tion between " Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oath," and " Swear not at all? '' - 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 " Sw-ear not " is the fulfillment of " Swear truly," why should not "Take no revenge " be the fulfill- ment 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 for- giveness 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 pre- cept of the Lord about not putting away a wife, and what was said by them of old time: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, let liini give her a writing of divorcement." ^ The Lord explains the intention of the law, which 2 Matt. V.
34- 250 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIX.
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 con- trary, 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 di- vorcement, the design was that he should be obliged to have recourse to those from whorfi he might expect to receive a cautious inter- pretation of the law, and suitable advice against separation. Having no other way of ofetting 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 feel- ing 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 persua- sion. 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 pru- dent 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, ac- cording to you, is a criminal indulgence. The word "matrimony" shows that a man takes a wife in order that she may become a mother, wliich would be an evil in your esti- mation. According to you, this would imply that part of your god is overcome and cap- tured 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 acccomplished 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;"' and again, He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."== 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 j Christ says again; "Anew commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another," ^ 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 eye.s troubled because of anger; "'^ and again, "Better is he that conquers his anger, than he that taketh a city.''^ Against hard words, ' The stroke of a whip maketh a wound; but the stroke of the tongue break- eth the bones." ^ Against adultery in the heart, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."' It is not," Thou shalt not commit adultery;" but, "Thou shalt not covet." The apostle, in quoting this, says: " I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou ' shalt not covet."* 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. "^ Of love to enemies it is said: "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him, drink."'" This also is quoted by the apostle.". In the Psalm, too, it is said, " I was a peace 6 Ecclus. xxviii. 21. [Augustin makes no distinction between the Old Testament Apocrypha and the canonical books. Indeed, the Platonizing Apocryphal writings, snch as Ecc/fsiasticus and H'isi/n III, seem to have been his favorites. — A. H. N.]
7 Ex. XX. 17. 8 Rom. vii. 7. 9 Lam. iii. 30. 10 Prov, XXV. 21. " Rom. xii. 20.
I Book XIX.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.^AN.
^51 maker among them that hated peace;"' 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 descrip- tion 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 ab- horrest nothing which Thou hast made; for never wouldest Thou have made anything if Thou hadst liated it. And how could any- thing 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 b}^ putting them in remembrance wherein they have offended, that learning their wickedness, they may believe in Thee, O Lord."^ Christ exhorts us to imitate this longsuffering 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 per- fect. ^ From another passage in these ancient books we learn that, by not exacting the ven- geance 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 re- mission of our own debts: " He that reveng- eth 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 for- given when thou prayest. One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek par- don 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 I but flesh nourishes hatred, and asks for favor from the Lord, who will entreat for the par- don of his sins? "'* I 29. As regards not putting away a wife, j 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 sub- ' Ps. cxx. 6.
3 Matt. V. 44, 48.
2 Wisd. xi. 21, xii. 2. 4 Ecclus. xxviii. 1-5.
ject. For when they asked whether it is law- ful 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 besfin- nmg 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." s 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 decla- ration, that God made and joined male and female; so that by denying this, the Mani- chaeans are guilty of opposing the gospel of Christ as well as the writings of Moses. And supposing their doctrme to be true, that the devil made and joined male and female, we see the diabolical cunning of Faustus in find- ing 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 ex- plain 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 com- mand to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Christ said unto them, " Moses, because of the hardness of yo.ur heart, suffered you to put away your wives. "^ This passage we have already explained. ^ The hardness must have been great indeed which could not be induced to admit the res- toration of wedded love, even though by means of the writing an opportunity was af- forded for advice to be given to this effect bv 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 tiie union; and shows from the same Scriptures that a bill of di- vorcement was to be given because of the hardness of the heart, which might be sub- dued or might not.
7 Sec. 26.
25: THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Rook XX.
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 ad- ditional 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 an- cient 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 examina- tion, to doubt whether the expression so often used by the Lord, " the kingdom of heaven," can be found in these books. It is said, in- deed, " Love wisdom, that ye may reign for ever."'^ 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 Script- ures, for in them ye think that ye have eter- nal life, and they are they that testify of me.-" ^ And to the same effect are the words of the Psalmist: "I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord."^ And again: " Enlighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death."-* Again, we read, "The souls of the righteous are in the hand of the Lo/d, 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 troubles, they shall enjoy many rewards, "s 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 l:)eauty." ^ These and many similar declara- tions 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 disbe- lieved the resurrection. This we learn not only from the canonical Acts of the Apostles, which the Manichaans 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 res- urrection.' As regards, then, eternal life and the resurrection of the dead, numerous testi- monies are to be found in these Scriptures. But I do not find there the expression, "the kingdom of heaven." This expression be- longs properly to the revelation of the Nevv 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 cer- emonies 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 se- curing the accomplishment of the promises. He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
I Wisd. vi. 22.
3 Ps. cxviii. 16.
5 Wisd. iii. 1-5.
BOOK XX.
FAUSTUS REPELS THE CHARGE OF SUN-WORSHIP, AND MAINTAINS THAT WHILE THE MANICH/EANS 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 SCHISiNI OF THE GENTILES, NOR A SECT. AUGUSTIN EMPHASIZES THE CHARGE OF POLYTHEISM, AND GOES INTO AN ELABORATE COMPARISON OF MANICH^AN AND PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
I. 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 quire 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 Gentiles. It may therefore be as well to in- 1 friendly way this simple account of my faith, Book XX.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH/EAN.
25, 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 knowl- edge, 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,"' 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,- 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.^ Though you oppose these doctrines so violently, your religion re- sembles ours in attaching the same sacredness to the bread and wine that we do to every- thing. 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 }^ou 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 opposi- tion to this, my belief is that God is the prin- 3 [The JManichaean doctrine of \,hc Jesus fiatabilis is more fully expounded in this book than elsewhere. Of course, this is only a way of expressing the familiar Maiiichaean notion that the divine life which is imprisoned in the world and which is trying to escape through the growth of plants, etc., suffers from any sort of injury done to plants. Compare IJauk: Das Manichiiische Religioiis- systcvi, pp. 72-77. — A. H. N.]
ciple of all good things, and Hyle [matters] of the opposite. Hylc is the name given by our master in divinity to the principle or na- ture of evil. The Pagans accordingly think it right to worship God with altars, and shrines, and images, and sacrifices, and in- cense. Here also my practice differs entirely from theirs: for I look upon myself as a rea- sonable temple of God, if I am worthy to be so; and I consider Clirist 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 tli^ true way of paying divine honors and of offering sacri- fices. 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 ques- tioned 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 ac- knowledge 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 sac- rifices 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 super- stitious. 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 our- selves. We and the Gentiles are as contrary in our belief as truth and falsehood, day and night, poverty and wealth, health and sick- ness. You, again, are not a sect in relation either to truth or to error. You are merely 254 THE WORKS OF ST, AUGUSTIN.
[Book XX.
a schism and a schism not of truth, but of error.
5. AuousTiN repHed: 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 Pa- gans; 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 wor- shipped: for idols have an existence, though for salvation they are nought. So, to worsliip a tree with prayers, instead of improving it by cultivation, is not to worship nothing, but to worship in a wrong way. When the apos- tle says that " the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God," ' 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, ar^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), the}' worship things which have an existence. In arguing with Pagans, we do not deny the existence of these things, but we say that they