YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE WORKS

AURELIUS AUGUSTINE, in
BISHOP OF HIPPO.
A NEW TRANSLATION.
<£BttcS bv tljt
REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.

VOL. V.
WEITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANICH^AN HEEESY.

ED INB U EG II:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXXII.

I'KINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLAEK, EDINBURGH.
XONDON, . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
•DUBLIN, JOHN EOBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YOKK, . SORIBNER, WELFORD, AND CO.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
OF THE MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, . . 1
OX THE MORALS OF THE MANICHSANS, ... 51 . I.
AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICH.2BUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL, . . 97
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE M ANICH^AN, . . . .145
INDEX, . . . . 561

PREFACE.

NO reader of the accompanying volume can be expected to
take a very lively interest in its contents, unless he
has before his mind some facts regarding the extraordinary
genius to whom the heresy of Manichseism owes its origin
and its name. His history is involved in considerable obscu
rity, owing to the suspicious nature of the documents from
which it is derived, and the difficulty of constructing a con
sistent and probable account out of the contradictory state
ments of the Asiatics and the Greeks. The ascertained facts,
therefore, are few, and may be briefly stated.1
According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Mani was born a.d.
240. From his original name, Corbicius or Carcubius, Beau
sobre conjectures that he was born in Carcub, a town of
Chaldsea. He belonged to a Magian family, and while still a
youth won a distinguished place among the sages of Persia.
He was master of all the lore peculiar to his class, and was,
besides, so proficient a mathematician and geographer, that he
was able to construct a globe. He was a skilled musician,
and had some knowledge of the Greek language, — an accom
plishment rare among his countrymen. But his fame, and
1 Beausobre (Histoire Critique de Manichee et du Manicheisme, Amst. 1734,
2 vols.) has collected everything that is known of Mani. The original sources
are here sifted with unusual acuteness, and with great and solid learning, though
the author's strong "bias in favour of a heretic " frequently leads him to make
unwarranted statements. Burton's estimate of this entertaining and indis
pensable work (Heresies of Apostol. Age, p. xxi.) is much fairer than Pusey's
(Aug. Conf. p. 314). A brief account of Mani and his doctrines is given by Mil-
man with his usual accuracy, impartiality, and lucidity (Hist, of Christianity,
ii. 259, ed. 1867). For any one who wishes to investigate the subject further,
ample references aTe there given. A specimen of the confusion that involves
the history of Mani will be found in the account given by Socrates {Hist. i. 22).

Vlll PREFACE.

even his ultimate success as a teacher, was due in great mea
sure to his skill in painting, which was so considerable as to
earn for him among the Persians the distinctive title, Mani
the painter. His disposition was ardent and lively, but patient
and self-restrained. His appearance was striking, as he wore
the usual dress of a Persian sage : the high-soled shoes, the
one red, the other green ; the mantle of azure blue, that changed
colour as he moved; the ebony staff in his right hand, and the
Babylonish book under his left arm.
The meaning of his name, Mani, Manes, or Manichseus, has
been the subject of endless conjecture. Epiphanius supposes
that he was providentially so named, that men might be
warned against the mania of his heresy.1 Hyde, whose
opinion on any Oriental subject must have weight, tells us
that in Persian mani means painter, and that he was so called
from his profession. Archbishop Usher conjectured that it
was a form of Manaem or Menahem, which means Paraclete
or Comforter ; founding this conjecture on the fact that Sulpi-
cius Severus calls the Israelitish king Menahem,2 Mane. Gata-
ker supplements this idea by the conjecture that Manes took
this name at his own instance, and in pursuance of his claim
to be the Paraclete. It is more probable that, if his name
was really given on account of this meaning, he received it
from the widow who seems to have adopted him when a boy,
and may have called him her Consolation. But it is also pos
sible that Manes was not an uncommon Persian name, and
that he adopted it for some reason too trifling to discover.3
While still a young man he was ordained as a Christian
priest, and distinguished himself in that capacity by his
knowledge of Scripture, and the zeal with which he dis
charged his sacred functions. His heretical tendencies, how
ever, were very soon manifested, stimulated, we may suppose,
by his anxiety to make the Christian religion more acceptable
to those who adhered to the Eastern systems. Excommuni
cated from the Christian Church, Manes found asylum with
1 See also Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vii. 31, with Heinichen's note.
2 2 Kings xv. 14.
3 " Peut-^tre cherehons nous du mystere, ou il n'y en a point." — Beausobre
i. 79.

PKEFACE. ix

Sapor, and won his confidence by presenting only the Magian
side of his system. But no sooner did he permit the Chris
tian element to appear, and call himself the apostle of the
Lord, and show a desire to reform Magianism, than his sove
reign determined to put him to death as a revolutionist.
Forced to flee, he took refuge in Turkesthan, and gained influ
ence there, partly by decorating the temples with paintings.
To lend his doctrines the appearance of divine authority, he
adopted the same device as Zoroaster and Mohammed. Hav
ing discovered a cave through which there ran a rill of water,
he laid up in it a store of provisions, and retired there for a
year, giving out that he was on a visit to heaven. In this
retirement he produced his Gospel} — a work illustrated with
symbolical drawings the ingenuity of which has been greatly
praised. This book Manes presented to Hormizdas, the son
and successor of Sapor, who professed himself favourable to
his doctrine, and even built him a castle as a place of shelter
and retirement. Unfortunately for Manes, Hormizdas died
in the second year of his reign; and though his successor,
Varanes, was at first willing to shield him from persecution,
yet, finding that the Magians were alarmed for their religion,
he appointed a disputation to be held between the opposing
parties. Such trials of dialectic in Eastern courts have not
unfrequently resulted in very serious consequences to the
parties engaged in them. In this instance the result was
fatal to Manes. Worsted in argument, he was condemned to
die, and thus perished in some sense as a martyr. The mode
of his death is uncertain ; 2 but it seems that his skin was
stuffed with chaff, and hung up in public in terrorem. This
occurred in the year 277, and the anniversary was comme
morated as the great religious festival of the Manicheeans.
This is not the place to attempt any account or criticism
of the strange eclecticism of Mani.3 An adequate idea of the
system may be gathered from the accompanying treatises. It
1 Called Erteng or Arzeng, i.e., according to Eenaudot, an illustrated booh.
2 Bohringer adopts the more horrible tradition. ' ' Sein Schieksal war, dass er
von den Christen, von den Magiern verfolgt, nach mannigfachem Wechsel unter
Baharam lebendig gesehunden wurde " (p. 386).
3 Bohringer characterizes it briefly in the words : " Es ist der alte heidnische

PREFACE.

may, however, be desirable to give some account of the original
sources of information regarding it.
We study the systems of heresiarchs at a disadvantage
when our only means of ascertaining their opinions is from
the fragmentary quotations and hostile criticism which occur
in the writings of their adversaries. Such, however, is our
only source of information regarding the teaching of Mani-
chseus. Originally, indeed, this heresy was specially active in
a literary direction, assailing the Christian Scriptures with an
ingenuity of unbelief worthy of a later age, and apparently
ambitious of promulgating a rival canon. Certainly the writ
ings of its early supporters were numerous;1 and from the care
and elegance with which they were transcribed, the sumptuous
character of the manuscripts, and the mysterious emblems
with which they were adorned, we should fancy it was in
tended to inspire the people with respect for an authoritative
though as yet undefined code. It is, indeed, nowhere said or
implied that the sacred books of the Manichaeans were re
served for the eye only of the initiated or elect ; and their
reception of the New Testament Scriptures (subject to their
own revision and emendation) would make it difficult • for
them to establish any secret code apart from these writings.
There were certainly, however, doctrines of an esoteric kind,
which were not divulged to the catechumens or hearers ; and
many of their books, being written in Persian, Syriac, or Greek,
were practically unavailable for the instruction of the Latin-
speaking population. It was not always easy, therefore, to
obtain an accurate knowledge of their opinions. Commenta
ries on the whole of the Old and New Testaments were written
by Hierax ; 2 a Theosophy by Aristocritus ; a book of memoirs,
or rather Memorabilia, of Manicheeus, and other works, by
Dualismus mit seiner Naturtheologie, der in Mani's Systeme seine letzten Krafte
sammelt und unter der gleissenden Hiille christlicher Worte und Formen an
den reinen Monotheismus des Christenthums und dessen reine Ethik sich
heranwagt. "
1 Aug. c. Faustum, xiii. 6 and 18.
2 Lardner, however, seems to prove that Hierax was not a Manichsean, though
some of his opinions approximated to this heresy. The whole subject of the
Manichaaan literature is treated by Lardner ( Works, iii. p. 374) with the learning
of Beausobre, and more than Beausobre's impartiality.

PREFACE. XI

Heraclides, Aphthonius, Adas, and Agapius. Unfortunately all
of these books have perished, whether in the flames to which
the Christian authorities commanded that all Manichasan books
should be consigned, or by the slower if not more critical and
impartial processes of time.
Manichseus himself was the author of several works : a
Gospel, the Treasury of Life (and probably an abridgment of
the same), the Mysteries, the Foundation Epistle, a book of
Articles or heads of doctrine, one or two works on astronomy
or astrology, and a collection of letters so dangerous, that
Manichseans who sought restoration to the Church were re
quired to anathematize them.
Probably the most important of these writings was the
Foundation Epistle, so called because it contained the leading
articles of doctrine on which the new system was built. This
letter was written in Greek or Syriac ; but a Latin version of
it was current in Africa, and came into the hands of Augus
tine, who undertook its refutation. To accomplish this with
the greater precision and effect, he quotes the entire text of
each passage of the Epistle before proceeding to criticise it.
Had Augustine accomplished the whole of his task, we should
accordingly have been in possession of the whole of this im
portant document. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, Angus-
tine stops short at an early point in the Epistle; and though he
tells us he had notes on the remainder, and would some day
expand and publish them, this promise lay unredeemed for
thirty years till the day of his death. Extracts from the
same Epistle and from the Treasury are also given by Augus
tine in the treatise De Natwra Boni!
Next, we have in the Opus Imperfectum of Augustine some
extracts from a letter of Manichseus to Menoch, which Julian
had unearthed and republished to convict Augustine of being
still tainted with Manichaean sentiments. These extracts give
1 The De Natura Boni, written in the year 405, is necessarily very much a
reproduction of what is elsewhere affirmed, that all natures are good, and created
by God, who alone is immutable and incorruptible. It presents concisely the
leading positions of Augustine in this controversy, and concludes with an elo
quent prayer that his efforts may be blessed to the conversion of the heretics, —
not the only passage which demonstrates that he wrote not for the glory of
victory so much, as for the deliverance of men from fatal error.

PREFACE.

us some insight into the heresiarch's opinions regarding the
corruption of nature and the evils of sexual love.
Again, we have Manichaeus' letter to Marcel, preserved by
Epiphanius, and given in full by Beausobre -,1 which, however,
merely reiterates two of the doctrines most certainly identi
fied with Manichaeus, — the assertion of two principles, and the
tenet that the Son of God was man only in appearance.
Finally, Fabricius has inserted in the fifth volume of his
Bibliotheca Grmca the fragments, such as they are, collected
by Grabe.
Such is the fragmentary character of the literary remains
of Manichaeus : for fuller information regarding his opinions
we must depend on Theodoret, Epiphanius, Alexander of
Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, and Augustine. Beausobre is of
opinion that the Fathers derived all that they knew of Mani
chaeus from the Acts of Archelaus! This professes to be a
report of a disputation held between Manes and Archelaus
bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia. Grave doubts have been
cast on the authenticity of this document, and Burton and
Milman seem inclined to consider it an imaginary dialogue,
and use it on the understanding that while some of its state
ments are manifestly untrustworthy, a discriminating reader
may gather from it some reliable material.3
In the works of Augustine there are some other pieces
which may well be reckoned among the original sources. In
the reply to Faustus, which is translated in this volume, the
1 Histoire, i. 91.
2 Published by Zaccagni in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum, Roma?
1698; and by Routh in his Reliquice Sacrce, vol. v., in which all the material
for forming an opinion regarding it is collected.
3 Any one who consults Beausobre on this point will find that historical criti
cism is not of so recent an origin as some persons seem to think. It is worth
transcribing his own account of the spirit in which he means to do his work :
" Je traiterai mon sujet en Critique, suivant la Regie de S. Paul, Examinez toutes
choses, et ne retenez que ce qui est bon. L'Histoire en general, et l'Histoire
Ecclesiastique en particulier, n'est bien souvent qu'un melange confus de faux
et de vrai, entasse par des Ecrivains mal instruits, credules ou passionez. Cela
convient surtout a l'Histoire des Heretiques et des Heresies. C'est au Lecteur
attentif et judicieux d'en faire le discernement, a l'aide d'une critique, qui ne
soit trop timide, ni temeraire. Sans le secours de cet art, on erre dans l'Histoire
comme un Pilote sur les mers, lorsqu'il n'a ni boussole, ni carte marine " (i. 7).

PREFACE. Xlll

book of Faustus is not indeed reproduced ; but there is no
reason for doubting that his arguments are fairly represented,
and we think there is evidence that even the original expres
sion of them is preserved.1 Augustine had been acquainted
with Faustus for many years. He first met him at Carthage
in 383, and found him nothing more than a clever and agree
able talker, making no pretension to science or philosophy,
and with only slender reading.2 His cleverness is sufficiently
apparent in his debate with Augustine; the objections he
leads are plausible, and put with acuteness, but at the same
time with a flippancy which betrays a want of earnestness
and real interest in the questions. In this reply to Faustus,
Augustine is very much on the defensive, and his statements
are apologetic rather than systematic.
But in an age when the ability to read was by no means
commensurate with the interest taken in theological questions,
written discussions were necessarily supplemented by public
disputations. These theological contests seem to have been a
popular entertainment in North Africa ; the people attending
in immense crowds, while reporters took down what was said
on either side for the sake of appeal as well as for the infor
mation of the absent. In two such disputations Augustine
engaged in connection with Manichaeism.3 The first was held
on the 28th and 29th of August 392, with a Manichaean
priest, Fortunatus. To this encounter Augustine was in
vited by a deputation of Donatists and Catholics,4 who were
alike alarmed at the progress which this heresy was making
in the district of Hippo. Fortunatus at first showed some
reluctance to meet so formidable an antagonist, but was pre
vailed upon by his own sectaries, and shows no nervousness
1 Beausobre and Cave suppose that we have the whole of Faustus' book em
bodied in Augustine's review of it. Lardner is of opinion that the commence
ment, and perhaps the greater part, of the work is given, but not the whole.
2 See the interesting account of Faustus in the Confessions, v. 10.
3 His willingness to do so, and the success with which he encountered the
most renowned champions of this heresy, should have prevented Beausobre from
charging him with misunderstanding or misrepresenting the Manichaean doctrine.
The retractation of Felix tells strongly against this view of Augustine's incom
petence to deal with Manichaeism.
4 Possidius, Vita Aug. vi.

xiv PREFACE.
during the debate. His incompetence, however, was manifest
to the Manichaeans themselves; and so hopeless was it to
think of any further proselytizing in Hippo, that he left that
city, and was too much ashamed of himself ever to return.
The character of his reasoning is shifty : he evades Augus
tine's questions, and starts fresh ones. Augustine pushes his
usual and fundamental objection to the Manichaean system :
If God is impassible and incorruptible, how could He be in
jured by the assaults of the kingdom of darkness ? In oppo
sition to the statement of Fortunatus, that the Almighty pro
duces no evil, he explains that God made no nature evil, but
made man free, and that voluntary sin is the grand original
evil. The most remarkable circumstance in the discussion is
the desire of Fortunatus to direct the conversation to the
conduct of the Manichaeans, and the refusal of Augustine tp
make good the charges which had been made against them, or
to discuss anything but the doctrine.1
Twelve years after this, a similar disputation was held
between Augustine and one of the elect among the Mani
chseans, who had come to Hippo to propagate his religion.
This man, Felix, is described by Augustine2 as being ill-
educated, but more adroit and subtle than Fortunatus. After
a keen discussion, which occupied two days, the proceedings
terminated by Felix signing a recantation of his errors in the
form of an anathema on Manichaeus, his doctrines, and the
seducing spirit that possessed him. These two disputations
are valuable, as exhibiting the points of the Manichaean system
to which its own adherents were accustomed to direct atten
tion, and the arguments on which they specially relied for
their support.
1 This cannot but make us cautious in receiving the statements of the tract,
On the Morals of the Manichaeans. There can be little doubt that many of the
Manichseans practised the ascetic virtues, and were recognisable by the gaunt-
ness and pallor of their looks, so that Manichcean became a byword for any
one who did not appreciate the felicity of good living. Thus Jerome says of a
certain class of women, "quam viderint pallentem atque tristem, Miseram,
Monacham, et Manichasam vocant " (De Cuslod. Virg. Ep. 18). Lardner throws
light on the practices of the Manichaeans, and effectually disposes of some of
the calumnies uttered regarding them. Pusey's appendix to his translation of
the Confessions may also be referred to with advantage.
2 Retract, ii. 8.

PREFACE. XV

The works given in the accompanying volume comprehend
by no means the whole of Augustine's writings against this
heresy. Before his ordination he wrote five anti-Manichaean
books, entitled De Libero Arbitrio, De Genesi contra Manichceos,
De Moribus Ecclesiw Catholicce, De Moribus Manichceorum, and
De Vera Beligione. These Paulinus called his anti-Manichaean
Pentateuch. After his ordination he was equally diligent,
publishing a little treatise in the year 391, under the title De
Utilitate Credendi} which was immediately followed by a small
work, De Duabus Animabus. In the following year the report
of the Disputatio contra Fortunatum was published ; and after
this, at short intervals, there appeared the books Contra Adi-
mantum, Contra Epistolam Manichcei quam vacant Fundamenti,
Contra Faustum, Disputatio contra Felicem, De Natura Boni,
and Contra Secundinum.
Besides these writings, which are exclusively occupied with
Manichaeism, there are others in which the Manichaean doc
trines are handled with more or less directness. These are
the Confessions, the 79th and 236th Letters, the Lecture on
Psalm 140, Sermons 1, 2, 12, 50, 153, 182, 237, the Liber
de Agone Christiano, and the De Continentia.
Of these writings, Augustine himself professed a preference
for the reply to the letter of Secundums.2 It is a pleasing
feature of the times, that a heretic whom he did not know
even by sight should write to Augustine entreating him to
abstain from writing against the Manichaeans, and reconsider
his position, and ally himself with those whom he had till
now fancied to be in error. His language is respectful, and
illustrates the esteem iu which Augustine was held by his
contemporaries ; though he does not scruple to insinuate that
his conversion from Manichaeism was due to motives not of
the highest kind. We have not given this letter and its reply,
because the preference of Augustine has not been ratified by
the judgment of his readers.
The present volume gives a fair sample of Augustine's con-
1 Epist. August, xxv.
2 Retract, ii. 10 : "quod, niea sententia, omnibus quae ad versus illam pestem
scribere potui, facile praepono." The reason of this preference is explained by
Bindemann, Der heilige Augustinus, iii. 168.

Xvi PREFACE.

troversial powers. His nine years' personal experience of the
vanity of Manichaeism made him thoroughly earnest and sym
pathetic in his efforts to disentangle other men from its snares,
and also equipped him with the knowledge requisite for this
task. No doubt the Pelagian controversy was more congenial
to his mind. His logical acuteness and knowledge of Scrip
ture availed him more in combating men who fought with the
same weapons, than in dealing with a system which threw
around its positions the mist of Gnostic speculation, or veiled
its doctrine under a grotesque mythology, or based itself on
a cosmogony too fantastic for a Western mind to tolerate.1
But however Augustine may have misconceived the strange
forms in which this system was presented, there is no doubt
that he comprehended and demolished its fundamental prin
ciples;2 that he did so as a necessary part of his own personal
search for the truth ; and that in doing so he gained posses
sion vitally and permanently of ideas and principles which
subsequently entered into all he thought and wrote. In find
ing his way through the mazes of the obscure region into
which Manichaeus had led him, he once for all ascertained the
true relation subsisting between God and His creatures, formed
his opinion regarding the respective provinces of reason and
faith, and the connection of the Old and New Testaments, and
found the root of all evil in the created will THE EDITOR.

Some knowledge of the Magianism of the time of Manes
may be obtained from the sacred books of the Parsis, especially
from the Vcndidad Sade, an account of which is given by Dr.
Wilson of Bombay in his book on the Parsi Keligion. — Tr.

1 "Wo Entwickelungen, dialektische Begriffe sein sollten, stellt sich ein Bild,
ein Mythus ein." — Bohringer, p. 390.
2 Some have thought Augustine more successful here than elsewhere. Cassio-
dorus may have thought so when he said : " diligentius atque vivacius adversus
eos quam contra hsereses alias disseruit" (Instit. i. quoted by Lardner).

OF THE MOEALS OF THE CATHOLIC
CHUECH.1

IT IS LAID DOWN AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CUSTOMS OF THE HOLT LIFE OF THE
CHURCH SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE CHIEF GOOD OF MAN, THAT IS, GOD.
WE MUST SEEK AFTER GOD WITH SUPREME AFFECTION ; AHD THIS DOCTRINE
IS SUPPORTED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BY THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH
TESTAMENTS. THE FOUR VIRTUES GET THEIR NAMES FROM DIFFERENT
FORMS OF THIS LOVE. THEN FOLLOW THE DUTIES OF LOVE TO OUR NEIGH
BOUR. IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WE FIND EXAMPLES OF CONTINENCE
AND OF TRUE CHRISTIAN CONDUCT.
I. — How the pretensions of the Manichoeans are to be refuted. Two Manichczan
falsehoods.
1. I/INOUGH, probably, has been done in our other books
J—i in the way of answering the ignorant and profane
attacks which the Manichaeans make on the, law, which is
called the Old Testament, in a spirit of vainglorious boasting,
and with the approval of the uninstructed. Here, too, I may
shortly touch upon the subject. For every one with average
intelligence can easily see that the explanation of the Scrip
tures should be sought for from those who are the professed
teachers of the Scriptures ; and that it may happen, and in
deed always happens, that many things seem absurd to the
ignorant, which, when they are explained by the learned, ap
pear all the more excellent, and are received in the explanation
with the greater pleasure on account of the obstructions which
made it difficult to reach the meaning. This commonly happens
1 Written in the year 388. In his Retractations (i. 7) Augustine says : "When
I was at Rome after my baptism, and could not bear in silence the vaunting of
the Manichaeans about their pretended and misleading continence or abstinence,
in which, to deceive the inexperienced, they claim superiority over true Chris
tians, to whom they are not to be compared, I wrote two books, one on the
morals of the Catholic Church, the other on the morals of the Manichaeans. "
7 A

MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

as regards the holy books of the Old Testament, if only the
man who meets with difficulties applies to a pious teacher,
and not to a profane critic, and if he begins his inquiries from
a desire to find truth, and not in rash opposition. And should
the inquirer meet with some, whether bishops or presbyters,
or any officials or ministers of the Catholic Church, who either
avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or, content with simple
faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must
not despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case
where neither are all able to teach to whom the inquiry is
addressed, nor are all inquirers worthy of learning the truth
Diligence and piety are both necessary : on the one hand, we
must have knowledge to find truth, and, on the other hand, we
must deserve to get the knowledge.
2. But as the Manichaeans have two tricks for catching the
unwary, so as to make them take them as teachers, — one, that
of finding fault with the Scriptures, which they either mis
understand or wish to be misunderstood, the other, that of
making a show of chastity and of notable abstinence, — this
book shall contain our doctrine of life and morals according
to Catholic teaching, and will perhaps make it appear how easy
it is to pretend to virtue, and how difficult to possess virtue.
I will refrain, if I can, from attacking their weak points, which
I know well, with the violence with which they attack what
they know nothing of; for I wish them, if possible, to be
cured rather than conquered. And I will quote such testi
monies from the Scriptures as they are bound to believe, for
they shall be from the New Testament ; and even from this
I will take none of the passages which the Manichaeans when
hard pressed are accustomed to call spurious, but passages
which they are obliged to acknowledge and approve. Aud for
every testimony from 'apostohc teaching I will bring a similar
statement from the Old Testament, that if they ever become
willing to wake up from their persistent dreams, and to rise
towards the hght of Christian faith, they may discover both
how far from being Christian is the hfe which they profess
and how truly Christian is the Scripture which they cavil at.

WHAT HAPPINESS IS.

II. — He begins with arguments, in compliance with the mistaken method of the
Manichaeans.
3. Where, then, shall I begin ? With authority, or with
reasoning ? In the order of nature, when we learn anything,
authority precedes reasoning. For a reason may seem weak,
when, after it is given, it requires authority to confirm it.
But because the minds of men are obscured by familiarity
with darkness, which covers them in the night of sins and evil
habits, and cannot perceive in a way suitable to the clearness
and purity of reason, there is most wholesome provision for
bringing the dazzled eye into the hght of truth under the
congenial shade of authority. But since we have to do with
people who are perverse in all their thoughts and words and
actions, and who insist on nothing more than on beginning
with argument, I will, as a concession to them, take what I
think a wrong method in discussion. For I like to imitate,
as far as I can, the gentleness of my Lord Jesus Christ, who
took on Himself the evil of death itself, wishing to free us
from it. l
III. — Happiness is in the enjoyment of man's chief good. Two conditions of the
chief good : 1st, Nothing is better than it ; 2d, It cannot be lost against the
will.
4. How then, according to reason, ought man to hve ? We
all certainly desire to hve happily ; and there is no human
being but assents to this statement almost before it is made.
But the title happy cannot, in my opinion, belong either to
him who has not what he loves, whatever it may be, or to him
who has what he loves if it is hurtful, or to him ,who does
not love what he has, although it is good in perfection. For
one who seeks what he cannot obtain suffers torture, and one
who has got what is not desirable is cheated, and one who
does not seek for what is worth seeking for is diseased. Now
in all these cases the mind cannot but be unhappy, and hap
piness and unhappiness cannot reside at the same time in one
man; so in none of these cases can the man be happy. I
find, then, a fourth case, where the happy hfe exists, — when
that which is man's chief ^good is. both loved and possessed.
For what do we call enjoyment but having at hand the ob
ject of love ? And no one can be happy who does not enjoy

MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

what is man's chief good, nor is there any one who enjoys
this who is not happy. We must then have at hand our
chief good, if we think of hving happily.
5. We must now inquire what is man's chief good, which
of course cannot be anything inferior to man himself. For
whoever follows after what is inferior to himself, becomes
himself inferior. But every man is bound to follow what is
best. Wherefore man's chief good is not inferior to man. Is
it then something similar to man himself ? It must be so,
if there is nothmg above man which he is capable of enjoying.
But if we find something which is both superior to man, and
can be possessed by the man who loves it, who can doubt
that in seeking for happiness man should endeavour to reach
that which is more excellent than the being who makes the
endeavour ? For if happiness consists in the enjoyment of a
good than which there is nothiug better, which we call the chief
good, how can a man be properly called happy who has not yet
attained to his chief good ? or how can that be the chief good
beyond which something better remains for us to arrive at ?
Such, then, being the chief good, it must be something which
cannot be lost against the will. For no one can feel confident
regarding a good which he knows can be taken from him,
although he wishes to keep and cherish it. But if a man
feels no confidence regarding the good which he enjoys, how
can he be happy while in such fear of losing it?
IV.— Man— what?
6. Let us then see what is better than man. This must
necessarily be hard to find, unless we first ask and examine
what man is. I am not now called upon to give a definition
of man. The question here seems to me to be, — since almost
all agree, or at least, which is enough, those I have now to do
with are of the same opinion with me, that we are made up of
soul and body, — What is man ? Is he both of these? or is he
the body only, or the soul only ? For although the thino-s are
two, soul and body, and although neither without the other
could be called man (for the body would not be man without
the soul, nor again would the soul be man if there were not a
body animated by it), still it is possible that one of these may

MAN'S CHIEF GOOD.

be held to be man, and may be called so. What then do we
call man ? Is he soul and body, as in a double harness, or
hke a centaur ? Or do we mean the body only, as being in
the service of the soul which rules it, as. the word lamp
denotes not the hght and the case together, but only the case,
though on account of the hght ? Or do we mean only the
mind, and that on account of the body which it rules, as
horseman means not the man and the horse, but the man only,
and that as employed in ruling the horse ? This dispute is
not easy to settle ; or, if the proof is plain, the statement
requires time. This is an expenditure of time and strength
which we need not incur. For whether the name man belongs
to both, or only to the soul, the chief good of man is uot the j
chief good of the body ; but what is the chief good either of j
both soul and body, or of the soul only, that is man's chief I
good. V. — Man's chief good is not the chief good of tlie body only, but the chief
good of the soul.
7. Now if we ask what is the chief good of the body,
reason obhges us to admit that it is that by means of which
the body comes to be in its best state. But of all the things
which invigorate the body, there is nothing better or greater
than the soul. The chief good of the body, then, is not bodily
pleasure, not absence of pain, not strength, not beauty, not
swiftness, or whatever else is usually reckoned among the
goods of the body, but simply the soul. For ah the things
mentioned the soul supphes to the body by its presence, and,
what is above them all, life. Hence I conclude that the soul
is not the chief good of man, whether we give the name of
man to soul and body together, or to the soul alone. For as,
according to reason, the chief good of the body is that which
is better than the body, and from which the body receives
vigour and hfe, so whether the soul itself is man, or soul and
body both, we must discover whether there is anything which
goes before the soul itself, in following which the soul comes
to the perfection of good of which it is capable in its own
kind. If such a thing can be found, all uncertainty must be
at an end, and we must pronounce this to be really and truly
the chief good of man.

MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

8. If, again, the body is man, it must be admitted that the
•soul is the chief good of man. But clearly, when we treat
of morals, — when we inquire what manner of hfe must be
held in order to obtain happiness, — it is not the body to
which the precepts are addressed, it is not bodily disciphne
which we discuss. In short, the observance of good customs
belongs to that part of us which inquires and learns, which
are the prerogatives of the soul ; so, when we speak of attain
ing to virtue, the question does not regard the body. But if
it follows, as it does, that the body which is ruled over by
a soul possessed of virtue is ruled both better and more
honourably, and is in its greatest perfection in consequence
of the perfection of the soul which rightfully governs it, that
which gives perfection to the soul will be man's chief good,
though we call the body man. For if my coachman, in
obedience to me, feeds and drives the horses he has charge
of in the most satisfactory manner, himself enjoying the more
of my bounty in proportion to his good conduct, can any one
deny that the good condition of the horses, as well as that of
the coachman, is due to me ? So the question seems to me
to be not, whether soul and body is man, or the soul only, or
body only, but what gives perfection to the soul; for when
this is obtained, a man cannot but be either perfect, or at least
much better than in the absence of this one thing.
VI. — Virtue gives perfection to the soul; the soul obtains virtue by following
God ; following God is the happy life.
9. No one will question that virtue gives perfection to the
soul. But it is a very proper subject of inquiry whether this
virtue can exist by itself or only in the soul. Here ao-ain
arises a profound discussion, needing lengthy treatment ; but
perhaps my summary will serve the purpose. God will, I
trust, assist me, so that, notwithstanding our feebleness, we
may give instruction on these great matters briefly as well as
intelligibly. In either case, whether virtue can exist by itself
without the soul, or can exist only in the soul, undoubtedly
in the pursuit of virtue the soul follows after something and
this must be either the soul itself, or virtue, or something
else. But if the soul follows after itself in the pursuit of
virtue, it follows after a foolish thing; for before obtaining

GOD THE CHIEF GOOD.

virtue it is foohsh. Now the height of a follower's desire is
to reach that which he follows after. So the soul must either
not wish to reach what it follows after, which is utterly absurd
and unreasonable, or, in following after itself while foolish, it
reaches the folly which it flees from. But if it follows after
virtue in the desire to reach it, how can it follow what does
not exist? or how can it desire to reach what it aheady
possesses ? Either, therefore, virtue exists beyond the soul,
or if we are not allowed to give the name of virtue except to
the habit and disposition of the wise soul, which can exist
only in the soul, we must allow that the soul follows after
something else in order that virtue may be produced in itself ;
for neither by foUowing after nothing, nor by foUowing after
foUy, can the soul, according to my reasoning, attain to
wisdom. 10. This something else, then, by foUowing after which the
soul becomes possessed of virtue and wisdom, is either a wise
man or God. But we have said already that it must be some
thing that we cannot lose against our wiU. No one can think
it necessary to ask whether a wise man, supposing we are
content to foUow after him, can be taken from us in spite of
our unwillingness or our persistence. God then remains, in j
following after whom we hve weU, and in reaching whom we j
hve both weU and happily. If any deny God's existence,
why should I consider the method of deahng with them, when
it is doubtful whether they ought to be dealt with at aU ? At
any rate, it would require a different starting-point, a different
plan, a different investigation from what we are now engaged
in. I am now addressing those who do not deny the existence
of God, and who, moreover, aUow that human affairs are not
disregarded by Him. For there is no one, I suppose, who
makes any profession of religion but wiU hold that divine
Pnvidence cares at least for our souls.
VII. — The knowledge of God to be obtained from the Scripture. The plan and
principal mysteries of the divine scheme of redemption.
11. But how can we follow after Him whom we do not
see ? or how can we see Him, we who are not only men, but
also men of weak understanding ? For though God is seen not
with the eyes but with the mind, where can such a mind be

MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

found as shall, while obscured by foohshness, succeed or even
attempt to drink in that hght ? We must therefore have
recourse to the instructions of those whom we have reason to
think wise. Thus far argument brings us. For in human
things reasoning is employed, not as of greater certainty, but
as easier from use. But when we come to divine things, this
faculty turns away ; it cannot behold ; it pants, and gasps, and
burns with desire ; it faUs back from the hght of truth, and
turns again to its wonted obscurity, not from choice, but from
exhaustion. What a dreadful catastrophe is this, that the soul
should be reduced to greater helplessness when it is seeking
rest from its toh ! So, when we are hasting to retire into
darkness, it wiU be weU that by the appointment of adorable
Wisdom we should be met by the friendly shade of authority,
and should be attracted by the wonderful character of its
contents, and by the utterances of its pages, which, hke
.shadows, typify and attemper the truth.
1 2. What more could have been done for our salvation ?
What can be more gracious and bountiful than divine pro
vidence, which, when man had faUen from its laws, and, in
just retribution for his coveting mortal things, had brought
forth a mortal offspring, stiU did not whoUy abandon him ?
For in this most righteous government, whose ways are strange
and inscrutable, there is, by means of unknown connections
estabhshed in the creatures subject to it, both a severity of
punishment and a mercifulness of salvation. How beautiful
this is, how great, how worthy of God, in fine, how true, which
is aU we are seeking for, we shaU never be able to perceive,
unless, beginning with things human and at hand, and holding
by the faith and the precepts of true rehgion, we continue with
out turning from it in the way which God has secured for us
by the separation of the patriarchs, by the bond of the law, by
the foresight of the prophets, by the witness of the apostles,
by the blood of the martyrs, and by the subjugation of the
Gentiles. From this point, then, let no one ask me for my
opinion, but let us rather hear the oracles, and submit our
weak inferences to the announcements of Heaven.

TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.

VIII. — God is the chief good, whom we are to seek after with supreme affection.
13. Let us see how the Lord Himself in the gospel has
taught us to hve ; how, too, Paul the apostle, — for the Mani
chaeans cannot reject these Scriptures'. Let us hear, 0 Christ,
what chief end Thou dost prescribe to us; and that is evi
dently the chief end after which we are told to strive with
supreme affection. "Thou shalt love," He says, "the Lord
thy God." TeU me also, I pray Thee, what must be the
measure of love ; for I fear lest the desire enkindled in my
heart should either exceed or come short in fervour. " With
aU thy heart," He says. Nor is that enough. " With aU thy
soul." Nor is it enough yet. "With aU thy mind."1 What
do you wish more ? I might, perhaps, wish more if I could
see the possibility of more. What does Paul say on this ?
" We know," he says, " that aU things issue in good to them
that love God." Let him, too, say what is the measure of
love. " Who then," he says, " shaU separate us from the love
of Christ ? shaU tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?"2 We have
heard, then, what and how much we must love ; this we
must strive after, and to this we must refer aU our plans.
The perfection of aU our good things and our perfect good
is God. We must neither come short of this nor go beyond
it : the one is dangerous, the other impossible.
IX. — Harmony of the Old and New Testament on the precepts of charity.
14. Come now, let us examine, or rather let us take notice, —
for it is obvious and can be seen at once, — whether the autho
rity of the Old Testament too agrees with those statements
taken from the gospel and the apostle. What need to speak
of the first statement, when it is clear to aU that it is a
quotation from the law given by Moses ? For it is there
written, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with aU thy
heart, and with aU thy soul, and with aU thy mind." s And
not to go farther for a passage of the Old Testament to com
pare with that of the apostle, he has himself added one.
For after saying that no tribulation, no distress, no persecu
tion, no pressure of bodhy want, no peril, no sword, separates
1 Matt. xxii. 37. 2 Rom. viii. 28, 35. "Deut. vi. 5.

10 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

us from the love of Christ, he immediately adds, " As it is
written, For Thy sake we are in suffering aU the day long ;
we are accounted as. sheep for the slaughter."1 The Mani
chseans are in the habit of saying that this is an interpola
tion, — so unable are they to reply, that they are forced in their
extremity to say this. But every one can see that this is aU
that is left for men to say when it is proved that they are
wrong. 15. And yet I ask them if they deny that this is said in
the Old Testament, or if they hold that the passage in the
Old Testament does not agree with that of the apostle. For
the first, the books wiU prove it ; and as for the second, those
prevaricators who fly off at a tangent wiU be brought to agree
with me, if they wiU only reflect a little and consider what is
said, or else I wiU press upon them the opinion of those who
judge impartiaUy. For what could agree more harmoniously
than these passages ? For tribulation, distress, persecution,
famine, nakedness, peril, cause great suffering to man whUe in
this life. So aU these words are imphed in the single quotation
from the law, where it is said, " For Thy sake we are in suffer
ing." 2 The only other thing is the sword, which does not
inflict a painful life, but removes whatever hfe it meets with.
Answering to this are the words, "We are accounted as sheep
for the slaughter." And love could not have been more
plainly expressed than by the words, " For Thy sake." Sup
pose, then, that this testimony is not found in the Apostle
Paul, but is quoted by me, must you not prove, you heretic,
1 Rom. viii. 36, cf. Ps. xliv. 22.
• Retract, i. 7, § 2 : — "In the book on the morals of the Catholic Church,
where I have quoted the words, ' For Thy sake we are in suffering all day long,
we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter,' the inaccuracy of my manuscript
misled me ; for my recollection of the Scriptures was defective from my not
being at that time familiar with them. For the reading of the other manuscripts
has a different meaning : not, we suffer, but, we suffer death, or, in one word, we
are killed. That this is the true reading is shown by the Greek text of the Sep
tuagint, from which the Old Testament was translated into Latin. I have
indeed made a good many remarks on the words, 'For thy sake we suffer,' and
the things said are not wrong in themselves ; but, as regards the harmony of
the Old and New Testaments, this case certainly does not prove it. The error
originated in the way mentioned above, and this harmony is afterwards abun
dantly proved from other passages."

THE TWO GODS OF THE MANICHAEANS. 11
either that this is not written in the old law, or that it does
not harmonize with the apostle ? And if you dare not say
either of these things (for you are shut up by the reading of
the manuscript, which wiU show that it is written, and by
common sense, which sees that nothing could agree better
with what is said by the apostle), why do you imagine that
there is any force in accusing the Scriptures of being cor
rupted ? And once more, what wiU you reply to a man who
says to you, This is what I understand, this is my view, this
is my behef, and I read these books only because I see that
everything in them agrees with the Christian faith ? Or teU
me at once if you wiU venture dehberately to teU me to the
face that we are not to beheve that the apostles and martyrs are
spoken of as having endured great sufferings for Christ's sake,
and as having been accounted by their persecutors as sheep
for the slaughter ? If you cannot say this, why should you
bring a charge against the book in which I find what you
acknowledge I ought to beheve ?
X. — What the Church teaches about God. The two gods of tite Manichaeans.
16. WiU you say that you grant that we are bound to love
God, but not the God worshipped by those who acknowledge
the authority of the Old Testament ? In that case you refuse
to worship the God who made heaven and earth, for this
is the God set forth aU through these books. And you admit
that the whole of the world, which is called heaven and earth,
had God and a good God for its author and maker. For in
speaking to you about God we must make a distinction. For
you hold that there are two gods, one good and the other
bad. But if you say that you worship and approve of wor
shipping the God who made heaven and earth, but not the
God supported by the authority of the Old Testament, you
act impertinently in trying, though vainly, to attribute to us
views and opinions altogether unlike the wholesome and profit
able doctrine we reaUy hold. Nor can your siUy and profane
discourses be at aU compared with the expositions in which
learned and pious men of the Cathohc Church open up those
Scriptures to the wilhng and worthy. Our understanding of
the law and the prophets is quite different from what you

12 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
suppose. Mistake us no longer. We do not worship a God
who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes
pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with
guilt and crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to
a little corner of it. These and such hke are the siUy notions
you are in the habit of denouncing at great length. Your
denunciation does not touch us. The fancies of old women or
of children you attack with a vehemence that is only ridicu
lous. Any one whom you persuade in this way to join you
shows no fault in the teaching of the Church, but only proves
his own ignorance of it.
1 7. If, then, you have any human feehng, — if you have any
regard for your own welfare, — you should rather examine with
diligence and piety the meaning of these passages of Scripture.
You should examine, unhappy beings that you are ; for we
condemn with no less severity and copiousness any faith
which attributes to God what is unbecoming Him, and in
those by whom these passages are hteraUy understood we
correct the mistake of ignorance, and look upon persistence in
it as absurd. And in many other things which you cannot
understand there is in the Cathohc teaching a check on the
behef of those who have got beyond mental chUdishness, not
in years, but in knowledge and understanding, — old in the
progress towards wisdom. For we learn the foUy of beheving
that God is bounded by any amount of space, even though.
infinite ; and it is held unlawful to think of God, or any part
of Him, as moving from one place to another. And should any
one suppose that anything in God's substance or nature can
suffer change or conversion, he wiU be held guilty of wild
profanity. There are thus among us chUdren who think of
God as having a human form, which they suppose He really
has, which is a most degrading idea ; and there are many of
fuU age to whose mind the majesty of God appears in its
inviolableness and unchangeableness as not only above the
human body, but above their own mind itself. These ages, as
we said, are distinguished not by time, but by virtue and dis
cretion. Among you, again, there is no one who wiU picture
God in a human form ; but neither is there one who sets God
apart from the contamination of human error. As regards

GOD THE CHIEF GOOD. 13
those who are fed hke crying babes at the breast of the
Cathohc Church, if they are not carried off by heretics, they
are nourished according to the vigour and capacity of each,
and arrive at last, one in one way and another in another,
first to a perfect man, and then to the maturity and hoary
hairs of wisdom, when they may get life as they desire, and
hfe in perfect happiness.
XI. — God is the one object of love ; therefore He is man's chief good. Nothing is
better than God. God cannot be lost against our will.
18. FoUowing after God is the desire of happiness; to
reach God is happiness itself. We foUow after God by loving
Him ; we reach Him, not by becoming entirely what He is,
but in nearness to Him, and in wonderful and immaterial
contact with Him, and in being inwardly iUuminated and
occupied by His truth and hohness. He is light itself; we
get enlightenment from Him. The greatest commandment,
therefore, which leads to happy hfe, and the first, is this :
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with aU thy heart, and
soul, and mind." For to those who love the Lord all things
issue in good. Hence Paul adds shortly after, "I am per
suaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor virtue, nor
things present, nor things future, nor height, nor depth, nor
any other creature, shaU be able to separate us from the love
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."1 If, then, to
those who love God aU things issue in good, and if, as no one
doubts, the chief or perfect good is not only to be loved, but
to be loved so that nothing shaU be loved better, as is ex
pressed in the words, " With aU thy soul, with aU thy heart,
and with aU thy mind," who, I ask, wiU not at once conclude,
when these things are aU settled and most surely believed,
that our chief good which we must hasten to arrive at in pre
ference to aU other things is nothing else than God ? And
then, if nothing can separate us from His love, must not this
be surer as weU as better than any other good ?
19. But let us consider the points separately. No one
separates us from this by threatening death. For that with
which we love God cannot die, except in not loving God ; for
death is not to love God, and that is when we prefer anything
1 Rom. viii. 38, 39.

14 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

to Him in affection and pursuit. No one separates us from
this in promismg hfe ; for no one separates us from the foun
tain in promising water. Angels do not separate us ; for the
mind cleaving to God is not inferior in strength to an angeL
Virtue i does not separate us; for if what is here caUed virtue
is that which has power in this world, the mind cleaving to
God is far above the whole world. Or if this virtue is the
perfect rectitude of the mind, this in the case of another wiU
favour our union to God, and in ourselves wiU itself unite us
to God. Present troubles do not separate us; for we feel
their burden less the closer we cling to Him from whom they
try to separate us. The promise of future things does not
separate us ; for both future good of every kind is surest in
the promise of God, and nothing is better than God Himself,
who undoubtedly is aheady possessed by those who truly
cleave to Him. Height and depth do not separate us ; for if
the height and depth of knowledge are what is meant, I wiU
rather not be inquisitive than be separated from God ; nor can
any instruction by which error is removed separate me from
Him, by separation from whom it is that any one is in error.
Or if what is meant are the higher and lower parts of this
world, how can the promise of heaven separate me from Him
who made heaven ? Or who from beneath can frighten me
into forsaking God, when I should not have known of things
beneath but by forsaking Him ? In fine, what place can
remove me from His love, when He could not be aU in every
place unless He were contained in none ?
XII. — We are united to God by love, in subjection to Him.
20. "No other creature," he says, separates us. 0 man
of profound mysteries ! He thought it not enough to say, no
creature, but he says, no other creature ; teaching that that
with which we love God, and by which we cleave to God, our
mind, namely, and understanding, is itself a creature. Thus
the body is another creature ; and if the mind is an object of
inteUectual perception, and is known only by this means, the
other creature is aU that is an object of sense, which as it
were makes itself known through the eyes, or ears, or smeU
or taste, or touch, and this must be inferior to what is per-

OF UNION TO GOD. 1 5

ceived by the inteUect alone. Now, as God also can be
known by the worthy only intellectuaUy, exalted though He
is above the intelligent mind as being its Creator and Author,
there was danger lest the human mind, from being reckoned
among invisible and immaterial 'things, should be thought to
be of the same nature with Him who created it, and so should
faU away by pride from Him to whom it should be united by
love. For the mind becomes hke God, to the extent vouch
safed by its subjection of itself to Him for information and
enhghtenment. And if it obtains the greatest nearness by
that subjection which produces likeness, it must be far re
moved from Him by that presumption which would make the
likeness greater. It is this presumption which leads the
mind to refuse obedience to the laws of God, in the desire to
be sovereign, as God is.
21. The farther, then, the mind departs from God, not in
space, but in affection and lust after things below Him, the
more it is fiUed with foUy and wretchedness. So by love it
returns to God, — a love which places it not along with God,
but under Him. And the more ardour and eagerness there
is in this, the happier and more elevated wiU the mind be,
and with God as sole governor it wiU be in perfect hberty.
Hence it must know that it is a creature. It must beheve
what is the truth, — that its Creator remains ever possessed of
the inviolable and inimitable nature of truth and wisdom ; and
must confess, even in view of the errors from which it deshes
deliverance, that it is hable to foUy and falsehood. But then,
again, it must take care that it be not separated by the love of
the other creature, that is, of this visible world, from the love
of God Himself, which sanctifies it in order to lasting hap
piness. No other creature, then, — for we are ourselves a
creature, — separates us from the love of God which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord.
XIII. — We are joined msepa/rably to God by, Christ and His Spirit.
22. Let this same Paul teU us who is this Christ Jesus our
Lord. " To them that are caUed," he says, " we preach Christ
the virtue of God, and the wisdom of God."1 And does not
' 1 Cor. i. 23, 24.

1 6 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Christ Himself say, " I am the truth ?" If, then, we ask what
it is to hve weU, — that is, to strive after happiness by hving
weU, — it must assuredly be to love -virtue, tb love wisdom, to
love truth, and to love with aU the heart, with aU the soul,
and with aU the mind ; vhtue which is inviolable and inimi
table, wisdom which never gives place to foUy, truth which
knows no change or variation from its uniform character.
Through this the Father Himself is seen ; for it is said, " No
man cometh unto the Father but by me."1 To this we cleave
by sanctification. For when sanctified we burn with full and
perfect love, which is the only security for our not turning
away from God, and for our being conformed to Him rathe*
than to this world ; for " He has predestinated us," says the
same apostle, " that we should be conformed to the image of
His Son."2
23. It is through love, then, that we become conformed to
God; and by this conformation, and configuration, and cir
cumcision from the world we are not confounded with the
things which are properly subject to us. And this is done by
the Holy Spirit. " For hope," he says, " does not confound us ;
for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit, which is given unto us."3 But we could not possibly
be restored to perfection by the Holy Spirit, unless He Him
self continued always perfect and immutable. And this plainly
could not be unless He were of the nature and of the very
substance of God, who alone is always possessed of unchange-
ableness and unvariableness. " The creature," it is affirmed,
not by me but by Paul, " has been made subject to vanity."4
And what is subject to vanity is unable to separate us from
vanity, and to unite us to the truth. But the Holy Spirit
does this for us. He is therefore no creature. For whatever
is, must be either God or the creature.
XIV.— We cleave to the Trinity, our chief good, by love.
24. We ought then to love God, the Trinity in unity,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; for this must be said to be God
Himself, for it is said of God as the true and perfect beino-,
" Of whom are all things, by whom are aU things, in whom are
1 John xiv. 6. = Rom. viii. 29. » Rom. v. 5. * Rom. viii. 20.

FOURFOLD DIVISION OF VIRTUE. 1 1
aU things." Those are Paul's words. And what does he add ?
"To Him be glory."1 All this is exactly true. He does not
say, To them ; for God is one. And what is meant by, To
Him be glory, but to Him be chief and perfect and wide
spread praise ? For as the praise improves and extends, so
the love and affection increases in fervour. And when this
is the case, mankind cannot but advance with sure and firm
step to a life of perfection and bliss. This, I suppose, is aU
we wish to find when we speak of the chief good of man, to
which aU must be referred in life and conduct. For the
good plainly exists ; and we have shown by reasoning, as far
as it went, and by the divine authority which goes beyond
our reasoning, that it is nothing else but God. How can any
thing be man's chief good but that in cleaving to which he is
blessed ? Now this is nothing but God, to whom we can
cleave only by affection, desire, and love.
XV. — The Christian definition of the four virtues.
25. As to vhtue leading us to a happy hfe, I hold vhtue
to be nothing else than perfect love of God. For the fourfold
division of virtue I regard as taken from four forms of love.
For these four virtues (would that all felt theh influence in
their minds as they have theh names in theh mouths !), I
should have no hesitation in defining them : that temperance \
is love giving itself entirely to that which is loved ; fortitude
is love readily bearing aU things for the sake of the loved
object ; justice is love serving only the loved object, and
therefore ruling rightly ; prudence is love distinguishing with
sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it. The
object of this love is not anything, but only God, the chief
good, the highest wisdom, the perfect harmony. So we may
express the definition thus : that temperance is love keeping
itself entire and incorrupt for God ; fortitude is love bearing
everything readhy for the sake of God ; justice is love serving
God only, and therefore ruhng well all else, as subject to
man; prudence is love making a right distinction between^/
what helps it towards God and what might hinder it.
1 Rom. xi. 36.

18 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
XVI. — Harmony ofthe Old and New Testaments.
26. I wiU briefly set forth the manner of life according to
these virtues, one by one, after I have brought forward, as I
promised, passages from the Old Testament paraUel to those I
have been quoting from the New Testament. For is Paul
alone in saying that we should be joined to God so that there
should be nothing between to separate us ? Does not the
prophet say the same most aptly and concisely in the words,
"It is good for me to cleave to God?"1 Does not this one
word cleave express aU that the apostle says at length about
love ? And do not the words, It is good, point to the apostle's
statement, " AU things issue in good to them that love God ?"
Thus in one clause and in two words the prophet sets forth
the power and the fruit of love.
27. And as the apostle says that the Son of God is the
vhtue of God and the wisdom of God, — virtue being under
stood to refer to action, and wisdom to teaching (as in the
gospel these two things are expressed in the words, "AU
things were, made by Him," which belongs to action and
virtue ; and then, referring to teaching and the knowledge of
the truth, he says, " The hfe was the hght of men"2), — could
anything agree better with these passages than what is said
in the Old Testament of wisdom, " She reaches from end to
end in strength, and orders all things sweetly?" For reaching
in strength expresses vhtue, whUe ordering sweetly expresses
skiU and method. But if this seems obscure, see what
foUows: "And of aU," he says, "God loved her; for she
teaches the knowledge of God, and chooses His works." No
thing more is found here about action ; for choosino- works is
not the same as working, so this refers to teaching. There
remains action to correspond to the vhtue, to complete the
truth we wish to prove. Eead then what comes next : " But
if," he says, " the possession which is desired in life is honour
able, what is more honourable than wisdom, which works aU
things ? " Could anything be brought forward more striking
or more distinct than this, or even more fuUy expressed ?
Or, if you wish more, hear another passage of the same mean
ing. "Wisdom," he says, "teaches sobriety, and justice, and
1 Ps. Ixxiii. 28. 2 J0nri i. 3> 4>

HARMONY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT. 19
virtue."1 Sobriety refers, I think, to the knowledge of the
truth, or to teaching ; justice and virtue to work and action.
And to these two things, that is, to efficiency in action and
sobriety in contemplation, which the vhtue of God and the
wisdom of God, that is, the Son of God, gives to them that
love Him, I know nothing equal ; for the same prophet goes
on to show their value ; for it is thus stated : " Wisdom teaches
sobriety, and justice, and vhtue, than which nothing is more
useful in life to man."2
28. Perhaps some may think that those passages do not
refer to the Son of God. What, then, is taught in the fol
lowing words : " She displays the nobility of her bhth, having
her dwelling with God?"3 To what does birth refer but to
parentage ? And does not dweUing with the Father claim
and assert equahty ? Again, as Paul says that the Son of
God is the wisdom of God,4 and as the Lord Himself says,
"No man knoweth the Father save the only-begotten Son,"5
what could be more concordant than those words of the
prophet: "With Thee is wisdom which knows Thy works,
which was present at the time of Thy making the world,
and knew what would be pleasing in Thine eyes ?"6 And as
Christ is caUed the truth, which is also taught by His being
caUed the brightness of the Father7 (for there is nothing
round about the sun but its brightness which is produced
from it), what is there in the Old Testament more plainly
and obviously in accordance with this than the words, " Thy

' Wisd. viii. 1, 4, 7.
2 Retract, i. 7, § 3 : — " The quotation from the book of Wisdom is from my
manuscript, where the reading is, "Wisdom teaches sobriety, justice, and
virtue." From these words I have made some remarks true in themselves, but
occasioned by a false reading. It is perfectly true that wisdom teaches truth
of contemplation, as I have explained sobriety ; and excellence of action, which
is the meaning I give to justice and virtue. And the reading in better manu
scripts has the same meaning : " It teaches sobriety, and wisdom, and justice,
and virtue." These are the names given by the Latin translator to the four
virtues which philosophers usually speak about. Sobriety is for temperance,
wisdom for prudence, virtue for fortitude, and justice only has its own name.
It was long after that we found these virtues called by their proper names in the
Greek text of this book of Wisdom."
3 Wisd. viii. 3. 4 1 Cor. i. 24. 6 Matt. xi. 27.
6 Wisd. ix. 9. 1 Heb. i. 3.

20 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

truth is round about Thee?"1 Once more, Wisdoni herself
says in the gospel, " No man cometh unto the Father but by
me ;"2 and the prophet says, "Who knoweth Thy mind, unless
Thou givest wisdom ?" and a httle after, "The things pleasing
to Thee men have learned, and have been healed by wisdom."3
29. Paul says, "The love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Sphit which is given unto us ;"4 and the
prophet says, " The Holy Sphit of knowledge wUl shun guhe."6
For where there is guhe there is no love. Paul says that we
are "conformed to the image ofthe Son of God;"6 and the
prophet says, " The hght of Thy countenance is stamped upon
us."7 Paul teaches that the Holy Sphit is God, and there
fore is no creature ; and the prophet says, " Thou sendest Thy
Spirit from the highest."8 For God alone is the highest, than
whom nothing is higher. Paul shows that the Trinity is one
God, when he says, " To Him be glory ; " 9 and in the Old
Testament it is said, " Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord thy God is one
God."10 XVII. — Appeal to the Manichaeans, calling on them to repent.
30. What more do you wish? Why do you resist igno
rantly and obstinately ? Why do you pervert untutored minds
by your mischievous teaching ? The God of both Testaments
is one. For as there is an agreement in the passages quoted
from both, so is there in aU the rest, if you are wilhng to con
sider them carefuUy and impartiaUy. But because many ex
pressions are undignified, and so far adapted to minds creeping
on the earth, that they may rise by human things to divine,
whhe many are figurative, that the inquiring mind may have
the more profit from the exertion of finding theh meaning,
and the more delight when it is found, you pervert this ad
mirable arrangement of the Holy Sphit for the purpose of
deceiving and ensnaring your foUowers. As to the reason
why divine Providence permits you to do this, and as to the
truth of the apostle's saying, "There must needs be many
heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest
among you,"11 it would take long to discuss these things, and
1 Ps. lxxxix. 8. 2 John xiv. 6. 3 Wisd. ix. 17-19. 4 Rom. v. 5.
* Wisd. i. 5. « Rom. viii. 29. 1 Ps. iv. 6. « Wisd. be. 17.
8 Rom. xi. 36. w Deut. vi. 4. » 1 Cor. xi. 19.

APPEAL TO THE MANICHAEANS. 21
you, with whom we have now to do, are not capable of under
standing them. I know you weU. To the consideration of
divine things, which are far higher than you suppose, you
bring minds quite gross and sickly, from being fed with
material images.
31. We must therefore in your case try not to make you,
understand divine things, which is impossible, but to make
you desire to understand. This is the work of the pure and
guUeless love of God, which is seen chiefly in the conduct, ,
and of which we have already said much. This love, inspired j
by the Holy Sphit, leads to the Son, that is, to the wisdom of j
God, by which the Father Himself is known. For if wisdom j
and truth are not sought for with the whole strength of the I
mind, it cannot possibly be found. But when it is sought as ]
it deserves to be, it cannot withdraw or hide itself from its 1
lovers. Hence its words, which you too are in the habit of
repeating, " Ask, and ye shaU receive ; seek, and ye shaU
find; knock, and it shaU be opened unto you:"1 "Nothing
is hid which shaU not be revealed." 2 It is love that asks,
love that seeks, love that knocks, love that reveals, love, too,
that gives continuance in what is revealed. From this love
of wisdom, and this studious inquiry, we are not debarred by
the Old Testament, as you always say most falsely, but are
exhorted to this with the greatest urgency.
32. Hear, then, at length, and consider, I pray you, what
is said by the prophet : " Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth
away; yea, she is easUy seen of them that love her, and
found of such as seek her. She preventeth them that desire
her, in making herself first known unto them. Whoso seeketh
her early shaU have no great travail ; for he shaU find her
sitting at his doors. To think, therefore, upon her is per
fection of wisdom ; and whoso watcheth for her shall quickly
be without care. For she goeth about seeking such as are
worthy of her, showeth herself favourably unto them in the
ways, and meeteth them in every thought. For the very
true beginning of her is the desire of discipline ; and the care
of disciphne is love; and love is the keeping of her laws;
and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of incor-
1 Matt. vii. 7. s Matt. x. 26.

22 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
ruption ; and incorruption maketh us near unto God. There
fore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom." 1 WiU you
stiU continue in dogged hostihty to these things ? Do not
things thus stated, though not yet understood, make it evi
dent to every one that they contain something deep and un
utterable ? Would that you could understand the things here
said! Forthwith you would abjure aU your siUy legends,
and your unmeaning material imaginations, and with great
alacrity, sincere love, and fuU assurance of faith, would betake
yourselves bodUy to the shelter of the most holy bosom of the
Cathohc Church.
XVIII. — Only in the Catholic Church, is perfect truth established on the
harmony of both Testaments.
33. I could, according to the httle ability I have, take up
the points separately, and could expound and prove the truths
I have learned, which are generaUy more exceUent and lofty
than words can express ; but this cannot be done while you
bark at it. For not in vain is it said, " Give not that which
is holy to dogs." 2 Do not be angry. I too barked and was
a dog ; and then, as was right, instead of the food of teaching,
I got the rod of correction. But were there in you that love
of which we are speaking, or should it ever be in you as much
as the greatness of the truth to be known requires, may God
vouchsafe to show you that neither is there among the Mani
chaeans the Christian faith which leads to the summit of
wisdom and truth, the attainment of which is the true happy
life; nor is it anywhere but in the Cathohc teaching. Is
not this what the Apostle Paul appears to desire when he says,
" For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, from whom the whole fanhly in heaven and
earth is named, that He would grant unto you, according to
the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His
Sphit in the inner man ; that Christ may dweU in your hearts
by faith ; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be
able to comprehend with aU saints what is the height, and
length, and breadth, and depth ; and to know the love of Christ
which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with aU the
fulness of God ?" s Could anything be more plainly expressed ?
1 Wisd. vi. 12-20. 2 Malt. vii. 6. s Eph. iii. U-19.

THE DUTIES OF TEMPERANCE. 23
34. Wake up a httle, I beseech you, and see the harmony
of both Testaments, making it quite plain and certain what
should be the manner of hfe in our conduct, and to what all
things should be referred. To the love of God we are incited
by the gospel, when it is said, "Ask, seek, knock;"1 by Paul,
when he says, " That ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
may be able to comprehend ;"2 by the prophet also, when he
says that wisdom can easUy be known by those who love it,
seek for it, desire it, watch for it, set theh mind and heart to
it. The salvation of the mind and the way of happiness is
pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures ; and yet you
choose rather to bark at these things than to obey them. I
wiU teU you in one word what I think. Do you listen to the
learned men of the Cathohc Church with as peaceable a dis
position, and with the same zeal, that I had when for nine
years I attended on you ;3 there wiU be no need of so long a
time as that during which you made a fool of me. In a
much, a very much, shorter time you wiU see the difference
between sense and nonsense.
XIX. — Description ofthe duties of temperance, according to the sacred
Scriptures.
35. It is now time to return to the four virtues, and to
draw out and prescribe a way of life in conformity with
them, taking each separately. First, then, let us consider
temperance, which promises us a kind of integrity and incor
ruption in the love by which we are united to God. The"!
office of temperance is in restraining and quieting the passions
which make us pant for those things which turn us away from
the laws of God and from the enjoyment of His goodness,j
that is, in a word, from the happy life, s- For there is the
abode of truth; and in enjoying its contemplation, and in
cleaving closely to it, we are assuredly happy ; but departing
from this, men become entangled in great errors and sorrows.
For, as the apostle says, " The root of aU evils is covetousness ;
which some having foUowed, have made shipwreck of the faith,
and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows."4
And this sin of the soul is quite plainly, to those rightly under-
1 Matt, vii 7. 2 Eph. iii. 7.
a From his 19th to his 28th year. * 1 Tim. vi. 10.

24 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
standing, set forth in the Old Testament in the transgression
of Adam in paradise. Thus, as the apostle says, " In Adam
we aU die, and in Christ we shah all rise again."1 Oh the
depth of these mysteries ! But I refrain ; for I am now en
gaged not in teaching you the truth, but in making you un
learn your errors, if I can, that is, if God aid my purpose
regarding you.
36. Paul then says that covetousness is the root of all
evils ; and by covetousness the old law also intimates that
the first man fell. Paul teUs us to put off the old man and
put on the new.2 By the old man he means Adam who sinned,
and by the new man him whom the Son of God took to Him
self in consecration for our redemption. For he says in
another place, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the
second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy ; and as is the heavenly,
such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne
the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the
heavenly,"3 — that is, put off the old man, and put on the new.
The whole duty of temperance, then, is to put off the old man,
and to be renewed in God, — that is, to scorn aU bodUy dehghts,
and the praise of popularity, and to turn the whole love to
divine and unseen things. Hence that foUowing passage
which is so admirable : " Though our outward man perish, our
inward man is renewed day by day."4 Hear, too, the prophet
singing, " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a
right spirit within me."5 What can be said against such
harmony except by blind barkers ?
XX.— We are required to look down on all sensible things, and to love
God alone.
2>1. BodUy dehghts have their source in aU those things
with which the bodUy sense comes in contact, and which are
by some called the objects of sense ; and among these the
noblest is hght, in the common meaning of the word, because
among our senses also, which the mind uses in acting throuo-h
the body, there is nothing more valuable than the eyes, and lo
in the Holy Scriptures aU the objects of sense are spoken of
1 o n0"' ^ 22" ' Co1- m' 9' 10- 3 1 Cor. xv. 47-49
• 2 Cor. iv. 16. s ps. u. i0.

TEMPERANCE. 2 5

as visible things. Thus in the New Testament we are warned
against the love of these things in the foUowing words :
" WhUe we look not at the things which are seen, but at the
things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are
temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."1.
This shows how far from being Christians those are who hold
that the sun and moon are to be not only loved but wor
shipped. For what is seen if the sun and moon are not ?
But we are forbidden to regard things which are seen. The
man, therefore, who wishes to offer that incorrupt love to God
must not love these things too. This subject I wUl inquire
into more particularly elsewhere. Here my plan is to write
not of faith, but of the hfe by which we become worthy of
knowing what we believe. God then alone is to be loved ; ancPi
aU this world, that is, aU sensible things, are to be despised,
— while, however, they are to be used as this hfe requires. -J
XXI. — Popular renown and inquisitiveness are condemned in the sacred
Scriptures.
38. Popular renown is thus shghted and scorned in the
New Testament : " If I wished," says St. Paul, " to please
men, I should not be the servant of Christ."2 Again, there is
another production of the soul formed by imaginations derived
from material things, and caUed the knowledge of things. In
reference to this we are fitly warned against inquisitiveness,
to correct which is a great part of temperance. Thus it is
said, " Take heed lest any one seduce you by philosophy."
And because the word phUosophy originaUy means the love
and pursuit of wisdom, a thing of great value and to be
sought with the whole mind, the apostle, with great prudence,
that he might not be thought to deter from the love of wis
dom, has added the words, "And the elements of this
world."3 For some people, neglecting virtues, and ignorant
of what God is, and of the majesty of the nature which
remains always the same, think that they are engaged in an
important business when searching with the greatest in
quisitiveness and eagerness into this material mass which we
caU the world. This begets so much pride, that they look
upon themselves as inhabitants of the heaven of which they
1 2 Cor. iv. 18. 2 Gal. i. 10. 3 Col. ii. 8.

26 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

often discourse. The soul, then, which purposes to keep itself
chaste for God must refrain from the desire of vain knowledge
hke this. For this deshe usuaUy produces delusion, so that
the soul thinks that nothing exists but what is material^ or
if, from regard to authority, it confesses that there is an im
material existence, it can think of it only under material
images, and has no behef regarding it but that imposed by
the bodUy sense. We may apply to this the precept about
fleeing from idolatry.
39. To this New Testament authority; requiring us not to
love anything in this world,1 especiaUy in that passage where
it is said, " Be not conformed to this world," 2 — for the point
is to show that a man is conformed to whatever he loves, — to
this authority, then, if I seek for a paraUel passage in the Old
Testament, I find several ; but there is one book of Solomon,
caUed Ecclesiastes, which at great length brings aU earthly
things into utter contempt. The book begins thus : " Vanity
of the vain, saith the Preacher, vanity of the vain ; aU is
vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he
taketh under the sun?"3 If aU these words are considered,
weighed, and thoroughly examined, many things are found of
essential importance to those who seek to flee from the world
and to take shelter in God ; but this requires time, and our
discourse hastens on to other topics. But, after this beginning,
he goes on to show in detaU that the vain* are those who
are deceived by things of this sort ; and he calls this which
deceives them vanity, — not that God did not create those
things, but because men choose to subject themselves by theh
sins to those things, which the divine law has made subject
to them in weU-doing. For when you consider things beneath
yourself to be admirable and desirable, what is this but to be
cheated and misled by unreal goods ? The man, then, who is
temperate in such mortal and transient things has his rule of
life confirmed by both Testaments, that he should love none
1 1 John ii. 15. 2 Rom. xii. 2. 3 Eccles. i. 2, 3.
4 Retract, i. 7, § 3 : — " I found in many manuscripts the reading, ' Vanity of
the vain.' But this is not in the Greek, which has 'Vanity of vanities.' This
I saw afterwards. And I found that the best Latin manuscripts had vanities
and not vain. But the truths I have drawn from this false reading are self-
evident."

FORTITUDE. 2 7

of these things, nor think them desirable for their own sakes,
but should use them as far as is requhed for the purposes and
duties of hfe, with the moderation of an employer instead of
the ardour of a lover. These remarks on temperance are few
in proportion to the greatness of the theme, but perhaps too
many in view of the task on hand.
XXII. — Fortitude comes from the love of God.
40. On fortitude we must be brief. The love, then, of
which we speak, which ought with aU sanctity to burn in
deshe for God, is caUed temperance, in not seeking for earthly
things, and fortitude, in bearing the loss of them. But among
aU things which are possessed in this hfe, the body is, by
God's most righteous laws, for the sin of old, man's heaviest
bond, which is weU known as a fact, but most incomprehen
sible in its mystery. Lest this bond should be shaken and
disturbed, the soul is shaken with the fear of toil and pain ;
lest it should be lost and destroyed, the soul is shaken with
the fear of death. For the soul loves it from the force of
habit, not knowing that by using it weU and wisely its resur
rection and reformation wiU, by the divine help and decree,
be without any trouble made subject to its authority. But
when the soul turns to God wholly in this love, it knows these
things, and so wiU not only disregard death, but wUl even
desire it.
41. Then there is the great struggle with pain. But there
is nothing, though of hon hardness, which the fire of love
cannot subdue. And when the mind is carried up to God in
this love, it wiU soar above aU torture free and glorious, with
wings beauteous and unhurt, on which chaste love rises to the
embrace of God. Otherwise God must aUow the lovers of
gold, the lovers of praise, the lovers of women, to have more
fortitude than the lovers of Himself, though love in those
cases is rather to be caUed passion or lust. And yet even
here we may see with what force the mind presses on with
unflagging energy, in spite of aU alarms, towards what it loves;
and we learn that we should bear all things rather than for
sake God, since those men bear so much in order to forsake
Him.

28 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
XXIII. — Scripture precepts and examples of fortitude.
42. Instead of quoting here authorities from the New Tes
tament, where it is said, " Tribulation worketh patience ; and
patience, experience; and experience, hope;"1 and where, in
addition to these words, there is proof and confirmation of
them from the example of those who spoke them ; I wUl
rather summon an example of patience from the Old Testa
ment, against which the Manichaeans make fierce assaults.
Nor wiU I refer to the man who, in the midst of great bodUy
suffering, and with a dreadful disease in his limbs, not only
bore human evUs, but discoursed of things divine. Whoever
gives considerate attention to the utterances of this man, wUl
learn from every one of them what value is to be attached to
those things which men try to keep in theh power, and in so
doing are themselves brought by passion into bondage, so that
they become the slaves of mortal things, while seeking igno
rantly to be theh masters. This man, in the loss of aU his
wealth, and on being suddenly reduced to the greatest poverty,
kept his mind so unshaken and fixed upon God, as to manifest '
that these things were not great in his view, but that he was
great in relation to them, and God to him.2 If this mind
were to be found in men in our day, we should not be so
strongly cautioned in the New Testament against the pos
session of these things in order that we may be perfect ; for
to have these things without cleaving to them is much more
admhable than not to have them at aU.
43. But since we are speaking here of bearing pain and
bodUy sufferings, I pass from this man, great as he was, in
domitable as he was : this is the case of a man. But these
Scriptures present to me a woman of amazing fortitude, and I
must at once go on to her case. This woman, along with
seven chUdren, aUowed the tyrant and executioner to extract
her vitals from her body rather than a profane word from her
mouth, encouraging her sons by her exhortations, though she
suffered in the tortures of theh bodies, and was herself to
undergo what she caUed on them to bear.3 What patience
could be greater than this ? And yet why should we be
astonished that the love of God, implanted in her inmost heart
>Roni.v.3,4. *Jooi.2. 3 2 Mac. vii.

JUSTICE AND PRUDENCE. 29
bore up against tyrant, and executioner, and pain, and sex,
and natural affection ? Had she not heard, " Precious in the
sight of the Lord is the death of His saints V1 Had she not
heard, " A patient man is better than the mightiest ? " 2 Had
she not heard, " AU that is appointed thee receive ; and in
pain bear it ; and in abasement keep thy patience : for in fire
are gold and sUver tried ? " 3 Had she not heard, " The fire
tries the vessels of the potter, and for just men is the trial of
tribulation ? " * These she knew, and many other precepts of
fortitude written in these books, which alone existed at that
time, by the same divine Spirit who writes those in the New
Testament. XXIV. — Of justice and prudence.
4:4. What of justice as regards God ? As the Lord says,
" Ye cannot serve two masters," 5 and the apostle denounces
those who serve the creature rather than the Creator,6 was it
not said before in the Old Testament, " Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve ? " * I need
say no more on this, for these books are full of such passages.
The lover, then, whom we are describing, wUl get from justice j
this rule of life, that he must with perfect readiness serve the
God whom he loves, the highest good, the highest wisdom, j
the highest peace ;8 and as regards aU other things, must either
rule them as subject to himself, or treat them with a view tot
theh subjection. This rule of hfe is, as we have shown, con
firmed by the authority of both Testaments.
45. With equal brevity we must treat of prudence, to \
which it belongs to discern between what is to be deshed and '
what to be shunned. Without this, nothing can be done of
what we have aheady spoken of. It is the part of prudence
to keep watch with most anxious vigUance, lest any evU in
fluence should stealthUy creep in upon us. Thus the Lord
often exclaims, " Watch ; " 9 and He says, " Walk while ye
have the hght, lest darkness come upon you." 10 And then it
is said, " Know ye not that a httle leaven leaveneth the whole
1 Ps. cxvi 15. 2 Prov. xvi. 32. " Ecclus. ii. 4, 5. i Ecclus. xxvii. G.
B Matt. vi. 24. 6 Rom. i. 25. 7 Deut. vi. 13.
8 A name given by Augustine to the Holy Spirit, v. xxx,
9 Matt. xxiv. 42. 10 John xii. 35.

30 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

lump ? " x And no passage can be quoted from the Old Tes
tament more expressly condemning this mental somnolence,
which makes us insensible to destruction advancing on us
step by step, than those words of the prophet, " He who
despiseth smaU things shaU faU by degrees." 2 On this topic
I might discourse at length did our haste aUow of it. And
did our present task demand it, we might perhaps prove the
depth of these mysteries, by making a mock of which profane
men in theh perfect ignorance faU, not certainly by degrees,
but with a headlong overthrow.
XXV. — Four moral duties regarding the love of God, of which love tlie reward
is eternal life and the knowledge of tlie truth.
46. I need say no more about right conduct. For if God
is man's chief good, which you cannot deny, it clearly foUows,
since to seek the chief good is to hve weU, that to hve weU is
nothing else but to love God with aU the heart, with all the
soul, with aU the mind; and, as arising from this, that this
love must be preserved entire and incorrupt, which is the part
of temperance ; that it give way before no troubles, which is
the part of fortitude ; that it serve no other, which is the part
of justice ; that it be watchful in its inspection of things lest
craft or fraud steal in, which is the part of prudence. This is
the one perfection of man, by which alone he can succeed in
attaining to the purity of truth. This both Testaments enjoin
in concert ; this is commended on both sides alike. Why do
you continue to cast reproaches on Scriptures of which you
are ignorant ? Do you not see the foUy of your attack upon
books which only those who do uot understand them find fault
with, and which only those who find fault faU in understand
ing? For neither can an enemy know them, nor can one
who knows them be other than a friend to them.
47. Let us then, as many as have in view to reach eternal
life, love God with aU the heart, with all the soul, with aU
the mind. For eternal hfe contains the whole reward in the
promise of which we rejoice ; nor can the reward precede
desert, nor be given to a man before he is worthy of it. What
can be more unjust than this, and what is more just than
God? We shoidd not then demand the reward before we
1 1 Cor. v. 6. 2 Ecclus. xix. 1.

LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOUR. 31
deserve to get it. Here, perhaps, it is not out of place to ask
what is eternal hfe ; or rather let us hear the Bestower of it :
" This," He says, " is life eternal, that they should know Thee,
the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." x So
eternal life is the knowledge of the truth. See, then, how
perverse and preposterous is the character of those who think
that theh teaching of the knowledge of God wiU make us
perfect, when this is the reward of those already perfect !
What else, then, have we to do but first to love with full |
affection Him whom we desire to know ? 2 Hence arises that
principle on which we have aU along insisted, that there is
nothing more wholesome in the Cathohc Church than using
authority before argument.
XXVI. — Love of ourselves and of our neighbour.
48. To proceed to what remains. It may be thought that
there is nothing here about man himself, the lover. But to
think this, shows a want of clear perception. For it is impos- '
sible for one who loves God not to love himself. For he has
a proper love for himself who aims diligently at the attain
ment of the chief and true good ; and if this is nothing else;
but God, as has been shown, what is to prevent one who loves;
God from loving himseh ? And then, among men should
there be no bond of mutual love ? Yea, verUy ; so that we
can think of no surer step towards the love of God than the
love of man to man.
49. Let the Lord then supply us with the other precept in
answer to the question about the precepts of hfe ; for He was
not satisfied with one, as knowing that God is one thing and
man another, and that the difference is nothing less than that
between the Creator and the thing created in the likeness of
its Creator. He says then that the second precept is, " Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."3 Now you love your-j
1 John xvii. 3.
2 Retract, i. 7, § 4 : — " I should have said sincere affection rather than full ;
or it might be thought that the love of God will be no greater when we shall
see Him face to face. Full, then, must be here understood as meaning that it
cannot be greater while we walk by faith. There will be greater, yea, perfect
fulness, but only by sight."
3 Matt. xxii. 39.

32 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
self suitably when you love God better than yourself. What,
then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neigh
bour, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection.
For you do not love him as yourself, unless you try to draw
him to that good which you are yourself pursuing. For this
is the one good which has room for aU to pursue it along with
thee. From this precept proceed the duties of human society,
in which it is .hard to keep from error. But the first thing to
aim at is, that we should be benevolent, — that is, that we
cherish no mahce and no evU design against another. For
man is the nearest neighbour of man.
50. Hear also what Paul says: " The love of our neighbour,"
he says, " worketh no UI." a The testimonies here made use
of are very short, but, if I mistake not, they are to the point,
and sufficient for the purpose. And every one knows how
many and how weighty are the words to be found everywhere
in these books on the love of our neighbour. But as a man
may sin against another in two ways, either by injuring him
or by not helping him when it is in his power, and as it is
for these things which no loving man would do that men are
caUed wicked, aU that is requhed is, I think, proved by these
words, " The love of our neighbour worketh no UI." And if
we cannot attain to good unless we first desist from working
evU, our love of our neighbour is a sort of cradle of our love
to God; so that, as it is said, "the love of our neighbour
worketh no UI," we may rise from this to these other words,
" We know that aU things issue in good to them that love

God."2

51. But there is a sense in which these either rise to
gether to fulness and perfection, or, whUe the love of God is
first in beginning, the love of our neighbour is first in coming
to perfection. For perhaps divine love takes hold on us
more rapidly at the outset, but we reach perfection more
easUy in lower things. However that may be, the main point
is this, that no one should think that whUe he despises his
neighbour he wiU come to happiness and to the God whom
he loves. And would that it were as easy to seek the good
of our neighbour, or to avoid hurting him, as it is for one
1 Rom. xiii. io. 2 Rom. viii gs.

LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOUR. 33
weU trained and kind-hearted to love his neighbour ! These
things require more than mere good-will, and can be done
only by a high degree of thoughtfulness and prudence, which
belongs only to those to whom it is given by God, the source
of aU good. On this topic — which is one, I think, of great
difficulty — I wiU say a few words such as my plan admits of,
resting aU my hope in Him whose gifts these are.
XXVII. — On doing good to the body of our neighbour.
52. Man, then, as viewed by his feUow-man, is a rational
soul with a mortal and earthly body in its service. There
fore he who loves his neighbour does good partly to the man's
body, and partly to his soul. 'What benefits the body is
caUed medicine ; what benefits the soul, discipline. Medicine
here includes everything that either preserves or restores
bodUy health. It includes, therefore, not only what belongs
to the art of medical men, properly so caUed, but also food
and drink, clothing and shelter, and every means of covering
and protection to guard our bodies against injuries and mis
haps from without as weU as from within. For hunger and
thirst, and cold and heat, and aU violence from without, pro
duce loss of that health which is the point to be considered.
53. Hence those who seasonably and wisely supply aU the
things requhed for warding off these evUs and distresses are
caUed compassionate, although they may have been so wise
that no painful feehng disturbed their mind in the exercise of
compassion.1 No doubt the word compassionate imphes suf
fering in the heart of the man who feels for the sorrow of
another. And it is equaUy true that a wise man ought to be-
free from aU painful emotion when he assists the needy, when
he gives food to the hungry and water to the thirsty, when he
clothes the naked, when he takes the stranger into bis house,
when he sets free the oppressed, when, lastly, he extends his
charity to the dead in giving them burial. StiU the epithet
compassionate is a proper one, although he acts with tran-
quUlity of mind, not from the stimulus of painful feeling, but
1 Retract, i. 7, § 4 : — " This does not mean that there are actually in this
life wise men such as are here spoken of. My words are not, ' although they
are so wise,' but ' although they were so wise.'"
7 C

34 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
from motives of benevolence. There is no harm in the word
compassionate when there is no passion in the case.
54. Fools, again, who avoid the exercise of compassion as
a vice, because they are not sufficiently moved by a sense of
duty without feehng also distressful emotion, are frozen into
hard insensibility, which is very different from the calm of a
rational serenity. God, on the other hand, is properly called
compassionate; and the sense in which He is so wiU be
understood by those whom piety and diligence have made fit
to understand. There is a danger lest, in using the words of
the learned, we harden the souls of the unlearned by leading
them away from compassion instead of softening them with
the desire of a charitable disposition. As compassion, then,
requires us to ward off these distresses from others, so harm
lessness forbids the infliction of them.
XXVIII. — On doing good to the soul of our neighbour. Two parts qf discipline,
restraint and instruction. Through good conduct we arrive at the knowledge
of the truth.
55. As regards discipline, by which the health of the mind
is restored, without which bodily health avails nothing for
security against misery, the subject is one of great difficulty.
And as in the body we said it is one thing to cure diseases
and wounds, which few can do properly, and another thing
to meet the cravings of hunger and thirst, and to give assist
ance in aU the other ways in which any man may at any
time help another ; so in the mind there are some things in
which the high and rare offices of the teacher are not much
caUed for, — as, for instance, in advice and exhortation to give
to the needy the things already mentioned as requhed for the
body. To give such advice is to aid the mind by discipline,
as giving the things themselves is aiding the body by our
resources. But there are other cases where diseases of the
mind, many and various in kind, are healed in a way strange
and indescribable. Unless His medicine were sent from
heaven to men, so heedlessly do they go on in sin, there would
be no hope of salvation ; and, indeed, even bodUy health, if
you go to the root of the matter, can have come to men from
none but God, who gives to aU things theh being and theh
weU-being.

MEDICINE OF THE MIND. 35
56. This discipline, then, which is the medicine of the
mind, as far as we can gather from the sacred Scriptures, in
cludes two things, restraint and instruction. Eestraint im
plies fear, and instruction love, in the person benefited by the
disciphne; for in the giver of the benefit there is the love
without the fear. In both of these God Himself, by whose
goodness and mercy it is that we are anything, has given us
in the two Testaments a rule of discipline. For though both
are found in both Testaments, still fear is prominent in the
Old, and love in the New ; which the apostle calls bondage
in the one, and hberty in the other. Of the marvellous order
and divine harmony of these Testaments it would take long
to speak, and many pious and learned men have discoursed
on it. The theme demands many books to set it forth and
explain it as far as is possible for man. He, then, who loves"
his neighbour endeavours aU he can tb procure his safety in
body and in soul, making the health of the mind the stan
dard in his treatment of the body. And as regards the mind,
his endeavours are in this order, that he should first fear and_
then love God. This is true exceUence of conduct, and thus
the knowledge of the truth is acquired which we are ever in
the pursuit of.
57. The Manichaeans agree with me as regards the duty of
loving God and our neighbour, but they deny that this is
taught in the Old Testament. How greatly they err in this is,
I think, clearly shown by the passages quoted above on both
these duties. But, in a single word, and one which only
stark madness can oppose, do they not see the unreasonable
ness of denying that these very two precepts which they
commend are quoted by the Lord in the Gospel from the Old
Testament, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with aU thy
heart, and with aU thy soul, and with aU thy mind ;" and
the other, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ? " 1 Or
if they dare not deny this, from the hght of truth being too
strong for them, let them deny that these precepts are salu
tary ; let them deny, if they can, that they teach the best
morality ; let them assert that it is not a duty to love God,
or to love our neighbour ; that aU things do not issue in good
1 Deut. vi. 5 ; Lev. xix. 18 ; Matt. xxii. 37, 39.

36 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

to them that love God ; that it is not true that the love of
our neighbour worketh no iU (a twofold regulation of human
life which is most salutary and exceUent). By such assertions
they cut themselves off not only from Christians, but from
mankind. But if they dare not speak thus, but must confess
the divinity of the precepts, why do they not desist from
assailing and maligning with horrible profanity the books from
which they are quoted ?
58. WiU they say, as they often do, that although we
find these precepts in the books, it does not fohow that aU is
good that is found there ? How to meet and refute this
quibble I do not weU see. ShaU I discuss the words of the
Old Testament one by one, to prove to stubborn and ignorant
men their perfect agreement with the New Testament ? But
when wiU this be done ? When shaU I have time, or they
patience ? What, then, is to be done ? ShaU I desert the
cause, ahd leave them to escape detection in an opinion which,
though false and impious, is hard to disprove ? I wiU not.
God will Himself be at hand to aid me ; nor wiU He suffer
me in those straits to remain helpless or forsaken.
XXIX. — Ofthe authority qftlie Scriptures.
59. Attend, then, ye Manichseans, if perchance there are
some of you of whom your superstition has hold so as to allow
you yet to escape. Attend, I say, without obstinacy, without
the deshe to oppose, otherwise your decision will be fatal to
yourselves. No one can doubt, and you are not so lost to
the truth as not to understand that if it is good, as all allow,
to love God and our neighbour, whatever hangs on these
two precepts cannot rightly be pronounced bad. What it is
that hangs on them it would be absurd to think of learning
from me. Hear Christ Himself ; hear Christ, I say ; hear the
Wisdom of God : " On these two commandments," He says,
" hang aU the law and the prophets."1
60. What can the most shameless obstinacy say to this?
That these are not Christ's words ? But they are written in
the Gospel as His words. That the writing is false ? Is not
this most profane blasphemy ? Is it not most presumptuous
1 Matt. xxii. 40.

AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 37
to speak thus ? Is it not most foolhardy ? Is it not most
criminal ? The worshippers of idols, who hate even the name
of Christ, never dared to speak thus against these Scriptures.
For the utter overthrow of all literature wiU foUow, and there
wUl be an end to aU books handed down from the past, if
what is supported by such a strong popular behef, and estab-x
lished by the uniform testimony of so many men and so many
times, is brought into such suspicion, that it is not aUowed to
have the credit and the authority of common history. In fine,
what can you quote from any writings of which I may not
speak in this way, if it is quoted against my opinion and my
purpose ?
61. And is it not intolerable that they forbid us to believe
a book widely known and placed now in the hands of all,
while they insist on our believing the book which they quote ?
If any writing is to be suspected, what should be more so
than one which has not merited notoriety, or which may be
throughout a forgery, bearing a false name ? If you force
such a writing on me against my wUl, and make a display of
authority to drive me into belief, shaU I, when I have a
writing which I see spread far and wide for a length of time,
and sanctioned by the concordant testimony of churches
scattered over all the world, degrade myself by doubting, and,
worse degradation, by doubting at your suggestion ? Even if
you brought forward other readings, I should not receive them
unless supported by general agreement ; and this being the
case, do you think that now, when you bring forward nothing
to compare with the text except your own siUy and inconside
rate statement, mankind are so unreasonable and so forsaken
by divine Providence as to prefer to those Scriptures not
others quoted by you in refutation, but merely your own
words ? You ought to bring forward another manuscript with
the same contents, but incorrupt and more correct, with only
the passage wanting which you charge with being spurious.
For example, if you hold that the Epistle of Paul to the
Eomans is spurious, you must bring forward another incor
rupt, or rather another manuscript with the same epistle of
the same apostle, free from error and corruption. You say
you wUl not, lest you be suspected of corrupting it. This is

38 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

your usual reply, and a true one. Were you to do this, we
should assuredly have this very suspicion ; and aU men of
any sense would have it too. See then what you are to think
of your own authority ; and consider whether it is right to be
heve your words against these Scriptures, when the simple
fact that a manuscript is brought forward by you makes it
dangerous to put faith in it.
XXX— The Church apostrophized as teacher of alt wisdom. Doctrine ofthe
Catholic Church.
62. But why say more on this ? For who but sees that
men who dare to speak thus against the Christian Scriptures,
though they may not be what they are suspected of being,
are at least no Christians ? For to Christians this rule of
life is given, that we should love the Lord our God with all
the heart, with all the soul, and with aU the mind, and our
neighbour as ourselves ; for on these two commandments
hang aU the law and the prophets. Eightly, then, Catholic
Church, most true mother of Christians, dost thou not only
teach that God alone, to find whom is the happiest life,
must be worshipped in perfect purity and chastity, bringing
in no creature as an object of adoration whom we should be
required to serve ; and from that incorrupt and inviolable
eternity to which alone man should be made subject, in
cleaving to which alone the rational soul escapes misery, ex
cluding everything made, everything hable to change, every
thing under the power of time ; without confounding what
* eternity, and truth, and peace itself keeps separate, or sepa
rating what a common majesty unites : but thou dost also
contain love and charity to our neighbour in such a way, that
for aU kinds of diseases with which souls are for theh sins
afflicted, there is found with thee a medicine of prevaUing
efficacy. 63. Thy training and teaching are chUdhke for chUdren,
. forcible for youths, peaceful for the aged, taking into account
the age of the mind as weU as of the body. Thou subjectest
women to their husbands in chaste and faithful obedience,
not to gratify passion, but for the propagation of offspring, and
for domestic society. Thou givest to men authority over their
wives, not to mock the weaker sex, but in the laws of un-

THE CHURCH APOSTROPHIZED. 39
feigned love. Thou dost subordinate children to theh parents
in a kind of free bondage, and dost set parents over their
chUdren in a godly rule. Thou bindest brothers to brothers
in a religious tie stronger and closer than that of blood. With
out violation of the connections of nature and of choice, thou
bringest within the bond of mutual love every relationship of
kindred, and every alhance of affinity. Thou teachest servants
to cleave to their masters from dehght in their task rather
than from the necessity of theh position. Thou renderest
masters forbearing to theh servants, from a regard to God
theh common Master, and more disposed to advise than to
compel Thou unitest citizen to citizen, nation to nation, yea,
man to man, from the recoUection of theh first parents, not
only in society but in fraternity. Thou teachest kings to seek
the good of theh peoples ; thou counsellest peoples to be sub
ject to theh kings. Thou teachest carefully to whom honour
is due, to whom regard, to whom reverence, to whom fear, to
whom consolation, to whom admonition, to whom encourage
ment, to whom discipline, to whom rebuke, to whom punish
ment ; showing both how aU are not due to aU, and how to
aU love is due, and how injury is due to none.
64. Then, after this human love has nourished and in
vigorated the mind cleaving to thy breast, and fitted it for fol
lowing God, when the divine majesty has begun to disclose
itself as far as suffices for man whUe a dweUer on the earth,
such fervent charity is produced, and such a flame of divine
love is kindled, that by the burning out of aU vices, and by
the purification and sanctification of the man, it becomes
plain how divine are these words, "I am a consuming fire,"1
1 Deut. iv. 24. Retract, i. 7, § 5 : — " The Pelagians may think that I have
spoken of perfection as attainable in this life. But they must not think so.
For the fervour of charity which is fitted for following God, and of force enough
to consume all vices, can have its origin and growth in this life ; but it does not
follow that it can here accomplish the purpose of its origin, so that no vice
shall remain in the man ; although this great effect is produced by this same
fervour of charity, when and where this is possible, that, as the laver of re
generation purifies from the guilt of all the sins which attaoh to man's birth, or
come from his evil conduct, so this perfection may purify him from all stain of
the vices which necessarily attend human infirmity in this world. So we must
understand the words of the apostle : ' Christ loved the Church, and gave Him
self for it ; cleansing it with the washing of water by the word, that He might

40 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
and, "I have come to send fire on the earth."1 These two
utterances of one God stamped on both Testaments, exhibit
with harmonious testimony the sanctification of the soul,
pointing forward to the accomplishment of that which is also
quoted in the New Testament from the Old : " Death is swal
lowed up in victory. 0 death, where is thy sting ? Where,
0 death, is thy contest ?"2 Could these heretics under
stand this one saying, no longer proud but quite reconciled,
they would worship God nowhere but with thee and in thy
bosom. In thee, as is fit, divine precepts are kept by widely-
scattered multitudes. In thee, as is fit, it is weU understood
how much more heinous sin is when the law is known than
when it is unknown. For " the sting of death is sin, and the
strength of sin is the law,"3 which adds to the force with
which the consciousness of disregard of the precept strikes
and slays. In thee it is seen, as is fit, how vain is effort
under the law, when lust lays waste the mind, and is held in
check by fear of punishment, instead of being overborne by
the love of virtue. Thine, as is fit, are the many hospitable,
the many friendly, the many compassionate, the many learned,
the many chaste, the many saints, the many so ardent in theh
love to God, that in perfect continence and amazing indif
ference to this world they find happiness even in solitude.
XXXI. — The life ofthe Anachoretes and Coenobites set against tlie continence of
the Manichaeans.
65. What must we think is seen by those who can hve
without seeing their feUow- creatures, though not without
loving them? It must be something transcending human
things in contemplating which man can hve without seeing
his feUow-man. Hear now, ye Manichseans, the customs and
notable continence of perfect Christians, who have thought it
right not only to praise but also to practise the height of
chastity, that you may be restrained, if there is any shame in
present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing' (Eph. v. 25-27). For in this world there is the washing of water by the
word which purifies the Church. But as the whole Church, as long as it is here,
says, 'Forgive us our debts,' it certainly is not while here without spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing ; but from that which it here receives, it is led on to
the glory which is not here, and to perfection."
1 Luke xii. 49. 2 Hos. xiii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55. * 1 Cor. xv. 56.

ABSTINENCE AMONG CHRISTIANS. 41
you, from vaunting your abstinence before uninstructed minds
as if it were the hardest of all things. I wiU speak of things
of which you are not ignorant, though you hide them from us.
For who does not know that there is a daily increasing multi
tude of Christian men of absolute continence spread aU over
the world, especiaUy in the East and in Egypt, as you cannot
help knowing ?
66.1 wiU say nothing of those to whom I just now alluded,
who, in complete seclusion from the view of men, inhabit
regions utterly barren, content with simple bread, which is
brought to them periodically, and with water, enjoying com
munion with God, to whom in purity of mind they cleave,
and most blessed in contemplating His beauty, which can be
seen only by the understanding of saints. I will say nothing
of them, because some people think them to have abandoned
human things more than they ought, not considering how
much those may benefit us in their minds by prayer, and in
their hves by example, whose bodies we are not permitted to
see. But to discuss this point would take long, and would be
fruitless ; for if a man does not of his own accord regard this
high pitch of sanctity as admhable and honourable, how can
our speaking lead him to do so ? Only the Manichaeans, who
make a boast of nothing, should be reminded that the absti
nence and continence of the great saints of the Cathohc
Church has gone so far, that some think it should be checked
and recalled within the limits of humanity, — so far above men,
even in the judgment of those who disapprove, have their
minds soared.
6 7. But if this is beyond our tolerance, who can but admire
and commend those who, slighting and discarding the plea
sures of this world, living together in a most chaste and holy
society, unite in passing theh time in prayers, in readings, in
discussions, without any swelhng of pride, or noise of conten
tion, or suUenness of envy ; but quiet, modest, peaceful, theh
hfe is one of perfect harmony and devotion to God, an offering
most acceptable to Him from whom the power to do those
things is obtained ? No one possesses anything of his own ;
no one is a burden to another. They work with their hands
in such occupations as may feed their bodies without dis-

42 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

tracting theh minds from God. The product of their toU they
give to the decans or tithesmen, — so caUed from being set over
the tithes, — so that no one is occupied with the care of his
body, either in food or clothes, or in anything else requhed
for daUy use or for the common ailments. These decans,
again, arranging everything with great care, and meeting
promptly the demands made by that life on account of bodily
infirmities, have one caUed "father," to whom they give in
theh accounts. These fathers are not only more saintly in
theh conduct, but also distinguished for divine learning, and
of high character in every way ; and without pride they super
intend those whom they caU theh chUdren, having themselves
great authority in giving orders, and meeting with willing
obedience from those under theh charge. At the close of the
day they assemble from theh separate dwellings before theh
meal to hear theh father, assembling to the number of three
thousand at least for one father ; for one may have even a
much larger number than this. They listen with astonish
ing eagerness in perfect sUence, and give expression to the
feelings of their minds as moved by the words of the preacher,
in groans, or tears, or signs of joy without noise or shouting.
Then there is refreshment for the body, as much as health
and a sound condition of the body requhes, every one check
ing unlawful appetite, so as not to go to excess even in the
poor, inexpensive fare provided. So they not only abstain
from flesh and wine, in order to gain the mastery over theh
passions, but also from those things which are only the more
likely to whet the appetite of the palate and of the stomach,
from what some call theh greater cleanness, which often
serves as a ridiculous and disgraceful excuse for an unseemly
taste for exquisite viands, as distinct from animal food. What
ever they possess in addition to what is requhed for theh
support (and much is obtained, owing to theh industry and
frugality), they distribute to the needy with greater care than
they took in procuring it for themselves. For while they
make no effort to obtain abundance, they make every effort to
prevent their abundance remaining with them,  so much so
that they send shiploads to places inhabited by poor people I
need say no more on a matter known to aU

LIFE OF THE CCENOBITES. 43
68. Such, too, is the hfe of the women, who serve God
assiduously and chastely, living apart and removed as far as
propriety demands from the men, to whom they are united
only in pious affection and in imitation of virtue. No young
men are aUowed access to them, nor even old men, however
respectable and approved, except to the porch, in order to
furnish necessary supphes. For the women occupy and main
tain themselves by working in wool, and hand over the cloth
to the brethren, from whom, in return, they get what they
need for food. Such customs, such a life, such arrange
ments, such a system, I could not commend as it deserves,
if I wished to commend it ; besides, I am afraid that it
would seem as if I thought it unlikely to gain acceptance
from the mere description of it, if I considered myself obhged
to add an ornamental eulogium to the simple narrative. Ye
Manichaeans, find fault here if you can. Do not bring into
prominence our tares before men too blind to discriminate.
XXXII. — Praise of the clergy.
69. There is not, however, such narrowness in the moral
exceUence of the CathoUc Church as that I should limit my
praise of it to the hfe of those here mentioned. For how
many bishops have I known most exceUent and holy men,
how many presbyters, how many deacons, and ministers of aU
kinds of the divine sacraments, whose virtue seems to me-
more admhable and more worthy of commendation on account
of the greater difficulty of preserving it amidst the manifold
varieties of men, and in this life of turmoU ! For they preside
over men needing cure as much as over those already cured.
The vices of the crowd must be borne with in order that they
may be cured, and the plague must be endured before it is
subdued. To keep here the best way of life and a mind calm
and peaceful is very hard. Here, in a word, we are among
people who are learning to hve. There they live.
XXXIII. — Another hind of men living together in cities. Fasts of three days.
70. StiU I would not on this account cast a slight upon a
praiseworthy class of Christians, — those, namely, who live
together in cities, quite apart from common life. I saw at

44 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
MUan a lodging-house of saints, in number not a few, pre
sided over by one presbyter, a man of great excellence and
learning. At Eome I knew several places where there was
in each one eminent for weight of character, and prudence,
and divine knowledge, presiding over all the rest who hved
with him, in Christian charity, and sanctity, and liberty.
These, too, are not burdensome to any one; but, in the Eastern
fashion, and on the authority of the Apostle Paul, they main
tain themselves with their own hands. I was told that many
practised fasts of quite amazing severity, not merely taking
only one meal daily towards night, which is everywhere quite
common, but very often continuing for three days or more
in succession without food or drink. And this among not
men only, but women, who also hve together in great numbers
as widows or virgins, gaining a livelihood by spinning and
weaving, and presided over in each case by a woman of the
greatest judgment and experience, skUled and accomplished
not only in dhecting and forming moral conduct, but also in
instructing the understanding.
71. With aU this, no one is pressed to endure hardships
for which he is unfit ; nothing is imposed on any one against
his wiU; nor is he condemned by the rest because he confesses
himself too feeble to imitate them : for they bear in mind
how strongly Scripture enjoins charity on all ; they bear in
mind, "To the pure aU things are pure,"1 and "Not that
which entereth into your mouth defileth you, but that which
cometh out of it."2 Accordingly, aU theh endeavours are
concerned not about the rejection of kinds of food as poUuted,
but about the subjugation of inordinate desire and the main
tenance of brotherly love. They remember, " Meats for the
beUy, and the beUy for meats ; but God shaU destroy both it
and them ; " 3 and again, " Neither if we eat shaU we abound,
nor if we refrain from eating shaU we be in want ; " 4 and,
above aU, this : " It is good, my brethren, not to eat flesh, nor
drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended ; "
for this passage shows that love is the end to be aimed at in
all these things. "For one man," he says, "believes that he
can eat aU things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs. He
i Tit. i. 15. 2 Matt. xv. 11. s 1 Cor. vi. 13. * l Cor. viii. 8.

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 45

that eateth, let him not despise him that eateth not ; and let
not him that eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath
approved him. Who art thou that thou shouldest judge
another man's servant ? To his own master he stands or
faUs ; but he shall stand : for God is able to make him to
stand." And a little after : " He that eateth, to the Lord he
eateth, and giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." And also in
what foUows : " So every one of us shall give account of him
self to God. Let us not, then, any more judge one another :
but judge this rather, that ye place no stumbling-block, or
cause of offence, in the way of a brother. I know, and am
confident in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common in
itself: but to him that thinketh anything to be common, to
bim it is common." Could he have shown better that it is
not in the things we eat, but in the mind, that there is a
power able to pollute it, and therefore that even those who
are fit to think lightly of these things, and know perfectly
that they are not polluted if they take any food in mental
¦ superiority, without being gluttons, should still have regard to
charity ? See what he adds : " For if thy brother be grieved
with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably." x
72. Eead the rest : it is too long to quote all. You will
find that those able to think lightly of such things, — that is,
those of greater strength and stability, — are told that they
must nevertheless abstain, lest those should be offended who
from their weakness are still in need of such abstinence. The
people I was describing know and observe these things ; for
they are Christians, not heretics. They understand Scripture
according to the apostolic teaching, not according to the pre
sumptuous and fictitious name of apostle.2 Him that eats not
no one despises ; him that eats no one judges ; he who is
weak eats herbs. Many who are strong, however, do this for
the sake of the weak ; with many the reason for so doing is
not this, but that they may have a cheaper diet, and may lead
a life of the greatest tranquillity, with the least expensive pro
vision for the support of the body. " For all things are lawful
1 Rom. xiv. 2-21.
' See title of the Epistle of Manichseus, Contra Faust, xiii. 4.

46 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
for me," he says ; " but I wUl not be brought under the power
of any." x Thus many do not eat flesh, and yet do not super-
stitiously regard it as unclean. And so the same people who
abstain when in health take it when unweU without any fear,
if it is requhed as a cure. Many drink no wine ; but they
do not think that wine defiles them ; for they cause it to be
given with the greatest propriety and moderation to people of
languid temperament, and, in short, to aU who cannot have
bodily health without it. When some foolishly refuse it, they
counsel them as brothers not to let a siUy superstition make
them weaker instead of making them holier. They read to
them the apostle's precept to his disciple to "take a httle
wine for his many infirmities." 2 Then they dihgently exer
cise piety ; bodUy exercise, they know, profiteth for a short
time, as the same apostle says.3
73. Those, then, who are able, and they are without number,
abstain both from flesh and from wine for two reasons:
either for the weakness of theh brethren, or for theh own
hberty. Charity is principaUy attended to. There is charity
in theh choice of diet, charity in theh speech, charity in theh
dress, charity in theh looks. Charity is the point where they
meet, and the plan by which they act. To transgress against
charity is thought criminal, hke transgressing against God.
Whatever opposes this is attacked and expelled; whatever
injures it is not aUowed to continue for a single day. They
know that it has been so enjoined by Christ and the apostles ;
that without it aU things are empty, with it all are fulfilled.
XXXIV.— The Church is not to be blamed for the conduct qf bad Christians.
Worshippers of tombs and pictures.
74. Make objections against these, ye Manichseans, if you
can. Look at these people, and speak of them reproachfully,
if you dare, without falsehood. Compare theh fasts with your
fasts, theh chastity with yours; compare them to yourselves
in dress, food, seh-restraint, and, lastly, in charity. Compare,
which is most to the point, their precepts with yours. Then
you wiU see the difference between show and sincerity, be
tween the right way and the wrong, between faith and impos
ture, between strength and inflatedness, between happiness
1 1 Cor. vi. 12. 2 1 Tim. v. 23. s l Tim. iv. 8.

TARES AMONG THE WHEAT. 47
and wretchedness, between unity and disunion ; in short,
between the shens of superstition and the harbour of religion.
75. Do not summon against me professors of the Christian
name, who neither know nor give evidence of the power of
theh profession. Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant
people, who even in the true rehgion are superstitious, or are
so given up to evil passions as to forget what they have pro
mised to God. I know that there are many worshippers of
tombs and pictures. I know that there are many who drink
to great excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts which'
they make for corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and
give to theh gluttony and drunkenness the name of religion.
I know that there are many who in words have renounced
this world, and yet deshe to be burdened with aU the weight
of worldly things, and rejoice in such burdens. Nor is it sur
prising that among so many multitudes you should find some
by condemning whose life you may deceive the unwary and
seduce them from Cathohc safety ; for in your smaU numbers
you are at a loss when caUed on to show even one out of those
whom you caU the elect who keeps the precepts, which in your
indefensible superstition you profess. How shly those are, how
impious, how mischievous, and to what extent they are neglected
by most, nearly all of you, I have shown in another volume.
76. My advice to' you now is this : that you should at
least desist from slandering the Cathohc Church, by declaim
ing against the conduct of men whom the Church herself
condemns, seeking daUy to correct them as wicked children.
Then, if any of them by good wiU and by the help of God
are corrected, they regain by repentance what they had lost
by sin. Those, again, who with wicked wiU persist in theh
old vices, or even add to them others stiU worse, are indeed
aUowed to remain in the field of the Lord, and to grow along
with the good seed ; but the time for separating the tares wiU
come. Or if, from theh having at least the Christian name,
they are to be placed among the chaff rather than among
thistles, there wUl also come One to purge the floor and to
separate the chaff from the wheat, and to assign to each part
(according to its desert) the due reward.1
1 Matt. iii. 13, and xiii. 24-43.

48 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
XXXV. — Marriage and property allowed to the baptized by the apoptlcs.
77. Meanwhile, why do you rage? why does party spirit
blind your eyes ? Why do you entangle yourselves in a long
defence of such great error ? Seek for fruit in the field, seek
for wheat in the floor : they wUl be found easily, and wiU
present themselves to the inquirer. Why do you look so
exclusively at the dross ? Why do you use the roughness of
the hedge to scare away the inexperienced from the fatness of
the garden ? There is a proper entrance, though known to
but a few ; and by it men come in, though you disbelieve it,
or do not wish to find it. In the Catholic Church there are
believers without number who do not use the world, and there
are those who " use it," in the words of the apostle, " as not
using it," 1 as was proved in those times when Christians were
forced to worship idols. For then, how many wealthy men,
how many peasant householders, how many merchants, how
many military men, how many leading men in theh own
cities, and how many senators, people of both sexes, giving up
all these empty and transitory things, though whUe they used.
them they were not bound down by them, endured death for
the salutary faith and religion, and proved to unbelievers that
instead of being possessed by aU these things they really pos
sessed them ?
78. Why do you reproach us by saying that men renewed
in baptism ought no longer to beget children, or to possess
fields, and houses, and money ? Paul aUows it. For, as can
not be denied, he wrote to believers, after recounting many
kinds of evil-doers who shall not possess the kingdom of God :
"And such were you," he says: "but ye are washed, but ye
are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." By the washed
and sanctified, no one, assuredly, wiU venture to think any
are meant but believers, and those who have renounced this
world. But, after showing to whom he writes, let us see
whether he allows these things to them. He goes on : " All
things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient : aU
things are lawful for me, but I wiU not be brought under the
power of any. Meat for the belly, and the belly for meats :
1 1 Cor. vii. 31.

MARRIAGE ALLOWABLE. 49
but God wiU destroy both it and them. Now the body is not
for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
But God raised up the Lord, and wiU raise us up also by His
own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members
of Christ ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make
them the members of an harlot ? God forbid. Know ye not
that he which is joined to an harlot is made one body ? for
the twain, saith He, shaU be one flesh. But he that is joined
to the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Whatever sin a
man doeth is without the body : but he that committeth for
nication sinneth against his own body. Know ye not that
your members are the temple of the Holy Sphit which is in
you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ? For
ye are bought with a great price : glorify God, and carry Him
in your body." x " But of the things concerning which ye
wrote to me : it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the
husband render unto the wife due benevolence : and likewise
also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of
her own body, but the husband : and likewise also the hus
band hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud
ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may have leisure for prayer ; and come together again,
that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak
this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would
that aU men were even as I myself : but every man hath his
proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after
that." 2
79. Has the apostle, think you, both shown sufficiently to
the strong what is highest, and permitted to the weaker what
is next best ? Not to touch a woman he shows is highest
when he says, " I would that aU men were even as I myself."
But next to this highest is conjugal chastity, that man may
not be the prey of fornication. Did he say that these people
were not yet behevers because they were married ? Indeed,
by this conjugal chastity he says that those who are united
are sanctified by one another, if one of them is an unbeliever,
1 1 Cor. vi. 11-20. 2 1 Cor. vii. 1-7.
7 D

50 MORALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
and that theh children also are sanctified. "The unbelieving
husband," he says, "is sanctified by the beheving wife, and
the unbelieving woman by the beheving husband : other
wise your chUdren would be unclean ; but now are they
holy." x Why do you persist in opposition to such plain
truth ? Why do you try to darken the hght of Scripture by
vain shadows ?
80. Do not say that catechumens are aUowed to have wives,
but not behevers ; that catechumens may have money, but not
behevers. For there are many who use as not using. And
in that sacred washing the renewal of the new man is begun
so as graduaUy to reach perfection, in some more quickly, in
others more slowly. The progress, however, to a new life is
made in the case of many, if we view the matter without
hostihty, but attentively. As the apostle says of himself,
" Though the outward man perish, the inward man is renewed
day by day." 2 The apostle says that the inward man is re
newed day by day that it may reach perfection ; and you
wish it to begin with perfection ! And it were weU if you
did wish it. In reahty, you aim not at raising the weak, but
at misleading the unwary. You ought not to have spoken so
arrogantly, even if it were known that you are perfect in your
childish precepts. But when your conscience knows that
those whom you bring into your sect, when they come to a
more intimate acquaintance with you, wUl find many things
in you which nobody hearing you accuse others would suspect,
is it not great impertinence to demand perfection in the weaker
Catholics, to turn away the inexperienced from the Catholic
Church, while you show nothing of the kind in yourself to
those thus turned away ? But not to seem to inveigh against
you without reason, I wUl now close this volume, and wUl
proceed at last to set forth the precepts of your life and your
uotable customs.
1 1 Cor. vii. 14. s 2 Cor. iv. 16.

ON THE MOEALS OF THE MANICHiEANS.

CONTAINING A PARTICULAR REFUTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THESE HERETICS
REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF EVIL ; AN EXPOSURE OF THEIR
PRETENDED SYMBOLICAL CUSTOMS OF THE MOUTH, OF THE HANDS, AND OF
THE BREAST ; AND A CONDEMNATION OF THEIR SUPERSTITIOUS ABSTINENCE
AND UNHOLY MYSTERIES. LASTLY, SOME CRIMES BROUGHT TO LIGHT AMONG
THE MANICH.EANS ARE MENTIONED.
I. — The supreme good is that which is possessed of supreme existence.
1. TT^VEBY one, I suppose, wUl aUow that the question of
J— A things good and evil belongs to moral science, in
which such terms are in common use. It is therefore to be
wished that men would bring to these inquiries such a clear
inteUectual perfection as might enable them to see the chief
good, than which nothing is better or higher, next in order to
which comes a rational soul in a state of purity and per
fection. If this were clearly understood, i^would also become
evident that the chief good is that which is properly described
as^ haying supreme and original existence. For that exists in
the highest sense of the word which continues always the
same, which is throughout like itself, which cannot in any
part be corrupted or changed, which is not subject to time,
which admits of no variation in its present as compared with
its former condition. This is existence in its true sense. For
in this signification of the word existence there is imphed a
nature which is self-contained, and which continues immu
tably. Such things can be said only of God, to whom there
is nothing contrary in the strict sense of the word. For the
contrary of existence is non-existence. There is therefore no
nature contrary to God. But since the minds with which we
approach the study of these subjects have theh vision damaged
51

52 MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS.
and dulled by siUy notions, and by perversity of wUl, let us
try what we can to gain some little knowledge of this great
matter by degrees and with caution, making our inquiries not
hke men able to see, but like men groping in the dark.
II. — What evil is. That evil is that which is against nature. In allowing this,
the Manichaeans refute themselves.
2. You Manichaeans often, if not in every case, ask those
whom you try to bring over to your heresy, Whence is evil ?
Suppose I had now met you for the first time, I would ask
you, if you please, to follow my example in putting aside for
a little the explanation you suppose yourselves to have got of
these subjects, and to commence this great inquiry with me
as if for the first time. You ask me, Whence is evil ? I ask
you in return, What is evil ? Which is the most reasonable
question ? Are those right who ask whence a thing is, when
they do not know what it is ; or he who thinks it necessary to
inquire first what it is, in order to avoid the gross absurdity
fof searching for the origin of a thing unknown ? Your answer
is quite correct, when you say that evil is that which is con
trary to nature ; for no one is so mentaUy blind as not to see
that, in every kind, evil is that which is contrary to the
nature of the kind. But the estabhshment of this doctrine is
the overthrow of your heresy. For evU is no nature if it is
contrary to nature. Now, according to you, evU is a certain
nature and substance. Moreover, whatever is contrary to
nature must oppose nature and seek its destruction. For
nature means nothing else than that which anything is con
ceived of as being in its own kind. Hence is the new word
which we now use derived from the word for being, — essence
namely, or, as we usuaUy say, substance, — while before these
words were in use, the word nature was used instead. Here,
then, if you wiU consider the matter without stubbornness, we
see that evU is that which faUs away from essence and tends
to non-existence. 3. Accordingly, when the Cathohc Church declares that
God is the author of aU natures and substances, those who
understand this understand at the same time that God is not
the author of evU. For how can He who is the cause of the
being of aU things be at the same time the cause of theh not

WHAT IS EVIL ? 5 3

being, — that is, of their faihng off from essence and tending
to non-existence ? For this is what reason plainly declares
to be the definition of evil. Now, how can that race of evil
of yours, which you make the supreme evU, be against nature,
that is, against substance, when it, according to you, is itself
a nature and substance ? For if it acts against itself, it
destroys its own existence ; and when that is completely
done, it wiU come at last to be the supreme evil. But this
cannot be done, because you wUl have it not only to be, but
to be everlasting. That cannot then be the chief evU which
is spoken of as a substance.
4. But what am I to do ? I know that many of you can
understand nothiug of all this. I know, too, that there are
some who have a good understanding and can see these
things, and yet are so stubborn in their choice of evil, — a
choice that wiU ruin theh understanding as well, — that they
try rather to find what reply they can make in order to
impose upon inactive and feeble minds, instead of giving theh
assent to the truth. StiU I shall not regret having written
either what one of you may come some day to consider impar
tiaUy, and be led to abandon your error, or what men of
understanding and in aUegiance to God, and who are still
untainted with your errors, may read and be kept from being
led astray by your addresses.

III. — If evil is defined as that which is hurtful, this implies another refutation of
the Manichceans.
5. Let us then inquire more carefuUy, and, if possible, more
plainly. I ask you again, What is evil ? If you say it is
that which is hurtful, here, too, you wiU not answer amiss.
But consider, I pray you ; be on your guard, I beg of you ; be
so good as to lay aside party spirit, and make the inquiry for
the sake of finding the truth, not of getting the better of it.
Whatever is hurtful takes away some good from that to which'
it is hurtful ; for without the loss of good there can be no
hurt. What, I appeal to you, can be plainer than this ?
what more inteUigible ? What else is required for complete
demonstration to one of average understanding, if he is not
perverse ? But, if this is granted, the consequence seems
plain. In that race which you take for the chief evU, nothing

54 MORALS OF THE MANICH^ANS.
can be liable to be hurt, since there is no good in it. But if,
as you assert, there are two . natures, — the kingdom of light
and the kingdom of darkness ; since you make the kingdom
of light to be God, attributing to it an uncompounded nature,
so that it has no part inferior to another, you must grant,
however decidedly in opposition to yourselves, you must grant,
nevertheless, that this nature, which you not only do not deny
to be the chief good, but spend aU your strength in trying to
show that it is so, is immutable, incorruptible, impenetrable,
inviolable, for otherwise it would not be the chief good ; for
the chief good is that than which there is nothing better, —
and for such a nature to be hurt is impossible./ Again, if, as
has been shown, to hurt is to deprive of good, there can be no
hurt to the kingdom of darkness, for there is no good in it.
And as the kingdom of hght cannot be hurt, as it is inviolable,
what can the evU you speak of be hurtful to ?
IV. — The difference between what is good in itself and what is good by
¦participation.
6. Now, compare with this perplexity, from which you
cannot escape, the consistency of the statements in the teach
ing of the Catholic Church, according to which there is one
good which is good supremely and in itself, and not by the
participation of any good, but by its own nature and essence ;
land another good which is good by participation, and by
paving something bestowed. Thus it has its being as good
from the supreme good, which, however, is stiU self-contained,
land loses nothing. This second kind of good is called a
jcreature, which is liable to hurt through falling away. But
jof this faUing away God is not the author, for He is author
of existence and of being. Here we see the proper use of the
'word evil ; for it is correctly apphed not to essence, but to
negation or loss. We see, too, what nature it is which is
liable to hurt. This nature is not the chief evil, for when it
is hurt it loses good ; nor is it the chief good, for its falling
away from good is because it is good not by existence, but by
possessing the good. And a thing cannot be good by nature
when it is spoken of as being made, which shows that the
goodness was bestowed. Thus, on the one hand, God is the
good, and aU things which He has made are good, though not

TWO KINDS OF GOOD. 55

so good as He who made them. For what madman would
venture to requhe that the works should equal the workman,
the creatures the Creator ? What more do you want ?
Could you wish for anything plainer than this ?
V. — If evil is defined to be corruption, this completely refutes the Manichcean
heresy.
7. I ask a third time, What is evU ? Perhaps you wiU
reply, Corruption. Undeniably this is a definition of evU;
for corruption implies opposition to nature, and also hurt.
But corruption exists not by itself, but in some substance I
which it corrupts ; for corruption itself is not a substance.
So the thing which it corrupts is not corruption, is not evil ;
for what is corrupted suffers the loss of integrity and purity.
So that which has no purity to lose cannot be corrupted ; and
what has, is necessarUy good by the participation of purity.
Again, what is corrupted is perverted ; and what is • perverted
suffers the loss of order, and( order" is good.] To be corrupted,
then, does not imply the absence of good ; for in corruption it
can be deprived of good, which could not be if there was the
absence of good. Therefore that race of darkness, if it was
destitute of aU good, as you say it was, could not be cor
rupted, for it had nothing which corruption could take from
it ; and if corruption takes nothing away, it does not corrupt.
Say now, if you dare, that God and the kingdom of God can
be corrupted, when you cannot show how the kingdom of the
devU, such as you make it, can be corrupted.
VI. — What corruption affects, and what it is.
8. What further does the Cathohc light say ? What do you
suppose, but what is the actual truth, — that it is the created
substance which can be corrupted, for the uncreated, which
is the chief good, is incorruptible ; and corruption, which is
the chief evU, cannot be corrupted ; besides, that ' it is not a
substance ? But if you ask what corruption is, consider to
what it seeks to bring the things which it corrupts ; for it
affects those things according to its own nature. Now aU
things by corruption faU away from what they were, and are
brought to non-continuance, to non-existence ; for existence
imphes continuance. So the supreme and chief existence is

56 MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS.
so called because it continues in itself, or is self-contained.
In the case of a thing changing for the better, the change is
not from continuance, but from perversion to the worse, that
is, from falling away from essence ; the author of which falling
away is not he who is the author of the essence. So in some
things there is change for the better, and so a tendency
towards existence. And this change is not caUed a perver
sion, but reversion or conversion^ for perversion is opposed
to orderly arrangement. Now (things which tend towards
^existence tend towards order\ and in attaining order they
ittain existence, as far as that^as possible to a creature. For
order. reduces to a certain uniformity that which it arranges ;
ind existence is nothing else than being one. Thus, so far
as anything acquires unity, so far it exists. For uniformity
and harmony are the effects of unity, and by these compound
things exist as far as they have existence. For simple things
exist by themselves, for they are one. .But things not simple
imitate unity by the agreement of their parts ; and so far as
they attain this, so far they exist. This arrangement is the
cause of existence, disorder of non-existence; and perversion
or corruption are the other names for disorder. So whatever
is corrupted tends to non-existence. You may now be left to
reflect upon the effect of corruption, that you may discover
what is the chief evil ; for it is that which corruption aims at
¦ accomplishing. VII. — The goodness of God prevents corruption from bringing anything to
non-existence. The difference between creating and forming.
9. But the goodness of God does not permit the accom-
: plishment of this end, but so orders aU things that faU away
that they may exist where their existence is most suitable,
tUl in the order of their movements they return to that from
which they fell away.1 Thus, when rational souls faU away
from God, although they possess the greatest amount of free
will, He ranks them in the lower grades of creation, where
1 In Retract, i. 7, § 6, it is said : " This must not he understood to mean that
all things return to that from which they fell away, as Origen believed, hut
only those which do return. Those who shall he punished in everlasting fire
do not return to God, from whom they fell away. Still they are in order as
existing in punishment, where their existence is most suitable."

WHAT IS CORRUPTION ? 5 7
theh proper place is. So they suffer misery by the divine
judgment, while they are ranked suitably to their deserts.
Hence we see the excellence of that saying which you are
always inveighing against so strongly, " I make good things,
and create evU things."1 To create is to form and arrange. So
in some copies it is written, " I make good things and form
evU things.'' To make is used of things previously not in
existence ; but to form is to arrange what had some kind of
existence, so as to improve and enlarge it. Such are the things
which God arranges when He says, " I form evil things,—
meaning things which are falling off, and so tending to non
existence, — not things which have reached that to which they
tend. For it has been said, Nothing is aUowed in the pro
vidence of God to go the length of non-existence.
10. These things might be discussed more fully and at
greater length, but enough has been said for our purpose in
dealing with you. We have only to show you the gate which
you despair of finding, and make the uninstructed despair of
it too. You can be made to enter only by good-wiU, on which
the divine mercy bestows peace, as the song in the Gospel
says, " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to
men of good-will."2 It is enough, I say, to have shown youi
that there is no way of solving the religious question of good'
and evU, unless whatever is, as far as it is, is from God ; while
as far as it faUs away from being it is not of God, and yet is
always ordered by Divine Providence in agreement with the
whole system. If you do not see this, I know nothing else
that I can do but to discuss the things already said with
greater particularity. For nothing save piety and purity can
lead the mind to greater things.
VIII. — Evil is not a substance, but a disagreement hostile to substance.
11. For what other answer will you give to the question,
What is evU ? but either that it is against nature, or that it is
hurtful, or that it is corruption, or something similar ? But
I have shown that in these replies you make shipwreck of
your cause, unless, indeed, you wiU answer in the childish
way in which you generally speak to children, that evU is
1 Isa. xiv. 7. * Luke ii. 14.

58 MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS.
fire, poison, a wUd beast, and so on. For one of the leaders
of this heresy, whose instructions we attended with great
familiarity and frequency, used to say with reference to a
person who held that evU was not a substance, " I should hke
to put a scorpion in the man's hand, and see whether he
would not withdraw his hand ; and in so doing he would get
a proof, not in words but in the thing itself, that evU is a
substance, for he would not deny that the animal is a sub
stance." He said this not in the presence of the person, but
to us, when we repeated to him the remark which had troubled
us, giving, as I said, a chUdish answer to chUdren. For who
with the least tincture of learning or science does not see
that these things hurt by disagreement with the bodily tem
perament, whUe at other times they agree with it, so as not
only not to hurt, but to produce the best effects ? For if this
poison were evU in itself, the scorpion itself would suffer
first and most. In fact, if the poison were quite taken from
the animal, it would die. So for its body it is evU to lose
what it is evU for our body to receive ; and it is good for it
to have what it is good for us to want. Is the same thing
then both good and evil ? By no means ; but evU is what is
against nature, for this is evU both to the animal and to us.
This evU is the disagreement, which certainly is not a sub
stance, but hostile to substance. Whence then is it ? See
j what it leads to, and you wiU learn, if any inner hght hves in
yuu. It leads aU that it destroys to non-existence. Now God
is the author of existence ; and there is no existence which,
as far as it is existing, leads to non-existence. Thus we learn
whence disagreement is not ; as to whence it is, nothing can
|be said.
12. We read in history of a female criminal in Athens,
who succeeded in drinking the quantity of poison aUotted as a
fatal draught for the condemned with httle or no injury to
her health, by taking it at intervals. So, being condemned,
she took the poison in the prescribed quantity like the rest,
but rendered it powerless by accustoming herself to it, and
did not die like the rest. And as this excited great wonder,
she was banished. If poison is an evU, are we to think that
she made it to be no evU to her ? What could be more ab-

EVIL NOT A SUBSTANCE.

surd than this ? But because disagreement is an evil, what
she did was to make the poisonous matter agree with her own
body by a process of habituation. How could she by any
amount of cunning have brought it about that disagreement
should not hurt her ? Why so ? Because what is truly and
properly an evU is hurtful both always and to aU. OU is
beneficial to our bodies, but very much the opposite to many
six-footed animals. And is not eUebore sometimes food, some
times medicine, and sometimes poison ? Does not every one
maintain that salt taken in excess is poisonous ? And yet
the benefits to the body from salt are innumerable and most
important Sea-water is injurious when drunk by land-
animals, but it is most suitable and useful to many who bathe
their bodies in it ; and to fish it is useful and wholesome in
both ways. Bread nourishes man, but kills hawks. And
does not mud itself, which is offensive and noxious when
swaUowed or smelt, serve as cooling to the touch in hot
weather, and as a cure for wounds from fire ? What can be
nastier than dung, or more worthless than ashes ? And yet
they are of such use to the fields, that the Eomans thought
divine honours due to the discoverer, Stercutio, from whose
name the word for dung [stercus] is derived.
13. But why enumerate detaUs which are countless? We
need not go farther than the four elements themselves, which,
as every one knows, are beneficial where there is agreement,
and bitterly opposed to nature when there is disagreement in
the objects acted upon. We who hve in ah die under earth
or under water, while innumerable animals creep alive in
sand or loose earth, and fish die in our ah. > Fhe consumes
our bodies, but, when suitably apphed, it both restores from
cold, and expels diseases without number. The sun to which
you bow the knee, and than which, indeed, there is no fairer
object among visible things, strengthens the eyes of eagles,
but hurts and dims our eyes when we gaze on it ; and yet we'
too can accustom ourselves to look without injury. WiU you,
then, allow the sun to be compared to the poison which the
Athenian woman made harmless by habituating herself to it ?
Eeflect for once, and consider that if a substance is an evU
because it hurts some one, the light which you worship can-

60 MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS.
not be acquitted of this charge. See the preferableness of
making evil to consist in this disagreement, from which the
sun's ray produces dimness in the eyes, though nothing is
pleasanter to the eyes than light.
IX. — The Manichcean fictions about things good and evil are not consistent
with themselves.
14. I have said these things to make you cease, if that is
possible, giving the name of evU to a region boundless in
depth and length ; to a mind wandering through the region ;
to the five caverns of the elements, — one fuU of darkness,
another of waters, another of winds, another of fire, another of
smoke ; to the animals born in each of these elements, — ser
pents in the darkness, swimming creatures in the waters,
flying creatures in the winds, quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds
in the smoke. For these things, as you describe them, cannot
be caUed evU ; for aU such things, as far as they exist, must
have their existence from the most high God, for as far as
they exist they are good. If pain and weakness is an evil,
the animals you speak of were of such physical strength that
theh abortive offspring, after, as your sect believes, the world
was formed of them, feU from heaven to earth, according to
you, and could not die. If blindness is an evU, they could
see ; if deafness, they could hear. If to be nearly or alto
gether dumb is an evil, their speech was so clear and inteUi
gible, that, as you assert, they decided to make war against God
in compliance with an address delivered in their assembly.
If sterUity is an evU, they were prolific in children. If exUe
is an evU, they were in their own country, and occupied their
own territories. If servitude is an evU, some of them were
rulers. If death is an evil, they were ahve, and the hfe was
such that, by your statement, even after God was victorious, it '
was impossible for the mind ever to die.
15. Can you teU me how it is that in the chief evil so
many good things are to be found, the opposites of the evUs
above mentioned ? and if these are not evils, can any sub
stance be an evil, as far as it is a substance ? If weakness is
not an evil, can a weak body be an evil ? If blindness is not
an evil, can darkness be an evil ? If deafness is not an evil,
can a deaf man be an evU ? If dumbness is not an evU, can

MANICHCEAN INCONSISTENCY. 61
a fish be an evil ? If sterility is not an evil, how can we caU
a barren animal an evU ? If exile is not an evU, how can
we give that name to an animal in exUe, or to an animal
sending some one into exile ? If servitude is not an evU, in
what sense is a subject animal an evil, or one enforcing sub
jection ? If death is not an evil, in what sense is a mortal
animal an evU, or one causing death ? Or if these are evils,
must we not give the name of good things to bodily strength,
sight, hearing, persuasive speech, fertility, native land, liberty,
hfe, aU which you hold to exist in that kingdom of evil, and
yet venture to caU it the perfection of evU ?
16. Once more, if, as has never been denied, unsuitableness
is an evU, what can be more suitable than those elements to
theh respective animals, — the darkness to serpents, the waters
to swimming creatures, the winds to flying creatures, the fire
to voracious animals, the smoke to soaring animals ? Such is
the harmony which you describe as existing in the race of
strife ; such the order in the seat of confusion. If what is
hurtful is an evU, I do not repeat the strong objection aheady
stated, that no hurt can be suffered where no good exists ;
but if that is not so clear, one thing at least is easily seen
and understood as foUowing from the acknowledged truth,
that what is hurtful is an evil The smoke in that region
did not hurt bipeds: it produced them, and nourished and
sustained them without injury in their birth, their growth, and
theh rule. But now, when the evU has some good mixed
with it, the smoke has become more hurtful, so that we, who
certainly are bipeds, instead of being sustained by it, are
bhnded, and suffocated, and kUled by it. Could the mixture
of good have given such destructiveness to evil elements ?
Could there be such confusion in the divine government ?
17. In the other cases, at least, how is it that we find that
congruity which misled your author and induced him to fabri
cate falsehoods ? Why does darkness agree with serpents,
and waters with swimming creatures, and winds with flying
creatures, though the fire burns up quadrupeds, and smoke
chokes us ? Then, again, have not serpents very sharp sight,
and do they not love the sunshine, and abound most where
the calmness of the ah prevents the clouds from gathering

62 MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS.
much or often ? How very absurd that the natives and lovers
of darkness should hve most comfortably and agreeably where
the clearest light is enjoyed ! Or if you say that it is the
heat rather than the light that they enjoy, it would be more
reasonable to assign to fire serpents, which are naturaUy of
rapid motion, than the slow-going asp. Besides, all must
admit that hght is agreeable to the eyes of the asp, for they
are compared to an eagle's eyes. But enough of the lower
animals. Let us, I pray, attend to what is true of ourselves
without persisting in error, and so our minds shaU be disen
tangled from siUy and mischievous falsehoods. For is it not
intolerable perversity to say that in the race of darkness,
where there was no mixture of hght, the biped animals had
so sound and strong, so incredible force of eyesight, that even
in theh' darkness they could see the perfectly pure hght (as
you represent it) of the kingdom of God ? for, according to
you, even these beings could see this hght, and could gaze at
it, and study it, and dehght in it, and deshe it ; whereas our
eyes, after mixture with hght, with the chief good, yea, with
God, have become so tender and weak, that we can neither see
anything in the dark, nor bear to look at the sun, but, after
looking, lose sight of what we could see before.
18. The same remarks are apphcable if we take corruption
to be an evil, which no one doubts. The smoke did not
corrupt that race of animals, though it corrupts animals now.
Not to go over all the particulars, which would be tedious,
and is not necessary, the hving creatures of your imaginary
description were so much less hable to corruption than ani
mals are now, that their abortive and premature offspring, cast
headlong from heaven to earth, both hved and were productive,
and could band together again, having, forsooth, their original
vigour, because they were conceived before good was mixed
with the evil ; for, after this mixture, the animals born are,
according to you, those which we now see to be very feeble
and easily giving way to corruption. Can any one persist in
the behef of error hke this, unless he fails to see these things,
or is affected by your habit and association in such an
amazing way as to be proof against aU the force of reasoning ?

THREE SYMBOLS. 63

X. — Three moral symbols devised by the Manichaeans for no good.
19. Now that I have shown, as I think, how much darkness
and error is in your opinions about good and evU things in
general, let us examine now those three symbols which you
extol so highly, and boast of as exceUent observances. What
then are those three symbols ? That of the mouth, that of the
hands, and that of the breast. What does this mean ? That
man, we are told, should be pure and innocent in mouth, in
hands, and in breast. But what if he sins with eyes, ears, or
nose ? What if he hurts some one with his heels, or perhaps
kills him ? How can he be reckoned criminal when he has
not sinned with moutli, hands, or breast ? But, it is rephed,
by the mouth we are to understand aU the organs of sense in
the head ; by the hands, all bodUy actions ; by the breast, aU
lustful tendencies. To what, then, do you assign blasphemies %
To the mouth or to the hand ? For blasphemy is an action
of the tongue. And if aU actions are to be classed under one
head, why should you join together the actions of the hands
and the feet, and not those of the tongue ? Do you wish to
separate the action of the tongue, as being for the purpose of
expressing something, from actions which are not for this
purpose, so that the symbol of the hands should mean ab
stinence from aU evU actions which are not for the purpose of
expressing something ? But then, what if some one sins by
expressing something with his hands, as is done in writing or
in some significant gesture ? This cannot be assigned to the
tongue and the mouth, for it is done by the hands. When
you have three symbols of the mouth, the hands, and the
breast, it is quite inadmissible to charge against the mouth
sins found in the hands. And if you assign action in general
to the hands, there is no reason for including under this the
action of the feet and not that of the tongue. Do you see
how the deshe of novelty, with its attendant error, lands you
in great difficulties ? For you find it impossible to include
purification of aU sins in these three symbols, which you set
forth as a kind of new classification.
XI. — The value of the symbol of the mouth for tlie Manichmans, who are
found guilty of blaspheming God.
20. Classify as you please, omit what you please, we must

64 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
discuss the doctrines you insist upon most. You say that the
symbol of the mouth imphes refraining from aU blasphemy.
But blasphemy is speaking evil of good things. So usuaUy
the word blasphemy is apphed only to speaking evU of God ;
for as regards man there is uncertainty, but God is without con
troversy good. If, then, you are proved guUty of saying worse
things of God than any one else says, what becomes of your
famous symbol of the mouth ? The evidence is not obscure,
but clear and obvious to every understanding, and irresistible,
the more so that no one can remain in ignorance of it, that God
is incorruptible, immutable, liable to no injury, to no want, to no
weakness, to no misery. AU this the common sense of rational
beings perceives, and even you assent when you hear it.
21. But when you begin to relate your fables, that God is
corruptible, and mutable, and subject to injury, and exposed
to want and weakness, and not secure from misery, this is
what you are blind enough to teach, and what some are blind
enough to believe. And this is not aU ; for, according to you,
God is not only corruptible, but corrupted ; not only change
able, but changed ; not only subject to injury, but injured ; not
only hable to want, but in want ; not only possibly, but actuaUy
weak; not only exposed to misery, but miserable. You say
that the soul is God, or a part of God. I do not see how it
can be part of God without being God. A part of gold is
gold ; of sUver, sUver ; of stone, stone ; and, to come to greater
things, part of earth is earth, part of water is water, and of
air, air ; and if you take part from fire, you wiU not deny it
to be fire ; and part of hght can be nothing but hght. Why
then should part of God not be God ? Has God a jointed
body, hke man and the lower animals ? For part of man is
not man.
22. I wiU deal with each of these opinions separately. If
you view God as resembhng hght, you must admit that part
of God is God. Hence, when you make the soul part of God,
though you aUow it to be corrupted as being foohsh, and
changed as having once been wise, and in want as needin°-
help, and feeble as needing medicine, and miserable as
desiring happiness, aU these things you profanely attribute
to God. Or if you deny these things of the mind, it foUows

IS GOD CORRUPTED ? 65

that the Spirit is not requhed to lead the soul into truth,
since it is not in foUy ; nor is the soul renewed by true
religion, since it does not need renewal ; nor is it perfected
by your symbols, since it is already perfect ; nor does God
give it assistance, since it does not need it ; nor is Christ its
physician, since it is in health ; nor does it require the pro
mise of happiness in another life. Why then is Jesus caUed
the dehverer, according to His own words in the Gospel, " If
the Son shall make you free, ye shaU be free indeed ?"1 And
the Apostle Paul says, "Ye have been called to liberty."2
The soul, then, which has not attained this liberty is in bond
age. Therefore, according to you, God, since part of God is
God, is both corrupted by foUy, and is changed by faihng, and
is injured by the loss of perfection, and is in need of help,
and is weakened by disease, and bowed down with misery,
and subject to disgraceful bondage.
23. Again, if part of God is not God, stih He is not incor
rupt when His part is corrupted, nor unchanged when there is
change in His part, nor uninjured when He is not perfect in
every part, nor free from want when He is bushy endeavour
ing to recover part of Himself, nor quite whole when He has
a weak part, nor perfectly happy when a part is suffering
misery, nor entirely free when part is under bondage. These
are conclusions to which you are driven, because you say that
the soul, which you see to be in such a calamitous con
dition, is part of God. If you can succeed in making your
sect abandon these and many similar opinions, then you may
speak of your mouth being free from blasphemies. Better
stiU, leave the sect ; for if you cease to believe and to repeat
what Manichaeus has written, you are no longer Manichaeans.
24. That God is the supreme good, and that than which
nothing can be or can be conceived better, we must either
understand or beheve, if we wish to keep clear of blasphemy.
There is a relation of numbers which cannot possibly be im
paired or altered, nor can any nature by any amount of
violence prevent the number which comes after one from
being the double of one. This can in no way be changed ;
and yet you represent God as changeable ! This relation
1 John viii. 36. 2 Gal. v. 13.
7 E

6Q MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS.
preserves its integrity inviolable ; and you wiU not allow
God an equahty even in this ! Let some race of darkness
take in the abstract the number three, consisting of indivisible
units, and divide it into two equal parts. Your mind per
ceives that no hostihty could effect this. And can that which
is unable to injure a numerical relation injure God ? H it
could not, what possible necessity could there be for His part
being mixed with evU, and driven into such miseries ?
XII. — Manichaean subterfuge.
2 5. For this gives rise to the question, which used to throw
us into great perplexity even when we were your zealous
disciples, nor could we find any answer, — what the race of dark
ness would have done to God, supposing He had refused to
fight with it at the cost of such calamity to part of Himself.
For if God would not have suffered any loss by remaining
quiet, we thought it hard that we had been sent to endure
so much. Again, if He would have suffered, His nature can
not have been incorruptible, as it behoves the nature of God
to be. Sometimes the answer was, that it was not for the
sake of escaping evU or avoiding injury, but that God in His '
natural goodness wished to bestow the blessing of order on a
disturbed and disordered nature. This is not what we find in
the Manichaean books : there it is constantly implied and
constantly asserted that God guarded against an invasion of
His enemies. But supposing this answer, which was given
from want of a better, to represent the opinion of the' Mani
chaeans, is God, in theh view, vindicated from the charge of
cruelty or weakness ? For this goodness of His to the hostile
race proved most pernicious to His own subjects. Besides, if
God's nature could not be corrupted nor changed, neither
could any destructive influence corrupt or change us ; and the
order to be bestowed on the race of strangers might have been
bestowed without robbing us of it.
26. Since those times, however, another answer has ap
peared which I heard recently at Carthage. For one, whom I
wish much to see brought out of this error, when reduced to
this same dilemma, ventured to say that the kingdom had its
own hmits, which might be invaded by a hostile race, though
God Himself could not be injured. But this is a reply which

MANICHaEAN ABSTINENCE. 67
your founder would never consent to give ; for he would be
hkely to see that such an opinion would lead to a stiU speedier
demolition of his heresy. And in fact any one of average
inteUect, who hears that in this nature part is subject to in
jury and part not, wiU at once perceive that this makes not
two but three natures, — one violable, a second inviolable, and a
third violating.
XIII. — Actions to be judged of from their motive, not from externals.
Manichcean abstinence to be tried by this principle.
27. Having every day in your mouth these blasphemies
which come from your heart, you ought not to continue hold
ing up the symbol of the mouth as something wonderful, to
ensnare the ignorant But perhaps you think the symbol of
the mouth exceUent and admhable because you do not eat
flesh or drink wine. But what is your end in this ? For
according as the end we have in view in our actions, on ac
count of which we do whatever we do, is not only not culpable
but also praiseworthy, so only can our actions merit any praise.
If the end we have regard to in any performance is unlawful
and blameworthy, the performance itself wiU be unhesitatingly
condemned as improper.
28. We are told of Catiline that he could bear cold, thirst,
and hunger.1 This the vile miscreant had in common with
our apostles. What then distinguishes the parricide from '
our apostles but the precisely opposite end which he foUowed ?
He bore these things in order to gratify his fierce and un
governed passions ; they, on the other hand, in order to re
strain these passions and subdue them to reason. You often
say, when you are told of the great number of Cathohc virgins,
a she-mule is a vhgin. This, indeed, is said in ignorance of
the Catholic system, and is not apphcable. StiU, what you
mean is that this continence is worthless unless it leads, on.
right principles, to an end of high exceUence. Cathohc
Christians might also compare your abstinence from wine and
flesh to that of cattle and many smaU bhds, as likewise of
countless sorts of worms. But, not to be impertinent hke
you, I wiU not make this comparison prematurely, but will-
first examine your end in what you do. For I suppose I may
1 Sallust, in prolog. Catilin..% 3.

68 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.

safely take it as agreed on, that in such customs the end is the
thing to look to. Therefore, if your end is to be frugal and to
restrain the appetite which finds gratification in eating and
drinking, I assent and approve. But this is not the case.
29. Suppose, what is quite possible, that there is one so
frugal and sparing in his diet, that, instead of gratifying his
appetite or his palate, he refrains from eating twice in one
day, and at supper takes a httle cabbage moistened and
seasoned with lard, just enough to keep down hunger ; and
quenches his thhst, from regard to his health, with two or
three draughts of pure wine ; and this is his regular diet :
whereas another of different habits never takes flesh or wine,
but makes an agreeable repast at two o'clock on rare and
foreign vegetables, varied with a number of courses, and well
sprinkled with pepper, and sups in the same style towards
night ; and drinks honey- vinegar, mead, raisin- wine, and the
juices of various fruits, no bad imitation of wine, and even
surpassing it in sweetness ; and drinks not for thhst but for
pleasure ; and makes this provision for himself daUy, and
feasts in this sumptuous style, not because he requires it, but
only gratifying his taste ; — which of these two do you regard as
living most abstemiously in food and drink ? You cannot
surely be so bhnd as not to put the man of the httle lard and
wine above this glutton !
30. This is the true view; but your doctrine sounds very
differently. For one of your elect distinguished by the three
symbols may hve hke the second person in this description,
and, though he may be reproved by one or two of the more
sedate, he cannot be condemned as abusing the symbols. But
should he sup with the other person, and moisten his lips with
a morsel of rancid bacon, or refresh them with a drink of
spoilt wine, he is pronounced a transgressor of the symbol, and
by the judgment of your founder is consigned to heU, whUe
you, though wondering, must assent. WiU you not discard
these errors ? WUl you not hsten to reason ? WUl you not
offer some little resistance to the force of habit ? Is not
such doctrine most unreasonable ? Is it not insanity ? Is it
not the greatest absurdity that one, who stuffs and loads his
stomach every day to gratify his appetite with mushrooms,

VEGETARIANISM. 69

rice, truffles, cake, mead, pepper, and assafoetida, and who fares
thus every day, cannot be convicted of transgressing the three
symbols, that is, the rule of sanctity ; whereas another, who
seasons his dish of the commonest herbs with some smoky
morsel of meat, and takes only so much of this as is needed
for the refreshment of his body, and drinks three cups of wine
for the sake of keeping in health, should, for exchanging the
former diet for this, be doomed to certain punishment ?
XIV. — Three good reasons for abstaining from certain kinds of food.
31. But, you reply, the apostle says, "It is good, brethren,
neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine."1 No one denies that
this is good, provided that it is for the end already mentioned,
of which it is said, " Make not provision for the flesh to fulfil
the lusts thereof;"2 or for the ends pointed out by the apostle,
namely, either to check the appetite, which is apt to go to a
more wUd and uncontroUable excess in these things than in
others, or lest a brother should be offended, or lest the weak
should hold feUowship with an idoL For at the time when
the apostle wrote, the flesh of sacrifices was often sold in the
market. And because wine, too, was used in libations to the
gods of the GentUes, many weaker brethren, accustomed to
purchase such things, preferred to abstain entirely from flesh.
and wine rather than run the risk of having feUowship, as
they considered it, with idols, even ignorantly. And, for their
sakes, even those who were stronger, and had faith enough to
see the insignificance of these things, knowing that nothing is
unclean except from an evil conscience, and holding by the
saying of the Lord, " Not that which entereth into your mouth
defileth you, but that which cometh out of it,"3 still, lest
these weaker brethren should stumble, were bound to abstain
from these things. And this is not a mere theory, but is
clearly taught in the epistles of the apostle himself. For you
are in the habit of quoting only the words, "It is good,
brethren, neither- to eat flesh, nor to drink wine," without
adding what foUows, " nor anything whereby thy brother
stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." These words
show the intention of the apostle in giving the admonition.
1 Rom. xiv. 21. 2Rom. xiii. 14. * Matt. xv. 2.

70 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
32. This is evident from the preceding and succeeding con
text. The passage is a long one to quote, but, for the sake of
those who are indolent in reading and . searching the sacred
Scriptures, we must give the whole of it. " Him that is weak
in the faith," says the apostle, " receive ye, but not to doubt
ful disputations. For one beheveth that he may eat all things :
another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth
despise bim that eateth not ; and let riot him which eateth
not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who
art thou that judgest another man's servant ? to his own
master he standeth or faUeth ; yea, he shaU be holden up :
for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one
day above another ; another esteemeth every day ahke. Let
every man be fuUy persuaded in his own mind. He that
regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord. He that eateth,
eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that
eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
For none of us hveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we hve, we hve unto the Lord ; and whether we
die, we die unto the Lord : whether we hve, therefore, or die,
we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both hved, and
died, and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the dead
and hving. But why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why
dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for we shaU aU stand
before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, As I
hve, saith tbe Lord, every knee shah bow to me, and every
tongue shaU confess to God.1 So then every one of us shah
give account of himself to God. Let us not, therefore, judge
one another any more : but judge this rather, that no man put
a stumbling-block, or occasion to faU, in his brother's way. I
know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is
nothing common of itseh : but to him that esteemeth anything
to be common, to him it is common. But if thy brother be
grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.
Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let
not then our good be evil spoken of. For the kino-dorr) of
God is not meat and drink ; but righteousness, and peace, and
joy. in the Holy Ghost. For he who in these things serveth
1 Isa. xiv. 23, 24.

CHRISTIAN ABSTINENCE. 71
Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us
therefore foUow after the things which make for peace, and
things whereby one may edify another. For meat destroy
not the work of God. AU things indeed are pure ; but it is
evU for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither
to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast
thou faith ? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he
who condemneth not himself in that thing which he aUoweth.
And he that distinguishes is damned if he eats, because he
eateth not of faith : for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the
weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please
his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ
pleased not Himself."1
33. Is it not clear that what the apostle requhed was,
that the stronger should not eat flesh nor drink wine, because
they gave offence to the weak by not going along with them,
and made them think that those who in faith judged aU things
to be pure, did homage to idols in not abstaining from that
kind of food and drink ? This is also set forth in the foUowing
passage of the Epistle to the Corinthians : " As concerning,
therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice
unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and
that there is none other God but one. For though there be
that are caUed gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there
be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one
God, the Father, of whom are aU things, and we in Him ; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are aU things, and we by
Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge :
for some, with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as
a thing offered to an idol ; and their conscience being weak is
defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God : for neither,
if we eat, shall we abound ; neither, if we eat not, shaU we suffer
want. But take heed, lest by any means this hberty of yours
become a stumbhng-block to them that are weak. For if any
man see one who has knowledge sit at meat in the idol's
„ temple, shaU not his conscience being weak be instructed to
1 Rom. xiv. and xv. 1-3.

72 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
eat those things which are offered to idols ; and through
thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ
died ? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound
their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if
meat make my brother to offend, I wiU eat no flesh while
the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."1
34. Again, in another place : " What say I then ? that the
idol is anything ? or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols
is anything ? But the things which the GentUes sacrifice,
they sacrifice to devUs, and not to God: and I would not
that ye should have feUowship with devUs. Ye cannot drink
the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils : ye cannot be
partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devUs. Do
we provoke the Lord to jealousy ? are we stronger than
He ? AU things are lawful for me, but aU things are not ex
pedient : all things are lawful for me, but aU things edify not.
Let no man seek his own, but every man what is another's.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question
for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is
offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shows
it, and for conscience sake : conscience, I say, not thine own,
but another's: for why is my hberty judged of another
man's conscience ? For if I be a partaker with thanksgiving,
why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks ?
Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do
all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the
Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God : even as
I please aU men in all things, not seeking mine own profit,
but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye fol
lowers of me, even as I also am of Christ."2
. - 35. It is clear, then, I think, for what end we should
abstain from flesh and wine. The end is threefold : to check
indulgence, which is mostly practised in this sort of food, and
in this kind of drink goes the length of intoxication ; to pro
tect weakness, on account of the things which are sacrificed
and offered in hbation ; and, what is most praiseworthy of
aU, from love, not to offend the weakness of those more feeble
than ourselves, who abstain from these things. You, a°ain,
1 1 Cor. viii. 4, etc. 2 1 Cor. x. 19-25 and 28— xi. 1.

THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE. 73
consider a morsel of meat unclean ; whereas the apostle says
that aU things are clean, but that it is evil to him that eateth
with offence. And no doubt you are defiled by such food,
simply because you think it unclean. For the apostle says,
" I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is
nothing common of itself : but to him that esteemeth anything
common, to him it is common." And every one can see that
by common he means unclean and defiled. But it is folly to
discuss passages of Scripture with you ; for you both mislead
people by promising to prove your doctrines, and those books
which possess authority to demand our homage you affirm to
be corrupted by spurious interpolations. ' Prove then to me
your doctrine that flesh defiles the eater, when it is taken with
out offending any one, without any weak notions, and without
any excess. X. — Why the Manichaeans prohibit the use of flesh.
36. It is worth whUe to take note of the whole reason foi
theh superstitious abstinence, which is given as follows : —
Since, we are told, the member of God has been mixed with
the substance of evU, to repress it and to keep it from ex
cessive ferocity, — for that is what you say, — the world is made
up of both natures, of good and evil, mixed together. But this
part of God is daUy being set free in all parts of the world,
and restored to its own domain. But in its passage upwards
as vapour from earth to heaven, it enters plants, because their
roots are fixed in the earth, and so gives fertility and strength
to aU herbs and shrubs. From these animals get their food,
and, where there is sexual intercourse, fetter in the flesh the
member of God, and, turning it from its proper course, they
come in the way and entangle it in errors and troubles. So
then, if food consisting of vegetables and fruits comes to the
saints, that is, to the Manichaeans, by means of their chastity,
and prayers, and psalms, whatever in it is excellent and divine
is purified, and so is entirely perfected, in order to restoration,
free from all hindrance, to its own kingdom. Hence you for
bid people to give bread or vegetables, or even water, which
would cost nobody anything, to a beggar, if he is not a Mani-
¦ chsean, lest he should defile the member of God by his sins,
and obstruct its return.

74 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
37. Flesh, you say, is made up of poUution itself. For,
according to you, some portion of that divine part escapes in
the eating of vegetables and fruits : it escapes whUe they
undergo the infliction of rubbing, grinding, or cooking, as
also of biting or chewing. It escapes, too, in aU motions of
animals, in the carriage of burdens, in exercise, in toU, or in
any sort of action. It escapes, too, in our rest, when digestion
is going on in the body by means of internal heat. And as
the divine nature escapes in ah these ways, some very unclean
dregs remain, from which, in sexual intercourse, flesh is formed
These dregs, however, fly off, in the motions above mentioned,
along with what is good in the soul ; for though it is mostly,
it is not entirely good. So, when the soul has left the flesh,
the dregs are utterly filthy, and the soul of those who eat
flesh is denied.
XVI. — Disclosure of the monstrous tenets of the Manichaeans.
38. Alas, how difficult is the study of nature ! How hard
to expose falsehood ! Who that hears these things, if he is
one who has not learned the causes of things, and who, not yet
iUuminated by any ray of truth, is deceived by material
images, would not think them true, precisely because the
things spoken of are invisible, and are presented to the
mind under the form of visible things, and can be eloquently
expressed ? Men of this description exist in numbers and in
droves, who are kept from being led away into these errors
more by a fear grounded on religious feeling than by reason.
I wiU therefore endeavour, as God may please to enable me,
so to refute these errors, as that theh falsehood and absurdity
wiU be manifest not only in the judgment of the wise, who
reject them on hearing them, but also to the inteUigence of
the multitude.
39. TeU me then, first, where you get the doctrine that
part of God, as you caU it, exists in corn, legumes, cabbage,
and flowers and fruits. From the beauty of the colour, say
they, and the sweetness of the taste, this is evident ; and as
these are not found in rotten substances, we learn that their
good has been taken from them. Are they not ashamed to
attribute the finding of God to the nose and the palate ? But
I pass from this. For I wiU speak, using words in their proper

GOD IN COLOURS AND SMELLS'. 75
sense ; and, as the saying is, this is not so easy in speaking to
you. Let us see rather what sort of mind is required to
understand this; how, if the presence of good in bodies is
shown by theh colour, the dung of animals, the refuse of flesh
itself, has aU kinds of bright colours, sometimes white, often
golden, and so on, though these are what you take in fruits
and flowers as proofs of the presence and indwelling of God.
Why is it that in a rose you hold the red colour to be an
indication of an abundance of good, wlhle the same colour in
blood you condemn ? Why do you regard with pleasure in a
violet the same colour which you turn away from in cases of
cholera, or of people with jaundice, or in the excrement of
infants ? Why do you beheve the hght shining appearance
of oU to be a sign of a plentiful admixture of good, which you
readUy set about purifying by taking the oU into your throats
and stomachs, whUe you are afraid to touch your lips with a
drop of fat, though it has the same shining appearance as oU ?
Why do you look upon a yeUow melon as part of the treasures
of God, and not rancid bacon fat or the yolk of an egg ?
Why do you think that whiteness in a lettuce proclaims God,
and not in milk ? So much for colours, as regards which (to
mention nothing else) you cannot compare any flower-clad
meadow with the wings and feathers of a single peacock,
though these are of flesh and of fleshly origin.
40. Again, if this good is discovered also by smeU, perfumes
of exceUent smeU are made from the flesh of some animals.
And the smell of food, when cooked along with flesh of dehcate
flavour, is better than if cooked without it. Once more, if you
think that the things that have a better smeU than others are
therefore cleaner, there is a kind of mud which you ought to
take to your meals instead of water from the cistern ; for dry
earth moistened with rain has an odour most agreeable to the
sense, and this sort of mud has a better smell than rain-water
taken by itself. But if we must have the authority of taste
to prove the presence in any object of part of God, He must
dweU in dates and honey more than in pork, but more in
pork than in beans. I grant that He dweUs more in a fig than
in a liver ; but then you must aUow that He is more in liver
than in beet. And, on this principle, must you not confess that

76 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
some plants, which none of you can doubt to be cleaner than
flesh, receive God from this very flesh, if we are to think of God
as mixed with the flavour ? For both cabbages taste better
when cooked along with flesh ; and, whUe we cannot relish the
plants on which cattle feed, when these are turned into milk
we think them improved in colour, and find them very agree
able to the taste.
41. Or must we think that good is to be found in greater
quantity where the three good quahties — a good colour, and
smell, and taste — are found together ? Then you must not
admhe and praise flowers so much, as you cannot admit them
to be tried at the tribunal of the palate. At least you must
not prefer purslain to flesh, since flesh when cooked is superior
in colour, smeU, and taste. A young pig roasted (for your
ideas on this subject force us to discuss good and evU with
you as if you were cooks and confectioners, instead of men of
reading or literary taste) is bright in colour, and agreeable in
smeU, and pleasant in taste. Here is a perfect evidence of
the presence of the divine substance. You are invited by this
threefold testimony, and caUed on to purify this substance by
your sanctity. Make the attack Why do you hold back ?
What objection have you to make ? In colour alone the
excrement of an infant surpasses lentils ; in smeU alone a
roast morsel surpasses a soft green fig ; in taste alone a kid
when slaughtered surpasses the plant which it fed on when
ahve : and we have found a kind of flesh in favour of which
all three give evidence. What more do you requhe ? What
reply wiU you make ? Why should eating meat make you
unclean, if using such monstrosities in discussion does not ?
And, above aU, the rays of the sun, which you surely think
more of than aU animal or vegetable food, have no smeU or
taste, and are remarkable among other substances only by
their eminently bright colour ; which is a loud caU to you, and
an obligation, in spite of yourselves, to place nothing higher
than a bright colour among the evidences of an admixture of
good. 42. Thus you are forced into this difficulty, that you must
acknowledge the part of God as dwelling more in blood, and
in the filthy but bright-coloured animal refuse which is thrown

GOD NOT DISCERNED BY THE SENSES. 77
out in the streets, than in the pale leaves of the olive. If you
reply, as you actuaUy do, that olive leaves when burnt give
out a flame, which proves the presence of light, while flesh
when burnt does not, what will you say of oil, which lights
nearly aU the lamps in Italy ? What of cow dung (which
surely is more unclean than the flesh), which peasants use
when dry as fuel, so that the fire is always at hand, and the
hberation of the smoke is always going on ? And if bright
ness and lustre prove a greater presence of the divine part,
why do you yourselves not purify it, why not appropriate it,
why not hberate it ? For it is found chiefly in flowers, not
to speak of blood and countless things almost the same as
blood in flesh or coming from it, and yet you cannot feed on
flowers. And even if you were to eat flesh, you would cer
tainly not take with your gruel the scales of fish, or some
worms and flies, though these all shine with a hght of their
own in the dark.
43. What then remains, but that you should cease saying
that you have in your eyes, nose, and palate sufficient means
of testing the presence of the divine part in material objects ?
And, without these' means, how can you tell not only that
there is a greater part of God in plants than in flesh, but that
there is any part in plants at aU ? Are you led to think this
by their beauty — not the beauty of agreeable colour, but that
of agreement of parts ? An exceUent reason, in my opinion.
For you wiU never be so bold as to compare twisted pieces of
wood with the bodies of animals, which are formed of members
answering to one another. But if you choose the testimony
of the senses, as those must do who cannot see with their mind
the full force of existence, how do you prove that the sub
stance of good escapes from bodies in course of time, and by
some kind of attrition, but because God has gone out of it,
according to your view, and has left one place for another ?
The whole is absurd. But, as far as I can judge, there are
no marks or appearances to give rise to this opinion. For
many things plucked from trees, or puUed out of the ground,
are the better of some interval of time before we use them for
food, as leeks and endive, lettuce, grapes, apples, figs, and
some pears ; and there are many other things which get a

78 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
better colour when they are not used immediately after being
plucked, besides being more wholesome for the body, and
having a finer flavour to the palate. But these things should
not possess aU these exceUent and agreeable quaUties, if, as
you say, they become more destitute of good the longer they
are kept after separation from theh mother earth. Ajuhnal
food itself is better and more fit for use the day after the
animal is Mlled ; but this should not be, if, as you hold, it
possessed more good immediately after the slaughter than
next day, when more of the divine substance had escaped.
44. Who does not know that wine becomes purer and better
by age ? Nor is it, as you think, more tempting to the de
struction of the senses, but more useful for invigorating the
body, — only let there be moderation, which ought to control
everything. The senses are sooner destroyed by new wine.
When the must has been only a short time in the vat, and
has begun to ferment, it makes those who look down into it
faU headlong, affecting theh brain, so that without assistance
they would perish. And as regards health, every one knows
that bodies are swoUen up and injuriously distended by new
wine ? Has it these bad properties because there is more
good in it ? Are they not found in wine when old because a
good deal of the divine substance has gone ? An absurd
thing to say, especiaUy for you, who prove the divine pre
sence by the pleasing effect produced on your eyes, nose, and
palate ! And what a contradiction it is to make wine the
poison of the princes of darkness, and yet to eat grapes ! Has
it more of the poison when in the cup than when in the
cluster ? Or if the evU remains unmixed after the good is
gone, and that by the process of time, how is it that the same
grapes, when hung up for awhUe, become milder, sweeter, and
more wholesome ? or how does the wine itself, as aheady
mentioned, become purer and brighter when the hght has
gone, and more wholesome by the loss of the beneficial sub
stance ?
45. What are we to say of wood and leaves, which in course
of time become dry, but cannot be the worse on that account
in your estimation ? For whUe they lose that which produces
smoke, they retain that from which a bright flame arises ; and,

FALSE TESTS OF GOD'S PRESENCE. 79'
to judge by the clearness, which you think so much of, there
is more good in the dry than in the green. Hence you must
either deny that there is more of God in the pure hght than
in the smoky one, which wUl upset all your evidences ; or
you must allow it to be possible that, when plants are plucked
up, or branches plucked off, and kept for a time, more of the
nature of evU may escape from them than of the nature of
good. And, on the strength of this, we shaU hold that more
evU may go off from plucked fruits ; and so more good may
remain in animal food. So much on the subject of time.
46. As for motion, and tossing, and rubbing, if these give
the divine nature the opportunity of escaping from these sub
stances, many things of the same kind are against you, which
are improved by motion. In some grains the juice resembles
wine, and is exceUent when moved about. Indeed, as must
not be overlooked, this kind of drink produces intoxication
rapidly ; and yet you never caUed the juice of grain the poison
of the princes of darkness. There is a preparation of water,
thickened with a httle meal, which is the -better of being
shaken, and, strange to say, is lighter in colour when the light
is gone. The pastrycook stirs honey for a long time to give
it this hght colour, and to make its sweetness mUder and less
unwholesome : you must explain how this can come from the
loss of good. Again, if you prefer to test the presence of God
by the agreeable effects on the hearing, and not sight, or smeU,
or taste, harps get their strings and pipes their bones from ani
mals ; and these become musical by being dried, and rubbed,
and twisted. So the pleasures of music, which you hold to
have come from the divine kingdom, are obtained from the
refuse of dead animals, and that, too, when they are dried by
time, and lessened by rubbing, and stretched by twisting.
Such rough treatment, according to you, drives the divine sub
stance from hving objects ; even cooking them, you say, does
this. Why then are boUed thistles not unwholesome ? Is
it because God, or part of God, leaves them when they are
cooked ?
47. Why mention aU the particulars, when it is difficult to
enumerate them ? Nor is it necessary ; for every one knows
how many things are sweeter and more wholesome when.

80 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
cooked. This ought not to be, if, as you suppose, things lose
the good by being thus moved about. I do not suppose that
you wUl find any proof from your bodily senses that flesh is
unclean, and denies the souls of those who eat it, because
fruits, when plucked and shaken about in various ways, be
come flesh ; especiaUy as you hold that vinegar, in its age and
fermentation, is cleaner than wine, and the mead you drink is
nothing else than cooked wine, which ought to be more im
pure than wine, if material things lose the divine members by
being moved about and cooked. But if not, you have no rea
son to think that fruits, when plucked, kept, handled, cooked,
and digested, are forsaken by the good, and therefore supply
most unclean matter for the formation of bodies.
48. But if it is not from their colour, and appearance, and
smell, and taste, that you think the good to be in these things,
what else can you bring forward ? Do you prove it from the
strength and vigour which those things seem to lose when
they are separated from the earth and put to use ? If this is
your reason (though its erroneousness is seen at once, from the
fact that the strength of some things is increased after their
separation from the earth, as in the case aheady mentioned of
wine, which becomes stronger from age), — if the strength, then,
is your reason, it would foUow that the part of God is to be
found in no food more abundantly than in flesh. For athletes,
who especially require vigour and energy, are not in the habit
of feeding on cabbage and fruit without animal food.
49. Is your reason for thinking the bodies of trees better
than our bodies, that flesh is nourished by trees and not trees
by flesh ? You forget the obvious fact that plants, when
manured with dung, become richer and more fertUe, and crops
heavier, though you think it your gravest charge against flesh
that it is the abode of dung. This then gives nourishment to
things you consider clean, though it is, according to you, the
most unclean part of what you consider unclean. But if you
dislike flesh because it springs from sexual intercourse, you
should be pleased with the flesh of worms, which are bred in
such numbers, and of such a size, in fruits, in wood, and in
the earth itself, without any sexual intercourse. But there is
some insincerity in this. For if you were displeased with flesh

SOULS AND FOOD.

because it is formed from the cohabitation of father and mother,
you would not say that those princes of darkness were born
from the fruits of theh own trees ; for no doubt you think
worse of these princes than of flesh, which you refuse to eat.
50. Your idea that all the souls of animals come from the
food of their parents, from which confinement you pretend to
hberate the divine substance which is held bound in your
viands, is quite inconsistent with your abstinence from flesh,
and makes it a pressing duty for you to eat animal food. For
if souls are bound in the body by those who eat animal food,
why do you not secure theh hberation by being beforehand in
eating the food ? You reply, it is not from the animal food
that the good part comes which those people bring into bond
age, but from the vegetables which they take with their meat.
What wiU you say then of the souls of hons, who feed only
on flesh ? • They drink, is the reply, and so the soul is drawn
in from the water and confined in flesh. But what of birds
without number ? What of eagles, which eat only flesh, and
need no drink ? Here you are at a loss, and can find no
answer. For if the soul comes from food, and there are ani
mals which neither, drink anything nor have any food but flesh,
and yet bring forth young, there must be some soul in flesh ;
and you are bound to try your plan of purifying it by eating
the flesh. Or will you say that a pig has a soul of hght, be
cause it eats vegetables, and drinks water ; ' and that the eagle,
because it eats only flesh, has a soul of darkness, though it is
so fond of the sun ?
51. What a confusion of ideas! What amazing fatuity !
AU this you would have escaped, if you had rejected idle
fictions, and had foUowed what truth sanctions in abstinence
from food, which would have taught you that sumptuous eating
is to be avoided, not to- escape poUution, as there is nothing of
the kind, but to subdue the sensual appetite. For should any
one, from inattention to the nature of things, and the properties
of the soul and body, aUow that the soul is poUuted by animal
food, you wUl admit that it is much more defiled by sensuality.
Is it reasonable, then, or rather, is it not most unreasonable, to
expel from the number of the elect a man who, perhaps for
his health's sake, takes some animal food without sensual
7 r

82 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
appetite ; whUe, if a man eagerly devours peppered truffles, you
can only reprove him for excess, but cannot condemn him as
abusing your symbol ? So one who has been induced, not by
sensuality, but for health, to eat part of a fowl, cannot remain
among your elect ; though one may remain who has yielded
voluntarily to an excessive appetite for comfits and cakes with
out animal matter. You retain the man plunged in the defile
ments of sensuahty, and dismiss the man poUuted, as you
think, by the mere food ; though you aUow that the defilement
of sensuality is far greater than that of meat. You keep hold
of one who gloats with delight over highly-seasoned vegetables,
unable to keep possession of himself; while you shut out one
who, to satisfy hunger, takes whatever comes, if suitable for
nourishment, ready either to use the food, or to let it go. Ad
mhable customs ! ExceUent morals ! Notable temperance !
52. Again, the notion that it is unlawful for any one but
the elect to touch as food what is brought to your meals for
what you caU purification, leads to shameful and sometimes to
criminal practices. For sometimes so much is brought that it
cannot easUy be eaten up by a few ; and as it is considered
sacrUege to give what is left to others, or, at least, to throw it
away, you are obliged to eat to excess, from the deshe to purify,
as you caU it, all that is given. Then, when you are full almost
to bursting, you crueUy use force in making the boys of your
sect eat the rest. So it was charged against some one at Eome
that he kiUed some poor chUdren, by compelling them to eat for
this superstitious reason. This I should not beheve, did I not
know how sinful you consider it to give this food to those
who are not elect, or, at any rate, to throw it away. So the
only way is to eat it ; and this leads every day to gluttony,
and may sometimes lead to murder.
53. For the same reason you forbid giving bread to beggars.
By way of showing compassion, or rather of avoiding reproach,
you advise to give money. The cruelty of this is equaUed by
its stupidity. For suppose a place where food cannot be pur
chased : the beggar wiU die of starvation, -while you, in your
wisdom and benevolence, have more mercy on a cucumber
than on a human being ! This is in truth (for how could it
be better designated) pretended compassion, and real cruelty.

COMPULSORY EATING. 83
 »  ¦ 
Then observe the stupidity. What if the beggar buys bread
for himself with the money you give him ? Will the divine
part, as you caU it, not suffer the same in him when he buys
the food as it would have suffered if he had taken it as a gift
from you ? So this sinful beggar plunges in corruption part
of God eager to escape, and is aided in this crime by your
money ! But you in your great sagacity think it enough that
you do not give to one about to commit murder a man to kiU,
though you knowingly give him money to procure somebody to
be kiUed. Can any madness go beyond this ? The result is,
that either the man dies if he cannot get food for his money, or
the food itself dies if he gets it. The one is true murder ; the
other what you caU murder : though in both cases you incur
the guUt of real murder. Again, there is the greatest foUy and
absurdity in aUowing your followers to eat animal food, while
you forbid them to kiU animals. If ,this food does not defile,
take it yourselves. If it defiles, what can be more unreasonable
than to think it more sinful to separate the soul of a pig from
its body than to defile the soul of a man with the pig's flesh ?
XVII. — Description of the symbol of the hands among the Manichaeans.
54. We must now notice and discuss the symbol of the
hands. And, in the first place, your abstaining from the
slaughter of animals and from injuring plants is shown by
Christ to be mere superstition ; for, on the ground that there
is no community of rights between us and brutes and trees,
He both sent the devUs into an herd of swine,1 and withered
by His curse a tree in which He had found no fruit.2 The
swine had not sinned, nor had the tree. We are not so
insane as to think that a tree is fruitful or barren by its own
choice. Nor is it any reply to say that our Lord wished in
these actions to teach some other truths ; for every one knows
that. But assuredly the Son of God would not commit
murder to iUustrate truth, — if you caU the destruction of
a tree or of an animal murder. The signs which Christ
wrought in the case of men, with whom we certainly have
a community of rights, were in healing, not in kihing them.
And it would have been the same in the case of beasts and
1 Matt. viii. 32. 2 Matt. xxi. 19.

84 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
trees, if we had that community with them which you
imagine. 55. I think it right to refer here to the authority of Scrip
ture, because we cannot here enter on a profound discussion
about the soul of animals, or the kind of life in trees. But
as you preserve the right to caU the Scriptures corrupted, in
case you should find them too strongly opposed to you, —
although you have never affirmed the passages about the tree
and the herd of swine to be spurious, — stiU, lest some day
you should wish to say this of them too, when you find how
much they are against you, I wiU adhere to my plan, and
wiU ask you, who are so liberal in your promises of evidence
and truth, to teU me first what harm is done to a tree, I say
not by plucking a leaf or a fruit, — for which, however, one of
you would be condemned at once as having abused the symbol,
if he did it intentionaUy, and not accidentaUy, — but if you tear
it up by the root. For the soul in trees, which, according to
you, is a rational soul, is, in your theory, freed from bondage
when the tree is cut down, — a bondage, too, where it suffered
great misery and got no profit. For it is well known that
you, in the words of your founder, threaten as a great, though
not the greatest punishment, the change from a man to a tree ;
and it is not probable that the soul in a tree can grow in
wisdom as it does in a man. There is the best reason for not
kiUing a man, in case you should kiU one whose wisdom or
virtue might be of use to many, or one who might have
attained to wisdom, whether by the advice of another without
himself, or by divine iUumination in his own mind. And
the more wisdom the soul has when it leaves the body,
the more profitable is its departure, as we know both from
weU-grounded reasoning and from wide-spread belief. Thus
to cut down a tree is to set free the soul from a body in
which it makes no progress in wisdom. You — the holy men,
I mean — ought to be mainly occupied in cutting down trees,
and in leading the souls thus emancipated to better things
by prayers and psalms. Or can this be done only with the
souls which you take into your beUy, instead of aiding them
by your understanding ?
56. And you cannot escape the admission that the souls in

SOULS IN TREES. 85

trees make no progress in wisdom while they are there, when
you are asked why no apostle was sent to teach trees as well
as men, or why the apostle sent to men did not preach the
truth to trees also. Your reply must be, that the souls whUe
in such bodies cannot understand the divine precepts. But
this reply lands you in great difficulties ; for you declare that
these souls can hear your voices and understand what you
say, and see bodies and their motions, and even discern
thoughts. If this is true, why could they learn nothing from
the apostle of hght ? Why could they not learn even much
better than we, since they can see into the mind ? Your
master, who, as you say, has difficulty in teaching you by
speech, might have taught these souls by thought ; for they
could see his ideas in his mind before he expressed them.
But if this is untrue, consider into what errors you have
fallen. 57. As for your not plucking fruits or puUing up vegetables
yourselves, while you get your followers to pluck and pull
and bring them to you, that you may confer benefits not only
on those who bring the food but on the food which is brought,
what thoughtful person can bear to hear this ? For, first, it
matters not whether you commit a crime yourself, or wish
another to commit it for you. You deny that you wish this !
How then can rehef be given to the divine part contained in
lettuce and leeks, unless some one puU them and bring them
to the saints to be purified ? And again, if you were passing-
through a field where the right of friendship permitted you
to pluck anything you wished, what would you do if you
saw a crow on the point of eating a fig ? Does not, according
to your ideas, the fig itself seem to address you and to beg of
you piteously to pluck it yourself and give it burial in a holy
belly, where it may be purified and restored, rather than that
the crow should swaUow it and make it part of his cursed
body, and then hand it over to bondage and torture in other
forms ? If this is true, how cruel you are ! If not, how
siUy ! What can be more contrary to your opinions than to
break the symbol? What can be more unkind to the
member of God than to keep it ?
58. This supposes the truth of your false and vain ideas.

MORALS OF, THE MANICHaEANS.

But you can be shown guUty of plain and positive cruelty ,
flowing from the same error. For were any one lying on the
road, his body wasted with disease, weary with journeying,
and half-dead from his sufferings, and able only to utter some
broken words, and if eating a pear would do him good as an _
astringent, and were he to beg you to help him as you passed
by, and were he to implore you to bring the fruit from a
neighbouring tree, with no divine or human prohibition to
prevent you doing so, whUe the man is sure to die for the
want of it, you, a Christian man and a saint, wiU rather pass
on and abandon a man thus suffering and entreating, lest the
tree should lament the loss of its fruit, and you should be
doomed to the punishment threatened by Manichaeus for
breaking the symbol. Strange customs, and strange harm
lessness !
59. Now, as regards kiUing animals, and the reasons for
your opinion, much that has been said will apply also to this.
For what harm wiU be done to the soul of a wolf by kiUing
the wolf, since the wolf, as long as it lives, wiU be a wolf, and
will not hsten to any preacher, or give up, in the least, shed
ding the blood of sheep ; and, by killing it, the rational soid,
as you think, wiU be set free from its confinement in the
body ? But you make this slaughter unlawful even for your
f oUowers ; for you think it worse than that of trees. And in
this there is not much fault to be found with your senses,
— that is, your bodUy senses. For we see and hear by theh
cries that animals die with pain, although man disregards this
in a beast, with which, as not having a rational soul, we have
no community of rights. But as to your senses in the obser
vation of trees, you must be entirely blind. For not to
mention that there are no movements in the wood expressive
of pain, what is clearer than that a tree is never better than
when it is green and flourishing, gay with flowers, and rich
in fruit ? And this comes generaUy and chiefly from pruning..
But if it felt the hon, as you suppose, it ought to die of
wounds so many, so severe, instead of sprouting at the places,
and reviving with such manifest dehght.
60. But why do you think it a greater crime to destroy
animals than plants, although you hold that plants have a

INCONSISTENCIES OF SUPERSTITION. 87
purer soul than animals ? There is a compensation, we are
told, when part of what is taken from the fields is given to
the elect and the saints to be purified. This has already
been refuted ; and it has, I think, been proved sufficiently that
there is no reason for saying that more of the good part is
found in vegetables than in flesh. But should any one sup
port himself by seUing butcher-meat, and spend the whole
profit of his business in purchasing food for your elect, and
bring larger supphes for those saints than any peasant or
farmer, wiU he not plead this compensation as a warrant for
his kiUing animals ? But there is, we are told, some other
mysterious reason; for a cunning man can always find some
resource in the secrets of nature when addressing unlearned
people. The story, then, is that the heavenly princes who
were taken and bound by the race of darkness, and have a
place assigned them in this region by the Creator of the
world, have animals on the earth speciaUy belonging to them,
each having those coming from his own stock and class ; and
they hold the slaughterers of those animals guilty, and do not
aUow them to leave the earth, but harass them as much as
they can with pains and torments. What simple man wiU
not be frightened by this, and, seeing nothing in the darkness
shrouding these things, wiU not think that the fact is as de
scribed ? But I wiU hold to my purpose, with God's help, to
rebut mysterious falsehood by the plainest truth.
61. TeU me, then, if animals on land and in water come
in regular succession by ordinary generation from this race of
princes, since the origin of animal hfe is traced to the abortive
births in that race ; — teU me, I say, whether bees and frogs,
and many other creatures not sprung from sexual intercourse,
may be kiUed with impunity. We are told they cannot. So
it is not on account of their relation to certain princes that
you forbid your followers to kUl animals. Or if you make a
general relationship to all bodies, the princes would be equaUy
concerned about trees, which you do not requhe your foUowers
to spare. You are brought back to the weak reply, that the
injuries done in the case of plants are atoned for by the fruits
which your foUowers bring to your church. For this imphes
that those who slaughter animals, and seU their flesh in the

MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.

market, if they are your foUowers, and if they bring to you
vegetables bought with theh gains, may think nothing of the
daily slaughter, and are cleared of any sin that may be in it
by your repasts.
62. But if you say that, in order to expiate the slaughter,
the thing must be given as food, as in the case of fruits and
vegetables, — which cannot be done, because the elect do not eat
flesh, and so your foUowers must not slaughter animals, — what
reply wiU you give in the case of thorns and weeds, which
farmers destroy in clearing their fields, while they cannot
bring any food to you from them ? How can there be pardon
for such destruction, which gives no nourishment to the saints?
Perhaps you also put away any sin committed, for the benefit
of the fruits and vegetables, by eating some of these. What
then if the fields are plundered by locusts, mice, or rats, as
we see often happen? Can your rustic foUower kUl these
with impunity, because he sins for the good of his crops ?
Here you are at a loss ; for you either allow your foUowers
to kiU animals, which your founder prohibited, or you forbid
them to be cultivators, which he made lawful. Indeed, you
sometimes go so far as to say that an usurer is more harmless
than a cultivator, — you feel so much more for melons than for
men. Eather than hurt the melons, you would have a man
ruined as a debtor. Is this desirable and praiseworthy justice,
or not rather atrocious and damnable error ? Is this commend
able compassion, or not rather detestable barbarity ?
63. What, again, of your not abstaining yourselves from
the slaughter of lice, bugs, and fleas ? You think it a suf
ficient excuse for this to say that these are the dirt of our
bodies. But this is clearly untrue of fleas and bugs; for
every one knows that these' animals do not come from our
bodies. Besides, if you abhor sexual intercourse as much
as you pretend to do, you should think those animals aU the
cleaner which come from our bodies without any other genera
tion ; for although they produce offspring of their own, they
are not produced in ordinary generation from us. Ao-ain, if
we must consider as most filthy the production of livino-
bodies, still worse must be the production of dead bodies.
There must be less harm, therefore, in killing a rat, a snake,

SLAUGHTER SOMETIMES ALLOWABLE. 89
or a scorpion, which you constantly say come from our dead
bodies. But to pass over what is less plain and certain, it is
a common opinion regarding bees that they come from the
carcases of oxen; so there is no harm in killing them. Or
if this too is doubted, every one allows that beetles, at least,
are bred in the baU of mud which they make and bury.1 You
ought therefore to consider these animals, and others that it
would be tedious to specify, more unclean than your lice ; and
yet you think it sinful to kill them, though it would be foolish
not to kiU the hee. Perhaps you hold the lice cheap because
they are small. But if an animal is to be valued by its size,
you must prefer a camel to a man.
64. Here we may use the gradation which often perplexed
us when we were your followers. For if a flea may be killed
on account of its small size, so may the fly which is bred in
beans. And if this, so also may one of a little larger size,
for its size at birth is even less. Then again, a bee may be
killed, for its young is no larger than a fly. So on to the
young of a locust, and to a locust; and then to the young of a
mouse, and to a mouse. And, to cut short, it is clear we may
come at last to an elephant ; so that one who thinks it no sin
to kill a flea, because of its small size, must allow that it would
be no sin in him to kill this huge creature. But I think
enough has been said of these absurdities.
XVIII. — Of the symbol of the breast, and of tlie shameful mysteries ofthe
Manichaeans.
65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your
very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not
forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said,
forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only
good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim
against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you
highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid
marriage, because your followers — that is, those in the second
grade among you — are allowed to have wives. After you have
said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it
not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are
1 V. Retract, i. 7, § 6, where Augustine allows that this is doubtful, and that
many have not even heard of it.

90 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation ? Is it not
you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible
the time when a woman, after her purification, is most hkely
to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest
the soul should be entangled in flesh ? This proves that you
approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but
for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage-
law declares, the man and woman come together for the pro
creation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation
of chUdren a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and
makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some
gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his
passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage.
But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view ;
therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid
marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from
this charge, long ago brought against you propheticaUy by the
Holy Spirit.
66. Moreover, when you are so eager in your deshe to
prevent the soul from being confined in flesh by conjugal
intercourse, and so eager in asserting that the soul is set free
from seed by the food of the saints, do you not sanction, un
happy beings, the suspicion entertained about you ? For why
should it be true regarding corn and beans and lentils and
other seeds, that when you eat them you wish to set free the
soul, and not true of the seeds of animals ? For what you say
of the flesh of a dead animal, that it is unclean because there
is no soul in it, cannot be said of the seed of the animal ; for
you hold that it keeps confined the soul which wiU appear in
the offspring, and you avow that the soul of Manichaeus him
self is thus confined. And as your foUowers cannot bring'
these seeds to you for purification, who wiU not suspect that
you make this purification secretly among yourselves, and hide
it from your foUowers, in case they should leave you ? If
you do not these things, as it is to be hoped you do not, stiU
you see how open to suspicion your superstition is, and how
impossible it is to blame men for thinking what your own
profession suggests, when you maintain that you set free souls
from bodies and from senses by eating and drinkino-. I wish

SHAMEFUL MYSTERIES. 91'
to say no more about this : you see yourselves what room
there is here for denunciation. But as the matter is one
rather to repress than to invite remark, and also as through
out my discourse my purpose appears of exaggerating nothing,
and of keeping to bare facts and arguments, we shah pass on
to other matters. XIX. — Crimes of the Manichaeans.
67. We see then, now, the nature of your three symbols.
These are your customs. This is the end of your notable
precepts, in which there is nothing sure, nothing stedfast,
nothing consistent, nothing irreproachable ; but aU doubtful,
or rather undoubtedly and entirely false, aU contradictory,
abominable, absurd. In a word, evU practices are detected
in your customs so many and so serious, that one wishing to
denounce them aU, if he were at aU able to enlarge, would
requhe at least a separate treatise for each. Were you to ob
serve these, and to act up to your profession, no childishness,
or foUy, or absurdity would go beyond yours ; and when you
praise and teach these things without doing them, you display
craft and deceit and malevolence equal to anything that can
be described or imagined.
68. During nine full years that I attended you with great
earnestness and assiduity, I could not hear of one of your elect
who was not found transgressing these precepts, or at least was
not suspected of doing so. Many were caught at wine and
animal food, many at the baths ; but this we only heard by
report. Some were proved to have seduced other men's wives,
so that in this case I could not doubt the truth of the charge.
But suppose this, too, a report rather than a fact. I myself
saw, and not I only, but others who have either escaped from
that superstition, or will, I hope, yet escape, — we saw, I say, in
a square in Carthage, on a road much frequented, not one, but
more than three of the elect walking behind us, and accosting
some women with such indecent sounds and gestures , as to
outdo the boldness and insolence of aU ordinary rascals. And
it was clear that this was quite habitual, and that they behaved
in this way to one another, for no one was deterred by the
presence of a companion, — showing that most of them, if not
aU, were affected with this evU tendency. For they did not

92 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
aU come from one house, but lived in quite different places,
and quite accidentally left together the place where they had
met. It was a great shock to us, and we lodged a complaint
about it. But who thought of inflicting punishment, — I say
not by separation from the Church, but even by severe rebuke
in proportion to the heinousness of the offence ?
69. All the excuse given for the impunity of those men
was that, at that time, when theh meetings were forbidden by
law, it was feared that the persons suffering punishment might
retaliate by giving information. What then of their asser
tion that they will always have persecution in this world, for
which they suppose that they wUl be thought the more of ? for
this is the application they make of the words about the world
hating them.1 And they wiU have it that truth must be sought
for among them, because, in the promise of the Holy Spirit,
the Paraclete, it is said that the world cannot receive Him.2
This is not the place to discuss this question. But clearly, if
you are always to be persecuted, even to the end of the world,
there will be no end to this laxity, and to the unchecked
spread of all this immorality, from your fear of giving offence
to men of this character.
70. This answer was also given to us, when we reported to
the very highest authorities that a woman had complained to
us that in a meeting, where she was along with other women,
not doubting of the sanctity of these people, some of the elect
came in, and when one of them had put out the lamp, one, whom
she could not distinguish, tried to embrace her, and would
have forced her into sin, had she not escaped by crying out.
How common must we conclude the practice to have been
which led to the misdeed on this occasion ! And this was
done on the night when you keep the feast of vigUs. For
sooth, besides the fear of information being given, no one could
bring the offender before the bishop, as he had so weU guarded
against being recognised. As if aU who entered along with
him were not implicated in the crime ; for in theh indecent
merriment they all wished the lamp to be put out.
71. Then what wide doors were opened for suspicions, when
we saw them full of envy, full of covetousness, fuU of greed
1 John xv. 18. * John xiv. 17.

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR. 93

for costly meats, constantly at strife, easily excited about
trifles ! We concluded that they were not competent to abstain
from the things they professed to abstain from, if they found
an opportunity in secret' or in the dark. There were two of
sufficiently good character, of active minds, and leaders in
theh debates, with whom we had a more particular and inti
mate acquaintance than with the rest. One of them was
much associated with us, because he was also engaged in
hberal studies ; he is said to be now an elder there. These
two were very jealous of one another, and one accused the
other — not openly, but in conversation, as he had opportunity,
and in whispers — of having made a criminal assault on the wife
of one of the followers. :.He again, in clearing himself to us,
brought the same charge against another of the elect, who
hved with this foUower as his most trusted friend. He had,
going in suddenly, caught this man with the woman, and his
enemy and rival had advised the woman and her paramour to
raise this false report about bim, that he might not be believed
if he gave any information. We were much distressed, and
took it greatly to heart, that although there was a doubt about
the assault on the woman, the jealous feeling in those two
men, than whom we found none better in the place, showed
itself so keenly, and inevitably raised suspicion of other
things. 72. Another thing was, that we very often saw in theatres
men belonging to the elect, men of years and, it was supposed,
of character, along with a hoary-headed elder. We pass over
the youths, whom we used to come upon quarrelling about the
people connected with the stage and the races ; from which
we may safely conclude how they would be able to refrain in
secret, when they could not subdue the passion by which they
were exposed in the eyes of their followers, bringing on them
disgrace and flight. In the case of the saint, whose discussions
we attended in the street of the fig-seUers, would his atrocious
crime have been discovered if he had been able to make the
dedicated virgin his wife without making her pregnant ? The
sweUing womb betrayed the secret and unthought-of iniquity.
When her brother, a young man, heard of it from his mother,
he felt keenly the injury, but refrained, from regard to religion,

94 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
from a pubhc accusation. He succeeded in getting the man
expeUed from that church, for such conduct cannot always be
tolerated ; and that the crime might not be whoUy unpunished,
he arranged with some of his friends to have the man weh
beaten and kicked. When he was thus assaUed, he cried out
that they should spare him, from regard to the authority of
the opinion of Manichaeus, that Adam the first had sinned,
and was a greater saint after his sin.
73. This, in fact, is your notion about Adam and Eve. It
is a long story ; but I wiU touch only on what concerns the
present matter. You say that Adam was produced from his
parents, the abortive princes of darkness ; that he had in his
soul the most part light, and very httle of the opposite race.
So while he lived a holy hfe, on account of the prevalence of
good, stiU the opposite part in him was stirred up, so that he
was led away into conjugal intercourse. Thus he feU and
sinned, but afterwards hved in greater holiness. Now, my
complaint is not so much about this wicked man, who, under
the garb of an elect and holy man, brought such shame and
reproach on a family of strangers by his shocking immorality.
I do not cjiarge you with this. Let it be attributed to the
abandoned character of the man, and not to your habits. I
blame the man for the atrocity, and not you. StUl there is
this in you aU that cannot, as far as I can see, be admitted or
tolerated, that whUe you hold the soul to be part of God, you
stiU maintain that the mixture of a httle evU prevaUed over
the superior force and quantity of good. Who that beheves
this, when incited by passion, wiU not find here an excuse,
instead of checking and controlling his passion ?
XX. — Disgraceful conduct discovered at Rome.
74. What more shaU I say of your customs ? I have
mentioned what I found myself when I was in the city when
the things were done. To go through aU that happened at
Eome in my absence would take a long time. I wUl, how
ever, give a short account of it; for the matter became so
notorious, that even the absent could not remain in ignorance
pf it. And when I was afterwards in Eome, I ascertained the
truth of aU I had heard, although the story was told me by

MANICHaEANS IN ROME. 95
an eye-witness, whom I knew so weU and esteemed so highly,
that I could not feel any doubt about it. One of your
followers, then, quite equal to the elect in theh far-famed
abstinence, for he was both liberaUy educated, and was in the
habit of defending your sect with great zeal, took it very UI
that he had cast in his teeth the vUe conduct of the elect, who
hved in aU kinds of places, and went hither and thither for
lodging of the worst description. He therefore desired, if
possible, to assemble aU who were wUling to live according to
the precepts into his own house, and to maintain them at his
¦own expense ; for he was above the average in carelessness
as to spending money, besides being above the average in the
amount he had to spend. He complained that his efforts were
hindered by the remissness of the bishops, whose assistance he
required for success. At last one of your bishops was found,
— a man, as I know, very rude and unpolished, but somehow,
from his very moroseness, the more inclined to strict observance
of morality. The follower eagerly lays holds of this man as
the person he had long wished for and found at last, and
relates his whole plan. He approves and assents, and agrees
to be the first to take up his abode in the house. When this
was done, aU the eleet who could be at Eome were assembled
there. The rule of hfe in the epistle of Manichaeus was laid
before them. Many thought it intolerable, and left ; not a few
felt ashamed, and stayed. They began to live as they had
agreed, and as this high authority enjoined. The foUower aU
the time was zealously enforcing everything on everybody,
though never, in any case, what he did not undertake himself.
MeanwhUe quarrels constantly arose among the elect. They
charged one another with crimes, all which he lamented to
hear, and managed to make them unintentionaUy expose one
another in their altercations. The revelations were vile beyond
description. Thus appeared the true character of those who
were unlike the rest in being wiUing to bend to the yoke of
the precepts. What then is to be suspected, or rather, con
cluded, of the others ? To come to a close, they gathered
together on one occasion and complained that they could not
keep the regulations. Then came rebeUion. The foUower
stated his case most concisely, that either all must be kept, or

G

96 MORALS OF THE MANICHaEANS.
the man who had given such a sanction to such precepts,
which no one could fulfil, must be thought a great fool. But,
as was inevitable, the wUd clamour of the mob prevaUed over
the opinion of one man. The bishop himself gave way at last,
and took flight with great disgrace ; and he was said to have
got in provisions by stealth, contrary to rule, which were often
discovered. He had a supply of money from his private
purse, which he carefully kept concealed.
75. If you say these things are false, you contradict what
is too clear and pubhc. But you may say so if you hke.
For, as the things are certain, and easily known by those
who wish to know them, those who deny that they are true
show what their habit of teUing the truth is. But you have
other rephes with which I do not find fault. For you either
say that some do keep your precepts, and that they should
not be mixed up with the guUty in condemning the others ;
or that the whole inquiry into the character of the members
of your sect is wrong, for the question is of the character of
the profession. Should I grant both of these (although you
can neither point out those faithful observers of the precepts,
nor clear your heresy of all those frivolities and iniquities),
stiU I must insist on knowing why you heap reproaches on
Christians of the Catholic name on seeing the immoral life of
some, whUe you either have the effrontery to repel inquiry
about your members, or the stiU greater effrontery not to
repel it, wishing it to be understood that in your scanty
membership there are some unknown individuals who keep
the precepts they profess, but that among the multitudes in
the Cathohc Church there are none.

AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICILEUS CALLED
FUNDAMENTAL.1

I. — To restore heretics is better than to destroy them.
1. "\/|"Y prayer to the one true, almighty God, of whom,
Jj/A. and by whom, and in whom are aU things, has
been, and is now, that in opposing and refuting the heresy of
you Manichaeans, as you may after aU be heretics more from
thoughtlessness than from malice, He would give me a mind
calm and composed, and aiming at your recovery rather than
at your discomfiture. For while the Lord, by His servants,
overthrows the kingdoms of error, His will concerning erring
men, as far as they are men, is that they should be restored
rather than destroyed. And in every case where, previous to*
the final judgment, God inflicts punishment, whether through
wicked men or through righteous men, whether through
uninteUigent agents or through intelligent, whether in secret
or openly, we must believe that the designed effect is the
recovery of men, and not their ruin ; while there is a prepara
tion for the final doom in the case of those who reject the
means of recovery. Thus, as the universe contains some
things which serve for bodily punishment, as fire, poison,
disease, and the rest , and other things, in which the mind is
punished, not by bodily distress, but by the entanglements of
its own passions, such as loss, exUe, bereavement, reproach,
and the like ; while other things, again, without giving pain,
1 Written about the year 397. In his Retractations (ii. 2) Augustine says :
"The hook against the Epistle of Manichseus called Fundamental refutes only
its commencement ; hut on the other parts of the epistle I have made notes, as
required, relating the whole, and sufficient to recall the argument, had I ever
had leisure to write against the whole. "

98 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
are fitted to comfort and soothe in distress, as, for example,
consolations, exhortations, discussions, and such things ; in aU
these the supreme justice of God makes use sometimes even
of wicked men, acting in ignorance, and sometimes of good
men, acting intelligently. It behoves us, accordingly, to deshe
in preference the better part, that we might attain our end in
your correction, not by contention, and strife, and persecutions,
but by kindly consolation, by friendly exhortation, by quiet
discussion ; as it is written, " The servant of the Lord must
not strive ; but be gentle toward aU men, apt to teach, patient;
in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves."1 It
behoves us, I say, to deshe to obtain this part in the work ;
it belongs to God to give what is good to those who ask for
what they deshe.
II. — Why the Manichaeans should be gently dealt loitlt.
2. Let those treat you angrily who know not the labour
necessary to find truth, and the amount of caution requhed to
avoid error. Let those treat you angrily who know not how
hard and rare it is to overcome the fancies of the flesh by the
clear inteUigence of true piety. Let those treat you angrily
who know not the difficulty of curing man's mental vision
that he may behold his Sun, — not that sun which you worship,
and which shines with the brilliance of a heavenly body in
the eyes of carnal men and of beasts, — but that of which it is
written in the prophet, " The Sun of righteousness has arisen
upon me;"2 and of which it is said in the Gospel, "That was
the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world."8 Let those treat you angrily who know not with what
sighs and groans the least particle of the knowledge of God is
obtained. And, last of aU, let those treat you angrily who
have never been led astray in the same way that they see that
you are. II. — Augustine at one time a Manichaean.
3. For my part, I, — who, after much and long-continued
bewilderment, attained at last to the discovery of the simple
truth, which is learned without being recorded in any fanciful
legend ; who, unhappy that I was, barely succeeded, by God's>
1 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25. 2 MaL iv. 2. 3 John i. 9.

FRIENDLY DISCUSSION. 9 9

help, in refuting the vain notions of my mind, gathered from
theories and false doctrines of various kinds ; who so late
sought the cure of my mental obscuration, in compliance with
the caU and the tender persuasion of the all-merciful Physician ;
who long mourned tUl the immutable and inviolable Existence
vouchsafed to convince me inwardly of Himself, in harmony
with the testimony of the sacred books ; by whom, in fine, aU
those fictions which have such a firm hold on you, from your
long familiarity with them, were diligently examined, and
attentively heard, and too easUy beheved, and commended at
every opportunity to the belief of others, and defended against
opponents with determination and boldness, — I can on no
account treat you angrily ; for I must bear with you new as
formerly I had to bear with myseh, and I must be as patient
towards you as my associates were with me, when I went
madly and blindly astray in your behefs.
4. On the other hand, aU must aUow that you owe it to me,
in return, to lay aside aU arrogance on your part too, that so
you may be the more disposed to gentleness, and may not
oppose me in a hostUe sphit, to your own hurt. Let neither
of us assert that he has found truth ; let us seek it as if it
were unknown to us both. For truth can be sought with zeal
and unanimity only in the absence of any rash assumption of
its being aheady found and ascertained. But if I cannot
induce you to grant me this, at least aUow me to suppose my
self a stranger now for the first time hearing you, for the first
time examining your doctrines. My request is surely a
reasonable one. And it must be laid down as an understood
thing that I am not to join you in your prayers, or in holding
conventicles, on in taking the name of Manichaeus, unless you
give me a clear explanation, without any obscurity, of aU
matters touching the salvation of the soul.

IV. — Proofs of the Catholic faith.
5. As regards staying in the Catholic Church, not to speak of
the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual
men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest
measure, indeed, because they are but men, stiU without any
uncertainty (the rest of the multitude, of course, derive theh

100 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
enthe security not from acuteness of inteUect, but from
simphcity of faith), — not to speak of this wisdom, which you
do not believe to be in the Cathohc Church, there are many
other things to keep me in her bosom, for the best reasons.
The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church ;
so does her authority, inaugurated by mhacles, nourished in
hope, enlarged by love, estabhshed by age. The succession of
priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle
Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in
charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.
And so, lastly, does the name itself of Cathohc, which, not
without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has still
retained; so that, though aU heretics wish to be caUed Catholics,
yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets,
no heretic wiU venture to point to his own chapel or house.
Such in number and importance are the precious ties belong
ing to the Christian name which keep a behever in the
Cathohc Church, as it is right they should, though from the
slowness of our understanding, or the smaU attainment of our
life, the truth may not yet fuUy disclose itself. You, again,
have none of those things to attract or retain me, and your
only claim is to teach the truth. Now if the truth is so
clearly proved as to leave no doubt, it must be set before aU
the things which keep me in the Cathohc Church ; but if there
is only a promise without any fulfilment, no one shaU move
me from the faith to which Christian ties, so many and so
strong, bind me.
V. — Against tlie title ofthe epistle of Manichaeus.
6. Let us see then what Manichaeus teaches me ; and par
ticularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Funda
mental Epistle, in which almost aU that you believe is con
tained. For in that, unhappy time when we read it we were
in your opinion enhghtened. The epistle begins thus : —
" Manichceus, an apostle of .Jesus Christ, by the appointment of
God the Father. These are wholesome words, from the everlast
ing fountain of living water." Now, if you please, wait and
kindly answer me. I do not believe Manichaeus to be an
apostle of Christ. Do not, i beg of you, be enraged ; do not
begin to revile me. You know that it is my rule to beheve

MANICH/EUS CLAIMS TO BE AN APOSTLE. 101
none of your statements without consideration. Who then
is this Manichaeus ? You wUl reply, An apostle of Christ.
I do not beheve it. Now you are at a loss what to say or
do ; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here
you are forcing me to beheve what I have no knowledge of.
Perhaps you wUl read the gospel to me, and wiU attempt to
find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet
with a person not yet beheving the gospel, how would you
reply to him were he to say, I do not believe ? For my part)
I should not beheve the gospel except as moved by the
authority of the Church. So when those on whose authority
I have consented to beheve in the gospel tell me not to
beheve in Manichaeus, how can I but consent ? Take your
choice. If you say, Beheve the Catholics : theh advice to me
is to put no faith in you ; so that, believing them, I am pre
cluded from beheving you ; — If you say, Do not beheve the
Catholics : you cannot fahly use the gospel in bringing me to
faith in Manichaeus; for it was on the testimony of the-
Cathohcs that I beheved the gospel;- — -Again, if you say, You
were right in beheving the Catholics when they praised the
gospel, but wrong in beheving their condemnation of Mani
chaeus : do you think me such a fool as to beheve or not to
beheve as I hke or dishke, without any reason ? It is there
fore the fairest and the safest plan for me, having in one in
stance put faith in the Cathohcs, not to go over to you, till,
instead of bidding me beheve, you make me understand some
thing in the clearest and most satisfactory manner. To
convince me, then, you must find proof elsewhere than in the
gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I wiU keep to those who
led me to beheve the gospel ; and, in obedience to them, I
can never believe you. Then, should you succeed in finding
in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship
of Manichaeus, you wiU weaken my regard for the authority
of the Cathohcs ; and the effect of that will be, that I shall
no longer be able to beheve the gospel either, for it was
through the Catholics that I got my faith in it ; and so, what
ever you bring from the gospel wiU no longer have any
weight with me. Thus, supposing no clear proof of the
apostleship of Manichaeus to be found in the gospel, I wiU

102 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
¦ '¦ ¦¦¦¦¦-—¦¦¦. -..—,.,¦-. — — , . ,  , . i
beheve the Cathohcs rather than you. Again, supposing you
to find some passage clearly in favour of Manichaeus, I wiU
believe neither them nor you : uot them, for they deceived
me about you ; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture
which I believed on the authority of those deceivers. But my
not believing the gospel is not to be supposed possible ; and,
beheving the gospel, I can no longer beheve you too. For
the names of the apostles, as there recorded,1 do not include
the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's
betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles ; 2 which
book I must believe if I believe the gospel, since both writ
ings rest alike on the testimony of the Cathohc Church. The
same book contains the weU-known narrative of the calling
and apostleship of Paul.3 Eead to me, if you can, a passage
in the gospel where Manichaeus is caUed an apostle, or from
any other book in which I have professed to beheve. WiU
you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy
Spirit, the Paraclete, to the apostles ? In reply, I wiU show
you how many and how great are the obstacles in the way of
my beheving in Manichaeus in view of this passage.
VI. — Why Maniclwzas called himself the apostle of Christ.
7. For I am at a loss to see why this epistle begins, " Mani-
ehceus, the apostle of Jesus Christ," and not the Paraclete, the
apostle of Jesus Christ. Or if the Paraclete sent by Christ
sent Manichaeus, why do we read, " Manichaeus, the apostle of
Jesus Christ" instead of Manichaeus, the apostle of the Para
clete ? If you say that it is Christ Himself who is the Holy
Spirit, you contradict the very words of Scripture, where the
Lord says, " And I wiU send you another Paraclete." 4 Again,
if you justify your putting Christ's name because the Para
clete, though not the same person as Christ, is of the same
substance, — that is, because, though not one person, they are
one existence, — Paul too might have used the words, Paul,
an apostle of God the Father ; for the Lord said, " I and the
Father are one." s Paul nowhere uses these words ; nor does
any of the apostles write of himself as an apostle of the
1 Matt. x. 2-4 ; Mark iii. 13-19 ; Luke vi. 13-18. °- Acts i. 26.
* Acts ix. * John xiv. 16. 5 John x. 30.

THE PARACLETE. 103

Father. Why then this new fashion ? Does it not savour
of trickery of some kind or other ? For if he thought it
equivalent, why did he not in some epistles call himself an
apostle of Christ, and in others of the Paraclete ? But in
every one that I know of, he writes, of Christ ; and never, of
the Paraclete. What do we suppose to be the reason of this,
but that pride, which is the mother of aU heretics, led the man
to desire it to be thought that he, instead of being sent by the
Paraclete, was taken into so close a relation as to get the
name of Paraclete himself? As the man Jesus Christ was
not sent by the Son of God, that is, the power and wisdom of
God, by which aU things were made, but, according to the
Cathohc faith, was taken into such a relation as to be Himself
the Son of God, — that is, that in Himself the wisdom of God
was displayed in the recovery of sinners, — so Manichaeus
wished it to be thought that he was so taken up by the Holy
Spirit, whom Christ promised, that we are henceforth to
understand that the names Manichaeus and Holy Spirit alike
signify the apostle of Jesus Christ, — that is, one sent by Jesus
Christ, who promised to send him. Amazing arrogance !
unutterable profanity !
VII. — In what sense tlie followers of Manichaeus believe him to be the Holy
Spirit.
8. Besides, you should explain how it is that, whUe the
Father, Son, and Holy Sphit are united in equahty of nature,
as you also acknowledge, you are not ashamed to speak of
Manichaeus, a man taken into union with the Holy Spirit, as
bom of ordinary generation ; and yet you are afraid to believe
that the man taken into union with the only-begotten Wisdom
of God was born of a Virgin. If human flesh, if generation,
if the womb of the wife and mother could not contaminate
the Holy Spirit, how could the Virgin's womb contaminate the
Wisdom of God ? This Manichaeus, then, who boasts of a
connection with the Holy Sphit, and of being spoken of in
the gospel, must produce his claim to either of these two
things, — that he was sent by the Spirit, or that he was taken
into union with the Spirit. If he was sent, let him caU
himself the apostle of the Paraclete ; if taken into union, let
him aUow that He whom the only-begotten Son took upon

104 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
Himself had a human mother, since he admits a human
father as well as mother in the case of one taken up by the
Holy Sphit. Let him believe that the Word of God was not
defiled by the virgin womb of Mary, since he bids us beheve
that the Holy Spirit could not be defiled by the married hfe
of his parents. Suppose you say that Manichaeus was united
to the Sphit, not in the womb or before conception, but after
bis bhth, stiU you must admit that he had a fleshly nature
derived from a father and mother. And since you are not
afraid to speak of the blood and the bodUy substance of
Manichaeus as coming from ordinary generation, or of the
internal impurities contained in his flesh, and hold that the
Holy Sphit, who took on Himself, as you beheve, this human
being, was not contaminated by all those things, why should
I shrink from speaking of the Virgin's womb and body un
dented, and not rather believe that the Wisdom of God in
union with the human being in his mother's flesh stiU re
mained free from stain and poUution ? Thus, as, whether
Manichaeus professes to be sent by or to be united with the
Paraclete, neither statement holds good, I am on my guard,
and refuse to beheve either in his mission or in his susception.
VIII. — Tlie festival ofthe birth-day qf Manichaeus.
9. In adding the words, " by the providence of God the Father"
what else did Manichaeus design but that, having got the name
of Jesus Christ, whose apostle he caUs himself, and of God the
Father, by whose providence he says he was sent by the Son,
we should believe himself, as the Holy Sphit, to be the third
person? His words are: "Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus
Christ, by the providence of God the Father." The Holy Sphit
is not named, though He ought speciaUy to have been named
by one who quotes to us in favour of his apostleship the pro
mise of the Paraclete, that he may prevail upon ignorant
people by the authority of the gospel. In reply to this,
you of course say that in the name' of the Apostle Manichfeus
we have the name of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, because
He condescended to come in Manichaeus. Why then, I ask
again, should you cry out against the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, that He in whom divine Wisdom came was born of a

THE BIRTH-DAY FESTIVAL. , 105
virgin, when you do not scruple to affirm the birth by ordinary
generation of him in whom you say the Holy Spirit came ?
I cannot but suspect that this Manichaeus, who uses the name
of Christ to gain access to the minds of the ignorant, wished
to be worshipped instead of Christ even. I will state briefly
the reason of this suspicion. At the time when I was a
student of your doctrines, to my frequent inquiries why it was
that the Paschal feast of the Lord was celebrated generally
with no interest, though sometimes there were a few languid
worshippers, but no watchings, no prescription of any unusual
fast, — in a word, no special ceremony, — whUe great honour is
paid to your Bema, that is, the day on which Manichaeus was
killed, when you have a platform with fifite steps, covered with
precious cloth, placed conspicuously so as to face the votaries,
— the reply was, that the day to observe was the day of the
passion of him who really suffered, and that Christ, who was
not born, but appeared to human eyes in an unreal semblance
of flesh, only feigned suffering, without reaUy bearing it. Is it
not deplorable, that men who wish to be caUed Christians are
afraid of a vhgin's womb as likely to defile the truth, and yet
are not afraid of falsehood ? But to go back to the point, who
that pays attention can help suspecting that the intention of
Manichaeus in denying Christ's being born of a woman, and
having a human body, was that His passion, the time of which
is now a great festival aU over the world, might not be observed
by the behevers in Manichaeanism, so as to lessen the devotion
of the solemn commemoration which he wished in honour of the
day of his own death ? To us it was a great attraction in the
feast of the Bema that it was held during Pascha ; for the con
nection of the one feast with another season of great enjoy
ment added greatly to our affection for it.
IX. — When tlie Holy Spirit was sent.
10. Perhaps you will say to me, When, then, did the Para
clete promised by the Lord come ? As regards this, had I
nothing else to beheve on the subject, I should rather look for
the Paraclete as still to come, than aUow that He came in
Manichaeus. But seeing that the advent of the Holy Spirit is
narrated with perfect clearness in the Acts of the Apostles,

106 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
where is the necessity of my so. gratuitously running the risk
of beheving heretics ? For in the Acts it is written as foUows :
"The former treatise have we made, 0 TheophUus, of aU
that Jesus began both to do and teach, in the day in which He
chose the apostles by the Holy Sphit, and commanded them
to preach the gospel. By those to whom He showed Himself
alive after His passion by many proofs in the day-time, He
was seen forty days, and taught them concerning the kingdom
of God. And how He conversed with them, and commanded
them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for
the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of
me. For John truly baptized with water, but ye shaU begin
to be baptized with the Holy Sphit, whom ye shaU receive
after not many days, that is, at Pentecost. When they had
come, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou at this time
manifest ThyseU ? And when wiU be the kingdom of Israel ?
And He said unto them, No one can know the time which the
Father hath put in His own poweT. But ye shaU receive the
power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye shaU be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in aU Judasa, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." 1 In this
passage you have the Lord reminding His disciples of the pro
mise of the Father, which they had heard from His mouth, of
the coming of the Holy Sphit. Let us now see when He was
sent ; for shortly after we read as foUows : " And when the
day of Pentecost was, fuUy come, they were aU with one accord
in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven,
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it fiUed all the house where
they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven
tongues, hke as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they
were aU fiUed with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Sphit gave them utterance. And there
were dweUing at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every
nation under heaven. And when the sound was heard, the
multitude came together, and were confounded, because every
man heard them speak in his own language. And they were
aU amazed, and marveUed, saying one to another, Are not aU
these which speak GalUaeans ? and how heard we every man
1 Actsi. 1-8.

THE COMING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 107
in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? Parthians, and
Medes, and Elamites, and the dweUers in Mesopotamia, in
Armenia, and in Cappadocia, in Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and
Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the regions of Africa about Cyrene,
and strangers of Eome, Jews, natives, Cretes, and Arabians,
they heard them speak in theh own tongues the wonderful
works of God. And they were aU amazed, and were in doubt
on account of what had happened, saying, What meaneth this ?
But others, mocking, said, These men are fuU of new wine." x
This is when the Holy Spirit came. What more do you wish ?
If we are to beheve the Scriptures, should we not beheve most
readUy in this book, which has the strongest testimony in its
support, and which has had the advantage of becoming gene-
raUy known, and of being handed down and of being publicly
taught along with the gospel itself, which contains the promise
of the Holy Sphit, which also we beheve ? On reading, then,
this book of the Acts of the Apostles, which stands, as regards
authority, on a level with the gospel, I find that not only was
the Holy Spirit promised to these true apostles, but that He
was also sent so clearly, that no room is left for errors on this
subject. X. — Tlie Holy Spirit twice given.
11. For the glorification of our Lord among men is His
resurrection and His ascension to heaven. For it is written
in the Gospel according to John : " The Holy Ghost was not
yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." 2 Now
if the reason why He was not given was that Jesus was not
yet glorified, it foUows that He must have been given imme
diately on the glorification of Jesus. And since that glorifica
tion was twofold, as regards man and as regards God, the Holy
Spirit was also given twice : once, when, after His resurrec
tion from the dead, He breathed on the face of His disciples,
saying, " Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost ; " 3 and again, ten days
after His ascension to heaven. This number ten signifies per
fection ; for to the number seven, which embraces all created
things, is added the trinity of the Creator. On these things
there is much pious and sober discourse among spiritual men.
But I must keep to my point ; for my business at present is
1 Acts ii. 1-13. " John vii. 39. * John xx. 22.

108 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDjVMENTAL EPISTLE.
not to teach you, which you might think presumptuous, but to
take the part of an inquirer, and learn from you, as I tried to
do for nine years without success. Now, therefore, I have a
document to beheve on the subject of the Holy Sphit's
advent ; and if you bid me not to believe this document, as
your usual advice is not to believe ignorantly, without consi
deration, much less will I believe your documents. Away,
then, with aU books, and disclose the truth with logical clear
ness, so as to leave no doubt in my mind ; or bring forward
books where I shall find not an imperious demand for my
belief, but a trustworthy statement of what I may under
stand. Perhaps you say this epistle is of this character.
Let me, then, no longer stop at the threshold : let us see the
contents. . XI. — Manichaeus promises truth, but does not make good his word.
1 2. " Here," he says, " are wholesome words from the ever
lasting fountain of life ; and whoever hears them, and having
in the first place believed them, in the next place observes the
truths they set forth, shaU never suffer death, but shaU enjoy
eternal hfe in glory. For he is to be pronounced truly blessed
who has been instructed in this divine knowledge, by which
he is made free and shaU abide in everlasting life." This,
you see, is a promise of truth, but not the bestowal of it.
And you yourselves can easUy see that any errors what
ever might be dressed up in this fashion, so as under cover of
a showy exterior to steal in unawares into the minds of the
ignorant. Were he to say, Here are unwholesome words from
a poisonous fountain ; and whoever hears them, and having
in the first place believed them, in the next place observes
what they set forth, shaU never be restored to life, but shall
suffer a woeful death as a criminal : for assuredly he is to be
pronounced miserable who faUs into this infernal error, in
which he will sink so as to abide in everlasting torments ; —
were he to say this, he would say the truth ; but instead of
gaining any readers for his book, he would excite the greatest
aversion in the minds of aU into whose hands the book might
come. Let us then pass on to what follows ; nor let us be
deceived by words which may be used alike by good and bad,
by learned and unlearned. What, then, comes next ?

A PROMISING INTRODUCTION. 109
13. " May the peace," he says, " of the invisible God, and
the knowledge of the truth, be with the holy and beloved
brethren who both beheve and also yield obedience to the
divine precepts." Amen, say we. The prayer is a most
amiable and commendable one. Only we must bear in mind
that these words might be used by false teachers as weU as
by good ones. So, if he said nothing more than this, aU
might safely read and agree to it. And what foUows, too,
has nothing wrong in it : " May also the right hand of light
protect you, and deliver you from every hostUe assault, and
from the snares of the world." In fact, I have no fault to
find with the beginning of this epistle, tUl we come to the
main subject of it. For I wish not to spend time on minor
points. Now, then, for this writer's plain statement of what
is to be expected from him.
XII. — The wild fancies of Maniclmus. Tlie battle before the settlement
of the world.
14. " Of that matter," he says, " beloved brother of Pat-
ticus, of which you told me, saying that you desired to know
the manner of the bhth of Adam and Eve, whether they were
produced by a word or sprung from matter, I wiU answer
you as is fit. For in various writings and narratives we find
different assertions made and different descriptions given by
many authors. Now the real truth on the subject is un
known to aU people, even to those who have long and fre
quently treated of it. For had they arrived at a clear know
ledge of the generation of Adam and Eve, they would not have
remained hable to corruption and death." Here, then, is a
promise to us of clear knowledge of this matter, so that we
shaU not be hable to corruption and death. And if this does
not suffice, see what foUows : " Necessarily," he says, " many
things have to be said by way of preface, before a discovery
of this mystery free from aU uncertainty can be made." This
is precisely what I asked for, to have such evidence of the
truth as to free my knowledge of it from aU uncertainty.
And even were the promise not made by this writer himself,
it was proper for me to demand and to insist upon this, so
that no opposition should make me ashamed of becoming a
Manichaean from a Cathohc Christian, in view of such a gain

110 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
as that of perfectly clear and certain truth Now, then, let
us hear what he has to state.
15. "Accordingly," he says, " hear first, if you please, what
happened before the settlement of the world, and how the
battle was carried on, that you may be able to distinguish the
nature of light from that of darkness." Such are the false
and incredible statements which this writer makes. Who can
beheve that a battle was fought before the formation of the
world ? And even supposing it credible, we wish now to get
something to know, not to beheve. For to say that the Per
sians and Scythians long ago fought with one another is a
credible statement ; but while we beheve it when we read or
hear it, we cannot know it as a fact of experience or as a
truth of the understanding. So, then, as I would not accept
any such statement on the ground that I have been promised
something, not that I must beheve on authority, but that I
shaU understand without any uncertainty; stUl less wiU I
receive statements which are not only uncertain, but incredible.
Perhaps, however, he may have some evidence to make these
things clear and inteUigible. Let us hear, then, what foUows
with all possible patience and forbearance.
XIII. — Two opposite substances. The kingdom of light. Manicfuzas teaches
uncertainties instead qf certainties.
1 6. " In the beginning, then," he says, " these two sub
stances were divided. The empire of hght was held by God
the Father, who is constant in His holy origin, exceUent in
vhtue, true in His very nature, ever rejoicing in His own
eternity, possessing in Himself wisdom and the vital senses,
by which He also includes the twelve members of His light,.
which are the plentiful resources of His kingdom. Also in
each of His members are stored thousands of untold and
priceless treasures. But the Father Himself, chief in praise,
incomprehensible in greatness, has united to Himself happy
and glorious worlds, incalculable in wonder and duration, along
with which this holy and Ulustrious Father and Progenitor
resides, no poverty or infirmity being admitted in His magni
ficent realms. And these matchless realms are so founded on
the region of hght and bhss, that no one can ever move or
disturb them."

EVIDENCE REQUIRED. Ill

1 7. Where is the proof of aU this ? And where did
Manichaeus learn it ? Do not frighten me with the name of
the Paraclete. For, in the first place, I have come not to put
faith in unknown things, but to get the knowledge of un
doubted truths, according to the caution enjoined on me by
yourselves. For you know how bitterly you taunt those who
beheve without consideration And what is more, this writer,
who here begins to teU of very doubtful things, himself pro
mised a httle before to give complete and weU-grounded
knowledge. XIV. — Manichaeus promises tlie knowledge of undoubted things, and tlien
demands faith in doubtful things.
In the next place, if faith is what is required of me, I
should prefer to keep to the Scripture, which teUs me that the
Holy Sphit came and inspired the apostles, to whom the Lord
had promised to send Him. You must therefore prove, either
that what Manichaeus says is true, and so make clear to me
what I am unable to beheve ; or that Manichaeus is the Holy
Sphit, and so lead me to beheve in what you cannot make
clear. For I profess the Cathohc faith, and by it I expect
to attain certain knowledge. Since, then, you try to over
throw my faith, you must supply me with certain knowledge,
if you can, that you may convict me of having adopted my
present behef without consideration.. You make two distinct
propositions, — one when you say that the speaker is the Holy
Spirit, and another when you say that what the speaker
teaches is evidently true. I might fairly ask undeniable proof
for both propositions. But I am not greedy, and require to
be convinced only of one. Prove this person to be the Holy
Sphit, and I wiU beheve what he says to be true, even with
out understanding it ; or prove that what he says is true, and
I wiU beheve him to be the Holy Spirit, even without evi
dence. Could anything be fairer or kinder than this ? But
you cannot prove either one or other of these propositions.
You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and
ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my behef
and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shaU arrive
at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part com
pany with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable

112 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things ?
whUe we shaU foUow those who invite us to begin with be
heving what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened
by this very faith, we may obtain an inteUigent perception of
what we believe by the inward iUumination and confirmation
of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself.
18. And as I have asked this writer to prove these things
to me, I ask him now where he learned them himself. If he
rephes that they were revealed to him by the Holy Sphit,
and that his mind was divinely enhghtened that he might
know them to be certain and evident, this reply itself points
to the distinction between knowing and beheving. The know
ledge is his to whom these things are fully made known as
proved ; but in the case of those who only hear his account of
these things, there is no knowledge imparted, but only a be
lieving acquiescence required. Whoever thoughtlessly yields
this becomes a Manichaean, not by knowing undoubted truth,
but by believing doubtful statements. Such were we when
in our inexperienced youth we were deceived. Instead, there
fore, of promising knowledge, or clear evidence, or the settle
ment of the question free from aU uncertainty, Manichaeus
ought to have said that these things were clearly proved to
him, but that those who hear his account of them must be
heve him without evidence. But were he to say this, the
reply in every case would be, If I must beheve without
knowing, why should I not prefer to believe those things
which have a wide-spread notoriety from the consent of
learned and unlearned, and which among aU nations are estab
hshed on the best authority ? From fear of having this said
to him, Manichaeus bewUders the inexperienced by first pro
mising the knowledge of certain truths, and then demanding
faith in doubtful things. And then, if he is asked to make it
plain that these things have been proved to himself, he fads
again, and bids us believe this too. Who can tolerate such
imposture and arrogance ?

THE KINGDOM OF DARKNESS. 113
XV. — Tlie doctrine of Manichaeus not only uncertain, but false. His absurd fancy
of a land and race of darkness bordering on the holy region and tlie substance
of God. The error, first of all, of giving lo the nature of God limits and
borders, as if God were a material substance, having extension in space.
19. I have now to show, with the help of God and of our
Lord, that this writer's statements are false as well as uncertain.
The worst feature in this superstition is that it not only fails
to impart the knowledge and the truth which it promises, but
also teaches what is directly opposed to knowledge and truth.
This will at once be seen from the foUowing passage : " In
one dhection on the border of this bright and holy region
there was a land of darkness deep and vast in extent, where
abode fiery bodies, destructive races. Here was boundless
darkness; flowing from the same source in immeasurable
abundance, with the productions properly belonging to it.
Beyond this were muddy turbid waters with their inhabitants ;
and inside of them winds terrible and violent with their
prince and their progenitors. Then again a fiery region of
destruction, with its chiefs and peoples. And similarly inside
of this a race full of smoke and gloom, where abode the
dreadful prince and chief of all, having around him innumer
able princes, himself the mind and source of them all. Such
are the five natures of the region of corruption."
20. To speak of God even as an ethereal body is absurd
in the view of all who, with a clear mind, possessing some
measure of discernment, can perceive the nature of wisdom
and truth as not extended or scattered in space, but as great,
and imparting greatness without material size, nor confined
more or less in any direction, but throughout co-extensive with
the Father of aU, nor having one thing here and another there,
but everywhere perfect, everywhere present.
XVI. — The soul, though mutable, has no material form. It is all present
in every part of the body.
But why speak of truth and wisdom which surpass aU
the powers of the soul, when the nature of the soul itself,
which is known to be mutable still, has no kind of material
extension in space ? For whatever consists of gross matter
must necessarUy be divisible into parts, having one in one
place, and another in another. Thus, the finger is less than
7 H

114 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
the whole hand, and one finger is less than two ; and there
is one place for this finger, and another for that, and another
for the rest of the hand. And this applies not to organized
bodies only, but also to the ground, each part of which has
its own place, so that one cannot be where the other is. So
in moisture, the smaUer quantity occupies a smaUer space, and
the larger quantity a larger space; and one part is at the
bottom of the cup, and another part near the mouth. So in
air, each part has its own place ; and it is impossible for the
ah in this house to have along with itself, in the same house
at the same moment, the air in the neighbourhood. And even
as regards light itself, one part comes through one window,
and another through another; and a greater quantity comes
through the larger window, and a smaUer quantity through
the smaUer window. Nor, in fact, can there be any bodUy
substance, whether celestial or terrestrial, whether aerial or
moist, which is not less in its part than in the whole, or
which can possibly have one part in the same place as another
at the same time ; but, having one thing in one place and
another in another, its extension in space is a substance which
has distinct hmits and parts, or, so to speak, sections. The
nature of the soul, on the other hand, though we leave out of
account its power of perceiving truth, and consider only its
inferior power of giving unity to the body, and of sensation
in the body, does not appear to have any material extension
in space. For it is aU present in each separate part of its
body when it is aU present in any sensation. There is not
a smaUer part in the finger, and a larger in the arm, as the
bulk of the finger is less than that of the arm; but the
quantity everywhere is the same, for the whole is present
everywhere. For when the finger is touched, the whole mind
feels, though the sensation is not through the whole body.
No part of the mind is unconscious of the touch, which proves
the presence of the whole. And yet it is not so present in
the finger or in the sensation as to abandon the rest of the
body, or to gather itself up into the one place where the
sensation occurs. For when it is aU present in the sensation
in a finger, if another part, say the foot, be- touched, it does
not faU to be all present in this sensation too ; so that at the

THE SOUL HAS NO EXTENSION. 115
same moment it is aU present in different places, without
leaving one in order to be in the other, and without having
one part in one, and another in the other ; but by this power
of showing itself to be aU present at the same moment in
separate places. When it is all present in the sensations of
these places, it proves that it is not bound by the conditions
of space. XVII. — The memory contains the ideas of places of the greatest size.
Again, if we consider the mind's power of remembering
not the objects of the inteUect, but material objects, such as
we see brutes also remembering (for cattle find theh way
without mistake in familiar places, and animals return to theh
cribs, and dogs recognise the persons of theh masters, and
when asleep they often growl, or break out into a bark, which
could not be unless their mind retained the images of things
before seen or perceived by some bodUy sense), who can
conceive rightly where these images are contained, where they
are kept, or where they are formed ? If, indeed, these images
were no larger than the size of our body, it might be said that
the mind shapes and retains them in the bodUy space which
contains itself. But whUe the body occupies a smaU material
space, the mind revolves images of vast extent, of heaven and
earth, with no want of room, though they come and go in
crowds ; so that, clearly, the mind has no material extension :
for instead of being contained in images of the largest spaces, it
rather contains them ; not, however, in any material receptacle,
but by a mysterious faculty or power, by which it can increase
or diminish them, can contract them within narrow limits, or
expand them indefinitely, can arrange or disarrange them at
pleasure, can multiply them or reduce them to a few or to one.
XVIII. — The understanding judges of the truth of things, and of its own action.
What, then, must be said of the power of perceiving truth,
and of making a vigorous resistance against these very images
which take their shape from impressions on the bodily senses,
when they are opposed to the truth ? This power discerns
the difference between, to take a particular example, the true
Carthage and its own imaginary one, which it changes as it

116 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
pleases with perfect ease. It shows that the countless worlds
of Epicurus, in which his fancy roamed without restraint, are
due to the same power of imagination, and, to add as other
examples, that we get from the same source the region of light,
with its boundless extent, and the five dens of the race of
darkness, with their inmates, in which ideas the fancies of
Manichaeus have dared to assume the name of truth. What
is this power which discerns things in this way? Clearly,
whatever its extent may be, it is greater than aU these things,
and is conceived of without any such material images. Find,
if you can, space for this power ; give it a material extension ;
provide it with a body of huge size. .Assuredly you wiU
aUow that you cannot. For of everything of this corporeal
nature your mind forms an opinion as to its divisibUity, and
you make of such things one part greater and another less, as
much as you like ; while that by which you form a judgment
of these things you perceive to be above them, not in local
position, but in the higher power which it possesses.
XIX. — If the mind has no material extension, much less has God.
21. So then, if the mind, so liable to change, whether from a
multitude of dissimUar desires, or from feelings varying accord
ing to the abundance or the want of desirable things, or from
these endless sports of the fancy, or from forgetfulness and re
membrance, or from learning and ignorance ; if the mind, I
say, exposed to frequent change from those and the like causes,
is perceived to be without any local or material extension, and
to have a vigour of action which surmounts these material
conditions, what must we think or conclude of God, who
remains superior to all inteUigent beings in His freedom from
perturbation and from change, giving to every one what is due ?
Him the mind dares to express more easUy than to see ; and
the clearer the sight, the less is the power of expression. And
yet this God, if, as the Manichaean fables are constantly
asserting, He were hmited in extension in one direction and
unlimited in others, could be measured by so many subdivi
sions or fractions of greater or less size, as every one might
fancy ; so that, for example, a division of the extent of two
feet would be less by eight parts than one of ten feet. For

GOD NOT DIVISIBLE. 117

this is the property of aU natures which have extension in
space, and therefore cannot be all in one place. But even
with the mind this is not the case ; and this degrading and
perverted idea of the mind is found among people who are
unfit for such investigations.
XX. — Refutation of the absurd idea cf two territories.
22. But perhaps, instead of thus addressing carnal minds, we
should rather descend to the views of those who either dare
not or are as yet unfit to turn from the consideration of
material things to the study of an immaterial and spiritual
nature, and who are thus unable to reflect upon their own
power of reflection, so as to see how it forms a judgment of
material extension without itself possessing it. Let us descend
then to these material ideas, and let us ask in what direction,
and on what border of the shining and sacred territory, to use
the expressions of Manichaeus, was the region of darkness?
For he speaks of one direction and border, without saying
which, whether the right or the left. In any case, it is clear
that to speak of one side implies that there is another. But
where there are three or more sides, either the figure is bounded
in aU directions, or if it extends infinitely in one direction,
stiU it must be hmited in the directions where it has sides.
If, then, on one side of the region of light there was the region
of darkness, what bounded it on the other side or sides ?
The Manichaeans say nothing in reply to this ; but when
pressed, they say that on the other sides the region of hght, as
they caU it, is infinite, that is, extends throughout boundless
space. They do not see, what is plain to the dullest under
standing, that in that case there could be no sides. For the
sides are where it is bounded. What, then, he says, though
there are no sides ? -But what you said of one direction or
side, implied of necessity the existence of another direction
and side, or other dhections and sides. For if there was only
one side, you should have said, on the side, not on one side ;
as in reference to our body we say properly, By one eye,
because there is another ; or on one breast, because there is
another. But if we spoke of a thing as being on one nose, or
one navel, we should be ridiculed by learned and unlearned,

118' REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
since there is only one. But I do not insist on words, for
you may have used one in the sense of the only one..
XXI. — This region qf light must be material if it is joined to the region of
darkness. Tlie shape qf the region qf darkness joined ta the region of light..
What, then, bordered on the side of the region which you
caU shining and sacred ? The region, you reply, of darkness.
Do you then aUow this latter region to have been material ?
Of course you must, since you assert that all bodies derive
their origin from it. How then is it that, dull and carnal as
you are, you do not see that unless both regions were material,
they could not have theh sides joined to one another ? How
could you ever be so blinded in mind as to say that only the
region of darkness was material, and that the so-caUed region
of hght was immaterial and spiritual ? My good friends, let
us open our eyes for once, and see, now that we are told of
it, what is most obvious, that two regions cannot be joined at
theh sides unless both are material
23. Or if we are too dull and stupid to see this, let us hear
whether the region of darkness too has one side, and is bound
less in the other directions, like the region of hght. They do
not hold this from fear of making it seem equal to God.
Accordingly they make it boundless in depth and in length ;
but upwards, above it, they maintain that there is an infinity
of empty space. And lest this region should appear to be a
fraction equal in amount to half of that representing the
region of hght, they narrow it also on two sides. As if, to
give the simplest illustration, a piece of bread were made into
four squares, three white and one black; then suppose the
three white pieces joined as one, and conceive them as
infinite upwards and downwards, and backwards in aU direc
tions : this represents the Manichaean region of hght. Then
conceive the black square infinite downwards and backwards,
but with infinite emptiness above it : this is theh region of
darkness. But these are secrets which they disclose to very
eager and anxious inquirers.
XXII. — Tlie form ofthe region of light the worse of the two.
WeU, then, if this is so, the region of darkness is clearly
touched on two sides by the region of hght. And if it is

REGIONS OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS. 119
touched on two sides, it must touch on two. So much for its
being on one side, as we were told before.
24. And what an unseemly appearance is this of the region
of hght ! — like a cloven arch, with a black wedge inserted
below, bounded only in the direction of the cleft, and having
a void space interposed where the boundless emptiness stretches
above the region of darkness. Indeed, the form of the region
of darkness is better than that of the region of hght : for the
former cleaves, the latter is cloven; the former fills the gap
which is made in the latter ; the former has no void in it,
¦while the latter is undefined in aU directions, except that
where it is filled up by the wedge of darkness. In an ignorant
and greedy notion of giving more honour to a number of parts
than to a single one, so that the region of hght should have
six, three upwards and three downwards, they have made this
region be spht up, instead of sundering the other. For, accord
ing to this figure, though there may be no intermixture of
darkness with hght, there is certainly interpenetration.
XXIII. — The Anthropomorphites not so bad as the Manichaeans.
25. Compare, now, not spiritual men of the Cathohc faith,
whose mind, as far as is possible in this hfe, perceives that the
divine substance and nature has no material extension, and
has no shape bounded by lines, but the carnal and weak of
our faith, who, when they hear the members of the body
used figuratively, as when God's eyes or ears are spoken of,
are accustomed, in the hcence of fancy, to picture God to
themselves in a human form ; compare these with the Mani
chaeans, whose custom it is to make known theh siUy stories
to anxious inquirers as if they were great mysteries : and con
sider who have the most aUowable and respectable ideas of God,
— those who think of Him as having a human form which is
the most exceUent of its kind, or those who think of Him as
having boundless material extension, yet not in aU directions,
but with three parts infinite and solid, whUe in one part He
is cloven, with an empty void, and with undefined space above,
whUe the region of darkness is inserted wedge^like below.
Or perhaps the proper expression is, that He is unconfined
above in His own nature, but encroached on below by a hostUe

120 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
nature. I join with you in laughing at the foUy of carnal
men, unable as yet to form sphitual conceptions, who think of
God as having a human form. Do you too join me, if you can,
in laughing at those whose unhappy conceptions represent
God as having a shape cloven or cut in such an unseemly and
unbecoming way, with such an empty gap above, and such a
dishonourable curtailment below. Besides, there is this differ
ence, that these carnal people, who think of God as having a
human form, if they are content to be nourished with mUk
from the breast of the Catholic Church, and do not rush head
long into rash opinions, but cultivate in the Church the pious
habit of inquiry, and there seek that they may find, and
knock that it may be opened to them, begin to understand
spirituaUy the figures and parables of Scripture, and graduaUy
to perceive that the divine energies are suitably set forth under
the name, sometimes of ears, sometimes of eyes, sometimes of
hands or feet, or even of wings and feathers, a shield too, and
sword, and helmet, and all the other innumerable things. And
the more progress they make in this understanding, the more
are they confirmed as Catholics. The Manichaeans, again, when
they abandon theh material fancies, cease to be Manichaeans.
For this is the chief and special point in theh praises of Mani
chaeus, that the divine mysteries which were taught figura
tively in books from ancient times were kept for Manichaeus,
who was to come last, to explain and iUustrate ; and so after
him no other teacher wiU come from God, for he has said
nothing in figures or parables, but has explained ancient
sayings of that kind, and has himself taught in plain, simple
terms. Therefore, when the Manichaeans hear these words of
theh founder, on one side and border qf the shining and sacred
region was the region of darkness, they have no interpretations
to faU back on. Wherever they turn, the wretched bondage
of their own fancies brings them upon clefts or sudden stop
pages and joinings or sunderings of the most unseemly kind,
which it would be shocking to believe as true of any immaterial
nature, even though mutable, like the mind, not to speak of the
immutable nature of God. And surely, if I were unable to rise
to higher things, and to bring my thoughts from the entangle
ment of false imaginations which are impressed on the memory

ANTHROPOMORPHISM. 121

by the bodily senses, into the freedom and purity of spiritual
existence, how much better would it be to think of God as in
the form of a man, than to fasten that wedge of darkness to
His lower edge, and, for want of a covering for the boundless
vacuity above, to leave it void and unoccupied throughout
infinite space ! What notion could be worse than this ? What
darker error can be taught or imagined ?
XXIV. — Ofthe number of natures in the Manichaean fiction.
26. Again, I wish to know, when I read of God the Father
and His kingdoms founded on the shining and happy region,
whether the Father and His kingdoms and the region are all
of the same nature and substance. If they are, then it is not
another nature or sort of body of God which the wedge of the
race of darkness cleaves and penetrates, which itself is an
unspeakably revolting thing, but it is actually the very nature
of God which undergoes this. Think of this, I beseech you :
as you are men, think of it, and flee from it ; and if by tearing
open your breasts you can cast out by the roots such profane
fancies from your faith, I pray you to do it. Or wiU you say
that these three are not of the same nature, but that the
Father is of one, the kingdoms of another, and the region of
another, so that each has a peculiar nature and substance, and
that they are arranged according to their degree of excellence ?
If this is true, Manichaeus should have taught that there are
four natures, not two ; or if the Father and the kingdoms
have one nature, and the region only one of its own, he should
have made three. Or if he made only two, because the region
of darkness does not belong to God, in what sense does
the region of hght belong to God ? For if it has a nature of
its own, and if God neither produced nor made it, it does
not belong to Him, and the seat of His kingdom is in what
belongs to another. Or if it belongs to Him because of its
vicinity, the region of darkness must do so too ; for it not only
borders on the region of hght, but penetrates it so as to sever
it in two. Again, if God produced it, it cannot have a
separate nature. For what is begotten of God must be what
God is, as the Catholic Church believes of the only-begotten
Son. So you are brought back of necessity to that shocking
and detestable profanity, that the wedge of darkness sunders

122 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
not a region distinct and separate from God, but the very
nature of God. Or if God did not produce, but make it, of
what did He make it? If of Himself, what is this but to
beget or produce ? If of some other nature, was this nature
good or evU? If good, there must have been some good
nature not belonging to God ; which you wiU scarcely have
the boldness to assert. If evil, the race of darkness cannot
have been the only evU nature. Or did God take a part of
that region and turn it into a region of hght, in order to found
His kingdom upon it ? If He had, He would have taken the
whole, and there would have been no evil nature left. If God,
then, did not make the region of hght of a substance distinct
from His own, He must have made it of nothing.
XXV. — Omnipotence creates good things differing in degree. In every description.
whatsoever of the junction of the two regions there is either impropriety or
absurdity.
27. If, then, you are now convinced that God is able to
create some good thing out of nothing, come into the Catholic
Church, and learn that aU the natures which God has created
and founded in theh order of excellence from the highest to
the lowest are good, and some better than others ; and that
they were made of nothing, though God, theh Maker, made
use of His own wisdom as an instrument, so to speak, to give
being to what was not, and that as far as it had being it
might be good, and that the limitation of its being might show
that it was not begotten by God, but made out of nothing. If
you examine the matter, you wiU find nothing to keep you
from agreeing to this. For you cannot make your region of
hght to be what God is, without making the dark section an
infringement- on the very nature of God. And you cannot
make it the production of God, without being reduced to the
same enormity, from the necessity of concluding that, as be
gotten of God, it must be what God is. Nor can you make
it distinct from Him, lest you should be forced to admit that
God placed His kingdom in what did not belong to Him, and
that there are three natures. Nor can you say that God made
it of a substance distinct from His own, without making some-
thing good besides God, or something evil besides the race of
darkness. It remains, therefore, that you must confess that

THE JUNCTION OF THE REGIONS. 123
God made the region of light out of nothing : and you are un
willing to beheve this ; because if God could make out of
nothing some great good which yet was inferior to Himself,
He could also, since He is good, and grudges no good, make
another good inferior to the former, and again a third inferior
to the second, and so on, in order down to the lowest good of
created natures, so that the whole aggregate, instead of extend
ing indefinitely without number or measure, should have a
fixed and definite consistency. Again, if you wUl not aUow
this either, that God made the region of hght out of nothing;
you wiU have no escape from the shocking profanities to which
your opinions lead.
28. Perhaps, since the carnal imagination can fancy any
shapes it likes, you might be able to devise some other form
for the junction of the two regions, instead of presenting to
the mind such a disagreeable and painful description as this,
that the region of God, whether it be of the same nature as
God or not, where at least God's kingdoms are founded, Ues
through immensity in such a huge mass that its members
stretch loosely to an infinite extent, and that on theh lower
part that wedge of the region of darkness, itself of boundless
size, encroaches upon them. But whatever other form you
contrive for the junction of these two regions, you cannot erase
what Manichaeus has written. I refer not to other treatises
where a more particular description is given, — for perhaps, be
cause they are in the hands of only a few, there might not be
so much difficulty with them, — but to this fundamental epistle
which we are now considering, with which aU of you who are
caUed enlightened are usuaUy quite familiar. Here the words
are : " On one side the border of the shining and sacred region
was the region of darkness, bottomless and boundless in extent."
XXVI. — The Manichaeans are reduced to tlie choice of a twisted, or curved, or
straight line of junction. The third hind qf line would give symmetry and
beauty suitable to both regions.
What more is to be got ? we have now heard what is on
the border. Make what shape you please, draw any kind of
lines you like, it is certain that the junction of this boundless
mass of the region of darkness to the region of light must
have been either by a straight hne, or a curved, or a twisted

124 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
one. If the hne of junction is tortuous, the side of the region
of hght must also be tortuous ; otherwise its straight side
joined to a tortuous one would leave gaps of infinite depth,
instead of having vacuity only above the land of darkness, as
we were told before. And if there were such gaps, how much
better it would have been for the region of light to have been
stiU more distant, and to have had a greater vacuity between,
so that the region of darkness might not touch it at aU ! Then
there might have been such a gap of bottomless depth, that,
on the rise of any mischief in that race, although the chiefs of
darkness might have the foolhardy wish to cross over, they
would faU headlong into the gap (for bodies cannot fly with
out ah to support them) ; and as there is infinite space down
wards, they could do no more harm, though they might hve
for ever, for they would be for ever faUing. Again, if the line
of junction was a curved one, the region of hght must also
have had the disfigurement of a curve to answer it. Or if
the land of darkness were curved inwards like a theatre, there
would be as much disfigurement in the corresponding hne in
the region of light. Or if the region of darkness had a curved
line, and the region of hght a straight one, they cannot have
touched at aU points. And certainly, as I said before, it
would have been better if they had not touched, and if there
was such a gap between that the regions might be kept
distinctly separate, and that rash evU-doers might faU head
long so as to be harmless. If, then, the hne of junction was a,
straight one, there remain, of course, no more gaps in grooves,
but, on the contrary, so perfect a junction as to make the
greatest possible peace and harmony between the two regions.
What more beautiful or more suitable than that one side should
meet the other in a straight line, without bends or breaks to
disturb the natural and permanent connection throughout end
less space and endless duration ? And even though there was
a separation, the straight sides of both regions would be beau
tiful in themselves, as being straight; and besides, even in
spite of an interval, theh correspondence, as running paraUel,
though not meeting, would give a symmetry to both. With
the addition of the junction, both regions become perfectly
regular and harmonious; for nothing can be devised more

SUBSTANCE IS NOT EVIL. 125
beautiful in description or in conception than this junction
of two straight lines.
XXVII. — The beauty of the straight line might be tahen from the region of
darkness without taking anything from its substance. So evil neither takes
from nor adds to the substance qf the soul. The straightness qf its side would
be so far a good bestowed on the region of darkness by God the Creator.
29. What is to be done with unhappy minds, perverse in
error, and held fast by custom ? These men do not know what
they say when they say those things ; for they do not consider.
Listen to me ; no one forces you, no one quarrels with you,
no one taunts you with past errors, unless some one who has
not experienced the divine mercy in dehverance from error :
aU we deshe is, that the errors should some time or other be
abandoned. Think a httle without enmity or bitterness. We
are aU human beings : let us hate, not one another, but errors
and hes. Think a httle, I pray you. God of mercy, help
them to think, and kindle in the minds of inquirers the true
hght. If anything is plain, is not this, that right is better
than wrong ? Give me, then, a calm and quiet answer to this,
whether making crooked the right hne of the region of dark
ness which joins on to the right hne of the region of hght
would not detract from its beauty. If you wUl not be dogged,
you must confess that not only is beauty taken from it by its
being made crooked, but also the beauty which it might have
had from connection with the right hne of the region of light.
Is it the case, then, that in this loss of beauty, in which right
is made crooked, and harmony becomes discord, and agree
ment disagreement, there is any loss of substance ? Learn,
then, from this that substance is not evU; but as in the body,
by change of form for the worse, beauty is lost, or rather
lessened, and what was caUed fah before is said to be ugly,
and what was pleasing becomes displeasing, so in the mind
the seemliness of a right wiU, which makes a just and pious
life, is injured when the whl changes for the worse ; and by
this sin the mind becomes miserable, instead of enjoying as
before the happiness which comes from the ornament of a
right wiU, without any gain or loss of substance.
30. Consider, again, that though we admit that the border
of the region of darkness was evU for other reasons, such as

126 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
that it was dim and dark, or any other reason, stUl it was not
evil in being straight. So, if I admit that there was some
evil in its colour, you must admit that there was some good
in its straightness. Whatever the amount of this good, it is
not allowable to attribute it to any other than God the Maker,
from whom we must beheve that all good in whatsoever nature
comes, if we are to escape deadly error. It is absurd, then,
to say that this region is perfect evil, when in its straightness
of border is found the good of not a httle beauty of a material
kind ; and also to make this region to be altogether estranged
from the almighty and good God, when this good which we
find in it can be attributed to no other but the author of aU
good things. This border, too, we are told, was evU. WeU,
suppose it evU : it would surely have been worse had it been
crooked instead of straight. And how can that be the perfec
tion of evU which has something worse than itself ? And to
be worse imphes that there is some good, the want of which
makes the thing worse. Here the want of straightness would
make the hne worse. Therefore its straightness is something
good. And you wiU never answer the question whence this
goodness comes, without reference to Him from whom we
must acknowledge that aU good things come, whether small or
great. But now we shaU pass on from considering the line to
something else.
XXVIII. — Manichaeus places five natures in the region of darkness.
31. "There dwelt," he says, "in that region fiery bodies,
destructive races." By speaking of dwelling, he must mean
that those bodies were animated and in life. But, not to
appear to cavil at a word, let us see how he divides into
four classes aU these inhabitants of this region. " Here," he
says, "was boundless darkness, flowing from the same source
in immeasurable abundance, with the productions properly
belonging to it. Beyond this were muddy turbid waters,
with theh inhabitants ; and inside of them winds terrible and
violent, with their prince and theh progenitors. Then, again,
a fiery region of destruction, with its chiefs and peoples. And,
simUarly, inside of this a race fuU of smoke and gloom, where
abode the dreadful prince and chief of aU, having around him
innumerable princes, himself the mind and source of them aU.

FIVE NATURES. 127

Such are the five natures of the region of corruption." We
find here five natures mentioned as part of one nature, which
he caUs the region of corruption. The natures are darkness,
waters, winds, fire, smoke ; which he so arranges as to make
darkness first, beginning at the outside. Inside of darkness
he puts the waters ; inside of the waters, the winds ; inside
of the winds, the fire ; inside of the fire, the smoke. And
each of these natures had its peculiar kind of inhabitants,
which were likewise five in number. For to the question,
Whether there was only one kind in all, or different kinds
corresponding to the different natures ? the reply is, that they
were different : as in other books we find it stated that the
darkness had serpents ; the waters swimming creatures, such
as fish ; the winds flying creatures, such as bhds ; the fire
quadrupeds, such as horses, lions, and the hke ; the smoke
bipeds, such as men.
XXIX. — The refutation of this absurdity.
32. Whose arrangement, then, is this ? Who made the
distinctions and the classification ? Who gave the number,
the quahties, the forms, the hfe ? For all these things are
in themselves good, nor could each of the natures have them
except from the bestowal of God, theh author. For this is
not like the descriptions or suppositions of poets about an
imaginary chaos, as being a shapeless mass, without form,
without quahty, without measurement, without weight and
number, without order or variety ; a confused something,
absolutely destitute of quahties, so that some Greek writers
caU it airotov. So far from being like this is the Manichaean
description of the region of darkness, as they caU it, that, in
a directly contrary style, they add side to side, and join border
to border ; they number five natures ; they separate, arrange,
and assign to each its own quahties. Nor do they leave the
natures barren or waste, but people them with their proper
inhabitants ; and to these, again, they give suitable forms, and
adapted to their place of habitation, besides giving the chief
of aU endowments, hfe. To recount such good things as these,
and to speak of them as having no connection with God, the
author of all good things, is to lose sight of the exceUence of

128 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL FPISTLE.
the order in the things, and of the great evil of the error
which leads to such a conclusion.
XXX. — The number of good things in those natures which Manicltceus places
in the region of darkness.
33. " But," is the reply, " the races inhabiting those natures
were' fierce and destructive." As if I were praising theh
fierceness and destructiveness. I, you see, join with you in
condemning the faults you attribute to them ; join you with
me in praising the good things which you ascribe to them :
so it wiU appear that there is a mixture of good and evU in
what you caU the last extremity of evU. If I join you in
condemning what is mischievous in this region, you must join
with me in praising what is beneficial. For these races could
not have been produced, or nourished, or have continued to
inhabit that region, without some beneficent influence. I
join with you in condemning the darkness; join with me in
praising the productiveness. For whUe you caU the darkness
immeasurable, you speak of " suitable productions." Dark
ness, indeed, is not a real substance, and means no more than
the absence of hght, as nakedness means the want of clothing,
and emptiness the want of material contents : so that dark
ness could produce nothing, although a region in darkness —
that is, in the absence of light — might produce something.
But passing over this for the present, it is certain that where
productions arise there must be a beneficent adaptation of
substances, as weU as a symmetrical arrangement and con
struction in unity of the members of the beings produced, — a
wise adjustment making them agree with one another. And
who wiU deny that all these things are more to be praised
than darkness is to be condemned ? If I join with you in
condemning the muddiness of the waters, you must join with
me in praising the waters as far as they possessed the form
and quality of water, and also the agreement of the members
of the inhabitants swimming in the waters,- their life sustain
ing and directing theh body, and every particular adaptation of
substances for the benefit of health. For though you find
fault with the waters as turbid and muddy, still, in aUowing
them the quality of producing and maintaining their hving
inhabitants, you imply that there was some kind of bodUy

GOOD THINGS IN THE REGION OF DARKNESS. 129
form, and simUarity of parts, giving unity and congruity of
character ; otherwise there could be no body at all : and, as a
rational being, you must see that all these things are to be
praised. And however great you make the ferocity of these
inhabitants, and their massacrings and devastations in their
assaults, you stiU leave them the regular limits of form, by
which the members of each body are made to agree together,
and theh beneficial adaptations, and the regulating power of
the hving principle binding together the parts of the body
in a friendly and harmonious union. And if all these are
regarded with common sense, it wiU be seen that they are
more to be commended than the faults are to be condemned.
I join with you in condemning the frightfulness of the winds ;
join with me in praising their nature, as giving breath and
nourishment, and their material form in its continuousness and
diffusion by the connection of its parts : for by these things
these winds had the power of producing, and nourishing, and
sustaining in vigour these inhabitants you speak of ; and also
in these inhabitants — besides the other things which have
aheady been commended in aU animated creatures — this par
ticular power of going quickly and easUy whence and whither
they please, and the harmonious stroke of their wings in flight,
and theh regular motion. I join with you in condemning
the destructiveness of fire ; join with me in commending the
productiveness of this fire, and the growth of these produc
tions, and the adaptation of the fhe to the beings produced, so
that they had coherence, and came to perfection in measure
and shape, and could hve and have their abode there : for you
see that aU these things deserve admiration and praise, not
only in the fire which is thus habitable, but in the inhabit
ants too. I join with you in condemning the denseness of
smoke, and the savage character of the prince who, as you say,
abode in it ; join with me in praising the simUarity of all the
parts in this very smoke, by which it preserves the harmony
and proportion of its parts among themselves, according to its
own nature, and has an unity which makes it what it is : for
no one can calmly reflect on these things without wonder and
praise. Besides, even to the smoke you give the power and
energy of production, for you say that princes inhabited it ; so
7 I

130 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
that in that region the smoke is productive, which never
happens here, and, moreover, affords a wholesome dwelling-
place to its inhabitants. XXXI. — The same subject continued.
34. And even in the prince of the smoke, instead of men
tioning only his ferocity as a bad quality, ought you not to
have taken notice of the other things in his nature which you
must aUow to be commendable ? For he had a soul and a
body ; the soiU life-giving, and the body endowed with life.
Since the soul governed and the body obeyed, the soul took
the lead and the body foUowed ; the soul gave consistency,
the body was not dissolved ; the soul gave harmonious motion,
and the body was constructed of a weU-proportioned frame
work of members. In this single prince are you not induced
to express approval of the orderly peace or the peaceful order ?
And what apphes to one applies to aU the rest. You say he
was fierce and cruel to others. This is not what I commend,
but the other important things which you wiU not take notice
of. Those things, when perceived and considered, — after
advice by any one who has without consideration put faith
in Manichaeus, — lead him to a clear conviction that, in
speaking of those natures, he speaks of things good in a sense,
not perfect and uncreated, like God the one Trinity, nor of
the higher rank of created things, hke the holy angels and
the ever-blessed powers ; but of the lowest class, and ranked
according to the smaU measure of their endowments. These
things are thought to be blameworthy by the uninstructed
when they compare them with higher things ; and in view of
theh want of some good, the good they have gets the name of
evU, because it is defective. My reason also for thus dis
cussing the natures enumerated by Manichaeus is that the
things named are things famihar to us in this world. We
are familiar with darkness, waters, winds, fire, smoke ; we are
familiar, too, with animals creeping, swimmings flying ; with
quadrupeds and bipeds. With the exception of darkness
(which, as I have said aheady, is nothing but the absence of
hght, and the perception of it is only the absence of sight, as
the perception of sUence is the absence of hearing ; not that

THE PRINCE OF THE SMOKE. 131
darkness is anything, but that hght is not, as neither that
sUence is anything, but that sound is not), aU the other things
are natures familiar to aU ; and the form of those natures,
which is commendable and good as far as it exists, no wise
man attributes to any other author than God, the author of
all good things.
XXXII. — Manichaeus got the arrangement of his fanciful notions from
visible objects.
35. For in giving to these natures which he has learned
from visible things, an arrangement according to his fanciful
ideas, to represent the race of darkness, Manichaeus is clearly
in error. Fhst of aU, he makes darkness productive, which is
impossible. But, he rephes, this darkness was unhke what
you are familiar with. How, then, can you make me under
stand about it ? After so many promises to give knowledge,
wiU you force me to take your word for it ? Suppose I believe
you ; this at least is certain, that if the darkness had no form,
as darkness usuaUy has not, it could produce nothing ; if it
had form, it was better than ordinary darkness : whereas, when
you caU it different from the ordinary kind, you wish us to
beheve that it is worse. You might as weU say that silence,
which is the same to the ear as darkness to the eyes, produced
some deaf or dumb animals in that region ; and then, in reply
to the objection that sUence is not a nature, you might say
that it was different silence from ordinary sUence : in a word,
you might say what you pleased to those whom you have
once misled into beheving you. No doubt, the obvious facts
relating to the origin of animal life led Manichaeus to say
that serpents were produced in darkness. However, there are
serpents which have such sharp sight, and such pleasure in
hght, that they seem to give evidence of the most weighty
kind against this idea. Then the idea of swimming things in
the water might easUy be got here, and applied to the fanciful
objects in that region ; and so of flying things in the winds, for
the motion of the lower air in this world, where birds fly, is
caUed wind. Where he got the idea of the quadrupeds in fire,
no one can teU. Still he said this dehberately, though without
sufficient thought, and from great misconception. The reason
usually given is, that quadrupeds are voracious and salacious.

132 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
But many men surpass any quadruped in voracity, though they
are bipeds, and are caUed chUdren of the smoke, and not of fire.
Geese, too, are as voracious as any animal ; and though he might
place them in fire as bipeds, or in the water because they love to
swim, or in the winds because they have wings and sometimes
fly, they certainly have nothing to do with fire in this classi
fication. As regards salaciousness, I suppose he was thinking
of neighing horses, which sometimes bite through the bridle
and rush at the mares ; and writing hastUy, with this in his
mind, he forgot the common sparrow, in comparison of which
the hottest stallion is cold. The reason they give for assigning
bipeds to the smoke is, that bipeds are conceited and proud,
for men are derived from this class ; and the idea, which is a
plausible oue, is that smoke resembles proud people in rising
up into the air, round and swelling. This idea might warrant
a figurative description of proud men, or an aUegorical expres
sion or explanation, but not the behef that bipeds are born in
smoke or of smoke. They might with equal reason be said to
be born in dust, for it often rises up to the heaven with a"
similar chchng and lofty motion ; or in the clouds, for they are
often drawn up from the earth in such a way, that those look
ing from a distance are uncertain whether they are clouds or
smoke. Once more, why, in the case of the waters and the
winds, does he suit the inhabitants to the character of the
place, as we see swimming things in water, and flying things
in the wind ; whereas, in the face of fhe and smoke, this bold
har is not ashamed to assign to these places the most unlikely
inhabitants ? For fire burns quadrupeds, and consumes them,
and smoke suffocates and kiUs bipeds. At least he must ac
knowledge that he has made these natures better in the race
of darkness than they are here, though he wishes us to think
everything to be worse. For, according to this, the fire there
produced and nourished quadrupeds, and gave them a lodging
not only harmless, but most convenient. The smoke, too, pro
vided room for the offspring of its own benign bosom, and
cherished them up to the rank of prince. Thus we see that
these lies, which have added to the number of heretics, arose
from the perception by carnal sense, only without care or
discernment, of visible objects in this world, and when thus

GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF ALL NATURES. 133
conceived, were brought forth by fancy, and then presump
tuously written and published.
XXXIII. — Every nature, as nature, is good.
36. But the consideration we wish most to urge is the truth
of the Catholic doctrine, if they can understand it, that God
is the author of aU natures. I urged this before when I said,
I join with you in your condemnation of destructiveness, of
bhndness, of dense muddiness, of terrific violence, of perishable-
ness, of the ferocity of the princes, and so on ; join with me in
commending form, classification, arrangement, harmony, unity
of forms, symmetry and correspondence of members, provision
for vital breath and nourishment, wholesome adaptation, regu
lation and control by the mind, and the subjection of the bodies,
and the continuousness and agreement of parts in the natures,
both those inhabiting and those inhabited, and all the other
things of the same kind. From this, if they would only think
honestly, they would understand that it imphes a mixture of
good and evU, even in the region where they supposed evil to be
alone and in perfection : so that if the evils mentioned were
taken away, the good things wiU remain, without anything to
detract from the commendation given to them ; whereas, if the
good things are taken away, no nature is left. From this every
one sees, who can see, that every nature, as far as it is nature,
is good ; since in one and the same thing in which I found
something to praise, and he found something to blame, if the
good things are taken away, no nature wiU remain ; but if the
disagreeable things are taken away, the nature wUl remain un
impaired. Take from waters theh thickness and muddiness,
and pure clear water remains ; take from them the consistence
of theh parts, and no water wiU be left. If then, after the
evU is removed, the nature remains in a purer state, and does
not remain at aU when the good is taken away, it must be the
good which makes the nature of the thing in which it is, whUe
the evU is not nature, but contrary to nature. Take from the
winds theh terribleness and excessive force, with which you
find fault, you can conceive of winds as gentle and mUd ; take
from them the similarity of their parts which gives them con
tinuity of substance, and the unity essential to material exist-

134 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
ence, and no nature remains to be conceived of. It would be
tedious to go through aU the cases ; but aU who consider the
subject free from party sphit, must see that in theh hst of
' natures the disagreeable things mentioned are additions to the
nature ; and when they are removed, the natures remain better
than before. This shows that the natures, as far as they are
natures, are good ; for when you take from them the good in
stead of the evU, no natures remain. And attend, you who
wish to arrive at a correct judgment, to what is said of the
fierce prince himself. If you take away his ferocity, see how
many exceUent things wUl remain ; his material frame, the
symmetry of the members on one side with those on the other,
the unity of his form, the settled continuity of his parts, the
orderly adjustment of the mind as ruling and animating, and
the body as subject and animated. The removal of these things,
and of others I may have omitted to mention, wiU leave no
nature remaining.
XXXIV. — Nature cannot be without some good. The Manichaeans dwell
upon the evils.
I 37. But perhaps you wiU say that these evUs cannot be
fremoved from the natures, and must therefore be considered
maturaL The question at present is not what can be taken
1 away, and what cannot ; but it certainly helps to a clear
| perception that the natures, as far as they are natures, are
(good, when we see that the good things can be thought of
'without the evU things, whUe without the good things no
Inature can be conceived of. I can conceive of waters without
| muddy commotion ; but without settled continuity of parts no
J material form is an object of thought or of sensation in any way.
I Therefore even these muddy waters could not exist without
i the good which was the condition of theh material existence.
| As to the reply that these evil things cannot be taken from
\ such natures, I rejoin that neithei can the good things be
1 taken away. Why, then, should you call these things natural
I evils, on account of the evU things which you suppose cannot
|be taken away, and yet refuse to caU them natural good
I things, on account of the good things which, as has been
Jproved, cannot be taken away ?
38. You wiU next ask, as you do for a last resource, whence

SOME GOOD IN EVERY NATURE. 135
come the evUs which I have said that I too disapprove of.
I shall perhaps teU you, if you first teU me whence are the
good things which you are obliged to commend, if you would
not be altogether unreasonable. But why should I ask this,
when we both acknowledge that all good things whatever, and
how great soever, are from the one God, who is supremely
good ? You must therefore yourselves oppose Manichaeus,
who has placed aU these important good things which we
have mentioned and commended, — the continuity and agree
ment of parts in each nature, the health and vigour of the
animated creatures, and the other things which it would be
wearisome to repeat, — in an imaginary region of darkness, so as
to separate them altogether from the God whom he allows to
be the author of aU good things. He lost sight of the good
things, whUe taking notice only of what was disagreeable ; as
if one, frightened by a lion's roaring, and seeing him dragging
away and tearing the bodies of cattle or human beings which
he had seized, should from chUdish pusiUanimity be so over
powered with fear as to see nothing but the cruelty and
ferocity of the hon ; and overlooking or disregarding aU the
other quahties, should exclaim against the nature of this
animal as not only evU, but a great evU, his fear adding to
his vehemence. But were he to see a tame lion, with its
ferocity subdued, especiaUy if he had never been frightened
by a hon, he would have leisure, in the absence of danger and
terror, to observe and admire the beauty of the animal. My
only remark on this is one closely connected with our subject :
that any nature may be in some case disagreeable, so as to
excite hatred towards the whole nature ; though it is clear
that the form of a real hving beast, even when it excites terror
in the woods, is far better than that of the artificial imitation
which is commended in a painting on the waU. We must not
then be misled into this error by Manichaeus, or be hindered
from observing the forms of the natures, by his finding fault
with some things in them in such a way as to make us dis
approve of them entirely, when it is impossible to show that
they deserve enthe disapproval. And when our minds are
thus composed and prepared to form a just judgment, we may
ask whence come those evils which I have said that I con-

136 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
demn. It. wiU be easier to see this if we class them aU
under one name.
XXXV. —Evil is corruption. Corruption is not nature, but contrary to nature.
Corruption implies previous good.
39. For who can doubt that the whole of that which is caUed
evil is nothing else than corruption ? Different evils may,
indeed, be caUed by different names ; but that which is the
evU of aU things in which any evU is perceptible is corrup
tion. So the corruption of understanding is ignorance ; the
corruption of a prudent mind is imprudence ; the corruption
of a just mind, injustice ; the corruption of a brave mind,
cowardice ; the corruption of a calm, peaceful mind, passion,
fear, sorrow, pride. Again, in a hving body, the corruption
of health is pain and disease ; the corruption of strength is
exhaustion ; the corruption of rest is toU. Again, in a body
simply, the corruption of beauty is ugliness ; the corruption
of straightness is crookedness ; the corruption of order is
confusion ; the corruption of entheness is disseverance, or
fracture, or diminution. It would be long and laborious to
mention by name all the corruptions of the things here men
tioned, and of countless other things ; for in many cases the
words may apply to the mind as weU as to the body, and in
innumerable cases the corruption has a distinct name of its
own. But enough has been said to show that corruption does
harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that
corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corrup
tion is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption
is not nature, no nature is evil.
40. But if, perchance, you cannot foUow this, consider
again, that whatever is corrupted is deprived of some good:
for if it were not corrupted, it would be incorrupt ; or if it
could not in any way be corrupted, it would be incorruptible.
Now, if corruption is an evU, both incorruption and incorrup
tibility must be good things. We are not, however, speaking
at present of incorruptible nature, but of things which admit
of corruption, and which, while not corrupted, may be called
incorrupt, but not incorruptible. That alone can be called
incorruptible which not only is not corrupted, but also cannot
in any part be corrupted. Whatever things, then, being in-

CORRUPTION IMPLIES GOOD. 137
corrupt, but hable to corruption, begin to be corrupted, are
deprived of the good which they had as incorrupt. Nor is
this a slight good, for corruption is a great evil. And the
continued increase of corruption imphes the continued pre
sence of good, of which they may be deprived. Accordingly,
the natures supposed to exist in the region of darkness must
have been either corruptible or incorruptible. If they were
incorruptible, they were in possession of a good than which
nothing is higher. If they were corruptible, they were either
corrupted or not corrupted. If they were not corrupted, they
were incorrupt, to say which of anything is to give it great
praise. If they were corrupted, they were deprived of this
great good of incorruption ; but the deprivation imphes the
previous possession ofthe good they are deprived of; and if
they possessed this good, they were not the perfection of evil,
and consequently aU the Manichaean story is a falsehood.
XXXVI. — The source of evil and of corruption of good.
41. After thus inquiring what evU is, and learning that it
is not nature, but against nature, we must next inquire whence
it is. If Manichaeus had done this, he might have escaped
falling into the snare of these serious errors. Out of time and
out of order, he began with inquiring into the origin of evil,
without first asking what evU was ; and so his inquiry led him
only to the reception of foohsh fancies, of which the mind,
fed by the bodUy senses, with difficulty rids itself. Perhaps,
then, some one, desiring no longer argument, but dehvery from
error, wiU ask, Whence is this corruption which we find to be
the common evU of aU good things which are not incorrup
tible ? Such an inquirer wiU soon find the answer if he seeks
for truth with great earnestness, and knocks reverently with
sustained assiduity. For whUe man can use words as a kind
of sign for the expression of his thoughts, teaching is the
work of the incorruptible Truth itself, who is the one true,
the one internal Teacher. He became external also, that He
might recaU us from the external to the internal ; and taking
on Himself the form of a servant, that He might bring down
His height to the knowledge of those rising up to Him, He
condescended to appear in lowliness to the low. In His name

138 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
let us ask, and through Him let us seek mercy of the Father
while making this inquiry. For to answer in a word the
question, Whence is corruption? it is hence, because the na
tures capable of corruption were not begotten by God, but
made by Him out of nothing ; and as we aheady proved that
f those natures are good, no one can say with propriety that
they were not good as made by God. If it is said that God
made them perfectly good, it must be remembered that the
only perfect good is God Himself, the maker of those good
things. XXXVII. — God alone perfectly good.
42. What harm, you ask, would foUow if those things toq,
were perfectly good ? StUl, should any one, who admits and
beheves the perfect goodness of God the Father, inquire what
source we should reverently assign to any other perfectly good
thing, supposing it to exist, our only correct reply would be,
that it is of God the Father, who is perfectly good. And we
must bear in mind that what is of Him is born of 'Him, and
not made by Him out of nothing, and that it is therefore per
fectly, that is, incorruptibly, good like God Himself. So we
see that it is unreasonable to require that things made out of
nothing should be as perfectly good as He who was begotten
of God Himself, and who is one as God is one, otherwise
God would have begotten something unlike Himself. Hence
it shows ignorance and impiety to seek for brethren for this
only-begotten Son by whom aU good things were made by the
Father out of nothing, except in this, that He condescended to
appear as man. Accordingly in Scripture He is caUed both
only-begotten and first-begotten ; only-begotten of the Father,
and first-begotten from the dead. " And we beheld," says
John, " His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, fuU of grace and truth."1 And Paul says, "that He
might be the first-born among many brethren."2
43. But should we say, These things made out of nothing
are not good things, but only God's nature is good, we shaU
be unjust to good things of great value. And there is im
piety in caUing it a defect in anything not to be what God is,
and in denying a thing to be good because it is inferior to
1 John.i. 14. Rom. viii. 29

GOOD THINGS INFERIOR TO GOD. 139
God. Pray submit then, thou nature of the rational soul, to
be somewhat less than God, but so far less, that after. Him
nothing else is above thee. Submit, I say, and yield to Him,
lest He drive thee stiU lower into depths where the punish
ment inflicted wiU continuaUy detract more and more from
the good which thou hast. Thou exaltest thyself against
God, if thou art indignant at His preceding thee ; and thou
art very contumacious in thy thoughts of Him, if thou dost
not rejoice unspeakably in the possession of this good, that
He alone is above thee. This being settled as certain, thou
art not to say, God should have made me the only nature :
there should be no good thing after me. It could not be that
the next good thing to God should be the last. And in this
is seen most clearly how great dignity God conferred' on thee,
that He who in the order of nature alone rules over thee,
made other good things for thee to rule over. Nor be sur
prised that they are not in aU respects subject to thee, and
that sometimes they, pain thee; for thy Lord has greater
authority over the things subject to thee than thou hast, as a
master over the servants of his servants. What wonder, then,
if, when thou sinnest, that is, disobeyest thy Lord, the things
thou before ruledst over are made instrumental in thy punish
ment ? For what is so just, or what is more just than God ?
This befeU human nature in Adam, of whom this is not the
place tp speak. Suffice it to say, the righteous Euler acts in
character both in just rewards and in just punishments, in the
happiness of those who hve rightly, and in the penalty in
flicted on sinners. Nor art thou left without mercy, since by
an appointed distribution of things and times thou art called
to return. Thus the righteous control of the supreme Creator
extends even to earthly good things, which are corrupted and
restored, that thou mightest have consolations mingled with
punishments ; that thou mightest both praise God when de
lighted by the order of good things, and mightest take refuge
in Him when tried by the occurrence of evUs. So, as far
as earthly things are subject to thee, they teach thee that
thou art their ruler; as far as they distress thee, they teach
thee to be subject to thy Lord.

140 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
XXXVIII. — Nature made by God ; corruption comes from nothing.
44. In this way, though corruption is an evil, and though
it comes not from the Author of natures, but from their being
made out of nothing, still, in God's government and control
over aU that He has made, even corruption is so ordered that
it hurts only the lowest natures, for the punishment of the
condemned, and for the trial and instruction of the returning,
that they may keep near to the incorruptible God, and remain
incorrupt, which is our only good ; as is said by the prophet,
" But it is good for me that I keep near to God."1 And you
must not say, God did not make corruptible natures : for, as
far as they are natures, God made them ; as far as they are
corruptible, God did not make them: for corruption cannot
come from Him who alone is incorruptible. If you can re
ceive this, give thanks to God ; if you cannot; do not condemn
what you do not yet understand, but humbly wait on Him for
understanding who is the hght of the mind. fFor in the ex
pression " corruptible nature " there are two words, and not one
only. So, in the expression, God made out of nothing, " God "
and " nothing " are two separate words. Each of these words,
therefore, must be joined with its corresponding word, so that
the word "nature" should go with the word "God," and the word
"corruptible" with the word "nothing/} And yet even the
corruptions, though they have not theh origin from God, are
overruled by Him in accordance with the order of inanimate
' things and the deserts of His intelhgent creatures. Thus we
h say rightly that reward and punishment are both from God.
For God's not making corruption is consistent with His giving
over to corruption the man who deserves to be corrupted, that
is, who has begun to corrupt himself by sinning, that he who
has wilfully yielded to the aUurements. of corruption may,
against his wiU, suffer its pains.
XXXIX. — In what sense evils are from God.
45. Not only is it written in the Old Testament, "I make
good, and create evU ;"2 but more clearly in the New Testa
ment, where the Lord says, " Fear not them which kill the
body, and have no more that they can do ; but fear him who,
1 Ps. lxxiii. 28. « Ps. xiv. 7.

PENAL CORRUPTION. 141

after he has kiUed the body, has power to cast the soul into
heU."1 And that to voluntary corruption penal corruption is
added in the divine judgment, is plainly declared by the
Apostle Paul, when he says, "The temple of God is holy,
which temple ye are ; whoever corrupts the temple of God,
him will God corrupt."2 If this had been said in the Old
Law, how vehemently would the Manichaeans have denounced
it as making God a corrupter ! And from fear of the word,
many translators make it, " him shall God destroy," instead of
corrupt, avoiding the offensive word without any change of
meaning. Indeed, any passage in the Old Law or the pro
phets would be equaUy denounced if God was caUed in it a
destroyer. But the Greek original here shows that corrupt
is the true word ; for it is written distinctly, " Whoever
corrupts the temple of God, him will God corrupt." If the
Manichaeans are asked to explain the words, they wiU say,
to escape making God a corrupter, that corrupt here means
to give over to corruption, or some such explanation. Did
they read the Old Law in this spirit, they would both find
many ^admirable things in it ; and instead of spitefuUy attack
ing passages which they did not understand, they would
reverently postpone the inquiry.
XL. — Corruption tends to non-existence.
46. But if any one does not beheve that corruption comes
from nothing, let him place before himself existence and non
existence, — one, as it were, on one side, and the other on the
other (to speak so as not to outstrip the slow to understand) ;
then let him set something, say the body of an animal, be
tween them, and let him ask himself whether, whUe the body
is being formed and produced, whUe its size is increasing,
while it gains nourishment, health, strength, beauty, stability,
it is tending, as regards its duration and permanence, to this
side or that, to existence or non-existence. He wiU see with
out difficulty, that even in the rudimentary form there is an
existence, and that the more the body is established and buUt
up in form, and size, and strength, the more does it come to
exist, and to tend to the side of existence. Then, again, let
1 Matt. x. 28 and Luke xii. 4. 3 1 Cor. iii, 17.

142 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
the body begin to be corrupted ; let its whole condition be
enfeebled, let its vigour languish, its strength decay, its beauty
be defaced, its framework be sundered, the consistency of its
parts give way and go to pieces ; and let him ask now where
the body is tending in this corruption, whether to existence or
non-existence : he wiU not surely be so blind or stupid as to
doubt how to answer himself, or as not to see that, in propor
tion as anything is corrupted, in that proportion it approaches
decease. But whatever tends to decease tends to non-exist
ence. Since, then, we must beheve that God exists immut
ably and ^corruptibly, whUe what is caUed nothing is clearly
non-existent ; and since, after setting before yourself existence
and non-existence, you have observed that the more a visible
object increases the more it tends towards existence, whUe
the more it is corrupted the more it tends towards non-exist
ence, why are you at a loss to teU regarding any nature what
in it is from God, and what from nothing ; seeing that visible
form is natural, and corruption against nature ? The increase
of form leads to existence, and we acknowledge God as
supreme existence ; the increase of corruption leads to non
existence, and we know that what is non-existent is nothing.
Why then, I say, are you at a loss to teU regarding a corrup
tible nature, when you have both the words nature and cor
ruptible, what is from God, and what from nothing ? And
why do you inquire for a nature contrary to God, since, if you
confess that He is the supreme existence, it foUows that there
is nothing contrary to Him ?
XLI. — Corruption is by God's permission, and comes from us.
4H. You ask, Why does corruption take from nature what
God has given to it ? It takes nothing but where God permits ;
and He permits in righteous and weU-ordered judgment, ac
cording to the degrees of non-intelligent and the deserts of
inteUigent creatures. The word uttered passes away as an
object of sense, and perishes in sUence ; and yet the coming
and going of these passing words makes our speech, and the
regular intervals of sUence give pleasing and appropriate dis
tinction ; and so it is with temporal natures which have this
lowest form of beauty, that transition gives them being, and

THE VISION OF GOD. 143

the death of what they give birth to gives them individuality.
And if our sense and memory could rightly take in the order
and proportions of this beauty, it would so please us, that we
should not dare to give the name of corruptions to those
imperfections which give rise to the distinction. And when
distress comes to us through their peculiar beauty, by the loss
of beloved temporal things passing away, we both pay the
penalty of our sins, and are exhorted to set our affection on
eternal things. XLII. — Exhortation to the chief good.
48. Let us, then, not seek in this beauty for what has not
been given to it (and from not having what we seek for, this is
the lowest form of beauty) ; and in that which has been given
to it, let us praise God, because He has bestowed this great
good of visible form even on the lowest degree of beauty.
And let us not cleave as lovers to this beauty, but as praisers
of God let us rise above it ; and from this superior position let
us pronounce judgment on it, instead of so being bound up in
it as to be judged along with it. And let us hasten on to that
good which has no motion in space or advancement in time,
from which aU natures in space and time receive their sensible
being and theh form. To see this good let us purify our heart
by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, " Blessed are the
pure in heart, for they shaU see God." 1 For the eyes needed
in order to see this good are not those with which we see the
hght spread through space, which has part in one place and
part in another, instead of being all in every place. The sight
and the discernment we are to purify is that by which we see,
as far as is aUowed in this life, what is just, what is pious,
what is .the beauty of wisdom. He who sees these things,
values them far above the fulness of all regions in space,
and finds that the vision of these things requires not the
extension of his perception through distances in space, but its
invigoration by an immaterial influence.
XLIII. — Conclusion.
49. And as this vision is greatly hindered by those fancies
which are originated by the carnal sense, and are retained
' Matt. v. 8.

144 REPLY TO MANICHaEUS' FUNDAMENTAL EPISTLE.
and modified by the imagination, let us abhor this heresy
which has been led by faith in its fancies to represent the
divine substance as extended and diffused through space, even
through infinite space, and to cut short one side so as to make
room for evU, — not perceiving that evU is not nature, but
against nature ; and to beautify this very evU with such
visible appearance, and forms, and consistency of parts pre
vailing in its several natures, not being able to conceive of
any nature without those good things, that the evils found
fault with in it are buried under a countless abundance of
good things.
Here let us close this part of the treatise. The other
absurdities of Manichaeus wUl be exposed in what foUows,
by the permission and help of God.1
1 Vide Preface,

REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHJIAN.1

BOOK I.
1. TT^AUSTUS was an inhabitant of MUeum in Africa. He
-L was eloquent and clever, but had adopted the shock
ing tenets of the Manichaean heresy. He is mentioned in my
Confessions,2 where there is an account of my acquaintance
with him. This man pubhshed a volume against the true
Christian faith and the doctrine of the Church. A copy
reached us, and was read by the brethren, who caUed for an
answer from me, as part of the service of love which I owe to
them. Now, therefore, in the name and with the help of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I undertake the task, that all
my readers may see that acuteness of mind and elegance of
style are of no use to a man unless the Lord directs his steps.3
In the mysterious equity of divine mercy, God often bestows
His help on the slow and the feeble ; while from the want of
this help, the gifted and talented run into error only with
greater rapidity and wUfulness. I will give the opinions of
Faustus as if stated by himself, and mine as if in reply to
him. 2. Faustus. As the learned Adimantus, the only teacher
since the sainted Manichaeus deserving of our attention, has
plentifully exposed and thoroughly refuted the errors of
Judaism and of semi-Christianity, I think it not amiss that
you should be supphed in writing with brief and pointed
replies to the captious objections of our adversaries, that when,
hke children of the why serpent, they try to bewUder you
with their quibbles, you may be prepared to give inteUigent
1 "Written ahout the year 400. ! Confessions, v. 3, 6. 3 Ps. xxxvii. 23.
7 K

146 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK II.
answers. In this way they wUl be kept to the subject, in
stead of wandering from one thing to another. And I have
placed our opinions and those of our opponent over against
one another, as plainly and briefly as possible, so as not to
perplex the reader with a long and intricate discourse.
3. Augustine. You condemn us as semi-Christians ; but
we condemn you as pseudo-Christians. Semi-Christianity
may be imperfect without being false. So, then, if the faith
of those whom you try to mislead is imperfect, would it not
be better to supply what is lacking than to rob them of what
they have ? It was to imperfect Christians that the apostle
wrote, "joying and beholding your conversation, and the de
ficiency in your faith in Christ."1 The apostle had in view
a spiritual structure, as he says elsewhere, "Ye are God's
budding;"2 and in this structure he found both a reason for
joy and a reason for exertion. He rejoiced to see part aheady
finished ; and the necessity of bringing the edifice to perfec
tion caUed for exertion. Imperfect Christians as we are, you
pursue us with the desire to pervert what you caU our semi-
Christianity by false doctrine ; whUe even those who are so
deficient in faith as to be unable to reply to aU your sophisms,
are wise enough at least to know that they must not have
anything at aU to do with you. You look for semi-Christians
to deceive : we wish to prove you pseudo- Christians, that
Christians may learn something from your refutation, and
that the less advanced may learn to avoid you. Do you
caU us children of the serpent ? You have surely forgotten
how often you have found fault with the prohibition in
Paradise, and have praised the serpent for opening Adam's
eyes. You have the better claim to the title which you give
us. The serpent owns you as weU when you blame him as
when you praise him.

BOOK II.
1. Faustus. Do I beheve the gospel ? Certainly. Do I
therefore beheve that Christ was born ? Certainly not. It
1 Col. ii. 5 ; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 10. 2 1 Cor. iii. 9.

BOOK II.] THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. 147
does not foUow that because we believe the gospel, as we do,
we must therefore beheve that Christ was born. This we do
not beheve ; because Christ does not say that He was born
of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with
Christ's preaching. As for the genealogy, the author himself
does not venture to caU it the gospel. He caUs it the book
of the generation of Jesus Christ. The book of the genera
tion is not the book of the gospel It is more hke a birth-
register, the star confirming the event. Mark, on the other
hand, who recorded the preaching of the Son of God, without
any genealogy, begins most suitably with the words, "The
gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." It is plain that the
genealogy is not the gospel. Matthew himself says, that
after John was put in prison, Jesus began to preach the
gospel of the kingdom ; so that what is mentioned before
this is the genealogy, and not the gospel Why did not
Matthew begin with, " The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of
God," but because he thought it sinful to caU the genealogy
the gospel ? Understand, then, what you have hitherto over
looked — the distinction between the genealogy and the
gospel. Do I then admit the truth of the gospel ? Yes ;
understanding by the gospel the preaching of Christ. I have
plenty to say about the generations too, if you wish. But
when you ask about the gospel, remember that that has
nothing to do with the generations.
2. Augustine. WeU, in answer to your own questions, you
teU us first that you beheve the gospel, and next, that you
do not beheve in the bhth of Christ ; and your reason is, that
the birth of Christ is not in the gospel. What, then, wiU
you answer the apostle when he says, " Eemember that
Christ Jesus rose from the dead, of the seed of David, accord
ing to my gospel?"1 You surely are ignorant, or pretend to
be ignorant, what the gospel is. You use the word, not as
the apostle teaches, but as suits your own errors. What the
apostles caU the gospel you depart from; for you do not
beheve that Christ was of the seed of David. This was
Paul's gospel; and it was also the gospel of the other
apostles, and of aU faithful stewards of so great a mystery.
1 2 Tim. ii. 8.

148 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK II.
For Paul says elsewhere, " Whether, therefore, I or they, so
we preach, and so ye beheved." 1 They did not aU write the
gospel, but they aU preached it. The name Evangelist is
properly given to the narrators of the bhth, the actions, the
words, the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word
gospel means good news, and might be used of any good
news, but is properly apphed to the narrative of the Saviour.
If, then, you teach something different, you must have de
parted from the gospeL Assuredly those babes whom you
despise as semi-Christians wiU oppose you, when they hear
their mother Charity declaring by the mouth of the apostle,
" If any one preach another gospel than that which we have
preached to you, let him be accursed."2 Since, then, Paul,
according to his gospel, preached that Christ was of the seed
of David, and you deny this and preach something else, may
you be accursed ! And what can you mean by saying that
Christ never declares Himself to have been born of men,
when on every occasion He caUs Himself the Son of man ?
3. You learned men, forsooth, dress up for our benefit some
wonderful First Man, who came down from the race of hght to
war with the race of darkness, armed with his waters against
the waters of the enemy, and with his fire against their fire,
and with his winds against their winds. And why not with
his smoke against theh smoke, and with his darkness against
their darkness? According to you, he was armed against smoke
with air, and against darkness with light. So it appears that
smoke and darkness are bad, since they could not belong to
his goodness. The other three, again — water, wind, and fire —
are good. . How, then, could these belong to the evU of the
enemy? You reply that the water of the race of darkness
was evU, whUe that which the First Man brought was good ;
and so, too, his good wind and fire fought against the evil wind
and fire of the adversary. But why could he not bring good
smoke against evil smoke ? Your falsehoods seem to vanish
in smoke. WeU, your First Man warred against an opposite
nature. And yet only one of the five things he brought was
the opposite of what the hostile race had. The light was
opposed to the darkness, but the four others are not opposed to
1 1 Cor. xv. 11. 2 Gal. i. 8, 9.

BOOK II.] THE FIRST MAN. 149
one another. Ah is not the opposite of smoke, and stiU less
is water the opposite of water, or wind of wind, or fire of fire.
4. One is shocked at your wild fancies about this First Man
changing the elements which he brought, that he might conquer
his enemies by pleasing them. So you make what you caU
the kingdom of falsehood keep honestly to its own nature,
whUe truth is changeable in order to deceive. Jesus Christ,
according to you, is the son of this First Man. Truth springs,
forsooth, from your fiction. You praise this First Man for
using changeable and delusive forms in the contest. If you,
then, speak the truth, you do not imitate him. If you imitate
him, you deceive as he did. But our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, the true and truthful Son of God, the true and truthful
Son of man, both of which He testifies of Himself, derived the
eternity of His godhead from true God, and His incarnation
from true man. Your First Man is not the first man of the
apostle. " The first man," he says, " was of the earth, earthy ;
the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy; as is the heavenly, such
are they also that are heavenly.' As we have borne the image
of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly." J
The first man of the earth, earthy, is Adam, who was made of
dust. The second man from heaven, heavenly, is the Lord
Jesus Christ; for, being the Son of God, He became flesh
that He might be a man outwardly, whUe He remained God
within ; that He might be both the true Son of God, by whom
we were made, and the true Son of man, by whom we are made
anew. Why do you conjure up this fabulous First Man of
yours, and refuse to acknowledge the first man of the apostle ?
Is this not a fulfilment of what the apostle says : " Turning
away their ears from the truth, they will give heed to fables?"2
According to Paul, the first man is of the earth, earthy ; ac
cording to Manichaeus, he is not earthy, and is equipped with
five elements of some unreal, unintelligible kind. Paul says :
" If any one preaches differently from what we preached to you,
let him be accursed." Let Paul be true, and let Manichaeus
be accursed.
5. Again, you find fault with the star by which the Magi
1 1 Cor. xv. 47-49. s 2 Tim. iv. 4.

150 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK II.
were led to worship the infant Christ, which you should be
ashamed of doing, when you represent your fabulous Christ,
the son of your fabulous First Man, not as announced by a
star, but as bound up in aU the stars. For you say that he
mingled with the principles of darkness in his conflict with
the race of darkness, that by capturing these principles the
world might be made out of the mixture. So that, by your
profane fancies, Christ is not only mingled with heaven and
all the stars, but conjoined and compounded with the earth
and aU its productions, — a Saviour no more, but needing to be
saved by you, by your eating and disgorging Him.
This foohsh custom of making your disciples bring you food,
that your teeth and stomach may be the means of relieving
Christ, who is bound up in it, is a consequence of your profane
fancies. You declare that Christ is hberated in this way — not,
however, entirely ; for you hold that some tiny particles of no
value stiU remain in the excrement, to be mixed up and com
pounded again and again in various material forms, and to be
released and purified at any rate -by the fire in which the world
wiU be burned up, if not before. Nay, even then, you say,
Christ is not entirely hberated ; but some extreme particles of
His good and divine nature, which have been so defiled that
they cannot be cleansed, are condemned to stay for ever in the
mass of darkness. .And these people pretend to be offended
with our saying that a star announced the birth of the Son of
God, as if this were placing His bhth under the influence of a
consteUation ; whUe they subject Him not to stars only, but to
such poUuting contact with aU material things, with the juices
of all vegetables, and with the decay of aU flesh, and with the
decomposition of aU food, in which He is bound up, that the
only way of releasing Him, at- least one great means, is that
men, that is, the elect of the Manichaeans, shoiUd succeed in
digesting theh dinner.
We, too, deny the influence of the stars upon the birth of
any man ; for we maintain that, by the just law of God, the
free-will of man, which chooses good or evil, is under no con
straint of necessity. How much less do we subject to any
constellation the incarnation of the eternal Creator and Lord
of aU ! When Christ was born after the flesh, the star which

BOOK II.] THE STAR OF THE MAGI. 151
the Magi saw had no power as governing, but attended as a
witness. Instead of assuming control over Him, it acknow
ledged Him by the homage it did. Besides, this star was not
one of those which from the beginning of the world continue
in the course ordained by the Creator. Along with the new
bhth from the Vhgin appeared a new star, which served as a
guide to the Magi who were themselves seeking for Christ ;
for it went before them tUl they reached the place where they
found the Word of God in the form of a child. But what
astrologer ever thought of making a star leave its course, and
come down to the chUd that is born, as they imagine, under
it ? They think that the stars affect the birth, not that the
birth changes the course of the stars ; so, if the star in the
Gospel was one of those heavenly bodies, how could it deter
mine Christ's actions, when it was compeUed to change its
own action at Christ's birth? But if, as is more likely, a
star which did not exist before appeared to point out Christ,
it was the effect of Christ's birth, and not the cause of it.
Christ was not born because tbe star was there ; but the star
was there because Christ was born. If there was any fate, it
was in the birth, and not in the star. The word fate is derived
from a word which means to speak ; and since Christ is the
Word of God by which aU things were spoken before they were,
the conjunction of stars is not the fate of Christ, but Christ is
the fate of the stars. The same wiU that made the heavens
took our earthly nature. The same power that ruled the stars
laid down His life and took it again.
6. Why, then, should the narrative of the birth not be the
gospel, since it conveys such good news as heals our malady ?
Is it because Matthew begins, not like Mark, with the words,
" The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," but, " The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ"? In this way, John,
too, might be said not to have written the gospel, for he has
not the words, Beginning of the gospel, or Book of the gospel,
but, " In the beginning was the Word." Perhaps the clever
word-maker Faustus wiU call the introduction in John a
Verbidium, as he caUed that in Matthew a Genesidium. The
wonder is, that you are so impudent as to give the name of
Gospel to your siUy stories. What good news is there in tell-

152 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK III.
ing us that, in the conflict against some strange hostUe nation,
God could protect His own kingdom only by permitting part
of His own nature to come under this destructive power, and
to be so defiled, that after aU those toUs and tortures it cannot
aU be purged ? Is this bad news the gospel ? Every one
who has even a slender knowledge of Greek knows that gospel
means good news. But where is your good news, when your
God himself is said to weep as under eclipse tUl the darkness
and defilement are removed from his members ? And when
he ceases to weep, it seems he becomes cruel For what has
that part of him which is to be involved in the mass done to
deserve this condemnation ? This part must go on weeping
for ever. But no ; whoever examines this news wiU not weep
because it is bad, but whl laugh because it is not true.

BOOK III.
1. Faustus. Do I beheve in the incarnation? For my part,
this is the very thing I long tried to persuade myself of, that
God was born ; but the discrepancy in the genealogies of
Luke and Matthew stumbled me, as I knew not which to
follow. For I thought it might happen that, from not being
omniscient, I might take the true for false, and the false for
true. So, in despair of settling this dispute, I betook myself
to Mark and John, two authorities stiU, and evangehsts as
much as the others. I approved with good reason of the
beginning of Mark and John, for they have nothing of David,
or Mary, or Joseph. John says, " In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,"
meaning Christ. Mark says, "The gospel of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God," as if correcting Matthew, who caUs him the
Son of David. Perhaps, however, the Jesus of Matthew is a
different person from the Jesus of Mark. This is my reason
for not believing in the birth of Christ. Eemove this diffi
culty, if you can, by harmonizing the accounts, and I am ready
to yield. In any case, however, it is hardly consistent to
beheve that God, the God of Christians, was born from the
womb.

BOOK III.] THE GENEALOGIES. 153
2. Augustine. Had you read the Gospel with care, and
inquired into those places where you found opposition, instead
of rashly condemning them, you would have seen that the
recognition of the authority of the evangelists by so many
learned men all over the world, in spite of this most obvious
discrepancy, proves that there is more in it than appears at
first sight. Any one can see, as weU as you, that the ancestors
of Christ in Matthew and Luke are different ; while Joseph
appears in both, at the end in Matthew and at the beginning
in Luke. Joseph, it is plain, might be caUed the father of
Christ, on account of his being in a certain sense the husband
of the mother of Christ ; and so his name, as the male repre
sentative, appears at the beginning or end of the genealogies.
Any one can see as weU as you that Joseph has oue father in
Matthew and another in Luke, and so with the grandfather and
with aU the rest up to David. Did aU the able and learned
men, not many Latin writers certainly, but innumerable Greek,
who have examined most attentively the sacred Scriptures,
overlook this manifest difference ? Of course they saw it.
No one can help seeing it. But with a due regard to the
high authority of Scripture, they believed that there was some
thing here which would be given to those that ask, and denied
to those that snarl ; would be found by those that seek, and
taken away from those that criticise ; would be open to those
that knock, and shut against those that contradict. They asked,
sought, and knocked ; they received, found, and entered in.
3. The whole question is how Joseph had two fathers.
Supposing this possible, both genealogies may be correct.
With two fathers, why not two grandfathers, and two great
grandfathers, and so on, up to David, who was the father both
of Solomon, who is mentioned in Matthew's list, and of Nathan,
who occurs in Luke ? This is the difficulty with many people
who think it impossible that two men should have one and
the same son, forgetting the very obvious fact that a man may
be caUed the son of the person who adopted him as weU as of
the person who begot him.
Adoption, we know, was famUiar to the ancients, for even
women adopted the chUdren of other women, as Sarah adopted
Ishmael, and Leah her handmaid's son, and Pharaoh's daughter

154 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK III.
Moses. Jacob, too, adopted his grandsons, the chUdren of
Joseph. Moreover, the word adoption is of great importance
in the system of our faith, as is seen from the apostolic
writings. For the Apostle Paul, speaking of the advantages
of the Jews, says : " Whose are the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law; whose are the
fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who
is over aU, God blessed for ever."1 And again : "We ourselves
also groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the
sons of God, even the redemption of the body."2 Again,
elsewhere : " But in the fulness of time, God sent His Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons."3 These passages show clearly that
adoption is a significant symbol. God has an only Son, whom
He begot from His own substance, of whom it is said, " Being
in -the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal to
God."4 Us He begot not of His own substance, for we belong
to the creation which is not begotten, but made ; but that He
might make us the brothers of Christ, by His own act He
adopted us. That act, then, by which God, when we were not
born of Him, but created and formed, begot us by His word
and grace, is caUed adoption. So John says, " He gave them
power to become the sons of God."5
Since, therefore, the practice of adoption is common among
our fathers, and in Scripture, is there not hrational profanity in
the hasty condemnation of the evangehsts as false because the
genealogies are different, as if both could not be true, instead
of considering calmly the simple fact that frequently in human
life one man may have two fathers, one of whose flesh he is
born, and another of whose wUl he is afterwards made a son
by adoption ? If the second is not rightly called father, neither
are we right in saying, " Our Father which art in heaven," to
Him of whose substance we were not born, but of whose
grace and most merciful wiU we were adopted, according to
apostohc doctrine, and truth most sure. For one is to us
God, and Lord, and Father : God, for by Him we are created,
though of human parents ; Lord, for we are His subjects ;
1 Rom. ix. 4, 5. a Rom. viii. 23. 3 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
4 Phil. ii. 6. 5 John i. 12.

BOOK III.] THE SYMBOL QF ADOPTION. 155
Father, for by His adoption we are born again. Careful
students of sacred Scripture easily saw, from a little considera
tion, how, in the different genealogies of the two evangelists,
Joseph had two fathers, and consequently two lists of ancestors.
You might have seen this too, if you had not been blinded
by the love of contradiction. Other things far beyond your
understanding have been discovered in the careful investiga
tion of aU parts of these narratives. The famUiar occurrence of
one man begetting a son and another adopting him, so that one
man has two fathers, you might, in §pite of Manichaean error,
have thought of as an explanation, if you had not been read
ing in a hostUe sphit.
4. But why Matthew begins with Abraham and descends
to Joseph, whUe Luke begins with Joseph and ascends, not
to Abraham, but to God, who made man, and, by giving a
commandment, gave him power to become, by believing, a son
of God; and why Matthew records the generations at the
commencement of his book, Luke after the baptism of the
Saviour by John ; and what is the meaning of the number of
the generations in Matthew, who divides them into three
sections of fourteen each, though in the whole sum there
appears to be one wanting ; whUe in Luke the number of
generations recorded after the baptism amount to seventy-
seven, which number the Lord Himself enjoins in connection
with the forgiveness of sins, saying, " Not only seven times,
but seventy-seven times ;" — these things you wiU never under
stand, unless either you are taught by some Cathohc of superior
stamp, who has studied the sacred Scriptures, and has made aU
the progress possible, or you yourselves turn from your error,
and in a Christian spirit ask that you may receive, seek that
you may find, and knock that it may be opened to you.
5. Since, then, this double fatherhood of nature and adoption
removes the difficulty arising from the discrepancy of the
genealogies, there is no occasion for Faustus to leave the two
evangehsts and betake himself to the other two, which woiUd
be a greater affront to those he betook himself to than to
those he left. For the sacred writers do not desire to be
favoured at the expense of theh brethren. For their joy is in
union, and they are one in Christ ; and if one says one thing,

156 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK III.
and another another, or one in one way and another in another,
stiU they aU speak truth, and in no way contradict one
another ; only let the reader be reverent and humble, not in
an heretical spirit seeking occasion for strife, but with a believ
ing heart desiring edification. Now, in this opinion that the
evangelists give the ancestors of different fathers, as it is quite
possible for a man to have two fathers, there is nothing incon
sistent with truth. So the evangelists are harmonized, and
you, by Faust's promise, are bound to yield at once.
6. You may perhaps be troubled by that additional remark
which he makes : " In any case, however, it is hardly con
sistent to beheve that God, the God of Christians, was born
from the womb." As if we beheved that the divine nature
came from the womb of a woman. Have I not just quoted
the testimony of the apostle, speaking of the Jews : " Whose
are the fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ
came, who is God over aU, blessed for ever" ? Christ, there
fore, our Lord and Saviour, true Son of God in His divinity,
and true son of man according to the flesh, not as He is God
over aU was born of a woman, but in that feeble nature which
He took of us, that in it He might die for us, and heal it in
us : not as in the form of God, in which He thought it not
robbery to be equal to God, was He born of a woman, but in
the form of a servant, in taking which He emptied Himself.
He is therefore said to have emptied Himself because He took
the form of a servant, not because He lost the form of God.
For in the unchangeable possession of that nature by which
in the form of God He is equal to God, He took our change
able nature, by which He might be born of a vhgin. You,
whUe you protest against putting the flesh of Christ in a
virgin's womb, place the very divinity of God in the womb
not only of human beings, but of dogs and swine. You
refuse to beheve that the flesh of Christ was conceived in the
Virgin's womb, in which God was not bound nor even changed ;
whUe you assert that in aU men and beasts, in the seed of
male and in the womb of female, in aU conceptions on land
or in water, an actual part of God and the divine nature is
continually bound, and shut up, and contaminated, never to
be whoUy set free.

BOOK IV.] THE OLD TESTAMENT. 157

BOOK IV.
1. Faustus. Do I beheve the Old Testament ? If it
bequeaths anything to me, I believe it; if not, I reject it.
It would be an excess of forwardness to take the documents
of others which pronounce me disinherited. Eemember that
the promise of Canaan in the Old Testament is made to Jews,
that is, to the circumcised, who offer sacrifice, and abstain
from swine's flesh, and from the other animals which Moses
pronounces unclean, and observe Sabbaths, and the feast of
unleavened bread, and other things of the same kind which
the author of the Testament enjoined. Christians have not
adopted these observances, and no one keeps them ; so that if
we wiU not take the inheritance, we should surrender the
documents. This is my first reason for rejecting the Old
Testament, unless you teach me better. My second reason is,
that this inheritance is such a poor fleshly thing, without any
spiritual blessings, that after the New Testament, and its
glorious promise of the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, I
think it not worth the taking.
2. Augustine. No one doubts that promises of temporal
things are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason
it is caUed the Old Testament ; or that the kingdom of heaven
and the promise of eternal life belong to the New Testament.
But that in these temporal things were figures of future things
which should be fulfilled in us upon whom the ends of the
world are come, is not my fancy, but the judgment of the
apostle, when he says of such things, " These things were our
examples ; " and again, " These things happened to them for an
example, and they are written for us on whom the ends of the
world are come." x We receive the Old Testament, therefore,
not in order to obtain the fulfilment of these promises, but to
see in them predictions of the New Testament ; for the Old
bears witness to the New. Whence the Lord, after He rose
from the dead, and allowed His disciples not only to see but
to handle Him, stUl, lest they should doubt their mortal and
fleshly senses, gave them further confirmation from the testi-
1 1 Cor. x. 6, 11.

158 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK IV.
mony of the Old Testament, saying, " It was necessary that
all things should , be fulfiUed which were written in the law
of Moses, and in the Prophets and Psalms, concerning me." :
Our hope, therefore, rests not on the promise of temporal
things. Nor do we believe that the holy and sphitual men
of these times — the patriarchs and prophets — were taken up
with temporal things. For they understood, by the revelation
of the Spirit of God, what was suitable for that time, and" how
God appointed all these sayings and actions as types and pre
dictions of the future. Theh great deshe was for the New
Testament ; but they had a personal duty to perform in those
predictions, by which the new things of the future were fore
told. So the hfe as weU as the tongue of these men was
prophetic. The carnal people, indeed, thought only of present
blessings, though even in connection with the people there
were prophecies of the future.
These things you do not understand, because, as the pro
phet says, "Unless you beheve, you shaU not understand."2
For you are not instructed in the kingdom of heaven, — that
is, in the true Cathohc Church of Christ. If you were, you
would bring forth from the treasure of the sacred Scriptures
things old as weU as new. For the Lord Himself says,
" Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven
is like an householder who brings forth from his treasure
things new and old."3 And so, whUe you profess to receive
only the new promises of God, you have retained the oldness
of the flesh, adding only the novelty' of error ; of which novelty
the apostle says, " Shun profane novelties of words, for they
increase unto more ungodliness, and theh speech eats like a
cancer. Of whom is Hymenaeus and PhUetus, who concerning
the faith have erred, saying that the resurrection is past
aheady, and have overthrown the faith of some." 4 Here you
see the source of your false doctrine, in teaching that the
resurrection is only of souls by the preaching of the truth,
and that there wiU be no resurrection of the body. But how
can you understand spiritual things of the inner man, who is
renewed in the knowledge of God, when in the oldness of the
flesh, if you do not possess temporal things, you concoct
1 Luke xxiv. 44. a Isa. vii. 9. 3 Matt. xiii. 52. * 2 Tim. ii. 16-18.

BOOK V.] FAUSTUS' OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL. 159
fanciful notions about them in those images of carnal things
of which the whole of your false doctrine consists ? You
boast of despising as worthless the land of Canaan, which was
an actual thing, and actuaUy given to the Jews ; and yet you
teU of a land of hght cut asunder on one side, as by a narrow
wedge, by the land of the race of darkness, — a thing which does
not exist, and which you beheve from the delusion of your
minds ; so that your life is not supported by having it, and
your mind is wasted in desiring it.

BOOK V.
1. Faustus. Do I beheve the gospel? You ask me if I
beheve it, though my obedience to its commands shows that I
do. I should rather ask you if you believe it, since you give
no proof of your behef. I have left my father, mother, wife,
and chUdren, and aU else that the gospel requires ; a and do
you ask if I beheve the gospel ? Perhaps you do not know
what is caUed the gospeL The gospel is nothing else than
the preaching and the precept of Christ. I have parted with
aU gold and sUver, and have left off carrying money in my
purse ; content with daUy food ; without anxiety for to
morrow ; and without sohcitude about how I shaU be fed, or
wherewithal I shaU be clothed : and do you ask if I beheve
the gospel ? You see in me the blessings of the gospel ; 2 and
do you ask if I beheve the gospel ? You see me poor, meek,
a peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting,
bearing persecutions and enmity for righteousness' sake ; and
do you doubt my behef in the gospel ? One can understand
now how John the Baptist, after seeing Jesus, and also hearing
of His works, yet asked whether He was Christ. Jesus properly
and justly did not deign to reply that He was ; but reminded
him of the works of which he had aheady heard : " The blind
see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised." 3 In the same way, I
might very weU reply to your question whether I believe the
gospel, by saying, I have left aU, father, mother, wife, children,
gold, sUver, eating, drinking, luxury, pleasure ; take this as a
1 Matt. xix. 29. 2 Matt. v. 3-11. 3 Matt. xi. 2-6.

160 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK V.
sufficient answer to your questions, and believe that you wiU
be blessed if you are not offended in me.
2. But, according to you, to believe the gospel is not only
to obey its commands, but also to beheve in aU that is written
in it ; and, first of aU, that God was born. But neither is
beheving the gospel only to believe that Jesus was born, but
also to do what He commands. So, if you say that I do not
beheve the gospel because I disbelieve the incarnation, much
more do you not believe because you disregard the command
ments. At any rate, we are on a par tiU these questions are
settled. If your disregard of the precepts does not prevent
you from professing faith in the gospel, why should my
rejection of the genealogy prevent me ? And if, as you say,
to believe the gospel includes both faith in the genealogies
and obedience to the precepts, why do you condemn me, since
we both are imperfect ? What one wants the other has. But
if, as there can be no doubt, belief in the gospel consists solely
in obedience to the commands of God, your sin is twofold.
As the proverb says, the deserter accuses the soldier. But
suppose, since you wiU have it so, that there are these two
parts of perfect faith, one consisting in word, or the confession
that Christ was born, the other in deed, or the observance of
the precepts ; it is plain that my part is hard and painful,
yours light and easy. It is natural that the multitude should
flock to you and away from me, for they know not that the
kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. Why, then,
do you blame me for taking the harder part, and leaving to
you, as to a weak brother, the easy part ?
3. You have the idea that your part of faith, or confessing
that Christ was born, has more power to save the soul than
the other part. Let us then ask Christ Himself, and learn
from His own mouth, what is the chief means of our salva
tion. Who shall enter, 0 Christ, into Thy kingdom ? He
that doeth the will of my Father in heaven,1 is His reply ; not,
" He that confesses that I was born." And again, He says to
His disciples, " Go, teach aU nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded
1 Matt. vii. 21.

BOOK V.] FAITH NO SUBSTITUTE FOR OBEDIENCE. 161
you." 1 It is not, " teaching them that I was born," but, " to
observe my commandments." Again, " Ye are my friends if
ye do what I command you ; " 2 not, " if you believe that I
was born." Again, " If ye keep my commandments, ye shaU
abide in my love," s and in many other places. Also in the
sermon on the mount, when He taught, " Blessed are the poor,
blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are
the pure in heart, blessed are they that mourn, blessed are
they that hunger, blessed are they that are persecuted for
righteousness' sake," 4 He nowhere says, " Blessed are they
that confess that I was born." And in the separation of the
sheep from the goats in the judgment, He says that He wiU
say to them on the right hand, " I was hungry, and ye gave
me meat ; I was thhsty, and ye gave me drink," 5 and so on ;
therefore " inherit the kingdom." Not, " Because ye beheve
that I was born, inherit the kingdom." Again, to the rich
man seeking for eternal hfe, He says, " Go, sell aU that thou
hast, and foUow me ;" G not, " Believe that I was born, that
you may have eternal hfe." You see, the kingdom, hfe,
happiness, are everywhere promised to the part I have chosen
of what you caU the two parts of faith, and nowhere to your
part. Show, if you can, a place where it is written that
whoso confesses that Christ was born of a woman shah be
blessed, or shaU inherit the kingdom, or have eternal life.
Even supposing, then, that there are two parts of faith, your
part has no blessing. But what if we prove that your part
is not part of faith at aU ? It wiU foUow that you are
foolish, which indeed wUl be proved beyond a doubt. At
present, it is enough to have shown that our part is crowned
with the benedictions. Besides, we have also a benediction
for a confession in words : for we confess that Jesus Christ is
the Son of the hving God ; and Jesus declares with His own
lips that this confession has a benediction, when He says to
Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood
hath not revealed this unto thee, but my ¦ Father which is in
heaven." 7 So that we have not one, but both these parts of
1 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 2 John xv. 14. John xv. 10.
4 Matt. v. 3-10. s Matt. xxv. 35. " Matt. xix. 21.
' Matt. xvi. 7.
7 L

162 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK V.
faith, and in both ahke are we pronounced blessed by Christ ;
for in one we reduce faith to practice, whUe in the other our
confession is unmixed with blasphemy.
4. Augustine. I have already said that the Lord Jesus
Christ repeatedly caUs Himself the Son of man, and that the
Manichaeans have contrived a siUy story about some fabulous
First Man, who figures in theh impious heresy, not earthly, but
combined with spurious elements, in opposition to the apostle,
who says, " The first man is of the earth, earthy ;" 1 and that
the apostle carefully warns us, " If any one preaches to you
differently from what we have preached, let him be accursed." 2
So that we must beheve Christ to be the Son of man accord
ing to apostohc doctrine, not according to Manichaean error.
And since the evangehsts assert that Christ was born of a
woman, of the family of David, and Paul writing to Timothy
says, " Eemember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was
raised from the dead, according to my gospel," 3 it is clear in
what sense we must beheve Christ to be the Son of man ; for
being the Son of God by whom we were made, He also by
His incarnation became the Son of man, that He might die
for our sins, and rise again for our justification.4 Accordingly
He caUs Himself both Son of God and Son of man. To take
only one instance out of many, in the Gospel of John it is
written, " VerUy, verUy, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and
now is, when the dead shaU hear the voice of the Son of God ;
and they that hear shaU hve. For as the Father hath life in
Himself, so He hath given to the Son to have life in Himself ;
and hath given Him power to execute judgment also, because
He is the Son of man." 5 He says, " They shaU hear the
voice of the Son of God ;" and He says, " because He is the
Son of man." As the Son of man, He has received power to
execute judgment, because He wiU come to judgment in
human form, that He may be seen by the good and the
wicked. In this form He ascended into heaven, and that
voice was heard by His disciples, " He shaU so come as ye
have seen Him go into heaven." 6 As the Son of God, equal
to and one with the Father, He wiU not be seen by the
1 1 Cor. xv. 47. 2 Gal. i. 8, 9. '2 Tim. ii. 8.
1 Rom. iv. 25. B John v. 25-27. 6 Acts i. 14.

BOOK V.] OBEDIENCE UNAVAILING WITHOUT FAITH. 163
wicked ; for " blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God." Since, then, He promises eternal life to those that »
beheve in Him, and since to believe in Him is to beheve in
the true Christ, such as He declares Himself and His apostles
declare Him to be, true Son of God and true Son of man ; you,
Manichaeans, who beheve on a false and spurious son of a
false and spurious man, and teach that God Himself, from fear
of the assault of the hostile race, gave up His own members
to be tortured, and after aU not to be whoUy hberated, are
plainly far from that eternal life which Christ promises to
those who beheve in Him. It is true, He said to Peter when
he confessed Him to be the Son of God, " Blessed art thou,
Simon Barjona." But does He promise nothing to those who
beheve Him to be the Son of man, when the Son of God and
the Son of man are the same ? Besides, eternal hfe is ex- •
pressly promised to those who beheve in the Son of man.
"As Moses," He says, "lifted up the serpent in the wUder-
ness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever
beheveth in Him should not perish, but have eternal hfe." x
What more do you wish ? Beheve then in the Son of man,
that you may have eternal life ; for He is also the Son of God,
who can give eternal life : for He is " the true God and eternal
life," as John says in his epistle. John also adds, that he is
antichrist who denies that Christ has come in the flesh.2
5. There is no need, then, that you should extol so much
the perfection of Christ's commands, because you obey the
precepts of the gospel. For the precepts, supposing you reaUy
to fulfil them, would not profit you without true faith. Do '
you not know that the apostle says, " If I distribute aU my
goods to the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have
not charity, it profiteth me nothing " ? 3 Why do you boast
of having Christian poverty, when you are destitute of '
Christian charity ? Eobbers have a kind of charity to one
another, arising from a mutual consciousness of guUt and
crime ; but this is not the charity commended by the apostle.
In another passage he distinguishes true charity from aU base
and vicious affections, by saying, " Now the end of the com
mandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good con-
1 John iii. 14, 15. * 1 John v. 20, iv. 3. 3 1 Cor. xiii. 3.

164 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK V.
science, and faith unfeigned." 1 How then can you have true
charity from a fictitious faith ? You persist in a faith cor
rupted by falsehood : for your First Man, according to you, used
deceit in the conflict by changing his form, whUe his enemies
remained in their own nature ; and, besides, you maintain that
Christ, who says, " I am the truth," feigned His incarnation,
His death on the cross, the wounds of His passion, the marks
shown after His resurrection. If you speak the truth, and
your Christ speaks falsehood, you must be better than he.
But if you really foUow your own Christ, your truthfulness
may be doubled, and your obedience to the precepts you speak
of may be only a pretence. Is it true, as Faustus says, that
you have no money in your purses ? He means, probably,
that your money is in boxes and bags; nor would we blame
you for this, if you did not profess one thing and practise
another. Constantius, who is still ahve, and is now our
brother in Catholic Christianity, once gathered many of your
sect into his house at Eome, to keep these precepts of Mani
chaeus, which you think so much of, though they are very
silly and chUdish. The precepts proved too much for your
weakness, and the gathering was entirely broken up. Those
who persevered separated from your communion, and are
called Mattarians, because they sleep on mats, — a very different
bed from the feathers of Faustus and his goatskin coverlets,
and aU the grandeur that made him despise not only the
Mattarians, but also the house of his poor father in Mileum.
Away, then, with this accursed hypocrisy from your writing,
if not from your conduct; or else your language wiU conflict
with your life by your deceitful words, as your First Man with
the race of darkness by his deceitful elements.
6. I am, however, addressing not merely men who fail to
do what they are commanded, but the members of a deluded
sect. For the precepts of Manichaeus are such that, if you do
not keep them, you are deceivers ; if you do keep them, you
are deceived. Christ never taught you that you should not
pluck a vegetable for fear of committing homicide ; for when
His disciples were hungry when passing through a field of
corn, He did not forbid them to pluck the ears on the Sabbath-
1 1 Tim. i. 5.

BOOK V.] HYPOCRISY OF FAUSTUS. 165
day ; which was a rebuke to the Jews of the time, since the
action was on Sabbath ; and a rebuke in the action itself to
the future Manichaeans. The precept of Manichaeus, however,
only requires you to do nothing, while others commit homi
cide for you; though the real homicide is that of ruining
miserable souls by such doctrines of devils.
7. The language of Faustus has the fever of heresy in it,
and is the language of overweening arrogance. " You see in
me," he says, " the blessings of the gospel ; and do you ask if
I beheve the gospel ? You see me poor, meek, a peacemaker,
pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing persecu
tion and enmity for righteousness' sake ; and do you doubt
my behef in the gospel ? " If to justify oneself were to be
just, Faustus would have flown to heaven whUe uttering these
words. I say nothing of the luxurious habits of Faustus, known
to aU the foUowers of the Manichaeans, and especiaUy to those
at Eome. I shaU suppose a Manichaean such as Constantius
sought for, when he enforced the observance of these precepts
with the sincere desire to see them observed. How can I see
him to be poor in spirit, when he is so proud as to beheve
that his own soul is God, and is not ashamed to speak of God
as in bondage ? How can I see him meek, when he affronts
aU the authority of the evangehsts rather than beheve ? How
a peacemaker, when he holds that the divine nature itself by
which God is whatever is, and is the only true existence,
could not remain in lasting peace ? How pure in heart, when
his heart is fiUed with so many impious notions ? How
mourning, unless it is for his God captive and bound, tUl he
be freed and escape, with the loss, however, of a part which is
to be united by the Father to the mass of darkness, and is not
to be mourned for ? How hungering and thirsting for right
eousness, which Faustus omits, in case, no doubt, that he should
be thought destitute of righteousness ? But how can they
hunger and thirst after righteousness, whose perfect righteous
ness wiU consist in exulting over their brethren condemned to
darkness, not for any fault of their own, but for being irre
mediably contaminated by the poUution against which they were
sent by the Father to contend ?
8. How do you suffer persecution and enmity for righteous-

166 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK V.
ness' sake, when, according to you, it is righteous to preach
and teach these impieties ? The wonder is, that the gentleness
of Christian times aUows such perverse iniquity to pass whoUy
or almost unpunished. And yet, as if we were blind or silly,
you teU us that your suffering reproach and persecution is a
great proof of your righteousness. If people are just accord
ing to the amount of theh suffering, atrocious criminals of aU
kinds suffer much more than you. But, at any rate, if we are
to grant that suffering endured on account of any sort of pro
fession of Christianity proves the sufferer to be in possession
of true faith and righteousness, you must admit that any case
of greater suffering that we can show proves the possession of
true faith and greater righteousness. Of such cases you know
many among our martyrs, and chiefly Cyprian himself, whose
writings also bear witness to his behef that Christ was born
of the Virgin Mary. For this faith, which you abhor, he
suffered and died along with many Christian behevers of that
day, who suffered as much, or more. But Faustus, when shown
to be a Manichaean by evidence, or by his own confession, on
the intercession of the Christians themselves, who brought him
before the proconsul, was, along with some others, only banished
to an island, which can hardly be caUed a punishment at aU,
for it is what God's servants do of theh own accord every day
when they wish to rethe from the tumult of the world. Be
sides, earthly sovereigns often by a pubhc decree give release
from this banishment as an act of mercy. And in this way
aU were afterwards released at once. Confess, then, that they
were in possession of a truer faith and a more righteous hfe,
who were accounted worthy to suffer for it much more than
you ever suffered. Or else, cease boasting of the abhorrence
which many feel for you, and learn to distinguish between
suffering for blasphemy and suffering for righteousness. What
it is you suffer for, your own books wiU show in a way that
deserves your most particular attention.
9. Those evangehcal precepts of peculiar sublimity which
you make people who know no better beheve that you obey,
are reaUy obeyed by multitudes in our communion. Are
there not among us many of both sexes who have entirely
refrained from sexual intercourse, and many formerly married

BOOK V.] CATHOLIC SELF-DENIAL. 167
who practise continence ? Are there not many others who
give largely of their property, or give it up altogether, and
many who keep the body in subjection by fasts, either fre
quent or daUy, or protracted beyond behef ? Then there are
fraternities whose members have no property of theh own, but
aU things common, including only things necessary for food
and clothing, hving with one soul and one heart towards God,
inflamed with a common feeling of charity. In aU such pro
fessions many turn out to be deceivers and reprobates, whUe
many who are so are never discovered; many, too, who at
first walk well, faU away rapidly from wUfulness. Many are
found . in times of trial to have adopted this kind of hfe with
another intention than they professed; and again, many in
humility and stedfastness persevere in their course to the end,
and are saved. There are apparent diversities in these societies;
but one charity unites aU who, from some necessity, in obe
dience to the apostle's injunction, have theh wives as if they
had them not, and buy as if they bought not, and use this
world as if they used it not. With these are joined, in the
abundant riches of God's mercy, the inferior class of those to
whom it is said, " Defraud not one another, except it be with
consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer ; and
come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incon-
tinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of command
ment." x To such the -same apostle also says, " Now there
fore there is utterly a fault among you, that ye go to law one
with another ; " whUe, in consideration of their infirmity, he
adds, " U ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life,
set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church." 2
For in the kingdom of heaven there are not only those who,
that they may be perfect, seU or leave aU they have and fol
low the Lord; but others in the partnership of charity are
joined like a mercenary force to the Christian army, to whom
it wiU be said at last, " I was hungry, and ye gave me
meat," and so on. Otherwise, there would be no salvation for
those to whom the apostle gives so many anxious and parti
cular directions about their families, telling the wives to be
obedient to theh husbands, and husbands to love theh wives ;
1 1 Cor. vii. 5, 6 2 1 Cor. vi. 7, 4.

168 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK V.
children to obey their parents, and parents to bring up their
chUdren in the instruction and admonition of the Lord ; ser
vants to obey with fear their masters according to the flesh,
and masters to render to theh servants what is just and equal.
The apostle is far from condemning such people as regardless
of gospel precepts, or unworthy of eternal life. For where
the Lord exhorts the strong to attain perfection, saying, " If
any man take not up his cross and foUow me, he cannot be
my disciple," He immediately adds, for the consolation of the
weak, " Whoso receiveth a just man in the name of a just
man, shaU receive a just man's reward ; and whoso receiveth
a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's
reward." So that not only he who gives Timothy a little
wine for his stomach's sake, and his frequent infirmities, but
he who gives to a strong man a cup of cold water only in the
name of a disciple, shaU not lose his reward.1
10. If it is true that a man cannot receive the gospel with
out giving up everything, why do you delude your followers,
by aUowing them to keep in your service theh wives, and
chUdren, and households, and houses, and fields ? Indeed,
you may well allow them to disregard the precepts of the
gospel : for all you promise them is not a resurrection, but a
change to another mortal existence, in which they shall live
the silly, childish, impious life of those you call the elect, the
life you live yourself, and are so much praised for ; or if they
possess greater merit, they shaU enter into melons or cucum
bers, or some eatables which you wUl masticate, that they may
be quickly purified by your digestion. Least of aU should
you who teach such doctrines profess any regard for the gos
pel. For if the faith of the gospel had any connection with
such nonsense, the Lord should have said, not, " I was hungry,
and ye gave me meat ; " but, " Ye were hungry, and ye ate me,"
or, " I was hungry, and I ate you." For, by your absurdities,
a man wUl not be received into the kingdom of God for the ser
vice of giving food to the saints, but because he has eaten them
and belched them out, or has himself been eaten and belched
into heaven. Instead of saying, " Lord, when saw we Thee
hungry, and fed Thee ? " the righteous must say, " When saw
1 Matt. x. 38-42.

BOOK VI.] GOSPEL PROMISES. 169
we Thee hungry, and were eaten by Thee ? " And He must
answer, not, " When ye gave food to one of the least of these,
my brethren, you gave to me ;" but, " When you were eaten by
one of the least of these my brethren, you were eaten by me."
11. Believing and teaching such monstrosities, and living
accordingly, you yet have the boldness to say that you obey
the precepts of the gospel, and to decry the Catholic Church,
which includes many weak as well as strong, both of whom
the Lord blesses, because both according to their measure obey
the precepts of the gospel and hope in its promises. The
bhndness of hostUity makes you see only the tares in our
harvest : for you might easily see wheat too, if you were
wilhng that there should be any. But among you, those who
are pretended Manichaeans are wicked, and those who are
reaUy Manichaeans are sUly. . For where the faith itself is false,
he who hypocriticaUy professes it acts deceitfully, whUe he
who truly beheves is deceived. Such a faith cannot produce
a good life, for every man's hfe is good or bad according as
his heart is engaged. If your affections were set upon spiritual
and inteUectual good, instead of material forms, you would
not pay homage to the material sun as a divine substance,
and as the hght of wisdom, which every one knows you do,
though I now only mention it in passing.

BOOK VI.
1. Faustus. You ask if I believe the Old Testament. Of
course not, for I do not keep its precepts. Neither, I imagine,
do you. I reject chcumcision as disgusting ; and if I mistake
not, so do you. I reject the observance of Sabbaths as super
fluous : I suppose you do the same. I reject sacrifices as
idolatry, as doubtless you also do. Swine's flesh is not the
only flesh I abstain from ; nor is it the only flesh you eat. I
think aU flesh unclean : you think none unclean. Both alike,
in these opinions, throw over the Old Testament. We both
look upon the weeks of unleavened bread and the feast of
tabernacles as unnecessary and useless. Not to patch linen
garments with purple ; to count it adultery to make a garment

170 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
of hnen and wool ; to caU it sacrilege to yoke together an ox
and an ass when necessary ; not to appoint as priest a bald man,
or a man with red hair, or any simUar peculiarity, as being
unclean in the sight of God, — are things which we both despise
and laugh at, and rank as of neither first nor second import
ance ; and yet they are aU precepts and judgments of the Old
Testament. You cannot blame me for rejecting the Old
Testament ; for whether it is right or wrong to do so, you do
it as much as I. As for the difference between your faith and
mine, it is this, that whUe you choose to act deceitfully, and
meanly to praise in words what in your heart you hate, I, not
having learned the art of deception, frankly declare that I hate
both these abominable precepts and theh authors.
2. Augustine. How and for what purpose the Old Testa
ment is received by the hehs of the New Testament has been
already explained.1 But as the remarks of Faustus were then
about the promises of the Old Testament, and now he speaks
of the precepts, I reply that he displays ignorance of the dif
ference between moral and symbolical precepts. For example,
" Thou shalt not covet " is a moral precept ; " Thou shalt cir
cumcise eveiy male on the eighth day " is a symbohcal pre
cept. From not making this distinction, the Manichaeans, and
aU who find fault with the writings of the Old Testament, not
seeing that whatever observance God appointed for the former
dispensation was a shadow of future things, because these
observances are now discontinued, condemn them, though no
doubt what is unsuitable now was perfectly suitable then, as
prefiguring the things now revealed. In this they contradict
the apostle, who says, "AU these things happened to them
for an example, and they were written for our learning, on
whom the end of the world is come."2 The apostle here ex
plains why these writings are to be received, and why it is no
longer necessary to continue the symbohcal observances. For
when he says, " They were written for our learning," he clearly
shows that we should be very diligent in reading and in dis
covering the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures, and
that we should have great veneration for them, since it was
for us that they were written. Again, when he says, " They
1 Book iv. 2 1 Cor. x. 6.

BOOK VI.] SYMBOLICAL PRECEPTS. 171
are our examples," and " these things happened to them for
an example," he shows that, now that the things themselves
are clearly revealed, the observance of the actions by which
these things were prefigured is no longer binding. So
he says elsewhere, " Let no man judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to come."1
Here also, when he says, " Let no one judge you " in these
things, he shows that we are no longer bound to observe
them. And when he says, " which are a shadow of things to
come," he explains how these observances were binding at the
time when the things fully disclosed to us were symbolized by
these shadows of future things.
3. Assuredly, if the Manichaeans were justified by the
resurrection of the Lord, — the day of whose resurrection, the
third after His passion, was the eighth day, coming after the
Sabbath, that is, after the seventh day, — their carnal minds
would be dehvered from the darkness of earthly passions
which rests on them ; and rejoicing in the circumcision of the
heart, they would not ridicule it as prefigured in the Old
Testament by circumcision in the flesh, although they should
not enforce this observance under the New Testament. But,
as the apostle says, " To the pure aU things are pure. But to
the impure and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both theh
mind and conscience are defiled."2 So these people, who are
so pure in theh own eyes, that they regard, or pretend to re
gard, as impure these members of theh bodies, are so defiled
with unbehef and error, that, whUe they abhor the circum
cision of the flesh, — which the apostle caUs a seal of the
righteousness of faith, — they beheve that the divine members
of theh God are subjected to restraint and contamination in
these very carnal members of theirs. For they say that flesh
is unclean ; and it foUows that God, in the part which is de
tained by the flesh, is made unclean : for they declare that He
must be cleansed, and that tiU this is done, as far as it can
be done, He undergoes all the passions to which flesh is sub
ject, not only in suffering pain and distress, but also in sensual
gratification. For it is for His sake, they say, that they ab-
1 Col. ii. 16, 17. 2 Tit. i. 15.

172 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
stain from sexual intercourse, that He may not be bound
more closely in the bondage of the flesh, nor suffer more de
filement. The apostle says, " To the pure aU things are pure."
And if this is true of men, who may be led into evil by a per
verse will, how much more must all things be pure to God,
who remains for ever immutable and immaculate ! In those,
books which you defile with your violent reproaches, it is said
of the divine wisdom, that " no defiled thing falleth into it,
and it goeth everywhere by reason of its pureness."1 It is
mere prurient absurdity to find fault with the sign of human
regeneration appointed by that God, to whom aU things are
pure, to be put on the organ of human generation, whUe you
hold that your God, to whom nothing is pure, is in a part of
his nature subjected to taint and corruption by the vicious
actions in w*hich impure men employ the members of theh
body. For if you think there is poUution in conjugal inter
course, what must there be in aU the practices of the licen
tious ? If you ask, then, as you often do, whether God could
not find some other way of sealing the righteousness of faith,
the answer is, Why not this way, since aU things are pure to
the pure, much more to God ? And we have the authority of
the apostle for saying that circumcision was the seal of the
righteousness of the faith of Abraham. As for you, you must
try not to blush when you are asked whether your God had
nothing better to do than to entangle part of his nature with
these members that you revUe so much. These are dehcate
subjects to speak of, on account of the penal corruption at
tending the propagation of man. They are things which caU
into exercise the modesty of the chaste, the passions of the
impure, and the justice of God.
4. The rest of the Sabbath we consider no longer binding
as an observance, now that the hope of our eternal rest has
been revealed. But it is a very useful thing to read of, and
to reflect on. In prophetic times, when things now mani
fested were prefigured and predicted by actions as weU as
words, this sign of which we read was a presage of the reahty
which we possess. But I wish to know why you observe
a sort of partial rest. The Jews, on theh Sabbath, which
1 Wisd. vii. 24, 25.

ROOK VI.] THE SABBATH. 173
they stiU keep in a carnal manner, neither gather any fruit
in the field, nor dress and cook it at home. But you, in your
rest, wait tUl one of your foUowers takes his knife or hook to
the garden, to get food for you by murdering the vegetables,
and brings back, strange to say, hving corpses. For if cut
ting plants is not murder, why are you afraid to do it ? And
yet, if the plants are murdered, what becomes of the life
which is to obtain release and restoration from your mastica
tion and digestion? WeU, you take the living vegetables,
and certainly you ought, if it could be done, to swaUow them
whole ; so that after the one wound your follower has been
guUty of inflicting in pulling them, of which you wiU no
doubt consent to absolve him, they may reach without loss or
injury your private laboratory, where your God may be healed
of his wound. Instead of this, you not only tear them with
your teeth, but, if it pleases your taste, mince them, inflicting
a multitude of wounds in the most criminal manner. Plainly,
it would be a most advantageous thing if you would rest, at
home too, and not only once a week, like the Jews, but every
day of the week. The cucumbers suffer while you are cooking
them, without any benefit to the life that is in them; for
a boiling pot cannot be compared to a saintly stomach. And
yet you ridicule as superfluous the rest of the Sabbath.
Would it not be better, not only to refrain from finding fault
with the fathers for this observance, in whose case it was not
superfluous, but, even now that it is superfluous, to observe
this rest yourselves instead of your own, which has no sym
bohcal use, and is condemned as grounded on falsehood ?
According to your own foolish opinions, you are guUty of
a defective observance of your own rest, though the observance
itseh is foohsh in the judgment of truth. You maintain that
the fruit suffers when it is puUed from the tree, when it is
cut, and scraped, and cooked, and eaten. So you are wrong
in eating anything that cannot be swallowed raw and unhurt,
so that the wound inflicted might not be from you, but from
your foUower in pulling them. You declare that you could
not give release to so great a quantity of hfe, if you were to
eat only things which could be swaUowed without cooking or
mastication. But if this release compensates for aU the pains

174 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
you inflict, why is it unlawful for you to puU the fruit?
Fruit may be eaten raw, as some of your sect make a point of
eating raw vegetables of aU kinds. But before it can be eaten
at aU, it must be puUed, or faU off, or be taken in some way
from the ground or from the tree. You might well be par
doned for pulling it, since nothing can be done without that,
but not for torturing the members of your God to the extent
you do in dressing your food. One of your siUy notions is
that the tree weeps when the fruit is pulled. Doubtless the
hfe in the tree knows aU things, and perceives who it is that
comes to it. If the elect were to come and puU the fruit,
would not the tree rejoice to escape the misery of having its
fruit plucked by others, and to gain fehcity by enduring a
httle momentary pain ? And yet, while you multiply the
pains and troubles of the fruit after it is plucked, you wUl
not pluck it. Explain that, if you can ! Fasting itself is a
mistake in your case. There should be no intermission in the
task of purging away the dross of the excrements from the
spiritual gold, and of releasing the divine members from con
finement. The most merciful man among you is he who keeps
himself always in good health, takes raw food, and eats a great
deal. But you are cruel when you eat, in making your food
undergo so much suffering ; and you are cruel when you fast,
in desisting from the work of liberating the divine members.
5. With aU this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of
the Old Testament, and to caU them idolatry, and to attribute
to us the same impious notion. To answer for ourselves in
the first place, whUe we consider it no longer a duty to offer
sacrifices, we recognise sacrifices as part of the mysteries of
Eevelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed.
For they were our examples, and in many and various ways
they aU pointed to the one sacrifice which we now com
memorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and
has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as
an act of worship, whUe it retains its symbohcal authority.
For these things " were written for our learning, upon whom
the ends of the world are come."1 What you object to in
sacrifice is the slaughter of animals, though the whole animal
1 1 Cor. x. 11.

BOOK VI.] SACRIFICE. 175
creation is intended conditionaUy for the use of man. You
are merciful to beasts, believing them to contain the souls of
human beings, while you refuse a piece of bread to a hungry
beggar. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand, was cruel to the
swine when He granted the request of the devils to be aUowed
to enter into them.1 The same Lord Jesus, before the sacri
fice of His passion, said to a leper whom He had cured, " Go,
show thyself to the priest, and give the offering, as Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them."2 When God, by
the prophets, repeatedly declares that He needs no offering,
as indeed reason teaches us that offerings cannot be needed
by Him who stands in need of nothing, our mind is led to
inquire what God wished to teach us by these sacrifices. For,
assuredly, He would not have requhed offerings of which He
had no need, except to teach us something that it would
profit us to know, and which was suitably set forth by means
of these symbols. It would be a great deal better and more
respectable for you to be still bound by these sacrifices, which
have an instructive meaning, though they are not now neces
sary, than to require your foUowers to offer to you as food
what you beheve to be hving victims. The Apostle Paul
says most appropriately of some who preached the gospel to
gratify theh appetite, that their " god was their belly." 3 But
the arrogance of your impiety goes much beyond this : for,
instead of making your beUy your god, you do what is far
worse in making your beUy the purifier of God. Surely it is
great madness to make a pretence of piety in not slaughtering
animals, whUe you hold that the souls of animals inhabit aU
the food you eat, and yet make what you caU hving creatures
suffer such torture from your hands and teeth.
6. If you wiU not eat flesh, why should you not slay
animals in sacrifice to your God, in order that their souls,
which you hold to be not only human, but the members of
God Himself, may be released from the confinement of flesh,
and be saved from returning by the efficacy of your prayers ?
Perhaps, however, your stomach gives more effectual aid than
your inteUect, and that part of divinity which has had the
advantage of passing through your bowels is more hkely to
1 Matt. viii. 32. 2 Luke v: 14. 8 Phil. iii. 19.

176 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
be saved than that which has only the benefit of your prayers.
Your objection to eating flesh wiU be that you cannot eat
animals alive, and so the operation of your stomach will not
avaU for the hberation of their souls. Happy vegetables,
that, torn up with the hand, cut with knives, tortured in fire,
ground by teeth, yet reach alive the altars of your intestines !
Unhappy sheep and oxen, that are not so tenacious of hfe, and
therefore are refused entrance into your bodies ! Such is the
absurdity of your notions. And you persist in making out
an opposition in us to the Old Testament, because we consider
no flesh unclean : according to the opinion of the apostle, " To
the pure aU things are pure ;" 1 and according to the saying of
our Lord Himself, "Not that which goeth into your mouth
defileth you, but that which cometh out."2 This was not said
to the crowd only, as your Adimantus, whom Faustus, in his
attack on the Old Testament, praises as second only to
Manichaeus, wishes us to understand ; but when retired from
the crowd, the Lord repeated this stiU more plainly and
pointedly to His disciples. Adimantus quotes this saying
of our Lord in opposition to the Old Testament, where the
people are prohibited from eating some animals which are
pronounced unclean ; and doubtless he was afraid that he
should be asked why, since he quotes a passage from the
Gospel about man not being defiled by what enters into his
mouth and passes into his beUy, he yet considers not some
only, but aU flesh unclean, and abstains from eating it. It is
in order to escape from this strait, when the plain truth is too
much for his error, that he makes the Lord say this to the
crowd ; as if the Lord were in the habit of speaking the truth
only in small companies, while He talked unguardedly in
pubhc. To speak of the Lord in this way is blasphemy.
And aU who read the passage can see that the Lord said the
same thing more plainly to His disciples in private. Since
Faustus praises Adimantus so much at the beginning of this
book of his, placing him next to Manichaeus, let him say in
a word whether it is true or false that a man is not defiled
by what enters into his mouth. If it is false, why does this
great teacher Adimantus quote it against the Old Testament 1
1 Tit. i. 15. 2 Matt. xvi. 11.

BOOK VI.] UNCLEAN FOOD. 177
If it is true, why, in spite of this, do you believe that eating
any flesh wUl defile you ? It is true, if you choose this ex
planation, that the apostle does not say that all things are
pure to heretics, but, " to the pure aU things are pure." The
apostle also goes on to explain why all things are not pure
to heretics : " To the impure and unbelieving nothing is pure,
but even theh mind and conscience are defiled."1 So to the
Manichaeans there is absolutely nothing pure ; for they hold
that the very substance or nature of God not only may be,
but has actuaUy been defiled, and so defiled that it can never
be whoUy restored and purified. What do they mean when
they caU animals unclean, and refrain from eating them, when
it is impossible for them to think anything, whether food or
whatever it may be, clean? According to them, vegetables
too, fruits, aU kinds of crops, the earth and sky, are defiled by
mixture with the race of darkness. Why do they not act up
to theh opinions about other things as weU as about animals ?
Why do they not abstain altogether, and starve themselves to
death, instead of persisting in their blasphemies ? If they
whl not repent and reform, this is evidently the best ' thing
that they could do.
7. The saying of the apostle, that " to the pure all things
are pure," and that '' every creature of God is good," is not
opposed to the prohibitions of the Old Testament ; and the
explanation, if they can understand it, is this. The apostle
speaks of the natures of the things, whUe the Old Testament
caUs some animals unclean, not in their nature, but sym-
bohcaUy, on account of the prefigurative character of that
dispensation. For instance, a pig and a lamb are both clean
in their nature, for every creature of God is good ; but
symbohcaUy, a lamb is clean, and a pig unclean. So the
words wise and fool are both clean in theh nature, as words
composed of letters ; but fool may be called symbolically
unclean, because it means an unclean thing. Perhaps a pig is
the same among symbols as a fool is among real things. The
animal, and the four letters which compose the word, may
mean the same thing. No doubt the animal is pronounced
unclean by the law, because it does not chew the cud ; which
1 Tit. i. 15.
7 M

178 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
is not a fault, but its nature. But the men of whom this
animal is a symbol are unclean, not by nature, but from their
own fault; because, though they gladly hear the words of
wisdom, they never reflect on them afterwards. For to recaU,
in quiet repose, some useful instruction from the stomach of
memory to the mouth of reflection, is a kind of sphitual
rumination. The animals above mentioned are a symbol of
those people who do not do this. And the prohibition of the
flesh of these animals is a warning against this fault. Another
passage of Scripture speaks of the precious treasure of wisdom,
and describes ruminating as clean, and not ruminating as
unclean : " A precious treasure resteth in the mouth of a wise
man; but a foohsh man swaUows it up."1 Symbols of this
kind, either in words or in things, give useful and pleasant
exercise to inteUigent minds in the way of inquhy and
comparison. But formerly people were requhed not only to
hear, but to practise many such things. For at that time it
was necessary that, by deeds as weU as bywords, those things
should be foreshadowed which were in after times to be
revealed. After the revelation by Christ and in Christ, the
community of behevers is not burdened with the practice of
the observances, but is admonished to give heed to the
prophecy. This is our reason for accounting no animals
unclean, in accordance with the saying of the Lord and of the
apostle, while we are not opposed to the Old Testament,
where some animals are pronounced unclean. Now let us
hear why you consider all animal food unclean.
8. One of your false doctrines is, that flesh is unclean on
account of mixture with the race of darkness. But this would
make not only flesh unclean, but your God himself, in that
part which he sent to become subject to absorption and
contamination, in order that the enemy might be conquered
and taken captive. Besides, on account of this mixture, aU
that you eat must be unclean. But you say flesh is especiaUy
unclean. It requires patience to hsten to aU theh absurd
reasons for this pecuhar impurity of flesh. I wiU mention
only what wiU suffice to show the inveterate foUy of these
critics of the Old Testament, who, whUe they denounce flesh,
' Prov. xxi. 20.

BOOK VI.] THE RACE OF DARKNESS. 179
savour only fleshly things, and have no sort of spiritual
perception. And a lengthy discussion of this question may
perhaps enable us to dispense with saying much on some
other points. The foUowing, then, is an account of their vain
delusions in this matter : — In that battle, when the First Man
ensnared the race of darkness by deceitful elements, principles1
of both sexes belonging to this race were taken. By means of
these principles the world was constructed ; and among those
used in the formation of the heavenly bodies, were some
pregnant females. When the sky began to rotate, the rapid
circular motion made these females give birth to abortions,
which, being of both sexes, feU on the earth, and hved, and
grew, and came together, and produced offspring. Hence
sprang aU animal life in earth, ah, and sea. Now if the
origin of flesh is from heaven, that is no reason for thinking it
especiaUy unclean. Indeed, in this construction of the world,
they hold that these principles of darkness were arranged
higher or lower, according to the greater or less amount of
good mixed with them in the construction of the various parts
of the world. So flesh ought to be cleaner than vegetables
which come out of the earth, for it comes from heaven. And
how irrational, to suppose that the abortions, before becoming
animate, were so hvely, though in an abortive state, that after
falling from the sky, they could hve and multiply ; whereas,
after becoming animate, they die if brought forth prematurely,
and a faU from a very moderate height is enough to kiU them !
The kingdom of hfe in . contest with the kingdom of death
ought to have improved them, by giving them life instead of
making them more perishable than before. If the perishable-
ness is a consequence of a change of nature, it is wrong to
say that there is a bad nature. The change is the only cause
of the perishableness. Both natures are good, though one
is better than the other. Whence then comes the pecuhar
impurity of flesh as it exists in this world, sprung, as they
¦ say, from heaven ? They teU us, indeed, of the first bodies of
these principles of darkness being generated hke worms from
trees of darkness ; and the trees, they say, are produced from
the five elements. But supposing that the bodies of animals
1 Prineipes.

180 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
come in the first place from trees, and afterwards from heaven,
why should they be more unclean than the fruit of trees?
Perhaps it wUl be said that what remains after death is
unclean, because the life is no longer there. For the same
reason fruits and vegetables must be unclean, for they die
when they are puUed or cut. As we saw before, the elect get
others to bring their food to them, that they may not be guUty
of murder. Perhaps, since they say that every hving being
has two souls, one of the race of hght, and the other of the
race of darkness, the good soul leaves at death, and the bad
soul remains. But, in that case, the animal would be as
much alive as it was in the kingdom of darkness, when it had
only the soul of its own race, with which it had rebeUed
against the kingdom of God. So, since both souls leave at
death, why caU the flesh unclean, as if only the good soul had
left ? Any hfe that remains must be of both kinds ; for some
remains of the members of God are found, we are told, even
in filth. There is therefore no reason for making flesh more
unclean than fruits. The truth is, they pretend to great
chastity in holding flesh unclean because it is generated. But
if the divine body is more grossly shut in by flesh, there is all
the more reason that they should hberate it by eating. And
there are innumerable kinds of worms not produced from sexual
intercourse ; some in the neighbourhood of Venice come from
trees, which they should eat, since there is not the same reason
for their being unclean. Besides, there are the frogs produced
by the earth after a shower of rain. Let them hberate the
members of theh God from these. Let them rebuke the
mistake of mankind in preferring fowls and pigeons produced
from males and females to the pure frogs, daughters of heaven
and earth. By this theory, the first principles of darkness
produced from trees must be purer than Manichaeus, who was
produced by generation; and his foUowers, for the same
reason, must be less pure than the lice which spring from the
perspiration of theh bodies. But if everything that comes from
flesh is unclean, because the origin of flesh itself is unclean,
fruits and vegetables must also be unclean, because they are
manured with dung. After this, what becomes of the notion
that fruits are cleaner than flesh 1 Dung is the most unclean

BOOK VI.] FLESH AS CLEAN AS FRUIT. 181
product of flesh, and also the most fertUizing manure. Their
doctrine is, that the life escapes in the mastication and
digestion of the food, so that only a particle remains in the
excrement. How is it, then, that this particle of life has such
an effect on the growth and the quality of your favourite food ?
Flesh is nourished by the productions of the earth, not by its
excrements ; whUe the earth is nourished by the excrements
of flesh, not by its productions. Let them say which is the
cleaner. Or let them turn from being unbelieving and impure
to whom nothing is unclean, and join with us in embracing
the doctrine of the apostle, that to the pure aU things are
pure; that the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; that
every creature of God is good. AU things in nature are good
in theh own order ; and no one sins in using them, unless,
by disobedience to God, he transgresses his own order, and
disturbs theh order by using them amiss.
9. The elders who pleased God kept their own order by
their obedience, in observing, according to God's arrangement,
what was appointed as suitable to certain times. So, although
aU animals intended for food are by nature clean, they ab
stained from some which had then a symbohcal uncleanness,
in preparation for the future revelation of the things signified.
And so with regard to unleavened bread and aU such things,
in which the apostle says there was a shadow of future things,
neglect of theh observance under the old dispensation, when
this observance was enjoined, and was employed to prefigure
what was afterwards to be revealed, would have been as
criminal, as it would now be foohsh in us, after the light of
the New Testament has arisen, to think that these predictive
observances could be of any use to us. On the other hand,
since the Old Testament teaches us that the things now re
vealed were so long ago prefigured, that we may be firm and
faithful in our adherence to them, it would be blasphemy and
impiety to discard these books, simply because the Lord re
quires of us now not a hteral, but a spiritual and inteUigent
regard to their contents. They were written, as the apostle
says, for our admonition, on whom the end of the world is
come.1 " For whatsoever things were written aforetime were
1 1 Cor. x. 11.

182 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VI.
written for our learning." 1 Not to eat unleavened bread in
the appointed seven days was a sin in the time of the Old
Testament ; in the time of the New Testament it is not a sin.
But having the hope of a future world through Christ, who
makes us altogether new by clothing our souls with righteous
ness and our bodies with immortahty, to beheve that the
bondage and infirmity of our original corruption wiU prevaU
over us or over our actions must continue to be a sin, tUl the
seven days of the course of time are accomplished. In the
time of the Old Testament, this, under the disguise of a type,
was perceived by some saints. In the time of the New
Testament it is fuUy declared and publicly preached.
What was then a precept of Scripture is now a testimony.
Formerly, not to keep the feast of tabernacles was a sin,
which is not the case now. But not to form part of the
building of God's tabernacle, which is the Church, is always a
sin. Formerly this was acted in a figure ; now the record
serves as a testimony. The ancient tabernacle, indeed, would
not have been caUed the tabernacle of the testimony, unless
as an appropriate symbol it had borne testimony to some
truth which was to be revealed in its own time. To patch
linen garments with purple, or to wear a garment of wooUen
and hnen together, is not a sin now. But to hve intempe-
rately, and to wish to combine opposite modes of life, — as when
a woman devoted to rehgion wears the ornaments of married
women, or when one who has not abstained from marriage
dresses like a vhgin, — is always sin. So it is sin whenever
inconsistent things are combined in any man's life. This,
which is now a moral truth, was then symbolized in dress.
What was then a type is now revealed truth. So the same
Scripture which then requhed symbohcal ,actions, now testifies
to the things signified. The prefigurative observance is now
a record for the confirmation of our faith. Formerly it was
unlawful to plough with an ox and an ass together ; now it is
lawful. The apostle explains this when he quotes the text
about not muzzling the ox that is treading out the corn. He
says, " Does God care for oxen ? " What, then, have we to do
with an obsolete prohibition ? The apostle teaches us in the
1 Rom. xv. 4.

BOOK VII.] TYPE AND TESTIMONY. 183
foUowing words, " For our sakes it is written." x It must be
impiety in us not to read what was written for our sakes ; for
it is more for our sakes, to whom the revelation belongs, than
for thehs who had only the figure. There is no harm in
joining an ox with an ass where it is requhed. But to put a
wise man and a fool together, not that one should teach and
the other obey, but that both with equal authority should
declare the word of God, cannot be done without causing
offence. So the same Scripture which was once a command
enjoining the shadow in which future things were veUed, is
now an authoritative witness to the unveUed truth.
In what he says of the uncleanness of a man that is bald
or has red hah, Faustus is inaccurate, or the manuscript he
has used is incorrect.2 Would that Faustus were not ashamed
to bear on his forehead the cross of Christ, the want of which
is baldness, instead of maintaining that Christ, who says, " I
am the truth," showed unreal marks, after His resurrection, of
unreal wounds ! Faustus says he has not learned the art of
deceiving, and speaks what he thinks. He cannot therefore
be a disciple of his Christ, whom he madly declares to have
shown false marks of wounds to his- disciples when they
doubted. Are we to beheve Faustus, not only m his other
absurdities, but also when he teUs us that he does not deceive
us in calling Christ a deceiver ? Is he better than Christ ?
Is he not a deceiver, while Christ is ? Or does he prove him-
seh to be a disciple not of the truthful Christ, but of the
deceiver Manichaeus, by this very falsehood, when he boasts
that he has not learned the art of deceiving ?

BOOK VII.
1. Faustus. You ask why I do not believe in the genea
logy of Jesus. There are many reasons; but the principal
is, that He never declares with His own lips that He had an
earthly father or descent, but on the contrary, that He is
not of this world, that He came forth from God the Father,
that He descended from heaven, that He has no mother or
1 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10. 2 Cf. Lev. xxi. 18.

184 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VII.
brethren except those who do the wiU of His Father in
heaven. Besides, the framers of these genealogies do not
seem to have known Jesus before His bhth or soon after it,
so as to have the credibUity of eye-witnesses of what they
narrate. They became acquainted with Jesus as a young
man of about thirty years of age, if it is not blasphemy to
speak of the age of a divine being. Now the question re
garding a witness is always whether he has seen or heard
what he testifies to. But the writers of these genealogies
never assert that they heard the account from Jesus Himself,
nor even the fact of His bhth ; nor did they see Him tiU
they came to know Him after his baptism, many years after
the time of His bhth. To me, therefore, and to every sensible
man, it appears as foohsh to beheve this account, as it would
be to caU into court a bhnd and deaf witness.
2. Augustine. As regards what Faustus caUs his principal
reason for not receiving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a com
plete refutation is found in the passages formerly quoted,
where Christ declares Himself to be the Son of man, and in
what we have said of the identity of the Son of man with the
Son of God : that in His Godhead He has no earthly descent,
whUe after the flesh He is of the seed of David, as the
apostle teaches. We are to believe, therefore, that He came
forth from the Father, that He descended from heaven, and
also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.
If the words, " Who is my mother, and who are my brethren ? " J
are quoted to show that Christ had no earthly mother or
descent, it follows that we must beUeve that His disciples,
whom He here teaches by His own example to set no value
on earthly relationship, as compared with the kingdom of
heaven, had no fathers, because Christ says to them, " CaU no
man father upon earth ; for one is your Father, even God." 2
What He taught them to do with reference to theh fathers,
He Himself first did in reference to His own mother and
brethren ; as in many other things He condescended to set
us an example, and to go before that we might follow in His
footsteps. Faustus' principal objection to the genealogy fails
completely ; and after the defeat of this invincible force, the
1 Matt. xii. 48. 2 Matt, xxiii. 9.

BOOK VIII.] AUTHORITY OF THE EVANGELISTS. 185
rest is easUy routed. He. says that the apostles who declared
Christ to be the ,Son of man as weU as the Son' of God are
not to be believed, -because they were not 'present 'at the birth
of Christ, whom they joined. when He had reached manhood,
nor heard of it from Christ Himself. Why then do' they
believe John when he says, "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ' The
same was in the beginning with God. AU things were made
by Him, and without Him was not anything made," 2 and
such passages, which they agree to, without understanding
them ? Where did John see this, or did he ever hear it from
the Lord Himself ? In whatever way John learned this, those
who narrate the nativity may have learned also. Again, how
do they know that the Lord said, " Who are my mother, and
who are my brethren ? " If on the authority of the evangehst,
why do they not also beheve that the mother and the brethren
of Christ were seeking for Him ? They beheve that Christ
said these words, which they misunderstand, whUe they deny
a fact resting on the same authority. Once more, if Matthew
could not know that Christ was born, because he knew Him
only in His manhood, how could Manichaeus, who lived so
long after, know that He was not born ? They wiU say that
Manichaeus knew this from the Holy Spirit which was in him.
Certainly the Holy Sphit would make him speak the truth. But
why not rather beheve what Christ's own disciples teU us, who
were personaUy acquainted with Him, and who not only had the
gift of insphation to supply defects in their knowledge, but in a
purely natural way obtained information of the birth of Christ,
and of His descent, when the event was fresh in memory ? And
yet he dares to caU the apostles deaf and bhnd. Why were
you not deaf and blind, to prevent you from learning such pro
fane nonsense, and dumb too, to prevent you from uttering it ?

BOOK VIII.
Faustus. Another reason for not receiving the Old Tes
tament is, that I am provided with the New ; and Scripture
1 John i. 1-5.

186 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK VIII.
says that old and new do not agree. For " no one putteth a
piece of new cloth unto an old garment, otherwise the rent is
made worse." x To avoid making a worse rent, as you have
done, I do not mix Christian newness with Hebrew oldness.
Every one accounts it mean, when a man has got a new dress,
not to. give the old one to his inferiors. So, even if I were a
Jew by birth, as the apostles were, it would be proper for me,
on receiving the New Testament, to discard the Old, as the
apostles did. And having the advantage of being born free
from the yoke of bondage, and being early introduced into the
full liberty of Christ, what a foohsh and ungrateful wretch I
should be to put myself again under the yoke ! This is what
Paul blames the Galatians for ; because, going back to circum
cision, they turned again to the weak and beggarly elements,
whereunto they desired again to be in bondage.2 Why should
I do what I see another blamed for doing ? My going into
bondage would be worse than theh returning to it.
Augustine. We have aheady shown sufficiently why and
how we maintain the authority of the Old Testament, not for
the imitation of Jewish bondage, but for the confirmation of
Christian hberty. It is not I, but the apostle, who says, " AU
these things happened to them as an example, and they were
written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world
are come."3 We do not therefore, as bondmen, observe what
was enjoined as predictive of us ; but as free, we read what
was written to confirm us. So any one may see that the
apostle remonstrates with the Galatians not for devoutly read
ing what Scripture says of circumcision, but for superstitiously
desiring to be circumcised. We do not put a new cloth to
an old garment, but we are instructed in the kingdom of
heaven, hke the householder, whom the Lord describes as
bringing out of his treasure things new and old.4 He who
puts a new cloth to an old garment is the man who attempts
spiritual self-denial before he has renounced fleshly hope.
Examine the passage, and you wiU see that, when the Lord
was asked about fasting, He replied, " No man putteth a
new cloth to an old garment." The disciples had stiU a carnal
affection for the Lord ; for they were afraid that, if He died,
1 Matt. ix. 16. 2 Gal. iv. 9. 3 1 Cor. x. 11. L Matt. xiii. 52.

BOOK IX.] OLD TESTAMENT OBSOLETE. 187
they would lose Him. So He calls Peter Satan for dissuading
Him from suffering, because he understood not tbe things of
God, but the things of men.1 The fleshly character of your hope
is evident from your fancies about the kingdom of God, and
from your paying homage and devotion to the hght of the sun,
which the carnal eye perceives, as if it were an image of heaven.
So your carnal mind is the old garment to which you join your
fasts. Moreover, if a new cloth and old garment do not agree,
how do the members of your God come to be not only joined
or fastened, but to be united far more intimately by mixture
and coherence to the principles of darkness ? Perhaps both
are old, because both are false, and both of the carnal mind.
Or perhaps you wish to prove that one was new and the other
old, by the rent being made worse, in tearing away the unhappy
piece of the kingdom of hght, to be doomed to eternal imprison
ment in the mass of darkness. So this pretended artist in the
fashions of the sacred Scriptures is found stitching together ab
surdities, and dressing himself in the rags of his own invention.

BOOK IX.
1. Faustus. Another reason for not receiving the Old Tes
tament is, that if it was aUowable for the apostles, who were
born under it, to abandon it, much more may I, who was not
born under it, be excused for not thrusting myself into it.
We GentUes are not born Jews, nor Christians either. Out
of the same GentUe world some are induced by the Old Tes
tament to become Jews, and some by the New Testament to
become Christians. It is as if two trees, a sweet and a bitter,
drew from one soU the sap which each assimUates to its own
nature. The apostles passed from the bitter to the sweet ; it
would be madness in me to change from the sweet to the bitter.
2. Augustine. You say' that the apostle, in leaving Judaism,
passed from the bitter to the sweet. But the apostle himself
says that the Jews, who would not beheve in Christ, were
branches broken off, and that the Gentiles, a wUd olive tree,
were graffed into the good ohve, that is, the holy stock of the
1 Matt. xvi. 23.

188 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN." [BOOK IX.
Hebrews, that they might partake of the fatness of the ohve.
For, in warning the GentUes not to be proud on account of the
faU of the Jews, he says : " For I speak to you Gentiles, inas
much as I am the apostle of the GentUes, I magnify my office ;
if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my
flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away
of them be the reconciling of the world, what shaU the receiving
of them be, but hfe from the dead ? For if the first-fruit be
holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the
branches. And if some of the branches are broken off, and
thou, being a wild ohve tree, were graffed in among them, and
with them partakest of the root and fatness of the ohve tree ;
boast not against the branches : but if thou boast, thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee. Thou wUt say then, The
branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. WeU ;
because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest
by faith Be not high-minded, but fear : for if God spared
not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God : on them
which feU, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou con
tinue in His goodness ; otherwise •thou also shalt be cutoff.
And they also, if they abide not stiU in unbehef, shaU be
graffed in ; for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou
wert cut out of the ohve tree, which is wUd by nature, and
wert graffed contrary to nature into a good ohve tree ; how
much more shaU these, which be the natural branches, be
graffed into their own ohve tree ? For I would not, brethren,
that ye should be ignorant of this mystery (lest ye should be
wise in your own conceits), that bhndness in part is happened
to Israel, until the fulness of the GentUes be come in ; and so
all Israel shaU be saved." 1 It appears from this, that you,
who do not wish to be graffed into this root, though you are
not broken off, hke the carnal unbelieving Jews, remain stiU
in the bitterness of the wUd ohve. Your worship of the sun
and moon has ¦ the true GentUe flavour. You are none the
less in the wUd olive of the GentUes, because you have added
thorns of a new kind, and worship along with the sun and
moon a false Christ, the fabrication not of your hands, but of
1 Rom. xi. 16-26.

BOOK X.] THE GOOD OLIVE TREE. 189
your misguided understandings. Come, then, and be graffed
into the root of the olive tree, in his return to which the
apostle rejoices, after by unbehef he had been among the
broken branches. He speaks of himself as set free, when he
made the happy transition from Judaism to Christianity. For
Christ was always preached in the ohve tree, and those who
did not beheve on Him when He came were broken off, while
those who beheved were graffed in. These are thus warned
against pride : " Be not high-minded, but fear ; for if God
spared not the natural branches, neither will He spare thee."
And to prevent despair of those broken off, he adds : " And
they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shaU be graffed
in ; for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert
cut out of the ohve tree, which is wUd by nature, and wert
graffed contrary to nature into a good ohve tree, how much
more shaU these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into
theh own ohve tree ! " The apostle rejoices in being dehvered
from the condition of a broken branch, and in being restored to
the fatness of the ohve tree. So you who have been broken
off by error should return and be graffed in again. Those who
are still in the wUd ohve should separate themselves from its
barrenness, and become partakers of fertility

BOOK X.
1. Faustus. Another reason for not receiving the Old Tes
tament is, that both the Old and the New teach us not to
covet what belongs to others. Everything in the Old Tes
tament is of this kind. It promises riches, and plenty, and
children, and chUdren's children, and long hfe, and withal the
land of Canaan ; but only to the circumcised, the Sabbath
observers, those offering sacrifices, and abstaining from swine's
flesh. Now I, like every other Christian, pay no attention to
these things, as being trifling and useless for the salvation of
the soul. I conclude, therefore, that the promises do not
belong to me. And mindful of the commandment, Thou shalt
not covet, I gladly leave to the Jews theh own property, and
content myself with .the gospel, and with the bright inherit-

190 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK X.
ance of the kingdom of heaven. If a Jew were to claim part
in the gospel, I should justly reproach him with claiming what
he had no right to, because he does not obey its precepts.
And a Jew might say the same to me if I professed to receive
the Old Testament whUe I disregard its requhements.
2. Augustine. Faustus is not ashamed to repeat the same
nonsense again and again. But it is thesome to repeat the
same answers, though it is to repeat truth. What Faustus
says here has aheady been answered.1 But if a Jew asks me
why I profess to believe the Old Testament whUe I do not
observe its precepts, my reply is this : The moral precepts of
the law are observed by Christians ; the symbohcal precepts
were properly observed during the time that the things now
revealed were prefigured. Accordingly, those observances,
which I regard as no longer binding, I stUl look upon as a tes
timony, as I do also the carnal promises from which the Old
Testament derives its name. For although the gospel teaches me
to hope for eternal blessings, I also find a confirmation of the
gospel in those things which " happened to them for an example,
and were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the
world are come." So much for our answer to the Jews. And
now we have something to say to the Manichaeans.
3. By showing the way in which we regard the authority
of the Old Testament we have answered the Jews, by whose
question about our not observing the precepts Faustus thought
we would be puzzled. But what answer can you give to the
question, why you deceive simple-minded people by professing
to beheve in the New Testament, whUe you not only do not
beheve it, but assaU it with aU your force ? It wiU be more
difficult for you to answer this than it was for us to answer
the Jews. We hold aU that is written in the Old Testament
to be true, and enjoined by God for suitable times. But in
your inability to find a reason for not receiving what is written
in the New Testament, you are obhged, as a last resource, to
pretend that the passages are not genuine. This is the last
gasp of a heretic in the clutches of truth ; or rather it is the
breath of corruption itself. Faustus, however, confesses that
the Old Testament as weU as the New teaches him not to
1 Book vi. 2.

BOOK XL] CHRIST NOT BORN. 191
covet. His own God could never have taught him this. For
if this God did not covet what belonged to another, why did
he construct new worlds in the region of darkness ? Perhaps
the race of darkness first coveted his kingdom. But this
would be to imitate theh bad example. Perhaps the kingdom
of hght was previously of smaU extent, and war was desirable
in order to enlarge it by conquest. In that case, no doubt,
there was covetousness, though the hostUe race was aUowed
to begin the wars to justify the conquest. If there had been
no such deshe, there was no necessity to extend the kingdom
beyond its old hmits into the region of the conquered foe.
If the Manichaeans would only learn from these Scriptures the
moral precepts, one of which is, Do not covet, instead of taking
offence at the symbohcal precept, they would acknowledge
in meekness and candour that they suited the ' time then
present. We do not covet what belongs to another, when
we read in the Old Testament what " happened to them for
examples, and was written for our admonition, on whom the
ends of the world are come." It is surely not coveting when
a man reads what is written for his benefit.

BOOK XI.
Faustus. Assuredly I beheve the apostle. And yet I do
not believe that the Son of God was born of the seed of David
according to the flesh,1 because I do not beheve that God's
apostle could contradict himself, and have one opinion about
our Lord at one time, and another at another. But, granting
that he wrote this, — since you wiU not hear of anything being
spurious in his writings, — it is not against us. For this seems
to be Paul's old behef about Jesus, when he thought, like
everybody else, that Jesus was the son of David. After
wards, when he learned that this was false, he corrects him
self ; and in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says : " We know
no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more."2
Observe the difference between these two verses. In one he
1 Eom. i. 3. 3 2 Cor. v. 16.

192 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XI.
asserts that Jesus was the son of David after the flesh ; in the
other he says that now he knows no man after the flesh.- If
Paul wrote both, it can only have been in the way I have
stated. In the next verse he adds : " Therefore, if any man be
in Christ, he is a new creature : old things are passed away ;
behold, all things are become new." The behef that Jesus
was born of the seed of David according to the flesh is of this
old transitory kind ; whereas the faith which knows no man
after the flesh is new and permanent. So, he says elsewhere :
" When I was a chUd, I spoke as a chUd, I understood as a
chUd, I thought as a chUd ; but when I became a man, I put
away chUdish things."1 We are thus warranted in preferring
the new and amended confession of Paul to his old and faulty
one. And if you hold by what is said in the Epistle to the
Eomans, why should not we hold by what is said to the
Corinthians ? But it is only by your insisting on the correct
ness of the text that we are made to represent Paul as buUding
again the things which he destroyed, in spite of his own re
pudiation of such prevarication. If the verse is Paul's, he has
corrected himself. If Paul should not be supposed to have
written anything requhing correction, the verse is not his.
Aitgustine. As I said a httle ago, when these men are beset
by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from theh
grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declara
tion only shows theh aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in
error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny
their genuineness. But if this answer is admitted, or aUowed to
have any weight, it wUl be useless to quote any book or any
passage against your errors. It is one thing to reject the books
themselves, and to profess no regard for theh authority, as the
Pagans reject our Scriptures, and the Jews the New Testament,
and as we reject any books pecuhar to your sect, or any other
heretical sect, and also the apocryphal books, which are so
called, not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but
because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence
of clear evidence, have only some obscure presumption to rest
upon ; and it is another thing to say, This holy man wrote
only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are his,
1 1 Cor. xiii. 11.

BOOK XI.] THE RULE OF TRUTH. 193
and some are not. And then, when you are asked for a proof,
instead of referring to more correct or more ancient manu
scripts, or to a greater number, or to the original text, your reply
is, This verse is his, because it makes for me ; and this is not
his, because it is against me. Are you, then, the rule of truth ?
Can nothing be true that is against you ? But what answer
could you give to an opponent as insane as yourself, if he con
fronts you by saying, The passage in your favour is spurious,
and that against you is genuine ? Perhaps you wiU produce a
book, all of which can be explained so as to support you. Then,
instead of rejecting a passage, he wiU reply by condemning
the whole book as spurious. You have no resource against
such an opponent. For all the testimony you can bring in
favour of your book from antiquity or tradition wiU avail
nothing. In this respect the testimony of the Cathohc Church
is conspicuous, as supported by a succession of bishops from
the original seats of the apostles up to the present time, and
by the consent of so many nations. Accordingly, should there
be a question about the text of some passage, as there are a
few passages with various readings weU known to students of
the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the manuscripts
of the country where the religion was first taught ; and if these
still varied, we should take the text of the greater number, or
of the more ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we
should consult the original text. This is the method employed
by those who, in any question about the Scriptures, do not
lose sight of the regard due to their authority, and inquire
with the view of gaining information, not of raising disputes.
3. As regards the passage from Paul's epistle which teaches,
in opposition to your heresy, that the Son of God was born of
the seed of David, it is found in all manuscripts of all Churches,
and in aU languages. So the profession which Faustus makes
of believing the apostle is hypocritical. Instead of saying,
" Assuredly I believe," he should have said, Assuredly I do
not believe, as he would have said if he had not wished to
deceive people. What part of his belief does he get from the
apostle ? Not the first man, of whom the apostle says that
he is of the earth, earthy ; and again, " The first man Adam
was made a living soul." Faustus' First Man is neither of
7 N

194 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XI.
the earth, earthy, nor made a hving soul, but of the substance
of God, and the same in essence as God ; and this being is
said to have mixed up with the race of darkness his members,
or vesture, or weapons, that is, the five elements, which also are
part of the substance of God, so that they became subject to
confinement and poUution. Nor does Faustus get from Paul
his Second Man, of whom Paul says that He is from heaven,
and that He is the last Adam, and a quickening spirit ; and also
that He was born of the seed of David after the flesh, that He
was made of a woman, made under the law, that He might re
deem them that were under the law.1 Of Him Paul says to
Timothy : " Eemember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David,
was raised from the dead, according to my gospeL"2 And this
resurrection he quotes as an example of our resurrection : " I
delivered unto you first of aU that which I also received, how
that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ; and
that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day,
according to the Scriptures." And a httle further on he draws
ah inference from this doctrine : " Now, if Christ be preached
that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that
there is no resurrection of the dead ?"3 Our professed behever
in Paul beheves nothing of aU this. He denies that Jesus
was born of the seed of David, that He was made of a woman
(by the word woman is not meant a wife in the common
sense of the word, but merely one of the female sex, as in the
book of Genesis, where it is said that God made a woman
before she was brought to Adam4) ; he denies His death, His
burial, and His resurrection. He holds that Christ had not a
mortal body, and therefore could not really die ; and that the
marks of His wounds which He showed to His disciples when
He appeared to them ahve after His resurrection, which Paul
also mentions,5 were not real. He denies, too, that our mortal
body wiU be raised again, changed into a sphitual body ; as
Paul teaches : "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a
sphitual body." To iUustrate this distinction between the
natural and the spiritual body, the apostle adds what I have
quoted already about the first and the last Adam. Then he
1 Gal. iv. 4, 5. 2 2 Tim. ii. 8. 3 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 12.
4 Gen. ii. 22. 6 1 Cor. xi. 5.

BOOK XL] TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE. 195
goes on : " But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God." And to explain what he means
by flesh and blood, that it is not the bodUy substance, but
corruption, which wiU not enter into the resurrection of the
just, he immediately says, " Neither shaU corruption inherit
incorruption." And in case any one should stiU suppose that
it is not what is buried that is to rise again, but that- it is as
if one garment were laid aside and a better taken instead, he
proceeds to show distinctly that the same body wiU be changed
for the better, as the garments of Christ on the mount were
not displaced, but transfigured: "Behold, I show you a
mystery; we shaU not aU be changed, but we shaU aU rise."1
Then he shows who are to be changed : "In a moment, in
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet : for the trumpet
shaU sound, and the dead shaU rise incorruptible, and we shaU
be changed." And if it should be said that it is not as regards
our mortal and corruptible body, but as regards our soul,
that we are to be changed, it should be observed that the
apostle is not speaking of the soul, but of the body, as is evi
dent from the question he starts with: "But some one wiU
say, How are the dead raised, and with what body do they
come ?" So also, in the conclusion of his argument, he leaves
no doubt of what he is speaking : " This corruptible must put
on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortahty."2
Faustus denies this ; and the God whom Paul declares to be
" immortal, incorruptible, to whom alone is glory and honour,"3
he makes corruptible. For in this monstrous and horrible
fiction of thehs, the substance and nature of God was in danger
of being whoUy corrupted by the race of darkness, and to save
the rest part actuaUy was corrupted. And to crown aU this,
he tries to deceive the ignorant who are not learned in the
sacred Scriptures, by making this profession : I assuredly be
heve the Apostle Paul ; when he ought to have said, I assuredly
do not beheve.
4. But Faustus has a proof to show that Paul changed his
mind, and, in writing to the Corinthians, corrected what he
had written to the Eomans ; or else that he never wrote the
passage which appears as his, about Jesus Christ being born of
1 Vulg. 2 1 Cor. xv. 35-53. 3 1 Tim. i. 17.

196 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XI.
the seed of David according to the flesh. And what is this
proof ? If the passage, he says, in the Epistle to the Eomans
is true, " the Son of God, who was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh," what he says to the Corinthians cannot
be true, " Henceforth know we no man after the flesh ; yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now hence
forth know we Him no more." We must therefore show that
both these passages are true, and not opposed to one another;
The agreement of the manuscripts proves both to be genuine.
In some Latin versions the word " born" J is used instead of
" made,"2 which is not so hteral a rendering, but gives the same
meaning. For both these translations, as weU as the original,
teach that Christ was of the seed of David after the flesh. We
must not for a moment suppose that Paul corrected himself on
account of a change of opinion. Faustus himself felt the impro
priety and impiety of such an explanation, and preferred to say
that the passage was spurious, instead of that Paul was mistaken.
5. As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith
or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose
that they contain some things falling short of the truth in
obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may
or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are
of those of whom the apostle says : " And if ye be otherwise
minded, God shah reveal even this unto you."3 Such writings
are read with the right of judgment, and without any obliga
tion to beheve. In order to leave room for such profitable
discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary
hne separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times
from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New
Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to
us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and
the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty
supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious
mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction
in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this
book is mistaken ; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the
translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the
innumerable books that have been written latterly we may
1 Natus. 2 Factus. 3 Phil. iii. 15.

BOOK XL] AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 197
sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not
the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness pecuhar to
itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion,
and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ
from him, and may pronounce in favour of what pleases him,
or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at
liberty to withhold his behef, unless there is some clear
demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the
doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in
consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred
writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon
shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or
evangehst. Otherwise, not a single page wUl be left for the
guidance of human falhbUity, if contempt for the wholesome
authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that
authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.
6. With regard, then, to this apparent contradiction be
tween the passage which speaks pf the Son of God being of
the seed of David, to the words, "Though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no
more," even though both quotations were not from the writings
of one apostle, — though one were from Paul, and the other
from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or prophet, — such
is the equahty of canonical authority, that it would not be
aUowable to doubt of either. For the utterances of Scripture,
harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend
themselves to the behef of the most accurate and clear-sighted
piety, and demand for theh discovery and confirmation the
calmest inteUigence and the most ingenious research. In the
case before us both quotations are from the canonical, that is,
the genuine epistles of Paul. We cannot say that the manu
script is faulty, for the best Latin translations substantiaUy
agree ; or that the translations are wrong, for the best texts
have the same reading. So that, if any one is perplexed by
the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does
not understand. Accordingly it remains for me to explain
how both passages, instead of being contradictory, may be
harmonized by one rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer
wiU find aU perplexity removed by a careful examination.

198 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XI.
7. That the Son of God was made man of the seed of
David, is not only said in other places by Paul, but is taught
elsewhere in sacred Scripture. As regards the words, " Though
we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
know we Him no more," the context shows what is the
apostle's meaning. Here, or elsewhere, he views with an
assured hope, as if it were already present and in actual
possession, our future hfe, which is now fulfilled in our
risen Head and Mediator, the man Christ Jesus. This life
will certainly not be after the flesh, even as Christ's life is now
not after the flesh. For by flesh the apostle here means not
the substance of our bodies, in which sense the Lord used the
word when, after His resurrection, He said, " Handle me, and
see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,"1
but the corruption and mortahty of flesh, which wUl then not
be in us, as now it is not in Christ. The apostle uses the
word flesh in the sense of corruption in the passage about the
resurrection quoted before : " Flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God, neither shaU corruption inherit incor
ruption." So, after the event described in the next verse,
" Behold, I show you a mystery ; we shaU aU rise, but we
shaU not aU be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of
an eye, at the last trump (for the trumpet shall sound) ; and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shaU be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality,"2 — then flesh, in the sense of the
substance of the body, will, after this change, no longer have
flesh, in the sense of the corruption of mortahty ; and yet, as
regards its own nature, it wiU be the same flesh, the same
which rises and which is changed. What the Lord said after
His resurrection is true, " Handle me, and see ; for a sphit hath
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have ;" and what the apostle
says is true, " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God." The first is said of the bodUy substance, which exists
as the subject of the change : the second is said of the cor
ruption of the flesh, which wiU cease to exist ; for, after its
change, flesh wiU not be corrupted. So, "we have known
Christ after the flesh," that is, after the mortality of flesh,
1 Luke xxiv. 39. 2 1 Cor. xv. 50^53.

BOOK XI.] HARMONY OF THE APOSTLE'S STATEMENTS. 199
before His resurrection ; " Now henceforth we know Him no
more," because, as the same apostle says, " Christ being risen
from the dead, dieth no more, and death hath no more domi
nion over Him."1 The words, " we have known Christ after
the flesh," strictly speaking, imply that Christ was after the
flesh, for what never was cannot be known. And it is not "we
have supposed," but "we have known." But not to insist on
a word, in case some one should say that known is used in the
sense of supposed, it is astonishing, if one could be surprised at
want of sight in a bhnd man, that these blind people do not
perceive that if what the apostle says about not knowing
Christ after the flesh proves that Christ had not flesh, then
what he says in the same place of not knowing any one hence
forth after the flesh proves that aU those here referred to had
not flesh. For when he speaks of not knowing any one, he
cannot intend to speak only of Christ ; but in his realization
of the future hfe with those who are to be changed at the
resurrection, he says, " Henceforth we know no man after the
flesh ;" that is, we have such an assured hope of our future
incorruption and immortality, that the thought of it makes us
rejoice even now. So he says elsewhere : "If ye then be risen
with Christ, seek those things that are above, where Christ
sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affections upon
things above, and not on things on the earth."2 It is true we
have not yet risen as Christ has, but we are said to have risen
with Him on account of the hope which we have in Him. So
again he says : " According to His mercy He saved us, by the
washing of regeneration."3 Evidently what we obtain in the
washing of regeneration is not the salvation itself, but the hope
of it. And yet, because this hope is certain, we are said to be
saved, as if the salvation were already bestowed. Elsewhere
it is said explicitly : " We groan within ourselves, waiting for
the adoption, even the redemption of our body. For we are
saved by hope. But hope which is seen is not hope ; for what
a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for ? But if we hope for
what we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."4 The
apostle says not, " we are to be saved," but, " we are now saved,"
that is, in hope, though not yet in reality. And in the same
1 Rom. vi. 9. 2 Col. iii. 1, 2. 3 Tit. iii. 5. *¦ Rom. viii. 23-25.

200 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XI.
way it is in hope, though not yet in reahty, that we now know
no man after the flesh. This hope is in Christ, in whom what
we hope for as promised to us has already been fulfilled. He
is risen, and death has no more dominion over Him. Though
we have known Him after the flesh, before His death, when
there was in His body that mortahty which the apostle properly
caUs flesh, now henceforth know we Him no more ; for that
mortal of His has now put on immortahty, and His flesh, in
the sense of mortahty, no longer exists.
8. The context of the passage containing this clause of
which our adversaries make such a bad use, brings out its
real meaning. " The love of Christ," we read, " constrains us,
because we thus judge, that if one died for ah, then aU died ;
and He died for aU, that they which hve should not hence
forth hve unto themselves, but to Him who died for them, and
rose again. Therefore henceforth know we no man after the
flesh ; and though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet
now henceforth know we Him no more." The words, " that
they which hve should not henceforth hve unto themselves,
but unto Him who died for them, and rose again," show
plainly that the resurrection of Christ is the ground of the
apostle's statement. To hve not to themselves, but to Him,
must mean to live not after the flesh, in the hope of earthly
and perishable goods, but after the spirit, in the hope of resur
rection, — a resurrection aheady accomplished in Christ. Of
those, then, for whom Christ died and rose again, and who hve
henceforth not to themselves, but to Him, the apostle says
that he knows no one after the flesh, on account of the hope
of future immortahty to which they were looking forward, —
a hope which in Christ was aheady a reahty. So, though he
has known Christ after the flesh, before His death, now he
knows Him no more ; for he knows that He has risen, and
that death has no more dominion over Him. And because in
Christ we all are even now in hope, though not in reahty,
what Christ is, he adds : " Therefore if any man be in Christ,
he is a new creature : old things are passed away ; behold, aU
things are become new. And aU things are of God, who has
reconcUed us to Himself by Jesus Christ."1 What the new
1 2 Cor. v. 14-18.

BOOK XI.] OLD THINGS PASSED AWAY. 201
creature — that is, the people renewed by faith — hopes for
regarding itself, it has already in Christ ; and the hope wUl
also hereafter be actuaUy reahzed. And, as regards this hope,
old things have passed away, because we are no longer in the
times of the Old Testament, expecting a temporal and carnal
kingdom of God ; and aU things are become new, making the
promise of the kingdom of heaven, where there shaU be no
death or corruption, the ground of our confidence. But in the
resurrection of the dead it wiU not be as a matter of hope,
but in reality, that old things shaU pass away, when the last
enemy, death, shaU be destroyed ; and aU things shaU be
come new when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and
this mortal has put on immortality. This has already taken
place in Christ, whom Paul accordingly, in reality, knew
no longer after the flesh. But not yet in reahty, but only
in hope, did he know no one after the flesh of those for
whom Christ died and rose again. For, as he says to the
Ephesians, we are aheady saved by grace. The whole
passage is to the purpose : " But God, who is rich in mercy,
for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we
were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,
by whose grace we have been saved." The words, "hath
quickened us together with Christ," correspond to what He
said to the Corinthians, "that they which live should no
longer hve to themselves, but to Him that died for them and
rose again" And in the words, " by whose grace we have
been saved," he speaks of the thing hoped for as already
accomphshed. So; in the passage quoted above, he says ex
plicitly, " We have been saved by hope." And here he pro
ceeds to specify future events as if aheady accomphshed.
" And has raised us up together," he says, " and has made us
sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Christ is
certainly aheady seated in heavenly places, but we not yet.
But as in an assured hope we aheady possess the future, he
says that we sit in heavenly places, not in ourselves, but in
Him. And to show that it is stiU future, in case it should
be thought that what is spoken of as accomplished in hope has
been accomplished in reality, he adds, " that He might show
in the ages to come the exceeding riches of His grace in His

202 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH/EAN. [BOOK XI.
kindness towards us in Christ Jesus."1 So also we must
understand the foUowing passage : " For when we were in the
flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in
our members to bring forth fruit unto death." 2 He says,
" when we were in the flesh," as if they were no longer in the
flesh. He means to say, when we were in the hope of fleshly
things, referring to the time when the law, which can be
fulfilled only by spiritual love, was in force, in order that
by transgression the offence might abound, that after the
revelation of the New Testament, grace and the gift by
grace might much more abound. And to the same effect
he says elsewhere, "They which are in the flesh cannot
please God ;" and then, to show that he does not mean those
not yet dead, he adds, "But ye are not in the flesh, but
in the Spirit." 3 The meaning is, those who are in the hope
of fleshly good cannot please God; but you are not in the
hope of fleshly things, but in the hope of spiritual things,
that is, of the kingdom of heaven, where the body itself,
which now is natural, wiU, by the change in the resurrection,
be, according to the capacity of its nature, a sphitual body.
For " it is sown a natural body, it wiU be raised a sphitual
body." If, then, the apostle knew no one after the flesh of
those who were said to be not in the flesh, because they were
not in the hope of fleshly things, although they stiU were bur
dened with corruptible and mortal flesh ; how much more signi
ficantly could he say of Christ that he no longer knew Him
after the flesh, seeing that in the body of Christ what they hoped
for had already been accomphshed ! Surely it is better and
more reverential to examine the passages of sacred Scripture so
as to discover their agreement with one another, than to accept
some as true, and condemn others as false, whenever any diffi
culty occurs beyond the power of our weak intellect to solve.
As to the apostle in his chUdhood understanding as a child,
this is said merely as an illustration.4 And when he was a
chUd he was not a spiritual man, as he was when he pro
duced for the benefit of the churches those writings which are
not, as other books, merely a profitable study, but which authori
tatively claim our belief as part of the ecclesiastical canon.
1 Eph. ii. 4-7. 2 Rom. vii. 5. 3 Rom. viii. 8, 9. 4 1 Cor. xiii. 11.

BOOK XII.] THE PROPHETS. 203

BOOK XII.
1. Faustus. Why do I not believe the prophets ? Eather
why do you beheve them ? On account, you will reply, of
theh prophecies about Christ. For my part, I have read the
prophets with the most eager attention, and have found no
such prophecies. And surely it shows a weak faith not to
beheve in Christ without proofs and testimonies. Indeed,
you yourselves are accustomed to teach that Christian faith
is so simple and absolute as not to admit of laborious inves
tigations. Why, then, should you destroy the simplicity of
faith by buttressing it with evidences, and Jewish evidences
too ? Or if you are changing your opinion about evidences,
what more trustworthy witness could you have than God
Himself testifying to His own Son when He sent Him on
earth,— not by a prophet or an interpreter, — by a voice im
mediately from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, believe
Him " ? 1 And again He testifies of Himself : " I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world ;" 2 and in many
simUar passages. When the Jews quarrelled with this testi
mony, saying, " Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy witness
is not true," He rephed : " Although I bear witness of myself,
my witness is true. It is written in your law, The witness
of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself,
and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me." 3 He
does not mention the prophets. Again He appeals to the
testimony of His own works, saying, " If ye beheve not me,
beheve the works ; " * not, " If ye believe not me, believe the
prophets." Accordingly we ask for no more testimonies to
Christ. AU we look for in the prophets is prudence and
virtue, and a good example, which, you are well aware, are
not to be found in the Jewish prophets. This, no doubt,
explains your referring me at once to theh predictions as a
reason for beheving them, without a word about their actions.
This may be good pohcy, but it is not in harmony with the
declaration of Scripture, that it is impossible to gather grapes
from thorns, or figs from thistles. This may serve meanwhUe
1 Matt.- iii. 17. 2 John xvi. 28. 3 John viii. 13-18. * John x. 38.

204 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
as a brief and sufficient reply to the question, why we do
not believe the prophets. The fact that they did not pro
phesy of Christ is abundantly proved in the writings of our
fathers. I shah only add this, that if the Hebrew prophets
knew and preached Christ, and yet hved such vicious hves,
what Paul says of the wise men among the GentUes might be
applied to them: "Though they knew God, they glorified
Him not as God, nor were thankful ; but they became vain
in theh imaginations, and their foohsh heart was darkened." 1
You see the knowledge of great things is worth httle, unless
the life corresponds.
2. Augustine. The meaning of aU this is, that the Hebrew
prophets foretold nothing of Christ, and that, if they did,
their predictions are of no use to us, and they themselves did
not live suitably to the dignity of such prophecies. We
must therefore first prove the fact of the prophecies ; and
second, theh use for the truth and stedfastness of our faith ;
and third, that the lives of the prophets were in harmony
with their words. Under the first head, it would take a long
time to quote from aU the books the passages in which Christ
may be shown to have been predicted. Faustus' frivolity may
be met effectuaUy by the weight of one great authority.
Although Faustus does not beheve the prophets, he professes
to beheve the apostles. Above, as if to satisfy the doubts of
some opponent, he declares that he assuredly beheves the
Apostle Paul.2 Let us then hear what Paul says of the
prophets. His words are : " Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called td be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy
Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of
David according to the flesh." 3 What more does Faustus
wish ? WiU he maintain that the apostle is speaking of some
other prophets, and not of the Hebrew prophets ? In any case,
the gospel spoken of as promised was concerning the Son of
God, who was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh ; and to this gospel the apostle was separated. So that
the Manichaean heresy is opposed to faith in the gospel,
which teaches that the Son of God was made of the seed of
1 Rom. i. 21. 2 Lib. xi. ' Rom. i. 1-3.

BOOK XII.] THE APOSTLE'S TESTIMONY TO THE PROPHETS. 205
David according to the flesh. Besides, there are many pas
sages where the apostle plainly testifies in behalf of the
Hebrew prophets, with an authority before which the pride of
our opponent must give way.
3. " I speak the truth in Christ," says the apostle, " I lie
not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for
my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are
Israehtes ; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service,
and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as
concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed
for ever." 1 Here is the most abundant and express testimony,
and the most solemn commendation. The adoption here
spoken of is evidently through the Son of God ; as the apostle
says to the Galatians : " In the fulness of time, God sent
forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that
He might redeem them that were under the law, that we
might receive the adoption of sons." 2 And the glory spoken
of is chiefly that of which he says in the same Epistle to the
Eomans : " What advantage hath the Jew ? or what profit is
there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because
unto them were committed the oracles of God." 3 Can the
Manichaeans teU us of any oracles of God committed to the
Jews besides those of the Hebrew prophets ? And why are
the covenants said to belong especiaUy to the Israehtes, but
because not only was the Old Testament given to them, but
also the New was prefigured in the Old ? Our opponents
often display much ignorant ferocity in attacking the dispen
sation of the law given to the Israelites, not understanding
that God wishes us to be not under the law, but under grace.
They are here answered by the apostle himself, who, in
speaking of the advantages of the Jews, mentions this as one,
that they had the giving of the law. If the law had been
bad, the apostle would not have referred to it in praise of the
Jews. And if Christ had not been preached by the law,
Christ Himself would not have said, " If ye beheve Moses, ye
1 Rom. ix. 1-5. 2 Gal. iv. 4, 5. 3 Rom. iii. 1, 2.

206 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
would have believed me, for he wrote of me;"1 nor would
He have borne the testimony He did after His resurrection,
saying, "All things behoved to be fulfiUed that were written
in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms,
concerning me." 2
4. But because the Manichaeans preach another Christ, and
not Him whom the apostles preached, but a false Christ of
their own false contrivance, in imitation of whose falsehood
they themselves speak lies, though they may perhaps be be
heved when they are not ashamed to profess to be the fol
lowers of a deceiver, that has befaUen them which the apostle
asserts of the unbeheving Jews: "When Moses is read, a
veU is upon their heart." Neither will this veU which keeps
them from understanding Moses be taken away from them
tiU they turn to Christ ; not a Christ of theh own making, but
the Christ of the Hebrew prophets. For, as the apostle says,
" When thou shalt turn to the Lord, the veU shaU be taken
away." 3 We cannot wonder that they do not beheve in the
Christ who rose from the dead, and who said, "AU things
behoved to be fulfiUed which were written in the law of
Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning
me ; " for this Christ has Himself told us what Abraham said
to a hard-hearted rich man when he was in torment in heU,
and asked Abraham to send some one to his brothers to teach
them, that they might not come too into that place of torment.
Abraham's reply was : " They have Moses and the prophets,
let them hear them." And when the rich man said that they
would not beheve unless some one rose from the dead, he
received this most truthful answer : " If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither wiU they beheve even though one
rose from the dead." * The Manichaeans wiU not hear Moses
and the prophets, and so they do not beheve Christ, though
He rose from the dead. Indeed, they do not even believe
that Christ rose from the dead. For how can they beheve
that He rose, when they do not believe that He died ? For,
again, how can they beheve that He died, when they deny
that He had a mortal body ?
5. We reject those false teachers whose Christ is false, or
1 John v. 46. 2 Luke xxiv. 44. 3 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16. 4 Luke xvi. 27-31.

BOOK XII.] THE VEIL OF UNBELIEF. 207
rather, whose Christ never existed. For we have a Christ
true and truthful, foretold by the prophets, preached by the
apostles, who in innumerable places refer to the testimonies of
the law and the prophets in support of their preaching. Paul,
in one short sentence, gives the right view of this subject.
" Now," he says, " the righteousness of God without the law "is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." 1
What prophets, if not of Israel, to whom, as he expressly says,
pertain the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the
promises ? And what promises, but about Christ ? Else
where, speaking of Christ, he says concisely : " AU the promises
of God are in Him yea." ' Paul tells me that the giving of
the law pertained to the Israehtes. He teUs me that Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that be
lieveth. He teUs me that aU the promises of God are in
Christ yea. And you,teU me that the prophets of Israel
foretold nothing of Christ. ShaU I beheve the absurdities
of Manichaeus in opposition to Paul ? or shaU I beheve Paul
when he forewarns us : " If any man preach to you another
gospel than that which we have preached, let him be ac
cursed ?"
6. Our opponents may perhaps ask us to point out passages
where Christ is predicted by the prophets of, Israel. One
would think they might be satisfied with the authority of the
apostles, who declare that what we read in the writings of the
Hebrew prophets was fulfiUed in Christ, or with that of
Christ Himself, who says that they wrote of Him. Whoever
is unable to point out the passages should lay the blame on
his own ignorance ; for the apostles and Christ and the sacred
Scriptures are not chargeable with falsehood. However, one in
stance out of many may be adduced. The apostle, in the verses
foUowing the passage quoted above, says : " The word of God
cannot faU. For they are not aU Israel which are of Israel ;
neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
chUdren : but, In Isaac shaU thy seed be called : that is, they
which are the chUdren of the flesh, these are not the chUdren
of God ; but the children of promise are counted for the
seed." What can our opponents say against this, in view of
1 Rom. iii. 21. * 2 Cor. i. 20. 3 Rom. ix. 6-8.

208 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
the declaration made to Abraham : " In thy seed shaU aU the
nations of the earth be blessed " ? At the time when the
apostle gave the following exposition of this promise, " To
Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, To seeds, as of many, but as of one, To thy seed, which is
Christ," 1 a doubt on this point might then have been less
inexcusable, for at that time aU nations had not yet believed
on Christ, who is preached as of the seed of Abraham. But
now that we see the fulfilment of what we read in the ancient
prophecy, — now that aU nations are actuaUy blessed in the
seed of Abraham, to whom it was said thousands of years ago,
" In thy seed shaU aU nations be blessed," — it is mere
obstinate foUy to try to bring in another Christ, not of the
seed of Abraham, or to hold that there are no predictions of
Christ in the prophetical books of the chUdren of Abraham.
7. To enumerate all the passages in the Hebrew prophets
referring to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, would exceed
the hmits of a volume, not to speak of the brief rephes of which
this treatise consists. The whole contents of these Scriptures
are either dhectly or indirectly about Christ. Often the
reference is allegorical or enigmatical, perhaps in a verbal
aUusion, or in a historical narrative, requhing diligence in the
student, and rewarding him with the pleasure of discovery.
Other passages, again, are plain ; for, without the help of what
is clear, we could not understand what is obscure. And even
the figurative passages, when brought together, wiU be found
so harmonious in their testimony to Christ as to put to shame
the obtuseness of the sceptic.
8. In the creation God finished His works in six days, and
rested on the seventh. The history of the world contains
six periods marked by the deahngs of God with men. The
first period is from Adam to Noah ; the second, from Noah
to Abraham ; the thhd, from Abraham to David ; the fourth,
from David to the captivity in Babylon ; the fifth, from the
captivity to the advent in lowliness of our Lord Jesus Christ ;
the sixth is now in progress, and wiU end in the coming of
the exalted Saviour to judgment. What answers to the
seventh day is the rest of the saints, — not in this life, but in
1 Gal. iii. 16.

BOOK XII.] SIX PERIODS. 209
another, where the rich man saw Lazarus at rest while he
was tormented in heU; where there is no evening, because
there is no decay. On the sixth day, in Genesis, man is
formed after the image of God; in the sixth period of the
world there is the clear discovery of our transformation in the
renewing of our mind, according to the image of Him who
created us, as the apostle says.1 As a wife was made for
Adam from his side whUe he slept, the Church becomes the
property of her dying Saviour, by the sacrament of the blood
which flowed from His side after His death. The woman
made out of her husband's side is caUed Eve, or Life, and the
mother of living beings ; and the Lord says in the Gospel :
" Except a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he has no
hfe in him." 2 The whole narrative of Genesis, in the most
minute details, is a prophecy of Christ and of the Church,
with reference either to the good Christians or to the bad.
There is a significance in the words of the apostle when he
caUs Adam " the figure of Him that was to come ;" 3 and when
he says, " A man shaU leave his father and mother, and shaU
cleave to his wife, and they two shaU be one flesh. This is
a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the
Church." 4 This points most obviously to the way in which
Christ left His Father; for "though He was in the form of
God, and thought it not robbery to be equal to God, He
emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant." 5
And so, too, He left His mother, the synagogue of the Jews
which cleaved to the carnality of the Old Testament, and was
united to the Church His holy bride, that in the peace of the
New Testament they two might be one flesh. For though
with the Father He was God, by whom we were made, He
became in the flesh partaker of our nature, that we might
become the body of which He is the head.
9. As Cain's sacrifice of the fruit of the ground is rejected,
whUe Abel's sacrifice of his sheep and the fat thereof is
accepted, so the faith of the New Testament praising God in
the harmless service of grace is preferred to the earthly
observances of the Old Testament. For though the Jews
1 Col. iii. 10. 2 John vi. 53. s Rom. v. 14,
* Eph. v. 31, 32. » Phil. ii. 6, 7.
7 0

210 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK Xn.
were right in practising these things, they were guUty of
unbehef in not distinguishing the time of the New Testament
when Christ came, from the time of the Old Testament. God
said to Cain, " If thou offerest weU, yet if thou dividest not
well, thou hast sinned."1 If Cain had obeyed God when He
said, " Be content, for to thee shaU be its reference, and thou
shalt rule over it," he would have referred his sin to himself,
by taking the blame of it, and confessing it to God ; and so,
assisted by supphes of grace, he would have ruled over his
sin, instead of acting as the servant of sin in kiUing his
innocent brother. So also the Jews, of whom aU these things
are a figure, if they had been content, instead of being turbu
lent, and had acknowledged the time of salvation through the
pardon of sins by grace, and heard Christ saying, " They that
are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick ; I
came not to caU the righteous, but sinners to repentance ;"2
And, " Every one that committeth sin is the servant of sin ;"
:and, "If the Son make you free, ye shaU be free indeed,"3 —
they would in confession have referred theh sin to themselves,
saying to the Physician, as it is written in the Psalm, " I said,
Lord, be merciful to me; heal my soul, for I have sinned
against Thee."4 .And being made free by the hope of grace,
they would have ruled over sin as long as it continued in
theh mortal body. But now, being ignorant of God's right
eousness, and wishing to estabhsh a righteousness of theh own,
proud of the works of the law, instead of being humbled on
account of theh sins, they have not been content; and in
subjection to sin reigning in theh mortal body, so as to make
them obey it in the lusts thereof, they have stumbled on the
stone of stumbling, and have been inflamed with hatred
against him whose works they grieved to see accepted by God.
The man who was born blind, and had been made to see, said
to them, "We know that God heareth not sinners; but if any
man serve Him, and do His wUl, him He heareth;"8 as if
he had said, God regardeth not the sacrifice of Cain, but he
regards the sacrifice of AbeL Abel, the younger brother, is
kUled by the elder brother ; Christ, the head of the younger
1 Vulg. 2 Matt. ix. 12, 13. 3 John viii. 34, 36.
* Ps. xii. 4. 5 John ix. 31.

BOOK XII.] CAIN AND ABEL PROPHETIC. 211
people, is kUled by the elder people of the Jews. Abel dies
in the field ; Christ dies on Calvary.
10. God asks Cain where his brother is, not as if He did
not know, but as a judge asks a guUty criminal. Cain replies
that he knows not, and that he is not his brother's keeper.
And what answer can the Jews give at this day, when we ask
them with the voice of God, that is, of the sacred Scriptures,
about Christ, except that they do not know the Christ that we
speak of ? Cain's ignorance was pretended, and the Jews are
deceived in their refusal of Christ. Moreover, they would
have been in a sense keepers of Christ, if they had been
wilhng to receive and keep the Christian faith. For the man
who keeps Christ in his heart does not ask, hke Cain, Am I
my brother's keeper ? Then God says to Cain, " What hast
thou done ? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me
from the ground." So the voice of God in the Holy Scrip
tures accuses the Jews. For the blood of Christ has a loud
voice on the earth, when the responsive Amen of those who
beheve in Him comes from aU nations. This is the voice of
Christ's blood, because the voice of the faithful redeemed by
His blood is the voice of the blood itself.
11. Then God says to Cain: "Thou art cursed from the
earth, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's
blood at thy hand. For thou shalt tUl the earth, and it shaU
no longer yield unto thee its strength. A mourner and an
abject shalt thou be on the earth." It is not, Cursed is the
earth, but, Cursed art thou from the earth, which hath opened
its mouth to receive thy brother's blood at thy hand. So
the unbelieving people of the Jews is cursed from the earth,
that is, from the Church, which in the confession of sins has
opened its mouth to receive the blood shed for the remission
of sins by the hand of the people that would not be under
grace, but under the law. And this murderer is cursed by
the Church ; that is, the Church admits and avows the curse
pronounced by the apostle : " Whoever are of the works of the
law are under the- curse of the law."1 Then, after saying,
Cursed art thou from the earth, which has opened its mouth to
receive thy brother's blood at thy hand, what follows is not,
1 Gal. iii. 10.

212 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIL
For thou shalt tiU it, but, Thou shalt tiU the earth, and it
shall not yield to thee its strength. The earth he is to tiU is
not necessarUy the same as that which opened its mouth to
receive his brother's blood at his hand. - From this earth he
is cursed, and so he this an earth which shaU no longer yield
to him its strength. That is, the Church admits and avows
the Jewish people to be accursed, because after killing Christ
they continue to tiU the ground of an earthly circumcision, an
earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, whUe the hidden strength
or vhtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains,
is not yielded to the Jews whUe they continue in impiety and
unbehef, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they
wiU not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in
reading the Old Testament is not taken away. ' This veU is
taken away only by Christ, who does not do away with the
reading of the Old Testament, but with the covering which
hides its virtue. So, at the crucifixion of Christ, the veU was
rent in twain, that by the passion of Christ hidden mysteries
might be revealed to behevers who turn to Him with a mouth
opened in confession to drink His blood. In this way the
Jewish people, hke Cain, continues tilling the ground, in the
carnal observance of the law, which does not yield to them
its strength, because they do not perceive in it the grace of
Christ. So, too, the flesh of Christ was the ground from which
by crucifying Him the Jews produced our salvation, for He
died for our offences. But this ground did not yield to them
its strength, for they were not justified by the virtue of His
resurrection, for He rose again for our justification. As the
apostle says : " He was crucified in weakness, but He hveth by
the power of God."1 This is the power of that ground which
is unknown to the ungodly and unbelieving. When Christ
rose, He did not appear to those who had crucified Him. So
Cain was not aUowed to see the strength of the ground which
he tiUed to sow his seed in it ; as God said, " Thou shalt till
the ground, and it shaU no longer yield unto thee its strength."
12. "A mourner and an abject shalt thou be on the earth."
Here no one can fail to see that in every land where the Jews
are scattered they mourn for the loss of their kingdom, and
1 2 Cor. xiii. 4.

BOOK XII.] CAIN PREFIGURES THE JEWS. 213
are in terrified subjection to the immensely superior number of
Christians. So Cain answered, and said : " My case is worse,
if Thou drivest me out this day from the face of the earth, and
from Thy face shaU I be hid, and I shall be a mourner and an
abject on the earth ; and it shall be that every one that findeth
me shall slay me." Here he mourns indeed in terror, lest
after losing his earthly possession he should suffer the death
of the body. This he caUs a worse case than that of the
ground not yielding to him its strength, or than that of
spiritual death. For his mind is carnal ; for he thinks little of
being hid from the face of God, that is, of being under the
anger of God, were it not that he may be found and slain.
This is the carnal mind that this the ground, but does not
obtain its strength To be carnally minded is death ; but
he, in ignorance of this, mourns for the loss of his earthly
possession, and is in terror of bodily death. But what does
God reply ? " Not so," He says ; " but whosoever shall kill
Cain, vengeance shaU be taken on him sevenfold." That is,
It is not as thou sayest ; not by bodUy death shall the ungodly
race of carnal Jews perish. For whoever destroys them in
this way shaU suffer sevenfold vengeance, that is, shall bring
upon himself the sevenfold penalty under which the Jews lie
for the crucifixion of Christ. So to the end of the seven days
of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be a
proof to beheving Christians of the subjection merited by those
who, in the pride of theh kingdom, put the Lord to death.
13. "And the Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest any
one finding him should slay him." It is a most notable fact,
that aU the nations subjugated by Eome adopted the heathenish
ceremonies of the Eoman worship ; while the Jewish nation,
whether under Pagan or Christian monarchs, has never lost the
sign of theh law, by which they are distinguished from all
other nations and peoples. No emperor or monarch who finds
under his government the people *with this mark kills them,
that is, makes them cease to be Jews, and as Jews to be
separate in their observances, and unlike the rest of the world.
Only when a Jew comes over to Christ, he is no longer
Cain, nor goes out from the presence of God, nor dwells in the
land of Naid, which is said to mean commotion. Against

214 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
this evil of commotion the Psalmist prays, " Suffer not my
feet to be moved j"1 and again, " Let not the hands of the
wicked remove me ;"2 and, " Those that trouble me wiU rejoice
when I am moved;"3 and, "The Lord is at my right hand,
that I should not be moved ;"4 and so in innumerable places.
This evil comes upon those who leave the presence of God,
that is, His loving-kindness. Thus the Psalmist says, " I said
in my prosperity, I shaU never be moved." But observe
what foUows, "Lord, by Thy favour Thou hast given strength to
my honour ; Thou didst hide Thy face, and I was troubled;"5
which teaches us that not in itself, but by participation in
the light of God, can any soul possess beauty, or honour, or
strength. The Manichaeans should think of this, to keep them
from the blasphemy of identifying themselves with the nature
and substance of God. But they cannot think, because they
are not content. The Sabbath of the heart they are strangers
to. If they were content, as Cain was told to be, they would
refer theh sin to themselves ; that is, they would lay the
blame on themselves, and not on a race of darkness that no
one ever heard of, and so by the grace of God they would
prevail over their sin. But now the Manichaeans, and aU who
oppose the truth by theh various heresies, leave the presence
of God, like Cain and the scattered Jews, and inhabit the land
of commotion, that is, of carnal disquietude, instead of the
enjoyment of God, that is, instead of Eden, which is inter
preted Feasting, where Paradise was planted. But not to
depart too much from the argument of this treatise, I must
limit myself to a few short remarks under this head.
14. Omitting therefore many passages in these Books where
Christ may be found, but which requhe longer explanation
and proof, although the most hidden meanings are the sweetest,
convincing testimony may be obtained from the enumeration
of such things as the following: — That Enoch, the seventh
from Adam, pleased God, and was translated, as there is to be
a seventh day of rest into which all will be translated who,
during the sixth day of the world's history, are created anew
by the incarnate Word. That Noah, with his famUy, is saved
1 Ps. lxvi. 9. 2 Ps. xxxvi. 11. 3 Ps. xiii. 4.
4 Ps. xvi. 8. 5 Ps. xxx. 6, 7.

BOOK XII.] TYPES IN THE ARK. 215
by water and wood, as the family of Christ is saved by
baptism, as representing the suffering of the cross. That this
ark is made of beams formed in a square, as the Church is
constructed of saints prepared unto every good work : for a
square stands firm on any side. That the length is six times
the breadth, and ten times the height, hke a human body,
to show that Christ appeared in a human body. That the
breadth reaches to fifty cubits ; as the apostle says, " Our
heart is enlarged,"1 that is, with sphitual love, of which he
says again, " The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by
the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us."2 For in the fiftieth
day after His resurrection, Christ sent His Sphit to enlarge the
hearts of His disciples. That it is three hundred cubits long,
to make up six times fifty ; as there are six periods in the his
tory of the world during, which Christ has never ceased to be
preached, — in five foretold by the prophets, and in the sixth
proclaimed in the gospel That it is thirty cubits high, a
tenth part of the length ; because Christ is our height, who
in his thirtieth year gave His sanction to the doctrine of the
gospel, by declaring that He came not to destroy the law, but
to fulfil it. Now the ten commandments are known to be
the heart of the law ; and so the length of the ark is ten times
thirty. Noah himself, too, was the tenth from Adam. That
the beams of the ark are fastened within and without with
pitch, to signify by compact union the forbearance of love,
which keeps the brotherly connection from being impahed, and
the bond of peace from being broken by the offences which
try the Church either from without or from • within. For
pitch is a glutinous substance, of great energy and force, to
represent the ardour of love which, with great power of
endurance, beareth aU things in the maintenance of spiritual
communion. 1 5. That all kinds of animals are enclosed in the ark ; as
the Church contains aU nations, which was also set forth in
the vessel shown to Peter. That clean and unclean animals
are in the ark ; as good and bad take part in the sacraments
of the Church. That the clean are in sevens, and the unclean
in twos ; not because the bad are fewer than the good, but
1 2 Cor. vi. 11. 2 Rom. v. 5.

216 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XH.
because the good preserve the unity of the Sphit in the bond
of peace ; and the Spirit is spoken of in Scripture as having a
sevenfold operation, as being " the Sphit of wisdom and under
standing, of counsel and might, of knowledge and piety, and
of the fear of God."1 So also the number fifty, which is
connected with the advent of the Sphit, is made up of seven
times seven, and one over ; whence it is said, " Endeavouring
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 2 The
bad, again, are in twos, as being easily divided, from theh
tendency to schism. That Noah, counting his family, was the
eighth ; because the hope of our resurrection has appeared in
Christ, who rose from the dead on the eighth day, that is, on
the day after the seventh, or Sabbath day. This day was the
third from His passion ; but in the ordinary reckoning of days,
it is both the eighth and the first.
16. That the whole ark together is finished in a cubit
above ; as the Church, the body of Christ gathered into unity,
is raised to perfection. So Christ says in the Gospel : " He
that gathereth not with me, scattereth."3 That the entrance
is on the side ; as no man enters the Church except by the
sacrament of the remission of sins which flowed from Christ's
opened side. That the lower spaces of the ark are divided
into two and three chambers : as the multitude of aU nations
in the Church is divided into two, as circumcised and uncir
cumcised ; or into three, as descended from the three sons of
Noah. And these parts of the ark are caUed lower, because
in this earthly state there is a difference of races, but above
we are completed in one. Above there is no diversity; for
Christ is aU and in all, finishing us, as it were, in one cubit
above with heavenly unity.
1 7. That the flood came seven days after Noah entered the
ark ; as we are baptized in the hope of the future rest, which
was denoted by the seventh day. That aU flesh on the face
of the earth, outside the ark, was destroyed by the flood ; as,
beyond the communion of the Church, though the water of
baptism is the same, it is efficacious only for destruction, and
not for salvation. That it rained for forty days and forty
nights ; as the sacrament of heavenly baptism washes away
1 Isa. xi. 2, 3. 2 Eph. iv. 3. 3 Matt. xii. 30.

BOOK XII.] TYPES IN THE FLOOD. 217
aU the guUt of the sins against the ten commandments
throughout aU the four quarters of the world (four times
ten is forty), whether that guUt has been contracted in the
day of prosperity or in the night of adversity.
18. That Noah was five hundred years old when God told
him to make the ark, and six hundred when he entered the
ark ; which shows that the ark was made during one hundred
years, which seem to correspond to the years of an age of
the world. So the sixth age is occupied with the construction
of the Church by the preaching of the gospel. The man who
avaUs hhnself of the offer of salvation is made like a square
beam, fitted for every good work, and forms part of the sacred
fabric. Again, it was the second month of the six hundredth
year when Noah entered the ark, and in two months there
are sixty days ; so that here, as in every multiple of six, we
have the number denoting the sixth age. '
19. That mention is made of the twenty-seventh day of
the month; as we have aheady seen the significance of the
square in the beams. Here especially it is significant; for as
twenty-seven is the cube of three, there is a trinity in the
means by which we are, as it were, squared, or fitted for every
good work. By the memory we remember God ; by the
understanding we know Him ; by the will we love Him.
That in the seventh month the ark rested ; reminding us
again of the seventh day of rest. And here again, to denote
the perfection of those at rest, the twenty-seventh day of the
month is mentioned for the second time. So what is promised
in hope is realized in experience. There is here a combina
tion of seven and eight ; for the water rose fifteen cubits above
the mountains, pointing to a profound mystery in baptism, —
the sacrament of our regeneration. For the seventh day of
rest is connected with the eighth of resurrection. For when
the saints receive again theh bodies after the rest of the
intermediate state, the rest wiU not cease; but rather the
whole man, body and soul united, renewed in immortal health,
wiU attain to the realization of his hope in the enjoyment of
eternal life. Thus the sacrament of baptism, like the waters
of Noah, rises above all the wisdom of the proud. Seven and
eight are also combined in the number of one hundred and

218 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
fifty, made up of seventy and eighty, which was the number
of days during which the water prevaUed, pointing out the
deep import of baptism in consecrating the new man to hold
the faith of rest and resurrection
2 0. That the raven sent out after forty days did not return,
being either prevented by the water or attracted by some
floating carcase ; as men defiled by impure deshe, and there
fore eager for things outside in the world, are either rebaptized,
or are led astray into the company of those to whom, as they
are outside the ark, that is, outside the Church, baptism is
destructive. That the dove when sent forth found no rest,
and returned ; as in the New Testament rest is not promised
to the saints in this world. The dove was sent forth after
forty days, a period denoting the length of human hfe. When
again sent forth after seven days, denoting the sevenfold
operation of the Spirit, the dove brought back a fruitful olive
branch ; as some even who are baptized outside of the Church,
if not destitute of the fatness of charity, may come after aU,
as it were in the evening, and be brought into the one com
munion by the mouth of the dove in the kiss of peace. That,
when again sent forth after seven days, the dove did not
return ; as, at the end of the world, the rest of the saints shaU
no longer be in the sacrament of hope, as now, whUe in the
communion of the Church, they drink what flowed from the
side of Christ, but in the perfection "of eternal safety, when the
kingdom shaU be dehvered up to God and the Father, and
when, in that unclouded contemplation of unchangeable truth,
we shaU no longer need natural symbols.
21. There are many other points which we cannot take
notice of even in this cursory manner. Why in the six
hundred and first year of Noah's ' life — that is, after six
hundred years were completed — the covering of the ark is
removed, and the hidden mystery, as it were, disclosed. Why
the earth is said to have dried on the twenty-seventh day of
the second month ; as if the number fifty-seven denoted the
completion of the rite of baptism. For the twenty-seventh
day of the second month is the fifty-seventh day of the year ;
and the number fifty-seven is seven times eight, which are
the numbers of the spirit and the body, with one over, to

BOOK XII.] THE RAVEN AND DOVE. 219
denote the bond of unity. Why they leave the ark together,
though they entered separately. For it is said : " Noah went
in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him,
into the ark;" the men and the women being spoken of
separately; which denotes the time when the flesh lusteth
against the sphit, and the spirit against the flesh. But they
go forth, Noah and his wife, and his sons and theh wives, —
the men and women together. For in the end of the world,
¦ and in the resurrection of the just, the body wUl be united to
the spirit in perfect harmony, undisturbed by the wants and
the passions of mortahty. Why, after leaving the ark, only
clean animals are offered in sacrifice to God, though both clean
and unclean were in the ark.
22. Then, again, it is significant that when God speaks to
Noah, and begins anew, as it were, in order, by repetition in
various forms, to draw attention to the figure of the Church,
the sons of Noah are blessed, and told to replenish the earth,
and aU animals are given to them for food ; as was said to
Peter of the vessel, " KiU and eat." That they are told to
pour out the blood when they eat ; that the former hfe may
not be kept shut up in the conscience, but may be, as it were,
poured out in confession. That God makes the bow, which
appears in the clouds only when the sun shines, the sign of
His covenant with men, and with every hving thing, that He
wiU not destroy them with a flood ; as those do not perish by
the flood, in separation from the Church, who in the clouds of
God — that is, in the prophets and in aU the sacred Scriptures
— discern the glory of Christ, instead of seeking theh own glory.
The worshippers of the sun, however, need not pride them
selves on this ; for they must understand that the sun, as also
a hon, a lamb, and a stone, are used as types of Christ because
they have some resemblance, not because they are of the same
substance. 23. Again, the sufferings of Christ from His own nation are
evidently denoted by Noah's being drunk with the wine of
the vineyard he planted, and his being uncovered in his tent.
For the mortahty of Christ's flesh was uncovered, to the Jews
a stumbhng-block, and to the Greeks foohshness ; but to them
that are caUed, both Jews and Greeks, both Shem and Japhet,

220 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the
foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of
God is stronger than men.1
Moreover, the two sons, the eldest and the youngest, carrying
the garment backwards, are a figure of the two peoples, and
the sacrament of the past and completed passion of the Lord.
They do not see the nakedness of their father, because they do
not consent to Christ's death ; and yet they honour it with a
covering, as knowing whence they were born. The middle
son is the Jewish people, for they neither held the first place
with the apostles, nor believed subsequently with the GentUes.
They saw the nakedness of theh father, because they consented
to Christ's death ; and they told it to their brethren outside,
for what was hidden in the prophets was disclosed by the
Jews. And thus they are the servants of theh brethren. For
what else is this nation now but a desk for the Christians,
bearing the law and the prophets, and testifying to the doctrine
of the Church, so that we honour in the sacrament what they
disclose in the letter ?
24. Again, every one must be impressed, and be either
enlightened or confirmed in the faith, by the blessing of the
two sons who honoured the nakedness of theh father, though
they turned away their faces, as displeased with the evil done
by the vine. " Blessed," he says, " be the Lord God of Shem."
For although God is the God of all nations, even the GentUes
acknowledge Him to be in a pecuhar sense the God of Israel.
And how is this to be explained but by the blessing of Japhet ?
The occupation of all the world by the Church among the
GentUes was exactly foretold in the words : " Let God enlarge
Japhet, and let him dweU in the tents of Shem." That is
for the Manichaean to attend to. You see what the state of
the world actuaUy is. The very thing that you are astonished
and grieved at in us is this, that God is enlarging Japhet. Is
He not dweUing in the tents of Shem ? — that is, in the churches
buUt by the apostles, the sons of the prophets. Hear what
Paul says to the beheving Gentiles : " Ye were at that time
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
and strangers from the covenants ; having no hope of the
1 1 Cor. i. 23-25.

BOOK XII.] TYPES IN NOAH'S FAMILY. 221
promise, and without God in the world." In these words
there is a description of the state of Japhet before he dwelt
in the tents of Shem. But observe what follows : " Now
then," he says, " ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone." x Here
we have Japhet enlarged, and dweUing in the tents of Shem.
These testimonies are taken from the epistles of the apostles,
which you yourselves acknowledge, and read, and profess to
follow. You occupy an unhappy middle position in a buUding
of which Christ is not the chief corner-stone. For you do not
belong to the waU of those who, hke the apostles, being of the
circumcision, believed in Christ ; nor to the wall of those who,
being of the uncircumcision, hke aU the Gentiles, are joined
in the unity of faith, as in the feUowship of the corner-stone.
However, aU who accept and read any books of our canon in
which Christ is spoken of as having been born and having
suffered in the flesh, and who do not unite with us in a
common veiling with the sacrament of the mortality, un
covered by the passion, but without the knowledge of piety
and charity make known that from which we aU are born, —
although they differ among themselves, whether as Jews and
heretics, or as heretics of one kind or other, — are stUl aU
useful to the Church, as being aU alike servants, either in
bearing witness to or in proving some truth. For of heretics
it is said : " There must be heresies, that those who are
approved among you may be manifested." 2 Go on, then, with
your objections to the Old Testament Scriptures ! Go on, ye
servants of Ham ! You have despised the flesh from which
you were born when uncovered. For you could not have
called yourselves Christians unless Christ had come into the
world, as foretold by the prophets, and had drunk of His own
vine that cup which could not pass from Him, and had slept
in His passion, as in the excess of the folly which is wiser
than men ; and so, in the hidden counsel of God, the dis
closure had been made of that infirmity of mortal flesh which
is stronger than men. For unless the Word of God had taken
' Eph. ii. 12, 19, 20. 2 1 Cor. xi. 19.

222 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XH.
on Himself this infirmity, the name of Christian, in which
you also glory, would not exist in the earth. Go on, then, as
I have said. Declare in mockery what we may honour with
reverence. Let the Church use you as her servants to make
manifest those members who are approved. So particular
are the predictions of the prophets regarding the state and
the sufferings of the Church, that we can find a place even
for you in what is said of the destructive error by which
the reprobate are to perish, whUe the approved are to be
manifested. 25. You say that Christ was not foretold by the prophets
of Israel, when, in fact, theh Scriptures teem with such pre
dictions, if you would only examine them carefuUy, instead
of treating them with levity. Who in Abraham leaves his
country and kindred that he may become rich and prosperous
among strangers, but He who, leaving the land and country of
the Jews, of whom He was born in the flesh, is now extending
His power, as we see, among the GentUes ? Who in Isaac
carried the wood for His own sacrifice, but He who carried His
own cross ? Who is the ram for sacrifice, caught by the horns
in a bush, but He who was fastened to the cross as an offering
for us ?
26. Who in the angel striving with Jacob, on the one hand
is constrained to give him a blessing, as the weaker to the
stronger, the conquered to the conqueror, and on the other
hand puts his thigh-bone out of joint, but He who, when He
suffered the people of Israel to prevail against Him, blessed
those among them who beheved, whUe the multitude, hke
Jacob's thigh-bone, halted in theh carnality? Who is the
stone placed under Jacob's head, but Christ the head of man ?
And in its anointing the very name of Christ is expressed ; for,
as aU know, Christ means anointed. Christ refers to this in
the Gospel, and declares it to be a type of Himself, when He
said of Nathanael that he was an Israelite indeed, in whom
was no guUe, and when Nathanael, resting his head, as it
were, on this Stone, or on Christ, confessed Him as the Son
of God and the King of Israel, anointing the Stone by his
confession, in which he acknowledged Jesus to be Christ. On
this occasion the Lord made appropriate mention of what

BOOK XII.] JACOB'S LADDER. 223
Jacob saw in his dream : " VerUy I say unto you, Ye shaU
see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of man." x This Jacob saw, who in
the blessing was caUed Israel, when he had the stone for a
pillow, and had the vision of the ladder reaching from earth
to heaven, on which the angels of God were ascending and
descending.2 The angels denote the evangelists, or preachers
of Christ. They ascend when they rise above the created
universe to describe the supreme majesty of the divine nature
of Christ as being in the beginning God with God, by whom
aU things were made. They descend to teU of His being made
of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them
that were under the law. Christ is the ladder reaching from
earth to heaven, or from the carnal to the spiritual : for by His
assistance the carnal ascend to spirituahty ; and the spiritual
may be said to descend to nourish the carnal with nhlk when
they cannot speak to them as to sphitual, but as to carnal3
There is thus both an ascent and a descent upon the Son of
man. For the Son of man is above as our head, being Him
self the Saviour ; and He is below in His body, the Church.
He is the ladder, for He says, " I am the way." We ascend
to Him to see Him in heavenly places ; we descend to Him
for the nourishment of His weak members. And the ascent
and descent are by Him as weU as to Him. FoUowing His
example, those who preach Him not only rise to behold Him
exalted, but let themselves down to give a plain announcement
of the truth. So the apostle ascends, " Whether we be beside
ourselves, it is to God ; " and descends, " Whether we be sober,
it is for your sake." And by whom did he ascend and descend ?
" For the love of Christ constraineth us : for we thus judge,
that if one died for aU, then aU died ; and that He died for
aU, that they which hve should no longer hve unto themselves,
but unto Him that died for them, and rose again." 4
27. The man who does not find pleasure in these views of
sacred Scripture is turned away to fables, because he cannot
bear sound doctrine. The fables have an attraction for
childish minds in people of aU ages ; but we who are of the
1 John i. 47-51. " Gen. xxviii. 11-18.
3 1 Cor. iii. 1-3. * 2 Cor. v. 13-15.

224 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
body of Christ should say with the Psalmist : " 0 Lord, the
wicked have spoken to me pleasing things, but they are not
after Thy law."1 In every page of these Scriptures, while I
pursue my search as a son of Adam in the sweat of my brow,
Christ either openly or covertly meets and refreshes me.
Where the discovery is laborious my ardour is increased, and
the spoU obtained is eagerly devoured, and is hidden in my
heart for my nourishment.
28. Christ appears to me in Joseph, who was persecuted
and sold by his brethren, and after his troubles obtained
honour in Egypt. We have seen the troubles of Christ in the
world, of which Egypt was a figure, in the sufferings of the
martyrs. And now we see the honour of Christ in the same
world which He subdues to Himself, in exchange for the food
which He bestows. Christ appears to me in the rod of
Moses, which became a serpent when cast on the earth, as
a figure of His death, which came from the serpent. Again,
when caught by the taU it became a rod, as a figure of His
return after the accomplishment of His work in His resurrec
tion to what He was before, destroying death by His new
hfe, so as to leave no trace of the serpent. We, too, who are
His body, ghde along in the same mortahty through the folds
of time ; but when at last the taU of this course of things is
laid hold of by the hand of judgment that it shaU go no
further, we shaU be renewed, and rising from the destruction
of death, the last enemy, we shaU be the sceptre of govern
ment in the right hand of God.
29. Of the departure of Israel from Egypt, let us hear
what the apostle himself says : " I would not, brethren, that
ye should be ignorant that aU our fathers were under the
cloud, and aU passed through the sea, and were aU baptized
into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did aU eat the
same sphitual meat, and did aU drink of the same spiritual
drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock which foUowed
them, and that rock was Christ." 2 The explanation of one
thing is a key to the rest. For if the rock is Christ from its
stabUity, is not the manna Christ, the hving bread which came
down from heaven, which gives sphitual life to those who truly
1 Ps. cxix. 83. 2 1 Cor. x. 1-4.

BOOK XII.] THE CLOUD AND THE SEA. 225
feed on it ? The Israehtes died because they received the figure
only in its carnal sense. The apostle, by calling it spiritual
food, shows its reference to Christ, as the spiritual drink is
explained by the words, " That rock was Christ," which ex
plain the whole. Then is not the cloud and the pUlar Christ,
who by His uprightness and strength supports our feebleness ;
who shines by night and not by day, that they who see not
may see, and that they who see may be made blind ? In the
Eed Sea there is the baptism consecrated by the blood of
Christ. The enemies foUowing behind perish, as past sins
are put away.
30. The Israelites are led through the wUderness, as those
who are baptized are in the wilderness while on the way to
the promised land, hoping and patiently waiting for that
which they see not. In the wilderness are severe trials, lest
they should in heart return to Egypt. StiU Christ does not
leave them ; the piUar does not go away. The bitter waters
are sweetened by wood, as hostUe . people become friendly by
learning to honour the cross of Christ. The twelve fountains
watering the seventy palm trees are a figure of apostohc grace
watering the nations. As seven is multiplied by ten, so the
decalogue is fulfilled in the sevenfold operation of the Spirit.
The enemy attempting to stop them in theh way is overcome
by Moses stretching out his hands in the figure of the cross.
The deadly bites of serpents are healed by the brazen serpent,
which was lifted up that they might look at it. The Lord
Himself gives the explanation of this : " As Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wUderness, so must the Son of man be lifted
up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but have
everlasting hfe."1 So in many other things we may find a
protest against the obstinacy of unbeheving hearts. In the
passover a lamb is kiUed, representing Christ, of whom it is
said in the Gospel, " Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh
away the sin of the world I" 2 In the passover the bones of
the lamb were not to be broken ; and on the cross the bones
of the Lord were not broken. The evangehst, in reference to
this, quotes the words, "A bone of Him shall not be broken."3
The posts were marked with blood to keep away destruction,
1 John iii. 14. 2 John i. 29. 3 John xix. 36.

226 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
as people are marked on theh foreheads with the sign of the
Lord's passion for their salvation. The law was given on the
fiftieth day after the passover ; so the Holy Sphit came on the
fiftieth day after the passover of the Lord. The law is said to
have been written with the finger of God ; and the Lord says
of the Holy Spirit, " With the finger of God I cast out devUs."1
Such are the scriptures in which Faust, after shutting his
eyes, declares that he can see no prediction of Christ. But
we need not wonder that he should have eyes to read and
yet no heart to understand, since, instead of knocking in
devout faith at the door of the heavenly secret, he dares to
act in profane hostihty. So let it be, for so it ought to be.
Let the gate of salvation be shut to the proud. The meek, to
whom God teaches His ways, wiU find aU these things in the
Scriptures, and those things which he does not see he wiU
beheve from what he sees.
31. He wiU see Jesus leading the people into the land of
promise ; for this name was given to the leader of Israel, not
at first, or by chance, but on account of the work to which
he was caUed. He wiU see the cluster from the land of pro
mise hanging from a wooden pole. He wiU see in Jericho,
as in this perishing world, an harlot, one of those of whom
the Lord says that they go before the proud into the kingdom
of heaven, putting out of her window a scarlet line symbohcal
of blood, as confession is made with the mouth for the remis
sion of sins. He wiU see the walls of Jericho, like the frail
defences of the world, faU when compassed seven times by the
ark of the covenant ; as now in the course of the seven days
of time the covenant of God compasses the whole globe, that
in the end, death, the last enemy, may be destroyed, and the
Church, like one single house, be saved from the destruction
of the ungodly, purified from the defilement of fornication by
the window of confession in the blood of remission.
32. He wiU see the times of the judges precede those of
the kings, as the judgment wiU precede the kingdom. And
under both the judges and the kings he wiU see Christ and
the Church repeatedly prefigured in various ways. Who was
in Samson, when he killed the hon that met him as he went
1 Luke xi. 20.

BOOK XII.] JUDGES AND KINGS. 227
to get a wife among strangers, but He who, when going to
caU His Church from among the GentUes, said, " Be of good
cheer, I have overcome the world " ? 1 What means the hive
in the mouth of the slain hon, but that, as we see, the very
laws of the earthly kingdom which once raged against Christ
have now lost their fierceness, and have become a protection
for the preaching of gospel sweetness ? What is that woman,
boldly piercing the temples of the enemy with a wooden naU,
but the faith of the Church casting down the kingdom of the
devil by the cross of Christ ? What is the fleece wet whUe
the ground was dry, and again the fleece dry whUe the
ground was wet, but the Hebrew nation at first possessing
alone in its typical institution Christ the mystery of God,
whUe the whole world was in ignorance ? And now the
whole world has this mystery revealed, while the Jews are
destitute of it.
33. To mention only a few things in the times of the
kings, at the very outset does not the change in the priest
hood when Eh was rejected and Samuel chosen, and in the
kingdom when Saul was rejected and David chosen, clearly
predict the new priesthood and kingdom to come in our Lord
Jesus Christ, when the old, which was a shadow of the new,
was rejected ? Did not David, when he ate the shew-bread,
which it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat, prefigure
the union of the kingdom and priesthood in one person, Jesus
Christ ? In the separation of the ten tribes from the temple
whUe two were left, is there not a figure of what the apostle
asserts of the whole nation : " A remnant is saved by the
election of grace " ?2
34. In the time of famine, Elijah is fed by ravens bringing
bread in the morning and flesh in the evening ; but the Mani
chaeans cannot in this perceive Christ, who, as it were, hungers
for our salvation, and to whom sinners come in confession,
having now the first-fruits of the Sphit, whUe in the evening
of the resurrection they wUl have theh bodies also. Elijah
is sent to be fed by a widow woman of another nation, who
was going to gather two sticks before she died, denoting the
two wooden beams of the cross. Her meal and oil are blessed,
1 John xvi. 33. 2 Rom. xi. 5.

228 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
as the fruit and cheerfulness of charity do not diminish by
expenditure, for God loveth a cheerful giver.1
35. The chUdren that mocked Ehsha by calling out Bald-
head, are devoured by wUd beasts, as those who in chUdish
foUy scoff at Christ crucified on Calvary are destroyed by
devUs. Ehsha sends his servant to lay his staff on the dead
body, but it does not revive ; he comes himself, and lays hhn-
seh exactly upon the dead body, and it revives : as the Word
of God sent the law by His servant, without any profit to
mankind dead in sins ; and yet it was not sent for no pur
pose by Him who knew the necessity of its being first sent.
Then He Himself came, conformed Himself to us by participa
tion in our death, and we were revived. When they were
cutting down wood with axes, the hon, flying off the wood,
sank to the bottom of the river, and came up again when
the wood was thrown in by Ehsha. So, when Christ's
bodily presence was cutting down the unfruitful trees among
the unbelieving Jews, according to the saying of John, " Be
hold, the axe is laid to the roots of the tree," 2 by the death
they inflicted, Christ was separated from His body, and
descended to the depths of the infernal world ; and then,
when His body was laid in the tomb, hke the wood on the
water, His sphit returned, like the iron to the handle, and
He rose. The reader wiU observe how many things of this
kind are omitted for the sake of brevity.
36. As regards the departure to Babylon, where the Spirit
of God by the prophet Jeremiah enjoins them to go, telling
them to pray for the people in whose land they dweU as
strangers, because in their peace they would find peace, and to
buUd houses, and plant vineyards and gardens, — the figurative
meaning is plain, when we consider that the true Israehtes,
in whom is no guile, passed over in the ministry of the
apostles with the ordinances of the gospel into the kingdom of
the GentUes. So the apostle, like an echo of Jeremiah, says
to us, " I wUl first of aU that prayer, supplications, interces
sions and giving of thanks be made for aU men, and for those
in authority, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in aU
godhness and charity ; for this is good and acceptable in the
1 2 Cor. ix. 7. s Matt. iii. 10.

BOOK XII.] THE CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY. 229
sight of God our Saviour, who wiU have aU men to be saved,
and to come to the knowledge of the truth."1 Accordingly
the churches of Christian congregations have been built by be
lievers as abodes of peace, and vineyards of the faithful have
been planted, and gardens, where chief among the plants is
the mustard tree, in whose wide-spreading branches the pride
of the Gentiles, like the birds of heaven, in its soaring ambi
tion, takes shelter. Again, in the return from captivity after
seventy years, according to Jeremiah's prophecy, and in the
restoration of the temple, every behever in Christ must see a
figure of our return as the Church of God from the exUe of
this world to the heavenly Jerusalem, after the seven days
of time have fulfiUed their course. Joshua the high priest,
after the captivity, who rebuilt the temple, was a figure of
Jesus Christ, the true High Priest of our restoration. The
prophet Zechariah saw this Joshua in a filthy garment ; and
after the devU who stood by to accuse him was defeated, the
filthy garment was taken from him, and a dress of honour and
glory given him. So the body of Jesus Christ, which is the
Church, when the adversary is conquered in the judgment at
the end of the world, wUl pass from the pains of exUe to the
glory of everlasting safety. This is the song of the Psalmist
at the dedication of his house : " Thou hast turned for me my
mourning into gladness ; Thou hast removed my sackcloth, and
girded me with gladness, that my glory may sing praise unto
Thee, and not be sUent."2
3 7. It is impossible, in a digression like this, to refer, how
ever briefly, to aU the figurative predictions of Christ which are
to be found in the law and the prophets. WiU it be said that
these things happened in the regular course of things, and that
it is a mere ingenious fancy to make them typical of Christ ?
Such an objection might come from Jews and Pagans ; but
those who wish to be considered Christians must yield to the
authority of the apostle when he says, " AU these things hap
pened to them for an example ;" and again, " These things are
our examples."3 For if two men, Ishmael and Isaac, are types
of the two covenants, can it be supposed that there is no
significance in the vast number of particulars which have no
1 1 Tim. ii. 1-4. * Ps. xxx. 11, 12. 3 1 Cor. x. 10, 6.

230 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XH
historical or natural value ? Suppose we were to see some
Hebrew characters written on the waU of a noble buUding,
should we be so foolish as to conclude that, because we cannot
understand the characters, they are not intended to be read,
and are mere painting, without any meaning ? So, whoever
with a candid mind reads aU these things that are contained
in the Old Testament Scriptures, must feel constrained to ac
knowledge that they have a meaning.
38. As an example of those particulars which have no
meaning at aU if not a symbohcal one : Granting that it was
necessary that woman should be made as an help meet for man,
what natural reason can be assigned for her being taken from
his side while he slept ? Granting that an ark was required
in order to escape from the flood, why should it have precisely
these dimensions, and why should they be recorded for the de
vout study of future generations ? Granting that the animals
were brought into the ark to preserve the various races, why
should there be seven clean and two unclean ? Granting that
the ark must have a door, why should it be in the side, and
why should this fact be committed to writing ? Abraham is
commanded to sacrifice his son : we may aUow that this proof
of his obedience was requhed in order to make it conspicuous
in all ages ; we may aUow, too, that it was a proper thing for
the son to carry the wood instead of the aged father, and
that in the end the fatal stroke was forbidden, lest the father
should be left chUdless. But what had the shedding of the
ram's blood to do with Abraham's trial ? or if it was necessary
to complete the sacrifice, was the ram any the better of being
caught by the horns in a bush ? The human mind, that is to
say, a rational mind, is led by the consideration of the way in
which these apparently superfluous things are blended with
what is necessary, first to acknowledge their significance, and
then to try to discover it.
39. The Jews themselves, who scoff at the crucified Saviour
in whom we beheve, and who consequently wiU not allow that
Christ is predicted in the sayings and actions recorded in the
Old Testament, are compeUed to come to us for an explanation
of those things which, if not explained, must appear trifling
and ridiculous. This led Philo, a Jew of great learning, whom

BOOK XII.] PHILO'S EXPLANATIONS. 231
the Greeks speak of as rivalling Plato in eloquence, to attempt
to explain some things without any reference to Christ, in
whom he did not beheve. His attempt only shows the in
feriority of aU ingenious speculations, when made without
keeping Christ in view, to whom aU the predictions really
point. So true is that saying of the apostle : " When they
shaU turn to the Lord, the veU shaU be taken away."1 For
instance, Noah's ark is, according to Philo, a type of the
human body, member by member: with this view, he shows
that the numerical proportions agree perfectly. For there is
no reason why a type of Christ should not be a type of the
human body too, since the Saviour of mankind appeared in a
human body, though what is typical of a human body is not
necessarily typical of Christ. Philo's explanation fails, how
ever, as regards the door in the side of the ark. He actually,
for the sake of saying something, makes this door represent
the lower apertures of the body. He has the hardihood to
put this in words, and on paper. Indeed, he knew not the
door, and could not understand the symbol. Had he turned
to Christ, the veU would have been taken away, and he woiud
have found the sacraments of the Church flowing from the
side of Christ's human body. For, according to the announce
ment, " They two shaU be one flesh," some things in the ark,
which is a type of Christ, refer to Christ, and some to the
Church. This contrast between the explanations which keep
Christ in view, and aU other ingenious perversions, is the same
in every particular of aU the figures in Scripture.
40. The Pagans, too, cannot deny our right to give a figura
tive meaning to both words and things, especiaUy as we can
point to the fulfilment of the types and figures. For the Pagans
themselves try to find in theh own fables figures of natural
and religious truth. Sometimes they give clear explanations,
whUe at other times they disguise theh meaning, and what is
sacred in the temples becomes a jest in the theatres. They
unite a disgraceful hcentiousness to a degrading superstition.
41. Besides this wonderful agreement between the types
and the things typified, the adversary may be convinced by
plain prophetic intimations, such as this : " In thy seed shaU
1 2 Cor. iii. 16.

232 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XH.
aU nations be blessed." This was said to Abraham,1 and again
to Isaac,2 and again to Jacob.3 Hence the significance of the
words, " I am the' God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob." 4
God fulfils His promise to their seed in blessing aU nations.
With a like significance, Abraham himself, when he made his
servant swear, told him to put his hand under his thigh;5 for
he knew that thence would come the flesh of Christ, in whom
we have now, not the promise of blessing to aU nations, but the
promise fulfilled.
42. I should hke to know, or rather, it would be weU not
to know, with what blindness of mind Faust reads the pas
sage where Jacob caUs his sons, and says, " Assemble, that I
may tell you the things that are to happen in the last day.
Assemble and hear, ye sons of Jacob ; give ear to Israel, your
father." Surely these are the words of a prophet. What,
then, does he say of his son Judah, of whose tribe Christ came
of the seed of David according to the flesh, as the apostle
teaches ? " Judah," he says, " thy brethren shaU praise thee :
thy hands shaU be upon the backs of thine enemies ; the sons
of thy father shaU bow down to thee. Judah is a hon's whelp ;
my son and offspring : bowing down, thou hast gone up : thou
sleepest as a hon, and as a young hon ; who wiU rouse him
up ? A prince shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from
his loins, tiU those things come which have been laid up
for him. He also is the desire of nations : binding his foal
unto the vine, and his ass's colt with sackcloth, he shaU wash
his garment in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes :
his eyes are bright with wine, and his teeth whiter than mUk." 6
There is no falsehood or obscurity in these words when we
read them in the clear light of Christ. We see His brethren
the apostles and aU His joint-heirs praising Him, seeking not
their own glory, but His. We see His hands on the backs of
His enemies, who are bent and bowed to the earth by the
growth of the Christian communities in spite of their opposi
tion. We see Him worshipped by the sons of Jacob, the rem
nant saved according to the election of grace. Christ, who was
born as an infant, is the lion's whelp, as it is added, My son "
1 Gen. xxii. 18. 2 Gen. xxvi. 4. 3 Gen. xxviii. 14.
4 Ex. iii. 6. B Gen. xxiv. 2. c Gen. xlix. 1, 2, 8-12.

BOOK XII.] THE BLESSING OF JUDAH. 233
and offspring, to show why this whelp, in whose praise it is
said, " The hon's whelp is stronger than the herd,"1 is even in
infancy stronger than its elders. We see Christ ascending on
the cross, and bowing down when He gave up His spirit. We
see Him sleeping as a lion, because in death itself He was not
the conquered, but the conqueror, and as a lion's whelp ; for
the reason of His bhth and of His death was the same. And
He is raised from the dead by Him whom no man hath seen
or can see ; for the words, " Who will raise Him up ? " point
to an unknown power. A prince did not depart from Judah,
nor a leader from his loins, tiU in due time those things came
which had been laid up in the promise. For we learn from
the authentic history of the Jews themselves, that Herod, under
whom Christ was born, was theh first foreign king. So the
sceptre did not depart from the seed of Judah tUl the things
laid up for him came. Then, as the promise is not only to the
beheving Jews, it is added : " He is the desire of the nations."
Christ bound His foal — that is, His people — to the vine, when
He preached in sackcloth, crying, " Eepent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand." The Gentiles made subject to Him are
represented by the ass's colt, on which He also sat, leading it
into Jerusalem, that is, the vision of peace, teaching the meek
His ways. We see Him washing His garments in wine ; for
He is one with the glorious Church, which He presents to
Himself, not having spot or wrinkle ; to whom also it is said
by Isaiah : " Though your sins be as scarlet, I wiU make them
white as snow." 2 How is this done but by the remission of
sins ? And the wine is none other than that of which it is
said that it is " shed for many, for the remission of sins."
Christ is the cluster that hung on the pole. So it is added,
" and His clothes in the blood of the grape." Again, what is
said of His eyes being bright with wine, is understood by those
members of His body who are enabled, in holy aberration of
mind from the current of earthly things, to gaze on the eternal
hght of wisdom. So Paul says in a passage quoted before :
" If we be beside ourselves, it is to God." Those are the eyes
bright with wine. But he adds : " If we be sober, it is for your
sakes." The babes needing to be fed with mUk are not for-
1 Prov. xxx. 30. 2 Isa. i. 18.

234 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
gotten, as is denoted by the words, " His teeth are whiter than
milk." 43. What can our deluded adversaries say to such plain
examples, which leave no room for perverse denial, or even for
sceptical uncertainty ? I caU on the Manichaeans to begin to
inquire into these subjects, and to admit the force of these
evidences, on which I have no time to dweU ; nor do I wish
to make a selection, in case the ignorant reader should think
there are no others, while the Christian student might blame
me for the omission of many points more striking than those
which occur to me at the moment. You wiU find many
passages which require no such explanation as has been given
here of Jacob's prophecy. For instance, every reader can un
derstand the words, " He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,"
and the whole of that plain prophecy, " With His stripes we
are healed "¦ — ¦" He bore our sins. " 1 We have a poetical gospel
in the words : " They pierced my hands and feet. They have
told aU my bones. They look and stare upon me. They
divided my garments among them, and cast lots on my ves
ture." 2 The bhnd even may now see the fulfilment of the
words : " All the ends of the earth shaU remember and turn
unto the Lord, and all kingdoms of the nations shaU worship
before Him." The words in the Gospel, " My soul is sorrowful,
even unto death," " My soul is troubled," are a repetition of the
words in the Psalm, " I slept in trouble." 3 And who made
Him sleep ? Whose voices cried, Crucify him, crucify him ?
The Psalm teUs us : " The sons of men, theh teeth are spears
and arrows, and theh tongue a sharp sword."4 But they
could not prevent His resurrection, or His ascension above the
heavens, or His fining the earth with the glory of His name ;
for the Psalm says : " Be Thou exalted, 0 God, above the
heavens, and let Thy glory be above aU the earth." Every
one must apply these words to Christ : " The Lord said unto
me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of
me, and I wiU give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."6
And what Jeremiah says of wisdom plainly applies to Christ :
1 Isa. liii. 2 Ps. xxii. 3 Ps. Ivii. 4 (Yulg.).
4 Ps. Ivii. 4. 6 ps. ii. s, 9.

BOOK XII.] PLAIN PROPHECIES. 235
" Jacob dehvered it to his son, and Israel to his chosen one.
Afterwards He appeared on earth, and conversed with men." 1
44. The same Saviour is spoken of in Daniel, where the
Son of man appears before the Ancient of days, and receives a
kingdom without end, that aU nations may serve Him.2 In
the passage quoted from Daniel by the Lord Himself, " When
ye shaU see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that readeth
understand," 3 the number of weeks points not only to Christ,
but to the very time of His advent. With the Jews, who
look to Christ for salvation as we do, but deny that He has
come and suffered, we can argue from actual events. Besides
the conversion of the heathen, now so universal, as prophesied
of Christ in their own Scriptures, there are the events in the
history of the Jews themselves. Their holy place is thrown
down, the sacrifice has ceased, and the priest, and the ancient
anointing ; which was aU clearly foretold by Daniel when
he prophesied of the anointing of the Most Holy. 4 Now,
that aU these things have taken place, we ask the Jews for
the anointed Most Holy, and they have no answer to give.
But it is from the Old Testament that the Jews derive all
the knowledge they have of Christ and His advent. Why
do they ask John whether he is Christ ? Why do they say
to the Lord, " How long dost thou make us to doubt ? If
thou art the Christ, teU us plainly." Why do Peter and
Andrew and Phihp say to Nathanael, "We have found
Messias, which is interpreted Christ," but because this
name was known to them from the prophecies of their Scrip
tures? In no other nation were the kings and priests
anointed, and caUed Anointed or Christs. Nor could this
symbohcal anointing be discontinued tiU the coming of Him
who was thus prefigured. For among aU their anointed
ones the Jews looked for one who was to save them. But
in the mysterious justice of God they were blinded; and
thinking only of the power of the Messiah, they did not under
stand His weakness, in which He died for us. In the book
of Wisdom it is prophesied of the Jews : " Let us condemn
1 Baruch iii. 37, 38. 2 Dan. vii. 13, 14.
3 Matt. xxiv. 15. « Dan. ix. 24-27.

236 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
him to an ignominious death ; for he will be proved in his
words. If he is truly the Son of God, He wiU aid him, and
dehver him from the hand of his enemies. Thus they
thought, and erred; for their wickedness blinded them/'1
These words apply also to those who, in spite of aU these
evidences, in spite of such a series of prophecies, and of theh
fulfilment, stiU deny that Christ is foretold in the Scriptures.
As often as they repeat this denial, we can produce fresh
proofs, with the help of Him who has made such provision
against human perversity, that proofs aheady given need not
be repeated.
45. Faust has an evasive objection, which he no doubt
thinks a most ingenious way of eluding the force of the
clearest evidence of prophecy, but of which one is unwilling
to take any notice, because answering it may give it an
appearance of importance which it does not reaUy possess.
What could be more hrational than to say that it is weak
faith which will not beheve in Christ without evidence ? Do
our adversaries, then, beheve in testimony about Christ ?
Faust wishes us to beheve the voice from heaven as distin
guished from human testimony. But did they hear this
voice ? Has not the knowledge of it come to us through
human testimony ? The apostle describes the transmission of
this knowledge, when he says : " How shaU they caU on Him
on whom they have not beheved ? and how shaU they beheve
on Him of whom they have not heard ? and how shaU they
hear without a preacher ? and how shall they preach except
they be sent ? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet
of them who pubhsh peace, who bring good tidings !" 2 Clearly,
in the preaching of the apostles there was a reference to
prophetic testimony. The apostles quoted the predictions of
the prophets, to prove the truth and importance of their
doctrines. For although theh preaching was accompanied
with the power of working miracles, the miracles would have
been ascribed to magic, as some even now venture to in
sinuate, unless the apostles had shown that the authority of
the prophets was in their favour. The testimony of prophets
who hved so long before could not be ascribed to magical
1 Wisd. ii. 18-21. s Rom. x. 14, 15.

&

BOOK XII.] USE OF EVIDENCE. 237
arts. Perhaps the reason why Faustus wiU not have us
beheve the Hebrew prophets as witnesses of the true Christ,
is because he beheves Persian heresies about a false Christ.
46. According to the teaching of the Cathohc Church, the
Christian mind must first be nourished in simple faith, in
order that it may become capable of understanding things
heavenly and eternal Thus it is said by the prophet :
" Unless ye beheve, ye shaU not understand." 1 Simple faith
is that by which, before we attain to the height of the know
ledge of the love of Christ, that we may be fiUed with aU the
fulness of God, we beheve that not without reason was the
dispensation of Christ's humiliation, in which He was born
and suffered as man, foretold so long before by the prophets
in a prophetic race, a prophetic people, a prophetic kingdom.
This faith teaches us, that in the foolishness which is wiser
than men, and in the weakness which is stronger than men, is
contained the hidden means of our justification and glorification.
There are hid aU the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,
which are opened to no one who despises the nourishment
transmitted through the breast of his mother, that is, the milk of
apostohc and prophetic instruction ; or who, thinking himself
too old for infantile nourishment, devours heretical poison
instead of the food of wisdom, for Which he rashly thought
himself prepared. To require simple faith is quite consistent
with requiring faith in the prophets. The very use of simple
faith is to beheve the prophets at the outset, while the under
standing of the person who speaks in the prophets is attained
after the mind has been purified and strengthened.
47. But, it is said, if the prophets foretold Christ, they did
not live in a way becoming theh office. How can you teU
whether they did or 'not ? You are bad judges of what
it is to hve weU or iU, whose justice consists in giving relief
to an inanimate melon by eating it, instead of giving food
to the starving beggar. It is enough for the babes in the
Catholic Church, who do not yet know the perfect justice of
the human soul, and the difference between the justice aimed
at and that actuaUy attained, to think of those men according
to the wholesome doctrine of the apostles, that the just lives
1 Isa. vii. 9 (Vulg.).

238 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XII.
by faith. " Abraham beheved God, and it was counted to
him for righteousness. For the scripture, foreseeing that
God would justify the GentUes by faith, preached before the
gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thy seed shaU aU nations be
blessed." x These are the words of the apostle. If you would,
at his clear weU-known voice, wake up from your unprofit
able dreams, you would follow in the footsteps of our father
Abraham, and would be blessed, along with all nations, in his
seed. For, as the apostle says, "He received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which
he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father
of aU that beheve in uncircumcision ; that he might be the
father of chcumcision not only to those who are of the circum
cision, but also to those who foUow the footsteps of the faith
of our father Abraham in uncircumcision." 2 Since the right
eousness of Abraham's faith is thus set forth as an example to
us, that we too, being justified by faith, may have peace with
God, we ought to understand his manner of life, without
finding fault with it; lest, by a premature separation from
mother-Church, we prove abortions, instead of being brought
forth in due time, when the conception has arrived at com
pleteness. 48. This is a brief reply to Faustus in behalf of the
character of the patriarchs and prophets. It is the reply of
the babes of our faith, among whom I would reckon myseh,
inasmuch as I would not find fault with the life of the ancient
saints, even if I did not understand its mystical character.
Theh hfe is proclaimed to us with approval by the apostles
in theh Gospel, as they themselves in theh prophecy foretold
the future apostles, that the two Testaments, like the seraphim,
might cry to one another, " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God
of hosts."3 When Faustus, instead of the vague general
accusation which he makes here, condemns particular actions
in the hves of the patriarchs and the prophets, the Lord theh
God, and ours also, wiU assist me to reply suitably and
appropriately to the separate charges. For the present, the
reader must choose whether to beheve the commendation of the
Apostle Paul or the accusations of Faustus the Manichwan.
1 Gal. iii. 6, 8. 2 Rom. iv. 11, 12. 3 Isa. vi. 3.

BOOK XIII.] REPLY OF THE BABES. 239

BOOK XIII.
1. Faustus. We are asked how we believe in Christ when we
reject the prophets, who declared the promise of His advent.
It is doubtful whether, on examination, it can be shown that
the Hebrew prophets foretold our Christ, that is, the Son of
God. But were it so, what does it matter to us ? If these
testimonies of the prophets that you speak of were the means
of converting any one from Judaism to Christianity, and if he
should afterwards neglect these prophets, he would certainly
be in the wrong, and would be chargeable with ingratitude.
But we are by nature GentUes, of the uncircumcision ; as Paul
says, born under another law. Those whom the GentUes caU
poets were our first rehgious teachers, and from them we were
afterwards converted to Christianity. We did not first become
Jews, so as to reach Christianity through faith in their prophets ;
but were attracted solely by the fame, and the vhtues, and the
wisdom of our Saviour Jesus Christ. If I were stiU in the
rehgion of my fathers, and a preacher were to come using the
prophets as evidence in favour of Christianity, I should think
him mad for attempting to support what is doubtful by what
is sthi more doubtful to a GentUe of another rehgion altogether.
He would requhe first to persuade me to beheve the prophets,
and then through the prophets to beheve Christ. And to prove
the truth of the prophets, other prophets would be necessary.
For if the prophets bear witness to Christ, who bears witness
to the prophets ? You wiU perhaps say that Christ and the
prophets mutuaUy support each other. But a Pagan, who has
nothing to do with either, would beheve neither the evidence
of Christ to the prophets, nor that of the prophets to Christ.
If the Pagan becomes a Christian, he has to thank his own
faith, and nothing else. Let us, for the sake of illustration,
suppose ourselves conversing with a GentUe inquirer. We
teU him to believe in Christ, because He is God. He asks
for proof. We refer him to the prophets. He asks, What
prophets ? We reply, The Hebrew. He smiles, and says that
he does not beheve them. We remind him that Christ

240 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIII.
testifies to them. He rephes, laughing, that we must first
make him beheve in Christ. The result of such a conversa
tion is that we are silenced, and the inquirer departs, thinking
us more zealous than wise. Again, I say, the Christian Church,
which consists more of GentUes than of Jews, can owe nothing
to Hebrew witnesses. If, as is said, any prophecies of Christ
are to be found in the Sibyl, or in Hermes, caUed Trismegistus,
or Orpheus, or any heathen poet, they might aid the faith of
those who, hke us, are converts from heathenism to Christianity.
But the testimony ol the Hebrews is useless to us before con
version, for then we cannot beheve them ; and superfluous after,
for we beheve without them.
2. Augustine. After the long reply of last book, a short answer
may suffice here. To one who has read that reply, it must
seem insanity in Faustus to persist in denying that Christ was
foretold by the Hebrew prophets, when the Hebrew nation
was the only one in which the name Christ had a pecuhar
sacredness as apphed to kings and priests ; in which sense it
continued to be apphed till the coming of Him whom those
kings and priests typified. Where did the Manichaean learn
the name of Christ ? If from Manichaeus, it is very strange
that Africans, not to speak of others, should beheve the Persian
Manichaeus, since Faustus finds fault with the Eomans and
Greeks, and other GentUes, for believing the Hebrew prophets
as belonging to another race. According to Faustus, the pre
dictions of the Sibyl, or Orpheus, or any heathen poet, are
more suitable for leading GentUes to beheve in Christ. He
forgets that none of these are read in the churches, whereas
the voice of the Hebrew prophets, sounding everywhere,
draws swarms of people to Christianity. When it is so
evident that men are everywhere led to Christ by the Hebrew
prophets, it is great absurdity to say that those prophets are
not suitable for the GentUes.
3. Christ as foretold by the Hebrew prophets does not
please you ; but this is the Christ in whom the GentUe
nations beheve, with whom, according to you, Hebrew
prophecy should have no weight. They receive the gospel
which, as Paul says, " God had promised before by His
prophets in the Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of

BOOK XIII.] HEBREW PROPHECY. 241
the seed of David according to the flesh." x So we read in
Isaiah : " There shall be a Eoot of Jesse, which shaU rise to
reign in the nations ; in Him shaU the Gentiles trust." 2
And again : " Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall caU His name Emmanuel," 3 which is, being
interpreted, God with us. Nor let the Manichaean think that
Christ is foretold only as a man by the Hebrew prophets ; for
this is what Faustus seems to insinuate when he says, " Our
Christ is the Son of God," as if the Christ of the Hebrews
was not the Son of God. We can prove Christ the virgin's
son of Hebrew prophecy to be God. For the Lord Himself
teaches the carnal Jews not to think that, because He is
foretold as the son of David, He is therefore no more than
that. He asks : " What think ye of Christ ? Whose son is
He ? " They reply : " Of David." Then, to remind them of
the name Emmanuel, God with us, He says : " How does
David in the Sphit caU Him Lord, saying, The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, tiU I make Thine
enemies Thy footstool ? " 4 Here, then, Christ appears as God
in Hebrew prophecy. What prophecy can the Manichaeans
show with the name of Christ in it ?
4. Manichaeus indeed was not a prophet of Christ, but
caUs himself an apostle, which is a shameless falsehood ; for
it is well known that this heresy began not only after Tertul
lian, but after Cyprian. In aU his letters Manichaeus begins
thus : " Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ." Why do
you beheve what Manichaeus says of Christ ? What evidence
does he give of his apostleship ? This very name of Christ
is known to us only from the Jews, who, in theh application
of it to their kings and priests, were not individually, but
nationaUy, prophets of Christ and Christ's kingdom. What
right has he to use this name, who forbids you to beheve the
Hebrew prophets, that he may make you the heretical disciples
of a false Christ, as he himself is a false and heretical apostle ?
jind if Faustus quotes as evidence in his own support some
prophets who, according to. him, foretell Christ, how will he
satisfy his supposed inquirer, who will not beheve either the
prophets or Faustus ? WUl he take our apostles as witnesses ?
1 Rom. i. 2, 3. 2 Isa. xi. 10. 3 Isa. vii. 14. 4 Matt. xxii. 42-44.
7 Q

242 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [bOOKXIII.
Unless he can find some apostles in life, he must read their
writings; and these are aU against him. They teach our
doctrine that Christ was born of the Vhgin Mary, that He
was the Son of God, of the seed of David according to the
flesh. He cannot pretend that the writings have been tam
pered with, for that would be to attack the credit of his own
witnesses. Or if he produces his own manuscripts of the
apostohc writings, he must also obtain for them the autho
rity of the churches founded by the apostles themselves, by
showing that they have been preserved and transmitted with
theh sanction. It wiU be difficult for a man to make me
believe him on the evidence of writings which derive aU theh
authority from his own word, which I do not believe.
5. But perhaps you beheve the common report about
Christ. Faustus makes a feeble suggestion of this kind, as a
last resource, to escape being obhged either to produce his
worthless authorities, or to come under the power of those
opposed to him. WeU, if report is your authority, you should
consider the consequences of trusting to such evidence. There
are many bad things reported of you which you do not wish
people to beheve. Is it reasonable to make the same evidence
true about Christ and false about yourselves ? In fact, you
deny the common report about Christ. For the report most
widely spread, and which every one has heard repeated, is that
which distinctly asserts that Christ was born of the seed of
David, according to the promise made in the Hebrew Scriptures
to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob : " In thy seed shaU aU nations
be blessed." You wUl not admit this Hebrew testimony, but
;you do not seem to have any other. The authority of our
books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations,
-supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councUs,
is against you. Your books have no authority, for it is an
authority maintained by only a few, and these the worshippers
of an untruthful God and Christ. If they are not foUowing
the example of the beings they worship, theh testimony must
be against theh own false doctrine. And, once more, common
report gives a very bad account of you, and invariably asserts,
in opposition to you, that Christ was of the seed of David.
You did not hear the voice of the Father from heaven. You

BOOK Xm.] COMMON REPORT. 243
did not see the works by which Christ bore witness to Him
self. The books which tell of these things you profess to
receive, that you may maintain a delusive appearance of
Christianity; but when anything is quoted against you, you
say that the books have been tampered with. You quote the
passage where Christ says, " If ye believe not me, beheve the
works ; " and again, " I am one that bear witness of myself, and
the Father that sent me beareth witness of me ; " but you wiU
not let us quote in reply such passages as these : " Search the
Scriptures ; for in them ye think that ye have eternal life, and
they are they that testify of me ; " " If ye beheved Moses, ye
would beheve me, for he wrote of me ; " " They have Moses
and the prophets, let them hear them ; " " If they hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither wiU they beheve though one
rose from the dead." What have you to say for yourselves ?
Where is your authority? If you reject these passages of
Scripture, in spite of the weighty authority in theh favour,
what mhacles can you show ? However, if you did work
miracles, we should be on our guard against receiving their
evidence in your case ; for the Lord has forewarned us :
" Many false Christs and false prophets shaU arise, and shaU
do many signs and wonders, that they may deceive, if it were
possible, the very elect : behold, I have told you before." 1
This shows that the established authority of Scripture must
outweigh every other; for it derives new confirmation from
the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves,
in fulfilment of the predictions made so long before their
occurrence. 6. Are, then, your doctrines so manifestly true, that they
require no support from miracles or from any testimony ?
Show us these self-evident truths, if you have anything of the
kind to show. Your legends, as we have already seen, are
long and silly, old wives' fables for the amusement of women
and children. The beginning is detached from the rest, the
middle is unsound, and the end is a miserable failure. If
you begin with the immortal, invisible, incorruptible God,
what need was there of His fighting with the race of dark
ness ? And as for the middle of your theory, what becomes
1 Matt. xxiv. 24, 25.

244 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BO OK XIII.
of the incorruptibility and unchangeableness of God, when
His members in fruits and vegetables are purified by your
mastication and digestion ? And for the end, is it just that
the wretched soul should be punished with lasting confine
ment in the mass of darkness, because its God is unable to
cleanse it of the defilement contracted from evil external to
itself in the fulfilment of His own commission ? You are at
a loss for a reply. See the worthlessness of your boasted
manuscripts, numerous and valuable as you say tney are !
Alas for the toUs of the antiquaries ! Alas for the property
of the unhappy owners ! Alas for the food of the deluded
foUowers ! Destitute as you are of Scripture authority, of the
power of miracles, of moral exceUence, and of sound doctrine,
depart ashamed, and return penitent, confessing that true Christ,
who is the Saviour of aU who believe in Him, whose name
and whose Church are now displayed as they were of old fore- ,
told, not by some being issuing from subterranean darkness,
but by a nation in a distinct kingdom established for this pur
pose, that there those things might be figuratively predicted of
Christ which are now in reahty fulfilled, and the prophets
might foreteU in writing what the apostles now exhibit in
theh preaching.
7. Let us suppose, then, a conversation with a heathen
inquirer, in which Faustus described us as making a poor
appearance, though his own appearance was much more de
plorable. If we say to the heathen, Believe in Christ, for He
is God, and, on his asking for evidence, produce the authority
of the prophets, if he says that he does not believe the pro
phets, because they are Hebrew and he is a Gentile, we can
prove the truth of the prophets from the actual fulfilment of
their prophecies. He could scarcely be ignorant of the per
secutions suffered by the early Christians from the kings of
this world ; or if he was ignorant, he could be informed from
history and the records of imperial laws. But this is what
we find foretold long ago by the prophet, saying, " Why do
the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing ? The
kings of the earth set themselves, and the princes take counsel
together against the Lord, and against His Christ." The rest
of the Psalm shows that this is not said of David. For what

BOOK XIII.] THE HEATHEN INQUIRER. 245
foUows might convince the most stubborn unbehever : " The
Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have I be
gotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen
for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy pos
session."1 This never happened to the Jews, whose king
David was, but is now plainly fulfiUed in the subjection of all
nations to the name of Christ. This and many simUar pro
phecies, which it would take too long to quote, woidd surely
impress the mind of the inquirer. He would see these very
kings of the earth now happUy subdued by Christ, and all
nations serving Him; and he would hear the words of the
Psalm in which this was so long before predicted : " All the
kings of the earth shall bow down to Him ; aU nations shaU
serve Him."2 And if he were to read the whole of that Psalm,
which is figuratively applied to Solomon, he would find that
Christ is the true King of peace, for Solomon means peaceful ;
and he woidd find many things in the Psalm applicable to
Christ, which have no reference at all to the hteral King
Solomon. Then there is that other Psalm where God is
spoken of as anointed by God, the very word anointed point
ing to Christ, showing that Christ is God, for God is repre
sented as being anointed.3 In reading what is said in this
Psalm of Christ and of the Church, he would find that what
is there foretold is fulfiUed in the present state of the world.
He would see the idols of the nations perishing from off the
earth, and he would find that this is predicted by the pro
phets, as in Jeremiah, "Then shall ye say unto them, The
gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, shall
perish from the earth, and from under heaven;"4 and again,
" 0 Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the
day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto Thee from the
ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have in
herited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods ?
Therefore, behold, I will at that time cause them to know, I
will cause them to know mine hand and my might ; and they
shall know that I am the Lord." 5 Hearing these prophecies,
1 Ps. ii. 7, 8. 2 Ps. Ixxii. 10. 3 Ps. xiv. 7.
4 Jer. x. 11. o Jer. xvi. 19-21.

246 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIII.
and seeing theh actual fulfilment, I need not say that he
would be affected ; for we know by experience how the hearts
of believers are confirmed by seeing ancient predictions now
receiving theh accomplishment.
8. In the same prophet the inquirer would find clear proof
that Christ is not merely one of the great men that have
appeared in the world. For Jeremiah goes on to say : " Cursed
be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm,
and whose heart departeth from the Lord: for he shaU be
like the heath in the desert, and shaU not see when good
cometh ; but shaU inhabit the parched places of the wUder
ness, in a salt land not inhabited. Blessed is the man that
trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is : for he shaU
be as a tree beside the water, that spreadeth out its roots by
the river : he shaU not fear when heat cometh, but his leaf
shaU be green ; he shall not be careful in the year of drought,
neither shaU cease from yielding fruit."1 On hearing this
curse pronounced in the figurative language of prophecy on
him that trusts in man, and the blessing in simUar style on
him that trusts in God, the inquirer might have doubts about
our doctrine, in which we teach not only that Christ is God,
so that our trust is not in man, but also that He is man be
cause He took our nature. So some err by denying Christ's
humanity, whUe they aUow His divinity. Others, again, assert
His humanity, but deny His divinity, and so either become
infidels or incur the guilt of trusting in man. The inquirer,
then, might say that the prophet says only that Christ is God,
without any reference to His human nature ; whereas, in our
apostohc doctrine, Christ is not only God in whom we may
safely trust, but the Mediator between God and man — the
man Jesus. The prophet explains this in the words in which
he seems to check himself, and to supply the omission : " His
heart," he says, "is sorrowful throughout; and He is man,
and who shah know Him ? " 2 He is man, in order that in
the form of a servant He might heal the hard in heart, and
that they might acknowledge as God Him who became man
for their sakes, that their trust might be not in man, but in
God-man. He is man taking the form of a servant. And
1 Jer. xvii. 5-8. 2 Jer. xvii. 9.

BOOK XIH.] PROPHECIES FULFILLED. 247
who shaU know Him ? For " He was in the form of God, and
thought it not robbery to be equal to God." x He is man, for
" the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And who
shall know Him ? For " in the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God."2 And
truly His heart was sorrowful throughout. For even as re
gards His own disciples His heart was sorrowful, when He said,
" Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not
known me ? " " Have I been so long time with you " answers
to the words " He is man," and " Have ye not known me ? "
to " Who shaU know Him ? " And the person is none other
but He who says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father." 3 So that our trust is not in man, to be under the
curse of the prophet, but in God-man, that is, in the Son of
God, the Saviour Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and
man. In the form of a servant the Father is greater than
He ; in the form of God He is equal with the Father.
9. In Isaiah we read : " The pride of man shall be brought
low ; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And
they shaU hide the workmanship of their hands in the clefts
of the rocks, and in dens and caves of the earth, from fear of
the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shaU
arise to shake terribly the earth. For in that day a man
shaU cast away his idols of gold and sUver, which they have
made to worship, as useless and hurtful."4 Perhaps the in
quirer himself, who, as Faustus supposes, would laugh and say
that he does not beheve the Hebrew prophets, has hid idols
made with hands in some cleft, or cave, or den. Or he may
know a friend, or neighbour, or feUow-citizen who has done
this from the fear of the Lord, who by the severe prohibition
of the kings of the earth, now serving and bowing down to
him, as the prophet predicted, shakes the earth, that is, breaks
the stubborn heart of worldly men. The inquirer is not
likely to disbeheve the Hebrew prophets, when he finds their
predictions fulfilled, perhaps in his own person.
1 0. One might rather fear that the inquirer, in the midst
of such copious evidence, would say that the Christians
composed those writings when the events described had
1 Phil. ii. 6. 2 John i. 1. « John xiv. 9. * Isa. ii. 17-20.

248 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIII.
already begun to take place, in order that those occurrences
might appear to be not due to a merely human purpose, but
as if divinely foretold. One might fear this, were it not for
the widely spread and widely known people of the Jews ;
that Cain, with the mark that he should not be kiUed by any
one ; that Ham, the servant of his brethren, carrying as a load
the books for their instruction. From the Jewish manuscripts
we prove that these things were not written by us to suit the
event, but were long ago published and preserved as pro
phecies in the Jewish nation. These prophecies are now ex
plained in their accomplishment : for even what is obscure in
them — because these things happened to them as an example,
and were written for our benefit, on whom the ends of the
world are come — is now made plain ; and what was hidden in
the shadows of the future is now visible in the light of actual
experience. 11. The inquirer might bring forward as a difficulty the
fact that those in whose books these prophecies are found are
not united with us in the gospeL But when convinced that
this also is foretold, he would feel how strong the evidence is.
The prophecies of the unbehef of the Jews no one can avoid
seeing, no one can pretend to be blind to them. No one can
doubt that Isaiah spoke of the Jews when he said, " The ox
knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib ; but Israel
doth not know, and my people doth not consider;"1 or again,
in the words quoted by the apostle, " I have stretched out
my hands all the day to a wicked and gainsaying people;"2
and especiaUy where he says, " God has given them the sphit
of remorse, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they
should not hear, and should not understand,"3 and many
simUar passages. If the inquher objected that it was not the
fault of the Jews if God blinded them so that they did not
know Christ, we should try in the simplest manner possible
to make him understand that this blindness is the just
punishment of other secret sins known to God. We should
prove that the apostle recognises this principle when he says
of some persons, " God gave them up to the lusts of their
own hearts, and to a reprobate mind, to do things not con-
i Isa. i. 3. 2 Isa. lxv. 2 : cf. Rom. x. 21. 3 Isa. vi. 10 : cf. Rom. xi. 8.

BOOK XIII.] HERETICS DESCRIBED. 249

venient ; " x and that the prophets themselves speak of this.
For, to revert to the words of Jeremiah, " He is man, and
who shaU know Him ?" lest it should be an excuse for the
Jews that they did not know, — for if they had known, as the
apostle says, " they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory,"2 — the prophet goes on to show that their ignorance was
the result of secret criminality; for he says: "I the Lord
search the heart, and try the reins, to give to every one accord
ing to his ways, and according to the fruits of his doings."
12. If the next difficulty in the mind of the inquirer arose
from the divisions and heresies among those caUed Christians,
he would learn that this too is taken notice of by the pro
phets. For, as if it was natural that, after being satisfied
about the bhndness of the Jews, this objection from the
divisions among Christians should occur, Jeremiah, observing
this order in his prophecy, immediately adds in the passage
already quoted : " The partridge is clamorous, gathering what
it has not. brought forth, making riches without judgment."
For the partridge is notoriously quarrelsome, and is often
caught from its eagerness in quarrelling. So the heretics
discuss not to find the truth, but with a dogged determination
to gain the victory one way or another, that they may gather,
as the prophet says, what they have not brought forth. For
those whom they lead astray are Christians already born of
the gospel, whom the Christian profession of the heretics mis
leads. Thus they make riches not with judgment, but with
inconsiderate haste. For they do not consider that the fol
lowers whom they gather as their riches are taken from the
genuine original Christian society, and deprived of its benefits ;
and as the apostle describes these heretics in the words : " As
Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so they also resist the
truth : men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
But they shaU proceed no further : for their folly shaU be
manifest to aU men, as thehs also was." 3 So the prophet goes
on to say of the partridge, which gathers what it has not
brought forth : " In the midst of his days they shaU leave him,
and in the end he shaU be a fool ; " that is, he who at first
misled people by a promising display of superior wisdom,
1 Rom. i. 28. 2 1 Cor. ii. 8. 3 2 Tim. iii. 8.

250 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [bOOKXHI.
shaU be a fool, that is, shaU be seen to be a fool. He wiU
be seen when his folly is manifest to all men, and to those
to whom he was at first a wise man he wiU then be a fool.
13. As if anticipating that the mquirer would ask next
by what plain mark a young disciple, not yet able to dis
tinguish the truth among so many errors, might find the
true Church of Christ, since the clear fulfilment of so many
predictions compeUed him to believe in Christ, the prophet
answers this question in what foUows, and teaches that the
Church of Christ, which he describes propheticaUy, is con
spicuously visible. His words are : " A glorious high throne
is our sanctuary."1 This glorious throne is the Church of
which the apostle says : " The temple of God is holy, which
temple ye are."2 The Lord also, foreseeing the conspicuous-
ness of the Church as a help to young disciples who might
be misled, says, " A city that is set on an hiU cannot be hid."3
Since, then, a glorious high throne is our sanctuary, no atten
tion is to be paid to those who would lead us into sectarian
ism, saying, " Lo, here is Christ," or '' Lo there." Lo here,
lo there, speaks of division ; but the true city is on a moun
tain, and the mountain is that which, as we read in the pro
phet Daniel, grew from a httle, stone tUl it, fiUed the whole
earth.4 And no attention should be paid to those who, pro
fessing some hidden mystery confined to a small number, say,
Behold, He is in the chamber ; behold, in the desert : for a city
set on an hhl cannot be hid, and a glorious high throne is our
sanctuary. 14. After considering these instances of the fulfilment of
prophecy about kings and people acting as persecutors, and
then becoming behevers, about the destruction of idols, about
the blindness of the Jews, about theh testimony to the
writings which they have preserved, about the folly of heretics,
about the dignity of the Church of true and genuine Christians,
the inquirer would most reasonably receive the testimony of
these prophets about the divinity of Christ. No doubt, if we
were to begin by urging him to beheve prophecies yet unful
filled, he might justly answer, What have I to do with these
prophets, of whose truth I have no evidence? But, in view of
1 Jer. xvii. 12. 2 1 Cor. iii. 17. 3 Matt. v. 14. 4 Dan. ii. 34, 35.

BOOK XIII.] THE INQUIRER SATISFIED. 251
the manifest accomplishment of so many remarkable predic
tions, no candid person would despise either the things which
were thought worthy of being predicted in those early times
with so much solemnity, or those who made the predictions.
To none can we trust more safely, as regards either events
long past or those stUl future, than to men whose words are
supported by the evidence of so many notable predictions
having been fulfilled.
15. If any truth about God or the Son of God is taught or
predicted in the Sibyl or Sibyls, or in Orpheus, or in Hermes,
if there ever was such a person, or in any other heathen poets,
or theologians, or sages, or philosophers, it may be useful for
the refutation of Pagan error, but cannot lead us to believe
in these writers. For whUe they spoke, because they could
not help it, of the God whom we worship, they either taught
theh feUow-countrymen to worship idols and demons, or
allowed them to do so without daring to protest against it.
But our sacred writers, with the authority and assistance of
God, were the means of estabhshing and preserving among
their people a government under which heathen customs were
condemned as sacrUege. If any among this people fell into
idolatry or demon-worship, they were either punished by the
laws, or met by the awful denunciations of the prophets.
They worshipped one God, the maker of heaven and earth.
They had rites ; but these rites were prophetic, or symbolical
of things to come, and were to cease on the appearance of the
things signified. The whole state was one great prophet,
with its king and priest symbolicaUy anointed, which was
discontinued, not by the wish of the Jews themselves, who
were in ignorance through unbelief, but only on the coming
of Him who was God, anointed with sphitual grace above His
feUows, the holy of holies, the true King who should govern
us, the true Priest who should offer Himself for us. In a
word, the predictions of heathen ingenuity regarding Christ's
coming are as different from sacred prophecy as the confession
of devUs from the proclamation of angels.
16. By such arguments, which might be expanded if we
were discussing with one brought up in heathenism, and
might be supported by proofs in stUl greater number, the

252 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIII.
inquirer whom Faustus has brought before us would certainly
be led to believe, unless he preferred his sins to his salvation.
As a behever, he would be taken to be cherished in the
bosom of the Catholic Church, and would be taught in due
course the conduct required of him. He would see many
who do not practise the required duties ; but this would not
shake his faith, even though these people should belong to
the same Church and partake of the same sacraments as him
self. He would understand that few share in the inheritance
of God, while many partake in its outward signs ; that few
are united in holiness of hfe, and in the gift of love shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us,
which is a hidden spring that no stranger can approach ; and
that many join in the solemnity of the sacrament, which he
that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment
to himself, whUe he who neglects to eat it shall not have hfe
in him,1 and so shaU never reach eternal hfe. He wiU under
stand, too, that the good are called few as compared with the
multitude of the evU, but that as scattered over the world
there are very many growing among the tares, and mixed with
the chaff, till the day of harvest and of purging. As this is
taught in the Gospel, so is it foretold by the prophets. We
read, " As a lily among thorns, so is my beloved among the
daughters ; " 2 and again, " I have dwelt in the tabernacles of
Kedar ; peaceful among them that hated peace ; " 3 and again,
" Mark in the forehead those who sigh and cry for the ini
quities of my people, which are done in the midst of them." 4
The inquher would be confirmed by such passages ; and being
now a feUow-citizen with the saints and of the household of
God, no longer an ahen from Israel, but an Israehte indeed,
in whom is no guUe, would learn to utter from a guileless
heart the words which follow in the passage of Jeremiah
aheady quoted, " 0 Lord, the patience of Israel : let aU that
forsake Thee be dismayed." After speaking of the partridge
that is clamorous, and gathers what it has not brought forth ;
and after extoUing the city set on an hiU which cannot be
hid, to prevent heretics from drawing men away from the
Catholic Church ; after the words, " A glorious high throne is
1 John vi. 54. 2 Cant. ii. 2. 3 Ps. cxx. 7. 4 Ezek. ix. 1.

BOOK XIII.] THE PATIENCE OF ISRAEL. 253
our sanctuary," he seems to ask himself, What do we make of
all those evil men who are found mixed with the Church, and
who become more numerous as the Church extends, and as all
nations are united in Christ ? And then follow the words, " O
Lord, the patience of Israel." Patience is necessary to obey
the command, " Suffer both to grow together tiU the harvest."1
Impatience towards the evU might lead to forsaking the good,
who in the strict sense are the body of Christ, and to forsake
them would be to forsake Him. So the prophet goes on to
say, " Let aU that forsake Thee be dismayed ; let those who
have departed to the earth be confounded." The earth is
man trusting in himself, and inducing others to trust in him.
So the prophet adds : " Let them be overthrown, for they have
forsaken the Lord, the fountain of life." This is the cry of
the partridge, that it has got the fountain of life, and wiU give
it ; and so men are gathered to it, and depart from Christ, as
if Christ, whose name they had professed, had not fulfiUed
His promise. The partridge gathers those whom it has not
brought forth. And in order to do this, it declares, The sal
vation which Christ promises is with me ; I wiU give it. In
opposition to this the prophet says : " Heal me, 0 Lord, and I
shaU be healed ; save me, and I shaU be saved." So we read
in the apostle, " Let no man glory in men ;"2 or in the words
of the prophet, " Thou art my praise." 3 Such is a specimen
of instruction in apostohc and prophetic doctrine, by which
a man may be buUt on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets. 17. Faustus has not told us how he would prove the
divinity of Christ to the heathen, whom he makes to say : I
beheve neither the prophets in support of Christ, nor Christ
in support of the prophets. It would be absurd to suppose
that such a man would beheve what Christ says of Himself,
when he disbelieves what He says of others. For if he thinks
Him unworthy of credit in one case, he must think Him
so in aU, or at least more so when speaking of Himself than
when speaking of others. Perhaps, failing this, Faustus would
read to him the Sibyls and Orpheus, and any heathen pro
phecies about Christ that he could find. But how could he do
1 Matt. xiii. 30. * 1 Cor. iii. 21. 3 Jer. xvii. 14.

254 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XHI.
this, when he confesses that he knows none ? His words are :
" If, as is said, any prophecies of Christ are to be found in the
Sibyl, or in Hermes, caUed Trismegistus, or Orpheus, or any
heathen poet." How could he read writings of which he knows
nothing, and which he supposes to exist only from report,
to one who wiU not beheve either the prophets or Christ?
What, then, would he do ? Would he bring forward Mani
chaeus as a witness to Christ ? The opposite of this is what
the Manichaeans do. They take advantage of the widespread
fragrance of the name of Christ to gain acceptance for Mani
chaeus, that the edge of theh poisoned cup may be sweetened
with this honey. Taking hold of the promise of Christ to His
disciples that He would send the Paraclete, that is, the Com
forter or Advocate, they say that this Paraclete is Manichaeus,
or in Manichaeus, and so steal an entrance into the minds of
men who do not know when He who was promised by Christ
reaUy came. Those who have read the canonical book caUed
the Acts of the Apostles find a reference to Christ's promise,
and an account of its fulfilment. Faustus, then, has no proof
to give to the inquirer. It is not hkely that any one wiU be
so infatuated as to take the authority of Manichaeus when he
rejects that of Christ. Would he not reply in derision, if not
in anger, Why do you ask me to beheve Persian books, when
you forbid me to believe Hebrew books ? The Manichaean
has no hold on the inquirer, unless he is aheady in some way
convinced of the truth of Christianity. When he finds him
willing to beheve Christ, then he deludes him with the repre
sentation of Christ given by Manichaeus. So the partridge
gathers what it has not brought forth. When wiU you whom
he gathers leave him ? When will you see him to be a fool,
who teUs you that Hebrew testimony is worthless in the case
of unbelievers, and superfluous to believers ?
18. If behevers are to throw away aU the books which
have led them to believe, I see no reason why they should
continue reading the Gospel itself. The Gospel, too, must be
worthless to this inquirer, who, according to Faustus' pitiful
supposition, rejects with ridicule the authority of Christ.
And to the behever it must be superfluous, if true notices of
Christ are superfluous to behevers. And if the Gospel should

BOOK XIII.] THE RECORD OF FAITH. 255
be read by the behever, that he may not forget what he has
believed, so should the prophets, that he may not forget why
he beheved. For if he forgets this, his faith cannot be firm.
By this principle, you should throw away the books of Mani
chaeus, on the authority of which you already beheve that
hght — that is, God — fought with darkness, and that, in order
to bind darkness, the hght was first swaUowed up and bound,
and poUuted and mangled by darkness, to be restored, and
hberated, and purified, and healed by your eating, for which
you are rewarded by not being condemned to the mass of
darkness for ever, along with that part of the hght which
cannot be extricated. This fiction is sufficiently pubhshed
by your practice and your words. Why do you seek for the
testimony of books, and add to the embarrassment of your
God by the consumption of strength in the needless task of
writing manuscripts ? Burn all your parchments, with their
finely-ornamented binding; so you will be rid of a useless
burden, and your God who suffers confinement in the volume
wiU be set free. What a mercy it would be to the members
of your God, if you could boU your books and eat them !
There might be a difficulty, however, from the prohibition of
animal food. Then the writing must share in the impurity
of the sheepskin. Indeed, you are to blame for this; for,
like what you say was done in the first war between hght
and darkness, you brought what was clean in the pen in
contact with the uncleanness of the parchment. Or perhaps,
for the sake of the colours, we may put it the other way ; and
so the darkness would be yours, in the ink which you brought
against the light ofthe white pages. If these remarks irritate
you, you should rather be angry with yourselves for beheving
doctrines of which these are the necessary consequences. As
for the books of the apostles and prophets, we read them as a
record of our faith, to encourage our hope and animate our
love. These books are in perfect harmony with one another ;
and theh harmony, like the music of a heavenly trumpet,
wakens us from the torpor of worldhness, and urges us on to
the prize of our high calling. The apostle, after quoting from
the prophets the words, "The reproaches of them that re
proached Thee fell on me," goes on to speak of the benefit of

256 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXJV.
reading the prophets : " For whatsoever things were written
beforetime were written for our learning ; that we, through
patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope."1
If Faustus denies this, we can only say with Paul, " If any
one shall preach to you another doctrine than that ye have
received, let him be accursed."2

BOOK XIV.
1. Faustus. If you ask why we do not beheve Moses, it is
on account of our love and reverence for Christ. The most
reckless man cannot regard with pleasure a person who has
cursed his father. So we abhor Moses, not so much for his
blasphemy of everything human and divine, as for the awful
curse he has pronounced upon Christ the Son of God, who for
our salvation hung on the tree. Whether Moses did this
intentionaUy or not is your concern. Either way, he cannot
be excused, or considered worthy of behef. His words are,
"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."3 You tell
me to beheve this man, though, if he was inspired, he must
have cursed Christ knowingly and intentionaUy ; and if he
did it in ignorance, he cannot have been inspired. Take
either alternative. Moses was no prophet, and whUe cursing
in his usual manner, he feU ignorantly into the sin of blas
phemy against God. Or he was inspired, and foresaw the
future; and from Ul-wUl to our salvation, he directs the venom
of his malediction against Him who was to accomplish that
salvation on a tree. He who thus injures the Son cannot
surely have seen or known the Father. He who knew
nothing of the final ascension of the Son, cannot surely have
foretold His advent. Moreover, the extent of the injury
inflicted by this curse is to be considered. For it denounces
all the righteous men and martyrs, and sufferers of every
kind, who have died in this way, as Peter and Andrew, and
the rest. Such a cruel denunciation could never have come
from Moses if he had been a prophet, unless he was a bitter
enemy of these sufferers. For he pronounces them cursed
1 Rom. xv. 4. 2 Gal. i. 9. 3 Deut. xxi. 23.

BOOK XIV.] MOSES. 257
not only of men, but of God. What hope, then, of blessing
remains to Christ, or his apostles, or to us if we happen to
be crucified for Christ's sake? It indicates great thought
lessness in Moses, and the want of all divine inspiration, that
he overlooked the fact that men are hung on a tree for very
different reasons, some for their crimes, and others who suffer
in the cause of God and of righteousness. In this thoughtless
way he heaps aU together without distinction under the same
curse ; whereas if he had had sense, not to say inspiration, if
he wished to single out the punishment of the cross from all
others as speciaUy detestable, he would have said, Cursed is
every guilty criminal that hangeth on a tree. This would
have made a distinction between the guUty and the innocent.
And yet even this would have been incorrect, for Christ took
the malefactor from the cross along with himself into the
Paradise of his Father. What becomes of the curse on every
one that hangeth on a tree ? Was Barabbas, the notorious
robber, who certainly was not hung on a tree, but was set
free from prison at the request of the Jews, more blessed
than the thief who accompanied Christ from the cross to
heaven ? Again, there is a curse on the man that worships
the sun or the moon. Now if under a heathen monarch I
am forced to worship the sun, and if from fear of this curse
I refuse, shah I incur this other curse by suffering the
punishment of crucifixion ? Perhaps Moses was in the habit
of cursing everything good. We think no more of his de
nunciation than of an old wife's scolding. So we find him
pronouncing a curse on all youths of both sexes, when he
says : " Cursed is every one that raiseth not up a seed in
Israel."1 This is aimed directly at Jesus, who, according to
you, was born among the Jews, and raised up no seed to
continue his family. It points too at his disciples, some of
whom he took from the wives they had married, and some
who were unmarried he forbade to take wives. We have
good reason, you see, for expressing our abhorrence of the-
daring style in which Moses hurls his maledictions against
Christ, against hght, against chastity, against everything
divine. • You cannot make much of the distinction between
1 Deut. xxv. 5-10.
7 R

258 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XD7.
hanging on a tree and being crucified, as you often try to do
by way of apology; for Paul repudiates such a distinction
when he says, " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us ; as it is written, Cursed
is every one that hangeth on a tree."1
2. Augustine. The pious Faustus is pained because Christ is
cursed by Moses. His love for Christ makes him hate Moses.
Before explaining the sacred import and the piety of the
words, " Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," I would
ask these pious people why they are angry with Moses, since
his curse does not affect their Christ. If Christ hung on the
tree, He must have been fastened to it with nails, the marks
of which He showed to His doubting disciple after His resur
rection. Accordingly He must have had a vulnerable and
mortal body, which the Manichaeans deny. CaU the wounds
and the marks false, and it foUows that His hanging on the
tree was false. This Christ is not affected by the curse, and
there is no occasion for this indignation against the person
uttering the curse. If they pretend to be angry with Moses
for cursing what they caU the false death of Christ, what are
we to think of themselves, who do not curse Christ, but, what
is much worse, make Him a har ? If it is wrong to curse
mortahty, it is a much more heinous offence to suUy the
purity of truth. But let us make these heretical cavUs an
occasion for explaining this mystery to behevers.
3. Death comes upon man as the punishment of sin, and
so is itself caUed sin; not that a man sins in dying, but be
cause sin is the cause of his death. So the word tongue,
which properly means the fleshy substance between the teeth
and the palate, is apphed in a secondary sense to the result
of the tongue's action. In this sense we speak of a Latin
tongue and a Greek tongue. The word hand, too, means both
the members of the body we use in working, and the writing
which is done with the hand. In this sense we speak of
writing as being proved to be the hand of a certain person, or
of recognising the hand of a friend. The writing is certainly
not a member of the body, but the name hand is given to it
because it is the hand that does it. So sin means both a bad
1 Gal. iii. 10.

BOOK XIV.] SIN AND DEATH. 259
action deserving punishment, and death the consequence of
sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but
He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on
human nature by sin. This is what hung on the tree ; this
is what was cursed by Moses. Thus was death condemned
that its reign might cease, and cursed that it might be de
stroyed. By Christ's taking our sin in this sense, its condem
nation is our deliverance, while to remain in subjection to sin
is to be condemned.
4. What does Faustus find strange in the curse pronounced
on sin, on death, and on human mortahty, which Christ had
on account of man's sin, though He Himself was sinless?
Christ's body was derived from Adam, for His mother the
Vhgin Mary was a chUd of Adam. But God said in Paradise,
" On the day that ye eat, ye shaU surely die." This is the
curse which hung on the tree. A man may deny that Christ
was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who
believes that Christ died, and acknowledges that death is the
fruit of sin, and is itself caUed sin, will understand who it is
that is cursed by Moses, when he hears the apostle • saying,
"For our old man is crucified with Him."1 The apostle
boldly says of Christ, " He was made a curse for us ;" for he
could also venture to say, " He died for aU." " He died," and
" He was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of the
curse ; and sin is cursed, whether it means the action which
merits punishment, or the punishment which foUows. Christ,
though guUtless, took our punishment, that He might cancel
our guUt, and do away with our punishment.
5. These things are not my conjectures, but are affirmed
constantly by the apostle, with an emphasis sufficient to rouse
the careless and to sUence the gainsayers. " God," he says,
" sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He
might condemn sin in the flesh."2 Christ's flesh was not
sinful, because it was not born of Mary by ordinary generation ;
but because death is the effect of sin, this flesh, in being
mortal, had the likeness of sinful flesh This is caUed sin in
the foUowing words, " that by sin He might condemn sin in
the flesh." Again he says : " He hath made Him to be sin for
1 Rom. vi. 6. 2 Rom. viii. 3.

260 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIV.
us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him." 1 Why should not Moses caU accursed
what Paul caUs sin ? Tn this prediction the prophet claims
a share with the apostle in the reproach of the heretics. For
whoever finds fault with the word cursed in the prophet,
must find fault with the word sin in the apostle ; for curse
and sin go together.
6. If we read, " Cursed of God is every one that hangeth
on a tree," the addition of the words " of God " creates no diffi
culty. For had not God hated sin and our death, He would
not have sent His Son to bear and to abohsh it. And there
is nothing strange in God's cursing what He hates. For His
readiness to give us the immortahty which wUl be had at the
coming of Christ, is in proportion to the compassion with
which He hated our death when it hung on the cross at the
death of Christ. And if Moses curses every one that hangeth
on a tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee that
righteous men would be crucified, but rather because He fore
saw that heretics would deny the death of the Lord to be
real, and would try to disprove the apphcation of this curse
to Christ, hi order that they might disprove the reahty of His
death. For if Christ's death was not real, nothing cursed
hung on the cross when He was crucified, for the crucifixion
cannot have been real. Moses cries from the distant past to
these heretics : Your evasion in denying the reahty of the
death of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangeth
on a tree ; not this one or that, but absolutely every one.
What ! the Son of God ? Yes, assuredly. This is the very
thing you object to, and that you are so anxious to evade.
You will not allow that He was cursed for us, because you
will not allow that He died for us. Exemption from Adam's
curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ
endured death as man, and for man ; so also, Son of God as
He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for
our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the
curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh
which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever
blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our
1 2 Cor. v. 21.

BOOK XIV.] THE DEATH OF CHRIST A REAL DEATH. 261
offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punish
ment. And these words " every one " are intended to check
the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of
the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with
death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.
7. The behever in the true doctrine of the gospel will
understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he
speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as
hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment,
any more than He is praised by the Manichaeans when they
deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death.
In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ's humihty,
while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge
of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you
must deny that He died ; and then you have to meet, not
Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may
also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punish
ment. Now the punishment of sin cannot be blessed, or else
it would be a thing to be desired. The curse is pronounced
by divine justice, and it wiU be weU for us if we are redeemed
from it. Confess then that Christ died, and you may confess
that He bore the curse for us ; and that when Moses said,
" Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," he said in fact,
To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die. He
might have said, "Cursed is every one that is mortal," or
" Cursed is every one dying ;" but the prophet knew that
Christ would suffer on the cross, and that heretics would say
that He hung on the tree only in appearance, without reaUy
dying. So he exclaims, Cursed; meaning that He reaUy
died. He knew that the death of sinful man, which Christ
though sinless bore, came from that curse, " If ye touch it, ye
shaU surely die." Thus also, the serpent hung on the pole
was intended to show that Christ did not feign death, but that
the real death into which the serpent by his fatal counsel cast
mankind was hung on the cross of Christ's passion. The
Manichaeans turn away from the view of this real death, and
so they are not healed of the poison of the serpent, as we read
that in the wUderness as many as looked were healed.
8. It is true, some ignorantly distinguish between hanging

262 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIV.
on a tree and being crucified. So some explain this passage
as referring to Judas. But how do they know whether he
hung himself from wood or from stone ? Faustus is right in
saying that the apostle obliges us to refer the words to Christ.
Such ignorant Cathohcs are the prey of the Manichaeans.
Such they get hold of and entangle in theh sophistry. Such
were we when we feU into this heresy, and adhered to it.
Such were we, when, not by our own strength, but by the
mercy of God, we were rescued.
9. What attacks on divine things does Faustus speak of
when he charges Moses with sparing nothing human or divine ?
He makes the charge without stopping to prove it. We
know, on the contrary, that Moses gave due praise to every
thing reaUy divine, and in human affairs was a just ruler, con
sidering his times and the grace of his dispensation. It wUl
be time to prove this when we see any proof of Faustus'
charges. It may be clever to make such charges cautiously,
but there is great incaution in the cleverness which ruins its
possessor. It is good to be clever on the side of truth, but
it is a poor thing to be clever in opposition to the truth
Faustus says that Moses spared nothing human or divine;
not that he spared no god or man. If he said that Moses
did not spare God, it could easUy be shown in reply that
Moses everywhere does honour to the true God, whom he
declares to be the Maker of heaven and earth. Again, if he
said that Moses spared none of the gods, he would betray
himself to Christians as a worshipper of the false gods that
Moses denounces ; and so he would be prevented from gather
ing what he has not brought forth, by the brood taking refuge
under the wings of the Mother Church. Faustus tries to
ensnare the babes, by saying that Moses spared nothing divine,
wishing not to frighten Christians with a profession of behef
in the gods, which would be plainly opposed to Christianity,
and at the same time appearing to take the side of the Pagans
against us ; for they know that Moses has said many plain and
pointed things against the idols and gods of the heathen, which
are devUs.
10. If the Manichaeans disapprove of Moses on this account,
let them confess that they are worshippers of idols and devUs.

BOOK XIV.] MANICHaEAN IDOLATRY. 263
 r  - — — 
This, indeed, may be the case without their being aware of it.
The apostle teUs us that " in the last days some shaU depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing sphits, and to doctrines
of devUs, speaking hes in hypocrisy."1 Whence but from
devils, who are fond of falsehood, could the idea have come
that Christ's sufferings and death were unreal, and that the
marks which He showed- of His wounds were unreal ? Are
these not the doctrines of lying devils, which teach that Christ,
the Truth itself, was a deceiver ? Besides, the Manichaeans
openly teach the worship, if not of devUs, stUl of created
things, which the apostle condemns in the words, "They
worshipped and served the creature rather than -the Creator." 2
11. As there is an unconscious worship of idols and devils
in the fanciful legends of the Manichaeans, so they knowingly
serve the creature in theh worship of the sun and moon.
And in what they call their service of the Creator they really
serve their own fancy, and not the Creator at aU. For they
deny that God created those things which the apostle plainly
declares to be the creatures of God, when he says of food,
" Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if
it is received with thanksgiving." 3 This is sound doctrine,
which you cannot bear, and so turn to fables. The apostle
praises the creature of God, but forbids the worship of it ;
and in the same way Moses gives due praise to the sun and
moon, whUe at the same time he states the fact of their
having been made by God, and placed by Him in theh
courses, — the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the
night. Probably you think Moses spared nothing divine,
simply because he forbade the worship of the sun and moon,
whereas you turn towards them in all directions in your
worship. But the sun and moon take no pleasure in your
false praises. It is the devU, the transgressor, that dehghts
in false praises. The powers of heaven, who have not faUen
by sin, wish their Creator to be praised in them ; and their
true praise is that which does no wrong to their Creator.
He is wronged when they are said to be His members,, or
parts of His substance. For He is perfect and independent,
underived, not divided or scattered in space, but unchange-
1 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2. ' Rom. i. 25. 3 1 Tim. iv. 4.

264 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIV.
ably self-existent, self-sufficient, and blessed in Himself. In
the abundance of His goodness, He by His word spoke, and
they were made ; He commanded, and they were created.
And if earthly bodies are good, of which the apostle spoke
when he said that no food is unclean, because every creature
of God is good, much more the heavenly bodies, of which the
sun and moon are the chief; for the apostle says again, "The
glory of the terrestrial is one, and the glory of the celestial
is another." 1
12. Moses, then, casts no reproach on the sun and moon
when he prohibits their worship. He praises them as
heavenly bodies ; whUe he also praises God as the Creator of
both heavenly and earthly, and wiU not aUow of His being
insulted by giving the worship due to Him to those who are
praised only as dependent upon Him. Faustus prides him
self on the ingenuity of his objection to the curse pronounced
by Moses on the worship of the sun and moon. He says,
" If under a heathen monarch I am forced to worship the sun,
and if from fear of this curse I refuse, shaU I incur this other
curse by suffering 'the punishment of crucifixion ? " No
heathen monarch is forcing you to worship the sun; nor
would the sun itself force you, if it were reigning on the
earth, as neither does it now wish to be worshipped. As the
Creator bears with blasphemers tiU the judgment, so these
celestial bodies bear with theh deluded worshippers tiU the
judgment of the Creator. It should be observed that no
Christian monarch could enforce the worship of the sun.
Faustus instances a heathen monarch, for he knows that their
worship of the sun is a heathen custom. Yet, in spite of
this opposition to Christianity, the partridge takes the name of
Christ, that it may gather what it has not brought forth The
answer to this objection is easy, and the force of truth wiU soon
break the horns of this dilemma. Suppose, then, a Christian
threatened by royal authority with being hung on a tree if
he will not worship the sun. If I avoid, you say, the curse
pronounced by the law on the worshipper of the sun, I incur
the curse pronounced by the same law on him that hangs on
a tree. So you wUl be in a difficulty ; only that you worship
1 1 Cor. xv. 40.

BOOK XIV.] A DIFFICULTY SOLVED.

the sun without being forced by anybody. But a true Chris
tian, buUt on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
distinguishes the curses, and the reasons of them. He sees
that one refers to the mortal body which is hung on the tree,
and the other to the mind which worships the sun. For
though the body bows in worship, — which also is a heinous
offence, — the belief or imagination of the object worshipped is
an act of the mind. The death implied in both curses is in
one case the death of the body, and in the other the death of
the soul. It is better to have the curse in bodily death,
— which wiU be removed in the resurrection, — than the curse
in the death of the soul, condemning it along with the body
to eternal fire. The Lord solves this difficulty in the words :
" Fear not them that kiU the body, but cannot kill the soul ;
but fear him who has power to cast both soul and body into
heU-fire." * In other words, fear not the curse of bodUy
death, which in time is removed ; but fear the curse of
sphitual death, which leads to the eternal torment of both
soul and body. Be assured, Cursed is every one that hangeth
on a tree is no old wife's railing, but a prophetical utterance.
Christ, by the curse, takes the curse away, as He takes away
death by death, and sin by sin. In the words, " Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree," there is no more blasphemy
than in the words of the apostle, " He died," or, " Our old
man was crucified along with Him," 2 or, " By sin He con
demned sin," 3 or, " He made Him to be sin for us who knew
no sin," 4 and in many simUar passages. Confess, then, that
when you exclaim against the curse of Christ, you exclaim
against His death. If this is not an old wife's railing on your
part, it is devihsh delusion, which makes you deny the death
of Christ because your own souls are dead. You teach people
that Christ's death was feigned, making Christ your leader in
the falsehood with which you use the name of Christian to
mislead men.
13. If Faustus thinks Moses an enemy of continence or
vhginity because he says, " Cursed is every one that raiseth
not up seed in Israel," let them hear the words of Isaiah :
" Thus saith the Lord to aU eunuchs ; To them who keep my
1 Matt. x. 28. 2 Rom. vi. 6. 3 Rom. viii. 3. 4 2 Cor. v. 21.

266 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
precepts, and choose the things that please me, and regard
my covenant, wUl I give in my house and within my walls
a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters ;
I wiU give them an everlasting name, that shaU not be cut
off." x Though our adversaries disagree with Moses, if they
agree with Isaiah it is something gained. It is enough for us
to know that the same God spoke by both Moses and Isaiah,
and that every one is cursed who raiseth not up seed in
Israel, both then when begetting chUdren in marriage (for the
continuation of the people was a civU duty), and now because
no one spirituaUy born should rest content without seeking
spiritual increase in the production of Christians by preaching
Christ, each one according to his abUity. So that the times
of both Testaments are briefly described in the words, " Cursed
is every one that raiseth not up seed in Israel."

BOOK XV.
1. Faustus. Why do we not receive the Old Testament ?
Because when a vessel is fuU, what is poured on it is not
received, but aUowed to run over ; and a fuU stomach rejects
what it cannot hold. So the Jews, satisfied with the Old
Testament, reject Christ ; and we who have received the New
Testament from Christ, reject the Old. You receive both
because you are only half filled with each, and the one is not
completed, but corrupted by the other. For vessels half filled
should not be filled up with anything of a different nature
from what they aheady contain. If it contains wine, it
should be idled up with wine, honey • with honey, vinegar
with vinegar. For to pour gaU on honey, or water on wine,
or alkalies on vinegar, is not addition, but adulteration. This
is why we do not receive the Old Testament. Our Church,
the bride of Christ, the poor bride of a rich bridegroom, is
content with the possession of her husband, and scorns the
wealth of inferior lovers, and despises the gifts of the Old
Testament and of its author, and from regard to her own
character, receives only the letters of her husband. We leave
1 Isa. ivi. 4, 5.

BOOK XV.] THE UNFAITHFUL CHURCH. 267
the Old Testament to your Church, that, like a bride faithless
to her spouse, dehghts in the letters and gifts of another.
This lover who corrupts your chastity, the God of the Hebrews
in his stone tablets promises you gold and silver, and abun
dance of food, and the land of Canaan. Such low rewards
have tempted you to be unfaithful to Christ, after aU the rich
dowry bestowed by him. By such attractions the God of
the Hebrews gains over the bride of Christ. You must know
that you are cheated, and that these promises are false. This
God is in poverty and beggary, and cannot do what he pro
mises. For if he cannot give these things to the synagogue,
his proper wife, who obeys him in aU things like a servant,
how can he bestow them on you who are strangers, and who
proudly throw off his yoke from your necks ? Go on, then,
as you have begun, join the new cloth to the old garment,
put the new wine in old bottles, serve two masters without
pleasing either, make Christianity a monster, half horse and
hah man ; but aUow us to serve only Christ, content with
his immortal dower, and imitating the apostle who says,
" Our sufficiency is of God, who has made us able ministers
of the New Testament." x In the God of the Hebrews we
have no interest whatever; for neither can he perform his
promises, nor do we desire that he should. The hberahty
of Christ has made us indifferent to the flatteries of this
stranger. This figure of the relation of the wife to her
husband is sanctioned by Paul, who says : " The woman that
has a husband is bound to her husband as long as he liveth ;
but if her husband die, she is freed from the law of her hus
band. So, then, if whUe her husband hveth she be joined to
another man, she shaU be caUed an adulteress ; but if her
husband be dead, she is not an adulteress, though she be
married to another man." 2 Here he shows that there is a
sphitual adultery in being united to Christ before repudiating
the author of the law, and counting him, as it were, as dead.
This apphes chiefly to the Jews who beheve in Christ, and
who ought to forget their former superstition. We who have
been converted to Christ from heathenism, look upon the God
of the Hebrews not merely as dead, but as never having
1 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. s Eom. vii_ 2> 3

268 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
existed, and do not need to be told to forget him. A Jew,
when he believes, should regard Adonai as dead ; a Gentile
should regard his idol as dead ; and so with everything that
has been held sacred before conversion. One who, after
giving up idolatry, worships both the God of the Hebrews and
Christ, is hke an abandoned woman, who after the death of
one husband marries two others.
2. Augustine. Let all who have given their hearts to Christ
say whether they can listen patiently to these things, unless
Christ Himself enable them. Faustus, full of the new honey,
rejects the old vinegar ; and Paul, fuU of the old vinegar, has,
poured out half that the new honey may be poured in, not to
be kept, but to be corrupted. When the apostle calls himself
a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, this is the new honey. But when
he adds, " which He promised before by His prophets in the
Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh," 1 this is the old vinegar. Who could
bear to hear this, unless the apostle himself consoled us by
saying : " There must be heresies, that they which are ap
proved may be made manifest among you " ? 2 Why should
we repeat what we said aheady ? 3 — that the new cloth and
the old garment, the new wine and the old bottles, mean not
two Testaments, but two hves and two hopes, — that the
relation of the two Testaments is figuratively described by
the Lord when He says : " Therefore every scribe instructed in
the kingdom of God is like an householder bringing out of his
treasure things new and old."4 The reader may remember this
as said before, or he may find it on looking back. For if any
one tries to serve God with two hopes, one of earthly felicity,
and the other of the kingdom of heaven, the two hopes cannot
agree ; and when the latter is shaken by some affliction, the
former will be lost too. Thus it is said, No man can serve.
two masters ; which Christ explains thus : " Ye cannot serve
God and Mammon."5 But to those who rightly understand it,
the Old Testament is a prophecy of the New. Even in that
ancient people, the holy patriarchs and prophets, who under-
1 Rom. i. 1-3. 2 1 Cor. xi. 19. 3 Lib. viii.
4 Matt. xiii. 52. 5 Matt. vi. 24.

BOOK XV.] TWO TESTAMENTS NOT TWO MASTERS. 269
stood the part they performed, or which they were instrumental
in performing, had this hope of eternal life in the New Testa
ment. They belonged to the New Testament, because they
understood and loved it, though revealed only in figure.
Those belonging to the Old Testament were the people who
cared for nothing else but the temporal promises, without
understanding them as significant of eternal things. But all
this has aheady been more than enough insisted on.
3. It is amazingly bold in the impious and impure sect of
the Manichaeans to boast of being the chaste bride of Christ.
AU the effect of such a boast on the really chaste members of
the holy Church is to remind them of the apostle's warning
against deceivers : " I have joined you to one husband, to
present you as a chaste vhgin to Christ. But I fear lest, as
the serpent deceived Eve by his guhe, so your minds also
should be corrupted from the purity which is in Christ."1
What else do those preachers of another gospel than that which
we have received try to do, but to corrupt us from the purity
which we preserve for Christ, when they stigmatize the law of
God as old, and praise theh own falsehoods as new, as if all
that is new must be good, and all that is old bad ? The
Apostle John, however, praises the old commandment, and
the Apostle Paul bids us avoid novelties in doctrine. As an
unworthy son and servant of the Catholic Church, the true
bride of the true Christ, I too, as appointed to give out food
to my feUow-servants, would speak to her a word of counsel.
Continue ever to shun the profane errors of the Manichaeans,
which have been tried by the experience of thy own chUdren,
and condemned by their recovery. By that heresy I was
once separated from thy fellowship, and after running into
danger which ought to have been avoided, I escaped. Ee-
stored to thy service, my experience may perhaps be profit
able to thee. Unless thy true and truthful Bridegroom, from
whose side thou wert made, had obtained the remission of
sins through His own real blood, the gulf of error would have
swaUowed me up ; I should have become dust, and been de
voured by the serpent. Be not misled by the name of truth.
The truth is in thine own milk, and in thine own bread.
1 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.

270 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
They have the name only, and not the thing. Thy full-grown
chUdren, indeed, are secure ; but I speak to thy babes, my
brothers, and sons, and masters, whom thou, the virgin
mother, fertUe as pure, dost cherish into life under thine
anxious wings, or dost nourish with the milk of infancy. I
caU upon these, thy tender offspring, not to be seduced by
noisy vanities, but rather to pronounce accursed any one that
preaches to them another gospel than that which they have
received in thee. I caU upon these not to leave the true and
truthful Christ, in whom are hid aU the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge ; not to forsake the abundance of His goodness
which He has laid up for them that fear Him, and has
wrought for them that trust in Him.1 How can they expect
to find truthful words in one who preaches an untruthful
Christ ? Scorn the reproaches cast on thee, for thou knowest
weU that the gift which thou deshest from thy Bridegroom is
eternal life, for He Himself is eternal life.
4. It is a siUy falsehood that thou hast been seduced to
another God, who promises abundance of food and the land of
Canaan. For thou canst perceive how the saints of old, who
were also thy chUdren, were enlightened by these figures which
were prophecies of thee. Thou needest not regard the poor
jest against the stone tablets, for the stony heart of which
they were in old times a figure is not in thee. For thou art
an epistle of the apostles, " written not with ink, but with the
Spirit of the hving God ; not on tables of stone, but on the
fleshy tables of the heart."2 Our opponents ignorantly think
that these words are in theh favour, and that the apostle finds
fault with the dispensation of the Old Testament, whereas
they are the words of the prophet. This utterance of the
apostles was a fulfilment of the long anterior utterances of
the prophet whom the Manichaeans reject, for they beheve the
apostles without understanding them. The prophet says : " I
wUl take away from them the stony heart, and I wUl give
them a heart of flesh."3 What is this but : " Not on tables of
stone, but on the fleshy tables of the heart"? For by the
heart of flesh and the fleshy tables is not meant a carnal un
derstanding : but as flesh feels, whereas a stone cannot, the
1 Ps. xxxi. 19. 2 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3. 3 Ezek. xi. 19.

BOOK XV.] THE BRIDE ADMONISHED. 271
insensibility of stone signifies an unintelligent heart, and the
sensibhity of flesh signifies an intelligent heart. Instead, then,
of scoffing at thee, they deserve to be ridiculed who say that
earth, and wood, and stones have sense, and that their life is
more intelligent than animal hfe. So, not to speak of the truth,
even their own fiction obliges them to confess that the law
written on tables of stone was purer than theh sacred parch
ments. Or perhaps they prefer sheepskin to stone, because
theh legends make stones the bones of princes. In any case,
the ark of the Old Testament was a cleaner covering for the
tables of stone than the goatskin of theh manuscripts. Laugh
at these things, whUe pitying them, to show their falsehood and
absurdity. With a heart no longer stony, thou canst see in
these stone tablets a suitableness to that hard-hearted people ;
and at the same time thou canst find even there the stone,
thy Bridegroom, described by Peter as " a hving stone, rejected
by men, but chosen of God, and precious." To them He was " a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offence ;" but to thee, " the
stone which the buUders rejected has become the head of the
corner."1 This is aU explained by Peter, and is quoted from
the prophets, with whom these heretics have nothing to do.
Fear not, then, to read these tablets — they are from thy Hus
band ; to others the stone was a sign of insensibility, but to
thee of strength and stability. With the finger of God these
tablets were written ; with the finger of God thy Lord cast out
devUs ; with the finger of God drive thou away the doctrines of
lying devUs which sear the conscience. With these tablets
thou canst confound the seducer who caUs himself the Para
clete, that he may impose upon thee by a sacred name. For on
the fiftieth day after the passover the tables were given ; and
on the fiftieth day after the passion of thy Bridegroom — of
whom the passover was a type — the finger of God, the Holy
Spirit, the promised Paraclete, was given. Fear not the
tablets which convey to thee ancient writings now made plain.
Only be not under the law, lest fear prevent thy fulfilling it ;
but be under grace, that love, which is the fulfilling of the
law, may be in thee. For it was in a review of these very
tablets that the friend of thy Bridegroom said : " For thou shalt
1 1 Pet. ii. 4-8.

272 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
not commit adultery, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not
covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is contained
in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love
worketh no ill to his neighbour ; therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law."1 One table contains the precept of love to God,
and the other of love to man. And He who first sent these
tablets Himself came to enjoin those precepts on which hang
the law and the prophets.2 In the first precept is the chas
tity of thy espousals; in the second is the unity of thy
members. In the one thou art united to divinity ; in the
other thou dost gather a society. And these two precepts are
identical with the ten, of which three relate to God, and seven
to our neighbour. Such is the chaste tablet in which thy
Lover and thy Beloved of old prefigured to thee the new song
on a psaltery of ten strings ; Himself to be extended on the
cross for thee, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh,
and that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
thee. Such is the conjugal tablet, which may weU be hated
by the unfaithful wife.
5. I turn now to thee, thou deluded and deluding congre
gation of Manichaeus, — wedded to so many elements, or
rather prostituted to so many devUs, and impregnated with
blasphemous falsehoods, — dost thou dare to slander as unchaste
the marriage of the Catholic Church with thy Lord ? Be
hold thy lovers, one balancing creation, and the other bearing
it up like Atlas. For one, by thy account, holds the sources
of the elements, and hangs the world in space ; whUe the other
keeps him up by kneeling down and carrying the weight on
his shoulders. Where are those beings ? And if they are so
occupied, how can they come to visit thee, to spend an idle
hour in getting their shoulders or their fingers reheved by thy
soft, soothing touch ? But thou art deceived by evil sphits
which commit adultery with thee, that thou mayest conceive
falsehoods and bring forth vanities. Well mayest thou reject
the message of the true God, as opposed to thy parchments,
where in the vain imaginations of a wanton mind thou hast
gone after so many false gods. The fictions of the poets are
more respectable than thine, in this at least, that they deceive
' Rom. xiii. 9, 10. s Matt. xxii. 37-40.

BOOK XV.] FALSE DEITIES. 273
no one ; while the fables in thy books, by assuming an appear
ance of truth, mislead the childish, both young and old, and
pervert their minds. As the apostle says, they have itching
ears, and turn away from hearing the truth to listen to fables.1
How shoiddest thou bear the sound doctrine of these tables,
where the first commandment is, " Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord thy
God is one Lord,"2 when thy corrupt affections find shameful
delight in so many false deities ? Dost thou not remem
ber thy love-song, where thou describest the chief ruler in
perennial majesty, crowned with flowers, and of fiery coun
tenance ? To have even one such lover is shameful ; for a
chaste wife seeks not a husband crowned with flowers. And
thou canst not say that this description or representation has
a typical meaning, for thou art wont to praise Manichaeus
for nothing more than for speaking to thee the simple naked
truth without the disguise of figures. So the God of thy song
is a real king, bearing a sceptre and crowned with flowers.
When he wears a crown of flowers, he ought to put aside his
sceptre; for effeminacy and majesty are incongruous. And
then he is not thy only lover ; for the song goes on to teU
of twelve seasons clothed in flowers, and filled with song,
throwing theh flowers at theh father's face. These are twelve
great gods of thine, three in each of the four regions surround
ing the first deity. How this deity can be infinite, when he
is thus circumscribed, no one can say. Besides, there are
countless principalities, and hosts of gods, and troops of angels,
which thou sayest were not created by God, but produced
from His substance.
6. Thou art thus convicted of worshipping gods without
number ; for thou canst not bear the sacred doctrine which
teaches that there is one Son of one God, and one Spirit of both.
And these, instead of being without number, are not three
Gods ; for not only is theh substance one and the same, but
their operation by means of this substance is also one and the
same, whUe they have a separate manifestation in the material
creation. These things thou dost not understand, and canst
not receive. Thou art Ml, as thou sayest, for thou art
steeped in blasphemous absurdities. WUt thou continue
1 2 Tim. iv. 4. a Deut. vi. 4.
7 S

274 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
burying thyself under such crudities ? Sing on, then, and
open thine eyes, if thou canst, to thine own shame. In this
doctrine of lying devils thou art invited to fabulous dwellings
of angels in a happy clime, and to fragrant fields where nectar
flows for ever from trees and hills, in seas and rivers. These
are the fictions of thy foolish heart, which revels in such idle
fancies. Such expressions are sometimes used as figurative
descriptions of the abundance of sphitual enjoyments ; and
they lead the mind of the student to inquire into theh hidden
meaning. Sometimes there is a material representation to the
bodUy senses, as the fire in the bush, the rod becoming a
serpent, and the serpent a rod, the garment of the Lord not
di'vided by His persecutors, the anointing of His feet or of
His head by a devout woman, the branches of the multitude
preceding and foUowing Him when riding on the ass. Some
times, either in sleep or in a trance) the spirit is informed by
means of figures taken from material things, as Jacob's ladder,
and the stone in Daniel cut out without hands and growing
into a mountain, and Peter's vessel, and aU that John saw.
Sometimes the figures are only in the language ; as in the
Song of Songs, and in the parable of a householder making a
marriage for his son, or that of the prodigal son, or that of the
man who planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen.
Thou boastest of Manichaeus as having come last, not to use
figures, but to explain them. His expositions throw hght on
ancient types, and leave no problem unsolved. This idea is
supported by the assertion that the ancient types, in vision
or in action or in words, had in view the coming of Mani-
¦chaeus, by whom they were aU to be explained; whUe he,
knowing that no one is to foUow him, makes use of a style
free from aU figurative expressions. What, then, are those
fields, and shady hills, and crowns of flowers, and fragrant
odours, in which the desires of thy fleshly mind take pleasure?
If they are not significant figures, they are either idle fancies
or delirious dreams. If they are figures, away with the
impostor who seduces thee with the promise of naked truth,
and then mocks thee with idle tales. His ministers and his
wretched deluded foUowers are wont to bait their hook with
that saying of the apostle, " Now we see through a glass in a

BOOK XV.] IDLE TALES. 275
figure, but then face to face."1 As if, forsooth, the Apostle
Paul knew in part, and prophesied in part, and saw through a
glass in a figure ; whereas aU this is removed at the coming of
Manichaeus, who brings that which is perfect, and reveals the
truth face to face. 0 faUen and shameless ! stiU to continue
uttering such foUy, stiU feeding on the wind, stUl embracing
the idols of thine own heart. Hast thou, then, seen face to
face the king with the sceptre, and the crown of flowers, and
the hosts of gods, and the great world-holder with six faces
and radiant with hght, and that other exalted ruler sur
rounded with troops of angels, and the invincible warrior
with a spear in his right hand and a shield in his left, and
the famous sovereign who moves the three wheels of fire,
water, and wind, and Atlas, chief of aU, bearing the world on
his shoulders, and supporting himself on his arms ? These,
and a thousand other marvels, hast thou seen face to face, or
are thy songs doctrines learned from lying devils, though thou
knowest it not ? Alas ! miserable prostitute to these dreams,
such are the vanities which thou drinkest up instead of the
truth ; and, drunk with this deadly poison, thou darest with this
jest of the tablets to affront the matronly purity of the spouse
of the only Son of God ; because no longer under the tutorship
of the law, but under the control of grace, neither proud
in activity nor crouching in fear, she hves by faith, and hope,
and love, the Israel in whom there is no guile, who hears
what is written : " The Lord thy God is one Lord." This thou
hearest not, and art gone a whoring after a multitude of false
gods. 7- Of necessity these tables are against thee, for the second
commandment is, " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord
thy God in vain ;" whereas thou dost attribute the vanity of
falsehood to Christ Himself, who, to remove the vanity of the
fleshly mind, rose in a true body, visible to the bodily eye.
So also the third commandment about the rest of the Sabbath
is against thee, for thou art tossed about by a multitude of
restless fancies. How these three commandments relate to
the love of God, thou hast neither the power nor the wiU to
understand. Shamefully headstrong and turbulent, thou hast
1 1 Cor. xiii. 9.

276 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
reached the height of folly, vanity, and worthlessness ; thy
beauty is spoUed, and thine order perished. I know thee, for
I was once the same. How shall I now teach thee that these
three precepts relate to the love of God, of whom, and by
whom, and in whom are all things ? How canst thou under
stand this, when thy pernicious doctrines prevent thee from
understanding and from obeying the seven precepts relating
to the love of our neighbour, which is the bond of human
society ? The first of these precepts is, " Honour thy father
and mother ;" which Paul quotes as the first commandment
with promise, and himself repeats the injunction. But thou
art taught by thy doctrine of devUs to regard thy parents as
thine enemies, because their union brought thee into the
bonds of flesh, and laid impure fetters even on thy god. The
doctrine that the production of children is an evU, dhectly
opposes the next precept, " Thou shalt not commit adultery ;"
for those who beheve this doctrine, in order that their wives
may not conceive, are led to commit adultery even in mar
riage. They take wives, as the law declares, for the procrea
tion of children ; but from this erroneous fear of poUuting the
substance of the deity, their intercourse with their wives is
not of a lawful character ; and the production of chUdren,
which is the proper end of marriage, they seek to avoid. As
the apostle long ago predicted of thee, thou dost indeed
forbid to marry, for thou seekest to destroy the purpose of
marriage. Thy doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous
connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel. This false
doctrine leads in a simUar way to the transgression of the
commandment, " Thou shalt not kiU." For thou dost not give
bread to the hungry, from fear of imprisoning in flesh the
member of thy God. From fear of fancied murder, thou
dost actually commit murder. For if thou wast to meet a
beggar starving for want of food, by the law of God, to refuse
him food would be murder; whUe to give food would be
murder by the law of Manichaeus. Not one commandment
in the decalogue dost thou observe. If thou wert to abstain
from theft, thou wouldst be guilty of aUowing bread or food,
whatever it might be, to undergo the misery of being devoured
by a man of no merit, instead of running off with it to the

BOOK XV.] THE DECALOGUE. 277
laboratory of the stomach of thy elect ; and so by theft saving
thy god from the imprisonment with which he is threatened,
and also from that from which he already suffers. Then, if
thou art caught in the theft, wilt thou not swear by this god
that thou art not guUty ? For what wUl he do to thee when
thou sayest to him, I swore by thee falsely, but it was for
thy benefit ; a regard for thine honour would have been fatal
to thee ? So the precept, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
wiU be broken, not only in thy testimony, but in thine oath,
for the sake of the liberation of the members of thy god.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
wife," is the. only one which thy false doctrine does not oblige
thee to break. But if it is unlawful to covet our neighbour's
wife, what must it be to excite covetousness in others ?
Eemember thy beautiful gods and goddesses presenting them
selves with the purpose of exciting desire in the male and
female leaders of darkness, in order that the gratification of
this passion might effect the liberation of this god, who is in
confinement everywhere, and who requires the assistance of
such self-degradation. The last commandment, " Thou shalt
not covet the possessions of thy neighbour," it is wholly
impossible for thee to obey. Does not this god of thine
delude thee with the promise of making new worlds in a
region belonging to another, to be the scene of thine imaginary
triumph after thy imaginary conquest ? In the desire for the
accomplishment of these wUd fancies, whUe at the same time
thou behevest that this land of darkness is in the closest
neighbourhood with thine own substance, thou certainly
covetest the possessions of thy neighbour. Well indeed
mayest thou dislike the tables which contain such good
precepts in opposition to thy false doctrine. The three
relating to the love of God thou dost entirely set aside. The
seven by which human society is preserved thou keepest only
from a regard to the opinion of men, or from fear of human
laws ; or good customs make thee averse to some crimes ; or
thou art restrained by the natural principle of not doing to
another what thou wouldst not have done to thyself. But
whether thou doest what thou wouldst not have done to
thyself, or refrainest from doing what thou wouldst not have

278 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
done to thyself, thou seest the opposition of the heresy to the
law, whether thou actest according to it or not.
8. The true bride of Christ, whom thou hast the audacity
to taunt with the stone tablets, knows the difference between
the letter and the sphit, or in other words, between law and
grace ; and serving God no longer in the oldness of the letter,
but in newness of sphit, she is not under the law, but under
grace. She is not blinded by a sphit of controversy, but
learns meekly from the apostle what is this law which we are
not to be under ; for " it was given," he says, " on account of
transgression, tiU the seed should come to whom the promise
was made." 1 And again : " It entered, that the offence might
abound; but where sin abounded, grace has much more
abounded." 2 Not that the law is sin, though it cannot give
hfe without grace, but rather increases the guilt ; for " where
there is no law, there is no transgressioa" 3 The letter without
the spirit, the law without grace, can only condemn. So the
apostle explains his meaning, in case any should not under
stand: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. For I had not known sin but by the law. For I had
not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me,
and by it slew me. Therefore the law is holy, and the com
mandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which
is good made death unto me ? God forbid. But sin, that
it might appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is
good."4 She at whom thou scoffest knows what this means;
for she a*sks earnestly, and seeks humbly, and knocks meekly.
She sees that no fault is found with the law, when it is said,
" The letter kUleth, but the sphit giveth hfe," any more than
with knowledge, when it is said, " Knowledge puffeth up, but
love edifieth." 5 The passage runs thus : " We know that we
aU have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth."
The apostle certainly had no deshe to be puffed up ; but he
had knowledge, because knowledge joined with love not only
does not puff up, but strengthens. So the letter when joined
with the sphit, and the law when joined with grace, is no
1 Gal. iii. 19. * Rom. v. 20. '3 Rom. iv. 15.
4 Rom. vii. 7-13. 6 1 Cor. viii. 1.

b

BOOK XV.] LAW AND GRACE. 279
longer the letter and the law in the same sense as when by
itself it kUls by abounding sin. In this sense the law is even
caUed the strength of sin, because its strict prohibitions in
crease the fatal pleasure of sin. Even thus, however, the law
is not evU ; but " sin, that it may appear sin, works death by
that which is good." So things that are not evU may often
be hurtful to certain people. The Manichaeans, when they
have sore eyes, wUl shut out theh god the sun. The bride of
Christ, then, is dead to the law, that is, to sin, which abounds
more from the prohibition of the law ; for the law apart from
grace commands, but does not enable. Being dead to the law
in this sense, that she may be married to another who rose
from the dead, she makes this distinction without any reproach
to the law, which would be blasphemy against its author. This
is thy crime ; for though the apostle teUs thee that the law
is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good, thou
dost not acknowledge it as the production of a good being.
Its author thou makest to be one of the princes of darkness.
Here the truth confronts thee. They are the words of the
Apostle Paul : " The law is holy, and the commandment holy,
and just, and good." Such is the law given by Him who
appointed for a great symbohcal use the tablets which thou
foolishly deridest. The same law which was given by Moses
becomes through Jesus Christ grace and truth ; for the spirit
is joined to the letter, that the righteousness of the law might
begin to be fulfilled, which when unfulfilled only added the
guUt of transgression. The law which is holy, and just, and
good, is the same law by which sin works death, and to which
we must die, that we may be married to another who rose from
the dead. Hear what the apostle adds : " But sin, that it might
appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is good, that
sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."
Deaf and blind, dost thou not now hear and see ? " Sin wrought
death in me," he says, " by that which is good." The law is
always good : whether it hurts those who are destitute of grace,
or benefits those who are filled with grace, itself is always good ;
as the sun is always good, for every creature of God is good,
whether it hurts weak eyes or gladdens the sight of the healthy.
Grace fits the mind for keeping the law, as health fits the eyes

280 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.
for seeing the sun. And as healthy eyes die not to the plea
sure of seeing the sun, but to that painful effect of the rays
which beat upon the eye so as to increase the darkness ; so
the mind, healed by the love of the sphit, dies not to the
justice of the law, but to the guUt and transgression which
foUowed on the law in the absence of grace. So it is said,
" The law is good, if used lawfully ; " and immediately after of
the same law, " Knowing this, that the law is not made for a
righteous man." The man who dehghts in righteousness itself,
does not require the restraint of the letter.
9. The bride of Christ rejoices in the hope of fuU salvation,
and desires for thee a happy conversion from fables to truth.
She desires that the fear of Adoneus, as if he were a strange
lover, may not prevent thy escape from the seductions of the
why serpent. Adonai is a Hebrew word, meaning Lord, as
apphed only to God. In the same way the Greek word latria
means service, in the sense of the service of God ; and Amen
means true, in a special sacred sense. This is to be learned
only from the Hebrew Scriptures, or from a translation. The
Church of Christ understands and loves these names, without re
garding the evils of those who scoff because they are ignorant.
What she does not yet understand, she beheves may be ex
plained, as simUar things have aheady been explained to her.
If she is charged with loving Emmanuel, she laughs at the ig
norance of the accuser, and holds fast by the truth of this name.
If she is charged with loving Messiah, she scorns her powerless
adversary, and clings to her anointed Master. Her prayer for
thee is, that thou also mayest be cured of thy errors, and be
buUt upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The
monstrosity with which thou ignorantly chargest the true
doctrine, is reaUy to be found in the world which, according
to thy fanciful stories, is made partly of thy god and partly
of the world of darkness. This world, half savage and half
divine, is worse than monstrous. The view of such follies
should make thee humble and penitent, and should lead thee
to shun the serpent, who seduces thee into such errors. If
thou dost not beheve what Moses says of the guUe of the
serpent, thou mayest be warned by Paul, who, when speaking
of presenting the Church as a chaste virgin to Christ, says, " I

BOOK XV.] THE SERPENT. 281
fear lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his craftiness,
your minds also should be corrupted from the simplicity and
purity which is in Christ." 1 In spite of this warning, thou
hast been so misled, so infatuated by the serpent's fatal en
chantments, that while he has persuaded other heretics to
beheve various falsehoods, he has persuaded thee to believe
that he is Christ. Others, though faUen into the maze of
manifold error, stiU admit the truth of the apostle's warning.
But thou art so far gone in corruption, and so lost to shame,
that thou holdest as Christ the very being by whom the
apostle declares that Eve was beguUed, and against whom he
thus seeks to put the virgin bride of Christ on her guard.
Thy heart is darkened by the deceiver, who intoxicates thee
with dreams of glittering groves. What are these promises
but dreams ? What reason is there to believe them true ?
0 drunken, but not with wine !
10. Thou hast the impious audacity to accuse the God of
the prophets of not fiufilling His promises even to His ser
vants the Jews. Thou dost not mention, however, any pro
mise that is unfulfilled ; otherwise it might be shown, either
that the promise has been fulfilled, and so that thou dost not
understand it, or that it is yet to be fulfiUed, and so that thou
dost not believe it. What promise has been fulfiUed to thee,
to make it probable that thou wUt obtain new worlds gained
from the region of darkness ? If there are prophets who pre
dict the Manichaeans with praise, and if it is said that the
existence of the sect is a fulfilment of this prediction, it must
first be proved that these predictions were not forged by Mani
chaeus in order to gain foUowers. He does not consider false
hood sinful. If he declares in praise of Christ that He showed
false marks of wounds in His body, he can have no scruple
about showing false predictions in his sheepskin volumes.
Assuredly there are predictions of the Manichaeans, less clear
in the prophets, and most exphcit in the apostle. For
example: "The Spirit," he says, "speaketh expressly, that in
the last times some shah depart from the faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils, speaking lies in
hypocrisy, having their conscience seared, forbidding to marry,
1 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.

282 REPLY TO FAUSTUS' THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XV.

abstaining from meats, which God has created to be received
with thanksgiving by believers, and those who know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused,
if it be received with thanksgiving." x The fulfilment of this
in the Manichaeans is as clear as day to aU that know them,
'and has aheady been proved as fully as time permits.
11. She whom the apostle warns against the guUe of the
serpent by which thou hast been corrupted, that he may pre
sent her as a chaste vhgin to Christ, her only husband, acknow
ledges the God of the prophets as the true God, and her own
God. So many of His promises have aheady been fulfilled to
her, that she looks confidently for the fulfilment of the rest.
Nor can any one say that these prophecies have been forged
to suit the present time, for they are found in the books of
the Jews. What could be more unlikely than that aU nations
should be blessed in Abraham's seed, as it was promised?
And yet how plainly is this promise now fulfiUed ! The last
promise is made in the foUowing short prophecy : " Blessed
are they that dweU in Thy house : they shaU ever praise
Thee." 2 When trial is past, and death, the last enemy, is
destroyed, there wiU be rest in the constant occupation of
praising God, where there shaU be no arrivals and no depar
tures. So the prophet says elsewhere : " Praise the Lord, 0
Jerusalem ; celebrate thy God, 0 Zion : for He hath strength
ened the bars of thy gates; He hath blessed thy chUdren
within thee." 3 The gates are shut, so that none can go in or
out. The Bridegroom Himself says in the Gospel, that He
wiU not open to the foohsh virgins though they knock. This
Jerusalem, the holy Church, the bride of Christ, is described
fuUy in the Eevelation of John. And that which commends
the promises of future bhss to the behef of this chaste virgin
is, that now she is in possession of what was foretold of her
by the same prophets. For she is thus described : " Hearken,
0 daughter, and regard, and incline thine ear ; forget also
thine own people, and thy father's house. For the King hath
greatly desired thy beauty ; and He is thy God. The daughters
of Tyre shaU worship Him with gtfts ; the rich among the
people shaU entreat thy favour. The daughter of the King is
1 1 Tim. iv. 1-4. 2 Ps. Ixxxiv. 4. 3 Ps. cxlviii. 1.

BOOK XVI.] THE CALL OF TRUTH. 283
aU glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold. The
virgins foUowing her shall be brought unto the King : her
companions shaU be brought unto thee; with gladness and
rejoicing shaU they be brought into the temple of the King.
Instead of thy fathers, chUdren shall be born to thee, whom
thou shalt make princes over aU the earth. Thy name shaU
be remembered to aU generations : therefore shaU the people
praise thee for ever and ever." * Unhappy victim of the ser
pent's guUe, the inward beauty of the daughter of the King is
not for thee even to think of. For this purity of mind is that
which thou hast lost in opening thine eyes to love and worship
the sun and moon. And so by the just judgment of God thou
art estranged from the tree of hfe, which is eternal and inter
nal wisdom ; and with thee nothing is caUed or accounted truth
or wisdom but that hght which enters the eyes opened to evil,
and which in thy impure mind expands and shapes itself into
fanciful images. These are thy abominable whoredoms. StiU
the truth caUs on thee to reflect and return. Eeturn to me,
and thou shalt be cleansed and restored, if thy shame leads
thee to repentance. Hear these words of the true Truth, who
neither with feigned shapes fought against the race of dark
ness, nor with feigned blood redeemed thee.

BOOK XVI.
1. Faustus. You ask why we do not beheve Moses, when
Christ says, " Moses wrote of me ; and if ye believed Moses, ye
would also beheve me." I should be glad if not only Moses,
but aU prophets, Jew and GentUe, had written of Christ. It
would be no hindrance, but a help to our faith, if we could cuU
testimonies from aU hands agreeing in favour of our God. You
could extract the prophecies of Christ out of the superstition
which we should hate as much as ever. I am quite wilhng to
beheve that Moses, though so much the opposite of Christ, may
seem to have written of him. No one but would gladly find
a flower in every thorn, and food in every plant, and honey in
every insect, although we would not feed on insects or on
1 Ps. xiv. 10-17.

284 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
grass, nor wear thorns as a crown. No one but would wish
pearls to be found in every deep, and gems in every land, and
fruit on every tree. We may eat fish from the sea without
drinking the water. We may take the useful, and reject what
is hurtful And why may we not take the prophecies of
Christ from a rehgion the rites of which we condemn as use
less ? This need not make us liable to be led into the bon
dage of the errors ; for we do not hate the unclean spirits less
because they confessed plainly and openly that Jesus was the
Son of God. If any simUar testimony is found in Moses, I
wiU accept it. But I wUl not on this account be brought
into subjection to his law, which to my mind is pure Pagan
ism. There is no reason for thinking that I can have any
objections to receive prophecies of Christ from every spirit.
2. Since you have proved that Christ declared that Moses
wrote of him, it would be a great obhgation if you would show
me what he has written. I have searched the Scriptures, as
we are told to do, and have found no prophecies of Christ,
either because there are none, or because I could not under
stand them. The only escape from this perplexity was in one
or other of two conclusions. Either this verse must be spurious,
or Jesus a har. As it is not consistent with piety to suppose
God a liar, I preferred to attribute falsehood to the writers,
rather than to the Author of truth. Moreover, he himself
teUs that those who came before him were thieves and robbers,
which apphes first of aU to Moses. And when, on the occa
sion of his speaking of his own majesty, and calling himself
the hght of the world, the Jews angrUy rejoined, " Thou
bearest witness of thyself, thy witness is not true," I do not
find that he appealed to the prophecies of Moses, as might
have been expected. Instead of this, as having no connection
with the Jews, and receiving no testimony from their fathers,
he replied : " It is written in your law, that the testimony of
two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and
the Father who sent me beareth witness of me." 1 He re
ferred to the voice from heaven which aU had heard : " This is
my beloved Son, beheve Him." I think it hkely that if Christ
had said that Moses wrote of him, the ingenious hostihty of
» John viii. 13, 17, 18.

BOOK XVI.] MOSES AND CHRIST. 285
the Jews would have led them at once to ask what he sup
posed Moses to have written. The silence of the Jews is a
proof that Jesus never made such a statement.
3. My chief reason, however, for suspecting the genuineness
of this verse is what I said before, that in aU my search of
the writings of Moses I have found no prophecy of Christ.
But now that I have found in thee a reader of superior
inteUigence, I hope to learn something ; and I promise to be
grateful if no feeling of ill-will prevents you from giving me
the benefit of your higher attainments, as your lofty style of
reproof entitles me to expect from you. I ask for instruction
in whatever the writings of Moses contain about our God and
Lord which has escaped me in reading. I beseech you not to
use the ignorant argument that Christ affirms Moses to have
written of him. For suppose you had not to deal with me,
as in my case there is an obhgation to believe him whom I
profess to foUow, but with a Jew or a GentUe, in reply to
the statement that Moses wrote of Christ, they wiU ask for
proofs. What shaU we say to them ? We cannot quote
Christ's authority, for they do not beheve in him. We must
point out what Moses wrote.
4. What, then, shaU we point to ? ShaU it be that passage
which you often quote where the God of Moses says to him :
" I wiU raise up unto them from among their brethren a pro
phet hke unto thee "I1 But the Jew can see that this does
not refer to Christ, and there is every reason against our think
ing that it does. Christ was not a prophet, nor was he like
Moses : for Moses was a man, and Christ was God ; Moses
was a sinner, and Christ sinless ; Moses was born by ordinary
generation, and Christ of a virgin according to you, or, as I
hold, not born at aU : Moses, for offending his God, was put
to death on the mountain ; and Christ suffered voluntarily,
and the Father was weU pleased in him. If we were to
assert that Christ was a prophet hke Moses, the Jew would
either deride us as ignorant or pronounce us untruthful.
5. Or shaU we take another favourite passage of yours :
" They shaU see theh hfe hanging, and shall not beheve their
hfe"?2 You insert the words "on a tree," which are not in
1 Deut. xviii. 15. 5 Deut. xxviii. 66.

286 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVL
the original. Nothing can be easier than to show that this
has no reference to Christ. Moses is uttering dire threatenings
in case the people should depart from his law, and says among
other things that they would be taken captive by theh
enemies, and would be expecting death day and night, having
no confidence in the hfe aUowed them by their conquerors,
so that theh hfe would hang in uncertainty from fear of im
pending danger. This passage wiU not do, we must try others.
I cannot admit that the words, " Cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree," refer to Christ, or when it is said that the
prince or prophet must be killed who should try to turn away
the people from their God, or should break any of the com
mandments.1 That Christ did this I am obhged to grant.
But if you assert that these things were written of Christ, it
may be asked in reply, What sphit dictated these prophecies
in which Moses curses Christ and orders him to be killed ? If
he had the Spirit of God, these things are not written of
Christ ; if they are written of Christ, he had not the Spirit of
God. The Spirit of God would not curse Christ, or order him
to be kiUed. To vindicate Moses, you must confess that these
passages too have no reference to Christ. So, if you have no
others to show, there are none. If there are none, Christ
could not have said that there were ; and if Christ did not say*
so, that verse is spurious.
6. The next verse too is suspicious, "If ye beheved Moses,
ye would also beheve me ; " for the rehgion of Moses is so
enthely different from that of Christ, that if the Jews believed
one, they could not believe the other. Moses strictly forbids
any work to be done on Sabbath, and gives as a reason for
this prohibition that God made the world and aU that is
therein in six days, and rested on the seventh day, which is
Sabbath ; and therefore blessed or sanctified it as His haven of
repose after toU, and commanded that breaking the Sabbath
should be punished with death. The Jews, in obedience to
Moses, insisted strongly on this, and so would not even hsten
to Christ when he told them that God always works, and that
no day is appointed for the intermission of His pure and un
wearied energy, and that accordingly he himself had to work
1 Deut. xiii. 5.

BOOK XVI.] MANICHaEAN EXEGESIS. 287
incessantly even on Sabbath. " My Father," he says, " worketh
always, and I too must work." x Again, Moses places circum
cision among the rites pleasing to God, and commands every
male to be chcumcised in the foreskin of his flesh, and declares
that this is a necessary sign of the covenant which God made
with Abraham, and that every male not chcumcised would be
cut off from his tribe, and from his part in the inheritance
promised to Abraham and to his seed.2 In this observance,
too, the Jews were very zealous, and consequently could not
beheve in Christ, who made hght of these things, and declared
that a man when chcumcised became twofold a chUd of heU.3
Again, Moses is very particular about the distinction in animal
food, and discourses hke an epicure on the merits of fish, and
bhds, and quadrupeds, and orders some to be eaten as clean,
and others which are unclean not to be touched. Among the
unclean he reckons the swine and the hare, and fish without
scales, and quadrupeds that neither divide the hoof nor chew
the cud. In this also the Jews carefuUy obeyed Moses, and so
could not beUeve in Christ, who taught that aU food is alike,
and though he aUowed no animal food to his own disciples,
gave fuU liberty to the laity to eat whatever they pleased, and
taught that men are poUuted not by what goes into the mouth,
but by the evU things which come out of it. In these and many
other things the doctrine of Jesus contradicts that of Moses.
7. Not to enumerate aU the points of difference, it is enough
to mention this one fact, that most Christian sects, and, as is
weU known, the Cathohcs, pay no regard to what is prescribed
in the writings of Moses. If this does not originate in some
error, but in the doctrine correctly transmitted from Christ
and his disciples, you surely must acknowledge that the teach
ing of Jesus is opposed to that of Moses, and that the Jews
did not beheve in Christ on account of theh attachment to
Moses. How can it be otherwise than false that Jesus said to
the Jews, " U ye beheved Moses, ye would beheve me also,"
when it is perfectly clear that theh behef in Moses prevented
them from beheving in Jesus, which they might have done if
they had left off beheving in Moses ? Again I ask you to
show me anything that Moses wrote of Christ.
1 John v. 17. 2 Gen. xvii. 9-14. 3 Matt, xxiii. 15.

288 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
8. When you find no passage to point to, you use this weak
and inappropriate argument, that a Christian is bound to
beheve Christ when he says that Moses wrote of him, and
that whoever does not beheve this is not a Christian. It
would be far better to confess at once that you cannot find
any passage. This argument might be used with me, because
my reverence for Christ compels me to beheve what he says.
StiU it may be a question whether this is Christ's own
declaration, requiring absolute behef, or only the writer's, to be
carefuUy examined. And disbehef in falsehood is no offence
to Christ, but to impostors. But of whatever use this argu
ment may be with Christians, it is whoUy inapphcable in the
case of the Jew or GentUe, with whom we are supposed to be
discussing. And even with Christians the argument is objec
tionable. When the Apostle Thomas was hi doubt, Christ did
not spurn him from him. Instead of saying, " Beheve, if thou
art a disciple; whoever does not beheve is not a disciple," Christ
sought to heal the wounds of his mind by showing him the
marks of the wounds in his own body. Does it become you
then to teU me that I am not a Christian because I am in
doubt, not about Christ, but about the genuineness of a remark
attributed to Christ ? But, you say, he caUs those especiaUy
blessed who have not seen, and yet have beheved. If you
think that this refers to beheving without the use of judgment
and reason, you are welcome to this blind blessedness. I shall
be content with rational blessedness.
9. Augustine. Your idea of taking any prophecies of Christ
to be found in Moses, as a fish out of the sea, whUe you throw
away the water from which the fish is taken, is a clever one.
But since all that Moses wrote is of Christ, or relates to Christ,
either as predicting Him by words and actions, or as illustrat
ing His grace and glory, you, with your faith in the untrue
and untruthful Christ of Manichaeus, and your unbehef in
Moses, will not even eat the fish. Moreover, though you are
sincere in your hostility to' Moses, you are hypocritical in your
praise of fish. For how can you say that there is ho harm in
eating a fish taken out of the sea, when your doctrine is that
such food is so hurtful, that you would rather starve than
make use of it ? If all flesh is unclean, as you say it is, and

BOOK XVI.] MOSES AND PAGANISM. 289
if the wretched life of your god is confined in aU water or
plants, from which it is liberated by your using them for food,
according to your own vile superstition, you must throw away
the fish you have praised, and drink the water and eat the
thistles you speak of as useless. As for your comparison of
the servant of God to devUs, as if his prophecies of Christ re
sembled their confession, the servant does not refuse to bear
the reproach of his master. If the Master of the house was
eaUed Beelzebub, how much more they of His household I1 You
have learned this reproach from Christ's enemies; and you
are worse than they were. They did not believe that Jesus
was Christ, and therefore thought Him an impostor. But the
only doctrine you believe in is that which makes Christ a har.
10. What reason have you for saying that the law of Moses
is pure Paganism ? Is it because it speaks of a temple, and
an altar of sacrifices, and priests ? But all these names are
found also in the New Testament. "Destroy," Christ says,
" this temple, and in three days I wiU raise it up ; " 2 and
again, "When thou offerest thy gift at the altar ;"3 and again,
" Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thyself a sacrifice
as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." 4 What
these things prefigured the Lord Himself partly teUs us, when
He calls His own body the temple ; and we learn also from
the apostle, who says, "The temple of God is holy, which
temple ye are ; " 5 and again, " I beseech you therefore by the
mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a hving sacrifice,
holy, acceptable to God ; " 6 and in simUar passages. As the
same apostle says, in words which cannot be too often quoted,
these things were our examples, for they were not the work
of devils, but of the one true God who made heaven and earth,
and who, though not needing such things, yet, suiting His re
quirements to the time, made ancient observances significant of
future reahties. Since you pretend to abhor Paganism, though
it is only that you may lead astray by your deception unlearned
Christians or those not established in the faith, show us any
authority in Christian books for your worship and service of
the sun and moon. Your heresy is hker Paganism than the

1 Matt. x. 25.

2 John ii. 19.

3 Matt. v. 24.

4 Matt. viii. 4.

0 1 Cor. iii. 17.

0 Rom. xii. 1.

5

T

290 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
law of Moses is. For you do not worship Christ, but only
something that you caU Christ, a fiction of your own fancy;
and the gods you serve are either the bodies visible in the
heavens, or hosts of your own contrivance. If you do not
buUd shrines for these worthless idols, the creatures of the
imagination, you make your hearts theh temple.
1 1. You ask me to show what Moses wrote of Christ. Many
passages have already been pointed out. But who could point
out aU? Besides, when any quotation is made, you are
ready perversely to try to give the words another meaning ;
or if the evidence is too strong to be resisted, you wUl say
that you take the passage as a sweet fish out of the salt water,
and that you wiU not therefore consent to drink aU the brine
of the books of Moses. It wiU be enough, then, to take
those passages in the Hebrew law which Faustus has chosen
for criticism, and to show that, when rightly understood, they
apply to Christ. For if the things which our adversary
ridicides and condemns are made to prove that he himself is
condemned by Christian truth, it wiU be evident that either
the mere quotation or the careful examination of the other
passages wUl be enough to show their agreement with Chris
tian faith. WeU, then, 0 thou fuU of aU subtUty, when the
Lord in the Gospel says, " If ye beheved Moses, ye would
beheve me also, for he wrote of me," 1 there is no occasion
for the great perplexity you pretend to be in, or for the alter
native of either pronouncing this verse spurious or calling.
Jesus a liar. The verse is as genuine as its words are true.
I preferred, says Faustus, to attribute falsehood to the writers,
rather tlian to the Author of truth. What sort of faith can-
you have in Christ as the author of truth, when your doctrine
is that His flesh and His death, His wounds and theh marks,
were feigned ? And where is your authority for saying that
Christ is the author of truth, if you dare to attribute false
hood to those who wrote of Him, whose testimony has come
down to us with the confirmation of those immediately suc
ceeding them ? You have not seen Christ, nor has He con
versed with you as with the apostles, nor caUed you from
heaven as He did Saul. What knowledge or behef can we
1 John v. 46.

BOOK XVI.] PARTIAL CRITICISM. 291
have of Christ, but on the authority of Scripture ? Or if
there is falsehood in the Gospel which has been widely pub
hshed among aU nations, and has been held in such high
sacredness in aU churches since the name of Christ was first
preached, where shah we find a trustworthy record of Christ ?
If the Gospel is caUed in question in spite of the general
consent regarding it, there can be no writing which a man
may not caU spurious if he does not wish to beheve it.
12. You go on to quote Christ's words, that all who came
before Him were thieves and robbers. How do you know
that these were Christ's words, but from the Gospel ? You
profess faith in these words, as if you had heard them from
the mouth of the Lord Himself. But if any one declares the
verse to be spurious, and denies that Christ said this, you
wiU have, in reply, to exert yourself in vindication of the
authority of the Gospel Unhappy being ! what you refuse to
beheve is written in the same place as that which you quote
as spoken by the Lord Himself. We beheve both, for we
beheve the sacred narrative in which both are contained.
We beheve both that Moses wrote of Christ, and that aU
that came before Christ were thieves and robbers. By theh
coming He means theh not being sent. Those who were
sent, as Moses and the holy prophets, came not before Him,
but with Him. They did not proudly wish to precede
Him, but were the humble bearers of the message which He
uttered by them. According to the meaning which you give
to the Lord's words, it is plain that with you there can be no
prophet. And so you have made a Christ for yourselves
after your own fancy. If you have any prophets of your
own, they wiU have, of course, no authority, as not being
recognised by any others ; but if there are any that you dare
to quote as prophesying that Christ would come in an unreal
body, and would suffer an unreal death, and would show to
His doubting disciples unreal marks of wounds, not to speak
of the abominable nature of such prophecies, and of the
evident untrathfulness of those who commend falsehood in
Christ, by your own interpretation those prophets must have
been thieves and robbers, for they could not have spoken of
Christ as coming in any manner unless they had come before

292 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
Him. If by those who came before Christ we understand
those who would not come with Him,- — that is, with the word
of God, — but without being sent by God brought theh own
falsehoods to men, you yourselves, although you are born in
this world after the death and the resurrection of Christ, are
thieves and robbers. For, without waiting for His Ulumina-
tion that you might preach His truth, you have come before
. Him to preach up your own deceits.
13. In the passage where we read of the Jews saying to
Christ, Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy witness is not
true, you do not see that Christ rephes by saying that Moses
wrote of Him, simply because you have not got the eye of
piety to see with. The answer of Christ is this : " It is
written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true ;
I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that
sent me beareth witness of me." 1 What does this mean, if
rightly understood, but that this number of witnesses requhed
by the law was fixed upon and consecrated in the sphit of
prophecy, that even thus might be prefigured the future
revelation of the Father and Son, whose spirit is the Holy
Spirit of the inseparable Trinity ? So it is written : " In the
mouth of two or three witnesses shaU every word be estab
lished." 2 As a matter of fact, one witness generaUy speaks
the truth, while a number tell hes. And the world, in its
conversion to Christianity, beheved one apostle preaching the
gospel rather than the mistaken multitude who persecuted
him. There was a special reason for requhing this number
of witnesses, and in His answer the Lord implied that Moses
prophesied of Him. Do you carp at His saying your law
instead of the law of God ? But, as every one knows, this is
the common expression in Scripture. Your law means the
law given to you. So the apostle speaks of his gospel, whUe
at the same time he declares that he received it not from
man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. You might as
weU say that Christ denies God to be His Father, when He
uses the words your Father instead of our Father. Again,
you should refuse to believe the voice which you allude to
as having come from heaven, This is my beloved Son, beheve
1 John viii. 17, 18. 8 Deut. xix. 15.

8

BOOK XVI.] MOSES WROTE OF CHRIST. 293
Him, because you did not hear it. But if you believe this
because you find it in the sacred Scriptures, you will also find
there what you deny, that Moses wrote of Christ, besides
many other things that you do not acknowledge as true.
Do you not see that your own mischievous argument may be
used to prove that this voice never came from heaven ? To
your own destruction, and to the detriment of the welfare of
mankind, you try to weaken the authority of the gospel, by
arguing that it cannot be true that Christ said that Moses
wrote of Him ; because if He had said this, the ingenious
hostility of the Jews would have led them at once to ask what He
supposed Moses to have written of Him. In the same way, it
might be impiously argued that if that voice had reaUy come
from heaven, aU the Jews who heard it would have beheved.
Why are you so unreasonable as not to consider that, as it
was possible for the Jews to remain hardened in unbehef
after hearing the voice from heaven, so it was possible for
them, when Christ said that Moses wrote of Him, to refrain
from asking what Moses wrote, because in their ingenious
hostihty they were afraid of being proved to be in the wrong ?
14. Besides that this argument is an impious assault on
the gospel, Faustus Mmself is aware of its feebleness, and
therefore insists more on what he calls his chief difficulty, —
that in aU his search of the writings of Moses he has found no
prophecies of Christ. The obvious reply is, that he does not
understand. And if any one asks why he does not under
stand, the answer is that he reads with a hostUe, unbelieving
mind ; he does not search in order to know, but thinks he
knows when he is ignorant. This vainglorious presumption
either bhnds the eye of his understanding so as to prevent
his seeing anything, or distorts his vision, so that his remarks
of approval or disapproval are misdirected. I ask, he says,
for instruction in whatever the writings of Moses contain about
our God and Lord, which has escaped me in reading. I reply
at once that it has aU escaped him, for aU is written of Christ.
As we cannot go through the whole, I wiU, with the help of
God, comply with your request, to the extent I have aheady
promised, by showing that the passages which you specially
criticise refer to Christ. You teU me not to use the ignorant

294 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
argument that Christ affirms Moses to have written of Him.
But if I use this argument, it is not because I am ignorant,
but because I am a behever. I acknowledge that this argu
ment wiU not convince a GentUe or a Jew. But, in spite of
all your evasions, you are obhged to confess that it tells
against you, who boast of possessing a kind of Christianity.
You say, Suppose you had not to deal with me, as in my case
there is an obligation to believe him whom I prof ess to follow, but
with a Jew or a Gentile. This is as much as to say that you, at
any rate, with whom I have at present to do, are satisfied that
Moses wrote of Christ ; for you are not bold enough to discard
altogether the well-grounded authority of the Gospel where
Christ's own declaration is recorded. Even when you attack
this authority indirectly, you feel that you are attacking your
own position. You are aware that if you refuse to beheve
the Gospel, which is so generaUy known and received, you
must faU utterly in the attempt to substitute for it any
trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Christ.
You are afraid that the loss of the Christian name might
lead to the exposure of your absurdities to universal scorn
and condemnation. Accordingly you try to recover yourself,
by saying that your profession of Christianity obliges you to
believe these words of the Gospel. So you, at any rate, which
is all that we need care for just now, are caught and slain in
this death-blow to your errors. You are forced to confess
that Moses wrote of Christ, because the Gospel, which your pro
fession obliges you to believe, states that Christ said so. As
regards a discussion with a Jew or a GentUe, I have already
shown as weU as I could how I think it should be conducted.
15. I stUl hold that there is a reference to Christ in the
passage which you select for refutation, where God says to
Moses, " I will raise up unto them from among theh brethren
a Prophet hke unto thee." x The string of showy antitheses
with which you try to ornament your duU discourse does not
at aU affect my belief of this truth. You attempt to prove,
by a comparison of Christ and Moses, that they are unlike,
and that therefore the words, " I will raise up a prophet like
unto thee," cannot be understood of Christ. You specify a
1 Deut. xviii. 15.

BOOK XVI.] MOSES LIKE TO CHRIST. 295
number of particulars in which you find a diversity : that
the one is man, and the other God ; that one is a sinner, the
other sinless ; that one is born of ordinary generation, the
other, as we hold, of a vhgin, and, as you hold, not even of a
virgin ; the one incurs God's anger, and is put to death on a
mountain, the other suffers voluntarUy, having throughout
the approval of His Father. But surely things may be said
to be hke, although they are not like in every respect. Be
sides the resemblance between things of the same nature,
as between two men, or between parents and chUdren, or
between men in general, or any species of animals, or in trees,
between one ohve and another, or one laurel and another,
there is often a resemblance in things of a different nature, as
between a wUd and a tame ohve, or between wheat and
barley. These things are to some extent allied. But there
is the greatest possible distance between the Son of God, by
whom aU things were made, and a beast or a stone. And
yet in the Gospel we read, " Behold the Lamb of God," 1 and
in the apostle, " That rock was Christ." 2 This could not be
said except on the supposition of some resemblance. What
wonder, then, if Christ condescended to become hke Moses,
when He was made like the lamb which God by Moses
commanded His people to eat as a type of Christ, enjoining
that its blood should be used as a means of protection, and
that it should be caUed the Pascha, which every one must
admit to be fulfiUed in Christ ? The Scripture, I acknowledge,
shows points of difference ; and the Scripture also, as I caU
on you to acknowledge, shows points of resemblance. There
are points of both kinds, and one can be proved as weU as
the other. Christ is unlike man, for He is God ; and it is
written of Him that He is " over all, God blessed for ever."3
Christ is also like man, for He is man ; and it is likewise
written of Him, that He is the " Mediator between God and
man, the man Christ Jesus." 4 Christ is unlike a sinner, for
He is ever holy ; and He is hke a sinner, for " God sent His
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might
condemn sin in the flesh." 5 Christ is unlike a man born in
1 John i. 29. * 1 Cor. x. 4. 3 Rom. ix. 5.
4 1 Tim. ii. 5. ¦"• Rom. viii. 3.

s

296 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEaVN. [BOOK XVI.
ordhiary generation, for He was born of a vhgin ; and yet
He is like, for He too was born of a woman, to whom it was
said, " That holy thing which shaU be born of thee shaU be
caUed the Son of God." 1 Christ is unlike a man, who dies
on account of his own sin, for He died without sin, and of
His own free-wiU ; and again, He is like, for He too died a
real death of the body.
1 6. You ought not to say, in disparagement of Moses, that
be was a sinner, and that he was put to death on a mountain
because his God was angry with him. F&r Moses could
glory in the Lord as his Saviour, who is also the Saviour of
him who says, " Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners, of whom I am chief." 2 Moses, indeed, is accused by
the voice of God, because his faith showed signs of weakness
when he was commanded to draw water out of the rock.3 In
this he may have sinned as Peter did, when from the weak
ness of his faith he became afraid in the midst of the waves.4
But we cannot think from this, that he who, as the Gospel
teUs us, was counted worthy to be present with the Lord along
with holy Elias on the mount of transfiguration, was separated
from the eternal feUowship of the saints. The sacred history
shows in what favour he was with God even after his sin.
But since you may ask why God speaks of this sin as deserv
ing the punishment of death, and as I have promised to point
out prophecies of Christ in those passages which you select
for criticism, I will try, with the Lord's help, to show that
what you object to in the death of Moses is, when rightly
understood, prophetical of Christ.
17. We often find in the symbohcal passages of Scripture,
that the same person appears in different characters on diffe
rent occasions. So, on this occasion, Moses represents and
prefigures the Jewish people as placed under the law. As,
then, Moses, when he struck the rock with his rod, doubted
the power of God, so the people who were under the law
given by Moses, when they nailed Christ to the cross, did not
believe Him to be the power of God. And as water flowed
from the smitten rock for those that were athirst, so hfe
comes to behevers from the stroke of the Lord's passion.
1 Luke i. 35. 2 1 Tim. i. 15. 3 Num. ix. 10-12. 4 Matt. xiv. 30.

BOOK XVI.] MOSES LIKE TO CHRIST. 297
The testimony of the apostle is clear and decisive on this
point, when he says, " This rock was Christ." x In the com
mand of God, that the death of the flesh of Moses should take
place on the mountain, we see the di'vine appointment that
the carnal doubt of the divinity of Christ should die on
Christ's exaltation. As the rock is Christ, so is the mountain.
The rock is the endurance of His humiliation ; the mountain
the height of His exaltation. For as the apostle says, " This
rock was Christ," so Christ Himself says, " A city set upon an
hiU cannot be hid,"2 showing that He is the hiU, and believers
the city buUt upon the glory of His name. The carnal mind
hves when, hke the smitten rock, the humiliation of Christ
on the cross is despised. For Christ crucified is to the Jews
a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. And the
carnal mind dies when, hke the mountain-top, Christ is seen
in His exaltation. " For to them that are called, both Jews
and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of
God."3 Moses therefore ascended the mount, that in the
death of the flesh he might be received by the hving spirit.
If Faustus had ascended, he would not have uttered carnal
objections from a dead mind. It was the carnal mind that
made Peter dread the smiting of the rock, when, on the
occasion of the Lord's foretelling His passion, he said, " Be it
far from Thee, Lord ; spare Thyself." And this sin too was
severely rebuked, when the Lord rephed, " Get thee behind
me, Satan ; thou art an offence unto me : for thou savourest
not the things which be of God, but those which be of
men."4 And where did this carnal distrust die but in the
glorification of Christ, as on a mountain height ? If it was
ahve when Peter timidly denied Christ, it was dead when he
fearlessly preached Him. It was ahve in Saul, when, in his
aversion to the offence of the cross, he made havoc of the
Christian Church; and where but on this mountain had it
died, when Paul was able to say, "I live no longer, but Christ
hveth in me " ? 5
18. What other reason has your heretical foUy to give for
thinking that there is no prophecy of Christ in the words, " I
1 1 Cor. x. 4. 2 Matt. v. 14. » 1 Cor. i. 23, 24
4 Matt. xvi. 22, 23. o Gal. ii. 20.

298 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
wiU raise up unto them a Prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee " ? Your showing Christ to be unlike Moses
is no reason ; for we can show that in other respects He is
hke. How can you object to Christ's being called a prophet,
since He condescended to be a man, and actuaUy foretold
many future events ? What is a prophet, but one who pre
dicts events beyond human foresight ? So Christ says of
Himself : " A prophet is not without honour, save in his own
country."1 But, turning from you, since you have already
acknowledged that your profession of Christianity obliges you
to beheve the Gospel, I address myself to the Jew, who
enjoys the poor privilege of liberty from the yoke of Christ,
and who therefore thinks it allowable to say: Your Christ
spoke falsely ; Moses wrote nothing of him.
19. Let the Jews say what prophet is meant in this
promise of God to Moses : " I wiU raise up unto them a
Prophet from among their brethren, Uke unto thee." Many
prophets appeared after Moses ; but one in particular is here
pointed out. The Jews wiU perhaps naturaUy think of the
successor of Moses, who led into the promised land the people
that Moses had brought out of Egypt. Having this successor
of Moses in his mind, he may perhaps laugh at me for asking to
what prophet the words of the promise refer, since it is recorded
who foUowed Moses in ruling and leading the people. When
he has laughed at my ignorance, as Faustus supposes him to
do, I wiU stUl continue my inquiries, and will deshe my
laughing opponent to give me a serious answer to the ques
tion why Moses changed the name of this successor, who was
preferred to himseh as the leader of the people into the
promised land, to show that the law given by Moses not to
save, but to convince the sinner, cannot lead us into heaven,
but only the grace and truth which are by Jesus Christ.
This successor was caUed Osea, and Moses gave him the name
of Jesus. Why then did he give him this name when he
sent him'from the vaUey of Pharan into the land into which
he was to lead the people ?2 The true Jesus says, " If I go
and prepare a place for you, I wiU come again, and receive
you unto myself."3 I wUl ask the Jew if the prophet does
1 Matt. xiii. 57. 2 Num. xiii. 9, xiv. 6. 3 John xiv. 3.

BOOK XVI.] JOSHUA AND JESUS. 299
not show the prophetical meaning of these things when he
says, " God shaU come from Africa, and the Holy One from
Pharan." Does this not mean that the holy God would
come with the name of him who came from Africa by Pharan,
that is, with the name of Jesus ? Then, again, it is the Word
of God Himself who speaks when He promises to provide this
successor to Moses, speaking of him as an angel, — a name
commonly given in Scripture to those carrying any message.
The words are: "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to
preserve thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land
which I have sworn to give thee. Take heed unto him, and
obey, and beware of unbelief in him ; for he wiU not take
anything from thee wrongfuUy, for my name is in him."1
Consider these words. Let the Jew, not to speak of the
Manichaean, say what other angel he can find in Scripture to
whom these words apply, but this leader who was to bring
the people into the land of promise. Then let him inquire
who it was that succeeded Moses, and brought in the people.
He wiU find that it was Jesus, and that this was not his
name at first, but after his name was changed. It foUows
that He who said, " My name is in him," is the true Jesus,
the leader who brings His people into the inheritance of
eternal life, according to the New Testament, of which the
Old was a figure. No event or action could have a more
distinctly prophetical character than this, where the very name
is a prediction.
20. It foUows 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, wUl recognise
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 wUl no longer in a hostile spirit
resist so plain a prophecy, but, influenced by the allusion to
the Jesus of the Old Testament, he will be prepared to listen
meekly to Him whose name he bore, and who leads to the true
land of promise ; for He says, " Blessed are the meek, for they
shaU inherit the land." 2 The' Gentile also, if his heart is not
too stony, if he is one of those stones from which God raises up
1 Ex. xxiii. 20, 21. s Matt. v. 4.

300 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
chUdren unto Abraham, must aUow it to be wonderful that in
the ancient books of the people of whom Jesus was born, so
plain a prophecy, including His very name, is found recorded ;
and must remark at the same time, that it is not any one of
the name of Jesus who is prophesied of, but a divine person,
because God said that His name was in the man who was
appointed to rule the people, and to lead them into the king
dom, and who by a change of name was caUed Jesus. In
His being sent with this new name, He brings a great and
divine message, and is therefore caUed an Angel, which, as
every tyro in Greek knows, means messenger. No Gentile,
therefore, if he were not perverse and obstinate, would despise
these books merely because he is not subject to the law of the
Hebrews, to whom the books belong ; but would think highly
of the books, no matter whose they were, on finding in them
prophecies of such ancient date, and of what he sees now taking
place. Instead of despising Christ Jesus because He is foretold
in the Hebrew Scriptures, he would conclude that one thought
worthy of being the subject of prophetic description, whoever
the writers might be, for so many ages before His coming into
the world, — sometimes in plain announcements, sometimes in
figure by symbolic actions and utterances, — must claim to be
regarded with profound admiration and reverence, and to be
followed with imphcit reliance. Thus the facts of Christian
history would prove the truth of the prophecy, and the pro
phecy would prove the claims of Christ. Call this fancy, if
it is not actuaUy the case that men aU over the world have
been led, and are now led, to believe in Christ by reading
these books.
21. In view of the multitudes from aU nations who have
become zealous believers in these books, it is laughably absurd
to teU us that it is impossible to persuade a GentUe to learn
the Christian faith from Jewish books. Indeed, it is a great
confirmation of our faith that such important testimony is
borne by enemies. The believing GentUes cannot suppose these
testimonies to Christ to be recent forgeries; for they find them
in books held sacred for so many ages by those who crucified
Christ, and still regarded with the highest veneration by those
who eveiy day blaspheme Christ. If the prophecies of Christ

BOOK XVI.] JEWISH TESTIMONY TO CHRIST. 301
were the production of the preachers of Christ, we might
suspect theh 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 government bringing good out of evU, that
those who by their own choice live wickedly may be, in His
just judgment, made the instruments of His wUl. 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 miracles, to suffer unjustly, to die, to rise again,
to ascend to heaven, to publish the gospel of eternal life among
aU nations, the unbehef 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 hands for our
benefit the writings in which these truths are contained. And
the unbehef of the Jews increases rather than lessens the
authority of the books, for this blindness is itself foretold.
They testify to the truth by theh not understanding it. By
not understanding 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 hfe," 1 Faustus is deceived by the
ambiguity of the words. The words may 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
hanging on the cross, or that they did not beheve Him. Since
Christ Himself says, " I am the, life," 2 and since there is no
doubt that He was seen hanging by the unbelieving Jews, I
see no reason for doubting that this was written of Christ ;
for, as Christ says, Moses wrote of Him. Since we have
already refuted Faustus' arguments by which he tries to show
that the words, " I wiU raise up from among their brethren a
prophet like unto thee," do not apply to Christ, because Christ
is not like Moses, we need not insist on this other prophecy.
Since, in the one case, his argument is that Christ is unlike
Moses, so here he ought to argue that Christ is not the hfe,
or that He was not seen hanging by the unbeheving Jews.
1 Deut. xxviii. 16. 2 J(mn ^ g_

302 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
But as he has not said this, and as no one will now Arenture
to say so, there should be no difficulty 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 ? Indeed, 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 theh
Life. For the curses of prophecy are not hostUe imprecations,
but announcements of coming judgment. HostUe imprecations
are forbidden, for it is said, " Bless, and curse not." 1 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 evU ; the Lord shaU reward
him according to his works." 2 So it might be thought that
the apostle was prompted by angry feeling to utter this im
precation : " I would that they were even made eunuchs that
trouble you." 3 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 them
selves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.4 If Faustus
had a pious appetite for Christian food, he would have found
a simUar ambiguity in the words of Moses. By the Jews the
declaration, " Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not
beheve thy hfe," may have been understood to mean that they
would see theh life to be in danger from the threats and plots
of their enemies, and would not expect to live. But the chUd
of the Gospel, who has heard Christ say, " He wrote of me,"
distinguishes in the ambiguity of the prophecy between what
is thrown to swine and what is addressed to inteUigent
readers. To his mind the thought immediately suggests itself
of Christ hanging as the life of man, and of the Jews not
beheving in Him for this very reason, that they saw Him
hanging. As to the objection that these words, " Thou shalt
see thy hfe hanging, and shalt not beheve thy hfe," are the
1 Rom. xii. 14. 2 2 Tim. iv. 14. 3 Gal. v. 12. 4 Matt. xix. 12.

BOOK XVI.] PROPHETIC CURSES. 303
only words referring to Christ in a passage containing male
dictions not apphcable to Christ, some might grant that this
is true. For this prophecy might very weU 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 eonsider 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 Ulustrate 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 except
as prophecies of the glory of Christ, in which hes the happi
ness of man. And what is true of these curses is stUl 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 know
ing it, than aUow that the words, " Thou shalt see thy hfe
hanging, and shalt not beheve thy hfe," are not apphcable to
Christ. So the words of Caiaphas had a different meaning
from what he intended, when, in his hostihty to Christ, he
said that it was expedient that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation should not perish.1 But
Moses was not Caiaphas ; and therefore when Moses said to
the Hebrew people, "Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and
shalt not beheve thy life," he not only spoke of Christ, as he
certainly did, even though he spoke without knowing the
meaning of what he said, but he knew 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 knowing 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
1 John xi. 49-51.

304 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
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 aheady said as much as appeared desirable
of the curse pronounced on every one that hangs on a tree.
Enough has been said to show that the command to kUl any
prophet or prince who tried to turn away the chUdren 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 wiU 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, who
denied the resurrection of the dead. He says, " Of the resur
rection 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 ; for all live unto Him." J In the same words with
which Christ answered the Sadducees we may answer the
Manichaeans, 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 shaU come from the east and from the west,
and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of heaven ; but the chUdren of the kingdom shaU
go into outer darkness." 2 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
1 Matt. xxii. 31, 32, and Luke xx. 37, 38. 2 Matt. viii. 10-12.

o

BOOK XVI.] NO COMMANDMENT BROKEN BY CHRIST. 305
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 aU
nations be blessed."1 It is 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
Israehtes from their God, but rather charged them with being
turned away. The idea that Christ broke one of the com
mandments given by Moses is not a new one, for the Jews
thought so ; but it is a mistake, for the Jews 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 aheady, when it was required.
MeanwhUe 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, " Honour thy father and
mother, and he that curseth father or mother shaU die the
death. But ye say, Whoever shaU say to his father or mother,
It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me,
is not obhged to honour his father. So ye make the word of
God of none effect by your traditions."2 From this several
things may be 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 commandments
by Moses,
25. In fulfilment of our promise that we would prove the
reference, to Christ in those passages selected by Faustus from
the writings of Moses for adverse criticism, since we cannot
here point out the reference to Christ which we believe to
exist in aU the writings of Moses, it becomes our duty to
show that this commandment of Moses, that every prophet or
1 Gal. iii. 8. 2 Matt. xv. 3-6.
5 17

306 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
prince should be kiUed who tried to turn away the people
from their God, or to break any commandment, refers to the
preservation 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 aU 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 obedience to
this command, the voice of the Cathohc Church, as with the
sphitual two-edged sword of both Testaments, puts to death
aU who try to turn us away from our God, or to break any of
the commandments. And chief among these is Manichaeus
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 acknow
ledges, and as trying to break the commandments of the law,
which, even when they are only figurative, we regard as pro
phetic of Christ.
2fi. Faustus uses an argument which is either very deceit
ful or very stupid. And as Faustus is not stupid, it is pro
bable that he used the argument intentionaUy, with the design
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 apphed to Christ.
So it does not foUow, as Faustus says, that nothing was
written by Moses of Christ. Let us repeat 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 written of Christ, or with reference to Christ, the true
conclusion is that Faustus' argument is worthless. In the

BOOK XVI.] FAUSTUS' LOGIC. 307
passages quoted by Faustus, 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 wiU be
blind, or the hearers deaf, so that the omission wiU be over
looked, 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 aU you could say for
a bad cause ? But if the badness of the cause made you utter
foUy, the bad cause was your own choice. To prove your
antecedent false, we have only to show some other things
written of Christ. If there are some, it wiU not be true that
there are none. And if there are some, Christ may have
asserted that there were. And if Christ may have asserted
this, it foUows 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 beheved
Moses, ye would also beheve me ; for he wrote of me." And
even though from dulness of mind we could find nothing written
of Christ by Moses, stiU, so strong is the evidence in support
of the authority of the Gospel, that it would be incumbent
on us to beheve that not only some things', but everything
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;
whUe, on the other hand, even if we could find none, we
should stiU be bound to beheve that these are to be found,
because no doubts can be admitted regarding any verse in the
Gospel. 2 7. As to your argument that the doctrine of Moses was un-

308 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
like that of Christ, and that therefore it was improbable that
if they believed Moses, they would believe Christ too ; and that
it would rather follow that their belief in one would imply of
necessity opposition 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 bhnded by a con
tentious spirit, learned and unlearned, Greek and barbarian,
wise and unwise, to whom the apostle caUed himself a debtor,1
beheving in both Christ and Moses. If it was improbable that
the Jews would beheve both Christ and Moses, it is stiU more
improbable that aU the world would do so. But as we see aU
nations beheving both, and in a common and weU-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 caUed, when Christ said to them, " If ye
believed Moses, ye would also beheve me." Eather we should
be amazed at the guUty obstinacy of the Jews, who refused to
do what we see the whole world has done.
28. Eegarding the Sabbath and circumcision, and the dis
tinction in food, in which you say the teaching of Moses differs
from what Christians are taught by Christ, we have aheady
shown that, as the apostle says, " aU those things were our
examples." 2 The difference is not in the doctrine, but in the
time. There was a time when it was proper that these things
should be figuratively predicted ; and there is now a different
time, when it is proper that they should be openly declared
and fuUy accomphshed. It is not surprising that the Jews,
who understood the Sabbath in a carnal sense, should oppose
Christ, who began to open up its sphitual meaning. Eeply,
if you can, to the apostle, who declares that the rest of the
Sabbath was a shadow of something future.3 If the Jews
opposed Christ because they did not understand 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 especiaUy 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
1 Rom. i. 14. 2 1 Cor. x. 6. 3 Col. ii. 16, 17.

BOOK XVI.] THE REST OF THE SABBATH. 309
knew," He said, " what this meaneth, I wUl have mercy, and
not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent."1
They should rather have pitied the wants of the disciples, for
hunger forced them to do what they did. But pulhng ears of
corn, which is innocence in the teaching of Christ, is murder
in the teaching of Manichaeus. Or was it an act of charity
in the apostles to puU 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 exercised without cessation, and without weari
ness. It is for those to say this, who believe that aU times
are the production of an eternal act of God's wUl. But you
wUl find it difficult to reconcile this with your doctrine, that
the rebeUion of the race of darkness broke your god's rest,
which was also disturbed by a sudden attack of the enemy ; or
perhaps God never had rest, as he foresaw this from eternity,
and could not feel at ease in the prospect of so dire a conflict,
with such loss and disaster to his members.
29. Unless Christ had considered this Sabbath — which in
your want of knowledge and of piety you laugh at — one of the
prophecies written of Himself, He would not have borne such
a testimony to it as He did. For when, as you say in praise
of Christ, He suffered voluntarUy, and so could choose His own
time for suffering and for resurrection, He brought it about
that His body rested from aU its works on Sabbath in the
tomb, and that His resurrection on the third day, which we
caU the Lord's day, the day after the Sabbath, and therefore
the eighth, proved the circumcision of the eighth day to be
also prophetical of Him. For what does circumcision mean,
but the eradication of the mortahty which comes from our
carnal generation ? So the apostle says : " Putting off from
Himself His flesh, He made a show of principalities and powers,
triumphing over them in Himself." 2 The flesh here said to be
put off is that mortahty of flesh on account of which the body
is properly caUed flesh. The flesh is the mortality, for in the
immortahty of the resurrection there wiU be no flesh ; as it is
written, " Flesh and blood shaU not inherit the kingdom of
1 Matt. xii. 7. a Col. ii. 15.

310 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
God." You argue from these words against our faith in the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which has aheady
taken place in the Lord Himself. You keep out of view the
foUowing words, in which the apostle explains his meaning.
To show what he here means by flesh, he adds, " Neither shah
corruption inherit incorruption." For this body, which from
its mortahty is properly caUed flesh, is changed in the resur
rection, so as to be no longer corruptible and mortal This is
the apostle's statement, and not a supposition of ours, as bis
next words prove. " Lo," he says, " I show you a mystery :
we shah aU rise again, but we shah not aU be changed. In a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump ; for
the last trumpet shaU sound, and the dead shaU rise incor
ruptible, and we shaU be changed. For this corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortahty."1
To put on immortahty, the body puts off mortahty. This
is the mystery of chcumcision, which by the law took place
on the eighth day ; and on the eighth day, the Lord's day,
the day after the Sabbath, was fulfiUed in its true meaning by
the Lord. Hence it is said, " Putting off His flesh, He made a
show of principalities and powers." For by means of this
mortahty the hostUe powers of heU ruled over us. Christ is
said to have made a show or example of these, because in
Himself, our Head, He gave an example which wiU be fuUy
reahzed in the hberation of His whole body, the Church, from
the power of the devU at the last resurrection. This is our
faith And according to the prophetic declaration quoted by
Paul, " The just shaU hve by faith." This is our justifica
tion.2 Even Pagans beheve that Christ died. But only
Christians believe that Christ rose again. " If thou confess
with thy mouth," says the apostle, " that Jesus is the Lord,
and behevest in thy heart that God raised Him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved." 3 Again, because we are justified
by faith in Christ's resurrection, tbe apostle says, " He died
for our offences, and rose again for our justification." 4 And
because this resurrection by faith in which we are justified
was prefigured by the chcumcision of the eighth day, the
1 1 Cor. xv. 50-59. 2 Hab. ii. 4 and Rom. i. 17.
3 Rom. x. 9. 4 Rom. iv. 25.

BOOK XVI.] THE SIGN OF CIRCUMCISION. 311
apostle says of Abraham, with whom the observance began,
" He received the sign of chcumcision, a seal of the righteous
ness of faith." x Circumcision, then, is one of the prophecies
of Christ, written by Moses, of whom Christ said, " He wrote
of me." In the words of the Lord, " Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to
make one proselyte ; and when he is made, ye make him two
fold more the child of heU than yourselves," 2 it is not the
chcumcision of the proselyte which is meant, but his imitation
of the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees, which the Lord
forbids His disciples to imitate, when He says : " The scribes
and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat : what they say unto you, do ;
but do not after theh works, for they say, and do not."3 These
words of the Lord teach us both the honour due to the teach
ing of Moses, in whose seat even bad men were obliged to
teach good things, and the reason of the proselyte becoming
a chUd of hell, which was not that he heard from the Phari
sees the words of the law, but that he copied their example.
Such a circumcised proselyte might have been addressed in the
words of Paul : " Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the
law." 4 His imitation of the Pharisees in not keeping the law
made him a child of heU. And he was twofold more than
they, probably because of his neglecting to fulfil what he
voluntarily undertook, when, not being born a Jew, he chose
to become a Jew.
30. Your scoff is very inappropriate, when you say that
Moses discusses hke a glutton what should be eaten, and
commands some things to be freely used as clean, and other
things as unclean to be not even touched. A glutton makes
no distinction, except in choosing the sweetest food. Per
haps you wish to commend to the admiration of the unini
tiated the innocence of your abstemious habits, by appearing
not to know, or to have forgotten, that swine's flesh tastes
better than mutton But as this too was written by Moses of
Christ in figurative prophecy, in which the flesh of animals
signifies those who are to be united to the body of Christ,
which is the Church, or who are to be cast out, you are
typified by the unclean animals ; for your disagreement with
1 Rom. iv. 11. 2 Matt, xxiii. 15. 3 Matt, xxiii. 2, 3. 4 Rom. ii. 26.

312 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.
the Cathohc faith shows that you do not ruminate on the
word of wisdom, and that you do not divide the hoof, in
the sense of making a correct distinction between the Old
Testament and the New. But you show stUl more audacity
in adopting the erroneous opinions of Adimantus.
31. You foUow Adimantus in saying that Christ made no
distinction in food, except in entirely prohibiting the use of
animal food to his disciples, while he allowed the laity to eat
anything that is eatable ; and declared that they were not polluted
by what enters into the mouth, but that the unseemly things
which come out of the mouth are the things which defile a man.
These words of yours are unseemly indeed, for they express
notorious falsehood. If Christ taught that the evU things
which come out of the mouth are the only things that defile a
man, why should they not be the only things to defile His
disciples, so as to make it unnecessary that any food should
be forbidden or unclean ? Is it only the laity that are not
poUuted by what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out
of it ? In that case, they are better protected from impurity
than the saints, who are poUuted both by what goes in and
by what comes out. But as Christ, comparing HimseK with
John, who came neither eating nor drinking, says that He
came eating and drinking, I should like to know what He
ate and drank. When exposing the perversity which found
fault with both, He says: "John came neither eating nor
drinking ; and ye say, He hath a devU. The Son of man
cometh eating and drinking ; and ye say, Behold a glutton and
a wine-bibber, a friend of pubheans and sinners."1 We know
what John ate and drank. For it is not said that he drank
nothing, but that he drank no wine or strong drink ; so he
must have drunk water. He did not hve without food, but
his food was locusts and wUd honey.2 When Christ says that
John did not eat or drink, He means that he did not use the
food which the Jews used. And because the Lord used this
food, He is spoken of, in contrast with John, as eating and
drinking. WUl it be said that it was bread and vegetables
which the Lord ate, and which John did not eat ? It woidd
be strange if one was said not to eat, because he used locusts
1 Matt. xi. 18, 19. 2 Matt. iii. 4.

BOOK XVI.] THE DOCTRINE OF ADIMANTUS. 313
and honey, while the other is said to eat simply because he
used bread and vegetables. But whatever may be thought of
the eating, certainly no one could be called a wine-bibber
unless he used win<\ Why then do you call wine unclean ?
It is not in order to subdue the body by abstinence that you
prohibit these things, but because they are unclean, for you
say that they are the poisonous filth of the race of darkness ;
whereas the apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure."1
Christ, according to this doctrine, taught that all food was
ahke, but forbade His disciples to use what the Manichaeans
caU unclean. Where do you find this prohibition ? You
are not afraid to deceive men by falsehood; but in God's
righteous providence, you are so blinded that you provide us
with the means of refuting you. For I cannot resist quoting
for examination the whole of that passage of the Gospel
which Faustus uses against Moses ; that we may see from it
the falsehood of what was said first by Adimantus, and here
by Faustus, that the Lord Jesus forbade the use of animal
food to His disciples, and aUowed it to the laity. After Christ's
reply to the accusation that His disciples ate with unwashen
hands, we read in the Gospel as foUows : " And He caUed the
multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand. Not
that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man : but that
which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then
came His disciples, and said unto Him, Knowest Thou that
the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?"
Here, when addressed by His disciples, He ought certainly,
according to the Manichaeans, to have given them special in
structions to abstain from animal food, and to show that His
words, " Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,
but that which goeth out of the mouth," applied to the
multitude only. Let us hear, then, what, according to the
evangelist, the Lord rephed, not to the multitude, but to His
disciples : " But He answered and said, Every plant which
my heavenly Father hath not planted shaU be rooted up.
Let them alone : they be bhnd leaders of the bhnd. And if
the blind lead the blind, both shall faU into the ditch." The
reason of this was, that in their desire to observe their own
1 Tit. i. 15.

314 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVI.

traditions, they did not understand the commandments of God.
As yet the disciples had not asked the Master how they were
to understand what He had said to the multitude. But now
they do so ; for the evangelist adds : " Then answered Peter
and said unto Him, Declare unto us this parable." This
shows that Peter thought that when the Lord said, " Not that
which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which
goeth out of the mouth " He did not speak plainly and lite-
raUy, but, as usual, wished to convey some instruction under
the guise of a parable. When His disciples, then, put this
questionin private, does He tell them, as the Manichaeans say,
that aU animal food is unclean, and that they must never
touch it ? Instead of this, He rebukes them for not under
standing His plain language, and for thinking it a parable
when it was not. We read : " And Jesus said, Are ye also
yet without understanding ? Do not ye yet understand, that
whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and
is cast out into the draught ? But those things which proceed
out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile
the man. For out of the heart proceed evU thoughts, mur
ders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
These are the things which defile a man : but to eat with un-
washen hands defileth not a man."1
3 2. Here we have a complete exposure of the falsehood of
the Manichaeans : for it is plain that the Lord did not in this
matter teach one thing to the multitude, and another in
private to His disciples. Here is abundant evidence that the
error and deceit are in the Manichaeans, and not in Moses,
nor in Christ, nor in the doctrine taught figuratively in one
Testament and plainly in the other, — prophesied in one, and
fulfiUed in the other. How can Faustus say that the Catho
lics regard none of the things that Moses wrote, when in fact
they observe them aU, not now in the figures, but in what the
figures were intended to foreteU ? No one would say that one
who reads the Scripture subsequently to its being written
does not observe it because he does not form the letters which
he reads. The letters are the figures of the sounds which he
utters ; and though he does not form the letters, he cannot
1 Matt. xv. 16-20.

BOOK XVI.] THE LETTER OBSERVED. 315
read without examining them. The reason why the Jews did
not believe in Christ, was because they did not observe even
tbe plain hteral precepts of Moses. So Christ says to them :
" Ye pay tithe of mint and cummin, and omit the weightier
matters of the law, mercy and judgment. Ye strain at a
gnat and swallow a camel These ought ye to have done,
and not to leave the other undone."1 So also He told them
that by theh traditions they made of none effect the com
mandment of God to give honour to parents. On account of
this pride and perversity in neglecting what they understood,
they were justly blinded, so that they could not understand
the other things.
33. You see, my argument is not that if you are a Chris
tian you must beheve Christ when He says that Moses wrote
of Him, and that if you do not beheve this you are no Chris
tian. The account you give of yourself in asking to be dealt
with as a Jew or a GentUe is your own affair. My en
deavour is to leave no passage to error open to you. I have
shut you out, too, from that precipice to which you rush as a
last resort, when you say that these are spurious passages in
the Gospel; so that, freed from the pernicious influence of
this opinion, you may be reduced to the necessity of believing
in Christ. You say you wish to be taught hke the Christian
Thomas, whom Christ did not spurn from Him because he
doubted of Him, but, in order to heal the wounds of his mind,
showed him the marks of the wounds in His own body. These
are your own words. It is weU that you desire to be taught
as Thomas was. I feared you would make out this passage
too to be spurious. Beheve, then, the marks of Christ's
wounds. For if the marks were real, the wounds must have
been real. And the wounds could not have been real, unless
His body had been capable of real wounds ; which upsets at
once the doctrine of the Manichaeans. If you say that the
marks were unreal which Christ showed to His doubting
disciple, it foUows that He must be a deceitful teacher, and
that you wish to be deceived in being taught by Him. But
as no one wishes to be deceived, while many wish to deceive,
it is probable that you would rather imitate the teaching
1 Matt, xxiii. 23, 24.

>16 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVII.

which you ascribe to Christ than the learning you ascribe to
Thomas. If, then, you beheve that Christ deceived a doubting
inquirer by false marks of wounds, you must yourself be re
garded, not as a safe teacher, but as a dangerous impostor.
On the other hand, if Thomas touched the real marks of Christ's
wounds, you must confess that Christ had a real body. So,
if you believe as Thomas did, you are no more a Manichaean.
If you do not beheve even with Thomas, you must be left to
your infidehty.

BOOK XVII.
1. Faustus. You ask why we do not receive the law and the
prophets, when Christ said that he came not to destroy them,
but to fulfil them. Where do we learn that Jesus said this ?
From Matthew, who declares that he said it on the mount.
In whose presence was it said ? In the presence of Peter,
Andrew, James, and John — only these four ; for the rest, in
cluding Matthew himself, were not yet chosen. Is it not the
case that one of these four — John, namely — wrote a Gospel ?
It is. Does he mention this saying of Jesus ? No. How, then,
does it happen that what is not recorded by John, who was
on the mount, is recorded by Matthew, who became a follower
of Christ long after he came down from the mount ? In the
first place, then, we must doubt whether Jesus ever said these
words, since the proper witness is silent on the matter, and
we have only the authority of a less trustworthy witness.
But, besides this, we shaU find that it is not Matthew that
has imposed upon us, but some one else under his name, as is
evident from the indhect style of the narrative. Thus we
read : " As Jesus passed by, he saw a man, named Matthew,
sitting at the receipt of custom, and caUed him ; and he imme
diately rose up, and followed him." J No one writing of him
self would say, He saw a man, and caUed him, and he foUowed
him ; but, He saw me, and called me, and I followed him.
Evidently this was written not by Matthew himself, but by
some one else under his name. Since, then, the passage
1 Matt. ix. 9.

BOOK XVII.] ANOTHER SPURIOUS PASSAGE. 317
already quoted would not be true even if it had been written
by Matthew, since he was not present when Jesus spoke on
the mount ; much more is its falsehood evident from the fact
that the writer was not Matthew himself, but some one bor
rowing the names both of Jesus and of Matthew.
2. The passage itseh, in which Christ tells the Jews not to
think that he came to destroy the law, rather shows that he
did destroy it. For, had he not done something of the kind,
the Jews would not have suspected him. His words are :
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law." Suppose the
Jews had rephed, What actions of thine might lead us to sus
pect this ? Is it because thou exposest circumcision, breakest
the Sabbath, discardest sacrifices, makest no distinction in
food ? this would be the natural answer to the words, Think
not. The Jews had the best possible reason for thinking that
Jesus destroyed the law. If this was not to destroy law, what
is ? But, indeed, the law and the prophets consider them
selves aheady so faultlessly perfect, that they have no desire
to be fulfiUed. Theh author and father condemns adding to
them as much as taking away anything from them ; as we read
in Deuteronomy : " These precepts which I dehver unto thee
this day, 0 Israel, thou shalt observe to do ; thou shalt not turn
aside from them to the right hand or to the left ; thou shalt
not add thereto nor diminish from it, that thy God may bless
thee." J Whether, therefore, Jesus turned aside to the right
by adding to the law and the prophets in order to fulfil them,
or to the left in taking away from them to destroy them,
either way he offended the author of the law. So this verse
must either have some other meaning, or be spurious.
3. Augustine. What amazing foUy, to disbelieve what
Matthew records of Christ, while you believe Manichaeus ! If
Matthew is not to be beheved because he was not present
when Christ said, " I came not to destroy the law and the
prophets, but to fulfil," was Manichaeus present, was he even
born, when Christ appeared among men ? According, then, to
your rule, you should not beheve anything that Manichaeus
says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to beheve what
Manichaeus says of Christ; not because he was not present
1 Deut. xii. 32.

318 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVII.
as a witness of Christ's words and actions, but because he con
tradicts Christ's disciples, and the Gospel which rests on their
authority. The apostle, speaking in the Holy Spirit, teUs us
that such teachers would arise. With reference to such, he
says to behevers : " If any man preaches to you another gospel
than that ye have received, let him be accursed." 2 If no
one can say what is true of Christ unless he has himself seen
and heard Him, no one now can be trusted. But if believers
can now say what is true of Christ because the truth has been
handed down in word or writing by those who saw and heard,
why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his feUow-
disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as
from the writings of John both we who are born so long after
and those who shall be born after us can learn the truth about
Christ ? In this way, the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who
were companions of the disciples, as weU as the Gospel of
Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides,
the Lord Himself might have told Matthew what those caUed
before him had aheady been witnesses of. Your idea is, that
John should have recorded this saying of the Lord, as he was
present on the occasion. As if it might not happen that, since
it was impossible to write aU that he heard from the Lord, he
set himself to write some, omitting this among others. Does
he not say at the close of bis Gospel : " And there are also
many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written" ?2 This
proves that he omitted many things intentionaUy. But if you
choose John as an authority regarding the law and the pro
phets, I ask you only to beheve his testimony to them. It is
John who writes that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ.3 It
is in his Gospel we find the text aheady treated of : " If ye
beheved Moses, ye would also beheve me ; for he wrote of me." 4
Your evasions are met on every side. You ought to say
plainly that you do not beheve the gospel of Christ. For to
beheve what you please, and not 'to believe what you please,
is to beheve yourselves, and not the gospel.
4. Faustus thinks himself wonderfuUy clever in proving
1 Gal. i. 9. * John xxi. 25. 3 John xii. 41. 4 John v. 46.

BOOK XVII.] INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION. 319
that Matthew was not the writer of this Gospel, because, when
speaking of his own election, he says not, He saw me, and
said to me, Follow me ; but, He saw bim, and said to him,
FoUow me. This must have been said not so much in igno
rance as from a design to mislead. Faustus can hardly be so
ignorant as not to have read or heard that narrators, when speak
ing of themselves, often use a construction as if speaking of
another. It is more probable that Faustus wished to bewilder
those more ignorant than himseh, in the hope of getting hold on
not a few unacquainted with these things. It is needless to
resort to other writings to quote examples of this construction
from profane authors for the information of our friends, and
for the refutation of Faustus. We find examples in passages
quoted above from Moses by Faustus himself, without any
denial, or rather with the assertion, that they were written by
Moses, only not written of Christ. When Moses, then, writes
of himseh, does he say, I said this, or I did that, and not
rather, Moses said, and Moses did ? Or does he say, The Lord
caUed me, The Lord said to me, and not rather, The Lord
caUed Moses, The Lord said to Moses, and so on? So
Matthew, too, speaks of himself in the third person. And
John does the same ; for towards the end of his book he saya:
" Peter, turning, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also
lay on His breast at supper, and who said to the Lord, Who is
it that shaU betray Thee ?" Does he say, Peter, turning, saw
me ? Or wiU you argue from this that John did not write
this Gospel ? But he adds a little after : " This is the disciple
that testifies of Jesus, and has written these things ; and we
know that his testimony is true." 1 Does he say, I am the dis
ciple who testify of Jesus, and who have written these things,
and we know that my testimony is true ? Evidently this
style is common in writers of narratives. There are innume
rable instances in which the Lord Himself uses it. " When
the Son of man," He says, " cometh, shaU He find faith on the
earth ? "2 Not, When I come, shall I find ? Again, " The Son
of man came eating and drinking;"3 not, I came. Again,
" The hour shall come, and now is, when the dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shaU live ;" 4
1 John xxi. 20-24, 2 Luke xviii. 8. 3 Matt. xi. 19. 4 John v. 25.

320 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVII.
not, My voice. And so in many other places. This may suffice
to satisfy inquirers and to refute scoffers.
5. Every one can see the weakness of the argument that
Christ could not have said, "Think not that I am come to
destroy the law and the prophets : I came not to destroy, but
to fulfil," unless He had done something to create a suspicion
of this kind. Of course, we grant that the unenlightened Jews
may have looked upon Christ as the destroyer of the law and
the prophets ; but their very suspicion makes it certain that
the true and truthful One, in saying that He came not to de
stroy the law and the prophets, referred to no other law than
that of the Jews. This is proved by the words that foUow :
" VerUy, verUy, I say unto you, TUl heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law tUl all be
fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shaU break one of the least of
these commandments, and shaU teach men so, shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shaU do
and teach them, shaU be caUed great in the kingdom of heaven."
This apphed to the Pharisees, who taught the law in word,
whUe they broke it in deed. Christ says of the Pharisees in
another place, " What they say, that do ; but do not after theh
works : for they say, and do not." x So here also He adds,
" For I say unto you, Except your righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shaU not enter
into the kingdom of heaven ; "2 that is, Unless ye shall both do
and teach what they teach without doing, ye shaU not enter
into the kingdom of heaven. This law, therefore, which the
Pharisees taught without keeping it, Christ says He came
not to destroy, but to fulfil ; for this was the law connected
with the seat of Moses in which the Pharisees sat, who, be
cause they said without doing, are to be heard, but not to be
imitated. 6. Faustus does not understand, or pretends not to under
stand, what it is to fulfil the law. He supposes the expression
to mean the addition of words to the law, regarding which it is
written that nothing is to be added to or taken away from the
Scriptures of God. From this Faustus argues that there can be
no fulfilment of what is spoken of as so perfect that nothing
1 Matt, xxiii. 3. 2Matt. v. 17-20.

BOOK XVIII.] THE LAW FULFILLED. 321
can be added to it or taken from it. Faustus requires to be
told that the law is fulfiUed by living as it enjoins. " Love
is the fulfUhng of the law," 1 as the apostle says. The Lord has
vouchsafed both to manifest and to impart this love, by send
ing the Holy Sphit to His beheving people. So it is said by
the same apostle : " The love of God is shed abroad in our
heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." 2 And the
Lord Himself says : " By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples, if ye have love one to another." 3 The law, then,
is fulfilled both by the observance of its precepts and by the
accomplishment of its prophecies. For " the law was given
by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." 4 The
law itself, by being fulfiUed, becomes grace and truth. Grace
is the fulfilment of love, and truth is the accomphshment of
the prophecies. And as both grace and truth are by Christ,
it foUows that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil
it ; not by supplying any defects in the law, but by obedience
to what is written in the law. Christ's own words declare
this. For He does not say, One jot or one tittle shaU in no
wise pass from the law tUl its defects are supphed, but " till
aU be fulfiUed."

BOOK XVIII.
1. Faust. "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it."
If these are Christ's words, unless they have some other mean
ing, they are as much against you as against me. Your
Christianity as weU as mine is based on the behef that Christ
came to destroy the law and the prophets. Your actions
prove this, even though in words you deny it. It is on this
ground that you disregard the precepts of the law and the pro
phets. It is on this ground that we both acknowledge Jesus
as the founder of the New Testament, in which is implied the
acknowledgment that the Old Testament is destroyed. How,
then, can we beheve that Christ said these words without first
confessing that hitherto we have been wholly in error, and
without showing our repentance by entering on a course of
1 Rom. xiii. 10. a Rom. v. 5. s John xiii. 35. « John i. 7.
5 X

322 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXVIH.

obedience to the law and the prophets, and of careful observ
ance of theh requhements, whatever they may be ? This done,
we may honestly beheve that Jesus said that he came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfil it. As it is, you accuse me of
not believing what you do not beheve yourself, and what
therefore is false.
2. But grant that we have been in the wrong hitherto.
What is to be done now ? ShaU we come under the law,
since Christ has not destroyed, but fulfiUed it ? ShaU we by
chcumcision add shame to shame, and beheve that God is
pleased with such sacraments ? ShaU we observe the rest of
the Sabbath, and bind ourselves in the fetters of Saturn ?
ShaU we glut the demon of the Jews, for he is not God, with
the slaughter of buUs, rams, and goats, not to say of men ; and
adopt, only with greater cruelty, in obedience to the law and
the prophets, the practices on account of which we abandoned
idolatry? ShaU we, in fine, caU the flesh of some animals
clean, and that of others unclean, among which, according to
the law and the prophets, swine's flesh has a particular defile
ment ? Of course you wiU aUow that as Christians we must
not do any of these things, for you remember that Christ says
that a man when chcumcised becomes twofold a chUd of heU1
It is plain also that Christ neither observed the Sabbath him
self, nor 'commanded it to be observed. And regarding food,
he says expressly that man is not defiled by anything that
goes into his mouth, but rather by the things which come out
of it.2 Eegarding sacrifices, too, he often says that God de
shes mercy, and not sacrifice.3 What becomes, then, of the
statement that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil
it ? If Christ said this, he must have meant something else,
or, what is not to be thought of, he told a he, or he never
said it. No Christian wiU aUow that Jesus spoke falsely;
therefore he must either not have said this, or said it with
another meaning.
3. For my part, as a Manichaean, this verse has httle diffi
culty for me, for at the outset I am taught to beheve that
many things which pass in Scripture under the name of the
Saviour are spurious, and that they must therefore be tested
1 Matt, xxiii. 15. 2 Matt. xv. 11. ' 3 Matt. ix. 13.

BOOK XVIII.] FAUSTUS APPEALS TO REASON. 323
to find whether they are true, and sound, and genuine ; for the
enemy who comes by night has corrupted almost every passage
by sowing tares among the wheat. So I am not alarmed by
these words, notwithstanding the sacred name affixed to them ;
for I stiU claim the liberty to examine whether this comes
from the hand of the good sower, who sows in the day-time, or
of the evU one, who sows in the night. But what escape
from this difficulty can there be for you, who receive every
thing without examination, condemning the use of reason,
which is the prerogative of human nature, and thinking it
impiety to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and as
much afraid of separating between what is good and what is
not as chUdren are of ghosts ? For suppose a Jew or any one
acquainted with these words should ask you why you do not
keep the precepts of the law and the prophets, since Christ
says that he came not to destroy, but to fulfil them : you
wiU be obliged either to join in the superstitious follies of the
Jews, or to declare this verse false, or to deny that you are a
foUower of Christ.
4. Augustine. Since you continue repeating what has been
so often exposed and refuted, we must be content to repeat
the refutation. The things in the law and the prophets which
Christians do not observe, are only the types of what they do
observe. These types were figures of things to come, and are
necessarUy removed when the things themselves are fuUy
revealed by Christ, that in this very removal the law and the
prophets may be fulfiUed. So it is written in the prophets
that God would give a new covenant, " not as I gave to theh
fathers." x Such was the hardness of heart of the people
under the Old Testament, that many precepts were given to
them, not so much because they were good, as because they
suited the people. StUl, in aU these things the future was
foretold and prefigured, although the people did not under
stand the meaning of their own observances. After the
manifest appearance of the things thus signified, we are not
required to observe the types ; but we read them to see their
meaning. So, again, it is foretold in the prophets, " I will
take away their stony heart, and whl give them a heart of
1 Jer. xxxi. 32.

324 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XVIII.
flesh," J — that is, a sensible heart, instead of an insensible
one. To this the apostle aUudes in the words: "Not in
tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart." 2 The
fleshy tables of the heart are the same as the heart of flesh.
Since, then, the removal of these observances is foretold, the
law and the prophets could not have been fulfilled but by
this removal. Now, however, the prediction is accomplished,
and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets is found in
what at first sight seems the very opposite.
5. We are not afraid to meet your scoff at the Sabbath,
when you caU it the fetters of Saturn. It is a siUy and un
meaning expression, which occurred to you only because you
are in the habit of worshipping the sun on what you caU
Sunday. What you call Sunday we caU the Lord's day, and
on it we do not worship the sun, but commemorate the Lord's
resurrection. And in the same way, the fathers observed the
rest of the Sabbath, not because they worshipped Saturn, but
because it was incumbent at that time ; for it was a shadow
of things to come, as the apostle testifies.3 The GentUes, of
whom the apostle says that they " worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator,"4 gave the names of theh
gods to the days of the week. And so far you do the same,
except that you worship only the two brightest luminaries,
and not the rest of the stars, as the Gentiles did. Besides,
the GentUes gave the names of theh gods to the months.
In honour of Eomulus, whom they beheved to be the son of
Mars, they dedicated the first month to Mars, and caUed it
March. The next month, AprU, is named not from any god,
but from the word for opening, because the buds generally
open in this month. The thhd month is caUed May, in
honour of Maia the mother of Mercury. The fourth is caUed
June, from Juno. The rest to December used to be named
according to their number. The fifth and sixth, however, got
the names of July and August from men to whom divine
honours were decreed ; whUe the others, from September
to December, continued to be named from theh number.
January, again, is named from Janus, and February from the
rites of the Luperci called Februae. Must we say that you
1 Ezek. xi. 19. 2 2 Cor. ii. 3. 3 Col. ii. 17. 4 Rom. i. 25.

BOOK XVIII.] THE FETTERS OF SATURN. 325
worship the god Mars in the month of March ? But that is
the month in which you hold the feast you call Bema with
great pomp. But if you think it aUowable to observe the
month of March without thinking of Mars, why do you try
to bring in the name of Saturn in connection with the rest of
the seventh day enjoined in Scripture, merely because the
GentUes caU the day Saturday ? The Scripture name for the
day is Sabbath, which means rest. Your scoff is as unreason
able as it is profane.
6. As regards animal sacrifices, every Christian knows that
they were enjoined as suitable to a perverse people, and not
because God had any pleasure in them. Still, even in these
sacrifices there were types of what we enjoy ; for we cannot
obtain purification or the propitiation of God without blood.
The fulfilment of these types is in Christ, by whose blood we
are purified and redeemed. In these figures of the divine
oracles, the buU represents Christ, because with the horns of
His cross He scatters the wicked ; the lamb, from His match
less innocence ; the goat, from His being made in the likeness
of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin.1 What
ever kind of sacrifice you choose to specify, I will show you
a prophecy of Christ in it. Thus we have shown regarding
circumcision, and the Sabbath, and the distinction of food,
and the sacrifice of animals, that aU these things were our
examples, and our prophecies, which Christ came not to
destroy, but to fulfil, by fulfiUing what was thus foretold.
Your opponent is the apostle, whose opinion I give in his
own words : " All these things were our examples."2
7. If you have learned from Manichaeus the wilful impiety
of admitting only those parts of the Gospel which do not con
tradict your errors, whUe you reject the rest, we have learned
from the apostle the pious caution of looking on every one as
accursed that preaches to us another gospel than that which
we have received. Hence Catholic Christians look upon you
as among the tares; for, in the Lord's exposition of the
meaning of the tares, they are not falsehood mixed with
truth in the Scriptures, but children of the wicked one, — that
is, people who imitate the deceitfulness of the devil. It is
1 Rom. viii. 3. 2 1 Cor. x. 6.

326 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX
not true that Cathohc Christians believe everything; for they
do not beheve Manichaeus or any of the heretics. Nor do
they condemn the use of human reason ; but what you caU
reasoning they prove to be faUacious. Nor do they think it
profane to distinguish truth from falsehood ; for they distin
guish between the truth of the Cathohc faith and the false
hood of your doctrines. Nor do they fear to separate good
from evil ; but they contend that evU, instead of being
natural, is unnatural. They know nothing of your race of
darkness, which, you say, is produced from a principle of its
own, and fights against the kingdom of God, and of which
your god seems reaUy to be more frightened than children
are of ghosts ; for, according to you, he covered himself with
a veU, that he might not see his own members taken and
plundered by the assault of the enemy. To conclude, Cathohc
Christians are in no difficulty regarding the words of Christ,
though in one sense they may be said not to observe the
law and the prophets ; for by tbe grace of Christ they keep
the law by theh love to God and man; and on these two
commandments hang aU the law and the prophets.1 Besides,
they see in Christ and the Church the fulfilment of aU the
prophecies of the Old Testament, whether in the form of
actions, or of symboUc rites, or of figurative language. So we
neither join in superstitious follies, nor declare this verse
false, nor deny that we are foUowers of Christ ; for on those
principles which I have set forth to the best of my power,
the law and the prophets which Christ came not to destroy,
but to fulfil, are no other than those recognised by the Church.

BOOK XIX.
1. Faustus. I wiU grant that Christ said that he came not
to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them. But
why did Jesus say this ? Was it to pacify the Jews, who
were enraged at seeing their sacred institutions trampled upon
by Christ, and regarded him as a wild blasphemer, not to be
listened to, much less to be followed ? Or was it for our
1 Matt. xxii. 40.

BOOK XIX.] FAUSTUS' THREE LAWS. 327
instruction as Gentile behevers, that we might learn meekly
and patiently to bear the yoke of commandment laid on our
necks by the law and the prophets of the Jews ? You your
self can hardly suppose that Christ's words were intended to
bring us under the authority of the law and the prophets of
the Hebrews. So that the other explanation which I have
given of the words must be the true one. Every one knows
that the Jews were always ready to attack Christ, both with
words and with actual violence. NaturaUy, then, they would
be enraged at the idea that Christ was destroying their law
and theh prophets ; and, to appease them, Christ might very
well tell them not to think that he came to destroy the law,
but that he came to fulfil it. There was no falsehood or
deceit in this, for he used the word law in a general sense,
not of any particular law.
2. There are three laws. One is that of the Hebrews,
which the apostle caUs the law of sin and death.1 The
second is that of the GentUes, which he caUs the law of
nature. " For the Gentiles," he says, " do by nature the things
contained in the law ; and, not having the law, they are a law
unto themselves ; which show the work of the law written on
their hearts."2 The third law is the truth of which the
apostle speaks when he says, " The law of the spirit of life
in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death." 3 Since, then, there are three laws, we must carefuUy
inquire which of the three Christ spoke of when he said that
he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. In the same
way, there are prophets of the Jews, and prophets of the
GentUes, and prophets of truth. With the prophets of the
Jews, of course, every one is acquainted. If any one is in
doubt about the prophets of the GentUes, let him hear what
Paul says when writing of the Cretans to Titus : " A prophet
of theh own has said, The Cretans are always hars, evU
beasts, slow bellies." 4 This proves that the Gentiles also had
their prophets. The truth also has its prophets, as we learn
from Jesus as weU as from Paul. Jesus says : " Behold, I
send unto you wise men and prophets, and some of them ye
1 Rom. viii. 2. 2 Rom. ii. 14, 15.
8 Rom. viii. 2. * Tit. i. 12.

328 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.

shaU kUl in divers places."1 And Paul says: "The Lord
Himself appointed first apostles, and then prophets." 2
3. As " the law and the prophets" may have three different
meanings, it is uncertain in what sense the words are used by
Jesus, though we may form a conjecture from what foUows.
For if Jesus had gone on to speak of chcumcision, and Sabbaths,
and sacrifices, and the observances of the Hebrews, and had
added something as a fulfilment, there could have been no
doubt that it was the law and the prophets of the Jews of
which he said that he came not to destroy, but to fulfil them.
But Christ, without any aUusion to these, speaks only of com
mandments which date from the earhest times : " Thou shalt
not kiU ; Thou shalt not commit adultery ; Thou shalt not
bear false witness." These, it can be proved, were of old
promulgated in the world by Enoch and Seth, and the other
righteous men, to whom the precepts were dehvered by angels
of lofty rank, in order to tame the savage nature of men.
From this it appears that Jesus spoke of the law and the
prophets of truth. And so we find him giving a fulfilment
of those precepts aheady quoted. " Ye have heard," he says,
" that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kUl ;
but I say unto you, Be not even angry." This is the fulfil
ment. Again : " Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt
not commit adultery ; but I say unto you, Do not lust even."
This is the fulfilment. Again : " It has been said, Thou shalt
not bear false witness ; but I say unto you, Swear not." This
too is the fulfilment. He thus both confirms the old precepts
and supplies their defects. Where he seems to speak of some
Jewish precepts, instead of fulfUhng them, he substitutes for
them precepts of an opposite tendency. He proceeds thus :
" Ye have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth ; but I say unto you, Whosoever shaU
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
This is not fulfilment, but destruction. Again : " It has been
said, Thou shalt love thy friend, and hate thine enemy ; but
I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for your perse
cutors." This too is destruction. Again : " It has been said,
Whosoever shaU put away his wife, let him give her a writing
1 Matt, xxiii. 34. " Eph. iv. 11.

BOOK XIX.] RIGHTEOUS MEN OF ANTIQUITY. 329
of divorcement ; but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery, and is himself an adulterer if he after
wards marries another woman." 1 These precepts are evidently
destroyed because they are the precepts of Moses ; while the
others are fulfiUed because they are the precepts of the righteous
men of antiquity. If you agree to this explanation, we may
aUow that Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but
to fulfil it. If you disapprove of this explanation, give one of
your own. Only beware of making Jesus a har, and of making
yourself a Jew, by binding yourself to fulfil the law because
Christ did not destroy it.
4. If one of the Nazareans, or Symmachians, as they are
sometimes caUed, were arguing with me from these words of
Jesus that he came not to destroy the law, I should find some
difficulty in answering him. For it is undeniable that, at his
coming, Jesus was both in body and mind subject to the in
fluence of the law and the prophets. Those people, moreover,
whom I aUude to, practise chcumcision, and keep the Sabbath,
and abstain from swine's flesh and such hke things, according
to the law, although they profess to be Christians. They are
evidently misled, as weU as you, by this verse in which Christ
says that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. It
would not be easy to reply to such opponents without first
getting rid of this troublesome verse. But with you I have
no difficulty, for you have nothing to go upon ; and instead of
using arguments, you seem disposed, in mere mischief, to induce
me to believe that Christ said what you evidently do not your
self beheve him to have said. On the strength of this verse
you accuse me of dulness and evasiveness, without yourself
giving any indication of keeping the law instead of destroying
it. Do you too, like a Jew or a Nazarean, glory in the obscure
distinction of being circumcised ? Do you pride yourself in
the observance of the Sabbath ? Can you congratulate yourself
on being innocent of swine's flesh ? Or can you boast of having
gratified the appetite of the Deity by the blood of sacrifices
and the incense of Jewish offerings ? If not, why do you con
tend that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it ?
1 Matt. v. 21-44.

330 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
5. I give unceasing thanks to my teacher, who prevented
me from faihng into this error, so that I am stUl a Christian
For I, hke you, from reading this verse without sufficient con
sideration, had almost resolved to become a Jew. And with
reason ; for if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil
it, and as a vessel in order to be filled fuU must not be empty,
but partly fiUed already, I concluded that no one could become
a Christian but an Israehte, nearly fiUed aheady with the law
and the prophets, and coming to Christ to be fiUed to the fuU
extent of his capacity. I concluded, too, that in thus coming
he must not destroy what he aheady possesses ; otherwise it
would be a case, not of fulfilling, but of emptying. Then it
appeared that I, as a GentUe, could get nothing by coming to
Christ, for I brought nothing that he could fill up by his
additions. This preparatory supply is found, on inquiry, to
consist of Sabbaths, chcumcision, sacrifices, new moons, bap
tisms, feasts of unleavened bread, distinctions of food, drink,
and clothes, and other things, too many to specify. This,
then, it appeared, was what Christ came not to destroy, but to
fulfil. NaturaUy it must appear so : for what is a law without
precepts, or prophets without predictions ? Besides, there is
that terrible curse pronounced upon those who abide not in aU
things that are written in the book of the law to do them.1
With the fear of this curse appearing to come from God on
the one side, and with Christ on the other side, seeming, as the
Son of God, to say that he came not to destroy these things, but
to fulfil them, what 'was to prevent me from becoming a Jew ?
The wise instruction of Manichaeus saved me from this danger.
6. But how can you venture to quote this verse against
me ? Or why should it be against me only, when it is as
much against yourseh ? If Christ does not destroy the law
and the prophets, neither must Christians do so. Why then
do you destroy them ? Do you begin to perceive that you are
no Christian ? How can you profane with aU kinds of work
the day pronounced sacred in the law and in aU the prophets,
on which they say that God, the maker of the world, himself
rested, without dreading the penalty of death pronounced
against Sabbath-breakers, or the curse on the transgressor?
1 Deut. xxvii. 15.

BOOK XIX.] FILLING AND FULFILLING. 331
How can you refuse to receive in your person the unseemly
mark of circumcision, which the law and aU the prophets
declare to be honourable, especiaUy in the case of Abraham,
after what was thought to be his faith ; for does not the God
of the Jews proclaim that whosoever is without this mark of
infamy shaU perish from his people ? How can you neglect
the appointed sacrifices, which were made so much of both by
Moses and the prophets under the law, and by Abraham in his
faith ? And how can you defile your souls by making no dis
tinction in food, if you believe that Christ came not to destroy
these things, but to fulfil them ? Why do you discard the
annual feast of unleavened bread, and the appointed sacrifice
of the lamb, which, according to the law and the prophets, is
to be observed for ever ? Why, in a word, do you treat so
lightly the new moons, the baptisms, and the feast of taber
nacles, and aU the other carnal ordinances of the law and the
prophets, i£ Christ did not destroy them ? I have therefore
good reason for saying that, in order to justify your neglect
of these things, you must either abandon your profession of
being Christ's disciple, or acknowledge that Christ himself has
aheady destroyed them ; and from this acknowledgment it must
foUow, either that this text is spurious in which Christ is made
to say that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, or
that the words have an enthely different meaning from what
you suppose.
7. Augustine. If you aUow, in consideration of the authority
of the Gospel, that Christ said that He came not to destroy
the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them, you should show
the same consideration to the authority of the apostle, when
he says, "AU these things were our examples;" and again
of Christ, " He was not yea and nay, but in Him was yea ;
for aU the promises of God are in Him yea j"1 that is, they
are set forth and fulfiUed in Him. In this way you wiU see
in the clearest hght both what law Christ fulfiUed, and how
He fulfiUed it. It is a vain attempt that you make to escape
by your three kinds of law and your three kinds of prophets.
It is quite plain, and the New Testament leaves no doubt on
the matter, what law and what prophets Christ came not to
1 2 Cor. i. 19, 20.

332 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
destroy, but to fulfil The law given by Moses is that which
by Jesus Christ became grace and truth.1 The law given by
Moses is that of which Christ says, " He wrote of me."2 For
undoubtedly this is the law which entered that the offence
might abound ; 3 words which you often ignorantly quote as
a reproach to the law. Eead what is there said of this law :
" The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and
good. Was then that which is good made death unto me ?
God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, wrought
death in me by that which is good."4 The entrance of the
law made the offence abound, not because the law required
what was wrong, but because the proud and self-confident
incurred additional guilt as transgressors after theh acquaint
ance with the holy, and just, and good commandments of the
law ; so that, being thus humbled, they might learn that only
by grace through faith could they be freed from subjection to
the law as transgressors, and be reconcUed to the law as
righteous. So the same apostle says : " For before faith came,
we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which
was afterwards revealed. Therefore the law was our school
master- in Christ Jesus ; but after faith came, we are no longer
under a schoolmaster."5 That is, we are no longer subject to
the penalty of the law, because we are set free by grace.
Before we received in humility the grace of the Spirit, the
letter was only death to us, for it requhed obedience which
we could not render. Thus Paul also says: "The letter
kUleth, but the spirit giveth hfe." s Again, he says : " For if
a law had been given which could have given hfe, verily
righteousness should have been by the law ; but the Scripture
hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."7 And
once more : " What the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sent His Son in the hkeness of sinful
flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh, that the
righteousness of the law' might be fulfiUed in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." 8 Here we see Christ
1 John i. 17. ' John v. 46. 3 Rom. v. 20.
1 Rom. vii. 12, 13. 6 Gal. iii. 23, 23. 6 2 Cor. iii. 6.
7 Gal. iii. 21, 22. « Rom. viii. 3, 4.

BOOK XIX.] GRACE AND TRUTH. 333
coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. As the law
brought the proud under the guilt of transgression, increasing
theh sin by commandments which they could not obey, so
the righteousness of the same law is fulfilled by the grace of
the Sphit in those who learn from Christ to be meek and
lowly in heart ; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfil it. Moreover, because even for those who are under
grace it is difficult in this mortal life perfectly to keep what
is written in the law, Thou shalt not covet, Christ, by the
sacrifice of His flesh, as our Priest obtains pardon for us.
And in this also He fulfils the law ; for what we fail in through
weakness is supphed by His perfection, who is the Head,
whUe we are His members. Thus John says : " My httle
chUdren, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not ; and
if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous : He is the propitiation for our sins."1
8. Christ also fulfiUed the prophecies, because the promises
of God were made good in Him. As the apostle says in the
verse quoted above, " The promises of God are in Him yea."
Again, he says : " Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister
of the chcumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made unto the fathers."2 Whatever, then, was
promised in the prophets, whether expressly or in figure,
whether by words or by actions, was fulfiUed in Him who
came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil
them. You do not perceive that if Christians were to con
tinue in the use of acts and observances by which things to
eome were prefigured, the only meaning would be that the
things prefigured had not yet come. Either the thing pre
figured has not come, or if it has, the figure becomes super
fluous or misleading. Therefore, if Christians do not practise
some things enjoined in the Hebrews by the prophets, this,
so far from showing, as you think, that Christ did not fulfil
the prophets, rather shows that He did. So completely did
Christ fulfil what these types prefigured, that it is no longer
prefigured. So the Lord Himself says: "The law and the
prophets were untU John."3 For the law which shut up
transgressors in increased guUt, and to the faith which was
1 1 John ii. 1, 2. * Rom. xv. 8. ' Luke xvi. 16.

334 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
afterwards revealed, became grace through Jesus Christ, by
whom grace superabounded. Thus the law, which was not
fulfiUed in the requirement of the letter, was fulfiUed in the
liberty of grace. In the same way, everything in the law that
was prophetic of the Saviour's advent, whether in words or in
typical actions, became truth in Jesus Christ. For " the law
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ."1 At Christ's advent the kingdom of God began to be
preached; for the law and the prophets were until John: the
law, that its transgressors might deshe salvation ; the prophets,
that they might foreteU the Saviour. No doubt there have
been prophets in the Church since the ascension of Christ.
Of these prophets Paul says : " God hath set some in the
Church, first apostles, secondarUy prophets, thirdly teachers,"
and so on.2 It is not of these prophets that it was said,
" The law and the prophets were untU John," but of those
who prophesied the first coming of Christ, which evidently
cannot be prophesied now that it has taken place.
9. Accordingly; when you ask why a Christian is not ch
cumcised if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil
it, my reply is, that a Christian is not chcumcised precisely
for this reason, that what was prefigured by circumcision is
fulfiUed in Christ. Chcumcision was the type of the removal
of our fleshly nature, which was fulfilled in the resurrection
of Christ, and which the sacrament of ¦ baptism teaches us to
look forward to in our own resurrection. The sacrament of
the new life is not whoUy discontinued, for our resurrection
from the dead is stUl to come ; but this sacrament has been
improved by the substitution of baptism for chcumcision, be
cause now a pattern of the eternal life which is to come is
afforded us in the resurrection of Christ, whereas formerly
there was nothing of the kind. So, when you ask why a
Christian does not keep the Sabbath, if Christ came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfil it, my reply is, that a Christian
does not keep the Sabbath precisely because what was pre
figured in the Sabbath is fulfiUed in Christ. For we have our
Sabbath in Him who said, " Come unto me, aU ye that labour
and are heavy laden, and I wUl give you rest. Take my
* John i. 17. 2 1 Cor. xii. 28.

BOOK XIX.] FIGURES SUPERFLUOUS AFTER CHRIST. 335
yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in
heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls."1
10. When you ask why a Christian does not observe the
distinction in food as enjoined in the law, if Christ came not
to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, I reply, that a Christian
does not observe this distinction precisely because what was
thus prefigured is now fulfilled in Christ, who admits into His
body, which in His saints He has predestined to eternal hfe,
nothing which in human conduct corresponds to the charac
teristics of the forbidden animals. When you ask, again, why
a Christian does not offer sacrifices to God of the flesh and
blood of slain animals, if Christ came not to destroy the law,
but to fulfil it, I reply, that it would be improper for a
Christian to offer such sacrifices, now that what was thus
prefigured has been fulfilled in Christ's offering of His own
body and blood. When you ask why a Christian does not
keep the feast of unleavened bread as the Jews did, if Christ
came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, I reply, that a
Christian does not keep this feast precisely because what was
thus prefigured is fulfiUed in Christ, who leads us to a new hfe
by purging out the leaven of the old hfe.2 When you ask
why a Christian does not keep the feast of the paschal lamb,
if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, my reply
is, that he does not keep it precisely because what was thus
prefigured has been fulfiUed in the sufferings of Christ, the
Lamb without spot. When you ask why a Christian does not
keep the feasts of the new moon appointed in the law, if
Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, I reply,
that he does not keep them precisely because what was thus
prefigured is fulfilled in Christ. For the feast of the new
moon prefigured the new creature, of which the apostle says :
" If therefore there is any new creature in Christ Jesus, the
old things have passed away ; behold, aU things are become
new."3 When you ask why a Christian does not observe the
washings for various kinds of uncleanness according to the
law, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, I
reply, that he does not observe them precisely because they
were figures of things to come, which Christ has fulfiUed.
1 Matt. xi. 28, 29. 2 1 Cor. v. 7. 3 2 Cor. v." 17.

336 REPLY TO FaVUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.

For He came to bury us with Himself by baptism into death,
that as Christ rose again from the dead, so we also should
walk in newness of life.1 When you ask why Christians do
not keep the feast of tabernacles, if the law is not destroyed,
but fulfiUed by Christ, I reply that believers are God's taber
nacle, in whom, as they are united and buUt together in love,
God condescends to dweU, so that Christians do not keep this
feast precisely because what was thus prefigured is now ful
fiUed by Christ in His Church.
11. I touch upon these things merely in passing with the
utmost brevity, rather than omit them altogether. The sub
jects, taken separately, have filled many large volumes, written
to prove that these observances were typical of Christ. So
it appears that aU the things in the Old Testament which you
think are not observed by Christians because Christ destroyed
the law, are in fact not observed because Christ fulfiUed the
law. The very intention of the observances was to prefigure
Christ. Now that Christ has come, instead of its being strange
or absurd that what was done to prefigure His advent should
not be done any more, it is perfectly right and reasonable.
The typical observances intended to prefigure the coming of
Christ would be observed stUl, had they not been fulfiUed by
the coming of Christ ; so far is it from being the case that
our not observing them now is any proof of theh not being
fulfiUed by Christ's coming. There can be no religious
society, whether the rehgion be true or false, without some
sacrament or visible symbol to serve as a bond of union. The
importance of these sacraments cannot be overstated, and only
scoffers wUl treat them hghtly. For if piety requires them,
it must be impiety to neglect them.
12. It is true, the ungodly may partake in the visible
sacraments of godliness, as we read that Simon Magus received
holy baptism. Such are they of whom the apostle says that
"they have the form of godliness, but deny the power of it."2
The power of godhness is the end of the commandment, that
is, love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of
faith unfeigned.3 So the Apostle Peter, speaking of the sacra
ment of the ark, in which the famUy of Noe was saved from
1 Rom. vi. 4. 2 2 Tim. iii. 5. 3 1 Tim. i. 5,

BOOK XIX.] " THE JEWISH SACRAMENTS TYPICAL. 337
the deluge, says,. " So by a similar figure baptism also saves
you." And lest they should rest content with the visible
sacrament, by which they had the form of godliness, and
should deny its power in their hves by profligate conduct, he
immediately adds, " Not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience."1
1 3. Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were
celebrated in obedience to the law, were types of Christ who
was to come ; and when Christ fulfiUed them by His advent
they were done away, and were done away because they were
fulfilled. For Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil. And
now that the righteousness of faith is revealed, and the
chUdren of God are caUed into hberty, and the yoke of
bondage which was requhed for a carnal and stiffnecked
people is taken away, other sacraments are instituted, greater
in efficacy, more beneficial in their use, easier in performance,
and fewer in number.
14. And if the righteous men of old, who saw in the sacra
ments of theh time the promise of a future revelation of faith,
which even then their piety enabled them to discern in the
dim hght of prophecy, and by which they lived, for the just
can hve only by faith;2 if, then, these righteous men of old
were ready to suffer, as many actually did suffer, aU trials and
tortures for the sake of those typical sacraments which pre
figured things in the future ; if we praise the three children
and Daniel, because they refused to be defiled by meat from
the king's table, from theh regard for the sacrament of theh
day ; if we feel the strongest admiration for the Maccabees,
who refused to touch food which Christians lawfuUy use;3
how much more should a Christian in our day be ready to
suffer all things for Christ's baptism, for Christ's Eucharist, for
Christ's sacred sign, since these are proofs of the accomphsh
ment of what the former sacraments only pointed forward to
in the future ! For what is still promised to the Church, the
body of Christ, is both clearly made known, and in the
Saviour Himself, the Head of the body, the Mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, has already been ac
comphshed. Is not the promise of eternal life by resurrection
1 1 Pet m- 21- 2 Rom. i. 17. 3 2 Maco. vii.
5 y

338 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
from the dead ? This we see fulfiUed in the flesh of Him of
whom it is said, that the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us.1 In former days faith was dim, for the saints and
righteous men of those times aU believed and hoped for the
same things, and aU these sacraments and ceremonies pointed
to the future ; but now we have the revelation of the faith to
which the people were shut up under the law ;2 and what is
now promised to behevers in the judgment is aheady ac
comphshed in the example of Him who came not to destroy
the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them.
15. It is a question among the students of the sacred'
Scriptures, whether the faith in Christ before His passion and
resurrection, which the righteous men of old learned by revela
tion or gathered from prophecy, had the same efficacy as faith
has now that Christ has suffered and risen; or whether the
actual shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, which was,
as He Himself says, for the remission of the sins of many,3
-conferred any benefit in the way of purifying or adding to the
purity of those who looked forward in faith to the death of
Christ, but left the world before it took place ; whether, in
fact, Christ's death reached to the dead, so as to effect theh
liberation. To discuss this question here, or to prove what
has been ascertained on the subject, would take too long, be
sides being foreign from our present purpose.
16. Meanwhile it is sufficient to prove, in opposition to
Faustus' ignorant cavUs, how greatly they mistake who con
clude, from the change in signs and sacraments, that there
must be a difference in the things which were prefigured in
the rites of a prophetic dispensation, and which are declared
to be accomphshed in the rites of the gospel ; or those, on
the other hand, who think that as the things are the same, the
.sacraments which announce their accomplishment should not
differ from the sacraments which foretold that accomplishment.
For if in language the form of the verb changes in the number
of letters and syllables according to the tense, as done signifies
the past, and to be done the future, Avhy should not the
symbols which declare Christ's death and resurrection to be
accomphshed, differ from those which predicted their ac-
' John i. 14. ' Gal. iii. 23. 3 Matt. xxvi. 28.

BOOK XIX.] OLD SACRAMENTS AND NEW. 339
comphshment, as we see a difference in the form and sound
of the words, past and future, suffered and to suffer, risen and
to rise ? For material symbols are nothing else than visible
speech, which, though sacred, is changeable and transitory.
For whUe God is eternal, the water of baptism, and aU that
is material in the sacrament, is transitory: the very word
" God," which must be pronounced in the consecration, is a
sound which passes in a moment. The actions and sounds
pass away, but theh efficacy remains the same, and the
spiritual gift thus communicated is eternal. To say, there
fore, that if Christ had not destroyed the law and the prophets,
the sacraments of the law and the prophets would continue
to be observed in the congregations of the Christian Church,
is the same as to say that if Christ had not destroyed the law
and the prophets, He would stUl be predicted as about to be.
born, to suffer, and to rise again ; whereas, in fact, it is proved
that He did not destroy, but fulfil those things, because the
prophecies of His birth, and passion, and resurrection, which
were represented in these ancient sacraments, have ceased, and
the sacraments now observed by Christians contain the an
nouncement that He has been born, has suffered, has risen.
He who came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to
fulfil them, by this fulfilment did away with those things
which foretold the accomphshment of what is thus shown to
be now accomphshed. Precisely in the same way, he might
substitute for the expressions, " He is to be born, is to suffer,
is to rise," which were in these times appropriate, the expres
sions, " He has been born, has suffered, has risen," which are
appropriate now that the others are accomphshed, and so done
away. 1 7. Corresponding to this change in words is the change
which naturaUy took place in the substitution of new sacra
ments instead of those of the Old Testament. In the case of
the first Christians, who came to the faith as Jews, it was by
degrees that they were brought to change their customs, and
to have a clear perception of the truth ; and permission was
given them by the apostle to preserve their hereditary worship
and behef, in which they had been born and brought up;
and those who had to do with them were required to make'

340 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
aUowance for this reluctance to accept new customs. So the
apostle chcumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother and
a Greek father, when they went among people of this kind ;
and he himself accommodated his practice to thehs, not
hypocriticaUy, but for a wise purpose. For these practices
were harmless in the case of those born and brought up in
them, though they were no longer requhed to prefigure things
to come. It would have done more harm to condemn them
as hurtful in the case of those to whose time it was intended
that they should continue. Christ, who came to fulfil aU these
prophecies, found those people trained in their own rehgion.
But in the case of those who had no such training, but were
brought to Christ, the comer-stone, from the opposite waU of
circumcision, there was no obhgation to adopt Jewish customs.
If, indeed, hke Timothy, they chose to accommodate them
selves to the views of those of the circumcision who were stiU
wedded to theh old sacraments, they were free to do so. But
if they supposed that theh hope and salvation depended on
these works of the law, they were warned against them as a
fatal danger. So the apostle says : "Behold, I Paul say. unto
you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shaU profit you nothing j"1
that is, if they were chcumcised, as they were intending to
be, in compliance with some corrupt teachers, who told them
that without these works of the law they could not be saved.
For when, chiefly through the preaching of the Apostle Paul,
the GentUes were coming to the faith of Christ, as it was
proper that they should come, without being burdened with
Jewish observances, — for those who were grown up were
deterred from the faith by fear of ceremonies to which they
were not accustomed, especiaUy of chcumcision ; and if they
who had not been trained from their bhth to such observ
ances had been made proselytes in the usual way, it woidd
have implied that the coming of Christ stiU required to be
predicted as a future event ; — when, then, the GentUes were
admitted without these ceremonies, those of the chcumcision
who beheved, not understanding why the GentUes were not
required to adopt theh customs, nor why they themselves
were still aUowed to retain them, began to disturb the Church
1 Gal. v. 2.

BOUK XIX.] FREEDOM FROM THE OLD SACRAMENTS. 341
with carnal contentions, because the GentUes were admitted
into the people of God without being made proselytes in the
usual way by chcumcision and the other legal observances.
Some also of the converted Gentiles were bent on these
ceremonies, from fear of the Jews among whom they hved.
Against these GentUes the Apostle Paul often wrote ; and
when Peter was carried away by their hypocrisy, he corrected
him with a brotherly rebuke.1 Afterwards, when the apostles,
met in councU, decreed that these works of the law were
not obligatory in the case of the Gentiles,2 some Christians
of the circumcision were displeased, because they faded to
understand that these observances were permissible only in
those who had been trained in them before the revelation of
faith, to bring to a close the prophetic life in those who were
engaged" in it before the prophecy was fulfiUed, lest by a
compulsory abandonment it should seem to be condemned
rather than closed ; whUe to lay these things on the GentUes
would imply either that they were not instituted to prefigure
Christ, or that Christ was stiU to be prefigured. The ancient
people of God, before Christ came to fulfil the law and the
prophets, were requhed to observe aU these things by which
Christ was prefigured. It was freedom to those who under
stood the meaning of the observance, but it was bondage to
those who did not. But the people in those latter times who
come to beheve in Christ as having aheady come, and suffered,
and risen, in the case of those whom this faith found trained
to those sacraments, are neither required to observe them, nor
prohibited from doing so ; whUe there is a prohibition in the
case of those who were not bound by the ties of custom, or by
any necessity, to accommodate themselves to the practice of
others, so that it might become mamfest that these things
were instituted to prefigure Christ, and that after His coming
they were to cease, because the promises had been fulfilled.
Some behevers of the circumcision who did not understand
this were displeased with this tolerant arrangement which the
Holy Sphit effected through the apostle, and stubbornly
insisted on the GentUes becoming Jews. These are the
people of whom Faustus speaks under the name of Sym-
1 Gal. ii. 14. s Acts xv. 6-11.

342 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
machians or Nazareans. Theh number is now very smaU,
but the sect stUl continues.
18. The Manichaeans, therefore, have no ground for saying,
in disparagement of the law and the prophets, that Christ
came to destroy rather than to fulfil them, because Christians
do not observe what is there enjoined : for the only things
which they do not observe are those that prefigured Christ,
and these are not observed because theh fulfilment is in Christ,
and what is fulfiUed is no longer prefigured; the typical
observances having properly come to a close in the time of
those who, after being trained in such things, had come to
beheve in ' Christ as theh fulfilment. Do not Christians
observe the precept of Scripture, " Hear, 0 Israel ; the Lord
thy God is one God ; " " Thou shalt not make unto thee an
image," and so on ? Do Christians not observe the precept,
" Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain " ?
Do Christians not observe the Sabbath, even in the Sense of a
true rest ? Do Christians not honour theh parents, according
to the commandment ? Do Christians not abstain from adul
tery, and murder, and theft, and false witness, from coveting
their neighbour's wife, and from coveting his property, — all of
which things are written in the law ? These moral precepts
are distinct from typical sacraments : the former are fulfiUed
by the aid of divine grace, the latter by the accomplishment of
what they promise. Both are fulfiUed in Christ, who has ever
been the bestower of this grace, which is also now revealed in
Him, and who now makes manifest the accomphshment of
what He in former times promised ; for " the law was given
by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." 1 Again,
these things which concern the keeping of a good conscience
are fulfiUed in the faith which worketh by love ;2 whUe types
of the future pass away when they are accomplished. But
even the types are not destroyed, but fulfiUed ; for Christ, in
bringing to light what the types signified, does not prove them
vain or Ulusory.
19. Faustus, therefore, is wrong in supposing that the Lord
Jesus fulfiUed some precepts of righteous men who hved
before the law of Moses, such as, " Thou shalt not kiU," which
1 John i. 17. a Gal. v. 6.

BOOK XIX.] HOW CHRIST FULFILLED THE LAW. 343
Christ did not oppose, but rather confirmed by His prohibition
of anger and abuse ; and that He destroyed some things
apparently peculiar to the Hebrew law, such as, " An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which Christ seems rather to
abolish than to confirm, when He says, " But I say unto you,
that ye resist not evil ; but if any one smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also," * and so on. But we say
that even these things which Faustus thinks Christ destroyed
by enjoining the opposite, were suitable to the times of the
Old Testament, and were not destroyed, but fulfilled by Christ.
20. In the first place, let me ask our opponents if these
ancient righteous men, Enoch and Seth, whom Faustus men
tions particularly, and any others who lived before Moses, or
even, if you choose, before Abraham, were angry with their
brother without a cause, or said to their brother, Thou fool.
K not, why may they not have taught these things as weU as
preached them ? And if they taught these things, how can
Christ be said to have fulfiUed theh righteousness or their
teaching, any more than that of Moses, by adding, " But I say
unto you, if any man is angry with his brother, or if he says
Eacha, or if he says, Thou fool, he shall be in danger of the
judgment, or of the councU, or of hell-fire," since these men did
these very things themselves, and enjoined them upon others ?
WiU it be said that they were ignorant of its being the duty of
a righteous man to restrain his passion, and not to provoke his
brother with angry abuse ; or that, knowing this, they were
unable to act accordingly ? In that case, they deserved the
punishment of heU, and could not have been righteous. But
•no one wiU venture to say that in their righteousness there
was such ignorance of duty, and such a want of self-control, as
to make them liable to the punishment of helL How, then,
can Christ be said to have fulfiUed the law, by which these
men hved by means of adding things without which they
could have had no righteousness at all ? WiU it be said that
a hasty temper and bad language are sinful only since the
time of Christ, while formerly such qualities of the heart and
speech were allowable; as we find' some institutions vary
according to the times, so that what is proper at one time is
1 Matt. v. 38, 39.

344 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
improper at another, and vice versa ? You wUl not be so
foolish as to make this assertion. But even were you to do
so, the reply wUl be that, according to this idea, Christ came
not to fulfil what was defective in the old law, but to institute
a law which did not previously exist ; if it is true that with
the righteous men of old it was not a sin to say to theh
brother, Thou fool, which Christ pronounces so sinful, that
whoever does so is in danger of heU. So, then, you have not
succeeded in finding any law of which it can be said that
Christ supplied its defect by these additions.
21. WiU it be said that the law in these early times was
incomplete as regards not committing adultery, till it was
completed by the Lord, who added that no one should look on
a woman to lust after her ? This is what you imply in the
way you quote the words, " Ye have heard that it has been
said, Thou shalt not commit adiUtery ; but I say unto you,
Do not lust even." "Here," you say, "is the fulfilment."
But let us take the words as they stand in the Gospel, without
any of your modifications, and see what character you give to
those righteous men of antiquity. The words are : " Ye have
heard that it has been said, Thou shalt not commit adultery ;
but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to
lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in
his heart." 1 In your opinion, then, Enoch and Seth, and the
rest, committed adultery in their hearts ; and either their heart
was not the temple of God, or they committed adultery in the
temple of God. But if you dare not say this, how can you
say that Christ, when He came, fulfiUed the law, which was
already in the time of those men complete ?
22. As regards not swearing, in which also you say that
Christ completed the law given to these righteous men of anti
quity, I cannot be certain that they did not swear, for we find
that Paul the apostle swore. With you, swearing is still a
common practice, for you swear by the light, which you love
as flies do ; for the light of the mind which lighteth every
man that cometh into the world, as distinct from mere natural
light, you know nothing of. You swear, too, by your master
Manichaeus, whose name in his own tongue was Manes. As
' Matt. v. 27, 28.

BOOK XIX.] MANICHaEUS NOT MANNICHaEUS. 345
the name Manes seemed to be connected with the Greek word
for madness, you have changed it by adding a suffix, which
only makes matters worse, by giving the new meaning of
pouring forth madness. One of your own sect told me that
the name Manichaeus was intended to be derived from the
Greek words for pouring forth manna ; for ^eeii* means to pour.
But, as it is, you only express the idea of madness with greater
emphasis. For by adding the two syUables, while you have
forgotten to insert another letter in the beginning of the word,
you make it not Mannichaeus, but Manichaeus ; which must
mean that he pours forth madness in his long unprofitable
discourses. Again, you often swear by the Paraclete, — not the
Paraclete promised and sent by Christ to His disciples, but
this same madness-pourer himself. Since, then, you are con
stantly swearing, I should like to know in what sense you
make Christ to have fulfiUed this part of the law, which is one
you mention as belonging to the earhest times. And what
do you make of the oaths of the apostle ? For as to your
authority, it cannot weigh much with yourselves, not to speak
of me or any other person. It is therefore evident that
Christ's words, " I am come not to destroy the law, but to
fulfil it," have not the meaning which you give them. Christ
makes no reference in these words to His comments on the
ancient sayings which He quotes, and of which His discourse
was an explanation, but not a fulfilment.
23. Thus, as regards murder, which was understood to mean
merely the destruction of the body, by which a man is de
prived of hfe, the Lord explained that every unjust disposition
to injure our brother is a kind of murder. So John also says,
" He that hateth his brother is a murderer." x And as it was
thought that adultery meant only the act of unlawful inter
course with a woman, the Master showed that the lust He
describes is also adultery. Again, because perjury is a heinous
sin, whUe there is no sin either in not swearing at aU or in
swearing truly, the Lord wished to secure us from departing
from the truth by not swearing at all, rather than that we should
be in danger of perjury by being in the habit of swearing truly.
For one who never swears is less in danger of swearing falsely
1 1 John iii. 15.

346 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
than one who is in the habit of swearing truly. So, in the
discourses of the apostle which are recorded, he never used an
oath, lest he should ever faU unawares into perjury from being
in the habit of swearing. In his writings, on the other hand,
where he had more leisure and opportunity for caution, we
find him using oaths in several places,1 to teach us that there
is no sin in swearing truly, but that, on account of the infir
mity of human nature, we are best preserved from perjury by
not swearing at aU. These considerations wUl also make it
evident that the things which Faustus supposes to be pecuhar
to Moses were not destroyed by Christ, as he says they were.
24. To take, for instance, this saying of the ancients, " Thou
shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy," how does
Faustus make out that this is peculiar to Moses ? Does not
the Apostle Paul speak of some men as hateful to God? 2 And,
indeed, in connection with this saying, the Lord enjoins on us
that we should imitate God. His words are : " That ye may
be the chUdren of your Father in heaven, who maketh the sun
to rise upon the evU and the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and the unjust." 3 In one sense we must hate our enemies,
after the example of God, to whom Paul says some men are
hateful; while, at the same time, we must also love our
enemies after the example of God, who makes the sun to rise
on the evU and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the
unjust. If we understand this, we shah find that the Lord,
in explaining to those who did not rightly understand the
saying, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, made use of it to show
that they should love theh enemy, which was a new idea to
them. It would take too long to show the consistency of the
two things here. But when the Manichaeans condemn with
out exception the precept, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, they
may easUy be met with the question whether their god loves
the race of darkness. Or, if we should love our enemies now,
because they have a part of good, should we not also hate them
as having a part of evU ? So even in this way it would appear
that there is no opposition between the saying of ancient times,
Thou shalt hate thine enemy, and that of the Gospel, Love
your enemies. For every wicked man should be hated as far
1 Rom. i. 9, Phil. i. 8, and 2 Cor. i. 23. 2 Rom. i. 30. 3 Matt. v. 45.

BOOK XIX.] LOVE AND HATRED. 347
as he is wicked ; whUe he should be loved as a man. The
vice which we rightly hate in him is to be condemned, that by
its removal the human nature which we rightly love in him
may be amended. This is precisely the principle we maintain,
that we should hate our enemy for what is evil in him, that
is, for his wickedness ; whUe we also love our enemy for that
which is good in him, that is, for his nature as a social and
rational being. The difference between us and the Manichaeans
is, that we prove the man to be wicked, not by nature, either
his own or any other, but by his own wiU; whereas they
think that a man is evU on account of the nature of the race
of darkness, which, according to them, was an object of dread
to God when he existed entire, and by which also he was
partly conquered, so that he cannot be enthely set free. The
intention of the Lord, then, is to correct those who, from know
ing without understanding what was said by them of old
time, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, hated their feUow-men
instead of only hating theh wickedness ; and for this purpose
He says, Love your enemies. Instead of destroying what is
written about hatred of enemies in the law, of which He said,
" I am come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it," He
would have us learn, from the duty of loving our enemies, how
it is possible in the case of one and the same person, both to
hate him for his sin, and to love him for his nature. It is too
much to expect our perverse opponents to understand this.
But we can sUence them, by showing that by their hrational
objection they condemn their own god, of whom they cannot
say that he loves the race of darkness ; so that in enjoining on
every one to love his enemy, they cannot quote his example.
There would appear to be more love of their enemy in the race
of darkness than in the god of the Manichasans. The story
is, that the race of darkness coveted the domain of light border
ing on theh territory, and, from a desire to possess it, formed
the plan of invading it. Nor is there any sin in desiring true
goodness and blessedness. For the Lord says, " The kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." J
This fabulous race of darkness, then, wished to take by force
the good they desired, for its beautiful and attractive appear-
1 Matt. xi. 12.

348 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX
ance. But God, instead of returning the love of those who
wished to possess Him, hated it so as to endeavour to annihUate
them. If, therefore, the evil love the good in the deshe to
possess it, whUe the good hate the evU in fear of being defiled,
I ask the Manichaeans which of these obeys the precept of the
Lord, " Love your enemies " ? If you insist on making these
precepts opposed to one another, it wiU follow that your god
obeyed what is written in the law of .Moses, "Thou shalt hate
thine enemy '' ; while the race of darkness obeyed what is
written in the Gospel, " Love your enemies." However, you
have never succeeded in explaining the difference between the
flies that fly in the day-time and the moths that fly at night;
for both, according to you, belong to the race of darkness.
How is it that one kind love the hght, contrary to theh nature;
whUe the other kind avoid it, and prefer the darkness from
which they sprung ? Strange, that filthy sewers should breed
a cleaner sort than dark closets !
25. Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which
was said by them of old time, " .An eye for an eye, a tooth for
a tooth," and what the Lord says, '' But I say unto you, that
ye resist not evU ; but if any one smiteth thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also," and so on.1 The old pre
cept as well as the new is intended to check the vehemence
of hatred, and to curb the impetuosity of angry passion. Por
who wUl of his own accord be satisfied with a revenge equal
to the injury ? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt, eager
for slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make
their enemy suffer enough ? If a man receives a blow, does
he not summon his assaUant, that he may be condemned in
the court of law ? Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he
not fall upon the man with hand and heel, or perhaps with a
weapon, if he can get hold of one ? To put a restraint upon
a revenge so unjust from its excess, the law established the
principle of compensation, that the penalty should correspond
to the injury inflicted. So the precept, " .An eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a fire
that was quenched, was rather a covering to prevent the fire
already kindled from spreading. For there is a -just revenge
1 Ex. xxi. 24 and Matt. v. 39.

BOOK XIX.] LEX TALIONIS. 349
due to the injured person from his assailant ; so that when
we pardon, we give up what we might justly claim. Thus, in
the Lord's prayer, we are taught to forgive others their debts,
that God may forgive us our debts. There is no injustice in
asking back a debt, though there is kindness in forgiving it.
But as, in swearing, one who swears, even though truly, is in
danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger who never
swears ; and whUe swearing truly is not a sin, we are further
from sin by not swearing ; so that the command not to swear
is a guard against perjury : in the same way, since it is sinful
to wish to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is
no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the
man who wishes for no revenge at aU is further from the sin
of an unjust revenge. It is sin to demand more than is due,
though it is no sin to demand a debt. And the best security
against the sin of making an unjust demand, is to demand
nothing, especiaUy considering the danger of being compeUed
to pay the debt to Him who is indebted to none. Thus, I
would explain the passage as foUows : It has been said by
them of old time, Thou shalt not take unjust revenge ; but I
say, Take no revenge at aU : here is the fulfilment. It is thus
that Faustus, after quoting, " It has been said, Thou shalt not
swear falsely ; but I say unto you, Swear not at all," adds :
here is the fulfilment. I might use the same expression if
I thought that by the addition of these words Christ supplied
a defect in the law, and not rather that the intention of the
law to prevent unjust revenge is best secured by not taking
revenge at aU, in the same way as the intention to prevent
perjury is best secured by not swearing at aU. For if " an
eye for an eye " is opposed to " If any one smite thee on the
cheek, turn to him the other also," is there not as much
opposition between " Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine
oath," and " Swear not at aU"?1 If Faustus thinks that there
is not destruction, but fulfilment, in the one case, he ought to
think the same of the other. For if " Swear not " is the ful
filment of " Swear truly," why should not " Take no revenge "
be the fulfilment of " Take revenge justly " ? So, according to
my interpretation, there is in both cases a guard against sin,
' Matt. v. 33, 34.

350 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX
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 shaU obtain
the forgiveness of our debts. The old precept was required in
the case of a self-wUled 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 deshableness of having
his own debt canceUed by the Lord, and so to be led by this
consideration to forgive the debt of his feUow-servant.
26. Again, we shaU find on examination, that there is no
opposition between the precept of the Lord about not putting
away a wife, and what was said by them of old time : " Who
soever putteth away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement."1 The Lord explains the intention of the law,
which requhed a biU 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 contrary,
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 biU, 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 un
lawful 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, theh pursuits
might justly entitle them to make this claim. In requhing,
therefore, that in putting away his wife, a man should give
her a writing of divorcement, the design was that he should
be obliged to have recourse to those from whom he might
expect to receive a cautious interpretation of the law, and
suitable advice against separation. Having no other way of
getting the bill written, the man should be obliged to submit
to their direction, and to allow of theh endeavours to restore
peace and harmony between him and his wife. In a case
where the hatred could not be overcome or checked, the bUl
would of course be written. A wife might with reason be
1 Deut. xxiv. 1 and Matt. v. 31, 32. .

BOOK XIX.] THE BILL OF DIVORCE. 351
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, whUe
a man cannot be forced to love against his wiU, he may be
influenced by advice and persuasion. This was the duty of
the scribe, as a wise and upright man ; and the law gave him
the opportunity, by requhing the husband in aU cases of quarrel
to go to him, to get the biU of divorcement written. No good
or prudent man would write the biU 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, according to you, is a
criminal indulgence. The word " matrimony " shows that a
man takes a wife in order that she may become a mother, which
would be an evU in your estimation. According to you, this
would imply that part of your god is overcome and captured
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 fulfiUed 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 aU 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 foUows that from the words, "I came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfil it," we are not to understand
that Christ by His precepts filled up what was wanting in the
law ; but that what the hteral command faUed in doing from
the pride and disobedience of men, is accomphshed by grace
in those who are brought to repentance and humihty. The
fulfilment is not in additional words, but in acts of obedience.
So the apostle says, "Faith worketh by love;"1 and again,
"He that loveth another hath fulfiUed the law."2 This love,
by which also the righteousness of the law can be fulfiUed,
was bestowed in its fuU significance by Christ in His coming,
through the Spirit which He sent according to His promise ;
1 Gal. v. 6. * Rom. xiii. 8.

352 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX.
and therefore He said, " I came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfil 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 Christ says again : " A new commandment I
give unto you, that ye love one another." x
28. So we find in the Old Testament all or nearly aU the
counsels and precepts which Christ introduces with the words,
" But I say unto you." Against anger it is written, " Mine
eye is troubled because of anger;"2 and again, "Better is he
that conquers his anger, than he that taketh a city."3 Against
hard words, " The stroke of a whip maketh a wound ; but the
stroke of the tongue breaketh the bones."4 Against adultery
in the heart, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."5
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."6
Eegarding patience in not offering resistance, a man is praised
who "giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him, and who is
fiUed fuU with reproach."7 Of love to enemies it is said : " If
thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thhst, give him drink."8
This also is quoted by the apostle.9 In the Psalm, too, it is
said, "I was a peacemaker among them that hated peace;"10
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 httle 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 aU things, and winkest at the sins
of men, because they should amend. For Thou lovest all
things that are, and abhorrest nothing which Thou hast made ;
for never wouldest Thou have made anything if Thou hadst
hated it. And how could anything have endured, if it had
1 John xiii. 34. 2 Ps. vi. 7. 3 Prov. xvi. 32. * Ecclus. xxviii. 21.
6 Ex. xx. 17. 6 Rom. vii. 7. 7 Lam. iii. 30. 8 Prov. xxv. 21.
8 Rom. xii. 20. 10 Ps. cxx. 6.

BOOK XIX.] FORGIVENESS TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 353
not been Thy wUl ? or been preserved, if not caUed by Thee ?
But Thou sparest aU ; for they are Thine, 0 Lord, Thou lover
of souls. For Thy good Sphit is in aU things; therefore
chastenest Thou them by httle and little that offend, and
warnest them by putting them in remembrance wherein they
have offended, that, learning their wickedness, they may beheve.
in Thee, 0 Lord."1 Christ exhorts us to imitate this long-
suffering 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 perfect.2 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
remission of our own debts : " He that revengeth shaU find
vengeance from the Lord, and He wiU surely keep his sin in re
membrance. Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done
to thee ; so shaU thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest.
One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek
pardon 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 but flesh nourish hatred, and asks for favour from
the Lord, who wiU entreat for the pardon of his sins ?"3
29. As regards not putting away a wife, 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 subject. For when they
asked whether it is lawful 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 beginning made them male and
female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father
and mother, and shaU 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."4 Here the Jews, who thought that they acted
1 Wisd. xi. 21-xii. 2. 2 Matt. v. 44, 48.
3 Ecclus. xxviii. 1-5. « Matt. xix. 4-6.
5 7.

354 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XIX
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 declaration, that God made and joined
male and female ; so that by denying this, the Manichaeans
.are guUty of opposing the gospel of Christ as weU as the
writings of Moses. And supposing theh doctrine to be true,
that the devU made and joined male and female, we see the
diabohcal cunning of Faustus in finding fault With Moses for
dissolving marriages by granting a bUl 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 devU, and should
have blamed Christ for ratifying a bond of the devU's work
manship. To return, let us hear the good Master explain
how Moses, who wrote of the conjugal chastity in the first
union of male and female as so holy and inviolable, after
wards aUowed the people to put away theh wives. For when
the Jews rephed, " Why did Moses then command to give
a writing of divorcement, and to put her away ?" Christ said
unto them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart,
suffered you to put away your wives."1 This passage we
have aheady explained.2 The hardness must have been great
indeed which could not be induced to admit the restoration of
wedded love, even though by means of the writing an oppor
tunity was afforded for advice to be given to this effect by
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 the
union ; and shows from the same Scriptures, that a biU of
divorcement was to be given because of the hardness of the
heart, which might be subdued or might not.
30. Since, then, aU these exceUent 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
1 Matt. xix. 7, 8. 2 Sec. 26.

BOOK XIX.] THE NEWNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 355
in which the Lord came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil
it, is this, that besides the fiUfilment of the prophetic types,
which are set aside by theh actual accomphshment, the precepts
also, in which the law is holy, and just, and good, are fulfiUed
in us, not by the oldness of the letter which commands, and in
creases the offence of the proud by the additional guilt of trans
gression, but by the newness of the Sphit, who aids us, and by
the obedience of the humble, through the saving grace which
sets us free. For, whUe all these subhme precepts are found in
the ancient books, stUl the end to which they point is not there
revealed; although the holy men who foresaw the revelation
hved in accordance with it, either veiling it in prophecy as
suited the time, or themselves discovering the truth thus veUed.
31. I am disposed, after careful examination, to doubt
whether the expression so often used by the Lord, "the
kingdom of heaven," can be found in these books. It is said,
indeed, "Love wisdom, that ye may reign for ever."1 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 Scriptures, for in them ye
think that ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify
of me."2 And to the same effect are the words of the
Psalmist : " I shaU not die, but hve, and declare the works of
the Lord."3 And again : " Enlighten mine eyes, lest I sleep
the sleep of death."4 Again, we read, "The souls of the
righteous are in the hand of the Lord, and pain shaU not
touch them ;" and immediately foUowing : " They are in
peace ; and if they have suffered torture from men, theh hope
is fuU of immortahty; and after a few troubles, they. shaU
enjoy many rewards."5 Again, in another • place : " The
righteous shaU hve for ever, and theh reward is with the
Lord, and theh concern with the Highest ; therefore shaU they
receive from the hand of the Lord a kingdom of glory and a
crown of beauty."6 These and many simUar declarations 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 oppo-
1 Wisd. vi. 22. 2 John v. 39. 8 Ps. cxviii. 16.
4 Ps. xii. 3. 6 Wisd. iii. 1-5. 6 Wisd. v. 16, 17.

356 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
nents of the Sadducees, who disbelieved the resurrection. This
we learn not only from the canonical Acts of the Apostles,
which the Manichaeans 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 resurrection.1 As regards, then, eternal
life and the resurrection of the dead, numerous testimonies
are to be found in these Scriptures. But I do not find there
the expression, " the kingdom of heaven." This expression
belongs properly to the revelation of the New Testament,
because in the resurrection our earthly bodies shaU, 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 beheving
people, was ushered in by all the symbolism of the old cove
nant, in its genealogies, its typical acts and words, its sacrifices
and ceremonies and feasts, and in aU its prophetic utterances
and events and figures. He came fuU of grace and truth, in
His grace helping us to obey the precepts, and in His truth
securing the accomphshment of the promises. He came not
to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.
BOOK XX.
1. Faustus. You ask why we worship the sun, if we are a
sect or separate religion, and not Pagans, or merely a schism of
the GentUes. It may therefore be as weU to inquire 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 friendly
way this simple account of my faith, I shaU 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 shaU not regret what I have done if I suc
ceed in conveying to some at least this much knowledge, that
our religion has nothing in common with that of the Gentiles.
2. We worship, then, one deity under the threefold appeUa-
1 Matt. xxii. 23-28.

BOOK XX.] THE MANICHaEAN CREED. 357
tion of the Almighty God the Father, and his son Christ,
and the Holy Spirit. WhUe these are one and the same, we
believe also that the Father properly dweUs in the highest
or principal hght, which Paul calls " hght inaccessible," x 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,2 we be
heve that his power dweUs in the sun, and the 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 bis influence and spiritual infusion, the
earth conceives and brings forth the mortal Jesus, who, as
hanging from every tree, is the hfe and salvation of men.
Though you oppose these doctrines so violently, your religion
resembles ours in attaching the same sacredness to the bread
and wine that we do to everything. This is our belief, which
you wUl have an opportunity of hearing more of, if you wish
to do so. MeanwhUe there is some force in the consideration
that you or any one that is asked where his God dwells, wUl
say that he dweUs in light; so that the testimony in favour
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 apphes 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 pecuhar 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 shaU see presently whether you have. The Pagan
doctrine is, that aU things good and evil, mean and glorious,
fading and unfading, changeable and unchangeable, material
and divine, have only one principle. In opposition to this,
my behef is that God is the principle of aU good things, and
Hyle of the opposite. Hyle is the name given by our master
in divinity to the principle or nature of evU. The Pagans
accordingly think it right to worship God with altars, and
shrines, and images, and sacrifices, and incense. Here also
1 1 Tim. vi. 16. 2 1 Cor. i. 24.

358 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
my practice differs entirely from theirs : for I look upon my
self as a reasonable temple of God, if I am worthy to be so ;
and I consider Christ his Son as the hving image of his
living majesty ; and I hold a mind well cultivated to be the
true altar, ahd pure and simple prayers to be the true way of
paying divine honours and of offering sacrifices. Is this being
a schism of the Pagans ?
4. As regards the worship of the Almighty God, you might
caU us a schism of the Jews, for aU Jews are bold enough to
profess this worship, were it not for the difference in the form
of our worship, though it may be questioned whether the Jews
reaUy worship the Almighty. But the doctrine I have men
tioned is common to the Pagans in theh 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
acknowledge Christ and worship him ; for our worship and
doctrine are different from yours. In a schism, httle 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 beheve that aU things
are of God. The sacrifices you change into love-feasts, the
idols into martyrs, to whom you pray as they do to theh
idols. You appease the shades of the departed with wine and
food. You keep the same holidays as the GentUes ; for ex
ample, the calends and the solstices. In your way of hving
you have made no change. Plainly you are a mere schism ;
for the only difference from the original is that you meet sepa
rately. In this you have foUowed 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
GentUes, only more superstitious. Like the Pagans, they be
lieve in a single principle ; so that both you and the Jews are
schisms of the GentUes, 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 ourselves. We and the GentUes are
as contrary in our belief as truth and falsehood, day and night,
poverty and wealth, health and sickness. You, again, are not

BOOK XX.] PAGANISM. 359
a sect in relation either to truth or to error. You are merely
a schism, and a schism not of truth, but of error.
5. Augustine. 0 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 caU
you Pagans, or a schism of Pagans; 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 worshipped: for idols have an
existence, though for salvation they are nought. So, to
worship a tree with prayers, instead of improving it by culti
vation, is not to worship nothing, but to worship in a wrong
way. When the apostle says that " the things which the
GentUes sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God," a
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, are 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 uni
verse with the Supreme Deity), they worship things which
have an existence. In arguing with Pagans, we do not deny
the existence of these things, but we say that they should not
be worshipped; and we recommend the worship of the in
visible Creator of aU these things, in whom alone man can
find the happiness which all aUow that he desires. To those,
again, who worship what is invisible and immaterial, but
stUl is created, as the soul or mind of man, we say that
happiness is not to be found in the creature even under this
form, and that we must worship the true God, who is not
only invisible, but unchangeable ; for He alone is to be
worshipped, in the enjoyment of whom the worshipper finds
happiness, and without whom the soul must be wretched,
whatever else it possesses. You, on the other hand, who
worship things which have no existence at aU except in your
fictitious legends, would be nearer true piety and religion if
you were Pagans, or if you were worshippers of what has an
existence, though not a proper object of worship. In fact,
1 1 Cor. x. 20.

360 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
you do not properly worship the sun, though he carries your
prayers with him in his course round the heavens.
6. Your statements about the sun himself are so false and
absurd, that if he were to repay you for the injury done to him,
he would scorch you to death. First of aU, you caU the sun a
ship, so that you are not only astray worlds off, as the saying is,
but adrift. Next, whUe every one sees that the sun is round,
which is the form corresponding from its perfection to his
position among the heavenly bodies, you maintain that he is
triangular, that is, that his hght shines on the earth through a
triangular window in heaven. Hence it is that you bend and
bow your heads to the sun, whUe you worship not this visible
sun, but some imaginary ship which you suppose to be shin
ing through a triangular opening. Assuredly this ship would
never have been heard of, if the words requhed for the com
position of heretical fictions had to be paid for, hke the wood
required for the beams of a ship. AU this is comparatively
harmless, however ridiculous or pitiable. Very different is
your wicked fancy about youths of both sexes proceeding from
this ship, whose beauty excites eager desire in the princes and
princesses of darkness ; and so the members of your god are
released from this humiliating confinement in the members of
the race of darkness, by means of sinful passion and sensual
appetite. And to these filthy rags of yours you would unite
the mystery of the Trinity; for you say that the Father
dweUs in a secret hght, the power of the Son in the sun, and
His wisdom in the moon, and the Holy Spirit in the air.
7. As for this threefold or rather fourfold fiction, what
shaU I say of the secret light of the Father, but that you can
think of no light except what you have seen ? From your
knowledge of visible light, with which beasts and insects as
weU as men are familiar, you form some vague idea in your
mind, and call it the light in which God the Father dweUs
with His subjects. How can you distinguish between the
hght by which we see, and that by which we understand,
when, according to your ideas, to understand truth is nothing
else than to form the conception of material forms, either finite
or in some cases infinite ; and you actuaUy beheve in these
wUd fancies ? It is manifest that the act of my mind in

BOOK XX.] INTELLECTUAL LIGHT. 361
thinking of your region of hght which has no existence, is
enthely different from my conception of Alexandria, which
exists, though I have not seen it. And, again, the act of
forming a conception of Alexandria, which I have never seen,
is very different from thinking of Carthage, which I know.
But this difference is insignificant as compared with that
between my thinking of material things which I know from
seeing them, and my understanding justice, chastity, faith,
truth, love, goodness, and things of this nature. Can you
describe this inteUectual light, which gives us a clear percep
tion of the distinction between itself and other things, as well
as of the distinction between those things themselves ? And
yet even this is not the sense in which it can be said that
God is hght. For this hght is created, whereas God is the
Creator ; the hght is made, and He is the Maker ; the light isj
changeable. For the inteUect changes from dislike to desire,
from ignorance to knowledge, from forgetfulness to recollec
tion ; whereas God remains the same in wiU, in truth, and in
eternity. From God we derive the beginning of existence, the
principle of knowledge, the law of affection. From God all
animals, rational and irrational, derive the nature of their hfe,
the capacity of sensation, the faculty of emotion. From God
aU bodies derive theh subsistence in extension, their beauty
in number, and theh order in weight. This hght is one
divine being, in an inseparable triune existence; and yet,
without supposing the assumption of any bodily form, you
assign to separate places parts of the immaterial, spiritual, and
unchangeable substance. And instead of -three places for the
Trinity, you have four : one, the light inaccessible, which you
know nothing about, for the Father ; two, the sun and moon,
for the Son ; and again one, the circle of the atmosphere, for
the Holy Spirit. Of the inaccessible light of the Father I
shall say nothing further at present, for orthodox believers do
not separate the Son and the Sphit from the Father in rela
tion to this light.
8. It is difficult to understand how you have been taken
with the absurd idea of placing the power of the Son in the
sun, and His wisdom in the moon. For, as the Son remains
inseparably in the Father, His wisdom and power cannot be

362 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
separated from one another, so that one should be in the sun
and the other in the moon. Only material things can be
thus assigned to separate places. If you only understood this,
it would have prevented you from taking the productions of a
diseased fancy as the material for so many fictions. But
there is inconsistency and improbabUity as weU as falsehood
in your ideas. For, according to you, the seat of wisdom is
inferior in brightness to the seat of power. Now energy and
productiveness are the quahties of power, whereas light teaches
and manifests ; so that if the sun had the greater heat, and
the moon the greater light, these absurdities might appear to
have some likelihood to men of carnal minds, who know
nothing except through material conceptions. From the con
nection between great heat and motion, they might identify
power with heat ; whUe hght from its brightness, and as mak
ing things discernible, might represent wisdom. But what
foUy as weU as profanity, in placing power in the sun, which
excels so much in light, and wisdom in the moon, which is
so inferior in brightness ! And while you separate Christ from
Himself, you do not distinguish between Christ and the Holy
Sphit; whereas Christ is one, the power of God, and the
wisdom of God, and the Sphit is a distinct person. But
according to you, the air, which you make the seat of the
Sphit, fUls and pervades the universe. So the sun and moon
in theh course are always united to the air. But the moon
approaches the sun at one time, and recedes from it at another.
So that, if we may beheve you, or rather, if we may aUow our
selves to be imposed on by you, wisdom recedes from power
by half the circumference of a circle, and again approaches it
by the other half. And when wisdom is full, it is at a dis
tance from power. For when the moon is fuU, the distance
between the two bodies is so great, that the moon rises in the
east whUe the sun is setting in the west. But as the loss of
power produces weakness, the fuller the moon is, tbe weaker
must wisdom be. If, as is certainly true, the wisdom of God
is unchangeable in power, and the power of God unchange
able in wisdom, how can you separate them so as to assign
them to different places ? And how can the place be different
when the substance is the same ? Is this not the infatuation

BOOK XX.] CHRIST'S POWER AND WISDOM. 363
of subjection to material fancies ; showing such a want of
power and wisdom, that your wisdom is as weak as your power
is foohsh ? This execrable absurdity would divide Christ be
tween the sun and the moon, — His power in one, and His
wisdom in the other ; so that He would be incomplete in both,
lacking wisdom in the sun, and power in the moon, whUe in
both He supplies youth, male and female, to excite the affec
tion of the princes and princesses of darkness. Such are the
tenets which you learn and profess. Such is the faith which
dhects your conduct. And can you wonder that you are re
garded with abhorrence ?
9. But besides your errors regarding these conspicuous and
famUiar luminaries, which you worship not for what they are,
but for what your wUd fancy makes them to be, your other
absurdities are stUl worse than this. Your iUustrious World-
bearer, and Atlas who helps to hold him up, are unreal beings.
Like innumerable other creatures of your fancy, they have no
existence,- and yet you worship them. For this reason we say
that you are worse than Pagans, while you resemble them in
worshipping many gods. You are worse, because, whUe they
worship things which exist though they are not gods, you
worship things which are neither gods nor anything else, for
they have no existence. The Pagans, too, have fables, but
they know them to be fables ; and either look upon them as
amusing poetical fancies, or try to explain them as represent
ing the nature of things, or the hfe of man. Thus they say
that Vulcan is lame, because flame in common fire bas an
irregular motion : that Fortune is blind, because of the uncer
tainty of what are caUed fortiutous occurrences : that there
are three Fates, with distaff, and spindle, and fingers spinning
wool into thread, because there are three times, — the past,
aheady spun and wound on the spindle ; the present, which is
passing through the fingers of the spinner ; and the future, still
in wool bound to the distaff, and soon to pass through the fingers
to the spindle, that is, through the present into the future :
and that Venus is the wife of Vulcan, because pleasure has a
natural connection with heat ; and that she is the mistress of
Mars, because pleasure is not properly the companion of war
riors : and that Cupid is a boy with wings and a bow, from

364 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
the wounds inflicted by thoughtless, inconstant passion in
the hearts of unhappy beings : and so with many other fables.
The great absurdity is in their continuing to worship these
beings, after giving such explanations ; for the worship with
out the explanations, though criminal, would be a less heinous
crime. The very explanations prove that they do not worship
that God, the enjoyment of whom can alone give happiness,
but things which He has created. And even in the creature
they worship not only the virtues, as in Minerva, who sprang
from the head of Jupiter, and who represents prudence, — a
quahty of reason which, according to Plato, has its seat in the
head, — but theh vices, too, as in Cupid. Thus one of their
dramatic poets says, " Sinful passion, in favour of vice, made
Love a god."1 Even bodUy evils had temples in Eome, as in
the case of paUor and fever. Not to dweU on the sin of the
worshippers of these idols, who are in a certain way affected
by the bodUy forms, so that they pay homage to them as
deities, when they see them set up in some lofty place, and
treated with great honour and reverence, there is greater sin
in the very explanations which are intended as apologies for
these dumb, and deaf, and blind, and lifeless objects. StiU,
though, as" I have said, these things are nothing in the way of
salvation or of usefulness, both they and the things they are
said to represent are real existences. But your First Man,
warring with the five elements ; and your Mighty Spirit, who
constructs the world from the captive bodies of the race of
darkness, or rather from the members of your god in subjec
tion and bondage ; and your World-holder, who has in his hand
the remains of these members, and who bewails the capture and
bondage and poUution of the rest ; and your giant Atlas, who
keeps up the World-holder on his shoulders, lest he should
from weariness throw away his burden, and so prevent the
completion of the final hmitation of the mass of darkness,
which is to be the last scene in your drama ; — these and count
less other absurdities are not represented in painting or sculp
ture, or in any explanation ; and yet you beheve and worship
things which have no existence, while you taunt the Christians
with being credulous for beheving in realities with a faith
1 Sen. Hipp. vv. 194, 195.

BOOK XX.] MANICHaEAN WORSHIP. 365
which pacifies the mind under its influence. The objects of
your worship can be shown to have no existence by many
proofs, which I do not bring forward here, because, though I
could without difficulty discourse phUosophicaUy on the con
struction of the world, it would take too long to do so here.
One proof suffices. If these things are real, God must be
subject to change, and corruption, and contamination; a sup
position as blasphemous as it is irrational. AU these things,
therefore, are vain, and false, and unreal. Thus you are much
worse than those Pagans, with whom aU are famihar, and who
stUl preserve traces of theh old customs, of which they them
selves are ashamed ; for whUe they worship things which are
not gods, you worship things which do not exist.
1 0. If you think that your doctrines are true because they
are unlike the errors of the Pagans, and that we are in error
because we perhaps differ more from you than from them, you
might as weU say that a dead man is in good health because
he is not sick ; or that good health is undesirable, because it
differs less from sickness than from death. Or if the Pagans
should be viewed in many cases as rather dead than sick, you
might as weU praise the ashes in the tomb because they have
no longer the human shape, as compared with the hving body,
which does not differ so much from a corpse as from ashes. It
is thus we are reproached for having more resemblance to
the dead body of Paganism than to the ashes of Manichaeanism.
But in division, it often happens that a thing is placed in
different classes, according to the point of resemblance on
which the division proceeds. For instance, if animals are
divided into those that fly and those that cannot fly, in this
division men and beasts are classed together as distinct from
bhds, because they are both unable to fly. But if they are
divided into rational and irrational, beasts and birds are classed
together as distinct from men, for they are both destitute of
reason. Faust did not think of this when he said : There are
in fact only two sects, the Gentiles and ourselves, for we are
directly opposed to them in our belief. The opposition he means
is this, that the GentUes beheve in a single principle, whereas
the Manichaeans beheve also in the principle of the race of
darkness. Certainly, according to this division, we agree in

366 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX
general with the Pagans. But if we divide aU who halve
a religion into those who worship one God and those who
worship many gods, the Manichaeans must be classed along
with the Pagans, and we along with the Jews. This is another
distinction which may be said to make only two sects. Per
haps you wUl say that you hold aU your gods to be of one
substance, which the Pagans do not. But you at least re
semble them in assigning to your gods different powers, and
functions, and employments. One does battle with the race of
darkness ; another constructs the world from the part which is
captured ; another, standing above, has the world in his hand ;
another holds him up from below ; another turns the wheels of
the fires and winds and waters beneath ; another, in his circuit
of the heavens, gathers with his beams the members of your
god from cesspools. Indeed, your gods have innumerable oc
cupations, according to your fabulous descriptions, which you
neither explain nor represent in a visible form. But again, if
men were divided into those who beheve that God takes an
interest in human affairs and those who do not, the Pagans
and Jews, and you and aU heretics that have anything of
Christianity, wUl be classed together, as opposed to the Epi
cureans, and any others holding similar views. As this is a
principle of great importance, here again we may say that
there are only two sects, and you belong to the same sect as
we do. You wUl hardly venture to dissent from us in the
opinion that God is concerned in human affairs, so that in
this matter your opposition to the Epicureans makes you side
with us. Thus, according to the nature of the division, what
is in one class at one time, is in another at another time : things
joined here are separated there : in some things we are classed
with others, and they with us ; in other things we are classed
separately, and stand alone. If Faust thought of this, he
would not talk such eloquent nonsense.
11. But what are we to make of these words of Faust : The
Holy Spirit, by his influence and spiritual infusion, makes the
earth conceive and bring forth the mortal Jesus, who, as hanging
from every tree, is the life and salvation of men ? Letting pass
for a moment the absurdity of this statement, we observe the
foUy of believing that the mortal Jesus can be conceived

BOOK XX.] THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 367
through the power of the Holy Spirit by the earth, but not by
the Virgin Mary. Dare you compare the holiness of that chaste
virgin's womb with any piece of ground where trees and plants
grow ? Do you pretend to look with abhorrence upon a pure
virgin, whUe you do not shrink from beheving that Jesus is
produced in gardens watered by the filthy drains of a city ?
For plants of aU kinds spring up and are nourished in such
moisture. You wiU have Jesus to be born in this way, while
you cry out against the idea of His being born of a vhgin.
Do you think flesh more unclean than the excrements which
its nature rejects ? Is the filth cleaner than the flesh which
expels it? Are you not aware how fields are manured in
order to make them productive ? Your foUy comes to this,
that the Holy Sphit, who, according to you, despised the womb
of Mary, makes the earth conceive more fruitfully in propor
tion as it is carefuUy enriched with animal offscourings. Do
you reply that the Holy Spirit preserves his incorruptible
purity everywhere ? I ask again, Why not also in the virgin's
womb ? Passing from the conception, you maintain in regard
to the mortal Jesus — who, as you say, is born from the earth,
which has conceived by the power of the Holy Sphit — that he
hangs in the shape of fruit from every tree : so that, besides
this poUution, he suffers additional defilement from the flesh
of the countless animals that eat the fruit ; except, indeed,
the smaU amount that is purified by your eating it. WhUe
we beheve and confess Christ the Son of God, and the Word
of God, to have- become flesh without suffering defilement, be
cause the divine substance is not defiled by flesh, as it is not
denied by anything, your fanciful notions would make Jesus
to be defiled even as hanging on the tree, before entering the
flesh of any animal ; for if he were not defiled, there would be
no need of his being purified by your eating him. And if all
trees are the cross of Christ, as Faust seems to imply when he
says that Jesus hangs from every tree, why do you not pluck
the fruit, and so take Jesus down from hanging on the tree to
bury him in your stomach, which would correspond to the
good deed of Joseph of Arimathea, when he took down the
true Jesus from the cross to bury Hira ? x Why should it be
1 John xix. 38,

368 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH/EAN. [BOOK XX.

impious to take Christ from the tree, whUe it is pious to lay
Him in the tomb ? Perhaps you wish to apply to yourselves
the words quoted from the prophet by Paul, " Theh throat is
an open sepulchre;"1 and so you wait with open mouth tUl
some one comes to use your throat as the best sepulchre for
Christ. Once more, how many Christs do you make? Is
there one whom you caU the mortal Christ, whom the earth
conceives and brings forth by the power of the Holy Spirit ;
and another crucified by the Jews under Pontius PUate ; and
a thhd whom you divide between the sun and the moon ? Or
is it one and the same person, part of whom is confined in the
trees, to be released by the help of the other part which is
not confined ? If this is the case, and you aUow that Christ
suffered under Pontius PUate, though it is difficult to see how
he could have suffered without flesh, as you say he did, the
great question is, with whom he left those ships you speak of,
that he might come down and suffer these things, which he
certainly could not have suffered without having a body of
some kind. A mere spiritual presence could not have made
him liable to these sufferings, and in his bodily presence he
could not be at the same time in the sun, in the moon, and on
the cross. So, then, if he had not a body, he was not crucified ;
and if he had a body, the question is, where he got it : for,
according to you, aU bodies belong to the race of darkness,
though you cannot think of the divine substance except as
being material. Thus you must say either that Christ was
crucified without a body, which is utterly absurd ; or that he
was crucified in appearance and not in reahty, which is blas
phemy ; or that aU bodies do not belong to the race of dark
ness, but that the divine substance has also a body, and that
not an immortal body, but liable to crucifixion and death,
which, again, is altogether erroneous ; or that Christ had a
mortal body from the race of darkness, so that, while you wUl
not aUow that Christ's body came from the Virgin Mary, you
derive it from the race of demons. FinaUy, as in Faustus'
statement, in which he aUudes in the briefest manner possible
to the lengthy stories of Manichaean invention, The earth by
the power of the Holy Spirit conceives and brings forth the mortal
1 Rom. iii. 13.

BOOK XX.] THE MANICHaEAN TRINITY. 369
Jesus, who, hanging from every tree, is the life and salvation of
men, why should this Saviour be represented by whatever is
hanging, because he hung on the tree, and not by whatever is
born, because he was born ? But if you mean that the Jesus
on the trees, and the Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate,
and the Jesus divided between the sun and the moon, are aU
one and the same substance, why do you not give the name of
Jesus to your whole host of deities ? Why should not your
World-holder be Jesus too, and Atlas, and the King of Honour,
and the Mighty Sphit, and the First Man, and aU the rest, with
their various names and occupations ?
12. So, with regard to the Holy Spirit, how can you say that
he is the third person, when the persons you mention are in
numerable ? And why does Faust mislead people, in trying
to make out an agreement between himself and true Christians,
from whom he differs only too widely, by saying, We worship
one God under the threefold appellation of the Almighty God
the Father, Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit ? Why is the
appeUation only threefold, instead of being manifold ? And
why is the distinction in appeUation only, and not in reality,
if there are as many persons as there are names ? For it is
not as if you gave three names to the same thing, as the same
weapon may be caUed a short sword, a dagger, or a dirk ; or
as you give the name of moon, and the lesser ship, and the
luminary of night, and so on, to the same thing. For you
cannot say that the First Man is the same as the Mighty Sphit,
or as the World-holder, or as the giant Atlas. They are all
distinct persons, and you do not caU any of them Christ. How
can there be one Deity with opposite functions ? Or why
should not Christ himself be the single person, if in one sub
stance Christ hangs on the trees, and was persecuted by the
Jews, and exists in the sun and moon ? The fact is, your
fancies are aU astray, and are no better than the dreams of
insanity. 13. How can Faustus think that we resemble the Mani
chaeans in attaching sacredness to bread and wine, when they
consider it sacrUege to taste wine ? They acknowledge their
god in the grape, but not in the cup ; perhaps they are shocked
at his being trampled on and bottled. It is not any bread
5 2 A

370 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX
and wine that we hold sacred as a natural production, as if
Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as the Manichaeans
fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol. What is
not consecrated, though it is bread and wine, is only nourish
ment or refreshment, with no sacredness about it ; although
we bless and thank God for every gift, bodUy as weU as sphi
tual. According to your notion, Christ is confined in every
thing you eat, and is released by digestion from the additional
confinement of your intestines. So, when you eat, your god
suffers ; and when you digest, you suffer from his recovery.
When he fiUs you, your gain is his loss. This might be con
sidered kindness on his part, because he suffers in you for
your benefit, were it not that he gains freedom by escaping
and leaving you empty. There is not the least resemblance
between our reverence for the bread and wine, and your doc
trines, which have no truth in them. To compare the two is
even more foohsh than to say, as some do, that in the bread
and wine we worship Ceres and Bacchus. I refer to this now,
to show where you got your siUy idea that our fathers kept
the Sabbath in honour of Saturn. For as there is no connec
tion with the worship of the Pagan deities Ceres and Bacchus
in our observance of the sacrament of the bread and wine,
which you approve so highly that you wish to resemble us in
it, so there was no subjection to Saturn in the case of our
fathers, who observed the rest of the Sabbath in a manner
suitable to prophetic times.
14. You might have found a resemblance in your rehgion
to that of the Pagans as regards Hyle, which the Pagans often
speak of. You, on the contrary, maintam that you are directly
opposed to them in your behef in the evU principle, which
your teacher in theology caUs Hyle. But here you only show
your ignorance, and, with an affectation of learning, use this
word without knowing what it means. The Greeks, when
speaking of nature, give the name Hyle to the subject-matter
of things, which has no form of its own, but admits of aU
bodUy forms, and is known only through these changeable
phenomena, not being itself an object of sensation or percep
tion. Some GentUes, indeed, erroneously make this matter
co-eternal with God, as not being derived from Him, though

BOOK XX.] HYLE. 371
the bodUy forms are. In this manifest error you resemble the
Pagans, for you hold that Hyle has a principle of its own, and
does not come from God. It is only ignorance that leads you
to deny this resemblance. In saying that Hyle has no form
of its own, and can take its forms only from God, the Pagans
come near to the truth which we beheve in contradistinction
from your errors. Not knowing what Hyle or the subject-
matter of things is, you make it the race of darkness, in which
you place not only innumerable bodUy forms of five different
kinds, but also a* formative mind. Such, indeed, is your igno
rance or insanity, that you caU this mind Hyle, and make it
give forms instead of taking them. If there were such a for
mative mind as you speak of, and bodUy elements capable of
form, the word Hyle would properly be apphcable to the
bodUy elements, which would be the matter to be formed by
the mind, which you make the principle of evU. Even this
would not be a quite accurate use of the word Hyle, which
has no form of any kind ; whereas these elements, although
capable of new forms, have already the form of elements, and
belong to different kinds. StiU this use of the word would
not be so much amiss, notwithstanding your ignorance ; for it
would thus be apphed, as it properly is,, to that which takes
form, and not to that which gives it. Even here, however,
yom- foUy and impiety would appear in tracing so much that
is good to the evU principle, from your not knowing that aU
natures of every kind, aU forms in their proportion, and all
weights in their order, can come only from the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. As it is, you know neither what
Hyle is, nor what evU is. Would that I could persuade you
to refrain from misleading people stiU more ignorant than
yourselves !
1 5. Every one must see the folly of your boasting of su
periority to the Pagans because they use altars and temples,
images and sacrifices and incense, in the worship of God,
which you do not. As if it were not better to buUd an altar
and offer sacrifice to a stone, which has some kind of exist
ence, than to employ a heated imagination in worshipping
things which have no existence at alL And what do you
mean by saying that you are a rational temple of God ? Can

372 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX
that be God's temple which is partly the construction of the
devil ? And is this not true of you, as you say that aU your
members and your whole body was formed by the evU prin
ciple which you caU Hyle, and that part of this formative
mind dweUs in the body along with part of your god ? And
as this part of your gpd is bound and confined, you should be
caUed the prison of God rather than his temple. Perhaps it
is your soul that is the temple of God, as you have it from
the region of light. But you generaUy caU your soul not a
temple, but a part or member of God. So, when you say you
are the temple of God, it must be in your body, which, you
say, was formed by the devU. Thus you blaspheme the"
temple of God, caUing it not only the workmanship of Satan,
but the prison-house of God. The apostle, on the other hand,
says : " The temple of God is holy, which .temple ye are."
And to show that this refers not merely to the soul, he says
expressly : " Know ye not that your bodies are the temple of
the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God I"1
You caU the workmanship of devUs the temple of God, and
there, to use Faustus' words, you place Christ, the Son of God,
the living image of living majesty. Your impiety may weU
contrive a fabulous temple for a fabulous Christ. The image
you speak of must be so caUed, because it is the creature of
your imagination.
16. If your mind is an altar, you see whose altar it is.
You may see from the very doctrines and duties in which you
say you are trained. You are taught not to give food to a
beggar ; and so your altar smokes with the sacrifice of cruelty.
Such altars the Lord destroys ; for in words quoted from the
law. He teUs us what offering pleases God : " I deshe mercy,
and not sacrifice." Observe on what occasion the Lord uses
these words. It was when, in passing through a field, the
disciples plucked the ears of corn because they were hungry.
Your doctrine would lead you to call this murder. Your mind
is an altar, not of God, but of lying devils, by whose doctrines
the evU conscience is seared as with a hot hon2 Then you
call murder what the truth caUs innocence. For in His words
to the Jews, Christ by anticipation deals a fatal blow to you :
1 1 Cor. iii. 17 and vi. 19. 2 1 Tim. iv. 2.

BOOK XX.] MANICHaEAN WORSHIP. 373
" If ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." J
17. Nor can you say that you honour God with sacrifices
in the shape of pure and simple prayers : for, in your low,
dishonouring notions about the divine nature and substance,
you make your god to be the victim in the sacrifices of Pagans ;
so far are you from pleasing the true God with your sacrifices.
For you hold that God is confined not only in trees and plants,
or in the human body, but also in the flesh of animals, which
contaminates him with its impurity. And how can your soul
give praise to God, when you actuaUy reproach him by calling
your soul a particle of his substance taken captive by the race
of darkness ; as if God could not maintain the conflict except
by this corruption of his members, and this dishonourable cap
tivity ? Instead of honouring God in your prayers, you insult
him. For what sin did you commit, when you belonged to
him, that you should be thus punished by the god you cry to,
not because you left him sinfuUy of your own choice ; for he
himself gave you to his enemies, to obtain peace for his king
dom ? You are not even given as hostages to be honourably
treated. Nor is it as when a shepherd lays a snare to catch
a wUd beast : for he does not put one of his own members in
the snare, but some animal from his flock ; and generaUy, so
that the wUd beast is caught before the animal is hurt. You,
though you are the members of your god, are given to the
enemy, whose ferocity ¦ you keep off from your god only by
being contaminated with their impurity, infected with theh
corruptions, without any fault of your own. You cannot in
your prayer use the words : " Free us, 0 Lord, for the glory of
Thy name ; and for Thy name's sake pardon our sins." 2 Your
prayer is : " Free us by thy skiU, for we suffer here oppression,
and torture, and poUution, only that thou mayest mourn un
molested in thy kingdom." These are words of reproach, not
of entreaty. Nor can you use the words taught us by the
Master of truth : " Forgive us our debts, as w'e forgive our
debtors." 3 For who are the debtors who have sinned against
you ? If it is the race of darkness, you do not forgive theh
debts, but make them be utterly cast out and shut up in
1 Matt. xii. 7. 2 Ps. lxxix. 9. 3 Matt. vi. 12.

374 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.

eternal imprisonment. And how can God forgive your debts,
when he rather sinned against you by sending you into such
a state, than you against him, whom you obeyed by going ? If
this was not a sin in him, because he was compeUed to do it,
this excuse must apply to you, now that you have been over
thrown in the conflict, more than to him before the conflict
began. You suffer now from the mixture of evU, which was
not the case with him when nevertheless he was compeUed to
send you. So either he requires that you should forgive him
his debt ; or, if he is not in debt to you, stUl less are you
to him. It appears that your sacrifices and your pure and
simple prayers are pure and simple blasphemies.
18. How is it, by the. way, that you use the words temple,
altar, sacrifice, for the purpose of commending your own
practices ? If such things can be spoken of as properly
belonging to true rehgion, they must constitute the true
worship of the true God. And if there is such a thing as
true sacrifice to the true God, which is implied in the expres
sion divine honours, there must be some one true sacrifice of
which the rest are imitations. On the one hand, we have the
spurious imitations in the case of false and lying gods, that
is, of devUs, who proudly demand divine honours from theh
deluded votaries, as is or was the case in the temples and
idols of the GentUes. On the other hand, we have the
prophetic intimations of one most true sacrifice to be offered
for the sins of aU behevers, as in the sacrifices enjoined by
God on our fathers; along with which there was also the
symbolical anointing typical of Christ, as the name Christ
itself means anointed. The animal sacrifices, therefore, pre
sumptuously claimed by devUs, were an imitation of the true
sacrifice, which is due only to the one true God, and which
Christ alone offered on His altar. Thus the apostle says:
" The sacrifices which the GentUes offer, they offer to devUs,
and not to God." x He does not find fault with sacrifice, but
with offering to devils. The Hebrews, again, in their animal
sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms,
suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the
sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemo-
1 1 Cor. x. 30.

BOOK XX.] THE ONE SACRIFICE. 375
rated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of
the body and blood of Christ. The Manichaeans understand
neither the sinfulness of tbe GentUe sacrifices, nor the import
ance of the Hebrew sacrifices, nor the use of the ordinance of
the Christian sacrifice. Their own errors are the offering they
present to the devil who has deceived them. And thus they
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing sphits, and to
doctrines of devUs, speaking lies in hypocrisy.
19. It may be weU that Faustus, or at least that those who
are charmed with Faustus' writings, should know that the
doctrme of a single principle did not come to us from the
Gentiles ; for the behef in one true God, from whom every
kind of nature is derived, is a part of the original truth
retained among the GentUes, notwithstanding theh having
faUen away to many false gods. For the GentUe phUosophers
had the knowledge of God, because, as the apostle says, " the
invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without
excuse." But, as the apostle adds, "when they knew God,
they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in theh imaginations, and their foohsh heart was
darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-
footed beasts, and creeping things."1 These are the idols of
the GentUes, which they cannot explain except by referring to
the creatures made by God ; so that this very explanation of
theh idolatry, on which the more enlightened GentUes were
wont to pride themselves as a proof of theh superiority, shows
the truth of the foUowing words of the apostle : " They wor
shipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who
is blessed for ever." 2 Where you differ from the GentUes,
you are in error ; where you resemble them, you are worse
than they. You do not beheve, as they do, in a single prin
ciple; and so you faU into the impiety of beheving the
substance of the one true God to be hable to subjugation and
corruption. As regards the worship of a plurahty of gods, the
1 Rom. i. 20-23. 2-Rom. i. 25-

376 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
doctrine of lying devUs has led the GentUes to worship many
idols, and you to worship many phantasms.
20. We do not turn the sacrifices of the Gentiles into love-
feasts, as Faustus says we do. Our love-feasts are rather a
substitute for the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord, in the words
already quoted : " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." At
our love-feasts the poor obtain vegetable or animal food ; and
so the creature of God is used, as far as it is suitable, for the
nourishment of man, who is also God's creature. You have
been led by lying devUs, not in self-denial, but in blasphemous
error, " to abstain from meats which God hath created to be
received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know
the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing
to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." x In re
turn for the bounties of the Creator, you ungratefuUy insult
Him with your impiety ; and because in our love-feasts flesh
is often given to the poor, you compare Christian charity to
Pagan sacrifices. This, indeed, is another point in which
you resemble some Pagans. You consider it a crime to kiU
animals, because you think that the souls of men pass into
them ; which is an idea found in the writings of some Gentile
phUosophers, although their successors appear to have thought
differently. But here again you are most in error : for they
dreaded slaughtering a relative in the animal ; but you dread
the slaughter of your god, for you hold even the souls of
animals to be his members.
21. As to our paying honour to the memory of the martyrs,
and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead
of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it
not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast
reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions,
and has faUen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan
poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the
Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into
martyrs, he speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites,
and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food.
Do you, then, believe in shades ? We never heard you speak
of such things, nor have we read of them in your books. In
1 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4.

BOOK XX.] FEASTS OF THE MARTYRS. 377
fact, you generally oppose such ideas : for you teU us that the
souls of the dead, if they are wicked, or not purified, are made
to pass through various changes, or suffer punishment still
more severe ; whUe the good souls are placed in ships, and
saU through heaven to that imaginary region of light which
they died fighting for. According to you, then, no souls
remain near the burying-place of the body ; and how can
there be any shades of the departed ? What and where are
they ? Faustus' love of evil-speaking has made him forget his
own creed ; or perhaps he spoke in his sleep about ghosts,
and did not wake up even when he saw his words in writing.
It is true that Christians pay rehgious honour to the memory
of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them, and to
obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their
prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the
God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs.
No one officiating at the altar in the saints' burying-place ever
says, We bring an offering to thee, 0 Peter ! or 0 Paul ! or 0
Cyprian ! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown
of martyrdom, whUe it is in memory of those thus crowned.
The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and
love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and
towards Him by whose help we may foUow such examples.
We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy
that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we
know that theh hearts are prepared to endure the same suffer
ing for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in
our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their
conflict is over ; and we can speak with greater confidence in
praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those stUl
combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the
Greeks caU latria, and for which there is no word in Latin,
both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this
worship belongs the offering of sacrifices ; as we see in the
word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols.
Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacri
fice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one
faUing into this error is instructed by sound doctrine, either
in the way of correction or of caution. For holy beings

378 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept what
they know to be due to God alone. We see this in Paul
and Barnabas, when the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to
them as gods, on account of the mhacles they performed.
They rent their clothes, and restrained the people, crying out
to them, and persuading them that they were not gods. We
see it also in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an
angel would not allow himself to be worshipped, and said to
his worshipper, "I am thy feUow-servant, and of thy brethren."1
Those who claim this worship are proud sphits, the devU and
his angels, as we see in aU the temples and rites of the
GentUes. Some proud men, too, have copied theh example ;
as is related of some kings of Babylon. Thus the holy Daniel
was accused and persecuted, because when the king made a
decree that no petition should be made to any god, but only
to the king, he was found worshipping and praying to his own
God, that is, the one true God.2 As for those who drink to
excess at the feasts of the martyrs, we of course condemn theh
conduct ; for to do so even in theh own houses would be
contrary to sound doctrine. But we must try to amend what
is bad as weU as prescribe what is good, and must of necessity
bear for a time with some things that are not according to our
teaching. The rules of Christian conduct are not to be taken
from the indulgences of the intemperate or the infirmities of
the weak. StUl, even in this, the guUt of intemperance is
much less than that of impiety. To sacrifice to the martyrs,
even fasting, is worse than to go home intoxicated from their
feast : to sacrifice to the martyrs, I say, which is a different
thing from sacrificing to God in memory of the martyrs, as we
do constantly, in the manner required since the Tevelation of
the New Testament ; for this belongs to the worship or latria
which is due to God alone. But it is vain to try to make
these heretics understand the full meaning of these words of
the Psalmist : " He that offereth the sacrifice of praise glori-
fieth me, and in this way wUl I show him my salvation."3
Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacri
fice were foreshadowed in the animals slain ; in the passion of
Christ the types were fulfiUed by the true sacrifice ; after the
1 Rev. xix. 10. s Dan. vi. a Ps. 1. 23.

BOOK XX.] THE SACRIFICE OF PRAISE. 379
ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the
sacrament. Between the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the
Hebrews there is aU the difference that there is between a
false imitation and a typical anticipation. We do not despise
or denounce the vhginity 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 also had
sacrifices. The difference between the Christian and vestal
vhginity consists whoUy in the being to whom the vow is
made and paid ; and yet the difference is a wide one. 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 devUs, who presumptuously make this claim in order to
be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honour. 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 theh separation from the GentUes, retained the temple, and
sacrifices, and altars, and priesthood, and abandoned 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 ren
dered to these objects the worship caUed latria, they would
have served the creature instead of the Creator, and so would
have faUen into the serious error of heathenish superstition ;
and even without idols, they would have found devUs ready
to take advantage of theh error, and to accept their offerings.
For these proud and wicked spirits feed not, as some foolishly
suppose, on the smeU of the sacrifice, and the smoke, but on
the errors of men. They enjoy not bodUy refreshment, but a
malevolent gratification, when they in any way deceive people,
or when, with a bold assumption of borrowed majesty, they
boast of receiving divine honours. It was not, therefore,
only the idols of the GentUes that our Jewish forefathers
abandoned. They sacrificed neither to the earth nor to any
earthly thing, nor to the sea, nor to heaven, nor to the host of
heaven, but laid the victims on the altar of the one God,

380 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XX.
Creator of all, who requhed these offerings as a means of fore
shadowing the true victim, by whom He has reconciled us to
Himself in the remission of sins through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So Paul, addressing behevers, who are made the body of which
Christ is the Head, says : " I beseech you therefore, brethren;
by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a hving
sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God."1 The Manichaeans, on the
other hand, say that human bodies are the workmanship of the
race of darkness, and the prison in which the captive deity is
confined. Thus Faustus' doctrine is very different from Paul's.
But since whosoever preaches to you another gospel than that
ye have received must be accursed, what Christ says in Paul
is the truth, whUe Manichaeus in Faustus is accursed.
2 3. Faustus says also, without knowing what he says, that
we have retained the manners of the GentUes. But seeing
that the just lives by faith, and that the end of the com
mandment 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 behevers, it is impossible
that there should be simUarity in the manners of those who
differ in these three things. Those who beheve differently,
and hope differently, and love differently, must also live dif
ferently. And if we resemble the GentUes 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 hehs, there is
stUl 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 hve upon the pro
duce of the same plants and the water of the same fountain,
and are clothed like others in wool and linen, yet lead a dif
ferent hfe, 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 GentUes in the use of this and other
1 Rom. xii. 1.

BOOK XX.] MORALS OF THE CHRISTIANS. 381
things, do not resemble 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 commandment 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 foUowers have wives, and in spite of themr
selves get chUdren, 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 official positions,
you nevertheless reckon them as belonging to you, and not to
the GentUes, though in their actions they approach nearer to
the GentUes than to you. And though some of the GentUes
in some things resemble you more than your own foUowers, —
those, for instance, who in superstitious devotion abstain from
flesh, and wine, and marriage, — you stUl count your own fol
lowers, even though they use aU these things, and so are unhke
you, as belonging to the flock of Manichaeus rather than those
who resemble you in theh practices. You consider as belong
ing to you a woman that beheves in Manichaeus, though she is a
mother, rather than a Sibyl, though she never marries. But you
wiU say that many who are caUed Cathohc Christians are adul
terers, 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 smaU 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 foUowers who are not of such a character are worse
than the Pagans who are. It is therefore no impeachment to
sound" doctrine, which alone is Cathohc, that many wish to
take its name, who wUl not yield to its beneficial influence.
We must bear in mind the true meaning of the contrast which
the Lord makes between the httle company and the mass of
mankind as spread over aU the world ; for the company of
saints and behevers is smaU, as the amount of grain is small
when compared with the heap of chaff; and yet the good

382 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXI.
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 GentUes, for we differ
¦ from them greatly for the better ; nor are you, for you differ
from them greatly for the worse.

BOOK XXL
1. Faustus. Do we beheve 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 beUeve in two principles, good and evU. It is true, we
believe in two principles ; but one we caU God, and the other
Hyle, or, to use common popular language, the devU. 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 evU are two kinds of good, or that
wealth and poverty are two kinds of wealth. If I were de
scribing 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
describing 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 beheve in two
gods. Do you think that we must caU them both gods because
we attribute, as is proper, aU the power of evU to Hyle, and
aU the power of good to God ? If so, you may as weU say
that a poison and the antidote must both be caUed antidotes,
because each has a power of its own, and certain effects foUow
from the action of both. So also, you may say that a physi
cian 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 stiU more absurd to say that God and Hyle must
both be gods, because they both produce certain effects. It is
a very chUdish and impotent way of arguing, when you cannot
refute my statements, to make a quarrel about names. I grant
that we, too, sometimes caU the hostUe nature God ; not that

BOOK XXI.] TWO PRINCIPLES. 383
we believe it to be God, but that this name is already adopted
by the worshippers of this nature, who in their error suppose
it to be God. Thus the apostle says : " The god of this world
has bhnded the minds of them that believe not."1 He caUs him
God, because he would be so caUed by his worshippers ; adding
that he blinds theh minds, to show that he is not the true God.
2. Augustine. 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 beheve not." Most of us punctuate this sentence
differently, and explain it as meaning that the true God has
bhndedN the minds of unbelievers. They put a stop after the
word God, and read the foUowing words together. Or with
out 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 unbehevers of this world," which gives
the same sense. The act of bhnding the minds of unbehevers
may in one sense be ascribed to God, as the effect not of mahce,
but of justice. Thus Paul himself says elsewhere, " Is God
unjust, who taketh vengeance ?"2 and again, " What shaU we
say then ? Is there unrighteousness with God ? God forbid.
For Moses saith, I wiU have mercy on whom I wUl have
mercy, and wUl have compassion on whom I wUl have com
passion." Observe what he adds, after asserting the undeni
able truth that there is no unrighteousness with God : " But
what if God, wilhng 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 glory?"3 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 and 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 uncleanness, to dishonour theh own bodies between
1 2 Cor. iv. 4. ^ Rom iij 5 3 Eom ix 14> 15> 22j 23_

384 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXI.
themselves;" and immediately after, "For this cause God
gave them up unto vUe affections;" and again, "And even as
they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind." x Here we see how the true
and just God blinds the minds of unbehevers. For in all
these words quoted from the apostle no other God is under
stood 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." 2
Here, again, it is plain to the minds of behevers 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
shaU be blinded, and the minds of some enlightened. Eegard-
ing this, it is weU said of God, " Thy judgments are a great
deep." 3 The apostle, in admiration of the unfathomable depth
of this abyss, exclaims : " 0 the depth of the riches both of
the wisdom and of the knowledge of God ! How unsearch
able are His judgments, and His ways past finding out ! " 4
3. You cannot distinguish between what God does in
mercy and what He does in judgment, because you can
neither understand nor use the words of our Psalter : " I wUl
sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, 0 Lord." 5 Accord
ingly, whatever in the feebleness of your fraU humanity seems
amiss to you, you separate enthely from the wUl and judg
ment of God : for you are provided with another evU god,
not by a discovery of truth, but by an invention of foUy ; 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 pre
pared everlasting fire for the wicked were a different 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
1 Rom. i. 24, 25, 28. 2 John ix. 39. 3 Ps. xxxvi. 6.
4 Rom. xi. 23. 5 Ps. ci. 1.

BOOK XXI.] GOD AND HYLE. 385
on the evU 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 wUd 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 goodness " ?J Here it is to be observed how
the apostle takes away neither judicial severity from God,
nor free-wiU from man. It is a profound mystery, impene
trable by human thought, how God both condemns the un
godly 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 becom
ing, and more suitable to the limitation of our powers, to feel
the same awe which the apostle felt, and to exclaim, " 0 the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom 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 evU god in addition
to the true God, simply because you cannot understand the one
good God ! For it is not a question of names, but of actions.
4. Faustus glibly defends himself by saying, "We speak
not of two gods, but of God and Hyle." But when you ask
for the meaning of Hyle, you find that it is in fact another
god. If the Manichaeans gave the name of Hyle, as the
ancients did, to the unformed matter which is susceptible of
bodUy forms, we should not accuse them of making two gods.
But it is pure foUy 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, elements, and animals exist, according to their respec
tive 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 acts of God to a being whom you are
ashamed to call god ; though you must caU him god as long
1 Rom. xi. 17-24.
6 2 B

386 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXL

as you make him do things which only God can do. In the
second place, the good things done by a good God you caU
bad, and ascribe to an evU god, because you feel a cbUdish
horror of whatever shocks the fraUty of fallen humamty, and
a chUdish pleasure in the opposite. So you think snakes
are made by an evU being ; whUe you consider the sun so
great a good, that you beheve 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 stUl more exalted creatures, not heavenly bodies, but
spiritual beings, He has made what far surpasses the hght of
the sun, and what no carnal man can perceive, much less you,
who, in your condemnation of flesh, condemn the very prin
ciple by which you determine good and evU. For your only
idea of evU 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 stUl the works of God, I am lost in
admhation of the Creator, who is so great in the great, and
no less great in the smaU. For the divine skiU seen in
the formation of aU creatures in heaven and earth is always
hke 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 pro
viding 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 hfe, as it is written, " is as a vapour which appeareth
for a httle time." 2 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 that the
1 Jas. iv. 15.

BOOK XXI.] THE WORKS OF GOD. 387
lowest partake in the good which the highest possess in a
greater degree. Show me, if you can, any animal, however
despicable, whose soul hates its own flesh, and does not rather
nourish and cherish it, by its vital motion minister to its
growth and dhect its activity, and exercise a sort of manage
ment over a httle universe of its own, which it makes sub
servient to its own preservation. Even in the discipline of
his own body by a rational being, who brings bis body under,
that earthly passion may not hinder his perception of wisdom,
there is love for his own flesh, which he then reduces to
obedience, which is its proper condition. Indeed, you your
selves, 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 aU 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 itseh, do we not see in the con
struction of its vital parts, in the symmetry of form, in the
position and arrangement of the hmbs of action and the organs
of sensation, aU 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 aU things in measure, and
number, and weight"?1 If your heart was not hardened and
corrupted by falsehood, you would understand the invisible
things of God from the things which He has made, even in
these feeble creatures of flesh. For who is the author of the
things I have mentioned, but He whose unity is the standard
of aU measure, whose wisdom is the model of aU beauty, and
whose law is the rule of aU order ? If you are blind to these
things, hear at least the words of the apostle.
7. For the apostle, in speaking of the love which husbands
ought to have for theh wives, gives, as an example, the love
of the soul for the body. The words are : " He that loveth
his wife, loveth himseh: for no man ever yet hated his own
flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the
Church."2 Look at the whole animal creation, and you find
1 Wisd. xi. 21. 2 Eph. v. 28, 29.

388 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXI.

in the instinctive self-preservation of every animal 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 of
their flesh, and keep their carnal appetites in subjection to
the use of reason ; the brutes also avoid pain, and shrink from
death, and escape as rapidly as they can from whatever might
break up the construction of their bodies, or dissolve the con
nection of spirit and flesh; for the brutes, too, nourish and
cherish theh own flesh. "For no one ever yet," says the
apostle, "hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth
it, even as Christ the Church." See where the apostle begins,
and to what he ascends. Consider, if you can, the greatness
which creation derives from its Creator, embracing as it does
the whole extent from the host of heaven down to flesh and
blood, with the beauty of manifold form, and the order of
successive gradations.
8. The same apostle again, when speaking of spiritual gifts
as diverse, and yet tending to harmonious action, to iUustrate
a matter so great, and divine, and mysterious, makes a com
parison with the human body, — thus plainly intimating that
this flesh is the handiwork of God. The whole passage, as
found in the Epistle to the Corinthians, is so much to the
point, that though it is long, I think it not amiss to insert it
aU : " Now concerning sphitual gifts, brethren,- I would not
have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were GentUes, carried
away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore
I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Sphit
of God caUeth Jesus accursed ; and that no man can say that
Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are
diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diver
sities of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh
all in all. But the manifestation of the Sphit is given to
every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Sphit
the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by
the same Sphit; to another faith by the same Sphit; to
another the ghts of healing by the same Sphit ; to another the
working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another discern
ing of spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; to another

BOOK XXI.] THE HUMAN BODY. 389
the interpretation of tongues : but aU these worketh that one
and the self-same Sphit, dividing to every man severaUy as
He wiU. For as the body is one, and hath many members,
and aU the members of that one body, being many, are one
body : so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we aU baptized
into one body, whether we be Jews or GentUes, whether we
be bond or free ; and have been aU made to drink into one
Sphit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the
foot shaU say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the
body ; is it therefore not of the body ? And if the ear shaU
say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body ; is.it
therefore not of the body ? If the whole body were an eye,
where were the hearing ? If the whole were hearing, where
were the smelling ? But now hath God set the members
every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And
if they were aU one member, where were the body? But
now are they many members, yet but one body. And the
eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee ; nor
again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay,
much more those members of the body, which seem to be
more feeble, are necessary; and those members of the body
which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow
more abundant honour ; and our uncomely parts have more
abundant comehness. For our comely parts have no need ;
but God hath tempered the body together, having given more
abundant honour to that part which lacked : that there should
be no schism in the body, but that the members should have
the same care one for another. And whether one member
suffer, aU the members suffer with it ; or one member be
honoured, aU the members rejoice with it."1 Apart altogether
from Christian faith, which would lead you to beheve the
apostle, if you have common sense to perceive what is self-
evident, let each examine and see for himself the plain truth
regarding those things of which the apostle speaks, — what
greatness belongs to the least, and what goodness to the
lowest; for these are the things which the apostle extols, in
order to iUustrate by means of these common and visible bodUy
objects, unseen spiritual realities of the most exalted nature.
1 1 Cor. xii. 1-26.

390 REPLY TO. FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXI.
9. Whoever, then, denies that our body and its members,
which the apostle so approves and extols, are the handiwork
of God, you see whom he contradicts, preaching contrary to
what you have received. So, instead of refuting his opinions,
I may leave him to be accursed of aU Christians. The
apostle says, God tempered the body. Faustus says, Not God,
but Hyle. Anathemas are more suitable than argument to such
contradictions. You cannot say that God is here caUed the
God of this world. And if any one understands the passage
where this expression does occur to mean that the devU blinds
the minds of unbehevers, we grant that he does so by his evU
suggestions, from yielding to which, men lose the hght of
righteousness in God's righteous retribution. This is all in
accordance with sacred Scripture. The apostle himself speaks
of temptation from without : " I fear lest, as the serpent be
guiled Eve through his subtUty, so your minds should be
corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is in Christ."1
To the same purpose are the words, "EvU communications
corrupt good manners ;"2 and when he speaks of a man de
ceiving himself, " Whoever thinketh himself to be anything,
when he is nothing, deceiveth himself;"3 or again, in the
passage already quoted of the judgment of God, " God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
not convenient."4 SimUarly, in the Old Testament, after the
words, " God did not create death, nor hath He pleasure in the
destruction of the living," we read, " By the envy of the devU
death entered into the world."5 And again of death, that
men may not put the blame from themselves, " The wicked
invite her with hands and voice ; and thinking her a friend,
they are drawn down."6 Elsewhere, however, it is said,
" Good and evU, life and death, riches and poverty, are from
the Lord God."7 This seems perplexing to people who do
not understand that, apart from the manifest judgment to
foUow hereafter upon every evil work, there is an actual
judgment at the time ; so that in one action, besides the craft
of the deceiver and the wickedness of the voluntary agent,
there is also the just penalty of the judge : for while the
1 2 Cor. xi. 3. 2 1 Cor. xv. 33. 3 Gal. vi. 3. * Rom. i. 28.
8 AVisd. i. 13 and ii. 24. 6 Wisd. i. 16. * Ecclus. xi. 14.

BOOK XXI.] THE GOD OF THIS WORLD. 391
devU suggests, and man consents, God abandons. So, if you
join the words, God of this world, and understand that the
devU blinds unbehevers by bis mischievous delusions, the
meaning is not a bad one. For the word God is not used
by itself, but with the qualification of this world, that is, of
wicked men, who seek to prosper only in this world. In this
sense the world is also caUed evil, where it is written, " that
He might deliver us from this present evil world."1 In the
same way, in the expression, " whose god is their belly," it is
only in connection with the word whose that the beUy is caUed
god. So also, in the Psalms, the devils would not be caUed
gods without adding " of the nations."2 But in the passage
we are now considering it is not said, The god of this world,
or, Whose god is theh beUy, or, The gods of the nations are
devUs ; but simply, God has tempered the body, which can
be understood only of the true God, the Creator of aU.
There is no disparaging addition here, as in the other cases.
But perhaps Faustus wUl say that God tempered the body,
not as the maker of it, in the arrangement of its members, but
by mixing His light with it. Thus Faustus would attribute
to some other being than God the construction of the body,
and the arrangement of its members, while God tempered
the evU of the construction by the mixture of His goodness.
Such are the inventions with which the Manichaeans cram
feeble minds. But God, in aid of the feeble, by the mouth of
the sacred writers rebukes this opinion. For we read a few
verses before: "God has placed the members every one of
them in the body, as it has pleased Him." Evidently, God is
said to have tempered the body, because He has constructed it
of many members, which in theh union preserve the variety
of theh respective functions.
10. Do the Manichaeans suppose that the animals which,
according to theh wild notions, were constructed by Hyle in
the race of darkness, had not this harmonious action of their
members, commended by the apostle, before God mixed His
hght with them ; so that then the head did say to the feet, or
the eye to the hand, I have no need of thee ? This is not
and cannot be the Manichaean doctrine, for they describe the
1 Gal. i. 4. 2 Ps. xcvi. 5.

392 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXI,
animals as using aU these members, and speak of them as
creeping, walking, swimming, flying, each in its own kind.
They could aU see, too, and hear, and use the other senses,
and nourish and cherish their own bodies with appropriate
means and appliances. Hence, moreover, they had the power
of reproduction, for they are spoken of as having offspring. All
these things, of which Faust speaks disparagingly as the works
of Hyle, could not be done without that harmonious arrange
ment which the apostle praises and ascribes to God. Is it
not now plain who is to be foUowed, and who is to be pro
nounced accursed ? Indeed, the Manichaeans teU us of animals
that could speak ; and their speeches were heard and under
stood and approved of by all creatures, whether creeping
things, or quadrupeds, or birds, or fish. Amazing and super
natural eloquence ! EspeciaUy as they had no grammarian or
elocutionist to teach them, and had not passed through the
painful experience of the cane and the bhch. Why, Faust
himself began late in life to learn oratory, that he might dis
course eloquently on these absurdities ; and with aU his clever
ness, after ruining his health by study, his preaching has gained
a mere handful of foUowers. What a pity that he was born
in the light, and not in that region of darkness ! If he had
discoursed there against the light, the whole animal creation,
from the biped to the centipede, from the dragon to the sheU-
fish, would have listened eagerly, and obeyed at once ; whereas,
when he discourses here against the race of darkness, he is
oftener called eloquent than learned, and oftener stiU a false
teacher of the worst kind. And among the few Manichaeans
who extol him as a great teacher, he has none of the lower
animals as his disciples ; and not even his horse is any the
wiser for his master's instructions, so that the mixture of a
part of deity seems only to make the animals more stupid.
What absurdity is this! When wiU these deluded beings
have the sense to compare the description in the Manichaean
fiction of what the animals were formerly in theh own region,
with what they are now in this world ? Then theh bodies
were strong, now they are feeble ; then their power of vision
was such that they were induced to invade the region of God
on account of the beauty which they saw, now it is too weak-

BOOK XXI.] GOOD AND EVIL. 393
to face the rays of the sun ; then they had inteUigence suffi
cient to understand a discourse addressed to them, now they
have no ability of the kind ; then this astonishing and effective
eloquence was natural, now eloquence of the most meagre
kind requires dihgent study and preparation. How many
good things did the race of darkness lose by the mixture of
good! 11. Faustus has displayed his ingenuity, in the remarks to
which I am now replying, by making for himself a long hst
of opposites — health and sickness, riches and poverty, white
and black, cold and hot, sweet and bitter. We need not say
much about black and white. Or, if there is a character for
good or evU in colours, so that white must be ascribed to God
and black to Hyle ; if God threw a white colour on the wings
of bhds, when Hyle, as the Manichaeans say, created them,
where had the crows gone to when the swans got dyed ? Nor
need we discuss heat and cold, for both are good in modera
tion, and dangerous in excess. With regard to the rest, Faust
probably intended that good and evU, which he might as weU
have put first, should be understood as including the rest, so
that health, riches, white, hot, sweet, should belong to good ;
and sickness, poverty, black, cold, bitter, to evU The ignor
ance and foUy of this is obvious. It might look hke reviling
if I were to take up separately white and black, hot and cold,
sweet and bitter, health and sickness. For if white and
sweet are both good, and black and bitter evU, how is it that
most grapes and aU olives become black as they become sweet,
and so get good by getting evU ? And if heat and health are
both good, and cold and sickness evU, why do bodies become
sick when heated ? Is it healthy to have fever ? But I let
these things pass, for they may have been put down hastUy,
or they may have been given as merely instances of opposi
tion, and not as being good and bad, especiaUy as it is nowhere
stated that the fire among the race of darkness is cold, so that
heat in this case must unquestionably be evil.
12. We pass on, then, to health, riches, sweetness, which
Faustus evidently accounts good in his contrasts. Was there
no health of body in the race of darkness where animals were
born and grew up and brought forth, and had such vitahty,

394 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXL
that when some that were with chUd were taken, as the story
is, and were put in bonds in heaven, even the abortive offspring
of a premature bhth, faihng from heaven to earth, neverthe
less lived, and grew, and produced the innumerable kinds of
animals which, now exist ? Or were there no riches where
trees could grow not only in water and wind, but in smoke
and fire, and could bear such a rich produce, that animals,
according to their several kinds, sprang from the fruit, and
were provided with the means of subsistence from those fertUe
trees, and showed how weU fed they were by a numerous pro
geny ? And aU this where there was no toU in cultivation,
and no inclement change from summer to winter, for there
was no sun to give variety to the seasons by his annual course.
There must have been perennial productiveness where the
trees were not only born in theh own element, but had a
supply of appropriate nourishment to make them constantly
fertUe ; as we see orange-trees bearing fruit aU the year round
if they are weU watered. The riches must have been abun
dant, and they must have been secure from harm ; for there
could be no fear of hailstorms when there were no light-
gatherers who, in your fable, set the thunder in motion
13. Nor would the beings in this race of darkness have
sought for food if it had not been sweet and pleasant, so that
they would have died from want. For we find that aU bodies
have their pecuhar wants, according to which food is either
agreeable or offensive. If it is agreeable, it is said to be sweet
or pleasant ; if it is offensive, it is said to be bitter or sour,
or in some way disagreeable. In human beings we find that
one desires food which another dishkes, from a difference in
constitution or habit or state of health. StiU more, animals
of quite different make can find pleasure in food which is dis
agreeable to us. Why else should the goats feed so eagerly
on the wUd olives ? This food is sweet to them, as in some
sicknesses honey tastes bitter to us. To a thoughtful in
quirer these things suggest the beauty of the arrangement in
which each finds what suits it, and the greatness of the good
which extends from the lowest to the highest, and from the
material to the spiritual. As for the race of darkness, if an
animal sprung from any element fed on what was produced

BOOK XXI.] BITTER AND SWEET. 395
by that element, doubtless the food must have been sweet from
its appropriateness. Again, if this animal had found food of
another element, the want of appropriateness would have ap
peared in its offensiveness to the taste. Such offensiveness is
caUed sourness, or bitterness, or disagreeableness, or something
of the kind ; or if its adverse nature is such as to destroy the
harmony of the bodUy constitution, and so take away hfe or
reduce the strength, it is caUed poison, simply on account of
this want of appropriateness, whUe it may nourish the kind of
hfe to which it is appropriate. So, if a hawk eat the bread
which is our daily food, it dies ; and we die if we eat heUebore,
which cattle often feed on, and which may itself in a certain
form be used as a medicine. If Faustus had known or thought
of this, he would not have given poison and antidote as an
example of the two natures of good and evil, as if God were
tbe antidote and Hyle the poison. For the same thing, of one
and the same nature, kiUs or cures, as it is used appropriately
or inappropriately. In the Manichaean legends, their god
might be said to have been poison to the race of darkness ; for
he so injured theh bodies, that from being strong, they became
utterly feeble. But then again, as the light was itself taken,
and subjected to loss and injury, it may be said to have been
poison to itself.
14. Instead of one good and one evil principle, you seem
to make both good or both evU, or rather two good and two
evU ; for they are good in themselves, and evil to one another.
We may see afterwards which is the better or the worse ; but
meanwhUe we may think of them as both good in themselves.
Thus God reigned in one region, whUe Hyle reigned in the
other. There was health in both kingdoms, and rich produce
in both ; both had a numerous progeny, and both tasted the
sweetness of pleasures suitable to their respective natures.
But the race of darkness, say the Manichaeans, excepting the
part which was evU to the hght which it bordered on, was
also evU to itself. As, however, I have already pointed out
many good things in it, if you can point out its evUs, there
wUl stiU be two good kingdoms, though the one where there
are no evUs wUl be the better of the two. What, then, do
you call its evUs ? They plundered, and kUled, and devoured

396 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEaVN. [BOOK XXI.
one another, according to Faustus. But if they did nothing
else than this, how could such numerous hosts be born and
grow up to maturity ? They must have enjoyed peace and
tranquilhty too. But, aUowing the kingdom where there is
no discord to be the better of the two, stiU they should both
be caUed good, rather than one good and the other bad. Thus
the better kingdom wiU be that where they kUled neither
themselves nor one another ; and the worse, or less good, where,
though they fought with one another, each separate animal
preserved its own nature in health and safety. But we can
not make much difference between your god and the prince
of darkness, whom no one opposed, whose reign was acknow
ledged by aU, and whose proposals were unanimously agreed
to. All this imphes great peace and harmony. Those king
doms are happy where all agree heartUy in obedience to the
king. Moreover, the rule of this prince extended not only to
his own species, or to bipeds whom you make the parents of
mankind, but to all kinds of animals, who waited in his
presence, obeying his commands, and beheving his declarations.
Do you think people are so stupid as not to recognise the
attributes of deity in your description of this prince, or to
think it possible that you can have another ? If the authority
of this prince rested on his resources, he must have been very
powerful; if on his fame, he must have been renowned; if
on love, the regard must have been universal ; if on fear, he
must have kept the strictest order. If some evils, then, were
mixed with so many good things, who that knows the meaning
of words would call this the nature of evU ? Besides, if you
caU this the nature of evU, because it was not only evU to
the other nature, but was also evil in itself, was there no evil,
think you, in the dire necessity to which your god was sub
jected before the mixture with the opposite nature, so that he
was compeUed to fight with it, and to send his own members
to be swaUowed up so mercilessly as to be beyond the hope
of complete recovery ? This was a great evil in that nature
before its mixture with the only thing you allow to be evU.
Your god must either have had it in his power not to be in
jured and suUied by the race of darkness, in which case his
own foUy must have brought him into trouble ; or if his sub-

BOOK XXI.] EVILS IN THE CHIEF GOOD. 397
stance was liable to corruption, the object of your worship is
not the incorruptible God of whom the apostle speaks.1 Does
not, then, this liability to corruption, even apart from the
actual experience, seem to you to be an evU in your god ?
15. It is plain, moreover, that either he must have been
destitute of prescience, — a great defect, surely, in the Deity,
not to know what is coming ; or if he had prescience, he can
never have felt secure, but must have been in constant terror,
which you must aUow to be a serious evil. There must have
been the fear at every moment, that the time might be come
for that conflict in which his members suffered such loss and
contamination, that to liberate and purify them costs infinite
labour, and, after all, can be done only partially. If it is going
too far to attribute this state of alarm to the Deity himself,
his members at least must have dreaded the prospect of
suffering aU these evUs. Then, again, if they were ignorant
of what was to happen, the substance of your god must have
been so far wanting in prescience. How many evils do you
reckon in your chief good ? Perhaps you wUl say that they
had no fear, because they foresaw, along with the suffering,
their ultimate hberation and triumph. But stUl they must
have feared for theh companions, if they knew that they were
to be cut off from theh own kingdom, and bound for ever in
the mass of darkness.
1 6. Had they not the charity to feel a kindly sympathy
for those who were doomed to suffer eternal punishment,
without having committed any sin ? These souls that were
to be bound up with the mass, were not they too part of your
god ? Were they not of the same origin, the same substance ?
They at least must have felt grief or fear in the prospect of
their own eternal bondage. To say that they did not know
what was to happen, whUe the others did, is to make one and
the same substance partly acquainted with the future, and
partly ignorant. How can you call this substance the pure,
and perfect, and supreme good, if there were such evils in it,
even before its mixture with the evU principle ? You will
have to caU your two principles either both good or both evil.
If you make two evils, you may make either of them the
1 1 Tim. i. 17. '

e>

398 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXI.
worse, as you please. But if you make two goods, we shaU
have to inquire which you make the better. Meanwhile there
is an end to your doctrine of two principles, one good and the
other evil, which are in fact two gods, one good and the other
evU. But if hurting another is evil, they both hurt one
another. Perhaps the greater evil was in the principle that
first began the attack But if one began the injury, the other
returned it ; and not by the law of compensation, an eye for
an eye, which you are foolish enough to find fault with, but
with far greater severity. You must choose which you wiU
caU the worse, — the one that began the injury, or the one that
had the wiU and the power to do still greater injury. The
one tried to get a share in the enjoyment of light ; the other
effected the entire overthrow of its opponent. If the one had
got what it desired, it would certainly have done no harm to
itself. But the other, in the discomfiture of its adversary, did
great mischief to part of itself; reminding us of the weU-
known passionate exclamation, which is on record as having
been actuaUy used, " Perish our friends, if that wiU rid us of
our enemies."1 For part of your god was sent to suffer hope
less contamination, that there might be a covering for the
mass in which the enemy is to be buried for ever ahve. So
much wiU he continue to be dreaded even when conquered
and bound, that the security, such as it is, of one part of the
deity must be purchased by the eternal misery of the other
parts. Such is the harmlessness of the good principle ! Your
god, it appears, is guUty of the crime with which you charge
the'race of darkness— of injuring both friends and enemies.
The charge is proved in the case of your god, by that final
mass in which his enemies are confined, while his own subjects
are involved in it. In fact, the principle that you caU god is
the more injurious of the two, both to friends and to enemies.
In the case of Hyle, there was no deshe to destroy the
opposite kingdom, but only to possess it; and though some of
its subjects were put to death by the violence of others, they
appeared again in other forms, so that in the alternation of life
and death they had intervals of enjoyment in theh history.
But your god, with aU the omnipotence and perfect exceUence
1 Quoted Cic. pro Dejor. § 9.

BOOK XXI.] GOD AND HYLE. 399
that you ascribe to him, dooms his enemies to eternal destruc
tion, and his friends to eternal punishment. And the height
of insanity is in beheving that whUe internal contest occasions
the injury of the members of Hyle, victory brings punishment
to the members of God. What means this foUy ? To use
Faustus' comparison of God and Hyle to the antidote and
poison, the antidote seems to be more mischievous than the
poison. We do not hear of Hyle shutting up God for ever in
a mass of darkness, or driving its own members into it; or,
which is worst of aU, slandering this unfortunate remnant, as
an excuse for not effecting its purification. For Manichaeus,
in his Foundation Epistle, says that these souls deserved to
be thus punished, because they aUowed themselves to be led
away from theh original brightness, and became enemies of
holy hght; whereas it was God himself that sent them to
lose themselves in the region of darkness, that hght might be
opposed to hght : which was unjust, if he forced them against
theh wiU ; whUe, if they went willingly, he is ungrateful in
punishing them. These souls can never have been happy, if
they were tormented with fear before the conflict, from knowing
that they were to become enemies to theh original principle,
and then in the conflict were hopelessly contaminated, and
afterwards eternaUy condemned. On the other hand, they can
never have been divine, if before the conflict they were un
aware of what was coming, from want of prescience, and then
showed feebleness in the conflict, and suffered misery after
wards. And what is true of them must be true of God, since
they are of the same substance. Is there any hope of your
seeing the foUy of these blasphemies ? You attempt, indeed,
to vindicate the goodness of God, by asserting that Hyle when
shut up is prevented from doing any more injury to itseh.
Hyle, it seems, is to get some good, when it has no longer any
good mixed with it. Perhaps, as God before the conflict had
the evU of necessity, when the good was unmixed with evU,
so Hyle after the conflict is to have the good of rest, when the
evU is unmixed with good. Your principles are thus either
two evUs, one worse than the other ; or two goods, both im
perfect, but one better than the other. The better, however,
is the more miserable ; for if the issue of this great conflict is

400 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
that the enemy gets some good by the cessation of mutual
injuries in Hyle, while God's own subjects suffer the serious
evil of being driven into the mass of darkness, we may ask
who has got the victory. The poison, we are to understand,
is in Hyle, where, nevertheless, animal Ufe found a plentiful
supply of the means of growth and productiveness ; whUe the
antidote is in God, who could condemn his own members, but
could not restore them. In reality, it is as absurd to caU the
one Hyle, as it is to caU the other God. These are the follies
of men who turn to fables because they cannot bear sound
doctrine.

BOOK XXII.
1. Faustus. You ask why we blaspheme the law and the
prophets. We are so far from professing or feeling any
hostihty to the law and the prophets, that we are ready, if you
will allow us, to declare the falsehood of aU the writings which
make the law and the prophets appear objectionable. But this
you refuse to admit, and by maintaining the authority of your
writers, you bring a perhaps unmerited reproach upon the
prophets ; you slander the patriarchs, and dishonour the law.
You are so unreasonable as to deny that your writers are
false, while you uphold the piety and sanctity of those who
are described in these writings as guilty of the worst crimes,
and as leading wicked hves. These opinions are inconsistent ;
for either these were bad characters, or the writers were
untruthful. 2. Supposing, then, that we agree in condemning the writers,
we may succeed in vindicating the law and the prophets. By
the law must be understood not chcumcision, or Sabbaths, or
sacrifices, or the other Jewish observances, but the true law,
viz., Thou shalt not kiU, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not bear false witness, and so on. To this law,
promulgated throughout the world, that is, at the commence
ment of the present constitution of the world, the Hebrew
writers did violence, by infecting it with the poUution of their
disgusting precepts about circumcision and sacrifice. As a

BOOK XXII.] THE LAW AND JUDAISM. 401
friend of the law, you should join with me in condemning the
Jews for injuring the law by this mixture of unsuitable pre
cepts. Plainly, you must be aware that these precepts are not
the law, or any part of the law, since you claim to be right
eous, though you make no attempt to keep the precepts. In
seeking to lead a righteous life, you pay great regard to the
commandments which forbid sinful actions, whUe you take no
notice of the Jewish observances ; which would be unjustifi
able if they were one and the same law. You resent as a
foul reproach being caUed neghgent of the precept, "Thou
shalt not kUl," or " Thou shalt not commit adultery." And if
you showed the same resentment at being caUed uncircum
cised, or neghgent of the Sabbath, it would be evident that
you considered both to be the law and the commandment of
God. In fact, however, you consider the honour and glory of
keeping the one no way endangered by disregard of the other.
It is plain, as I have said, that these observances are not the
law, but a disfigurement of the law. If we condemn them, it
is not as being genuine, but as spurious. In this condemna
tion there is no reproach of the law, or of God its author, but
only of those who pubhshed theh shocking superstitions under1
these names. If we sometimes abuse the venerable name of
law in attacking the Jewish precepts, the fault is yours, for
refusing to distinguish between Hebrew observances and the
law. Only restore to the law its proper dignity, by removing
these foul Israehtish blots; grant that these writers are guUty
of disfiguring the law, and you wiU see at once that we are the
enemies not of the law, but of Judaism. You are misled by
the word law ; for you do not know to what that name pro
perly belongs.
3. For my part, I see no reason for your thinking that we
blaspheme your prophets and patriarchs. There would indeed
be some ground for the charge, if we had been dhectly or
remotely the authors of the account given of their actions.
But as this account is written either by themselves, in a
criminal deshe to be famous for theh misdeeds, or by their
companions and coevals, why should you blame us? We
condemn them in abhorrence of the wicked actions of which
they have voluntarUy declared themselves guilty, though there
5 2 c

402 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [bOOKXXII.
was no occasion for such a confession. Or if the narrative is
only a mahcious fiction, let its authors be punished, let the
books be condemned, let the prophetic name be cleared from
this foul reproach, let the patriarchs recover the respect due
to theh simphcity and purity of manners.
4. These books, moreover, contain shocking calumnies
against God himself. We are told that he existed from eter
nity in darkness, and admired the light when he saw it;
that he was so ignorant of the future, that he gave Adam a
command, not foreseeing that it would be broken ; that his
perception was so hmited that he could not see Adam when,
from the knowledge of his nakedness, he hid himself in a
corner of Paradise ; that envy made him afraid lest his
creature man should taste of the tree of life, and hve for
ever ; that afterwards he was greedy for blood, and fat from
aU kinds of sacrifices, and jealous if they were offered to any
one but himself ; that he was enraged sometimes against his
• enemies, sometimes against his friends; that he destroyed
thousands of men for a shght offence, or for nothing ; that he
threatened to come with a sword and spare nobody, righteous
or wicked. The authors of such bold libels against God might
very well slander the men of God. You must join with us in
laying the blame on the writers, if you wish to vindicate the
prophets. 5. Again, we are not responsible for what is said of Abra
ham, that in his irrational craving to have children, and not
believing God, who promised that his wife Sara should have a
son, he defiled himself with a mistress, with the knowledge of
his wife, which only made it worse -,1 or that, in sacrilegious
profanation of his marriage, he on different occasions, from
avarice and greed, sold his wife Sara for the gratification of
the kings Abimelech and Pharas, telling them that she was his
sister, because she was very fair.2 The narrative is not ours,
which teUs how Lot, Abraham's brother, after bis escape from
Sodom, lay with his two daughters on the mountain3 (better
for him to have perished in the conflagration of Sodom, than
to have burned with incestuous passion) ; or how Isaac imitated
his father's conduct, and caUed his wife Eebecca his sister,
1 Gen. xvi. 2-4. 2 Gen. xii. 13 and xx. 2. 8 Gen. xix. 33-35.

BOOK XXII.] THE SINS OF THE FATHERS. 403
that he might gain a shameful livelihood by her;1 or how his
son Jacob, husband of four wives — two fuU sisters, Eachel and
Leah, and their handmaids — led the life of a goat among them,
so that there was a daUy strife among his women who should
be the first to lay hold of him when he came from the field,
ending sometimes in their hiring him from one another for the
night ;2 or, again, how his son Judah slept with his daughter-
in-law Tamar, after she had been married to two of his sons,
deceived, we are told, by the harlot's dress which Tamar put
on, knowing that her father-in-law was in the habit of asso
ciating with such characters ; 3 or how David, after having a
number of wives, seduced the wife of his soldier Uria, and
made Uria himself be kUled in the battle ; 4 or how his son
Solomon had three hundred wives, and seven hundred concu
bines, and princesses without number ; 5 or how the first pro
phet Hosea got chUdren from a prostitute, and, what is worse,
it is said that this disgraceful conduct was enjoined by God;G
or how Moses committed murder,7 and plundered Egypt,8 and
waged wars, and commanded, or himself perpetrated, many
cruelties.9 And he too was not content with one wife. We
are neither directly nor remotely the authors of these and
sinhlar narratives, which are found in the books of the
patriarchs and the prophets. Either your writers forged these
things, or the fathers are reaUy guUty. Choose which you
please ; the crime in either case is detestable, for vicious
conduct and falsehood are equaUy hateful
6. Augustine. You understand neither the symbols of the
law nor the acts of the prophets, because you do not know
what holiness or righteousness means. We have repeatedly
shown at great length, that the precepts and symbols of the Old
Testament contained both what was to be fulfilled in obedience
through the grace bestowed in the New Testament, and what
was to be set aside as a proof of its having been fulfiUed in
the truth now made manifest. For in the love of God and of
our neighbour is secured the accomphshment of the precepts
of the law, whUe the accomplishment of its promises is shown
1 Gen. xxvi. 7. 2 Gen. xxix. and xxx. s Gen. xxxviii.
* 2 Sam. xi. 4, 15. 6 1 Kings xi. 1-3. 6 Hos. i. 2, 3,
7 Ex. ii. 12. 8 Ex. xii. 35, 36. Ex. xvii. 9.

404 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
in the abolition of circumcision, and of other typical observ
ances formerly practised. By the precept men were led,
through a sense of guilt, to deshe salvation ; by the promise
they were led to find in the typical observances the assurance
that the Saviour would come. The salvation desired was to
be obtained through the grace bestowed on the appearance of
the New Testament; and the fulfilment of the expectation
rendered the types no longer necessary. The same law that
was given by Moses became grace and truth in Jesus Christ.
By the grace in the pardon of sin, the precept is kept in
force in the case of those supported by divine help. By the
truth the symbolic rites are set aside, that the promise might,
in those who trust in the divine faithfulness, be brought to
pass. 7. Those, accordingly, who, finding fault with what they do
not understand, caU the typical institutions of the law dis
figurements and excrescences, are like men displeased with
things of which they do not know the use. As if a deaf
man, seeing others move theh hps in speaking, were to find
fault with the motion of the mouth as needless. and unsightly;
or as if a blind man, on hearing a house commended, were to
test the truth of what he heard by passing his hand over the
surface of the waU, and on coming to the windows were to
cry out against them as flaws in the level, or were to suppose
that the waU had faUen in.
8. How shah I make those whose minds are fuU of vanity
understand that the actions of the prophets were also mystical
and prophetic ? The vanity of theh minds is shown in their
thinking that we believe God to have once existed in dark
ness, because it is written, " Darkness was over the deep." 1
As if we caUed the deep God, where there was darkness,
because the hght did not exist there before God made it by
His word. From their not distinguishing between the light
which is God, and the hght which God made, they imagine
that God must have been in darkness before He made light,
because darkness was over the deep before God said, "Let
there be light, and there was light." In the New Testament
both these things are ascribed to God. For we read, " God is
1 Gen. i. 2.

BOOK XXII.] THE ETERNAL LIGHT. 405
hght, and in Him is no darkness at aU;"1 and again, "God,
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined
in our hearts."2 So also, in the Old Testament, the name
" Brightness of eternal light " 3 is given to the wisdom of God,
which certainly was not created, for by it aU things were
made ; and of the light which exists only as the production
of this wisdom it is said, " Thou wilt hght my candle, 0 Lord ;
my God, Thou wUt enhghten my darkness." 4 In the same
way, in the beginning, when darkness was over the deep, God
said, " Let there be hght, and there was light," which only the
hght-giving hght, which is God Himself, could have made.
9. For as God is His own eternal happiness, and is besides
the bestower of happiness, so He is His own eternal light, and
is also the bestower of light. He envies the good of none,
for He is Himself the source of happiness to aU good beings ;
He fears the evU of none, for the loss of aU evil beings is in
their being abandoned by Him. He can neither be benefited
by those on whom He Himself bestows happiness, nor is He
afraid of those whose misery is the doom awarded by His own
justice. Very different, 0 Manichaus, is the object of your
worship. You have departed from God in the pursuit of your
own fancies, which of all kinds have increased and multiplied
in your foohsh roving hearts, drinking in through the sense of
sight the hght of the heavenly bodies. This hght, though it
too is made by God, is not to be compared to the light created
in the minds of the pious, whom God brings out of darkness
into light, as He brings them out of sinfulness into righteous
ness. StiU less can it be compared to that inaccessible light
from which aU kinds of hght are derived. Nor is this light
inaccessible to aU; for "blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shaU see God." 5 " God is light, and in Him is no dark
ness at aU ; " but the wicked shaU not see light, as is said in
Isaiah.6 To them the light-giving light is inaccessible. From
the light comes not only the spiritual light in the minds of
the pious, but also the material light, which is not denied to
the wicked, but is made to rise on the evU and on the good.
10. So, when darkness was over the deep, He who was
1 1 John i. 5. 2 2 Cor. iv. 6. 3 Wisd. vii. 26
' Ps. xviii. 28. 5 Matt. v. 8. 8 Isa. viii. 20.

406

REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXIL

hght said, "Let there be hght." From what light this hght
came is clear ; for the words are, " God said." What hght
is that that was made, is not so clear. For there has been a
friendly discussion among students of the sacred Scriptures,
whether God then made the hght in the minds of the angels^
or, in other words, these rational sphits themselves, or some
material light which exists in the higher regions of the universe
beyond our ken. For on the fourth day He made the visible
luminaries of heaven. And it is also a question whether these
bodies were made at the same time as theh light, or were
somehow kindled from the hght made aheady. But whoever
reads the sacred writings in the pious sphit which is required
to understand them, must be convinced that whatever the
hght was which was made when, at the time that darkness was
over the deep, God said, " Let there be hght," it was created
hght, and the creating Light was the maker of it.
11. Nor does it foUow that God, before He made hght,
abode in darkness, because it is. said that darkness was over
the deep, and then that the Sphit of God moved on the
waters. The deep is the unfathomable abyss of the waters.
And the carnal mind might suppose that the Sphit abode in
the darkness which was over the deep, because it is said that
He moved on the waters. This is from not understanding
how the hght shineth in darkness, and the darkness compre-
hendeth it not, tiU by the word of God those who were dark
ness are made hght, and it is said to them, " Ye were once
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." 1 But if rational
minds which are in darkness through a sinful wiU cannot
comprehend the hght of the wisdom of God, though it is
present everywhere, because they are separated from it not in
place, but in disposition ; why may not the Spirit of God have
moved on the darkness of the waters, when He moved on the
waters, though at an immeasurable distance from it, not in
place, but in nature ?
12. In aU this I know I am singing to deaf ears ; but God,
from whom is the truth which we speak, can open some ears
to catch the strain. But what shaU we say of those critics of
the Holy Scriptures who object to God's being pleased with
1 Eph. v. 8.

BOOK XXH.] GOD ASTONISHED. 407
His own works, and find fault with the words, " God saw the
hght that it was good," as if this meant that God admhed the
hght as something new ? God's seeing His works that they
were good, means that the Creator approved of His own works
as pleasing to Himself. For God cannot be forced to do any
thing against His wiU, so that He should not be pleased with
His own work ; nor can He do anything by mistake, so that
He should regret having done it. Why should the Manichaeans
object to our God seeing His work that it was good, when
theh god placed a covering before himself when he mingled
his own members with the darkness ? For instead of seeing
his work that it is good, he refuses to look at it because it is
evU. 1 3. Faustus speaks of God as astonished, which is not said
in Scripture ; nor does it foUow that one must be astonished
when he sees anything to be good. There are many good
things which we see without being astonished, as if they were
better than we expected ; we merely approve of them as being
what they ought to be. We can, however, give an instance of
God being astonished, not from the Old Testament, which the
Manichaeans assaU with undeserved reproach, but from the
New Testament, which they profess to beheve in order to
entrap the unwary. For they acknowledge Christ as God, and
use this as a bait to entice Christ's followers into theh snares.
God, then, was astonished when Christ was astonished. For
we read in the Gospel, that when Christ heard the faith of a
certain centurion, He was astonished, and said to His dis
ciples, "VerUy I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel."1 We have aheady given our explanation of the
words, " God saw that it was good." Better men may give
a better explanation. MeanwhUe let the Manichaeans explain
Christ's being astonished at what He foresaw before it hap
pened, and knew before He heard it. For though seeing a
thing to be good is quite different from being astonished at it,
in this case there is some resemblance, for Jesus was aston
ished at the hght of faith which He Himself had created in
the heart of the centurion ; for Jesus is the true hght, which
enhghteneth every man that cometh into the world.
1 Matt. viii. 10.

408

REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.

14. Thus an irrehgious Pagan might bring the same
reproaches against Christ in the Gospel, as Faustus brings
against God in the Old Testament. He might say that Christ
lacked foresight, not only because He was astonished at the
faith of the centurion, but because He chose Judas as a disciple
who proved disobedient to His commands ; as Faustus objects
to the precept given in Paradise, which, as it turned out, was
not obeyed. He might also cavU at Christ's not knowing who
touched Hhn, when the woman suffering from an issue of
blood touched the hem of His garment ; as Faustus blames God
for not knowing where Adam had hid himself. If this igno
rance is implied in God's saying "Where art thou, Adam ? " x
the same may be said of Christ's asking, " Who touched me?"2
The Pagans also might call Christ timid and envious, in not
wishing five of the ten virgins to gain eternal life by entering
into His kingdom, and in shutting them out, so that they
knocked in vain in theh entreaty to have the door opened, as
if forgetful of His own promise, " Knock, and it shaU be opened
unto you ;" 3 as Faustus charges God with fear and envy in not
admitting man after his sin to eternal life. Again, he might
caU Christ greedy of the blood, not of beasts, but of men, be
cause he said, " He that loseth his hfe for my sake, shaU keep
it unto hfe eternal ; " 4 as Faustus reproaches God in reference
to those animal sacrifices which prefigured the sacrifice of blood-
shedding by which we are redeemed. He might also accuse
Christ of jealousy, because in narrating His driving the buyers
and seUers out of the temple, the evangelist quotes as appli
cable to Him the words, " The jealousy of Thine house hath
eaten me up ; " 5 as Faustus accuses God of jealousy in for
bidding sacrifices to be offered to other gods. He might say
that Christ was angry with both His friends and His enemies :
with His friends, because He said, " The servant that knows
his lord's wiU, and doeth it not, shaU be beaten with many
stripes ;" and with His enemies, because He said, " If any one
shall not receive you, shake off against him the dust of your
shoes ; verily I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable
for Sodom in the day of judgment than for that city ; " 6 as
1 Gen. iii. 9. 2 Luke viii. 44, 45. 3 Matt. vii. 7.
4 Matt. x. 39. 5 John ii. 17. ° Matt. x. 14, 15.

BOOK XXII.] PAGAN CRITICISM. 409
Faustus accuses God of being angry at one time with His
friends, and at another with His enemies ; both of whom are
spoken of thus by the apostle: " They that have sinned without
law shall perish without law, and they that have sinned in the
law shall be judged by the law." l Or he might say that Christ
shed the blood of many without mercy, for a shght offence or
for nothing. For to a Pagan there would appear to be little
or no harm in not having a wedding garment at the marriage
feast, for which our King in the Gospel commanded a man to
be bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness ; 2 or in
not wishing to have Christ for a king, which is the sin of
which Christ says, " Those that would not have me to reign
over them, bring hither and slay before me ; " 3 as Faustus
blames God in the Old Testament for slaughtering thousands
of human beings for shght offences, as Faustus caUs them, or
for nothing. Again, if Faustus finds fault with God's threaten
ing to come with the sword, and to spare neither the righteous
nor the wicked, might not the Pagan find as much fault with
the words of the Apostle Paul, when he says of our God, " He
spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us aU ;"4 or of
Peter, when, in exhorting the saints to be patient in the midst
of persecution and slaughter, he says, " It is time that judg
ment begin from the house of God ; and if it first begin at us,
what shaU the end be of them that believe not the gospel
of the Lord ? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where
shaU the ungodly and sinner appear ? " 5 What can be more
righteous than the Only -Begotten, whom nevertheless the
Father did not spare ? And what can be plainer than that
the righteous also are not spared, but chastised with manifold
afflictions, as is clearly implied in the words, " If the righteous
scarcely are saved " ? As it is said in the Old Testament,
" Whom the Lord loveth He correcteth, and chastiseth every son
whom He receiveth;"6 and, "If we receive good at the hand
of the Lord, shaU we not also receive evil ?"7 So we read also
in the New Testament, " Whom I love I rebuke and chasten ;"8
and, " If we judge ourselves, we shaU not be judged of the
Lord ; but when we are judged, we are corrected of the Lord,
1 Rom. ii. 12. 2 Matt. xxii. 11, 15. 3 Luke xix. 27. * Rom. viii. 32.
5 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18. 6 Prov. iii. 12. * Job ii. 10. e Rev. iii. 19.

410 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
that we may not be condemned with the world." J If a Pagan
were to make such objections to the New Testament, would
not the Manichaeans try to answer them, though they them
selves make similar objections to the Old Testament ? But
supposing them able to answer the Pagan, how absurd it would
be to defend in the one Testament what they find fault with
in the other ! But if they could not answer the objections of
the Pagan, why should they not aUow in both Testaments,
instead of in one only, that what appears wrong to unbehevers, .
from theh ignorance, should be beheved to be right by pious
readers even when they also are ignorant ?
15. Perhaps our opponents wiU maintam that these paraUel
passages quoted from the New Testament are themselves
neither authoritative nor true : for they claim the impious
liberty of holding and teaching, that whatever they deem
favourable to their heresy was said by Christ and the apostles ;
while they have the profane boldness to say, that whatever in
the same writings is unfavourable to them is a spurious inter
polation. I have already at some length, as far as the intention
of the present work requhed, exposed the unreasonableness
of this assault upon the authority of the whole of Scripture.
16. At present I would caU attention to the fact, that when
the Manichaeans, although they disguise theh blasphemous
absurdities under the name of Christianity, bring such objec
tions against the Christian Scriptures, we have to defend the
authority of the divine record in both Testaments against the
Manichaeans as much as against the Pagans. A Pagan might
find fault with passages in the New Testament in the same
way as Faustus does with what he caUs unworthy representa
tions of God in the Old Testament ; and the Pagan might be
answered by the quotation of simUar passages from his own
authors, as in Paul's speech at Athens.2 Even in Pagan writ
ings we might find the doctrine that God created and con
structed the world, and that He is the giver of hght, which
does not imply that before hght was made He abode in darkness;
and that when His work was finished He was elated with joy,
which is more than saying that He saw that it was good ; and
that He made a law with rewards for obedience, and punish-
1 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32. 2 Acts xvii. 28.

BOOK XXII.] PAGAN OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 411
ments for disobedience, by which they do not mean to say
that God was ignorant of the future, because He gave a law to
those by whom it was to be broken. Nor could they make
asking questions a proof of a want of foresight even in a human
being ; for in theh books many questions are asked only for
the purpose of using the answers for the conviction of the
persons addressed : for the questioner knows not only what
answer he deshes, but what wiU actually be given. Again, if
the Pagan tried to make out God to be envious of any one,
because He wiU not give happiness to the wicked, he would
find many passages in the writings of his own authors in sup
port of this principle of the divine government.
17. The only objection that a Pagan would make on the
subject of sacrifice would refer to our reason for finding fault
with Pagan sacrifices, when in the Old Testament God is de
scribed as requhing men to offer sacrifice to Him. If I were
to reply at length on this subject, I might prove to him that
sacrifice is due only to the one true God, and that tins sacri
fice was offered by the one true Priest, the Mediator of God
and man ; and that it was proper that this sacrifice should be
prefigured by animal sacrifices, in order to foreshadow the flesh
and blood of the one sacrifice for the remission of sins contracted
by flesh and blood, which shall not inherit the kingdom of God :
for the natural body whl be endowed with heavenly attributes,
as the fire in the sacrifice typified the swallowing up of death
in victory. Those observances properly belonged to the people
whose kingdom and priesthood were prophetic of the King and
Priest who should come to govern and to consecrate believers
in all nations, and to lead them into the kingdom of heaven,
and the holy society of angels and eternal life. And as this
true sacrifice was piously set forth in the Hebrew observances,
so it was impiously caricatured by the Pagans, because, as the
apostle says, what they offer they offer to devils, and not to
God.1 The typical rite of blood-shedding in sacrifice dates
from the earliest ages, pointing forward from the outset of
human history to the passion of the Mediator. For Abel is
mentioned in the sacred Scripture as the first who offered such
sacrifices.2 We need not therefore wonder that fallen angels
1 1 Cor. x. 20. 2 Gen. iv. 4.

412 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
who occupy the air, and whose chief sins are pride and false
hood, should demand from their worshippers by whom they
wished to be considered as gods what they knew to be due to
God only. This deception was favoured by the foUy of the
human heart, especiaUy when regret for the dead led to the
making of hkenesses, and so to the use of images.1 By the
increase of this homage, divine honours came to be paid to
the dead as dweUing in heaven, whUe devUs took theh place
on earth as the objects of worship, and required that their de
luded and degraded votaries should present sacrifices to them
Thus the nature of sacrifice as due only to God appears not
only when God righteously claims it, but also when a false
god proudly arrogates it. If the Pagan was slow to believe
these things, I should argue from the prophecies, and point out
that, though uttered long ago, they are now fulfilled. If he
still remained in unbehef, this is rather to be expected than
to be wondered at ; for the prophecy itself intimates that aU
would not believe.
18. If the Pagan, in the next place, were to find fault with
both Testaments as attributing jealousy to God and Christ, he
would only show his own ignorance of literature, or his forget
fulness. For though theh phUosophers distinguish between
desire and passion, joy and gratification, caution and fear, gentle
ness and tender-heartedness, prudence and cunning, boldness
and daring, and so on, giving the first name in each pair to
what is good, and the second to what is bad, their books are
notwithstanding full of instances in which, by the abuse of
these words, virtues are caUed by the names which properly
belong to vices ; as passion is used for deshe, gratification for
joy, fear for caution, tender-heartedness for gentleness, cunning
for prudence, daring for boldness. The cases are innumerable
in which speech exhibits simUar inaccuracies. Moreover, each
language has its own idioms. For in rehgious writings I re
member no instance of the word tender-heartedness being
used in a bad sense. And common usage affords examples of
simUar peculiarities in the use of words. In Greek, one word
stands for two distinct things, labour and pain ; while we have
a separate name for each. Again, we use the word in two
1 Wisd. xiv. 15.

BOOKXXII.] GOD JEaVLOUS. 413
senses, as when we say of what is not dead, that it has life ;
and again, of any one that he is a man of good life, whereas
in Greek each of these meanings has a word of its own. So
that, apart from the abuse of words which prevaUs in all lan
guages, it may be an Hebrew idiom to use jealousy in two
senses, as a man is caUed jealous when he suffers from a dis
eased state of mind caused by distress on account of the faith
lessness of his wife, in which sense the word cannot be applied
to God ; or as when diligence is manifested in guarding con
jugal chastity, in which sense it is profitable for us not only
unhesitatingly to admit, but thankfuUy to assert, that God
is jealous of His people when He caUs them His wife, and
warns them against committing adultery with a multitude of
false gods. The same may be said of the anger of God. For
God does not suffer perturbation when He visits men in anger ;
but either by an abuse of the word, or by a pecuharity of
idiom, anger is used in the sense of punishment.
1 9. The slaughter of multitudes would not seem strange to
the Pagan, unless he denied the judgment of God, which Pagans
do not ; for they aUow that aU things in the universe, from
the highest to the lowest, are governed by God's providence.
But if he would not aUow this, he would be convinced either
by the authority of Pagan writers, or by the more tedious
method of demonstration ; and if stiU obstinate and perverse,
he would be left to the judgment which he denies. Then, if
he were to give instances of the destruction of men for no
offence, or for a very shght one, we should show that these
were offences, and that they were not shght. For instance,
to take the case aheady referred to of the wedding garment,
we should prove that it was a great crime in a man to attend
the sacred feast, seeking not the bridegroom's glory, but his
own, or whatever the garment may be found on better inter
pretation to signify. And in the case of the slaughter before
the king of those who would not have him to reign over them,
we might perhaps easily prove that, though it may be no sin
in a man to refuse to obey his fellow-man, it is both a fault
and a great one to reject the reign of Him in whose reign
alone is there righteousness, and happiness, and continuance.
20. Lastly, as regards Faustus' crafty insinuation, that the

414 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXH/.
Old Testament misrepresents God as threatening to come with
a sword which wUl spare neither the righteous nor the wicked,
if the words were explained to the Pagan, he would perhaps
disagree neither with the Old Testament nor with the New ;
and he might see the beauty of the parable in the Gospel,
which people who pretend to be Christians either misunder
stand from their blindness, or reject from their perversity.
The great husbandman of the vine uses his pruning-hook dif
ferently in the fruitful and in the unfruitfiU branches ; yet
he spares neither good nor bad, pruning one and cutting off
the other.1 There is no man so just as not to requhe to be
tried by affliction to advance, or to establish, or to prove his
virtue. Do the Manichaeans not reckon Paul as righteous,
who, whUe confessing humbly and honestly his past sins, stUl
gives thanks for being justified by faith in Jesus Christ ?
Was Paul then spared by Him whom fools misunderstand,
when He says, " I wiU spare neither the righteous nor the
sinner " ? Hear the apostle himself : " Lest I should be
exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelation,
there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan
to buffet me. For this I besought tbe Lord thrice, that He
would Temove it from me ; and He said unto me, My grace is
sufficient for thee : for strength is perfected in weakness." 2 Here
a just man is not spared that his strength might be perfected
in weakness by Him who had given him an angel of Satan to
buffet him. If you say that the devU gave this angel, it fol
lows that the devU sought to prevent Paul's being exalted
above measure by the abundance of the revelation, and to per
fect his strength. This is impossible. Therefore He who
gave up this righteous man to be buffeted by the messenger
of Satan, is the same as He who, through Paul, gave up to
Satan himself the wicked persons of whom Paul says : " I have
delivered them to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."3
Do you see now how the Most High spares neither the right
eous nor the wicked ? Or is it the sword that frightens you ?
For to be buffeted is not so bad as to be put to death. But
did not the thousands of martyrs suffer death in various forms ?
And could their persecutors have had this power against them
1 John xv. 1-3. s 2 Cor. xii. 7-9. 3 1 Tim. i. 20.

BOOK XXII.] GOD THE CREATOR. 415
except it had been given them by God, who thus spared neither
the righteous nor the wicked? For the Lord Himself, the
chief martyr, says expressly to Pilate : " Thou couldst have
no power at aU against me, except it were given thee from
above."1 Paul also, besides recording his own experience,
says that the afflictions and persecutions of the righteous ex
hibit the judgment of God.2 This truth is set forth at
length by the Apostle Peter in the passage aheady quoted,
where he says : " It is time that judgment should begin at the
house of God. And if it first begin at us, what shaU the end
be of those that beheve not the gospel of God ? And if the
righteous scarcely are saved, where shaU the ungodly and the
sinner appear?"3 Peter also explains how the wicked are
not spared, for they are branches broken off to be burnt;
whUe the righteous are not spared, because theh purification
is to be brought to perfection. He ascribes these things to
the wiU of Him who says in the Old Testament, I wUl spare
neither the righteous nor the wicked ; for he says : " It is
better, if the wiU of the Spirit of God be so, that we suffer for
weU-doing than for evU-doing."4 So, when by the wUl of the
Spirit of God men suffer for weU-doing, the righteous are not
spared ; when they suffer for evU-doing, the wicked are not
spared. In both cases it is according to the wiU of Him
who says : I wUl spare neither the righteous nor the wicked ;
correcting the one as a son, and punishing the other as a
transgressor. 21. I have thus shown, to the best of my power, that the
God we worship did not abide from eternity in darkness, but
is Himself hght, and in Him is no darkness at aU ; and in
Himself dwells in hght inaccessible; and the brightness of
this light is His coeternal wisdom. From what we have said,
it appears that God was not taken by surprise by the un
expected appearance of hght, but that light owes its existence
to Him as its Creator, as it owes its continued existence to
His approval. Neither was God ignorant of the future, but
the author of the precept as weU as the punisher of disobe
dience; that by showing His righteous anger against trans
gression, He might provide a restraint for the time, and a
1 John xix. 11. 2 2 Thess. i. 5. 3 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18. 4 1 Pet. iii. 17,

416 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
warning for the future. Nor does He ask questions from
ignorance, but by His very inquhy declares His judgment.
Nor is He envious or timid, but excludes the transgressor from
eternal life, which is the just reward of obedience. Nor is
He greedy for blood and fat ; but by requhing from a carnal
people sacrifices suited to theh character, He by certain types
prefigures the true sacrifice. Nor is His jealousy an emotion
of pale anxiety, but of quiet benevolence, in deshe to keep
the soul, which owes chastity to the one true God, from being
defiled and prostituted by serving many false gods. Nor is
He enraged with a passion similar to human anger, but is
angry, not in the sense of desiring vengeance, but in the
pecuhar sense of giving fuU effect to the sentence of a
righteous retribution. Nor does He destroy thousands of
men for trifling offences, or for nothing, but manifests to the
world the benefit to be obtained from fearing Him, by the
temporal death of those already mortal. Nor does He punish
the righteous and sinners indiscriminately, but chastises the
righteous for their good, in order to perfect them, and gives to
sinners the punishment justly due to them. Thus, ye Mani
chaeans, do your suspicions lead you astray, when, by mis
understanding our Scriptures, or by hearing bad interpreters,
you form a mistaken judgment of Cathohcs. Hence you leave
sound doctrine, and turn to impious fables ; and in your per
versity and estrangement from the society of saints, you
reject the instruction of the New Testament, which, as we
have shown, contains statements simUar to those which you
condemn in the Old Testament. So we are obliged to defend
both Testaments against you as weU as against the Pagans.
22. But supposing that there is some one so deluded by car
nality as to worship not the God whom we worship, but the
fiction of your suspicions or your slanders, whom you say we
worship, is not even this god better than yours ? Observe, I
beseech you, what must be plain to the feeblest understand
ing ; for here there is no need of great perspicacity. I address
aU, wise and unwise. I appeal to the common sense and
judgment of aU alike. Would it not have been better for
your god to have remained in darkness from eternity, than
to have buried himself in darkness conjoined with him from

BOOK XXII.] THE GOD OF THE MANICHaEANS. 417
eternity ? Would it not have been better to have expressed
admiration in surprise at the appearance of a new light coming
to scatter the darkness, than to have been unable to baffle the
assault of darkness except by the concession of his own hght ?
Unhappy if he did this in alarm, and cruel if there was no
need of it. Surely it would have been better to see light,
and to admire it as good, than to make his own hght evU ;
better than that his own hght should become hostUe to him
self in repelling the forces of darkness. For this will be the
accusation against those who wUl be condemned for ever to
the mass of darkness, that they suffered themselves to lose
theh original brightness, and became the enemies of sacred
hght. If they did not know from eternity that they would be
thus condemned, they must have suffered the darkness of eternal
ignorance ; or if they did know, the darkness of eternal fear.
Thus part of the substance of your god really did remain from
eternity in its own darkness ; and instead of admiring new
hght on its appearance, it only met with another and a hostUe
darkness, of which it had always been in fear. Indeed, God
himself must have been in the darkness of fear for this part
of himself, if he was dreading the evU coming upon it. If
he did not foresee the evU, he must have been in the dark
ness of ignorance. If he foresaw it, and was not in fear, the
darkness of such cruelty is worse than the darkness either of
ignorance or of fear. Your god appears to be destitute of the
quahty which the apostle commends in the body, which you
insanely beheve to be made not by God, but by Hyle : " If one
member suffers, aU the members suffer with it."1 But sup
pose he did suffer ; he foresaw, he feared, he suffered, but he
could not help himself. Thus he remained from eternity in
the darkness of his own misery ; and then, instead of admiring
a new hght which was to drive away the darkness, he came
in contact, to the injury of his own hght, with another dark
ness which he had always dreaded. Again, would it not have
been much better, I say, not to have given a commandment
like God, but even to have received a commandment hke
Adam, which he would be rewarded for keeping and punished
for breaking, acting either way by his own free-wiU, than to
1 1 Cor. xii. 26.
5 2D

418 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXH.
be forced by inevitable necessity to admit darkness into his
light in spite of himself? Surely it would have been better
to have given a precept to human nature, not knowing that it
would become sinful, than to have been driven by necessity
to sin contrary to his own divine nature. Think for a
moment, and say how darkness could be conquered by one
who was himself conquered by necessity. Conquered already
by this greater enemy, he fought under his conqueror's orders
against a less formidable opponent. Would it not have been
better not to know where Adam had hid himself, than to have
been himself destitute of any means of escape, first from a
hard and hateful necessity, and then from a dissimUar and
hostUe race ? Would it not have been better to grudge
eternal life to human nature, than to consign to misery the
divine nature ; to deshe the blood and fat of sacrifices, than
to be himself slaughtered in so many forms, on account of his
mixture with the blood and fat of every victim; to be dis
turbed by jealousy at these sacrifices being offered to other
gods as weU as to himself, than to be himself offered on aU
altars to aU devUs, as mixed up not only with aU fruits, but
also with aU animals ? Would it not have been much better
to be affected even with human anger, so as to be enraged
against both his friends and his enemies for theh sins, than to
be himself influenced by fear as weU as by anger wherever
these passions exist, or than to share in aU the sin that is
committed, and in aU punishment that is suffered ? For this
is the doom of that part of your god which is in confinement
everywhere, condemned to this by himself, not as guUty, but
in order to conquer his dreaded enemy. Doomed himself to
such a fatal necessity, the part of himself which he has given
over to condemnation might pardon him, if he were as humble
as he is miserable. But how can you pretend to find fault
with God for His anger against both friends and enemies
when they sin, when the god of your fancies first under com
pulsion compels his own members to go to be devoured by
sin, and then condemns them to remain in darkness ? Though
he does this, you say that it wiU not be in anger. But will he
not be ashamed to punish, or to appear to punish, those from
whom he should ask pardon in words such as these : " Forgive

BOOKXXII.] THE LOST MEMBERS. 419
me, I beseech you. You are my members ; could I treat you
thus, except from necessity ? You know yourselves, that you
were sent here because a formidable enemy had arisen ; and
now you, must remain here to prevent his rising again " ?
Again, is it not better to slay thousands of men for trifling
faults, or for nothing, than to cast into the abyss of sin, and
to condemn to the punishment of eternal imprisonment, God's
own members, his substance — in fact, God himself ? It cannot
properly be said of the real substance of God that it has the
choice of sinning or not sinning, for God's substance is abso
lutely unchangeable. God cannot sin, as He cannot deny
Himself. Man, on the contrary, can sin and deny God, or he
can choose not to do so. But suppose the members of your
god had, like a rational human soul, the choice of sinning
or not sinning ; they might perhaps be justly punished for
heinous offences by confinement in the mass of darkness.
But you cannot attribute to these parts a hberty which you
deny to God himself. For if God had not given them up to
sin, he would have been forced to sin himself, by the pre
valence of the race of darkness. But if there was no danger
of being thus forced, it was a sin to send these parts to a
place where they incurred this danger. To do so, indeed,
from free choice is a crime deserving the torment which your
god unnaturaUy inflicts upon his own parts, more than the con
duct of these parts in going by his command to a place where
they lost the power of hving in righteousness. But if God
himself was in danger of being forced to sin by invasion and
capture, unless he had secured himself first by the misconduct
and then by the punishment of his own parts, there can have
been no free-wiU either in your god or in his parts. Let him
not set himself up as judge, but confess himself a criminal.
For though he was forced against his own wiU, he professes
to pass a righteous sentence in condemning those whom he
knows to have suffered evU rather than done it ; making this
profession that he may not be thought of as having been
conquered ; as if it could do a beggar any good to be caUed
prosperous and happy. Surely it would have been better for
your god to have spared neither righteous nor wicked in in
discriminate punishment (which is Faustus' last charge against

420 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
our God), than to have been so cruel to his own members, —
first giving them up to incurable contamination, and then, as
if that was not enough, accusing them falsely of misconduct.
Faustus declares that they justly suffer this severe and
eternal punishment, because they aUowed themselves to be
led astray from their original brightness, and became hostUe
to sacred hght. But the reason of this, as Faustus says, was
that they were so greedily devoured in the first assaiUt of the
princes of darkness, that they were unable to recover them
selves, or to separate themselves from the hostUe principle.
These souls, therefore, did no evU themselves, but in all this
were innocent sufferers. The real agent was he who sent
them away from himself into this wretchedness. They
suffered more from their father than from their enemy.
Their father sent them into aU this misery; whUe their
enemy desired them as something good, wishing not to hurt
them, but to enjoy them. The one injured them knowingly,
the other in ignorance. This god was so weak and helpless
that he could not otherwise secure himself first against an
enemy threatening attack, and then against the same enemy
in confinement. Let him, then, not condemn those parts
whose obedience defended him, and whose death secures his
safety. If he could not avoid the conflict, why slander his
defenders ? When these parts aUowed themselves to be led
astray from their original brightness, and became hostUe to
sacred light, this must have been from the force of the enemy ;
and if they were forced against their wUl, they are innocent ;
while, if they could have resisted if they had chosen, there is
no need of the origin of evU in an imaginary evil nature,
since it is to be found in free-will. Their not resisting, when
they could have done so, is plainly theh own fault, and not
owing to any force from without. For, supposing them able
to do a thing, to do which is right, while not to do it is great
and heinous sin, their not doing it is their own choice. So,
then, if they choose not to do it, the fault is in their will, not
in necessity. The origin of sin is in the will ; therefore in
the will is also the origin of evil, both in the sense of acting
against a just precept, and in the sense of suffering under a
just sentence. There is thus no reason why, in your search

BOOK XXII.] ORIGIN OF EVIL. 421
for the origin of evil, you should fall into so great an evU as
that of caUing a nature so rich in good things the nature of
evU, and of attributing the terrible evU of necessity to the
nature of perfect good, before any commixture with evU. The
cause of this erroneous behef is your pride, which you need
not have unless you choose ; but in your wish to defend at
aU hazards the error into which you have faUen, you take
away the origin of evU from free-will, and place it in a
fabulous nature of evil. And thus you come at last to say,
that the soiUs which are to be doomed to eternal confinement
in the mass of darkness became enemies to sacred hght not
from choice, but by necessity ; and to make your god a judge
with whom it is of no use to prove, in behalf of your clients,
that they were under compulsion, and a king who wUl make
no aUowance for your brethren, his own sons and members,
whose hostihty against you and against himself you ascribe
not to choice, but to necessity. What shocking cruelty !
unless you proceed in the next place to defend your god, as
also acting not from choice, but by necessity. So, if there
could be found another judge free from necessity, who could
decide the question on the principles of equity, he would
sentence your god to be bound to this mass, not by being
fastened on the outside, but by being shut up inside along
with the formidable enemy. The first in the guilt of neces
sity ought to be first in the sentence of condemnation.
Would it not be much better, then, in comparison with such
a god as this, to choose the god whom we indeed do not
worship, but whom you think or pretend to think we
worship ? Though he spares not his servants, whether
righteous or sinful, making no proper separation, and not
distinguishing between punishment and discipline, is he not
better than the god who spares not his own members though
innocent, if necessity is no crime, or guilty from their obe
dience to him, if necessity itself is criminal ;. so that they are
condemned eternally by him, along with whom they should
have been released, if any hberty was recovered by the
victory, whUe he should have been condemned along with
them if the victory reduced the force of necessity even so far
as to give this smaU amount of force to justice ? Thus the

422 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
god whom you represent us as worshipping, though he is not
the one true God whom we reaUy worship, is far better than
your god. Neither, indeed, has any existence ; but both are
the creatures of your imaginations. But, according to your
own representations, the one whom you caU ours, and find
fault with, is better than the one whom you caU your own,
and whom you worship.
23. So also the patriarchs and prophets whom you cry out
against are not the men whom we honour, but men whose
characters are drawn from your »fancy, prompted by Ul-wUl.
And yet even thus as you paint them, I wiU not be content
with showing them to be superior to your elect, who keep aU
the precepts of Manichaeus, but wiU prove theh superiority to
your god himself. Before proving this, however, I must,
with the help of God, defend our holy fathers the patriarchs
and prophets against your accusations, by a clear exposition of
the truth as opposed to the carnality of your hearts. As for
you Manichaeans, it would be enough to say that the faults
you impute to our fathers are preferable to what you praise
in your own, and to complete your shame by adding that your
god can be proved far inferior to our fathers as you describe
them. This would be a sufficient reply for you. But as,
even apart from your perversities, some minds are of them
selves disturbed when comparing the hfe of the prophets in the
Old Testament with that of the apostles in the New, — not
discerning between the maimer of the time when the promise
was under a veU, and that of the time when the promise is
revealed, — I must first of aU reply to those who either have
the boldness to pride themselves as superior in temperance to
the prophets, or quote the prophets in defence of theh own
bad conduct.
24. Fhst of aU, then, not only the speech of these men,
but theh Ufe also, was prophetic ; and the whole kingdom of
the Hebrews was like a great prophet, corresponding to the
greatness of the Person prophesied. So, as regards those
Hebrews who were made wise in heart by divine instruction,
we may discover a prophecy of the coming of Christ and of
the Church, both in what they said and in what they did ; and
the same is true as regards the divine procedure towards the

BOOK XXII.] CHILDISH CRITICS. 423
whole nation as a body. For, as the apostle says, " aU these
things were our examples."
25. Those who find fault with the prophets, accusing them
of adultery for instance, in actions which are above their
comprehension, are hke those Pagans who profanely charge
Christ with foUy or madness because He looked for fruit from
a tree out of the season ; x or with childishness, because He
stooped down and wrote on the ground, and, after answering
the people who were questioning Him, began writing again.2
Such critics are incapable of understanding that certain virtues
in great minds resemble closely the vices of httle minds, not
in reality, but in appearance. Such criticism of the great is
like that of boys at school, whose learning consists in the
important rule, that if the nominative is in the singular, the
verb must also be in the singular ; and so they find fault with
the best Latin author, because he says, Pars in frusta secant?
He should have written, say they, secat. And again, know
ing that religio is spelt with one I, they blame him for
writing relligio, when he says, Relligione patrum! Hence it
may with reason be said, that as the poetical usage of words
differs from the solecisms and barbarisms of the unlearned,
so, in theh own way, the figurative actions of the prophets
differ from the impure actions of the vicious. Accordingly,
as a boy guUty of a barbarism would be whipped if he pled
the usage of VhgU ; so any one quoting the example of Abra
ham begetting a son from Hagar, in defence of his own sinful
passion for his wife's handmaid, ought to be corrected not by
caning only, but by severe scourging, that he may not suffer
the doom of adulterers in eternal punishment. This indeed
is a comparison of great and important subjects with trifles ;
and it is not intended that a pecuhar usage in speech should
be put on a level with a sacrament, or a solecism with adul
tery. StUl, aUowing for the difference in the character of the
subjects, what is caUed learning or ignorance in the proprieties
and improprieties of speech, resembles wisdom or the want of
it in reference to the grand moral distinction between vhtue
and vice.
26. Instead of entering on a discussion on the distinctions
1 Matt. xxi. 19. 2 John viii. 6-8. s JEn. i. 212. 4 JSn. ii. 715.

424 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
between the praiseworthy and the blameworthy, the criminal
and the innocent, the dangerous and the harmless, the guUty
and the guUtless, the deshable and the undesirable, which are
all illustrations of the distinction between sin and righteous
ness, we must first consider what sin is, and then examine the
actions of the saints as recorded in the holy books, that, if we
find these saints described as sinning, we may if possible
discover the true reason for keeping these sins in memory by
putting them on record. Again, if we find things recorded
which, though they are not sins, appear so to the foohsh and
the malevolent, and in fact do not exhibit any vhtues, here also
we have to see why these things are put into the Scriptures
which we believe to contain wholesome doctrme as a guide in
the present life, and a title to the inheritance of the future.
As regards the examples of righteousness found among the
acts of the saints, the propriety of recording these must be
plain even to the ignorant. The question is about those
actions the mention of which may seem useless if they are
neither righteous nor sinful, or even dangerous if the actions
are reaUy sinful, as leading people to imitate them, because
they are not condemned in these books, and so may be
supposed not to be sinful, or because, though they are con
demned, men may copy them from the idea that they must be
venial if saints did them.
27. Sin, then, is any transgression in deed, or word, or
desire, of the eternal law. And the eternal law is the divine
order or wiU of God, which requires the preservation of
natural order, and forbids the breach of it. But what is this
natural order in man ? Man, we know, consists of soul and
body; but so does a beast. Again, it is plain that in the
order of nature the soul is superior to the body. Moreover,
in the soul of man there is reason, which is not in a beast.
Therefore, as the soul is superior to the body, so in the soul
itself the reason is superior by the law of nature to the other
parts which are found also in beasts ; and in reason itself,
which is partly contemplation and partly action, contemplation
is unquestionably the superior part. The object of contempla
tion is the image of God, by which we are renewed through
faith to sight. Eational action ought therefore to be subject

BOOK XXII.] CONTEMPLATION BY FAITH. 425
to the control of contemplation, which is exercised through
faith whUe we are absent from the Lord, as it will be here
after through sight, when we shaU be like Him, for we shall
see Him as He is.1 Then in a spiritual body we shall by His
grace be made equal to angels, when we put on the garment
of immortahty and incorruption, with which this mortal and
corruptible shaU be clothed, that death may be, swallowed up
of victory, when righteousness is perfected through grace.
For the holy and lofty angels have also their contemplation
and action. They require of themselves the performance of
the commands of Him whom they contemplate, whose eternal
government they freely because sweetly obey. We, on the
other hand, whose body is dead because of sin, tiU God quicken
also our mortal bodies by His Spirit dweUing in us, hve
righteously in our feeble measure, according to the eternal law
in which the law of nature is preserved, when we hve by that
faith vrnfeigned which works by love, having in a good con
science a hope of immortahty and incorruption laid up in heaven,
and of the perfecting of righteousness to the measure of an
inexpressible satisfaction, for which in our pilgrimage we must
hunger and thhst, while we walk by faith and not by sight.
28. A man, therefore, who acts in obedience to the faith
which obeys God, restrains aU mortal affections, and keeps
them within the natural limit, regulating his desires so as to
put the higher before the lower. If there was no pleasure in
what is unlawful, no one would sin. To sin is to indulge this
pleasure instead of restraining it. And by unlawful is meant
what is forbidden by the law in which the order of nature is
preserved. It is a great question whether there is any rational
creature for which there is no pleasure in what is unlawful.
If there is such a class of creatures, it does not include man,
nor that angelic nature which abode not in the truth. These
rational creatures were so made, that they had the potentiality
of restraining theh desires from the unlawful ; and in not doing
this they sinned. Great, then, is the creature man, for he is
restored by this potentiahty, by which, if he had so chosen, he
would not have faUen. And great is the Lord, and greatly to
be praised, who created man. For He created also inferior
1 1 John iii. 2.

426 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [bOOKXXH.

natures which cannot sin, and superior natures which wUl not
sin. Beasts do not sin, for their nature agrees with the
eternal law from being subject to it, without being in pos
session of it. iind again, angels do not sin, because their
heavenly nature is so in possession of the eternal law that
God is the only object of its deshe, and they obey His wiU
without any experience of temptation. But man, whose life
on this earth is a trial on account of sin, subdues to himself
what be has in common with beasts, and subdues to God what
he has in common with angels ; tiU, when righteousness is
perfected and immortality attained, he shaU be raised from
among beasts and ranked with angels.
29. The exercise or indulgence of the bodUy appetites is
intended to secure the continued existence and the invigora-
tion of the individual or of the species. If the appetites go
beyond this, and carry the man, no, longer master of himself,
beyond the hmits of temperance, they become unlawful and
shameful lusts, which severe discipline must subdue. But if
this unbridled course ends in plunging the man into such a
depth of evU habits that he supposes that there wUl be no
punishment of his sinful passions, and so refuses the whole
some disciphne of confession and repentance by which he
might be rescued ; or, from a stiU worse insensibUity, justifies
his own indulgences in profane opposition to the eternal law
of Providence ; and if he dies in this state, that unerring law
sentences him now not to correction, but to damnation.
30. Beferring, then, to the eternal law which enjoins the
preservation of natural order and forbids the breach of it, let
us see how our father Abraham sinned, that is, how he broke
this law, in the things which Faustus has charged him with
as highly criminal. In his irrational craving to have children,
says Faustus, and not believing God, who promised that his wife
Sara should have a son, he defiled himself with a mistress.
But here Faustus, in his irrational deshe to find fault, both
discloses the impiety of his heresy, and in his error and ignor
ance praises Abraham's intercourse with the handmaid. For
as the eternal law — that is, the wUl of God the Creator of aU
— for the preservation of the natural order, permits the indul
gence of the bodUy appetite under the guidance of reason in

BOOK XXII.] ABRAHAM'S CONDUCT. 427
sexual intercourse, not for the gratification of passion, but for
the continuance ofthe race through the procreation of children;
so, on the contrary, the unrighteous law of the Manichaeans,
in order to prevent their god, whom they bewail as confined
in aU seeds, from suffering stiU closer confinement in the
womb, requires married people not on any account to have
chUdren, theh great deshe being to hberate their god. In
stead, therefore, of an irrational craving in Abraham to have
chUdren, we find in Manichaeus an hrational fancy against
having chUdren. So the one preserved the natural order by
seeking in marriage only the production of a child ; whUe
the other, influenced by bis heretical notions, thought no evU
could be greater than the confinement of his god.
31. So, again, when Faustus says that the wife's being
privy to her husband's conduct made the matter worse, while he
is prompted only by the uncharitable wish to reproach Abraham
and his wife, he reaUy, without intending it, speaks in praise
of both. For Sara did not connive at any criminal action in
her husband for the gratification of his unlawful passions ; but
from the same natural deshe for chUdren that he had, and
knowing her own barrenness, she warrantably claimed as
her own the fertility of her handmaid; not consenting with
sinful deshes in her husband, but requesting of him what
it was proper in him to grant. Nor was it the request of
proud assumption; for every one knows that the duty of a
wife is to obey her husband. But in reference to the body,
we are told by the apostle that the wife has power over her
husband's body, as he has over hers -,1 so that, while in aU
other social matters the wife ought to obey her husband, in
this one matter of theh bodUy connection as man and wife
their power over one another is mutual, — the man over the
woman, and the woman over the man. So, when Sara could
not have chUdren of her own, she wished to have them by
her handmaid, and of the same seed from which she herself
would have had them, if that had been possible. No woman
would do this if her love for her husband were merely an
animal passion ; she would rather be jealous of a mistress
than make her a mother. So here the pious desire for the
1 1 Cor. vii. 4

428 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.

procreation of chUdren was an indication of the absence of
criminal indulgence.
32. Abraham, indeed, cannot be defended, if, as Faustus
says, he wished to get chUdren by Hagar, because he had no
faith in God, who promised that he should have chUdren by
Sara. But this is an entire mistake : this promise had not
yet been made. Any one who reads the preceding chapters
wUl find that Abraham had aheady got the promise of the
land with a countless number of inhabitants,1 but that it had
not yet been made known to him how the seed spoken of
was to be produced, whether by generation from his own
body, or from his choice in the adoption of a son, or, in the
case of its being from his own body, whether it would be by
Sara or another. Whoever examines into this wiU find that
Faustus has made either an imprudent mistake or an impu
dent misrepresentation. Abraham, then, when he saw that he
had no chUdren, though the promise was to his seed, thought
first of adoption. This appears from his saying of his slave,
when speaking to God, " This is mine heir ;" as much as to
say, As Thou hast not given me a seed of my own, fulfil Thy
promise in this man. For the word seed may be apphed to
what has not come out of a man's own body, else the apostle
could not caU us the seed of Abraham : for we certainly are
not his descendants in the flesh ; but we are bis seed in fol
lowing his faith, by believing in Christ, whose flesh did spring
from the flesh of Abraham. Then Abraham was told by the
Lord : " This shall not be thine heh ; but he that cometh out
of thine own bowels shah be thine heh."2 The thought of
adoption was thus removed ; but it stiU remained uncertain
whether the seed which was to come from himself would be
by Sara or another. And this God was pleased to keep con
cealed, tiU a figure of the Old Testament had been supphed
in the handmaid. We may thus easUy understand how
Abraham, seeing that his wife was barren, and that she desired
to obtain from her husband and her handmaid the offspring
which she herself could not produce, acted not in compliance
with carnal appetite, but in obedience to conjugal authority,
believing that Sara had the sanction of God for her wish ; be-
1 Gen. xii. 3. s Gen. xv. 3, 4.

BOOK XXII.] FAUSTUS' LOVE OF SLANDER. 429
cause God had aheady promised him an heir from his own
body, but had not foretold who was to be the mother. Thus,
when Faustus shows his own infidehty in accusing Abraham
of unbehef, his groundless accusation only proves the madness
of the assaUant. In other cases, Faustus' infidelity has
prevented him from understanding; but here, in his love of
slander, he has not even taken time to read.
33. Again, when Faustus accuses a righteous and faithful
man of a shameless profanation of his marriage from avarice
and greed, by seUing his wife Sara at different times to the
two kings Abimelech and Pharao, telling them that she was
his sister, because she was very fair, he does not distinguish
justly between right and wrong, but unjustly condemns the
whole transaction. Those who think that Abraham sold his
wife cannot discern in the hght of the eternal law the differ
ence between sin and righteousness ; and so they call perse
verance obstinacy, and confidence presumption, as in these and
simUar cases men of wrong judgment are wont to blame
what they suppose to be wrong actions. Abraham did not
become partner in crime with his wife by selling her to
others : but as she gave her handmaid to her husband, not
to gratify his passion, but for the sake of offspring, in the
authority she had consistently with the order of nature,
requiring the performance of a duty, not complying with a
sinful deshe ; so in this case, the husband, in perfect assur
ance of the chaste attachment of his wife to himself, and
knowing her mind to be the abode of modest and virtuous
affection, caUed her his sister, without saying that she was
his wife, lest he himself should be kiUed, and his wife faU
into the hands of strangers and evil-doers : for he was assured
by his God that He would not aUow her to suffer violence or
disgrace. Nor was he disappointed in his faith and hope ;
for Pharao, terrified by strange occurrences, and after enduring-
many evUs on account of her, when he was informed by God
that Sara was Abraham's wife, restored her with honour un
injured. Abimelech also did the same, after learning the
truth in a dream.
34. Some people, not scoffers and evil-speakers like Faustus,
but men who pay due honour to the Scriptures, which Faustus

430 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXH.
finds fault with because he does not understand them, or which
he faUs to understand because of his fault-finding, in com
menting on this act of Abraham, are of opinion that he
stumbled from weakness of faith, and denied his wife from
fear of death, as Peter denied the Lord. If this is the cor
rect view, we must aUow that Abraham sinned ; but the sin
should not cancel or obliterate aU his merits, any more than in
the case of the apostle. Besides, to deny his wife is not the
same as to deny the Saviour. But when there is another
explanation, why not abide by it, instead of giving blame
without cause, since there is no proof that Abraham told a
he from fear ? He did not deny that Sara was his wife in
answer to any question on the subject ; but when asked who.
she was, he said she was his sister, without denying her to be
his wife : he concealed part of the truth, but said nothmg false.
35. It is waste of time to observe Faustus' remark, that
Abraham falsely caUed Sara his sister ; as if Faustus had dis
covered the famUy of Sara, though it is not mentioned in
Scripture. In a matter which Abraham knew, and we do not,
it is surely better to beheve the patriarch when he says what
he knows, than to beheve Manichaeus when he finds fault
with what he knows nothing about. Since, then, Abraham
hved at that period in human history, when, though marriage
had become unlawful between children of the same parents,
or of the same father or mother, no law or authority interfered
with the custom of marriage between the chUdren of brothers,
or any less degree of consanguinity, why should he not have
had as wife his sister, that is, a woman descended from his
father ? For he himself told the king, when he restored Sara,
that she was his sister by his father, and not by his mother.
And on this occasion he could not have been led to teU a
falsehood from fear, for the king knew that she was his wife,
and was restoring her with honour, because he had been
warned by God. We learn from Scripture that, among the
ancients, it was customary to caU cousins brothers and sisters.
Thus Tobias says in his prayer to God, before having inter
course with his wife, " And now, 0 Lord, Thou knowest that
not in wantonness I take to wife my sister j"1 though she was
1 To h. viii. 9.

BOOK XXII.] USE OF MEANS. 431
not sprung immediately from the same father or the same
mother, but only belonged to the same famUy. And Lot is
caUed the brother of Abraham, though Abraham was his
uncle.1 And, by the same use of the word, those caUed in
the Gospel the Lord's brothers are certainly not chUdren of
the Vhgin Mary, but all the blood relations of the Lord.2 .
36. Some may say, Why did not Abraham's confidence in
God prevent his being afraid to confess his wife ? God could
have warded off from him the death which he feared, and
could have protected both him and his wife while among
strangers, so that Sara, although very fah, should not have
been deshed by any one, nor Abraham kiUed on account of
her. Of course, God could have done this ; it would be
absurd to deny it. But if, in reply to the people, Abraham
had told them that Sara was his wife, his trust in God would
have included both his own life and the chastity of Sara.
Now it is part of sound doctrine, that when a man has any
means in his power, he should not tempt the Lord his God.
So it was not because the Saviour was unable to protect His
disciples that He told them, " When ye are persecuted in one
city, flee to another." 3 And He Himself set the example.
For though He had the power of laying down His own life,
and did not lay it down tiU He chose to do so, stiU when an
infant He fled to Egypt, carried by His parents ;4 and when
He went up to the feast, He went not openly, but secretly,
though at other times He spoke openly to the Jews, who in
spite of theh rage and hostihty could not lay hands on Him,
because His hour was not come,5 — not the hour when He
would be obhged to die, but the hour when He would con
sider it seasonable to be put to death. Thus He who dis
played divine power by teaching and reproving openly, with
out aUowing the rage of his enemies to hurt Him, did also, by
escaping and concealing Himself, exhibit the conduct becom
ing the feebleness of men, that they should not tempt God
when they have any means in theh power of escaping
threatened danger. So also in the apostle, it was not from
despah of divine assistance and protection, or from loss of
] Gen. xiii. 8 and xi. 31. a Matt. xii. 46. s Matt. x. 23. '
* Matt. ii. 14. » John vii. 10, 30.

432 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
faith, that he was let down over the wall in a basket, in
order to escape being taken by his enemies f not from want.
of faith in God did he thus escape, but because not to
escape, when this escape was possible, would have been
tempting God. Accordingly, when Abraham was among
strangers, and when, on account of the remarkable beauty of
Sara, both his life and her chastity were in danger, since it
was in his power to protect not both of these, but one only, —
his life, namely, — to avoid tempting God he did what he could ;
and in what he could not do, he trusted to God. Unable to
'conceal his being a man, he concealed his being a husband,
lest he should be put to death ; trusting to God to preserve
his wife's purity.
37. There might also be a difference of opinion on the
nice point whether Sara's chastity would have been violated
even if some one had had intercourse with her, since she
submitted to this to save her husband's hfe, both with his
knowledge and by his authority. In this there would be no
desertion of conjugal fidelity or rebellion against her husband's
authority ; in the same way as Abraham was not an adulterer,
when, in submission to the lawful authority of his wife, he
consented to be made a father by his wife's handmaid. But,
from the nature of the relationship, for a wife to have two
husbands, both in life, is not the same thing as for a man to
have two wives : so that we regard the explanation already
given of Abraham's conduct as the most correct and unobjec
tionable ; that our father Abraham avoided tempting God by
taking what measures he could for the preservation of his own
life, and that he showed his hope in God by entrusting to
Him the chastity of his wife.
38. But a pleasure which all must feel is obtained from
this narrative so faithfuUy recorded in the Holy Scriptures,
when we examine into the prophetic character of the action,
and knock with pious faith and diligence at the door of the
mystery, that the Lord may open, and show us who was pre
figured in the ancient personage, and whose wife this is, who,
while in a foreign land and among strangers, is not allowed
to be stained or defiled, that she may be brought to her own
1 Actsix. 25.

BOOK XXII.] ABRAHAM A TYPE OF CHRIST. 433
husband without spot or wrinkle. Thus we find that the
righteous hfe of the Church is for the glory of Christ, that her
beauty may bring honour to her husband, as Abraham was
honoured on account of the beauty of Sara among the inhabit
ants of that foreign land. To the Church, to whom it is said
in the Song of Songs, " 0 thou fairest among women,"1 kings
offer gifts in acknowledgment of her beauty ; as king Abime
lech offered gifts to Sara, admiring the grace of her appearance ;
aU the more that, whUe he loved, he was not aUowed to pro
fane it. The holy Church, too, is in secret the spouse of the
Lord Jesus Christ. For it is secretly, and in the hidden
depths of the Sphit, that the soul of man is joined to the
word of God, so that they two are one flesh ; of which the
apostle speaks as a great mystery in marriage, as referring to
Christ and the Church.2 Again, the earthly kingdom of this
world, typified by the kings which were not aUowed to defile
Sara, had no knowledge or experience of the Church as the
spouse of Christ, that is, of how faithfuUy she maintained her
relation to her Husband, tiU it tried to violate her, and was com
peUed to yield to the divine testimony borne by the faith of
the martyrs, and in the person of later monarchs was brought
humbly to honour with gifts the Bride whom their predeces
sors had not been able to humble by subduing her to them
selves. What, in the type, happened in the reign of one and
the same king, is fulfiUed in the earher monarchs of this era
and theh successors.
39. Again, when it is said that the Church is the sister of
Christ, not by the mother but by the father, we learn the ex-
ceUence of the relation, which is not of the temporary nature
of earthly descent, but of divine grace, which is everlasting.
By this grace we shaU no longer be a race of mortals when
we receive power to become sons of God. This grace we ob
tain not from the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ
after the flesh, but from God the Father. And when Christ
caUs us into another hfe where there is no death, He teaches
us, instead of acknowledging, to deny the earthly relationship,
where death soon foUows upon birth ; for He says to His dis
ciples, " CaU no man your father upon earth ; for you have one
1 Cant. i. 7. 2 Eph. v. 31, 32.
5 2 E

434 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
Father, who is in heaven." x And He set us an example of
this when He said, " Who is my mother, and who are my bre
thren ? And stretching forth His hand to His disciples, He
said. These are my brethren." And lest any one should think
that He referred to an earthly relationship, He added, " Who
soever shaU do the wUl of my Father, the same is my brother,
and sister, and mother ; " 2 as much as to say, I derive this
relationship from God my Father, not from the Synagogue my
mother ; I caU you to eternal life, where I have an immortal
birth, not to earthly life, for to caU you away from this hfe I
have taken mortality.
40. As for the reason why, though it is concealed among
strangers whose wife the Church is, it is not hidden whose
sister she is, it is plainly because it is obscure and hard to
understand how the human soul and the Word of God are
united or mingled, or whatever word may be used to express
this connection between God and the creature. It is from
this connection that Christ and the Church are caUed bride
groom and bride, or husband and wife. The other relation
ship, in which Christ and aU the saints are brethren by divine
grace and not by earthly consanguinity, or by the father and
not by the mother, is more easUy expressed in words, and
more easUy understood. For the same grace makes aU the
saints to be also brethren of one another; whUe in their
society no one is the bridegroom of aU the rest. So also,
notwithstanding the surpassing justice and wisdom of Christ,
His manhood was much more plainly and readUy recognised
by strangers, who, indeed, were not wrong in beheving Him
to be man, but they did not understand His being God as
weU as man. Hence Jeremiah says : " He is both a man,
and who shall know Him ?" s He is a man, for it is made
manifest that He is a brother. And who shah know Him ?
for it is concealed that He is a husband. This must suffice as
a defence of our father Abraham against Faustus' impudence
and ignorance and malice.
41. Lot also, the brother of Abraham, was just and hos
pitable in Sodom, and was found worthy to escape the con
flagration which prefigured the future judgment ; for he was
1 Matt, xxiii. 9. * Matt. xii. 48-50. 3 Jer. xvii. 9.

BOOK XXII.] LOT'S DAUGHTERS. 435
free from aU participation in the corruption of the people of
Sodom. He was a type of the body of Christ, which in the
person of aU the saints both groans now among the ungodly
and wicked, to whose evU deeds it does not consent, and wiU
at the end of the world be rescued from their society, when
they are doomed to the punishment of eternal fire. Lot's
wife was the type of a different class of men, — of those, namely,
who, when called by the grace of God, look back, instead of,
hke Paid, forgetting the things that are behind, and looking
forward to the things that are before.1 The Lord Himself
says : " No man that putteth his hand to the plough, and
looketh back, is fit for the kingdom of God)' 2 Nor did He
omit to mention the case of Lot's wife ; for she, for our warn
ing, was turned into a phlar of salt, that being thus seasoned
we might not trifle thoughtlessly with this danger, but be on
our guard against it. So, when the Lord was admonishing
every one to get rid of the things that are behind by the most
strenuous endeavour to reach the things that are before, He
said, " Eemember Lot's wife."3 And, in addition to these,
there is still a third type in Lot, when his daughters lay with
him. For here Lot seems to prefigure the future law; for
those who spring from the law, and are placed under the law,
by misunderstanding it, stupefy it, as it were, and bring forth
the works of unbehef by an unlawful use of the law. " The
law is good," says the apostle, " if a man use it lawfuUy."4
42. It is no excuse for this action of Lot or of his daughters
that it represented the perversity which was afterwards in
certain cases to be displayed. The purpose of Lot's daughters
is one thing, and the purpose of God is another, in aUowing
this to happen that He might make some truth manifest ; for
God both pronounces judgment on the actions of the people
of those times, and arranges in His providence for the prefigure-
ment of the future. As a part of Scripture, this action is a
prophecy ; as part of the history of those concerned, it is a
crime. 43. At the same time, there is in this transaction no reason
for the torrent .of abuse which Faustus' blind hostUity discharges
on it. By the eternal law which requires the preservation of
1 PhiL iii. 13. 2 Luke ix. 62. 3 Luke xvii. 32. * 1 Tim. i. 8.

REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.

the order of nature and condemns its violation, the judgment
in this case is not what it would have been if Lot had been
prompted by a criminal passion to commit incest with his
daughters, or if they had been inflamed with unnatural desires.
In justice, we must ask not only what was done, but with
what motive, in order to obtain a fair view of the action as
the effect of that motive. The resolution of Lot's daughters
to he with their father was the effect of the natural desire for
offspring in order to preserve the race ; for they supposed that
there were no other men to be found, thinking that the whole
world had been consumed in that conflagration, which, for
aU they knew, had left no one ahve but themselves. It would
have been better for them never to have been mothers, than to
have become mothers by theh own father. But sthl, the ful
filment of a desire like this is very different from the accursed
gratification of lust.
44. Knowing that their father would condemn theh design,
Lot's daughters thought it necessary to fulfil it without his
knowledge. We are told that they made him drunk, so that
he was unaware of what happened. His guUt therefore is not
that of incest, but of drunkenness. This, too, is condemned
by the eternal law, which aUows meat and drink only as re
quhed by nature for the preservation of health. There is, in
deed, a great difference between a drunk man and an habitual
drunkard ; for the drunkard is not always drunk, and a man
may be drunk on one occasion without being a drunkard.
However, in the case of a righteous man, we requhe to account
for even one instance of drunkenness. What can have made
Lot consent to receive from his daughters aU the cups of wine
which they went on mixing for him, or perhaps giving him
unmixed ? Did they feign excessive grief, and did he resort to
this consolation in their loneliness, and in the loss of their
mother, thinking that they were drinking too, while they only
pretended to drink ? But this does not seem a proper method
for a righteous man to take in consoling his friends when in
trouble. Had the daughters learned in Sodom some vile art
which enabled them to intoxicate their father with a few cups,
so that in his ignorance he might sin, or rather be sinned
against ? But it is not likely that the Scripture would have

BOOK XXII.] ISAAC AND REBECCA. 437
omitted aU notice of this, or that God would have aUowed His
servant to be thus abused without any fault of his own.
45. But we are defending the sacred Scriptures, not man's
sins. Nor are we concerned to justify this action, as if our
God had either commanded it or approved of it; or as if,
when men are caUed just in Scripture, it meant that they
could not sin if they chose. And as, in the books which those
critics find fault with, God nowhere expresses approval of this
action, what thoughtless foUy it is to bring a charge from this
narrative against these writings, when in other places such
actions are condemned by express prohibitions ! In the story
of Lot's daughters the action is related, not commended. And
it is proper that the judgment of God should be declared in
some cases, and concealed in others, that by its manifestation
our ignorance may be enhghtened, and that by its concealment
our minds may be improved by the exercise of recalhng what
we aheady know, or our indolence stimulated to seek for an
explanation. Here, then, God, who can bring good out of
evil, made nations arise from this origin, as He saw good, but
did not bring upon His own Scriptures the guilt of man's sin.
It is God's writing, but not His doing; He does not propose
these things for our imitation, but holds them up for our
warning. 46. Faustus' effrontery appears notably in his accusing Isaac
also, the son of Abraham, of pretending that his wife Eebecca
was his sister.1 For the family of Eebecca is told us, and it
appears that she was his sister in the weU-known sense of the
word. His concealing that she was his wife is not surprising,
nor is it insignificant, if he did it in imitation of his father, so
that he can be justified on the same grounds. We need only
refer to the answer aheady given to Faustus' charge against
Abraham, as being equaUy apphcable to Isaac. Perhaps, how
ever, some inquher wUl ask what typical significance there is
in the foreign king discovering Eebecca to be the wife of
Isaac by seeing him playing with her ; for he would not have
known, had he not seen Isaac playing with Eebecca as it
would have been improper to do with a woman not his wife.
When holy men act thus as husbands, they do it not foolishly,
1 Gen. xxvi. 7.

438 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
but designedly : for they accommodate themselves to the nature
of the weaker sex in words and actions of gentle playfulness ;
not in effeminacy, but in subdued manliness. But such beha
viour towards any woman except a wife would be disgraceful.
This is a question in good manners, which is referred to only
in case some stern advocate of insensibility should find fault
with the holy man even for playing with his wife. For if
these men without humanity see a sedate man chatting play-
fuUy with children that he may adapt himself to the chUdish
understanding with kindly sympathy, they think that he is
insane ; forgetting that they themselves were once chUdren, or
unthankful for theh maturity. The typical • meaning, as re
gards Christ and His Church, which is to be found in this
great patriarch playing with his wife, and in the conjugal re
lation being thus discovered, wiU be seen by every one who,
to avoid offending the Church by erroneous doctrine, carefuUy
studies in Scripture the secret of the Church's Bridegroom.
He wUl find that the Husband of the Church concealed for a
time in the form of a servant the majesty in which He was
equal to the Father, as being in the form of God, that feeble
humanity might be capable of union with Him, and that so
He might accommodate Himself to His spouse. So far from
being absurd, it has a symbohc suitableness that the prophet
of God should use a playfulness which is of the flesh to meet
the affection of his wife, as the Word of God Himself became
flesh that He might dweU among us.
47. Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having
committed a great crime because he had four wives. But
here there is no ground for a criminal accusation : for a
plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom ; and
it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There
are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins
against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob
sin in having a plurality of wives ? As regards nature, he
used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the pro
creation of chUdren. For custom, this was the common prac
tice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no
prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime
now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.

BOOK XXII.] POLYGAMY. 439
Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his
wives only to get children, stiU commits sin, and does an in
jury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is that
the procreation of chUdren is required. In the present altered
state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a
plurality of wives, except from an excess of lust ; and so the
mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had
many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful
deshes. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind
is beyond theh conception, they compare themselves with
themselves, as the apostle says,1 and so make mistakes. Con
scious that, in theh intercourse though with one wife only,
they are often influenced by mere animal passion instead of
an inteUigent motive, they think it an obvious inference that,
if the limits of moderation are not observed where there is
only one wife, the infirmity must be aggravated where there
are more than one.
48. But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be aUowed to judge of the conduct of holy men,
any more than those in fever of the sweetness and whole-
someness of food. Nourishment must be provided not by the
dictates of the sickly taste, but rather by the judgment and
direction of health, so as to cure the sickness. If our critics,
then, wish .to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine
and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the
Scripture record, that the honourable name of saint is given
not without reason to men who had several wives ; and that
the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control
over the flesh as not to aUow the appetite implanted in our
nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate in
tention By a similar misunderstanding, this criticism, which
consists rather in dishonest slander than in honest judgment,
might accuse the holy apostles too of preaching the gospel to
so many people, not from the desire of begetting children to
eternal life, but from the love of human praise. There was
no lack of renown to these our fathers in the gospel, for their
praise was spread in numerous tongues through the churches
of Christ. In fact, no greater honour and glory could have
1 2 Cor. x. 12.

440 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
been paid by men to their feUow-creatures. It was the sinful
desire for this glory in the Church which led the reprobate
Simon in his bhndness to wish to purchase for money what
was freely bestowed on the apostles by divine grace.1 There
must have been this desire of glory in the man whom the
Lord in the Gospel checks in his desire to foUow Him, saying,
" The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests,
but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head." 2 The
Lord saw that his mind was darkened by false appearances
and elated by sudden emotion, and that there was no ground
of faith to afford a lodging to the Teacher of humUity ; for in
Christ's discipleship the man sought not Christ's grace, but his
own glory. By this love of glory those were led away whom
the Apostle Paul characterizes as preaching Christ not sincerely,
but of contention and envy ; and yet the apostle rejoices in
their preaching, knowing that it might happen that, whUe the
preachers gratified their desire for human praise, behevers
might be born among their hearers, — not as the result of the
envious feeling which made them wish to rival or surpass the
fame of the apostles, but by means of the gospel which they
preached, though not sincerely ; so that God might bring good
out of their evU. So a man may be induced to marry by sen
sual deshe, and not to beget chUdren ; and yet a chUd may
be born, a good work of God, due to the natural power, not to
the misconduct of the parent. As, therefore, the holy apostles
were gratified when theh doctrine met with acceptance from
theh hearers, not because they were greedy for praise, but be
cause they desired to spread the truth ; so the holy patriarchs
in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of
pleasure, but by the inteUigent desire for the continuance of
their family. Thus the number of their hearers did not make
the apostles ambitious ; nor did the number of their wives make
the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to
whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony,
when it appears that the wives themselves looked upon theh
connection with their husbands only as a means of getting
sons ? So, when they found themselves barren, they gave
theh handmaids to their husbands ; so that while the hand-
1 Acts viii. 18-20. 2 Matt. viii. 20.

BOOK XXII.] JACOB'S WIVES. 441
maids had the fleshly motherhood, the -wives were mothers in
intention. 49. Faustus makes a most groundless statement when he
accuses the four women of quarreUing hke abandoned cha
racters for the possession of theh husband. Where Faustus
read this I know not, unless it was in his own heart, as in a
book of impious delusions, in which Faustus himself is seduced
by that serpent with regard to whom the apostle feared for the
Church, which he desired to present as a chaste virgin to
Christ ; lest, as the serpent had deceived Eve by his subtlety,
so he should also corrupt their minds by turning them away
from the simphcity of Christ.1 The Manichaeans are so fond
of this serpent, that they assert that he did more good than
harm. From him Faustus must have got his mind corrupted
with the lies instiUed into it, which he now reproduces in
these infamous calumnies, and is even bold enough to put
down in writing. It is not true that one of the handmaids
carried off Jacob from the other, or that they quarrelled about
possessing him. There was arrangement, because there was
no licentious passion ; and the law of conjugal authority was
aU the stronger that there was none of the lawlessness of
fleshly deshe. His being hired by one of his wives proves
what is here said, in plain opposition to the hbels of the
Manichaeans. Why should one have hired him, unless by
the arrangement he was to have gone in to the other ? It
does not foUow that he would never have gone in to Leah
unless she had hired him. He must have gone to her always
in her turn, for he had many children by her ; and in obedience
to her he had chUdren by her handmaid, and afterwards, with
out any hiring, by herself. On this occasion it was Bachei's
turn, so that she had the power so expressly mentioned in the
New Testament by the apostle, " The husband hath not power
over his own body, but the wife."2 Eachel had a bargain with
her sister, and, being in her sister's debt, she referred her to
Jacob, her own debtor. For the apostle uses this figure when
he says, " Let the husband render unto the wife what is due." 3
Eachel gave what was in her power as due from her husband,
in return for what she had chosen to take from her sister.
1 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3. 2 1 Cor. vii. 4. a i qot_ ^ g

442 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXn.
50. If Jacob had been of such a character as Faustus in
his incurable bhndness supposes, and not a servant of right
eousness rather than of concupiscence, would he not have been
looking forward eagerly aU day to the pleasure of passing the
night with the more beautiful of his wives, whom he certainly
loved more than the other, and for whom he paid the price of
twice seven years of gratuitous service ? How, then, at the
close of the day, on his way to his beloved, could he have con
sented to be turned aside, if he had been such as the ignorant
Manichaeans represent him ? Would he not have disregarded
the wish of the women, and insisted upon going to the fair
Eachel, who belonged to him that night not only as his lawful
wife, but also as coming in regular order ? He would thus have
used his power as a husband, for the wife also has not power
over her own body, but the husband; and having on this
occasion the arrangement in theh obedience in favour of the
gratification of his love of beauty, he might have enforced his
authority the more successfully. In that case it would be to
the credit of the women, that whUe he thought of his own
pleasure they contended about having a son. As it was, this
virtuous man, in manly control of sensual appetite, thought
more of what was due from hhn than to him, and instead of
using his power for his own pleasure, consented to be only
the debtor in this mutual obligation. So he consented to pay
the debt to the person to whom she to whom it was due wished
him to pay it. When, by this private bargain of his wives,
Jacob was suddenly and unexpectedly forced to turn from the
beautiful wife to the plain one, he did not give way either to
anger or to disappointment, nor did he try to persuade his
wives to let him have his own way ; but, hke a just husband
and an inteUigent parent, seeing his wives concerned about
the production of chUdren, which was aU he himself desired
in marriage, he thought it best to yield to their authority, in
desiring that each should have a chUd : for, since aU the chU
dren were his, his own authority was not impaired. As if he
had said to them : Arrange as you please among yourselves
which is to be the mother ; it matters not to me, since in any
case I am the father. This control over the appetites, and
simple desire to beget chUdren, Faustus would have been clever

BOOK XXH.] SYMBOLICAL MEANING. 443'
enough to see and approve, unless his mind had been corrupted
by the shocking tenets of his sect, which lead him to find
fault with everything in the Scripture, and, moreover, teach
him to condemn as the greatest crime the procreation of chU
dren, which is the proper design of marriage.
51. Now, having defended the character of the patriarch,
and refuted an accusation arising from these detestable errors,
let us avaU ourselves of the opportunity of searching out the
symbohcal meaning, and let us knock with the reverence of
faith, that the Lord may open to us the typical significance of
the four wives of Jacob, of whom two were free, and two
slaves. We see that, in the wife and bond-slaves of Abraham,
the apostle understands the two Testaments.1 But there, one
represents each ; here, the application does not suit so weU, as
there are two and two. There, also, the son of the bond-slave
is disinherited ; but here the sons of the slaves receive the
land of promise along with the sons of the free women : so
that this type must have a different meaning.
52. Supposing that the two free wives point to the New
Testament, by which we are caUed to liberty, what is the
meaning of there being two ? Perhaps because in Scripture,
as the attentive reader wUl find, we are said to have two lives
in the body of Christ, — one temporal, in which we suffer pain,
and one eternal, in which we shaU behold the blessedness of
God. We see the one in the Lord's passion, and the other in
His resurrection. The names of the women point to this
meaning. It is said that Leah means Suffering, and Eachel
the First Principle made visible, or the Word which makes
the First Principle visible. The action, then, of our mortal
human life, in which we live by faith, doing many painful
tasks without knowing what benefit may result from them to
those in whom we are interested, is Leah, Jacob's first -wife.
And thus she is said to have had weak eyes. For the purposes
of mortals are timid, and our plans uncertain. Again, the hope
of the eternal contemplation of God, accompanied with a sure
and delightful perception of truth, is Eachel. And on this
account she is described as fair and weU-formed. This is the
beloved of every pious student, and for this he serves the grace
1 Gal. iv. 22-24.

444 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXn.
of God, by which our sins, though hke scarlet, are made white
as snow.1 For Laban means making white ; and we read that
Jacob served Laban for Eachel.2 No man turns to serve
righteousness, in subjection to the grace of forgiveness, but
that he may live in peace in the Word which makes visible
the First Principle, or God ; that is, he serves for Eachel, not
for Leah. For what a man loves in the works of righteous
ness is not the toU of doing and suffering. No one desires
this hfe for its own sake ; as Jacob desired not Leah, who yet
was brought to him, and became his wife, and the mother of
chUdren. Though she could not be loved of herself, the Lord
made her be borne with as a step to Eachel ; and then she
came to be approved of on account of her children. Thus
every useful servant of God, brought into His grace by which
his sins are made white, has in his mind, and heart, and affec
tion, when he thus turns to God, nothing but the knowledge
of wisdpm. This we often expect to attain as a reward for
practising the seven precepts of the law which concern the
love of our neighbour, that we injure no one : namely, Honour
thy father and mother ; Thou shalt not commit adultery ; Thou
shalt not kiU; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear
false witness ; Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's wife ;
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's property. When a man
has obeyed these to the best of his abUity, and, instead of the
bright joys of truth which he deshed and hoped for, finds in
the darkness of the manifold trials of this world that he is
bound to painful endurance, or has embraced Leah instead of
Eachel, if there is perseverance in his love, he bears with the
one in order to attain the other ; and as if it were said to bim,
Serve seven other years for Eachel, he hears seven new com
mands, — to be poor in spirit, to be meek, to be a mourner, to
hunger and thirst after righteousness, to be merciful, pure, and
a peacemaker.8 A man would desire, if it were possible, to
obtain at once the joys of lovely and perfect wisdom, without
the endurance of toU in action and suffering; but this is
impossible in mortal hfe. This seems to be meant, when it is
said to Jacob : " It is not the custom in our country to marry
the younger before the elder."4 The elder may very weU
1 Isa. i. 18. * Gen. xxix. 17. 3 Matt. v. 3-9. * Gen. xxix. 26.

BOOK XXII.J LEAH AND RACHEL. 445
mean the first in order of time. So, in the discipline of man,
the toil of doing the work of righteousness precedes the delight
of understanding the truth.
53. To this purpose it is written : " Thou hast desired wis
dom; keep the commandments, and the Lord shaU give it
thee." x The commandments are those concerning righteous
ness, and the righteousness is that which is by faith, surrounded
with the uncertainty of temptations ; so that understanding is
the reward of a pious behef of what is not yet understood. J
The meaning I have given to these words, " Thou hast de
shed wisdom; keep the commandments, and the Lord shaU
give it thee," I find also in the passage, " Unless ye believe,
ye shaU not understand ; " 2 showing that as righteousness is
by faith, understanding comes by wisdom. Accordingly, in
the case of those who eagerly demand evident truth, we must
not condemn the deshe, but regulate it, so that beginning with
faith it may proceed to the deshed end through good works.
The hfe of vhtue is one of toU ; the end deshed is unclouded
wisdom. Why should I beheve, says one, what is not clearly
proved ? Let me hear some word which wiU disclose the first
principle of aU things. This is the one great craving of the
rational soul in the pursuit of truth. And the answer is,
What you deshe is exceUent, and weU worthy of your love ;
but Leah is to be married first, and then Eachel. The proper
effect of your eagerness is to lead you to submit to the right
method, instead of rebelling against it ; for without this method
you cannot attain what you so eagerly long for. And when
it is attained, the possession of the lovely form of knowledge
wiU be in this world accompanied with the toUs of righteous
ness. For however clear and true our perception in this life
may be of the unchangeable good, the mortal body stUl is a
weight on the mind, and the earthly tabernacle is a clog on
the inteUect in its manifold activity. The end, then, is one,
but many things must be gone through for the sake of it.
54. Thus Jacob has two free wives ; for both are daughters
of the remission of sins, or of whitening, that is, of Laban.
One is loved, the other is borne. But she that is borne is the
most and the soonest fruitful, that she may be loved, if not
1 Ecclus. i. 33. 2 Isa. vii. 9, Vulg.

446 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. TbOOK XXH

for herself, at least for her children. For the toil of the
righteous is specially fruitful in those whom they beget for
the kingdom of God, by preaching the gospel amid many
trials and temptations; and they caU those theh joy and
crown x for whom they are in labours more abundantly, in
stripes above measure, in deaths often,2 — for whom they have
fightings without and fears within.3 Such births result most
easily and plentifully from the word of faith, the preaching of
Christ crucified, which speaks also of His human nature as far
as it can be easUy understood, so as not to hurt the weak eyes
of Leah. Eachel, again, with clear eye, is beside herself to
God,4 and sees in the beginning the Word of God with God,
and wishes to bring forth, but cannot ; for who shaU declare
His generation ? So the life devoted to contemplation, in order
to see with no feeble mental eye things invisible to fiesh, but
understood by the things that are made, and to discern the
ineffable manifestation of the eternal power and divinity of
God, seeks leisure from aU occupation, and is therefore barren.
In this habit of retirement, where the fire of meditation burns
bright, there is a want of sympathy with human weakness,, and
with the need men have of our help in theh calamities. This
hfe also burns with the deshe for chUdren (for it wishes to
teach what it knows, and not to go with the corruption of
envy8), and sees its sister-hfe fuUy occupied with work and
with bringing forth ; and it grieves that men run after that
vhtue which cares for their wants and weaknesses, instead of
that which has a divine imperishable lesson to impart. This
is what is meant when it is said, " Eachel envied her sister."6
Moreover, as the pure inteUectual perception of that which is
not matter, and so is not the object of the bodUy sense, cannot
be expressed in words which spring from the flesh, the doctrine
of wisdom prefers to get some lodging for divine truth in the
mind by whatever material figures and Ulustrations occur,
rather than to give up teaching these things ; and thus Eachel
preferred that her husband should have chUdren by her hand
maid, rather than that she should be without any chUdren.
BUhah, the name of her handmaid, is said to mean old ; and
' Phil.- iv. 1. 2 2 Cor. xi. 23. 3 2 Cor. vii. 5.
4 2 Cor. v. 13. 5 Wisd. vi. 23. 6 Gen. xxx. 1.

BOOK XXII.] BILHAH AND ZILPAH. 447
so, even when we speak of the spiritual and unchangeable
nature of God, ideas are suggested relathig to the old hfe of
the bodUy senses.
55. Leah, too, got chUdren by her handmaid, from the de
she of having a numerous famUy. Zilpah, her handmaid, is,
interpreted, an open mouth. So Leah's handmaid represents
those who are spoken of in Scripture as engaging in the
preaching of the gospel with open mouth, but not with open
heart. Thus it is written of some : " This people honour me
with their hps, but theh heart is far from me." x To such
the apostle says : " Thou that preachest that a man should not
steal, dost thou steal ? Thou that sayest a man should not
commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery ?" 2 But that even
by this arrangement the free wife of Jacob, the type of labour
or endurance, might obtain chUdren to be heirs of the king
dom, the Lord says : " What they say, do ; but do not after
theh works." 3 And again, the apostohc hfe, when enduring
imprisonment, says : " Whether Christ is preached in pretence
or in truth, I therein do rejoice, yea, and wiU rejoice." 4 It
is the joy of the mother over her numerous famUy, though
born of her handmaid.
56. In one instance Leah owed her becoming a mother to
Eachel, who, in return for some mandrakes, aUowed her hus
band to give her night to her sister. Some, I know, think
that eating this fruit has the effect of making barren women
productive ; and that Eachel, from her deshe for children, was
thus bent on getting the fruit from her sister. But I should
not agree to this, even had Eachel conceived at the time. As
Leah then conceived, and, besides, had two other chUdren
before God opened Eachel's womb, there is no reason for sup
posing any such quahty in the mandrake, without any expe
rience to prove it. I wiU give my explanation ; those better
able than I may give a better. Though this fruit is not often
met with, I had once, to my great satisfaction, on account of
its connection with this passage of Scripture, an opportunity
of seeing it. I examined the fruit as carefuUy as I could, not
with the help of any recondite knowledge of the nature of
roots or the virtues of plants, but only as to what I or any one
1 Isa. xxix. 13. 2 Rom. ii. 21, 22. 3 Matt, xxiii. 3. i Phil. i. 18.

448 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
might learn from the sight, and smeU, and taste. I thought
it a nice-looking fruit, and sweet-smeUing, but insipid ; and
I confess it is hard to say why Eachel deshed it so much,
unless it was for its rarity and its sweet smeU. Why the
incident should be narrated in Scripture, in which the fancies
of women would not be mentioned as important unless it was
intended that we should learn some important lesson from
them, the only thing I can think of is the very simple idea
that the fruit represents a good character ; not the praise given
a man by a few just and wise people, but popular report, which
bestows greatness and renown on a man, and which is not de
sirable for its own sake, but is essential to the success of good
men in their endeavours to benefit their feUow-men. So the
apostle says, that it is proper to have a good report of those
that are without j1 for though they are not infaUible, the lustre
of their praise and the odour of their good opinion are a great
help to the efforts of those who seek to benefit them. And
this popular renown is not obtained by those that are highest
in the Church, unless they expose themselves to the toUs and
hazards of an active life. Thus the son of Leah found the
mandrakes when he went out into the field, that is, when
walking honestly towards those that are without. The pur
suit of wisdom, on the other hand, retired from the busy
crowd, and lost in calm meditation, could never obtain a par
ticle of this pubhc approval, except through those who take
the management of pubhc business, not for the sake of being
leaders, but in order to be useful These men of action and
business exert themselves for the pubhc benefit, and by a
popular use of theh influence gain the approval of the people
even for the quiet life of the student and inquirer after truth ;
and thus through Leah the mandrakes come into the hands of
Eachel. Leah herself got them from her first-born son, that
is, in honour of her fertUity, which represents aU the useful
result of a laborious life exposed to the common vicissitudes ;
a life which many avoid on account of its troublesome engage
ments, because, although they might be able to take the lead,
they are bent on study, and devote aU their powers to the
quiet pursuit of knowledge, in love with the beauty of Eachel.
1 1 Tim. iii. 7.

BOOK XXII.] RETIREMENT AND RENOWN. 449
5 7. But as it is right that this studious hfe should gain public
approval by letting itself be known, while it cannot rightly
gain this approval if it keeps its foUower in retirement, in
stead of using his powers for the management of ecclesiastical
affairs, and so prevents his being generaUy useful ; to this
purpose Leah says to her sister, " Is it a smaU matter that
thou hast taken my husband ? and wouldest thou take away
my son's mandrakes also V1 The husband represents aU
those who, though fit for active life, and able to govern the
Church, in administering to behevers the mystery of the
faith, from theh love of learning and of the pursuit of wis
dom, deshe to relinquish aU troublesome occupations, and to
bury themselves in the class-room. Thus the words, " Is it
a smaU matter that thou hast taken my husband ? and
wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also ? " mean,
" Is it a smaU matter that the hfe of study keeps in retire
ment men requhed for the toils of pubhc life ? and does it
ask for popular renown as weU ? "
5 8. To get this renown justly, Eachel gives her husband to her
sister for the night ; that is, those who, by a talent for busi
ness, are fitted for government, must for the pubhc benefit
consent to bear the burden and suffer the hardships of public
life ; lest the pursuit of wisdom, to which their leisure is de
voted, should be evU spoken of, and should not gain from the
multitude the good opinion, represented by the fruit, which is
necessary for the encouragement of theh pupUs. But the life
of business must be forced upon them. This is clearly shown
by Leah's meeting Jacob when coming from the field, and
laying hold of him, saying, " Thou shalt come in to me ; for
I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes."2 As if she
said, Dost thou wish the knowledge which thou lovest to be
weU thought of? Do not shirk the toU of business. The
same thing happens constantly in the Church. What we read
is explained by what we meet with in our own experience.
Do we not everywhere see men coming from secular employ
ments, to seek leisure for the study and contemplation of
truth, theh beloved Eachel, and intercepted mid-way by
ecclesiastical affairs, which requhe them to be set to work, as
1 Gen. xxx. 15. 2 Gen. xxx. 16.
5 2 F

450 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
if Leah said to them, You must come in to me ? When such
men minister in sincerity the mystery of God, so as in the
night of this world to beget sons in the faith, popular approval
is gained also for that hfe, in love for which they were led to
abandon worldly pursuits, and from the adoption of which
they' were caUed away to undertake the benevolent task of
government In att their labours they aim chiefly at this,
that theh chosen way of hfe may have greater and wider
renown, as having supplied the people with such leaders ; as
Jacob consents to go with Leah, that Eachel may obtain the
smeet-smeUing and good-looking fruit. Eachel, too, in course
of time, by the mercy of God, brings forth a chUd herself, but
not tiU after some time ; for it seldom happens that there is
a sound, though only partial, apprehension, without fleshly
ideas, of such sacred lessons of wisdom as this : " In the be
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God." L
5 9. This must suffice as a reply to the false accusations brought
by Faust against the three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
from whom the God whom the Cathohc Church worship was
pleased to take His name. This is not the place to discourse
on the merits and piety of these three men, or on the dignity
of theh prophetic character, which is beyond the comprehen
sion of carnal minds. It is enough in this treatise to defend
them against the calumnious attacks of malevolence and
falsehood, in case those who read the Scriptures in a carping
and hostUe sphit should fancy that they have proved any
thing against the sacredness and the profitableness of these
books, by their attempts to. "blacken the character of men
who are there mentioned so honourably.
6 0 . It should be added that Lot, the brother, that is, the blood
relation, of Abraham, is not to be ranked as equal to those of
whom God says, "I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob ;" nor does he belong to those testified to in Scripture
as having continued righteous to the end, although in Sodom
he hved a pious and virtuous life, and showed a praiseworthy
hospitality, so that he was rescued from the fire, and a land
was given by God to his seed to dwell in, for the sake of his
i John i. 1.

BOOK XXII.] IMPARTIALITY OF SCRIPTURE. 451
uncle Abraham. On these accounts he is commended in
Scripture — not for intemperance or incest. But when we
find bad and good actions recorded of the same person, we
must take warning from the one, and example from the
other. As, then, the sin of Lot, of whom we are told that he
was righteous previous to this sin, instead of bringing a stain
on the character of God, or the truth of Scripture, rather caUs
on us to approve and admire the record in its resemblance to
a faithful mhror, which reflects not only the beauties and
perfections, but also the faults and deformities, of those who
approach it ; stUl more, in the case of Judah, who lay with
his daughter-in-law, we may see how groundless are the re
proaches cast on the narrative. The sacred record has an
authority which raises it far above not merely the cavUs of
a handful of Manichaeans, but the determined enmity of the
whole GentUe world ; for, in confirmation of its claims, we
see that already it has brought nearly aU people from theh
idolatrous superstitions to the worship of one God, according
to the rule of Christianity. It has conquered the world, not
by violence and warfare, but by the resistless force of truth.
Where, then, is Judah praised in Scripture ? Where is anything
good said of him, except that in the blessing pronounced by
his father he is distinguished above the rest, because of the
prophecy that Christ would come in the flesh from his tribe ?J
61. Judah, as Faust says, committed fornication; and besides
that, we can accuse him of seUing his brother into Egypt.
Is it any disparagement to hght, that in reveahng aU things
it discloses what is unsightly ? So neither is the character
of Scripture affected by the evU deeds of which we are in
formed by the record itself. Undoubtedly, by the eternal law,
which requires the preservation of natural order, and forbids
the transgression of it, conjugal intercourse should take place
only for the procreation of chUdren, and after the celebration
of marriage, so as to maintain the bond of peace. Therefore,
the prostitution of women, merely for the gratification of
sinful passion, is condemned by the divine and eternal law.
To purchase the degradation of another, disgraces the pur
chaser ; so that, though the sin would have been greater if
1 Gen. xlix. 8-12.

452 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
Judah had knowingly lain with his daughter-in-law (for if, as
the Lord says, man and wife are no more two, but one flesh,1
a daughter-in-law is the same as a daughter) ; stiU, it is
plain that, as regards his own intention, he was disgraced by
his intercourse with an harlot. The woman, on the other
hand, who deceived her father-in-law, sinned not from wan
tonness, or because she loved the gains of iniquity, but from
her deshe to have children of this particular famUy. So,
being disappointed in two of the brothers, and not obtaining
the thhd, she succeeded by craft in getting a child by theh
father ; and the reward which she got was kept, not as an
ornament, but as a pledge. It would certainly have been
better to have remained childless than to become a mother
without marriage. Still, her deshe to have her father-in-law
as the father of her chUdren was very different from having a
criminal affection for him. And when, by his order, she was
brought out to be killed, on her producing the staff and neck
lace and ring, saying that the father of the child was the man
who had given ber those pledges, Judah acknowledged them,
and said, " She hath been more righteous than I " — not prais
ing her, but condemning himself. He blamed her desire to have
children less than his own unlawful passion, which had led
him to one whom he thought to be an harlot. In a similar
sense, it is said of some that they justified Sodom;2 that is,
their sin was so great, that Sodom seemed righteous in com
parison. And even allowing that this woman is not spoken
of as comparatively less guilty, but is actually praised by her
father-in-law, whUe, on account of her not observing the estab
lished rites of marriage, she is a criminal in the eye of the eter
nal law of right, which forbids the transgression of natural order,
both as regards the body, and first and chiefly as regards the
mind, what wonder though one sinner should praise another ?
6 2. The mistake of Faust and of Manichaeism generaUy, is
in supposing that these objections prove anything against us,
as if our reverence for Scripture, and our profession of regard
for its authority, bound us to approve of aU the evU actions
mentioned in it ; whereas the greater our homage for the Scrip
ture, the more decided must be our condemnation of what the
1 Matt. xix. 6. 2 Ezek. xvi. 52.

BOOK XXII.] JUDAH AND JUDAS. 453
truth of Scripture itseK teaches us to condemn. In Scripture,
aU fornication and adultery are condemned by the divine law ;
accordingly, when actions of this kind are narrated, without
being expressly condemned, it is intended not that we should
praise them, but that we should pass judgment on them our
selves. Every one execrates the cruelty of Herod in the
Gospel, when, in his uneasiness on hearing of the birth of
Christ, he commanded the slaughter of so many infants.1
But this is merely narrated without being condemned. Or if
Manichaean absurdity is bold enough to deny the truth of this
narrative, since they do not admit the bhth of Christ, which
was what troubled Herod, let them read the account of the blind
fury of the Jews, which is related without any expression of
reproach, although the feeling of abhorrence is the same in aU.
63. But, it is said, Judah, who lay with his daughter-in-law,
is reckoned as one of the twelve patriarchs. And was not
Judas, who betrayed the Lord, reckoned among the twelve
apostles ? And was not this one of them, who was a devil,
sent along with them to preach the gospel ? 2 In reply to
this, it wUl be said that after his crime Judas hanged himself,
and was removed from the number of the apostles ; whUe
Judah, after his evU conduct, was not only blessed along with
bis brethren, but got special honour and approval from his
father, who is so highly spoken of in Scripture. But the
main lesson to be learned from this is, that this prophecy
refers not to Judah, but to Christ, who was foretold as to
come in the flesh from his tribe ; and the very reason for the
mention of this crime of Judah is to be found in the desir
ableness of teaching us to look for another meaning in the
words of his father, which are seen not to be apphcable to
him in his misconduct, from the praise which they express.
64. Doubtless, the intention of Faust's calumnies is to damage
this very assertion, that Christ was born of the tribe of Judah.
Especially, as in the genealogy given by Matthew we find
the name of Zara, whom this woman Tamar bore to Judah.
Had Faust wished to reproach Jacob's family merely, and not
Christ's birth, he might have taken the case of Eeuben the
first-born, who committed the unnatural crime of defiling his
1 Matt. ii. 16. 2 John vi. 70, 71.

454 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
father's bed, of which fornication the apostle says, that it was
not so much as named among the GentUes.1 Jacob also
mentions this in his blessing, charging his son with the in
famous deed. Faust might have brought up this, as Eeuben
seems to have been guUty of dehberate incest, and there was
no harlot's disguise in this case, were it not that Tamar's
conduct in desiring nothing but to have chUdren is more
odious to Faust than if she had acted from criminal passion,
and did he not wish to discredit the incarnation, by bringing
reproach on Christ's progenitors. Faust unhappily is not
aware that the most true and truthful Saviour is a teacher,
not only in His words, but also in His bhth. In His fleshly
origin there is this lesson for those who should beheve on
Hhn from aU nations, that the sins of theh fathers need be
no hindrance to them. Besides, the Bridegroom, who was to
caU good and bad to His marriage,2 was pleased to assinhlate
Himself to His guests, in being born of good and bad. He
thus confirms as typical of Himself the symbol of the Passover,
in which it was commanded that the lamb to be eaten should
be taken from the sheep or from the goats — that is, from the
righteous or the wicked.3 Preserving throughout the indica
tion of divinity and humanity, as man He consented to have
both bad and good as His parents, whUe as God He chose the
miraculous bhth from a -virgin.
65. The impiety, therefore, of Faust's attacks on Scripture
can injure no one but himself; for what he thus assaUs is now
deservedly the object of universal reverence. As has been
said already, the sacred record, like a faithful mirror, has no
flattery in its portraits, and either itseK passes sentence upon
human actions as worthy of approval or disapproval, or leaves
the reader to do so. And not only does it distinguish men as
blameworthy or praiseworthy, but it also takes notice of cases
where the blameworthy deserve praise, and the praiseworthy
blame. Thus, although Saul was blameworthy, it was not the
less praiseworthy in him to examine so carefuUy who had
eaten food during the curse, and to pronounce the stern sen
tence in obedience to the commandment of God.4 So, too, he
was right in banishing those that had famUiar sphits and
1 1 Cor. v. 1. a Matt. xxii. 10. 3 Ex. xii. 3-5. 4 1 Sam. xiv.

BOOK XXII.] DAVID'S BAD DEEDS RECORDED. 455
wizards out of the land.1 And although David was praise
worthy, we are not caUed on to approve or imitate his sins,
which God rebukes by the prophet. And so Pontius PUate
was not wrong in pronouncing the Lord innocent, in spite of
the accusations of the Jews ;2 nor was it praiseworthy in Peter
to deny the Lord thrice ; nor, again, was he praiseworthy on
that occasion when Christ caUed him Satan, because, not un
derstanding the things of God, he wished to withhold Christ
from his passion — that is, from our salvation. Here Peter, im
mediately after being called blessed, is caUed Satan.3 Which
character most truly belonged to him, we may see from his
apostleship, and from his crown of martyrdom.
66. In the case of David also, we read of both good and
bad actions. But where David's strength lay, and what was
the secret of his success, is sufficiently plain, not to the blind
malevolence with which Faust assaUs holy writings and holy
men, but to pious discernment, which bows to the divine
authority, and at the same time judges correctly of human
conduct. The Manichaeans wUl find, if they read the Scrip
tures, that God rebukes David more than Faust does.4 But
they wUl read also of the sacrifice of his penitence, of his
surpassing gentleness to his mercUess and bloodthirsty enemy,
whom David, pious as he was brave, dismissed unhurt when
now and again he feU into his hands.5 They wiU read of his
memorable humUity under divine chastisement, when the
kingly neck was so bowed under the Master's yoke, that he
bore with perfect patience bitter taunts from his enemy; though
he was armed, and had armed men with him. And when his
companion was enraged at such things being said to the king,
and was on the point of requiting the insult on the head of
the scoffer, he mUdly restrained him, appealing to the fear of
God in support of his own royal order, and saying that this
had happened to hhn as a punishment from God, who had sent
the man to curse him.6 They wiU read how, with the love *of
a shepherd for the flock entrusted to him, he was wilhng to
die for them, when, after he had numbered the people, God
saw good to punish his sinful pride by lessening the number
1 1 Sam. xxviii. 3. = John xix. 4, 6. 3 Matt. xvi. 17, 22, 23.
* 2 Sam. xii. 5 1 Sam. xxiv. and xxvi. 6 2 Sam. xvi.

456 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
he boasted of. In this destruction, God, with whom there is
no iniquity, in His secret judgment, both took away the hves
of those whom He knew to be unworthy of hfe, and by this
diminution cured the vainglory which had prided itseK on the
number of the people. They wiU read of that scrupulous fear
of God in his regard for the emblem of Christ in the sacred
anointing, which made David's heart smite him with regret
for having secretly cut off a smaU piece of Saul's garment, that
he might prove to him that he had no wish to kUl him, when
he might have done it. They wUl read of his judicious be
haviour as regards his chUdren, and also of his tenderness toward
them — how, when one was sick, he entreated the Lord for him
with many tears and with much self-abasement, but when he
died, an innocent chUd, he did not mourn for him ; and again,
how, when his youthful son was carried away with unnatural
hostility to an infamous violation of his father's bed, and in a
parricidal war, he wished him to hve, and wept for him when
he was kiUed ; for he thought of the eternal doom of a soul
guilty of such crimes, and desired that he should live to escape
this doom by being brought to submission and repentance.
These, and many other praiseworthy and exemplary things, may
be seen in this holy man by a candid examination of the Scrip
ture narrative, especiaUy if in humble piety and unfeigned
faith we regard the judgment of God, who knew the secrets of
David's heart, and who, in His infaUible inspection, so approves
of David as to commend him as a pattern to his sons.
6 7. It must have been on account of this inspection of the
depths of David's heart by the Spirit of God that, when on
being reproved by the prophet, he said, I have sinned, he was
considered worthy to be told, immediately after this brief con
fession, that he was pardoned — that is, that he was admitted
to eternal salvation. For he did not escape the correction of
the fatherly rod, of which God spoke in His threatening, that,
while by his confession he obtained eternal exemption, he
might be tried by temporal chastisement. And it is a re
markable evidence of the strength of David's faith, and of his
meek and submissive sphit, that, when he had been told by
the prophet that God had forgiven him, although the threat
ened consequences were stiU permitted to foUow, he did not

BOOK XXII.] DAVID ACCEPTED BY GOD. 457
accuse the prophet of having deluded him, or murmur against
God as having mocked him with a declaration of forgiveness.
This deeply holy man, whose soul was lifted up unto God, and
not against God, knew that had not the Lord mercifully ac
cepted his confession and repentance, his sins would have de
served eternal punishment. So when, instead of this, he was
made to smart under temporal correction, he saw that, whUe
the pardon remained good, wholesome discipline was also pro
vided. Saul, too, when he was reproved by Samuel, said, I
have sinned.1 Why, then, was he not considered fit to be told,
as David was, that the Lord had pardoned his sin ? Is there
acceptance of persons with God ? Far from it. WhUe to the
human ear the words were the same, the divine eye saw a dif
ference in the heart. The lesson for us to learn from these
things is, that the kingdom of heaven is within us,2 and that
we must worship God from our inmost feelings, that out of
the abundance of the heart the mouth may speak, instead of
honouring Him with our hps, hke the people of old, whUe our
hearts are far from Him. We may learn also to judge of men,
whose hearts we cannot see, only as God judges, who sees
what we cannot, and who cannot be biassed or misled. Hav
ing, on the high authority of sacred Scripture, the plainest
announcement of God's opinion of David, we may regard as
absurd or deplorable the rashness of men who hold a different
opinion. The authority of Scripture, as regards the character
of these men of ancient times, is supported by the evidence
from the prophecies which they contain, and which are now
receiving theh fulfilment.
68. We see the same thing in the Gospel, where the devUs
confess that Christ is the Son of God in the words used by
Peter, but with a very different heart. So, though the words
were the same, Peter is praised for his faith, wlhle the im
piety of the devUs is checked. For Christ, not by human
sense, but by divine knowledge, could inspect and infaUibly
discriminate the sources from which the words came. Besides,
there are multitudes who confess that Christ is the Son of the
hving God, without meriting the same approval as Peter — not
only of those who shaU say in that day, " Lord, Lord," and
1 1 Sam. xv. 24. 2 Luke xvii. 28.

458 ' REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXH.
shaU receive the sentence, "Depart from me," but also of
those who shaU be placed on the right hand. They may pro
bably never have denied Christ even once ; they may never
have opposed His suffering for our salvation ; they may never
have forced the GentUes to do as the Jews ; x and yet they
shaU not be honoured equaUy with Peter, who, though he did
aU these things, wUl sit on one of the twelve thrones, and
judge not only the twelve tribes, but the angels. So, again,
many who have never desired another man's wife, or procured
the death of the husband, as David did, wiU never reach the
place which David nevertheless held in the divine favour.
There is a vast difference between what is in itseK so unde
sirable that it must be utterly rejected, and the rich and plen
teous harvest which may afterwards appear. For farmers are
best pleased with the fields from which, after weeding them,
it may be, of great thistles, they receive an hundred-fold ; not
with fields which have never had any thistles, and hardly bear
thirty-fold. 69. So Moses, too, who was so faithful a servant of God in
aU his house ; the minister of the holy, just, and good law ;
of whose character the apostle speaks in the words here quoted;2
the minister also of the symbols which, though not conferring
salvation, promised the Saviour, as the Saviour Himself shows,
when He says, " If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe
me, for he wrote of me," — from which passage we have already
sufficiently answered the presumptuous cavils of the Mani
chaeans ; — this Moses, the servant of the living, the true, the
most high God, that made heaven and earth, not of a foreign sub
stance, but of nothing— not from the pressure of necessity, but
from plenitude of goodness — not by the suffering of His mem
bers, but by the power of His word;— this Moses, who humbly
put from him this high ministry, but obediently accepted it,
and faithfuUy kept it, and diligently fulfilled it ; who ruled
the people with vigilance, reproved them with vehemence,
loved them with fervour, and bore with them in patience,
standing for his subjects before God to receive His counsel,
and to appease His wrath ; — this great and good man is not to
be judged of from Faustus' malicious representations, but from
1 Gal. ii. 14. * Heb. iii. 5.

BOOK XXII.] MOSES. 459
what is said by God, whose word is a true expression of His
true opinion of this man, whom He knew because He made him.
For the sins of men are also known to God, though He is not
their author ; but He takes notice of them as a judge in those
who refuse to own them, and pardons them as a father in
those who make confession. His servant Moses, as thus de
scribed, we love and admire, and to the best of our power
imitate, coming indeed far short of his merits, though we have
kUled no Egyptian, nor plundered any one, nor carried on any
war; which actions of Moses were in one case prompted by the
zeal of the future champion of his people, and in the other
cases commanded by God.
70. It might be shown that, though Moses slew the Egyptian,
without being commanded by God, the action was divinely
permitted, as, from the prophetic character of Moses, it pre
figured something in the future. Now, however, I do not
use this argument, but view the action as having no sym
bohcal meaning. In the hght, then, of the eternal law, it was
wrong for one who had no legal authority to kUl the man,
even though he was a bad character, besides being the
aggressor. But in minds where great vhtue is to come,
there is often an early crop of vices, in which we may stiU
discern a disposition for some particular vhtue, which wiU
come when the mind is duly cultivated. For as farmers,
when they see land bringing forth huge crops, though of
weeds, pronounce it good for corn; or when they see wUd
creepers, which have to be rooted out, stiU consider the land
good for useful vines ; and when they see a hiU covered with
wUd ohves, conclude that with culture it wUl produce good
fruit : so the disposition of mind which led Moses to take the
law into his own hands, to prevent the wrong done to his
brother, hving among strangers, by a wicked citizen of the
country from being unrequited, was not unfit for the produc
tion of virtue, but from want of culture gave signs of its pro
ductiveness in an unjustifiable manner. He who afterwards,
by His angel, catted Moses on Mount Sinai, with the divine
commission to hberate the people of Israel from Egypt, and
who trained hhn to obedienee by the miraculous appearance
in the bush burning but not consumed, and by instructing

460 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.EAN. [BOOK XXH.
him in his ministry, was the same who, by the call addressed
from heaven to Saul when persecuting the Church, humbled
him, raised him up, and animated him ; or in figurative words,
by this stroke He cut off the branch, grafted it, and made it
fruitful. For the fierce energy of Paul, when in his zeal for
hereditary traditions he persecuted the Church, thinking that
he was doing God service, was hke a crop of weeds showing
great signs of productiveness. It was the same in Peter,
when he took his sword out of its sheath to defend the Lord,
and cut off the right ear of an assaUant, when the Lord re
buked him with something like a threat, saying, " Put up thy
sword into its sheath ; for he that taketh the sword shall
perish by the sword." * To take the sword is to use weapons
against a man's life, without the sanction of the constituted
authority. The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry
a sword ; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after
this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no
more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian,
should become the leader of the congregation. In both cases
the trespass originated not in inveterate cruelty, but in a
hasty zeal which admitted of correction. In both cases there
was resentment against injury, accompanied in one case by
love for a brother, and in the other by love, though stUl
carnal, of the Lord. Here was evU to be subdued or rooted
out; but the heart with such capacities needed only, like
good soU, to be cultivated to make it fruitful in virtue.
71. Then, as for Faustus' objection to the spoiling of the Egyp
tians, he knows not what he says. In this Moses not only did
not sin, but it would have been sin not to do it. It was by
the command of God,2 who, from His knowledge both of the
actions and of the hearts of men, can decide on what every
one should be made to suffer, and through whose agency.
The people at that time were still carnal, and engrossed with
earthly affection ; while the Egyptians were in open rebellion
against God, for they used the gold, God's creature, in the
service of idols, to the dishonour of the Creator, and they
had grievously oppressed strangers by making them work
without pay. Thus the Egyptians deserved the punishment,
' Matt. xxvi. 51, 52. 2 Ex. iii. 21, 22 ; xi. 2 ; xii. 35, 36.

BOOK XXII.] WHAT GOD COMMANDS IS RIGHT. 461
and the Israehtes were suitably employed in inflicting it.
Perhaps, indeed, it was not so much a command as a per
mission to the Hebrews to act in the matter according to their
own inchnations ; and God, in sending the message by Moses,
only wished that they should thus be informed of His permis
sion. There may also have been mysterious reasons for what
God said to the people oh this matter. At any rate, God's
commands are to be submissively received, not to be argued
against. The apostle says, " Who hath known the mind of
the Lord ? or who hath been His counseUor ? " x Whether,
then, the reason was what I have said, or whether, in the
secret appointment of God, there was some unknown reason
for His telling the people by Moses to borrow things from the
Egyptians, and to take them away with them, this remains
certain, that this was said for some good reason, and that
Moses could not lawfuUy have done otherwise than God told
hhn, leaving to God the reason of the command, whUe the
servant's duty is to obey.
72. But, says Faustus, it cannot be admitted that the true
God, who is also good, ever gave such a command. I answer,
such a command can be rightly given by no other than the
true and good God, who alone knows the suitable command in
every case, and who alone is incapable of inflicting unmerited
suffering on any one. This ignorant and spurious goodness
of the human heart may as weU deny what Christ says, and
object to the wicked being made to suffer by the good God,
when He shall say to the angels, " Gather first the tares into
bundles to burn them." The servants, however, were stopped
when they wished to do this prematurely : " Lest by chance,
when ye would gather the tares, ye root up the wheat also
with them."2 Thus the true and good God alone knows
when, to whom, and by whom to order anything, or to permit
anything. In the same way, this human goodness, or foUy
rather, might object to the Lord's permitting the devils to
enter the swine, which they asked to be aUowed to do with
a mischievous intent,3 especiaUy as the Manichaeans believe
that not^ only pigs, but the vUest insects, have human souls.
But setting aside these absurd notions, this is undeniable, that
1 Rom. xi. 34. » Matt. xiii. 29, 30. » Matt. viii. 31, 32.

462 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXH.
our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, and therefore the
true and good God, permitted the destruction of swine belong
ing to strangers, implying loss of IKe and of a great amount
of property, at the request of devUs. No one can be so in
sane as to suppose that Christ could not have driven the
devUs out of the men without gratifying their malice by the -
destruction of the swine. If, then, the Creator and Governor
of aU natures, in His superintendence, which, though mysteri
ous, is ever just, indulged the violent and unjust inclination
of those lost sphits aheady doomed to eternal fire, why should
not the Egyptians, who were unrighteous oppressors, be spoUed
by the Hebrews, a free people, who could claim payment for
theh enforced and painful toU, especiaUy as the earthly pos
sessions which they thus lost were used by the Egyptians in
theh impious rites, to the dishonour of the Creator ? StUl, K
Moses had originated this order, or K the people had done it
spontaneously, undoubtedly it would have been sinful ; and
perhaps the people did sin, not in doing what God com
manded ot permitted, but in some deshe of their own for
what they took. The permission given to this action by
divine authority was in accordance with the just and good
counsel of Him who uses punishments both to restrain the
wicked and to educate His own people ; who knows also how to
give more advanced precepts to those able to bear them, whUe
He begins on a lower scale in the treatment of the feeble.
As for Moses, he can be blamed neither for coveting the pro
perty, nor for disputing, in any instance, the divine authority.
73. According to the eternal law, which requires the pre
servation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it,
some actions have an indifferent character, so that men are
blamed for presumption if they do them without being caUed
upon, whUe they are deservedly praised for doing them when
requhed. The act, the agent, and the authority for the action
are aU of great importance in the order of nature. For Abra
ham to sacrifice his son of his own accord is shocking mad
ness. His doing so at the command of God proves him
faithful and submissive. This is so loudly proclaimed by the
very voice of truth, that Faustus, eagerly rummaging for some
fault, and reduced at last to slanderous charges, has not the

BOOK XXII.] THE WARS OF MOSES. 463
boldness to attack this action. It is scarcely possible that he
can have forgotten a deed so famous, that it recurs to the mind
of itseK without any study or reflection, and is in fact re
peated by so many tongues, and portrayed in so many places,
that no one can pretend to shut his eyes or his ears to it. If,
therefore, whUe Abraham's killing his son of his own accord
would have been unnatural, Ms doing it at the command of
God shows not only guUtless but praiseworthy comphance,
why does Faustus blame Moses for spoiling the Egyptians ?
Your feeling of disapproval for the mere human action
should be restrained by a regard for the divine sanction.
WiU you venture to blame God HimseK for desiring such
actions ? Then " Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou under
standest not the things wMch be of God, but those wMch be
of men" Would that this rebuke might accomphsh in you
what it did in Peter, and that you might hereafter preach the
truth concerning God, wMch you now, judging by feeble
sense, find fault with ! as Peter became a zealous messenger
to announce to the GentUes what he objected to at first,
when tbe Lord spoke of it as His intention.
74. Now, K this explanation suffices to satisfy human ob
stinacy and perverse misinterpretation of right actions of the
vast difference between the indulgence of passion and pre
sumption on the part of men, and obedience to the command
of God, who knows what to permit or to order, and also the
time and the persons, and the due action or suffering in each
case, the account of the wars of Moses wiU not excite surprise
or abhorrence, for in wars carried on by divine command, he
showed not ferocity but obedience ; and God, in giving the
command, acted not in cruelty, but in righteous retribution,
giving to aU what they deserved, and warning those who
needed warning. What is the evil in war ? Is it the death
of some who wiU soon die in any case, that others may hve in
peaceful subjection? TMs is mere cowardly dislike, not
any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of vio
lence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wUd
resistance, and the lust of power, and such hke ; and it is
generaUy to punish these things, when force is requhed to
inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some

464 • REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find
themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human
affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make
others act, in this way. Otherwise, John, when the soldiers
who came to be baptized asked, What shaU we do ? would
have replied, Throw away your arms; give up the service;
never strike, or wound, or disable any one. But knowing
that such actions in battle were not murderous, but autho
rized by law, and that the soldiers did not thus avenge them
selves, but defend the pubhc safety, he rephed, " Do violence
to no man, accuse no man falsely, and be content with your
wages." r But as the Manichaeans are in the habit of run
ning down John, let them hear the Lord Jesus Christ Him
self ordering this money to be given to Caesar, which John
teUs the soldiers to be content with. " Give," He says, " to
Caesar the things that are Caesar's." 2 For tribute-money is
given on purpose to pay the soldiers required for war. Again,
in the case of the centurion who said, "lama man under
authority, and have soldiers under me : and I say to one, Go,
and he goeth ; and to another, Come, and be cometh ; and to
my servant, Do this, and he doeth it," Christ gave due
praise to his faith ; 3 He did not teU him to leave the service.
But there is no need here to enter on the long discussion of
just and unjust wars.
75. A great deal depends on the causes for which men under
take wars, and on the authority they have for doing so ; for
the natural order which seeks the peace of mankind, ordains
that the monarch should have the power of undertaking war
K he thinks it advisable, and that the soldiers should perform
their military duties in behaK of the peace and safety of the
community. When war is undertaken in obedience to God,
who would rebuke, or humble, or crush the pride of man, it
must be aUowed to be a righteous war ; for even the wars
wMch arise from human passion cannot harm the eternal weU-
being of God, nor even hurt His saints ; for in the trial of
their patience, and the chastening of their spirit, and in bear
ing fatherly correction, they are rather benefited than injured.
No one can have any power against them but what is given
1 Luke iii. 14. s Matt. xxii. 21. 3 Matt. viii. 9, 10.

BOOK XXII.] RIGHTEOUS WARS. 465
him from above. For there is no power but of God,1 who either
orders or permits. Since, therefore, a righteous man, serving it
may be under ah ungodly king, may. do the duty belonging to
his position in the State in fighting by the order of his sove
reign, — for in some cases it is plainly the wiU of God that he
should fight, and in others, where this is not so plain, it may
be an unrighteous command on the part of the king, wMle the
soldier is innocent, because his position makes obedience a
duty, — how much more must the man be blameless who carries
on war on the authority of God, of whom every one who serves
Him knows that He can never require what is wrong ?
76. If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare,
because in after times it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ,
" I say unto you, That ye resist not evU : but if any one
strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also,'.' 2
the answer is, that what is here required is not a bodily
action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of vhtue
is the heart, and such were the hearts of our fathers, the
righteous men of. old. But order required such a regulation
of events, and such a distinction of times, as to show first of
aU that even earthly blessings (for so temporal kingdoms and
victory over enemies are considered to be, and these are the
things wMch the community of the ungodly aU over the
world are continuaUy begging from idols and devUs) are en
tirely under the control and at the disposal of the one true
God. Thus, under the Old Testament, the secret of the king
dom of heaven, which was to be disclosed in due time, was
veiled, and so far obscured, in the disguise of earthly promises.
But when the fulness of time came for the revelation of the
New Testament, wMch was Mdden under the types of the
Old, clear testimony was to be borne to the truth, that there
is another hfe for wMch tins hfe ought to be disregarded, and
another kingdom for which the opposition of aU eartMy king
doms should be patiently borne. Thus the name martyrs,
wMch means witnesses, was given to those who, by the wiU of
God, bore this testimony, by theh confessions, their sufferings,
and their death. The number of such witnesses is so great,
that if it pleased Christ — who caUed Saul by a voice from
1 Rom. xiii. 1. 2 Matt. v. 39.

5

2G

466 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
heaven, and having changed him from a woK to a sheep, sent
him into the midst of wolves — to unite them aU in one army,
and to give them success in battle, as He gave to the Hebrews,
what nation could withstand them? what kingdom would
remain unsubdued ? But as the doctrine of the New Testa
ment is, that we must serve God not for temporal happiness
in this hfe, but for eternal felicity hereafter, this truth was
most strikingly confirmed by the patient endurance of what is
commonly caUed adversity for the sake of that felicity. So
in fulness of time the Son of God, made of a woman, made
under the law, that He might redeem them that were under
the law, made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
sends His disciples as sheep into the midst of wolves, and
bids them not fear those that can kiU the body, but cannot
kUl the soul, and promises that even the body wUl be en
tirely restored, so that not a hah shaU be lost.1 Peter's
sword He orders back into its sheath, restoring as it was
before the ear of His enemy that had been cut off. He says
that He could obtain legions of angels to destroy His enemies,
but that He must drink the cup wMch His Father's wiU had
given Him.2 He sets the example of drinking tiris cup, then
hands it to His foUowers, manifesting thus, both in word and
deed, the grace of patience. Therefore God raised Him from
the dead, and has given Him a name which is above every
name ; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
tilings in heaven, and of things in earth, and of tilings under
the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.3 The patriarchs and
prophets, then, have a kingdom in tins world, to show that
these kingdoms, too, are given and taken away by God : the
apostles and martyrs had no kingdom here, to show the
superior desirableness of the kingdom of - heaven. The pro
phets, however, could even in those times die for the truth,
as the Lord Himself says, " From the blood of Abel to the
blood of Zacharia ; i and in these days, since the commence
ment of the fulfilment of what is prophesied in the psalm of
Christ, under the figure of Solomon, which means the peace-
1 Matt. x. 16, 28, 30. 2 Matt. Xxvi. 52, 53 ; Luke xxii. 42, 51; John xviii. 11.
3 Phil. ii. 9-11. * Matt, xxiii. 35.

BOOK XXII.] PROPHETS AND MARTYRS. 467
maker, as Christ is our peace,1 " AU kings of the earth shaU
bow to Him, aU nations shah serve Him,"2 we have seen
Christian emperors, who have put all their confidence in Christ,
gaining splendid victories over ungodly enemies, whose hope
was in the rites of idolatry and devU-worship. There are
pubhc and undeniable proofs of the fact, that on one side the
prognostications of devUs were found to be faUacious, and on
the other, the predictions of saints were a means of support ;
and we have now writings in wMch those facts are recorded.
77. If our foohsh opponents are surprised at the difference
between the precepts given by God to the ministers of the Old
Testament, at a time when the grace of the New was stUl un
disclosed, and those given to the preachers of the New Testa
ment, now that the obscurity of the Old is removed, they wUl
find Christ HimseK saying one thing at one time, and another
at another. " When I sent you," He says, " without scrip, or
purse, or shoes, did ye lack anything ? And they said, Nothing.
Then saith He to them, But now, he that hath a scrip, let him
take it, and also a purse ; and he that hath not a sword, let
him seU his garment, and buy one." If the Manichaeans found
passages in the Old and New Testaments differing in this way,
they would proclaim it as a proof that the Testaments are op
posed to each other. But here the difference is in the utter
ances of one and the same person. At one time He says, " I
sent you without scrip, or purse, or shoes, and ye lacked no
thing ; " at another, " Now let Mm that hath a scrip take it,
and also a purse ; and he that hath not a sword, let him seU
his garments, and buy one." Does not tins show how, without
any inconsistency, precepts and counsels and permissions
may be changed, as different times requhe different arrange
ments ? If it is said that there was a symbohcal meaning
in the command to take a scrip and purse, and to buy a
sword, why may there not be a symbohcal meaning in the
fact, that one and the same God commanded the prophets in
old times to make war, and forbade the apostles ? And we
find in the passage that we have quoted from the Gospel,
that the words spoken by the Lord were carried into effect by
His disciples. For, besides going at first without scrip or
1 Eph. ii. 14. 2 Ps. Ixxii. 11.

468 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
purse, and yet lacking nothing, as from the Lord's question and
their answer it is plain they did, now that He speaks of buying
a sword, they say, " Lo, here are two swords ;" and He rephed,
" It is enough." Hence we find Peter with a weapon when he
cut off the assaUant's ear, on which occasion his spontaneous
boldness was checked, because, although he had been told to take
a sword, he had not been told to use it.1 Doubtless, it was
mysterious that the Lord should requhe them to carry weapons,
and forbid the use of them. But it was His part to give the
suitable precepts, and it was their part to obey without reserve.
78. It is therefore mere groundless calumny to charge Moses
with making war, for there would have been less harm in
making war of Ms own accord, than in not doing it when God
commanded him. And to dare to find fault with God Him
self for giving such a command, or not to beheve it possible
that a just and good God did so, shows, to say the least, an
inability to consider that in the view of divine providence,
which pervades aU things from the highest to the lowest, time
can neither add anything nor take away ; but all things go, or
come, or remain according to the order of nature or desert in
each separate case, whUe in men a right wUl is in union with
the divine law, and ungoverned passion is restrained by the
order of divine law ; so that a good man wUls only what is
commanded, and a bad man can do only what he is per
mitted, at the same time that he is punished for what he wUls
to do unjustly. Thus, in aU the things which appear shocMng
and terrible to human feebleness, the real evil is the injustice ;
the rest is only the result of natural properties or of moral
demerit. This injustice is seen in every case where a man
loves for their own sake things which are desirable only as
means to an end, and seeks for the sake of something else
things which ought to be loved for themselves. For thus, as
far as he can, he disturbs in himself the natural order which
the eternal law requires us to observe. Again, a man is just
when he seeks to use things only for the end for which God
appointed them, and to enjoy God as the end of aU, while he
enjoys himself and his friend in God and for God. For to
love in a friend the love of God is to love the friend for
1 Luke xxii. 35-38, 50, 51.

BOOK XXII.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 469
God. Now both justice and injustice, to be acts at all, must ,
be voluntary; otherwise, there can be no just rewards or
punishments ; which no man in Ms senses wiU assert. The
ignorance and impotence which prevent a man from knowing
Ms.dut3r, or from doing aU he wishes to do, belong to God's
secret penal arrangement, and to His unfathomable judgments,
for with Him there is no iniquity. Thus we are informed by
the sure word of God of Adam's sin; and Scripture truly
declares that in him aU die, and that by him sin entered into
the world, and death by sin.1 And our experience gives
abundant evidence, that in punishment for this sin our body
is corrupted, and weighs down the soul, and the clay tabernacle
clogs the mind in its manifold activity ; 2 and we know that *
we can be freed from this pumshment only by gracious inter
position. So the apostle cries out in distress, " 0 wretched
man that I am ! who shall dehver me from the body of this
death ? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 3
So much we know ; but the reasons for the distribution of .
divine judgment and mercy, why one is in this condition, and
another in that, though just, are unknown. Still, we are sure
that aU these things are due either to the mercy or the judg
ment of God, while the measures and numbers and weights
by wMch the Creator of aU natural productions arranges aU
things are concealed from our view. For God is not the •
author, but He is the controUer, of sin ; so that sinful actions,
which are sinful because they are against nature, are judged
and controlled, and assigned to their proper place and condi
tion, in order that they may not bring discord and disgrace
on universal nature. This being the case, and as the judg- -
ments of God and the movements of man's wiU contain the
hidden reason why the same prosperous circumstances which
some make a right use of are the ruin of others, and the same
afflictions under which some give way are profitable to others,
and since the whole mortal life of man upon earth is a trial,4 -
who can teU whether it may be good or bad in any par
ticular case — in time of peace, to reign or to serve, or to be
at ease or to die — or in time of war, to command or to
fight, or to conquer or to be killed ? At the same time, it
1 Rom. v. 12, 19. a Wisd. ix. 15. 3 Rom. vii. 24, 25. 4 Job vii. 4.

470 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXH
remains true, that whatever is good is so by the divine bless
ing, and whatever is bad is so by the divine judgment.
79. Let no one, then, be so daring as to make rash charges
against men, not to say against God. If the service of the
ministers of the Old Testament, who were also heralds of the
New, consisted in putting sinners to death, and that of the min
isters of the New Testament, who are also interpreters of the
Old, in being put to death by sinners, the service in both cases
is rendered to one God, who, varying the lesson to suit the
times, teaches both that temporal blessings are to be sought
from Him, and that they are to be forsaken for Hhn, and that
temporal distress is both sent by Him and should be endured
for Him. There was, therefore, no cruelty in the command,
or in the action of Moses, when, in Ms holy jealousy for his
people, whom he wished to be subject to the one true God,
on learning that they had faUen away to the worship of an
idol made by theh own hands, he impressed their minds at
the time with a wholesome fear, and gave them a warmng for
the future, by using the sword in the punishment of a few,
whose just punishment God, against whom they had sinned,
appointed in the depth of His secret judgment to be imme
diately inflicted. That Moses acted as he did, not in cruelty,
but in great love, may be seen from the words in which
he prayed for the sins of the people: 'If Thou wUt for
give their sin, forgive it; and K not, blot me out of Thy
book."1 The pious inquirer who compares the slaughter with
the prayer wiU find in this the clearest evidence of the awful
nature of the injury done to the soul by prostitution to the
images of devils, since such love is roused to such anger. We
see the same in the apostle, who, not in cruelty, but in love,
delivered a man up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.2
Others, too, he delivered up, that they might learn not to
blaspheme.3 In the apocryphal books of the Mamchaeans
there is a collection of fables, published by some unknown
authors under the name of the apostles. The books would no
doubt have been sanctioned by the Church at the time of theh
publication, if holy and learned men then in IKe, and competent
1 Ex. xxxii. 32. » 1 Cor. v. 5. 2 1 Tim. i. 20.

BOOK XXII. J APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 471
to determine the matter, had thought the contents to be true.
One of the stories is, that the Apostle Thomas was once at a
marriage feast in a country where he was unknown, when one
of the servants struck him, and that he forthwith by Ms curse
brought a terrible punishment on tins man. For when he
went out to the fountain to provide water for the guests, a
hon feU on him and kUled him, and the hand with which he
had given a shght blow to the apostle was torn off, in fulfil
ment of the imprecation, and brought by a dog to the table at
which the apostle was reclining. What could be more cruel
than this ? And yet, K I mistake not, the story goes on to
say, that the apostle made up for the cruelty by obtaining for
the man the blessing of pardon in the next world ; so that,
whUe the people of this strange country learned to fear the
apostle as being so dear to God, the man's eternal welfare was
secured in exchange for the loss of tMs mortal IKe. It matters
not whether the story is true or false. At any rate, the Mani
chaeans, who regard as genuine and authentic books which
the canon of the Church rejects, must aUow, as shown in the
story, that the vhtue of patience, which the Lord enjoins when
He says, " If any one smite thee on the right cheek, turn to -
him thy left also," may be in the inward disposition, though
it is not exMbited in bodUy action or in words. For when
the apostle was struck, instead of turning Ms other side to the
man, or telling him to repeat the blow, he prayed to God to
pardon his assaUant in the next world, but not to leave the
injury unpumshed at the time. Inwardly he preserved a
kindly feeling, whUe outwardly he wished the man to be
punished as an example. As the Mamchaeans beheve this,
rightly or wrongly, they may also beheve that such was the
intention of Moses, the servant of God, when he cut down
with the sword the makers and worsMppers of the idol ; for
his own words show that he so entreated for pardon for their
sin of idolatry as to ask to be blotted out of God's book if
Ms prayer was not heard. There is no comparison between
a stranger being struck with the hand, and the dishonour
done to God by forsaking Him for an idol, when He had
brought the people out of the bondage of Egypt, had led them
through the sea. and had covered with the waters the enemy

472 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
pursuing them. Nor, as regards the punishment, is there any
comparison between being kUled with the sword and being
torn in pieces by wUd beasts. For judges in administering
the law condemn to exposure to wUd beasts worse criminals
than are condemned to be put to death by the sword.
8 0. Another of Faustus' mahcious and impious charges wMch
has to be answered, is about the Lord's saying to the prophet
Hosea, "Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and chUdren of
whoredoms."1 As regards this passage, the impure mind of our
adversaries is so blinded that they do not understand the plain
words of the Lord in His gospel, when He says to the Jews,
"The publicans and harlots shaU go into the kingdom of
, heaven before you."2 There is notMng contrary to the merci
fulness of truth, or inconsistent with Christian faith, in a harlot
leaving fornication, and becoming a chaste wife. Indeed,
nothing could be more unbecoming in one professing to be a
prophet than not to believe that aU the sins of the faUen
woman were pardoned when she changed for the better. So
when the prophet took the harlot as Ms wife, it was both good
for the" woman to have her life amended, and the action
symbolized a truth of which we shaU speak presently. But it
is plain what offends the Manichaeans in this case ; for theh
great anxiety is to prevent harlots from being with chUd. It
would have pleased them better that the woman should continue
a prostitute, so as not to bring their god into confinement, than
that she should become the wKe of one man, and have chUdren.
81. As regards Solomon, it need only be said that the con
demnation of Ms conduct in the faitiKul narrative of holy
Scripture is much more serious than the chUdish vehemence of
Faustus' attacks. The Scripture teUs us with faithful accuracy
both the good that Solomon had at first, and the evil actions
by which he lost the good he began with ; whUe Faustus, in his
attacks, like a man closing his eyes, or with no eyes at aU,
seeks no guidance from the light, but is prompted only by vio
lent animosity. To pious and discerning readers of the sacred
Scriptures evidence of the chastity of the holy men who are
said to have had several wives is found in this, that Solomon,
who by his polygamy gratified Ms passions, instead of seeking
1 Hos. i. 2. * Matt. xxi. 31.

BOOK XXII. J TYPES EXPLAINED. 47 o
for offspring, is expressly noted as chargeable with being a lover
of women. TMs, as we are informed by the truth which ac
cepts no man's person, led him down into the abyss of idolatry.
8 2. Having now gone over aU the cases in which Faustus finds
fault with the Old Testament, and having attended to the merit
of each, either defending men of God against the calumnies of
carnal heretics, or, where the men were at fault, showing the
exceUence and tbe majesty of Scripture, let us again take the
cases in the order of Faustus' accusations, and see the meaning
of the actions recorded, what they typKy, and what they fore-
teU. TMs we have" already done in the case of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, of whom God said that He was theh God,
as K the God of umversal nature were the God of none
besides them ; not honouring them with an unmeaning title,
but because He, who could alone have a fuU and perfect
knowledge, knew the sincere and remarkable charity of these
men; and because these three patriarchs unitedly formed a
notable type of the future people of God, in not only having
free chUdren by free women, as by Sarah, and Eebecca, and
Leah, and Eachel, but also bond chUdren, as of this same Ee
becca was born Esau, to whom it was said, " Thou shalt serve thy
brother j"1 and in having by bond women not only bond chU
dren, as by Hagar, but also free children, as by BUhah and
ZUphah. Thus also in the people of God, those spiritually free
not only have chUdren born into the enjoyment of liberty, like
those to whom it is said, " Be ye foUowers of me, as I also am of
Christ,"2 but they have also chUdren born into guUty bondage,
as Simon was born of Philip.3 Agam, from carnal bondmen
are born not only chUdren of guUty bondage, who imitate them,
but also chUdren of happy liberty, to whom it is said, " What
they say, do ; but do not after theh works."4 Whoever rightly
observes the fulfilment of this type in the people of God, keeps
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, by continuing to
the end m union with some, and in patient endurance of
pthers. Of Lot, also, we have aheady spoken, and have shown
what the Scripture mentions as praiseworthy in him, and what
as blameworthy, and the meaning of the whole narrative.
83. We have next to consider the prophetic significance of
1 Gen. xxvii. 40. J 1 Cor. iv. 16. 3 Acts viii. 13. * Matt, xxiii. 3.

474 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXII.
the action of Judah in lying with his daughter-in-law. But,
for the sake of those whose understanding is feeble, we shaU
begin with observing, that in sacred Scripture evil actions are
sometimes prophetic not of evil, but of good. Divine provi
dence preserves throughout its essential goodness, so that, as
in the example given above, from adulterous intercourse a
man-chUd is born, a good work of God from the evU of
man, by the power of nature, and not due to the miscon
duct of the parents ; so in the prophetic Scriptures, where
both good and evU actions are recorded, the narrative being
itself prophetic, foreteUs something good even by the record of
what is evU, the credit being due not to the evU-doer, but to
the writer. Judah, when, to gratify Ms sinful passion, he went
in to Tamar, had no intention by Ms licentious conduct to
typKy anything connected with the salvation of men, any
more than Judas, who betrayed the Lord, intended to produce
any result connected with the salvation of men. So then, if
from the evil deed of Judas the Lord brought the good work
of our redemption by His own passion, why should not His
prophet, of whom He HimseK says, " He wrote of me," for the
sake of instructing us, make the evU action of Judah signi
ficant of something good ? Under the guidance and insphation
of the Holy Spirit, the prophet has compUed a narrative of
actions so as to make a continuous prophecy of the tMngs he
designed to foreteU. In foretelling good, it is of no conse
quence whether the typical actions are good or bad. If it is
written in red ink that the EtMopians are black, or in black ink
that the Gauls are white, this chcumstance does not affect the
information which the writing conveys. No doubt, if it was a
painting instead of a writing, the wrong colour would be a fault ;
so, when human actions are represented for example or for
warning, much depends on whether they are good or bad. But
when actions are related or recorded as types, the merit or de
merit of the agents is a matter of no importance, as long as there
is a true typical relation between the action and the thing signij
fied. So, in the case of Caiaphas in the Gospel, as regards Ms
iniquitous and miscMevous intention, and even as regards his
words, in the sense in which he used them, that a just man
should be put to death unjustly, assuredly they were bad;

BOOK XXII. J BAD TYPICAL OF GOOD. 47 0
and yet there was a good meaning in Ms words, which he did
not know of, when he said, " It is expedient that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish
not." So it is written of him, " TMs he spake not of himself ;
but being the Mgh priest, he prophesied that Jesus should
die for the people."1 In the same way, the action of Judah
was bad as regards bis sinful passion, but it typified a great
good he knew nothing of. Of himseK he did evU, wMle it was
not of himseK that he typified good. These introductory remarks
apply not only to Judah, but also to aU the other cases where in
the narrative of bad actions is contained a prophecy of good.
84. In Tamar, then, the daughter-in-law of Judah, we see
the people of the kingdom of Judah, whose kings, answering to
Tamar's husbands, were taken from tMs tribe. Tamar means
bitterness ; and the meamng is suitable, for this people gave
the cup of gaU to the Lord.2 The two sons of Judah repre
sent two classes of kings who governed UI — those who did
harm, and those who did no good. One of these sons was
evU or cruel before the Lord ; the other spilled the seed on
the ground, that Tamar might not become a mother. There
are only those two kinds of useless people in the world — the
injurious, and those who wUl not give the good they have, but
lose it, or spUl it on the ground. And as injury is worse than
not doing good, the evU-doer is caUed the elder, and the other
the younger. Er, the name of the elder, means, a preparer of
skins, wMch were the coats given to our first parents when
they were punished with expulsion from paradise.3 Onan, the
name of the younger, means, theh grief; that Is, the grief of
those to whom, he does no good, wasting the good he has on
the earth The loss of life implied in the name of the elder
is a greater evU than the want of help implied in the name of
the younger. Both being killed by God typifies the removal of
the kingdom from men of this character. The meamng of the
third son of Judah not being joined to the woman, is that for
a time the Mngs of Judah were not of that tribe. So this third
son did not become the husband of Tamar; as Tamar represents
the tribe of Judah, which continued to exist, although the
people received no king from it. Hence the name of this son,
1 John xi. 50, 51. z Matt, xxvii. 34. 3 Gen. iii. 21.

476 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
Selom, means, his dismission. None of those types apply to
the holy and righteous men who, like David, though they
lived in those times, belong properly to the -New Testament,
which they served by theh enlightened predictions. Again,
in the time when Judah ceased to have a king of its own
tribe, the elder Herod does not count as one of the Mngs
typified by the husbands of Tamar ; for he was a foreigner,
and Ms union with the people was never consecrated with the
holy oU. His was the power of a stranger, given Mm by the
Eomans and by Caesar. And it was the same with his sons,
the tetrarchs, one of whom, caUed Herod like his father, agreed
with Pilate at the time of the Lord's passion.1 So plainly
were these foreigners considered as distinct from the sacred
monarchy of Judah, that the Jews themselves, when ragmg
against Christ, exclaimed openly, "We have no king but
Cassar."2 Nor was Caesar properly theh king, except in the
sense that all the world was subject to Eome. The Jews
thus condemned themselves, only to express theh rejection
of Christ, and to flatter Caesar.
85. The time when the kingdom was removed from the
tribe of Judah was the time appointed for the coming of
Christ our Lord, the true Saviour, who should come not for
harm, but for great good. Thus was it prophesied, " A prince
shaU not faU from Judah, nor a leader from Ms loins, tiU He
come for whom it is reserved : He is the deshe of nations." 3
Not only the kingdom, but all government, of the Jews had
ceased, and also, as prophesied by Daniel, the sacred anointing
from which the name Christ or Anomted is derived. Then
came He for whom it was reserved, the desire of nations/ ; and
the holy of holies was anointed with the oU of gladness above
His feUows.4 Christ was born in the time of the elder
Herod, and suffered in the time of Herod the tetrarch. He
who thus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was
typified by Judah when he went to shear his sheep in
Thamna, which means, faihng. For then the prince had
failed from Judah, with all the government and anointing of
the Jews, that He might come for whom it was reserved.
1 Luke xxiii. 12. 2 John xix. 15.
* Gen. xlix. 10. * Dan. ix. 24 and Ps. xiv. 7.

BOOK XXII.] TAMAR TYPIFIES THE JEWS. 477
Judah, we are told, came with his Adullamite shepherd, whose
name was Iras ; and Adullamite means, a testimony in water.
So it was with this testimony that the Lord came, having
indeed greater testimony than that of John ; x but for the sake
of Ms feeble sheep he made use of the testimony in water.
The name Iras, too, means, vision of my brother. So John
saw Ms brother, a brother in the famUy of Abraham, and from
the relationsMp of Mary and Ehsabeth ; and the same per
son he recognised as his Lord and his God, for, as he himself
says, he received of His fulness.2 On account of this vision,
among those born of woman, there has arisen no greater than
he ; 3 because, of aU who foretold Christ, he alone saw what
many righteous men and prophets desired to see and saw
not. He saluted CMist from the womb ; 4 he knew Him more
certainly from seeing the dove ; and therefore, as the Adul
lamite, he gave testimony by water. The Lord came to shear
His sheep, in releasing them from painful burdens, as it is
said in praise of the Church in the Song of Songs, that her
teeth are hke a flock of sheep after shearing.5
86. Next, we have Tamar changing her dress; for Tamar
also means changing. StiU, the name of bitterness must be
retained — not that bitterness in which gaU was given to the
Lord, but that in which Peter wept bitterly.6 For Judah
means confession ; and bitterness is mingled with confession
as a type of true repentance. It is this repentance which
gives fruitfuMess to the Church estabhshed among all nations.
For " it behoved CMist to suffer, and to rise from the dead,
and that repentance and the remission of sins be preached
among aU nations in His name, beginning at Jerusalem." 7
In the dress Tamar put on there is a confession of sins ; and
Tamar sitting in tMs dress at the gate of iEnan or iEnaim,
which means fountain, is a type of the Church called from
among the nations. She ran as a hart to the springs of water,
to meet with the seed of Abraham ; and there she is made
fruitful by one who knows her not, as it is foretold, " A people
whom I have not known shaU serve me." 8 Tamar received
1 John v. 36. 2 John i. 6. 3 Matt. xi. 11.
4 Luke i. 44. 6 Cant. iv. 2. 6 Matt. xxvi. 75.
7 Luke xxiv. 46, 47. 8 Ps. xviii. 43.

478 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XHI.
under her disgmse a ring, a bracelet, a staff; she is sealed in
her caUing, adorned in her justification, raised in her glorifica
tion. For " whom He predestinated, them He also caUed : and
whom He caUed, them He also justified : and whom He justi
fied, them He also glorified." J TMs was wMle she was stUl
disguised, as I have said ; and in the same state she conceives,
and becomes fruitful in hohness. Also the Md promised is
sent to her as to a harlot. The Md represents rebuke for
sin, and it is sent by the AduUamite already mentioned, who,
as it were, uses the reproachful words, " 0 generation of
vipers ! " 2 But tMs rebuke for sin does not reach her, for
she has been changed by the bitterness of confession. After
wards, by exhibiting the pledges of the ring and bracelet and
staff, she prevaUs over the Jews in their hasty judgment of
her, who are now represented by Judah himself; as at this
day we hear the Jews saying that we are not the people of
Christ, and have not the seed of Abraham. But when we
exhibit the sure tokens of our caUing and justification and
glorification, they wiU immediately be confounded, and wUl
acknowledge that we are justified rather than they. I should
enter into this more particularly, talring, as it were, each limb
and joint separately, as the Lord might enable me, were it
not that such minute inquiry is prevented by the necessity of
bringing tMs work to a close, for it is aheady longer than
is desirable. 87. As regards the prophetic significance of David's sin, a
single word must suffice. The names occurring in the narra
tive show what it typifies. David means, strong of hand, or
desirable ; and what can be stronger than the Lion of the tribe
of Judah, who has conquered the world, or more desirable than
He of whom the prophet says, " The deshe of aU nations shall
come " ? 3 Bersabee means, weU of satisfaction, or seventh well :
either of these interpretations wUl suit our purpose. So, in the
Song of Songs, the spouse, who is the Church, is caUed a weU
of hving water ;4 or again, the number seven represents the
Holy Spirit, as in the number of days in Pentecost, when the
Holy Spirit came from heaven. We learn also from the book
1 Rom. viii. 30. 2 Matt. iii. 7.
* Hag. ii. 8. « Cant. iv. 15.

BOOK XXII.] DAVID AND SOLOMON. 479
of Tobit, that Pentecost was the feast of seven weeks.1 To
forty-mne, which is seven times seven, one is added to denote
unity. To this effect is the saying of the apostle : " Bearing
with one another in love, endeavouring to keep the umty of
the Sphit m the bond of peace." 2 The Church becomes a
weU of satisfaction by this gift of the Spirit, the number seven
denoting its sphituality ; for it is in her a fountam of living
water springing up unto everlastmg hfe, and he who has it
shaU never thhst.3 Uriah, Bersabee's husband, must, from the
meamng of Ms name, be understood as representing the devU.
It is m umon to the devil that ah are bound whom the grace
of God sets free, that the Church without spot or wrinkle may
be married to her true Saviour. Uriah means, my light of
God ; and Hittite means, cut off, referring either to Ms not
abiding in the truth, when he was cut off on account of Ms
pride from the celestial hght wMch he had of God, or to Ms
transfornhng himseK mto an angel of hght, because, after
losing Ms real strength by Ms faU, he stUl dares to say, My
hght is of God. The hteral David, then, was guUty of a
hemous crime, wMch God by the prophet condemned in the
renuke addressed to David, and which David atoned for by
his repentance. On the other hand, He who is the deshe of
aU nations loved the Church when wasMng herseK on the
roof, that is, when cleansing herself from the poUution of the
world, and in spiritual contemplation mounting above her
house of clay, and tramphng upon it ; and after commencing
an acquaintance, He puts to death the devU, whom He first
entirely removes from her, and joins her to HimseK in per
petual union. WhUe we hate the sin, we must not overlook
the prophetical significance ; and whUe we love, as is His due,
that David who M His mercy has freed us from the devU,
we may also love the David who by the humility of his re
pentance healed the wound made by his transgression
88. Little need be said of Solomon, who is spoken of in
Holy Scripture in terms of the strongest disapproval and con
demnation, whUe nothing is said of Ms repentance and re
storation to the divine favour. Nor can I find in his
lamentable faU even a symbohcal connection with anything
1 Tob. ii. 1. a Eph. iv. 2, 3. 3 John iv. 13, 14.

480 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
good. Perhaps the strange women he lusted after may be
thought to represent the churches chosen from among the
GentUes. This idea might have been admissible, K the
women had left their gods for Solomon's sake to worship his
God. But as he for theh sakes offended his God and wor-
sMpped their gods, it seems impossible to tMnk of any good
meaning. Doubtless, something is typified, but it is some
thing bad, as in the case already explained of Lot's wife and
daughters. We see in Solomon a notable pre-eminence and
a notable faU. Now, this good and evU wMch we see in Mm
at different periods, first good and then evil, are in our day
found together in the Church. What is good in Solomon re
presents, I tMnk, the good members of the Church ; and what
was bad in Mm represents tbe bad members. Both are in one
man, as the bad and the good are in the chaff and grain of one
floor, or in the tares and wheat of one field. A closer inquhy
into what is said of Solomon in Scripture might disclose,
either to me or to others of greater learnmg and greater worth,
some more probable interpretation. But as we are now en
gaged on a different subject, we must not aUow tMs matter to
break the connection of our discourse.
89. As regards the prophet Hosea, it is unnecessary for me
to explam the meaning of the command, or of the prophet's
conduct, when God said to him, " Go and take unto thee a wKe
of whoredoms and chUdren of whoredoms," for the Scripture
itseK mforms us of the origin and purpose of this dhection.
It proceeds thus : " For the land hath committed great whore
dom, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer
the daughter of Diblaim ; which conceived, and bare Mm a son.
And the Lord said unto Mm, Call his name Jezreel ; for yet
a little while, and I wUl avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the
house of Judah, and wih cause to cease the Mngdom of the
house of Israel. And it shaU come to pass at that day, that
I wiU break the bow of Israel in the vaUey of Jezreel. And
she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said
unto Mm, Call her name No-mercy : for I will no more have
mercy upon the house of Israel ; but I wiU utterly take them
away. But I wiU have mercy upon the house of Judah, and
wUl save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them

BOOKXXII.] HOSEA. 481
by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horse
men. Now when she had weaned No-mercy, she conceived,
and bare a son. Then said God, Call Ms name Not-my-people :
for ye are not my people,, and I wUl not be your God. Yet
the number of the chUdren of Israel shaU be as the sand of
the sea, which cannot be measured for multitude; and it
shaU come to pass that in the place where it was said unto
them, Ye are not my people, there it shaU be said unto them,
Ye are the sons of the hving God. Then shall the chUdren
of Israel and the chUdren of Judah be gathered together, and
appomt themselves one head, and they shaU come up out of
the land : for great shaU be the day of Jezreel. Say ye unto
your bretMen, My people ; and to your sister, She hath found
mercy." x Since the typical meaning of the command and
of- the prophet's conduet is thus explamed in the same book
by the Lord HimseK, and smce the writings of the apostles
declare the fulfilment of this prophecy in the preacMng of the
New Testament,. every one must accept the explanation thus
given of the command and of the action of the prophet as the
true explanation. Thus it is said by the Apostle Paul, " That
He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels
of mercy, wMch He had afore prepared unto glory, even us,
whom He hath caUed, not of the Jews only, but also of the
GentUes. As He saith also in Osee, I wiU caU them my
people, wMch were not my people ; and her beloved, which
was not beloved. And it shaU come to pass, that in the
place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people,
there shaU they be caUed the chUdren of the living God." 2
Here Paul applies the prophecy to the GentUes. So also Peter,
writing to the GentUes, without naming the prophet, borrows
Ms expressions when he says, " But ye are a chosen genera
tion, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a pecuhar people ; that
ye might show forth the praises of Him who has caUed you
out of darkness into His marvellous hght: wMch in time
past were not a people, but are now the people of God : which
had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."3
From tMs it is plain that the words of the prophet, " And the
number of the chUdren of Israel shaU be as the sand of the
1 Hos. i. 2-ii. 1. * Rom. ix. 23-26. =* 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10.
5 2H

482 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXIL
sea, wMch cannot be measured for multitude," and the words
immediately foUowmg, " .And it shall be that in the place
where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there
they shaU be caUed the chUdren of the hving God," do not
apply to that Israel wMch is after the flesh, but to that of
wMch the apostle says to the GentUes, " Ye therefore are the
seed of Abraham, and hehs according to the promise." x But,
as many Jews who were of the Israel after the flesh have
beheved, and wiU yet beheve ; for of these were the apostles,
and aU the thousands in Jerusalem of the company of the
apostles, as also the churches of wMch Paul speaks, when he
says to the Galatians, " I was unknown by face to the churches
of Judaea which were in CMist ; " 2 and again, he explains the
passage in the Psalms, where the Lord is caUed the corner
stone,3 as referring to His umting in HimseK the two walls of
chcumcision and unchcumcision, "that He might make in
Himself of twain one new man, so malting peace ; and that
He might reconcUe both unto God m one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby : and that He might come
and preach peace to them that are far off, and to them that
are mgh," that is, to the GentUes and to the Jews ; " for He
is our peace, who hath made of both one ; " 4 to the same
purpose we find the prophet speaking of the Jews as the
chUdren of Judah, and of the Gentiles as chUdren of Israel,
where he says, " The chUdren of Judah and the chUdren of
Israel shaU be gathered together, and shaU make to themselves
one head, and shaU go up from the land." Therefore, to speak
against a prophecy thus confirmed by actual events, is to speak
against the writings of the apostles as weU as those of the
prophets ; and not only to speak agamst writings, but to im
pugn in the most recMess manner the evidence clear as noon
day of estabhshed facts. In the case of the narrative of
Judah, it is perhaps not so easy to recognise, under the dis
guise of the woman caUed Tamar, the harlot representing the
Church gathered from among the corruption of GentUe super
stition ; but here, where Scripture explams itseK, and where
the explanation is confirmed by the writings of the apostles,
instead of dwelling longer on tMs, we may proceed at once to
1 Gal. iii. 29. 3 Gal. i. 22. * Ps. cxviii. 22, 4 Eph. ii. 11-22.

BOOK XXII.] MOSES. 483
mquire into the meamng of the very tilings to wMch Faustus
objects in Moses the servant of God.
90. Moses kiUing the Egyptian m defending one of his
bretMen, reminds us naturaUy of the destruction of the devU,
our assaUant in this land of strangers, by our defender the
Lord CMist. And as Moses Md the dead body in the sand,
even so the devU, though slam, remains concealed in those
who are not firmly settled. The Lord, we know, buUds the
Church on a rock ; and those who hear His word and do it,
He compares to a wise man who buUds Ms house upon a
rock, and who does not yield or give way before temptation ;
and those who hear and do not, He compares to a foohsh man
who buUds on the sand, and when Ms house is tried its ruin
is great.1 91. Of the prophetic significance of the spoihng of the
Egyptians, wMch was done by Moses at the command of the
Lord Ms God, who commands notMng but what is most just,
I remember to have set down what occurred to me at the time
m my book entitled On Christian Doctrine;2 to the effect
that the gold and sUver and garments of the Egyptians typi
fied certam branches of learning which may be profitably
learned or taught among the GentUes. TMs may be the true
explanation ; or we may suppose that the vessels of gold and
sUver represent the precious souls, and the garments the bodies,
of those from among the Gentiles who join themselves to the
people of God, that along with them they may be freed from
the Egypt of this world. Whatever the true interpretation
may be, the pious student of the Scriptures wiU feel certain
that in the command, in the action, and in the narrative there
is a purpose and a symbolic meaning.
92. It would take too long to go through all the wars of
Moses. It is enough to refer to what has already been said,
as sufficient for the purpose in this reply to Faustus, of the
prophetic and symbolic character of the war -with Amalek.3
There is also the charge of cruelty made against Moses by the
enemies of the Scriptures, or by those who have never read
anything. Faustus does not make any specific charge, but
speaks of Moses as commanding and doing many cruel things.
1 Matt. vii. 24-27. 2 ii. sec. 40. 3 L. xii. sec. 30.

484 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
But, knowing the tMngs they are in the habit of bringing
forward and of misrepresenting, I have already taken a par
ticular case and have defended it, so that any Manichaeans who
are willing to be corrected, and aU other ignorant and irreligious
people, may see that there is no ground for theh accusations.
.We must now inquhe into the prophetic significance of the
command, that many of those who, while Moses was absent,
made an idol for themselves should be slam without regard to
relationship. It is easy to see that the slaughter of these
men represents the warfare against the evU prmciples wMch
led the people into idolatry. Against such evUs we are
commanded to wage war in the words of the psalm, " Be ye
angry, and sin not."1 And a simUar command is given by the
apostle, when he says, " Mortify your members which are on
earth ; fornication, uncleanness, luxury, evU concupiscence, and
covetousness, which is idolatry."2
93. It requires a closer examination to see the meaning of
the first action of Moses in burning the caK in fire, and
grinding it to powder, and sprinkling it in the water for the
people to drink. The tables given to him, written with the
finger of God, that is, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, he
may have broken, because he judged the people unworthy of
having them read to them ; and he may have burned the calf,
and ground it, and scattered it so as to be carried away by the
water, in order to let nothing of it remain among the people.
But why should he have made them drink it ? Every one
must feel anxious to discover the typical significance of this
action. Pursuing the inquiry, we may find that in the calf
there was an embodiment of the devil, as there is in men of
all nations who have the devU as their head or leader in their
impious rites. The calf is gold, because there is a semblance
of wisdom in the institution of idolatrous worship. Of this
tbe apostle says, " Knowing God, they glorified Him not as
God, nor were thankful; but they became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Pro
fessing themselves to be wise, they became foolish, and
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness
of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts,
'Ps. iv. 4. sCol. iii. 5.

BOOK XXH.] THE GOLDEN CALF. 485
and of creeping things."1 From this so-caUed wisdom came
the golden calf, wMch was one of the forms of idolatry
among the chief men and professed sages of Egypt. The
calf, then, represents every body or society of GentUe idola
ters. This impious society the Lord Christ burns with that
fire of wMch He says in the Gospel, " I am come to send fire
on the earth ;"2 for, as there is nothing Md from His heat,3
when the GentUes beheve in Him they lose the form of the
devU in the fire of divine mfluence. Then aU the body is
ground, that is, after the dissolution of the combination in
the membersMp of hdquity comes humiliation under the
word of truth. Then the dust is sprinkled in the water, that
the Israehtes, that is, the preachers of the gospel, may m
baptism admit those formerly idolaters into their own body,
that is, the body of Christ. To Peter, who was one of those
Israehtes, it was said of the GentUes, " Kill, and eat."4 To kUl
and eat is much the same as to grind and drink. So this
calf, by the fire of zeal, and the keen penetration of the word,
and the water of baptism, was swallowed up by the people,
instead of theh being swallowed up by it.
94. Thus, when the very passages on which the heretics
found their objections to the Scriptures are studied and
examined, the more obscure they are the more wonderful are
the secrets which we discover in reply to our questions ; so
that the mouths of blasphemers are completely stopped, and
the evidence of the truth so stifles them that they cannot even
utter a sound. The unhappy men who will not receive into
theh hearts the sweetness of the truth must feel its force as
a gag in their mouths. AU those passages speak of Christ.
The head now ascended into heaven along with the body stiU
suffering on earth is the fuU development of the whole pur
pose of tbe authors of Scripture, which is well called Sacred
Scripture. Every part of the narrative in the prophetical
books should be viewed as having a figurative meaning, except
what serves merely as a framework for the literal or figurative
predictions of this king and of his people. For as in harps and
other musical instruments the musical sound does not come
from aU parts of the instrument, but from the strings, and the
'Rom. i. 21-23. 2Luke xii. 49. ,3Ps. xix. 6. 4Acts x. 13.

486 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
rest is only for fastening and stretching the strings so as to tune
them, that when they are struck by the musician they may
give a pleasant sound ; so m these prophetical narratives, the
circumstances selected by the prophetic sphit either predict
some future event, or K they have no voice of theh own, they
serve to connect together other significant utterances.
95. Should the heretics reject our exposition of those aUe-
gorical narratives, or even insist on understanding them only in a
literal sense, to dispute about such a difference of understanding
would be as useless as to dispute about a difference of taste.
Only, the fact that the divine precepts have either a moral
and rehgious character or a prophetic meaning must be be
heved, whether inteUigently or not. Moreover, the figurative
interpretations must aU be in the interest of morality and
religion. So, if the Mamchaeans or any others disagree with
our interpretation, or differ from us in method or in any par
ticular opinion, suffice it that the character of the fathers
whom God commends for theh conduct and obedience to His
precepts is vindicated on a principle which aU but those inve
terate in theh hostUity wUl acknowledge to be true ; and that
the purity and dignity of Scripture are maintamed in reference
to those passages which the enemies of the truth find fault
with, where certain actions are either praised or blamed, or
merely narrated for us to form a judgment of them.
96. In fact, notMng could have been devised more hkely to
instruct and benefit the pious reader of sacred Scripture than
that, besides describing praiseworthy characters as examples,
and blameworthy characters as warmngs, it should also nar
rate cases where good men have gone back and faUen into sm,
whether they are restored to the right path or continue irre
claimable ; and also where bad men have changed, and have
attained to goodness, whether they persevere in it or relapse
into evU ; in order that the righteous may be not lKted up in
the pride of security, nor the wicked hardened in despair of
cure. And even those passages in Scripture which contain
no examples or warnings are either required for connection,
so as to pass on to essential matters, or, from theh very
appearance of superfluity, indicate the presence of some secret
symbolical meaning. For in the books we speak of, so far

BOOK XXII.] ALL SCRIPTURE PROFITABLE. 487
from there being a want or a scarcity of prophetical announce
ments, such announcements are numerous and distinct; and
now that the fulfilment has actuaUy taken place, the testimony
thus borne to the divine authority of. the books is irresistibly
strong, so that it is mere madness to suppose that there can be
any useless or unmeaning passages in books to wMch all
classes of men and of minds do homage, and which themselves
predict what we see thus actuaUy commg to pass.
9 7. If, then, any one reading of the action of David, of wMch
he repented when the Lord rebuked and tMeatened him, finds
in the narrative an encouragement to sm, is Scripture to be
blamed for tMs ? Is not the man's own guUt in proportion
to the abuse which he makes for Ms own mjury or destruction
of what was written for his recovery and release ? David is
set forth as a great example of repentance, because men who
faU mto sin either proudly disregard the cure of repentance,
or lose themselves in despah of obtaining salvation or of
meriting pardon. The example is for the benefit of the sick,
not for the injury of those in health. If madmen destroy
themselves, or if evU-doers destroy others, with surgical instru
ments, it is not the fault of surgery.
9 8. Even supposmg that our fathers the patriarchs and pro
phets, of whose devout and religious habits so good a report
is given m that Scripture wMch every one who knows it, and
has not lost entirely the use of his reason, must admit to have
been provided by God for the salvation of men, were as lust
ful and cruel as the Mamchaeans falsely and fanaticaUy aUege,
they might stUl be shown to be superior not only to those
whom the Manichaeans call the elect, but also to their god
himseK. Is there in the licentious intercourse of man with
woman anything so bad as the seK-abasement of unclouded
hght by mixture with darkness ? Here, is a man prompted
by avarice and greed to pass off his wife as Ms sister and seU
her to her lover ; but worse stiU and more shoekmg, that one
should disguise Ms own nature to gratify criminal passion,
and submit gratintously to poUution and degradation. Why,
even one who knowingly lies with his own daughters is not
equaUy crimmal with one who lets his members share in the
defilement of aU sensuality as gross as this, or grosser. And

488 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXII.
is not the Manichaean god a partaker in the contamination of
the most atrocious acts of uncleanness ? Again, if it were true,
as Faustus says, that Jacob went from one to another of his
four wives, not desiring offspring, but resembling a he-goat
in hcentiousness, he would stiU not be sunk so low as your
god, who must not only have shared in this degradation, from
his being confined in the bodies of Jacob and his wives so as
to be mixed up with aU theh movements, but also, in union
with tMs very he-goat of Faustus' coarse comparison, must
have endured aU the pams of animal appetite, incurring fresh
defilement at every step, as partakmg in the passion of the
male, the conception of the female, and the bhth of the kid.
And, in the same way, supposing Judah to have been guilty
not only of fornication, but of incest, a share in the heats and
impurities of this incestuous passion would also belong to
your god. David repented of his sin in loving the wife of
another, and in ordering the death of her husband ; but when
wUl your god repent of giving up Ms members to the wanton
passion of the male and female chiefs of the race of darkness,
and of putting to death not the husband of Ms mistress, but
Ms own children, whom he confines in the members of the
very devUs who were his own lovers ? Even if David had
not repented, nor been thus restored to righteousness, he
would stiU have been better than your god. David may
have been defiled by this one act, or to the extent to which
one man is capable of such defilement ; but your god suffers
the poUution of Ms members in aU such actions by whom
soever committed. The prophet Hosea, too, is accused by
Faustus : and, supposing him to have taken the harlot to wife
because he had a criminal affection for her, if he is licentious
and she a prostitute, their souls, accordmg to your own asser
tion, are parts and members of your god and of his nature.
In plain language, the harlot herseK must be your god. You
cannot pretend that your god is not confined m the contami
nated body, or that he is only present, wlhle preserving enthe
the purity of his own nature ; and you acknowledge that the
members of your god are so defiled as to reqMre a special
purification. This harlot, then, for whom you venture to find
fault with the man of God, even K she had not been changed

BOOK XXII.] THE MANICHaEAN GOD. 489
for the better by becoming a chaste wife, would still have
been your god ; at least you must admit her soul to have been
a part, however smaU, of your god. But one single harlot is
not so bad as your god, for he on account of Ms mixture with
tbe race of darkness shares in every act of prostitution ; and
wherever such impurities are perpetrated, he goes through the
corresponding experiences of abandonment, of release, and of
confinement, and this from generation to generation, tiU his
most corrupt part reaches its final state in the mass of dark
ness, hke an irreclaimable harlot. Such are the evUs and
such the shameful abominations which your god could not
ward off from his members, and to wMch he was brought irre
sistibly by his mercUess enemy ; for only by the sacrifice of
Ms own subjects, or rather his own parts, could he effect the
destruction of his formidable assaUant. Surely, there was
nothmg so bad as tMs in kiUing an Egyptian so as to preserve
uninjured a feEow-countryman. Yet Faustus finds fault with
tMs most absurdly, whUe with amazing infatuation he over
looks the case of his own god. Would it not have been
better for him to have carried off the gold and sUver vessels
of the Egyptians, than to let Ms members be carried off by
the race of darkness ? And yet' the worshippers of this un
fortunate god find faiUt with the servant of our God for
carrying on wars, in wMch he with his followers were always
victorious, so that, under the leadersMp of Moses, the chUdren
of Israel carried captive theh enemies, men and women, as
your god would have done too, if he had been able. You
profess to accuse Moses of doing wrong, while in fact you
envy his success. There was no cruelty in pumshing with
the sword those who had smned grievously against God. In
deed, Moses entreated pardon for this sin, even offering to
bear himseK m their stead the divine anger. But even had
he been cruel instead of compassionate, he would stiU have
been better than your god. For if any of his followers had been
sent to break the force of the enemy and had been taken
captive, he would never, if victorious, have condemned Mm
when he had done no wrong, but acted in obedience to orders.
And yet this is what your god is to do- with the part of
himseK which is to be fastened in the mass of darkness,

490 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXIII.
because it obeyed orders, and advanced at the risk of its own
life in defence of Ms kingdom against the body of the enemy.
But, says the Mamchaean, this part, after mixture and com
bination with evU during the course of ages, has not been
obedient. But why ? If the disobedience was voluntary, the
guUt is real, and the punishment just. But from this it
would foUow that there is no nature opposed to sin ; other
wise it would not sin voluntarUy ; and so the whole system
of Manichaeamsm faUs at once. If, again, tMs part suffers
from the power of this enemy agamst whom it was sent, and
is subdued by a force it was unable to resist, the punishment
is unjust, and flagrantly cruel. The god who is defended on
the plea of necessity is a fit object of worsMp to those who
refuse to worsMp the one true God. StiU, it must be aUowed
that, however debasmg the worsMp of tMs god may be, the
worshippers are so far better than theh deity, that they have
an existence, while he is nothing more than a fabulous mven-
tion. Proceed we now to the rest of Faustus' vagaries.

BOOK XXIII.
1. Faustus. On one occasion, when addressing a large audi
ence, I was asked by one ofthe crowd, Do you beheve that Jesus
was born of Mary ? I rephed, WMch Jesus do you mean ?
for in the Hebrew it is the name of several people. One
was the son of Nun, the foUower of Moses ; x another was the
son of Josedech the high priest ; 2 agam, another is spoken of
as the son of David ; 3 and another is the Son of God.4 Of
which of these do you ask whether I beheve Mm to have been
born of Mary ? His answer was, The Son of God, of course.
On what evidence, said I, oral or written, am I to beheve
this ? He rephed, On the authority of Matthew. What, said
I, did Matthew write ? He rephed, " The book of the genera
tion of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham "
(Matt. i. 1). Then said I, I was afraid you were going to say,
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God ; and
I was prepared to correct you. Now that you have quoted the
1 Ex. xxiii. 11. a Ha", i. 1. ' Rom. i. 1-3. i Mark i. 1.

BOOK XXIH.] WAS JESUS BORN OF MARY? 491
verse accurately, you must nevertheless be advised to pay atten
tion to the words. Matthew does not profess to give an account
of the generation of the Son of God, but of the son of David.
2. I wiU, for the present, suppose that this person was
right in saymg that the son of David was born of Mary.
It stUl remams true, that in this whole passage of the genera
tion no mention is made of the Son of God tiU we come to
the baptism ; so that it is an injurious misrepresentation- on
your part to speak of this writer as maMng the Son' of God
the mmate of a womb. The writer, mdeed, seems to cry out
against such an idea, and in the very title of Ms book to
clear himseK of such blasphemy, asserting that the person
whose bhth he describes is the son of David, not the Son of
God. And K you attend to the writer's meamng and purpose,
you wUl see that what he wishes us to believe of Jesus the
Son of God is not so much that He was born of Mary, as that
He became the Son of God by baptism at the river Jordan.
He tells us that the person of whom he spoke at the outset
as the son of David was baptized by John, and became the
Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thhty
years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard
saying to Him, " Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten
Thee." J It appears from. tMs, that what was born, as is sup
posed, of Mary thirty years before, was not the Son of God,
but what was afterwards made so by baptism at Jordan, that
is, the new man, the same as in us when we were converted
from GentUe error, and beheve m God. This doctrme may
or may not agree with what you caU the Cathohc faith ; at
all events, it is what Matthew says, if Matthew is the real
author.- The words, Thou art my Son, this day I have be
gotten Thee, or, TMs is my beloved Son, in whom I am weU
pleased, do not occur m connection with the story of Mary's
motherhood, but with the putting away of sin at Jordan.
TMs is what is written ; and if you beheve tMs doctrme, you
must be caUed a Matthaean, for you wiU no longer be a
Cathohc. The Cathohc doctrme is weU known ; and it is as
unlike Matthew's representations as it is unlike the truth.
In the words of your creed, you declare that you beheve in
1 Luke iii. 22, 23.

492 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXIII.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Vhgin
Mary. According to you, therefore, the Son of God comes
from Mary ; according to Matthew, from the Jordan ; whUe
we believe Him to come from God. Thus the doctrine of
Matthew, K we are right in assigning the authorsMp to Mm,
is as different from yours as from ours ; only we acknowledge
that he is more cautious than you m ascribing the bemg born
of a woman to the son of David, and not to the Son of God.
As for you, your only alternative is to deny that those state
ments were made, as they appear to be, by Matthew, or to
aUow that you have abandoned the faith of the apostles.
3. For our part, whUe no one can alter our conviction that
the Son of God comes from God, we might indulge a credulous
disposition, to the extent of admitting the fiction, that Jesus
became the Son of God at Jordan, but not that the Son of
God was born of a woman. Then, again, the son said to
have been born of Mary cannot properly be called the son of
David, unless it is ascertained that he was begotten by
Joseph. You say he was not, and therefore you must aUow
him not to have been the son of David, even though he
were the son of Mary. The genealogy proceeds in the line
of Hebrew fathers from Abraham to David, and from David
to Joseph ; and as we are told that Joseph was not the real
father of Jesus, Jesus cannot be said to be the son of David.
To begm with caUing Jesus the son of David, and then to
go on to tell of his being born of Mary before her marriage
with Joseph, is pure madness. And if the son of Mary can
not be caUed the son of David, on account of his not being
the son of Joseph, stiU less can the name be given to the
Son of God.
4. Moreover, the Vhgin herself appears to have belonged
not to the tribe of Judah, to which the Jewish Mngs belonged,
and which aU agree was David's tribe, but to the priestly
tribe of Levi. This appears from the fact that the Vhgin's
father Joachim was a priest; and his name does not occur
in the genealogy. How, then, can Mary be brought withm
the pale of relationship to David, when she has neither father
nor husband belonging to it? Consequently, Mary's son
cannot possibly be the son of David, unless you can bring

BOOK XXIII.] UNFAIR CRITICISM. 493
the mother into some connection with Joseph, so as to be
either his wife or his daughter.
5. Augustine. The Catholic, which is also the apostolic,
doctrine, is, that our Lord and Saviour Jesus CMist is both
the Son of God in His divine nature, and the Son of David
after the flesh. This we prove from the writings of the evan
gehsts and apostles, so that no one can reject our proofs with
out also rejecting these writings. Faustus' plan is to represent
some one as saying a few words, without bringing forward
any evidence in answer to Faustus' fertile sophistry. But
with aU Ms ingenuity, the proofs I have to give wiU leave
Faustus no reply, but that these passages are spurious interpola
tions in the sacred record, — a reply which serves as a means of
escaping, or of trymg to escape, the force of the plainest state
ments in Holy Scripture. We have already in tMs treatise
sufficiently exposed the irrational absurdity, as weU as the
daring profamty, of such criticism; and not to exceed aU
limits, we must avoid repetition. It cannot be necessary that
we should bring together aU the passages scattered throughout
Scripture, wMch show, in answer to Faustus, that in the books
of the Mghest and most sacred authority He who is called
the only-begotten Son of God, even God with God, is also
caUed the Son of David, on account of His taking the form
of a servant from the Virgin Mary, the wife of Joseph. To
instance only Matthew, smce Faustus' argument refers to this
Gospel, as the whole book cannot be quoted here, let whoever
choose read it, and see how Matthew carries on to the passion
and the resurrection the narrative of Him whom He caUs the
Son of David m the mtroduction to the genealogy. Of this
same Son of David he speaks as bemg conceived and born
of the Vhgm Mary by the Holy Ghost. He also applies to
this the declaration of the prophet, " Behold, a virgin shaU
conceive, and shaU bear a son, and they shaU caU His name
Emmanuel, wMch is being interpreted, God with us." x Agam,
He who was caUed, even from the Virgin's womb, God-with-us,
is said to have heard, when He was baptized by John, a
voice from heaven, saying, " TMs is my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased." 2 Will Faustus say that to be caUed God
1 Isa. vii. 14 and Matt. i. 23. 2 Matt. iii. 17.

494 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXIH.
is less than to be caUed the Son of God? He seems to
tMnk so, for he tries to prove that because this voice came
from heaven at the time of the baptism, therefore, according
to Matthew, He must then have become the Son of God;
whereas the same evangehst, m a previous passage, quotes the
sacred announcement made by the prophet, in which the chUd
born of the Vhgin is caUed God-with-us.
6. It is remarkable how, amid Ms wild irrelevancies, tMs
wretched trifler loses no avaUable opportunity of darkemng
the declarations of Scripture by the fabulous creations of his
own fancy. Thus he says of Abraham, that when he took
Ms handmaid to wKe, he disbelieved God's promise that he
should have a chUd by Sarah ; whereas, in fact, tMs promise
had not at that time been given. Then he accuses Abraham
of falsehood in calhng Sarah Ms sister, not havmg read what
may be learned on the authority of Scripture about the famUy
of Sarah. Abraham's son Isaac also he accuses of falsely
caUing Ms wife Ms sister, though a distinct account is given
of her famUy. Then he accuses Jacob of there bemg a daUy
quarrel among Ms four wives, wMch should be the first to
appropriate him on Ms return from the field, whUe nothing of
this is said in Scripture. And tMs is the man who pretends
to hate the writers of the sacred books for theh falsehood, and
who has the effrontery so to misrepresent even the gospel
record, though its authority is admitted by aU as possessing
the most abundant confirmation, as to try to make it appear,
not mdeed that Matthew himseK, — for m that case he would
have been forced to yield to apostohc authority, — but that
some one under the name of Matthew, has written about
Christ what he refuses to beheve, and attempts to refute with
a contumelious ingenmty !
7. The voice from heaven at the Jordan should be com
pared with the voice heard on the Mount.1 In neither case
do the words, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am weU
pleased," hnply that He was not the Son of God before ; for
He who from the Vhgm's womb took the form of a servant
" was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be
equal with God." 2 And the same Apostle Paul himseK says
1 Matt. xvii. 5. 2 Phil- "• 6.

BOOK XXIII.] SON OF DAVID AND SON OF GOD. 495
distinctly elsewhere, " But in the fuMess of time, God sent
His Son, made of a woman, made under the law ; " x that is,
a woman m the Hebrew sense, not a wKe, but one of the
female sex. The Son of God is both Lord of David in His
divine nature, and Son of David as bemg of the seed of
David after the flesh. And K it were not profitable for us
to beheve tMs, the same apostle would not have made it so
promment as he does, when he says to Timothy, " Eemember
that CMist Jesus, of the seed of David, rose from the dead,
according to my gospel." 2 And he carefuUy enjoins behevers
to regard as accursed whoever preaches another gospel con
trary to this.
8. TMs assaUant of the holy Gospel need find no difficulty
m the fact that CMist is caUed the Son of David, though He
was born of a vhgin, and though Joseph was not His real
father; WhUe the genealogy is brought down by the evan
gelist Matthew, not to Mary, but to Joseph. Fhst of aU, the
husband, as the man, is the more honourable; and Joseph
was Mary's husband, though she did not live with Mm, for
Matthew himseK mentions that she was caUed Joseph's wife
by the angel ; as it is also from Matthew that we learn that
Mary conceived not by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit. But
K tMs, instead of being a true narrative written by Matthew
the apostle, was a false narrative written by some one else
under his name, is it likely that he would have contradicted
himself in such an apparent manner, and m passages so im
mediately connected, as to speak of the Son of David as born
of Mary without conjugal intercourse, and then, in giving His
genealogy, to bring it down to the very man with whom the
Vhgm is expressly said not to have had intercourse, unless he
had some reason for doing so ? Even supposing there were
two writers, one caUing CMist the Son of David, and giving
an account of Christ's progemtors from David down to Joseph ;
whUe the other does not caU Christ the Son of David, and
says that He was born of the Vhgin Mary without mtercourse
with any man ; those statements are not irreconcUable, so as
to prove that one or both writers must be false. It wUl
appear on reflection that both accounts might be true; for
1 Gal. iv. 4. 2 2 Tim. ii. 8.

496 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXIII.

Joseph might be called the husband of Mary, though she was
Ms wife only in affection, and in the intercourse of the mind,
which is more intimate than that of the body. In this way
it might be proper that the husband of the virgin-mother of
Christ should have a place in the list of Christ's ancestors.
It might also be the case that some of David's blood flowed
m Mary herself, so that the flesh of Christ, although produced
from a virgin, stiU owed its origin to David's seed. But as,
in fact, both statements are made by one and the same writer,
who informs us both that Joseph was the husband of Mary
and that the mother of Christ was a virgm, and that Christ
was of the seed of David, and that Joseph is in the list of
Christ's progemtors m the Ime of David, those who prefer
the authority of the sacred Gospel to that of heretical fiction
must conclude that Mary was not unconnected with the family
of David, and that she was properly called the wife of Joseph,
because bemg a woman she was in spiritual alhance with him,
though there was no bodUy connection. Joseph, too, it is
plain, could not be omitted in the genealogy ; for, from the
superiority of his sex, such an omission would be equivalent
to a denial of his relation to the woman with whom he was
inwardly united ; and behevers in Christ are taught not to
tMnk carnal connection the chief thing in marriage, as if
without this they could not be man and wife, but to imitate
in Christian wedlock as closely as possible the parents of
Christ, that so they may have the more intimate union with
the members of Christ.
9. We beheve that Mary, as weU as Joseph, was of the
family of David, because -we believe the Scriptures, which
assert both that Christ was of the seed of David after the
flesh, and that His mother was the Virgin Mary, He having
no father. Therefore, whoever denies the relationship of
Mary to David, evidently opposes the pre-eminent authority
of these passages of Scripture ; and to maintain this opposition
he must bring evidence in support of his statement from
writings acknowledged by the Church as canonical and catholic,
not from any writings he pleases. In the matters of which
we are now treating, only the canonical writings have any
weight with us ; for they only are received and acknowledged

BOOK XXIII.] APOCRYPHAL SCRIPTURE. 497
by the Church spread over aU the world, which is itself a
fulfilment of the prophecies regarding it contained in these
writings. Accordingly, I am not bound to admit the un-
canonical account of Mary's birth which Faustus adopts, that
her father was a priest of the tribe of Levi, of the name of
JoacMm. But even were I to admit this account, I should
stUl contend that Joachim must have in some way belonged
to the famUy of David, and had somehow been adopted from
the tribe of Judah mto that of Levi ; or if not he, one of his
ancestors ; or, at least, that while born in the tribe of Levi, he
had stUl some relation to the hne of David ; as Faustus himself
acknowledges that Mary, though belonging to the tribe of Levi,
could be given to a husband of the tribe of Judah; and he
expressly says that if Mary were Joseph's daughter, the name
Son of David would be apphcable to Christ. In this way, by
the marriage of Joseph's daughter in the tribe of Levi, her
son, though born in the tribe of Levi, might not improperly
be caUed the Son of David. And so, if the mother of that
Joachim, who in the passage quoted by Faustus is caUed the
father of Mary, married m the tribe of Levi whUe she belonged
to the tribe of Judah and to the famUy of David, there would
thus be a sufficient reason for speaking of Joachim and Mary
and Mary's son as belonging to the seed of David. If I felt
obhged to pay any regard to the apocryphal scripture m which
JoacMm is caUed the father of Mary, I should adopt some
such explanation as the above, rather than admit any false
hood in the Gospel, where it is written both that Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, and our Saviour, was of the seed of David
after the flesh, and that He was born of the Vhgin Mary. It
is enough for us that the enemies of these Scriptures, which
record these truths and which we believe, cannot prove against
¦them any charge of falsehood.
1 0. Faustus cannot pretend then I am unable to prove that
Mary was of the family of David, as I have shown Mm unable
, to prove that she was not. I produce the strongest evidence
from Scriptures of estabhshed authority, which declare that
Christ was of the seed of David, and that He was born with
out a father of the Virgin Mary. Faustus expresses what he
considers a most becoming indignation against impropriety
5 21

498 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BO OK XXIV.
when he says, It is an injurious misrepresentation of the writer
to make him speak of the Son of God as the inmate of a womb.
Of course, the Cathohc doctrme wMch teaches that CMist the
Son of God was born in the flesh of a vhgin, does not make
the Son of God the inmate of her womb in the sense of havmg
no existence beyond it, as K He had abandoned the govern
ment of heaven and earth, or as K He had left the presence of
the Father. The mistake is with the Mamchaeans, whose
understandmg is so incapable of forming a conception of any
thing except what is material, that they cannot comprehend
how the Word of God, who is the virtue and wisdom of God,
whUe remaining in HimseK and with the Father, and whUe
governing the umverse, reaches from end to end in strength,
and sweetly orders aU things.1 In the faultless procedure of
this adorable providence, He appomted for HimseK an eartMy
mother ; and to free His servants from the bondage of corrup
tion He took in this mother the form of a servant, that is, a
mortal body ; and this body wMch He took He showed openly,
and when it had been exposed, even to suffering and death, He
raised it again from the dead, and buUt again the temple wMch
had been destroyed. You who shrink from this doctrine as
blasphemous, make the members of your god to be confined
not in a virgin's womb, but m the wombs of aU female anhnals,
from elephants down to flies. Perhaps you think the less of
the true Christ, because the Word is said so to have become
incarnate in the Virgin's womb as to provide a temple for
Himself in human nature, while His own nature continued
unaltered in its mtegrity ; and, on the other hand, you think
the more of your god, because in the bonds and poUution of
his confinement in flesh, in the part wMch is to be made
fast to the mass of darkness, he seeks for help to no purpose,
or is even rendered powerless to ask for help.

BOOK XXIV.
1. Faustus. We are asked the reason of our denial that man
is made by God. But we do not assert that man is in no sense
1 Wisd. viii. 1.

BOOK XXIV.] TWO BIRTHS. 499
made by God ; we only ask in what sense, and when, and
how. For, accordmg to the apostle, there are two men, one of
whom he caUs sometimes the outer man, generally the earthy,
sometimes, too, the old man : the other he calls the inner
or heavenly or new man. The question is, Which of these is
made by God ? For we have hkewise two births ; one, when
nature brought us forth into this hght, binding us m the bonds
of flesh ; and the other, when the truth regenerated us on our
conversion from error and our entrance into the faith It is this
second bhth of wMch Jesus speaks m the Gospel, when He
says, " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kmg-
dom of God." 1 Nicodemus, not knowing what Christ meant,
was at a loss, and inquired how tMs could be, for an old man
could not enter into Ms mother's womb and be born a second
time. Jesus said m reply, " Except a man be born of water
and of the Holy Sphit, he cannot see the Mngdom of God."
Then He adds, " That wMch is born of the flesh is flesh ; and
that wMch is born of the Sphit is spirit." Hence, as the
bhth m wMch our bodies originate is not the only birth, but
there is another in which we are born agam M spirit, an
important question arises from tMs distmction as to wMch of
those births it is in wMch God makes us. The manner of
bhth also is twofold. In the humiliating process of ordinary
generation, we spring from the heat of animal passion ; but
when we are brought into the faith, we are formed under good
instruction m honour and purity in Jesus Christ, by the Holy
Sphit. For tMs reason, in aU rehgion, and especiaUy m the
Christian rehgion, young chUdren are invited to membership.
TMs is Muted at in the words of His apostle : " My httle
chUdren, of whom I travail in birth agam until Christ be
formed m you." 2 The question, then, is not whether God
makes man, but what man He makes, and when, and how.
For K it is when we are fashioned in the womb that God
forms us after His own image, which is the common behef of
GentUes and Jews, and wMch is also your behef, then God
makes the old man, and produces us by means of sensual
passion, wMch does not seem smtable to His divine nature.
But K it is when we are converted and brought to a better
1 John iii. 3. 2 Gal. iv. 19.

500 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHAEAN. [BOOK XXIV.
life that we are formed by God, which is the general doctrine
of CMist and His apostles, and which is also our doctrine, in
this case God makes the new man, and produces us in honour
and purity, wMch would agree perfectly with His sacred and
adorable majesty. If you do not reject Paul's authority, we
wUl prove to you from Mm what man God makes, and when,
and how. He says to the Ephesians, " That ye put off accord
ing to your former conversation the old man, which is corrupt
through deceitful lusts ; and be renewed m the sphit of your
mind ; and put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and hohness of truth." 1 TMs shows that in the
creation of man after the image of God, it is another man that
is spoken of, and another bhth, and another manner of birth.
The putting off and putting on of which he speaks, point to
the time of the reception of the truth ; and the assertion that
the new man is created by God imphes that the old man is
created neither by God nor after God. And when he adds,
that this new man is made m hohness and righteousness and
truth, he thus points to another manner of birth of which tMs
is the character, and which, as I have said, differs widely from
the manner in which bodUy generation is effected. And as
he declares that only the former is of God, it foUows that the
latter is not. Again, writing to the Colossians, he uses words
to the same effect : " Put off the old man with Ms deeds, and
put on the new man, which is renewed in the knowledge of
God according to the image of Him who created Him m you."
Here he not only shows that it is the new man that God
makes, but he declares the time and manner of the formation,
for the words in the knowledge of God point to the time of
beheving. Then he adds, according to the image of Him who
created him, to make it clear that the old man is not the image
of God, nor formed by God. Moreover, the foUowing words,
" Where there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek,
Barbarian nor Scythian,"2 show more plainly stUl that the
birth by which we are made male and female, Greeks and
Jews, Scythians and Barbarians, is not the bhth in which God
effects the formation of man ; but that the bhth with which
God has to do is that in which we lose the difference of
1 Eph. iv. 22-24. 2 Col. iii. 9-11.

BOOK XXD7.] DID GOD MAKE THE BODY ? 501
nation and sex and condition, and become one like Him who
is one, that is, Christ. So the same apostle says again, " As
many as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ :
there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor
female, there is neither bond nor free ; but all are one in
Christ." J Man, then, is made by God, not when from one he
is divided into many, but when from many he becomes one.
The division is m the first birth, or that of the body ; union
comes by the second, wMch is immaterial and divine. This
affords sufficient ground for our opimon, that the birth of the
body should be ascribed to nature, and the second birth to
the Supreme Being. So the same apostle says again to the
CorintMans, " I have begotten you in Christ Jesus by the
gospel ; " 2 and, spealring of Mmself, to the Galatians, " When
it pleased Him, who separated me from my mother's womb, to
reveal His Son m me, that I might preach Him among the
GentUes, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." 3
It is plam that everywhere he speaks of the second or spiritual
bhth as that m wMch we are made by God, as distinct from
the mdecency of the first birth, in which we are on a level
with other animals as regards dignity and purity, as we are
conceived m the maternal womb, and are formed, and brought
forth. You may observe that in this matter the dispute be
tween us is not so much about a question of doctrine as of
interpretation. For you think that it is the old or outer or
earthy man that is said to have been made by God ; while we
apply this to the heavenly man, giving the superiority to the
inner or new man. And our opinion is not rash or ground
less, for we have learned it from Christ and His apostles, who
are proved to have been the first in the world who thus taught.
2. Augustine. The Apostle Paul certainly uses the ex
pression the inner man for the spirit of the mind, and the
outer man for the body and for this mortal hfe; but we
nowhere find him making these two different men, but one,
wMch is aU made by God, both the inner and the outer.
However, it is made in the image of God only as regards the
inner, which, besides being immaterial, is rational, and is not
possessed by the lower animals. God, then, did not make
1 Gal. iii. 27, 28. " 1 Cor. iv. 15. 3 Gal. i. 15, 16.

502 REPLY TO FaVUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXIV.
one man after His own image, and another man not after that
image ; but the one man, wMch mcludes both the mner and
the outer, He made after His own image, not as regards the
possession of a body and of mortal hfe, but as regards the
rational mind with the power of knowmg God, and with the
superiority as compared with aU irrational creatures which the
possession of reason imphes. Faustus aUows that the mner
man is made by God, when, as he says, it is renewed in the
knowledge of God after the image of Him that created it.
I readUy admit tMs on the apostle's authority. Why does
not Faustus admit on the same authority that " God has
placed the members every one in the body, as it has pleased
Him " ? x Here we learn from the same apostle that God is
the framer of the outer man too. Why does Faustus take
only what he thinks to be in Ms own favour, whUe he leaves
out or rejects what upsets the follies of the Mamchaeans?
Moreover, in treating of the earthy and the heavenly man, and
making the distinction between the mortal and the immortal,
between that wMch we are m Adam and that which we shaU
be m CMist, the apostle quotes the declaration of the law
regarding the earthy or natural body, referring to the very
book and the very passage where it is written that God made
the earthy man too. Speakmg of the manner m which the
dead shaU rise again, and of the body with wMch they shah
come, after usmg the simihtude of the seeds of corn, that they
are sown bare grain, and that God gives them a body as it
pleases Him, and to every seed Ms own body, — thus, by the
way, overthrowing the error of the Mamchaeans, who say that
grams and plants, and aU roots and shoots, are created by the
race of darkness, and not by God, who, according to them,
instead of exerting power m the production of these objects,
is HimseK subject to confinement in them, — he goes on, after
tMs refutation of Manichaean impieties, to describe the different
lands of flesh. " AU flesh," he says, " is not the same flesh"
Then he speaks of celestial and terrestrial bodies, and then of
the change of our body by wMch it wiU become sphitual and
heavenly. " It is sown," he says, " in dishonour, it shaU rise
in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it shaU rise m power ; it is
1 1 Cor. xii. 18.

BOOK XXIV.] MAN MADE AND REMADE. 503
sown a natural body, it shaU rise a sphitual body." Then, in
order to show the origin of the natural body, he says, " There
is a natural body, and there is a sphitual body; as it is
written, The first man, Adam, was made a livmg soul." J
Now tMs is written m Genesis,2 where it is related how God
made man, and animated the body which He had formed of
the earth. By the old man tbe apostle simply means the old
hfe, wMch is a hfe m sin, and is after the manner of Adam,
of whom it is said, " By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin ; and so death passed upon aU men, m that
all have smned." 3 Thus the whole of this man, both the
inner and the outer part, has become old by sin, and hable to
the punishment of mortahty. There is, however, a restoration
of the mner man, when it is renewed after the image of its
Creator, in the putting off of unrighteousness — that is, the
old man, and putting on righteousness — that is, the new man.
But when that wMch is sown a natural body shall rise a
spiritual body, the outer man too shaU attain the dignity of a
celestial character ; so that aU that has been created may be
created anew, and aU that has been made be remade by the
Creator and Maker Himself. This is briefly explamed in the
words : " The body is dead because of sin ; but the sphit is
hfe because of righteousness. But K the Sphit of Him who
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised
up Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies
by His Spirit dweUing in you."4 No one instructed in the
Cathohc doctrine but knows that it is in the body that some
are male and some female, not in the spirit of the mind, in
wMch we are renewed after the image of God. But else
where the apostle teaches that God is the Maker of both ; for
he says, "Neither is the woman without the man, nor the
man without the woman, in the Lord ; for as the woman is
of the man, so is the man by the woman ; but all tMngs are
of God."5 The only reply given to this, by the perverse
stupidity of those who are ahenated from the life of God by
the ignorance which is in them, on account of the bhndness of
their heart, is, that whatever pleases them m the apostohc
1 1 Cor. xv. 33-45. 2 Gen. ii. 7. 3 Rom. v. 12.
1 Rom. viii. 10, 11. 5 1 Cor. xi. 11, 12.

504 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXV.

writings is true, and whatever displeases them is false. This
is the insanity of the Mamchaeans, who will be wise if they
cease to be Manichaeans. As it is, if they are asked whether
it is He that remakes and renews the inner man (which they
acknowledge to be renewed after the image of God, and they
themselves quote the passage in support of this ; and, accord
ing to Faustus, God makes man when the mner man is re
newed in the image of God), they wiU answer, yes. And if
we then go on to ask when God made what He now renews,
they must devise some subterfuge to prevent the exposure of
their absurdities. For, according to them, the inner man is
not formed or created or originated by God, but is part of His
own substance sent against His enemies; and instead of
becommg old by sin, it is through necessity captured and
damaged by the enemy. Not to repeat all the nonsense they
talk, the first man they speak of is not the man of the earth
earthy that the apostle speaks of,1 but an invention proceeding
from their own magazine of untruths. Faustus, though he
chooses man as a subject for discussion, says not a word of tMs
first man ; for he is afraid that his opponents in the discussion
might come to know something about Mm.

BOOK XXV.
1. Faustus. Is God finite or infinite ? He must be finite
unless you are mistaken in addressing Him as the God of
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob ; unless, indeed, the being thus
addressed is different from the God you call infinite. In the
case of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the mark
of circumcision, which separated these men from feUowship
with other people, marked also the limit of God's power as
extending only to them. And a being whose power is finite
cannot himself be infinite. Moreover, in this address, you do
not mention even the ancients before Abraham, such as Enoch,
Noah, and Shem, and others like them, whom you allow to
have been righteous though in uncircumcision ; but because they
lacked this distinguishing mark, you will not caU God theh
1 1 Cor. xv. 47.

BOOK XXV.] IS GOD INFINITE? 505
God, but only of Abraham and his seed. Now, if God is one
and infinite, what need of such careful particularity in ad
dressing Him, as if it was not enough to name God, without
adding whose God He is — Abraham's, namely, and Isaac's
and Jacob's ; as K Abraham were a landmark to steer by in
your invocation, to escape shipwreck among a shoal of deities?
The Jews, who are chcumcised, may very properly address
this deity, as having a reason for it, because they caU God
the God of chcumcision, in contrast to the gods of uncir
cumcision. But why you should do the same, it is difficult
to understand ; for you do not pretend to have Abraham's sign,
though you invoke his God. If we understand the matter
rightly, the Jews and their God seem to have set marks upon
one another for the purpose of recogmtion, that they might
not lose each other. So God gave them the disgustmg mark
of circumcision, that, in whatever land or among whatever
people they might be, they might by bemg chcumcised be
known to be His. They again marked God by calling Him
the God of theh fathers, that, wherever .He might be, though
among a crowd of gods, He might, on hearing the name God
of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, know at once that
He was addressed. So we often see, in a number of people
of the same name, that no one answers tUl called by his sur
name. In the same way the shepherd or herdsman makes
use of a brand to prevent his property being taken by others.
In thus marking God by calling Him the God of Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob, you show not only that He is finite, but also
that you have no connection with Him, because you have not
the mark of circumcision by which He recognises His own.
Therefore, K this is the God you worship, there can be no doubt
of His being fimte. But if you say that God is infimte, you must
first of all give up this finite deity, and by altering your invoca
tion, show your pemtence for your past errors. We have thus
proved God to be fimte, taking you on your own ground. But
to determine whether the one true God is infinite or not, we need
only refer to the opposition between good and evU. If evil does
not exist, then certainly God is infinite; otherwise He must be
finite. Evil, however, undoubtedly exists; therefore God is not
infimte. It is where good stops that evil begms.

506 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXV.
2. Augustine. No one that knows you would dream of
askmg you about the mfimtude of God, or of discussing the
matter with you. For, before there can be any degree of
spirituahty in any of your conceptions, you must first have
your minds cleared by simple faith, and by some elementary
knowledge, from the illusions of carnal and material ideas.
This your heresy prevents you from doing, for it invariably re
presents the body and the soul and God as extended in space,
either fimte or infinite, whUe the idea of space is applicable
only to the body. As long as this is the case, it wiU be
better for you to leave tMs matter alone ; for you can teach
no truth regarding it, any more than in other matters ; and in
this you are unfit for learmng, as you might do in other
things, if you were not proud and quarrelsome. For m such
questions as how God can be finite, when no space can con
tain Him ; how He can be infimte, when the Son knows Him
perfectly ; how He can be finite, and yet unbounded ; how
He can be infinite, and yet perfect ; how He can be finite,
who is without measure ; how He can be infinite, who is the
measure of all things — aU carnal ideas go for nothmg ; and if
the carnality is to be removed, it must first become ashamed
of itseK. Accordingly, your best way of endmg the matter
you have brought forward of God as finite or infinite, is to say
no more about it tiU you cease going so far astray from Christ,
who is the end of the law. Of the God of Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob we have aheady said enough to show why
He who is the true God of all creatures wished to be familiarly
known by His people under this name. On circumcision, too,
we have aheady spoken in several places in answer to ignorant
reproaches. The Mamchaeans would find nothmg to ridicule
in this sign if they would view it as appointed by God, to be
an appropriate symbol of the putting off of the flesh. They
ought thus to consider the rite with a Christian instead of a
heretical mind ; as it is written, " To the pure all things are
pure." But, considering the truth of the foUowing words, " To
the unclean and unbelieving nothing is pure, but even their
mind and conscience is defiled," x we must remind our witty
opponents, that if circumcision is indecent, as they say it is,
1 Tit. i. 15.

BOOK XXVI.] DID JESUS DIE? 507
they should rather weep than laugh at it ; for their god is
exposed to restraint and contamination in conjunction both
with the sMn wMch is cut and with the blood which is shed.

BOOK XXVI.
1. Faustus. You ask, If Jesus was not born, how did He die ?
WeU, this is a probabUity, such as one makes use of in want of
proofs. We wiU, however, answer the question by examples
taken from what you generaUy beheve. If they are true, they
wiU prove our case ; K they are false, they whl help you no
more than they wUl us. You say then, How could Jesus die,
if He were not man ? In return, I ask you, How did Ehas
not die, though he was a man ? Could a mortal encroach upon
the limits of immortahty, and could not Christ add to His
immortality whatever experience of death was requhed ? If
Ehas, contrary to nature, hves for ever, why not aUow that
Jesus, with no greater contrariety to nature, could remain in
death for tMee days ? Besides that, it is not only Elias, but
Moses and Enoch you beheve to be immortal, and to have
been taken up with theh bodies to heaven. Accordmgly, if
it is a good argument that Jesus was a man because He died,
it is an equaUy good argument that Ehas was not a man be
cause he did not die. But as it is false that Elias was not a
man, notwithstanding Ms supposed hnmortahty, so it is false
that Jesus was a man, though He is considered to have died.
The truth is, K you wiU beheve it, that the Hebrews were m
a mistake regardmg both the death of Jesus and the immor
tahty of Ehas. For it is equaUy untrue that Jesus died and
that Ehas did not die. But you beheve whatever you please ;
and for the rest, you appeal to nature. And, aUowing tMs
appeal, nature is against both the death of the immortal and
the immortahty of the mortal. And if we refer to the power
of effecting theh purpose as possessed by God and by man, it
seems more possible for Jesus to die than for Ehas not to die ;
for the power of Jesus is greater than that of Ehas. But K
you exalt the weaker to heaven, though nature is agamst it,
and, forgetting his condition as a mortal, endow Mm with

508 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXVI.
eternal felicity, why should I not admit that Jesus could die
if He pleased, even though I were to grant His death to have
been real, and not a mere semblance ? For, as from the outset
of His taking the likeness of man He underwent in appearance
aU the experiences of humanity, it was quite consistent that
He should complete the system by appearing to die.
2. Moreover, it is to be remembered that this reference to
what nature grants as possible, should be made in connection
with aU the history of Jesus, and not only with His death.
Accordmg to nature, it is impossible that a man bhnd from
his birth should see the light ; and yet Jesus appears to have
performed a miracle of this kind, so that the Jews themselves
exclaimed that from the beginning of the world it was not
seen that one opened the eyes of a man born blind.1 So also
healing a withered hand, giving the power of utterance and
expression to those born dumb, restoring animation to the
dead, with the recovery of their bodUy frame after dissolution
had begun, produce a feeling of amazement, and must seem
utterly incredible in view of what is naturaUy possible and
impossible. And yet, as Christians, we believe aU the things
to have been done by the same person ; for we regard not the
law of nature, but the powerful operation of God. There is a
story, too, of Jesus having been cast from the brow of a hill,
and having escaped unhurt. If, then, when thrown down
from a height He did not che, simply because He chose not to
die, why should He not have had the power to die when He
pleased ? We take this way of answering you, because you
have a fancy for discussion, and affect to use logical weapons
not properly belonging to you. As regards our own belief, it
is no more true that Jesus died than that Ehas is immortal.
3. Augustine. As to Enoch and Elias and Moses, our belief
is determined not by Faustus' suppositions, but by the de
clarations of Scripture, resting as they do on foundations of
the strongest and surest evidence. People in error, as you are,
are unfit to decide what is natural, and what contrary to nature.
We admit that what is contrary to the ordinary course of
human experience is commonly spoken of as contrary to
nature. Thus the apostle uses the words, " If thou art cut out
1 John ix.

BOOK XXVI.] NATURE AND MIRACLE. 509

of the wUd ohve, and engrafted contrary to nature in the "ood
ohve." x Contrary to nature is here used in the sense of con
trary to human experience of the course of nature ; as that a
wUd ohve engrafted in a good ohve should bring forth the
fatness of the ohve instead of wUd berries. But God, the
Author and Creator of all natures, does nothmg contrary to
nature ; for whatever is done by Him who appomts aU natural
order and measure and proportion must be natural in every
case. And man MmseK acts contrary to nature only when he
sins ; and then by pumshment he is brought back to nature
again. The natural order of justice requires either that sin
should not be committed or that it should not go unpunished.
In either case, the natural order is preserved, K not by the
soul, at least by God. For sin pains the conscience, and
brings grief on the mind of the smner, by the loss of the light
of justice, even should no physical sufferings follow, which are
inflicted for correction, or are reserved for the incorrigible.
There is, however, no impropriety in saying that God does a
thing contrary to nature, when it is contrary to what we know
of nature. For we give the name nature to the usual common
course of nature ; and whatever God does contrary to this,
we caU a prodigy, or a mhacle. But against the supreme law
of nature, wMch is beyond the knowledge both of the ungodly
and of weak behevers, God never acts, any more than He acts
agamst Hhnself. As regards spiritual and rational beings, to
wMch class the human soul belongs, the more they partake of
this unchangeable law and light, the more clearly they see
what is possible, and what impossible ; and again, the greater
theh distance from it, the less theh perception of the future,
and the more frequent their surprise at strange occurrences.
4. Thus of what happened to Elias we are ignorant ; but
still we believe the truthful declarations of Scripture regarding
him. Of one thing we are certain, that what God willed hap
pened, and that except by God's wiU nothing can happen to
any one. So, if I am told that it is possible that the flesh of
a certain man shaU be changed into a celestial body, I allow
the possibihty, but I cannot tell whether it will be done ; and
the reason of my ignorance is, that I am not acquainted with
1 Rom. xi. 24.

510 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [bOOKXXVL
the wiU of God in the matter. That it wiU be done K it is
God's wiU, is perfectly clear and indubitable. Again, if I am
told that sometMng would happen if God did not prevent it
from happenmg, I reply confidently that what is to happen is
the action of God, not the event which might otherwise have
happened. For God knows His own future action, and there
fore He knows also the effect of that action in preventing the
happenmg of what would otherwise have happened; and, beyond
aU question, what God knows is more certain than what man
tMnks. Hence it is as impossible for what is future not to
happen, as for what is past not to have happened ; for it can
never be God's wiU that anything should, in the same sense,
be both true and false. Therefore all that is properly future
cannot but happen ; what does not happen never was future ;
even as all things wMch are properly in the past did indubi
tably take place.
5. Accordmgly, to say, if God is ahmghty, let Him make
what has been done to be undone, is m fact to say, K God is
almighty, let Him make a thmg to be in the same sense both
true and false. God can put an end to the existence of any-
tiring, when the tiling to be put an end to has a present exist
ence ; as when He puts an end by death to the existence of
any one who has been brought into existence m birth ; for in
tMs case there is an actual existence wMch may be put a stop
to. But when a thmg does not exist, the existence cannot be
put a stop to. Now, what is past no longer exists, and what
ever has an existence wMch can be put an end to cannot be
past. What is truly past is no longer present ; and the truth
of its past existence is m our judgment, not in the thing itself
wMch no longer exists. The proposition asserting anythmg to be
past is true when the thing no longer exists. God cannot make
such a proposition false, because He cannot contradict the truth.
The truth in this case, or the true judgment, is first of all in our
own mind, when we know and give expression to it. But should
it disappear from our minds by our forgetting it, it would stiU
remam as truth. It wiU always be true that the past thing
which is no longer present had an existence ; and the truth
of its past existence after it has stopped is the same as the
truth of its future existence before it began to be. This truth

BOOK XXVI.] OMNIPOTENCE. 511

cannot be contradicted by God, in whom abides the supreme
and unchangeable truth, and whose Ulumination is the source
of aU the truth to be found in any mind or understandmg.
Now God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to die ;
nor does this MabUity prevent His being ommpotent. True
omnipotence belongs to Him who truly exists, and who alone
is the source of aU existence, both sphitual and corporeal
The Creator makes what use He pleases of aU His creatures ;
and His pleasure is m harmony with true and unchangeable
justice, by wMch, as by His own nature, He, HimseK un
changeable, brings to pass the changes of aU changeable things
according to the desert of theh natures or of their actions. No
one, therefore, would be so foohsh as to deny that Ehas bemg
a creature of God could be changed either for the worse or for
the better ; or that by the wUl of the ommpotent God he
could be changed in a manner unusual among men. So we
can have no reason for doubting what on the high authority
of Scripture is related of him, unless we limit the power of
God to things wMch we are famUiar with.
6. Faustus' argument is, If Ehas who was a man could
escape death, why might not Christ have the power of dymg,
since He was more than man ? TMs is the same as to say, If
human nature can be changed for the better, why should not
the divine nature be changed for the worse ?— a weak argument,
seeing that human nature is changeable, while the divme nature
is not. Such a method of inference would lead to the glaring
absurdity, that if God can bestow eternal glory on man,
He must also have the power of consigning HimseK to eternal.
misery. Faustus wUl reply that Ms argument refers only to
three days of death for God, as compared with eternal life for
man. WeU, K you understood the three days of death in
the sense of the death of the flesh wMch God took as a part
of our mortal nature, you would be quite correct; for the
truth of the gospel makes known that the death of Christ for
three days was for tbe eternal IKe of men. But in argumg
that there is no impropriety in asserting a death of three days
of the divme nature itseK, without any assumption of mortality,
because human nature can be endowed with immortahty, you
display the foUy of one who knows neither God nor the gifts

512 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXVI.
of God. And mdeed, since you make part of your god to be
fastened to the mass of darkness for ever, how can you escape
the absurd conclusion already mentioned, that God consigns
HimseK to eternal misery ? You wUl then require to prove
that part of light is light, whUe part of God is not God. To
give you in a word, without argument, the true reason of our
faith, as regards Ehas having been caught up to heaven
from the earth, though only a man, and as regards Christ bemg
truly born of a vhgin, and truly dymg on the cross, our behef
in both cases is grounded on the declaration of Holy Scrip
ture,1 wMch it is piety to beheve, and impiety to disbeheve.
What is said of Ehas you pretend to deny, for you wiU pre
tend anything. Eegarding Christ, although even you do not go
the length of saying that He could not die, though He could be
born, still you deny His birth from a virgm, and assert His
death on the cross to have been feigned, wMch is equivalent
to denying it too, except as a mockery for the delusion of
men ; and you aUow so much merely to obtain mdulgence for
your own falsehoods from the behevers m these fictions.
7. The question which Faustus makes it appear that he is
asked by a Cathohc, If Jesus was not born, how could He die ?
could be asked only by one who overlooked the fact that Adam
died, though he was not born. Who wiU venture to say that
the Son of God could not, if He had pleased, have made for
Himself a true human body in the same way as He did for
Adam; for aU things were made by Him?2 or who wiU deny
that He who is the Almighty Son of the Almighty could, if He
had chosen, have taken a body from a heavenly substance, or
from air or vapour, and have so changed it into the precise
character of a human body, as that He might have lived as a
man, and have died in it ? Or, once more, K He had chosen
to take a body of none of the material substances which He had
made, but to create for Himself from notMng real flesh, as all
thmgs were created by Him from nothing, none of us wiU
oppose this by saying that He could not have done it. The
reason of our believing Hhn to have been born of the Vhgin
Mary, is not that He could not otherwise have appeared among
men m a true body, but because it is so written in the Scrip-
1 2 Kings ii. 11 ; Matt. i. 25, xvii. 50. 2 Soim i. 3.

BOOK XXVI.] DOCETISM OF FAUSTUS. 513

ture, wMch we must beheve in order to be Christians, or to be
saved. We beheve, then, that Christ was born of the Virgin
Mary, because it is so written in the Gospel ; we believe that
He died on the cross, because it is so written in the Gospel ;
we believe that both His birth and death were real, because
the Gospel is no fiction. Why He chose to suffer all these
things in a body taken from a woman is a matter known only
to Himself. Perhaps He took this way of giving importance
and honour to both the sexes which He had created, taking
the form of a man, and being born of a woman ; or there may
have been some other reason, we cannot teU. But this may
he confidently affirmed, that what took place was exactly as
we are told in the Gospel narrative, and that what the wisdom
of God determined upon was exactly what ought to have
happened. We place the authority of the Gospel above aU
heretical discussions ; and we admire the counsel of divine
wisdom more than any counsel of any creature.
8. Faustus caUs upon us to believe him, and says, The truth
is, if you will believe it, that the Hebrews were in a mistake
regarding both the death of Jesus and the immortality of Elias.
And. a httle after he adds, As from the outset of His taking the
likeness of .man He underwent in appearance all the experiences
of humanity, it was quite consistent that He should complete the
system, by appearing to die. How can this infamous har, who
declares that Christ feigned death, expect to be beheved ?
Did Christ utter falsehood when He said, " It behoves the Son
of man to be kiUed, and to rise the third day"?1 And do you
tell us to beheve what you say, as if you uttered no false
hoods ? In that case, Peter was more truthful than Christ
when he said to Him, " Be it far from Thee, Lord ; tMs shall not
he unto Thee;" for which it was said to him, " Get thee behind
me, Satan."2 TMs rebuke was not lost upon Peter, for, after
his correction and fuU preparation, he preached even to. his
own death the truth of the death of Christ. But K Peter
deserved to be caUed Satan for thinking that Christ would
not die, what should you be called, when you not only deny
that Christ died, but assert that He feigned death ? You give,
as a reason for Christ's appearing to die, that He underwent
1 Luke xxiv. 7. * Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
« 2K

514 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXVII.
in appearance aU the experiences of humamty. But that He
feigned aU the experiences of humamty is only your opinion
in opposition to the Gospel. In reahty, when the evangelist
says that Jesus slept,1 that He was hungry,2 that He was
thirsty,3 that He was sorrowful4 or glad, and so on, — these
thmgs are all true m the sense of not bemg feigned but
actual experiences ; only that they were undergone, not from
a mere natural necessity, but in the exercise of a controlling
wiU, and of divine power. In the case of a man, anger,
sorrow, sleeping, being hungry and thirsty, are often involun
tary ; in CMist they were acts of His own wiU. So also men
are born without any act of theh own wiU, and suffer against
theh wiU ; whUe Christ was born and suffered by His own
will StUl, the tMngs are true ; and the accurate narrative
of them is intended to instruct whoever beheves m Christ's
gospel in the truth, not to delude him with falsehoods.

BOOK XXVII.
1. Faustus. If Jesus was not born, He cannot have suffered ;
but since He did suffer, He must have been born. I advise you
not to have recourse to logical inference in these matters, or else
your whole faith wiU be shaken. For, even according to you,
Jesus was born mhaculously of a virgin ; wMch the argument
from consequents to antecedents shows to be false. For your
argument might thus be turned against you : If Jesus was born
of a woman, He must have been begotten by a man ; but He was
not begotten by a man, therefore He was not born of a woman.
If, as you believe, He could be born without being begotten,
why could He not also suffer without bemg brought forth ?
2. Augustine. The argument which you here reply to is one
which could be used only by such ignorant people as you suc
ceed in misleading, not by those who know enough to refute
you. Jesus could both be born without being begotten and suffer
without being brought forth. His being one and not the other
was the effect of His own will He chose to be born without
being begotten, and not to suffer without being brought forth.
1Matt. viii. 24. 2Matt. iv. 2. 3 John xix. 28. "Matt xxvi. 37.

BOOK XXVIII.] WAS CHRIST BORN ? 515

And if you ask how I know that He was brought forth, and
that He suffered, I read tMs in the faithful Gospel narrative.
K I ask how you know what you state, you bring forward the
authority of Manichaeus, and charge the Gospel with false
hood. Even K Mamchaeus did not set forth falsehood as an
exceUence in Christ, I should not beheve Ms statements. His
praise of falsehood comes from notMng that he found in
CMist, but from his own moral character.

BOOK XXVIII.
1. Faustus. Christ, you. say, could not have died, had He not
been born. I reply, If He was born, He cannot have been God;
or if He could both be God and be born, why could He not
both be born and die ? Plainly, arguments and necessary
consequences are not apphcable to those matters, where the
question is of the account to be given of Jesus. The answer
must be obtained from His own statements, or from the state
ments of His apostles regarding Him. The genealogy must be
examined as regards its consistency with itseK, mstead of
arguing from the supposition of CMist's death to the fact of
His bhth ; for He might have suffered without having been
born, or He might have been born, and yet never have suffered ;
for you yourselves acknowledge that with God notMng is
impossible, wMch is inconsistent with the demal that Christ
could have suffered without having been born.
2. Augustine. You are always answering arguments wMch
no one uses, instead of our real arguments, which you cannot
answer. No one says that Christ could not die if He had
not been born ; for Adam died though he had not been born.
What we say is, CMist was born, because tMs is said not by
this or that heretic, but in the holy Gospel ; and He died, for
this too is written, not in some heretical production, but in
the holy Gospel You set aside argument on the ques
tion of the true account to be given of Jesus, and refer to
what He says of HimseK, and what His apostles say of Him ;
and yet, when I begm to quote the Gospel of His apostle
Matthew, where we have the whole narrative of CMist's birth,

516 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXVIII.

you forthwith deny that Matthew wrote the narrative, though
this is affirmed by the continuous testimony of the whole Church,
from the days of apostohc presidency to the bishops of our
own time. What authority will you quote against this?
Perhaps some book of Mamchaeus, where it is denied that
Jesus was born of a virgin. As, then, I believe your book to
be the production of Manichaeus, since it has been kept and
handed down among the disciples of Mamchaeus, from the time
when he hved to the present time, by a regular succession of
your presidents, so I ask you to beheve the book which I quote
to have been written by Matthew, since it has been handed
down from the days of Matthew in the Church, without any
break in the connection between that time and the present.
The question then is, whether we are to beheve the statements
of an apostle who was in the company of Christ while He was
on earth, or of a man away in Persia, born long after Christ.
But perhaps you wiU quote some other book bearing the name
of an apostle known to have been chosen by CMist ; and you
will find there that Christ was not born of Mary. Since, then,
one of the books must be false, the question in this case is,
whether we are to yield our belief to a book acknowledged and
approved as handed down from the beginning in the Church
founded by Christ HimseK, and maintained through the apostles
and theh successors in an unbroken connection all over the
world to the present day ; or to a book which this Church con
demns as unknown, and which, moreover, is brought forward by
men who prove theh veracity by praising Christ for falsehood.
3. Here you will say, Examine the genealogy as given in
the two Gospels, and see if it is consistent with itself. The
answer to this has been given already.1 Your difficulty is
how Joseph could have two fathers. But even if you could
not have thought of the explanation, that one was his own
father, and the other adopted, you should not have been so
ready to put yourself in opposition to such high authority.
Now that this explanation has been given you, I call upon you
to acknowledge the truth of the Gospel, and above all to cease
your mischievous and unreasonable attacks upon the truth.
4. Faustus most plausibly refers to what Jesus said of
rm. 3.

BOOK XXVIII.] MATTHEW OR MANICHaEUS ? 517

HhnseK. But how is this to be known except from the
narratives of His disciples ? And if we do not believe them
when they teU us that CMist was born of a virgin, hoAV shall
we believe what they record as said by Christ of HimseK ?
For, as regards any writing professmg to come immediately
from Christ HimseK, if.it were reaUy His, how is it not read
and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in
the Church, wMch, beginning with CMist Himself, and con
tinued by His apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops,
has been mamtained and extended to our own day, and in
which is found the fulfilment of many former predictions,
whUe those concerning the last days are sure to be accom
plished in the future ? In regard to the appearance of such
a writing, it would requhe to be considered from what quarter
it issued. Supposing it to have issued from Christ HimseK,
those m immediate connection with Him might very well have
received it, and have transmitted it to others. In this case,
the authority of the writing would be fully estabhshed by the
traditions of various communities, and of their presidents, as
I have aheady said. Who, then, is so infatuated as in our
day to beheve that the Epistle of CMist issued by Manichaeus
is genume, or to disbelieve Matthew's narrative of Christ's
words and actions ? Or, if the question is of Matthew being
the real author, who would not, in this also, believe what
he finds in the Church, which has a distinct history in un
broken connection from the days of Matthew to the present
time, rather than a Persian interloper, who comes more than
two hundred years after, and wishes us to believe his account
of Christ's words and actions rather than that of Matthew ;
whereas, even in the case of the Apostle Paul, who was caUed
from heaven after the Lord's ascension, the Church would not
have believed him, had there not been apostles in life with
whom he might communicate, and compare his gospel with
thehs, so as to be recogmsed as belonging to the same society ?
When it was ascertained that Paul preached what the apostles
preached, and that he lived in fellowship and harmony with
them, and when God's testimony was added by Paul's working
mhacles hke those done by the apostles, Ms authority became
so great, that Ms words are now received in the Church, as if,

518 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXvTH.
to use Ms own appropriate words, Christ were speakmg in
Mm.1 Mamchaeus, on the other hand, tMnks that the Church
of Christ should beheve what he says in opposition to the
Scriptures, wMch are supported by such strong and continuous
evidence, and m wMch the Church finds an emphatic mj unc
tion, that whoever preaches to her differently from what she
has received must be anathema.2
5. Faustus teUs us that he has good grounds for concludmg
that these Scriptures are unworthy of credit. And yet he
speaks of not using arguments. But the argument too shall
be refuted. The end of the whole argument is to bring the
soul to beheve that the reason of its misery m tMs world is,
that it is the means of preventmg God from being deprived of
His Mngdom, and that God's substance and nature is so ex
posed to change, corruption, mjury, and contamination, that
part of it is incurably defiled, and is consigned by HimseK to
eternal punishment in the mass of darkness, though, when it
was in harmless union with Himself, and guUty of no crime,
He knowingly sent it where it was to suffer defilement.
TMs is the end of all your arguments and fictions ; and would
that there were an end of them as regards your heart and your
lips, that you might sometime desist from beheving and utter
ing those horrible profanities! But, says Faustus, I prove
from the writings themselves that they cannot be in aU pomts
trustworthy, for they contradict one another. Why not say,
then, that they are whoUy untrustworthy, K theh testimony
is inconsistent and self-contradictory ? But, says Faustus, I
say what I think to be in accordance with truth. With what
truth ? The truth is only your own fiction, which begins with
God's battle, goes on to His contamination, and ends with His
damnation. No one, says Faustus, beheves writings which
contradict themselves. But K you think they do this, it is
because you do not understand them ; for your ignorance has
been manifested in regard to the passages you have quoted in
support of your opmion, and the same wiU appear in regard
to any quotations you may stUl make. So there is no reason
for our not beheving these writings, supported as they are by
such weighty testimony ; and this is itseK the best reason for
1 2 Cor. xiii. 3. s Gal- *• 8» 9-

BOOK XXIX.] WAS CHRIST'S BIRTH NECESSARY? 519
pronouncmg accursed those whose preaching differs from what
is there written

BOOK XXIX.
1. Faustus. If CMist was visible, and suffered without havmg
been born, tMs was sorcery. This argument of yours may be
turned agamst you, by replying that it was sorcery if He was
conceived or brought forth without being begotten. It is not
in accordance with the law of nature that a vhgin should bring
forth, and stUl less that she should stiU be a vhgm after bringing
forth. Why, then, do you refuse to admit that Christ, in a
preternatural manner, suffered without submitting to the con
dition of birth ? Beheve me : m substance, both our beliefs
are contrary to nature ; but our behef is decent, and yours is
not. We give an explanation of CMist's passion which is at
least probable, whUe the only explanation you give of His
bhth is false. In fine, we hold that He suffered in appear
ance, and did not reaUy die ; you believe in an actual birth,
and conception in the womb. If it is not so, you have only
to acknowledge that the bhth too was a delusion, and our
whole dispute wiU be at an end. As to what you frequently
allege, that CMist could not have appeared or spoken to men
without havmg been born, it is absurd ; for, as our teachers
have shown, angels have often appeared and spoken to men.
2. Augustine. We do not say that to die without having
been born is sorcery; for, as we have said already, this
happened in the case of Adam. But, though it had never
happened, who wiU venture to say that Christ could not, if
He had so pleased, have come without taking His body from
a vhgm, and yet appearing in a true body to redeem us by a
true death ? However, it was better that He should be, as He
actuaUy was, born of a vhgm, and, by His condescension do
honour to both sexes, for whose deliverance He was to die,
by taking a man's body born of a woman. In this He testi
fies emphaticaUy against you, and refutes your doctrine, which
makes the sexes the work of the devU. What we call ^sorcery
in your doctrme is your making CMist's passion and death to

520 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXTX.

have been only in appearance, so that, by a spectral illusion,
He seemed to die when He did not. Hence you must also
make His resurrection spectral and Ulusory and false ; for if
there was no true death, there could not be a real resurrection.
Hence also the marks which He showed to His doubting dis-
ciples must have been false ; and Thomas was not assured by
truth, but cheated by a he,- when he exclaimed, " My Lord,
and my God."1 And yet you would have us beheve that
your tongue utters truth, though CMist's whole body was a
falsehood. Our argument against you is, that the Christ you
make is such that you cannot be His true disciple unless you
too practise deceit. The fact that CMist's body was the only
one born of a vhgin does not prove that there was sorcery in
His bhth, any more than there is sorcery in its bemg the only
body to rise again on the third day, never to die any more.
WiU you say that there was sorcery m all the Lord's miracles
because they were unusual ? They reaUy happened, and their
appearance, as seen by men, was true, and not an Ulusion;
and when they are said to be contrary to nature, it is not that
they oppose nature, but that they transcend the method of
nature to which we are accustomed. May God keep the minds
of His people who are stiU babes m CMist from bemg influ
enced by Faustus, when he recommends as a duty that we
should acknowledge Christ's birth to have been iUusory and
not real, that so we may end our dispute ! Nay, verily, rather
let us continue to contend for the truth against them, than
agree with them m falsehood.
3. But if we are to end the controversy by saying this,
why do not our opponents themselves say it ? WhUe they
assert the death of Christ to have been not real but feigned,
why do they make out that He had no birth at aU, not even of
the same kind as His death ? If they had so much regard for
the authority of the evangehst as to oblige them to admit that
Christ suffered, at least in appearance, it is the same authority
which testifies to His birth. Two evangehsts, indeed, give
the story of the birth ;2 but in aU we read of Jesus having a
mother.3 Perhaps Faustus was unwilling to make the birth
1 John xx. 28. 2 Matt. i. 25 ; Luke ii. 7.
-" Matt. ii. 11 ; Mark iii. 32 ; Luke ii. 33 ; John ii. 1.

BOOK XXIX.] WHY DENY CHRIST'S BIRTH ? 521

an Ulusion, because the difference of the genealogies given in
Matthew and Luke causes an apparent discrepancy. But,
supposmg a man ignorant, there are many things also relating
to the passion of CMist in which he will think the evangelists
disagree; suppose Mm instructed, he finds entire agreement.
Can it be right to feign death, and wrong to feign birth ? And
yet Faustus wUl have us acknowledge the birth to be feigned,
in order to put an end to the dispute. It wih appear pre
sently m our reply to another objection what we think to be
the reason why Faustus wiU not admit of any bhth, even a
feigned one.
4. We deny that there is anything disgraceful m the bodies .
of saints. Some members, indeed, are caUed uncomely, be
cause they have not so pleasing an appearance as those con
stantly m view.1 But attend to what the apostle says, when
from the umty and harmony of- the body he enjoins charity
on the Church : " Much more those members of the body, which
seem to be feeble, are necessary : and those members of the
body, wMch we tMnk to be less honourable, upon these we
bestow more abundant honour ; and our uncomely parts have
more abundant comehness. For our comely parts have no
need : but God hath tempered the body together, having given
more abundant honour to that part which lacked : that there
should be no scMsm in the body." 2 The licentious and intern- -
perate use of those members is disgraceful, but not the mem
bers themselves ; for they are preserved in purity not only by
the unmarried, but also by wedded fathers and mothers of
holy hfe, m whose case the natural appetite, as serving not
lust, but an mteUigent purpose in the production of children,
is in no way disgraceful. StiU more, in the holy Virgin Mary,
who by faith conceived the body of Christ, there was nothing
disgraceful in the members which served not for a common
natural conception, but for a miraculous birth. In order that
we might conceive Christ in sincere hearts, and, as it were, pro
duce Him m confession, it was meet that His body should
1 In the Retractations, ii. see. 7, Augustine refers in correction of this remark
to his Reply to the Second Answer of Julian, iv. sec. 36, where he makes unoome-
liness the effect of sin. i
2 1 Cor. xii. 22-25.

522 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEaUST. [BOOK XXX.
come from the substance of His mother without injury to her
bodily purity. We cannot suppose that the mother of CMist
suffered loss by His bhth, or that the gift of productiveness
displaced the grace of virginity. If these occurrences, wMch
were real and no iUusion, are new and strange, and contrary
to the common course of nature, the reason is, that they are
great, and amazing, and divine; and all the more on this
account are they true, and firm, and sure. Angels, says
Faustus, appeared and spoke without having been born. As if
We held that Christ could not have appeared or spoken with
out having been born of a woman ! He could, but He chose
not ; and what He chose was best. And that He chose to do
what He did is plam, because He acted, not like your god,
from necessity, but voluntarily. That He was born we know,
because we put faith not in a heretic, but in CMist's gospel.

BOOK XXX.
1. Faustus. You apply to us the words of Paul : " Some shaU
depart from the faith, giving heed to lying sphits, and doctrines
of devils ; speaMng lies in hypocrisy ; havmg theh consciences
seared as with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry ; abstaining from
meats, which God has created to' be received, with thanksgivmg
by behevers." x I refuse to admit that the apostle said tMs,
unless you first acknowledge that Moses and the prophets
taught doctrines of devUs, and were the interpreters of a lying
and malignant sphit ; smce they enjom with great emphasis
abstinence from swine's flesh and other meats, which they call
unclean. This case must first be settled ; and you must con
sider long and carefuUy how theh teacMng 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 m condemning us, as you do now,
as followers of the doctrine of devUs, because we require the
priestly class to abstain from animal food ; for we limit the
prohibition to the priesthood, while you hold that your pro-
1 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

BOOK XXX.] ON ABSTINENCE. 523
phets, and Moses himseK, who forbade aU classes of men to
eat the flesh of swine, and hares, and conies, besides all varie
ties of cuttle-fish, and aU fish wanting scales, said this not in
a lymg sphit, nor m the doctrine of devUs, but from God, and
m the Holy Sphit. Even supposing, then, that Paul said these
words, you can convmce me only by condemning Moses and
the prophets ; and so, though you wUl not do it for reason or
truth, you wiU contradict Moses for the sake of your belly.
2. Besides, you have in your Book of Daniel the account
of the tMee youths, wMch you wiU find it difficult to reconcUe
with the opimon that to abstain from meats is the doctrine
of devils. For we are told that they abstamed not only from
what the law forbade, but even from what it allowed ; 1 and
you are wont to praise them, and count them as martyrs;
though they too foUowed the doctrme of devils, K this is to
be taken as the apostle's opmion. .And Daniel Mmself declares
that he fasted for tMee weeks, not eating flesh or drinking
wine, whUe he prayed for Ms people.2 How is it that he
boasts of this doctrme of devils, and glories m the falsehood
of a lying sphit ?
3. Agam, what are we to think of you, or of the better
class of CMistians among you, some of whom abstam from
swine's flesh, some from the flesh of quadrupeds, and some
from aU animal food, whUe aU 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 wiU venture to explain away or to
deny, for it is known to aU, and is practised yearly with par
ticular attention in the congregation of Cathohcs aU 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, accord
ing to tMs verse, were created by God that we might receive
them, whUe at the same time he caUs tMs abstinence a doctrme
of devils. So, my dear friends, shaU we say that you too,
during tMs fast, whUe celebrating the mysteries of Christ's
passion, hve after the manner of devUs, and are deluded by a
i Dan. i. 12. ' Dan. x. 2, 3.

524 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXX-
seducing spirit, and speak lies in hypocrisy, and have your
conscience seared with a hot hon ? 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 Tes
tament, the proof is from your own practice ; and though the
Old requires abstinence only from certain things, still it re
quires 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 lrinds
of food, so you sometimes abstain from all food.
4. But if you think that in making a distmction in food,
Moses and the prophets estabhshed 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 hve on cabbage or
pulse ; if, again, those among you who abstain, do it not at
the instigation of devils ; if your abstinence from wine and
flesh for forty days is not superstitious, but by divine com
mand, — consider, I beseech you, if it is not perfect madness to
suppose these words to be Paul's, that abstinence from food
and forbiddmg to marry are doctrines of devUs. 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 seemg that this stamps your
virgins too as led away by the doctrme of devils, and that
you are the functionaries of the devils in your constant
endeavours to induce vhgins to make this profession, so that
in all your churches the vhgins nearly outnumber the married
women. Why do you stiU adhere to such practices ? Why
do you ensnare wretched young women, if it is the wUl of
devils, and not of Christ, that they fulfil ? 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 pro
hibition, it does not apply to us, for we too hold it equaUy
foohsh to prevent one who wishes, as it is criminal and impious

BOOK XXX.] PAUL AND THECLA. 525

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 devUs, to say nothmg of the consequence as
regards you, the apostle himself will be thus brought into
danger, K he must be considered as having introduced the
doctrines of devUs into Iconium, when Thecla, after having
been betrothed, was by Ms discourse inflamed with the desire
of perpetual virgimty.1 And what shaU we say of Jesus, the
Master HimseK, and the source of aU sanctity, who is the
unwedded spouse of the vhgins who make this profession, and
who, when specKymg in the Gospel three Mnds of eunuchs,
natural, artificial, and voluntary, gives the palm to those who
have " made themselves eunuchs for the Mngdom of heaven," 2
meamng the youths of both sexes who have exthpated from
theh hearts the deshe 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 Paid and Christ are proved to be priests of devUs, is
not theh sphit the same that speaks in God ? I do not
mention the other apostles of our Lord, Peter, Andrew, Thomas,
and the example of cehbacy, the blessed John, who in various
ways commended to young men and maidens the exceUence
of this profession, leaving to us, and to you too, the form for
maMng vhgins. I do not mention them, because you do not
admit them into the canon, and so you will not scruple im
piously to impute to them doctrines of devUs. But wiU you
say the same of CMist, 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 samtly Thecla ? But if the doctrine preached by Paul
to Thecla, and which the other apostles also preached, was not
the doctrine of devUs, how can we beheve that Paul left on
record his opimon, that the very exhortation to sanctity is the
injunction and the doctrine of devUs ? To make virgins
smiply by exhortation, without forbidding to marry, is not
pecuhar to you. That is our principle too ; and he must be
not only a fool, but a madman, who tMnks that a private
law can forbid what the public law allows. As regards mar-
1 See the apocryphal hook, Paul and Thecla. 2 Matt. xix. 12.

526 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXX.
riage, therefore, we too encourage virgins to remain as they
are when they are wiUing to do so ; we do not make them
virgins against their wiU. For we know the force of wiU and
of natural appetite when opposed by pubhc law ; much more
when the law is only private, and every one is at hberty to
disobey it. If, then, it is no crime to make virgins in this
manner, we are guUtless as weU as you. If it is wrong to
make virgins in any way, you are guUty as weU as we. So
that what you mean, or intend, by quoting tMs verse against
us, it is impossible to say.
5. Augustine. Listen, and you shaU hear what we mean and
intend by quoting this verse agamst you, smce you say that
you do not know. It is not that you abstain from animal
food ; for, as you observe, our ancient fathers abstamed from
some kinds of food, not, however, as condemmng them, but
with a typical meamng, wMch you do not understand, and of
which I have said already in this work aU that appeared
necessary. Besides, Christians, not heretics, but Cathohcs, in
order to subdue the body, that the soul may be more humbled
in prayer, abstam not only from animal food, but also from
some vegetable productions, without, however, beheving them
to be unclean. A few do this always ; and at certam seasons
or days, as m Lent, ahnost aU, more or less, accordmg to the
choice or abUity of individuals. You, on the other hand, deny
that the creature is good, and caU it unclean, saymg that
animals are made by the devU of the worst impurities in the
substance of evU ; and so you reject them with horror, as bemg
the most cruel and loathsome places of confinement of your
god. You, as a concession, aUow your foUowers, as distinct
from the priests, to eat ammal food ; as the apostle, aUows, in
certain cases, not marriage m the general sense, but the indul
gence of passion in marriage.1 It is only sin which is thus
made aUowance for. This is the feehng you have toward aU
animal food ; you have learned it from your heresy, and you
teach it to your foUowers. You make aUowance for your
foUowers, because, as I said before, they supply you with
necessaries ; but you grant them indulgence without saymg
that it is not sinful. For yourselves, you shun contact with
1 1 Cor. vii. 5, 6.

BOOK XXX.] EVERY CREATURE IS GOOD. 527
tMs evU and impurity ; and hence our reason for quoting this
verse against you is found in the words of the apostle which
foUow those with wMch you end the quotation. Perhaps it
was for tMs reason that you left out the words, and then say
that you do not know what we mean or mtend by the quota
tion ; for it smted you better to omit the account of our mten-
tion than to express it. For, after speaking of abstaimng from
meats, wMch God has created to be received with thanks
giving by behevers, the apostle goes on, " And by them who
know the truth ; for every creature of God is good, and
notMng to be refused, K it be received with thanksgiving : for
it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." x TMs you
deny ; for your idea, and motive, and belief in abstaimng from
such food is, that they are not typically, but naturally, evU
and impure. In this assuredly you blaspheme the Creator ;
and m tMs is the doctrine of devils. You need not be sur
prised that, so long before the event, tMs prediction regarding
you was made by the Holy Spirit.
6. So, agam, K your exhortations to vhgmity resembled the
teachmg of the apostle, "He who giveth in marriage doeth
weU, and who giveth not m marriage doeth better ;" 2 if you
taught that marriage is good, and virgimty better, as the*
Church teaches wMch is truly Christ's Church, you would not
have been described m the Spirit's prediction as forbidding to
marry. What a man forbids Ee makes evU ; but a good thing .
may be placed second to a better tMng without being for
bidden. Moreover, the only honourable kind of marriage, or
marriage entered into for its proper and legitimate purpose, is
precisely that you hate most. So, though you may not forbid
sexual mtercourse, you forbid marriage ; for the pecuharity of
marriage is, that it is not merely for the gratification of passion,
but, as is written m the contract, for the procreation of chU
dren And, though you aUow many of your foUowers to
retain theh connection with you m spite of their refusal, or
theh mabhity, to obey you, you cannot deny that you make
the proMbition. The proMbition is part of your false doctrme, •
whUe the toleration is only for the interests of the society. ¦
And here we see the reason, wMch I have delayed tiU now to
1 1 Tim. iv. 3-5. 2 1 Cor. vii. 38.

528 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXI.
mention, for your makmg not the birth but only the death of
Christ feigned and iUusory. Death being the separation of
the soul, that is, of the nature of your god, from the body
which belongs to his enemies, for it is the work of the devU,
you uphold and approve of it ; and thus, according to your
creed, it was meet that Christ, though He did not die, should
commend death by appearing to die. In birth, again, you
believe your god to be bound instead of released ; and so you
wiU not aUow that CMist was born even in this illusory
fashion. You would have thought better of Mary had she
ceased to be a vhgin without being a mother, than as being
a mother without ceasing to be a virgin. You see, then, that
there is a great difference between exhorting to virgmity as
the better of two good things, and forbidding to marry by
denouncing the true purpose of marriage ; between abstaining
from food as a symbolic observance, or for the mortification of
the body, and abstaining from food wMch God has created for
the reason that God did not create it. In one case, we have
the doctrine of the prophets and apostles ; m the other, the
doctrine of lying devils.

BOOK XXXI.
1. Faustus. " To the pure aU things are pure. But to the
impure and defiled is nothing pure ; but even their mind and
conscience are defiled." As regards this verse, too, it is very
doubtful whether, for your own sake, you shoidd beheve it to
have been written by Paul. For it would foUow that Moses
and the prophets were not only influenced by devils in making
so much in their laws of the distinctions in food, but also that
they themselves were impure and defiled in theh mind and
conscience, so that the foUowing words also might properly be
applied to them : " They profess to know God, but m works
deny Him."1 TMs is applicable to no one more than to
Moses and the prophets, who are known to have hved very
differently from what was becoming in men knowing God.
Up to this time I have thought only of adulteries and frauds
1 Tit. i. 16.

BOOK XXXI.] MERIT OF ABSTINENCE. 529
and murders as defiling the conscience of Moses and the
prophets ; but now, from what this verse says, it is plain that
they were also defiled, because they looked upon something as
defiled. How, then, can you persist in thinkmg that the vision
of the divine majesty can have been bestowed on such men,
when it is written that only the pure in heart can see God ?
Even supposing that they had been pure from unlawful crimes,
this superstitious abstinence from certam Mnds of food, if it
defiles the noind, is enough to debar them from the sight of
deity. Gone for ever, too, is the boast of Daniel, and of the
three youths, who, tUl now that we are told that notMng is
unclean, have been regarded among the Jews as persons of
great purity and exceUence of character, because, in observance
of hereditary customs, they carefuUy avoided defiling them
selves with GentUe food, especiaUy that of sacrifices.1 Now it
appears that they were defiled in mind and conscience most of
all when they were closmg their mouth against blood and
idol-feasts. 2. But perhaps their ignorance may excuse them ; for,
as this CMistian doctrme of aU tMngs being pure to the
pure had not then appeared, they may have thought some
things impure. But there can be no excuse for you in the
face of Paul's announcement, that there is notMng wMch is
not pure, and that abstinence from certain food is the doc
trine of devils, and that those who think anything defiled
are poUuted m theh mind, if you not only abstain, as we have
said, but make a merit of it, and believe that you become more
acceptable to CMist m proportion as you are more abstemious,
or, according to tMs new doctrine, as your mmds are defiled
and your conscience poUuted. It shoiUd also be observed
that, while there are tMee religions in the world wMch,
though m a very different manner, appomt chastity and
abstinence as the means of purification of the mind, the reli
gions, namely, of the Jews, the GentUes, and the Christians,
the opmion that every thmg is pure cannot have come from
any one of the tMee. It is certainly not from Judaism, nor'
from Paganism, which also makes a distinction of food ; the
only difference bemg, that the Hebrew classification of animals
i Dan. i. 12.
5 2L

530 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXI.
does not harmonize with the Pagan. Then as to the CMistian
faith, K you think it pecuhar to CMistiamty to consider notMng
defiled, you must first of aU confess that there are no Christians
among you. For things offered to idols, and what dies of
itself, to mention notMng else, are regarded by you aU as
great defilement. If, agam, this is a CMistian practice, on
your part, the doctrme whicl. is opposed to aU abstinence from
impurities cannot be traced to CMistiamty either. How,
then, could Paul have said what is not m keepmg with any
rehgion ? In fact, when the apostle from a Jew became a
Christian, it was a change of customs more than of religion.
As for the writer of this verse, there seems to be no rehgion
wMch favours Ms opimon.
3. Be sure, then, whenever you discover anytlhng else in
Scripture to assaU 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 continuaUy quote about
Peter, that he once saw a vessel let down from heaven m
which were aU kinds of animals and serpents, and that, when
he was surprised and astomshed, a voice was heard, saymg
to Mm, Peter, kUl and eat whatsoever thou seest in the vessel,
and that he rephed, Lord, I wUl not touch what is common
or unclean. On tMs the voice spoke again, What I have
cleansed, caU not unclean.1 TMs, mdeed, seems to have an
allegorical meamng, and not to refer to the absence of distinc
tion m food. But as you choose to give it tMs meanmg, you
are bound to feed upon aU wUd animals, and scorpions, and
snakes, and reptUes in general, in compliance with tMs vision
of Peter's. In tMs way, you wiU show that you are reaUy
obedient to the voice which Peter is said to have heard. But
you must never forget that you at the same time condemn
Moses and the prophets, who considered many tilings poUuted,
wMch, according to this utterance, God has cleansed.
4. Augustine. When the apostle says, " To the pure aU
thmgs are pure," he refers to the natures wMch God had created,
— as it is written by Moses in Genesis, " And God made aU
things ; and behold they were very good,"2 — not to the typical
meanings, according to wMch God, by the same Moses, dis-
1 Acts x. 11-15. 2 Gen. i. 31.

BOOK XXXI.] ALL NATURES ARE PURE. 531
tinguished the clean from the unclean. Of this we have
aheady spoken at length more than once, and need not dwell
on it here. It is clear that the apostle caUed those im
pure who, after the revelation of the New Testament, stiU
advocated the observance of the shadows of thmgs to come,
as if without them the GentUes could not obtain the salva
tion which is in CMist, because in this they were carnally
nunded; and he called them unbelieving, because they did
not distmguish between the time of the law and the time of
grace. To them, he says, notMng is pure, because they made
an erroneous and smful use both of what they received and
of what they rejected ; wMch is true of all unbelievers, but
especiaUy of you Mamchaeans, for to you notMng whatever is
pure. For, although you take great care to keep the food
which you use separate from the contamination of flesh, stiU
it is not pure to you, for the only creator of it you aUow is
the devU. And you hold that, by eating it, you release your
god, who suffers confinement and poUution in it. One would
think you might consider yourselves pure, since your stomach
is the proper place for purifying your god. But even your
own bodies, in your opinion, are of the nature and handiwork
of the race of darkness ; while your souls are stiU affected by
the poUution 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 dhected ; he expresses him
seK so as to include aU who are impure and unbelieving, but
first and chiefly to condemn you. To the pure, therefore, aU
things are pure, m the nature in wMch they were created ;
but to the ancient Jewish people aU things were not pure in
theh typical significance ; and, as regards bodUy health, or the
customs of society, aU things are not sMtable to us. But when
things are in their proper places, and the order of nature is
preserved, to the pure aU tilings are pure ; but to the impure
and unbeheving, among whom you stand first, notMng is
pure. You might make a wholesome apphcation to yourselves
of the followmg words of the apostle, K you deshed a cure for
your seared consciences. The words are : " Their very mind
and conscience are defiled."

532 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXII.

BOOK XXXII.
1. Faustus. You say, that if we beheve the Gospel, we must
beheve everything that is written in it. Why, then, since
you beheve the Old Testament, do you not beheve all that is
found in any part of it ? Instead of that, you cuU 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
morahty, such as, Thou shalt not kiU, Thou shalt not commit
adultery; and aU the rest you pass over, thinking of the. other
things as Paul thought of the thmgs which he held to be
dung.1 Why, then, should it seem strange or smgular m me
that I select from the New Testament whatever is purest,
and helpful for my salvation, whUe I set aside the interpo
lations of your predecessors, wMch impah its digmty and
grace? 2. If there are parts of the Testament of the Father which
we are not bound to observe (for you attribute the. Jewish law
to the Father, and it is well known that many thmgs in it
shock you, and make you ashamed, so that in heart you no
longer regard it as free from corruption, though, as you beheve,
the Father Himself partly wrote it for you with His own
finger, whUe part was written by Moses, who was faithful and
trustworthy), the Testament of the Son must be equaUy hable
to corruption, and may equally weU contam objectionable
tMngs ; especiaUy as it is aUowed not to have been written by
the Son HimseK, nor by His apostles, but long after, by some
unknown men, who, lest they should be suspected of writing
of thmgs they knew notMng of, gave to theh books the names
of the apostles, or of those who were thought to have foUowed
the apostles, declaring the contents to be according to these
originals. In this, I think, they do grievous wrong to the
disciples of Christ, by quoting their authority for the dis
cordant and contradictory statements m these writings, saying
that it was according to them that they wrote the Gospels,
which are so fuU of errors and discrepancies, both m facts and
in opinions, that they can be harmonized neither with them-
1 Phil. iii. 8.

BOOK XXXII.] OLD TESTAMENT NOT ACCEPTED. 533

selves nor with one another. This is nothing else than to
slander good men, and to bring the charge of dissension on the
brotherhood of the disciples. In readmg the Gospels, the clear
intention of our heart perceives the errors, and, to avoid aU
injustice, we accept whatever is useful, in the way of building
up our faith, and promoting the glory of the Lord CMist, and
of the Almighty God, His Father, while we reject the rest as
unbecoming the majesty of God and Christ, and inconsistent
with our behef.
3. To return to what I said of your not accepting every
thing m the Old Testament. You do not admit carnal circum
cision, though that is what is written -,1 nor resting from all
occupation on the Sabbath, though that is enjoined;2 and in
stead of propitiating God, as Moses recommends, by offerings
and sacrifices, you cast these things aside as utterly out of
keeping with Christian worship, and as havmg nothmg at all
to recommend them. In some cases, however, you make a
division, and whUe you accept one part, you reject the other.
Thus, in the Passover, which is also the annual feast of the
Old Testament, whUe it is written that m this observance
you must slay a lamb to be eaten in the evening, and that
you must abstam from leaven for seven days, and be content
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,3 you accept the feast
but pay no attention to the rules for its observance. It is the
same with the feast of Pentecost, or seven weeks, and the
accompaniment of a certam kind and number of sacrifices
wMch Moses enjoins : * you observe the feast, but you condemn
the propitiatory rites, wMch are part of it, because they are
not m harmony with Christianity. As regards the command
to abstain from GentUe food, you are zealous believers in the
uncleanness of things offered to idols, and of what has died of
itself; but you are not so ready to beheve the prohibition of
swine's flesh, and hares, and conies, and mullets, and cuttle
fish, and aU the fish that you have a relish for, although Moses
pronounces them aU unclean.
4. I do not suppose that you wUl consent, or even hsten, to
such things as that a father-in-law should lie with his daughter-
in-law, as Judah did; or a father with Ms daughters, like
1 Gen. xvii. 9-14. z Ex. xxxi. 13. 3 Ex. xii. * Lev. xxiii.

534 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXH.
Lot ; or prophets with harlots, hke Hosea ; or that a husband
should seU his wife for a mght to her lover, like Abraham ;
or that a man should marry two sisters, like Jacob ; or that the
rulers of the people and the men you consider as most insphed
should keep their mistresses by hundreds and thousands ; or,
according to the provision made in Deuteronomy about wives,
that the wife of one brother, if he dies without chUdren, should
marry the surviving brother, and that he should raise up seed
from her instead of Ms brother ; and that if the man refuses
to do this, the fair plamtiff should bring her case before the
elders, that the brother may be caUed and admonished to per
form tMs rehgious duty ; and that, if he persists in his refusal,
he must not go unpunished, but the woman must loose Ms
shoe from his right foot, and strike Mm m the face, and send
him away, spat upon and accursed, to perpetuate the reproach
in Ms famUy.1 These, and such as these, are the examples
and precepts of the Old Testament. If they are good, why do
you not practise them ? If they are bad, why do you not
condemn the Old Testament, in wMch they are found ? But
if you tMnk that these are spurious mterpolations, that is pre
cisely what we think of the New Testament. You have no
right to claim from us an acknowledgment for the New Tes
tament which you yourselves do not make for the Old.
5. Since you hold to the divme authorship of the Old as weU
as of the New Testament, it would surely be more consistent
and more becoming, as you do not obey its precepts, to confess
that it has been corrupted by improper additions, than to treat
it so contemptuously, K it is genuine and uncorrupted. Ac
cordingly, my explanation of your neglect of the requirements
of the Old Testament has always been, and stiU is, that you
are either wise enough to reject them as spurious, or that you
have the boldness and hreverence to disregard them K they
are true. At any rate, when you would obhge me to believe
everythmg contained in the documents of the New Testament
because I receive the Testament itseK, you should consider
that, though you profess to receive the Old Testament, you in
your heart disbeheve many things in it. Thus, you do not
admit as true or authoritative the declaration of the Old
1 Deut. xxv. 5-10.

BOOK XXXII.] AUTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT. 535
Testament, that every one that hangeth on a tree is accursed,1
for this would apply to Jesus ; or that every man is accursed
who does not raise up seed m Israel,2 for that would include
all of both sexes devoted to God; or that. whoever is not
chcumcised in the flesh of his foreskin wUl be cut off from
among his people,3 for that would apply to aU Christians ; 01
that whoever breaks the Sabbath must be stoned to death ;4
or that no mercy should be shown to the man who breaks a
single precept of the Old Testament. If you really believe
these thmgs as certainly enjoined by God, you would, in the
time of CMist, have been the first to assaU Him, and you would
now have no quarrel with the Jews, who, in persecuting Christ
with heart and soul, acted in obedience to theh own God.
6. I am aware that instead of boldly pronouncmg these
passages spurious, you make out that these things were
requhed of the Jews tiU the coming of Jesus ; and that now
that He is come, according, as you say, to the predictions of
this Old Testament, He HimseK teaches what we should
receive, and what we should set aside as obsolete. Whether
the prophets predicted the coming of Jesus we shaU see
presently. MeanwhUe, I need say no more than that if Jesus,
after bemg predicted in the Old Testament, now subjects it to
tMs sweepmg criticism, and teaches us to receive -a few thmgs
and to throw over many things, in the same way the Paraclete
who is promised in the New Testament teaches us what part
of it to receive, and what to reject ; as Jesus Himself says m
the Gospel, when promising the Paraclete, " He shaU guide you
into all truth, and shaU teach you aU tilings, and bring aU
things to your remembrance."5 So then, with the help of the
Paraclete, we may take the same liberties with the New Testa
ment as Jesus enables you to take with the Old, unless you
suppose that the Testament of the Son is of greater value than
that of the Father, K it is reaUy the Father's ; so that whUe
many parts of the one are to be condemned, the other must be
exempted from aU disapproval ; and that, too, when we know,
as I said before, that it was not written by Christ or by His
apostles. 1 Deut. xxi. 23. 2 Deut. xxv. 5-10. 3 Gen. xvii. 14.
4 Num. xv. 35. fi John xvi. 13, xiv. 26.

536 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXH.
7. Hence, as you receive notMng in the Old Testament
except the prophecies and the common precepts of practical
morality, which we quoted above, while you set aside chcum
cision, and sacrifices, and the Sabbath and its observance, and
the feast of unleavened bread, why should not we receive
nothing in the New Testament but what we find said in
honour and praise of the majesty of the Son, either by Him
self or by His apostles, with the proviso, in the case of the
apostles, that it was said by them after reaching perfection,
and when no longer in unbehef ; whUe we take no notice of
the rest, which, if said at the time, was the utterance of igno
rance or inexperience, or, if not, was added by crafty oppo
nents with a mahcious intention, or was stated by the writers
without due consideration, and so handed down as authentic ?
Take as examples, the shameful birth of Jesus from a woman,
His being circumcised like the Jews, His offering sacrifice like
the GentUes, His bemg baptized m a humiliating manner, His
being led about by the devU in the wUderness, and His being
tempted by him in the most distressmg way. With these
exceptions, besides whatever has been inserted under the
pretence of being a quotation from the Old Testament, we
beheve the whole, especiaUy the mystic naUmg to the cross,
emblematic of the wounds of the soul in its passion ; as also
the sound moral precepts of Jesus, and His parables, and the
whole of His immortal discourse, which sets forth especially
the distinction of the two natures, and therefore must un
doubtedly be His. There is, then, no reason for your tinnk-
ing it obligatory in me to believe all the contents of the
Gospels ; for you, as has been proved, take so dainty a sip from
the Old Testament, that you hardly, so to speak, wet your hps
with it.
8. Augustine. We give to the whole Old Testament Scrip
tures their due praise as true and divine ; you impugn the
Scriptures of the New Testament as having been tampered
with and corrupted. Those things m the Old Testament wMch
we do not observe we hold to have been sMtable appoint
ments for the time and the people of that dispensation, besides
being symbohcal to us of truths in which they have stiU a
spiritual use, though the outward observance is abolished ; and

BOOK XXXIL] FUNCTION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 537
this opinion is proved to be the doctrine of the apostolic writ
ings. You, on the other hand, find fault with everything in
the New Testament which you do not receive, and assert that
these passages were not spoken or written by CMist or His
apostles. In these respects there is a manifest difference
between us. When, therefore, you are asked why you do not
receive aU the contents of the New Testament, but, while you
approve of some thmgs, reject a great many in the very same
books as false and spurious interpolations, you must not
pretend to imitate us in the distinction which we make,
reverently and in faith, but must give account of your own
presumption 9. If we are asked why we do not worship God as the
Hebrew fathers of the Old Testament worshipped Him, we
reply that God has taught us differently by the New Testa
ment fathers, and yet in no opposition to the Old Testament,
but as that .Testament itself predicted. For it is thus fore
told by the prophet : " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
when I wiU make a new covenant with the house of Israel,
and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant
wMch I made with theh fathers when I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."1 Thus it was
foretold that that covenant would not continue, but that
there would be a new one. And to the objection that we do
not belong to the house of Israel or to the house of Judah, we
answer according to the teaching of the apostle, who calls
Christ the seed of Abraham, and says to us, as belonging to
CMist's body, " Therefore ye are Abraham's seed."2 Again, K
we are asked why we regard that Testament as authoritative
when we do not observe its ordinances, we find the answer to
this also in the apostohc writings ; for the apostle says, " Let
no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holiday,
or a new moon, or of Sabbaths, wMch are a shadow of things
to come."3 Here we learn both that we ought to read of
these observances, and ' acknowledge them to be of divine
institution, in order to preserve the memory of the prophecy,
for they were shadows of things to come ; and also that we
need pay no regard to those who would judge us for not con-
1 Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. 2 Gal. iii. 29. 3 Col. ii. 16, 17.

538 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOKXXXH.
tinuing the outward observance ; as the apostle says else
where to the same purpose, " These things happened to them
for an example ; and they are written for our admonition, on
whom the ends of the world are come."1 So, when we read
anything in the books of the Old Testament which we are not
required to observe in the New Testament, or wMch is even
forbidden, instead of finding fault with it, we should ask what
it means ; for the very discontinuance of the observance
proves it to be, not condemned, but fulfilled. On tMs head
we have aheady spoken repeatedly.
10. To take, for example, this requirement on wMch Faustus
ignorantly grounds his charge against the Old Testament, that
a man should take his brother's wife to raise up seed for his
brother, to be caUed by his name ; what does this prefigure,
but that every preacher of the gospel should so labour in the
Church as to raise up seed to his deceased brother, that is,
Christ, who died for us, and that tMs seed should bear His
name ? Moreover, the apostle fulfils tMs requirement not now
in the typical observance, but m the spiritual reahty, when he
reproves those of whom he says that he had begotten them
in Christ Jesus by the gospel,2 and points out to them theh
error in wishing to be of Paul. " Was Paul," he says, " cruci
fied for you? Or were ye baptized m the name of Paul?"3
As if he should say, I have begotten you for my deceased
brother ; your name is Christian, not Paulian. Then, too,
whoever refuses the mmistry of the gospel when chosen by
the Church, justly deserves the contempt of the Church. So
we see that the spitting in the face is accompanied with a sign
of reproach in loosing a shoe from one foot, to exclude the
man from the company of those to whom the apostle says,
" Let your feet be shod with the preparation of the gospel of
peace;"4 and of whom the prophet thus speaks, "How beautiful
are the feet of them who publish peace, who bring good tid
ings of good!"5 The man who holds the faith of the gospel so
as both to profit himself and to be ready when called to serve
the Church, is properly represented as shod on both feet. But
the man who thinks it enough to secure his own safety by
1 1 Cor. x. 11. * 1 Cor. iv. 15. 3 1 Cor. ii. 13.
4 Eph. vi. 15. » Isa. Iii. 7.

BOOK XXXII.] TYPICAL NATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 539

believmg, and shirks the duty of benefiting others, has the
reproach of being unshod, not in type, but m reahty.
11. Faustus needlessly objects to our observance of the
passover, taunting us with differing from the Jewish obser
vance : for m the gospel we have the true Lamb, not in
shadow, but in substance ; and instead of prefiguring the death,
we commemorate it daUy, and especially in the yearly festival.
Thus also the day of our paschal feast does not correspond
with the Jewish observance, for we take in the Lord's day, on
wMch CMist rose. And as to the feast of unleavened bread,
aU CMistians sound in the faith keep it, not in the leaven of
the old hfe, that is, of wickedness, but in the truth and sin
cerity of the faith ; 2 not for seven days, but always, as was
typified by the number seven, for days are always counted by
sevens. And K tMs observance is somewhat difficult m this
world, smce the way wMch leads to hfe is strait and narrow,2
the future reward is sure ; and tMs difficulty is typified m
the bitter herbs, wMch are a httle distasteful.
12. The Pentecost, too, we observe, that is, the fiftieth day
from the passion and resurrection of the Lord; for on that day
He sent to us the Holy Sphit whom He had promised ; as was
prefigured in the Jewish passover, for on the fiftieth day after
the slaymg of the lamb, Moses on the mount received the law
written with the finger of God.3 If you read the Gospel, you
wiU see that the Sphit is there caUed the finger of God.4
Eemarkable events wMch happened on certam days are an-
nuaUy commemorated in the Church, that the recurrence of
this festival may preserve the recoUection of things so impor
tant and salutary. If you ask, then, why we keep the pass-
over, it is because Christ was then sacrificed for us. If you
ask why we do not retam the Jewish ceremonies, it is because
they prefigured future realities wMch we commemorate as
past ; and the difference between the future and the past is
seen m the different words we use for them. Of tMs we have
aheady said enough.
13. Again, if you ask why, of aU the kinds of food pro-
Mbited in the former typical dispensation, we abstain only
from food offered to idols and from what dies of itself, you
1 1 Cor. v. 8. e Matt. vii. 13. 3 Ex. xix.-xxxi. 4 Luke xi. 8.

540 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BO OK XXXII.
shall hear, if for once you wiU prefer the truth to idle calumnies.
The reason why it is not expedient for a Christian to eat food
offered to idols is given by the apostle : " I would not," he
says, " that ye should have feUowship with devils." Not that
he finds fault with sacrifice itseK, as offered by the fathers to
typify the blood of the sacrifice with which Christ has redeemed
us. For he first says, " The things which the GentUes offer,
they offer to devils, and not to God ; " and then adds these
words : " I would not that ye should have feUowship with
devils." x If the uncleanness were in the nature of sacrificial
flesh, it would necessarUy poUute even when eaten in ignor
ance. But the reason for not partaking knowingly is not in
the nature of the food, but for conscience' sake, not to seem
to have fellowship with devUs. As regards what dies of itself,
I suppose the reason why such food was proMbited was that
the flesh of animals which have died of themselves is diseased,
and is not likely to be wholesome, wMch is the chief thing in
food. The observance of pouring out the blood which was
enjoined in ancient times to Noah himself after the deluge,2
the meaning of which we have already explained, is thought
by many to be what is meant in the Acts of the Apostles,
where we read that the GentUes were requhed to abstain from
fornication, and from things sacrificed, and from blood,3 that is,
from flesh of which the blood has not been poured out. Others
give a different meamng to the words, and think that to abstain
from blood means not to be poUuted with the crime of murder.
It would take too long to settle this question, and it is not
necessary. For, aUowing that the apostles did on that occasion
require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and
not to eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have con
sulted the time in choosing an easy observance that could
not be burdensome to any one, and which the GentUes might
have in common with the Israehtes, for the sake of the Corner
stone, who makes both one in Himself;4 whUe at the same
time they would be reminded how the Church of aU nations
was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave this com
mand, — a type wMch began to be fulfiUed in the time of the
apostles by the accession of the GentUes to the faith. But
1 1 Cor. x. 20. * Gen. ix. 6. 3 Acts xv. 29. * Eph. ii. 11-22.

BOOK XXXII.] ON ABSTAINING FROM BLOOD. 541

since the close of that period during which the two walls of the
circumcision and the uncircumcision, although united in the
Corner-stone, stiU retained some distinctive peculiarities, and
now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none
who are outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian
feels bound to abstain from thrushes or smaU birds because
their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because
they are kUled by a stroke on the neck without sheddmg their
blood. Any who stiU are afraid to touch these things are
laughed at by the rest : so general is the conviction of the
truth, that " not what entereth into the mouth defileth you,
but what cometh out of it j"1 that evU lies in the commission
of sm, and not m the nature of any food in ordinary use.
14. As regards the deeds of the ancients, both those wMch
seem sinful to foohsh and ignorant people, when they are not
so, and those which reaUy are sinful, we have already explained
why they have been written, and how tMs rather adds to than
impairs the digmty of Scripture. So, too, about the curse on
Mm who hangeth on a tree, and on him who raises not up
seed in Israel, our reply has already been given in the proper
place, when meeting Faustus' objections.2 And in reply to
all objections whatsoever, whether we have already answered
them separately, or whether they are contained in the remarks
of Faustus wMch we are now considering, we appeal to our
estabhshed prmciples, on which we maintain the authority of
sacred Scripture. The principle is this, that all things written
in the books of the Old Testament are to be received with
approval and admiration, as most true and most profitable to
eternal hfe; and that those precepts which are no longer
observed outwardly are to be understood as having been most
suitable in those times, and are to be viewed as having been
shadows of things to come, of which we may now perceive
the fulfilments. Accordmgly, whoever m those times neglected
the observance of these symbohcal precepts was righteously
condemned to suffer the punishment required by the divine
statute, as any one would be now if he were impiously to
profane the sacraments of the New Testament, which differ
from the old observances only as this time differs from that,
1 Matt. xv. 11. 2 Book XXI1-

542 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXII,
For as praise is due to the righteous men of old who refused
not to die for the Old Testament sacraments, so it is due to
the martyrs of the New Testament. .And as a sick man should
not find fault with the medical treatment, because one thing
is prescribed to-day and another to-morrow, and what was at
first required is afterwards forbidden, since the method of cure
depends on this ; so the human race, sick and sore as it is
from Adam to the end of the world, as long as the corrupted
body weighs down the mind,1 should not find fault with the
divine prescriptions, if sometimes the same observances are
enjoined, and sometimes an old observance is exchanged for
one of a different kind ; especiaUy as there was a promise of
a change in the appointments.
15. Hence there is no force in the analogy which Faustus
mstitutes between Christ's pointing out to us what to be
heve and what to reject m the Old Testament, in which He
Himself is predicted, and the Paraclete's doing the same to
you as regards the New Testament, where there is a simUar
prediction of Him. There might have been some plausibility
in tMs, had there been anytMng in the Old Testament wMch
we denounced as a mistake, or as not of divme authority, or
as untrue. We do nothmg of the kmd ; we receive everythmg,
both what we observe as rules of conduct, and what we no
longer observe, but stUl recogmse as having been prophetical
observances, once enjomed and now fulfiUed. And besides, the
promise of the Paraclete is found in those books, aU the con
tents of which you do not accept ; and His mission is recorded
in the book which you shrink from even naming. For, as is
stated above, and has been said repeatedly, there is a distinct
narrative in the Acts of the Apostles of the mission of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the effect produced showed
who it was. For all who first received Him spoke with tongues;2
and in this sign there was a promise that in aU tongues, or
in aU nations, the Church of after times would faithfuUy pro
claim the doctrine of the Sphit as weU as of the Father and
of the Son.
16. Why, then, do you not accept every tiring in the New
Testament ? Is it because the books have not the authority of
1 Wisd. ix. 15. a Acts ii

BOOK XXXII.] THE PARACLETE. 543
Christ's apostles, or because the apostles taught what was
wrong ? You reply that the books have not the authority of
the apostles. That the apostles were wrong in theh teaching
is what Pagans say. But what can you say to prove that the
pubhcation of these books cannot be traced to the apostles ?
You reply that in many thmgs they contradict themselves and
one another. NotMng could be more untrue ; the fact is, you
do not understand. In every case where Faustus has brought
forward what you think a discrepancy, we have shown that
there was none ; and we wUl do the same m every other case.
It is intolerable that the reader or learner should dare to lay
the blame on Scriptures of such Mgh authority, instead of
confessmg his own stupidity. Did the Paraclete teach you
that these writings are not of the apostles' authorsMp, but
written by others under theh names ? But where is the
proof that it was the Paraclete from whom you learned this ?
If you say that the Paraclete was promised and sent by CMist,
we reply that your Paraclete was neither promised nor sent by
CMist; and we also show you when He sent the Paraclete
whom He promised. What proof have you that CMist sent
your Paraclete ? Where do you get the evidence in support
of your informant, or rather misinformant ? You reply that
you find the proof in the Gospel In what Gospel ? You do
not accept aU the Gospel, and you say that it has been tam
pered with WiU you first accuse your witness of corruption,
and then caU for his evidence ? To beheve him when you wish
it, and then disbeheve him when you wish it, is to beheve
nobody but yourseK. If we were prepared to believe you, there
would be no need of a witness at all. Moreover, m the pro
mise of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete, it is said, " He shaU
lead you into aU truth ;" x but how can you be led into aU truth
by one who teaches you that Christ was a deceiver ? And
again, K you were to prove that aU that is said in the Gospel
of the promise of the Paraclete could apply to no one but
Manichaeus, as the predictions of the prophets are applicable
to Christ ; and K you quoted passages from those manuscripts
which you say are genuine, we might say that on this very
point, as proving Manichaeus to be the only person intended,
1 John xvi. 13.

544 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXII.
the passages have been altered in the interest of your seet.
Your only answer to tMs would be, that you could not possibly
alter documents aheady in the possession of aU CMistians ;
for at the very outset of such an attempt, it would be met by
an appeal to older copies. But if this proves that the books
could not be corrupted by you, it also proves that they could
not be corrupted by any one. The first person who ventured
to do such a thing would be convicted by a comparison of
older manuscripts ; especially as the Scripture is to be found
not in one language only, but in many. As it is, false readings
are sometimes corrected by comparing older copies or the ori
ginal language. Hence you must either acknowledge these
documents as genuine, and then your heresy cannot stand a
moment ; or if they are spurious, you cannot use their autho
rity in support of your doctrine of the Paraclete, and so you
refute yourselves.
17. Further, what is said in the promise of the Paraclete
shows that it cannot possibly refer to Mamchaeus, who came
so many years after. For it is distinctly said by John, that
the Holy Spirit was to come immediately after the resurrec
tion and ascension of the Lord : " For the Spirit was not yet
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." x Now, if
the reason why the Spirit was not given was, that Jesus was
not glorified, He would necessarily be given immediately on
the glorification of Jesus. In the same way, the Cataphrygians
said that they had received the promised Paraclete ; and so
they fell away from the Cathohc faith, forbidchng what Paul
allowed, and condenming second marriages, which he made'
lawful. They turned to their own use the words spoken of
the Spirit, " He shall lead you into all truth," as if, forsooth,
Paul and the other apostles had not taught aU the truth, but
had left room for the Paraclete of the Cataphrygians. The
same meaning they forced from the words of Paul : " We know
in part, and we prophesy in part ; but when that which is
perfect is come, then that which is in part shaU be done
away ;" 2 making out that the apostle knew and prophesied in
part, when he said, " Let him do what he wiU ; if he marries,
he sinneth not,"3 and that this is done away by the perfection of
1 John vii. 39. '' 1 Cor. xiii. 9, 10. "1 Cor. vii. 36.

BOOK XXXII.] HERETICAL PRETENSIONS. 545
the PMygian Paraclete.1 And if they are told that they are con
demned by the authority of the Church, which is the subject of
such ancient promises, and is spread all over the world, they
reply that tMs is in exact fulfilment of what is said of the Para
clete, that the world cannot receive Him.2 And are not those
passages, " He shaU lead you into all truth," and, " When that
wMch is perfeet is come, that which is in part shaU be done
away," and, " The world cannot receive Him," precisely those
in wMch you find a prediction of Manichaeus ? And so every
heresy arismg under the name of the Paraclete will have the
boldness to make an equaUy plausible apphcation to itself of
such texts. For there is no heresy but will call itself the
truth; and the prouder it is, the more hkely it wiU be to call
itseK perfect truth: and so it wiU profess to lead into all
truth ; and since that which is perfeet has come by it, it will
try to do away with the doctrine of the apostles, to which
its own errors are opposed. And as the Church holds by
the earnest admomtion of the apostle, that " whoever preaches
another gospel to you than that which ye have received, let
hhn be accursed ; " 3 when the heretical preacher begins to be
pronounced accursed by aU the world, wiU he not forthwith
exclaim, This is what is written, " The world cannot receive
Him"? 18. Where, then, wUl you find the proof requhed to show
that it is from the Paraclete that you have learned that the
Gospels were not written by the apostles ? On the other hand,
we have proof that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, came imme
diately after the glorification of Jesus. For " He was not yet
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." We have
proof also that He leads mto aU truth ; for the only way to
truth is by love, and " the love of God," says the apostle, " is
shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given
unto us." 4 We show, too, that in the words, " when that
which is perfect is come," Paul spoke of the perfection in the
enjoyment of eternal hfe. For in the same place he says : " Now
we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face." B You
cannot reasonably maintain that we see God face to face here.
1 Montanus. 2 John xiv. 17. 3 Gal. i. 9.
* Rom. v. 5. 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
a 2M

546 , REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXII.
Therefore that which is perfect has not come to us. It is thus
clear what the apostle thought on this subject. This perfec
tion wUl not come to the saints till the accomplishment of
what John speaks of : " Now we are the sons of God, and it
doth not yet appear what we shall be ; but we know that
when it shaU appear we shaU be like Him, for we shaU see
Him as He is." x Then we shall be led into all truth by the
Holy Spirit, of wMch we have now received the pledge. Again,
the words, " The world cannot receive Him," plainly point to
those who are usuaUy caUed the world in Scripture — the lovers
of the world, the wicked, or carnal ; of whom the apostle
says : " The natural man perceiveth not the things which are
of the Spirit of God." 2 Those are said to be of this world
who can understand nothing beyond material things, which
are the objects of sense in this world ; as is the case with you,
when, in your admiration of the sun and moon, you suppose
aU divine things to resemble them. Deceivers, and being
deceived, you caU the author of this siUy theory the Paraclete.
But as you have no proof of his being the Paraclete, you have
no reliable ground for the statement that the Gospel writings,
which you receive only in part, are not of apostohc authorship.
Thus your only remaining argument is, that these writings
contain things disparaging to the glory of Christ ; such as,
that He was born of a virgin, that He was circumcised, that
the customary sacrifice was offered for Him, that He was bap
tized, that He was tempted of the devil
19. With those exceptions, including also the testimonies
quoted from the Old Testament, you profess, to use the words
of Faustus, to receive all the rest, especially the mystic nailing
to the cross, emblematic of the wounds of the soul in its passion ;
as also the sound moral precepts of Jesus, and the whole of His
immortal discourse, which sets forth especially the distinction of
the two natures, and therefore must undoubtedly be His. Your
design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority, and to
make every man's mind the judge what passage of Scripture
be is to approve of, and what to disapprove of. This is not
to be subject to Scripture in matters of faith, but to make
Scripture subject to you. Instead of making the high autho-
1 1 John iii. 2. 2 1 Cor. ii. 14.

EOOK XXXII.] COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES. 547

rity of Scripture the reason of approval, every man makes his
approval the reason for thinking a passage correct. If, then,
you discard authority, to what, poor feeble soul, darkened by
the mists of carnahty, to what, I beseech you, will you betake
yourself ? Set aside authority, and let us hear the reason of
your beliefs. Is it by a logical process that your long story
about the nature of God concludes necessarily with this start
ling announcement, that tMs nature is subject to injury and
corruption ? And how do you know that there are eight con
tinents and ten heavens, and that Atlas bears up the world,
and that it hangs from the great world-holder, and innume
rable things of the same kind ? Who is your authority ?
Manichaeus, of course, you will say. But, unhappy being,
this is not sense, but faith. If, then, you submit to receive a
load of endless fictions at the bidding of an obscure and irra
tional authority, so that you beheve aU those things because
they are written in the books which your misguided judgment
pronounces trustworthy, though there is no evidence of their
truth, why not rather submit to the authority of the Gospel,
wMch is so weU founded, so confirmed, so generaUy acknow
ledged and admhed, and which has an unbroken series of tes
timonies from the apostles down to our own day, that so you
may have an intelligent belief, and may come to know that all
your objections are the fruit of folly and perversity ; and that
there is more truth in the opinion that the unchangeable
nature of God should take part of mortahty, so as, without in
jury to itseK from tMs union, to do and to suffer not feignedly,
but reaUy, whatever it behoved the mortal nature to do and
to suffer for the salvation of the human race from which it
was taken, than in the belief that the nature of God is subject
to injury and corruption, and that, after suffering pollution and
captivity, it cannot be whoUy freed and purified, but is con
demned by a supreme divine necessity to eternal punishment
in the mass of darkness ?
20. You say, in reply, that you believe in what Manichaeus
has not proved, because he has so clearly proved the existence
of two natures, good and evU, in this world. But here is the
very source of your unhappy delusion ; for as in the Gospels,
so in the world, your idea of what is evil is derived entirely

548 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXII.
from the effect on your senses of such disagreeable things as
serpents, fire, poison, and so on ; and the only good you know
of is what has an agreeable effect on your senses, as pleasant
flavours, and sweet smells, and sunlight, and whatever else re
commends itself strongly to your eyes, or your nostrils, or your
palate, or any other organ of sensation. But had you begun
with looking on the book of nature as the production of the
Creator of all, and had you believed that your own finite
understanding might be at fault wherever anytiung seemed to
be amiss, instead of venturing to find fault with the works of
God, you would not have been led into these impious follies
and blasphemous fancies with which, m your ignorance of
what evU reaUy is, you heap aU evUs upon God.
21. We can now answer the question, how we know that
these books were written by the apostles. In a word, we
know this in the same way that you know that the books
whose authority you are so deluded as to prefer were written
by Manichaeus. For, suppose some one should raise a ques
tion on this point, and should contend, in arguing with you,
that the books which you attribute to Mamchaeus are not of
his authorship ; your only reply would be, to ridicule the
absurdity of thus gratuitously caUmg in question a matter
confirmed by successive testimonies of such wide extent. As,
then, it is certain that these books are the production of Mani
chaeus, and as it is ridiculous in one born so many years after
to start objections of his own, and so raise a discussion on the
point ; with equal certainty may we pronounce it absurd, or
rather pitiable, in Manichaeus or his followers to bring such
objections against writings originally well authenticated, and
carefully handed down from the times of the apostles to our
own day through a constant succession of custodiers.
22. We have now only to compare the authority of Mani
chaeus with that of the apostles. The genuineness of the
writings is equaUy certain in both cases. But no one will
compare Manichaeus to the apostles, unless he ceases to be
a foUower of Christ, who sent the apostles. Who that did
not misunderstand Christ's words ever found in them the
doctrine of two natures opposed to one another, and having
each its own principle ? Again, the apostles, as becomes the

BOOK XXXIII.] MANICILEUS VERSUS THE APOSTLES. 549
disciples of truth, declare the birth and passion of Christ to
have been real events ; whUe Manichaeus, who boasts that
he leads into aU truth, would lead us to a Christ whose very
passion he declares to have been an illusion. The apostles
say that Christ was circumcised in the flesh which He took of
the seed of Abraham ; Manichaeus says that God, in Ms own
nature, was cut in pieces by the race of darkness. The
apostles say that a sacrifice was offered for Christ as an
infant in our nature, according to the mstitutions of the time ;
Mamchaeus, that a member, not of humanity, but of the divine
substance itself, must be sacrificed to the whole host of demons
by bemg introduced mto the nature of the hostile race. The
apostles say that Christ, to set us an example, was baptized in
the Jordan; Manichaeus, that God immersed himself in the
poUution of darkness, and that he wiU never wholly emerge,
but that the part wMch cannot be purified will be condemned
to eternal punishment. The apostles say that Christ, in our
nature, was tempted by the chief of the demons ; Manichaeus,
that part of God was taken captive by the race of demons.
And m the temptation of Christ He resists the tempter ; while
in the captivity of God, the part taken captive cannot be re
stored to its origin even after victory. To conclude, Mani
chaeus, under the guise of an improvement, preaches another
gospel, wMch is the doctrine of devils ; and the apostles, after
the doctrine of Christ, enjoin that whoever preaches another
gospel shaU be accursed.1

BOOK XXXIII.
1. Faustus. You quote from the Gospel the words, " Many
shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven," 2 and ask why we do not acknowledge the patriarchs.
Now, we should be the last to grudge to any human being
that God should have compassion on him, and bring him out
of perdition to salvation. At the same time, we should ac
knowledge in such a case the clemency shown in this act of
1 Gal. i. 8. s Matt. viii. 11.

550 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXIII.
 1 
compassion, and not the merit of the person whose life is
undeniably blameworthy. Thus, in the case of the Jewish
fathers, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who are mentioned
by Christ in this verse, supposing it to be genuine, although
they led wicked lives, as we may learn from their descendant
Moses, or whoever was the author of the history called Genesis,
which describes their conduct as having been most shocking
and detestable ; we are ready to allow that they may, after
all, be in the kingdom of heaven, m the place which they
neither believed in, nor hoped for, as is plain enough from
their books. But then it must be kept in mind that, as you
yourselves confess, K they did attain to what is spoken of in
this verse, it was something very different from the nether
dungeons of woe to which their own deserts consigned them,
and that their deliverance was the work of our Lord Christ,
and the result of His mystic passion. Who would grudge to
the thief on the cross that dehverance was granted to him by
the same Lord, and that Christ said that on that very day he
should be with Him in the paradise of His Father?1 Who is
so hard-hearted as to disapprove of this act of benevolence ?
Still, it does not foUow that, because Jesus pardoned a thief,
we must approve of the habits and practices of thieves ; any
more than of the publicans and harlots, whose faults Jesus par
doned, declaring that they would go into the kingdom of heaven
before those who behaved proudly.2 For, when He acquitted
the woman accused by the Jews as sinful, and as having been
caught in adultery, He told her to sin no more.3 If, then, He
has done something of the same kind in the case of Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob, all the praise is His ; for such actions
towards souls are becoming in Him who maketh His sun to
rise upon the evil and upon the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and on the unjust.4 One thing perplexes me in your
doctrine : why you hmit your statements to the fathers of
the Jews, and are not of opinion that the GentUe patriarchs
had also a share in this grace of our Eedeemer ; especially
as the Christian Church consists of their children more than
of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You wUl say that
tbe Gentiles worshipped idols, and the Jews the Almighty
1 Luke xxi i. 43. 2 Matt. xxi. 31. 3 John viii. 3-11. « Matt. v. 45.

BOOK XXXIII.] ARE THE PATRIARCHS IN HEAVEN ? 551
God, and that therefore Jesus had regard only to the Jews.
It woidd seem from this that the worship of the Almighty
God is the sure way to hell, and that the Son must come to
the aid of the worshipper of the Father. That is as you
please. For my part, I am ready to join you in the belief
that the fathers reached heaven, not by any merit of their
own, but by that divine mercy which is stronger than sin.
2. However, there is a difficulty in deciding as regards this
verse too, whether the words were really spoken to Christ, for
there is a discrepancy in the narratives. For wMle two evan
gelists, Matthew and Luke, both alike teU of the centurion
whose servant was sick, and to whom these words of Jesus
are supposed to have apphed, that He had not seen so great
faith, no, not in Israel, as in this man, though a Gentile and
a Pagan, because he said that he was not worthy that Jesus
should come under his roof, but wished Him only to speak
the word, and his servant should be healed ; Matthew alone
adds that Jesus went on to say, " Verily I say unto you, that
many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom
of heaven ; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast into
outer darkness." By the many who should come are meant
the Pagans, on account of the centurion, in whom, although be
was a Gentile, so great faith was found ; and the children of
the Mngdom are the Jews, in whom there was no faith found.
Luke, again, though he too mentions tbe occurrence in his
Gospel as part of the narrative of the miracles of Christ, says
nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If it is said that he
omitted it because it had been already said by Matthew, why
does he teU the story at all of the centurion and his servant,
since that, too, has the advantage of being recorded at length
in Matthew's ingenious narrative ? But the passage is cor
rupt. For, in describing the centurion's apphcation to Jesus,
Matthew says that he came himself to ask for a cure ; while
Luke says he did not, but sent elders of the Jews, and that
they, in case Jesus should despise the centurion as a Gentile
(for they will have Jesus to be a thorough Jew), set about
persuading Him, by saying that he was worthy for whom He
should do this, because he loved their nation, and had built

552 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BO OK XXXIII.
them a synagogue;1 here again taking for granted that the
Son of God was concerned m a pagan centurion's having
thought it proper to buUd a synagogue for the Jews. The
words in question are, indeed, found in Luke also, perhaps
because on reflection he thought they might be genuine; but
they are found in another place, and in a connection altogether
different. The passage is where Jesus says to His disciples,
" Strive to enter in at tbe strait gate ; for many shaU come
seeMng to enter in, and shaU not be able. When once the
Master of the house has entered in, and has shut to the door, ye
shaU begin to stand without, and to knock, saying, Lord, open
to us. And He shaU answer and say, I know you not. Then
ye shall begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy pre
sence, and Thou hast taught in our streets and synagogues ;
but He shall say unto you, I know not whence ye are ; depart
from me, all ye workers of miquity. There shaU be weepmg
and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac,
and Jacob, and all the prophets, entering into the kmgdom of
God, and you yourselves cast out. And they shaU come from
the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the
south, and shaU sit down in the kingdom of God." 2 The part
where it is said that many shaU be shut out of the kmgdom
of God, who have only borne the name of Christ, without
doing His works, is not left out by Matthew ; but he makes
no mention here of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. In the
same way, Luke mentions the centurion and his servant, with
out alluding in that connection to Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob. Since it is uncertain when the words were spoken,
we are at liberty to doubt whether they were spoken at all.
3. It is not without reason that we bring a critical judg
ment to the study of Scriptures where there are such dis
crepancies and contradictions. By thus examining everything,
and comparing one passage with another, we determine which
contains Christ's actual words, and what may or may not be
genuine. For your predecessors have made many interpola
tions in the words of our Lord, which thus appear under His
name, while they disagree with His doctrine. Besides, as we
have proved again and again, the writings are not the produc-
1 Matt. viii. 5-13 ; Luke vii. 2-10. 2 Luke xiii. 24-29.

BOOK XXXIII.] THE MYTHICAL THEORY. 553
tion of Christ or of His apostles, but a compUation of rumours
and beliefs made, long after their departure, by some obscure
semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and pub
hshed by them under the name of the apostles, or of those
considered the followers of the apostles, so as to give the
appearance of apostohc authority to aU these blunders and
falsehoods. But whatever you make of that, as regards this
verse, I repeat that I do not insist on rejecting it. It is enough
for my position, that, as I said before, and as you are obliged
to confess, before the coming of our Lord all the patriarchs
and prophets of Israel lay in infernal darkness for their sins.
Even though they may have been restored to light and liberty
by CMist, that has notMng to do with the hateful character of
their hves. We hate and eschew not their persons, but their
characters ; not as they are now, when they are purified, but
as they were, when impure. So, whatever you think of this
verse, it does not affect us : for if it is genuine, it only illus
trates Christ's goodness and compassion ; and if it is spurious,
those who wrote it are to blame. Our cause is as safe as it
always is.
4. Augustine. Poor safety, indeed ! when you contradict
yourseK by hating the patriarchs as impure, at the same time
that you grieve for your impure god. You allow that, since
the advent of the Saviour, the patriarchs have had purity re
stored, and have enjoyed the rest of the blessed ; while your
god, even after the Saviour's advent, stiU hes in darkness, is
stiU sunk in the ocean of iniquity, stiU wallows in the mire of
all uncleanness. These men, therefore, were not only better
than your god in their hves, but also happier in theh death.
Where was the abode of the just who departed from this life
before Christ's coming in the flesh, and whether theh condition
also was improved by the passion of Christ, in whom they had
believed as to come, and to suffer, and to rise again, and had,
moreover, foretold this in suitable language under the guidance
of the Spirit of prophecy, is to be discovered from the Holy
Scriptures, if any clear discovery in this matter is possible ; we
are not caUed on to adopt the crude notions of all and sundry,
still less the heretical opinions of men who have gone astray
into such egregious errors. There is a vain attempt here on

554 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXIII.
the part of Faustus to introduce by a side-door the idea that
we may obtain something after this life besides the due reward
of our conduct in this IKe. It will be better for you to aban
don your error while you are still alive, and to embrace and bold
the1 truths of the Catholic faith. Otherwise the expectations
of the unrighteous will be sadly disappointed when God begins
to fulfil His threatenings to the unrighteous.
5. I have already given what I considered a sufficient
answer to Faustus' calumnies of the hves of the patriarchs.
That they were punished at their death, or that they were
justified after the Lord's passion, is not what we learn from His
commendation of them, when He admomshed the Jews that, if
they were Abraham's children, they should do the works of
Abraham, and said that Abraham deshed to see His day, and
was glad when he saw it ; J and that it was mto his bosom,
that is, some deep recess of blissful repose, that the angels
carried the poor sufferer who was despised by the proud rich
man.2 And what are we to make of the Apostle Paul ? Is
there any idea of justification after death in Ms praise of
Abraham, when he says that before he was circumcised he be
lieved God, and that it was counted to Mm for righteousness ?3
And so much importance does he attach to this, that the
single ground which he specifies for our becoming Abraham's
chUdren, though not descended from him in the flesh, is, that
we follow the footsteps of his faith.
6. You are so hardened in your errors against the testi
monies of Scripture, that notMng can be made of you ; for
whenever anything is quoted against you, you have the bold
ness to say that it is written not by tbe apostle, but by some
pretender under Ms name. The doctrine of devils which you
preach is so opposed to Christian doctrine, that you could not
continue, as professing Christians, to maintain it, unless you
denied the truth of the apostolic writings. How can you thus
do injury to your own souls ? Where will you find any authority,
if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings ? How can we be
sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic
origin of those books which are attributed to the apostles by
the Church which the apostles themselves founded, and which
1 John viii. 39, 56. ! Luke xvi. 20. 3 Rom. iv. 3.

BOOK XXXIII.] AUTHORSHIP ASCERTAINED. 555
occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands, and if at the same
time we acknowledge as the undoubted production of the
apostles what is brought forward by heretics in opposition
to the Church, whose authors, from whom they derive their
name, hved long after the apostles ? .And do we not see in
profane literature that there are weU -known authors under
whose names many things have been published after their
time which have been rejected, either from inconsistency with
their ascertained writings, or from their not having been known
in the hfetime of the authors, so as to be handed down with
the confirmatory statement of the authors themselves, or of
theh friends ? To give a single example, were not some books
pubhshed lately under the name of the distinguished physi
cian Hippocrates, which were not received as authoritative by
physicians ? And this decision remained unaltered in spite
of some simUarity in style and matter : for, when compared
to the genume writings of Hippocrates, these books were found
to be mferior ; besides that they were not recognised as his
at the time when Ms authorship of his genuine productions
was ascertamed. Those books, again, from a comparison with
which the productions of questionable origin were rejected,
are with certamty attributed to Hippocrates ; and any one who
demes theh authorsMp is answered only by ridicule, simply
because there is a succession of testimonies to the books from
the time of Hippocrates to the present day, which makes it
unreasonable either now or hereafter to have any doubt on the
subject. How do we know the authorship of the works of
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other similar writers, but
by the unbroken chain of evidence ? So also with the nume
rous commentaries on the ecclesiastical books, which have no
canomcal authority, and yet show a desire of usefulness and a
spirit of inquiry. How is the authorship ascertained in each
case, except by the author's having brought his work into
pubhc notice as much as possible in his own hfetime, and, by
the transmission of the information from one to another in
continuous order, the belief becoming more certain as it be
comes more general, up to our own day ; so that, when we are
questioned as to the authorship of any book, we have no diffi
culty in answering ? But why speak of old books ? Take the

556 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXIII.
books now before us : should any one, after some years, deny
that this book was written by me, or that Faustus' was
written by him, where is evidence for the fact to be found but
in the information possessed by some at the present time,
and transmitted by them through successive generations even
to distant times ? From all this it foUows, that no one who
has not yielded to the mahcious and deceitful suggestions of
lying devUs, can be so blinded by passion as to deny the ability
of the Church of the apostles — a commumty of brethren as
numerous as they were faithful — to transmit their writings
unaltered to posterity, as tbe original seats of tbe apostles have
been occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the
present day, especially when we are accustomed to see this
happen in the case of ordinary writings both m the Church
and out of it.
7. But Faustus finds contradictions m the Gospels. Say,
rather, that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that
he is too foolish to understand, and too blind to see. If you
were animated with piety instead of being misled by party
spirit, you might easily, by examining these passages, discover
a wonderful and most mstructive harmony among the writers.
Who, in reading two narratives of the same event, would think
of charging one or both of the authors with error or falsehood,
because one omits what the other mentions, or one teUs con
cisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other relates
in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also
how it was done ? This is what Faustus does in his attempt
to impeach the truth of the Gospels ; as K Luke's omitting
some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial
on the part of Luke of Matthew's statement. There is no real
difficulty in the case ; and to make a difficulty shows want of
thought, or of the ability to think There is, indeed, a point
in the narrative of the centurion which is discussed among
believers, and on wMch objections are raised by unbehevers of
no great learning, who prove their quarrelsomeness, when, after
being instructed, they do not give up their errors. The point
is, that Matthew says that the centurion came to Jesus " be
seeching Him, and saying ; " while Luke says that he sent to
Jesus the elders of the Jews with this same request, that He

BOOK XXXIII.] HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 557
would heal Ms servant who was sick ; and that when He came
near the house he sent others, through whom he said that he
was not worthy that Jesus should come into his house, and
that he was not worthy to eome himself to Jesus. How, then,
do we read in Matthew, " He came to Him, beseeching Him,
and saying, My servant Beth at home, sick of the palsy, and
grievously tormented "I1 The explanation is, that Matthew's
narrative is correct, but brief, mentioning the centurion's coming
to Jesus, without saying whether he came himself or by others,
or whether the words about his servant were spoken by him
self or through others. But is it not common to speak of a
person as coming near to a thing, although he may not reach
it ? And even the word reach, wMch is the strongest form of
expression, is frequently used in cases where the person spoken
of acts tMough others, as when we say he took Ms case to court,
be reached the presence of the judge; or, again, he reached
the presence of some man in power, although it may probably
have been tMough his friends, and the person may not have
seen him whose presence he is said to have reached. And from
the word for to reach we give the name of Perventors to those
who by ambitious arts gain aceess, either personally or tMough
friends, to the, so to speak, inaccessible minds of the great.
Are we, then, in reading to forget the common usage of speech ?
Or must the sacred Scripture have a language of its own ?
The cavils of forward critics are thus met by a reference to the
usual forms of speech
8. Those who examine this matter not in a disputatious
but in a calm believmg sphit are invited to come to Jesus,
not outwardly but in heart, not in bodUy presence but in the
power of faith, as the centurion did, and then they wiU better
understand Matthew's narrative. To such it is said m the
Psalm, " Come unto Him, and be enhghtened ; and your faces
shaU not be ashamed." 2 Hence we learn that the centurion,
whose faith was so MgMy spoken of, came to Christ more
truly than the people who carried bis message. We find an
analogous case in the woman with the issue of blood, who
was healed by touching the hem of Christ's garment, when
Christ said, "Some one hath touched me." The disciples
1 Matt. viii. 5-13 ; Luke vii. 2-10. 2 Ps. xxxiv. 5.

558 REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHaEAN. [BOOK XXXIII.
wondered what Christ meant by saying, " Who hath touched
me?" "Some one hath touched me," when the crowd was
thronging Him. In fact, they made this reply : " The crowd
throngeth Thee, and sayest Thou, Who hath touched me?"1
Now, as the people thronged Christ whUe the woman touched
Him, so the messengers were sent to CMist, but the centurion
really came to Hhn. In Matthew we have a not infrequent
form of expression, and at the same time a symbolical im
port ; while in Luke there is a simple narrative of the whole
event, such as to draw our attention to the manner in which
Matthew has recorded it. I -wish one of those people who
found their silly objections to the Gospels on such trifling
difficulties would Mmself teU a story twice over, honestly
giving a true account of what happened, and that his words
were written down and read over to him. We should then
see whether he would not say more or less at one time than
at another ; and whether the order would not be changed, not
only of words, but of things ; and whether he would not put
some opinion of his own into the mouth of another, because,
though he never heard him say it, he knew it perfectly well
to be in his mind ; and whether he would not sometimes put
in a few words what he had before related at length. In these
and other ways, which might perhaps be reduced to rule, the
narratives of the same thing by two persons, or two narratives
by the same person, might differ in many things without being
opposed, might be unlike without being contradictory. Thus
are undone aU the bandages with wMch poor Mamchaeans
stifle themselves to keep in the spirit of error, and to keep
out all that might lead to their salvation.
9. Now that aU Faustus' calumnies have been refuted, those
at least on the subjects here treated of at large and explained
fully as the Lord has enabled me, I close with a word of
counsel to you who are implicated in those shocking and
damnable errors, that, K you acknowledge the supreme autho
rity of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which
from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His
aposties, and through a regular succession of bishops in the
seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day
1 Luke viii. 43, iS.

BOOK XXXIII.] A WORD OF COUNSEL. 559
throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.
There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and
its predictions fulfiUed. If you ask for demonstration, con
sider first what you are, how unfit for comprehending the
nature of your own soul, not to speak of God ; I mean an in
telligent compiehension, such as you profess to deshe, or to
have once desired, and not the notions of a credulous fancy.
Admitting this incompetency, which must continue while you
remain as you are, you may at least be referred to the natural
conviction of every human mind, unless it is corrupted by
error, of the perfect unchangeableness and incorruptibility of
the nature and substance of God. Admit this, or believe it,
and you will no longer be Manichaeans, so that in course of
time you may become Catholics.

INDEXES.

I.— INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS.

Abraham, defended against Faustus,
426, etc. ; and Hagar, 427 ; his
denial of his wife, 429, 430; the
prophetic and typical character of,
433, 434.
Abraham and Tsaac, types, 222.
Abstinence, from meats and drinks,
44, etc. ; of the Manichaeans, 67,
-etc. ; reasons for, 69, etc., 72, etc. ;
view of Faustus respecting, 522,
etc. ; refutation of Faustus on the
question of, 526, etc.
Actions, how to be judged, 67.
Adam and his wife, types, 209.
Adimantus and his doctrine referred
to, 176, 312, 313.
' Adoption, symbolism of, and its ap
plication to the genealogy of Christ,
153, 154,
Anchorites and Ccenobites, the — the
continence of, set off against the
continence of the Manichseans, 40,
etc.
Angel, the, wrestling with Jacob, 222.
Animals, the power ascribed to, by
the Maniclreeans, 391, 392.
Anthropomorphites, the, not so bad
as the Manichseans, 119.
Appetites, the, 426.
Ark, the, of Noah, its typical signi
fication, 214, 215, 216, 217; the
raven and the dove sent out of,
218 ; how Noah and his family en
tered and left, 219 ; and baptism,
336, 337.
Athenian female criminals, 58, 59.
Authority, the, of Scripture, 546, 547,
548.
Authorship of books, how ascer
tained, 555.
Babylon, the captivity in, and return
from, 228, 229.
Baptism and the ark, 336, 337.
5

Bema, the, of Manichaeus, 105.
Bersabee, Uriah's wife, a type, 478,
479.
Bilhah and Zilpah, 447.
Birth of Jesus, the — the absurd
statement of Faustus respecting,
366, 367, 368.
Blood, abstinence from, 540, 541.
Body, the human, man's heaviest
bond, 27 ; God's handiwork, 388,
390.
Body and soul, the, 5, 6.
Breast, the, Manichaean symbol of,
89, etc
Caiaphas, his prophecy, 303.
Cain, Abel's offering preferred to the
offering of, 209, 210 ; counselled by
God, 210 ; questioned by God re
specting Abel, 111 ; cursed, 111,
112 ; a mourner and an abject, 212,
213 ; the mark set on, 213.
Calf, the golden — significance of the
grinding to powder, and burning of,
484.
Captivity, the, of the Jews, 228, 229.
Christ, the birth of, denied by the
Manichseans, — but defended, 191,
192, 194, 198, 199-202; knowing,
after the flesh, what it means, ibid.;
types of, 209, etc., 219, etc. ; pro
phecies of, 232, etc. ; plain prophe
cies of, 234, 235 ; the death of, real,
260, 261 ; did Moses write of ? 284,
etc., 288, etc. ; what Moses wrote
of, 290, etc. ; the Prophet like to
Moses, 295 ; never sought to turn
Israel from their God, 304 ; broke
no command, 305 ; Manichaean
notions of, 357, 361, 362 ; the power
and wisdom of, 362, 363 ; curious
statement of Faustus respecting,
366, etc. ; why descended from
Zara of Tamar, 453, 454 ; Son of
2 N

562

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS.

David and Son of God, 493, 495;
son of Mary — Faustus' objections
refuted, 498, etc. [See Jesus.]
Christians, the Church not to be
blamed for bad, 46, 47 ; semi and
pseudo, 146 ; why Jewish laws are
not observed by, 334, etc. ; Jewish
and Gentile, their relation respec
tively to the law, 339-341 ; observe
the moral precepts of the law, 342 ;
the morals of, 380, 381.
Church, the Catholic, the perfect
truth is to be found only in, 22;
the teacher of wisdom, 38-40 ; con
spicuously visible, 250.
Circumcision, a. prophecy of Christ,
109.
Clean and unclean food, 176, 177, 181.
Clergy, praise of the, 43.
Cloud and pillar of fire, types, 225.
Coenobites and Anchorites, their ab
stinence as compared with that of
the Mamchaeans, 40, etc., 43, etc.
Common report, 242, 243.
Compassionate, 33.
Corruption, 55 ; counteracted by God,
56 ; evil is, 136 ; the source of, 137 ;
comes from nothing, 140 ; what it
tends to, 141 ; is by God's permis
sion, and comes from us, 142.
Covetousness, the root of all evils,
23, 24.
Cow dung used as fuel, 77.
Criticism, biblical, the true, 192, 193 ;
unfair, of Faustus, 493, 494.
Critics, childish, severely censured,
423.
" Cursed is every one that hangeth on
a tree," 256, 258, etc.
Curses, prophetic, 302, 303.
Darkness, the Manichssan kingdom
of, 113; five natures in the, 126 ;
refutation of the theory of, 126,
127 ; the Manichssan race of, 179.
David, his virtues and his faults, 455-
457 ; and Saul, 457 ; prophetic sig
nificance of the sin of, 478.
Death, the, the effect of sin, 258,
259.
Death of Christ, the, a real death,
260, 261.
Decalogue, the, against the Mani-
cbs3ans, 275, etc.
Deities, false, 273.
Discipline, 34 ; what it implies, 35.
Divorce, a bill of, 350, 351 ; the law
of Christ respecting, 353, 354.
Docetism, the, of Faustus, 513, 519,
520.

Egyptian, Moses killing the, 483.
Egyptians, spoiling the, 460-463, 483.
Elijah, fed by ravens, etc., 227, 228 ;
the translation of — Faustus' objec
tions to, answered, 507, 508, 511.
Elisha, the miracles of, 228.
Enoch, 214.
Er and Onan, sons of Tamar, types,
475.
Evangelists, the authority of the, 184,
185.
Evidence, the use of, 236, 237.
Evil, what ? first answer, 52 ; second
answer, 53 ; third answer, 55 ; not
a substance, but » disagreement
hostile to substance, 57, etc. ;
Manichssan fictions about, 6.0, etc. ;
is corruption, 136 ; the source of,
137 ; origin of, 420, 421. '
Evil and good, 395, 396, 397.
Exodus, the, of Israel from Egypt, a
type, 224.
"Eye for an eye," etc., 348, 349.
Faith, the Catholic, proofs of, 99, 100.
Faustus the Manichaean, who, 145 ;
his praise of himself, 159 ; the
hypocrisy of, 165 ; would fail to
satisfy an inquirer, 253, 254 ; his
logic, 306, 307 ; his Docetism, 513,
519, .520.
First man, the, of the Manichaeans,
148; different from Paul's, 149,
193, 194.
Flesh, why the use of, is prohibited
by the Manichaeans, 73, 74; as
clean as fruits, 180, 181.
Flesh, knowing Christ after the — re
futation of Faustus respecting the
question, 191-196, 198, 199-202.
Flood, the, its symbolic import, 216.
Food, clean and unclean, 176, 177 ;
various kinds of, prohibited in the
Old Testament, 539, 540 ; the' laws
of Moses and of Christ respecting,
311, 312.
Forgiveness, taught in the Old Testa
ment, 352, 353.
Fortitude, 27 ; Scripture precepts re
specting, and examples of, 28.
Fulfilling the law, what it means, 320,
etc., 331, etc.
Genealogy of Christ, objections of
Faustus the Manichssan to, aud
reply, 152-156, 183, etc.
Gentiles, the, never under the Jewish
law, 340, etc.; Christians accused
of retaining the manners of, 380, 3S1.
Glorification of Christ, the, 107.

INDEX OF PKINCIPAL SUBJECTS.

God, following, 7 ; the knowledge of,
whence obtained, 7, 8 ; the chief
good, 9 ; what the Church teaches
about, 11, 12 ; the one object of
love, 13, 24, 25 ; nothing better
than, 13 ; nothing can separate us
from, 13, 14 ; we are invited to, by
love, 14 ; we are joined inseparably
to, by Christ and His Spirit, 15 ;
we cleave to, by love, 16 ; absurd
Manichaean notions about, 74, etc.,
119, 120; has no extension, 116;
alone perfectly good, 138 ; nature
made by, 140 ; in what sense evils
are from, 140, 141 ; the belief in
one, part of the original truth, 375 ;
the same who punishes and blesses,
183, 184; the works of, 386, etc.;
the eternal light, aud the source of
light, 405, etc. ; astonished, 407 ;
Old Testament representations of,
vindicated, 407-409 ; jealous, 412,
413; the omnipotence of, 510, 511.
God, the, of the Jews, how Faustus
speaks of, 322, 402.
God and Hyle, of the Manichaeans,
382, 385. 388, 389, 399, 416, 417,
418, 487,' 488.
God of this -world, the, 383, 391.
Good, the chief, two conditions of, 3,
4, 5 ; God the, 13, 51 ; a twofold,
54 ; exhortation to seek the, 143.
Good and evil 395, 396, 397.
Good, doing, to our neighbour, 33, 34.
Gospel, the, on what authority Augus
tine received, 101 ; what — refutation
of Manichseanism respecting, 146-
148.
Gospels, the harmony of, 556, 557.
Hagae and Sarah, 427.
Hand, the, as a Manichaean symbol,
82, etc.
Happiness, true, 3, etc.
Harmony, the, of the Old and New
Testaments, 9, 18, 33, 34; of the
Gospels, 556, 557.
Hebrew prophecy, 240, 241.
Hebrews and Pagans, the difference
between the worship of, 379.
Heretics, better to restore than to
destroy, 97.
Holy Spirit, the, when sent, 105, 106 ;
twice given, 107.
Hosea, commanded to take to him a
' ' wife of whoredoms, " 472, 480, 481.
Hyle, 357, 370, 371 ; and God, 382,
383, 385, 398, 399.
Idolatry, the result of apostacy, 375.

Incarnation of Christ, the, objections
of Faustus to, 152, 498.
Indirect construction, instances of,
319.
Infinity of God, the, questions about,
506.
Inquirer, the heathen, how answered
and instructed, 244-248; a difficulty
of, met, 248 ; satisfied, 251.
Inquisitiveness condemned in Scrip
ture, 25.
Iras, 477.
Isaac and Eebecca, 437, 438.
Jacob, sets up a stone for a memorial
pillar, 222; his vision of the ladder,
223 ; his polygamy, 438-440 ; his
wives, and the typical or symbolical
meaning of, 441-447.
Jericho, the capture of, 226.
Jesus, was He born of Mary ? — cavils
of Faustus, 490, etc.; both Son of
David and Son of God — Faustus
refuted, 493, etc.; did He die? —
objections of Faustus refuted, 507-
514 ; was He born ? — reply to Faus
tus, 515 ; both the birth and death
of, real, not illusory, 519, 520. [See
Christ. ]
Jewish books, learning the Christian
faith from, 300 ; laws and observ
ances — why Christians do not
observe, 334, etc.; observed by
Jewish but not by Gentile Chris
tians, 339-341.
Jews, the, typified by Cain, 210-214 ;
their unbelief foretold, 248, 249.
Joachim, a priest, alleged by Faustus
to be the father of the Virgin Mary,
492, 496, 497. .
John the Baptist, 477.
Joseph, a type, 224.
Joshua and Jesus, 298, 299.
Judah, the blessing of, its prophetic
import, 232, 233; the incest of, with
Tamar, 451, 452 ; and Judas, 45.) ;
the prophetic significance of his
incest with Tamar, 474, etc.
Judges, types in the book of, 227.
Justice towards God, 29.
"Kingdom of heaven," 356.
Kingdom of light, the Manichaean,
110, etc., 118.
Ladder, Jacob's vision of the, 223.
Latria, 377, 378.
Law, the, and grace, 278, 279.
Law and the prophets, Jesus came
not to destroy, but to fulfil — genu-

564

INDEX OF PPJNCIPAL SUBJECTS.

ineness of the words, 316, 317, etc. ;
why Christians do not keep the,
223 ; Faustus' explanation of the
words, 326, etc.; reply to Faustus
respecting, 331, etc., 333, etc.; and
Judaism, distinguished between by
Faustus, 400, etc.
Law, the eternal, 426.
Leah and Rachel, 441-447.
Lex talionis, the, 348, 349.
"Life, thy, thou shalt see hanging,"
etc., 301.
Light, God is, and the source of, 405,
406.
Light, the Manichaean kingdom of,
110, etc., 118.
Logic, the, of Faustus, 306, 307.
Lord's day, the, and Sunday, 324.
Lot, and his daughters, 434-437 ; not
equal to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob,
450.
Love, to God, 9 ; we are united to
God by, 14, 16 ; the fourfold divi
sion of, 17 ; the guiding influence
of, 21 ; of ourselves and our neigh
bour, 31, 32, 33.
Love-feasts, 376.
Loving and hating, 346, 347.
Man, what, 4 ; the chief good of, 5 ;
wholly created by God — refutation
of Faustus respecting, 498-504.
Mandrakes, description of, and the
supposed virtues and typical import
of, explained, 447, 448.
Manichseanism explained by Faustus,
356, etc. ;, exposed, 359, etc.
Manichaeans, the, two tricks of, for
catching the unwary, 2 ; the two
gods of, 11 ; fictions of, about things
good and evil, 50, etc. ; three moral
symbols devised by, 63, etc., S2,
etc., 89, etc.; fables of, about God,
64 ; the abstinence of, 67 ; why
they prohibit the use of flesh, 73,
etc. ; absurd tenets of, relating to
God, 74, etc.; views of, relating to
souls, SI ; notions of, respecting
marriage, 89, 90 ; serious charges
of immorality brought against, 89-
96 ; to be gently dealt with, 98 ;
their kingdom of darkness, 113,
126, 127 ; worse than the Anthro-
pomorphists, 119 ; the first man of,
148, 149 ; their perverse method of
dealing "with Scripture evidence in
controversy, 192, 193 ; the idolatry
of, 263. ; impeached of great errors
and sins, 272, etc. ; the Decalogue
against, 275, etc.; beguiled by the

serpent, 280, 281, 282; are tares,
325 ; the oath used by, 344, 345 ;
the worship of, 363-365; 373 ; the
trinity of, 356, 369 ; the two prin
ciples of, 395, etc.; the God of,
416, 417, 418, 487, 488 ; apocryphal
gospels of, 470, 471.
Manichaeus, or Manes, claims to be
an apostle — the claim refuted, 100,
101, etc., 241 ; why he called him
self an apostle, 102 ; in what sense
his followers believe him to be the
Holy Spirit, 103, 104 ; the festival
of the birthday of, 104 ; promises
truth, but fails to fulfil his word,
108 ; wild fancies of, 109, 110 ; the
two substances of his kingdom of
light, 110 ; promises knowledge,
111, 112 ; his absurd fancy of a
land and race of darkness, 113 ;
refutation of his absurd ideas of
two territories, 117, etc. ; the num
ber of natures in the system of, 121,
etc. ; his five natures in the region
of darkness — refutation of the fic
tion, 126, 127 ; sworn by, 344 ; de
rivation of the name, 345 ; which
is, he or Matthew, to be believed ?
517 ; versus the apostles, 548, 549.
Mark, the, set on Cain, 213.
Marriage, allowed to the baptized by
the apostles, 48-50 ; among the
Manichseans, 89, 90 ; with sisters,
430.
Marry, forbidding to, 522, etc., 526, etc.
Martyrs, honours paid to, 376-378 ;
the numbers of, 465, 466.
Mary, the Virgin, did she belong to
the tribe of Judah? — assertion of
Faustus, and refutation of the same,
492, 496.
Matthew, the call of, 317, 319 ; the
genuineness of the Gospel of, 516 ;
or Manichaeus, which to be believed,
517, 518.
Means, the use of, 431, 432.
Meats and drinks, abstinence from, or
the reverse, 44-46, 526.
Memory, 115.
Mind has no material extension, 116.
Miracle and nature, 508-510.
Months, origin of the names of, 324.
Morals, the, of the Christians, 380,
381.
Moses, the rod of, a type, 224; cen
sured by Faustus for using the word
"cursed," and defended, 256, 258,
etc. ; did he write of Christ ? 283,
etc., 288, etc. ; is his law pure
paganism ? 2S9, etc. ; what he wrote

INDEX OF PKINCIPAL SUBJECTS.

565

of Christ, 290, etc., 293, etc. ; like
to Christ, 295 ; defended against
Faustus, 296, 311 ; his virtues, 458 ;
slays the Egyptian, 459, 4S3 ; spoils
the Egyptians, 460-463, 483 ; slaugh
ters the idolatrous Israelites, 470,
484 ; burns and grinds to powder
the golden calf, 4S4.
Mouth, the, the value of the Mani
chaean symbol of, 63, etc.
Nature, every, as such, good, 113 ;
cannot be without good, 134 ; cor
ruption is not, 136 ; made by God,
140 ; and miracle, 508, 509.
Neighbour, the love of, 31, 32 ; doing
good to, 33, 34.
New Testament, the Manichsean treat
ment of the, 532, 537.
Noah, and the ark, 214-216; age of, at
the flood, 217 ; God's covenant with,
219 ; his drunkenness, 219, 220 ;
conduct of the sons of, 220.
Obedience to the gospel, the Mani
chaean representation of, 159, etc. ;
reply to Faustus' statement respect
ing, 162, etc. ; unavailing without
faith, 163.
Old man, the, and the new, 24.
Old Testament, the, and the New,
the harmony of, 9, etc., 18, etc., 35,
36, 465, 466, 467, 468.
Old Testament, the, Faustus' objec
tions to, and charges against, an
swered, 157, etc., 169, etc., 187,
189, etc., 266, etc., 268, etc., 401,
402, 403, etc., 410, etc, 532, etc.,
536, etc. ; the function of, 537 ; the
typical nature of, 538, 539.
Olive tree, the good, 188, 189.
Omnipotence of God, the, 510, 511.
Only-begotten, the, of God, 138.
Origin of evil, the, 420, 421.
Paganism, imputed to the Catholics
by Faustus, 358 ; the charge of,
retorted, 359, etc. ; Christians vin
dicated from the charge of, 376, 380.
Paraclete, Manichaeus not the apostle
of the, 101, 102 ; when sent forth,
105, 106 ; the mission of the, 542,
543 ; the promise of, refers not to
Manichaeus, 544 ; sent immediately
after the resurrection of Jesus, 544,
545.
Partridge, the, a type of heretics, 249.
Passover, the, 225.
"Patience of Israel, the," 252, 253.
Patriarchs, the, with all their faults,

superior to the Manichsean elect,
and even the Manichaean god, 422 ;
Faustus' opinion of, 549, etc. ; de
fended against the attacks of Faus
tus, 553.
Paul, did he change his opinions re
specting Christ? 191, 192-196; har
mony of his teaching, 19S, 199 ; the
naturally fierce energy of, made use
of by God, 460.
Paul and Thecla, the apocryphal book
of, referred to, 525.
Periods of the world, six, 208, 209.
Peter, 460.
Philo, his interpretation of Scripture,
230, 231.
Polygamy, 438, 440.
Principles, thetwoj of Manichseanism,
395, etc.
Prophecies of Christ, 204, 232, 233,
234, 235 ; the fulfilment of, its evi
dential power, 244-247.
Prophecy, Hebrew, 240, 241.
Prophet, the, like unto Moses, 294,
295.
Prophets, the Hebrew, and their pro
phecies respecting Christ, defended
against the assaults of Faustus, 203,
204, etc., 237, 238.
Prudence, 29.
"Pure, all things pure to the," 528,
etc. , 530, etc.
Rachel and Leah, 441-450.
Raven and the dove, the, sent forth
from the ark, 218.
Reason, the weakness of, in relation
to God, 8.
Record of faith, the, 254, 255.
Report, common, 242, 243.
Resurrection of the dead, the, 195.
Rod of Moses, the, a type, 224.
Sabbath, the Jewish, 172, 173, 308,
309.
Sacraments, the, of the Old Testament,
337 ; of the Old Testament and the
New, 338, 339 ; relation of Gentile
and Jewish Christians to the Old,
339-341.
Sacrifice, the one true, and imitations
of, 374.
Sacrifices of the Old Testament, 174,
175; typical, 325, 411.
Samson and the lion, 226, 227.
Sarah, her conduct towards Hagar,
427 ; Abraham's denial of, as his
wife, 429 ; and Abraham, types,
432 etc.
Saul, 454,' 455, 457.

566

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS.

Saturn, the fetters of, 324, 325.
Schism, as explained by Faustus, 357,
538.
Scriptures, the, authority of, 36, 546,
547 ; Manichsean mode of dealing
with, in controversy, 192, 193 ; and
other good books, 197 ; the record of
faith, 254, 255 ; how the record of
the deeds of evil men in, is to be re
garded, 451, 454, 455 ; the principle
of interpretation to be applied to,
485, 486 ; all, profitable, 486, 487 ;
Faustus would subject tho, to him
self, not be subject to, 546, 547; the
genuineness of, 554, 555.
Sect and schism, 357.
Self-denial, Catholic, 166, 1G7.
Sensible objects, hot to be loved, 24,
25.
Serpent, the brazen, 225.
Sin, what it is, 424.
Sins of the Old Testament fathers as
set forth by Faustus, 402, etc. ;
treated of, on right principles, 424,
etc.
Solomon, 472.
Son of David and Son of God, Christ
the, denied by Faustus, 490, etc. ;
proved against Faustus, 493, etc.
Soul, the, has no material form, and
is present in every part of the body,
113, 114; has no material exten
sion; 116.
Soul and body, 5, 6 ; virtue gives per
fection to, 6.
Souls, absurd Manichaean notions re
specting, 81, etc., S3, etc.
Star of the Magi, the, 149, 150, 151.
Sun, the, Manichaean worship of, ex
plained by Faustus, 356, etc. ; ab
surd statements of Faustus exposed,
360, etc.
Sunday, and the Lord's day, 324.
Symbolic precepts of the Old Testa
ment, 170, 171.. '
Symbols, three moral, devised by the
Manichseans, 63, etc., 82, etc., 89,
etc.
Tables of stone, the, 270, 271.
Tamar and Judah, 451, 452, 453, 454 ;
a type, 475, 477.
Teacher, the Great, 137.
Temperance, the duties of, 23.
"Thieves and robbers," all who came
before me are — who ? 291.

Thomas, how taught by Jesus, 315,
316 ; apocryphal story of, 471.
Trinity, the, 19, 20 ; absurd views of
Faustus respecting, 356, 369.
Truth, how to be sought, 99.
Two men, the witness of, 292.
Type and testimony, 182.
Types, Adam and Eve, 209 ; Cain and
Abel, 209, 210 ; the ark, 215 ; the
flood, 216, 217 ; the raven and
dove, 218 ; Noah's drunkenness,
219, 220 ; Noah's sons, 220 ; Abra
ham and Isaac, 222 ; the angel
wrestling with Jacob, 222 ; Jacob's
stone, 222 ; Jacob's ladder, 223 ;
Joseph, 224 ; the rod of Moses, 224 ;
the Exodus, 224 ; in the wilderness,
225 ; the conquest of Jericho, 226 ;
events during the time of the Judges,
226, 227 ; events in the time of the
Kiogs, 227, 228; the Church, in
captivity, and the return from cap
tivity, 228, 229 ; must be acknow
ledged, 230, 231 ; sacrifices, 320 ;
other observances besides sacrifices,
333 ; fulfilled in Christ, 334, etc. ;
actions and persons, 473 ; Judah's
incest, 474, etc. ; Tamar, Er, and
Onan, 475-478 ; David's crime, 478 ;
Solomon, 479,-480; various, 538,
539.
Unclean- and clean food, 176, 177,
181.
Uriah the Hittite, 479.
Vanity of the world, the, 26.
Virginity, Pagan and Christian, 379.
Virtue, gives perfection to the soul, 7,
8; the fourfold division of, 17, 30.
Wars, the real evils of, 463, 464;
ordered by God, 463, 464, 465,
468.
Wilderness, the, typical occurrences
in, 225.
Wine, the old and the new, 78.
Wisdom, 21.
Witness, the, of two men, 292.
Words, on what the value of, depends,
475.
Works of God, the, 3S6, etc.
World, the, to be despised, 24, 25 ;
the vanity of, 26.
Zilpah and Bilhab, 447.

INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCEIPTUKE.

567

IL— INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.

Leviticus.

PACK
OLD TESTA1
AX
PAGE
iv. 6, .
. 20
xix. IS,
35
vi. 7, .
3.-)2
Genesis.
xxi.,
1S3
xii. 3, .
. 355
FAGE
xxiii. , .
533
xiii. 4, .
214
i. 2,
. 404
xvi. 8, .
. 214
i. SI, .
. 530
NuMBEES.
xviii. 28,
. 405
ii. 7,
. 503
ix. 10-12, .
296
xviii. 43,
. 477
ii. 32, .
. 194
xiii. 9, .
298
xix. 6, .
. 485
iii. 21, .
. 475
xiv. 6, .
298
xxii. ,
. 234
iv. 4,
. 411
xv. 35, .
535
xxx. 6, 7, N
. 214
ix. 6,
. 540
xxx. 11, 12,
. 229
xi. 31, .
431
Deuteronomy.
xxxi. 19,
. 270
xii. 3, .
. 42S
iv. 6, . . .
273
xxxiv. 5,
. 557
xii. 8, .
. 431
iv. 24, .
39
xxxvi. 6,
. 3S4
xii. 13, .
. 402
vi. 4, . . .
20
xxxvi. 11,
. 214
xv. 3, 4,
. 42S
vi. 5,
9
xxxvii. 23,
. 145
xvi. 2-4,
. 402
vi. 13,
29
xii. 4, .
. 210
xvii. 9-14,
2S7, 533
xii. 32, .
312
xliv. 22,
. 10
xvii. 14,
. 435
xiii. 5, .
286
xiv. 7, 140, 245, 476
xix. 33-35,
. 402
xviii. 15, 285, 294
xiv. 10-17,
. 2S3
xx. 2, .
. 402
xix. 15,
292
1. 23, .
. 373
xxii. IS,
. 232
xix. 18,
35
li. 10, .
. 24
xxiv. 2,
. 232
xxi. 23, . 256, 538
Ivii. 4, .
231 bis
xxvi. 4,
232
xxiv. 1,
350
lxvi. 9,
. 214
xxvi. 7,
403, 437
xxv. 5-10, 25
7, 534
Ixxii. 10,
. 245
xxvii. 40,
. 473
xxvii. 15,
330
Ixxii. 11,
. 467
xxviii. 11-18,
. 223
xxviii. 16,
301
lxxiii. 2S,
IS, 140
xxviii. 14,
. 232
xxviii. 66,
2S5
lxxix. 9,
. 373
xxix. 2c,
. 444
Ixxxiv. 4,
. 2S2
xxix., xxx.,
403
1 Samuel.
lxxxix. 8,
. 20
xxx. 1, .
. 446
xiv. ,
454
ci. 1, .
. 384
xxx. 15,
. 449
xv. 24,
457
cxvi. 15,
. 29
xxx. 16,
. 449
xxiv., xxvi.,
455
cxviii. 16,
. 355
xxxviii.,
. 403
xxviii. 3,
455
cxviii. 22,
. 482
xxxix. 17,
. 444
cxix. 83,
. 224
xlix. 1, 2, S-
i2, . 232
2 Samuel.
cxx. 6, .
. 352
xlix. 8-12,
. 451
xi. 4, 15,
403
cxx. 7, .
. 252
xlix. 10,
. 476
xii.,xvi.,
455455
cxlviii. 1,
. 2S2
Exol
us.
Pro vi
ItES.
ii. 12, .
. 403
1 KlNCS.
iii. 12, .
. 409
iii. 21, 22,
. 460
xi. 1-3,
403
xvi. 32,
29, 352
xi. 2, .
xii.,
. 460
. 533
2 Kings.
ii. 11, .
512
xxi. 20,
xxv. 21,
. 178
. 352
xii. 3-5,
. 454
xxx. 30,
. 233
xii. 35, 36,
. 403, 460
Job.
xvii. 9,
. 403
i. 2,
28
Ecclesi
1STE3.
xix. -xxxi.,
. 539
ii. 7, 8,
245
i. 2, 3, .
. 20
xx. 17,
. 352
ii. 8, 9,
234
xxi. 24,
. 348
ii. 10, .
409
Song or £
OLOMON.
xxiii. 11,
. 490
vii. 4, .
469
i. 7, .
. 433
xxiii. 20, 21,
. 299
ii. 2, .
. 252
xxxi. 13,
. 533
Psalms.
iv. 2, .
. 477
-xxxii. 32,
. 470
iv. 4,
484
iv. 15, .
. 478
568

INDEX OF TEXTS, OF SCEIPTUKE.

Isaiah.

i. 3, .
i. 18, .
ii. 17-20,
vi. 3, .
vi. 10, .
vii. 9, .
viii. 20,
xi. 2, 3,
xi. 10, .
xiv. 7, .
xiv. 23, 24,
Hi. 7, .
liii.,
Ivi. 4, 5,
lxv. 2, .

. 24S
. 233, 444
. 247
. 238
. 248
158, 237, 445
. 405
. 216
. 241
. 57
. 70
. 538
. 234
. 266
. 248

Jeremiah.

x. II, .
xvi. 19-21,
xvii. 5-S,
xviii 9,
xvii. 14,
xviii. 12,
xxxi. 31, 32,
xxxi. 32,

. 245
. 245
. 246
246,434 . 253
. 250
. 537
. 323

Lamentations.
iii. 30, . . . 352
Ezekiel.
ix. 1, . 252
xi. 19, . . 270, 324
xvi. 52, . . 452
Daniel.
i. 12, . . 522, 529
. 250
. 378
. 235
. 476
. 235
. 522

ii. 34, 35,
vi.,
vii. 13, 14, .
ix. 24, .
ix. 24-27, .
2.. 2, 3, Hosea.
i. 2, . .
i. 2, 3, .
i. 2 ; ii. 1, .
xiii. 14,

Habakkuk.

»- 4,

i. 1,
ii. 8,

iv. 2,

Haggai.

Malachi.

472 403
481 40

310

490
478

98

APOCRYPHA.

Wisdom.
i. 5, .
i. 13,- .
i. 16, .
ii. 18-21,
ii. 24, .
iii.. 1-5,
v. 16, 17,
vi. 12-20,
vi. 22, .
vi. 23, .
vii. 24, 25,
vii. 36, .
viii. 1, .
viii. 3, .
ix. 9, .
ix. 15, .
ix. 17, .
ix. 17-19,
xi. 14, .
xi. 21, .
xi. 21 ; xii. 2,
xiv. 15,

PAGE 20
390390236390355
355 22
355
446 172
405 498 1919
469,542 2020
390387353411

Ecclesiasticus,
i. 33, .
ii. 4, 5, .
xix. 1, .
xxvii. 6,
xxviii. 1-5,
xxviii. 21, Tobit.
ii. 1, . .
viii. 9, .
Baruch.
iii. 37, 38, .

444 293029
353352

479430

235

2 Maccabees. 28, 337

NEW TESTAMENT.

i. 23,
i. 25,
ii. 11,
ii. 14,
ii. 16,
iii. 4,
iii. 7,
iii. 10,
iii. 13,
iii. 17,
iv. 2,
v. 3-9,
v. 3-10,

Matthew.

. 493
512, 520
. 520
. 431
. 453
. 312
. 478
. 228
. 47
203, 493
. 514
. 444
. 161

v. 3-11,
v. 4, .
v. 8, .
v. 14, .
v. 17-20,
v. 21-44,
v. 24, .
v. 27, 28,
v. 31, 32,
v. 33, 34,
v. 38, 39,
v. 39, .
v. 44, 48,
v. 45, .
vi. 12, .
vi. 24, .
vii. 6, .
vii. 7, .
vii. 13, .
vii. 21, .
vii. 24-27,
viii. 4, .
viii. 5-13,
viii. 9, 10,
viii. 10,
viii. 10-12,
viii. 11,
viii. 20,
viii. 24,
viii. 31, 32,
viii. 32,
ix. 9, .
ix. 12, 13,
ix. 13, .
ix. 16, .
x. 2-4, .
x. 14, 15,
x. 16, 28, 30,
x. 23, .
x. 25, .
x. 26, .
x. 28, .
x. 38-42,
x. 39, .
xi. 2-6, .
xi. 11, .
xi. 12, .
xi. 18, 19,
xi. 19, .
xi. 27, .
xi. 28, 29,
xii. 7, .
xii. 30, .
xii. 46, .
xii. 48, .
xii. 48-50,
xiii. 24-43,
xiii. 29, 30,
xiii. 30,

PAGE

. .

159

299

'. 143

405

. 250

297

,

320

, .

329

. ,

289

, m

344

t w

350

349

343
'. 348
465
353
'. 346,
550
373
'. 29,
268
22
21, 23,
408
539
. .
160
. .
483
289
! 552
557
, .
464
,
407
, ,
304
, ,
549
,
440
m t
514
461
'. 83
175
316
210
, .
322
. .
186
#
102
t ,
408
m
466
. ,
431
. ,
289
21
! 141
265
168
. .
408
. .
159
.
477
, ,
347
. .
312
, .
319
.
19
335
! 309
373
216
. .
431
. ,
184
.
434
. ,
47
. ,
461
. .
253
INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.

569

158,

44,

xiii. 52,
xiii. 57,
xiv. 30,
xv. 2, .
xv. 3-6,
xv. 11, .
xv. 16-20,
xvi. 7, .
xvi. 11,
xvi. 22, 23,
xvi. 23,
xvii. 5, .
xix. 4-6,
xix. 6, .
xix. 7, S,
xix. 12,
xix. 21,
xix. 29,
xxi. 19,
xxi. 31,
xxii. 10,
xxii. 11-15,
xxii. 21,
xxii. 23-38,
xxii. 31, 32,
xxii. 37,
xxii. 37-39,
xxii. 37-40,
xxii. 39,
xxii. 40,
xxii. 42-44,
xxiii. 2, 3,
xxiii. 3, 320,
xxiii. 9,
xxiii. 15, 2S7,
xxiii. 23, 24,
xxiii. 34,
xxiii. 35,
xxiv. 15,
xxiv. 24, 25,
xxv. 35,
xxvi. 28,
xxvi. 37,
xxvi. 52, 53,
xxvi. 57, 52,
xxvi. 75,
xxvii. 34,
xxviii. 19, 20,
Mark.
i. 1, . .
iii. 13-19, .
iii. 32, .

p*ge
186, 268
. 298
. 296
. 69
. 305
322, 541
. 314
. 161
. 176
297, 513
. 187
. 494
. 353
. 452
. 354
302, 525
. 161
. 159
83, 423
472, 559
454 409464356304 9
35 2
31
36, 326241311
447, 473
184, 434
311, 322
. 315
. 32S
. 466
. 235
. 243
. 161
. 338
. 514
. 466
. 460
. 477
. 475
. 161

Luke.

i. 35,
i. 44,
ii. 7,
.ii. 14,

490 102
520

296477 520 57

ii. 33, .
iii. 14, .
iii. 22, 23,
v. 14, .
vi. 13-18,
vii. 2-10,
viii. 43-46,
viii. 44, 45,
ix. 62, .
xi. 8, .
xi. 20, .
xii. 4, .
xii. 49, .
xiii. 24-29,
xvi. 16, .
xvi. 23, .
xvi. 27-31,
xvii. 2S,
xvii. 32,
xviii. 8,
xx. 37, 38,
xx. 35-38,
xxii. 42, 51,
xxiii. 12,
xxiii. 43,
xxiv. 7,
xxiv. 39,
xxiv. 44,
xxiv. 46, 47,

PAGE
. 520
. 464
. 491
. 175
. 102
552, 570
. 558
. 408
. 435
. 539
. 226
. 141
40, 485
. 552
. 333
. 554
. 207
. 457435 319
304468
. 466
. 476
. 550
. 513
. 198
158, 206
. 477

51,

John.

i.l, .
i. 1-5, .
i. 3, .
i. 6, .
i. 7, .
i. 12, .
i. 14, .
i. 17, .
i. 29, .
i. 34, .
i. 47-51,
ii. 17, .
ii. 19, .
iii. 3, .
iii. 14, .
iii. 14, 15,
iv. 13, 14,
v. 17, .
v. 25, .
v. 25-27,
v. 36, .
v. 39, .
v. 46, .
vi. 53, .
vi. 54, .
vi. 70, 71,
vii. 10-30,

332,

247, 450
. 185
. 512
. 477
. 321
. 154
138, 338
334, 342
225, 294
. 18
. 223
. 408
. 289
. 499
. 225
. 163
. 479
. 287
. 319
. 162
. 477 355
206, 290,
318, 332
. 209
. 252
. 453
. 431

vii. 39, .
viii. 3-11,
viii. 6-8,
viii. 13-18,
viii. 13, 17,
viii. 34, 30,
viii. 36,
viii. 39, 56,
ix.,ix. 31, .
ix. 39, .
x.30, .
x. 38, .
xi. 49, 51,
xi. 50, 51,
xii. 35, .
xii. 41, .
xiii. 34,
xiii. 35,
xiv. 3, .
xiv. 6, .
xiv. 16, .
xiv. 17, .
xiv. 26, .
xv. 1-3,
xv. 10, .
xv. 14, .
xv. 18, .
xvi. 28,
xvi. 33,
xvii. 3, .
xvii. 18,
xviii. 11,
xix. 4, 6,
xix. 11,
xix. 15,
xix. 28,
xix. 36,
xix. 38,
xx. 22, .
xx. 28, .
xxi. 20-24,
xxi. 25, .

18,

PAGE
107, 544
. 550
. 423
. 203
. 284
. 210
. 65
. 554
. 508
. 210
. 384
. 102
. 203
. 303
. 475
. 29
. 318
. 352
. 321
. 298
16, 20, 301
. 102
92, 545
. 535
. 414
. 161
. 161
. 92
. 203
. 227
. 31
. 292
. 466
. 455
. 415
. 476
. 514
. 225
. 367
. 107
. 520
. 319
. 318

i. 1-8,
i. 14,
i. 26,

Acts.

ii. 1-13,
viii. 13,
viii. 18-20,
ix.,
ix. 25, .
x. 11-15,
x. 13, .
xv. 6-11,
xv. 29, .
xvii. 28,

106162102
542 107
473440 102
432 530485 341540
410

£>HPh?— i
M
o oE-i>^P=(O!*!p53

BOCO^NQO«T«nTjWIO^^COWOi<N^rt«OC)MHl-^MM5HNlfl«5^COi(Oni0^2lCOOOO C!rs^^(Mr^l>'JtZ)(MCSfML'5Cin^^[^L--0500H(nOW'HncO>^O^TltO^(NG100!OOC3rHii^< IO IO IN t— I N W n H CI IO »OC0 ,— ilOCtfThlCOlOlO-^CO.— ICNIOCllO r-i >— ( n IO H (M IO H cc

pHI-COTjIOr-tNCO— IC01O&
CO'NCOCOININCOCNINCO'tfl „
If

00

CO ,-T

•CO • ,_

CO

rt Tf<

o

¦2 «

"-I
~-o°m
f<N
¦ v" -^^"f •
.IN
(M
^ r-H CO CO rt^TfYr
-i to
.„ .„- . j °>" I ^Tco-ohSS if cf~
°£'£'p'3'j>'>
-"""a-isass^"**"
'f '?« HKiiiiHMMii ri'B'S'S-R'R'R'B'M'F3'S'3'3'H'H'
raw" •
!Zl E^ rJ, .H N «"« m o"t^O p ^V
O ^COr-HCMCOCOCO"*^
Eh
r- 1
«O
o
Mb „ „
„© co ,--r<M »o eo r-H i-H Tj< CO r- 1
TJH CN (M ra . . j . . . . .
!pH* .rj ..j :s i3 :H :3 :2 iS -^ .£ -£
w^ ior-co
OlQQOOO2r-*<NCNC0
HOtO
00 >— i CO
¦^ COCN
CO t^QO »
CN CN CN C
i T*l Ci <-H <
i CO o to c
3 CO IO
)¦«# CO
<N --t C
r— cm <:
<N CO
i t- o to CO
. -^ eo >o co
CN (M CO
Ht»OI>OOOtOmO _r<M COI>C005^00l005l>QO^(MO|-i'
cocsoi io^co^w^S^»OCr:)COc-'»ot--cococoeo^Ti<^fir^Tt<'*-
COWWCOWiQlONH^MWWiO^'*^ COOh CO "^ ~
»o CO" -
^ IO <© i-H
!-J M M X X
«eTS
^lOCOr M "R'R'
•s (
*t-c
t— ' (M (M Cffl
J r— I00GJHH oj Ca CN -i^QfT i—l
I -.£*- j-* o »o eo
'R "R 'R *R "R "R 'R 'R 'R R "m 'm 'm '
r™i (^ (••J Gn * ¦ ¦ * * • *
j;Ej:g:g:g :g .>.£.>
CO
.„ IT- i— 1 I— I r-. i— I
l>s>>s*s>;>s»;>?.;>s»;*
g00rH^CDQ01>.IO-*lO^il _iTO OCOOt-t-HrtlOCCb.-#HCOa)OCO „r"2 S3
Jo^OJ^on^oooMScio^ocifHoocooinHnNHNS^O
lomciOJNOWojf-eKNcoNCi.sooWNeocDCicqciwooac -lOOnniDotooiONnto^iopioOHQco Mt^Or
il«nO)IMnNINm«W*MniMIO i-H .-I-*-*
CM
Th o . . , . wc1o Ci
o
«
IN
' co ' co'ig
¦,„0 <N (N !N
C0« « . I . I _* «
I .. - «tji r^ O ^H H Tfl IO
HNtOOHHINIMClINn
CO O ^ 3cNNIOr""""'MC':"-"-''-|<N(
. . .„• ;-• .„• ,rt- :a :S :h :3 >>>¦!> >¦
S -!-I -E-i t> >
.CO IO
OJi-ilM
« rH .
e-i <n ¦* o tjTco oTM >o t~ t-
fc.- |>" J> >'?'P'P'?'P'P'P '?'?"?'?
-.^^-- - . . .O O CO CO CO Ci O IN t
^|^](NCOCOCOr-HN(N(NIN(NCOCO:
ff-f>.f'>'?-!>P'^t=-r'!>.
INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCEIPTUKE.

iv. 18, .
v. 13, .
v. 13-15,
v. 14-1S,
v. 16,
v. 17,
v. 21,
vi. 11,
vii. 5,
ix. 7,
x. 12,
xi. 2, 3,
xi. 3,
xi. 23,
xii. 7-9,
xiii. 3,
xiii. 4, G
i. 8,
i. 8, 9,
i. 9,
i. 10,
i. 15, 16,
i. 22, .
ii. 14, .
ii. 20, .
iii. 6-8,
iii. 8, .
iii. 10, .
iii. 16, .
iii 19, .
iii. 21, 22,
iii. 23, .
iii. 23, 23,
iii. 27, 2S,
iii. 29, .
iv. 4,
iv. 4, 5,
iv. 9, .
iv. 19, .
v.'2~ .'
v. 6, .
v. 12, .
?. 13, .
vi. 3,

260,

440 223 200 191
335 265215446 228439
09, 2S1, 441 390 446414 51S212

ALATIANS. 549
14S, 162, 51S
i, 31S, 545

. 501
. 4S2
. 458
. 297
. 23S
. 305
211, 258
. 208
. 278
. 332
. 338
. 332
. 501
482, 537
. 495
154, 194, 205
. 186
. 499
. 443
. 341
312, 351
. 302
. 65
. 390

iii. 14-19,
iv. 2, 3,
iv. 2-7,
iv. 3,
iv. 11, .
iv. 22-24,
v. S, .
v. 25-27,
v. 2S, 29,
v. 31, 32,
vi. 15,

. 479
. 202
. 216
. 32S
. 500
. 406
. 40
. 3S7
209, 433
. 538

Pjiilifhass.

i.S, .
i. IS, .
ii. 6, .
ii. 6, 7,
ii. 9-11,
iii. 8, .
iii. 13, .
iii. 15, .
iii. 19, .
iv. 1, .

. 346
. 447
154, 217, 494
. 209
. 466
. 532
. 435
. 196
. 175
. 446

iv. 1-4,
iv. 2,
iv. 3, 4,
iv. 3-5,
iv. 4,
iv. 8,
v. 23,
vi. 4,
vi. 10,
vi. 16,

PAGE 252 372376 527263 46 46
336 22
357

2 Timothy.
ii. 8, 147, 102, 194, 495
ii. 16-18, . . 158

ii. 24, 25,
iii. 8, .
iv. 4,
iv. 14, .

. 98
. 249
149, 273
. 302

Colossians.

Ephesians.
ii. 11-22, . 482, 540
ii. 12, 19, 20, . 221
ii. 14, . . . 467
iii. 7, . • .23

ii. 5,
ii. 8, .
ii. 15, .
ii. 16, 17,
ii. 17, .
iii. 1, 2,
iii. 5,
iii. 9, 10,
iii. 9-11,
iii. 10, .

146
. 25
. 309
171, 308, 537
. 324
. 199
. 484
. 24
. 500
. 209

1 Thessalonians.
iii. 10, . . . 146
2 Thessalonians.
i. 5, . . . 415

1 Timothy.

i. 12,
i. 15,
i. 16,
iii. 5,

Titus. 327
44, 171, 176, 177,
313, 506
. 528
. 199

Hebrews.
i. 3, . . .19
iii. 5, . . . 458

James.

iv. 15,

1 Peter.
ii. 4-8, .
ii. 9, 10,
iii. 17, .
iii. 21, .
iv. 17, 18,

386

. 271
. 4S1
. 415 337
409, 415

1 John.

i. 5, .
i. 8, .
i. 15, .
i. 17, .
i. 20, .
ii. 1-4, .
ii. 5,
iii. 7, .
iv. 1, 2,
iv. 1-3,

164, 336
. 435
. 296
195, 397
414, 470
. 229
. 295
. 448
. 268
. 522

i. 5,
i. 9,
ii. 1, 2,
ii. 15,
iii. 2,
iii. 15,
iv. 3,
v. 20,

405
. 98
. 333
. 26
425, 546
. 345 163163

Revelation-.
iii. 19, . . . 409
xix. 10, . . 37S