j 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. "^ The flesh here said to be put off is that mortality of flesh on account of which the body is properly called flesh. The flesh is the mortality, for in the immortality of the resurrection there will be no flesh; as it is written, " Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'' You are accustomed to argue from these words against our faith in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which has already taken place in the Lord Himself. You keep out of view the following words, in which the apostle explains his meaning. To show what he here means by flesh, he adds, "Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption." For this body, which from its mortality is properly called flesh, is changed in the resurrection, so as to be no longer corruptible and mortal. This is the apostle's statement, and not a supposition of ours, as his next words prove. "Lo," he says, ''I show you a mystery: we shall all rise again, but we shall not all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the last trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."'* To put on immortality, the body puts oft' mortality. This is the mystery of circumcision, which by the law took place on the eighth day; and on the eighth day, the Lord's da)% the day after the Sabbath, was fulfilled 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 mortality the hostile powers of hell 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 will be fully realized in the liberation of His whole body, the Church, from the power of the devil at the last resurrection. This is our faith. And according to the prophetic declaration quoted by Paul, "The just shall live by faith." This is our justification. s Even Pagans believe that Christ died. But only Christians believe that Christ rose again. " If thou con- [Book XVI.
fess with thy mouth,'' says the apostle, " that Jesus is the Lord, and believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou Shalt be saved."' Again, because we are justified by faith in Christ's resurrection, the apostle says, " He died for our offenses, and rose again for our justification."- And because "this resurrection by faith in which we are justified was prefigured by the circumcision of the eighth day, the apostle says of Abraham, with whom the observance began, "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith. "^ Circumcision, then, is one of the prophecies of Christ, written by Moses, of w4iom 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 twofold more the child of hell than yourselves," ■* it is not the circumcision 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 their works, for they say, and do not." ^ These words of the Lord teach us both the honor due to the teaching of Moses, in whose seat even bad men were obliged to teach good things, and the reason of the proselyte becoming a child of hell, which was not that he heard from the Piiarisees the words of the law, but that he copied their example. Such a circumcised proselyte mi^ht have been addressed in the words of Paul: "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law." ^ His imitation of the Pharisees in not keeping the law made him a child of hell. And he was twofold more than they, probably because of his neglecting to fulfill 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 like 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. Perhaps you wish to commend to the admiration of the uninitiated 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 w^as 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 the Catholic faith shoe's 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 l)etween the Old Testament and the New. But you show still more audacity in adopting the erroneous opinions of your Adimantus.
31. You follow 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 thinijs which defile a man. These words of yours are unseemly indeed, for they express notorious falsehood. If Christ taught that the evil 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 polluted 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 polluted both by wiiat goes in and by what comes out. But as Christ, comparing Himself 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 devil. The Son of man cometh eating and drinking; and ye say. Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. "^ V/e 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 live; without food, but his food was locusts and wild honey.^ 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. Will it be said that it wasi bread and vegetables which the Lord ate, andl which John did not eat? It would be strange| if one was said not to eat. because he used= locusts 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 7 Matt. xi. i8, 19.
8 Matt. iii. 4.
Book XVI.]
wine-bibber unless he u^ed wine. 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 poison--ous filth of the race of darkness; whereas the apostle says, " To the pure all things are pure."' Christ, according to this doctrine, taught that all food was alike, but forbade His disciples to use what the Manichsans call 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 allowed it to the laity. After Christ's reply to the accusation that His disciples ate with unwashen hands, we read in the Gospel as follows: "And He called 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 instructions 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 replied, not to the multitude, but to His disciples: "But He answered and said. Every jilant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." The reason of this was, that in their desire to observe their own 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 I Tit. i. 15.
did not speak plainly and literally, but, as usual, wished to convey some instruction under the guise of a parable. When His disciples, then, put this question in private, does He tell them, as the Manichaeans say, that all animal food is unclean, and tliat they must never touch it? Listead of this. He rebukes them for not understanding 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 evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."- 32. Here we have a complete exposure of the falsehood of the Manichseans: 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 fulfilled in the other. How can the Manichaeans say that the Catholics regard none of the things that Moses wrote, when in fact they observe them all, not now in the figures, but in what the figures were intended to foretell? 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 read without examining them. The reason why the Jews did not believe in Christ, was because they did not observe even the plain literal 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 out a gnat and swallow a camel. These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." ^ So also He told them that by their traditions they made of none effect the commandment of God to give honor 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 2 Matt..\v. 1(5-20.
'■34 [Book XVII.
you are a Christian, you must believe Ciirist when He says that Moses wrote of Him, and that it you do not believe this you are no Christian. The account you give of yourself in asking to be dealt with as a Jew or a Gentile is your own affair. My endeavor is to leave no avenue of 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 like 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 well that you desire to be taught as Thomas was. I feared you would make out this passage too to be spurious. Believe, 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 whole error of the Manichaeans. If you say that the marks were unreal which Christ showed to His doubting disciple, it follows 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 which you ascribe to Christ than the learning you ascribe to Thomas. If, then, you believe that Christ deceived a doubting inquirer by false marks of wounds, you must yourself be regarded, 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 believe even with Thomas, you must be left to your infidelity.
BOOK XVII.
FAUSTUS REJECTS CHRIST S DECLAR.A.TION THAT HE CAME NOT TO DESTROY THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS BUT TO FULFILL THEM, ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS FOUND ONLY IN MATTHEW, WHO WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THE WORDS PURPORT TO HAVE BEEN SPOKEN. AUGUSTIN REBUKES THE FOLLY OF REFUSING TO BELIEVE MATTHEW AND YET BELIEVING MANICH.'EUS, AND SHOWS WHAT THE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE REALLY MEANS.
1. Faustus said: You ask why we do not receive the law and the prophets, when Christ said that he came not to destroy them, but to fulfill 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, including 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 Cnrist long after He came down from the mount? In the first place, then, we must doubt w^iether 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 shall find that it is not Matthew that has imposed upon us, but some one else under his same, as is evident from the indirect style of the narrative. Thus we read: " As Jesus passed by. He saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and called him; and he immediately rose up, and followed Him."' No one writing of himself would say, He saw a man, and called him, and he followed 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 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 borrowing the names both of Jesus and of Matthew.
2. The passage itself, in which Christ tells the Jews not to think that He came to destroy the law, is rather designed to show 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." Sup- I Matt. i.\. 9.
Book XVII.]
o:) pose the Jews had replied, What actions of thine might lead us to suspect this? Is it because thou exposest circumcision, breakest the Sabbath, discardest sacrifices, makest no distinction in foods? this would be the natural answer to the words, Think not. The Jews iiad the best possible reason for thinking that Jesus destroyed the law. If this was not to destro)' the law, what is? But, indeed, the law and the prophets consider themselves already -0 faultlessly perfect, that they have no desire to be fulfilled. Their author and father condemns adding to them as much as taking away anything from them; as we read in Deuteronomy: "These precepts which I deliver unto thee this day, O Israel, thou shalt obser\'e to do; thou shalt not turn aside from them to the right hand or to the left; thou ^halt not add thereto nor diminish from it, that thy God may bless thee."' Whether, therefore, Jesus turned aside to the right by adding to the law and the prophets in order to fulfill them, or to the left in taking awav:rom them to destroy them, either way he ifended the author of the law. So this verse must either have some other meaning, or be spurious.
3. AuGUSTiN replied: What amazing folly, :o disbelieve what Matthew records of Christ, while you believe Manichaeus! If Matthew is not to be believed because he was not present when Christ said, " I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill," was Manichseus present, was he even born, when Christ appeared among men? According, iien, to your rule, you should not believe anything that Manichaeus says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to believe what Manihaeus says' of Christ; not because he was not resent as a witness of Christ's words and -ctions, but because he contradicts Christ's disciples, and the Gospel which rests on their authority. The apostle, speaking in the Holy Spirit, tells us that such teachers would arise. With reference to such, he says to beevers: "If any man preaches to you another gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed." ^ 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 fellow-disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as from the writings of John both we who are born so long afcer and those who shall be born after » Deut. xii. 32.
2 Gal. i. 9.
us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the Gospel of Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides, the Lord Himself might have told Matthew what those called before him had already '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 all that he heard from the Lord, he set himself to write some, omitting this among others. Does he not say at the close of his 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 "? ^ This proves that he omitted many things intentionally. But if you choose John as an authority regarding the law and the prophets, I ask you only to believe his testimony to them. It is John who writes that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ.'' It is in his Gospel we find the text already treated of: "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me; for he wrote of me. "5 Your evasions are met on every side. You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.
4. Faustus thinks himself wonderfully clever in proving 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 him, and said to him. Follow me. This must have been said either in ignorance or from a design to mislead. Faustus can hardly be so ignorant as not to have read or heard that narrators, when speaking of themselves, often use a construction as if speaking of another. It is more probable that Faustus wished to bewilder those more ignorant than himself, 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 thev were written bv Moses, only not written of Christ. When Moses, then, writes of himself, does he say, I said this, or I did that, and not rather, 3 John xxi. 25.
•* John xii. 41.
5 John V. 46.
[Book XVII.
Moses said, and Moses did? Or does he say, The Lord called me, The Lord said to me, and not rather. The Lord called 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 enfl of his book he says: " 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 shall betray Thee? " Does he say, Peter, turning, saw me? Or will 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."' Does he say, I am the disciple 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 innumerable instances in which the Lord Himself uses it. "When the Son of man," He says, " cometh, shall He find faith on the earth? " = Not, When I come, shall I find? Again, " The Son of man came eating and drinking; "^ 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 shall live;'^* 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 fulfill," 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 destroy the law and the prophets, referred to no other law than that of the Jews. This is proved by the words that follov.^: " Verily, verily, I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." This applied to the Pharisees, ' John xxi. 2;-24. 3 Matt. xi. 19.
who taught the law in word, while they broke it in deed. Christ says of the Pharisees in another place, " What tiiey say, that do; but do not after their works: for they say, and do not. "5 So here also He adds, "For I say unto you. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven;''^ that is. Unless ye shall both do and teach what they teach without doing, ye shall 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 fulfill; for this was the law connected with the seat of Moses in which the Pharisees sat, who, because they said without doing, are to be heard, but not to be imitated.
6. Faustus does not understand, or pre-, tends not to understand, what it is to fulfill 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 fulfillment of what is spoken of as so perfect that nothing can be added to it or taken from it. Faustus requires to be told that the law is fulfilled by living as it enjoins. " Love is the fulfilling of the law,"^ as the apostle says. The Lord has vouchsafed both to manifest and to impart this love, by sending the Holy Spirit to His believing 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."^ And the Lord Himself says: " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."'
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." '° The law itself, by being fulfilled, becomes grace and truth. Grace is the fulfillment of love, and truth is the. ac- i complishment of the prophecies. And as both grace and truth are by Christ, it follows that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; not by supplying any defects in the law, but by obedience to what is written in the law. ja Christ's own words declare this. For Hell does not say, One jot or one tittle shall in no. wise pass from the law till its defects are sup-i plied, but " till all be fulfilled."
i1 Book XVIII.]
BOOK XVIII.
THE RELATION OF CHRIST TO PROPHECY, CONTINUED.
1. Faustus said: " I came riot to destroy ' the law, but to fulfill it." If these are Christ's words, unless they have some other meaning, ; they are as much against you as against me. 1 Your Christianity as well as mine is based on; the belief 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 prophets. It is on this i^Tound 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 believe 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 obedience to the law and the prophets, and of careful observance of their requirements, whatever they may be? This done, we may honestly believe that Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As it is, you accuse me of not believing what you do not believe yourself, and what therefore is false.