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 un- happy 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.
' Matt. ix. 16, 2 Gal. iv. 9.
3 I Cor. X. II.
4 Matt. xiii. 52.
5 Matt. xvi. 23.
BOOK IX.
KAUSTUS 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.
I. Faustus said: Another reason for not eceiving the Old Testament is, that if it was lUowable 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 176 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book X.
not born Jews, nor Christians eitlier. 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 graffed into the good olive, that is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might partake of the fat- ness of the olive. For, in warning the Gen- tiles not to be proud on account of the fall of the Jews, he says: " For I speak to you Gen- tiles, 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 graffed 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 \n\t say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed 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 graffed in; for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed 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 hap- pened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gen- tiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved.'" 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 unbe- lieving 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 graffed 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 al- ways preached in the olive tree, and those who did not believe on Him when He came were broken off, while those who believed were graffed 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 graffed in; for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their i own olive tree." The apostle rejoices in be- ing 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 graffed in again. Those who are still in the; wild olive should separate themselves from its I barrenness, and become partakers of fertility.
2 Rom. xi. 16-26.
BOOK X.
FAUSTUS INSISTS THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE NEW. AUGUSTIN ADMITS A DIFFERENCE, BUT MAINTAINS THAT THE MORAL PRE-' CEPTS ARE THE SAME IN BOTH.
I. 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 Testa- ment is of this kind. It promises riches, andl plenty, and children, and children's childrenJ Book XI.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHyEAN.
177 and long life, and withal the land of Canaan; but only to the circumcised, the Sabbath ob- servers,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 shalt 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 re- quirements, 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 an- swered, ' 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 pro- perly 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 testi- mony, 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 confirma- tion of the gospel in those things which " hap- pened 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 some- thing to say to the Manich?eans.
3, By showing the way in which we regard the authority of the Old Testament we have ' Book vi. 2.
answered the Jews, by whose question about our not observing the precepts Faustus thought we would be puzzled. But what an- swer 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 Tes- tament 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? Per- haps 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 covetous- ness, 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 Manichseans would only learn from these Scriptures the moral precepts, one of which is, Do not covet, instead of tak- ing offence at the symbolical precept, they would acknowledge in meekness and candor that they suited the time then present. We do not covet v\'hat belongs to another, when we read in the Old Testament what " hap- pened 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 readswhat is written for his benefit.
BOOK XI, (•AUSTUS QUOTES PASSAGES TO SHOW THAT THE APOSTLE PAUL ABANDONED BELIEF IN THE IN CARNATION, TO WHICH HE EARLIER HELD. AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT THE APOSTLE WAS CON SISTEN']' WITH HIMSELF IN THE UTTERANCES QUOTED, I. Faustus said: Assuredly I believe the pestle. And yet I do not believe that the lOn of God was born of the seed of David ccording to the flesh," because I do not be- «Rom.
12 lieve that God's apostle could contradict him- self, 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 178 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XI.
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 lie learned that this was false,, he cor- rects himself; and in his Epistle to the Co- rinthians 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." ' 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 else- where: "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."- 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 build ing again the things which he destroyed, in spite of his own repudiation of such prevarica- tion. 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 spuri- ous. The declaration only shows their aver- sion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of Script- ure, 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 v/e 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 b.ecause taey are mysterious in their origin, and in the ab- sence of clear evidence, have only some ob- scure presumption to rest upon; and it is an- other 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 ni:mber, 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 re- source 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. Accord- ingly, should there be a question about the text of some passage, as there are a few pas- sages with various readings well known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the manuscripts of the countr 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 i consult the original text. This is the method , employed by those who, in any question j 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.^ ♦ 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 * 2 Cor. V. 16.
2 I Cor. xiii. 11.
3 [The extremely subjective method of dealing with Scripture, which Aujrustin ascribes to Faustus, was characteristic of Mani- i chaiism in general.— -A. H. N.]
Book XI.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.-EAN.
179 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 I God, and the same in essence as God; and I 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.' Of Him Paul says to Timothy: " Re- member that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel.'"" 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 uas buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." And a little further on he draws an inference from this doc- trine: "Now, if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"^ Our professed believer in Paul believes nothing of all this. He denies that Jesus was born of the seed of David, that He was nade of a woman (by the word woman is not meant a wife in the common sense of the ivord, but merely one of the female sex, as n the book of Genesis, where it is said that od made a woman before she was brought o Adam'*); he denies His death. His burial, nd His resurrection. Fie holds that Christ lad not a mortal body, and therefore could lot really die; and that the marks of His rounds which He showed to His disciples irhen He appeared to them alive after His esurrection, which Paul also mentions, ^ veve not real. He denies, too, that our moral body will be raised again, changed into a piritual body; as Paul teaches: " It is sown natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." 'o illustrate this distinction between the atural and the spiritual body, the apostle dds what I have quoted already about the rst and the last Adam. Then he goes on: *But this I say, brethren, that flesh and lood 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 resur- rection of the just, he immediately says, "Neither shall corruption inherit incorrup- tion." And m case any one should still sup- pose 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 pro- ceeds to show distinctly that the same body will be changed for the better, as the gar- ments of Christ on the mount were not dis- placed, but transfigured: "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all be changed, but we shall all rise/' ^ 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 re- gards 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."^ Faustus denies this; and the God whom Paul declares to be " immortal, incorruptible, to whom alone is glory and honor," ^ he makes corruptible. For in this monstrous and horri- ble fiction of theirs, the substance and nature of God was in danger of being wholly cor- rupted by the race of darkness, and to save the rest part actually was corrupted. And to crown all this, he tries to deceive the ig- norant who are not learned in the sacred Scriptures, by making this profession: I as- suredly 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 ac- cording 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 6 Vulg.
7 I Cor. XV. 35-53.
8 I Tim. i. 17.
I So THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XI.
Ilim no more." We must therefore show that both these passages are true, and not opposed to one another. The agreement of the uKinuscripts proves both to be genuine. In some Latin versions tlie word " born " ' is used instead of " made," - which is not so Hteral a rendering, but gives the same mean- ing. 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 ob- scure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in sub- sequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if ye be other- wise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.^' 3 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 sub- mission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradic- tion in Scripture, it is not allowable to say. The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the transla- tion 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 sacred- ness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and per- haps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dis- likes. 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 I Nat us.
2 Facius.
3 Phil. iii. 15.
writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangel- ist. " Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if con- tempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.-* 6. With regard, then, to this apparent con- tradiction 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, }^et 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 canonica authority, that it would not be allowable to doubt of either. For the utterances of Script- ure, 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 confirma- tion the calmest intelligence and the most in- genious 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 under- stand. Accordingly it remains for me to ex- plain how both passages, instead of being