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 ' Rev. xi.\. 10.
Book XX.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH^AN.
263 , also had sacrifices. The difference between 1 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, be- cause 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 sacri- fices, and altars, and priesthood, and aban- doned 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 liie creature instead of the Creator, and so would have fallen into the serious error of iieathenish superstition; and even without , idols, they would have found devils ready to I 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, hue on the errors of men. They enjoy not I)odily refreshment, but a malevolent gratifi- cation, when they in any way deceive people, ' >r 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 fore- fathers abandoned. They sacrificed neither ito the earth nor to any earthly thing, nor to the sea, nor to heaven, nor to the hosts of 1 heaven, but laid the victims on the altar of 'he one God, Creator of all, who required liiese oft'erings as a means of foreshadowing the true victim, by whom He has reconciled ns to Himself in the remission of sins through our Lord Jesus Christ. So Paul, addressing l)elievers, who are made the body of which Christ is the Head, says: "I beseech you, I therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, I that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, I holy, acceptable to God."' The Manichjeans, I on the other hand, say that human bodies are [the workmanship of the race of darkness, jand the prison in which the captive deity is confined. Thus Faustus' doctrine is very different from Paul's. But since whosover ■ I ixom..\ii. I.
preaches to you another gospel than that ye have received must be accursed, what Christ says in Paul is the truth, while Manichaeus in Faustus is accursed.
23. Faustus says also, without knowing what he says, that we have retained the man- ners 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 im- possible 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 foun- tain, 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 re- semble 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 com- mandment 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 offi- cial positions, you nevertheless reckon them as belonging to you, and not to the Gentiles, though in their actions they approach nearer to the Gentiles tlian to you. And though some of the Gentiles in some things resemble 264 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XXI.
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 Man- ichKus rather than those who resemble you in their practices. You consider as belong- ing to you a woman that believes in Mani- chaeus, 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 charac-. ter 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 bene- ficial influence. We must bear in mind the true meaning of the contrast which the Lord 1 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.'
I [Augustin's exposure of the paganism of Manichseism is an admirable and effective piece of arg^umentniii ad hominein. I'hat tfie Cliristianity of Augustin's time was becoming paganized is undoubted, but iVlanichjeism was pure paganism. — A. H. N.]
BOOK XXI.
FAUSTUS DENIES THAT MANICH.EANS BELIEVE IN TWO GODS. HYLE NO GOD. AUGUSTIN DIS- CUSSES AT LARGE THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HYLE, AND FIXES THE CHARGE OF DUALISM UPON THE MANICHiEANs.
I. 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 princi- ples, 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 lan- guage, 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 describ- ing 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, be- cause they both produce certain effects. It is a very childish and impotent wav of argu- ing, 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 wor- shippers 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." ' 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 be- lieve not." Most of us punctuate this sen- tence differently, and explain it as meaning ' 2 Cor. iv. 4.
Book XXI.]
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH^:AN.
265 that the true God has blinded the minds of unbeHevers. 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 mal- ice, but of justice. Thus Paul himself says elsewhere, " Is God unjust, who taketh vengeance?"' 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 L;lory?"= 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 r:nd 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 unclean- ness, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves;'' and immediately after, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affec- tions; " and again, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, (iod gave them over to a reprobate mind."^ 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."* 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." ^ 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 knowl- edge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"^ 3. You cannot distinguish between what God does in mercy and what He does in judg- ment, because you can neither understand nor use the words of our Psalter: " I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord." ^ 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 differ- ent 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 good- ness? "^ 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 wis- dom 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 under- 4 John IX. 3g. 5 Ps. xxxvi. 6.
6 Rom. xi. 33.
7 Ps. ci. 1.
* Rom. xi. 17-24.
266 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XXI.
stand the one good God! For it is not a ques- tion of names, but of actions.
4. Faustus glibly defends liimself b}^ say- ing, " We speak, not of two gods, but of God and ffylr." But when you ask for the mean- ing of Hyle, you find that it is in fact another god. If the Manichteans gave the name of //i7r, 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, ele- ments, 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 hu- manity, 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, con- demn the very principle by which you deter- mine 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 forma- tion 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.^' ' 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 I that the lowest partake in the good which the j highest possess in a greater degree. Show me, if you can, any animal, however despica- ble, 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, I that earthly passion may not hinder his per- ception 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 "?"= If your heart was not hardened and corrupted by falsehood, you would under- stand the invisible things of God from the things which He has made, even in these feeble creatures of flesh. For who is the au- thor 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.
I Jas. iv. 15.
2 Wisd. xi. 21.
Book XXL] REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH^AN.
267 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 cher- isheth it, even as Christ the Church."' Look at the whole animal creation, and you find in the instinctive self-preservation of every ani- mal 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