and female of the moist and cold race are loosed, and
what is vital in them escapes; but whatever should remain, having been relaxed,
is conducted into the earth through cold, and is mingled with all the races of
darkness" Who can endure this? Who can believe, not indeed that it is true, but
that it could even be said? Behold those who fear to anathematize Manichæus
teaching these things, and do not fear to believe in a God doing them and
suffering them!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 221: CHAPTER 45. --CERTAIN UNSPEAKABLE TURPITUDES BELIEVED, NOT WITHOUT REASON, CONCERNING THE MANICHÆANS THEMSELVES. 
========================================================================

But they say, that through their own Elect that same commingled part and nature
of God is purged, by eating and drinking forsooth, (because they say that it is
held fettered in all foods); that when they are taken up by the Elect for the
nourishment of the body in eating and drinking, it is loosed, sealed, and
liberated through their sanctity. Nor do the wretches pay heed to the fact that
this is believed about them not without good reason, and they deny it in vain,
so long as they do not anathematize the books of Manichæus and cease to be
Manichæans. For if, as they say, a part of God is fettered in all seeds, and is
purged by eating on the part of the Elect; who may not properly believe, that
they do what they read in the Thesaurus was done among the powers of heaven and
the princes of darkness; since indeed they say that their flesh is also from the
race of darkness, and since they do not hesitate to believe and to affirm that
the vital substance fettered in them is a part of God? Which assuredly if it is
to be loosed, and purged by eating, as their lamentable error compels them to
acknowledge; who does not see, who does not shudder at the greatness and the
unspeakableness of what follows?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 222: CHAPTER 46. --THE UNSPEAKABLE DOCTRINE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE. 
========================================================================

For they even say that Adam, the first man, was created by certain princes of
darkness so that the light might be held by them lest it should escape. For in
the epistle which they call Fundamental, Manichæus wrote as follows respecting
the way in which the Prince of Darkness, whom they represent as the father of
the first man, spoke to the rest of his allied princes of darkness, and how he
acted: "Therefore with wicked inventions he said to those present: What does
this huge light that is rising seem to you to be? See how the pole moves, how it
shakes most of the powers. Wherefore it is right for me rather to ask you
beforehand for whatever light you have in your powers: since thus I will form an
image of that great one who has appeared in his glory, through which we may be
able to rule, freed in some measure from the conversation of darkness. Hearing
these things, and deliberating for a long time among themselves, they thought it
most just to furnish what was demanded of them. For they did not have confidence
in being able to retain the light that they had forever; hence they thought it
better to offer it to their Prince, by no means without hope that in this way
they would rule. It must be considered therefore how they furnished the light
that they had. For this also is scattered throughout all the divine scriptures
and the heavenly secrets; but to the wise it is easy enough to know how it was
given: for it is known immediately and openly by him who should truly and
faithfully wish to consider. Since there was a promiscuous throng of those who
had come together, females and males of course, he impelled them to copulate
among themselves: in which copulation the males emitted seed, the females were
made pregnant. But the offspring were like those who had begotten them, the
first obtaining as it were the largest portion of the parents' strength. Taking
these as a special gift their Prince rejoiced. And just as even now we see take
place, that the nature of evil taking thence strength forms the fashioner of
bodies, so also the aforesaid Prince, taking the offspring of his companions,
which had the senses of their parents, sagacity, light, procreated at the same
time with themselves in the process of generation, devoured them; and very many
powers having been taken from food of this kind, in which there was present not
only fortitude, but much more astuteness and depraved sensibilities from the
ferocious race of the progenitors, he called his own spouse to himself,
springing from the same stock as himself, emitted, like the rest the abundance
of evils that he had devoured, himself also adding something from his own
thought and power, so that his disposition became the former and arranger of all
the things that he had poured forth; whose consort received these things as soil
cultivated in the best way is accustomed to receive seed. For in her were
constructed and woven together the images of all heavenly and earthly powers, so
that what was formed obtained the likeness, so to speak, of a full orb."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 223: CHAPTER 47. --HE COMPELS TO THE PERPETRATION OF HORRIBLE TURPITUDES. 
========================================================================

O abominable monster! O execrable perdition and ruin of deluded souls! I am not
speaking of the blasphemy of saying these things about the nature of God which
is thus fettered. Let the wretches deluded and hunted by deadly error give heed
to this at least, that if a part of their God is fettered by the copulation of
males and females which they profess to loose and purge by eating it, the
necessity of this unspeakable error compels them not only to loose and purge the
part of God from bread and vegetables and fruits, which alone they are seen
publicly to partake of, but also from that which might be fettered through
copulation, if conception should take place. That they do this some are said to
have confessed before a public tribunal, not only in Paphlagonia, but also in
Gaul, as I heard in Rome from a certain Catholic Christian; and when they were
asked by the authority of what writing they did these things, they betrayed this
fact concerning the Thesaurus that I have just mentioned. But when this is cast
in their teeth, they are in the habit of replying, that some enemy or other has
withdrawn from their number, that is from the number of their Elect, and has
made a schism, and has founded a most foul heresy of this kind. Whence it is
manifest that even if they do not themselves practise this thing, some who do
practise it do it on the basis of their books. Therefore let them reject the
books, if they abhor the crime, which they are compelled to commit, if they hold
to the books; or if they do not commit them, they endeavor in opposition to the
books to live more purely. But what do they do when it is said to them, either
purge the light from whatever seeds you can, so that you cannot refuse to do
that which you assert that you do not do; or else anathematize Manichæus, when
he says that a part of God is in all seeds, and that it is fettered by
copulation, but that whatever of light, that is, of the aforesaid part of God,
should become the food of the Elect, is purged by being eaten. Do you see what
he compels you to believe, and do you still hesitate to anathematize him? What
do they do, I say, when this is said to them? To what subterfuges do they betake
themselves, when either so nefarious a doctrine is to be anathematized, or so
nefarious a turpitude committed, in comparison with which all those intolerable
evils to which I have already called attention, seem tolerable, namely, that
they say of the nature of God that it was pressed by necessity to wage war, that
it was either secure by everlasting ignorance, or was disturbed by everlasting
grief and fear, when the corruption of commingling and the chain of everlasting
damnation should come upon it, that finally as a result of the conflict it
should be taken captive, oppressed, polluted, that after a false victory it
should be fettered forever in a horrible sphere and separated from its original
blessedness, while if considered in themselves they cannot be endured?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 224: CHAPTER 48. --AUGUSTIN PRAYS THAT THE MANICHÆANS MAY BE RESTORED TO THEIR SENSES. 
========================================================================

O great is Thy patience, Lord, full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger,
and plenteous in mercy, and true; [1135] who makest Thy sun to rise upon the
good and the evil, and who sendest rain upon the just and the unjust; [1136] who
willest not the death of the sinner, so much as that he return and live; [1137]
who reproving in parts, dost give place to repentance, that wickedness having
been abandoned, they may believe on Thee, O Lord; [1138] who by Thy patience
dost lead to repentance, although many according to the hardness of their heart
and their impenitent heart treasure up for themselves wrath against the day of
wrath and of the revelation of Thy righteous judgment, who wilt render to every
man according to his works; [1139] who in the day when a man shall have turned
from his iniquity to Thy mercy and truth, wilt forget all his iniquities: [1140]
stand before us, grant unto us that through our ministry, by which Thou hast
been pleased to refute this execrable and too horrible error, as many have
already been liberated, many also may be liberated, and whether through the
sacrament of Thy holy baptism, or through the sacrifice of a broken spirit and a
contrite and humbled heart, [1141] in the sorrow of repentance, they may deserve
to receive the remission of their sins and blasphemies, by which through
ignorance they have offended Thee. For nothing is of any avail, save Thy
surpassing mercy and power, and the truth of Thy baptism, and the keys of the
kingdom of heaven in Thy holy Church; so that we must not despair of men as long
as by Thy patience they live on this earth, who even knowing how great an evil
it is to think or to say such things about Thee, are detained in that malign
profession on account of the use or the attainment of temporal or earthly
convenience, if rebuked by Thy reproaches they in any way flee to Thy ineffable
goodness, and prefer to all the enticements of the carnal life, the heavenly and
eternal life.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-in-connection-with-the-manichaean-controversy/
========================================================================