Images de page
PDF
ePub

these occurrences, which were real and no il- have appeared or spoken without having been lusion, are new and strange, and contrary to born of a woman! He could, but He chose the common course of nature, the reason is, not; and what He chose was best. And that that they are great, and amazing, and divine; He chose to do what He did is plain, because and all the more on this account are they❘ He acted, not like your god, from necessity, true, and firm, and sure. Angels, says Faus- but voluntarily. That He was born we know, tus, appeared and spoke without having been because we put faith not in a heretic, but in born. As if we held that Christ could not Christ's gospel.

BOOK XXX.

FAUSTUS REPELS THE INSINUATION THAT THE PROPHECY OF PAUL WITH REFERENCE TO THOSE THAT SHOULD FORBID TO MARRY, ABSTAIN FROM MEATS, ETC., APPLIES TO THE MANICHEANS MORE THAN TO THE CATHOLIC ASCETICS, WHO ARE HELD IN THE HIGHEST ESTEEM IN THE CHURCH. AUGUSTIN JUSTIFIES THIS APPLICATION OF THE PROPHECY, AND SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANICHEAN AND CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM.

1. FAUSTUS said: You apply to us the words of Paul: "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to lying spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by believers." I refuse to admit that the apostle said this, unless you first acknowledge that Moses and the prophets taught doctrines of devils, and were the interpreters of a lying and malignant spirit; since they enjoin with great emphasis abstinence from swine's flesh and other meats, which they call unclean. This case must first be settled; and you must consider long and carefully how their teaching is to be viewed: whether they said these things from God, or from the devil. As regards these matters, either Moses and the prophets must be condemned along with us, or we must be acquitted along with them. You are unjust in condemning us, as you do now, as followers of the doctrine of devils, because we require the priestly class to abstain from animal food; for we limit the prohibition to the priesthood, while you hold that your prophets, and Moses himself, who forbade all classes of men to eat the flesh of swine, and hares, and conies, besides all varieties of cuttle-fish, and all fish wanting scales, said this not in a lying spirit, nor in the doctrine of devils, but from God, and in the Holy Spirit. Even supposing, then, that Paul said these words, you can convince me only by condemning Moses and the prophets; and so, though you will not do it for reason or truth, you will contradict Moses for the sake of your belly.

2. Besides, you have in your Book of

11 Tim. iv. 1-3.

Daniel the account of the three youths, which you will find it difficult to reconcile with the opinion that to abstain from meats is the doctrine of devils. For we are told that they abstained not only from what the law forbade, but even from what it allowed; and you are wont to praise them, and count them as martyrs; though they too followed the doctrine of devils, if this is to be taken as the apostle's opinion. And Daniel himself declares that he fasted for three weeks, not eating flesh or drinking wine, while he prayed for his people.3 How is it that he boasts of this doctrine of devils, and glories in the falsehood of a lying spirit?

3. Again, what are we to think of you, or of the better class of Christians among you, some of whom abstain from swine's flesh, some from the flesh of quadrupeds, and some from all animal food, while all the Church admires them for it, and regards them with profound veneration, as only not gods? You obstinately refuse to consider that if the words quoted from the apostle are true and genuine, these people too are misled by doctrines of devils. And there is another observance which no one will venture to explain away or to deny, for it is known to all, and is practised yearly with particular attention in the congregation of Catholics all over the world-I mean the fast of forty days, in the due observance of which a man must abstain from all the things which, according to this verse, were created by God that we might receive them, while at the same time he calls this abstinence a doctrine of devils. So, my dear friends, shall we say that you too, during this fast, while celebrating the mysteries of Christ's passion, live after the manner of

[blocks in formation]

devils, and are deluded by a seducing spirit, and speak lies in hypocrisy, and have your conscience seared with a hot iron? If this does not apply to you, neither does it apply to us. What is to be thought of this verse, or its author; or to whom does it apply, since it agrees neither with the traditions of the Old Testament, nor with the institutions of the New? As regards the New Testament, the proof is from your own practice; and though the Old requires abstinence only from certain things, still it requires abstinence. On the other hand, this opinion of yours makes all abstinence from animal food a doctrine of devils. If this is your belief, once more I say it, you must condemn Moses, and reject the prophets, and pass the same sentence on yourselves; for, as they always abstained from certain kinds of food, so you sometimes abstain from all food.

ing introduced the doctrines of devils into Iconium, when Thecla, after having been betrothed, was by his discourse inflamed with the desire of perpetual virginity.' And what shall we say of Jesus, the Master Himself, and the source of all sanctity, who is the unwedded spouse of the virgins who make this profession, and who, when specifying in the Gospel three kinds of eunuchs, natural, artificial, and voluntary, gives the palm to those who have "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," meaning the youths of both sexes who have extirpated from their hearts the desire of marriage, and who in the Church act as eunuchs of the King's palace? Is this also the doctrine of devils? Are those words, too, spoken in a seducing spirit? And if Paul and Christ are proved to be priests of devils, is not their spirit the same that speaks in God? I do not mention the other apostles of our Lord, Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and the example of celibacy, the blessed John, who in various ways commended to young men and maidens the excellence of this profession, leaving to us, and to you too, the form for making virgins. I do not mention them, because you do not admit them into the canon, and so you will not scruple impiously to im

4. But if you think that in making a distinction in food, Moses and the prophets established a divine ordinance, and not a doctrine of devils; if Daniel in the Holy Spirit observed a fast of three weeks; if the youths Ananias, Azarias, and Mishael, under divine guidance, chose to live on cabbage or pulse; if, again, those among you who abstain, do it not at the instigation of devils; if your absti-pute to them doctrines of devils. But will nence from wine and flesh for forty days is not superstitious, but by divine command,consider, I beseech you, if it is not perfect madness to suppose these words to be Paul's, that abstinence from food and forbidding to marry are doctrines of devils. Paul cannot have said that to dedicate virgins to Christ is a doctrine of devils. But you read the words, and inconsiderately, as usual, apply them to us, without seeing that this stamps your virgins too as led away by the doctrine of devils, and that you are the functionaries of the devils in your constant endeavors to induce virgins to make this profession, so that in all your churches the virgins nearly outnumber the married women. Why do you still adhere to such practises? Why do you ensnare wretched young women, if it is the will of devils, and not of Christ, that they fulfill? But, first of all, I wish to know if making virgins is, in all cases, the doctrine of devils, or only the prohibition of marriage. If it is the prohibition, it does not apply to us, for we too hold it equally foolish to prevent one who wishes, as it is criminal and impious to force one who has some reluctance. But if you say that to encourage the proposal, and not to resist such a desire, is all the doctrine of devils, to say nothing of the consequence as regards you, the apostle himself will be thus brought into danger, if he must be considered as hav

you say the same of Christ, or of the Apostle
Paul, who, we know, everywhere expressed
the same preference for unmarried women to
the married, and gave an example of it in the
case of the saintly Thecla? But if the doc-
trine preached by Paul to Thecla, and which
the other apostles also preached, was not the
doctrine of devils, how can we believe that
Paul left on record his opinion, that the very
exhortation to sanctity is the injunction and
the doctrine of devils? To make virgins
simply by exhortation, without forbidding to
marry, is not peculiar to you. That is our
principle too; and he must be not only a fool,
but a madman, who thinks that a private law
can forbid what the public law allows. As
regards marriage, therefore, we too encour-
age virgins to remain as they are when they
are willing to do so; we do not make them
virgins against their will. For we know the
force of will and of natural appetite when op-
posed by public law; much more when the
law is only private, and every one is at lib-
erty to disobey it. If, then, it is no crime to
make virgins in this manner, we are guiltless
as well as you. If it is wrong to make vir-
gins in any way, you are guilty as well as we.
So that what you mean, or intend, by quoting
this verse against us, it is impossible to say.

1 See the apocryphal book, Paul and Thecla.
2 Matt. xix. 12.

Creator; and in this is the doctrine of devils. You need not be surprised that, so long before the event, this prediction regarding you was made by the Holy Spirit.

The

5. AUGUSTIN replied: Listen, and you shall hear what we mean and intend by quoting this verse against you, since you say that you do not know. It is not that you abstain from animal food; for, as you observe, our 6. So, again, if your exhortations to virancient fathers abstained from some kinds of ginity resembled the teaching of the apostle, food, not, however, as condemning them, "He who giveth in marriage doeth well, and but with a typical meaning, which you he who giveth not in marriage doeth better;"' 3 do not understand, and of which I have if you taught that marriage is good, and virsaid already in this work all that appeared ginity better, as the Church teaches which is Besides, Christians, not heretics, truly Christ's Church, you would not have but Catholics, in order to subdue the body, been described in the Spirit's prediction as that the soul may be more humbled in forbidding to marry. What a man forbids he prayer, abstain not only from animal food, makes evil; but a good thing may be placed but also from some vegetable productions, second to a better thing without being forwithout, however, believing them to be un- bidden. Moreover, the only honorable kind clean. A few do this always; and at certain of marriage, or marriage entered into for seasons or days, as in Lent, almost all, more its proper and legitimate purpose, is precisely or less, according to the choice or ability of that you hate most. So, though you may individuals. You, on the other hand, deny not forbid sexual intercourse, you forbid that the creature is good, and call it unclean, marriage; for the peculiarity of marriage is, saying that animals are made by the devil of that it is not merely for the gratification of the worst impurities in the substance of evil; passion, but, as is written in the contract, for and so you reject them with horror, as being the procreation of children. And, though the most cruel and loathsome places of con- you allow many of your followers to retain finement of your god. You, as a concession, their connection with you in spite of their reallow your followers, as distinct from the fusal, or their inability, to obey you, you canpriests, to eat animal food; as the apostle al- not deny that you make the prohibition. lows, in certain cases, not marriage in the prohibition is part of your false doctrine, general sense, but the indulgence of passion while the toleration is only for the interests of in marriage. It is only sin which is thus the society. And here we see the reason, made allowance for. This is the feeling you which I have delayed till now to mention, for have toward all animal food; you have learned your making not the birth but only the death it from your heresy, and you teach it to your of Christ feigned and illusory. Death being followers. You make allowance for your fol- the separation of the soul, that is, of the lowers, because, as I said before, they supply nature of your god, from the body which beyou with necessaries; but you grant them in- longs to his enemies, for it is the work of the dulgence without saying that it is not sinful. devil, you uphold and approve of it; and thus, For yourselves, you shun contact with this according to your creed, it was meet that evil and impurity; and hence our reason for Christ, though He did not die, should comquoting this verse against you is found in the mend death by appearing to die. In birth, words of the apostle which follow those with again, you believe your god to be bound inwhich you end the quotation. Perhaps it was stead of released; and so you will not allow for this reason that you left out the words, that Christ was born even in this illusory and then say that you do not know what we fashion. You would have thought better of mean or intend by the quotation; for it suited Mary had she ceased to be a virgin without you better to omit the account of our inten- being a mother, than as being a mother withtion than to express it. For, after speaking out ceasing to be a virgin. You see, then, of abstaining from meats, which God has that there is a great difference between excreated to be received with thanksgiving by horting to virginity as the better of two good believers, the apostle goes on, "And by them things, and forbidding to marry by denouncwho know the truth; for every creature of ing the true purpose of marriage; between God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it abstaining from food as a symbolic observbe received with thanksgiving: for it is sanc-ance, or for the mortification of the body, tified by the word of God and prayer." This and abstaining from food which God has you deny; for your idea, and motive, and be- created for the reason that God did not create lief in abstaining from such food is, that they it. In one case, we have the doctrine of the are not typically, but naturally, evil and im- prophets and apostles; in the other, the docpure. In this assuredly you blaspheme the trine of lying devils. 11 Cor. vii. 5, 6. 21 Tim. iv. 3-5.

I

31 Cor. vii. 38.

BOOK XXXI.

THE SCRIPTURE PASSAGE: "TO THE PURE ALL THINGS ARE PURE, BUT TO THE IMPURE AND DEFILED IS NOTHING PURE; BUT EVEN THEIR MIND AND CONSCIENCE ARE DEFILED," IS DISCUSSED FROM BOTH THE MANICHÆAN AND THE CATHOLIC POINTS OF VIEW, FAUSTUS OBJECTING TO ITS APPLICATION TO HIS PARTY AND AUGUSTIN INSISTING ON ITS APPLICATION. 1. FAUSTUS said: "To the pure all things the face of Paul's announcement, that there is are pure. But to the impure and defiled is nothing which is not pure, and that abstinence nothing pure; but even their mind and con- from certain food is the doctrine of devils, and science are defiled." As regards this verse, that those who think anything defiled are poltoo, it is very doubtful whether, for your own luted in their mind, if you not only abstain, sake, you should believe it to have been writ- as we have said, but make a merit of it, and ten by Paul. For it would follow that Moses believe that you become more acceptable to and the prophets were not only influenced by Christ in proportion as you are more abstedevils in making so much in their laws of the mious, or, according to this new doctrine, as distinctions in food, but also that they them- your minds are defiled and your conscience selves were impure and defiled in their mind polluted. It should also be observed that, and conscience, so that the following words while there are three religions in the world also might properly be applied to them: which, though in a very different manner, ap"They profess to know God, but in works point chastity and abstinence as the means of deny Him." This is applicable to no one purification of the mind, the religions, namely, more than to Moses and the prophets, who of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Christians, are known to have lived very differently from the opinion that everything is pure cannot what was becoming in men knowing God. have come from any one of the three. It is Up to this time I have thought only of adul- certainly not from Judaism, nor from Paganteries and frauds and murders as defiling the ism, which also makes a distinction of food; conscience of Moses and the prophets; but the only difference being, that the Hebrew now, from what this verse says, it is plain that classification of animals does not harmonize they were also defiled, because they looked with the Pagan. Then as to the Christian upon something as defiled. How, then, can faith, if you think it peculiar to Christianity you persist in thinking that the vision of the to consider nothing defiled, you must first of divine majesty can have been bestowed on all confess that there are no Christians among such men, when it is written that only the you. For things offered to idols, and what pure in heart can see God? Even supposing dies of itself, to mention nothing else, are that they had been pure from unlawful crimes, regarded by you all as great defilement. If, this superstitious abstinence from certain again, this is a Christian practice, on your kinds of food, if it defiles the mind, is enough part, the doctrine which is opposed to all abto debar them from the sight of deity. Gone stinence from impurities cannot be traced to for ever, too, is the boast of Daniel, and of Christianity either. How, then, could Paul the three youths, who, till now that we are have said what is not in keeping with any retold that nothing is unclean, have been re- ligion? In fact, when the apostle from a Jew garded among the Jews as persons of great became a Christian, it was a change of cuspurity and excellence of character, because, toms more than of religion. As for the writer in observance of hereditary customs, they of this verse, there seems to be no religion carefully avoided defiling themselves with which favors his opinion. Gentile food, especially that of sacrifices." Now it appears that they were defiled in mind and conscience most of all when they were closing their mouth against blood and idolfeasts.

[blocks in formation]

3. Be sure, then, whenever you discover anything else in Scripture to assail our faith with, to see, in the first place, that it is not against you, before you commence your attack on us. For instance, there is the passage you continually quote about Peter, that he once saw a vessel let down from heaven in which were all kinds of animals and serpents, and that, when he was surprised and astonished, a voice was heard, saying to him, Peter, kill and eat whatsoever thou seest in the vessel, and that he replied, Lord I will

not touch what is common or unclean. On of what they rejected; which is true of this the voice spoke again, What I have all unbelievers, but especially of you Manicleansed, call not unclean. This, indeed, chæans, for to you nothing whatever is seems to have an allegorical meaning, and pure. For, although you take great care to not to refer to the absence of distinction in keep the food which you use separate from food. But as you choose to give it this the contamination of flesh, still it is not pure meaning, you are bound to feed upon all wild to you, for the only creator of it you allow is animals, and scorpions, and snakes, and rep- the devil. And you hold, that, by eating it, tiles in general, in compliance with this vision you release your god, who suffers confineof Peter's. In this way, you will show that ment and pollution in it. One would think you are really obedient to the voice which you might consider yourselves pure, since Peter is said to have heard. But you must your stomach is the proper place for purify never forget that you at the same time con- ing your god. But even your own bodies, in demn Moses and the prophets, who considered your opinion, are of the nature and handimany things polluted which, according to this work of the race of darkness; while your souls utterance, God has sanctified. are still affected by the pollution of your bodies. What, then, is pure to you? Not the things you eat; not the receptacle of your food; not yourselves, by whom it is purified. Thus you see against whom the words of the apostle are directed; he expresses himself so as to include all who are impure and unbelieving, but first and chiefly to condemn you. To the pure, therefore, all things are pure, in the nature in which they were created; but to the ancient Jewish people all things were not pure in their typical significance; and, as regards bodily health, or the customs of society, all things are not suitable to us. But when things are in their proper places, and the order of nature is preserved, to the pure all things are pure; but to the impure and unbelieving, among whom you stand first, nothing is pure. You might make a wholesome application to yourselves of the following words of the apostle, if you desired a cure for your seared consciences. The words are: "Their very mind and conscience are defiled."

4. AUGUSTIN replied: When the apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure,' he refers to the natures which God had created, —as it is written by Moses in Genesis, "And God made all things; and behold they were very good,"—not to the typical meanings, according to which God, by the same Moses, distinguished the clean from the unclean. Of this we have already spoken at length more than once, and need not dwell on it here. It is clear that the apostle called those impure who, after the revelation of the New Testament, still advocated the observance of the shadows of things to come, as if without them the Gentiles could not obtain the salvation which is in Christ, because in this they were carnally minded; and he called them unbelieving, because they did not distinguish between the time of the law and the time of grace. To them, he says, nothing is pure, because they made an erroneous and sinful use both of what they received and

I Acts x. 11-15.

2 Gen. i. 31.

BOOK XXXII.

FAUSTUS FAILS TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE SHOULD BE REQUIRED EITHER TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE, WHILE THE CATHOLICS ACCEPT OR REJECT THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT PLEASURE. AUGUSTIN DENIES THAT THE CATHOLICS TREAT THE OLD TESTAMENT ARBITRARILY, AND EXPLAINS THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS IT.

things which he held to be dung.' Why, then, should it seem strange or singular in me that I select from the New Testament whatever is purest, and helpful for my salvation, while I set aside the interpolations of your predecessors, which impair its dignity and grace?

1. FAUSTUS said: You say, that if we be- of the other things as Paul thought of the lieve the Gospel, we must believe everything that is written in it. Why, then, since you believe the Old Testament, do you not believe all that is found in any part of it? Instead of that, you cull out only the prophecies telling of a future King of the Jews, for you suppose this to be Jesus, along with a few precepts of common morality, such as, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and all the rest you pass over, thinking

2. If there are parts of the Testament of

1 Phil. iii. 8.

« PrécédentContinuer »