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 Manichæans say, that all animal food is unclean, and that they must never touch it? Instead 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."2 wine-bibber unless he used 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 poisonous filth of the race of darkness; whereas the apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure." I Christ, according to this doctrine, taught that all food was alike, but forbade His disciples to use what the Manichæans 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 32. Here we have a complete exposure of Christ's reply to the accusation that His dis- the falsehood of the Manichæans: for it is ciples ate with unwashen hands, we read in plain that the Lord did not in this matter the Gospel as follows: "And He called the teach one thing to the multitude, and another multitude, and said unto them, Hear and un- in private to His disciples. Here is abundant derstand. Not that which goeth into the evidence that the error and deceit are in the mouth defileth a man: but that which cometh Manichæans, and not in Moses, nor in Christ, out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then nor in the doctrine taught figuratively in one came His disciples, and said unto Him, Know- Testament and plainly in the other,-propheest Thou that the Pharisees were offended after sied in one, and fulfilled in the other. How they heard this saying?" Here, when ad- can the Manichæans say that the Catholics dressed by His disciples, He ought certainly, regard none of the things that Moses wrote, according to the Manichæans, to have given when in fact they observe them all, not now them special instructions to abstain from ani- in the figures, but in what the figures were mal food, and to show that His words, "Not intended to foretell? No one would say that that which goeth into the mouth defileth a one who reads the Scripture subsequently to man, but that which goeth out of the mouth," its being written does not observe it because applied to the multitude only. Let us hear, he does not form the letters which he reads. then, what, according to the evangelist, the The letters are the figures of the sounds which Lord replied, not to the multitude, but to he utters; and though he does not form the His disciples: "But He answered and said, Every plant 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 1 Tit. i. 15. letters, he cannot read without examining you are a Christian you must believe Christ And the wounds could not have been real, when He says that Moses wrote of Him, and unless His body had been capable of real that if you do not believe this you are no wounds; which upsets at once the whole error Christian. The account you give of yourself of the Manichæans. If you say that the in asking to be dealt with as a Jew or a Gen- marks were unreal which Christ showed to tile is your own affair. My endeavor is to His doubting disciple, it follows that He leave no avenue of error open to you. I must be a deceitful teacher, and that you wish have shut you out, too, from that precipice to be deceived in being taught by Him. But to which you rush as a last resort, when you as no one wishes to be deceived, while many say that these are spurious passages in the wish to deceive, it is probable that you would Gospel; so that, freed from the pernicious in- rather imitate the teaching which you ascribe fluence of this opinion, you may be reduced to to Christ than the learning you ascribe to the necessity of believing in Christ. You say Thomas. If, then, you believe that Christ you wish to be taught like the Christian deceived a doubting inquirer by false marks Thomas, whom Christ did not spurn from of wounds, you must yourself be regarded, Him because he doubted of Him, but, in not as a safe teacher, but as a dangerous imorder to heal the wounds of his mind, showed postor. On the other hand, if Thomas him the marks of the wounds in His own touched the real marks of Christ's wounds, body. These are your own words. It is you must confess that Christ had a real body. well that you desire to be taught as Thomas So, if you believe as Thomas did, you are was. I feared you would make out this pas- no more a Manichæan. If you do not believe sage too to be spurious. Believe, then, the even with Thomas, you must be left to your marks of Christ's wounds. For if the marks infidelity. were real, the wounds must have been real. BOOK XVII. FAUSTUS REJECTS CHRIST'S DECLARATION 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 MANICHÆUS, 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 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 shall find that it is not Matthew that has imposed upon us, but some one else under his name, as is evident from the indirect style of the narrative. Thus we read: 1 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 1 Matt. ix. 9. 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 Does he not say at the close of his pose the Jews had replied, What actions of us can learn the truth about Christ? In this 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 had the best possible reason for thinking that Jesus destroyed the law. If this was not to destroy the law, what is? But, indeed, the law and the prophets consider themselves already so 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 Deu- others. teronomy: These precepts which I deliver Gospel: "And there are also many other unto thee this day, O 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." 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 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. 86 3. AUGUSTIN replied: What amazing folly, to disbelieve what Matthew records of Christ, while you believe Manichæus! 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 Manichæus present, was he even born, when Christ appeared among men? According, then, to your rule, you should not believe anything that Manichæus says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to believe what Manichæus says of Christ; not because he was not present as a witness of Christ's words and actions, 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 believers: "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 after and those who shall be born after 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 "?3 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 they were written by 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, who taught the law in word, while they broke 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 end 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? Evi- 6. Faustus does not understand, or predently this style is common in writers of tends not to understand, what it is to fulfill narratives. There are innumerable instances the law. He supposes the expression to in which the Lord Himself uses it. "When mean the addition of words to the law, rethe Son of man," He says, "cometh, shall garding which it is written that nothing is to He find faith on the earth?" Not, When I be added to or taken away from the Scriptcome, shall I find? Again, "The Son of ures of God. From this Faustus argues that man came eating and drinking; " 3 not, I there can be no fulfillment of what is spoken came. Again, "The hour shall come, and of as so perfect that nothing can be added to now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of it or taken from it. Faustus requires to be the Son of God, and they that hear shall told that the law is fulfilled by living as it enlive; 994 not, My voice. And so in many joins. "Love is the fulfilling of the law,"7 other places. This may suffice to satisfy in- as the apostle says. The Lord has vouchquirers and to refute scoffers. safed both to manifest and to impart this 5. Every one can see the weakness of the love, by sending the Holy Spirit to His beargument that Christ could not have said, lieving people. So it is said by the same "Think not that I am come to destroy the apostle: The love of God is shed abroad in law and the prophets; I came not to destroy, our heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given but to fulfill," unless He had done something unto us. And the Lord Himself says: to create a suspicion of this kind. Of course, 'By this shall all men know that ye are my we grant that the unenlightened Jews may disciples, if ye have love one to another." have looked upon Christ as the destroyer of The law, then, is fulfilled both by the observthe law and the prophets; but their very sus- ance of its precepts and by the accomplishpicion makes it certain that the true and ment of its prophecies. For "the law was truthful One, in saying that He came not to given by Moses, but grace and truth came by destroy the law and the prophets, referred to Jesus Christ." The law itself, by being no other law than that of the Jews. This is fulfilled, becomes grace and truth. Grace is proved by the words that follow: "Verily, the fulfillment of love, and truth is the acverily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth complishment of the prophecies. And as both pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise grace and truth are by Christ, it follows that pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Who- He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill soever therefore shall break one of the least it; not by supplying any defects in the law, 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, 66 18 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 shall in no wise pass from the law till its defects are supplied, but "till all be fulfilled.” BOOK XVIII. THE RELATION OF CHRIST TO PROPHECY, CONTINUED. 1. FAUSTUS said: "I came not to destroy come out of it. Regarding sacrifices, too, the law, but to fulfill it." If these are Christ's he often says that God desires mercy, and not words, unless they have some other meaning, sacrifice. What becomes, then, of the statethey are as much against you as against me. ment that he came not to destroy the law, but Your Christianity as well as mine is based on to fulfill it? If Christ said this, he must have the belief that Christ came to destroy the law meant something else, or, what is not to be and the prophets. Your actions prove this, thought of, he told a lie, or he never said it. even though in words you deny it. It is on No Christian will allow that Jesus spoke this ground that you disregard the precepts falsely; therefore he must either not have of the law and the prophets. It is on this said this, or said it with another meaning. 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 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. 3. For my part, as a Manichæan, this verse has little difficulty for me, for, at the outset I am taught to believe that many things which pass in Scripture under the name of the Saviour are spurious, and that they must there. fore be tested 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 still claim the liberty to examine whether this comes from the hand of the good sower, who sows in the day-time, or of the evil one, who sows in the night. But what escape from this difficulty can there be for you, who receive everything 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 children 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 fulfill them: you will 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 follower of Christ. 2. But grant that we have been in the wrong hitherto. What is to be done now? Shall we come under the law, since Christ has not destroyed, but fulfilled it? Shall we by circumcision add shame to shame, and believe that God is pleased with such sacraments? Shall we observe the rest of the Sabbath, and bind ourselves in the fetters of Saturn? Shall we glut the demon of the Jews, for he is not God, with the slaughter of bulls, 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? Shall we, in fine, call the flesh of some animals clean, and that of others unclean, among which, accord- 4. AUGUSTIN replied: Since you continue ing to the law and the prophets, swine's flesh repeating what has been so often exposed and has a particular defilement? Of course you refuted, we must be content to repeat the will allow that as Christians we must not do refutation. The things in the law and the any of these things, for you remember that prophets which Christians do not observe, Christ says that a man when circumcised be- | are only the types of what they do observe. comes twofold a child of hell. It is plain These types were figures of things to come, also that Christ neither observed the Sabbath himself, nor commanded it to be observed. And regarding foods, he says expressly that man is not defiled by anything that goes into his mouth, but rather by the things which Matt. xxiii 15. and are necessarily removed when the things themselves are fully revealed by Christ, that in this very removal the law and the prophets may be fulfilled. So it is written in the prophets that God would give a new covenant, |