(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
ST. AUGUSTINE
REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHAEAN, Book XXII
[CONTRA FAUSTUM MANICHAEUM.]
[Translated by Rev. Richard Stothert, M.A., Bombay.]
BOOK XXII: FAUSTUS STATES HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE MORALITY OF
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, AND AUGUSTIN SEEKS BY THE
APPLICATION OF THE TYPE AND THE ALLEGORY TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE
MORAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
1. FAUSTUS said: You ask why we blaspheme the law and
the prophets. We are so far from professing or feeling any
hostility to the law and the prophets, that we are ready, if
you will allow us, to declare the falsehood of all 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 dishonor 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 lives. 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 circumcision, or
Sabbaths, or sacrifices, or the other Jewish observances,
but the true law, viz., Thou shall not kill, 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 commencement of the present constitution of the
world, the Hebrew writers did violence, by infecting it with
the pollution of their disgusting precepts about
circumcision and sacrifice. As a friend of the law, you
should join with me in condemning the Jews for injuring the
law by this mixture of unsuitable precepts. Plainly, you
must be aware that these precepts are not the law, or any
part of the law, since you claim to be righteous, 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, while you take no notice of the
Jewish observances; which would be unjustifiable if they
were one and the same law. You resent as a foul reproach
being called negligent of the precept," Thou shalt not
kill," or "Thou shall not commit adultery." And if you
showed the same resentment at being called uncircumcised, or
negligent 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 honor 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
condemnation there is no reproach of the law, or of God its
author, but only of those who published their shocking
superstitions under 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 Israelitish blots; grant
that these writers are guilty of disfiguring the law, and
you will 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 properly 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
directly or remotely the authors of the account given of
their actions. But as this account is written either by
themselves, in a criminal desire to be famous for their
misdeeds, or by their companions and coevals, why should you
blame us? You condemn them in abhorrence of the wicked
actions of which they have voluntarily declared themselves
guilty, though there was no occasion for such a confession.
Or if the narrative is only a malicious 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 their simplicity and
purity of managers.
4. These books, moreover, contain shocking calumnies
against God himself. We are told that he existed from
eternity 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 limited 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 live for
ever; that afterwards he was greedy for blood, and fat from
all 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 slight offense, 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
Abraham, 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 tells how
Lot, Abraham's brother, after his escape from Sodom, lay
with his two daughters on the mountain(3) (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 called his wife Rebecca his sister,
that he might gain a shameful livelihood by her;(4) or how
his son Jacob, husband of four wives--two full sisters,
Rachel and Leah, and their handmaids--led the life of a goat
among them, so that there was a daily 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;(5) 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 associating with such characters;(1) or how
David, after having a number of wives, seduced the wife of
his soldier Uriah, and caused Uriah himself to be killed in
the battle;(2) or how his son Solomon had three hundred
wives, and seven hundred concubines, and princesses without
number;(3) or how the first prophet Hosea got children from
a prostitute, and, what is worse, it is said that this
disgraceful conduct was enjoined by God;(4) or how Moses
committed murder,(5) and plundered Egypt,(6) and waged wars,
and commanded, or himself perpetrated, many cruelties.(7)
And he too was not content with one wife. We are neither
directly nor remotely the authors of these and similar
narratives, which are found in the books of the patriarchs
and the prophets. Either your writers forged these things,
or the fathers are really guilty. Choose which you please;
the crime in either case is detestable, for vicious conduct
and falsehood are equally hateful.
6. AUGUSTIN replied: 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 fulfilled in the truth now made manifest. For in
the love of God and of our neighbor is secured the
accomplishment of the precepts of the law, while the
accomplishment of its promises is shown in the abolition of
circumcision, and of other typical observances formerly
practised. By the precept men were led, through a sense of
guilt. to desire 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 fulfillment 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, call the typical institutions of the law
disfigurements and excrescences, are like men displeased
with things of which they do not know the use. As if a deaf
man, seeing others move their lips 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 wall, and on coming
to the windows were to cry out against them as flaws in the
level, or were to suppose that the wall had fallen in.
8. How shall I make those whose minds are full of vanity
understand that the actions of the prophets were also
mystical and prophetic? The vanity of their minds is shown
in their thinking that we believe God to have once existed
in darkness, because it is written, "Darkness was over the
deep."(8) As if we called the deep God, where there was
darkness, because the light did not exist there before God
made it by His word. From their not distinguishing between
the light which is God, and the light 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 light, and in Him is no darkness at all;"(9)
and again, "God, who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness, hath shined in our hearts."(10) So also, in the
Old Testament, the name "Brightness of eternal light"(11) is
given to the wisdom of God, which certainly was not created,
for by it all things were made; and of the light which
exists only as the production of this wisdom it is said,
"Thou wilt light my candle, O Lord; my God, Thou wilt
enlighten my darkness."(12) In the same way, in the
beginning, when darkness was over the deep, God said, "Let
there be light, and there was light," which only the light-
giving light, 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 all
good beings; He fears the evil of none, for the loss of all
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 judgment. Very different, O
Manichaeus, 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 foolish roving
hearts, drinking in through the sense of sight the light of
the heavenly bodies. This light, 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 righteousness. Still
less can it be compared to that inaccessible light from
which all kinds of light are derived. Nor is this light
inaccessible to all; for "blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God."(1) "God is light, and in Him is no
darkness at all;" but the wicked shall not see light, as is
said in Isaiah.(2) 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 evil and on the good.
10. So, when darkness was over the deep, He who was
light said, "Let there be light." From what light this light
came is clear; for the words are, "God said." What light is
that which was made, is not so clear. For there has been a
friendly discussion among students of the sacred Scriptures,
whether God then made the light in the minds of the angels,
or, in other words, these rational spirits 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 their
light, or were somehow kindled from the light made already.
But whoever reads the sacred writings in the pious spirit
which is required to understand them, must be convinced that
whatever the light was which was made when, at the time that
darkness was over the deep, God said, "Let there be light,"
it was created light, and the creating Light was the maker
of it.
11. Nor does it follow that God, before He made light,
abode in darkness, because it is said that darkness was over
the deep, and then that the Spirit of God moved on the
waters. The deep is the unfathomable abyss of the waters.
And the carnal mind might suppose that the Spirit 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 light shineth in darkness, and the darkness
comprehendeth it not, till by the word of God those who were
darkness are made light, and it is said to them, "Ye were
once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord."(3) But if
rational minds which are in darkness through a sinful will
cannot comprehend the light 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 all this I know I am singing to deaf ears; but
the Lord, from whom is the truth which we speak, can open
some ears to catch the strain. But what shall we say of
those critics of the Holy Scriptures who object to God's
being pleased with His own works, and find fault with the
words, "God saw the light that it was good," as if this
meant that God admired the light 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 anything against His will, 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 their 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 evil.
13. Faustus speaks of our God as astonished, which is
not said in Scripture; nor does it follow 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 assail with undeserved
reproach, but from the New Testament, which they profess to
believe in order to entrap the unwary. For they acknowledge
Christ as God, and use this as a bait to entice Christ's
followers into their 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 disciples, "Verily I have not
found so great faith, no, not in Israel."(4) We have already
given our explanation of the words, "God saw that it was
good." Better men may give a better explanation. Meanwhile
let the Manichaeans explain Christ's being astonished at
what He foresaw before it happened, 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 astonished at the light of faith
which He Himself had created in the heart of the centurion;
for Jesus is the true light, which enlighteneth every man
that cometh into the world.
14. Thus an irreligious 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 cavil at Christ's
not knowing who touched Him, 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 ignorance is implied in God's saying, "Where art thou,
Adam?"(1) 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 their entreaty to
have the door opened, as if forgetful of His own promise,
"Knock, and it shall 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 call Christ greedy
of the blood, not of beasts, but of men, because he said,
"He that loseth his life for my sake, shall keep it unto
life 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 sellers out of the temple, the evangelist
quotes as applicable to Him the words, "The jealousy of
Thine house hath eaten me up;"(5) as Faustus accuses God of
jealousy in forbidding 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 will, and doeth it not,
shall 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 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."(7) Or he might say that Christ shed the
blood of many without mercy, for a slight offense 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;(8) 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;"(9) as Faustus
blames God in the Old Testament for slaughtering thousands
of human beings for slight offenses, as Faustus calls them,
or for nothing. Again, if Faustus finds fault with God's
threatening 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
all;"(10) or of Peter, when, in exhorting the saints to be
patient in the midst of persecution and slaughter, he says,
"It is time that judgment begin from the house of God; and
if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that
believe not the gospel of the Lord? And if the righteous
scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner
appear?"(11) 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;"(12) and, "If we receive good at the hand of the
Lord, shall we not also receive evil?"(13) So we read also
in the New Testament, "Whom I love I rebuke and
chasten;"(14) and, "If we judge ourselves, we shall not be
judged of the Lord; but when we are judged, we are corrected
of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the
world."(15) If a Pagan were to make such objections to the
New Testament, would not the Manichaeans try to answer them,
though they themselves 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 allow in
both Testaments, instead of in one only, that what appears
wrong to unbelievers, from their ignorance, should be
believed to be right by pious readers even when they also
are ignorant?
15. Perhaps our opponents will maintain that these
parallel 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 favorable 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 unfavorable to them is
a spurious interpolation I have already at some length, as
far as the intention of the present work required, exposed
the unreasonableness of this assault upon the authority of
the whole of Scripture.
16. At present I would call attention to the fact, that
when the Manichaeans, although they disguise their
blasphemous absurdities under the name of Christianity,
bring such objections 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 calls
unworthy representations of God in the Old Testament; and
the Pagan might be answered by the quotation of similar
passages from his own authors, as in Paul's speech at
Athens.(1) Even in Pagan writings we might find the doctrine
that God created and constructed the world, and that He is
the giver of light, which does not imply that before light
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 punishments 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 their 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 desires, but what
will actually be given. Again, if the Pagan tried to make
out God to be envious of any one, because He will not give
happiness to the wicked, he would find many passages in the
writings of his own authors in support 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 described as requiring 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
this sacrifice was offered by the one true Priest, the
Mediator of God and man; and that it was proper that this
sacrifice should be pre figured 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 will 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.(2) 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.(3) We need not
therefore wonder that fallen angels who occupy the air, and
whose chief sins are pride and falsehood, 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 favored by the folly of the human heart, especially when
regret for the dead led to the making of likenesses, and so
to the use of images(4) By the increase of this homage,
divine honors came to be paid to the dead as dwelling in
heaven, while devils took their place on earth as the
objects of worship, and required that their deluded 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 unbelief, this is rather to be expected
than to be wondered at; for the prophecy itself intimates
that all 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 forgetfulness. For though their philosophers
distinguish between desire and passion, joy and
gratification, caution and fear, gentleness 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 called by the names which properly
belong to vices; as passion is used for desire,
gratification for joy, fear for caution, tender-heartedness
for gentleness, cunning for prudence, daring for boldness.
The cases are innumerable in which speech exhibits similar
inaccuracies. Moreover, each language has its own idioms.
For in religious writings I remember no instance of the word
tender-heartedness being used in a bad sense. And common
usage affords examples of similar peculiarities in the use
of words. In Greek, one word stands for two distinct things,
labor and pain; while we have a separate name for each.
Again, we use the word in two 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 prevails in all languages, it may be an
Hebrew idiom to use jealousy in two senses, as a man is
called jealous when he suffers from a diseased state of mind
caused by distress on account of the faithlessness of his
wife, in which sense the word cannot be applied to God; or
as when diligence is manifested in guarding conjugal
chastity, in which sense it is profitable for us not only
unhesitatingly to admit, but thankfully to assert, that God
is jealous of His people when He calls 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
peculiarity of idiom, anger is used in the sense of
punishment.
19. The slaughter of multitudes would not seem strange
to the Pagan, unless he denied the judgment of God, which
Pagans do not; for they allow that all things in the
universe, from the highest to the lowest, are governed by
God's providence. But if he would not allow this, he would
be convinced either by the authority of Pagan writers, or by
the more tedious method of demonstration; and if still
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 offense, or for a very slight one,
we should show that these were offenses, and that they were
not slight. For instance, to take the case already 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 interpretation 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 Old Testament misrepresents God as threatening to come
with a sword which will 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
misunderstand from their blindness, or reject from their
perversity. The great husbandman of the vine uses his
pruning-hook differently in the fruitful and in the
unfruitful 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 require to be tried by affliction to advance,
or to establish, or to prove his virtue. Do the Manichaeans
not reckon Paul as righteous, who, while confessing humbly
and honestly his past sins, still gives thanks for being
justified by faith in Jesus Christ? Was Paul then spared by
Him whom fools misunderstand, when He says, "I will 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 the Lord thrice, that He would remove it from me;
and He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for
strength is perfected in weakness."(1) 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
yon say that the devil gave this angel, it follows that the
devil sought to prevent Paul's being exalted above measure
by the abundance of the revelation, and to perfect 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."(2) Do you
see now how the Most High spares neither the righteous 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
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 all against me, except it were given thee
from above."(3) Paul also, besides recording his own
experience, says that the afflictions and persecutions of
the righteous exhibit the judgment of God.(4) This truth is
set forth at length by the Apostle Peter in the passage
already quoted, where he says: "It is time that judgment
should begin at the house of the Lord. And if it first begin
at us, what shall the end be of those that believe not the
gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely are saved,
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"(5) Peter
also explains how the wicked are not spared, for they are
branches broken off to be burnt; while the righteous are not
spared, because their purification is to be brought to
perfection. He ascribes these things to the will of Him who
says in the Old Testament, I will spare neither the
righteous nor the wicked; for he says: "It is better, if the
will of the Spirit of God be so, that we suffer for well-
doing than for evil-doing."(6) So, when by the will of the
Spirit of God men suffer for well-doing, the righteous are
not spared; when they suffer for evil-doing, the wicked are
not spared. In both cases it is according to the will of Him
who says: I will 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 light, and in Him is no darkness at all; and in
Himself dwells in light 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
unexpected appearance of light, but that light owes its
existence to Him as its Creator, as its owes its continued
existence to His approval. Neither was God ignorant of the
future, but the author of the precept as well as the
punisher of disobedience; that by showing His righteous
anger against transgression, He might provide a restraint
for the time, and a warning for the future Nor does He ask
questions from ignorance, but by His very inquiry declares
His judgment. Nor is He curious 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
requiring from a carnal people sacrifices, suited to their
character, He by certain types prefigures the true
sacrifice. Nor is His jealousy an emotion of pale anxiety,
but of quiet benevolence, in desire 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 auger, but is angry, not in
the sense of desiring vengeance, but in the peculiar sense
of giving full effect to the sentence of a righteous
retribution. Nor does He destroy thousands of men for
trifling offenses, 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
Manichaeans, do your suspicions lead you astray, when, by
misunderstanding our Scriptures, or by hearing bad
interpreters, you form a mistaken judgment of Catholics.
Hence you leave sound doctrine, and turn to impious fables;
and in your perversity and estrangement from the society of
saints, you reject the instruction of the New Testament,
which, as we have shown, contains statements similar to
those which you condemn in the Old Testament. So we are
obliged to defend both Testaments against you as well as
against the Pagans.
22. But supposing that there is some one so deluded by
carnality as to worship not the God whom we worship, who is
one and true, 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 understanding; for here there is no
need of great perspicacity. I address all, wise and unwise.
I appeal to the common sense and judgment of all alike.
Hear, consider, judge. Would it not have been better for
your god to have remained in darkness from eternity, than to
have plunged the light coeternal with him and cognate to him
into darkness? 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 light? 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, made by himself, and to
admire it as good, than to make the light begotten by
himself evil; better than that his own light should become
hostile to himself in repelling the forces of darkness. For
this will be the accusation against those who will be
condemned for ever to the mass of darkness, that they
suffered themselves to lose their original brightness, and
became the enemies of sacred light. 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 light on its
appearance, it only met with another and a hostile 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 evil coming upon it. If he
did not foresee the evil, he must have been in the darkness
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 quality which the apostle commends in the body, which
you insanely believe to be made not by God, but by Hyle: "If
one member suffers, all the members suffer with it."(1) But
suppose 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 light which was to drive away the
darkness, he came in contact, to the injury of his own
light, with another darkness 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 like Adam, which he would be rewarded for
keeping and punished for breaking, acting either way by his
own free-will, than to 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 dissimilar and hostile
race? Would it not have been better to grudge eternal life
to human nature, than to consign to misery the divine
nature; to desire 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
disturbed by jealousy at these sacrifices being offered to
other gods as well as to himself, than to be himself offered
on all altars to all devils, as mixed up not only with all
fruits, but also with all 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
their sins, than to be himself influenced by fear as well as
by anger wherever these passions exist, or than to share in
all the sin that is committed, and in all 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 guilty, 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 compulsion 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 will 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 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 absolutely
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 offenses
by confinement in the mass of darkness. But you cannot
attribute to these parts a liberty 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 prevalence 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
unnaturally inflicts upon his own parts, more than the
conduct of these parts in going by his command to a place
where they lost the power of living 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-will 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
will, he professes to pass a righteous sentence in
condemning those whom he knows to have suffered evil 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 called prosperous and happy. Surely it
would have been better for your god to have spared neither
righteous nor wicked in indiscriminate punishment (which is
Faustus' last charge against 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 allowed themselves to be led astray from their original
brightness, and became hostile to sacred light. But the
reason of this, as Faustus says, was that they were so
greedily devoured in the first assault of the princes of
darkness, that they were unable to recover themselves, or to
separate themselves from the hostile principle. These souls,
therefore, did no evil 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 all this misery; while 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
allowed themselves to be led astray from their original
brightness, and became hostile to sacred light, this must
have been from the force of the enemy; and if they were
forced against their will, they are innocent; while, if they
could have resisted had they chosen, there is no need of the
origin of evil 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 their 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 for the origin of evil, you should fall
into so great an evil as that of calling a nature so rich in
good things the nature of evil, and of attributing the
terrible evil of necessity to the nature of perfect good,
before any commixture with evil. The cause of this erroneous
belief is your pride, which you need not have unless you
choose; but in your wish to defend at all hazards the error
into which you have fallen, you take away the origin of evil
from freewill, and place it in a fabulous nature of evil.
And thus you come at last to say, that the souls which are
to be doomed to eternal confinement in the mass of darkness
became enemies to sacred light 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 will make no allowance for
your brethren, his own sons and members, whose hostility
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 necessity ought
to be first in the sentence of condemnation. Would it not be
much better. then, in comparison with such a god as tills,
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 obedience 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
liberty was recovered by the victory, while he should have
bean condemned along with them if the victory reduced the
force of necessity even so far as to give this small amount
of force to justice? Thus the god whom you represent us as
worshipping, though he is not the one true God whom we
really 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 call ours, and find fault
with, is better than the one whom you call your own, and
whom you worship.[1]
23. So also the patriarchs and prophets whom you cry out
against are not the men whom we honor, but men whose
characters are drawn from your fancy, prompted by ill-will.
And yet even thus as you paint them, I will not be content
with showing them to be superior to your elect, who keep all
the precepts of Manichaeus, but will prove their 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
themselves disturbed when comparing the life of the prophets
in the Old Testament with that of the apostles in the New,--
not discerning between the manner of the time when the
promise was under a veil, and that of the time when the
promise is revealed,--I must first of all 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 their own bad conduct.
24. First of all, then, not only the speech of these
men, but their life 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 whole nation as a body. For, as the
apostle says, "all 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 like those Pagans who profanely
charge Christ with folly or madness because He looked for
fruit from a tree out of the season;[2] or with
childishness, because He stooped down and wrote on the
ground, and, after answering the people who were questioning
Him, began writing again.[3] Such critics are incapable of
understanding that certain virtues in great minds resemble
closely the vices of little 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.[1] He should have written, say they, secat. And
again, knowing that religio is spelt with one l, they blame
him for writing relligio, when he says, Relligione
patrum.[2] Hence it may with reason be said, that as the
peotical usage of words differs from the solecisms and
barbarisms of the unlearned, so, in their own way, the
figurative actions of the prophets differ from the impure
actions of the vicious. Accordingly, as a boy guilty of a
barbarism would be whipped if he pled the usage of Virgil;
so any one quoting the example of Abraham begetting a son
from Hagar, in defence of his own sinful passion for his
wife's handmaid, ought to be corrected not by carting 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 peculiar usage in speech should be
put on a level with a sacrament, or a solecism with
adultery. Still, allowing for the difference in the
character of the subjects, what is called 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 virtue and vice.[3]
26. Instead of entering on the distinctions between the
praiseworthy and the blameworthy, the criminal and the
innocent, the dangerous and the harmless, the guilty and the
guiltless, the desirable and the undesirable, which are all
illustrations of the distinction between sin and
righteousness, 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 foolish and the malevolent, and in fact do not
exhibit any virtues, here also we have to see why these
things are put into the Scriptures which we believe to
contain wholesome doctrine 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
really 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
condemned, 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 will 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 contemplation is the image of God, by
which we are renewed through faith to sight. Rational action
ought therefore to be subject to the control of
contemplation, which is exercised through faith while we are
absent from the Lord, as it will be hereafter through sight,
when we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.[4]
Then in a spiritual body we shall by His grace be made equal
to angels, when we put on the garment of immortality and
incorruption, with which this mortal and corruptible shall
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, till God quicken also our mortal bodies
by His Spirit dwelling in us, live righteously in our feeble
measure, according to the eternal law in which the law of
nature is preserved, when we live by that faith unfeigned
which works by love, having in a good conscience a hope of
immortality and in-corruption 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 thirst, while we walk by faith and not by
sight.
28. A man, therefore, who acts in obedience to the faith
which obeys God, restrains all 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 their desires from the
unlawful; and in not doing this they sinned. Great, then, is
the creature man, for he is restored by this potentiality,
by which, if he had so chosen, he would not have fallen. And
great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, who created
man. For He created also inferior natures which cannot sin,
and superior natures which will not sin. Beasts do not sin,
for their nature agrees with the eternal law from being
subject to it, without being in possession of it. And 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 desire, and they obey His will without any experience of
temptation. But man, whose life on this earth is a trial on
account of sin, subdues to himself what he has in common
with beasts, and subdues to God what he has in common with
angels; till, when righteousness is perfected and
immortality attained, he shall be raised from among beasts
and ranked with angels.
29. The exercise or indulgence of the bodily appetites
is intended to secure the continued existence and the
invigoration of the individual or of the species. If the
appetites go beyond this, and carry the man, no longer
master of himself, beyond the limits 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 evil habits that he supposes
that there will be no punishment of his sinful passions, and
so refuses the wholesome discipline of confession and
repentance by which he might be rescued; or, from a still
worse insensibility, 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. Referring, 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
desire to find fault, both discloses the impiety of his
heresy, and in his error and ignorance praises Abraham's
intercourse with the handmaid. For as the eternal law--that
is, the will of God the Creator of all--for the preservation
of the natural order, permits the indulgence of the bodily
appetite under the guidance of reason in sexual intercourse,
not for the gratification of passion, but for the
continuance of the 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 all seeds, from suffering still closer confinement in the
womb, requires married people not on any account to have
children, their great desire being to liberate their god.
Instead, therefore, of an irrational craving in Abraham to
have children, we find in Manichaeus an irrational fancy
against having children. So the one preserved the natural
order by seeking in marriage only the production of a child;
while the other, influenced by his heretical notions,
thought no evil 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 really, 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 desire for
children that he had, and knowing her own barrenness, she
warrantably claimed as her own the fertility of her
handmaid; not consenting with sinful desires 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 all other social matters the wife
ought to obey her husband, in this one matter of their
bodily 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 children 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 procreation of children was an
indication of the absence of criminal indulgence.
32. Abraham, indeed, cannot be defended, if, as Faustus
says, he wished to get children by Hagar, because he had no
faith in God, who promised that he should have children by
Sara. But this is an entire mistake: this promise had not
yet been made. Any one who reads the preceding chapters will
find that Abraham had already 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 will find that Faustus
has made either an imprudent mistake or an impudent
misrepresentation. Abraham, then, when he saw that he had no
children, 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, fulfill Thy promise
in this man. For the word seed may be applied to what has
not come oat of a man's own body, else the apostle could not
call us the seed of Abraham: for we certainly are not his
descendants in the flesh; but we are his seed in following
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 heir; but he that cometh out of
thine own bowels shall be thine heir."[2] The thought of
adoption was thus removed; but it still remained uncertain
whether the seed which was to come from himself would be by
Sara or another. And this God was pleased to keep concealed,
till a figure of the Old Testament had been supplied in the
handmaid. We may thus easily 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;
because God had already promised him an heir from his own
body, but had not foretold who was to be the mother. Thus,
when Faustus shows his own infidelity in accusing Abraham of
unbelief, his groundless accusation only proves the madness
of the assailant. 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 selling his wife Sara at different times to
the two kings Abimelech and Pharaoh, 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 light of the eternal law
the difference between sin and righteousness; and so they
call perseverance obstinacy, and confidence presumption, as
in these and similar 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 desire; so in this case, the husband, in perfect
assurance of the chaste attachment of his wife to himself,
and knowing her mind to be the abode of modest and virtuous
affection, called her his sister, without saying that she
was his wife, test he himself should be killed, and his wife
fall into the hands of strangers and evil-doers: for he was
assured by his God that He would not allow her to suffer
violence or disgrace. Nor was he disappointed in his faith
and hope; for Pharaoh, terrified by strange occurrences, and
after enduring many evils on account of her, when he was
informed by God that Sara was Abraham's wife, restored her
with honor uninjured. 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 honor to the Scriptures, which
Faustus finds fault with because he does not understand
them, or which he fails to understand because of his fault-
finding, in commenting 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 correct view, we must allow that Abraham sinned;
but the sin should not cancel or obliterate all 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 lie 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 nothing false.
35. It is waste of time to observe Faustus' remark, that
Abraham falsely called Sara his sister; as if Faustus had
discovered the family of Sara, though it is not mentioned in
Scripture. In a matter which Abraham knew, and we do not, it
is surely better to believe the patriarch when he says what
he knows, than to believe Manichaeus when he finds fault
with what he knows nothing about. Since, then, Abraham lived
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 children 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 tell a falsehood from fear, for the king knew
that she was his wife, and was restoring her with honor,
because he had been warned by God. We learn from Scripture
that, among the ancients, it was customary to call cousins
brothers and sisters. Thus Tobias says in his prayer to God,
before having intercourse with his wife, 'And now, O Lord,
Thou knowest that not in wantonness I take to wife my
sister;"[1] though she was not sprung immediately from the
same father or the same mother, but only belonged to the
same family. And Lot is called the brother of Abraham,
though Abraham was his uncle.[2] And, by the same use of the
word, those called in the Gospel the Lord's brothers are
certainly not children of the Virgin Mary, but all the blood
relations of the Lord.[3]
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 fair, should not have
been desired by any one, nor Abraham killed 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."[4] And He Himself set the example. For though
He had the power of laying down His own life, and did not
lay it down till He chose to do so, still when an infant He
fled to Egypt, carried by His parents;[5] 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
their rage and hostility could not lay hands on Him, because
His hour was not come,[6]--not the hour when He would be
obliged to die, but the hour when He would consider it
seasonable to be put to death. Thus He who displayed divine
power by teaching and reproving openly, without allowing the
rage of his enemies to hurt Him, did also, by escaping and
concealing Himself, exhibit the conduct becoming the
feebleness of men, that they should not tempt God when they
have any means in their power of escaping threatened danger.
So also in the apostle, it was not from despair of divine
assistance and protection, or from loss of faith, that he
was let down over the wall in a basket, in order to escape
being taken by his enemies:[7] 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, test 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 intercourse with her, since she
submitted to this to save her husband's life, 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 unobjectionable; 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 faithfully 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 prefigured 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 husband without spot or wrinkle. Thus we find that
the righteous life of the Church is for the glory of Christ,
that her beauty may bring honor to her husband, as Abraham
was honored on account of the beauty of Sara among the
inhabitants of that foreign land. To the Church, to whom it
is said in the Song of Songs, "O thou fairest among
women,"(1) kings offer gifts in acknowledgment of her
beauty; as king Abimelech offered gifts to Sara, admiring
the grace of her appearance; all the more that, while he
loved, he was not allowed to profane 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 Spirit, 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 allowed to defile Sara,
had no knowledge or experience of the Church as the spouse
of Christ, that is, of how faithfully she maintained her
relation to her Husband, till it tried to violate her, and
was compelled to yield to the divine testimony borne by the
faith of the martyrs, and in the person of later monarchs
was brought humbly to honor with gifts the Bride whom their
predecessors had not been able to humble by subduing her to
themselves. What, in the type, happened in the reign of one
and the same king, is fulfilled in the earlier monarchs of
this era and their 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
excellence of the relation, which is not of the temporary
nature of earthly descent, but of divine grace, which is
everlasting. By this grace we shall no longer be a race of
mortals when we receive power to be called and to become
sons of God. This grace we obtain not from the synagogue,
which is the mother of Christ after the flesh, but from God
the Father. And when Christ calls us into another life where
there is no death, He teaches us, instead of acknowledging,
to deny the earthly relationship, where death soon follows
upon birth; for He says to His disciples, "Call no man your
father upon earth; for you have one Father, who is in
heaven."(3) And He set us an example of this when He said,
"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 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, "Whosoever shall do the
will of my Father, the same is my brother, and sister, and
mother;"(4) as much as to say, I derive this relationship
from God my Father, not from the Synagogue my mother; I call
you to eternal life, where I have an immortal birth, not to
earthly life, for to call you away from this life 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 called
bridegroom and bride, or husband and wife. The other
relationship, in which Christ and all the saints are
brethren by divine grace and not by earthly consanguinity,
or by the father and not by the mother, is more easily
expressed in words, and more easily understood. For the same
grace makes all the saints to be also brethren of one
another; while in their society no one is the bridegroom of
all the rest. So also, notwithstanding the surpassing
justice and wisdom of Christ, His manhood was much more
plainly and readily recognized by strangers, who, indeed,
were not wrong in believing Him to be man, but they did not
understand His being God as well as man. Hence Jeremiah
says: "He is both a man, and who shall know Him?"(1) He is a
man, for it is made manifest that He is a brother. And who
shall know Him? for it is concealed that He is a husband.
This must suffice as a defense of our father Abraham against
Faustus' impudence and ignorance and malice.
41. Lot also, the brother of Abraham, was just and
hospitable in Sodom, and was found worthy to escape the
conflagration which prefigured the future judgment; for he
was free from all participation in the corruption of the
people of Sodom. He was a type of the body of Christ, which
in the person of all the saints both groans now among the
ungodly and wicked, to whose evil deeds it does not consent,
and will 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, like Paul, forgetting the things that are
behind, and looking forward to the things that are
before.(2) The Lord Himself says: "No man that putteth his
hand to the plough, and looketh back, is fit for the kingdom
of Heaven."(3) Nor did He omit to mention the case of Lot's
wife; for she, for our warning, was turned into a pillar 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 endeavor
to reach the things that are before, He said, "Remember
Lot's wife."(4) 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 unbelief by an unlawful use of the law. "The
law is good" says the apostle, "if a man use it
lawfully."(5)
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 allowing 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 prefigurement 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
hostility discharges on it. By the eternal law which
requires the preservation of 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 lie 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 all they knew, had left no one alive but themselves. It
would have been better for them never to have been mothers,
than to have become mothers by their own father. But still,
the fulfillment of a desire like this is very different from
the accursed gratification of lust.
44. Knowing that their father would condemn their
design, Lot's daughters thought it necessary to fulfill it
without his knowledge. We are told that they made him drunk,
so that he was unaware of what happened. His guilt therefore
is not that of incest, but of drunkenness. This, too, is
condemned by the eternal law, which allows meat and drink
only as required by nature for the preservation of health.
There is, indeed, 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
require to account for even one instance of drunkenness.
What can have made Lot consent to receive from his daughters
all 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 omitted all
notice of this, or that God would have allowed 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 called 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 folly 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
enlightened, and that by its concealment our minds may be
improved by the exercise of recalling what we already 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
Rebecca was his sister.(1) For as regards the family of
Rebecca Scripture is not silent, and it appears that she was
his sister in the well-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 already given to Faustus' charge
against Abraham, as being equally applicable to Isaac.
Perhaps, however some inquirer will ask what typical
significance there is in the foreign king discovering
Rebecca 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 Rebecca 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, 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 behavior 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 playfully with
children that he may adapt himself to the childish
understanding with kindly sympathy, they think that he is
insane; forgetting that they themselves were once children,
or unthankful for their maturity. The typical meaning, as
regards Christ and His Church, which is to be found in this
great patriarch playing with his wife, and in the conjugal
relation being thus discovered, will be seen by every one
who, to avoid offending the Church by erroneous doctrine,
carefully studies in Scripture the secret of the Church's
Bridegroom. He will 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 symbolic 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 dwell 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
procreation of children. For custom, this was the common
practice 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.
Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his
wives only to get children, still commits sin, and does an
injury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is
that the procreation of children 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 desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of
mind is beyond their conception, they compare themselves
with themselves, as the apostle says,(1) and so make
mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with
one wife only, they are often influenced by mere animal
passion instead of an intelligent 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 allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any
more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness
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 honorable 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 allow the appetite
implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the
limits of deliberate intention. 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 honor and glory could have been
paid by men to their fellow-creatures. It was the sinful
desire for this glory in the Church which led the reprobate
Simon in his blindness to wish to purchase for money what
was freely bestowed on the apostles by divine grace.(2)
There must have been this desire of glory in the man whom
the Lord in the Gospel checks in his desire to follow 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."(3) 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
humility; 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, while the preachers gratified
their desire for human praise, believers 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 evil. So a man may be induced to marry by sensual
desire, and not to beget children; and yet a child 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 their doctrine met with
acceptance from their hearers, not because they were greedy
for praise, but because 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 intelligent
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 their connection with
their husbands only as a means of getting sons? So, when
they found themselves barren, they gave their handmaids to
their husbands; so that while the handmaids had the fleshly
motherhood, the wives were mothers in intention.
49. Faustus makes a most groundless statement when he
accuses the four women of quarreling like abandoned
characters for the possession of their 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 simplicity of
Christ.(4) 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
instilled 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 quarreled about possessing him.
There was arrangement, because there was no licentious
passion; and the law of conjugal authority was all the
stronger that there was none of the lawlessness of fleshly
desire. His being hired by one of his wives proves what is
here said, in plain opposition to the libels 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
follow 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 children by her hand-maid, and afterwards, without any
hiring, by herself. On this occasion it was Rachel'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."(1) Rachel 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."(2) Rachel gave what was in her power as due
from her husband, in return for what she had chosen to take
from her sister.
50. If Jacob had been of such a character as Faustus in
his incurable blindness supposes, and not a servant of
righteousness rather than of concupiscence, would he not
have been looking forward eagerly all 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 consented 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 Rachel, 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
their obedience in favor 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 while 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 him 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, like a just husband and an
intelligent parent, seeing his wives concerned about the
production of children, which was all he himself desired in
marriage, he thought it best to yield to their authority, in
desiring that each should have a child: for, since all the
children 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 children, Faustus would have been
clever 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 children, 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 avail ourselves of the opportunity of
searching out the symbolical 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.(3) But there, one represents each; here, the
application does not suit so well, as there are two and two.
There, also, the son of the bond-slave is disinherited; lint
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 called to liberty, what is the
meaning of there being two? Perhaps because in Scripture, as
the attentive reader will 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 shall 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 Rachel 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 Rachel. And on this account she is described as
fair and well-formed. This is the beloved of every pious
student, and for this he serves the grace of God, by which
our sins, though like scarlet, are made white as snow.(1)
For Laban means making white; and we read that Jacob served
Laban for Rachel.(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 Rachel, not for
Leah. For what a man loves in the works of righteousness is
not the toil of doing and suffering. No one desires this
life for its own sake; as Jacob desired not Leah, who yet
was brought to him, and became his wife, and the mother of
children. Though she could not be loved of herself, the Lord
made her be borne with as a step to Rachel; 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
affection, when he thus turns to God, nothing but the
knowledge of wisdom. This we often expect to attain as a
reward for practising the seven precepts of the law which
concern the love of our neighbor, that we injure no one:
namely, Honor thy father and mother; Thou shall not commit
adultery; Thou shall not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou
shall not bear false witness; Thou shalt not desire thy
neighbor's wife; Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's
property. When a man has obeyed these to the best of his
ability, and, instead of the bright joys of truth which he
desired 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 Rachel, 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 him, Serve seven
Other years for Rachel, he hears seven new commands,--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.(3) A man would desire, if it were possible, to
obtain at once the joys of lovely and perfect wisdom,
without the endurance of toil in action and suffering; but
this is impossible in mortal life. 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 well 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
wisdom; keep the commandments, and the Lord shall give it
thee."(5) The commandments are those concerning
righteousness, and the righteousness is that which is by
faith, surrounded with the uncertainty of temptations; so
that understanding is the reward of a pious belief of what
is not yet understood. The meaning I have given to these
words, "Thou hast desired wisdom; keep the commandments, and
the Lord shall give it thee, "I find also in the passage,
"Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand;"(6) 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 desire, but regulate
it, so that beginning with faith it may proceed to the
desired end through good works. The life of virtue is one of
toil; the end desired is unclouded wisdom. Why should I
believe, says one, what is not clearly proved? Let me hear
some word which will disclose the first principle of all
things. This is the one great craving of the rational soul
in the pursuit of truth. And the answer is, What you desire
is excellent, and well worthy of your love; but Leah is to
be married first, and then Rachel. 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
will be in this world accompanied with the toils of
righteousness. For however clear and true our perception in
this life may be of the unchangeable good, the mortal body
is still a weight on the mind and the earthly tabernacle is
a clog on the intellect 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 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 call those
their joy and crown for whom they are in labors 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 easily
understood, so as not to hurt the weak eyes of Leah. Rachel,
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 shall declare His
generation? So the life devoted to contemplation, in order
to see with no feeble mental eye things invisible to flesh,
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 all 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 their calamities. This life also burns with the desire
for children (for it wishes to teach what it knows, and not
to go with the corruption of envy(5)), and sees its sister-
life fully occupied with work and with bringing forth; and
it grieves that men run after that virtue which cares for
their wants l and weaknesses, instead of that which has a
divine imperishable lesson to impart. This is what is meant
when it is said, "Rachel envied her sister."(6) Moreover, as
the pure intellectual perception of that which is not
matter, and so is not the object of the bodily 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
illustrations occur, rather than to give up teaching these
things; and thus Rachel preferred that her husband should
have children by her handmaid, rather than that she should
be without any children. Bilhah, the name of her handmaid,
is said to mean old; and so, even when we speak of the
spiritual and unchangeable nature of God, ideas are
suggested relating to the old life of the bodily senses.
55. Leah, too, got children by her handmaid, from the
desire of having a numerous family. 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 honor
me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."(7) 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?"(8)
But that even by this arrangement the free wife of Jacob,
the type of labor or endurance, might obtain children to be
heirs of the kingdom, the Lord says: "What they say, do; but
do not after their works."(9) And again, the apostolic life,
when enduring imprisonment, says: "Whether Christ is
preached in pretence or in truth, I therein do rejoice, yea,
and will rejoice."(10) It is the joy of the mother over her
numerous family, though born of her handmaid.
56. In one instance Leah owed her becoming a mother to
Rachel, who, in return for some mandrakes, allowed her
husband 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 Rachel, from her desire for children,
was thus bent on getting the fruit from her sister. But I
should not agree to this, even had Rachel conceived at the
time. As Leah then conceived, and, besides, had two other
children before God opened Rachel's womb, there is no reason
for supposing any such quality in the mandrake, without any
experience to prove it. I will 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 carefully
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 might learn from the sight, and smell, and
taste. I thought it a nice-looking fruit, and sweet-
smelling, but insipid; and I confess it is hard to say why
Rachel desired it so much, unless it was for its rarity and
its sweet smell. 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 desirable for its own
sake, but is essential to the success of good men in their
endeavors to benefit their fellow-men. So the apostle says,
that it is proper to have a good report of those that are
without;(1) for though they are not infallible, the lustre
of their praise and the odor 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
toils 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 pursuit of wisdom, on the other hand, retired from the
busy crowd, and lost in calm meditation, could never obtain
a particle of this public approval, except through those who
take the management of public business, not for the sake of
being leaders, but in order to be useful. These men of
action and business exert themselves for the public benefit,
and by a popular use of their 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 Rachel. Leah herself got them from
her first-born son, that is, in honor of her fertility,
which represents all the useful result of a laborious life
exposed to the com mort vicissitudes; a life which many
avoid on account of its troublesome engagements, because,
although they might be able to take the lead, they are bent
on study, and devote all their powers to the quiet pursuit
of knowledge, in love with the beauty of Rachel.
57. But as it is right that this studious life should
gain public approval by letting itself be known, while it
cannot rightly gain this approval if it keeps its follower
in retirement, instead of using his powers for the
management of ecclesiastical affairs, and so prevents his
being generally useful; to this purpose Leah says to her
sister, "Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my
husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes
also?"(2) The husband represents all those who, though fit
for active life, and able to govern the Church, in
administering to believers the mystery of the faith, from
their love of learning and of the pursuit of wisdom, desire
to relinquish all troublesome occupations, and to bury
themselves in the classroom. Thus the words, "Is it a small
matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou
take away my son's mandrakes also?" mean, "Is it a small
matter that the life of study keeps in retirement men
required for the toils of public life? and does it ask for
popular renown as well?"
58. To get this renown justly, Rachel gives her husband
to her sister for the night; that is, those who, by a talent
for business, are fitted for government, must for the public
benefit consent to bear the burden and suffer the hardships
of public life; lest the pursuit of wisdom, to which their
leisure is devoted, should be evil spoken of, and should not
gain from the multitude the good opinion, represented by the
fruit, which is necessary for the encouragement of their
pupils. 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."(3) As if she said, Dost thou wish the knowledge
which thou lovest to be well thought of? Do not shirk the
toil 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 employments, to seek leisure for the study and
contemplation of truth, their beloved Rachel, and
intercepted mid-way by ecclesiastical affairs, which require
them to be set to work, as 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
life, in love for which they were led to abandon worldly
pursuits, and from the adoption of which they were called
away to undertake the benevolent task of government. In all
their labors they aim chiefly at this, that their chosen way
of life may have greater and wider renown, as having
supplied the people with such leaders; as Jacob consents to
go with Leah, that Rachel may obtain the sweet-smelling and
good-looking fruit. Rachel, too, in course of time, by the
mercy of God, brings forth a child herself, but not till
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
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."(1)
59. This must suffice as a reply to the false
accusations brought by Faustus against the three fathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from whom the God whom the
Catholic 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 their prophetic
character, which is beyond the comprehension 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 hostile
spirit should fancy that they have proved anything against
the sacredness and the profitableness of these books, by
their attempts to blacken the character of men who are there
mentioned so honorably.
60. 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 lived 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 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 calls on us to approve and admire the
record in its resemblance to a faithful mirror, which
reflects not only the beauties and perfections, but also the
faults and deformities, of those who approach it; still
more, in the case of Judah, who lay with his daughter-in-
law, we may see how groundless are the reproaches cast on
the narrative. The sacred record has an authority which
raises it far above not merely the cavils of a handful of
Manichaeans, but the determined enmity of the whole Gentile
world; for, in confirmation of its claims, we see that
already it has brought nearly all people from their
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?(2)
61. Judah, as Faustus says, committed fornication; and
besides that, we can accuse him of selling his brother into
Egypt. Is it any disparagement to light, that in revealing
all things it discloses what is unsightly? So neither is the
character of Scripture affected by the evil deeds of which
we are informed 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
children, 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 purchaser; so that,
though the sin would have been greater if 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,(3) a
daughter-in-law is the same as a daughter); still, 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
wantonness, or because she loved the gains of iniquity, but
from her desire to have children of this particular family.
So, being disappointed in two of the brothers, and not
obtaining the third, she succeeded by craft in getting a
child by their 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 desire to
have her father-in-law as the father of her children 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 necklace and ring, saying that the
father of the child was the man who had given her those
pledges, Judah acknowledged them, and said, "She hath been
more righteous than I" --not praising 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;(1) that is, their sin was so
great, that Sodom seemed righteous in comparison. And even
allowing that this woman is not spoken of as comparatively
less guilty, but is actually praised by her father-in-law,
while, on account of her not observing the established rites
of marriage, she is a criminal in the eye of the eternal 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?
62. The mistake of Faustus and of Manichaeism generally,
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 all the
evil actions mentioned in it; whereas the greater our homage
for the Scripture, the more decided must be our condemnation
of what the truth of Scripture itself teaches us to condemn.
In Scripture, all 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 ourselves. 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.(2) 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
birth 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 all.
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?(3) In reply to
this, it will be said that after his crime Judas hanged
himself, and was removed from the number of the apostles;
while Judah, after his evil conduct, was not only blessed
along with his brethren, but got special honor 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 desirableness of teaching us to look for
another meaning in the words of his father, which are seen
not to be applicable to him in his misconduct, from the
praise which they express.
64. Doubtless, the intention of Faustus' 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 Faustus wished to reproach Jacob's family
merely, and not Christ's birth, he might have taken the case
of Reuben the first-born, who committed the unnatural crime
of defiling his father's bed, of which fornication the
apostle says, that it was not so much as named among the
Gentiles.(4) Jacob also mentions this in his blessing,
charging his son with the infamous deed. Faustus might have
brought up this, as Reuben seems to have been guilty of
deliberate incest, and there was no harlot's disguise in
this case, were it not that Tamar's conduct in desiring
nothing but to have children is more odious to Faustus than
if she had acted from criminal passion, and did he not wish
to discredit the incarnation, by bringing reproach on
Christ's progenitors. Faustus unhappily is not aware that
the most true and truthful Saviour is a teacher, not only in
His words, but also in His birth. In His fleshly origin
there is this lesson for those who should believe on Him
from all nations, that the sins of their fathers need be no
hindrance to them. Besides, the Bridegroom, who was to call
good and bad to His marriage,(5) was pleased to assimilate
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.(6) Preserving
throughout the indication of divinity and humanity, as man
He consented to have both bad and good as His parents, while
as God He chose the miraculous birth from a virgin.
65. The impiety, therefore, of Faustus' attacks on
Scripture can injure no one but himself; for what he thus
assails 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 itself
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 carefully who had eaten food during the curse,
and to pronounce the stern sentence in obedience to the
commandment of God.(1) So, too, he was right in banishing
those that had familiar spirits and wizards out of the
land.(2) And although David was praiseworthy, we are not
called on to approve or imitate his sins, which God rebukes
by the prophet. And so Pontius Pilate was not wrong in
pronouncing the Lord innocent, in spite of the accusations
of the Jews;(3) nor was it praiseworthy in Peter to deny the
Lord thrice; nor, again, was he praiseworthy on that
occasion when Christ called him Satan because, not
understanding the things of God, he wished to withhold
Christ from his passion, that is, from our salvation. Here
Peter, immediately after being called blessed, is called
Satan.(4) 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 Faustus assails 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 will find, if they read the
Scriptures, that God rebukes David more than Faustus
does.(5) But they will read also of the sacrifice of his
penitence, of his surpassing gentleness to his merciless and
bloodthirsty enemy, whom David, pious as he was brave,
dismissed unhurt when now and again he fell into his
hands.(6) They will read of his memorable humility 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 mildly
restrained him, appealing to the fear of God in support of
his own royal order, and saying that this bad happened to
him as a punishment from God, who had sent the man to curse
him.(7) They will read how, with the love of a shepherd for
the flock entrusted to him, he was willing to die for them,
when, after he had numbered the people, God saw good to
punish his sinful pride by lessening the number he boasted
of. In this destruction, God, with whom there is no
iniquity, in His secret judgment, both took away the lives
of those whom He knew to be unworthy of life, and by this
diminution cured the vainglory which had prided itself on
the number of the people. They will 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 small piece of Saul's
garment, that he might prove to him that he had no wish to
kill him, when he might have done it. They will read of his
judicious behavior as regards his children, 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 child, 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 live, and wept for him when he was killed; 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 Scripture
narrative, especially 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 infallible inspection, so
approves of David as to commend him as a pattern to his
sons.
67. 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 confession, 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 remarkable evidence of the
strength of David's faith, and of his meek and submissive
spirit, that, when he had been told by the prophet that God
had forgiven him, although the threatened consequences were
still permitted to follow, he did not 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 accepted his confession and
repentance, his sins would have deserved eternal punishment.
So when, instead of this, he was made to smart under
temporal correction, he saw that, while the pardon remained
good, wholesome discipline was also provided. 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. While to the human ear the
words were the same, the divine eye saw a difference 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
honoring Him with our lips, like the people of old, while
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 biased or misled.
Having, 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 their fulfillment.
68. We see the same thing in the Gospel, where the
devils 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,
while the impiety of the devils is checked. For Christ, not
by human sense. but by divine knowledge, could inspect and
infallibly discriminate the sources from which the words
came. Besides, there are multitudes who confess that Christ
is the Son of the living God, without meriting the same
approval as Peter--not only of those who shall say in that
day, "Lord, Lord," and shall receive the sentence, "Depart
from me," but also of those who shall be placed on the right
hand. They may probably never have denied Christ even once;
they may never have opposed His suffering for our salvation;
they may never have forced the Gentiles to do as the
Jews;(3) and yet they shall not be honored equally with
Peter, who, though he did all these things, will 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, will never reach the place which David
nevertheless held in the divine favor. There is a vast
difference between what is in itself so undesirable that it
must be utterly rejected, and the rich and plenteous 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 all his house; the minister of the holy, just, and good
law; of whose character the apostle speaks in the words here
quoted;(4) 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 Manichaeans;--this Moses, the
servant of the living, the true, the most high God, that
made heaven and earth, not of a foreign substance, but of
nothing--not from the pressure of necessity, but from
plenitude of goodness--not by the suffering of His members,
but by the power of His word;--this Moses, who humbly put
from him this high ministry, but obediently accepted it, and
faithfully kept it, and diligently fulfilled it; who ruled
the people with vigilance, reproved them with vehemence,
loved them with fervor, 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 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
described, we love and admire, and to the best of our power
imitate, coming indeed far short of his merits, though we
have killed 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 prefigured something in the future. Now however, I
do not use this argument, but view the action as having no
symbolical meaning. In the light, then, of the eternal law,
it was wrong for one who had no legal authority to kill the
man, even though he was a bad character, besides being the
aggressor. But in minds where great virtue is to come, there
is often an early crop of vices, in which we may still
discern a disposition for some particular virtue, which will
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 wild creepers,
which have to be rooted out, still consider the land good
for useful vines; and when they see a hill covered with wild
olives, conclude that with culture it will 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, living among strangers, by a wicked citizen of the
country from being unrequited, was not unfit for the
production of virtue, but from want of culture gave signs of
its productiveness in an unjustifiable manner. He who
afterwards, by His angel, called Moses on Mount Sinai, with
the divine commission to liberate the people of Israel from
Egypt, and who trained him to obedience by the miraculous
appearance in the bush burning but not consumed, and by
instructing 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 like 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 assailant, when the Lord rebuked 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."(1) 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
still carnal, of the Lord. Here was evil to be subdued or
rooted out; but the heart with such capacities needed only,
like good soil, to be cultivated to make it fruitful in
virtue.
71. Then, as for Faustus' objection to the spoiling of
the Egyptians, 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 affections; while the Egyptians were
in open rebellion against God, for they used the gold, God's
creature, in the service of idols, to the dishonor of the
Creator, and they had grievously oppressed strangers by
making them work without pay. Thus the Egyptians deserved
the punishment, and the Israelites were suitably employed in
inflicting it. Perhaps, indeed, it was not so much a command
as a permission to the Hebrews to act in the matter
according to their own inclinations; and God, in sending the
message by Moses, only wished that they should thus be
informed of His permission. There may also have been
mysterious reasons for what God said to the people on 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
counsellor?"(3) 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 lawfully have done
otherwise than God told him, leaving to God the reason of
the command, while 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 well 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."(1) 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
folly rather, might object to the Lord's permitting the
devils to enter the swine, which they asked to be allowed to
do with a mischievous intent?(2) especially as the
Manichaeans believe that not only pigs, but the vilest
insects, have human souls. But setting aside these absurd
notions, this is undeniable, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the
only son of God, and therefore the true and good God,
permitted the destruction of swine belonging to strangers,
implying loss of life and of a great amount of property, at
the request of devils. No one can be so insane as to suppose
that Christ could not have driven the devils out of the men
without gratifying their malice by the destruction of the
swine. If, then, the Creator and Governor of all natures, in
His superintendence, which, though mysterious, is ever just,
indulged the violent and unjust inclination of those lost
spirits already doomed to eternal fire, why should not the
Egyptians, who were unrighteous oppressors, be spoiled by
the Hebrews, a free people, who would claim payment for
their enforced and painful toil, especially as the earthly
possessions which they thus lost were used by the Egyptians
in their impious rites, to the dishonor of the Creator?
Still, if Moses had originated this order, or if the people
had done it spontaneously, undoubtedly it would have been
sinful; and perhaps the people did sin, not in doing what
God commanded or permitted, but in some desire 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,
while He begins on a lower scale in the treatment of the
feeble. As for Moses, he can be blamed neither for coveting
the property, nor for disputing, in any instance, the divine
authority.
73. According to the eternal law, which requires the
preservation 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
called upon, while they are deservedly praised for doing
them when required. The act, the agent, and the authority
for the action are all of great importance in the order of
nature. For Abraham to sacrifice his son of his own accord
is shocking madness. 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 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 itself without any
study or reflection, and is in fact repeated 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,
while Abraham's killing his son of his own accord would have
been unnatural, his doing it at the command of God shows not
only guiltless but praiseworthy compliance, 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. Will you venture to
blame God Himself for desiring such actions? Then "Get thee
behind me, Satan, for thou understandest not the things
which be of God, but those which be of men." Would that this
rebuke might accomplish in you what it did in Peter, and
that you might hereafter preach the truth concerning God,
which you now, judging by feeble sense, find fault with! as
Peter became a zealous messenger to announce to the Gentiles
what he objected to at first, when the Lord spoke of it as
His intention.
74. Now, if this explanation suffices to satisfy human
obstinacy and perverse misinterpretation of right actions of
the vast difference between the indulgence of passion and
presumption 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 will 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 nil what they deserved, and warning
those who needed warning. What is the evil in war? Is it the
death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may
live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike,
not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of
violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity,
wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and
it is generally to punish these things, when force is
required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to
God or some 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 shall
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
authorized by law, and that the soldiers did not thus avenge
themselves, but defend the public safety, he replied, "Do
violence to no man, accuse no man falsely, and be content
with your wages."(1) But as the Manichaeans are in the habit
of speaking evil of John, let them hear the Lord Jesus
Christ Himself ordering this money to be given to Caesar,
which John tells 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 for
war. Again, in the case of the centurion who said, "I am a
man under authority, and have soldiers under me: and I say
to one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he
cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it," Christ
gave due praise to his faith;(3) He did not tell him to
leave the service. But there is no need here to enter on the
long discussion of just and unjust ways.
75. A great deal depends on the causes for which men
undertake 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 if he thinks it advisable, and that the
soldiers should perform their military duties in behalf 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 allowed to be a
righteous war; for even the wars which arise from human
passion cannot harm the eternal well-being of God, nor even
hurt His saints; for in the trial of their patience, and the
chastening of their spirit, and in bearing fatherly
correction, they are rather benefited than injured. No one
can have any power against them but what is given him from
above. For there is no power but of God,(4) who either
orders or permits. Since, therefore, a righteous man,
serving it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty
belonging to his position in the State in fighting by the
order of his sovereign,--for in some cases it is plainly the
will 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, while 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 evil: but if any one
strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left
also,"(5) the answer is, that what is here required is not a
bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of
virtue 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 all that even earthly blessings (for so
temporal kingdoms and victory over enemies are considered to
be, and these are the things which the community of the
ungodly all over the world are continually begging from
idols and devils) are entirely under the control and at the
disposal of the one true God. Thus, under the Old Testament,
the secret of the kingdom 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 fullness of
time came for the revelation of the New Testament, which was
hidden under the types of the Old, clear testimony was to be
borne to the truth, that there is another life for which
this life ought to be disregarded, and another kingdom for
which the opposition of all earthly kingdoms should be
patiently borne. Thus the name martyrs, which means
witnesses, was given to those who, by the will of God, bore
this testimony, by their confessions, their sufferings, and
their death. The number of such witnesses is so great, that
if it pleased Christ--who called Saul by a voice from
heaven, and having changed him from a wolf to a sheep, sent
him into the midst of wolves--to unite them all 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
Testament is, that we must serve God not for temporal
happiness in this life, but for eternal felicity hereafter,
this truth was most strikingly confirmed by the patient
endurance of what is commonly called adversity for the sake
of that felicity. So in fullness 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 kill
the body, but cannot kill the soul, and promises that even
the body will be entirely restored, so that not a hair shall
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 which
His Father's will had given Him.(2) He sets the example of
drinking this cup, then hands it to His followers,
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 things in heaven and of
things in earth, and of things 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 this 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 prophets,
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;(4) and in these days, since the commencement of
the fulfillment of what is prophesied in the psalm of
Christ, under the figure of Solomon, which means the
peacemaker, as Christ is our peace,(5) "All kings of the
earth shall bow to Him, all nations shall serve Him,"(6) 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
devil-worship. There are public and undeniable proofs of the
fact, that on one side the prognostications of devils were
found to be fallacious, and on the other, the predictions of
saints were a means of support; and we have now writings in
which those facts are recorded.
77. If our foolish 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 still undisclosed, and those given to the
preachers of the New Testament, now that the obscurity of
the Old is removed, they will find Christ Himself 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 sell 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 opposed to
each other. But here the difference is in the utterances of
one and the same person. At one time He says, "I sent you
without scrip, or purse, or shoes, and ye lacked nothing;"
at another, "Now let him that hath a scrip take it, and also
a purse; and he that hath a tunic, let him sell it and buy a
sword." Does not this show how, without any inconsistency,
precepts and counsels and permissions may be changed, as
different times require different arrangements? If it is
said that there was a symbolical meaning in the command to
take a scrip and purse, and to buy a sword, why may there
not be a symbolical 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 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 replied, "It is
enough." Hence we find Peter with a weapon when he cut off
the assailant'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 require 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 his own accord, than in not doing it when
God commanded him. And to dare to find fault with God
Himself for giving such a command, or not to believe 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 all 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, while in men a right
will is in union with the divine law, and ungoverned passion
is restrained by the order of divine law; so that a good man
wills only what is commanded, and a bad man can do only what
he is permitted, at the same time that he is punished for
what he wills to do unjustly. Thus, in all the things which
appear shocking 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 all, 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 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 his senses will assert. The ignorance and
infirmity which prevent a man from knowing his duty, or from
doing all 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 all die, and that by him sin entered into the world, and
death by sin.(2) 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;(3) and we know that we can be
freed from this punishment only by gracious interposition.
So the apostle cries out in distress, "O wretched man that I
am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The
grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord."(4) 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 all these things are due either to the mercy or
the judgment of God, while the measures and numbers and
weights by which the Creator of all natural productions
arranges all things are concealed from our view. For God is
not the author, but He is the controller 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 condition, in order that they may not bring
discord and disgrace on universal nature. This being the
case, and as the judgments of God and the movements of man's
will 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,(5) who can tell whether it may be
good or bad in any particular 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 remains true, that whatever is good is
so by the divine blessing, 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 ministers 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 Him, 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 his holy jealousy for his people, whom he
wished to be subject to the one true God, on learning that
they had fallen away to the worship of an idol made by their
own hands, he impressed their minds at the time with a
wholesome fear, and gave them a warning 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 immediately
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 wilt forgive their sin,
forgive it; and if not, blot me out of Thy book."(1) The
pious inquirer who compares the slaughter with the prayer
will 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
Manichaeans 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 their publication, if holy and learned men then
in life, and competent 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 his curse brought a terrible
punishment on this man. For when he went out to the fountain
to provide water for the guests, a lion fell on him and
killed him, and the hand with which he had given a slight
blow to the apostle was torn off, in fulfillment 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, if 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, while 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 this mortal life. It
matters not whether the story is true or false. At any rate,
the Manichaeans, who regard as genuine and authentic books
which the canon of the Church rejects, must allow, as shown
in the story, that the virtue 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 exhibited in bodily action or
in words. For when the apostle was struck, instead of
turning his other side to the man, or telling him to repeat
the blow, he prayed to God to pardon his assailant in the
next world, but not to leave the injury unpunished at the
time. Inwardly he preserved a kindly feeling, while
outwardly he wished the man to be punished as an example. As
the Manichaeans believe this, rightly or wrongly, they may
also believe that such was the intention of Moses, the
servant of God, when he cut down with the sword the makers
and worshippers 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 his prayer was not heard.
There is no comparison between a stranger being struck with
the hand, and the dishonor 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 pursuing them. Nor, as regards the
punishment, is there any comparison between being killed
with the sword and being torn in pieces by wild beasts. For
judges in administering the law condemn to exposure to wild
beasts worse criminals than are condemned to be put to death
by the sword.
80. Another of Faustus' malicious and impious charges
which has to be answered, is about the Lord's saying to the
prophet Hosea, "Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and
children of whoredoms."(4) 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 shall
go into the kingdom of heaven before you."(5) There is
nothing contrary to the mercifulness 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 all the sins of the fallen woman
were pardoned when she changed for the better. So when the
prophet took the harlot as his wife, it was both good for
the woman to have her life amended, and the action
symbolized a truth of which we shall speak presently. But it
is plain what offends the Manichaeans in this case; for
their great anxiety is to prevent harlots from being with
child. 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 wife of
one man, and have children.
81. As regards Solomon, it need only be said that the
condemnation of his conduct in the faithful narrative of
holy Scripture is much more serious than the childish
vehemence of Faustus' attacks. The Scripture tells 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; while Faustus, in his attacks, like a man closing his
eyes, or with no eyes at all, seeks no guidance from the
light, but is prompted only by violent 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 his passions, instead of seeking for
offspring, is expressly noted as chargeable with being a
lover of women. This, as we are informed by the truth which
accepts no man's person, led him down into the abyss of
idolatry.
82. Having now gone over all 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 excellence and the 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 typify, and what they foretell. This we have
already done in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of
whom God said that He was their God, as if the God of
universal nature were the God of none besides them; not
honoring them with an unmeaning title, but because He, who
could alone have a full and perfect knowledge, knew the
sincere and remarkable charity of these men; and because
these three patriarchs united formed a notable type of the
future people of God, in not only having free children by
free women, as by Sarah, and Rebecca, and Leah, and Rachel,
but also bond children, as of this same Rebecca was born
Esau, to whom it was said, "Thou shalt serve thy
brother;"(1) and in having by bond women not only bond
children, as by Hagar, but also free children, as by Bilhah
and Zilphah. Thus also in the people of God, those
spiritually free not only have children born into the
enjoyment of liberty, like those to whom it is said, "Be ye
followers of me, as I also am of Christ"(2) but they have
also children born into guilty bondage, as Simon was born of
Philip.(3) Again, from carnal bondmen are born not only
children of guilty bondage, who imitate them, but also
children of happy liberty, to whom it is said, "What they
say, do; but do not after their works."(4) Whoever rightly
observes the fulfillment of this type in the people of God,
keeps the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, by
continuing to the end in union with some, and in patient
endurance of others. Of Lot, also, we have already 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 the action of Judah in lying with his daughter-in-law.
But, for the sake of those whose understanding is feeble, we
shall begin with observing, that in sacred Scripture evil
actions are sometimes prophetic not of evil, but of good.
Divine providence preserves throughout its essential
goodness, so that, as in the example given above, from
adulterous intercourse a man-child is born, a good work of
God from the evil of man, by the power of nature, and not
due to the misconduct of the parents; so in the prophetic
Scriptures, where both good and evil actions are recorded,
the narrative being itself prophetic, foretells something
good even by the record of what is evil, the credit being
due not to the evil-doer, but to the writer. Judah, when, to
gratify his sinful passion, he went in to Tamar, had no
intention by his licentious conduct to typify 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 Himself says "He wrote of me," for the sake of
instructing us make the evil action of Judah significant of
something good? Under the guidance and inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, the prophet has compiled a narrative of actions
so as to make a continuous prophecy of the things he
designed to foretell. In foretelling good, it is of no
consequence whether the typical actions are good or bad. If
it is written in red ink that the Ethiopians are black, or
in Black ink that the Gauls are white, this circumstance
does not affect the information which the writing conveys.
No doubt, if it was a painting instead of a writing, the
wrong color 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 demerit of the agents is
a matter of no importance, as long as there is a true
typical relation between the action and the thing signified.
So in the case of Caiaphas in the Gospel as regards his
iniquitous and mischievous 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; and yet there was a good meaning in his 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, "This he spake not of
himself; but being the high priest, he prophesied that Jesus
should die for the people."(1) In the same way the action of
Judah was bad as regards his sinful passion, but it typified
a great good he knew nothing of. Of himself he did evil
while it was not of himself that he typified good. These
introductory remarks apply not only to Judah, but also to
all 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 this tribe. Tamar means
bitterness; and the meaning is suitable, for this people
gave the cup of gall to the Lord.(2) The two sons of Judah
represent two classes of kings who governed ill--those who
did harm and those who did no good. One of these sons was
evil 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 will not give the good they have but
lose it or spill it on the ground. And as injury is worse
than not doing good, the evil-doer is called the eider and
the other the younger. Er, the name of the elder, means a
preparer of skins, which were the coats given to our first
parents when they were punished with expulsion from
paradise.(3) Onan, the name of the younger, means, their
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 evil 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 meaning of the third son of Judah not
being joined to the woman, is that for a time the kings 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, 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 their enlightened predictions. Again, in the
time when Judah ceased to have a king of its own tribe, the
eider Herod does not count as one of the kings typified by
the husbands of Tamar; for he was a foreigner, and his union
with the people was never consecrated with the holy oil. His
was the power of a stranger, given him by the Romans and by
Caesar. And it was the same with his sons, the tetrarchs,
one of whom, called Herod, like his father, agreed with
Pilate at the time of the Lord's passion.(4) So plainly were
these foreigners considered as distinct from the sacred
monarchy of Judah, that the Jews themselves, when raging
against Christ, exclaimed openly, "We have no king but
Caesar."(5) Nor was Caesar properly their king, except in
the sense that all the world was subject to Rome. The Jews
thus condemned themselves, only to express their 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 shall not
fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, till He come
for whom it is reserved: He is the desire of nations."(6)
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 Anointed is derived.
Then came He for whom it was reserved, the desire of
nations; and the holy of holies was anointed with the oil of
gladness above His fellows.(7) Christ was born in the time
of the eider 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, failing. 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.
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;(1) but for the
sake of his feeble sheep he made use of the testimony in
water. The name Iras, too, means, vision of my brother. So
John saw his brother, a brother in the family of Abraham,
and from the relationship of Mary and Elisabeth; and the
same person he recognised as his Lord and his God, for, as
he himself says, he received of His fullness.(2) On account
of this vision, among those born of woman, there has arisen
no greater than he;(3) because, of all who foretold Christ,
he alone saw what many righteous men and prophets desired to
see and saw not. He saluted Christ from the womb;(4) he knew
Him more certainly from seeing the dove; and therefore, as
the Adullamite, 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 like a flock of sheep after shearing.(5)
86. Next, we have Tamar changing her dress; for Tamar
also means changing. Still, the name of bitterness must be
retained--not that bitterness in which gall 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 fruitfulness to the Church established among all
nations. For "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from
the dead, and that repentance and the remission of sins be
preached among all nations in His name, beginning at
Jerusalem."(7) In the dress Tamar put on there is a
confession of sins; and Tamar sitting in this dress at the
gate of Aenan or Aenaim, 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 shall serve
me."(8) Tamar received under her disguise a ring, a
bracelet, a staff; she is sealed in her calling, adorned in
her justification, raised in her glorification. For "whom He
predestinated, them He also called: and whom He called, them
He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also
glorified."(9) This was while she was still disguised, as I
have said; and in the same state she conceives, and becomes
fruitful in holiness. Also the kid promised is sent to her
as to a harlot. The kid represents rebuke for sin, and it is
sent by the Adullamite already mentioned, who, as it were,
uses the reproachful words, "O generation of vipers!"(10)
But this rebuke for sin does not reach her, for she has been
changed by the bitterness of confession. Afterwards, by
exhibiting the pledges of the ring and bracelet and staff,
she prevails 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 calling and justification and
glorification, they will immediately be confounded, and will
acknowledge that we are justified rather than they. I should
enter into this more particularly, taking, 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 this work to a close, for it is
already longer than is desirable.
87. As regards the prophetic significance of David's
sin, a single word must suffice. The names occurring in the
narrative 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 desire of
all nations shall come?"(11) Bersabee means, well of
satisfaction, or seventh well: either of these
interpretations will suit our purpose. So, in the Song of
Songs, the spouse, who is the Church, is called a well of
living water;(12) 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 of
Tobit, that Pentecost was the feast of seven weeks.(13) To
forty-nine, 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, endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."(14) The Church
becomes a well of satisfaction by this gift of the Spirit,
the number seven denoting its spirituality; for it is in her
a fountain of living water springing up unto everlasting
life, and he who has it shall never thirst.(15) Uriah,
Bersabee's husband, must, from the meaning of his name, be
understood as representing the devil. It is in union to the
devil that all 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 his not abiding in the
truth, when he was cut off on account of his pride from the
celestial light which he had of God, or to his transforming
himself into an angel of light, because after losing his
real strength by his fall, he still dares to say, My light
is of God. The literal David, then, was guilty of a heinous
crime, which God by the prophet condemned in the rebuke
addressed to David, and which David atoned for by his
repentance. On the other hand, He who is the desire of all
nations loved the Church when washing herself on the roof,
that is, when cleansing herself from the pollution of the
world, and in spiritual contemplation mounting above her
house of clay, and trampling upon it; and after commencing
an acquaintance, He puts to death the devil, whom He first
entirely removes from her, and joins her to Himself in
perpetual union. While we hate the sin, we must not overlook
the prophetical significance; and while we love, as is His
due, that David who in His mercy has freed us from the
devil, we may also love the David who by the humility of his
repentance 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
condemnation, while nothing is said of his repentance and
restoration to the divine favor. Nor can I find in his
lamentable fall even a symbolical connection with anything
good. Perhaps the strange women he lusted after may be
thought to represent the Churches chosen from among the
Gentiles. This idea might have been admissible, if the women
had left their gods for Solomon's sake to worship his God.
But as he for their sakes offended his God and worshipped
their gods, it seems impossible to think of any good
meaning. Doubtless, something is typified, but it is
something bad, as in the case already explained of Lot's
wife and daughters. We see in Solomon a notable pre-eminence
and a notable fall. Now, this good and evil which we see in
him at different periods, first good and then evil, are in
our day found together in the Church. What is good in
Solomon represents, I think, the good members of the Church;
and what was bad in him represents the 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 inquiry into what is said of Solomon in Scripture
might disclose, either to me or to others of greater
learning and greater worth, some more probable
interpretation. But as we are now engaged on a different
subject, we must not allow this matter to break the
connection of our discourse.
89. As regards the prophet Hosea, it is unnecessary for
me to explain the meaning of the command, or of the
prophet's conduct, when God said to him, "Go and take unto
thee a wife of whoredoms and produce children of whoredoms,"
for the Scripture itself informs us of the origin and
purpose of this direction. It proceeds thus: "For the land
hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord. So
he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which
conceived, and bare him a son. And the Lord said unto him,
Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will
avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Judah, and
will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And
it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow
of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again,
and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name
No-mercy: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of
Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have
mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the
Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword,
nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she had
weaned No-mercy, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said
God, Call his name Not-my-people: for ye are not my people,
and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children
of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be
measured for multitude; and it shall come to pass that in
the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people,
there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the
living God. Then shall the children of Israel and the
children of Judah be gathered together, and appoint
themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land:
for great shall be the day of Jezreel. Say ye unto your
brethren, My people; and to your sister, She hath found
mercy."(1) Since the typical meaning of the command and of
the prophet's conduct is thus explained in the same book by
the Lord Himself, and since the writings of the apostles
declare the fulfillment of this prophecy in the preaching 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, which He had afore prepared unto
glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles. As He saith also in Hosea, I will
call them my people, which were not my people; and her
beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass,
that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my
people, there shall they be called the children of the
living God."(1) Here Paul applies the prophecy to the
Gentiles. So also Peter, writing to the Gentiles, without
naming the prophet, borrows his expressions when he says,
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a peculiar people; that ye might show forth the
praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His
marvellous light; which in time past were not a people, but
are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but
now have obtained mercy."(2) From this it is plain that the
words of the prophet, "And the number of the children of
Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be
measured for multitude," and the words immediately
following, "And it shall be that in the place where it was
said unto them, Ye are not my people, there they shall be
called the children of the living God," do not apply to that
Israel which is after the flesh, but to that of which the
apostle says to the Gentiles, "Ye therefore are the seed of
Abraham, and heirs according to the promise."(3) But, as
many Jews who were of the Israel after the flesh have
believed, and will yet believe; for of these were the
apostles, and all the thousands in Jerusalem of the company
of the apostles, as also the churches of which Paul speaks,
when he says to the Galatians, "I was unknown by face to the
churches of Judaea which were in Christ;"(4) and again, he
explains the passage in the Psalms, where the Lord is called
the cornerstone,(5) as referring to His uniting in Himself
the two walls of circumcision and uncircumcision, "that He
might make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
and that He might reconcile both unto God in 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 nigh," that is, to the Gentiles and to the Jews;
"for He is our peace, who hath made of both one;"(6) to the
same purpose we find the prophet speaking of the Jews as the
children of Judah, and of the Gentiles as children of
Israel, where he says, "The children of Judah and the
children of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall
make to themselves one head, and shall 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 well as those of the prophets; and not only to
speak against writings, but to impugn in the most reckless
manner the evidence clear as noonday of established facts.
In the case of the narrative of Judah, it is perhaps not so
easy to recognize, under the disguise of the woman called
Tamar, the harlot representing the Church gathered from
among the corruption of Gentile superstition; but here,
where Scripture explains itself, and where the explanation
is confirmed by the writings of the apostles, instead of
dwelling longer on this, we may proceed at once to inquire
into the meaning of the very things to which Faustus objects
in Moses the servant of God.
90. Moses killing the Egyptian in defending one of his
brethren reminds us naturally of the destruction of the
devil, our assailant in this land of strangers, by our
defender the Lord Christ. And as Moses hid the dead body in
the sand, even so the devil, though slain, remains concealed
in those who are not firmly settled. The Lord, we know,
builds the Church on a rock; and those who hear His word and
do it, He compares to a wise man who builds his 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 foolish man
who builds on the sand, and when his house is tried its ruin
is great.(7)
91. Of the prophetic significance of the spoiling of the
Egyptians, which was done by Moses at the command of the
Lord his God, who commands nothing but what is most just, I
remember to have set down what occurred to me at the time in
my book entitled On Christian Doctrine;(8) to the effect
that the gold and silver and garments of the Egyptians
typified certain branches of learning which may be
profitably learned or taught among the Gentiles. This may be
the true explanation; or we may suppose that the vessels of
gold and silver 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 will 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.(1) There is also the charge of cruelty made against
Moses by the enemies of 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. But, knowing the things they are in the habit
of bringing forward and of misrepresenting, I have already
taken a particular case and have defended it, so that any
Manichaeans who are willing to be corrected, and all other
ignorant and irreligious people, may see that there is no
ground for their accusations. We must now inquire into the
prophetic significance of the command, that many of those
who, while Moses was absent, made an idol for themselves
should be slain without regard to relationship. It is easy
to see that the slaughter of these men represents the
warfare against the evil principles which led the people
into the same idolatry. Against such evil we are commanded
to wage war in the words of the psalm, "Be ye angry and sin
not.(2) And a similar command is given by the apostle, when
he says, "Mortify your members which are on earth
fornication, uncleanness, luxury, evil concupiscence, and
covetousness, which is idolatry."(3)
93. It requires closer examination to see the meaning of
the first action of Moses in burning the calf 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 devil
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 the 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. Professing 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, and of creeping
things."(4) From this so-called wisdom came the golden calf,
which 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 Gentile idolaters. This impious
society the Lord Christ burns with that fire of which He
says in the Gospel, "I am come to send fire on the
earth;"(5) for, as there is nothing hid from His heat,(6)
when the Gentiles believe in Him they lose the form of the
devil in the fire of divine influence. Then all the body is
ground, that is, after the dissolution of the combination in
the membership of iniquity comes humiliation under the word
of truth. Then the dust is sprinkled in the water, that the
Israelites, that is, the preachers of the gospel, may in
baptism admit those formerly idolaters into their own body,
that is, the body of Christ. To Peter, who was one of those
Israelites, it was said of the Gentiles, "Kill, and eat."(7)
To kill 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 their 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 their hearts the sweetness of the truth must feel its
force as a gag in their mouths. All those passages speak of
Christ. The head now ascended into heaven along with the
body still suffering on earth is the full development of the
whole purpose of the 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 all parts of the
instrument, but from the strings, and the 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 in these prophetical narratives the
circumstances selected by the prophetic spirit either
predict some future event, or if they have no voice of their
own, they serve to connect together other significant
utterances.
95. Should the heretics reject our exposition of those
allegorical 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 religious character or a prophetic
meaning must be believed, whether intelligently or not.
Moreover, the figurative interpretations must all be in the
interest of morality and religion. So, if the Manichaeans or
any others disagree with our interpretation, or differ from
us in method or in any particular opinion, suffice it that
the character of the fathers whom God commends for their
conduct and obedience to His precepts is vindicated on a
principle which all but those inveterate in their hostility
will acknowledge to be true; and that the purity and dignity
of the Scriptures are maintained 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, nothing could have been devised more likely
to instruct and benefit the pious reader of sacred Scripture
than that, besides describing praiseworthy characters as
examples, and blameworthy characters as warnings, it should
also narrate cases where good men have gone back and fallen
into evil, whether they are restored to the right path or
continue irreclaimable; and also where bad men have changed,
and have attained to goodness, whether they persevere in it
or relapse into evil; in order that the righteous may be not
lifted 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 their very appearance of superfluity, indicate the
presence of some secret symbolical meaning. For in the books
we speak of, so far from there being a want or a scarcity of
prophetical announcements, such announcements are numerous
and distinct; and now that the fulfillment has actually
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 which all classes of men and
of minds do homage, and which themselves predict what we see
thus actually coming to pass.
97. If, then, any one reading of the action of David, of
which he repented when the Lord rebuked and threatened him,
find in the narrative an encouragement to sin, is Scripture
to be blamed for this? Is not the man's own guilt in
proportion to the abuse which he makes for his own injury or
destruction of what was written for his recovery and
release? David is set forth as a great example of
repentance, because men who fall into sin either proudly
disregard the cure of repentance, or lose themselves in
despair 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
evil-doers destroy others, with surgical instruments, it is
not the fault of surgery.
98. Even supposing that our fathers the patriarchs and
prophets, of whose devout and religious habits so good a
report is given in that Scripture which 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 lustful and cruel as the Manichaeans falsely and
fanatically allege, they might still be shown to be superior
not only to those whom the Manichaeans call the Elect, but
also to their god himself. Is there in the licentious
intercourse of man with woman anything so bad as the self-
abasement of unclouded light by mixture with darkness? Here,
is a man prompted by avarice and greed to pass off his wife
as his sister and sell her to her lover; but worse still and
more shocking, that one should disguise his own nature to
gratify criminal passion, and submit gratuitously to
pollution and degradation. Why, even one who knowingly lies
with his own daughters is not equally criminal with one who
lets his members share in the defilement of all sensuality
as gross as this, or grosser. And 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
licentiousness, he would still 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 all their movements, but also, in
union with this very he-goat of Faustus' coarse comparison,
must have endured all the pains of animal appetite,
incurring fresh defilement at every step, as partaking in
the passion of the male, the conception of the female, and
the birth 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 will your god repent of giving up
his 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 his mistress, but his own children, whom he
confines in the members of the very demons who were his own
lovers? Even if David had not repented, nor been thus
restored to righteousness, he would still 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 pollution of his
members in all such actions by whomsoever 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, according to your own assertion,
are parts and members of your god and of his nature. In
plain language, the harlot herself must be your god. You
cannot pretend that your god is not confined in the
contaminated body, or that he is only present, while
preserving entire the purity of his own nature; and you
acknowledge that the members of your god are so defiled as
to require a special purification. This harlot, then, for
whom you venture to find fault with the man of God, even if
she had not been changed 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 small, of your
god. But one single harlot is not so bad as your god, for he
on account of his mixture with the 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, till this most
corrupt part reaches its final state in the mass of
darkness, like an irreclaimable harlot. Such are the evils
and such the shameful abominations which your god could not
ward off from his members, and to which he was brought
irresistibly by his merciless enemy; for only by the
sacrifice of his own subjects, or rather his own parts,
could he effect the destruction of his formidable assailant.
Surely, there was nothing so bad as this in killing an
Egyptian so as to preserve uninjured a fellow-countryman.
Yet Faustus finds fault with this most absurdly, while with
amazing infatuation he overlooks the case of his own god.
Would it not have been better for him to have carried off
the gold and silver vessels of the Egyptians, than to let
his members be carried off by the race of darkness? And yet
the worshippers of this unfortunate god find fault with the
servant of our God for carrying on wars, in which he with
his followers were always victorious, so that, under the
leadership of Moses, the children of Israel carried captive
their 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 punishing with the sword those who had sinned
grievously against God. Indeed, Moses entreated pardon for
this sin, even offering to bear himself in their stead the
divine anger. But even had he been cruel instead of
compassionate, he would still 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 him 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 himself which is to
be fastened in the mass of darkness, because it obeyed
orders, and advanced at the risk of its own life in defence
of his kingdom against the body of the enemy. But, says the
Manichaean, this part, after mixture and combination with
evil during the course of ages, has not been obedient. But
why? If the obedience was voluntary, the guilt is real, and
the punishment just. But from this it would follow that
there is no nature opposed to sin; otherwise it would not
sin voluntarily; and so the whole system of Manichaeism
falls at once. If, again, this part suffers from the power
of this enemy against 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 worship to those who refuse to
worship the one true God. Still, it must be allowed that,
however debasing the worship of this god may be, the
worshippers are so far better than their deity, that they
have an existence, while he is nothing more than a fabulous
invention. Proceed we now to the rest of Faustus'
vagaries.(1)
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF I/IV, Schaff). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 20108
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW:
http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
