i i 1300K XVI.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.^AN.
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 hos- tile spirit resist so plain a prophecy, but, in- fluenced by the allusion to the Jesus of the Old Testament, he will be prepared to listen meekl}- 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."' 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, includ- ing 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 prophe- sied of, but a divine person, because God said that His name was in that man who was ap- pointed 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 (Hvine message, and is therefore called an Angel, which, as every tyro in Greek knows, means messenger. No Gentile, therefore, if lie were not perverse and obstinate, would dejspise these books merely because he is not ibject to the law of the Hebrews, to whom .e books belong; but would think highly of ithe books, no matter whose they were, on finding in them prophecies of such ancient I late, and of what he sees now taking place.
Instead of despising Christ Jesus because He jis foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, he would ■include that one thought worthy of being the ibject of prophetic description, whoever the 'Titers might be, for so many ages before His ( lining into the world, — sometimes in plain innouncements, sometimes in figure by sym- ijlic actions and utterances, — must claim to e regarded with profound admiration and 'verence, and to be followed with implicit '■liance. Thus the facts of Christian history ould prove the truth of the prophecy, and ;iie prophecy would prove the claims of Clirist.
I'all this fancy, if it is not actually the case lat men all over the world have been led, ifid are now led, to believe in Christ by readiig these books.
21. In view of the multitudes from all na- ')ns who have become zealous believers in Matt.
V. 4.
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 testnnony is borne by enemies. The believing Gentiles cannot sup- pose these testimonies to Christ to be recent forgeries; for they find them in books held sacred for so many ages by those who cruci- fied Christ, and still regarded with the high- est veneration by those who every day blas- pheme 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 gov- ernment bringing good out of evil, that those who by their own choice live wickedly may be, in His just judgment, made the instru- ments 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 mira- cles, 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 hatids for our benefit the writings in which these truths are contanied. 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 under- standing 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,"- Faustus is deceived by the ambiguity of the words. The words rnay be differently inter- preted; but that they cannot be understood of Christ is not said by Faustus, nor can be said by any one who does not deny that Christ is life, or that He was seen by the Jews Jiang- ing on the cross, or that they did not believe Him. Since Christ Himself says, " I am the life," 3 aiid since there is no doubt that He was seen hanging by the unbelieving Jews, I see no reason for doubting that this was writ- ten of Christ; for, as Christ says, Moses wrote of Him. Since we have already refuted Faus- tus' 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 2 Deut. xxviii. 16.
3 John xiv. 6.
228 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XVI, apply to Christ, because Christ is not like Moses, we need not insist on this other proph- ecy. 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 diffi- culty 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? In- deed, 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 im- precations, but announcements of coming judgment. Hostile imprecations are forbid- den, for it is said, " Bless, and curse not.'* ' 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." ^ So it might be thought that the apostle was prompt- ed by angry feeling to utter this imprecation: "I would that they were even made eunuchs that trouble you. ' ' ^ 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.'* If Faustus had a pious ap- petite 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 am- biguity 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 m.an, 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 be- lieve 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 A^ell 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 ex- cept as prophecies of the glory of Christ, in j 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 j 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. ^ But Moses was not Caiaphas; and therefore when Moses said to the Hebrew people, " Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not be- lieve thy life," he not only spoke of Christ, as he certainly did, even though he spoke without knowing the meaning ot what he said, but he kne\v 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 know- ing 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 ap ■| 5 John xi. 49-51.
Book XVI.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.^AN.
peared 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, v/ho 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; forall live unto Him."' In the same words with which Christ answered the Sadducees we may answer the Manichasans, 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 Abra- ham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall go into outer darkness."- 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." ^ Jt jg 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 I commandments given by Moses is not a new ' Matt. xxii. 31, 32, and Luke xx. 37, 38. 3 Gal. iii. 8.
Matt. viii. 10-12.
one, for the Jews thought so; but it is a mis- take, for the 3^ws 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." ■♦ 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 com- mandments by Moses.
25. In fulfillment of our promise that we would prove the reference to Christ in those passages selected by Faustus from the writ- ings of Moses for adverse criticism, since we cannot here point out the reference to Christ which vve 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 ^om their God, or to break any commandment, refers to the preser\^ation 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 oliedience to this Command, the voice of tiie 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 4 Matt. XV. 3-6.
230 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book. XVL commandments. And chief among these is ManichcGUS 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 de- sign 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 re- peat 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 writ- ten of Christ, or with reference to Christ, the true conclusion is that Faustus' argument is worthless. In the passages quoted by Faus- tus, 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 writ- ten of Christ. If there are some, it will not be true that there are none. And if there are some, Cnrist 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 be- lieved 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 evi- dence in support of the authority of the Gos- pel, that it would be incumbent on us to believe that not only some things, but every- thing 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 be- lieved Moses, they would believe Christ too; and that it would rather follow that their be- lief in one would imply of necessity opposi- tion 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,* 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 be- lieving 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 re- fused to do what we see the whole world has done.
28. Regarding the Sabbath and circum- • cision, 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." - The dif- ' Rom. i. 14.
2 I Cor. X. 6.
Book XVL] REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHyEAN.
231 ference is not in the doctrine, but in the time. There was a time when it was proper that these things should be figuratively pre- dicted; and there is now a different time, when it is proper that they should be openly tleclared 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 ;i shadow of something future.' If the Jews opposed Christ because they did not under- stand 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."^ They should rather have itied the wants of the disciples, for hunger .orced them to do what they did. But pull- ing ears of corn, which is innocence in the teaching of Christ, is murder in the teaching j of Manichseus. 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 ex- ercised without cessation, and without weari- ness. It is for those to say this, who believe lat all times are the production of an eternal ict 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 <od's rest, which was also disturbed by a sudden attack of the enem}'; or perhaps God never had rest, as he foresaw this from eter- nity, and could not feel at ease in the pros- pect of so dire a conflict, with such loss and ihsaster to his members.
29. Unless Christ had considered this Sabath — which in your want of knowledge and 1 piety you laugh at — one of the prophecies ritten of Himself, He would not have borne ich a testimony to it as He did. For when, s you say in praise of Christ, He suffered .oluntarily, and so could choose His own time for suffering and for resurrection, He I'lrought it about that His body rested from ill its works on Sabbath in the tomb, and that ' Col. ii. 16, 17.
= Matt..\ii. 7.
His resurrection on the third clay, which we call the Lord's day, the day after the Sab- bath, and therefore the eighth, proved the circumcision of the eighth day to be also pro- I phetical of Him. For what does circumcision mean, but the eradication of the mortality