Download PDF
ads:
A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK,
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND
AMERICA.
VOLUME IV
ST. AUGUSTIN:
THE WRITINGS AGAINST THE MANICHÃANS
AND
AGAINST THE DONATISTS
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Editorâs Preface
ââââââââââââ
This fourth volume of St. Augustinâs Works contains his polemical
writings in vindication of the Catholic Church against the heresy of
the Manichæans, and the schism of the Donatists. The former are
contained in Tom. II. and VIII., the latter in Tom. IX., of the
Benedictine edition.
Like the preceding volumes, this also is more than a reprint of older
translations, and contains important additions not previously
published.
ads:
Livros Grátis
http://www.livrosgratis.com.br
Milhares de livros grátis para download.
I.âSeven Writings Against the Manichæan Heresy. Four of these were
translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert, of Bombay, for Dr. Dodsâ
edition, published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1872, and revised by
Dr. Albert H. Newman, of Toronto, for the American edition. The
other three treatises are translated, I believe for the first time, by
Dr. Newman for this edition. (See Contents.)
The Edinburgh translation, especially of the first two treatises, is
sufficiently faithful and idiomatic, and needed very little alteration
by the American editor, who compared it sentence by sentence with the
Latin original, and made changes only where they seemed necessary.
This part of the volume is also enriched by an introductory essay of
Dr. Newman, which embodies the literature and the results of the most
recent as well as the earlier researches concerning that
anti-Christian heresy.
II.âThe Writings Against the Donatists. These were well translated
by the Rev. J. R. King, of Oxford, and are slightly revised by Dr.
Hartranft, of Hartford, after a careful comparison with the Latin.
The literary introduction of Dr. Hartranft, in connection with the
translatorâs historical preface, will place the reader in the
situation of the controversy between the Catholic Church and the
Donatists at the time of St. Augustin.
In both sections the treatises are arranged in chronological order.
The fifth volume will contain the writings of St. Augustin against the
Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. It is in the hands of the printer and
will be published in October.
Philip Schaff.
New York, June, 1887.
Contents.
__________
Preface.
I.   THE ANTI-MANICHæAN WRITINGS.
Translated by the Rev. RICHARD STOTHERT, M.A., Bombay, and Prof.
Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Toronto.
Introductory essay on the Manichæan heresy.
By Dr. Newman.
On the Morals of the Catholic Church
ads:
(De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ),
A.D. 388.
Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.
On the Morals of the Manichæans
(De Moribus Manichæorum),
A.D. 388.
Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.
On Two Souls, against the Manichæans
(De Duabus Animabus, contra Manichæos),
A.D. 391.
Translated by Dr. Newman.
Acts or Disputation against Fortunatus the Manichæan
(Acta seu Disputatio contra Fortunatum Manichæum),
A.D. 392.
Translated by Dr. Newman.
Against the Epistle of Manichæus called Fundamental
(Contra Epistolam Manichæi quam vocant Fundamenti),
A.D. 397.
Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.
Reply to Faustus the Manichæan
(Contra Faustus Manichæum, Libri XXXIII.),
A.D. 400.
Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.
Concerning the nature of good, against the Manichæans
(De Natura Boni contra Manichæos),
A.D. 404.
Translated by Dr. Newman.
II.  THE ANTI-donatist WRITINGS.
Translated by the Rev. J.R. King, M.A., Vicar of St. Peterâs in the
East, Oxford, and late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.
The Translation revised, with additional annotations, by the Rev.
Chester D. Hartranft, D.D., Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical
History in the Theological Seminary at Hartford, Connecticut.
Introductory to the Anti-Donatist Writings.
By Dr. Hartranft.
On Baptism, against the Donatists
(De Baptismo, contra Donatistas, Libri VII.),
Circa, A.D. 400.
Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta
(Contra Litteras Petiliani Donatistæ Cirtensis Episcopi, Libri III.),
A.D. 400.
The Correction of the Donatists
(De Correctione Donatistarum Liber seu Epistola CLXXXV.),
Circa, A.D. 417.
Index to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.
Index to the Anti-Donatist Writings.
w r I t I n g s
in connection with the
Manichæan controversy
translated by the
Rev. Richard Stothert, M.A.,
Bombay;
and
Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D.
Professor of Church History and Comparative Religion, in Toronto
Baptist (Theological) College, Toronto, Canada.
Introductory Essay on the Manichæan Heresy,
By Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D.
ââââââââââââ
Chapter I.âLiterature.
I. Sources.
The following bibliography of Manichæism is taken from Schaffâs
History of the Christian Church, vol. II. pp. 498â500 (new edition).Â
Additions are indicated by brackets.
1. Oriental Sources:Â The most important, though of comparatively
late date.
(a) Mohammedan (Arabic): Kitâb al Fihrist. A history of Arabic
literature to 987, by an Arab of Bagdad, usually called Ibn Abi Jakub
An-Nadîm; brought to light by Flügel, and published after his death
by Rödiger and Müller, in 2 vols. Leipz. 1871-â72. Book IX.
section first, treats of Manichæism. Flügelâs translation, see
below. Kessler calls the Fihrist a "Fündstätte allerersten
Ranges."Â Next to it comes the relation of the Mohammedan
philosopher, Al-Shahrastani (d. 1153), in his History of Religious
Parties and Philosophical Sects, Ed. Cureton, Lond. 1842, 2 vols. (I.
188â192); German translation by Haarbrücker, Halle, 1851. On other
Mohammedan sources, see Kessler in Herzog, IX., 225 sq.
(b) Persian Sources: relating to the life of Mani, the Shâhnâmeh
(the Kingâs Book) of Firdausi; ed. by Jul. Mohl, Paris, 1866 (V.
472â475). See Kessler, ibid. 225.
[Albiruniâs Chronology of Ancient Nations, tr. by E. Sachau, and
published by the Oriental Translation Fund, Lond. 1879. Albîrunî
lived 973â1048, and is said to have possessed vast literary resources
no longer available to us. His work seems to be based on early
Manichæan sources, and strikingly confirms the narrative preserved by
the Fihrist. See also articles by West and Thomas in Journal of the
Asiatic Society, 1868, 1870, 1871.]
(c)Â Christian Sources:Â In Arabic, the Alexandrian Patriarch
Eutychius (d. 916). Annales, ed. Pococke, Oxon. 1628; Barhebræus (d.
1286), in his Historia Dynastiarum, ed. Pococke. In Syriac:Â
Ephraem Syrus (d. 393), in various writings. Esnig or Esnik, an
Armenian bishop of the 5th Century, who wrote against Marcion and Mani
(German translation from the Armenian by C. Fr. Neumann, in Illgenâs
Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theologie, 1834, pp.77â78).
2. Greek Sources: [Alexander of Lycopolis: The Tenets of the
Manichæans (first published by Combefis, with a Latin version, in the
Auctararium Novissimum, Bibl. S. S. Patrum; again by Gallandi, in his
Bibl. Patrum, vol. IV. p. 73 sq. An English translation by Rev.
James B.H. Hawkins, M .A ., appeared in Clarkâs Ante-Nicene Library,
Vol. XIV. p. 236 sq.; Am. ed. vol. VI. p. 237 sq. Alexander
represents himself as a convert from Paganism to Manichæism, and from
Manichæism to Orthodoxy. He claims to have learned Manichæism from
those who were intimately associated with Mani himself, and is,
therefore, one of the earliest witnesses.[1]1]Â Eusebius (H. E. VII.
31, a brief account). Epiphanius (Haer. 66). Cyril of Jerusalem
(Catech. VI. 20 sq.). Titus of Bostra (près Manica°ous, ed P. de
Lagarde, 1859). Photius: Adv. Manichæos (Cod. 179, Biblioth.).Â
John of Damascus: De Haeres. and Dial. [Petrus Siculus, Hist.
Manichæorum.]
3. Latin Sources: Archelaus (Bishop of Cascar in Mesopotamia, d.
about 278): Acta Disputationis cum Manete Hæresiarcha; first
written in Syriac, and so far belonging to the Oriental Christian
Sources (Comp. Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 72), but extant only in a Latin
translation, which seems to have been made from the Greek, edited by
Zacagni (Rome, 1698), and Routh (in Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. V. 3â206);
Eng. transl. in Clarkâs Ante-Nicene Library (vol. XX. 272â419). [Am.
ed. vol. VI. p. 173 sq.]. These Acts purport to contain the report
of a disputation between Archelaus and Mani before a large assembly,
which was in full sympathy with the orthodox bishop, but (as Beausobre
first proved), they are in form a fiction from the first quarter of
the fourth century (about 320), by a Syrian ecclesiastic (probably of
Edessa), yet based upon Manichæan documents, and containing much
information about Manichæan doctrines. They consist of various
pieces, and were the chief source of information to the West. Mani
is represented (ch. 12), as appearing in a many-colored cloak and
trousers, with a sturdy staff of ebony, a Babylonian book under his
left arm, and with a mien of an old Persian master. In his defense
he quotes freely from the N.T. At the end, he makes his escape to
Persia (ch. 55). Comp. H. V. Zittwitz: Die Acta Archelai et
Manetis untersucht, in Kahnisâ Zeitschrift für d. Hist. Theol. 1873,
No. IV. Oblasinski: Acta Disput. Arch., etc. Lips. 1874 (inaugural
dissert.). Ad. Harnack: Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron
Tatians, in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl. Lit.
vol. I. Heft 3 (1883), p. 137â153. Harnack tries to prove that the
Gospel variations of Archelaus are taken from Tatianâs Diatessaron.
St. Augustin (d. 430, the chief Latin authority next to the
translation of Archelaus). [Besides the treatises published in
Clarkâs series, Contra Fortunatum quendam Manichæorum Presbyterum
Disput. I. et II., Contra Adimantum Manichæi discipulum, Contra
Secundinum Manichæum, De Natura Boni, De duabus Animabus, De
Utilitate Credendi, De Haeres. XLVI. Of these, De duabus Animabus,
Contra Fortunatum, and De Natura Boni are added in the present
edition, and De Utilitate Credendi has been included among Augustinâs
shorter theological treatises in vol. III. of the present series. In
the Confessions and the Letters, moreover, the Manichæans figure
prominently. The treatises included in the present series may be
said to fairly represent Augustinâs manner of dealing with
Manichæism. The Anti-Manichæan writings are found chiefly in vol.
VIII. of the Benedictine edition, and in volumes I. and XI. of the
Migne reprint. Augustinâs personal connection with the sect
extending over a period of nine years, and his consummate ability in
dealing with this form of error, together with the fact that he quotes
largely from Manichæan literature, render his works the highest
authority for Manichæism as it existed in the West at the close of
the fifth century.]Â Comp. also the Acts of Councils against the
Manichæans from the fourth century onwards, in Mansi and Hefele [and
Hardouin].
II. Modern Works.
Isaac de Beausobre (b. 1659 in France, pastor of the French church in
Berlin, d. 1738): Histoire Crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme,
Amst. 1634 and â39, 2 vols. 4to. Part of the first volume is
historical, the second doctrinal. Very full and scholarly. He
intended to write a third volume on the later Manichæans. F. Chr.
Baur: Das Manichäische Religions-system nach den Quellen neu
untersucht und entwickelt, Tüb. 1831 (500 pages). A comprehensive,
philosophical and critical view. He calls the Manich. system a
"glühend prächtiges Natur-und Weltgedicht." [An able critique of
Baurâs work by Schneckenburger appeared in the "Theol. Studien u.
Kritiken," 1833, p. 875 sq. Schneckenburger strives to make it
appear that Baur unduly minifies the Christian element in
Manichæism. Later researches have tended to confirm Baurâs main
position. The Oriental sources employed by Flügel and Kessler have
thrown much light upon the character of primitive Manichæism, and
have enabled us to determine more precisely than Beausobre and Baur
were able to do the constituent elements of Maniâs system. A.V.
Wegnern: Manichæorum Indulgentiæ, Lips. 1827. Wegnern points out
the resemblance between the Manichæan system, in accordance with
which the "hearers" participate in the merits of the "elect" without
subjecting themselves to the rigorous asceticism practiced by the
latter, and the later doctrine and practice of indulgences in the
Roman Catholic church.]Â Trechsel:Â Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese
der Manichäer, Bern, 1832. D. Chwolson: Die Ssabier und der
Ssabismus, Petersb. 1856, 2 vols. G. Flugel: Mani, seine Lehre und
seine Scriften. Aus dem Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadîm (987),
Leipz. 1862. Text, translation and commentary, 440 pages. [Of the
highest value, the principal document on which the work is based
being, probably, the most authentic exposition of primitive Manichæan
doctrine.]Â K. Kessler:Â Untersuchungen zur Genesis des Manich. Rel.
Systems, Leipz. 1876. By the same:  Mânî oder Beiträge zur
Kenntniss der Religionsmischung im Semitismus, Leipz. 1887. See also
his thorough article, Mânî und die Manichær, in "Herzog," new ed.
vol. IX. 223â259 (abridged in Schaffâs "Encyclop." II. 1396â1398).Â
[Kessler has done more than any other writer to establish the relation
between the Manichæans and the earlier Oriental sects, and between
these and the old Babylonian religion. The author of this
introduction wishes to express his deep obligation to Kessler. The
article on the "Mandäer" in "Herzog," by the same author, is valuable
in this connection, though his attempt to exclude all historical
connection between this Babylonian Gnostic sect and Palestine can
hardly be pronounced a success. J. B. Mozley: Ruling Ideas in
Early Ages; lecture on "The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers," with
special reference to Augustinâs method of dealing with the cavils of
the Manichæans.] G. T. Stokes: Manes and Manichæans, in "Smith
and Wace," III. 792â801. A. Harnack: Manichæism in 9th ed. of the
"Encycl. Britannica," vol. XV. (1883), 481â487. [Also in German, as
a Beigabe to his Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, vol. I. p. 681 sq.Â
Harnack follows Kessler in all essential particulars. Of Kesslerâs
article in "Herzog" he says:Â "This article contains the best that we
possess on Manichæism." In this we concur. W. Cunningham:  S.
Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought, Hulsean
Lectures, 1885, p. 45â72, and passim, Lond. 1886. This treatise is
of considerable value, especially as it regards the philosophical
attitude of Augustin towards Manichæism.] The accounts of Mosheim,
Lardner, Schröckh, Walch, Neander, Gieseler [and Wolf].
Chapter II.âPhilosophical Basis, and Antecedents of Manichæism.
"About 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era," writes
Professor Monier Williams,[2]2 "a great stir seems to have taken place
in Indo-Aryan, as in Grecian minds, and indeed in thinking minds
everywhere throughout the then civilized world. Thus when Buddha
arose in India, Greece had her thinkers in Pythagoras, Persia in
Zoroaster, and China in Confucius. Men began to ask themselves
earnestly such questions asâWhat am I? Whence have I come? Whither
am I going? How can I explain my consciousness of personal
existence? What is the relationship between my material and
immaterial nature? What is the world in which I find myself? did a
wise, good and all-powerful Being create it out of nothing? or did it
evolve out of an eternal germ? or did it come together by the
combination of eternal atoms? If created by a Being of infinite
wisdom, how can I account for the inequality of condition in itâgood
and evil, happiness and misery. Has the Creator form or is he
formless? Has he any qualities or none?"
It is true that such questions pressed themselves with special
importunity upon the thinkers of the age mentioned, but we should be
far astray if we should think for a moment that now for the first time
they suggested themselves and demanded solution. The fact is that
the earliest literary records of the human race bear evidence of high
thinking on the fundamental problems of God, man, and the world, and
the relations of these to each other. Recent scholars have brought
to light facts of the utmost interest with reference to the
pre-Babylonian (Accadian) religion. A rude nature-worship, with a
pantheistic basis, but assuming a polytheistic form, seems to have
prevailed in Mesopotamia from a very early period. "Spirit
everywhere dispersed produced all the phenomena of nature, and
directed and animated all created beings. They caused evil and good,
guided the movements of the celestial bodies, brought back the seasons
in their order, made the wind to blow and the rain to fall, and
produced by their influence atmospheric phenomena both beneficial and
destructive; they also rendered the earth fertile, and caused plants
to germinate and to bear fruit, presided over the births and preserved
the lives of living beings, and yet at the same time sent death and
disease. There were spirits of this kind everywhere, in the starry
heavens, in the earth, and in the intermediate region of the
atmosphere; each element was full of them, earth, air, fire and water;
and nothing could exist without themâ¦As evil is everywhere present in
nature side by side with good, plagues with favorable influences,
death with life, destruction with fruitfulness; an idea of dualism as
decided as in the religion of Zoroaster pervaded the conceptions of
the supernatural world formed by the Accadian magicians, the evil
beings of which they feared more than they valued the powers of
good. There were essentially good spirits, and others equally bad.Â
These opposing troops constituted a vast dualism, which embraced the
whole universe and kept up a perpetual struggle in all parts of the
creation."[3]3Â This primitive Turanian quasi-dualism (it was not
dualism in the strictest sense of the term) was not entirely
obliterated by the Cushite and Semitic civilizations and cults that
successively overlaid it. So firmly rooted had this early mode of
viewing the world become that it materially influenced the religions
of the invaders rather than suffered extermination. In the
Babylonian religion of the Semitic period the dualistic element was
manifest chiefly in the magical rites of the Chaldean priests who long
continued to use Accadian as their sacred language. "Upon this
dualistic conception rested the whole edifice of sacred magic, of
magic regarded as a holy and legitimate intercourse established by
rites of divine origin, between man and the supernatural beings
surrounding him on all sides. Placed unhappily in the midst of this
perpetual struggle between the good and bad spirits, man felt himself
attacked by them at every moment; his fate depended upon them.â¦He
needed then some aid against the attacks of the bad spirits, against
the plagues and diseases which they sent upon him. This help he
hoped to find in incantations, in mysterious and powerful words, the
secret of which was known only to the priests of magic, in their
prescribed rites and their talismansâ¦The Chaldeans had such a great
idea of the power and efficacy of their formulæ, rites and amulets,
that they came to regard them as required to fortify the good spirits
themselves in their combat with the demons, and as able to give them
help by providing them with invincible weapons which should ensure
success."[4]4Â A large number of magical texts have been preserved
and deciphered, and among them "the âfavorable Alad,â the âfavorable
Lamma,â and the âfavorable Utuq,â are very frequently opposedâ¦to the
âevil Alad,â the âevil Lamma,â the âevil Utuq.â"[5]5 Â It would be
interesting to give in detail the results of the researches of George
Smith, Lenormant, A.H. Sayce, E. Schrader, Friedrich Delitzsch and
others, with reference to the elaborate mythological and cosmological
systems of the Babylonians. Some of the features thereof will be
brought out further on by way of comparison with the Manichæan
mythology and cosmology. Suffice it to say that the dualistic
element is everywhere manifest, though not in so consistent and
definite a form as in Zoroastrianism, to say nothing of Manichæism.
The Medo-Persian invasion brought into Babylonia the Zoroastrian
system, already modified, no doubt, by the Elamitic (Cushite) cult.Â
Yet the old Babylonian religion was too firmly rooted to be
supplanted, even by the religion of such conquerors as Darius and
Cyrus. Modifications, however, it undoubtedly underwent. The
dualism inherent in the system became more definite. The influence
of the Jews in Mesopotamia upon the ancient population cannot have
been inconsiderable, especially as many of the former, including
probably most of the captives of the Northern tribes, were absorbed by
the latter. As a result of this blending of old Babylonian, Persian,
and Hebrew blood, traditions, and religious ideas, there was developed
in Mesopotamia a type of religious thought that furnished a
philosophical basis and a mythological and cosmological garnishing for
the Manichæan system. Dualism, therefore, arising from efforts of
the unaided human mind to account for the natural phenomena that
appear beneficent and malignant, partly of old Babylonian origin and
partly of Persian, but essentially modified by Hebrew influence more
or less pure, furnished to Mani the foundation of his system. We
shall attempt at a later stage of the discussion to determine more
accurately the relations of Manichæism to the various systems with
which correctly or incorrectly it has been associated. Suffice it to
say, at present, that no new problem presented itself to Mani, and
that he furnished no essentially new solution of the problems that had
occupied the attention of his countrymen for more than 2500 years.Â
Before proceeding to institute a comparison between Manichæism and
the various systems of religious thought to which it stands related,
it will be advantageous to have before us an exposition of the
Manichæan system itself, based upon the most authentic sources.
Chapter III.âThe Manichæan System.
Earlier writers on Manichæism have, for the most part, made the Acta
Disp. Archelai et Manetis and the anti-Manichæan writings of Augustin
the basis of their representations. For later Manichæism in the
West, Augustin is beyond question the highest authority, and the
various polemical treatises which he put forth exhibit the system
under almost every imaginable aspect. The "Acts of the Disputation
of Archelaus and Manes," while it certainly rests upon a somewhat
extensive and accurative knowledge of early Manichæism, is partially
discredited by its generally admitted spuriousnessâspuriousness in the
sense that it is not a genuine record of a real debate. It is highly
probable that debates of this kind occurred between Mani and various
Christian leaders in the East, and so Mani may at one time or other
have given utterance to most of the statements that are attributed to
him in this writing; or these statements may have been derived, for
substance, from his numerous treatises, and have been artfully adapted
to the purposes of the writer of the "Acts."Â It is certain that most
of the representations are correct. But we can no longer rely upon
it as an authentic first-hand authority. Since Flügel published the
treatise from the Fihrist entitled "The Doctrines of the Manichæans,
by Muhammad ben Ishâk," with a German translation and learned
annotations, it has been admitted that this treatise must be made the
basis for all future representations of Manichæism. Kessler, while
he has had access to many other Oriental documents bearing upon the
subject, agrees with Flügel in giving the first place to this
writing. On this exposition of the doctrines of the Manichæans,
therefore, as expounded by Flügel and Kessler, we must chiefly
rely. The highly poetical mythological form which Mani gave to his
speculations renders it exceedingly difficult to arrive at assured
results with reference to fundamental principles. If we attempt to
state in a plain matter-of-fact way just what Mani taught we are in
constant danger of misrepresenting him. In fact one of the favorite
methods employed against Maniâs doctrines by the writer of the "Acts
of the Disputation," etc., as well as by Augustin and others, was to
reduce Maniâs poetical fancies to plain language and thus to show
their absurdity. The considerations which have led experts like
Flügel and Kessler to put so high an estimate upon this document, and
the discussions as to the original language in which the sources of
the document were written, are beyond the scope of this essay.Â
Suffice it to say, that so far as we are able to form a judgment on
the matter, the reasons for ascribing antiquity and authenticity to
the representation of Manichæism contained in the document are
decisive.
1. Maniâs Life. According to the Fihrist, Maniâs father, a Persian
by race, resided at Coche on the Tigris, about forty miles north of
Babylon. Afterwards he removed into Babylonia and settled at Modein,
where he frequented an idol-temple like the rest of the people. He
next became associated with a party named Mugtasila (Baptizers),
probably identical with or closely related to the Mandæans and
Sabeans, both of which parties made much of ceremonial bathings.Â
Mani, who was born after the removal to Babylonia, is related to have
been the recipient of angelic visitations at the age of twelve. Even
at this time he was forewarned that he must leave the religion of his
father at the age of twenty-four. At the appointed time the angel
At-Taum appeared again and announced to him his mission. "Hail,
Mani, from me and the Lord, who has sent me to thee and chosen thee
for his mission. But he commands thee to invite men to thy doctrine
and to proclaim the glad tidings of truth that comes from him, and to
bestow thereon all thy zeal."Â Mani entered upon his work, according
to Flügelâs careful computation, April 1, 238, or, according to
calculations based on another statement, in 252. Mani maintained
that he was the Paraclete promised by Jesus. He is said, in this
document, to have derived his teaching from the Magi and the
Christians, and the characters in which he wrote his books, from the
Syriac and the Persian. After travelling in many lands for forty
years and disseminating his doctrines in India, China, and Turkestan,
he succeeded in impressing his views upon Fîrûz, brother of King
Sapor, who had intended to put him to death. Sapor became warmly
attached to Mani and granted toleration to his followers.Â
Afterwards, according to some accounts, Mani was imprisoned by Sapor
and liberated by his successor Hormizd. He is said to have been
crucified by order of King Bahraîm I. (276-â7), and his skin stuffed
with straw is said to have been suspended at the city gate. Eusebius
(H. E. VII. 31) describes Mani as "a barbarian in life, both in speech
and conduct, who attempted to form himself into a Christ, and then
also proclaimed himself to be the very Paraclete and the Holy
Spirit. Then, as if he had been Christ, he selected twelve
disciples, the partners of his new religion, and after patching
together false and ungodly doctrines collected from a thousand
heresies long since extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison
from Persia, upon this part of the world."Â The account given in the
Acta Archel (written probably about 330-â40), is far more detailed
than that of the Fihrist and differs widely therefrom. It contains
much that is highly improbable. Mani is represented as having for
his predecessors one Scythianus, an Egyptian heretic of Apostolic
times, and Terebinthus, who went with him to Palestine and after the
death of Scythianus removed to Babylonia. The writings of
Terebinthus or Scythianus came into the possession of a certain widow,
who purchased Mani when seven years of age (then named Cubricus) and
made him heir of her property and books. He changed his name to Mani
(Manes), and, having become imbued with the teachings of the books,
began at about sixty years of age to promulgate their teachings,
choosing three disciples, Thomas, Addas and Hermas, to whom he
entrusted the writings mentioned above, along with some of his own.Â
Up to this time he knew little of Christianity, but having been
imprisoned by the king for failure in a promised cure of the kingâs
son, he studied the Christian Scriptures and derived therefrom the
idea of the Paraclete, which he henceforth applied to himself. After
his escape the famous dialogue with Archelaus and that with Diodorus
occurred. Returning to Arabion he was arrested, carried to Persia,
flayed alive, and his skin stuffed and suspended as above. Some
additional facts from an Oriental source used by Beausobre have more
or less verisimilitude. According to this, Mani was born of Magian
parents about 240 A.D. He became skilled in music, mathematics,
geography, astronomy, painting, medicine, and in the Scriptures. The
account of his ascendancy over Sapor and his subsequent martyrdom is
substantially the same as that of the Fihrist. Albîrunîâs work
(see bibliography preceding) confirms the account given by the
Fihrist. The conversion of Sapor to Manichæism (in A.D. 261) is
said to be confirmed by Sassanian inscriptions (see Journal of Asiat.
Soc. 1868 p. 310-â41, and ibid. p. 376, and 1871 p. 416).
The Fihristâs account contains a long list of the works of Mani, which
is supplemented by other Oriental and Western notices. The list is
interesting as showing the wide range of Maniâs literary activity, or
at least of the literature that was afterwards connected with his
name.
2. Maniâs System. As the life of Mani has been the subject of
diversified and contradictory representations, so also have his
doctrines. Here, too, we must make the account given by the Fihrist
fundamental. It will be convenient to treat the subject under the
following heads:Â Theology, Cosmogony, Anthropology, Soteriology,
Cultus, Eschatology, and Ethics.
(1.) Theology. Mani taught dualism in the most unqualified
sense. Zoroastrianism is commonly characterized as dualistic, yet it
is so in no such sense as is Manichæism. According to the Fihrist,
"Mani teaches:Â Two subsistences form the beginning of the world, the
one light the other darkness; the two are separated from each other.Â
The light is the first most glorious being, limited by no number, God
himself, the King of the Paradise of Light. He has five members:Â
meekness, knowledge, understanding, mystery, insight; and five other
spiritual members: love, faith, truth, nobleness, and wisdom. He
maintained furthermore that the God of light, with these his
attributes, is without beginning, but with him two equally eternal
things likewise exist, the one the atmosphere, the other the earth.Â
Mani adds:Â and the members of the atmosphere are five [the first
series of divine attributes mentioned above are enumerated]; and the
members of the earth are five [the second series]. The other being
is the darkness, and his members are five:Â cloud, burning, hot wind,
poison, and darkness. Mani teaches: that the light subsistence
borders immediately on the dark subsistence, without a dividing wall
between them; the light touches with its (lowest) side the darkness,
while upwards to the right and left it is unbounded. Even so the
darkness is endless downwards and to the right and left."
This represents Maniâs view of the eternally existent status quo,
before the conflict began, and the endless state after the conflict
ceases. What does Mani mean, when he enumerates two series of five
attributes each as members of God, and straightway postulates the
co-eternity of atmosphere and earth and divides these self-same
attributes between the latter? Doubtless Maniâs theology was
fundamentally pantheistic, i.e., pantheistic within the limits of each
member of the dualism. The God of Light himself is apparently
conceived of as transcending thought. Atmosphere and Earth (not the
atmosphere and earth that we know, but ideal atmosphere and earth) are
the æons derived immediately from the Ineffable One and coëternal
with him. The ten attributes are æons which all belong primarily to
the Supreme Being and secondarily to the two great æons, half to
each. The question may arise, and has been often discussed, whether
Mani meant to identify God (the Prince of Light) with the Kingdom of
Light? His language, in this treatise, is wavering. He seems to
struggle against such a representation, yet without complete success.
What do the other sources teach with reference to the absoluteness of
the dualism and with reference to the identification of the Prince of
Light with the Kingdom of Light? According to the Acts of the
Disputation of Archelaus and Manes,[6]6Manes "worships two deities,
unoriginated, self-existent, eternal, opposed the one to the other.Â
Of them he represents the one as good, and the other as evil, and
assigned the name of Light to the former, and that of Darkness to the
latter."Â Again, Manes is represented as saying:Â "I hold that there
are two natures, one good and another evil; and that the one which is
good dwells in a certain part proper to it, but that the evil one is
this world as well as all things in it, which are placed there like
objects imprisoned in the portion of the wicked one" (1 John 5, 19).Â
According to Alexander of Lycopolis,[7]7 "Mani laid down two
principles, God and matter (Hyle). God he called good, and matter he
affirmed to be evil. But God excelled more in good than matter in
evil."Â Alexander goes on to show how Mani used the word Hyle,
comparing the Manichæan with the Platonic teaching. Statements of
substantially the same purport might be multiplied. As regards the
identification of God (the King of Light) with the Kingdom of Light,
and of Satan (the King of Darkness) with the Kingdom of Darkness, the
sensuous poetical way in which Mani expressed his doctrines may leave
us in doubt. The probability is, however, that he did
pantheistically identify each element of the dualism with his
Kingdom. He personifies the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of
Darkness, and peoples these Kingdoms with fanciful beings, which are
to be regarded as personified attributes of the principles of darkness
and light.
A word on the Manichæan conception of matter or Hyle may not be out
of place in this connection. It would seem that the Manichæans
practically identified Hyle or matter with the Kingdom of Darkness.Â
At any rate Hyle is unoriginated and belongs wholly to this Kingdom.
(2.) Cosmogony. So much for the Manichæan idea of the Kingdom of
Light and the Kingdom of Darkness before the great conflict that
resulted in the present order of things. Why did not they remain
separate? Let us learn from the Fihristâs narrative: "Mani teaches
further:Â Out of this dark earth [the Kingdom of Darkness] arose
Satan, not that he was in himself eternal from the beginning, yet were
his substances in his elements unoriginated. These substances now
united themselves out of his elements and went forth as Satan, his
head as the head of a lion, his body as the body of a dragon, his
wings as the wings of a bird, his tail as the tail of a great fish,
and his four feet as the feet of creeping animals. When this Satan
under the name Iblis, the (temporally considered) eternal (primeval),
had arisen out of the darkness, he devoured and consumed everything,
spread destruction right and left, and plunged into the deep, in all
these movements bringing down from above desolation and
annihilation. Then he strove for the height, and descried the beams
of light; but they were opposed to him. When he saw later how
exalted these were, he was terrified, shrivelled up, and merged
himself in his elements. Hereupon he strove anew with such violence
after the height, that the land of light descried the doings of Satan
and how he was bent upon murder and destruction. After they had been
apprised thereof, the world of Insight learned of it, then the world
of Knowledge, then the world of Mystery, then the world of
Understanding, then the world of Meekness. When at last, he further
teaches, the King of the Paradise of Light had also learned of it, he
thought how he might suppress Satan, and, Mani adds, those hosts of
his would have been mighty enough to overpower Satan. Yet he desired
to do this by means of his own might. Accordingly, he produced by
means of the spirit of his right hand [i.e., the Gentle Breeze], his
five worlds, and his twelve elements, a creature, and this is the
(temporally considered) Eternal Man [Primordial Man], and summoned him
to do battle with the Darkness. But Primordial Man, Mani adds, armed
himself with the five races [natures], and these are the five gods,
the Gentle Breeze, the Wind, the Light, the Water and the Fire. Of
them he made his armor, and the first that he put on was the Gentle
Breeze. He then covered the Gentle Breeze with the burning Light as
with a mantle. He drew over the Light Water filled with atoms, and
covered himself with the blowing Wind. Hereupon he took the Fire as
a shield and as a lance in his hand, and precipitated himself suddenly
out of Paradise until he reached the border of the region that is
contiguous to the battle-field. The Primordial Devil also took his
five races [natures]:Â Smoke, Burning, Darkness, Hot Wind and Cloud;
armed himself with them; made of them a shield for himself; and went
to meet Primordial Man. After they had fought for a long time the
Primordial Devil vanquished the Primordial Man, devoured some of his
light, and surrounded him at the same time with his races and
elements. Then the King of the Paradise of Light sent other gods,
freed him, and vanquished the Darkness. But he who was sent by the
King of Light to rescue Primordial Man is called the Friend of the
Light. This one made a precipitate descent, and Primordial Man was
freed from the hellish substances, along with that which he had
snatched from the spirit of Darkness and which had adhered to him.Â
When, therefore, Mani proceeds, Joyfulness and the Spirit of Life drew
near to the border, they looked down into the abyss of this deep hell
and saw Primordial Man and the angels [i.e., the races or natures with
which he was armed], how Iblis, the Proud Oppressors, and the Dark
Life surrounded them. And the Spirit of Life, says Mani, called
Primordial Man with a loud voice as quick as lightning and Primordial
Man became another god. When the Primordial Devil had ensnared
Primordial Man in the battle, Mani further teaches, the five parts of
the Light were mingled with the five parts of the Darkness."
Let us see if we can get at the meaning of this great cosmological
poem as far as we have gone. The thing to be accounted for is the
mixture of good and evil. The complete separation of the eternally
existent Kingdoms of Light and Darkness has been posited. How now
are we to account for the mixture of light and darkness, of good and
evil, in the present order of things? Mani would account for it by
supposing that a conflict had occurred between an insufficiently
equipped representative of the King of Light and the fully equipped
ruler of the Kingdom of Darkness. His view of the vastly superior
power of the King of Light would not allow him to suppose that the
King of Light fully equipped had personally contended with the King of
Darkness, and suffered the loss and contamination of his elements.Â
Yet he only clumsily obviates this difficulty; for Primordial Man is
produced and equipped by the King of Light for the very purpose of
combating the King of Darkness, and Mani saves the King of Light from
personal contamination only by impugning his judgment.
We have now reached the point where, as a result of the conflict, good
and evil are blended. We must beware of supposing that Mani meant to
ascribe any kind of materiality to the members of the Kingdom of
Light. The Kingdom of Light, on the contrary, he regarded as purely
spiritual; the Kingdom of Darkness as material. We have now the
conditions for the creation of the present order of things, including
man. How does Mani picture the process and the results of this
mixing of the elements?
"The smoke (or vapor) was mingled with the gentle breeze (zephyr), and
the present atmosphere resulted. So that whatever of agreeableness
and power to quicken the soul and animal life is found in it
[resultant air], is from the zephyr, and whatever of destructiveness
and noisomeness is found in it, proceeds from the smoke. The burning
was mingled with the fire; therefore whatever of conflagration,
destruction and ruin is found, is from the burning, but whatever of
brightness and illumination is in it [the resultant fire], springs
from the fire. The light mingled itself with the darkness; therefore
in dense bodies as gold, silver and the like, whatever of brightness,
beauty, purity and other useful qualities occurs, is from the light,
and whatever of tarnish, impurity, density and hardness occurs,
springs from the darkness. The hot wind was mingled with the wind;
whatever now is useful and agreeable in this [resultant wind] springs
from the wind, and whatever of uneasiness, hurtfulness and deleterious
property is found in it [resultant wind] is from the hot wind.Â
Finally, the mist was mingled with the water, so that what is found in
this [resultant water] of clearness, sweetness, and soul-satisfying
property, is from the water; whatever, on the contrary, of
overwhelming, suffocating, and destroying power, of heaviness, and
corruption, is found in it, springs from the mist."
But we must from this point abbreviate the somewhat prolix account.Â
Primordial Man, after the blending of the elements, ascended on high
accompanied by "one of the angels of this intermingling;" in other
words, snatching away a part of the imprisoned elements of the Kingdom
of Light.
The next step is the creation of the present world, which Mani
ascribes to the King of the World of Light, the object being to
provide for the escape of the imprisoned elements of Light. Through
an angel he constructed ten heavens and eight earths, an angel being
appointed to hold heavens and earths in their places. A description
of the stairways, doors, and halls of the heavens is given in the
Fihristâs narrative. The stairways lead to the "height of heaven."Â
The air was used as a medium for connecting heaven and earth. A pit
was formed to be the receptacle of darkness from which the light
should be liberated. The sun and the moon were created to be the
receptacles of the light that should be liberated from the darkness,
the sun for light that has been mingled with "hot devils," the moon
for that which had been mingled with "cold devils."Â The moon is
represented as collecting light during the first half-month, and
during the second pouring it into the sun. When the sun and moon
have liberated all the light they are able, there will be a fire
kindled on the earth which will burn for 1468 years, when there will
be no light left. The King of Darkness and his hosts will thereupon
withdraw into the pit prepared for them.
(3.) Anthropology. So much for the liberation of the imprisoned
light, which, according to Mani, was the sole object of creation. As
yet we have heard nothing of the creation of living creatures. What
place do man, the lower animals, and plants sustain in the Manichæan
economy? We are to keep constantly in mind that Primordial Man was
not Adam, but a divine æon, and that he ascended into the heights
immediately after the blending of parts of his armor with darkness.Â
The creation of earthly man was an altogether different affair. We
must give the account of manâs creation in Maniâs own words, as
preserved by the Fihrist:Â "Hereupon one of those Arch-fiends and
[one] of the Stars, and Overmastering Violence, Avarice, Lust, and
Sin, copulated, and from their copulation sprang the first man, who is
Adam, two Arch-fiends, a male and a female, directing the process. A
second copulation followed and from this sprang the beautiful woman
who is Eve."
Man, therefore, unlike the world, is the creature of demons, the aim
of the demons being to imprison in man, through the propagation of the
race, as much as possible of the light, and so to hinder the
separating process by the sun and the moon. Avarice is represented
as having secretly seized some of the divine light and imprisoned it
in man. The part played by the Star in the production of man is
somewhat obscure in the narrative, yet the Star could hardly have been
regarded as wholly evil. Probably the Star was thought of as a
detached portion of the light that had not entered into the sun or the
moon. "When, therefore, the five Angels saw what had taken place,
they besought the Messenger of Joyful Knowledge, the Mother of Life,
Primordial Man and the Spirit of Life, to send some one to liberate
and save man, to reveal to him knowledge and righteousness, and to
free him from the power of the devils. They sent, accordingly,
Jesus, whom a god accompanied. These seized the two Arch-fiends,
imprisoned them and freed the two creatures (Adam and Eve.)"
Jesus warned Adam of Eveâs violent importunity, and Adam obeyed his
injunction not to go near her. One of the Arch-fiends, however,
begat with her a son named Cain, who in turn begat Abel of his mother,
and afterwards two maidens Worldly wise and Daughter-of-Avarice.Â
Cain took the first to wife and gave the other to Abel. An angel
having begotten of Worldly-wise two beautiful daughters (Raufarjâd
and Barfarjâd), Abel accused Cain of the act. Cain enraged by the
false accusation slew Abel and took Worldly-wise to wife. So far
Adam had kept himself pure, but Eve was instructed by a demon in the
art of enchanting, and she was enabled to excite his lust and to
entrap him. By Adam she bore a beautiful son, whom the demon urged
Eve to destroy. Adam stole the child away and brought it up on cowâs
milk and fruit. This son was named Seth (Schatil). Adam once more
yielded to Eveâs fascinations, but through Sethâs exhortations was
induced to flee "eastward to the light and the wisdom of God."Â Adam,
Seth, Raufarjâd, Barfarjâd, and Worldly-wise died and went to
Paradise; while Eve, Cain, and Daughter-of-Avarice went into Hell.Â
This fantastic perversion of the Biblical narrative of the creation
and fall of man has many parallels in Rabbinic literature, and
doubtless Mani first became acquainted with the narrative in a
corrupted form. The teaching, however, of this mythologizing
evidently is that the indulgence of the flesh and the begetting of
children furnish the chief obstacle to the separation of light from
darkness. Adam is represented as striving to escape from the
allurements of Eve, but Eve is aided by demonic craft in overcoming
him. Yet Adam does not become enslaved to lust, and so at last is
saved. Eve, lustful from the beginning, is lost along with those of
like disposition.
(4.) Soteriology. Such was, apparently, Maniâs conception of the
creation of man, and of the attempts to liberate the light that was in
him. What were his practical teachings to men of his time as to the
means of escape from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of
Light? What view did Mani take of the historical Jesus? The Jesus
who warned Adam against the seductions of Eve was evidently not the
Jesus of the New Testament. According to the narrative of the
Fihrist, Mani "maintained that Jesus is a devil."Â Such a statement
occurs nowhere else, so far as we are aware, in the literature of
Manichæism. The sources, however, are unanimous in ascribing to
Mani a completely docetical view of the person of Christ. In using
this blasphemous language, he probably referred to the representations
of Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, which he regarded as Jewish and
abominable. The New Testament narratives Mani [or at least his
followers] regarded as interpolated in the interest of Judaism.Â
Later Manichæans, under the influence of Marcionism (and orthodoxy)
gave to Jesus a far more prominent place in the economy of manâs
salvation than did Mani himself.
How then is man to be saved according to Mani? It is by rigorous
asceticism, and by the practice of certain ceremonial observances.Â
Mani does not rise above the plane of ordinary heathenism in his plan
of salvation. "It is incumbent upon him who will enter into the
religion that he prove himself, and that if he sees that he is able to
subdue lust and avarice, to leave off the eating of all kinds of
flesh, the drinking of wine, and connubial intercourse, and to
withhold himself from what is injurious in water, fire, magic and
hypocrisy, he may enter into the religion; but if not let him abstain
from entering. But if he loves religion, yet is not able to repress
sensuality and avarice, yet he may make himself serviceable for the
maintenance of religion and of the Truthful [i.e. the âElectâ], and
may meet (offset) his corrupt deeds through the use of opportunities
where he wholly gives himself up to activity, righteousness, zealous
watchfulness, prayer and pious humiliation; for this suffices him in
this transitory world and in the future eternal world, and his form in
the last day will be the second form, of which, God willing, we shall
treat further below."
The doctrine of indulgences of which the germs appeared in the
Catholic church even before the time of Mani, is here seen fully
developed. What the Greek and Latin sources call the Elect or
Perfect and the Hearers, are undoubtedly indicated here by those who
are able to devote themselves to rigidly ascetical living, and those
who, without such qualifications, are willing to exert themselves
fully on behalf of the cause. These latter evidently become
partakers of the merits of those who carry out the ascetical
regulations. That this is primitive Manichæan doctrine is
abundantly proved by the general agreement of ancient writers of all
classes. It is noteworthy that nothing Christian appears among the
conditions of Manichæan discipleship. It is not faith in Christ,
but the ability to follow a particular kind of outward life that
confers standing in the Manichæan society.
(5.) Cultus. Let us next look at the precepts of Mani to the
initiated:Â "Mani imposed upon his disciples commandments, namely,
ten commandments, and to these are attached three seals, and fasts of
seven days in each month. The commandments are: Faith in the four
most glorious essences:Â God, his Light, his Power, and his Wisdom.Â
But God, whose name is glorious, is the King of the Paradise of Light;
his Light is the sun and the moon, his Power the five angels:Â Gentle
Breeze, Wind, Light, Water and Fire; and his Wisdom the Sacred
Religion. This embraces five ideas: that of teachers, the sons of
Meekness; that of those enlightened by the Sun, sons of Knowledge;
that of the presbyters, sons of Reason; that of the Truthful, sons of
Mystery; that of Hearers, sons of Insight. The ten commandments
are:Â Abandoning of prayer to idols, of lies, avarice, murder,
adultery, theft, of the teaching of jugglery and magic, of duplicity
of mind, which betrays doubt on religion, of drowsiness and inertness
in business; and the commandment of four or seven prayers. In prayer
one is to stand upright, rub himself with flowing water or with
something else, and turn while standing to the great light (the Sun),
then prostrate himself and in this position pray:Â Blessed be our
Leader, the Paraclete, the Ambassador of the Light, blessed be his
angels, the Guardians, and highly praised be his resplendent hosts.â¦
In the second prostration let him say:Â Thou highly praised, O thou
enlightening one, Mani, our Leader, thou root of enlightenment, stem
of honorableness, thou great tree who art altogether the means of
salvation. In the third prostration let him say: I fall down and
praise with pure heart and upright tongue the great God, the Father of
Light, and their element, highly praised, Blessed One, thou and thy
whole glory and thy blessed world, which thou hast called into
being. For he praises thee who praises thy Host, thy Righteous Ones,
thy Word, thy Glory, and thy Good Pleasure, because thou art the God
who is wholly truth, life and righteousness. In the fourth
prostration let him say:Â I praise and fall down before all the gods,
all the enlightening angels, before all Light and all Hosts, who are
from the great God. In the fifth prostration let him say: I fall
down and praise the great Host and the enlightening Gods, who with
their wisdom assail the Darkness, drive it out and triumph over it.Â
In the sixth prostration let him say:Â I fall down and praise the
Father of Glory, the Exalted One, the Enlightening One, who has come
forth from the two sciences (see note in Flügel p. 310), and so on to
the twelfth prostration. * * The first prayer is accomplished at
mid-day, the second between this hour and sunset; then follows the
prayer at eventide, after sunset, and hereupon the prayer in the first
quarter of the night, three hours after sunset.
"As regards fasting, when the sun is in Sagittarius, and the moon has
its full light, fasting is to take place for two days without
interruption, also when the new moon begins to appear; likewise when
the moon first becomes visible again after the sun has entered into
the sign of Capricorn; then when the new moon begins to appear, the
sun stands in Aquarius and from the moon eight days have flowed, a
fast of thirty days occurs, broken, however, daily at sunset. The
common Manichæans celebrate Sunday, the consecrated ones (the
âElectâ) Monday."
Here we have a somewhat detailed account of the cultus of the early
Manichæans. The forms of invocation do not differ materially from
those of the Zoroastrians, of the early Indians, of the Babylonians,
and of the Egyptians. There is not the slightest evidence of
Christian influence. The times of worship and of fasting are
determined by the sun and the moon, and practically these are the
principal objects of worship. It is certain that Mani himself was
regarded by his followers as the most perfect revealer of God that had
ever appeared among men, and, according to this account, he taught his
followers to worship him. We cannot fail to see in this Manichæan
cult the old Oriental pantheism modified by a dualism, of which the
most fully developed form was the Persian, but which, as we have seen,
was by no means confined to Zoroastrianism.
(6.) Eschatology. We must conclude our exposition of the doctrines
of the Manichæans by quoting from the Fihrist Maniâs teachings on
eschatology.
"When death approaches a Truthful One (âElectâ), teaches Mani,
Primordial Man sends a Light-God in the form of a guiding Wise One,
and with him three gods, and along with these the water-vessel,
clothing, head-gear, crown, and garland of light. With them comes
the maiden, like the soul of this Truthful One. There appears to him
also the devil of avarice and lust, along with other devils. As soon
as the Truthful Man sees these he calls the goddess who has assumed
the form of the Wise One and the three other gods to his help, and
they draw near him. As soon as the devils are aware of their
presence they turn and flee. The former, however, take this Truthful
One, clothe him with the crown, the garland and the robe, put the
water-vessel in his hand and mount with him upon the pillars of
promise to the sphere of the moon, to Primordial Man, and to Nahnaha,
the Mother of the Living, to the position in which he was at first in
the Paradise of Light. But his body remains lying as before in order
that the sun, the moon, and the gods of Light may withdraw from it the
powers, i.e., the water, the fire and the gentle breeze, and he rises
to the sun and becomes a god. But the rest of his body, which is
wholly darkness, is cast into hell."
In the case of Manichæans of the lower order, described above, the
same divine personages appear at his summons. "They free him also
from devils, but he ceases not to be like a man in the world, who in
his dreams sees frightful forms and sinks into filth and mire. In
this condition he remains, until his light and his spirit are
liberated and he has attained to the place of union with the Truthful,
and after a long period of wandering to and fro puts on their
garments."
To the sinful man, on the other hand, the divine personages appear,
not to free him from the devils that are tormenting him, but rather to
"overwhelm him with reproaches, to remind him of his deeds, and
strikingly to convince him that he has renounced help for himself,
from the side of the Truthful. Then wanders he round about in the
world, unceasingly chased by torments, until this order of things
ceases, and along with the world he is cast into hell."
There is nothing original about the eschatology of Mani, and scarcely
anything Christian. We see in it a fully developed doctrine of
purgatory, somewhat like the Platonic, and still more like that of the
later Catholic church. Salvation consists simply in the liberation
of the light from the darkness. In the case of the Elect this takes
place immediately after death; in the case of adherents who have not
practiced the prescribed forms of asceticism, it takes place only
after considerable torment. In the case of the ordinary sensual man,
there is no deliverance. Doubtless Mani would have held that in his
case, too, whatever particles of light may have been involved in his
animal structure are liberated from the dead body.
(7.) Ethics. As regards ceremonies we find little that enlightens
us in the Fihristâs account. Water (that is, water apart from the
deleterious elements that have become blended with it) was regarded by
Mani as one of the divine elements. The ablutions in running water
mentioned above in connection with the prayers may have sustained some
relation to baptism, but can hardly be ascribed to Christian
influence. The connection of the Manichæans with the Mandæans, who
made much of ceremonial bathing, will be considered below. It is
certain that Maniâs father was connected with a baptizing party, viz.,
the Mugtasilah. According to the Fihrist Mani was the author of an
Epistle on Baptism. The question whether Mani and his followers
practised water-baptism or not is by no means an easy one to solve.Â
The passage cited by Giesseler from Augustin to prove that the "Elect"
were initiated by baptism is inconclusive. Augustin acknowledges
that God and the Manichæans themselves alone know what takes place in
the secret meetings of the "Elect."Â Whatever ceremonies they
performed, whether baptism or the Lordâs supper, or some other, were
matters of profound secrecy, and so we need not wonder at the lack of
definite information. From a passage quoted by Augustin in his
report of a discussion with Felix the Manichæan, we should certainly
infer that both ordinances were practised in some form by the
Manichæans of the West. But Augustin himself says that Manichæans
deny the saving efficacy of baptism, maintain that it is superfluous,
do not require it of those whom they win to their views, etc. It is
certain, therefore, that if they practised baptism and the Lordâs
supper at all, they attached to it a meaning radically different from
that of Augustin. It is possible that a ceremonial anointing with
oil took the place of baptism. (Baur, p. 277 sq.). Augustin
mentions a disgusting ceremony in which human semen was partaken of by
the Elect in order to deliver the imprisoned light contained therein
(De Haeres. 46), and he calls this ceremony a sort of Eucharist. But
his confessed ignorance of the doings of the "Elect" discredits in
some measure this accusation.
The Fihrist gives us no definite information about the three
signacula. The seals (not signs) of the mouth, the hand (or hands),
and of the bosom. In these are contained symbolically the Manichæan
moral system. In the book Sadder (Hyde, p. 492) we read: "It is
taught [by the Manichæans] to abstain from every sin, to eliminate
every sin from hand, and tongue and thought."Â Augustin explains the
signacula more fully and represents the Manichæans as attaching great
importance to them:Â "When I name the mouth, I mean all the senses
that are in the head; when I name the hand I mean every operation;
when I name the bosom I mean every seminal lust."
It is confidently believed that the foregoing account of the
Manichæan system, based upon the Arabic narratives preserved by the
Fihrist, supplemented by the principal Eastern and Western sources,
contains the essential facts with reference to this strange system of
religious thought. Our next task will to be to ascertain, as
precisely as possible, the relations that Manichæism sustained to the
various religious systems with which it has commonly been associated.
Chapter IV.âRelation of Manichæism to Zoroastrianism.
The very close connection of these two systems has commonly been
presupposed, and is undeniable. In fact Manichæism has frequently
been represented as Zoroastrian dualism, slightly modified by contact
with Christianity and other systems. No one could possibly gain even
a superficial view of the two systems without being strongly impressed
with their points of resemblance. A closer examination, however,
will reveal points of antagonism just as striking, and will enable us
to account for the fact that Mani was put to death by a zealous
Zoroastrian ruler on account of his recognized hostility to the state
religion. The leading features of the Manichæan system are already
before us. Instead of quoting at length from the Zend-Avesta, which
is now happily accessible in an excellent English translation, we may
for the sake of brevity quote Tieleâs description of Zoroastrian
dualism as a basis of comparison:[8]8
"Parsism is decidedly dualistic, not in the sense of accepting two
hostile deities, for it recognizes no worship of evil beings, and
teaches the adoration only of Ahura Mazda and the spirits subject to
him; but in the sense of placing in hostility to each other two
sharply divided kingdoms, that of light, of truth, and of purity, and
that of darkness, of falsehood, and of impurity. This division is
carried through the whole creation, organic and inorganic, material
and spiritual. Above, in the highest sphere, is the domain of the
undisputed sovereignty of the All-wise God; beneath, in the lowest
abyss, the kingdom of his mighty adversary; midway between the two
lies this world, the theatre of the contest.⦠This dualism further
dominates the cosmogony, the cultus, and the entire view of the moral
order of the world held by the Mazda worshippers. Not only does
Anro-Maînyus (Ahriman) spoil by his counter-creations all the good
creations of Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd), but by slaying the protoplasts of
man and beast, he brings death into the world, seduces the first pair
to sin, and also brings forth noxious animals and plants. Man finds
himself, in consequence, surrounded on all sides by the works of the
spirits of darkness and by his hosts. It is the object of worship to
secure the pious against their influence."
Let us bring in review some of the points of resemblance between the
two systems. Both are in a sense dualistic. In both the kingdoms
of Light and Darkness are set over against each other in the sharpest
antagonism. In both we have similar emanations from these kingdoms
(or kings). Yet, while in the Manichæan system the dualism is
absolute and eternal, in the later Zoroastrian system (as in the
Jewish and Christian doctrine of Satan), Ahriman (Satan) if not merely
a fallen creature[9]9 of Ormuzd (the good and supreme God) was at
least an immeasurably inferior being. The supreme control of the
universe, to which it owes its perfect order, was ascribed by
Zoroastrianism to Ormuzd. The struggle between good and evil,
beneficent and malevolent, was due to the opposition of the mighty,
but not almighty, Ahriman. Whatever form of Mazdeism
(Zoroastrianism) we take for purposes of comparison, we are safe in
saying that the Manichæan dualism was by far the more absolute.
In both systems each side of the dualism is represented by a series
(or rather several series) of personified principles. These agree in
the two systems in some particulars. Yet the variations are quite as
noticeable as the agreements. There is much in common between the
Manichæan and the Zoroastrian delineations of the fearful conflict
between the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness, yet the
beginning of the conflict is quite differently conceived of in the two
systems. In Manichæism the creation is accounted for by the
conflict in which Primordial Man was beaten by the powers of Darkness
and suffered the mixing of his elements with the elements of
darkness. The actual world was made by the good God, or rather by
his subordinates, as a means of liberating the imprisoned light. The
creation of man is ascribed, on the other hand, to the King of
Darkness (or his subordinates), with a view to hindering the escape of
the mingled light by diffusion thereof through propagation. Mazdeism
derives the creation solely from Ormuzd, from whose hand it issued "as
pure and perfect as himself" (Lenormant, Anc. Hist. II. p. 30). It
was the work of Ahriman to "spoil it by his evil influence."Â The
appellation "Maker of the material world" is constantly applied to
Ormuzd in the Vendîdâd and other sacred books. The most instructive
Mazdean account of the creation that has come down to us is that
contained in the Vendîdâd, Fargard I. Ahura Mazda (Ormuzd) is
represented here as naming one by one the sixteen good lands that he
had created. Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) is represented as coming to
each, one by one, and creating in it noxious things. Examples of
these counter-creations are, the serpents, winter, venomous flies,
sinful lusts, mosquitoes, pride, unnatural sin, burying the dead,
witchcraft, the sin of unbelief, the burning of corpses, abnormal
issues in women, oppression of foreign rulers, excessive heat, etc.Â
This jumble of physical evils and sins is characteristic of Mazdeism.
According to Mani matter is inherently evil, and it only ceases to be
absolutely evil by the mixture with it of the elements of the Kingdom
of Light. Creation is a process forced upon the King of Light by the
ravages of the King of Darkness, and is at best only partially good.Â
Zoroastrianism looked upon earth, fire, water, as sacred elements, to
defile which was sin of the most heinous kind. Manichæism regarded
actual fire and water as made up of a mixture of elements of light and
darkness, and so, as by no means wholly pure. Manichæans regarded
earth, so far as it consisted of dead matter, with the utmost
contempt. The life-giving light in it was alone thought of with
respect. Zoroastrianism somewhat arbitrarily divided animals and
plants between the kingdoms of Ormuzd and Ahriman; but the idea that
all material things, so far as they are material, are evil, seems
never to have occurred to the early Mazdeists. Manichæans agreed
with Mazdeists in their veneration for the sun, but the principles
underlying this veneration seem to have been widely different in the
two cases. The most radical opposition of the two systems is seen in
their views of human propagation. Mani regarded the procreation of
children as ministering directly to the designs of the King of
Darkness to imprison the light, and so absolutely condemned it. The
Zend-Avesta says: (Vendîdâd, Fargard IV.): "Verily I say unto
thee, O Spitama Zarathustra; the man who has a wife is far above him
who begets no sons; he who keeps a house is far above him who has
none; he who has children is far above a childless man."Â Mani made
great merit of voluntary poverty. The Zend-Avesta (ibid.) says:Â
"He who has riches is far above him who has none."Â Mani forbade the
use of animal food as preventing the escape of the light contained in
the bodies of animals. The Zend-Avesta (ibid.): "And of two men,
he who fills himself with meat is filled with the good spirit much
more than he who does not do so; the latter is all but dead; the
former is above him by the worth of an Asperena, by the worth of a
sheep, by the worth of an ox, by the worth of a man."[10]10
The eschatology of the two systems might be shown to present just as
striking contrasts, and just as marked resemblances. In both systems
the consummation of the age is effected by means of a conflagration,
the aim of the conflagration in Mazdeism being the punishment and the
purging of wicked men, the destruction of wicked spirits, the
renovation of the earth, and the inauguration of the sole sovereignty
of Ormuzd, while in Manichæism the aim of the conflagration is to
liberate the portions of light which the processes of animal and
vegetable growth, with the aid of sun and the moon have proved unable
to liberate.
But enough has been said to make it evident that Manichæism was by no
means a slightly altered edition of Zoroastrianism. The points of
similarity between the two are certainly more apparent than real,
though the historical relationship can by no means be denied.
Chapter V.âThe Relation of Manichæism to the Old Babylonian Religion
as Seen in Mandæism and Sabeanism.
It would have been strange indeed if the old Babylonian religion,
after dominating the minds of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia for so
many centuries, had given place completely to the religion of the
Medo-Persian conquerors of the country. Magism itself was a mixture
of old Babylonian, Medic and Persian elements. But there is much
reason for believing that the primitive Babylonian faith, in a more or
less pure form, persisted until long after the time of Mani, nay, that
it has maintained its ground even till the present day. The
researches of Chwolson, Nöldeke, Kessler and others, in the
literature and history of the Mandæans and the Sabeans, combined in
the last case at least with accurate knowledge of old Babylonian
literature and religion, have rendered it highly probable that
representatives of the old Babylonian faith were numerous in
Mesopotomia and the adjoining regions at the time of Mani, and that
Mani himself was more or less closely connected with it. The
Mandæans were a Gnostic sect of the Ophitic type, without Christian
elements. It is the opinion of Kessler, who has devoted much
attention to this sect and to the relations of occult religious
matters in general in Mesopotomia, that "the source of all Gnosis, and
especially the immediate source of Ophitic Gnosis, is not the doctrine
of the Persian Zoroaster, not PhÅnicean heathenism, not the theory and
practise of Greek mysteries, but the old Babylonian-Chaldaic national
religion, which maintained itself in Mesopotomia and Babylonia, the
abode of the Ophites, Perates, Mandæans, until the post-Christian
centuries, and was now opposed by the Gentiles in a mystical-ascetical
form to Christianity." The close connection of the Mandæans with
the Ophites, and of both with the old Babylonian religion, would seem
to be established beyond question. The relation of Manichæism to
Mandæism has been by no means so clearly shown. Let us look at some
of the supposed points of contact. Maniâs connection with the
Mugtasilah sect (or Baptizers) has already been mentioned. Kessler
seeks to identify this party with the Mandæans, or at least to
establish a community of origin and of fundamental principles in the
two parties. He would connect with the old Babylonian sect, of which
ceremonial baptism seems to have been a common characteristic, the
Palestinian Hemero-baptists, Elkesaites, Nazareans, Ebionites, etc.Â
There is nothing improbable about this supposition. Certainly we
find elements in Palestinian heresy during the early Christian
centuries, which we can hardly suppose to have been indigenous. And
there is no more likely source of occult religious influence than
Babylonia, unless it be Egypt, and there is much reason for supposing
that even in Alexandria Babylonian influences were active before and
after the beginning of the Christian era. Besides, a large number of
Gnostic elements different from these can be traced to Egypt. How
far the Mandæans of modern times, and as they are described in extant
literature, correspond with representatives of the old Babylonian
religion in the third century, cannot be determined with complete
certainty. Yet there is much about this party that has a primitive
appearance, and the tenacity with which it has held aloof from
Judaism, Manichæism, Mohammedanism, and Oriental Christianity, during
centuries of conflict and oppression, says much for its
conservatism. It would extend this chapter unduly to describe the
elaborate cosmogony, mythology, hierarchy, ceremonial, etc., of this
interesting party. For the illustration of Christian Gnosticism the
facts that have been brought out are of the utmost value. As
compared with Manichæism, there is a remarkable parallelism between
the two kingdoms and their subordinates or æons; the conflict between
Primordial Man and the King of Darkness has its counterpart in
Mandæism. The close connection of the Mandæan and the Manichæan
cosmogony, together with similar views about water in the two parties,
would make it highly probable that the Manichæans, like the
Mandæans, practised some kind of ceremonial ablutions.
What, now, are the grounds on which the connection of these systems
with the old Babylonian religion is based? The dualistic element in
the old Babylonian system was pointed out above. Kessler seeks to
establish an almost complete parallelism between the Mandæan and
Manichæan cosmological and mythological systems on the one hand, and
the old Babylonian on the other. That there are points of striking
resemblance it is certain. There is ground to suspect, however, that
he has been led by partiality for a theory of his own to minimize
unduly the Zoroastrian and Buddhist influence and to magnify unduly
the old Babylonian. Be that as it may, there remains an important
residuum of solid fact which must be taken account of by all future
students of Manichæism. There is reason to hope that future work
along the lines of Kesslerâs researches will bring to light much
additional material.
Chapter VI.â The Relation of Manichæism to Buddhism.
The extent of Maniâs dependence on Buddhism is a matter that has been
much disputed. The attention of scholars was first directed to this
possible source of Manichæism by the discovery of important features
that are radically opposed to Zoroastrianism, Judaism and
Christianity, and by the traditional historical connection of Mani
with India and Turkestan. The antagonism of spirit and matter, of
light and darkness, the mixture of spirit and light with matter and
darkness in the formation of the world, the final catastrophe in which
complete simplicity shall be re-established, only inert matter and
darkness remaining to represent the Kingdom of Darkness, abstinence
from bloody sacrifices, from marriage, from killing or eating
animalsâpoints in which Manichæism differs widely from the other
systems with which it stands historically relatedâfind their
counterpart in Buddhism. It is certain, moreover, that they were
fully developed in Buddhism centuries before the time of Mani.Â
Baur,[11]11 though not the first to suggest a connection of the two
systems, was the first to show by a somewhat detailed comparison the
close parallelism that exists between Manichæism and Buddhism.Â
Baurâs reasonings were still further elaborated and confirmed by
Neander.[12]12Â External grounds in favor of Maniâs dependence on
Buddhism are the traditions of Maniâs journey to India and China, and
of his prolonged stay in Turkestan, where Buddhism flourished at that
time. But it is on internal grounds that we chiefly rely.
If space permitted we could illustrate the close parallelism that
undoubtedly exists between Manichæism and Buddhism, from Buddhist
documents which have been made accessible through Professor Max
Müller and his collaborators in The Sacred Book of the East, far more
completely than was possible to Baur and Neander. It is certain that
parallels can be found in Buddhism for almost every feature of
Manichæism that is sharply antagonistic to Zoroastrianism. The
Buddhist view of matter as antagonistic to spirit is fundamental. It
is the world of matter that deludes. It is the body and its passions
that prevent the longed-for Nirvana. Buddhist asceticism is the
direct outgrowth of the doctrine of the evil and delusive nature of
matter. The Buddhist doctrine of metempsychosis has its precise
counterpart in Manichæism, but it should be said that this doctrine
was widely diffused in the West, through Pythagoreanism, before the
time of Mani. The Buddhist tenderness for animal and plant life is
paralleled by the Manichæan. But there is considerable difference
between the views on which this tenderness is based. The Buddhist
feeling was based, in part at least, upon the doctrine of
metempsychosis, animals and plants being regarded as the abodes of
human spirits awaiting their release into Nirvana. The Manichæan
looked upon the elements of light (life) contained in animals and
plants as particles of God, and any injury done to them as a hindrance
to the escape of these elements, to be conveyed away into the Kingdom
of Light. Both looked upon sexual intercourse as among the greatest
of evils, though the theory in the two cases was slightly different.Â
So of the drinking of wine, the eating of animal food, etc. The
final state was conceived of in substantially the same way in the two
systems. Nirvana, the blowing out of manâs life as an individual
entity, is quite paralleled by the Manichæan view of the gradual
escape of the imprisoned particles of light into the Kingdom of
Light. In both cases the divine pleroma is to be restored in such a
way as to destroy individual consciousness.
The Buddhist Bhikkhus (or ascetical monks) correspond very closely
with the Manichæan Truthful Ones (Elect), and the relations of these
to ordinary adherents of the parties was much the same in the two
cases. Both systems (like Christianity) had the proselyting spirit
fully developed. The position of Mani as a preacher or prophet
corresponds with the Buddhist idea of the manifestations of Buddha.Â
The statement is attributed to Mani that "as Buddha came in the land
of India, Zoroaster in the land of Persia, and Jesus in the land of
the West, so at last in the epoch of the present this preaching came
through me [Mani] in the land of Babylonia."Â In the interest of his
theory, which makes the old Babylonian religion the chief source of
Manichæism, Kessler has attempted to detract from the significance of
the Buddhist influence. Yet he grants that the morality of the
Manichæans (including many of the features mentioned above) was
Buddhist. The close connection of the two systems cannot, it would
seem, be successfully gainsaid.[13]13
Chapter VII.âThe Relation of Manichæism to Judaism.
So far as a relation existed it was one of the intensest hostility.Â
Like the Gnostics in general, Manichæism looked upon the God of the
Old Testament as an evil, or at least imperfect being. On this
matter we do not learn so much from the Oriental as from the Western
sources, but even from the former the radical antagonism is manifest.
The statement in the Fihristâs narrative, that "Mani treated all the
prophets disparagingly in his books, degraded them, accused them of
lying, and maintained that devils had possessed them and that these
spoke out of their mouths; nay, he goes so far as expressly to assert
in some passages of his books that the prophets were themselves
devils," is precisely in the line of the later Manichæan polemics
against the Judaistic element in Christianity.
The Manichæan account of the creation shows some acquaintance with
the Jewish Scriptures or with Jewish tradition, yet the complete
perversion of the Biblical account is one of the clearest indications
of hostility. It may be said in general that it is impossible to
conceive of two systems of religion that have less in common, or more
that is sharply antagonistic. One of the principal points of
controversy between Manichæans and Christians was the defense of the
Jewish Scriptures and religion by the latter. The Manichæan
demanded the elimination from the current Christianity, and from the
New Testament itself, of every vestige of Judaism. Their objections
to the Old Testament Scriptures and religion were in general
substantially the same as those made by other Gnostics, especially by
the Marcionites. The Old Testament anthropomorphic representations
seem to have been offensive to them, notwithstanding their own crude
conceptions of the conflict between light and darkness, of the
creation, etc. The relation of God to the conquest of Canaan is a
point that those inclined to cavil have never failed to make the most
of. The Old Testament encouragement of race propagation, the
narratives of polygamy as practised by those that enjoyed the favor of
the God of the Old Testament, the seeming approval of prevarication in
several well-known cases, the institution of animal sacrifices, the
allowing of the use of animal food, were among the standard objections
that they raised against Judaism and against Christians who accepted
the Old Testament. Judaism had, since the captivity, had many
representatives in Mesopotamia, and Mani was doubtless brought up to
abominate the Jews. Some of his extreme positions may have been
primarily due to his radical anti-Judaistic tendencies. We shall see
hereafter how Augustin met the Manichæan objections to the Old
Testament.
Chapter VIII.âThe Relation of Manichæism to Christianity.
Far more superficial are the relations of Manichæism to Christianity
than to any of the heathen systems to which we have adverted. In
fact no Christian idea has been introduced into the system without
being completely perverted. If Christian language is used, it is
utterly emptied of its meaning. If Christian practices are
introduced, a completely different motive lies at the basis. Indeed
the wildest of the Christian Gnostic systems kept immeasurably nearer
to historical Christianity than did the Manichæans. While he
blasphemed against the historical Jesus, Mani claimed to believe in
Christ, a purely spiritual and divine manifestation, whose teachings
had been sadly perverted by the Jews. It is scarcely possible to
determine with any certainty what view Mani actually took of New
Testament history. That he claimed to be a follower of Christ, and
the Paraclete whom Christ had promised to send, or at least the organ
of the Paraclete, Eastern and Western authorities agree. Mani is
said, by Augustin, to have begun his Fundamental Epistle as follows:Â
"Manichæus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the
Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living
fountain."Â So also in the Act. Archel., Mani is represented as
introducing a letter: "Manichæus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and
all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my
beloved son:Â Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the
Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ."Â There can be no doubt but
that Mani and his followers, whether from designed imposture or from
less sinister motives, attempted to palm themselves off as Christians,
nay, as the only true Christians. It is certain, moreover, that in
this guise they gained many proselytes from the Christian ranks. As
previously remarked, Mani and his followers professed to accept the
New Testament Scriptures, yet they treated them in a purely subjective
manner, eliminating as Judaistic interpolation whatever they could not
reconcile with their own tenets. Their adherence to the New
Testament, as well as their adherence to Christ, was, therefore,
virtually a mere pretence. In common with Christianity, Manichæism
laid much stress on redemption, yet there was nothing in common
between the Christian idea of redemption through the atoning suffering
of Jesus Christ and the Manichæan notion of redemption through the
escape of imprisoned light. Manichæans and Christians were at one
in advocating self-denial and the due subordination of the flesh. It
need not be pointed out how radically different the Christian view was
from the Manichæan view, already expounded. Yet pagan ascetical
ideas had already invaded the Church long before the time of Mani, and
many Christians were in a position to be attracted strongly by the
Manichæan theory and practice. The later asceticism as it appeared
in the hermit life of the fourth and following centuries was
essentially pagan and had much in common with the Manichæan. Still
more manifest is the anatagonism between Manichæism and Christianity
on the great fundamental principles of religion. The Manichæan and
Christian ideas of God are mutually contradictory. Christianity
holds fast at the same time to the unity, the omnipotence, the
omniscience, the perfect wisdom, the holiness and the goodness of
God. If He permits sin to exist in the world it is not because He
looks upon it with complacency, nor because He lacked wisdom to
provide against its rise or power to annihilate it at once when it
appeared, nor because He did not foresee its rise and its ravages, but
because the permission of sin forms part of His all-wise plan for the
education of moral and spiritual beings. If the forces of nature are
under certain circumstances hurtful or destructive to man,
Christianity does not regard them as the operations of a malevolent
power thwarting Godâs purposes, but it sees underneath the destructive
violence purposes of goodness and of grace; or if it fails to see them
in any given instance it yet believes that God doeth all things
well. Christianity admits the existence of evil in men and in
demons, yet of evil that ministers to the purposes of the Most High.Â
Christianity is the only religion that has been able to arrive at a
perfectly satisfactory theology, cosmology, anthropology, and
eschatology, and this is because Christianity alone has a true and
satisfying soteriology. It is God manifest in the flesh that meets
all the conditions for the solution of the problem of human
existence. Manichæism openly antagonized Christianity in its
adherence to Old Testament revelation, including the Jewish and
Christian monotheism. The good God could not, they maintained, be
the creator of this world and of the universe of being. That God
should be looked upon as in any sense the creator of the devil and his
angels, and of the material world, was in their view an absurdityâa
monstrosity. The unchristian character of the Manichæan view of
matter, leading to unchristian asceticism, has already been
sufficiently indicated. The reader will only need to compare the
principles and practices of Manichæism, as delineated above, with
those of Christianity as they are delineated in the New Testament and
in the evangelical churches of to-day, to be impressed with the
completely anti-Christian character of the former.
How then, it may well be asked, could Manichæism succeed as it did in
fascinating so many intelligent members of the Catholic Church during
the third, fourth and fifth centuries? In attempting to answer this
question it should be premised that the later Western Manichæism took
far more account of historical Christianity than did Mani and his
immediate followers. In the West, at least, Manichæism set itself
up as the only genuine exponent of Christianity. The
Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, and Gnosticism its product, had done
much towards discrediting the Old Testament Scriptures, and the moral
and religious teachings therein contained. Devout Jewish and
Christian thinkers who had adopted this mode of thought, had attempted
by means of the allegorical method of interpretation to reconcile the
seeming antagonism between Judaism and philosophy. But the process
was so forced that its results could not be expected to satisfy those
that felt no special interest in the removal of the difficulties.Â
Marcionism represents a stern refusal to apply the allegory, and a
determination to exhibit the antagonism between Judaism and current
thought, and especially the seeming antagonism between Judaism and
Christianity, in the harshest manner. Marcionism was still vigorous
in the East when Manichæism arose, and through this party unfavorable
views of the Old Testament were widely disseminated. Many Christians
doubtless felt that the Old Testament and its religion were burdensome
and trammelling to Christianity. The very fact that Mani set aside
so summarily every element of Judaism that he encountered in the
current Christianity, doubtless commended his views to a large and
influential element in the East and the West alike. Mani claimed to
set forth a spiritual religion as opposed to a carnal. The
asceticism of Manichæism was in the line of a wide-spread popular
ascetical movement that was already in progress, and so commended it
to many. The question as to the origin of evil, and as to the
relation of the good, wise and powerful God to the evil that appears
in the world, in man and in demons was never asked with more interest
than during the early Christian centuries, and any party that should
advance a moderately plausible theory was sure to receive its share of
public attention. Mani professed to have a solution and the only
possible solution of questions of this class, and however fantastic
may have been the forms in which his speculations were set forth, they
were doubtless all the more acceptable on this account in that
semi-pagan age to many intelligent people. The fact that these forms
satisfied so able a thinker as Mani undoubtedly was, would guarantee
their acceptance by a large number both East and West. There was in
the West at this time, and had been for centuries, a hankering after
Oriental theosophy, the more extravagant the better. The wide-spread
worship of Mithra was an excellent preparation for the more complete
system of Mani. Manichæism and Neo-Platonism antagonized the
Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries from opposite sides,
and those minds for whom Platonism had no charms were almost sure to
be attracted by the theosophy of Mani. "How are we to explain," asks
Harnack,[14]14 "the rapid spread of Manichæism, and the fact that it
really became one of the great religions? Our answer is, that
Manichæism was the most complete Gnosis, the richest, most consequent
and most artistic system formed on the basis of the ancient Babylonian
religion.⦠What gave strength to Manichæism was⦠that it united its
ancient mythology and a thorough-going materialistic dualism with an
exceedingly simple spiritual worship and a strict morality. On
comparing it with the Semitic religions of nature, we perceive that it
retained their mythologies, after transforming them into doctrines,
but abolished all their sensuous cultus, substituting instead a
spiritual worship as well as a strict morality. Manichæism was thus
able to satisfy the new wants of an old world. It offered
revelation, redemption, moral virtue, and immortality [this last is
very doubtful, if conscious immortality be meant], spiritual benefits
on the basis of the religion of nature. A further source of strength
lay in the simple, yet firm social organization which was given by
Mani himself to his new institution. The wise man and the ignorant,
the enthusiast and the man of the world, could all find acceptance
here, and there was laid on no one more than he was able and willing
to bear."
The question as to the secret of the fascination that Manichæism was
able to exercise even over the most intelligent Western minds, may
receive a more concrete answer from the autobiographical account of
Augustinâs own relations to the party. What was it that attracted
and enthralled, for nine years, him who was to become the greatest
theologian of the age? In his Confessions (Book III. ch. 6) he gives
this impassioned account of his first connection with Manichæism:Â
"Therefore I fell among men proudly railing, very carnal and voluble,
in whose mouth were the snares of the devilâthe bird lime being
composed of a mixture of the syllables of Thy Name, and of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and of the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.Â
These names departed not out of their mouths, but so far forth as the
sound and clatter of the tongue; for the heart was empty of truth.Â
Still they cried âTruth, Truth,â and spoke much about it to me, yet it
was not in them, but they spake falsely not of Thee onlyâwho, verily
art the Truthâbut also of the elements of this world, Thy creaturesâ¦
O Truth, Truth! how inwardly even then did the marrow of my soul pant
after Thee, when they frequently and in a multiplicity of ways, and in
numerous and huge books, sounded out Thy Name to me, though it was but
a voice. And these were the dishes in which to me, hungering for
Thee, they, instead of Thee, served up the sun and the moon, Thy
beauteous worksâbut yet Thy works, not Thyself, nay, nor Thy first
worksâ¦Woe, woe, by what steps was I dragged down to the depths of
hell!âtoiling and turmoiling through want of Truth, when I sought
after Thee, my God,âto Thee I confess it, who hadst mercy on me when I
had not yet confessed, sought after Thee not according to the
understanding of the mind in which Thou desiredst that I should excel
the beasts, but according to the sense of the flesh."
Chapter IX.âAugustin and the Manichæans.
In the preceding Chapter we have given in Augustinâs own words some
account of the process by which he became ensnared in Manichæan
error. In reading Augustinâs account of his experience among the
Manichæans, we can not escape the conviction that he was never wholly
a Manichæan, that he never surrendered himself absolutely to the
system. He held it rather as a matter of opinion than as a matter of
heart-attachment. Doubtless the fact that he continued to occupy
himself with rhetorical and philosophical studies prevented his
complete enthrallment. His mind was not naturally of an Oriental
cast, and the study of the hard, common-sense philosophy of Aristotle,
and of the Eclecticism of Cicero, could hardly have failed to make him
more or less conscious of the absurdity of Manichæism. The
influence of scientific studies on his mind is very manifest from
Confessions, Book V. ch. 3, where he compares the accurate
astronomical knowledge with which he had become acquainted, with the
absurd cosmological fancies of Faustus, the great Manichæan teacher
who appeared at Carthage in Augustinâs twenty-ninth year. "Many
truths, however, concerning the creation did I retain from these men
[the philosophers], and the cause appeared to confirm calculations,
the succession of seasons, and the visible manifestations of the
stars; and I compared them with the sayings of Manichæus, who in his
frenzy has written most extensively on these subjects, but discovered
not any account either of the solstices, or the equinoxes, the
eclipses of the luminaries, or anything of the kind I had learned in
the books of secular philosophy. But therein I was ordered to
believe, and yet it corresponded not with those rules acknowledged by
calculation and by our light, but was far different."
From this time Augustinâs faith was shaken, and he was soon able to
throw off completely the yoke that had become too grievous to be
borne. But to reject Manichæism was not necessarily to become an
orthodox Christian. Augustin finds himself still greatly perplexed
about the nature of God and the origin of evil, problems the somewhat
plausible Manichæan solutions of which had ensnared him. It was
through Platonism, or rather Neo-Platonism, that he was led to more
just and satisfying views, and through Platonism, along with other
influences, he was enabled at last to find peace in the bosom of the
Catholic church. "And Thou, willing to show me how Thou âresistest
the proud, but givest grace unto the humble,â and by how great an act
of mercy Thou hadst pointed out to men the path of humility, in that
âThy Word was made flesh and dwelt among men,ââThou procuredst for me,
by the instrumentality of one inflated with monstrous pride, certain
books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And
therein I read not indeed in the same words but to the self-same
effect, enforced by many and divers reasons, that âIn the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The
same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and
without Him was not anything made that was made.â"[15]15Â In other
words, Augustin thought that he discerned complete harmony between the
prologue of Johnâs gospel and the teachings of the Platonists, and in
this teaching, thus corroborated, he found the solution of the problem
that had caused him such anguish of soul. In this connection
Augustin points out in some detail the features that Platonism and
Christianity have in common. Thus Neo-Platonism, not blindly
followed, but adapted to his Christian purpose, became not only a
means of deliverance to Augustin himself, but a mighty weapon for the
combating of Manichæan error.
Neo-Platonism enters so largely and influentially into Augustinâs
polemics against Manichæism that it will be apposite here to inquire
into the extent and the nature of Augustinâs dependence on this system
of thought. Much has been written on this subject, especially by
German and French scholars. A brief statement of some of the more
important points of contact is all that is allowable in an essay like
this. Premising, therefore, that Platonism essentially influenced
the entire circle of Augustinâs theological and philosophical
thinking, let us first examine the Neo-Platonic and Augustinian
conceptions of God. With Augustin God is absolutely simple and
immutable, incomprehensible by men in their present state of
existence, exalted above all human powers of thought or expression.Â
All things may be said of God, and yet nothing worthily; God is
honored more by reverential silence than by any human voice. He is
better known by not being known; it is easier to say what He is not,
than what He is. God is wanting in qualities; has no variety and
multitude of properties and attributes; is absolutely simple. By no
means is God to be called substance, for the word substance pertains
to a certain accident; nor is it allowable to think of Him as composed
of substance and of accidents. Divine qualities are therefore purely
subjective. There is no discrimination in God of substance and
accidents, of potency and act, of matter and form, of universal and
singular, of superior and inferior. To know, to will, to do, to be,
are in God equivalent and identical. Eternity itself is the
substance of God, which has nothing mutable, nothing past, nothing
future. God makes new things, without being Himself new,
unchangeable He makes changeable things, He always works and always
rests. The changes that take place in the world do not fall in the
will of God, but solely in the things moved by God. God changes them
out of His unchangeable counsel. For nearly every one of these
statements an almost exact parallel can be pointed out in the writings
of Plotinus, the Neo-Platonic writer with whom Augustin was most
conversant.[16]16Â It would be easy to point out that Augustin here
goes to a dangerous extreme, and narrowly escapes fatalism on the one
hand, and denial of the true personality of God on the other. But
the effectiveness of this type of teaching against Manichæism is what
chiefly interests us in this connection. Readers of the following
treatises will have no difficulty in seeing for themselves how
confidently and with what telling effect Augustin employs this view of
God against the crudities of Manichæism, which thought of God as
mutable, as capable of being successfully assailed by evil, as rent
asunder, as suffering miserable contamination and imprisonment by
mixture with matter, as painfully struggling for freedom, as suffering
with the suffering of plants and animals, as liberated by their decay
and by the digestive operations of the faithful, etc., etc.
Again, while still a Manichæan Augustin had thought and written much
about beauty. On this point also, the throwing off of Manichæism
and the adoption of a Platonizing Christianity brought about a
revolution in his conceptions. The exactness with which he has
followed Plotinus in his ideas of the beauty of God and of his
creatures is remarkable. This we could fully illustrate by the
citation of parallel passages. But we must content ourselves with
remarking that Augustin himself acknowledged his indebtedness, and
that his idea of beauty was an important factor in his polemics
against Manichæism. According to Augustin (and Plotinus) God is the
most beautiful and splendid of all beings. He is the beauty of all
beauties; all the beautiful things that are the objects of our vision
and love He Himself made. If these are beautiful what is He? All
beauty is from the highest beauty, which is God. Augustin follows
Plato and Plotinus even in neglecting the distinction between the good
and the beautiful. The idea of Divine beauty Augustin applies to
Christ also. He speaks of Him as beautiful God, beautiful Word with
God, beautiful on earth, beautiful in the womb, beautiful in the hands
of his parents, beautiful in miracles, beautiful in being scourged,
beautiful when inciting to life, beautiful when not caring for death,
beautiful when laying down his life, beautiful when taking it up
again, beautiful in the sepulchre, beautiful in Heaven. The beauty
of the creation, which is simply a reflection of the beauty of God, is
not even disturbed by evil or sin. Beauty is with Augustin (and the
Platonists) a comprehensive term, and is almost equivalent to perfect
harmony or symmetry of parts, perfect adaptation of beings to the ends
for which they exist.
It is patent that this view of the beauty of God and His creation is
diametrically opposed to the crude conceptions of Mani, with reference
to the disorder of the universe, a disorder not confined even to the
Kingdom of Darkness, but invading the Realm of light itself. So also
Augustinâs Platonizing views of the creation must be taken into
consideration in judging of his attitude towards Manichæism. It
goes without saying that from Augustinâs theological point of view, to
account for creation is a matter of grave difficulty. How can there
be a relation between the infinite and the finite? Any substantial
connection is unthinkable. The only thing left is a relation of
causality. The finite, according to Plotinus, is an accident, an
image and shadow of God. It is constituted, established, sustained,
and nourished by the Divine potency, and is therefore absolutely
dependent upon God. The power that flows from God permeates each and
every finite thing. God as one, whole, and indivisible, is
perpetually present with his eternal process, to everything,
everywhere. When Augustin teaches that God of his own free will,
subject to no necessity, by His own Word created the world out of
nothing, this statement might be taken in connection with his view of
the absolute simplicity of God and the consequent denial of
distinction between being, willing, doing, etc. The easiest way to
get over the difficulty involved in creation was to maintain the
simultaneous creation of all things. The six days of creation in
Genesis are an accommodation to human modes of thinking. In some
expressions Augustin approaches the Platonic doctrine of the ideal or
archetypal world. Finite things, so far as they exist, are essence,
i.e., God; so far as they are not essence they do not exist at all.Â
Thus the distinction between God and the world is almost
obliterated. Again, whatever is finite and derivative is subject to
negation or nothingness. Thus he goes along with Plato and Plotinus
to the verge of denying the reality of derived existence, and so
narrowly escapes pantheism.
It is easy to see how effectively this conception of creation might be
employed against the Manichæan notion of the creation as something
forced upon God by the powers of evil, and as a mere expedient for the
gradual liberation of his imprisoned elements. The Manichæan
limitation of God and his domain by the bordering Kingdom of Darkness,
was in sheer opposition to Augustinâs view of the indivisibility of
God and his presence as a whole everywhere and always. Augustinâs
theory that nature or essence, as far as it has existence is God, is
quite the antithesis of Maniâs dualism, especially of his supposition
that the Kingdom of Darkness is essentially and wholly evil.Â
Augustin argued that even the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Darkness,
and the King of Darkness himself, according to Maniâs own
representations, are good so far as they have essence or nature, and
evil only so far as they are non-existent.
With Augustinâs Platonizing view of creation is closely connected his
theory of evil and his doctrine of divine providence. Evil with him,
as with the Platonists, has no substantial existence. It is only
privation of good. It is wanting in essence, substance, truth,âis in
short mere negation, and so cannot have God for its efficient cause or
author, or be referred to God. God would not have permitted evil
unless by His own supreme power he had been able to make good use of
it. He attempts, with some success, to show the advantages of the
permission of evil in the world. God made all things good from the
angels of heaven to the lowest beasts and herbs of the earth.Â
Augustin delighted, with the Platonists, in dwelling upon the goodness
of nature as shown in the animal and vegetable worlds, as well as in
the great cosmical phenomena. Each creature of God has its place,
some a higher, some a lower, but all so far as they conform to the
idea of their creation, or to their nature, are good. So far as they
fall short of this idea they are evil.
This principle Augustin applied with great force to the confutation of
the Manichæan view of the substantiality and permanence of evil.Â
This may be regarded as the central point in Augustinâs controversies
with the Manichæans. He evidently felt that the Manichæan view of
evil was the citadel of their system, and he never wearied of
assailing it. It would be beyond the scope of the present essay to
inquire whether and how far Augustin himself became involved in error,
in his efforts to dislodge the Manichæans. Far less satisfactory
than his confutation of the fundamental principles of the Manichæan
system were his answers to the Manichæan cavils against the Old
Testament. If we may judge from the prominence given in the extant
literature to the Old Testament question, this must have been the
favorite point of attack with the Manichæans. The importance of the
questions raised and the necessity of answering them was fully
recognized by Augustin. His principal reliance is the allegorical or
typological method of interpretation. It would be hard to find
examples of more perverse allegorizing than Augustinâs Anti-Manichæan
treatises furnish. It will not be needful to adduce instances here,
as readers of the treatises will discover them in abundance. Nothing
more wearisome and disgusting in Biblical interpretation can well be
conceived of than certain sections of The Reply to Faustus, the
Manichæan. Yet Augustin did not fail entirely to recognize the
distinction between Old Testament times and New, and he even suggests
the theory "that God could in a former age and to a people of a lower
moral standard, give commands to do actions, which we should think it
wrong to do now.⦠There was a certain inward want, an
unenlightenment, a rudeness of moral conception, in those to whom such
commands were given; otherwise they would not have been given. God
would not have given a command to slaughter a whole nation to an
enlightened people."[17]17
Yet with all the defects of Augustinâs polemics against the
Manichæans, they seem to have been adapted to the needs of the
time. Well does Canon Mozley declare Augustin to have been "the most
marvellous controversial phenomenon which the whole history of the
Church from first to last presents.⦠Armed with superabundant
facility of expression,âso that he himself observes that one who had
written so much must have a good deal to answer for,âhe was able to
hammer any point of view which he wanted, and which was desirable as a
counteracting one to a pervading heresy, with endless repetition upon
the ear of the Church; at the same time varying the forms of speech
sufficiently to please and enliven."Â Certainly he was one of the
greatest debaters of any age. He doubtless deserves the credit of
completely checking the progress of Manichæism in the West, and of
causing its gradual but almost complete overthrow. His arguments
were probably more effective in guarding Christians against perversion
by Manichæan proselytizers, than in converting those that were
already ensnared by Manichæan error. Other controversies of a
completely different character, especially the Pelagian, caused
Augustin to look to other aspects of truth and so led to certain
modifications in his own statements, nay led him on some occasions to
the verge of Manichæan error itself. But we are chiefly interested
at present in knowing that his earnest efforts against the Manichæans
from A.D. 388, the year of his baptism, to A.D. 405, were not in
vain.[18]18
Chapter X.âOutline of Manichæan History.[19]19
In the East Maniâs followers were involved in the persecution that
resulted in his death, and many of them fled to Transoxiania. Their
headquarters and the residence of the chief of the sect continued to
be Babylon. They returned to Persia in 661, but were driven back,
908â32. They seem to have become very numerous in the
Transoxiania. Albîrûnî, 973â1048, speaks of the Manichæans as
still existing in large numbers throughout all Mohammedan lands, and
especially in the region of Samarkand, where they were known as
Sabeans. He also relates that they were prevalent among the Eastern
Turks, in China, Thibet and India. In Armenia and Cappadocia they
gained many followers, and thence made their way into Europe. The
Paulicians are commonly represented as a Manichæan party, but the
descriptions that have come down to us would seem to indicate
Marcionitic rather than Manichæan elements. Yet contemporary
Catholic writers such as Peter Siculus and Photius constantly assail
them as Manichæans.
In the West we have traces of their existence from 287 onwards.Â
Diocletian, according to a somewhat doubtful tradition, condemned its
leaders to the stake, and its adherents to decapitation with
confiscation of goods. The edict is supposed to have been directed
to the pro-consul of Africa where Manichæans were making great
progress. According to an early account, Mani sent a special envoy
to Africa. Valentinian (372) and Theodosius (381) issued bloody
edicts against them, yet we find them still aggressive in the time of
Augustin. From Africa Manichæism spread into Spain, Gaul and
Aquitaine. Leo the Great and Valentinian III. took measures against
them in Italy (440 sq.). They appear, however, to have continued
their work, for Gregory the Great mentions them (590 sq.). From this
time onwards their influence is to be traced in such parties as the
Euchites, Enthusiasts, Bogomiles, Catharists, Beghards, etc. But it
is not safe to attach too much importance to the mere fact that these
parties were stigmatized as Manichæans by their enemies. Even in
the Reformation time and since, individuals and small parties have
appeared which in some features strongly resembled the ancient
Manichæans. Manichæism was a product of the East, and in the East
it met with most acceptance. To the spirit of the West it was
altogether foreign, and only in a greatly modified form could it ever
have flourished there. It might persist for centuries as a secret
society, but it could not endure the light.
Preface to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.
ââââââââââââ
No reader of the accompanying volume can be expected to take a very
lively interest in its contents, unless he has before his mind some
facts regarding the extraordinary genius to whom the heresy of
Manichæism owes its origin and its name. His history is involved in
considerable obscurity, owing to the suspicious nature of the
documents from which it is derived, and the difficulty of constructing
a consistent and probable account out of the contradictory statements
of the Asiatics and the Greeks. The ascertained facts, therefore,
are few, and may be briefly stated.[20]20
According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Mani was born A.D. 240.[21]21Â
From his original name, Corbicius or Carcubius, Beausobre conjectures
that he was born in Carcub, a town of Chaldæa. He belonged to a
Magian family, and while still a youth won a distinguished place among
the sages of Persia. He was master of all the lore peculiar to his
class, and was, besides, so proficient a mathematician and geographer,
that he was able to construct a globe. He was a skilled musician,
and had some knowledge of the Greek language,âan accomplishment rare
among his countrymen. But his fame, and even his ultimate success as
a teacher, was due in great measure to his skill in painting, which
was so considerable as to earn for him among the Persians the
distinctive title, Mani the painter. His disposition was ardent and
lively but patient and self-restrained. His appearance was striking,
as he wore the usual dress of a Persian sage:Â the high-soled shoes,
the one red, the other green; the mantle of azure blue, that changed
color as he moved; the ebony staff in his right hand, and the
Babylonish book under his left arm.
The meaning of his name, Mani, Manes, or Manichæus, has been the
subject of endless conjectures. Epiphanius supposes that he was
providentially so named, that men might be warned against the mania of
his heresy.[22]22Â Hyde, whose opinion on any Oriental subject must
have weight, tells us that in Persian mani means painter, and that he
was so called from his profession. Archbishop Usher conjectured that
it was a form of Manaem or Menahem, which means Paraclete or
Comforter; founding this conjecture on the fact that Sulpicius Severus
calls the Israelitish king Menahem,[23]23 Mane. Gataker supplements
this idea by the conjecture that Mani took this name at his own
instance, and in pursuance of his claim to be the Paraclete. It is
more probable that, if his name was really given on account of this
meaning, he received it from the widow who seems to have adopted him
when a boy, and may have called him her Consolation. But it is also
possible that Mani was not an uncommon Persian name, and that he
adopted it for some reason too trifling to discover.[24]24
While still a young man he was ordained as a Christian priest, and
distinguished himself in that capacity by his knowledge of Scripture,
and the zeal with which he discharged his sacred functions.[25]25Â
His heretical tendencies, however, were very soon manifested,
stimulated, we may suppose, by his anxiety to make the Christian
religion more acceptable to those who adhered to the Eastern
systems. Excommunicated from the Christian Church, Mani found asylum
with Sapor, and won his confidence by presenting only the Magian side
of his system. But no sooner did he permit the Christian element to
appear, and call himself the apostle of the Lord, and show a desire to
reform Magianism, than his sovereign determined to put him to death as
a revolutionist. Forced to flee, he took refuge in Turkestan, and
gained influence there, partly by decorating the temples with
paintings. To lend his doctrines the appearance of divine authority,
he adopted the same device as Zoroaster and Mohammed. Having
discovered a cave through which there ran a rill of water, he laid up
in it a store of provisions, and retired there for a year, giving out
that he was on a visit to heaven. In this retirement he produced his
Gospel,[26]26âa work illustrated with symbolical drawings the
ingenuity of which has been greatly praised. This book Mani
presented to Hormizdas, the son and successor of Sapor, who professed
himself favorable to his doctrine, and even built him a castle as a
place of shelter and retirement. Unfortunately for Mani, Hormizdas
died in the second year of his reign; and though his successor,
Varanes, was at first willing to shield him from persecution, yet,
finding that the Magians were alarmed for their religion, he appointed
a disputation to be held between the opposing parties. Such trials
of dialectic in Eastern courts have not unfrequently resulted in very
serious consequences to the parties engaged in them. In this
instance the result was fatal to Mani. Worsted in argument, he was
condemned to die, and thus perished in some sense as a martyr. The
mode of his death is uncertain,[27]27 but it seems that his skin was
stuffed with chaff, and hung up in public in terrorem. This occurred
in the year 277, and the anniversary was commemorated as the great
religious festival of the Manichæans.
This is not the place to attempt any account or criticism of the
strange eclecticism of Mani.[28]28Â An adequate idea of the system
may be gathered from the accompanying treatises. It may, however, be
desirable to give some account of the original sources of information
regarding it.
We study the systems of heresiarchs at a disadvantage when our only
means of ascertaining their opinions is from the fragmentary
quotations and hostile criticism which occur in the writings of their
adversaries. Such, however, is our only source of information
regarding the teaching of Mani. Originally, indeed, this heresy was
specially active in a literary direction, assailing the Christian
Scriptures with an ingenuity of unbelief worthy of a later age, and
apparently ambitious of promulgating a rival canon. Certainly the
writings of its early supporters were numerous;[29]29 and from the
care and elegance with which they were transcribed, the sumptuous
character of the manuscripts, and the mysterious emblems with which
they were adorned, we should fancy it was intended to inspire the
people with respect for an authoritative though as yet undefined
code. It is, indeed, nowhere said or implied that the sacred books
of the Manichæans were reserved for the eye only of the initiated or
elect; and their reception of the New Testament Scriptures (subject to
their own revision and emendation) would make it difficult for them to
establish any secret code apart from these writings. They were
certainly, however, doctrines of an esoteric kind, which were not
divulged to the catechumens or hearers; and many of their books, being
written in Persian, Syriac, or Greek, were practically unavailable for
the instruction of the Latin speaking population. It was not always
easy, therefore, to obtain an accurate knowledge of their opinions.Â
Commentaries on the whole of the Old and New Testaments were written
by Hierax;[30]30 a Theosophy by Aristocritus; a book of memoirs, or
rather Memorabilia, of Mani, and other works, by Heraclides,
Aphthonius, Adas, and Agapius. Unfortunately all of these books have
perished, whether in the flames to which the Christian authorities
commanded that all Manichæan books should be consigned, or by the
slower if not more critical and impartial processes of time.
Mani himself was the author of several works:Â a Gospel, the Treasury
of Life (and probably an abridgment of the same), the Mysteries, the
Foundation Fpistle, a book of Articles or heads of doctrine, one or
two works on astronomy or astrology, and a collection of letters so
dangerous, that Manichæans who sought restoration to the Church were
required to anathematize them.
Probably the most important of these writings was the Foundation
Epistle, so called because it contained the leading articles of
doctrine on which the new system was built. This letter was written
in Greek or Syriac; but a Latin version of it was current in Africa,
and came into the hands of Augustin, who undertook its refutation.Â
To accomplish this with the greater precision and effect, he quotes
the entire text of each passage of the Epistle before proceeding to
criticise it. Had Augustin accomplished the whole of his task, we
should accordingly have been in possession of the whole of this
important document. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, Augustin
stops short at an early point in the Epistle; and though he tells us
he had notes on the remainder, and would some day expand and publish
them, this promise lay unredeemed for thirty years till the day of his
death. Extracts from the same Epistle and from the Treasury are also
given by Augustin in the treatise De Natura Boni.[31]31
Next, we have in the Opus Imperfectum of Augustin some extracts from a
letter of Mani to Menoch, which Julian had unearthed and republished
to convict Augustin of being still tainted with Manichæan
sentiments. These extracts give us some insight into the
heresiarchâs opinions regarding the corruption of nature and the evils
of sexual love.
Again, we have Maniâs letter to Marcel, preserved by Epiphanius, and
given in full by Beausobre;[32]32 which, however, merely reiterates
two of the doctrines most certainly identified with Mani,âthe
assertion of two principles, and the tenet that the Son of God was man
only in appearance.
Finally, Fabricius has inserted in the fifth volume of his Bibliotheca
Græca the fragments, such as they are, collected by Grabe.
Such is the fragmentary character of the literary remains of Mani:Â
for fuller information regarding his opinions we must depend on
Theodoret, Epiphanius, Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, and
Augustin. Beausobre is of opinion that the Fathers derived all that
they knew of Manichæus from the Acts of Archelaus.[33]33 This
professes to be a report of a disputation held between Manes and
Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia. Grave doubts have been
cast on the authenticity of this document, and Burton and Milman seem
inclined to consider it an imaginary dialogue, and use it on the
understanding that while some of its statements are manifestly
untrustworthy, a discriminating reader may gather from it some
reliable material.[34]34
In the works of Augustin there are some other pieces which may well be
reckoned among the original sources. In the reply to Faustus, which
is translated in this volume, the book of Faustus is not indeed
reproduced; but there is no reason for doubting that his arguments are
fairly represented, and we think there is evidence that even the
original expression of them is preserved.[35]35Â Augustin had been
acquainted with Faustus for many years. He first met him at Carthage
in 383, and found him nothing more than a clever and agreeable talker,
making no pretension to science or philosophy, and with only slender
reading.[36]36Â His cleverness is sufficiently apparent in his debate
with Augustin; the objections he leads are plausible, and put with
acuteness, but at the same time with a flippancy which betrays a want
of earnestness and real interest in the questions. In his reply to
Faustus, Augustin is very much on the defensive, and his statements
are apologetic rather than systematic.[37]37
But in an age when the ability to read was by no means commensurate
with the interest taken in theological questions, written discussions
were necessarily supplemented by public disputations. These
theological contests seem to have been a popular entertainment in
North Africa; the people attending in immense crowds, while reporters
took down what was said on either side for the sake of appeal as well
as for the information of the absent. In two such disputations
Augustin engaged in connection with Manichæism.[38]38 The first was
held on the 28th and 29th of August, 392, with a Manichæan priest,
Fortunatus. To this encounter Augustin was invited by a deputation
of Donatists and Catholics,[39]39 who were alike alarmed at the
progress which this heresy was making in the district of Hippo.Â
Fortunatus at first showed some reluctance to meet so formidable an
antagonist, but was prevailed upon by his own sectaries, and shows no
nervousness during the debate. His incompetence, however, was
manifest to the Manichæans themselves; and so hopeless was it to
think of any further proselytizing in Hippo, that he left that city,
and was too much ashamed of himself ever to return. The character of
his reasoning is shifty; he evades Augustinâs questions and starts
fresh ones. Augustin pushes his usual and fundamental objection to
the Manichæan system. If God is impassable and incorruptible, how
could He be injured by the assaults of the kingdom of darkness? In
opposition to the statement of Fortunatus, that the Almighty produces
no evil, he explains that God made no nature evil, but made man free,
and that voluntary sin is the grand original evil. The most
remarkable circumstance in the discussion is the desire of Fortunatus
to direct the conversation to the conduct of the Manichæans, and the
refusal of Augustin to make good the charges which had been made
against them, or to discuss anything but the doctrine.[40]40
Twelve years after this, a similar disputation was held between
Augustin and one of the elect among the Manichæans, who had come to
Hippo to propagate his religion. This man, Felix, is described by
Augustin[41]41 as being ill-educated, but more adroit and subtle than
Fortunatus. After a keen discussion, which occupied two days, the
proceedings terminated by Felix signing a recantation of his errors in
the form of an anathema on Mani, his doctrines, and the seducing
spirit that possessed him. These two disputations are valuable, as
exhibiting the points of the Manichæan system to which its own
adherents were accustomed to direct attention, and the arguments on
which they specially relied for their support.
The works given in the accompanying volume comprehend by no means the
whole of Augustinâs writings against this heresy. Before his
ordination he wrote five anti-Manichæan books, entitled, De Libero
Arbitrio, De Genesi contra Manichæos, De Moribus Ecclesiæ
Catholicæ, De Moribus Manichæorum, and De Vera Religione. These
Paulinus called his anti-Manichæan Pentateuch. After his ordination
he was equally diligent, publishing a little treatise in the year 391,
under the title De Utilitate Credendi,[42]42 which was immediately
followed by a small work, De Duabus Animabus. In the following year
the report of the Disputatio contra Fortunatum was published; and
after this, at short intervals, there appeared the books Contra
Adimantum, Contra Epistolam Manichæi quam vocant Fundamenti, Contra
Faustum, Disputatio contra Felicem, De Naturo Boni, and Contra
Secundinum.
Besides these writings, which are exclusively occupied with
Manichæism, there are others in which the Manichæan doctrines are
handled with more or less directness. These are the Confessions, the
79th and 236th Letters, the Lecture on Psalm 140, Sermons 1, 2, 12,
50, 153, 182, 237, the Liber de Agone Christiano, and the De
Continentia.
Of these writings, Augustin himself professed a preference for the
reply to the letter of Secundinus.[43]43Â It is a pleasing feature of
the times, that a heretic whom he did not know even by sight should
write to Augustin entreating him to abstain from writing against the
Manichæans, and reconsider his position, and ally himself with those
whom he had till now fancied to be in error. His language is
respectful, and illustrates the esteem in which Augustin was held by
his contemporaries; though he does not scruple to insinuate that his
conversion from Manichæism was due to motives not of the highest
kind. We have not given this letter and its reply, because the
preference of Augustin has not been ratified by the judgment of his
readers.
The present volume gives a fair sample of Augustinâs controversial
powers. His nine yearsâ personal experience of the vanity of
Manichæism made him thoroughly earnest and sympathetic in his efforts
to disentangle other men from its snares, and also equipped him with
the knowledge requisite for this task. No doubt the Pelagian
controversy was more congenial to his mind. His logical acuteness
and knowledge of Scripture availed him more in combating men who
fought with the same weapons, than in dealing with a system which
threw around its positions the mist of Gnostic speculation, or veiled
its doctrine under a grotesque mythology, or based itself on a
cosmogony too fantastic for a Western mind to tolerate.[44]44Â But
however Augustin may have misconceived the strange forms in which this
system was presented, there is no doubt that he comprehended and
demolished its fundamental principles;[45]45 that he did so as a
necessary part of his own personal search for the truth; and that in
doing so he gained possession, vitally and permanently of ideas and
principles which subsequently entered into all he thought and wrote.Â
In finding his way through the mazes of the obscure region into which
Mani had led him, he once for all ascertained the true relation
subsisting between God and His creatures, formed his opinion regarding
the respective provinces of reason and faith, and the connection of
the Old and New Testaments, and found the root of all evil in the
created will.
The Editor.
Some knowledge of the Magianism of the time of Mani may be obtained
from the sacred books of the Parsis, especially from the Vendidad
Sade, an account of which is given by Dr. Wilson, of Bombay, in his
book on the Parsi Religion.âTr.
ââââââââââââ
St. AUGUSTIN:
on the
morals of the catholic church.
 [de moribus ecclesiæ catholicæ].
A.D. 388.
translated by the
rev. richard stothert, m.a.,
bombay
Of the Morals of the Catholic Church.[46]46
[De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ]. a.d. 388.
It is laid down at the outset that the customs of the holy life of the
Church should be referred to the chief good of man, that is, God. We
must seek after God with supreme affection; and this doctrine is
supported in the Catholic Church by the authority of both
Testaments. The four virtues get their names from different forms of
this love. Then follow the duties of love to our neighbor. In the
Catholic Church we find examples of continence and of true Christian
conduct.
Chapter 1.âHow the Pretensions of the Manichæans are to Be Refuted.Â
Two Manichæan Falsehoods.
1. Enough, probably, has been done in our other books[47]47 in the
way of answering the ignorant and profane attacks which the
Manichæans make on the law, which is called the Old Testament, in a
spirit of vainglorious boasting, and with the approval of the
uninstructed. Here, too, I may shortly touch upon the subject. For
every one with average intelligence can easily see that the
explanation of the Scriptures should be sought for from those who are
the professed teachers of the Scriptures; and that it may happen, and
indeed always happens, that many things seem absurd to the ignorant,
which, when they are explained by the learned, appear all the more
excellent, and are received in the explanation with the greater
pleasure on account of the obstructions which made it difficult to
reach the meaning. This commonly happens as regards the holy books
of the Old Testament, if only the man who meets with difficulties
applies to a pious teacher, and not to a profane critic, and if he
begins his inquiries from a desire to find truth, and not in rash
opposition. And should the inquirer meet with some, whether bishops
or presbyters, or any officials or ministers of the Catholic Church,
who either avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or, content with
simple faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must not
despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case where neither
are all able to teach to whom the inquiry is addressed, nor are all
inquirers worthy of learning the truth. Diligence and piety are both
necessary:Â on the one hand, we must have knowledge to find truth,
and, on the other hand, we must deserve to get the knowledge.
2. But as the Manichæans have two tricks for catching the unwary,
so as to make them take them as teachers,âone, that of finding fault
with the Scriptures, which they either misunderstand or wish to be
misunderstood, the other, that of making a show of chastity and of
notable abstinence,âthis book shall contain our doctrine of life and
morals according to Catholic teaching, and will perhaps make it appear
how easy it is to pretend to virtue, and how difficult to possess
virtue. I will refrain, if I can, from attacking their weak points,
which I know well, with the violence with which they attack what they
know nothing of; for I wish them, if possible, to be cured rather than
conquered. And I will quote such testimonies from the Scriptures as
they are bound to believe, for they shall be from the New Testament;
and even from this I will take none of the passages which the
Manichæans when hard pressed are accustomed to call spurious, but
passages which they are obliged to acknowledge and approve. And for
every testimony from apostolic teaching I will bring a similar
statement from the Old Testament, that if they ever become willing to
wake up from their persistent dreams, and to rise towards the light of
Christian faith, they may discover both how far from being Christian
is the life which they profess, and how truly Christian is the
Scripture which they cavil at.
Chapter 2.âHe Begins with Arguments, in Compliance with the Mistaken
Method of the Manichæans.
3. Where, then, shall I begin? With authority, or with
reasoning? In the order of nature, when we learn anything, authority
precedes reasoning. For a reason may seem weak, when, after it is
given, it requires authority to confirm it. But because the minds of
men are obscured by familiarity with darkness, which covers them in
the night of sins and evil habits, and cannot perceive in a way
suitable to the clearness and purity of reason, there is most
wholesome provision for bringing the dazzled eye into the light of
truth under the congenial shade of authority. But since we have to
do with people who are perverse in all their thoughts and words and
actions, and who insist on nothing more than on beginning with
argument, I will, as a concession to them, take what I think a wrong
method in discussion. For I like to imitate, as far as I can, the
gentleness of my Lord Jesus Christ, who took on Himself the evil of
death itself, wishing to free us from it.
Chapter 3.âHappiness is in the Enjoyment of Manâs Chief Good. Two
Conditions of the Chief Good:Â 1st, Nothing is Better Than It; 2d, It
Cannot Be Lost Against the Will.
4. How then, according to reason, ought man to live? We all
certainly desire to live happily; and there is no human being but
assents to this statement almost before it is made. But the title
happy cannot, in my opinion, belong either to him who has not what he
loves, whatever it may be, or to him who has what he loves if it is
hurtful or to him who does not love what he has, although it is good
in perfection. For one who seeks what he cannot obtain suffers
torture, and one who has got what is not desirable is cheated, and one
who does not seek for what is worth seeking for is diseased. Now in
all these cases the mind cannot but be unhappy, and happiness and
unhappiness cannot reside at the same time in one man; so in none of
these cases can the man be happy. I find, then, a fourth case, where
the happy life exists,âwhen that which is manâs chief good is both
loved and possessed. For what do we call enjoyment but having at
hand the objects of love? And no one can be happy who does not enjoy
what is manâs chief good, nor is there any one who enjoys this who is
not happy. We must then have at hand our chief good, if we think of
living happily.
5. We must now inquire what is manâs chief good, which of course
cannot be anything inferior to man himself. For whoever follows
after what is inferior to himself, becomes himself inferior. But
every man is bound to follow what is best. Wherefore manâs chief
good is not inferior to man. Is it then something similar to man
himself? It must be so, if there is nothing above man which he is
capable of enjoying. But if we find something which is both superior
to man, and can be possessed by the man who loves it, who can doubt
that in seeking for happiness man should endeavor to reach that which
is more excellent than the being who makes the endeavor. For if
happiness consists in the enjoyment of a good than which there is
nothing better, which we call the chief good, how can a man be
properly called happy who has not yet attained to his chief good? or
how can that be the chief good beyond which something better remains
for us to arrive at? Such, then, being the chief good, it must be
something which cannot be lost against the will. For no one can feel
confident regarding a good which he knows can be taken from him,
although he wishes to keep and cherish it. But if a man feels no
confidence regarding the good which he enjoys, how can he be happy
while in such fear of losing it?
Chapter 4.âManâWhat?
6. Let us then see what is better than man. This must necessarily
be hard to find, unless we first ask and examine what man is. I am
not now called upon to give a definition of man. The question here
seems to me to be,âsince almost all agree, or at least, which is
enough, those I have now to do with are of the same opinion with me,
that we are made up of soul and body,âWhat is man? Is he both of
these? or is he the body only, or the soul only? For although the
things are two, soul and body, and although neither without the other
could be called man (for the body would not be man without the soul,
nor again would the soul be man if there were not a body animated by
it), still it is possible that one of these may be held to be man, and
may be called so. What then do we call man? Is he soul and body,
as in a double harness, or like a centaur? Or do we mean the body
only, as being in the service of the soul which rules it, as the word
lamp denotes not the light and the case together, but only the case,
yet it is on account of the light that it is so called? Or do we
mean only the mind, and that on account of the body which it rules, as
horseman means not the man and the horse, but the man only, and that
as employed in ruling the horse? This dispute is not easy to settle;
or, if the proof is plain, the statement requires time. This is an
expenditure of time and strength which we need not incur. For
whether the name man belongs to both, or only to the soul, the chief
good of man is not the chief good of the body; but what is the chief
good either of both soul and body, or of the soul only, that is manâs
chief good.
Chapter 5.âManâs Chief Good is Not the Chief Good of the Body Only,
But the Chief Good of the Soul.
7. Now if we ask what is the chief good of the body, reason obliges
us to admit that it is that by means of which the body comes to be in
its best state. But of all the things which invigorate the body,
there is nothing better or greater than the soul. The chief good of
the body, then, is not bodily pleasure, not absence of pain, not
strength, not beauty, not swiftness, or whatever else is usually
reckoned among the goods of the body, but simply the soul. For all
the things mentioned the soul supplies to the body by its presence,
and, what is above them all, life. Hence I conclude that the soul is
not the chief good of man, whether we give the name of man to soul and
body together, or to the soul alone. For as according to reason, the
chief good of the body is that which is better than the body, and from
which the body receives vigor and life, so whether the soul itself is
man, or soul and body both, we must discover whether there is anything
which goes before the soul itself, in following which the soul comes
to the perfection of good of which it is capable in its own kind. If
such a thing can be found, all uncertainty must be at an end, and we
must pronounce this to be really and truly the chief good of man.
8. If, again, the body is man, it must be admitted that the soul is
the chief good of man. But clearly, when we treat of morals,âwhen we
inquire what manner of life must be held in order to obtain
happiness,âit is not the body to which the precepts are addressed, it
is not bodily discipline which we discuss. In short, the observance
of good customs belongs to that part of us which inquires and learns,
which are the prerogatives of the soul; so, when we speak of attaining
to virtue, the question does not regard the body. But if it follows,
as it does, that the body which is ruled over by a soul possessed of
virtue is ruled both better and more honorably, and is in its greatest
perfection in consequence of the perfection of the soul which
rightfully governs it, that which gives perfection to the soul will be
manâs chief good, though we call the body man. For if my coachman,
in obedience to me, feeds and drives the horses he has charge of in
the most satisfactory manner, himself enjoying the more of my bounty
in proportion to his good conduct, can any one deny that the good
condition of the horses, as well as that of the coachman, is due to
me? So the question seems to me to be not, whether soul and body is
man, or the soul only, or the body only, but what gives perfection to
the soul; for when this is obtained, a man cannot but be either
perfect, or at least much better than in the absence of this one
thing.
Chapter 6.âVirtue Gives Perfection to the Soul; The Soul Obtains
Virtue by Following God; Following God is the Happy Life.
9. No one will question that virtue gives perfection to the soul.Â
But it is a very proper subject of inquiry whether this virtue can
exist by itself or only in the soul. Here again arises a profound
discussion, needing lengthy treatment; but perhaps my summary will
serve the purpose. God will, I trust, assist me, so that,
notwithstanding our feebleness, we may give instruction on these great
matters briefly as well as intelligibly. In either case, whether
virtue can exist by itself without the soul, or can exist only in the
soul, undoubtedly in the pursuit of virtue the soul follows after
something, and this must be either the soul itself, or virtue, or
something else. But if the soul follows after itself in the pursuit
of virtue, it follows after a foolish thing; for before obtaining
virtue it is foolish. Now the height of a followerâs desire is to
reach that which he follows after. So the soul must either not wish
to reach what it follows after, which is utterly absurd and
unreasonable, or, in following after itself while foolish, it reaches
the folly which it flees from. But if it follows after virtue in the
desire to reach it, how can it follow what does not exist? or how can
it desire to reach what it already possesses? Either, therefore,
virtue exists beyond the soul, or if we are not allowed to give the
name of virtue except to the habit and disposition of the wise soul,
which can exist only in the soul, we must allow that the soul follows
after something else in order that virtue may be produced in itself;
for neither by following after nothing, nor by following after folly,
can the soul, according to my reasoning, attain to wisdom.
10. This something else then, by following after which the soul
becomes possessed of virtue and wisdom, is either a wise man or God.Â
But we have said already that it must be something that we cannot lose
against our will. No one can think it necessary to ask whether a
wise man, supposing we are content to follow after him, can be taken
from us in spite of our unwillingness or our persistence. God then
remains, in following after whom we live well, and in reaching whom we
live both well and happily. If any deny Godâs existence, why should
I consider the method of dealing with them, when it is doubtful
whether they ought to be dealt with at all? At any rate, it would
require a different starting-point, a different plan, a different
investigation from what we are now engaged in. I am now addressing
those who do not deny the existence of God, and who, moreover, allow
that human affairs are not disregarded by Him. For there is no one,
I suppose, who makes any profession of religion but will hold that
divine Providence cares at least for our souls.
Chapter 7.âThe Knowledge of God to Be Obtained from the Scripture.Â
The Plan and Principal Mysteries of the Divine Scheme of Redemption.
11. But how can we follow after Him whom we do not see? or how can
we see Him, we who are not only men, but also men of weak
understanding? For though God is seen not with the eyes but with the
mind, where can such a mind be found as shall, while obscured by
foolishness, succeed or even attempt to drink in that light? We must
therefore have recourse to the instructions of those whom we have
reason to think wise. Thus far argument brings us. For in human
things reasoning is employed, not as of greater certainty, but as
easier from use. But when we come to divine things, this faculty
turns away; it cannot behold; it pants, and gasps, and burns with
desire; it falls back from the light of truth, and turns again to its
wonted obscurity, not from choice, but from exhaustion. What a
dreadful catastrophe is this, that the soul should be reduced to
greater helplessness when it is seeking rest from its toil! So, when
we are hasting to retire into darkness, it will be well that by the
appointment of adorable Wisdom we should be met by the friendly shade
of authority, and should be attracted by the wonderful character of
its contents, and by the utterances of its pages, which, like shadows,
typify and attemper the truth.
12. What more could have been done for our salvation? What can be
more gracious and bountiful than divine providence, which, when man
had fallen from its laws, and, in just retribution for his coveting
mortal things, had brought forth a mortal offspring, still did not
wholly abandon him? For in this most righteous government, whose
ways are strange and inscrutable, there is, by means of unknown
connections established in the creatures subject to it, both a
severity of punishment and a mercifulness of salvation. How
beautiful this is, how great, how worthy of God, in fine, how true,
which is all we are seeking for, we shall never be able to perceive,
unless, beginning with things human and at hand, and holding by the
faith and the precepts of true religion, we continue without turning
from it in the way which God has secured for us by the separation of
the patriarchs, by the bond of the law, by the foresight of the
prophets, by the witness of the apostles, by the blood of the martyrs,
and by the subjugation of the Gentiles. From this point, then, let
no one ask me for my opinion, but let us rather hear the oracles, and
submit our weak inferences to the announcements of Heaven.[48]48
Chapter 8.âGod is the Chief Good, Whom We are to Seek After with
Supreme Affection.
13. Let us see how the Lord Himself in the gospel has taught us to
live; how, too, Paul the apostle,âfor the Manichæans dare not reject
these Scriptures. Let us hear, O Christ, what chief end Thou dost
prescribe to us; and that is evidently the chief end after which we
are told to strive with supreme affection. "Thou shalt love," He
says, "the Lord thy God."Â Tell me also, I pray Thee, what must be
the measure of love; for I fear lest the desire enkindled in my heart
should either exceed or come short in fervor. "With all thy heart,"
He says. Nor is that enough. "With all thy soul." Nor is it
enough yet. "With all thy mind."[49]49  What do you wish more? I
might, perhaps, wish more if I could see the possibility of more.Â
What does Paul say on this? "We know," he says, "that all things
issue in good to them that love God."Â Let him, too, say what is the
measure of love. "Who then," he says, "shall separate us from the
love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?"[50]50Â We have heard,
then, what and how much we must love; this we must strive after, and
to this we must refer all our plans. The perfection of all our good
things and our perfect good is God. We must neither come short of
this nor go beyond it:Â the one is dangerous, the other impossible.
Chapter 9.âHarmony of the Old and New Testament on the Precepts of
Charity.[51]51
14. Come now, let us examine, or rather let us take notice,âfor it
is obvious and can be seen, at once,âwhether the authority of the Old
Testament too agrees with those statements taken from the gospel and
the apostle. What need to speak of the first statement, when it is
clear to all that it is a quotation from the law given by Moses? For
it is there written, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."[52]52Â And not
to go farther for a passage of the Old Testament to compare with that
of the apostle, he has himself added one. For after saying that no
tribulation, no distress, no persecution, no pressure of bodily want,
no peril, no sword, separates us from the love of Christ, he
immediately adds, "As it is written, For Thy sake we are in suffering
all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter."[53]53 The Manichæans are in the habit of saying that
this is an interpolation,âso unable are they to reply, that they are
forced in their extremity to say this. But every one can see that
this is all that is left for men to say when it is proved that they
are wrong.
15. And yet I ask them if they deny that this is said in the Old
Testament, or if they hold that the passage in the Old Testament does
not agree with that of the apostle. For the first, the books will
prove it; and as for the second, those prevaricators who fly off at a
tangent will be brought to agree with me, if they will only reflect a
little and consider what is said, or else I will press upon them the
opinion of those who judge impartially. For what could agree more
harmoniously than these passages? For tribulation, distress,
persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, cause great suffering to man
while in this life. So all these words are implied in the single
quotation from the law, where it is said, "For Thy sake we are in
suffering."[54]54Â The only other thing is the sword, which does not
inflict a painful life, but removes whatever life it meets with.Â
Answering to this are the words, "We are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter."Â And love could not have been more plainly expressed than
by the words, "For Thy sake."Â Suppose, then, that this testimony is
not found in the Apostle Paul, but is quoted by me, must you not
prove, you heretic, either that this is not written in the old law, or
that it does not harmonize with the apostle? And if you dare not say
either of these things (for you are shut up by the reading of the
manuscript, which will show that it is written, and by common sense,
which sees that nothing could agree better with what is said by the
apostle), why do you imagine that there is any force in accusing the
Scriptures of being corrupted? And once more, what will you reply to
a man who says to you, This is what I understand, this is my view,
this is my belief, and I read these books only because I see that
everything in them agrees with the Christian faith? Or tell me at
once if you will venture deliberately to tell me to the face that we
are not to believe that the apostles and martyrs are spoken of as
having endured great sufferings for Christâs sake, and as having been
accounted by their persecutors as sheep for the slaughter? If you
cannot say this, why should you bring a charge against the book in
which I find what you acknowledge I ought to believe?
Chapter 10.âWhat the Church Teaches About God. The Two Gods of the
Manichæans.
16. Will you say that you grant that we are bound to love God, but
not the God worshipped by those who acknowledge the authority of the
Old Testament? In that case you refuse to worship the God who made
heaven and earth, for this is the God set forth all through these
books. And you admit that the whole of the world, which is called
heaven and earth, had God and a good God for its author and maker.Â
For in speaking to you about God we must make a distinction. For you
hold that there are two gods, one good and the other bad.
But if you say that you worship and approve of worshipping the God who
made heaven and earth, but not the God supported by the authority of
the Old Testament, you act impertinently in trying, though vainly, to
attribute to us views and opinions altogether unlike the wholesome and
profitable doctrine we really hold. Nor can your silly and profane
discourses be at all compared with the expositions in which learned
and pious men of the Catholic Church open up those Scriptures to the
willing and worthy. Our understanding of the law and the prophets is
quite different from what you suppose. Mistake us no longer. We do
not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or
who takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with
guilt and crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a
little corner of it. These and such like are the silly notions you
are in the habit of denouncing at great length. Your denunciation
does not touch us. The fancies of old women or of children you
attack with a vehemence that is only ridiculous. Any one whom you
persuade in this way to join you shows no fault in the teaching of the
Church, but only proves his own ignorance of it.
17. If, then, you have any human feeling,âif you have any regard for
your own welfare,âyou should rather examine with diligence and piety
the meaning of these passages of Scripture. You should examine,
unhappy beings that you are; for we condemn with no less severity and
copiousness any faith which attributes to God what is unbecoming Him,
and in those by whom these passages are literally understood we
correct the mistake of ignorance, and look upon persistence in it as
absurd. And in many other things which you cannot understand there
is in the Catholic teaching a check on the belief of those who have
got beyond mental childishness, not in years, but in knowledge and
understandingâold in the progress towards wisdom. For we learn the
folly of believing that God is bounded by any amount of space, even
though infinite; and it is held unlawful to think of God, or any part
of Him, as moving from one place to another. And should any one
suppose that anything in Godâs substance or nature can suffer change
or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity. There are
thus among us children who think of God as having a human form, which
they suppose He really has, which is a most degrading idea; and there
are many of full age to whose mind the majesty of God appears in its
inviolableness and unchangeableness as not only above the human body,
but above their own mind itself. These ages, as we said, are
distinguished not by time, but by virtue and discretion.[55]55Â Among
you, again, there is no one who will picture God in a human form; but
neither is there one who sets God apart from the contamination of
human error. As regards those who are fed like crying babies at the
breast of the Catholic Church, if they are not carried off by
heretics, they are nourished according to the vigor and capacity of
each, and arrive at last, one in one way and another in another, first
to a perfect man, and then to the maturity and hoary hairs of wisdom,
when they may get life as they desire, and life in perfect happiness.
Chapter 11.âGod is the One Object of Love; Therefore He is Manâs Chief
Good. Nothing is Better Than God. God Cannot Be Lost Against Our
Will.
18. Following after God is the desire of happiness; to reach God is
happiness itself. We follow after God by loving Him; we reach Him,
not by becoming entirely what He is, but in nearness to Him, and in
wonderful and immaterial contact with Him, and in being inwardly
illuminated and occupied by His truth and holiness. He is light
itself; we get enlightenment from Him. The greatest commandment,
therefore, which leads to happy life, and the first, is this:Â "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind."Â
For to those who love the Lord all things issue in good. Hence Paul
adds shortly after, "I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor virtue, nor things present, nor things future, nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."[56]56Â If, then,
to those who love God all things issue in good, and if, as no one
doubts, the chief or perfect good is not only to be loved, but to be
loved so that nothing shall be loved better, as is expressed in the
words, "With all thy soul, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind,"
who, I ask, will not at once conclude, when these things are all
settled and most surely believed, that our chief good which we must
hasten to arrive at in preference to all other things is nothing else
than God? And then, if nothing can separate us from His love, must
not this be surer as well as better than any other good?
19. But let us consider the points separately. No one separates us
from this by threatening death. For that with which we love God
cannot die, except in not loving God; for death is not to love God,
and that is when we prefer anything to Him in affection and pursuit.Â
No one separates us from this in promising life; for no one separates
us from the fountain in promising water. Angels do not separate us;
for the mind cleaving to God is not inferior in strength to an
angel. Virtue does not separate us; for if what is here called
virtue is that which has power in this world, the mind cleaving to God
is far above the whole world. Or if this virtue is perfect rectitude
of our mind itself, this in the case of another will favor our union
with God, and in ourselves will itself unite us with God. Present
troubles do not separate us; for we feel their burden less the closer
we cling to Him from whom they try to separate us. The promise of
future things does not separate us; for both future good of every kind
is surest in the promise of God, and nothing is better than God
Himself, who undoubtedly is already present to those who truly cleave
to Him. Height and depth do not separate us; for if the height and
depth of knowledge are what is meant, I will rather not be inquisitive
than be separated from God; nor can any instruction by which error is
removed separate me from Him, by separation from whom it is that any
one is in error. Or if what is meant are the higher and lower parts
of this world, how can the promise of heaven separate me from Him who
made heaven? Or who from beneath can frighten me into forsaking God,
when I should not have known of things beneath but by forsaking Him?Â
In fine, what place can remove me from His love, when He could not be
all in every place unless He were contained in none?
Chapter 12.âWe are United to God by Love, in Subjection to Him.
20. "No other creature," he says, separates us. O man of profound
mysteries! He thought it not enough to say, no creature: but he
says no other creature; teaching that with which we love God and by
which we cleave to God, our mind, namely, and understanding, is itself
a creature. Thus the body is another creature; and if the mind is an
object of intellectual perception, and is known only by this means,
the other creature is all that is an object of sense, which as it were
makes itself known through the eyes, or ears, or smell, or taste, or
touch, and this must be inferior to what is perceived by the intellect
alone. Now, as God also can be known by the worthy, only
intellectually,[57]57 exalted though He is above the intelligent mind
as being its Creator and Author, there was danger lest the human mind,
from being reckoned among invisible and immaterial things, should be
thought to be of the same nature with Him who created it, and so
should fall away by pride from Him to whom it should be united by
love. For the mind becomes like God, to the extent vouchsafed by its
subjection of itself to Him for information and enlightenment. And
if it obtains the greatest nearness by that subjection which produces
likeness, it must be far removed from Him by that presumption which
would make the likeness greater. It is this presumption which leads
the mind to refuse obedience to the laws of God, in the desire to be
sovereign, as God is.
21. The farther, then, the mind departs from God, not in space, but
in affection and lust after things below Him, the more it is filled
with folly and wretchedness. So by love it returns to God,âa love
which places it not along with God, but under Him. And the more
ardor and eagerness there is in this, the happier and more elevated
will the mind be, and with God as sole governor it will be in perfect
liberty. Hence it must know that it is a creature. It must believe
what is the truth,âthat its Creator remains ever possessed of the
inviolable and immutable nature of truth and wisdom, and must confess,
even in view of the errors from which it desires deliverance, that it
is liable to folly and falsehood. But then again, it must take care
that it be not separated by the love of the other creature, that is,
of this visible world, from the love of God Himself, which sanctifies
it in order to lasting happiness. No other creature, then,âfor we
are ourselves a creature,âseparates us from the love of God which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Chapter 13.âWe are Joined Inseparably to God by Christ and His Spirit.
22. Let this same Paul tell us who is this Christ Jesus our Lord.Â
"To them that are called," he says, "we preach Christ the virtue of
God, and the wisdom of God."[58]58Â And does not Christ Himself say,
"I am the truth?"[59]59Â If, then, we ask what it is to live
well,âthat is, to strive after happiness by living well,âit must
assuredly be to love virtue, to love wisdom, to love truth, and to
love with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind;
virtue which is inviolable and immutable, wisdom which never gives
place to folly, truth which knows no change or variation from its
uniform character. Through this the Father Himself is seen; for it
is said, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."Â To this we
cleave by sanctification. For when sanctified we burn with full and
perfect love, which is the only security for our not turning away from
God, and for our being conformed to Him rather than to this world; for
"He has predestinated us," says the same apostle, "that we should be
conformed to the image of His Son."[60]60
23. It is through love, then, that we become conformed to God; and
by this conformation, and configuration, and circumcision from this
world we are not confounded with the things which are properly subject
to us. And this is done by the Holy Spirit. "For hope," he says,
"does not confound us; for the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Spirit, which is given unto us."[61]61Â But we
could not possibly be restored to perfection by the Holy Spirit,
unless He Himself continued always perfect and immutable. And this
plainly could not be unless He were of the nature and of the very
substance of God, who alone is always possessed of immutability and
invariableness. "The creature," it is affirmed, not by me but by
Paul, "has been made subject to vanity."[62]62Â And what is subject
to vanity is unable to separate us from vanity, and to unite us to the
truth. But the Holy Spirit does this for us. He is therefore no
creature. For whatever is, must be either God or the creature.
Chapter 14.âWe Cleave to the Trinity, Our Chief Good, by Love.
24. We ought then to love God, the Trinity in unity, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit; for this must be said to be God Himself, for it is
said of God, truly and in the most exalted sense, "Of whom are all
things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things."Â Those are
Paulâs words. And what does he add? "To Him be glory."[63]63 All
this is exactly true. He does not say, To them; for God is one.Â
And what is meant by, To Him be glory, but to Him be chief and perfect
and widespread praise? For as the praise improves and extends, so
the love and affection increases in fervor. And when this is the
case, mankind cannot but advance with sure and firm step to a life of
perfection and bliss. This, I suppose, is all we wish to find when
we speak of the chief good of man, to which all must be referred in
life and conduct. For the good plainly exists; and we have shown by
reasoning, as far as we were able, and by the divine authority which
goes beyond our reasoning, that it is nothing else but God Himself.Â
For how can any thing be manâs chief good but that in cleaving to
which he is blessed? Now this is nothing but God, to whom we can
cleave only by affection, desire, and love.
Chapter 15.âThe Christian Definition of the Four Virtues.
25. As to virtue leading us to a happy life, I hold virtue to be
nothing else than perfect love of God. For the fourfold division of
virtue I regard as taken from four forms of love. For these four
virtues (would that all felt their influence in their minds as they
have their names in their mouths!), I should have no hesitation in
defining them:Â that temperance is love giving itself entirely to
that which is loved; fortitude is love readily bearing all things for
the sake of the loved object; justice is love serving only the loved
object, and therefore ruling rightly; prudence is love distinguishing
with sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it. The object
of this love is not anything, but only God, the chief good, the
highest wisdom, the perfect harmony. So we may express the
definition thus:Â that temperance is love keeping itself entire and
incorrupt for God; fortitude is love bearing everything readily for
the sake of God; justice is love serving God only, and therefore
ruling well all else, as subject to man; prudence is love making a
right distinction between what helps it towards God and what might
hinder it.[64]64
Chapter 16.âHarmony of the Old and New Testaments.
26. I will briefly set forth the manner of life according to these
virtues, one by one, after I have brought forward, as I promised,
passages from the Old Testament parallel to those I have been quoting
from the New Testament. For is Paul alone in saying that we should
be joined to God so that there should be nothing between to separate
us? Does not the prophet say the same most aptly and concisely in
the words, "It is good for me to cleave to God?"[65]65Â Does not this
one word cleave express all that the apostle says at length about
love? And do not the words, It is good, point to the apostleâs
statement, "All things issue in good to them that love God?"Â Thus in
one clause and in two words the prophet sets forth the power and the
fruit of love.
27. And as the apostle says that the Son of God is the virtue of God
and the wisdom of God,âvirtue being understood to refer to action, and
wisdom to teaching (as in the gospel these two things are expressed in
the words, "All things were made by Him," which belongs to action and
virtue; and then, referring to teaching and the knowledge of the
truth, he says, "The life was the light of men"[66]66),âcould anything
agree better with these passages than what is said in the Old
Testament[67]67 of wisdom, "She reaches from end to end in strength,
and orders all things sweetly?"Â For reaching in strength expresses
virtue, while ordering sweetly expresses skill and method. But if
this seems obscure, see what follows:Â "And of all," he says, "God
loved her; for she teaches the knowledge of God, and chooses His
works."Â Nothing more is found here about action; for choosing works
is not the same as working, so this refers to teaching. There
remains action to correspond with the virtue, to complete the truth we
wish to prove. Read then what comes next: "But if," he says, "the
possession which is desired in life is honorable, what is more
honorable than wisdom, which works all things?"Â Could anything be
brought forward more striking or more distinct than this, or even more
fully expressed? Or, if you wish more, hear another passage of the
same meaning. "Wisdom," he says, "teaches sobriety, and justice, and
virtue."[68]68Â Sobriety refers, I think, to the knowledge of the
truth, or to teaching; justice and virtue to work and action. And I
know nothing comparable to these two things, that is, to efficiency in
action and sobriety in contemplation, which the virtue of God and the
wisdom of God, that is, the Son of God, gives to them that love Him,
when the same prophet goes on to show their value; for it is thus
stated:Â "Wisdom teaches sobriety, and justice, and virtue, than
which nothing is more useful in life to man."[69]69
28. Perhaps some may think that those passages do not refer to the
Son of God. What, then, is taught in the following words: "She
displays the nobility of her birth, having her dwelling with
God?"[70]70 To what does birth refer but to parentage? And does
not dwelling with the Father claim and assert equality? Again, as
Paul says that the Son of God is the wisdom of God,[71]71 and as the
Lord Himself says, "No man knoweth the Father save the only-begotten
Son,"[72]72 what could be more concordant than those words of the
prophet:Â "With Thee is wisdom which knows Thy works, which was
present at the time of Thy making the world, and knew what would be
pleasing in Thine eyes?"[73]73Â And as Christ is called the truth,
which is also taught by His being called the brightness of the
Father[74]74 (for there is nothing round about the sun but its
brightness which is produced from it), what is there in the Old
Testament more plainly and obviously in accordance with this than the
words, "Thy truth is round about Thee?"[75]75Â Once more, Wisdom
herself says in the gospel, "No man cometh unto the Father but by
me;"[76]76 and the prophet says, "Who knoweth Thy mind, unless Thou
givest wisdom?" and a little after, "The things pleasing to Thee men
have learned, and have been healed by wisdom."[77]77
29. Paul says, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the
Holy Spirit which is given unto us;"[78]78 and the prophet says, "The
Holy Spirit of knowledge will shun guile."[79]79Â For where there is
guile there is no love. Paul says that we are "conformed to the
image of the Son of God;"[80]80 and the prophet says, "The light of
Thy countenance is stamped upon us."[81]81Â Paul teaches that the
Holy Spirit is God, and therefore is no creature; and the prophet
says, "Thou sendest Thy Spirit from the higher."[82]82Â For God alone
is the highest, than whom nothing is higher. Paul shows that the
Trinity is one God, when he says, "To Him be glory;"[83]83 and in the
Old Testament it is said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one
God."[84]84
Chapter 17.âAppeal to the Manichæans, Calling on Them to Repent.
30. What more do you wish? Why do you resist ignorantly and
obstinately? Why do you pervert untutored minds by your mischievous
teaching? The God of both Testaments is one. For as there is an
agreement in the passages quoted from both, so is there in all the
rest, if you are willing to consider them carefully and impartially.Â
But because many expressions are undignified, and so far adapted to
minds creeping on the earth, that they may rise by human things to
divine,[85]85 while many are figurative, that the inquiring mind may
have the more profit from the exertion of finding their meaning, and
the more delight when it is found, you pervert this admirable
arrangement of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of deceiving and
ensnaring your followers. As to the reason why divine Providence
permits you to do this, and as to the truth of the apostleâs saying,
"There must needs be many heresies, that they which are approved may
be made manifest among you,"[86]86 it would take long to discuss these
things, and you, with whom we have now to do, are not capable of
understanding them. I know you well. To the consideration of
divine things, which are far higher than you suppose, you bring minds
quite gross and sickly, from being fed with material images.
31. We must therefore in your case try not to make you understand
divine things, which is impossible, but to make you desire to
understand. This is the work of the pure and guileless love of God,
which is seen chiefly in the conduct, and of which we have already
said much. This love, inspired by the Holy Spirit, leads to the Son,
that is, to the wisdom of God, by which the Father Himself is known.Â
For if wisdom and truth are not sought for with the whole strength of
the mind, it cannot possibly be found. But when it is sought as it
deserves to be, it cannot withdraw or hide itself from its lovers.Â
Hence its words, which you too are in the habit of repeating, "Ask,
and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be
opened unto you:"[87]87Â "Nothing is hid which shall not be
revealed."[88]88Â It is love that asks, love that seeks, love that
knocks, love that reveals, love, too, that gives continuance in what
is revealed. From this love of wisdom, and this studious inquiry, we
are not debarred by the Old Testament, as you always say most falsely,
but are exhorted to this with the greatest urgency.
32. Hear, then, at length, and consider, I pray you, what is said by
the prophet:Â "Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away; yea, she is
easily seen of them that love her, and found of such as seek her.Â
She preventeth them that desire her, in making herself first known
unto them. Whoso seeketh her early shall have no great travail; for
he shall find her sitting at his doors. To think, therefore, upon
her is perfection of wisdom; and whoso watcheth for her shall quickly
be without care. For she goeth about seeking such as are worthy of
her, showeth herself favorably unto them in the ways, and meeteth them
in every thought. For the very true beginning of her is the desire
of discipline; and the care of discipline is love; and love is the
keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the
assurance of incorruption; and incorruption maketh us near unto God.Â
Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom."[89]89Â Will
you still continue in dogged hostility to these things? Do not
things thus stated, though not yet understood, make it evident to
every one that they contain something deep and unutterable? Would
that you could understand the things here said! Forthwith you would
abjure all your silly legends and your unmeaning material
imaginations, and with great alacrity, sincere love, and full
assurance of faith, would betake yourselves bodily to the shelter of
the most holy bosom of the Catholic Church.
Chapter 18.âOnly in the Catholic Church is Perfect Truth Established
on the Harmony of Both Testaments.
33. I could, according to the little ability I have, take up the
points separately, and could expound and prove the truths I have
learned, which are generally more excellent and lofty than words can
express; but this cannot be done while you bark at it. For not in
vain is it said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs."[90]90Â Do not
be angry. I too barked and was a dog; and then, as was right,
instead of the food of teaching, I got the rod of correction. But
were there in you that love of which we are speaking, or should it
ever be in you as much as the greatness of the truth to be known
requires, may God vouchsafe to show you that neither is there among
the Manichæans the Christian faith which leads to the summit of
wisdom and truth, the attainment of which is the true happy life, nor
is it anywhere but in the Catholic teaching. Is not this what the
Apostle Paul appears to desire when he says, "For this cause I bow my
knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole
family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant unto you,
according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by
His Spirit in the inner man:Â that Christ may dwell in your hearts by
faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to
comprehend with all saints what is the height, and length, and
breadth, and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth
knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of
God?"[91]91Â Could anything be more plainly expressed?
34. Wake up a little, I beseech you, and see the harmony of both
Testaments, making it quite plain and certain what should be the
manner of life in our conduct, and to what all things should be
referred. To the love of God we are incited by the gospel, when it
is said, "Ask, seek, knock;"[92]92 by Paul, when he says, "That ye,
being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend;"[93]93
by the prophet also, when he says that wisdom can easily be known by
those who love it, seek for it, desire it, watch for it, think about
it, care for it. The salvation of the mind[94]94 and the way of
happiness is pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures; and yet
you choose rather to bark at these things than to obey them. I will
tell you in one word what I think. Do you listen to the learned men
of the Catholic Church with as peaceable a disposition, and with the
same zeal, that I had when for nine years I attended on you:[95]95Â
there will be no need of so long a time as that during which you made
a fool of me. In a much, a very much, shorter time you will see the
difference between truth and vanity.
Chapter 19.âDescription of the Duties of Temperance, According to the
Sacred Scriptures.
35. It is now time to return to the four virtues, and to draw out
and prescribe a way of life in conformity with them, taking each
separately. First, then, let us consider temperance, which promises
us a kind of integrity and incorruption in the love by which we are
united to God. The office of temperance is in restraining and
quieting the passions which make us pant for those things which turn
us away from the laws of God and from the enjoyment of His goodness,
that is, in a word, from the happy life. For there is the abode of
truth; and in enjoying its contemplation, and in cleaving closely to
it, we are assuredly happy; but departing from this, men become
entangled in great errors and sorrows. For, as the apostle says,
"The root of all evils is covetousness; which some having followed,
have made shipwreck of the faith, and have pierced themselves through
with many sorrows."[96]96Â And this sin of the soul is quite plainly,
to those rightly understanding, set forth in the Old Testament in the
transgression of Adam in Paradise. Thus, as the apostle says, "In
Adam we all die, and in Christ we shall all rise again."[97]97Â Oh,
the depth of these mysteries! But I refrain; for I am now engaged
not in teaching you the truth, but in making you unlearn your errors,
if I can, that is, if God aid my purpose regarding you.
36. Paul then says that covetousness is the root of all evils; and
by covetousness the old law also intimates that the first man fell.Â
Paul tells us to put off the old man and put on the new.[98]98Â By
the old man he means Adam who sinned, and by the new man him whom the
Son of God took to Himself in consecration for our redemption. For
he says in another place, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the
second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy, such are they
also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that
are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us
also bear the image of the heavenly,"[99]99âthat is, put off the old
man, and put on the new. The whole duty of temperance, then, is to
put off the old man, and to be renewed in God,âthat is, to scorn all
bodily delights, and the popular applause, and to turn the whole love
to things divine and unseen. Hence that following passage which is
so admirable:Â "Though our outward man perish, our inward man is
renewed day by day."[100]100Â Hear, too, the prophet singing, "Create
in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within
me."[101]101Â What can be said against such harmony except by blind
barkers?
Chapter 20.âWe are Required to Despise All Sensible Things, and to
Love God Alone.
37. Bodily delights have their source in all those things with which
the bodily sense comes in contact, and which are by some called the
objects of sense; and among these the noblest is light, in the common
meaning of the word, because among our senses also, which the mind
uses in acting through the body, there is nothing more valuable than
the eyes, and so in the Holy Scriptures all the objects of sense are
spoken of as visible things. Thus in the New Testament we are warned
against the love of these things in the following words:Â "While we
look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not
seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which
are not seen are eternal."[102]102Â This shows how far from being
Christians those are who hold that the sun and moon are to be not only
loved but worshipped. For what is seen if the sun and moon are
not? But we are forbidden to regard things which are seen. The
man, therefore, who wishes to offer that incorrupt love to God must
not love these things too. This subject I will inquire into more
particularly elsewhere. Here my plan is to write not of faith, but
of the life by which we become worthy of knowing what we believe.Â
God then alone is to be loved; and all this world, that is, all
sensible things, are to be despised,âwhile, however, they are to be
used as this life requires.
Chapter 21.âPopular Renown and Inquisitiveness are Condemned in the
Sacred Scriptures.
38. Popular renown is thus slighted and scorned in the New
Testament:Â "If I wished," says St. Paul, "to please men, I should
not be the servant of Christ."[103]103Â Again, there is another
production of the soul formed by imaginations derived from material
things, and called the knowledge of things. In reference to this we
are fitly warned against inquisitiveness to correct which is the great
function of temperance. Thus it is said, "Take heed lest any one
seduce you by philosophy."Â And because the word philosophy
originally means the love and pursuit of wisdom, a thing of great
value and to be sought with the whole mind, the apostle, with great
prudence, that he might not be thought to deter from the love of
wisdom, has added the words, "And the elements of this
world."[104]104Â For some people, neglecting virtues, and ignorant of
what God is, and of the majesty of nature which remains always the
same, think that they are engaged in an important business when
searching with the greatest inquisitiveness and eagerness into this
material mass which we call the world. This begets so much pride,
that they look upon themselves as inhabitants of the heaven of which
they often discourse. The soul, then, which purposes to keep itself
chaste for God must refrain from the desire of vain knowledge like
this. For this desire usually produces delusion, so that the soul
thinks that nothing exists but what is material; or if, from regard to
authority, it confesses that there is an immaterial existence, it can
think of it only under material images, and has no belief regarding it
but that imposed by the bodily sense. We may apply to this the
precept about fleeing from idolatry.
39. To this New Testament authority, requiring us not to love
anything in this world,[105]105 especially in that passage where it is
said, "Be not conformed to this world,"[106]106âfor the point is to
show that a man is conformed to whatever he loves,âto this authority,
then, if I seek for a parallel passage in the Old Testament, I find
several; but there is one book of Solomon, called Ecclesiastes, which
at great length brings all earthly things into utter contempt. The
book begins thus:Â "Vanity of the vain, saith the Preacher, vanity of
the vain; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor
which he taketh under the sun?"[107]107Â If all these words are
considered, weighed, and thoroughly examined, many things are found of
essential importance to those who seek to flee from the world and to
take shelter in God; but this requires time and our discourse hastens
on to other topics. But, after this beginning, he goes on to show in
detail that the vain[108]108 are those who are deceived by things of
this sort; and he calls this which deceives them vanity,ânot that God
did not create those things, but because men choose to subject
themselves by their sins to those things, which the divine law has
made subject to them in well-doing. For when you consider things
beneath yourself to be admirable and desirable, what is this but to be
cheated and misled by unreal goods? The man, then, who is temperate
in such mortal and transient things has his rule of life confirmed by
both Testaments, that he should love none of these things, nor think
them desirable for their own sakes, but should use them as far as is
required for the purposes and duties of life, with the moderation of
an employer instead of the ardor of a lover. These remarks on
temperance are few in proportion to the greatness of the theme, but
perhaps too many in view of the task on hand.
Chapter 22.âFortitude Comes from the Love of God.
40. On fortitude we must be brief. The love, then, of which we
speak, which ought with all sanctity to burn in desire for God, is
called temperance, in not seeking for earthly things, and fortitude in
bearing the loss of them. But among all things which are possessed
in this life, the body is, by Godâs most righteous laws, for the sin
of old, manâs heaviest bond, which is well known as a fact but most
incomprehensible in its mystery. Lest this bond should be shaken and
disturbed, the soul is shaken with the fear of toil and pain; lest it
should be lost and destroyed, the soul is shaken with the fear of
death. For the soul loves it from the force of habit, not knowing
that by using it well and wisely its resurrection and reformation
will, by the divine help and decree, be without any trouble made
subject to its authority. But when the soul turns to God wholly in
this love, it knows these things, and so will not only disregard
death, but will even desire it.
41. Then there is the great struggle with pain. But there is
nothing, though of iron hardness, which the fire of love cannot
subdue. And when the mind is carried up to God in this love, it will
soar above all torture free and glorious, with wings beauteous and
unhurt, on which chaste love rises to the embrace of God. Otherwise
God must allow the lovers of gold, the lovers of praise, the lovers of
women, to have more fortitude than the lovers of Himself, though love
in those cases is rather to be called passion or lust. And yet even
here we may see with what force the mind presses on with unflagging
energy, in spite of all alarms, towards that it loves; and we learn
that we should bear all things rather than forsake God, since those
men bear so much in order to forsake Him.
Chapter 23.âScripture Precepts and Examples of Fortitude.
42. Instead of quoting here authorities from the New Testament,
where it is said, "Tribulation worketh patience; and patience,
experience and experience, hope;"[109]109 and where, in addition to
these words, there is proof and confirmation of them from the example
of those who spoke them; I will rather summon an example of patience
from the Old Testament, against which the Manichæans make fierce
assaults. Nor will I refer to the man who, in the midst of great
bodily suffering, and with a dreadful disease in his limbs, not only
bore human evils, but discoursed of things divine. Whoever gives
considerate attention to the utterances of this man, will learn from
every one of them what value is to be attached to those things which
men try to keep in their power, and in so doing are themselves brought
by passion into bondage, so that they become the slaves of mortal
things, while seeking ignorantly to be their masters. This man, in
the loss of all his wealth, and on being suddenly reduced to the
greatest poverty, kept his mind so unshaken and fixed upon God, as to
manifest that these things were not great in his view, but that he was
great in relation to them, and God to him.[110]110Â If this mind were
to be found in men in our day, we should not be so strongly cautioned
in the New Testament against the possession of these things in order
that we may be perfect; for to have these things without cleaving to
them is much more admirable than not to have them at all.[111]111
43. But since we are speaking here of bearing pain and bodily
sufferings, I pass from this man, great as he was, indomitable as he
was: this is the case of a man. But these Scriptures present to me
a woman of amazing fortitude, and I must at once go on to her case.Â
This woman, along with seven children, allowed the tyrant and
executioner to extract her vitals from her body rather than a profane
word from her mouth, encouraging her sons by her exhortations, though
she suffered in the tortures of their bodies, and was herself to
undergo what she called on them to bear.[112]112Â What patience could
be greater than this? And yet why should we be astonished that the
love of God, implanted in her inmost heart, bore up against tyrant,
and executioner, and pain, and sex, and natural affection? Had she
not heard, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His
saints?"[113]113Â Had she not heard, "A patient man is better than
the mightiest?"[114]114Â Had she not heard, "All that is appointed
thee receive; and in pain bear it; and in abasement keep thy
patience:Â for in fire are gold and silver tried?"[115]115Â Had she
not heard, "The fire tries the vessels of the potter, and for just men
is the trial of tribulation?"[116]116Â These she knew, and many other
precepts of fortitude written in these books, which alone existed at
that time, by the same divine Spirit who writes those in the New
Testament.
Chapter 24.âOf Justice and Prudence.
44. What of justice that pertains to God? As the Lord says, "Ye
cannot serve two masters,"[117]117 and the apostle denounces those who
serve the creature rather than the Creator,[118]118 was it not said
before in the Old Testament, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and
Him only shalt thou serve?"[119]119Â I need say no more on this, for
these books are full of such passages. The lover, then, whom we are
describing, will get from justice this rule of life, that he must with
perfect readiness serve the God whom he loves, the highest good, the
highest wisdom, the highest peace;[120]120 and as regards all other
things, must either rule them as subject to himself, or treat them
with a view to their subjection. This rule of life, is, as we have
shown, confirmed by the authority of both Testaments.
45. With equal brevity we must treat of prudence, to which it
belongs to discern between what is to be desired and what to be
shunned. Without this, nothing can be done of what we have already
spoken of. It is the part of prudence to keep watch with most
anxious vigilance, lest any evil influence should stealthily creep in
upon us. Thus the Lord often exclaims, "Watch;"[121]121 and He says,
"Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you."[122]122Â
And then it is said, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump?"[123]123Â And no passage can be quoted from the Old
Testament more expressly condemning this mental somnolence, which
makes us insensible to destruction advancing on us step by step, than
those words of the prophet, "He who despiseth small things shall fall
by degrees."[124]124Â On this topic I might discourse at length did
our haste allow of it. And did our present task demand it, we might
perhaps prove the depth of these mysteries, by making a mock of which
profane men in their perfect ignorance fall, not certainly by degrees,
but with a headlong overthrow.
Chapter 25.âFour Moral Duties Regarding the Love of God, of Which Love
the Reward is Eternal Life and the Knowledge of the Truth.
46. I need say no more about right conduct. For if God is manâs
chief good, which you cannot deny, it clearly follows, since to seek
the chief good is to live well, that to live well is nothing else but
to love God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind;
and, as arising from this, that this love must be preserved entire and
incorrupt, which is the part of temperance; that it give way before no
troubles, which is the part of fortitude; that it serve no other,
which is the part of justice; that it be watchful in its inspection of
things lest craft or fraud steal in, which is the part of prudence.Â
This is the one perfection of man, by which alone he can succeed in
attaining to the purity of truth. This both Testaments enjoin in
concert; this is commended on both sides alike. Why do you continue
to cast reproaches on Scriptures of which you are ignorant? Do you
not see the folly of your attack upon books which only those who do
not understand them find fault with, and which only those who find
fault fail in understanding? For neither can an enemy know them, nor
can one who knows them be other than a friend to them.
47. Let us then, as many as have in view to reach eternal life, love
God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind. For
eternal life contains the whole reward in the promise of which we
rejoice; nor can the reward precede desert, nor be given to a man
before he is worthy of it. What can be more unjust than this, and
what is more just than God? We should not then demand the reward
before we deserve to get it. Here, perhaps, it is not out of place
to ask what is eternal life; or rather let us hear the Bestower of
it:Â "This," He says, "is life eternal, that they should know Thee,
the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."[125]125Â So
eternal life is the knowledge of the truth. See, then, how perverse
and preposterous is the character of those who think that their
teaching of the knowledge of God will make us perfect, when this is
the reward of those already perfect! What else, then, have we to do
but first to love with full affection Him whom we desire to
know?[126]126Â Hence arises that principle on which we have all along
insisted, that there is nothing more wholesome in the Catholic Church
than using authority[127]127 before argument.
Chapter 26.âLove of Ourselves and of Our Neighbor.
48. To proceed to what remains. It may be thought that there is
nothing here about man himself, the lover. But to think this, shows
a want of clear perception. For it is impossible for one who loves
God not to love himself. For he alone has a proper love for himself
who aims diligently at the attainment of the chief and true good; and
if this is nothing else but God, as has been shown, what is to prevent
one who loves God from loving himself? And then, among men should
there be no bond of mutual love? Yea, verily; so that we can think
of no surer step towards the love of God than the love of man to man.
49. Let the Lord then supply us with the other precept in answer to
the question about the precepts of life; for He was not satisfied with
one as knowing that God is one thing and man another, and that the
difference is nothing less than that between the Creator and the thing
created in the likeness of its Creator. He says then that the second
precept is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."[128]128Â Now
you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself.Â
What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor,
namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection. For you do
not love him as yourself, unless you try to draw him to that good
which you are yourself pursuing. For this is the one good which has
room for all to pursue it along with thee. From this precept proceed
the duties of human society, in which it is hard to keep from error.Â
But the first thing to aim at is, that we should be benevolent, that
is, that we cherish no malice and no evil design against another.Â
For man is the nearest neighbor of man.
50. Hear also what Paul says: "The love of our neighbor," he says,
"worketh no ill."[129]129Â The testimonies here made use of are very
short, but, if I mistake not, they are to the point, and sufficient
for the purpose. And every one knows how many and how weighty are
the words to be found everywhere in these books on the love of our
neighbor. But as a man may sin against another in two ways, either
by injuring him or by not helping him when it is in his power, and as
it is for these things which no loving man would do that men are
called wicked, all that is required is, I think, proved by these
words, "The love of our neighbor worketh no ill."Â And if we cannot
attain to good unless we first desist from working evil, our love of
our neighbor is a sort of cradle of our love to God, so that, as it is
said, "the love of our neighbor worketh no ill," we may rise from this
to these other words, "We know that all things issue in good to them
that love God."[130]130
51. But there is a sense in which these either rise together to
fullness and perfection, or, while the love of God is first in
beginning, the love of our neighbor is first in coming to
perfection. For perhaps divine love takes hold on us more rapidly at
the outset, but we reach perfection more easily in lower things.Â
However that may be, the main point is this, that no one should think
that while he despises his neighbor he will come to happiness and to
the God whom he loves. And would that it were as easy to seek the
good of our neighbor, or to avoid hurting him, as it is for one well
trained and kind-hearted to love his neighbor! These things require
more than mere good-will, and can be done only by a high degree of
thoughtfulness and prudence, which belongs only to those to whom it is
given by God, the source of all good. On this topicâwhich is one, I
think, of great difficultyâI will try to say a few words such as my
plan admits of, resting all my hope in Him whose gifts these are.
Chapter 27.âOn Doing Good to the Body of Our Neighbor.
52. Man, then, as viewed by his fellow-man, is a rational soul with
a mortal and earthly body in its service. Therefore he who loves his
neighbor does good partly to the manâs body, and partly to his soul.Â
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul,
discipline. Medicine here includes everything that either preserves
or restores bodily health. It includes, therefore, not only what
belongs to the art of medical men, properly so called, but also food
and drink, clothing and shelter, and every means of covering and
protection to guard our bodies against injuries and mishaps from
without as well as from within. For hunger and thirst, and cold and
heat, and all violence from without, produce loss of that health which
is the point to be considered.
53. Hence those who seasonably and wisely supply all the things
required for warding off these evils and distresses are called
compassionate, although they may have been so wise that no painful
feeling disturbed their mind in the exercise of compassion.[131]131Â
No doubt the word compassionate implies suffering in the heart of the
man who feels for the sorrow of another. And it is equally true that
a wise man ought to be free from all painful emotion when he assists
the needy, when he gives food to the hungry and water to the thirsty,
when he clothes the naked, when he takes the stranger into his house,
when he sets free the oppressed, when, lastly, he extends his charity
to the dead in giving them burial. Still the epithet compassionate
is a proper one, although he acts with tranquillity of mind, not from
the stimulus of painful feeling, but from motives of benevolence.Â
There is no harm in the word compassionate when there is no passion in
the case.
54. Fools, again, who avoid the exercise of compassion as a vice,
because they are not sufficiently moved by a sense of duty without
feeling also distressful emotion, are frozen into hard insensibility,
which is very different from the calm of a rational serenity. God,
on the other hand, is properly called compassionate; and the sense in
which He is so will be understood by those whom piety and diligence
have made fit to understand. There is a danger lest, in using the
words of the learned, we harden the souls of the unlearned by leading
them away from compassion instead of softening them with the desire of
a charitable disposition. As compassion, then, requires us to ward
off these distresses from others, so harmlessness forbids the
infliction of them.
Chapter 28.âOn Doing Good to the Soul of Our Neighbor. Two Parts of
Discipline, Restraint and Instruction. Through Good Conduct We
Arrive at the Knowledge of the Truth.
55. As regards discipline, by which the health of the mind is
restored, without which bodily health avails nothing for security
against misery, the subject is one of great difficulty. And as in
the body we said it is one thing to cure diseases and wounds, which
few can do properly, and another thing to meet the cravings of hunger
and thirst, and to give assistance in all the other ways in which any
man may at any time help another; so in the mind there are some things
in which the high and rare offices of the teacher are not much called
for,âas, for instance, in advice and exhortation to give to the needy
the things already mentioned as required for the body. To give such
advice is to aid the mind by discipline, as giving the things
themselves is aiding the body by our resources. But there are other
cases where diseases of the mind, many and various in kind, are healed
in a way strange and indescribable. Unless His medicine were sent
from heaven to men, so heedlessly do they go on in sin, there would be
no hope of salvation; and, indeed, even bodily health, if you go to
the root of the matter, can have come to men from none but God, who
gives to all things their being and their well-being.
56. This discipline, then, which is the medicine of the mind, as far
as we can gather from the sacred Scriptures, includes two things,
restraint and instruction. Restraint implies fear, and instruction
love, in the person benefited by the discipline; for in the giver of
the benefit there is the love without the fear. In both of these God
Himself, by whose goodness and mercy it is that we are anything, has
given us in the two Testaments a rule of discipline. For though both
are found in both Testaments, still fear is prominent in the Old, and
love in the New; which the apostle calls bondage in the one, and
liberty in the other. Of the marvellous order and divine harmony of
these Testaments it would take long to speak, and many pious and
learned men have discoursed on it. The theme demands many books to
set it forth and explain it as far as is possible for man. He, then,
who loves his neighbor endeavors all he can to procure his safety in
body and in soul, making the health of the mind the standard in his
treatment of the body. And as regards the mind, his endeavors are in
this order, that he should first fear and then love God. This is
true excellence of conduct, and thus the knowledge of the truth is
acquired which we are ever in the pursuit of.
57. The Manichæans agree with me as regards the duty of loving God
and our neighbor, but they deny that this is taught in the Old
Testament. How greatly they err in this is, I think, clearly shown
by the passages quoted above on both these duties. But, in a single
word, and one which only stark madness can oppose, do they not see the
unreasonableness of denying that these very two precepts which they
commend are quoted by the Lord in the Gospel from the Old Testament,
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind;" and the other, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself?"[132]132Â Or if they dare not deny this, from
the light of truth being too strong for them, let them deny that these
precepts are salutary; let them deny, if they can, that they teach the
best morality; let them assert that it is not a duty to love God, or
to love our neighbor; that all things do not issue in good to them
that love God; that it is not true that the love of our neighbor
worketh no ill (a two-fold regulation of human life which is most
salutary and excellent). By such assertions they cut themselves off
not only from Christians, but from mankind. But if they dare not
speak thus, but must confess the divinity of the precepts, why do they
not desist from assailing and maligning with horrible profanity the
books from which they are quoted?
58. Will they say, as they often do, that although we find these
precepts in the books, it does not follow that all is good that is
found there? How to meet and refute this quibble I do not well
see. Shall I discuss the words of the Old Testament one by one, to
prove to stubborn and ignorant men their perfect agreement with the
New Testament? But when will this be done? When shall I have time,
or they patience? What, then, is to be done? Shall I desert the
cause, and leave them to escape detection in an opinion which, though
false and impious, is hard to disprove? I will not. God will
Himself be at hand to aid me; nor will He suffer me in those straits
to remain helpless or forsaken.
Chapter 29.âOf the Authority of the Scriptures.
59. Attend, then, ye Manichæans, if perchance there are some of you
of whom your superstition has hold so as to allow you yet to escape.Â
Attend, I say, without obstinacy, without the desire to oppose,
otherwise your decision will be fatal to yourselves. No one can
doubt, and you are not so lost to the truth as not to understand that
if it is good, as all allow, to love God and our neighbor, whatever
hangs on these two precepts cannot rightly be pronounced bad. What
it is that hangs on them it would be absurd to think of learning from
me. Hear Christ Himself; hear Christ, I say; hear the Wisdom of
God:Â "On these two commandments," He says, "hang all the law and the
prophets."[133]133
60. What can the most shameless obstinacy say to this? That these
are not Christâs words? But they are written in the Gospel as His
words. That the writing is false? Is not this most profane
blasphemy? Is it not most presumptuous to speak thus? Is it not
most foolhardy? Is it not most criminal? The worshippers of idols,
who hate even the name of Christ, never dared to speak thus against
these Scriptures. For the utter overthrow of all literature will
follow, and there will be an end to all books handed down from the
past, if what is supported by such a strong popular belief and
established by the uniform testimony of so many men and so many times,
is brought into such suspicion, that it is not allowed to have the
credit and the authority of common history. In fine, what can you
quote from any writings of which I may not speak in this way if it is
quoted against my opinion and my purpose?[134]134
61. And is it not intolerable that they forbid us to believe a book
widely known and placed now in the hands of all, while they insist on
our believing the book which they quote? If any writing is to be
suspected, what should be more so than one which has not merited
notoriety, or which may be throughout a forgery, bearing a false
name? If you force such a writing on me against my will, and make a
display of authority to drive me into belief, shall I, when I have a
writing which I see spread far and wide for a length of time, and
sanctioned by the concordant testimony of churches scattered over all
the world, degrade myself by doubting, and, worse degradation, by
doubting at your suggestion? Even if you brought forward other
readings, I should not receive them unless supported by general
agreement; and this being the case, do you think that now, when you
bring forward nothing to compare with the text except your own silly
and inconsiderate statement, mankind are so unreasonable and so
forsaken by divine Providence as to prefer to those Scriptures not
others quoted by you in refutation, but merely your own words? You
ought to bring forward another manuscript with the same contents, but
incorrupt and more correct, with only the passage wanting which you
charge with being spurious. For example, if you hold that the
Epistle of Paul to the Romans is spurious, you must bring forward
another incorrupt, or rather another manuscript with the same epistle
of the same apostle, free from error and corruption. You say you
will not, lest you be suspected of corrupting it. This is your usual
reply, and a true one. Were you to do this, we should assuredly have
this very suspicion; and all men of any sense would have it too. See
then what you are to think of your own authority; and consider whether
it is right to believe your words against these Scriptures, when the
simple fact that a manuscript is brought forward by you makes it
dangerous to put faith in it.
Chapter 30.âThe Church Apostrophised as Teacher of All Wisdom.Â
Doctrine of the Catholic Church.
62. But why say more on this? For who but sees that men who dare
to speak thus against the Christian Scriptures, though they may not be
what they are suspected of being, are at least no Christians? For to
Christians this rule of life is given, that we should love the Lord
Our God with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind,
and our neighbor as ourselves; for on these two commandments hang all
the law and the prophets. Rightly, then, Catholic Church, most true
mother of Christians, dost thou not only teach that God alone, to find
whom is the happiest life, must be worshipped in perfect purity and
chastity, bringing in no creature as an object of adoration whom we
should be required to serve; and from that incorrupt and inviolable
eternity to which alone man should be made subject, in cleaving to
which alone the rational soul escapes misery, excluding everything
made, everything liable to change, everything under the power of time;
without confounding what eternity, and truth, and peace itself keeps
separate, or separating what a common majesty unites:Â but thou dost
also contain love and charity to our neighbor in such a way, that for
all kinds of diseases with which souls are for their sins afflicted,
there is found with thee a medicine of prevailing efficacy.
63. Thy training and teaching are childlike for children, forcible
for youths, peaceful for the aged, taking into account the age of the
mind as well as of the body. Thou subjectest women to their husbands
in chaste and faithful obedience, not to gratify passion, but for the
propagation of offspring,[135]135 and for domestic society. Thou
givest to men authority over their wives, not to mock the weaker sex,
but in the laws of unfeigned love. Thou dost subordinate children to
their parents in a kind of free bondage, and dost set parents over
their children in a godly rule. Thou bindest brothers to brothers in
a religious tie stronger and closer than that of blood. Without
violation of the connections of nature and of choice, thou bringest
within the bond of mutual love every relationship of kindred, and
every alliance of affinity. Thou teachest servants to cleave to
their masters from delight in their task rather than from the
necessity of their position. Thou renderest masters forbearing to
their servants, from a regard to God their common Master, and more
disposed to advise than to compel. Thou unitest citizen to citizen,
nation to nation, yea, man to man, from the recollection of their
first parents, not only in society but in fraternity. Thou teachest
kings to seek the good of their peoples; thou counsellest peoples to
be subject to their kings. Thou teachest carefully to whom honor is
due, to whom regard, to whom reverence, to whom fear, to whom
consolation, to whom admonition, to whom encouragement, to whom
discipline, to whom rebuke, to whom punishment; showing both how all
are not due to all, and how to all love is due, and how injury is due
to none.[136]136
64. Then, after this human love has nourished and invigorated the
mind cleaving to thy breast, and fitted it for following God, when the
divine majesty has begun to disclose itself as far as suffices for man
while a dweller on the earth, such fervent charity is produced, and
such a flame of divine love is kindled, that by the burning out of all
vices, and by the purification and sanctification of the man, it
becomes plain how divine are these words, "I am a consuming
fire,"[137]137 and, "I have come to send fire on the earth."[138]138Â
These two utterances of one God stamped on both Testaments, exhibit
with harmonious testimony, the sanctification of the soul, pointing
forward to the accomplishment of that which is also quoted in the New
Testament from the Old: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O
death, where is thy sting? Where, O death, is thy
contest?"[139]139Â Could these heretics understand this one saying,
no longer proud but quite reconciled, they would worship God nowhere
but with thee and in thy bosom. In thee, as is fit, divine precepts
are kept by widely-scattered multitudes. In thee, as is fit, it is
well understood how much more heinous sin is when the law is known
than when it is unknown. For "the sting of death is sin, and the
strength of sin is the law,"[140]140 which adds to the force with
which the consciousness of disregard of the precept strikes and
slays. In thee it is seen, as is fit, how vain is effort under the
law, when lust lays waste the mind, and is held in check by fear of
punishment, instead of being overborne by the love of virtue. Thine,
as is fit, are the many hospitable, the many friendly, the many
compassionate, the many learned, the many chaste, the many saints, the
many so ardent in their love to God, that in perfect continence and
amazing indifference to this world they find happiness even in
solitude.
Chapter 31.âThe Life of the Anachoretes and CÅnobites Set Against the
Continence of the Manichæans.
65. What must we think is seen by those who can live without seeing
their fellow-creatures, though not without loving them? It must be
something transcending human things in contemplating which man can
live without seeing his fellow-man. Hear now, ye Manichæans, the
customs and notable continence of perfect Christians, who have thought
it right not only to praise but also to practise the height of
chastity, that you may be restrained, if there is any shame in you,
from vaunting your abstinence before uninstructed minds as if it were
the hardest of all things. I will speak of things of which you are
not ignorant, though you hide them from us. For who does not know
that there is a daily increasing multitude of Christian men of
absolute continence spread all over the world, especially in the East
and in Egypt, as you cannot help knowing?
66. I will say nothing of those to whom I just now alluded, who, in
complete seclusion from the view of men, inhabit regions utterly
barren, content with simple bread, which is brought to them
periodically, and with water, enjoying communion with God, to whom in
purity of mind they cleave, and most blessed in contemplating His
beauty, which can be seen only by the understanding of saints. I
will say nothing of them, because some people think them to have
abandoned human things more than they ought, not considering how much
those may benefit us in their minds by prayer, and in their lives by
example, whose bodies we are not permitted to see. But to discuss
this point would take long, and would be fruitless; for if a man does
not of his own accord regard this high pitch of sanctity as admirable
and honorable, how can our speaking lead him to do so? Only the
Manichæans, who make a boast of nothing, should be reminded that the
abstinence and continence of the great saints of the Catholic Church
has gone so far, that some think it should be checked and recalled
within the limits of humanity,âso far above men, even in the judgment
of those who disapprove, have their minds soared.
67. But if this is beyond our tolerance, who can but admire and
commend those who, slighting and discarding the pleasures of this
world, living together in a most chaste and holy society, unite in
passing their time in prayers, in readings, in discussions, without
any swelling of pride, or noise of contention, or sullenness of envy;
but quiet, modest, peaceful, their life is one of perfect harmony and
devotion to God, an offering most acceptable to Him from whom the
power to do those things is obtained? No one possesses anything of
his own; no one is a burden to another. They work with their hands
in such occupations as may feed their bodies without distracting their
minds from God. The product of their toil they give to the decans or
tithesmen,âso called from being set over the tithes,âso that no one is
occupied with the care of his body, either in food or clothes, or in
anything else required for daily use or for the common ailments.Â
These decans, again, arranging everything with great care, and meeting
promptly the demands made by that life on account of bodily
infirmities, have one called "father," to whom they give in their
accounts. These fathers are not only more saintly in their conduct,
but also distinguished for divine learning, and of high character in
every way; and without pride they superintend those whom they call
their children, having themselves great authority in giving orders,
and meeting with willing obedience from those under their charge. At
the close of the day they assemble from their separate dwellings
before their meal to hear their father, assembling to the number of
three thousand at least for one father; for one may have even a much
larger number than this. They listen with astonishing eagerness in
perfect silence, and give expression to the feelings of their minds as
moved by the words of the preacher, in groans, or tears, or signs of
joy without noise or shouting. Then there is refreshment for the
body, as much as health and a sound condition of the body requires,
every one checking unlawful appetite, so as not to go to excess even
in the poor, inexpensive fare provided. So they not only abstain
from flesh and wine, in order to gain the mastery over their passions,
but also from those things which are only the more likely to whet the
appetite of the palate and of the stomach, from what some call their
greater cleanness, which often serves as a ridiculous and disgraceful
excuse for an unseemly taste for exquisite viands, as distant from
animal food. Whatever they possess in addition to what is required
for their support (and much is obtained, owing to their industry and
frugality), they distribute to the needy with greater care than they
took in procuring it for themselves. For while they make no effort
to obtain abundance, they make every effort to prevent their abundance
remaining with them,âso much so, that they send shiploads to places
inhabited by poor people. I need say no more on a matter known to
all.[141]141
68. Such, too, is the life of the women, who serve God assiduously
and chastely, living apart and removed as far as propriety demands
from the men, to whom they are united only in pious affection and in
imitation of virtue. No young men are allowed access to them, nor
even old men, however respectable and approved, except to the porch,
in order to furnish necessary supplies. For the women occupy and
maintain themselves by working in wool, and hand over the cloth to the
brethren, from whom, in return, they get what they need for food.Â
Such customs, such a life, such arrangements, such a system, I could
not commend as it deserves, if I wished to commend it; besides, I am
afraid that it would seem as if I thought it unlikely to gain
acceptance from the mere description of it, if I considered myself
obliged to add an ornamental eulogium to the simple narrative. Ye
Manichæans, find fault here if you can. Do not bring into
prominence our tares before men too blind to discriminate.
Chapter 32.âPraise of the Clergy.
69. There is not, however, such narrowness in the moral excellence
of the Catholic Church as that I should limit my praise of it to the
life of those here mentioned. For how many bishops have I known most
excellent and holy men, how many presbyters, how many deacons, and
ministers of all kinds of the divine sacraments, whose virtue seems to
me more admirable and more worthy of commendation on account of the
greater difficulty of preserving it amidst the manifold varieties of
men, and in this life of turmoil! For they preside over men needing
cure as much as over those already cured. The vices of the crowd
must be borne with in order that they may be cured, and the plague
must be endured before it is subdued. To keep here the best way of
life and a mind calm and peaceful is very hard. Here, in a word, we
are among people who are learning to live. There they live.
Chapter 33.âAnother Kind of Men Living Together in Cities. Fasts of
Three Days.
70. Still I would not on this account cast a slight upon a
praiseworthy class of Christians,âthose, namely, who live together in
cities, quite apart from common life. I saw at Milan a lodging-house
of saints, in number not a few, presided over by one presbyter, a man
of great excellence and learning. At Rome I knew several places
where there was in each one eminent for weight of character, and
prudence, and divine knowledge, presiding over all the rest who lived
with him, in Christian charity, and sanctity, and liberty. These,
too, are not burdensome to any one; but, in the Eastern fashion, and
on the authority of the Apostle Paul, they maintain themselves with
their own hands. I was told that many practised fasts of quite
amazing severity, not merely taking only one meal daily towards night,
which is everywhere quite common, but very often continuing for three
days or more in succession without food or drink. And this among not
men only, but women, who also live together in great numbers as widows
or virgins, gaining a livelihood by spinning and weaving, and presided
over in each case by a woman of the greatest judgment and experience,
skilled and accomplished not only in directing and forming moral
conduct, but also in instructing the understanding.[142]142
71. With all this, no one is pressed to endure hardships for which
he is unfit; nothing is imposed on any one against his will; nor is he
condemned by the rest because he confesses himself too feeble to
imitate them:Â for they bear in mind how strongly Scripture enjoins
charity on all:Â they bear in mind "To the pure all things are
pure,"[143]143 and "Not that which entereth into your mouth defileth
you, but that which cometh out of it."[144]144Â Accordingly, all
their endeavors are concerned not about the rejection of kinds of food
as polluted, but about the subjugation of inordinate desire and the
maintenance of brotherly love. They remember, "Meats for the belly,
and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and
them;"[145]145 and again, "Neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if
we refrain from eating shall we be in want;"[146]146 and, above all,
this:Â "It is good, my brethren, not to eat flesh, nor drink wine,
nor anything whereby thy brother is offended;" for this passage shows
that love is the end to be aimed at in all these things. "For one
man," he says, "believes that he can eat all things:Â another, who is
weak, eateth herbs. He that eateth, let him not despise him that
eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth:Â
for God hath approved him. Who art thou that thou shouldest judge
another manâs servant? To his own master he stands or fails; but he
shall stand:Â for God is able to make him to stand."Â And a little
after:Â "He that eateth, to the Lord he eateth, and giveth God
thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth
God thanks." Â And also in what follows:Â "So every one of us shall
give account of himself to God. Let us not, then, any more judge one
another:Â but judge this rather, that ye place no stumbling-block, or
cause of offence, in the way of a brother. I know, and am confident
in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common in itself:Â but to
him that thinketh anything to be common, to him it is common."Â Could
he have shown better that it is not in the things we eat, but in the
mind, that there is a power able to pollute it, and therefore that
even those who are fit to think lightly of these things, and know
perfectly that they are not polluted if they take any food in mental
superiority, without being gluttons, should still have regard to
charity? See what he adds: "For if thy brother be grieved with thy
meat, now walkest thou not charitably."[147]147
72. Read the rest: it is too long to quote all. You will find
that those able to think lightly of such things,âthat is, those of
greater strength and stability,âare told that they must nevertheless
abstain, lest those should be offended who from their weakness are
still in need of such abstinence. The people I was describing know
and observe these things; for they are Christians, not heretics.Â
They understand Scripture according to the apostolic teaching, not
according to the presumptuous and fictitious name of
apostle.[148]148Â Him that eats not no one despises; him that eats no
one judges; he who is weak eats herbs. Many who are strong, however,
do this for the sake of the weak; with many the reason for so doing is
not this, but that they may have a cheaper diet, and may lead a life
of the greatest tranquillity, with the least expensive provision for
the support of the body. "For all things are lawful for me," he
says; "but I will not be brought under the power of any."[149]149Â
Thus many do not eat flesh, and yet do not superstitiously regard it
as unclean. And so the same people who abstain when in health take
it when unwell without any fear, if it is required as a cure. Many
drink no wine; but they do not think that wine defiles them; for they
cause it to be given with the greatest propriety and moderation to
people of languid temperament, and, in short, to all who cannot have
bodily health without it. When some foolishly refuse it, they
counsel them as brothers not to let a silly superstition make them
weaker instead of making them holier. They read to them the
apostleâs precept to his disciple to "take a little wine for his many
infirmities."[150]150Â Then they diligently exercise piety; bodily
exercise, they know, profiteth for a short time, as the same apostle
says.[151]151
73. Those, then who are able, and they are without number, abstain
both from flesh and from wine for two reasons:Â either for the
weakness of their brethren, or for their own liberty. Charity is
principally attended to. There is charity in their choice of diet,
charity in their speech, charity in their dress, charity in their
looks. Charity is the point where they meet, and the plan by which
they act. To transgress against charity is thought criminal, like
transgressing against God. Whatever opposes this is attacked and
expelled; whatever injures it is not allowed to continue for a single
day. They know that it has been so enjoined by Christ and the
apostles; that without it all things are empty, with it all are
fulfilled.
Chapter 34.âThe Church is Not to Be Blamed for the Conduct of Bad
Christians, Worshippers of Tombs and Pictures.
74. Make objections against these, ye Manichæans, if you can.Â
Look at these people, and speak of them reproachfully, if you dare,
without falsehood. Compare their fasts with your fasts, their
chastity with yours; compare them to yourselves in dress, food,
self-restraint, and, lastly, in charity. Compare, which is most to
the point, their precepts with yours. Then you will see the
difference between show and sincerity, between the right way and the
wrong, between faith and imposture, between strength and inflatedness,
between happiness and wretchedness, between unity and disunion; in
short, between the sirens of superstition and the harbor of religion.
75. Do not summon against me professors of the Christian name, who
neither know nor give evidence of the power of their
profession.[152]152Â Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people,
who even in the true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to
evil passions as to forget what they have promised to God. I know
that there are many worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that
there are many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, in
the feasts which they make for corpses, bury themselves over the
buried, and give to their gluttony and drunkenness the name of
religion. I know that there are many who in words have renounced
this world, and yet desire to be burdened with all the weight of
worldly things, and rejoice in such burdens. Nor is it surprising
that among so many multitudes you should find some by condemning whose
life you may deceive the unwary and seduce them from Catholic safety;
for in your small numbers you are at a loss when called on to show
even one out of those whom you call the elect who keeps the precepts,
which in your indefensible superstition you profess. How silly those
are, how impious, how mischievous, and to what extent they are
neglected by most, nearly all of you, I have shown in another volume.
76. My advice to you now is this: that you should at least desist
from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the conduct
of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking daily to correct them
as wicked children. Then, if any of them by good will and by the
help of God are corrected, they regain by repentance what they had
lost by sin. Those, again, who with wicked will persist in their old
vices, or even add to them others still worse, are indeed allowed to
remain in the field of the Lord, and to grow along with the good seed;
but the time for separating the tares will come.[153]153Â Or if, from
their having at least the Christian name, they are to be placed among
the chaff rather than among thistles, there will also come One to
purge the floor and to separate the chaff from the wheat, and to
assign to each part (according to its desert) the due reward.[154]154
Chapter 35.âMarriage and Property Allowed to the Baptized by the
Apostles.
77. Meanwhile, why do you rage? why does party spirit blind your
eyes? Why do you entangle yourselves in a long defence of such great
error? Seek for fruit in the field, seek for wheat in the floor:Â
they will be found easily, and will present themselves to the
inquirer. Why do you look so exclusively at the dross? Why do you
use the roughness of the hedge to scare away the inexperienced from
the fatness of the garden? There is a proper entrance, though known
to but a few; and by it men come in, though you disbelieve it, or do
not wish to find it. In the Catholic Church there are believers
without number who do not use the world, and there are those who "use
it," in the words of the apostle, "as not using it,"[155]155 as was
proved in those times when Christians were forced to worship idols.Â
For then, how many wealthy men, how many peasant householders, how
many merchants, how many military men, how many leading men in their
own cities, and how many senators, people of both sexes, giving up all
these empty and transitory things, though while they used them they
were not bound down by them, endured death for the salutary faith and
religion, and proved to unbelievers that instead of being possessed by
all these things they really possessed them?
78. Why do you reproach us by saying that men renewed in baptism
ought no longer to beget children, or to possess fields, and houses,
and money? Paul allows it. For, as cannot be denied, he wrote to
believers, after recounting many kinds of evil-doers who shall not
possess the kingdom of God:Â "And such were you," he says:Â "but ye
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."Â By the washed
and sanctified, no one, assuredly, will venture to think any are meant
but believers, and those who have renounced this world. But, after
showing to whom he writes, let us see whether he allows these things
to them. He goes on: "All things are lawful for me, but all things
are not expedient:Â all things are lawful for me, but I will not be
brought under the power of any. Meat for the belly, and the belly
for meats: but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is
not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.Â
But God raised up the Lord, and will raise us up also by His own
power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall
I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an
harlot? God forbid. Know ye not that he which is joined to an
harlot is made one body? for the twain, saith He, shall be one
flesh. But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee
fornication. Whatever sin a man doeth is without the body: but he
that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Know ye
not that your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in
you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are
bought with a great price:Â glorify God, and carry Him in your
body."[156]156Â "But of the things concerning which ye wrote to me:Â
it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have
her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due
benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife
hath not power of her own body, but the husband:Â and likewise also
the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye
not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may
have leisure for prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you
not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not
of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself:Â
but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and
another after that."[157]157
79. Has the apostle, think you, both shown sufficiently to the
strong what is highest, and permitted to the weaker what is next
best? Not to touch a woman he shows is highest when he says, "I
would that all men were even as I myself."Â But next to this highest
is conjugal chastity, that man may not be the prey of fornication.Â
Did he say that these people were not yet believers because they were
married? Indeed, by this conjugal chastity he says that those who
are united are sanctified by one another, if one of them is an
unbeliever, and that their children also are sanctified. "The
unbelieving husband," he says, "is sanctified by the believing wife,
and the unbelieving woman by the believing husband:Â otherwise your
children would be unclean; but now are they holy."[158]158Â Why do
you persist in opposition to such plain truth? Why do you try to
darken the light of Scripture by vain shadows?
80. Do not say that catechumens are allowed to have wives, but not
believers; that catechumens may have money, but not believers. For
there are many who use as not using. And in that sacred washing the
renewal of the new man is begun so as gradually to reach perfection,
in some more quickly, in others more slowly. The progress, however,
to a new life is made in the case of many, if we view the matter
without hostility, but attentively. As the apostle says of himself,
"Though the outward man perish, the inward man is renewed day by
day."[159]159Â The apostle says that the inward man is renewed day by
day that it may reach perfection; and you wish it to begin with
perfection! And it were well if you did wish it. In reality, you
aim not at raising the weak, but at misleading the unwary. You ought
not to have spoken so arrogantly, even if it were known that you are
perfect in your childish precepts. But when your conscience knows
that those whom you bring into your sect, when they come to a more
intimate acquaintance with you, will find many things in you which
nobody hearing you accuse others would suspect, is it not great
impertinence to demand perfection in the weaker Catholics, to turn
away the inexperienced from the Catholic Church, while you show
nothing of the kind in yourself to those thus turned away? But not
to seem to inveigh against you without reason, I will now close this
volume, and will proceed at last to set forth the precepts of your
life and your notable customs.
St. AUGUSTIN:
on the
morals of the manichæans.
 [de moribus manichæorum].
A.D. 388.
translated by the
rev. richard stothert, m.a.,
bombay
On the Morals of the Manichæans.
[De Moribus Manichæorum.] a.d. 388.
Containing a particular refutation of the doctrine of these heretics
regarding the origin and nature of evil; an exposure of their
pretended symbolical customs of the mouth, of the hands, and of the
breast; and a condemnation of their superstitious abstinence and
unholy mysteries. Lastly, some crimes brought to light among the
Manichæans are mentioned.
Chapter 1.âThe Supreme Good is that Which is Possessed of Supreme
Existence.
1. Every one, I suppose, will allow that the question of things good
and evil belongs to moral science, in which such terms are in common
use. It is therefore to be wished that men would bring to these
inquiries such a clear intellectual perfection as might enable them to
see the chief good, than which nothing is better or higher, next in
order to which comes a rational soul in a state of purity and
perfection.[160]160Â If this were clearly understood, it would also
become evident that the chief good is that which is properly described
as having supreme and original existence. For that exists in the
highest sense of the word which continues always the same, which is
throughout like itself, which cannot in any part be corrupted or
changed, which is not subject to time, which admits of no variation in
its present as compared with its former condition. This is existence
in its true sense. For in this signification of the word existence
there is implied a nature which is self-contained, and which continues
immutably. Such things can be said only of God, to whom there is
nothing contrary in the strict sense of the word. For the contrary
of existence is non-existence. There is therefore no nature contrary
to God. But since the minds with which we approach the study of
these subjects have their vision damaged and dulled by silly notions,
and by perversity of will, let us try as we can to gain some little
knowledge of this great matter by degrees and with caution, making our
inquiries not like men able to see, but like men groping the dark.
Chapter 2.âWhat Evil is. That Evil is that Which is Against
Nature. In Allowing This, the Manichæans Refute Themselves.
2. You Manichæans often, if not in every case, ask those whom you
try to bring over to your heresy, Whence is evil? Suppose I had now
met you for the first time, I would ask you, if you please, to follow
my example in putting aside for a little the explanation you suppose
yourselves to have got of these subjects, and to commence this great
inquiry with me as if for the first time. You ask me, Whence is
evil? I ask you in return, What is evil? Which is the more
reasonable question? Are those right who ask whence a thing is, when
they do not know what it is; or he who thinks it necessary to inquire
first what it is, in order to avoid the gross absurdity of searching
for the origin of a thing unknown? Your answer is quite correct,
when you say that evil is that which is contrary to nature; for no one
is so mentally blind as not to see that, in every kind, evil is that
which is contrary to the nature of the kind. But the establishment
of this doctrine is the overthrow of your heresy. For evil is no
nature, if it is contrary to nature. Now, according to you, evil is
a certain nature and substance. Moreover, whatever is contrary to
nature must oppose nature and seek its destruction. For nature means
nothing else than that which anything is conceived of as being in its
own kind. Hence is the new word which we now use derived from the
word for being,âessence namely, or, as we usually say,
substance,âwhile before these words were in use, the word nature was
used instead. Here, then, if you will consider the matter without
stubbornness, we see that evil is that which falls away from essence
and tends to non-existence.
3. Accordingly, when the Catholic Church declares that God is the
author of all natures and substances, those who understand this
understand at the same time that God is not the author of evil. For
how can He who is the cause of the being of all things be at the same
time the cause of their not being,âthat is, of their falling off from
essence and tending to non-existence? For this is what reason
plainly declares to be the definition of evil. Now, how can that
race of evil of yours, which you make the supreme evil, be against
nature, that is, against substance, when it, according to you, is
itself a nature and substance? For if it acts against itself, it
destroys its own existence; and when that is completely done, it will
come at last to be the supreme evil. But this cannot be done,
because you will have it not only to be, but to be everlasting. That
cannot then be the chief evil which is spoken of as a
substance.[161]161
4. But what am I to do? I know that many of you can understand
nothing of all this. I know, too, that there are some who have a
good understanding and can see these things, and yet are so stubborn
in their choice of evil,âa choice that will ruin their understanding
as well,âthat they try rather to find what reply they can make in
order to impose upon inactive and feeble minds, instead of giving
their assent to the truth. Still I shall not regret having written
either what one of you may come some day to consider impartially, and
be led to abandon your error, or what men of understanding and in
allegiance to God, and who are still untainted with your errors, may
read and so be kept from being led astray by your addresses.
Chapter 3.âIf Evil is Defined as that Which is Hurtful, This Implies
Another Refutation of the Manichæans.
5. Let us then inquire more carefully, and, if possible, more
plainly. I ask you again, What is evil? If you say it is that
which is hurtful, here, too, you will not answer amiss. But
consider, I pray you; be on your guard, I beg of you; be so good as to
lay aside party spirit, and make the inquiry for the sake of finding
the truth, not of getting the better of it. Whatever is hurtful
takes away some good from that to which it is hurtful; for without the
loss of good there can be no hurt. What, I appeal to you, can be
plainer than this? what more intelligible? What else is required for
complete demonstration to one of average understanding, if he is not
perverse? But, if this is granted, the consequence seems plain. In
that race which you take for the chief evil, nothing can be liable to
be hurt, since there is no good in it. But if, as you assert, there
are two natures,âthe kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness;
since you make the kingdom of light to be God, attributing to it an
uncompounded nature,[162]162 so that it has no part inferior to
another, you must grant, however decidedly in opposition to
yourselves, you must grant, nevertheless, that this nature, which you
not only do not deny to be the chief good, but spend all your strength
in trying to show that it is so, is immutable, incorruptible,
impenetrable, inviolable, for otherwise it would not be the chief
good; for the chief good is that than which there is nothing better,
and for such a nature to be hurt is impossible. Again, if, as has
been shown, to hurt is to deprive of good, there can be no hurt to the
kingdom of darkness, for there is no good in it. And as the kingdom
of light cannot be hurt, as it is inviolable, what can the evil you
speak of be hurtful to?
Chapter 4.âThe Difference Between What is Good in Itself and What is
Good by Participation.
6. Now, compare with this perplexity, from which you cannot escape,
the consistency of the statements in the teaching of the Catholic
Church, according to which there is one good which is good supremely
and in itself, and not by the participation of any good, but by its
own nature and essence; and another good which is good by
participation, and by having something bestowed. Thus it has its
being as good from the supreme good, which, however, is still
self-contained, and loses nothing. This second kind of good is called
a creature, which is liable to hurt through falling away. But of
this falling away God is not the author, for He is author of existence
and of being. Here we see the proper use of the word evil; for it is
correctly applied not to essence, but to negation or loss. We see,
too, what nature it is which is liable to hurt. This nature is not
the chief evil, for when it is hurt it loses good; nor is it the chief
good, for its falling away from good is because it is good not
intrinsically, but by possessing the good. And a thing cannot be
good by nature when it is spoken of as being made, which shows that
the goodness was bestowed. Thus, on the one hand, God is the good,
and all things which He has made are good, though not so good as He
who made them. For what madman would venture to require that the
works should equal the workman, the creatures the Creator? What more
do you want? Could you wish for anything plainer than this?
Chapter 5.âIf Evil is Defined to Be Corruption, This Completely
Refutes the Manichæan Heresy.
7. I ask a third time, What is evil? Perhaps you will reply,
Corruption. Undeniably this is a general definition of evil; for
corruption implies opposition to nature, and also hurt. But
corruption exists not by itself, but in some substance which it
corrupts; for corruption itself is not a substance. So the thing
which it corrupts is not corruption, is not evil; for what is
corrupted suffers the loss of integrity and purity. So that which
has no purity to lose cannot be corrupted; and what has, is
necessarily good by the participation of purity. Again, what is
corrupted is perverted; and what is perverted suffers the loss of
order, and order is good. To be corrupted, then, does not imply the
absence of good; for in corruption it can be deprived of good, which
could not be if there was the absence of good. Therefore that race
of darkness, if it was destitute of all good, as you say it was, could
not be corrupted, for it had nothing which corruption could take from
it; and if corruption takes nothing away, it does not corrupt. Say
now, if you dare, that God and the kingdom of God can be corrupted,
when you cannot show how the kingdom of the devil, such as you make
it, can be corrupted.
Chapter 6.âWhat Corruption Affects and What It is.
8. What further does the Catholic light say? What do you suppose,
but what is the actual truth, that it is the created substance which
can be corrupted, for the uncreated, which is the chief good, is
incorruptible; and corruption, which is the chief evil, cannot be
corrupted; besides, that it is not a substance? But if you ask what
corruption is, consider to what it seeks to bring the things which it
corrupts; for it affects those things according to its own nature.Â
Now all things by corruption fall away from what they were, and are
brought to non-continuance, to non-existence; for existence implies
continuance. Thus the supreme and chief existence is so called
because it continues in itself, or is self-contained. In the case of
a thing changing for the better, the change is not from continuance,
but from perversion to the worse, that is, from falling away from
essence; the author of which falling away is not He who is the author
of the essence. So in some things there is change for the better,
and so a tendency towards existence. And this change is not called a
perversion, but reversion or conversion; for perversion is opposed to
orderly arrangement. Now things which tend towards existence tend
towards order, and, attaining order they attain existence, as far as
that is possible to a creature. For order reduces to a certain
uniformity that which it arranges; and existence is nothing else than
being one. Thus, so far as anything acquires unity, so far it
exists. For uniformity and harmony are the effects of unity, and by
these compound things exist as far as they have existence. For
simple things exist by themselves, for they are one. But things not
simple imitate unity by the agreement of their parts; and so far as
they attain this, so far they exist. This arrangement is the cause
of existence, disorder of non-existence; and perversion or corruption
are the other names for disorder. So whatever is corrupted tends to
non-existence. You may now be left to reflect upon the effect of
corruption, that you may discover what is the chief evil; for it is
that which corruption aims at accomplishing.
Chapter 7.âThe Goodness of God Prevents Corruption from Bringing
Anything to Non-Existence. The Difference Between Creating and
Forming.
9. But the goodness of God does not permit the accomplishment of
this end, but so orders all things that fall away that they may exist
where their existence is most suitable, till in the order of their
movements they return to that from which they fell away.[163]163 Thus,
when rational souls fall away from God, although they possess the
greatest amount of free-will, He ranks them in the lower grades of
creation, where their proper place is. So they suffer misery by the
divine judgment, while they are ranked suitably to their deserts.Â
Hence we see the excellence of that saying which you are always
inveighing against so strongly, "I make good things, and create evil
things."[164]164 To create is to form and arrange. So in some
copies it is written, "I make good things and form evil things."Â To
make is used of things previously not in existence; but to form is to
arrange what had some kind of existence, so as to improve and enlarge
it. Such are the things which God arranges when He says, "I form
evil things," meaning things which are falling off, and so tending to
non-existence,ânot things which have reached that to which they
tend. For it has been said, Nothing is allowed in the providence of
God to go the length of non-existence.[165]165
10. These things might be discussed more fully and at greater
length, but enough has been said for our purpose in dealing with
you. We have only to show you the gate which you despair of finding,
and make the uninstructed despair of it too. You can be made to
enter only by good-will, on which the divine mercy bestows peace, as
the song in the Gospel says, "Glory to God in the highest, and on
earth peace to men of good-will."[166]166Â It is enough, I say, to
have shown you that there is no way of solving the religious question
of good and evil, unless whatever is, as far as it is, is from God;
while as far as it falls away from being it is not of God, and yet is
always ordered by Divine Providence in agreement with the whole
system. If you do not yet see this, I know nothing else that I can
do but to discuss the things already said with greater
particularity. For nothing save piety and purity can lead the mind
to greater things.
Chapter 8.âEvil is Not a Substance, But a Disagreement Hostile to
Substance.
11. For what other answer will you give to the question, What is
evil? but either that it is against nature, or that it is hurtful, or
that it is corruption, or something similar? But I have shown that
in these replies you make shipwreck of your cause, unless, indeed, you
will answer in the childish way in which you generally speak to
children, that evil is fire, poison, a wild beast, and so on. For
one of the leaders of this heresy, whose instructions we attended with
great familiarity and frequency, used to say with reference to a
person who held that evil was not a substance, "I should like to put a
scorpion in the manâs hand, and see whether he would not withdraw his
hand; and in so doing he would get a proof, not in words but in the
thing itself, that evil is a substance, for he would not deny that the
animal is a substance." Â He said this not in the presence of the
person, but to us, when we repeated to him the remark which had
troubled us, giving, as I said, a childish answer to children. For
who with the least tincture of learning or science does not see that
these things hurt by disagreement with the bodily temperament, while
at other times they agree with it, so as not only not to hurt, but to
produce the best effects? For if this poison were evil in itself,
the scorpion itself would suffer first and most. In fact, if the
poison were quite taken from the animal, it would die. So for its
body it is evil to lose what it is evil for our body to receive; and
it is good for it to have what it is good for us to want. Is the
same thing then both good and evil? By no means; but evil is what is
against nature, for this is evil both to the animal and to us. This
evil is the disagreement, which certainly is not a substance, but
hostile to substance. Whence then is it? See what it leads to, and
you will learn, if any inner light lives in you. It leads all that
it destroys to non-existence. Now God is the author of existence;
and there is no existence which, as far as it is existing, leads to
non-existence:Â Thus we learn whence disagreement is not; as to
whence it is, nothing can be said.
12. We read in history of a female criminal in Athens, who succeeded
in drinking the quantity of poison allotted as a fatal draught for the
condemned with little or no injury to her health, by taking it at
intervals. So being condemned, she took the poison in the prescribed
quantity like the rest, but rendered it powerless by accustoming
herself to it, and did not die like the rest. And as this excited
great wonder, she was banished. If poison is an evil, are we to
think that she made it to be no evil to her? What could be more
absurd than this? But because disagreement is an evil, what she did
was to make the poisonous matter agree with her own body by a process
of habituation. For how could she by any amount of cunning have
brought it about that disagreement should not hurt her? Why so?Â
Because what is truly and properly an evil is hurtful both always and
to all. Oil is beneficial to our bodies, but very much the opposite
to many six-footed animals. And is not hellebore sometimes food,
sometimes medicine, and sometimes poison. Does not every one
maintain that salt taken in excess is poisonous? And yet the
benefits to the body from salt are innumerable and most important.Â
Sea-water is injurious when drunk by land animals, but it is most
suitable and useful to many who bathe their bodies in it and to fish
it is useful and wholesome in both ways. Bread nourishes man, but
kills hawks. And does not mud itself, which is offensive and noxious
when swallowed or smelt, serve as cooling to the touch in hot weather,
and as a cure for wounds from fire? What can be nastier than dung,
or more worthless than ashes? And yet they are of such use to the
fields, that the Romans thought divine honors due to the discoverer,
Stercutio, from whose name the word for dung [stercus] is derived.
13. But why enumerate details which are countless? We need not go
farther than the four elements themselves, which, as every one knows,
are beneficial when there is agreement, and bitterly opposed to nature
when there is disagreement in the objects acted upon. We who live in
air die under earth or under water, while innumerable animals creep
alive in sand or loose earth, and fish die in our air. Fire consumes
our bodies, but, when suitably applied, it both restores from cold,
and expels diseases without number. The sun to which you bow the
knee, and than which, indeed, there is no fairer object among visible
things, strengthens the eyes of eagles, but hurts and dims our eyes
when we gaze on it; and yet we too can accustom ourselves to look upon
it without injury. Will you, then, allow the sun to be compared to
the poison which the Athenian woman made harmless by habituating
herself to it? Reflect for once, and consider that if a substance is
an evil because it hurts some one, the light which you worship cannot
be acquitted of this charge. See the preferableness of making evil
in general to consist in this disagreement, from which the sunâs ray
produces dimness in the eyes, though nothing is pleasanter to the eyes
than light.[167]167
Chapter 9.âThe Manichæan Fictions About Things Good and Evil are Not
Consistent with Themselves.
14. I have said these things to make you cease, if that is possible,
giving the name of evil to a region boundless in depth and length; to
a mind wandering through the region; to the five caverns of the
elements,âone full of darkness, another of waters, another of winds,
another of fire, another of smoke; to the animals born in each of
these elements,âserpents in the darkness, swimming creatures in the
waters, flying creatures in the winds, quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds
in the smoke. For these things, as you describe them, cannot be
called evil; for all such things, as far as they exist, must have
their existence from the most high God, for as far as they exist they
are good. If pain and weakness is an evil, the animals you speak of
were of such physical strength that their abortive offspring, after,
as your sect believes, the world was formed of them, fell from heaven
to earth, according to you, and could not die. If blindness is an
evil, they could see; if deafness, they could hear. If to be nearly
or altogether dumb is an evil, their speech was so clear and
intelligible, that, as you assert, they decided to make war against
God in compliance with an address delivered in their assembly. If
sterility is an evil, they were prolific in children. If exile is an
evil, they were in their own country, and occupied their own
territories. If servitude is an evil, some of them were rulers. If
death is an evil, they were alive, and the life was such that, by your
statement, even after God was victorious, it was impossible for the
mind ever to die.
15. Can you tell me how it is that in the chief evil so many good
things are to be found, the opposites of the evils above mentioned?
and if these are not evils, can any substance be an evil, as far as it
is a substance? If weakness is not an evil, can a weak body be an
evil? If blindness is not an evil, can darkness be an evil? If
deafness is not an evil, can a deaf man be an evil? If dumbness is
not an evil, can a fish be an evil? If sterility is not an evil, how
can we call a barren animal an evil? If exile is not an evil, how
can we give that name to an animal in exile, or to an animal sending
some one into exile? If servitude is not an evil, in what sense is a
subject animal an evil, or one enforcing subjection? If death is not
an evil, in what sense is a mortal animal an evil, or one causing
death? Or if these are evils, must we not give the name of good
things to bodily strength, sight, hearing, persuasive speech,
fertility, native land, liberty, life, all which you hold to exist in
that kingdom of evil, and yet venture to call it the perfection of
evil?
16. Once more, if, as has never been denied, unsuitableness is an
evil, what can be more suitable than those elements to their
respective animals,âthe darkness to serpents, the waters to swimming
creatures, the winds to flying creatures, the fire to voracious
animals, the smoke to soaring animals? Such is the harmony which you
describe as existing in the race of strife; such the order in the seat
of confusion. If what is hurtful is an evil, I do not repeat the
strong objection already stated, that no hurt can be suffered where no
good exists; but if that is not so clear, one thing at least is easily
seen and understood as following from the acknowledged truth, that
what is hurtful is an evil. The smoke in that region did not hurt
bipeds:Â it produced them, and nourished and sustained them without
injury in their birth, their growth, and their rule. But now, when
the evil has some good mixed with it, the smoke has become more
hurtful, so that we, who certainly are bipeds, instead of being
sustained by it, are blinded, and suffocated, and killed by it.Â
Could the mixture of good have given such destructiveness to evil
elements? Could there be such confusion in the divine government?
17. In the other cases, at least, how is it that we find that
congruity which misled your author and induced him to fabricate
falsehoods? Why does darkness agree with serpents, and waters with
swimming creatures, and winds with flying creatures, though the fire
burns up quadrupeds, and smoke chokes us? Then, again, have not
serpents very sharp sight, and do they not love the sunshine, and
abound most where the calmness of the air prevents the clouds from
gathering much or often? How very absurd that the natives and lovers
of darkness should live most comfortably and agreeably where the
clearest light is enjoyed! Or if you say that it is the heat rather
than the light that they enjoy, it would be more reasonable to assign
to fire serpents, which are naturally of rapid motion, than the
slow-going asp.[168]168Â Besides, all must admit that light is
agreeable to the eyes of the asp, for they are compared to an eagleâs
eyes. But enough of the lower animals. Let us, I pray, attend to
what is true of ourselves without persisting in error, and so our
minds shall be disentangled from silly and mischievous falsehoods.Â
For is it not intolerable perversity to say that in the race of
darkness, where there was no mixture of light, the biped animals had
so sound and strong, so incredible force of eyesight, that even in
their darkness they could see the perfectly pure light (as you
represent it) of the kingdom of God? for, according to you, even these
beings could see this light, and could gaze at it, and study it, and
delight in it, and desire it; whereas our eyes, after mixture with
light, with the chief good, yea, with God, have become so tender and
weak, that we can neither see anything in the dark, nor bear to look
at the sun, but, after looking, lose sight of what we could see
before.
18. The same remarks are applicable if we take corruption to be an
evil, which no one doubts. The smoke did not corrupt that race of
animals, though it corrupts animals now. Not to go over all the
particulars, which would be tedious, and is not necessary, the living
creatures of your imaginary description were so much less liable to
corruption than animals are now, that their abortive and premature
offspring, cast headlong from heaven to earth, both lived and were
productive, and could band together again, having, forsooth, their
original vigor, because they were conceived before good was mixed with
the evil; for, after this mixture, the animals born are, according to
you, those which we now see to be very feeble and easily giving way to
corruption. Can any one persist in the belief of error like this,
unless he fails to see these things, or is affected by your habit and
association in such an amazing way as to be proof against all the
force of reasoning?
Chapter 10.âThree Moral Symbols Devised by the Manichæans for No
Good.
19. Now that I have shown, as I think, how much darkness and error
is in your opinions about good and evil things in general, let us
examine now those three symbols which you extol so highly, and boast
of as excellent observances. What then are those three symbols?Â
That of the mouth, that of the hands, and that of the breast. What
does this mean? That man, we are told, should be pure and innocent
in mouth, in hands, and in breast. But what if he sins with eyes,
ears, or nose? What if he hurts some one with his heels, or perhaps
kills him? How can he be reckoned criminal when he has not sinned
with mouth, hands, or breast? But, it is replied, by the mouth we
are to understand all the organs of sense in the head; by the hands,
all bodily actions; by the breast, all lustful tendencies. To what,
then, do you assign blasphemies? To the mouth or to the hand? For
blasphemy is an action of the tongue. And if all actions are to be
classed under one head, why should you join together the actions of
the hands and the feet, and not those of the tongue. Do you wish to
separate the action of the tongue, as being for the purpose of
expressing something, from actions which are not for this purpose, so
that the symbol of the hands should mean abstinence from all evil
actions which are not for the purpose of expressing something? But
then, what if some one sins by expressing something with his hands, as
is done in writing or in some significant gesture? This cannot be
assigned to the tongue and the mouth, for it is done by the hands.Â
When you have three symbols of the mouth, the hands, and the breast,
it is quite inadmissible to charge against the mouth sins found in the
hands. And if you assign action in general to the hands, there is no
reason for including under this the action of the feet and not that of
the tongue. Do you see how the desire of novelty, with its attendant
error, lands you in great difficulties? For you find it impossible
to include purification of all sins in these three symbols, which you
set forth as a kind of new classification.
Chapter 11.âThe Value of the Symbol of the Mouth Among the
Manichæans, Who are Found Guilty of Blaspheming God.
20. Classify as you please, omit what you please, we must discuss
the doctrines you insist upon most. You say that the symbol of the
mouth implies refraining from all blasphemy. But blasphemy is
speaking evil of good things. So usually the word blasphemy is
applied only to speaking evil of God; for as regards man there is
uncertainty, but God is without controversy good. If, then, you are
proved guilty of saying worse things of God than any one else says,
what becomes of your famous symbol of the mouth? The evidence is not
obscure, but clear and obvious to every understanding, and
irresistible, the more so that no one can remain in ignorance of it,
that God is incorruptible, immutable, liable to no injury, to no want,
to no weakness, to no misery. All this the common sense of rational
beings perceives, and even you assent when you hear it.
21. But when you begin to relate your fables, that God is
corruptible, and mutable, and subject to injury, and exposed to want
and weakness, and not secure from misery, this is what you are blind
enough to teach, and what some are blind enough to believe. And this
is not all; for, according to you, God is not only corruptible, but
corrupted; not only changeable, but changed; not only subject to
injury, but injured; not only liable to want, but in want; not only
possibly, but actually weak; not only exposed to misery, but
miserable. You say that the soul is God, or a part of God. I do
not see how it can be part of God without being God. A part of gold
is gold; of silver silver; of stone stone; and, to come to greater
things, part of earth is earth, part of water is water, and of air
air; and if you take part from fire, you will not deny it to be fire;
and part of light can be nothing but light. Why then should part of
God not be God? Has God a jointed body, like man and the lower
animals? For part of man is not man.
22. I will deal with each of these opinions separately. If you
view God as resembling light, you must admit that part of God is
God. Hence, when you make the soul part of God, though you allow it
to be corrupted as being foolish, and changed as having once been
wise, and in want as needing health, and feeble as needing medicine,
and miserable as desiring happiness, all these things you profanely
attribute to God. Or if you deny these things of the mind, it
follows that the Spirit is not required to lead the soul into truth,
since it is not in folly; nor is the soul renewed by true religion,
since it does not need renewal; nor is it perfected by your symbols,
since it is already perfect; nor does God give it assistance, since it
does not need it; nor is Christ its physician, since it is in health;
nor does it require the promise of happiness in another life. Why
then is Jesus called the deliverer, according to His own words in the
Gospel, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free
indeed?"[169]169Â And the Apostle Paul says, "Ye have been called to
liberty."[170]170Â The soul, then, which has not attained this
liberty is in bondage. Therefore, according to you, God, since part
of God is God, is both corrupted by folly, and is changed by falling,
and is injured by the loss of perfection, and is in need of help, and
is weakened by disease, and bowed down with misery, and subject to
disgraceful bondage.
23. Again, if part of God is not God, still He is not incorrupt when
His part is corrupted, nor unchanged when there is change in any part,
nor uninjured when He is not perfect in every part, nor free from want
when He is busily endeavoring to recover part of Himself, nor quite
whole when He has a weak part, nor perfectly happy when any part is
suffering misery, nor entirely free when any part is under bondage.Â
These are conclusions to which you are driven, because you say that
the soul, which you see to be in such a calamitous condition, is part
of God. If you can succeed in making your sect abandon these and
many similar opinions, then you may speak of your mouth being free
from blasphemies. Better still, leave the sect; for if you cease to
believe and to repeat what Manichæus has written, you will be no
longer Manichæans.
24. That God is the supreme good, and that than which nothing can be
or can be conceived better, we must either understand or believe, if
we wish to keep clear of blasphemy. There is a relation of numbers
which cannot possibly be impaired or altered, nor can any nature by
any amount of violence prevent the number which comes after one from
being the double of one. This can in no way be changed; and yet you
represent God as changeable! This relation preserves its integrity
inviolable; and you will not allow God an equality even in this! Let
some race of darkness take in the abstract the number three,
consisting of indivisible units, and divide it into two equal parts.Â
Your mind perceives that no hostility could effect this. And can
that which is unable to injure a numerical relation injure God? If
it could not, what possible necessity could there be for a part of him
to be mixed with evil, and driven into such miseries?
Chapter 12.âManichæan Subterfuge.
25. For this gives rise to the question, which used to throw us into
great perplexity even when we were your zealous disciples, nor could
we find any answer,âwhat the race of darkness would have done to God,
supposing He had refused to fight with it at the cost of such calamity
to part of Himself. For if God would not have suffered any loss by
remaining quiet, we thought it hard that we had been sent to endure so
much. Again, if He would have suffered, His nature cannot have been
incorruptible, as it behoves the nature of God to be. Sometimes the
answer was, that it was not for the sake of escaping evil or avoiding
injury, but that God in His natural goodness wished to bestow the
blessing of order on a disturbed and disordered nature. This is not
what we find in the Manichæan books: there it is constantly implied
and constantly asserted that God guarded against an invasion of His
enemies. But supposing this answer, which was given from want of a
better, to represent the opinion of the Manichæans, is God, in their
view, vindicated from the charge of cruelty or weakness? For this
goodness of His to the hostile race proved most pernicious to His own
subjects. Besides, if Godâs nature could not be corrupted nor
changed, neither could any destructive influence corrupt or change us;
and the order to be bestowed on the race of strangers might have been
bestowed without robbing us of it.
26. Since those times, however, another answer has appeared which I
heard recently at Carthage. For one, whom I wish much to see brought
out of this error, when reduced to this same dilemma, ventured to say
that the kingdom had its own limits, which might be invaded by a
hostile race, though God Himself could not be injured. But this is a
reply which your founder would never consent to give; for he would be
likely to see that such an opinion would lead to a still speedier
demolition of his heresy. And in fact any one of average intellect,
who hears that in this nature part is subject to injury and part not,
will at once perceive that this makes not two but three natures,âone
violable, a second inviolable, and a third violating.
Chapter 13.âActions to Be Judged of from Their Motive, Not from
Externals. Manichæan Abstinence to Be Tried by This Principle.
27. Having every day in your mouth these blasphemies which come from
your heart, you ought not to continue holding up the symbol of the
mouth as something wonderful, to ensnare the ignorant. But perhaps
you think the symbol of the mouth excellent and admirable because you
do not eat flesh or drink wine. But what is your end in this? For
according as the end we have in view in our actions, on account of
which we do whatever we do, is not only not culpable but also
praiseworthy, so only can our actions merit any praise. If the end
we have regard to in any performance is unlawful and blameworthy, the
performance itself will be unhesitatingly condemned as improper.
28. We are told of Catiline that he could bear cold, thirst, and
hunger.[171]171Â This the vile miscreant had in common with our
apostles. What then distinguishes the parricide from our apostles
but the precisely opposite end which he followed? He bore these
things in order to gratify his fierce and ungoverned passions; they,
on the other hand, in order to restrain these passions and subdue them
to reason. You often say, when you are told of the great number of
Catholic virgins, a she-mule is a virgin. This, indeed, is said in
ignorance of the Catholic system, and is not applicable. Still, what
you mean is that this continence is worthless unless it leads, on
right principles, to an end of high excellence. Catholic Christians
might also compare your abstinence from wine and flesh to that of
cattle and many small birds, as likewise of countless sorts of
worms. But, not to be impertinent like you, I will not make this
comparison prematurely, but will first examine your end in what you
do. For I suppose I may safely take it as agreed on, that in such
customs the end is the thing to look to. Therefore, if your end is
to be frugal and to restrain the appetite which finds gratification in
eating and drinking, I assent and approve. But this is not the case.
29. Suppose, what is quite possible, that there is one so frugal and
sparing in his diet, that, instead of gratifying his appetite or his
palate, he refrains from eating twice in one day, and at supper takes
a little cabbage moistened and seasoned with lard, just enough to keep
down hunger; and quenches his thirst, from regard to his health, with
two or three draughts of pure wine; and this is his regular diet:Â
whereas another of different habits never takes flesh or wine, but
makes an agreeable repast at two oâclock on rare and foreign
vegetables, varied with a number of courses, and well sprinkled with
pepper, and sups in the same style towards night; and drinks
honey-vinegar, mead, raisin-wine, and the juices of various fruits, no
bad imitation of wine, and even surpassing it in sweetness; and drinks
not for thirst but for pleasure; and makes this provision for himself
daily, and feasts in this sumptuous style, not because he requires it,
but only gratifying his taste;âwhich of these two do you regard as
living most abstemiously in food and drink? You cannot surely be so
blind as not to put the man of the little lard and wine above this
glutton!
30. This is the true view; but your doctrine sounds very
differently. For one of your elect distinguished by the three
symbols may live like the second person in this description, and
though he may be reproved by one or two of the more sedate, he cannot
be condemned as abusing the symbols. But should he sup with the
other person, and moisten his lips with a morsel of rancid bacon, or
refresh them with a drink of spoilt wine, he is pronounced a
transgressor of the symbol, and by the judgment of your founder is
consigned to hell, while you, though wondering, must assent. Will
you not discard these errors? Will you not listen to reason? Will
you not offer some little resistance to the force of habit? Is not
such doctrine most unreasonable? Is it not insanity? Is it not the
greatest absurdity that one, who stuffs and loads his stomach every
day to gratify his appetite with mushrooms, rice, truffles, cake,
mead, pepper, and assafÅtida, and who fares thus every day, cannot be
convicted of transgressing the three symbols, that is, the rule of
sanctity; whereas another, who seasons his dish of the commonest herbs
with some smoky morsel of meat, and takes only so much of this as is
needed for the refreshment of his body, and drinks three cups of wine
for the sake of keeping in health, should, for exchanging the former
diet for this, be doomed to certain punishment?
Chapter 14.âThree Good Reasons for Abstaining from Certain Kinds of
Food.
31. But, you reply, the apostle says, "It is good, brethren, neither
to eat flesh, nor to drink wine."[172]172Â No one denies that this is
good, provided that it is for the end already mentioned, of which it
is said, "Make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof;"[173]173 or for the ends pointed out by the apostle, namely,
either to check the appetite, which is apt to go to a more wild and
uncontrollable excess in these things than in others, or lest a
brother should be offended, or lest the weak should hold fellowship
with an idol. For at the time when the apostle wrote, the flesh of
sacrifices was often sold in the market. And because wine, too, was
used in libations to the gods of the Gentiles, many weaker brethren,
accustomed to purchase such things, preferred to abstain entirely from
flesh and wine rather than run the risk of having fellowship, as they
considered it, with idols, even ignorantly. And, for their sakes,
even those who were stronger, and had faith enough to see the
insignificance of these things, knowing that nothing is unclean except
from an evil conscience, and holding by the saying of the Lord, "Not
that which entereth into your mouth defileth you, but that which
cometh out of it,"[174]174 still, lest these weaker brethren should
stumble, were bound to abstain from these things. And this is not a
mere theory, but is clearly taught in the epistles of the apostle
himself. For you are in the habit of quoting only the words, "It is
good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine," without
adding what follows, "nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or
is offended or is made weak."Â These words show the intention of the
apostle in giving the admonition.
32. This is evident from the preceding and succeeding context. The
passage is a long one to quote, but, for the sake of those who are
indolent in reading and searching the sacred Scriptures, we must give
the whole of it. "Him that is weak in the faith," says the apostle,
"receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth
that he may eat all things:Â another, who is weak, eateth herbs.Â
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him
that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.Â
Who art thou that judgest another manâs servant? to his own master he
standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up:Â for God is able to
make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his
own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord. He
that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that
eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For
none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For
whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die
unto the Lord:Â whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the
Lordâs. For to this end Christ both lived, and died and rose again,
that He might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou
judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we
shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written,
As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every
tongue shall confess to God.[175]175Â So then every one of us shall
give account of himself to God. Let us not, therefore, judge one
another any more:Â but judge this rather, that no man put a
stumbling-block, or occasion to fall, in his brotherâs way. I know,
and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of
itself:Â but to him that esteemeth anything to be common, to him it
is common. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest
thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ
died. Let not then our good be evil spoken of. For the kingdom of
God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in
the Holy Ghost. For he who in this serveth Christ is acceptable to
God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things
which make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another. For
meat destroys not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but
it is evil for that man who eateth with offense. It is good neither
to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother
stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it
to thyself before God. Happy is he who condemneth not himself in
that thing which he alloweth. And he that distinguishes is damned if
he eats, because he eateth not of faith:Â for whatsoever is not of
faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities
of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please
his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased
not Himself."[176]176
33. Is it not clear that what the apostle required was, that the
stronger should not eat flesh nor drink wine, because they gave
offense to the weak by not going along with them, and made them think
that those who in faith judged all things to be pure, did homage to
idols in not abstaining from that kind of food and drink? This is
also set forth in the following passage of the Epistle to the
Corinthians:Â "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things
that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is
nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For
though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
we by Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for
some, with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing
offered to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But
meat commendeth us not to God:Â for neither, if we eat, shall we
abound; neither, if we eat not, shall we suffer want. But take heed,
lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to
them that are weak. For if any man see one who has knowledge sit at
meat in the idolâs temple, shall not his conscience being weak be
emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through
thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?Â
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak
conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my
brother to offend, I will eat no flesh forever, lest I make my brother
to offend."[177]177
34. Again, in another place: "What say I then? that the idol is
anything? or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is
anything? But the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice
to devils, and not to God:Â and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the
cup of devils:Â ye cannot be partakers of the Lordâs table and of the
table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger
than He? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not
expedient:Â all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.Â
Let no man seek his own, but every man what is anotherâs. Whatsoever
is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience
sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto
idols, eat not for his sake that shows it, and for conscience sake:Â
conscience, I say, not thine own, but anotherâs:Â for why is my
liberty judged of another manâs conscience? For if I be a partaker
with thanksgiving, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give
thanks? Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do
all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor
to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God:Â even as I please all men in
all things not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many that
they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of
Christ."[178]178
35. It is clear, then, I think, for what end we should abstain from
flesh and wine. The end is threefold: to check indulgence, which
is mostly practised in this sort of food, and in this kind of drink
goes the length of intoxication; to protect weakness, on account of
the things which are sacrificed and offered in libation; and, what is
most praiseworthy of all, from love, not to offend the weakness of
those more feeble than ourselves, who abstain from these things.Â
You, again, consider a morsel of meat unclean; whereas the apostle
says that all things are clean, but that it is evil to him that eateth
with offence. And no doubt you are defiled by such food, simply
because you think it unclean. For the apostle says, "I know, and am
persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of itself:Â
but to him that esteemeth anything common, to him it is common."Â And
every one can see that by common he means unclean and defiled. But
it is folly to discuss passages of Scripture with you; for you both
mislead people by promising to prove your doctrines, and those books
which possess authority to demand our homage you affirm to be
corrupted by spurious interpolations. Prove then to me your doctrine
that flesh defiles the eater, when it is taken without offending any
one, without any weak notions, and without any excess.[179]179
Chapter 15.âWhy the Manichæans Prohibit the Use of Flesh.
36. It is worth while to take note of the whole reason for their
superstitious abstinence, which is given as follows:âSince, we are
told, the member of God has been mixed with the substance of evil, to
repress it and to keep it from excessive ferocity,âfor that is what
you say,âthe world is made up of both natures, of good and evil, mixed
together. But this part of God is daily being set free in all parts
of the world, and restored to its own domain. But in its passage
upwards as vapor from earth to heaven, it enters plants, because their
roots are fixed in the earth, and so gives fertility and strength to
all herbs and shrubs. From these animals get their food, and, where
there is sexual intercourse, fetter in the flesh the member of God,
and, turning it from its proper course, they come in the way and
entangle it in errors and troubles. So then, if food consisting of
vegetables and fruits comes to the saints, that is, to the Manichæans
by means of their chastity, and prayers, and psalms, whatever in it is
excellent and divine is purified, and so is entirely perfected, in
order to restoration, free from all hindrance, to its own domain.Â
Hence you forbid people to give bread or vegetables, or even water,
which would cost nobody anything, to a beggar, if he is not a
Manichæan, lest he should defile the member of God by his sins, and
obstruct its return.
37. Flesh, you say, is made up of pollution itself. For, according
to you, some portion of that divine part escapes in the eating of
vegetables and fruits:Â it escapes while they undergo the infliction
of rubbing, grinding, or cooking, as also of biting or chewing. It
escapes, too, in all motions of animals, in the carriage of burdens,
in exercise, in toil, or in any sort of action. It escapes, too, in
our rest, when digestion is going on in the body by means of internal
heat. And as the divine nature escapes in all these ways, some very
unclean dregs remain, from which, in sexual intercourse, flesh is
formed. These dregs, however, fly off, in the motions above
mentioned, along with what is good in the soul; for though it is
mostly, it is not entirely good. So, when the soul has left the
flesh, the dregs are utterly filthy, and the soul of those who eat
flesh is defiled.
Chapter 16.âDisclosure of the Monstrous Tenets of the Manichæans.
38. O the obscurity of the nature of things! How hard to expose
falsehood! Who that hears these things, if he is one who has not
learned the causes of things, and who, not yet illuminated by any ray
of truth, is deceived by material images, would not think them true,
precisely because the things spoken of are invisible, and are
presented to the mind under the form of visible things, and can be
eloquently expressed? Men of this description exist in numbers and
in droves, who are kept from being led away into these errors more by
a fear grounded on religious feeling than by reason. I will
therefore endeavor, as God may please to enable me, so to refute these
errors, as that their falsehood and absurdity will be manifest not
only in the judgment of the wise, who reject them on hearing them, but
also to the intelligence of the multitude.
39. Tell me then, first, where you get the doctrine that part of
God, as you call it, exists in corn, beans, cabbage, and flowers and
fruits. From the beauty of the color, say they, and the sweetness of
the taste; this is evident; and as these are not found in rotten
substances, we learn that their good has been taken from them. Are
they not ashamed to attribute the finding of God to the nose and the
palate? But I pass from this. For I will speak, using words in
their proper sense; and, as the saying is, this is not so easy in
speaking to you. Let us see rather what sort of mind is required to
understand this; how, if the presence of good in bodies is shown by
their color, the dung of animals, the refuse of flesh itself, has all
kinds of bright colors, sometimes white, often golden; and so on,
though these are what you take in fruits and flowers as proofs of the
presence and indwelling of God. Why is it that in a rose you hold
the red color to be an indication of an abundance of good, while the
same color in blood you condemn? Why do you regard with pleasure in
a violet the same color which you turn away from in cases of cholera,
or of people with jaundice, or in the excrement of infants? Why do
you believe the light, shining appearance of oil to be a sign of a
plentiful admixture of good, which you readily set about purifying by
taking the oil into your throats and stomachs, while you are afraid to
touch your lips with a drop of fat, though it has the same shining
appearance as oil? Why do you look upon a yellow melon as part of
the treasures of God, and not rancid bacon fat or the yolk of an
egg? Why do you think that whiteness in a lettuce proclaims God, and
not in milk? So much for colors, as regards which (to mention
nothing else) you cannot compare any flower-clad meadow with the wings
and feathers of a single peacock, though these are of flesh and of
fleshly origin.
40. Again, if this good is discovered also by smell, perfumes of
excellent smell are made from the flesh of some animals. And the
smell of food, when cooked along with flesh of delicate flavor, is
better than if cooked without it. Once more, if you think that the
things that have a better smell than others are therefore cleaner,
there is a kind of mud which you ought to take to your meals instead
of water from the cistern; for dry earth moistened with rain has an
odor most agreeable to the sense, and this sort of mud has a better
smell than rain-water taken by itself. But if we must have the
authority of taste to prove the presence in any object of part of God,
he must dwell in dates and honey more than in pork, but more in pork
than in beans. I grant that He dwells more in a fig than in a liver;
but then you must allow that He is more in liver than in beet. And,
on this principle, must you not confess that some plants, which none
of you can doubt to be cleaner than flesh, receive God from this very
flesh, if we are to think of God as mixed with the flavor? For both
cabbages taste better when cooked along with flesh; and, while we
cannot relish the plants on which cattle feed, when these are turned
into milk we think them improved in color, and find them very
agreeable to the taste.
41. Or must we think that good is to be found in greater quantity
where the three good qualitiesâa good color, and smell, and tasteâare
found together? Then you must not admire and praise flowers so much,
as you cannot admit them to be tried at the tribunal of the palate.Â
At least you must not prefer purslain to flesh, since flesh when
cooked is superior in color, smell, and taste. A young pig roasted
(for your ideas on this subject force us to discuss good and evil with
you as if you were cooks and confectioners, instead of men of reading
or literary taste) is bright in color, and agreeable in smell, and
pleasant in taste. Here is a perfect evidence of the presence of the
divine substance. You are invited by this threefold testimony, and
called on to purify this substance by your sanctity. Make the
attack. Why do you hold back? What objection have you to make.Â
In color alone the excrement of an infant surpasses lentils; in smell
alone a roast morsel surpasses a soft green fig; in taste alone a kid
when slaughtered surpasses the plant which it fed on when alive:Â and
we have found a kind of flesh in flavor of which all three give
evidence. What more do you require? What reply will you make?Â
Why should eating meat make you unclean, if using such monstrosities
in discussion does not? And, above all, the rays of the sun, which
you surely think more of than all animal or vegetable food, have no
smell or taste, and are remarkable among other substances only by
their eminently bright color; which is a loud call to you, and an
obligation, in spite of yourselves, to place nothing higher than a
bright color among the evidences of an admixture of good.
42. Thus you are forced into this difficulty, that you must
acknowledge the part of God as dwelling more in blood, and in the
filthy but bright-colored animal refuse which is thrown out in the
streets, than in the pale leaves of the olive. If you reply, as you
actually do, that olive leaves when burnt give out a flame, which
proves the presence of light, while flesh when burnt does not, what
will you say of oil, which lights nearly all the lamps in Italy?Â
What of cow dung (which surely is more unclean than the flesh), which
peasants use when dry as fuel, so that the fire is always at hand, and
the liberation of the smoke is always going on? And if brightness
and lustre prove a greater presence of the divine part, why do you
yourselves not purify it, why not appropriate it, why not liberate
it? For it is found chiefly in flowers, not to speak of blood and
countless things almost the same as blood in flesh or coming from it,
and yet you cannot feed on flowers. And even if you were to eat
flesh, you would certainly not take with your gruel the scales of
fish, or some worms and flies, though these all shine with a light of
their own in the dark.
43. What then remains, but that you should cease saying that you
have in your eyes, nose, and palate sufficient means of testing the
presence of the divine part in material objects? And, without these
means, how can you tell not only that there is a greater part of God
in plants than in flesh, but that there is any part in plants at
all? Are you led to think this by their beautyânot the beauty of
agreeable color, but that of agreement of parts? An excellent
reason, in my opinion. For you will never be so bold as to compare
twisted pieces of wood with the bodies of animals, which are formed of
members answering to one another. But if you choose the testimony of
the senses, as those must do who cannot see with their mind the full
force of existence, how do you prove that the substance of good
escapes from bodies in course of time, and by some kind of attrition,
but because God has gone out of it, according to your view, and has
left one place for another? The whole is absurd. But, as far as I
can judge, there are no marks or appearances to give rise to this
opinion. For many things plucked from trees, or pulled out of the
ground, are the better of some interval of time before we use them for
food, as leeks and endive, lettuce, grapes, apples, figs, and some
pears; and there are many other things which get a better color when
they are not used immediately after being plucked, besides being more
wholesome for the body, and having a finer flavor to the palate. But
these things should not possess all these excellent and agreeable
qualities, if, as you say, they become more destitute of good the
longer they are kept after separation from their mother earth.Â
Animal food itself is better and more fit for use the day after the
animal is killed; but this should not be, if, as you hold, it
possessed more good immediately after the slaughter than next day,
when more of the divine substance had escaped.
44. Who does not know that wine becomes purer and better by age?Â
Nor is it, as you think, more tempting to the destruction of the
senses, but more useful for invigorating the body,âonly let there be
moderation, which ought to control everything. The senses are sooner
destroyed by new wine. When the must has been only a short time in
the vat, and has begun to ferment, it makes those who look down into
it fall headlong, affecting their brain, so that without assistance
they would perish. And as regards health, every one knows that
bodies are swollen up and injuriously distended by new wine? Has it
these bad properties because there is more good in it? Are they not
found in wine when old because a good deal of the divine substance has
gone? An absurd thing to say, especially for you, who prove the
divine presence by the pleasing effect produced on your eyes, nose,
and palate! And what a contradiction it is to make wine the poison
of the princes of darkness, and yet to eat grapes! Has it more of
the poison when in the cup than when in the cluster? Or if the evil
remains unmixed after the good is gone, and that by the process of
time, how is it that the same grapes, when hung up for awhile, become
milder, sweeter, and more wholesome? or how does the wine itself, as
already mentioned, become purer and brighter when the light has gone,
and more wholesome by the loss of the beneficial substance?
45. What are we to say of wood and leaves, which in course of time
become dry, but cannot be the worse on that account in your
estimation? For while they lose that which produces smoke, they
retain that from which a bright flame arises; and, to judge by the
clearness, which you think so much of, there is more good in the dry
than in the green. Hence you must either deny that there is more of
God in the pure light than in the smoky one, which will upset all your
evidences; or you must allow it to be possible that, when plants are
plucked up, or branches plucked off, and kept for a time, more of the
nature of evil may escape from them than of the nature of good. And,
on the strength of this, we shall hold that more evil may go off from
plucked fruits; and so more good may remain in animal food. So much
on the subject of time.
46. As for motion, and tossing, and rubbing, if these give the
divine nature the opportunity of escaping from these substances, many
things of the same kind are against you, which are improved by
motion. In some grains the juice resembles wine, and is excellent
when moved about. Indeed, as must not be overlooked, this kind of
drink produces intoxication rapidly; and yet you never called the
juice of grain the poison of the princes of darkness. There is a
preparation of water, thickened with a little meal, which is the
better of being shaken, and, strange to say, is lighter in color when
the light is gone. The pastry cook stirs honey for a long time to
give it this light color, and to make its sweetness milder and less
unwholesome:Â you must explain how this can come from the loss of
good. Again, if you prefer to test the presence of God by the
agreeable effects on the hearing, and not sight, or smell, or taste,
harps get their strings and pipes their bones from animals; and these
become musical by being dried, and rubbed, and twisted. So the
pleasures of music, which you hold to have come from the divine
kingdom, are obtained from the refuse of dead animals, and that, too,
when they are dried by time, and lessened by rubbing, and stretched by
twisting. Such rough treatment, according to you, drives the divine
substance from living objects; even cooking them, you say, does
this. Why then are boiled thistles not unwholesome? Is it because
God, or part of God, leaves them when they are cooked?
47. Why mention all the particulars, when it is difficult to
enumerate them? Nor is it necessary; for every one knows how many
things are sweeter and more wholesome when cooked. This ought not to
be, if, as you suppose, things lose the good by being thus moved
about. I do not suppose that you will find any proof from your
bodily senses that flesh is unclean, and defiles the souls of those
who eat it, because fruits, when plucked and shaken about in various
ways, become flesh; especially as you hold that vinegar, in its age
and fermentation, is cleaner than wine, and the mead you drink is
nothing else than cooked wine, which ought to be more impure than
wine, if material things lose the divine members by being moved about
and cooked. But if not, you have no reason to think that fruits,
when plucked, kept, handled, cooked, and digested, are forsaken by the
good, and therefore supply most unclean matter for the formation of
bodies.
48. But if it is not from their color and appearance, and smell and
taste, that you think the good to be in these things, what else can
you bring forward? Do you prove it from the strength and vigor which
those things seem to lose when they are separated from the earth and
put to use? If this is your reason (though its erroneousness is seen
at once, from the fact that the strength of some things is increased
after their separation from the earth, as in the case already
mentioned of wine, which becomes stronger from age),âif the strength,
then, is your reason, it would follow that the part of God is to be
found in no food more abundantly than in flesh. For athletes, who
especially require vigor and energy, are not in the habit of feeding
on cabbage and fruit without animal food.
49. Is your reason for thinking the bodies of trees better than our
bodies, that flesh is nourished by trees and not trees by flesh. You
forget the obvious fact that plants, when manured with dung, become
richer and more fertile and crops heavier, though you think it your
gravest charge against flesh that it is the abode of dung. This then
gives nourishment to things you consider clean, though it is,
according to you, the most unclean part of what you consider
unclean. But if you dislike flesh because it springs from sexual
intercourse, you should be pleased with the flesh of worms, which are
bred in such numbers, and of such a size, in fruits, in wood, and in
the earth itself, without any sexual intercourse. But there is some
insincerity in this. For if you were displeased with flesh because
it is formed from the cohabitation of father and mother, you would not
say that those princes of darkness were born from the fruits of their
own trees; for no doubt you think worse of these princes than of
flesh, which you refuse to eat.
50. Your idea that all the souls of animals come from the food of
their parents, from which confinement you pretend to liberate the
divine substance which is held bound in your viands, is quite
inconsistent with your abstinence from flesh, and makes it a pressing
duty for you to eat animal food. For if souls are bound in the body
by those who eat animal food, why do you not secure their liberation
by being beforehand in eating the food? You reply, it is not from
the animal food that the good part comes which those people bring into
bondage, but from the vegetables which they take with their meat.Â
What will you say then of the souls of lions, who feed only on
flesh? They drink, is the reply, and so the soul is drawn in from
the water and confined in flesh. But what of birds without number?Â
What of eagles, which eat only flesh, and need no drink? Here you
are at a loss, and can find no answer. For if the soul comes from
food, and there are animals which neither drink anything nor have any
food but flesh, and yet bring forth young, there must be some soul in
flesh; and you are bound to try your plan of purifying it by eating
the flesh. Or will you say that a pig has a soul of light, because
it eats vegetables, and drinks water; and that the eagle, because it
eats only flesh, has a soul of darkness, though it is so fond of the
sun?[180]180
51. What a confusion of ideas! What amazing fatuity! All this
you would have escaped, if you had rejected idle fictions, and had
followed what truth sanctions in abstinence from food, which would
have taught you that sumptuous eating is to be avoided, not to escape
pollution, as there is nothing of the kind, but to subdue the sensual
appetite. For should any one, from inattention to the nature of
things, and the properties of the soul and body, allow that the soul
is polluted by animal food, you will admit that it is much much more
defiled by sensuality. Is it reasonable, then, or rather, is it not
most unreasonable, to expel from the number of the elect a man who,
perhaps for his healthâs sake, takes some animal food without sensual
appetite; while, if a man eagerly devours peppered truffles, you can
only reprove him for excess, but cannot condemn him as abusing your
symbol? So one who has been induced, not by sensuality, but for
health, to eat part of a fowl, cannot remain among your elect; though
one may remain who has yielded voluntarily to an excessive appetite
for comfits and cakes without animal matter. You retain the man
plunged in the defilements of sensuality, and dismiss the man
polluted, as you think, by the mere food; though you allow that the
defilement of sensuality is far greater than that of meat. You keep
hold of one who gloats with delight over highly-seasoned vegetables,
unable to keep possession of himself; while you shut out one who, to
satisfy hunger, takes whatever comes, if suitable for nourishment,
ready either to use the food, or to let it go. Admirable customs!Â
Excellent morals! Notable temperance!
52. Again, the notion that it is unlawful for any one but the elect
to touch as food what is brought to your meals for what you call
purification, leads to shameful and sometimes to criminal practices.Â
For sometimes so much is brought that it cannot easily be eaten up by
a few; and as it is considered sacrilege to give what is left to
others, or, at least, to throw it away, you are obliged to eat to
excess, from the desire to purify, as you call it, all that is
given. Then, when you are full almost to bursting, you cruelly use
force in making the boys of your sect eat the rest. So it was
charged against some one at Rome that he killed some poor children, by
compelling them to eat for this superstitious reason. This I should
not believe, did I not know how sinful you consider it to give this
food to those who are not elect, or, at any rate, to throw it away.Â
So the only way is to eat it; and this leads every day to gluttony,
and may sometimes lead to murder.
53. For the same reason you forbid giving bread to beggars. By way
of showing compassion, or rather of avoiding reproach, you advise to
give money. The cruelty of this is equalled by its stupidity. For
suppose a place where food cannot be purchased:Â the beggar will die
of starvation, while you, in your wisdom and benevolence, have more
mercy on a cucumber than on a human being! This is in truth (for how
could it be better designated) pretended compassion, and real
cruelty. Then observe the stupidity. What if the beggar buys bread
for himself with the money you give him? Will the divine part, as
you call it, not suffer the same in him when he buys the food as it
would have suffered if he had taken it as a gift from you? So this
sinful beggar plunges in corruption part of God eager to escape, and
is aided in this crime by your money! But you in your great sagacity
think it enough that you do not give to one about to commit murder a
man to kill, though you knowingly give him money to procure somebody
to be killed. Can any madness go beyond this? The result is, that
either the man dies if he cannot get food for his money, or the food
itself dies if he gets it. The one is true murder; the other what
you call murder:Â though in both cases you incur the guilt of real
murder. Again, there is the greatest folly and absurdity in allowing
your followers to eat animal food, while you forbid them to kill
animals. If this food does not defile, take it yourselves. If it
defiles, what can be more unreasonable than to think it more sinful to
separate the soul of a pig from its body than to defile the soul of a
man with the pigâs flesh.
Chapter 17.âDescription of the Symbol of the Hands Among the
Manichæans.
54. We must now notice and discuss the symbol of the hands. And,
in the first place, your abstaining from the slaughter of animals and
from injuring plants is shown by Christ to be mere superstition; for,
on the ground that there is no community of rights between us and
brutes and trees, He both sent the devils into an herd of
swine,[181]181 and withered by His curse a tree in which He had found
no fruit.[182]182Â The swine assuredly had not sinned, nor had the
tree. We are not so insane as to think that a tree is fruitful or
barren by its own choice. Nor is it any reply to say that our Lord
wished in these actions to teach some other truths; for every one
knows that. But assuredly the Son of God would not commit murder to
illustrate truth, if you call the destruction of a tree or of an
animal murder. The signs which Christ wrought in the case of men,
with whom we certainly have a community of rights, were in healing,
not in killing them. And it would have been the same in the case of
beasts and trees, if we had that community with them which you
imagine.
55. I think it right to refer here to the authority of Scripture,
because we cannot here enter on a profound discussion about the soul
of animals, or the kind of life in trees. But as you preserve the
right to call the Scriptures corrupted, in case you should find them
too strongly opposed to you,âalthough you have never affirmed the
passages about the tree and the herd of swine to be spurious,âstill,
lest some day you should wish to say this of them too, when you find
how much they are against you, I will adhere to my plan, and will ask
you, who are so liberal in your promises of evidence and truth, to
tell me first what harm is done to a tree, I say not by plucking a
leaf or an apple,âfor which, however, one of you would be condemned at
once as having abused the symbol, if he did it intentionally, and not
accidentally,âbut if you tear it up by the root. For the soul in
trees, which, according to you, is a rational soul, is, in your
theory, freed from bondage when the tree is cut down,âa bondage, too,
where it suffered great misery and got no profit. For it is well
known that you, in the words of your founder, threaten as a great,
though not the greatest punishment, the change from a man to a tree;
and it is not probable that the soul in a tree can grow in wisdom as
it does in a man. There is the best reason for not killing a man, in
case you should kill one whose wisdom or virtue might be of use to
many, or one who might have attained to wisdom, whether by the advice
of another without himself, or by divine illumination in his own
mind. And the more wisdom the soul has when it leaves the body, the
more profitable is its departure, as we know both from well-grounded
reasoning and from wide-spread belief. Thus to cut down a tree is to
set free the soul from a body in which it makes no progress in
wisdom. Youâthe holy men, I meanâought to be mainly occupied in
cutting down trees, and in leading the souls thus emancipated to
better things by prayers and psalms. Or can this be done only with
the souls which you take into your belly, instead of aiding them by
your understanding?
56. And you cannot escape the admission that the souls in trees make
no progress in wisdom while they are there, when you are asked why no
apostle was sent to teach trees as well as men, or why the apostle
sent to men did not preach the truth to trees also. Your reply must
be, that the souls while in such bodies cannot understand the divine
precepts. But this reply lands you in great difficulties; for you
declare that these souls can hear your voices and understand what you
say, and see bodies and their motions, and even discern thoughts. If
this is true, why could they learn nothing from the apostle of
light? Why could they not learn even much better than we, since they
can see into the mind? Your master, who, as you say, has difficulty
in teaching you by speech, might have taught these souls by thought;
for they could see his ideas in his mind before he expressed them.Â
But if this is untrue, consider into what errors you have fallen.
57. As for your not plucking fruits or pulling up vegetables
yourselves, while you get your followers to pluck and pull and bring
them to you, that you may confer benefits not only on those who bring
the food but on the food which is brought, what thoughtful person can
bear to hear this? For, first, it matters not whether you commit a
crime yourself, or wish another to commit it for you. You deny that
you wish this! How then can relief be given to the divine part
contained in lettuce and leeks, unless some one pull them and bring
them to the saints to be purified. And again, if you were passing
through a field where the right of friendship permitted you to pluck
anything you wished, what would you do if you saw a crow on the point
of eating a fig? Does not, according to your ideas, the fig itself
seem to address you and to beg of you piteously to pluck it yourself
and give it burial in a holy belly, where it may be purified and
restored, rather than that the crow should swallow it and make it part
of his cursed body, and then hand it over to bondage and torture in
other forms? If this is true, how cruel you are! If not, how
silly! What can be more contrary to your opinions than to break the
symbol? What can be more unkind to the member of God than to keep
it?
58. This supposes the truth of your false and vain ideas. But you
can be shown guilty of plain and positive cruelty flowing from the
same error. For were any one lying on the road, his body wasted with
disease, weary with journeying, and half-dead from his sufferings, and
able only to utter some broken words, and if eating a pear would do
him good as an astringent, and were he to beg you to help him as you
passed by, and were he to implore you to bring the fruit from a
neighboring tree, with no divine or human prohibition to prevent your
doing so, while the man is sure to die for the want of it, you, a
Christian man and a saint, will rather pass on and abandon a man thus
suffering and entreating, lest the tree should lament the loss of its
fruit, and you should be doomed to the punishment threatened by
Manichæus for breaking the symbol. Strange customs, and strange
harmlessness!
59. Now, as regards killing animals, and the reasons for your
opinion, much that has been said will apply also to this. For what
harm will be done to the soul of a wolf by killing the wolf, since the
wolf, as long as it lives, will be a wolf, and will not listen to any
preacher, or give up, in the least, shedding the blood of sheep; and,
by killing it, the rational soul, as you think, will be set free from
its confinement in the body? But you make this slaughter unlawful
even for your followers; for you think it worse than that of trees.Â
And in this there is not much fault to be found with your senses,âthat
is, your bodily senses. For we see and hear by their cries that
animals die with pain, although man disregards this in a beast, with
which, as not having a rational soul, we have no community of
rights. But as to your senses in the observation of trees, you must
be entirely blind. For not to mention that there are no movements in
the wood expressive of pain, what is clearer than that a tree is never
better than when it is green and flourishing, gay with flowers, and
rich in fruit? And this comes generally and chiefly from pruning.Â
But if it felt the iron, as you suppose, it ought to die of wounds so
many, so severe, instead of sprouting at the places, and reviving with
such manifest delight.
60. But why do you think it a greater crime to destroy animals than
plants, although you hold that plants have a purer soul than
animals? There is a compensation, we are told, when part of what is
taken from the fields is given to the elect and the saints to be
purified. This has already been refuted; and it has, I think, been
proved sufficiently that there is no reason for saying that more of
the good part is found in vegetables than in flesh. But should any
one support himself by selling butcher-meat, and spend the whole
profit of his business in purchasing food for your elect, and bring
larger supplies for those saints than any peasant or farmer, will he
not plead this compensation as a warrant for his killing animals?Â
But there is, we are told, some other mysterious reason; for a cunning
man can always find some resource in the secrets of nature when
addressing unlearned people. The story, then, is that the heavenly
princes who were taken from the race of darkness and bound, and have a
place assigned them in this region by the Creator of the world, have
animals on the earth specially belonging to them, each having those
coming from his own stock and class; and they hold the slaughterers of
those animals guilty, and do not allow them to leave the earth, but
harass them as much as they can with pains and torments. What simple
man will not be frightened by this, and, seeing nothing in the
darkness shrouding these things, will not think that the fact is as
described? But I will hold to my purpose, with Godâs help, to rebut
mysterious falsehood by the plainest truth.
61. Tell me, then, if animals on land and in water come in regular
succession by ordinary generation from this race of princes, since the
origin of animal life is traced to the abortive births in that
race;âtell me, I say, whether bees and frogs, and many other creatures
not sprung from sexual intercourse,[183]183 may be killed with
impunity. We are told they cannot. So it is not on account of
their relation to certain princes that you forbid your followers to
kill animals. Or if you make a general relationship to all bodies,
the princes would be equally concerned about trees, which you do not
require your followers to spare. You are brought back to the weak
reply, that the injuries done in the case of plants are atoned for by
the fruits which your followers bring to your church. For this
implies that those who slaughter animals, and sell their flesh in the
market, if they are your followers, and if they bring to you
vegetables bought with their gains, may think nothing of the daily
slaughter, and are cleared of any sin that may be in it by your
repasts.
62. But if you say that, in order to expiate the slaughter, the
thing must be given as food, as in the case of fruits and
vegetables,âwhich cannot be done, because the elect do not eat flesh,
and so your followers must not slaughter animals,âwhat reply will you
give in the case of thorns and weeds, which farmers destroy in
clearing their fields, while they cannot bring any food to you from
them? How can there be pardon for such destruction, which gives no
nourishment to the saints? Perhaps you also put away any sin
committed, for the benefit of the fruits and vegetables, by eating
some of these. What then if the fields are plundered by locusts,
mice, or rats, as we see often happen? Can your rustic follower kill
these with impunity, because he sins for the good of his crops? Here
you are at a loss; for you either allow your followers to kill
animals, which your founder prohibited, or you forbid them to be
cultivators, which he made lawful. Indeed, you sometimes go so far
as to say that an usurer is more harmless than a cultivator,âyou feel
so much more for melons than for men. Rather than hurt the melons,
you would have a man ruined as a debtor. Is this desirable and
praiseworthy justice, or not rather atrocious and damnable error? Is
this commendable compassion, or not rather detestable barbarity?
63. What, again, of your not abstaining yourselves from the
slaughter of lice, bugs, and fleas? You think it a sufficient excuse
for this to say that these are the dirt of our bodies. But this is
clearly untrue of fleas and bugs; for every one knows that these
animals do not come from our bodies. Besides, if you abhor sexual
intercourse as much as you pretend to do, you should think those
animals all the cleaner which come from our bodies without any other
generation; for although they produce offspring of their own, they are
not produced in ordinary generation from us. Again, if we must
consider as most filthy the production of living bodies, still worse
must be the production of dead bodies. There must be less harm,
therefore, in killing a rat, a snake, or a scorpion, which you
constantly say come from our dead bodies. But to pass over what is
less plain and certain, it is a common opinion regarding bees that
they come from the carcases of oxen; so there is no harm in killing
them. Or if this too is doubted, every one allows that beetles, at
least, are bred in the ball of mud which they make and bury.[184]184Â
You ought therefore to consider these animals, and others that it
would be tedious to specify, more unclean than your lice; and yet you
think it sinful to kill them, though it would be foolish not to kill
the lice. Perhaps you hold the lice cheap because they are small.Â
But if an animal is to be valued by its size, you must prefer a camel
to a man.
64. Here we may use the gradation which often perplexed us when we
were your followers. For if a flea may be killed on account of its
small size, so may the fly which is bred in beans. And if this, so
also may one of a little larger size, for its size at birth is even
less. Then again, a bee may be killed, for its young is no larger
than a fly. So on to the young of a locust, and to a locust; and
then to the young of a mouse, and to a mouse. And, to cut short, it
is clear we may come at last to an elephant; so that one who thinks it
no sin to kill a flea, because of its small size, must allow that it
would be no sin in him to kill this huge creature. But I think
enough has been said of these absurdities.
Chapter 18.âOf the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries
of the Manichæans.
65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very
questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual
intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the
proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such
intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make
it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect
chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followersâthat is,
those in the second grade among youâare allowed to have wives. After
you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is
it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are
confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you
who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a
woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to
abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be
entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife,
not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of
passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and
woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore
whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than
copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a
mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to
gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage.Â
But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore
neither is there a wife.  In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can
you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought
against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.
66. Moreover, when you are so eager in your desire to prevent the
soul from being confined in flesh by conjugal intercourse, and so
eager in asserting that the soul is set free from seed by the food of
the saints, do you not sanction, unhappy beings, the suspicion
entertained about you? For why should it be true regarding corn and
beans and lentils and other seeds, that when you eat them you wish to
set free the soul, and not true of the seeds of animals? For what
you say of the flesh of a dead animal, that it is unclean because
there is no soul in it, cannot be said of the seed of the animal; for
you hold that it keeps confined the soul which will appear in the
offspring, and you avow that the soul of Manichæus himself is thus
confined. And as your followers cannot bring these seeds to you for
purification, who will not suspect that you make this purification
secretly among yourselves, and hide it from your followers, in case
they should leave you?[185]185Â If you do not these things, as it is
to be hoped you do not, still you see how open to suspicion your
superstition is, and how impossible it is to blame men for thinking
what your own profession suggests, when you maintain that you set free
souls from bodies and from senses by eating and drinking. I wish to
say no more about this:Â you see yourselves what room there is here
for denunciation. But as the matter is one rather to repress than to
invite remark, and also as throughout my discourse my purpose appears
of exaggerating nothing, and of keeping to bare facts and arguments,
we shall pass on to other matters.
Chapter 19.âCrimes of the Manichæans.
67. We see then, now, the nature of your three symbols. These are
your customs. This is the end of your notable precepts, in which
there is nothing sure, nothing steadfast, nothing consistent, nothing
irreproachable, but all doubtful, or rather undoubtedly and entirely
false, all contradictory, abominable, absurd. In a word, evil
practices are detected in your customs so many and so serious, that
one wishing to denounce them all, if he were at all able to enlarge,
would require at least a separate treatise for each. Were you to
observe these, and to act up to your profession, no childishness, or
folly, or absurdity would go beyond yours; and when you praise and
teach these things without doing them, you display craft and deceit
and malevolence equal to anything that can be described or imagined.
68. During nine full years that I attended you with great
earnestness and assiduity, I could not hear of one of your elect who
was not found transgressing these precepts, or at least was not
suspected of doing so. Many were caught at wine and animal food,
many at the baths; but this we only heard by report. Some were
proved to have seduced other menâs wives, so that in this case I could
not doubt the truth of the charge. But suppose this, too, a report
rather than a fact. I myself saw, and not I only, but others who
have either escaped from that superstition, or will, I hope, yet
escape,âwe saw, I say, in a square in Carthage, on a road much
frequented, not one, but more than three of the elect walking behind
us, and accosting some women with such indecent sounds and gestures as
to outdo the boldness and insolence of all ordinary rascals. And it
was clear that this was quite habitual, and that they behaved in this
way to one another, for no one was deterred by the presence of a
companion, showing that most of them, if not all, were affected with
this evil tendency. For they did not all come from one house, but
lived in quite different places, and quite accidentally left together
the place where they had met. It was a great shock to us, and we
lodged a complaint about it. But who thought of inflicting
punishment,âI say not by separation from the church, but even by
severe rebuke in proportion to the heinousness of the offence?
69. All the excuse given for the impunity of those men was that, at
that time, when their meetings were forbidden by law, it was feared
that the persons suffering punishment might retaliate by giving
information. What then of their assertion that they will always have
persecution in this world, for which they suppose that they will be
thought the more of? for this is the application they make of the
words about the world hating them.[186]186Â And they will have it
that truth must be sought for among them, because, in the promise of
the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, it is said that the world cannot
receive Him.[187]187Â This is not the place to discuss this
question. But clearly, if you are always to be persecuted, even to
the end of the world, there will be no end to this laxity, and to the
unchecked spread of all this immorality, from your fear of giving
offence to men of this character.
70. This answer was also given to us, when we reported to the very
highest authorities that a woman had complained to us that in a
meeting, where she was along with other women, not doubting of the
sanctity of these people, some of the elect came in, and when one of
them had put out the lamp, one, whom she could not distinguish, tried
to embrace her, and would have forced her into sin, had she not
escaped by crying out. How common must we conclude the practice to
have been which led to the misdeed on this occasion! And this was
done on the night when you keep the feast of vigils. Forsooth,
besides the fear of information being given, no one could bring the
offender before the bishop, as he had so well guarded against being
recognized. As if all who entered along with him were not implicated
in the crime; for in their indecent merriment they all wished the lamp
to be put out.
71. Then what wide doors were opened for suspicions, when we saw
them full of envy, full of covetousness, full of greed for costly
foods, constantly at strife, easily excited about trifles! We
concluded that they were not competent to abstain from the things they
professed to abstain from, if they found an opportunity in secret or
in the dark. There were two of sufficiently good character, of
active minds, and leaders in their debates, with whom we had a more
particular and intimate acquaintance than with the rest. One of them
was much associated with us, because he was also engaged in liberal
studies; he is said to be now an elder there. These two were very
jealous of one another, and one accused the otherânot openly, but in
conversation, as he had opportunity, and in whispersâof having made a
criminal assault on the wife of one of the followers. He again, in
clearing himself to us, brought the same charge against another of the
elect, who lived with this follower as his most trusted friend. He
had, going in suddenly, caught this man with the woman, and his enemy
and rival had advised the woman and her paramour to raise this false
report about him, that he might not be believed if he gave any
information. We were much distressed, and took it greatly to heart,
that although there was a doubt about the assault on the woman, the
jealous feeling in those two men, than whom we found none better in
the place, showed itself so keenly, and inevitably raised a suspicion
of other things.[188]188
72. Another thing was, that we very often saw in theatres men
belonging to the elect, men of years and, it was supposed, of
character, along with a hoary-headed elder. We pass over the youths,
whom we used to come upon quarrelling about the people connected with
the stage and the races; from which we may safely conclude how they
would be able to refrain in secret, when they could not subdue the
passion by which they were exposed in the eyes of their followers,
bringing on them disgrace and flight. In the case of the saint,
whose discussions we attended in the street of the fig-sellers, would
his atrocious crime have been discovered if he had been able to make
the dedicated virgin his wife without making her pregnant? The
swelling womb betrayed the secret and unthought-of iniquity. When
her brother, a young man, heard of it from his mother, he felt keenly
the injury, but refrained, from regard to religion, from a public
accusation. He succeeded in getting the man expelled from that
church, for such conduct cannot always be tolerated; and that the
crime might not be wholly unpunished, he arranged with some of his
friends to have the man well beaten and kicked. When he was thus
assailed, he cried out that they should spare him, from regard to the
authority of the opinion of Manichæus, that Adam the first hero had
sinned, and was a greater saint after his sin.
73. This, in fact, is your notion about Adam and Eve.[189]189 It
is a long story; but I will touch only on what concerns the present
matter. You say that Adam was produced from his parents, the
abortive princes of darkness; that he had in his soul the most part of
light, and very little of the opposite race. So while he lived a
holy life, on account of the prevalence of good, still the opposite
part in him was stirred up, so that he was led away into conjugal
intercourse. Thus he fell and sinned, but afterwards lived in
greater holiness. Now, my complaint is not so much about this wicked
man, who, under the garb of an elect and holy man, brought such shame
and reproach on a family of strangers by his shocking immorality. I
do not charge you with this. Let it be attributed to the abandoned
character of the man, and not to your habits. I blame the man for
the atrocity, and not you. Still there is this in you all that
cannot, as far as I can see, be admitted or tolerated, that while you
hold the soul to be part of God, you still maintain that the mixture
of a little evil prevailed over the superior force and quantity of
good. Who that believes this, when incited by passion, will not find
here an excuse, instead of checking and controlling his passion?
Chapter 20.âDisgraceful Conduct Discovered at Rome.
74. What more shall I say of your customs? I have mentioned what I
found myself when I was in the city when the things were done. To go
through all that happened at Rome in my absence would take a long
time. I will, however, give a short account of it; for the matter
became so notorious, that even the absent could not remain in
ignorance of it. And when I was afterwards in Rome, I ascertained
the truth of all I had heard, although the story was told me by an
eye-witness whom I knew so well and esteemed so highly, that I could
not feel any doubt about it. One of your followers, then, quite
equal to the elect in their far-famed abstinence, for he was both
liberally educated, and was in the habit of defending your sect with
great zeal, took it very ill that he had cast in his teeth the vile
conduct of the elect, who lived in all kinds of places, and went
hither and thither for lodging of the worst description. He
therefore desired, if possible, to assemble all who were willing to
live according to the precepts into his own house, and to maintain
them at his own expense; for he was above the average in carelessness
as to spending money, besides being above the average in the amount he
had to spend. He complained that his efforts were hindered by the
remissness of the bishops, whose assistance he required for success.Â
At last one of your bishops was found,âa man, as I know, very rude and
unpolished, but somehow, from his very moroseness, the more inclined
to strict observance of morality. The follower eagerly lays hold of
this man as the person he had long wished for and found at last, and
relates his whole plan. He approves and assents, and agrees to be
the first to take up his abode in the house. When this was done, all
the elect who could be at Rome were assembled there. The rule of
life in the epistle of Manichæus was laid before them. Many thought
it intolerable, and left; not a few felt ashamed, and stayed. They
began to live as they had agreed, and as this high authority
enjoined. The follower all the time was zealously enforcing
everything on everybody, though never, in any case, what he did not
undertake himself. Meanwhile quarrels constantly arose among the
elect. They charged one another with crimes, all which he lamented
to hear, and managed to make them unintentionally expose one another
in their altercations. The revelations were vile beyond
description. Thus appeared the true character of those who were
unlike the rest in being willing to bend to the yoke of the
precepts. What then is to be suspected, or rather, concluded, of the
others? To come to a close, they gathered together on one occasion
and complained that they could not keep the regulations. Then came
rebellion. The follower stated his case most concisely, that either
all must be kept, or the man who had given such a sanction to such
precepts, which no one could fulfill, must be thought a great fool.Â
But, as was inevitable, the wild clamor of the mob prevailed over the
opinion of one man. The bishop himself gave way at last, and took to
flight with great disgrace; and he was said to have got in provisions
by stealth, contrary to rule, which were often discovered. He had a
supply of money from his private purse, which he carefully kept
concealed.
75. If you say these things are false, you contradict what is too
clear and public. But you may say so if you like. For, as the
things are certain, and easily known by those who wish to know them,
those who deny that they are true show what their habit of telling the
truth is. But you have other replies with which I do not find
fault. For you either say that some do keep your precepts, and that
they should not be mixed up with the guilty in condemning the others;
or that the whole inquiry into the character of the members of your
sect is wrong, for the question is of the character of the
profession. Should I grant both of these (although you can neither
point out those faithful observers of the precepts, nor clear your
heresy of all those frivolities and iniquities), still I must insist
on knowing why you heap reproaches on Christians of the Catholic name
on seeing the immoral life of some, while you either have the
effrontery to repel inquiry about your members, or the still greater
effrontery not to repel it, wishing it to be understood that in your
scanty membership there are some unknown individuals who keep the
precepts they profess, but that among the multitudes in the Catholic
Church there are none.
St. AUGUSTIN:
on two souls,
against the manichæans.
 [de duabus animabus contra manichæos].
A.D. 391.
translated by
albert h. newman, d.d., ll.d.,
professor of church history and comparative religion, in toronto
baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.
Concerning Two Souls, Against the Manichæans.
[De Duabus Animabus Contra Manichæos.] a.d. 391.[190]190
___________
One Book.
___________
Chapter 1.âBy What Course of Reasoning the Error of the Manichæans
Concerning Two Souls, One of Which is Not from God, is Refuted.Â
Every Soul, Inasmuch as It is a Certain Life, Can Have Its Existence
Only from God the Source of Life.
1. Through the assisting mercy of God, the snares of the Manichæans
having been broken to pieces and left behind, having been restored at
length to the bosom of the Catholic Church, I am disposed now at least
to consider and to deplore my recent wretchedness. For there were
many things that I ought to have done to prevent the seeds of the most
true religion wholesomely implanted in me from boyhood, from being
banished from my mind, having been uprooted by the error and fraud of
false and deceitful men. For, in the first place, if I had soberly
and diligently considered, with prayerful and pious mind, those two
kinds of souls to which they attributed natures and properties so
distinct that they wished one to be regarded as of the very substance
of God, but were not even willing that God should be accepted as the
author of the other; perhaps it would have appeared to me, intent on
learning, that there is no life whatsoever, which, by the very fact of
its being life and in so far as it is life at all, does not pertain to
the supreme source and beginning of life,[191]191 which we must
acknowledge to be nothing else than the supreme and only and true
God. Wherefore there is no reason why we should not confess, that
those souls which the Manichæans call evil are either devoid of life
and so not souls, neither will anything positively or negatively,
neither follow after nor flee from anything; or, if they live so that
they can be souls, and act as the Manichæans suppose, in no way do
they live unless by life, and if it be an established fact, as it is,
that Christ has said:Â "I am the life,"[192]192 that all souls seeing
that they cannot be souls except by living were created and fashioned
by Christ, that is, by the Life.
Chapter 2.âIf the Light that is Perceived by Sense Has God for Its
Author, as the Manichæans Acknowledge, Much More The Soul Which is
Perceived by Intellect Alone.
2. But if at that time[193]193 my thought was not able to bear and
sustain the question concerning life and partaking of life, which is
truly a great question, and one that requires much calm discussion
among the learned, I might perchance have had power to discover that
which to every man considering himself, without a study of the
individual parts, is perfectly evident, namely, that everything we are
said to know and to understand, we comprehend either by bodily sense
or by mental operation. That the five bodily senses are commonly
enumerated as sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, than all of which
intellect is immeasurably more noble and excellent, who would have
been so ungrateful and impious as not to concede to me; which being
established and confirmed, we should have seen how it follows, that
whatsoever things are perceived by touch or sight or in any bodily
manner at all, are by so much inferior to those things that we
comprehend intellectually as the senses are inferior to the
intellect. Wherefore, since all life, and so every soul, can be
perceived by no bodily sense, but by the intellect alone, whereas
while yonder sun and moon and every luminary that is beheld by these
mortal eyes, the Manichæans themselves also say must be attributed to
the true and good God, it is the height of madness to claim that that
belongs to God which we observe bodily; but, on the other hand, to
think that what we receive not only by the mind, but by the highest
form of mind,[194]194 namely, reason and intellect,[195]195 that is
life, whatsoever it may be called, nevertheless life, should be
deprived and bereft of the same God as its author. For if having
invoked God, I had asked myself what living is, how inscrutable it is
to every bodily sense, how absolutely incorporeal it is, could not I
have answered? Or would not the Manichæans also confess not only
that the souls they detest live, but that they live also immortally?
and that Christâs saying:Â "Send the dead to bury their
dead,"[196]196 was uttered not with reference to those not living at
all, but with reference to sinners, which is the only death of the
immortal soul; as when Paul writes:Â "The widow that giveth herself
to pleasure is dead while she liveth,"[197]197 he says that she at the
same time is dead, and alive. Wherefore I should have directed
attention not to the great degree of contamination in which the sinful
soul lives, but only to the fact itself that it lives. But if I
cannot perceive except by an act of intelligence, I believe it would
have come into the mind, that by as much as any mind whatever is to be
preferred to the light which we see through these eyes, by so much we
should give to intellect the preference over the eyes themselves.
Chapter 3.âHow It is Proved that Every Body Also is from God. That
the Soul Which is Called Evil by the Manichæans is Better Than Light.
They also affirm that the light is from the Father of Christ:Â should
I then have doubted that every soul is from Him? But not even then,
as a man forsooth so inexperienced and so youthful as I was, should I
have been in doubt as to the derivation not only of the soul, but also
of the body, nay of everything whatsoever, from Him, if I had
reverently and cautiously reflected on what form is, or what has been
formed, what shape is and what has been endued with shape.
3. But not to speak at present concerning the body, I lament
concerning the soul, concerning spontaneous and vivid movement,
concerning action, concerning life, concerning immortality; in fine, I
lament that I, miserable, should have believed that anything could
have all these properties apart from the goodness of God, which
properties, great as they are, I sadly neglected to consider; this I
think, should be to me a matter of groaning and of weeping. I should
have inwardly pondered these things, I should have discussed them with
myself, I should have referred them to others, I should have
propounded the inquiry, what the power of knowing is, seeing there is
nothing in man that we can compare to this excellency? And as men,
if only they had been men, would have granted me this, I should have
inquired whether seeing with these eyes is knowing? In case they had
answered negatively, I should first have concluded, that mental
intelligence is vastly inferior to ocular sensation; then I should
have added, that what we perceive by means of a better thing must
needs be judged to be itself better. Who would not grant this? I
should have gone on to inquire, whether that soul which they call evil
is an object of ocular sensation or of mental intelligence? They
would have acknowledged that the latter is the case. All which
things having been agreed upon and confirmed between us, I should have
shown how it follows, that that soul forsooth which they execrate, is
better than that light which they venerate, since the former is an
object of mental knowledge, the latter an object of corporeal sense
perception. But here perhaps they would have halted, and would have
refused to follow the lead of reason, so great is the power of
inveterate opinion and of falsehood long defended and believed. But
I should have pressed yet more upon them halting, not harshly, not in
puerile fashion, not obstinately; I should have repeated the things
that had been conceded, and have shown how they must be conceded. I
should have exhorted that they consult in common, that they may see
clearly what must be denied to us; whether they think it false that
intellectual perception is to be preferred to these carnal organs of
sight, or that what is known by means of the excellency of the mind is
more excellent than what is known by vile corporeal sensation; whether
they would be unwilling to confess that those souls which they think
heterogenous, can be known only by intellectual perception, that is,
by the excellency itself of the mind; whether they would wish to deny
that the sun and the moon are made known to us only by means of these
eyes. But if they had replied that no one of these things could be
denied otherwise than most absurdly and most impudently, I should have
urged that they ought not to doubt but that the light whose worthiness
of worship they proclaim, is viler than that soul which they admonish
men to flee.
Chapter 4.âEven the Soul of a Fly is More Excellent Than the Light.
4. And here, if perchance in their confusion they had inquired of me
whether I thought that the soul even of a fly[198]198 surpasses that
light, I should have replied, yes, nor should it have troubled me that
the fly is little, but it should have confirmed me that it is alive.Â
For it is inquired, what causes those members so diminutive to grow,
what leads so minute a body here and there according to its natural
appetite, what moves its feet in numerical order when it is running,
what regulates and gives vibration to its wings when flying? This
thing whatever it is in so small a creature towers up so prominently
to one well considering, that it excels any lightning flashing upon
the eyes.
Chapter 5.âHow Vicious Souls, However Worthy of Condemnation They May
Be, Excel the Light Which is Praiseworthy in Its Kind.
Certainly nobody doubts that whatever is an object of intellectual
perception, by virtue of divine laws surpasses in excellence every
sensible object and consequently also this light. For what, I ask,
do we perceive by thought, if not that it is one thing to know with
the mind, and another thing to experience bodily sensations, and that
the former is incomparably more sublime than the latter, and so that
intelligible things must needs be preferred to sensible things, since
the intellect itself is so highly exalted above the senses?
5. Hence this also I should perchance have known, which manifestly
follows, since injustice and intemperance and other vices of the mind
are not objects of sense, but of intellect, how it comes about that
these too which we detest and consider condemnable, yet in as much as
they are objects of intellect, can outrank this light however
praiseworthy it may be in its kind. For it is borne in upon the mind
subjecting itself well to God, that, first of all, not everything that
we praise is to be preferred to everything that we find fault with.Â
For in praising the purest lead, I do not therefore put a higher value
upon it than upon the gold that I find fault with. For everything
must be considered in its kind. I disapprove of a lawyer ignorant of
many statutes, yet I so prefer him to the most approved tailor, that I
should think him incomparably superior. But I praise the tailor
because he is thoroughly skilled in his own craft, while I rightly
blame the lawyer because he imperfectly fulfills the functions of his
profession. Wherefore I should have found out that the light which
in its own kind is perfect, is rightly to be praised; yet because it
is included in the number of sensible things, which class must needs
yield to the class of intelligible things, it must be ranked below
unjust and intemperate souls, since these are intelligible; although
we may without injustice judge these to be most worthy of
condemnation. For in the case of these we ask that they be
reconciled to God, not that they be preferred to that lightning.Â
Wherefore, if any one had contended that this luminary is from God, I
should not have opposed; but rather I should have said, that souls,
even vicious ones, not in so far as they are vicious, but in so far as
they are souls, must be acknowledged to be creatures of God.
Chapter 6.âWhether Even Vices Themselves as Objects of Intellectual
Apprehension are to Be Preferred to Light as an Object of Sense
Perception, and are to Be Attributed to God as Their Author. Vice of
the Mind and Certain Defects are Not Rightly to Be Counted Among
Intelligible Things. Defects Themselves Even If They Should Be
Counted Among Intelligible Things Should Never Be Put Before Sensible
Things. If Light is Visible by God, Much More is the Soul, Even If
Vicious, Which in So Far as It Lives is an Intelligible Thing.Â
Passages of Scripture are Adduced by the Manichæans to the Contrary.
At this point, in case some one of them, cautious and watchful, now
also more studious than pertinacious, had admonished me that the
inquiry is not about vicious souls but about vices themselves, which,
seeing that they are not known by corporeal sense, and yet are known,
can only be received as objects of intellectual apprehension, which if
they excel all objects of sense, why can we not agree in attributing
light to God as its author, but only a sacrilegious person would say
that God is the author of vices; I should have replied to the man, if
either on the spur of the moment, as is customary to the worshippers
of the good God, a solution of this question had darted like lightning
from on high, or a solution had been previously prepared. If I had
not deserved or was unable to avail myself of either of these methods,
I should have deferred the undertaking, and should have confessed that
the thing propounded was difficult to discern and arduous. I should
have withdrawn to myself, prostrated myself before God, groaned aloud
asking Him not to suffer me to halt in mid space, when I should have
moved forward with assured arguments, asking Him that I might not be
compelled by a doubtful question either to subordinate intelligible
things to sensible, and to yield, or to call Himself the author of
vices; since either of these alternatives would have been absolutely
full of falsehood and impiety. I can by no means suppose that He
would have deserted me in such a frame of mind. Rather, in His own
ineffable way, He would have admonished me to consider again and again
whether vices of mind concerning which I was so troubled should be
reckoned among intelligible things. But that I might find out, on
account of the weakness of my inner eye, which rightly befell me on
account of my sins, I should have devised some sort of stage for
gazing upon spiritual things in visible things themselves, of which we
have by no means a surer knowledge, but a more confident
familiarity. Therefore I should straightway have inquired, what
properly pertains to the sensation of the eyes. I should have found
that it is the color, the dominion of which the light holds. For
these are the things that no other sense touches, for the motions and
magnitudes and intervals and figures of bodies, although they also can
be perceived by the eyes, yet to perceive such is not their peculiar
function, but belongs also to touch. Whence I should have gathered
that by as much as yonder light excels other corporeal and sensible
things, by so much is sight more noble than the other senses. The
light therefore having been selected from all the things that are
perceived by bodily sense, by this [light] I should have striven, and
in this of necessity I should have placed that stage of my inquiry.Â
I should have gone on to consider what might be done in this way, and
thus I should have reasoned with myself:Â If yonder sun, conspicuous
by its brightness and sufficing for day by its light, should little by
little decline in our sight into the likeness of the moon, would we
perceive anything else with our eyes than light however refulgent, yet
seeking light by reason of not seeing what had been, and using it for
seeing what was present? Therefore we should not see the decline,
but the light that should survive the decline. But since we should
not see, we should not perceive; for whatever we perceive by sight
must necessarily be seen; wherefore if that decline were perceived
neither by sight nor by any other sense, it cannot be reckoned among
objects of sense. For nothing is an object of sense that cannot be
perceived by sense. Let us apply now the consideration to virtue, by
whose intellectual light we most fittingly say the mind shines.Â
Again, a certain decline from this light of virtue, not destroying the
soul, but obscuring it, is called vice. Therefore also vice can by
no means be reckoned among objects of intellectual perception, as that
decline of light is rightly excluded from the number of objects of
sense perception. Yet what remains of soul, that is that which lives
and is soul is just as much an object of intellectual perception as
that is an object of sense perception which should shine in this
visible luminary after any imaginable degree of decline. And so the
soul, in so far as it is soul and partakes of life, without which it
can in no way be soul, is most correctly to be preferred to all
objects of sense perception. Wherefore it is most erroneous to say
that any soul is not from God, from whom you boast that the sun and
moon have their existence.
7. But if now it should be thought fit to designate as objects of
sense perception not only all those things that we perceive by the
senses, but also all those things that though not perceiving by the
senses we judge of by means of the body, as of darkness through the
eyes, of silence through the ears,âfor not by seeing darkness and not
by hearing silence do we know of their existence,âand again, in the
case of objects of intellectual perception, not those things only
which we see illuminated by the mind, as is wisdom itself, but also
those things which by the illumination itself we avoid, such as
foolishness, which I might fittingly designate mental darkness; I
should have made no controversy about a word, but should have
dissolved the whole question by an easy division, and straightway I
should have proved to those giving good attention, that by the divine
law of truth intelligible subsistences are to be preferred to sensible
subsistences, not the decline of these subsistences, even though we
should choose to call these intelligible, those sensible. Wherefore,
that those who acknowledge that these visible luminaries and those
intelligible souls are subsistences, are in every way compelled to
grant and to attribute the sublimer part to souls; but that defects of
either kind cannot be preferred the one to the other, for they are
only privative and indicate nonexistence, and therefore have precisely
the same force as negations themselves. For when we say, It is not
gold, and, It is not virtue, although there is the greatest possible
difference between gold and virtue, yet there is no difference between
the negations that we adjoin to them. But that it is worse indeed
not to be virtue than not to be gold, no sane man doubts. Who does
not know that the difference lies not in the negations themselves, but
in the things to which they are adjoined? Â For by as much as virtue
is more excellent than gold, by so much is it more wretched to be in
want of virtue than of gold. Wherefore, since intelligible things
excel sensible things, we rightly feel greater repugnance towards
defect in intelligible than in sensible things, esteeming not the
defects, but the things that are deficient more or less precious.Â
From which now it appears, that defect of light, which is
intelligible, is far more wretched than defect of the sensible light,
because, forsooth, life which is known is by far more precious than
yonder light which is seen.
8. This being the case, who will dare, while attributing sun and
moon, and whatever is refulgent in the stars, nay in this fire of ours
and in this visible earthly life, to God, to decline to grant that any
souls whatsoever, which are not souls except by the fact of their
being perfectly alive, since in this fact alone life has the
precedence of light, are from God. And since he speaks truth who
says, In as far as a thing shines it is from God, would I speak
falsely, mighty God, if I should say, In so far as a thing lives it is
from God? Let not, I beseech thee, blindness of intellect and
perversions of mind be increased to such an extent that men may fail
to know these things. But however great their error and pertinacity
might have been, trusting in these arguments and armed therewith, I
believe that when I should have laid the matter before them thus
considered and canvassed, and should have calmly conferred with them,
I should have feared lest any one of them should have seemed to me to
be of any consequence, should he endeavor to subordinate or even to
compare to bodily sense, or to those things that pertain to bodily
sense as objects of knowledge, either intellect or those things that
are perceived (not by way of defect) by the intellect. Which point
having been settled, how would he or any other have dared to deny that
such souls as he would consider evil, yet since they are souls, are to
be reckoned in the number of intelligible things, nor are objects of
intellectual perception by way of defect? This is on the supposition
that souls are souls only by being alive. For if they were
intellectually perceived as vicious through defect, being vicious by
lack of virtue, yet they are perceived as souls not through defect,
for they are souls by reason of being alive. Nor can it be
maintained that presence of life is a cause of defect, for by as much
as anything is defective, by so much is it severed from life.
9. Since therefore it would have been every way evident that no
souls can be separated from that Author from whom yonder light is not
separated, whatever they might have now adduced I should not have
accepted, and should rather have admonished them that they should
choose with me to follow those who maintain that whatever is, since it
is, and in whatever degree it is, has its existence from the one God.
Chapter 7.âHow Evil Men are of God, and Not of God.
They might have cited against me those words of the gospel:Â "Ye
therefore do not hear, because ye are not of God;" "Ye are of your
father the devil."[199]199Â I also should have cited:Â "All things
were made by Him and without Him was not anything made,"[200]200 and
this of the Apostle:Â "One God of whom are all things, and one Lord
Jesus Christ through whom are all things,"[201]201 and again from the
same Apostle:Â "Of whom are all things, through whom are all things,
in whom are all things, to Him be glory."[202]202Â I should have
exhorted those men (if indeed I had found them men), that we should
presume upon nothing as if we had found it out, but should rather
inquire of the masters who would demonstrate the agreement and harmony
of those passages that seem to be discordant. For when in one and
the same Scriptural authority we read:Â "All things are of
God,"[203]203 and elsewhere:Â "Ye are not of God," since it is wrong
rashly to condemn books of Scripture, who would not have seen that a
skilled teacher should be found who would know a solution of this
problem, from whom assuredly if endowed with good intellectual powers,
and a "spiritual man," as is said by divine inspiration[204]204 (for
he would necessarily have favored the true arguments concerning the
intelligible and sensible nature, which, as far as I can, I have
conducted and handled, nay he would have disclosed them far better and
more convincingly); we should have heard nothing else concerning this
problem, except, as might happen, that there is no class of souls but
has its existence from God, and that it is yet rightly said to sinners
and unbelievers:Â "Ye are not of God."Â For we also, perchance,
Divine aid having been implored, should have been able easily to see,
that it is one thing to live and another to sin, and (although life in
sin may be called death in comparison with just life,[205]205 and
while in one man it may be found, that he is at the same time alive
and a sinner) that so far as he is alive, he is of God, so far as he
is a sinner he is not of God. In which division we use that
alternative that suits our sentiment; so that when we wish to insist
upon the omnipotence of God as Creator, we may say even to sinners
that they are of God. For we are speaking to those who are contained
in some class, we are speaking to those having animal life, we are
speaking to rational beings, we are speaking lastlyâand this applies
especially to the matter in handâto living beings, all which things
are essentially divine functions. But when our purpose is to convict
evil men, we rightly say:Â "Ye are not of God."Â For we speak to
them as averse to truth, unbelieving, criminal, infamous, and, to sum
up all in one termâsinners, all of which things are undoubtedly not of
God. Therefore what wonder is it, if Christ says to sinners,
convicting them of this very thing that they were sinners and did not
believe in Him:Â "Ye are not of God;" and on the other hand, without
prejudice to the former statement:Â "All things were made through
Him," and "All things are of God?"Â For if not to believe Christ, to
repudiate Christâs advent, not to accept Christ, was a sure mark of
souls that are not of God; and so it was said:Â "Ye therefore hear
not, because ye are not of God;" how would that saying of the apostle
be true that occurs in the memorable beginning of the gospel:Â "He
came unto his own things, and his own people did not receive
him?"[206]206Â Whence his own if they did not receive him; or whence
therefore not his own because they did not receive him, unless that
sinners by virtue of being men belong to God, but by virtue of being
sinners belong to the devil? He who says: "His own people received
him not" had reference to nature; but he who says:Â "Ye are not of
God." had reference to will; for the evangelist was commending the
works of God, Christ was censuring the sins of men.
Chapter 8.âThe Manichæans Inquire Whence is Evil and by This Question
Think They Have Triumphed. Let Them First Know, Which is Most Easy
to Do, that Nothing Can Live Without God. Consummate Evil Cannot Be
Known Except by the Knowledge of Consummate Good, Which is God.
Here perchance some one may say:Â Whence are sins themselves, and
whence is evil in general? If from man, whence is man? if from an
angel, whence is the angel? When it is said, however truly and
rightly, that these are from God, it nevertheless seems to those
unskillful and possessed of little power to look into recondite
matters, that evils and sins are thereby connected, as by a sort of
chain, to God. By this question they think themselves triumphant, as
if forsooth to ask were to know;âwould it were so, for in that case no
one would be more knowing than myself. Yet very often in controversy
the propounder of a great question, while impersonating the great
teacher, is himself more ignorant in the matter concerning which he
would frighten his opponent, than he whom he would frighten.
These therefore suppose that they are superior to the common run,
because the former ask questions that the latter cannot answer. If
therefore when I most unfortunately was associated with them, not in
the position in which I have now for some time been, they had raised
these objections when I had brought forward this argument, I should
have said:Â I ask that you meanwhile agree with me, which is most
easy, that if nothing can shine without God, much less can anything
live without God. Let us not persist in such monstrous opinions as
to maintain that any souls whatsoever have life apart from God. For
perchance it may so happen that with me you are ignorant as to this
thing, namely whence is evil, let us then learn either simultaneously
or in any order, I care not what. For what if knowledge of the
perfection of evil is impossible to man without knowledge of the
perfection of good? For we should not know darkness if we were
always in darkness. But the notion of light does not allow its
opposite to be unknown. But the highest good is that than which
there is nothing higher. But God is good and than Him nothing can be
higher. God therefore is the highest good. Let us therefore
together so recognize God, and thus what we seek too hastily will not
be hidden from us. Do you suppose then that the knowledge of God is
a matter of small account or desert. For what other reward is there
for us than life eternal, which is to know God? For God the Master
says:Â "But this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only
and true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."[207]207Â For the
soul, although it is immortal, yet because aversion from the knowledge
of God is rightly called its death, when it is converted to God, the
reward of eternal life to be attained is that knowledge; so that this
is, as has been said, eternal life. But no one can be converted to
God, except he turn himself away from this world. This for myself I
feel to be arduous and exceedingly difficult, whether it is easy to
you, God Himself would have seen. I should have been inclined to
think it easy to you, had I not been moved by the fact, that, since
the world from which we are commanded to turn away is visible, and the
apostle says:Â "The things that are seen are temporal, but the things
that are unseen are eternal,"[208]208 you ascribe more importance to
the judgment of these eyes than to that of the mind, asserting and
believing as you do that there is no shining feather that does not
shine from God; and that there are living souls that do not live from
God. These and like things I should either have said to them or
considered with myself, for even then, supplicating God with all my
bowels, so to speak, and examining as attentively as possible the
Scriptures, I should perchance have been able either to say such
things or to think them, so far as was necessary for my salvation.
Chapter 9.âAugustin Deceived by Familiarity with the Manichæans, and
by the Succession of Victories Over Ignorant Christians Reported by
Them. The Manichæans are Likewise Easily Refuted from the Knowledge
of Sin and the Will.
But two things especially, which easily lay hold upon that unwary age,
urged me through wonderful circuits. One of these was familiarity,
suddenly, by a certain false semblance of goodness, wrapped many times
around my neck as a certain sinuous chain. The other was, that I was
almost always noxiously victorious in arguing with ignorant Christians
who yet eagerly attempted, each as he could, to defend their
faith.[209]209Â By which frequent success the ardor of youth was
kindled, and by its own impulse rashly verged upon the great evil of
stubbornness. For this kind of wrangling, after I had become an
auditor among them, whatever I was able to do either by my own genius,
such as it was, or by reading the works of others, I most gladly
devoted to them alone. Accordingly from their speeches ardor in
disputations was daily increased, from success in disputations love
for them [the Manichæans]. Whence it resulted that whatever they
said, as if affected by certain strange disorders, I approved of as
true, not because I knew it to be true, but because I wished it to
be. So it came about that, however slowly and cautiously, yet for a
long time I followed men that preferred a sleek straw to a living
soul.
12. So be it, I was not able at that time to distinguish and discern
sensible from intelligible things, carnal forsooth from spiritual.Â
It did not belong to age, nor to discipline, nor even to any habit,
nor, finally, to any deserts; for it is a matter of no small joy and
felicitation:Â had I not thus been able at length even to grasp that
which in the judgment of all men nature itself by the laws of the most
High God has established?
Chapter 10.âSin is Only from the Will. His Own Life and Will Best
Known to Each Individual. Â What Will is.
For let any men whatever, if only no madness has broken them loose
from the common sense of the human race, bring whatever zeal they like
for judging, whatever ignorance, nay whatever slowness of mind, I
should like to find out what they would have replied to me had I
asked, whether a man would seem to them to have sinned by whose hand
while he was asleep another should have written something
disgraceful? Who doubts that they would have denied that it is a
sin, and have exclaimed against it so vehemently that they might
perchance have been enraged that I should have thought them proper
objects of such a question? Of whom reconciled and restored to
equanimity, as best I could do it, I should have begged that they
would not take it amiss if I asked them another thing just as
manifest, just as completely within the knowledge of all. Then I
should have asked, if some stronger person had done some evil thing by
the hand of one not sleeping but conscious, yet with the rest of his
members bound and in constraint, whether because he knew it, though
absolutely unwilling, he should be held guilty of any sin? And here
all marvelling that I should ask such questions, would reply without
hesitation, that he had absolutely not sinned at all. Why so?Â
Because whoever has done anything evil by means of one unconscious or
unable to resist, the latter can by no means be justly condemned.Â
And precisely why this is so, if I should inquire of the human nature
in these men, I should easily bring out the desired answer, by asking
in this manner:Â Suppose that the sleeper already knew what the other
would do with his hand, and of purpose aforethought, having drunk so
much as would prevent his being awakened, should go to sleep, in order
to deceive some one with an oath. Would any amount of sleep suffice
to prove his innocence? What else than a guilty man would one
pronounce him? But if he has also willingly been bound that he may
deceive some one by this pretext, in what respect then would those
chains profit as a means of relieving him of sin? Although bound by
these he was really not able to resist, as in the other case the
sleeper was absolutely ignorant of what he was then doing. Is there
therefore any possibility of doubting that both should be judged to
have sinned? Which things having been conceded, I should have
argued, that sin is indeed nowhere but in the will,[210]210 since this
consideration also would have helped me, that justice holds guilty
those sinning by evil will alone, although they may have been unable
to accomplish what they willed.
13. For who could have said that, in adducing these considerations,
I was dwelling upon obscure and recondite things, where on account of
the fewness of those able to understand, either fraud or suspicion of
ostentation is accustomed to arise? Let that distinction between
intelligible and sensible things withdraw for a little:Â let me not
be found fault with for following up slow minds with the stimuli of
subtle disputations. Permit me to know that I live, permit me to
know that I will to live. If in this the human race agrees, as our
life is known to us, so also is our will. Nor when we become
possessed of this knowledge, is there any occasion to fear lest any
one should convince us that we may be deceived; for no one can be
deceived as to whether he does not live, or wishes nothing. I do not
think that I have adduced anything obscure, and my concern is rather
lest some should find fault with me for dwelling on things that are
too manifest. But let us consider the bearing of these things.
14. Sinning therefore takes place only by exercise of will. But
our will is very well known to us; for neither should I know that I
will, if I did not know what will itself is. Accordingly, it is thus
defined:Â will is a movement of mind, no one compelling, either for
not losing or for obtaining something.[211]211Â Why therefore could
not I have so defined it then? Was it difficult to see that one
unwilling is contrary to one willing, just as the left hand is
contrary to the right, not as black to white? For the same thing
cannot be at the same time black and white. But whoever is placed
between two men is on the left hand with reference to one, on the
right with reference to the other. One man is both on the right hand
and on the left hand at the same time, but by no means both to the one
man. So indeed one mind may be at the same time unwilling and
willing, but it cannot be at the same time unwilling and willing with
reference to one and the same thing. For when any one unwillingly
does anything; if you ask him whether he wished to do it, he says that
he did not. Likewise if you ask whether he wished not to do it, he
replies that he did. So you will find him unwilling with reference
to doing, willing with reference to not doing, that is to say, one
mind at the same time having both attitudes, but each referring to
different things. Why do I say this? Because if we should again
ask wherefore though unwilling he does this, he will say that he is
compelled. For every one also who does a thing unwillingly is
compelled, and every one who is compelled, if he does a thing, does it
only unwillingly. It follows that he that is willing is free from
compulsion, even if any one thinks himself compelled. And in this
manner every one who willingly does a thing is not compelled, and
whoever is not compelled, either does it willingly or not at all.Â
Since nature itself proclaims these things in all men whom we can
interrogate without absurdity, from the boy even to the old man, from
literary sport even to the throne of the wise, why then should I not
have seen that in the definition of will should be put, "no one
compelling," which now as if with greater experience most cautiously I
have done. But if this is everywhere manifest, and promptly occurs
to all not by instruction but by nature, what is there left that seems
obscure, unless perchance it be concealed from some one, that when we
wish for something, we will, and our mind is moved towards it, and we
either have it or do not have it, and if we have it we will to retain
it, if we have it not, to acquire it? Wherefore everyone who wills,
wills either not to lose something or to obtain it. Hence if all
these things are clearer than day, as they are, nor are they given to
my conception alone, but by the liberality of truth itself to the
whole human race, why could I not have said even at that time:Â Will
is a movement of the mind, no one compelling, either for not losing or
for obtaining something?
Chapter 11.âWhat Sin is.
Some one will say:Â What assistance would this have furnished you
against the Manichæans? Wait a moment; permit me first also to
define sin, which, every mind reads divinely written in itself, cannot
exist apart from will. Sin therefore is the will to retain and
follow after what justice forbids, and from which it is free to
abstain.[212]212 Although if it be not free, it is not will. But I
have preferred to define more roughly than precisely. Should I not
also have carefully examined those obscure books, whence I might have
learned that no one is worthy of blame or punishment who either wills
what justice does not prohibit him from willing, or does not do what
he is not able to do? Do not shepherds on mountains, poets in
theatres, unlearned in social intercourse, learned in libraries,
masters in schools, priests in consecrated places, and the human race
throughout the whole world, sing out these things? But if no one is
worthy of blame and condemnation, who either does not act against the
prohibition of justice, or who does not do what he cannot do, yet
every sin is blameworthy and condemnable, who doubts then that it is
sin, when willing is unjust, and not willing is free. And hence that
definition is both true and easy to understand, and not only now but
then also could have been spoken by me:Â Sin is the will of retaining
or of obtaining, what justice forbids, and whence it is free to
abstain?
Chapter 12.âFrom the Definitions Given of Sin and Will, He Overthrows
the Entire Heresy of the Manichæans. Likewise from the Just
Condemnation of Evil Souls It Follows that They are Evil Not by Nature
But by Will. That Souls are Good By Nature, to Which the Pardon of
Sins is Granted.
16. Come now, let us see in what respect these things would have
aided us. Much every way, so that I should have desired nothing
more; for they end the whole cause; for whoever consulting in the
inner mind, where they are more pronounced and assured, the secrets of
his own conscience, and the divine laws absolutely imposed upon
nature, grants that these two definitions of will and sin are true,
condemns without any hesitation by the fewest and the briefest, but
plainly the most invincible reasons, the whole heresy of the
Manichæans. Which can be thus considered. They say that there are
two kinds of souls, the one good, which is in such a way from God,
that it is said not to have been made by Him out of any material or
out of nothing, but to have proceeded as a certain part from the very
substance itself of God; the other evil, which they believe and strive
to get others to believe pertains to God in no way whatever; and so
they maintain that the one is the perfection of good, but the other
the perfection of evil, and that these two classes were at one time
distinct but are now commingled. The character and the cause of this
commingling I had not yet heard; but nevertheless I could have
inquired whether that evil kind of souls, before it was mingled with
the good, had any will. For if not, it was without sin and innocent,
and so by no means evil.[213]213Â But if evil in such a way, that
though without will, as fire, yet if it should touch the good it would
violate and corrupt it; how impious it is to believe that the nature
of evil is powerful enough to change any part of God, and that the
Highest Good is corruptible and violable! But if the will was
present, assuredly there was present, no one compelling, a movement of
the mind either towards not losing something or obtaining something.Â
But this something was either good, or was thought to be good, for not
otherwise could it be earnestly desired. But in supreme evil, before
the commingling which they maintain, there never was any good.Â
Whence then could there be in it either the knowledge or the thought
of good? Did they wish for nothing that was in themselves, and
earnestly desire that true good which was without? That will must
truly be declared worthy of distinguished and great praise by which is
earnestly desired the supreme and true good. Whence then in supreme
evil was this movement of mind most worthy of so great praise? Did
they seek it for the sake of injuring it? In the first place, the
argument comes to the same thing. For he who wishes to injure,
wishes to deprive another of some good for the sake of some good of
his own. There was therefore in them either a knowledge of good or
an opinion of good, which ought by no means to belong to supreme
evil. In the second place, whence had they known, that good placed
outside of themselves, which they designed to injure, existed at
all. If they had intellectually perceived it, what is more excellent
than such a mind? Is there anything else for which the whole energy
of good men is put forth except the knowledge of that supreme and
sincere good? What therefore is now scarcely conceded to a few good
and just men, was mere evil, no good assisting, then able to
accomplish? But if those souls bore bodies and saw the supreme good
with their eyes, what tongues, what hearts, what intellects suffice
for lauding and proclaiming those eyes, with which the minds of just
men can scarcely be compared? How great good things we find in
supreme evil! For if to see God is evil, God is not a good; but God
is a good; therefore to see God is good; and I know not what can be
compared to this good. Since to see anything is good, whence can it
be made out that to be able to see is evil? Therefore whatever in
those eyes or in those minds brought it about, that the divine essence
could be seen by them, brought about a great thing and a good thing
most worthy of ineffable praise. But if it was not brought about,
but it was such in itself and eternal, it is difficult to find
anything better than this evil.
17. Lastly, that these souls may have nothing of these praiseworthy
things which by the reasonings of the Manichæans they are compelled
to have, I should have asked, whether God condemns any or no souls.Â
If none, there is no judgment of rewards and punishments, no
providence, and the world is administered by chance rather than by
reason, or rather is not administered at all. For the name
administration must not be given to chances. But if it is impious
for all those that are bound by any religion to believe this, it
remains either that there is condemnation of some souls, or that there
are no sins. But if there are no sins, neither is there any evil.Â
Which if the Manichæans should say, they would slay their heresy with
a single blow. Therefore they and I agree that some souls are
condemned by divine law and judgment. But if these souls are good,
what is that justice? If evil, are they so by nature, or by will?Â
But by nature souls can in no way be evil. Whence do we teach
this. From the above definitions of will and sin. For to speak of
souls, and that they are evil, and that they do not sin, is full of
madness; but to say that they sin without will, is great craziness,
and to hold any one guilty of sin for not doing what he could not do,
belongs to the height of iniquity and insanity. Wherefore whatever
these souls do, if they do it by nature not by will, that is, if they
are wanting in a movement of mind free both for doing and not doing,
if finally no power of abstaining from their work is conceded to them;
we cannot hold that the sin is theirs.[214]214Â But all confess both
that evil souls are justly, and souls that have not sinned are
unjustly condemned; therefore they confess that those souls are evil
that sin. But these, as reason teaches, do not sin. Therefore the
extraneous class of evil souls of the Manichæans, whatever it may be,
is a non-entity.
18. Let us now look at that good class of souls, which again they
exalt to such a degree as to say that it is the very substance of
God. But how much better it is that each one should recognize his
own rank and merit, nor be so puffed up with sacrilegious pride as to
believe that as often as he experiences a change in himself it is the
substance of that supreme good, which devout reason holds and teaches
to be unchangeable! For behold! since it is manifest that souls do
not sin in not being such as they cannot be; it follows that these
supposititious souls, whatever they may be, do not sin at all, and
moreover that they are absolutely non-existent; it remains that since
there are sins, they find none to whom to attribute them except the
good class of souls and the substance of God. But especially are
they pressed by Christian authority; for never have they denied that
forgiveness of sins is granted when any one has been converted to God;
never have they said (as they have said of many other passages) that
some corrupter has interpolated this into the divine Scriptures. To
whom then are sins attributed? If to those evil souls of the alien
class, these also can become good, can possess the kingdom of God with
Christ. Which denying, they [the Manichæans] have no other class
except those souls which they maintain are of the substance of God.Â
It remains that they acknowledge that not only these latter also, but
these alone sin. But I make no contention about their being alone in
sinning; yet they sin. But are they compelled to sin by being
commingled with evil? If so compelled that there was no power of
resisting, they do not sin. If it is in their power to resist, and
they voluntarily consent, we are compelled to find out through their
[the Manichæan] teaching, why so great good things in supreme evil,
why this evil in supreme good, unless it be that neither is that which
they bring into suspicion evil, nor is that which they pervert by
superstition supreme good?
Chapter 13.âFrom Deliberation on the Evil and on the Good Part It
Results that Two Classes of Souls are Not to Be Held to. A Class of
Souls Enticing to Shameful Deeds Having Been Conceded, It Does Not
Follow that These are Evil by Nature, that the Others are Supreme
Good.
19. But if I had taught, or at any rate had myself learned, that
they rave and err regarding those two classes of souls, why should I
have thenceforth thought them worthy of being heard or consulted about
anything? That I might learn hence, that these two kinds of souls
are pointed out, which in the course of deliberation assent puts now
on the evil side, now on the good? Why is not this rather the sign
of one soul which by free will can be borne here and there, swayed
hither and thither? For it was my own experience to feel that I am
one, considering evil and good and choosing one or the other, but for
the most part the one pleases, the other is fitting, placed in the
midst of which we fluctuate. Nor is it to be wondered at, for we are
now so constituted that through the flesh we can be affected by
sensual pleasure, and through the spirit by honorable
considerations. Am I not therefore compelled to acknowledge two
souls? Nay, we can better and with far less difficulty recognize two
classes of good things, of which neither is alien from God as its
author, one soul acted upon from diverse directions, the lower and the
higher, or to speak more correctly, the external and the internal.Â
These are the two classes which a little while ago we considered under
the names sensible and intelligible, which we now prefer to call more
familiarly carnal and spiritual. But it has been made difficult for
us to abstain from carnal things, since our truest bread is
spiritual. For with great labor we now eat this bread. For neither
without punishment for the sin of transgression have we been changed
from immortal into mortal. So it happens, that when we strive after
better things, habit formed by connection with the flesh and our sins
in some way begin to militate against us and to put obstacles in our
way, some foolish persons with most obtuse superstition suspect that
there is another kind of souls which is not of God.
20. However even if it be conceded to them that we are enticed to
shameful deeds by another inferior kind of souls, they do not thence
make it evident that those enticing are evil by nature, or those
enticed, supremely good. For it may be, the former of their own
will, by striving after what was not lawful, that is, by sinning, from
being good have become evil; and again they may be made good, but in
such manner that for a long time they remain in sin, and by a certain
occult suasion traduce to themselves other souls. Then, they may not
be absolutely evil, but in their own kind, however inferior, they may
exercise their own functions without any sin. But those superior
souls to whom justice, the directress of things, has assigned a far
more excellent activity, if they should wish to follow and to imitate
those inferior ones, become evil, not because they imitate evil souls,
but because they imitate in an evil way. By the evil souls is done
what is proper to them, by the good what is alien to them is striven
after. Hence the former remain in their own grade, the latter are
plunged into a lower. It is as when men copy after beasts. For the
four-footed horse walks beautifully, but if a man on all fours should
imitate him, who would think him worthy even of chaff for food?Â
Rightly therefore we generally disapprove of one who imitates, while
we approve of him whom he imitates. But we disapprove not because he
has not succeeded, but for wishing to succeed at all. For in the
horse we approve of that to which by as much as we prefer man, by so
much are we offended that he copies after inferior creatures. So
among men, however well the crier may do in sending forth his voice,
would not the senator be insane, if he should do it even more clearly
and better than the crier? Take an illustration from the heavenly
bodies:Â The moon when shining is praised, and by its course and its
changes is quite pleasing to those that pay attention to such
things. But if the sun should wish to imitate it (for we may feign
that it has desires of this sort[215]215), who would not be greatly
and rightly displeased. From which illustrations I wish it to be
understood, that even if there are souls (which meanwhile is left an
open question[216]216) devoted to bodily offices not by sin but by
nature, and even if they are related to us, however inferior they may
be, by some inner affinity, they should not be esteemed evil simply
because we are evil ourselves in following them and in loving
corporeal things. For we sin by loving corporeal things, because by
justice we are required and by nature we are able to love spiritual
things, and when we do this we are, in our kind, the best and the
happiest.[217]217
21. Wherefore what proof does deliberation, violently urged in both
directions, now prone to sin, now borne on toward right conduct,
furnish, that we are compelled to accept two kinds of souls, the
nature of one of which is from God, of the other not; when we are free
to conjecture so many other causes of alternating states of mind?Â
But that these things are obscure and are to no purpose pried into by
blear-eyed minds, whoever is a good judge of things sees. Wherefore
those things rather which have been said regarding the will and sin,
those things, I say, that supreme justice permits no man using his
reason to be ignorant of, those things which if they were taken from
us, there is nothing whence the discipline of virtue may begin,
nothing whence it may rise from the death of vices, those things I say
considered again and again with sufficient clearness and lucidity
convince us that the heresy of the Manichæans is false.
Chapter 14.âAgain It is Shown from the Utility of Repenting that Souls
are Not by Nature Evil. So Sure a Demonstration is Not Contradicted
Except from the Habit of Erring.
22. Like the foregoing considerations is what I shall now say about
repenting. For as among all sane people it is agreed, and this the
Manichæans themselves not only confess but also teach, that to repent
of sin is useful. Why shall I now, in this matter, collect the
testimonies of the divine Scriptures, which are scattered throughout
their pages? It is also the voice of nature; notice of this thing
has escaped no fool. We should be undone, if this were not deeply
imbedded in our nature. Some one may say that he does not sin; but
no barbarity will dare to say, that if one sins he should not repent
of it. This being the case, I ask to which of the two kinds of souls
does repenting pertain? I know indeed that it can pertain neither to
him who does ill nor to him who cannot do well. Wherefore, that I
may use the words of the Manichæans, if a soul of darkness repent of
sin, it is not of the substance of supreme evil, if a soul of light,
it is not of the substance of supreme good; that disposition of
repenting which is profitable testifies alike that the penitent has
done ill, and that he could have done well. How, therefore, is there
from me nothing of evil, if I have acted unadvisedly, or how can I
rightly repent if I have not so done? Hear the other part. How is
there from me nothing of good, if in me there is good will, or how do
I rightly repent if there is not? Wherefore, either let them deny
that there is great utility in repenting, so that they may be driven
not only from the Christian name, but from every even imaginary
argument for their views, or let them cease to say and to teach that
there are two kinds of souls, one of which has nothing of evil, the
other nothing of good; for that whole sect is propped up by this
two-headed[218]218 or rather headlong[219]219 variety of souls.
23. And to me indeed it is sufficient thus to know that the
Manichæans err, that I know that sin must be repented of; and yet if
now by right of friendship I should accost some one of my friends who
still thinks that they are worthy of being listened to, and should say
to him:Â Do you not know that it is useful, when any one has sinned,
to repent? Without hesitation he will swear that he knows. If then
I shall have convinced you that Manichæism is false, will you not
desire anything more? Let him reply what more he can desire in this
matter. Very well, so far. But when I shall have begun to show the
sure and necessary arguments which, bound to it with adamantine
chains, as the saying is, follow that proposition, and shall have
conducted to its conclusion the whole process by which that sect is
overthrown, he will deny perhaps that he knows the utility of
repenting, which no learned man, no unlearned, is ignorant of, and
will rather contend, when we hesitate and deliberate, that two souls
in us furnish each its own proper help to the solution of the
different parts of the question. O habit of sin! O accompanying
penalty of sin! Then you turned me away from the consideration of
things so manifest, but you injured me when I did not discern. But
now, among my most familiar acquaintances who do not discern, you
wound and torment me discerning.
Chapter 15.âHe Prays for His Friends Whom He Has Had as Associates in
Error.
24. Give heed to these things, I beseech you, dearly beloved. Your
dispositions I have well known. If you now concede to me the mind
and the reason of any sort of man, these things are far more certain
than the things that we seemed to learn or rather were compelled to
believe. Great God, God omnipotent, God of supreme goodness, whose
right it is to be believed and known to be inviolable and
unchangeable. Trinal Unity, whom the Catholic Church worships, as
one who have experienced in myself Thy mercy, I supplicate Thee, that
Thou wilt not permit those with whom from boyhood I have lived most
harmoniously in every relation to dissent from me in Thy worship. I
see how it was especially to be expected in this place that I should
either even then have defended the Catholic Scriptures attacked by the
Manichæans, if as I say, I had been cautious; or I should now show
that they can be defended. But in other volumes God will aid my
purpose, for the moderate length of this, as I suppose, already asks
to be spared.[220]220
St. AUGUSTIN:
acts or disputation
against
fortunatus the manichæan.
 [acta seu disputatio contra fortunatum manichæum].
A.D. 392.
translated by
albert h. newman, d.d., ll.d.,
professor of church history and comparative religion, in toronto
baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.
Acts or Disputation
Against Fortunatus, the Manichæan.
[Acta Seu Disputatio Contra Fortunatum Manichæum.] a.d. 392.[221]221
Disputation of the First Day.
On the fifth of September, the most renowned men Arcadius Augustus
(the second time) and Rufinus being consuls, a disputation against
Fortunatus, an elder of the Manichæans, was held in the city of Hippo
Regius, in the baths of Sossius, in the presence of the people.
1. Augustin said: I now regard as error what formerly I regarded
as truth. I desire to hear from you who are present whether my
supposition is correct. First of all I regard it as the height of
error to believe that Almighty God, in whom is our one hope, is in any
part either violable, or contaminable, or corruptible. This I know
your heresy affirms, not indeed in the words that I now use; for when
you are questioned you confess that God is incorruptible, and
absolutely inviolable, and incontaminable; but when you begin to
expound the rest of your system, we are compelled to declare Him
corruptible, penetrable, contaminable. For you say that another race
of darkness, whatever it may be, has rebelled against the kingdom of
God; but that Almighty God, when He saw what ruin and desolation
threatened his domains, unless he should make some opposition to the
adverse race and resist it, sent this virtue, from whose commingling
with evil and the race of darkness the world was framed. Hence it is
that here good souls labor, serve, err, are corrupted:Â that they may
see the need of a liberator, who should purge them from error, loose
them from this commingling with evil, and liberate them from
servitude. I think it impious to believe that Almighty God ever
feared any adverse race, or was under necessity to precipitate us into
afflictions.
Fortunatus said:Â Because I know that you have been in our midst,
that is, have lived as an adherent among the Manichæans, these are
the principles of our faith. The matter now to be considered is our
mode of living, the falsely alleged crimes for which we are
maltreated. Therefore let the good men present hear from you whether
these things with which we are charged and which we have thrown in our
teeth are true or false. For from your instruction, and from your
exposition and explanation, they will have been able to gain more
correct information about our mode of life, if it shall have been set
forth by you.
2. Augustin said: I was among you, but faith and morals are
different questions. I proposed to discuss faith. But if those
present prefer to hear about morals, I do not decline that question.
Fortunatus said:Â I wish first to purge myself in your conscience in
which we are polluted, by the testimony of a competent man, (who even
now is competent for me), and in view of the future examination of
Christ, the just judge, whether he saw in us, or himself practiced by
imitation, the things that are now thrown in our teeth?
3. Augustin said: You call me to something else, when I had
proposed to discuss faith, but concerning your morals only those who
are your Elect can fully know. But you know that I was not your
Elect, but an Auditor. Hence though I was present at your prayer
meetings,[222]222 as you have asked (whether separately among
yourselves you have any prayer meetings, God alone and yourselves can
know); yet in your prayer meetings where I have been present I have
seen nothing shameful take place; but only that the faith that I
afterwards learned and approved is denounced, and that you perform
your services facing the sun. Besides this I found out nothing new
in your meetings, but whoever raises any question of morals against
you, raises it against your Elect. But what you who are Elect do
among yourselves, I have no means of knowing. For I have often heard
from you that you receive the Eucharist. But since the time of
receiving it was concealed from me, how could I know what you
receive?[223]223Â So keep the question about morals, if you please,
for discussion among your Elect, if it can be discussed. You gave me
a faith that I today disapprove. This I proposed to discuss. Let a
response be made to my proposition.
Fortunatussaid:Â And our profession is this very thing:Â that God is
incorruptible, lucid, unapproachable, intenible, impassible, that He
inhabits His own eternal lights, that nothing corruptible proceeds
from Him, neither darkness, demons, Satan, nor anything adverse can be
found in His kingdom. But that He sent forth a Saviour like Himself;
that the Word born from the foundation of the world, when He had
formed the world, after the formation of the world came among men;
that He has chosen souls worthy of Himself according to His own holy
will, sanctified by celestial command, imbued with the faith and
reason of celestial things; that under His leadership those souls will
return hence again to the kingdom of God according to the holy promise
of Him who said:Â "I am the way, the truth, and the door;"[224]224
and "No one can come unto the Father, except through me."Â These
things we believe because otherwise, that is, through another
mediator, souls cannot return to the kingdom of God, unless they find
Him as the way, the truth, and the door. For Himself said: "He
that hath seen me, hath seen my Father also;"[225]225 and "whosoever
shall have believed on me shall not taste death forever, but has
passed from death unto life, and shall not come into
judgment."[226]226Â These things we believe and this is the reason of
our faith, and according to the strength of our mind we endeavor to
act according to His commandments, following after the one faith of
this Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit.[227]227
4. Augustin said: What was the cause of those souls being
precipitated into death, whom you confess come through Christ from
death to life?
Fortunatus said:Â Hence now deign to go on and to contradict, if
there is nothing besides God.
5. Augustin said: Nay, do you deign to answer the question put to
you:Â What cause has given these souls to death?
Fortunatus said:Â Nay but do you deign to say whether there is
anything besides God, or all things are in God.
6. Augustin said: This I can reply, that the Lord wished me to
know that God cannot suffer any necessity, nor be violated or
corrupted in any part. Which, since you also acknowledge, I ask by
what necessity He sent hither souls that you say return through
Christ?
Fortunatus said:Â What you have said:Â that thus far God has
revealed to you, that He is incorruptible, as He has also revealed to
me; the reason must be sought, how and wherefore souls have come into
this world, so that now of right God should liberate them from this
world through his Son only begotten and like Himself, if besides
Himself there is nothing?
7. Augustin said: We ought not to disappoint those present, being
men of note, and from the question proposed for discussion go to
another. So we both confess, so we concede to ourselves, that God is
incorruptible and inviolable, and could have in no way suffered.Â
From which it follows, that your heresy is false, which says that God,
when He saw desolation and ruin threaten His kingdom, sent forth a
power that should do battle with the race of darkness, and that out of
this commingling our souls are laboring. My argument is brief, and
as I suppose, perfectly clear to any one. If God could have suffered
nothing from the race of darkness because He is inviolable, without
cause He sent us hither that we might here suffer distress. But if
anything can suffer, it is not inviolable, and you deceive those to
whom you say that God is inviolable. For this your heresy denies
when you expound the rest of it.
Fortunatussaid:Â We are of that mind in which the Apostle Paul
instructs us, who says:Â "Let this mind be in you that was also in
Christ Jesus, who when He had been constituted in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself
receiving the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of
men, and having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself,
and was made obedient even unto death."[228]228Â We have this mind
therefore about ourselves, which we have also about Christ, who when
He was constituted in the form of God, was made obedient even unto
death that He might show the similitude of our souls. And like as He
showed in Himself the similitude of death, and having been raised from
the midst of the dead showed that He was from the Father, in the same
manner we think it will be with our souls, because through Him we
shall have been able to be freed from this death, which is either
alien from God, or if it belongs to God, His mercy ceases, and the
name of liberator, and the works of Him who liberates.[229]229
8. Augustin said: I ask how we came into death, and you tell how
we may be liberated from death.
Fortunatus said:Â So the apostle said that we ought to have that mind
concerning ourselves which Christ has shown us. If Christ was in
suffering and death, so also are we.
9. Augustin said: It is known to all that the Catholic faith is to
the effect that our Lord, that is the Power and Wisdom of God,[230]230
and the Word through whom all things have been made and without whom
was not anything made,[231]231 took upon Himself man to liberate us.Â
In the man whom He took upon Himself, He demonstrated those things
that you spoke of. But we now ask concerning the substance of God
Himself and of Unspeakable Majesty, whether anything can injure it or
not. For if anything can injure it, He is not inviolable. If
nothing can injure the substance of God, what was the race of darkness
about to do to it, against which you say war was waged by God before
the foundation of the world; in which war you assert that we, that is
souls that are now manifestly in need of a liberator, have been
commingled with every evil and implicated in death. For I return to
that very brief statement:Â If He could be injured, He is not
inviolable; if He could not, He acted cruelly in sending us hither to
suffer these things.
Fortunatus said:Â Does the soul belong to God, or not?
10. Augustin said: If it is just that you should fail to respond
to my questions, and that I should be questioned, I will reply.
Fortunatus said: Does the soul act independently? This I ask of
you.
11. Augustin said: I indeed will tell what you have asked; only
remember this, that while you have refused to respond to my questions,
I have responded to yours. If you ask whether the soul descended
from God, it is indeed a great question; but whether it descends from
God or not, I make this reply concerning the soul, that it is not God;
that God is one thing, the soul another. That God is inviolable,
incorruptible, and impenetrable, and incontaminable, who also could be
corrupted in no part and to whom no injury can be done in any part.Â
But we see also that the soul is sinful, and is conversant with
misery, and seeks the truth, and is in want of a liberator. This
changing condition of the soul shows me that the soul is not God.Â
For if the soul is the substance of God, the substance of God errs,
the substance of God is corrupted, the substance of God is violated,
the substance of God is deceived; which it is impious to say.
Fortunatus said:Â Therefore you have denied that the soul is of God,
so long as it serves sins, and vices, and earthly things, and is led
by error, because it cannot happen that either God or His substance
should suffer this thing. For God is incorruptible and His substance
immaculate and holy. But here it is inquired of you whether the soul
is of God, or not? Which we confess, and show from the advent of the
Saviour, from His holy preaching, from His election; while He pitied
souls, and the soul is said to have come according to His will, that
He might free it from death and might bring it to eternal glory, and
restore it to the Father. But what do you say and hope concerning
the soul; is it from God or not? Can the substance of God, from
which you deny that the soul has its being, be subject to no passions?
12. Augustin said: I have denied that the soul is the substance of
God in the sense of its being God; but yet I hold that it is from God
as its author, because it was made by God. The Maker is one thing,
the thing made is another. He who made cannot be corruptible at all,
but what He made cannot be at all equal to Him who made it.
Fortunatus said: Nor have I said that the soul is like God. But
because you have said that the soul is an artificial thing, and that
there is nothing besides God, I ask whence then God invented the
substance of the soul?
13. Augustin said: Only bear in mind that I reply to your
interrogations, but that you do not reply to mine. I say that the
soul was made by God as all other things that were made by God; and
that among the things that God Almighty made the principal place was
given to the soul. But if you ask whence God made the soul, remember
that you and I agree in confessing that God is almighty. But he is
not almighty who seeks the assistance of any material whence he may
make what he will. From which it follows, that according to our
faith, all things that God made through His Word and Wisdom, He made
out of nothing. For so we read: "He ordered and they were made; He
commanded and they were created."[232]232
Fortunatus said:Â Do all things have their existence from Godâs
command?
14. Augustin said: So I believe, but all things which were made.
Fortunatus said: Â As things made they agree, but because they are
unsuitable to themselves, therefore on this account it follows, that
there is not one substance, although from the same order of the One
they came to the composition and fashioning of this world. But it is
plain in the things themselves that there is no similarity between
darkness and light, truth and falsehood, death and life, soul and
body, and other similar things which differ from each other both in
names and appearances. And for good reason did our Lord say: "The
tree which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up and
cast into the fire, because it brings not forth good fruit:"[233]233
 and that the tree has been rooted up. Hence truly it follows from
the reason of things that there are two substances in this world which
agree in forms and in names, of which one belongs to corporeal
natures, but the other is the eternal substance of the omnipotent
Father, which we believe to be Godâs substance.
15. Augustin said: Those contrary things that move you so that we
think adversely, have happened on account of our sin, that is, on
account of the sin of man. For God made all things good, and ordered
them well; but He did not make sin, and our voluntary sin is the only
thing that is called evil. There is another kind of evil, which is
the penalty of sin. Since therefore there are two kinds of evil, sin
and the penalty of sin, sin does not pertain to God; the penalty of
sin pertains to the avenger. For as God is good who constituted all
things, so He is just in taking vengeance on sin. Since therefore
all things are ordered in the best possible way, which seem to us now
to be adverse, it has deservedly happened to fallen man who was
unwilling to keep the law of God. For God gave free will to the
rational soul which is in man. For thus it would have been possible
to have merit, if we should be good voluntarily and not of
necessity. Since therefore it behooves us to be good not of
necessity but voluntarily, it behooved God to give to the soul free
will. But to this soul obeying His laws, He subjected all things
without adversity, so that the rest of the things that God made should
serve it, if also the soul itself had willed to serve God. But if it
should refuse to serve God, those things that served it should be
converted into its punishment. Wherefore if all things are rightly
ordered by God, and are good, neither does God suffer evil.
Fortunatus said:Â He does not suffer, but prevents evil.
16. Augustin said: From whom then was He about to suffer it?
Fortunatus said:Â This is my point, that He wished to prevent it, not
rashly, but by power and prescience. But deny evil to be apart from
God, when other precepts can be shown which are done apart from His
will. A precept is not introduced, unless where there is
contrariety. The free faculty of living is not given except where
there is a fall according to the argument of the apostle who says:Â
"And you did he quicken, when ye were dead in your trespasses and
sins, wherein aforetime ye walked according to the rulership of this
world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit
that now worketh in the souls of disobedience; among whom we also all
once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the
counsels of the flesh, and were by nature children of wrath, even as
the rest: but God, who is rich in all mercy, had mercy on us. And
when we were dead by sins, quickened us together in Christ, by whose
grace ye have been saved; and at the same time also raised us up, and
made us to sit with Him in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus, that
in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of his grace in
kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace have ye been saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God;
not of works, lest any one should glory. For we are his workmanship
created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God prepared that we
should walk in them. Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye were
Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that which is
called circumcision in flesh made by hands, because ye were at that
time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers of the covenant, having no hope of the promise, and without
God in this world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye that once were far
off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who
made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the
enmities in His flesh, making void by His decrees the law of
commandments, that in Himself He might unite the two into one new man,
making peace, that He might reconcile them both in one body unto God
through the cross, slaying the enmities in Himself. And He came and
preached peace unto you that were far off, and peace to them that were
nigh. For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the
Father."[234]234
17. Augustin said: This passage from the apostle, which you have
thought fit to recite, if I mistake not, makes very strongly for my
faith and against yours. In the first place, because free will
itself, on which I have said that the possibility of the soulâs
sinning depends, is here sufficiently expressed, when sins are
mentioned, and it is said that our reconciliation with God takes place
through Jesus Christ. For by sinning we were brought into opposition
to God; but by holding to the precepts of Christ we are reconciled to
God; so that we who were dead in sins may be made alive by keeping His
precepts, and may have peace with Him in one Spirit, from whom we were
alienated, by failure to keep His precepts; as is set forth in our
faith concerning the man who was first created. I ask of you,
therefore, according to that passage which has been read, how can we
have sins if contrary nature compels us to do what we do? For he who
is compelled by nature to do anything, does not sin. But he who
sins, sins by free will. Wherefore would repentance be enjoined upon
us, if we have done nothing evil, but only the race of darkness?Â
Likewise, I ask, to whom is forgiveness of sins granted, to us or to
the race of darkness? If to the race of darkness, their race will
also reign with Him, receiving the forgiveness of sin; but if to us it
is manifest that we have sinned voluntarily. For it is the height of
folly for him to be pardoned who has done no evil. But he has done
no evil, who has done nothing of his own will. Therefore the soul
that today promises itself forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to
God, if it should cease to sin, and repent of past sins:Â if it
should answer according to your faith and should say:Â In what have I
sinned? In what am I guilty? Why hast Thou expelled me from Thy
domains, that I might do battle with some sort of race? I have been
trodden under foot, I have been mixed up, I have been corrupted, I am
worn out,[235]235 my free will has not been preserved. Thou knowest
the necessity by which I am preserved:Â Why dost Thou impute to me
the wounds that I have received? Wherefore dost Thou compel me to
repentance when Thou art the cause of my wounds; when Thou knowest
what I have suffered, what the race of darkness has done against me,
Thou being the author who couldst suffer no harm and yet wishing to
save the domains which nothing could injure, Thou didst thrust me down
into these miseries. If indeed I am a part of Thee, who have
proceeded from Thy bowels, if I am from Thy kingdom and Thy mouth, I
ought not to suffer anything in this race of darkness, so that I being
uncorrupted that race should be subjected, if I was a part of the
Lord. But now since it cannot be controlled except by my corruption,
how can I either be said to be a part of Thee, or Thou remain
inviolable, or not be cruel in wishing me to suffer for those domains,
that could in no way be injured by that race of darkness? Respond to
this if you please, and deign also to explain to me how it was said by
the apostle, "We were by nature children of wrath," who, he says, have
been reconciled to God. If therefore they were by nature children of
wrath, how do you say that the soul is by nature a daughter and
portion of God?
Fortunatussaid:Â If with regard to the soul the apostle had said that
we are by nature children of wrath, the soul would have been alienated
by the mouth of the apostle from God. From this argument you only
show that the soul does not belong to God, because, the apostle says,
"We are by nature children of wrath."Â But if it is said in view of
the fact that the apostle[236]236 was held by the law, descending as
he himself testifies, from the seed of Abraham, it follows that he has
said corporeally, that we [i.e., Jews] were children of wrath even as
the rest of mankind. But he shows that the substance of the soul is
of God, and that the soul cannot otherwise be reconciled to God than
through the Master, who is Christ Jesus. For the enmity having been
slain, the soul seemed to God unworthy to have existed. But that it
was sent, this we confess, by God yet omnipotent, both deriving its
origin from Him and sent for the sealing of His will. In the same
way we believe also that Christ the Saviour came from heaven to
fulfill the will of the Father. Which will of the Father was this,
to free our souls from the same enmity, this enmity having been slain,
which if it had not been opposed to God could neither be called enmity
where there was unity, nor could slaying be spoken of or take place
where there was life.
18. Augustin said: Remember that the apostle said that we are
alienated from God by our manner of life.
Fortunatus said: I submit, that there were two substances. In the
substance of light, as we have above said, God is to be held
incorruptible; but that there was a contrary nature of darkness, that
which I also today confess is vanquished by the power of God, and that
Christ has been sent forth as a Saviour for my restoration, as
previously the same apostle says.
19. Augustin said: That we should discuss on rational grounds the
belief in two natures, has been made obligatory by those who are
hearing us. But inasmuch as you have again betaken yourself to the
Scriptures, I descend to them, and demand that nothing be passed by,
lest using certain statements we should bring confusion into the minds
of those to whom the Scriptures are not well known. Let us therefore
consider a statement that the apostle has in his epistle to the
Romans. For on the first page is what is strongly against you. For
he says:Â "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,
separated unto the gospel of God, which He promised aforetime by His
prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made unto
Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated
to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness
from the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus
Christ."[237]237Â We see that the apostle teaches us concerning our
Lord Jesus Christ that before the flesh he was predestinated by the
power of God, and according to the flesh was made unto Him of the seed
of David. Since you have always denied and always will deny this,
how do you so earnestly demand the Scriptures that we should discuss
rather according to them.
Fortunatussaid:Â You assert that according to the flesh Christ was of
the seed of David, when it should be asserted that he was born of a
virgin,[238]238 and should be magnified as Son of God. For this
cannot be, unless as what is from spirit may be held to be spirit, so
also what is from flesh may be known to be flesh.[239]239Â Against
which is the authority of the Gospel in which it is said, that "flesh
and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall
corruption inherit incorruption."[240]240
Here a clamor was made by the audience who wished the argument to be
conducted on rational grounds, because they saw that Fortunatus was
not willing to receive all things that are written in the Codex of the
apostle. Then little discussions began to be held here and there by
all, until Fortunatus said that the Word of God has been fettered in
the race of darkness. At which, when those present had expressed
their horror, the meeting was closed.[241]241
Disputation of the Second Day.
The next day, a notary having again been summoned, the discussion was
conducted as follows:
Fortunatus said:Â I say that God Almighty brings forth from Himself
nothing evil, and that the things that are His remain incorrupt,
having sprung and being born from an inviolable source; but other
contrary things which have their being in this world, do not flow from
God nor have appeared in this world with God as their author; that is
to say, they do not derive their origin from God. These things
therefore we have received in the belief that evil things are foreign
to God.
20. Augustin said: And our faith is this, that God is not the
progenitor of evil things, neither has He made any evil nature. But
since both of us agree that God is incorruptible and incontaminable,
it is the part of the prudent and faithful to consider, which faith is
purer and worthier of the majesty of God; that in which it is asserted
that either the power of God, or some part of God, or the Word of God,
can be changed, violated, corrupted, fettered; or that in which it is
said that Almighty God and His entire nature and substance can never
be corrupted in any part, but that evils have their being by the
voluntary sin of the soul, to which God gave free will. Which free
will if God had not given, there could be no just penal judgment, nor
merit of righteous conduct, nor divine instruction to repent of sins,
nor the forgiveness of sins itself which God has bestowed upon us
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Because he who sins not voluntarily,
sins not at all. This I suppose to be open and perspicuous to all.Â
Wherefore it ought not to trouble us if according to our deserts we
suffer some inconveniences in the things God has made. For as He is
good, that He should constitute all things; so He is just, that He may
not spare sins, which sins, as I have said, unless free will were in
us, would not be sins. For if any one, so to speak, should be bound
by some one in his other members, and with his hand something false
should be written without his own will, I ask whether if this were
laid open before a judge, he could condemn this one for the crime of
falsehood. Wherefore, if it is manifest that there is no sin where
there is not free exercise of will,[242]242 I wish to hear what evil
the soul which you call either part, or power, or word, or something
else, of God, has done, that it should be punished by God, or repent
of sin, or merit forgiveness, since it has in no way sinned?
Fortunatus said:Â I proposed concerning substances, that God is to be
regarded as creator only of good things, but as the avenger of evil
things, for the reason that evil things are not of Him. Therefore
for good reason I think this, and that God avenges evil things because
they are not of Himself. But if they were from Him, either He would
give them license to sin, as you say that God has given free will, He
would be already found a participator in my fault, because He would be
the author of my fault; or ignorant what I should be, he left me whom
he did not constitute worthy of Himself. This therefore is proposed
by me, and what I ask now is, whether God instituted evil or not? and
whether He Himself instituted the end of evils. For it appears from
these things, and the evangelical faith teaches, that the things which
we have said were made by God Himself as God the Creator, as having
been created and begotten by Him, are to be esteemed incorruptible.Â
These things I also proposed which belong to our belief, and which can
be confirmed by you in that profession of ours, without prejudice to
the authority of the Christian faith. And because I can in no way
show that I rightly believe, unless I should confirm that belief by
the authority of the Scriptures, this is therefore what I have
insinuated, what I have said. Either if evil things have appeared in
the world with God as their author, deign to say so yourself; or if it
is right to believe that evil things are not of God, this also the
contemplation of those present ought to honor and receive. I have
spoken about substances, not about sin that dwells in us. For if
what we think to make faults had no origin, we should not be compelled
to come to sin or to fault. For because we sinned unwillingly, and
are compelled by a substance contrary and hostile to ourselves,
therefore we follow the knowledge of things. By which knowledge the
soul admonished and restored to pristine memory, recognizes the source
from which it derives its existence, in what evil it dwells, by what
good works emending again that in which unwillingly it sinned, it may
be able through the emendation of its faults, for the sake of good
works, to secure for itself the merit of reconciliation with God, our
Saviour being the author of it, who teaches us also to practice good
things and to flee from evil. For you ask us to believe that not by
some contrary nature, but by his own choice, man either serves
righteousness or becomes involved in sins; since, no contrary race
existing, if the soul, to which as you say God has given free will,
having been constituted in the body, dwells alone, it would be without
sin, nor would it become involved in sins.
21. Augustin said: I say it is not sin, if it be not committed by
oneâs own will; hence also there is reward, because of our own will we
do right. Or if he who sins unwillingly deserves punishment, he who
unwillingly does well ought to deserve reward. But who doubts that
reward is only bestowed upon him who does something of good will?Â
From which we know that punishment also is inflicted upon him who does
something of ill will. But since you recall me to primordial natures
and substances, my faith is that God Almightyâwhich must especially be
attended to and fixed in the mindâthat God Almighty has made good
things. But the things made by Him cannot be such as is He who made
them. For it is unjust and foolish to believe that works are equal
to the workman, things made to the maker. Wherefore if it is
reverential to believe that God made all good things, than which
nevertheless He is by far more excellent and by far more pre-eminent;
the origin and head of evil is sin, as the apostle said:Â
"Covetousness is the root of all evils; which some following after
have made shipwreck of the faith, and have pierced themselves through
with many sorrows."[243]243Â For if you seek the root of all evils,
you have the apostle saying that covetousness is the root of all
evils. But the root of a root I cannot seek. Or if there is
another evil, whose root covetousness is not, covetousness will not be
the root of all evils. But if it is true that covetousness is the
root of all evils, in vain do we seek some other kind of evil. But
as regards that contrary nature of yours which you introduce, since I
have responded to your objections, I ask that you deign to tell me
whether it is wholly evil, whether there can be no sin apart from it,
whether by this alone punishment is deserved, not by the soul by which
no sin has been committed. But if you say that this contrary nature
alone deserves punishment, and not the soul, I ask to which is
repentance, which is commanded, vouchsafed. If the soul is commanded
to repent, sin is from the soul, and the soul has sinned
voluntarily. For if the soul is compelled to do evil, that which it
does is not evil. Is it not foolish and most absurd to say that the
race of darkness has sinned and that I repent of the sins. Is it not
most absurd to say that the race of darkness has sinned and that
forgiveness of sins is vouchsafed to me, who according to your faith
may well say: What have I done? What have I committed? I was
with Thee, I was in a state of integrity, I was contaminated with no
pollution. Thou didst send me hither, Thou didst suffer necessity,
Thou didst protect Thy domains when great pollution and desolation
threatened them. Since therefore Thou knowest the necessity by which
I have been here oppressed, by reason of which I could not breathe,
which I could not resist; why dost Thou accuse me as if sinning? or
why dost Thou promise forgiveness of sins? Reply to this without
evasion, if you please, as I have replied to you.
Fortunatussaid:Â We say this, that the soul is compelled by contrary
nature to transgress, for which transgression you maintain there is no
root save the evil that dwells in us; for it is certain that apart
from our bodies evil things dwell in the whole world. For not those
things alone that we have in our bodies, dwell in the whole world, and
are known by their names as good; an evil root also inheres. For
your dignity said that this covetousness that dwells in our bodies is
the root of evils; since therefore there is no desire of evil out of
our bodies, from that source contrary nature dwells in the whole
world. For the apostle designated that, namely covetousness, as the
root of evils, not one evil which you have called the root of all
evils. But not in one manner is covetousness, which you have said is
the root of all evils, understood, as if of that which dwells in our
bodies alone; for it is certain that this evil which dwells in us
descends from an evil author and that this root as you call it is a
small portion of evil, so that it is not the root itself, but is a
small portion of evil, of that evil which dwells everywhere. Which
root and tree our Lord called evil, as never bearing good fruit, which
his Father did not plant, and which is deservedly rooted up and cast
into the fire.[244]244Â For as you say, that sin ought to be imputed
to the contrary nature, that nature belongs to evil; and that this is
sin of the soul, if after the warning of our Saviour and his wholesome
instruction, the soul shall have segregated itself from its contrary
and hostile race, adorning itself also with purer things; that
otherwise it cannot be restored to its own substance. For it is
said:Â "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had
sin. But now that I have come and spoken, and they have refused to
believe me, they shall have no excuse for their sin."[245]245 Â Whence
it is perfectly plain, that repentance has been given after the
Saviourâs advent, and after this knowledge of things, by which the
soul can, as if washed in a divine fountain from the filth and vices
as well of the whole world as of the bodies in which the same soul
dwells, be restored to the kingdom of God whence it has gone forth.Â
For it is said by the apostle, that "the mind of the flesh is hostile
to God; is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be."[246]246Â Therefore it is evident from these things that the good
soul seems to sin not voluntarily, but by the doing of that which is
not subject to the law of God. For it likewise follows that "the
flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; so
that ye may not do the things that ye will."[247]247Â Again:Â "I see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and
leading me captive in the law of sin and of death. Therefore I am a
miserable man; who shall deliver me from the body of this death,
unless it be the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"[248]248
"through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the
world?"[249]249
22. Augustin said: I recognize and embrace the testimonies of the
divine Scriptures, and I will show in a few words, as God may deign to
grant, how they are consistent with my faith. I say that there was
free exercise of will in that man who was first formed. He was so
made that absolutely nothing could resist his will, if he had willed
to keep the precepts of God. But after he voluntarily sinned, we who
have descended from his stock were plunged into necessity. But each
one of us can by a little consideration find that what I say is
true. For today in our actions before we are implicated by any
habit, we have free choice of doing anything or not doing it. But
when by that liberty we have done something and the pernicious
sweetness and pleasure of that deed has taken hold upon the mind, by
its own habit the mind is so implicated that afterwards it cannot
conquer what by sinning it has fashioned for itself. We see many who
do not wish to swear, but because the tongue has already become
habituated, they are not able to prevent those things from going forth
from the mouth which we cannot but ascribe to the root of evil. For
that I may discuss with you those words, which as they do not withdraw
from your mouth so may they be understood by your heart:Â you swear
by the Paraclete. If therefore you wish to find out experimentally
whether what I say is true, determine not to swear. You will see,
that that habit is borne along as it has become accustomed to be.Â
And this is what wars against the soul, habit formed in the flesh.Â
This is indeed the mind of the flesh, which, as long as it cannot thus
be subject to the law of God, so long is it the mind of the flesh; but
when the soul has been illuminated it ceases to be the mind of the
flesh. For thus it is said the mind of the flesh cannot be subject
to the law of God, just as if it were said, that snow cannot be
warm. For so long as it is snow, it can in no way be warm. But as
the snow is melted by heat, so that it may become warm, so the mind of
the flesh, that is, habit formed with the flesh, when our mind has
become illuminated, that is, when God has subjected for Himself the
whole man to the choice of the divine law, instead of the evil habit
of the soul, makes a good habit. Accordingly it is most truly said
by the Lord of the two trees, the one good and the other evil, which
you have called to mind, that they have their own fruits; that is,
neither can the good tree yield evil fruit, nor the evil tree good
fruit, but so long as it is evil. Let us take two men, a good and a
bad. As long as he is good he cannot yield evil fruit; as long as he
is bad he cannot yield good fruit. But that you may know that those
two trees are so placed by the Lord, that free choice may be there
signified, that these two trees are not natures but our wills, He
Himself says in the gospel:Â "Either make the tree good, or make the
tree evil."[250]250 Who is it that can make nature? If therefore
we are commanded to make a tree either good or evil, it is ours to
choose what we will. Therefore concerning that sin of man and
concerning that habit of soul formed with the flesh the apostle
says:Â "Let no one seduce you;"[251]251 "Every creature that has been
made by God is good."[252]252Â The same apostle whom you also have
cited says:Â "As through the disobedience of the one the many were
constituted sinners; so also through the obedience of the one the many
are constituted righteous."[253]253Â "Since through man is death,
through man also is resurrection of the dead."Â As long therefore as
we bear the image of the earthly man,[254]254 that is, as long as we
live according to the flesh, which is also called the old man, we have
the necessity of our habit, so that we may not do what we will. But
when the grace of God has breathed the divine love into us and has
made us subject to His will, to us it is said:Â "Ye are called for
freedom,"[255]255 and "the grace of God has made me free from the law
of sin and of death."[256]256Â But the law of sin is that whoever has
sinned shall die. From this law we are freed when we have begun to
be righteous. The law of death is that by which it was said to
man:Â "Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt go."[257]257Â For
from this very fact we are all so born, because we are earth, and from
the fact that we are all so born because we are earth, we shall all go
into earth on account of the desert of the sins of the first man.Â
But on account of the grace of God, which frees us from the law of sin
and of death, having been converted to righteousness we are freed; so
that afterwards this same flesh tortures us with its punishment so
long as we remain in sins, is subjected to us in resurrection, and
shakes us by no adversity from keeping the law of God and His
precepts. Whence, since I have replied to your questions, deign to
reply as I desire, how it can happen, that if nature is contrary to
God, sin should be imputed to us, who were sent into that nature not
voluntarily, but by God Himself, whom nothing could injure?
Fortunatussaid:Â Just as also the Lord said to His disciples:Â
"Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves."[258]258Â Hence
it must be known that not with hostile intent did our Saviour send
forth His lambs, that is His disciples, into the midst of wolves,
unless there had been some contrariety, which He would indicate by the
similitude of wolves, where also He had sent His disciples; that the
souls which perchance might be deceived in the midst of wolves might
be recalled to their proper substance. Hence also may appear the
antiquity of our times to which we return, and of our years, that
before the foundation of the world souls were sent in this way against
the contrary nature, that subjecting the same by their passion,
victory might be restored to God. For the same apostle said, that
not only there should be a struggle against flesh and blood, but also
against principalities and powers, and the spiritual things of
wickedness, and the domination of darkness."[259]259Â If therefore in
both places evils dwell and are esteemed wickednesses, not only now is
evil in our bodies, but in the whole world, where souls appear to
dwell, which dwell beneath yonder heaven and are fettered.
23. Augustin said: The Lord sent His lambs into the midst of
wolves, that is, just men into the midst of sinners for the preaching
of the gospel received in the time of man from the inestimable divine
Wisdom, that He might call us from sin to righteousness. But what
the apostle says, that our struggle is not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities and powers, and the other things that have
been quoted, this signifies that the devil and his angels, as also we,
have fallen and lapsed by sin, and have secured possession of earthly
things, that is, sinful men, who, as long as we are sinners, are under
their yoke, just as when we shall be righteous, we shall be under the
yoke of righteousness; and against them we have a struggle, that
passing over to righteousness we may be freed from their dominion.Â
Do you also therefore deign to reply to the one question that I ask:Â
Could God suffer injury, or not? But I ask you to reply: He could
not.
Fortunatus said:Â He could not suffer injury.
24. Augustin said: Wherefore then did He send us hither, according
to your faith?
Fortunatus said:Â My profession is this, that God could not be
injured, and that He directed us hither. But since this is contrary
to your view, do you tell how you account for the soul being here,
which our God desires to liberate both by His commandments and by His
own Son whom He has sent.
25. Augustin said: Since I see that you cannot answer my
inquiries, and wish to ask me something, behold I satisfy you,
provided only that you bear in mind that you have not replied to my
question. Why the soul is here in this world involved in miseries
has been explained by me not just now, but again and again a little
while ago. The soul sinned, and therefore is miserable. It
accepted free choice, used free choice, as it willed; it fell, was
cast out from blessedness, was implicated in miseries. As bearing
upon this I recited to you the testimony of the apostle who says:Â
"As through one man death, so also through one man came the
resurrection of the dead." What more do you ask? Hence do you
reply, wherefore did He, who could not suffer injury, send us hither?
Fortunatus said:Â The cause must be sought, why the soul came hither,
or wherefore God desires hence to liberate the soul that lives in the
midst of evils?
26. Augustin said: This cause I ask of you, that is, if God could
not suffer injury, wherefore He sent us hither?
Fortunatus said:Â It is inquired of us, if evil cannot injure God,
wherefore the soul was sent hither, or for what reason was it mingled
with the world? Which is manifest in what the apostle says: "Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou formed me
thus?"[260]260Â If therefore this cause must be pleaded, He must be
asked, why He sent the soul, no necessity compelling Him. But if
there was necessity for sending the soul, of right is there also the
will of liberating it.
27. Augustin said: Then God is pressed by necessity, is He?
Fortunatus said: Now this is it. Do not seek to bring odium upon
what has been said because we do not make God subject to necessity,
but to have voluntarily sent the soul.
28. Augustin said: Recall what was said above. And it runs:Â
"But if there was necessity for sending the soul, of right is there
also the will of liberating it. Augustin said: We have heard:Â
But if there was necessity for sending the soul, of right is there
also the will of liberating it."Â You, therefore, said that there was
necessity for sending the soul. But if you only wish to say "a will
to send," I add this also:Â He who could suffer no injury, had the
cruel will to send the soul to so great miseries. Because I speak
for the sake of refuting this statement, I ask pardon from the mercy
of that One in whom we have hope of liberation from all the errors of
heretics.
Fortunatus said:Â You asseverate that we say that God is cruel in
sending the soul, but that God made man, breathed into him a soul
which assuredly He foreknew to be involved in future misery, and not
to be able by reason of evils to be restored to its inheritance.Â
This belongs either to one who is ignorant, or who gives the soul up
to these aforesaid evils. This I have cited because you said not
long since, that God adopted the soul, not that it is from Him; for to
adopt is a different matter.
29. Augustin said: Concerning adoption I remember that I spoke
some days ago according to the testimony of the apostle, who says that
we have been called into the adoption of sons.[261]261Â This was not
my reply, therefore, but the apostleâs, concerning which thing, that
is, that adoption, we may inquire, if we please, in its own time; and
concerning that I will reply without delay, when you shall have
answered my objections.
Fortunatus said:Â I say that there was a going forth of the soul
against a contrary nature, which nature could not injure God.
30. Augustin said: What need was there for that going forth, when
God whom nothing could injure had nothing to protect?
Fortunatus said:Â Do you conscientiously hold that Christ came from
God?
31. Augustin said: Again you are questioning me. Reply to my
inquiries.
Fortunatus said:Â So I have received in faith, that by the will of
God He came hither.
32. Augustin said: And I say: Why did God, omnipotent,
inviolable, immutable, whom nothing could injure, send hither the
soul, to miseries, to error, to those things that we suffer?
Fortunatussaid:Â For it has been said:Â "I have power to lay down my
soul and I have power to take it again."[262]262Â Now He said that by
the will of God the soul went forth.
33. Augustin said: I ask for the reason why God, when He can in no
way suffer injury, sent the soul hither?
Fortunatus said:Â We have already said that God can in no way suffer
injury, and we have said that the soul is in a contrary nature,
therefore that it imposes a limit on the contrary nature. The
restraint having been imposed on the contrary nature, God takes the
same. For He Himself said, "I have power to lay down my soul and
power to take it."Â The Father gave to me the power of laying down my
soul, and of taking it. To what soul, therefore, did God who spoke
in the Son refer? Evidently our soul, which is held in these
bodies,which came of His will, and of His will is again taken up.
34. Augustin said: Why our Lord said: "I have power to lay down
my soul and power to take it," is known to all; because He was about
to suffer and to rise again. But I ask of you again and again, If
God could in no way suffer injury, why did he send souls hither?
Fortunatus said:Â To impose a limit on contrary nature.
35. Augustin said: And did God omnipotent, merciful and supreme,
that He might impose a restraint on contrary nature, wish it to be
limited so that He might make us unrestrained?
Fortunatus said:Â But so He calls us back to Himself.
36. Augustin said: If He recalls to Himself from an unrestrained
state, if from sin, from error, from misery, what need was there for
the soul to suffer so great evils through so long a time till the
world ends? since God by whom you say it was sent could in no way
suffer injury.
Fortunatus said:Â What then am I to say?
37. Augustin said: I know that you have nothing to say, and that
I, when I was among you, never found anything to say on this question,
and that I was thus admonished from on high to leave that error and to
be converted to the Catholic faith or rather to recall it, by the
indulgence of Him who did not permit me to inhere forever in this
fallacy. But if you confess that you have nothing to reply, I will
expound the Catholic faith to all those hearing and investigating,
seeing that they are believers, if they permit and wish.
Fortunatus said:Â Without prejudice to my profession I might say:Â
when I shall have reconsidered with my superiors the things that have
been opposed by you, if they fail to respond to this question of mine,
which is now in like manner proposed to me by you, it will be in my
contemplation (since I desire my soul to be liberated by an assured
faith) to come to the investigation of this thing that you have
proposed to me and that you promise you will show.
Augustin said:Â Thanks be to God.
St. AUGUSTIN:
against
the epistle of manichæus,
called fundamental.
 [contra epistolam manichæi quam vocant fundamentum].
A.D. 397.
translated by
rev. richard stothert, m.a.,
bombay
Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental.[263]263
[Contra Epistolam Manichæi Quam Vocant Fundamentum.] a.d. 397.
Chapter 1.âTo Heal Heretics is Better Than to Destroy Them.
1. My prayer to the one true, almighty God, of whom, and through
whom, and in whom are all things, has been, and is now, that in
opposing and refuting the heresy of you Manichæans, as you may after
all be heretics more from thoughtlessness than from malice, He would
give me a mind calm and composed, and aiming at your recovery rather
than at your discomfiture. For while the Lord, by His servants,
overthrows the kingdoms of error, His will concerning erring men, as
far as they are men, is that they should be amended rather than
destroyed. And in every case where, previous to the final judgment,
God inflicts punishment, whether through the wicked or the righteous,
whether through the unintelligent or through the intelligent, whether
in secret or openly, we must believe that the designed effect is the
healing of men, and not their ruin; while there is a preparation for
the final doom in the case of those who reject the means of
recovery. Thus, as the universe contains some things which serve for
bodily punishment, as fire, poison, disease, and the rest, and other
things, in which the mind is punished, not by bodily distress, but by
the entanglements of its own passions, such as loss, exile,
bereavement, reproach, and the like; while other things, again,
without tormenting are fitted to comfort and soothe the languishing,
as, for example, consolations, exhortations, discussions, and such
things; in all these the supreme justice of God makes use sometimes
even of wicked men, acting in ignorance, and sometimes of good men,
acting intelligently. It is ours, accordingly, to desire in
preference the better part, that we might attain our end in your
correction, not by contention, and strife, and persecutions, but by
kindly consolation, by friendly exhortation, by quiet discussion; as
it is written, "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle
toward all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those
that oppose themselves."[264]264Â It is ours, I say, to desire to
obtain this part in the work; it belongs to God to give what is good
to those who desire it and ask for it.
Chapter 2.âWhy the Manichæans Should Be More Gently Dealt with.
2. Let those rage against you who know not with what labor the truth
is to be found and with what difficulty error is to be avoided. Let
those rage against you who know not how rare and hard it is to
overcome the fancies of the flesh by the serenity of a pious
disposition. Let those rage against you who know not the difficulty
of curing the eye of the inner man that he may gaze upon his Sun,ânot
that sun which you worship, and which shines with the brilliance of a
heavenly body in the eyes of carnal men and of beasts,âbut that of
which it is written through the prophet, "The Sun of righteousness has
arisen upon me;"[265]265 and of which it is said in the gospel, "That
was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world."[266]266Â Let those rage against you who know not with what
sighs and groans the least particle of the knowledge of God is
obtained. And, last of all, let those rage against you who have
never been led astray in the same way that they see that you are.
Chapter 3.âAugustin Once a Manichæan.
3. For my part, I,âwho, after much and long-continued bewilderment,
attained at last, to the discovery of the simple truth, which is
learned without being recorded in any fanciful legend; who, unhappy
that I was, barely succeeded, by Godâs help, in refuting the vain
imaginations of my mind, gathered from theories and errors of various
kinds; who so late sought the cure of my mental obscuration, in
compliance with the call and the tender persuasion of the all-merciful
Physician; who long wept that the immutable and inviolable Existence
would vouchsafe to convince me inwardly of Himself, in harmony with
the testimony of the sacred books; by whom, in fine, all those
fictions which have such a firm hold on you, from your long
familiarity with them, were diligently examined, and attentively
heard, and too easily believed, and commended at every opportunity to
the belief of others, and defended against opponents with
determination and boldness,âI can on no account rage against you; for
I must bear with you now as formerly I had to bear with myself, and I
must be as patient towards you as my associates were with me, when I
went madly and blindly astray in your beliefs.
4. On the other hand, all must allow that you owe it to me, in
return, to lay aside all arrogance on your part too, that so you may
be the more disposed to gentleness, and may not oppose me in a hostile
spirit, to your own hurt. Let neither of us assert that he has found
truth; let us seek it as if it were unknown to us both. For truth
can be sought with zeal and unanimity if by no rash presumption it is
believed to have been already found and ascertained. But if I cannot
induce you to grant me this, at least allow me to suppose myself a
stranger now for the first time hearing you, for the first time
examining your doctrines. I think my demand a just one. And it
must be laid down as an understood thing that I am not to join you in
your prayers, or in holding conventicles, or in taking the name of
Manichæus, unless you give me a clear explanation, without any
obscurity, of all matters touching the salvation of the soul.
Chapter 4.âProofs of the Catholic Faith.
 5. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom,
to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so
as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but
men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude
derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from
simplicity of faith,)ânot to speak of this wisdom, which you do not
believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things
which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and
nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by
miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age.Â
The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of
the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it
in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so,
lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason,
amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though
all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks
where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to
his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the
precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in
the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the
slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life,
the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where
there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of
truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so
clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set
before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if
there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me
from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to
the Christian religion.
Chapter 5.âAgainst the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus.
6. Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let
us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in
which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy
time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The
epistle begins thus:â"Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the
perennial and living fountain."Â Now, if you please, patiently give
heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of
Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For
you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without
consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will
reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a
loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the
truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge
of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find
there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person
not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to
say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel
except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.[267]267Â So
when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the
gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?Â
Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice
to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am
precluded from believing you;âIf you say, Do not believe the
Catholics:Â you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith
in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I
believed the gospel;âAgain, if you say, You were right in believing
the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing
their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to
believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any
reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in
one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till,
instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the
clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put
aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those
who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I
will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in
finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship
of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the
Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will
be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for
it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so,
whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with
me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is
found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.Â
But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I
will believe neither them nor you:Â not them, for they lied to me
about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had
believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I
should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of
believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there
recorded,[268]268 do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the
successor of Christâs betrayer was we read in the Acts of the
Apostles;[269]269 which book I must needs believe if I believe the
gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me.Â
The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and
apostleship of Paul.[270]270Â Read me now, if you can, in the gospel
where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I
have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord
promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning
which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that
restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus.
Chapter 6.âWhy Manichæus Called Himself an Apostle of Christ.
7. For I am at a loss to see why this epistle begins, "Manichæus,
an apostle of Jesus Christ," and not Paraclete, an apostle of Jesus
Christ. Or if the Paraclete sent by Christ sent Manichæus, why do
we read, "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ," instead of
Manichæus, an apostle of the Paraclete? If you say that it is
Christ Himself who is the Holy Spirit, you contradict the very
Scripture, where the Lord says, "And I will send you another
Paraclete."[271]271Â Again, if you justify your putting of Christâs
name, not because it is Christ Himself who is also the Paraclete, but
because they are both of the same substance,âthat is, not because they
are one person, but one existence [non quia unus est, sed quia unum
sunt],âPaul too might have used the words, Paul, an apostle of God the
Father; for the Lord said, "I and the Father are one."[272]272Â Paul
nowhere uses these words; nor does any of the apostles write himself
an apostle of the Father. Why then this new fashion? Does it not
savor of trickery of some kind or other? For if he thought it made
no difference, why did he not for the sake of variety in some epistles
call himself an apostle of Christ, and in others of the Paraclete?Â
But in every one that I know of, he writes, of Christ; and not once,
of the Paraclete. What do we suppose to be the reason of this, but
that pride, the mother of all heretics, impelled the man to desire to
seem to have been sent by the Paraclete, but to have been taken into
so close a relation as to get the name of Paraclete himself? As the
man Jesus Christ was not sent by the Son of God, that is, the power
and wisdom of Godâby which all things were made, but, according to the
Catholic faith, was taken into such a relation as to be Himself the
Son of Godâthat is, that in Himself the wisdom of God was displayed in
the healing of sinners,âso Manichæus wished it to be thought that he
was so taken up by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised, that we are
henceforth to understand that the names Manichæus and Holy Spirit
alike signify the apostle of Jesus Christ,âthat is, one sent by Jesus
Christ, who promised to send him. Singular audacity this! and
unutterable sacrilege!
Chapter 7.âIn What Sense the Followers of Manichæus Believe Him to Be
the Holy Spirit.
8. Besides, you should explain how it is that, while the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are united in equality of nature, as you also
acknowledge, you are not ashamed to speak of Manichæus, a man taken
into union with the Holy Spirit, as born of ordinary generation; and
yet you shrink from believing that the man taken into union with the
only-begotten Wisdom of God was born of a Virgin. If human flesh, if
generation [concubitus viri], if the womb of a woman could not
contaminate the Holy Spirit, how could the Virginâs womb contaminate
the Wisdom of God? This Manichæus, then, who boasts of a connection
with the Holy Spirit, and of being spoken of in the gospel, must
produce his claim to either of these two things,âthat he was sent by
the Spirit, or that he was taken into union with the Spirit. If he
was sent, let him call himself the apostle of the Paraclete; if taken
into union, let him allow that He whom the only-begotten Son took upon
Himself had a human mother, since he admits a human father as well as
mother in the case of one taken up by the Holy Spirit. Let him
believe that the Word of God was not defiled by the virgin womb of
Mary, since he exhorts us to believe that the Holy Spirit could not be
defiled by the married life of his parents. But if you say that
Manichæus was united to the Spirit, not in the womb or before
conception, but after his birth, still you must admit that he had a
fleshly nature derived from man and woman. And since you are not
afraid to speak of the blood and the bodily substance of Manichæus as
coming from ordinary generation, or of the internal impurities
contained in his flesh, and hold that the Holy Spirit, who took on
Himself, as you believe, this human being, was not contaminated by all
those things, why should I shrink from speaking of the Virginâs womb
and body undefiled, and not rather believe that the Wisdom of God in
union with the human being in his motherâs flesh still remained free
from stain and pollution? Wherefore, as, whether your Manichæus
professes to be sent by or to be united with the Paraclete, neither
statement can hold good, I am on my guard, and refuse to believe
either in his mission or in his susception.
Chapter 8.âThe Festival of the Birth-Day of Manichæus.
9. In adding the words, "by the providence of God the Father," what
else did Manichæus design but that, having got the name of Jesus
Christ, whose apostle he calls himself, and of God the Father, by
whose providence he says he was sent by the Son, we should believe
himself, as the Holy Spirit, to be the third person? His words
are: "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of
God the Father."Â The Holy Spirit is not named, though He ought
specially to have been named by one who quotes to us in favor of his
apostleship the promise of the Paraclete, that he may prevail upon
ignorant people by the authority of the gospel. In reply to this,
you of course say that in the name of the Apostle Manichæus we have
the name of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, because He condescended to
come into Manichæus. Why then, I ask again, should you cry out
against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, that He in whom divine
Wisdom came was born of a virgin, when you do not scruple to affirm
the birth by ordinary generation of him in whom you say the Holy
Spirit came? I cannot but suspect that this Manichæus, who uses the
name of Christ to gain access to the minds of the ignorant, wished to
be worshipped instead of Christ Himself. I will state briefly the
reason of this conjecture. At the time when I was a student of your
doctrines, to my frequent inquiries why it was that the Paschal feast
of the Lord was celebrated generally with no interest, though
sometimes there were a few languid worshippers, but no watchings, no
prescription of any unusual fast,âin a word, no special
ceremony,âwhile great honor is paid to your Bema, that is, the day on
which Manichæus was killed, when you have a platform with fine steps,
covered with precious cloth, placed conspicuously so as to face the
votaries,âthe reply was, that the day to observe was the day of the
passion of him who really suffered, and that Christ, who was not born,
but appeared to human eyes in an unreal semblance of flesh, only
feigned suffering, without really bearing it. Is it not deplorable,
that men who wish to be called Christians are afraid of a virginâs
womb as likely to defile the truth, and yet are not afraid of
falsehood? But to go back to the point, who that pays attention can
help suspecting that the intention of Manichæus in denying Christâs
being born of a woman, and having a human body, was that His passion,
the time of which is now a great festival all over the world, might
not be observed by the believers in himself, so as to lessen the
devotion of the solemn commemoration which he wished in honor of the
day of his own death? For to us it was a great attraction in the
feast of the Bema that it was held during Pascha, since we used all
the more earnestly to desire that festal day [the Bema], that the
other which was formerly most sweet had been withdrawn.
Chapter 9.âWhen the Holy Spirit Was Sent.
10. Perhaps you will say to me, When, then, did the Paraclete
promised by the Lord come? As regards this, had I nothing else to
believe on the subject, I should rather look for the Paraclete as
still to come, than allow that He came in Manichæus. But seeing
that the advent of the Holy Spirit is narrated with perfect clearness
in the Acts of the Apostles, where is the necessity of my so
gratuitously running the risk of believing heretics? For in the Acts
it is written as follows:Â "The former treatise have we made, O
Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, in the day
in which He chose the apostles by the Holy Spirit, and commanded them
to preach the gospel. By those to whom He showed Himself alive after
His passion by many proofs in the daytime, He was seen forty days,
teaching concerning the kingdom of God. And how He conversed with
them, and commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem,
but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard
of me. For John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall begin to be
baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom also ye shall receive after not
many days, that is, at Pentecost. When they had come, they asked
him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou at this time manifest Thyself? And when
will be the kingdom of Israel? And He said unto them, No one can
know the time which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye
shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye
shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and
in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."[273]273Â
Behold you have here the Lord reminding His disciples of the promise
of the Father, which they had heard from His mouth, of the coming of
the Holy Spirit. Let us now see when He was sent; for shortly after
we read as follows:Â "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came
a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all
the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were
dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under
heaven. And when the sound was heard, the multitude came together,
and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own
language. And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to
another, Are not all these which speak Galilæans? and how heard we
every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and
Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Armenia, and
in Cappadocia, in Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and
in the regions of Africa about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews,
natives, Cretes, and Arabians, they heard them speak in their own
tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and
were in doubt on account of what had happened, saying, What meaneth
this? But others, mocking, said, These men are full of new
wine."[274]274 You see when the Holy Spirit came. What more do you
wish? If the Scriptures are credible, should not I believe most
readily in these Acts, which have the strongest testimony in their
support, and which have had the advantage of becoming generally known,
and of being handed down and of being publicly taught along with the
gospel itself, which contains the promise of the Holy Spirit, which
also we believe? On reading, then, these Acts of the Apostles, which
stand, as regards authority, on a level with the gospel, I find that
not only was the Holy Spirit promised to these true apostles, but that
He was also sent so manifestly, that no room was left for errors on
this subject.
Chapter 10.âThe Holy Spirit Twice Given.
11. For the glorification of our Lord among men is His resurrection
from the dead and His ascension to heaven. For it is written in the
Gospel according to John:Â "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because
that Jesus was not yet glorified."[275]275Â Now if the reason why He
was not given was that Jesus was not yet glorified, He was given
immediately on the glorification of Jesus. And since that
glorification was twofold, as regards man and as regards God, twice
also was the Holy Spirit given:Â once, when, after His resurrection
from the dead, He breathed on the face of His disciples, saying,
"Receive ye the Holy Ghost;"[276]276 and again, ten days after His
ascension to heaven. This number ten signifies perfection; for to
the number seven which embraces all created things, is added the
trinity of the Creator.[277]277Â On these things there is much pious
and sober discourse among spiritual men. But I must keep to my
point; for my business at present is not to teach you, which you might
think presumptuous, but to take the part of an inquirer, and learn
from you, as I tried to do for nine years without success. Now,
therefore, I have a document to believe on the subject of the Holy
Spiritâs advent; and if you bid me not to believe this document, as
your usual advice is not to believe ignorantly, without
consideration,[278]278 much less will I believe your documents.Â
Away, then, with all books, and disclose the truth with logical
clearness, so as to leave no doubt in my mind; or bring forward books
where I shall find not an imperious demand for my belief, but a
trustworthy statement of what I may learn. Perhaps you say this
epistle is also of this character. Let me, then, no longer stop at
the threshold:Â let us see the contents.
Chapter 11.âManichæus Promises Truth, But Does Not Make Good His
Word.
12. "These," he says, "are wholesome words from the perennial and
living fountain; and whoever shall have heard them, and shall have
first believed them, and then shall have observed the truths they set
forth, shall never suffer death, but shall enjoy eternal life in
glory. For he is to be judged truly blessed who has been instructed
in this divine knowledge, by which he is made free and shall abide in
everlasting life."Â And this, as you see, is a promise of truth, but
not the bestowal of it. And you yourselves can easily see that any
errors whatever might be dressed up in this fashion, so as under cover
of a showy exterior to steal in unawares into the minds of the
ignorant. Were he to say, These are pestiferous words from a
poisonous fountain; and whoever shall have heard them, and shall have
first believed them, and then have observed what they set forth, shall
never be restored to life, but shall suffer a woful death as a
criminal:Â for assuredly he is to be pronounced miserable who falls
into this infernal error, in which he will sink so as to abide in
everlasting torments;âwere he to say this, he would say the truth; but
instead of gaining any readers for his book, he would excite the
greatest aversion in the minds of all into whose hands the book might
come. Let us then pass on to what follows; nor let us be deceived by
words which may be used alike by good and bad, by learned and
unlearned. What, then, comes next?
13. "May the peace," he says, "of the invisible God, and the
knowledge of the truth, be with the holy and beloved brethren who both
believe and also yield obedience to the divine precepts."Â Amen, say
we. For the prayer is a most amiable and commendable one. Only we
must bear in mind that these words might be used by false teachers as
well as by good ones. So, if he said nothing more than this, all
might safely read and embrace it. Nor should I disapprove of what
follows:Â "May also the right hand of light protect you, and deliver
you from every hostile assault, and from the snares of the world."Â
In fact, I have no fault to find with the beginning of this epistle,
till we come to the main subject of it. For I wish not to spend time
on minor points. Now, then, for this writerâs plain statement of
what is to be expected from him.
Chapter 12.âThe Wild Fancies of Manichæus. The Battle Before the
Constitution of the World.
14. "Of that matter," he says, "beloved brother of Patticus, of
which you told me, saying that you desired to know the manner of the
birth of Adam and Eve, whether they were produced by a word or sprung
from matter, I will answer you as is fit. For in various writings
and narratives we find different assertions made and different
descriptions given by many authors. Now the real truth on the
subject is unknown to all peoples, even to those who have long and
frequently treated of it. For had they arrived at a clear knowledge
of the generation of Adam and Eve, they would not have remained liable
to corruption and death."Â Here, then, is a promise to us of clear
knowledge of this matter, so that we shall not be liable to corruption
and death. And if this does not suffice, see what follows:Â
"Necessarily," he says, "many things have to be said by way of
preface, before a discovery of this mystery free from all uncertainty
can be made."Â This is precisely what I asked for, to have such
evidence of the truth as to free my knowledge of it from all
uncertainty. And even were the promise not made by this writer
himself, it was proper for me to demand and to insist upon this, so
that no opposition should make me ashamed of becoming a Manichæan
from a Catholic Christian, in view of such a gain as that of perfectly
clear and certain truth. Now, then, let us hear what he has to
state.
15. "Accordingly," he says, "hear first, if you please, what
happened before the constitution of the world, and how the battle was
carried on, that you may be able to distinguish the nature of light
from that of darkness."Â Such are the utterly false and incredible
statements which this writer makes. Who can believe that any battle
was fought before the constitution of the world? And even supposing
it credible, we wish now to get something to know, not to believe.Â
For to say that the Persians and Scythians long ago fought with one
another is a credible statement; but while we believe it when we read
or hear it, we cannot know it as a fact of experience or as a truth of
the understanding. So, then, as I would repudiate any such statement
on the ground that I have been promised something, not that I must
believe on authority, but that I shall understand without any
ambiguity; still less will I receive statements which are not only
uncertain, but incredible. But what if he have some evidence to make
these things clear and intelligible? Let us hear, then, if we can,
what follows with all possible patience and forbearance.
Chapter 13.âTwo Opposite Substances. The Kingdom of Light.Â
Manichæus Teaches Uncertainties Instead of Certainties.
16. "In the beginning, then," he says, "these two substances were
divided. The empire of light was held by God the Father, who is
perpetual in holy origin, magnificent in virtue, true in His very
nature, ever rejoicing in His own eternity, possessing in Himself
wisdom and the vital senses, by which He also includes the twelve
members of His light, which are the plentiful resources of his
kingdom. Also in each of His members are stored thousands of untold
and priceless treasures. But the Father Himself, chief in praise,
incomprehensible in greatness, has united to Himself happy and
glorious worlds, incalculable in number and duration, along with which
this holy and illustrious Father and Progenitor resides, no poverty or
infirmity being admitted in His magnificent realms. And these
matchless realms are so founded on the region of light and bliss, that
no one can ever move or disturb them."[279]279
17. Where is the proof of all this? And where did Manichæus learn
it? Do not frighten me with the name of the Paraclete. For, in the
first place, I have come not to put faith in unknown things, but to
get the knowledge of undoubted truths, according to the caution
enjoined on me by yourselves. For you know how bitterly you taunt
those who believe without consideration. And what is more, this
writer, who here begins to tell of very doubtful things, himself
promised a little before to give complete and well-grounded knowledge.
Chapter 14.âManichæus Promises the Knowledge of Undoubted Things, and
Then Demands Faith in Doubtful Things.
In the next place, if faith is what is required of me, I should prefer
to keep to the Scripture, which tells me that the Holy Spirit came and
inspired the apostles, to whom the Lord had promised to send Him.Â
You must therefore prove, either that what Manichæus says is true,
and so make clear to me what I am unable to believe; or that
Manichæus is the Holy Spirit, and so lead me to believe in what you
cannot make clear. For I profess the Catholic faith, and by it I
expect to attain certain knowledge. Since, then, you try to
overthrow my faith, you must supply me with certain knowledge, if you
can, that you may convict me of having adopted my present belief
without consideration. You make two distinct propositions,âone when
you say that the speaker is the Holy Spirit, and another when you say
that what the speaker teaches is evidently true. I might fairly ask
undeniable proof for both propositions. But I am not greedy and
require to be convinced only of one. Prove this person to be the
Holy Spirit, and I will believe what he says to be true, even without
understanding it; or prove that what he says is true, and I will
believe him to be the Holy Spirit, even without evidence. Could
anything be fairer or kinder than this? But you cannot prove either
one or other of these propositions. You can find nothing better than
to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my
turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think
we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to
part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable
things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we
shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we
cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we
may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward
illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but
to God Himself.
18. And as I have asked this writer to prove these things to me, I
ask him now where he learned them himself. If he replies that they
were revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, and that his mind was
divinely enlightened that he might know them to be certain and
evident, he himself points to the distinction between knowing and
believing. The knowledge is his to whom these things are fully made
known as proved; but in the case of those who only hear his account of
these things, there is no knowledge imparted, but only a believing
acquiescence required. Whoever thoughtlessly yields this becomes a
Manichæan, not by knowing undoubted truth, but by believing doubtful
statements. Such were we when in our inexperienced youth we were
deceived. Instead, therefore, of promising knowledge, or clear
evidence, or the settlement of the question free from all uncertainty,
Manichæus ought to have said that these things were clearly proved to
him, but that those who hear his account of them must believe him
without evidence. But were he to say this, who would not reply to
him, If I must believe without knowing, why should I not prefer to
believe those things which have a widespread notoriety from the
consent of learned and unlearned, and which among all nations are
established by the weightiest authority? From fear of having this
said to him, Manichæus bewilders the inexperienced by first promising
the knowledge of certain truths, and then demanding faith in doubtful
things. And then, if he is asked to make it plain that these things
have been proved to himself, he fails again, and bids us believe this
too. Who can tolerate such imposture and arrogance?
Chapter 15.âThe Doctrine of Manichæus Not Only Uncertain, But
False. His Absurd Fancy of a Land and Race of Darkness Bordering on
the Holy Region and the Substance of God. The Error, First of All,
of Giving to the Nature of God Limits and Borders, as If God Were a
Material Substance, Having Extension in Space.
19. What if I shall have shown, with the help of God and of our
Lord, that this writerâs statements are false as well as uncertain?Â
What more unfortunate thing can be found than that superstition which
not only fails to impart the knowledge and the truth which it
promises, but also teaches what is directly opposed to knowledge and
truth? This will appear more clearly from what follows: "In one
direction on the border of this bright and holy land there was a land
of darkness deep and vast in extent, where abode fiery bodies,
destructive races. Here was boundless darkness, flowing from the
same source in immeasurable abundance, with the productions properly
belonging to it. Beyond this were muddy turbid waters with their
inhabitants; and inside of them winds terrible and violent with their
prince and their progenitors. Then again a fiery region of
destruction, with its chiefs and peoples. And similarly inside of
this a race full of smoke and gloom, where abode the dreadful prince
and chief of all, having around him innumerable princes, himself the
mind and source of them all. Such are the five natures of the
pestiferous land."
20. To speak of God as an aerial or even as an ethereal body is
absurd in the view of all who, with a clear mind, possessing some
measure of discernment, can perceive the nature of wisdom and truth as
not extended or scattered in space, but as great, and imparting
greatness without material size, nor confined more or less in any
direction, but throughout co-extensive with the Father of all, nor
having one thing here and another there, but everywhere perfect,
everywhere present.[280]280
Chapter 16.âThe Soul, Though Mutable, Has No Material Form. It is
All Present in Every Part of the Body.
But why speak of truth and wisdom which surpass all the powers of the
soul, when the nature of the soul itself, which is known to be
mutable, still has no kind of material extension in space? For
whatever consists of any kind of gross matter must necessarily be
divisible into parts, having one in one place, and another in
another. Thus, the finger is less than the whole hand, and one
finger is less than two; and there is one place for this finger, and
another for that, and another for the rest of the hand. And this
applies not to organized bodies only, but also to the earth, each part
of which has its own place, so that one cannot be where the other
is. So in moisture, the smaller quantity occupies a smaller space,
and the larger quantity a larger space; and one part is at the bottom
of the cup, and another part near the mouth. So in air, each part
has its own place; and it is impossible for the air in this house to
have along with itself, in the same house at the same moment, the air
that the neighbors have. And even as regards light itself, one part
pours through one window, and another through another; and a greater
through the larger, and a smaller through the smaller. Nor, in fact,
can there be any bodily substance, whether celestial or terrestrial,
whether aerial or moist, which is not less in part than in whole, or
which can possibly have one part in the place of another at the same
time; but, having one thing in one place and another in another, its
extension in space is a substance which has distinct limits and parts,
or, so to speak, sections. The nature of the soul, on the other
hand, though we leave out of account its power of perceiving truth,
and consider only its inferior power of giving unity to the body, and
of sensation in the body, does not appear to have any material
extension in space. For it is all present in each separate part of
its body when it is all present in any sensation. There is not a
smaller part in the finger, and a larger in the arm, as the bulk of
the finger is less than that of the arm; but the quantity everywhere
is the same, for the whole is present everywhere. For when the
finger is touched, the whole mind feels, though the sensation is not
through the whole body. Â No part of the mind is unconscious of the
touch, which proves the presence of the whole. And yet it is not so
present in the finger or in the sensation as to abandon the rest of
the body, or to gather itself up into the one place where the
sensation occurs. For when it is all present in the sensation in a
finger, if another part, say the foot, be touched, it does not fail to
be all present in this sensation too:Â so that at the same moment it
is all present in different places, without leaving one in order to be
in the other, and without having one part in one, and another in the
other; but by this power showing itself to be all present at the same
moment in separate places. Since it is all present in the sensations
of these places, it proves that it is not bound by the conditions of
space.[281]281
Chapter 17.âThe Memory Contains the Ideas of Places of the Greatest
Size.
Again, if we consider the mindâs power of remembering not the objects
of the intellect, but material objects, such as we see brutes also
remembering (for cattle find their way without mistake in familiar
places, and animals return to their cribs, and dogs recognize the
persons of their masters, and when asleep they often growl, or break
out into a bark, which could not be unless their mind retained the
images of things before seen or perceived by some bodily sense), who
can conceive rightly where these images are contained, where they are
kept, or where they are formed? If, indeed, these images were no
larger than the size of our body, it might be said that the mind
shapes and retains them in the bodily space which contains itself.Â
But while the body occupies a small material space, the mind revolves
images of vast extent, of heaven and earth, with no want of room,
though they come and go in crowds; so that clearly, the mind is not
diffused through space:Â for instead of being contained in images of
the largest spaces, it rather contains them; not, however, in any
material receptacle, but by a mysterious faculty or power, by which it
can increase or diminish them, can contract them within narrow limits,
or expand them indefinitely, can arrange or disarrange them at
pleasure, can multiply them or reduce them to a few or to one.
Chapter 18.âThe Understanding Judges of the Truth of Things, and of
Its Own Action.
What, then, must be said of the power of perceiving truth, and of
making a vigorous resistance against these very images which take
their shape from impressions on the bodily senses, when they are
opposed to the truth? This power discerns the difference between, to
take a particular example, the true Carthage and its own imaginary
one, which it changes as it pleases with perfect ease. It shows that
the countless worlds of Epicurus, in which his fancy roamed without
restraint, are due to the same power of imagination, and, not to
multiply examples, that we get from the same source that land of
light, with its boundless extent, and the five dens of the race of
darkness, with their inmates, in which the fancies of Manichæus have
dared to usurp for themselves the name of truth. What then is this
power which discerns these things? Clearly, whatever its extent may
be, it is greater than all these things, and is conceived of without
any such material images. Find, if you can, space for this power;
give it a material extension; provide it with a body of huge size.Â
Assuredly if you think well, you cannot. For of everything of this
corporeal nature your mind forms an opinion as to its divisibility,
and you make of such things one part greater and another less, as much
as you like; while that by which you form a judgment of these things
you perceive to be above them, not in local loftiness of place, but in
dignity of power.
Chapter 19.âIf the Mind Has No Material Extension, Much Less Has God.
21. So then, if the mind, so liable to change, whether from a
multitude of dissimilar desires, or from feelings varying according to
the abundance or the want of desirable things, or from these endless
sports of the fancy, or from forgetfulness and remembrance, or from
learning and ignorance; if the mind, I say, exposed to frequent change
from these and the like causes, is perceived to be without any local
or material extension, and to have a vigor of action which surmounts
these material conditions, what must we think or conclude of God
Himself, who remains superior to all intelligent beings in His freedom
from perturbation and from change, giving to every one what is due?Â
Him the mind dares to express more easily than to see; and the clearer
the sight, the less is the power of expression. And yet this God,
if, as the Manichæan fables are constantly asserting, He were limited
in extension in one direction and unlimited in others, could be
measured by so many subdivisions or fractions of greater or less size,
as every one might fancy; so that, for example, a division of the
extent of two feet would be less by eight parts than one of ten
feet. For this is the property of all natures which have extension
in space, and therefore cannot be all in one place. But even with
the mind this is not the case; and this degrading and perverted idea
of the mind is found among people who are unfit for such
investigations.
Chapter 20.âRefutation of the Absurd Idea of Two Territories.
22. But perhaps, instead of thus addressing carnal minds, we should
rather descend to the views of those who either dare not or are as yet
unfit to turn from the consideration of material things to the study
of an immaterial and spiritual nature, and who thus are unable to
reflect upon their own power of reflection, so as to see how it forms
a judgment of material extension without itself possessing it. Let
us descend then to these material ideas, and let us ask in what
direction, and on what border of the shining and sacred territory, to
use the expressions of Manichæus, was the region of darkness? For
he speaks of one direction and border, without saying which, whether
the right or the left. In any case, it is clear that to speak of one
side implies that there is another. But where there are three or
more sides, either the figure is bounded in all directions, or if it
extends infinitely in one direction, still it must be limited in the
directions where it has sides. If,then, on one side of the region of
light there was the race of darkness, what bounded it on the other
side or sides? The Manichæans say nothing in reply to this; but
when pressed, they say that on the other sides the region of light, as
they call it, is infinite, that is, extends throughout boundless
space. They do not see, what is plain to the dullest understanding,
that in that case there could be no sides? For the sides are where
it is bounded. What, then, he says, though there are no sides? But
what you said of one direction or side, implied of necessity the
existence of another direction and side, or other directions and
sides. For if there was only one side, you should have said, on the
side, not on one side; as in reference to our body we say properly, By
one eye, because there is another; or on one breast, because there is
another. But if we spoke of a thing as being on one nose, or one
navel, we should be ridiculed by learned and unlearned, since there is
only one. But I do not insist on words, for you may have used one in
the sense of the only one.
Chapter 21.âThis Region of Light Must Be Material If It is Joined to
the Region of Darkness. The Shape of the Region of Darkness Joined
to the Region of Light.
What, then, bordered on the side of the region which you call shining
and sacred? The region, you reply, of darkness. Do you then allow
this latter region to have been material? Of course you must, since
you assert that all bodies derive their origin from it. How then is
it that, dull and carnal as you are, you do not see that unless both
regions were material, they could not have their sides joined to one
another? How could you ever be so blinded in mind as to say that
only the region of darkness was material, and that the so-called
region of light was immaterial and spiritual? My good friends, let
us open our eyes for once, and see, now that we are told of it, what
is most obvious, that two regions cannot be joined at their sides
unless both are material.
23. Or if we are too dull and stupid to see this, let us hear
whether the region of darkness too has one side, and is boundless in
the other directions, like the region of light. They do not hold
this from fear of making it seem equal to God. Accordingly they make
it boundless in depth and in length; but upwards, above it, they
maintain that there is an infinity of empty space. And lest this
region should appear to be a fraction equal in amount to half of that
representing the region of light, they narrow it also on two sides.Â
As if, to give the simplest illustration, a piece of bread were made
into four squares, three white and one black; then suppose the three
white pieces joined as one, and conceive them as infinite upwards and
downwards, and backwards in all directions:Â this represents the
Manichæan region of light. Then conceive the black square infinite
downwards and backwards, but with infinite emptiness above it:Â this
is their region of darkness. But these are secrets which they
disclose to very eager and anxious inquirers.
Chapter 22.âThe Form of the Region of Light the Worse of the Two.
Well, then, if this is so, the region of darkness is clearly touched
on two sides by the region of light. And if it is touched on two
sides, it must touch on two. So much for its being on one side, as
we were told before.
24. And what an unseemly appearance is this of the region of
light!âlike a cloven arch, with a black wedge inserted below, bounded
only in the direction of the cleft, and having a void space interposed
where the boundless emptiness stretches above the region of
darkness. Indeed, the form of the region of darkness is better than
that of the region of light:Â for the former cleaves, the latter is
cloven; the former fills the gap which is made in the latter; the
former has no void in it, while the latter is undefined in all
directions, except that where it is filled up by the wedge of
darkness. In an ignorant and greedy notion of giving more honor to a
number of pans than to a single one, so that the region of light
should have six, three upwards and three downwards, they have made
this region be split up, instead of sundering the other. For,
according to this figure, though there may be no commixture of
darkness with light, there is certainly penetration.
Chapter 23.âThe Anthropomorphites Not So Bad as the Manichæans.
25. Â Compare, now, not spiritual men of the Catholic faith, whose
mind, as far as is possible in this life, perceives that the divine
substance and nature has no material extension, and has no shape
bounded by lines, but the carnal and weak of our faith, who, when they
hear the members of the body used figuratively, as, when Godâs eyes or
ears are spoken of, are accustomed, in the license of fancy, to
picture God to themselves in a human form; compare these with the
Manichæans, whose custom it is to make known their silly stories to
anxious inquirers as if they were great mysteries:Â and consider who
have the most allowable and respectable ideas of God, âthose who think
of Him as having a human form which is the most excellent of its kind,
or those who think of Him as having boundless material extension, yet
not in all directions, but with three parts infinite and solid, while
in one part He is cloven, with an empty void, and with undefined space
above, while the region of darkness is inserted wedge-like below. Or
perhaps the proper expression is, that He is unconfined above in His
own nature, but encroached on below by a hostile nature. I join with
you in laughing at the folly of carnal men, unable as yet to form
spiritual conceptions, who think of God as having a human form. Do
you too join me, if you can, in laughing at those whose unhappy
conceptions represent God as having a shape cloven or cut in such an
unseemly and unbecoming way, with such an empty gap above, and such a
dishonorable curtailment below. Besides, there is this difference,
that these carnal people, who think of God as having a human form, if
they are content to be nourished with milk from the breast of the
Catholic Church, and do not rush headlong into rash opinions, but
cultivate in the Church the pious habit of inquiry, and there ask that
they may receive, and knock that it may be opened to them, begin to
understand spiritually the figures and parables of the Scriptures, and
gradually to perceive that the divine energies are suitably set forth
under the name, sometimes of ears, sometimes of eyes, sometimes of
hands or feet, or even of wings and feathers a shield too, and sword,
and helmet, and all the other innumerable things. And the more
progress they make in this understanding, the more are they confirmed
as Catholics. The Manichæans, on the other hand, when they abandon
their material fancies, cease to be Manichæans. For this is the
chief and special point in their praises of Manichæus, that the
divine mysteries which were taught figuratively in books from ancient
times were kept for Manichæus, who was to come last, to solve and
demonstrate; and so after him no other teacher will come from God, for
he has said nothing in figures or parables, but has explained ancient
sayings of that kind, and has himself taught in plain, simple terms.Â
Therefore, when the Manichæans hear these words of their founder, on
one side and border of the shining and sacred region was the region of
darkness, they have no interpretations to fall back on. Wherever
they turn, the wretched bondage of their own fancies brings them upon
clefts or sudden stoppages and joinings or sunderings of the most
unseemly kind, which it would be shocking to believe as true of any
immaterial nature, even though mutable, like the mind, not to speak of
the immutable nature of God. And yet if I were unable to rise to
higher things, and to bring my thoughts from the entanglement of false
imaginations which are impressed on the memory by the bodily senses,
into the freedom and purity of spiritual existence, how much better
would it be to think of God as in the form of a man, than to fasten
that wedge of darkness to His lower edge, and, for want of a covering
for the boundless vacuity above to leave it void and unoccupied
throughout infinite space! What notion could be worse than this?Â
What darker error can be taught or imagined?
Chapter 24.âOf the Number of Natures in the Manichæan Fiction.
26. Â Again, I wish to know, when I read of God the Father and His
kingdoms founded on the shining and happy region, whether the Father
and His kingdoms, and the region, are all of the same nature and
substance. If they are, then it is not another nature or sort of
body of God which the wedge of the race of darkness cleaves and
penetrates, which itself is an unspeakably revolting thing, but it is
actually the very nature of God which undergoes this. Think of this,
I beseech you:Â as you are men, think of it, and flee from it; and if
by tearing open your breasts you can cast out by the roots such
profane fancies from your faith, I pray you to do it. Or will you
say that these three are not of one and the same nature, but that the
Father is of one, the kingdoms of another, and the region of another,
so that each has a peculiar nature and substance, and that they are
arranged according to their degree of excellence? If this is true,
Manichæus should have taught that there are four natures, not two; or
if the Father and the kingdoms have one nature, and the region only
one of its own, he should have made three. Or if he made only two,
because the region of darkness does not belong to God, in what sense
does the region of light belong to God? For if it has a nature of
its own, and if God neither generated nor made it, it does not belong
to Him, and the seat of His kingdom is in what belongs to another.Â
Or if it belongs to Him because of its vicinity, the region of
darkness must do so too; for it not only borders on the region of
light, but penetrates it so as to sever it in two. Again, if God
generated it, it cannot have a separate nature. For what is
generated by God must be what God is, as the Catholic Church believes
of the only begotten Son. So you are brought back of necessity to
that shocking and detestable profanity, that the wedge of darkness
sunders not a region distinct and separate from God, but the very
nature of God. Or if God did not generate, but make it, of what did
He make it? Or if of Himself, what is this but to generate? If of
some other nature, was this nature good or evil? If good, there must
have been some good nature not belonging to God; which you will
scarcely have the boldness to assert. If evil, the race of darkness
cannot have been the only evil nature. Or did God take a part of
that region and turn it into a region of light, in order to found His
kingdom upon it? If He had, He would have taken the whole, and there
would have been no evil nature left. If God, then, did not make the
region of light of a substance distinct from His own, He must have
made it of nothing.[282]282
Chapter 25.âOmnipotence Creates Good Things Differing in Degree. In
Every Description Whatsoever of the Junction of the Two Regions There
is Either Impropriety or Absurdity.
27. If, then, you are now convinced that God is able to create some
good thing out of nothing, come into the Catholic Church, and learn
that all the natures which God has created and founded in their order
of excellence from the highest to the lowest are good, and some better
than others; and that they were made of nothing, though God, their
Maker, made use of His own wisdom as an instrument, so to speak, to
give being to what was not, and that as far as it had being it might
be good, and that the limitation of its being might show that it was
not begotten by God, but made out of nothing. If you examine the
matter, you will find nothing to keep you from agreeing to this. For
you cannot make your region of light to be what God is, without making
the dark section an infringement on the very nature of God. Nor can
you say that it was generated by God, without being reduced to the
same enormity, from the necessity of concluding that as begotten of
God, it must be what God is. Nor can you say that it was distinct
from Him, lest you should be forced to admit that God placed His
kingdom in what did not belong to Him, and that there are three
natures. Nor can you say that God made it of a substance distinct
from His own, without making something good besides God, or something
evil besides the race of darkness. It remains, therefore that you
must confess that God made the region of light out of nothing:Â and
you are unwilling to believe this; because if God could make out of
nothing some great good which yet was inferior to Himself, He could
also, since He is good, and grudges no good, make another good
inferior to the former, and again a third inferior to the second, and
so on, in order down to the lowest good of created natures, so that
the whole aggregate, instead of extending indefinitely without number
or measure should have a fixed and definite consistency. Again, if
you will not allow this either, that God made the region of light out
of nothing, you will have no escape from the shocking profanities to
which your opinions lead.
28. Perhaps, since the carnal imagination can fancy any shapes it
likes, you might be able to devise some other form for the junction of
the two regions, instead of presenting to the mind such a disagreeable
and painful description as this, that the region of God, whether it be
of the same nature as God or not, where at least Godâs kingdoms are
founded, lies through immensity in such a huge mass that its members
stretch loosely to an infinite extent, and that on their lower part
that wedge of the region of darkness, itself of boundless size
encroaches upon them. But whatever other form you contrive for the
junction of these two regions, you cannot erase what Manichæus has
written. I refer not to other treatises where a more particular
description is given,âfor perhaps, because they are in the hands of
only a few, there might not be so much difficulty with them,âbut to
this Fundamental Epistle which we are now considering, with which all
of you who are called enlightened are usually quite familiar. Here
the words are:Â "On one side the border of the shining and sacred
region was the region of darkness, deep and boundless in extent."
Chapter 26.âThe Manichæans are Reduced to the Choice of a Tortuous,
or Curved, or Straight Line of Junction. The Third Kind of Line
Would Give Symmetry and Beauty Suitable to Both Regions.
What more is to be got? we have now heard what is on the border.Â
Make what shape you please, draw any kind of lines you like, it is
certain that the junction of this boundless mass of the region of
darkness to the region of light must have been either by a straight
line, or a curved, or a tortuous one. If the line of junction is
tortuous the side of the region of light must also be tortuous;
otherwise its straight side joined to a tortuous one would leave gaps
of infinite depth, instead of having vacuity only above the land of
darkness, as we were told before. And if there were such gaps, how
much better it would have been for the region of light to have been
still more distant, and to have had a greater vacuity between, so that
the region of darkness might not touch it at all! Then there might
have been such a gap of bottomless depth, that, on the rise of any
mischief in that race, although the chiefs of darkness might have the
foolhardy wish to cross over, they would fall headlong into the gap
(for bodies cannot fly without air to support them); and as there is
infinite space downwards, they could do no more harm, though they
might live for ever, for they would be for ever falling. Again, if
the line of junction was a curved one, the region of light must also
have had the disfigurement of a curve to answer it. Or if the land
of darkness were curved inwards like a theatre, there would be as much
disfigurement in the corresponding line in the region of light. Or
if the region of darkness had a curved line, and the region of light a
straight one, they cannot have touched at all points. And certainly,
as I said before, it would have been better if they had not touched,
and if there was such a gap between that the regions might be kept
distinctly separate, and that rash evildoers might fall headlong so as
to be harmless. If, then, the line of junction was a straight one,
there remain, of course, no more gaps or grooves, but, on the
contrary, so perfect a junction as to make the greatest possible peace
and harmony between the two regions. What more beautiful or more
suitable than that one side should meet the other in a straight line,
without bends or breaks to disturb the natural and permanent
connection throughout endless space and endless duration? And even
though there was a separation, the straight sides of both regions
would be beautiful in themselves, as being straight; and besides, even
in spite of an interval, their correspondence, as running parallel,
though not meeting, would give a symmetry to both. With the addition
of the junction, both regions become perfectly regular and harmonious;
for nothing can be devised more beautiful in description or in
conception than this junction of two straight lines.[283]283
Chapter 27.âThe Beauty of the Straight Line Might Be Taken from the
Region of Darkness Without Taking Anything from Its Substance. So
Evil Neither Takes from Nor Adds to the Substance of the Soul. The
Straightness of Its Side Would Be So Far a Good Bestowed on the Region
of Darkness by God the Creator.
29. What is to be done with unhappy minds, perverse in error, and
held fast by custom? These men do not know what they say when they
say those things; for they do not consider. Listen to me; no one
forces you, no one quarrels with you, no one taunts you with past
errors, unless some one who has not experienced the divine mercy in
deliverance from error:Â all we desire is that the errors should some
time or other be abandoned. Think a little without animosity or
bitterness. We are all human beings: let us hate, not one another,
but errors and lies. Think a little, I pray you. God of mercy,
help them to think, and kindle in the minds of inquirers the true
light. If anything is plain, is not this, that right is better than
wrong? Give me, then, a calm and quiet answer to this, whether
making crooked the right line of the region of darkness which joins on
to the right line of the region of light, would not detract from its
beauty. If you will not be dogged, you must confess that not only is
beauty taken from it by its being made crooked, but also the beauty
which it might have had from connection with the right line of the
region of light. Is it the case, then, that in this loss of beauty,
in which right is made crooked, and harmony becomes discord, and
agreement disagreement, there is any loss of substance? Learn, then,
from this that substance is not evil; but as in the body, by change of
form for the worse, beauty is lost, or rather lessened, and what was
called fair before is said to be ugly, and what was pleasing becomes
displeasing, so in the mind the seemliness of a right will, which
makes a just and pious life, is injured when the will changes for the
worse; and by this sin the mind becomes miserable, instead of enjoying
as before the happiness which comes from the ornament of a right will,
without any gain or loss of substance.
30. Consider, again, that though we admit that the border of the
region of darkness was evil for other reasons, such as that it was dim
and dark, or any other reason, still it was not evil in being
straight. So, if I admit that there was some evil in its color, you
must admit that there was some good in its straightness. Whatever
the amount of this good, it is not allowable to attribute it to any
other than God the Maker, from whom we must believe that all good in
whatsoever nature comes, if we are to escape deadly error. It is
absurd, then, to say that this region is perfect evil, when in its
straightness of border is found the good of not a little beauty of a
material kind; and also to make this region to be altogether
estranged, from the almighty and good God, when this good which we
find in it can be attributed to no other but the author of all good
things. But this border, too, we are told, was evil. Well, suppose
it evil:Â it would surely have been worse had it been crooked instead
of straight. And how can that be the perfection of evil than which
something worse than itself can be thought of? And to be worse
implies that there is some good, the want of which makes the thing
worse. Here the want of straightness would make the line worse.Â
Therefore its straightness is something good. And you will never
answer the question whence this goodness comes, without reference to
Him from whom we must acknowledge that all good things come, whether
small or great. But now we shall pass on from considering this
border to something else.
Chapter 28.âManichæus Places Five Natures in the Region of Darkness.
31. "There dwelt," he says, "in that region fiery bodies,
destructive races."Â By speaking of dwelling, he must mean that those
bodies were animated and in life. But, not to appear to cavil at a
word, let us see how he divides into five classes all these
inhabitants of this region. "Here," he says, "was boundless
darkness, flowing from the same source in immeasurable abundance, with
the productions properly belonging to it. Beyond this were muddy
turbid waters, with their inhabitants; and inside of them winds
terrible and violent, with their prince and their progenitors. Then,
again, a fiery region of destruction, with its chiefs and peoples.Â
And, similarly, inside of this a race full of smoke and gloom, where
abode the dreadful prince and chief of all, having around him
innumerable princes, himself the mind and source of them all. Such
are the five natures of the pestiferous region."Â We find here five
natures mentioned as part of one nature, which he calls the
pestiferous region. The natures are darkness, waters, winds, fire,
smoke; which he so arranges as to make darkness first, beginning at
the outside. Inside of darkness he puts the waters; inside of the
waters, the winds; inside of the winds, the fire; inside of the fire,
the smoke. And each of these natures had its peculiar kind of
inhabitants, which were likewise five in number. For to the
question, Whether there was only one kind in all, or different kinds
corresponding to the different natures; the reply is, that they were
different:Â as in other books we find it stated that the darkness had
serpents; the waters swimming creatures, such as fish; the winds
flying creatures, such as birds; the fire quadrupeds, such as horses,
lions, and the like; the smoke bipeds, such as men.
Chapter 29.âThe Refutation of This Absurdity.
32. Whose arrangement, then, is this? Who made the distinctions
and the classification? Who gave the number, the qualities, the
forms, the life? For all these things are in themselves good, nor
could each of the natures have them except from the bestowal of God,
the author of all good things. For this is not like the descriptions
or suppositions of poets about an imaginary chaos, as being a
shapeless mass, without form, without quality, without measurement,
without weight and number, without order and variety; a confused
something, absolutely destitute of qualities, so that some Greek
writers call it Ëpoion. So far from being like this is the
Manichæan description of the region of darkness, as they call it,
that, in a directly contrary style, they add side to side, and join
border to border; they number five natures; they separate, arrange,
and assign to each its own qualities. Nor do they leave the natures
barren or waste, but people them with their proper inhabitants; and to
these, again, they give suitable forms, and adapted to their place of
habitation, besides giving the chief of all endowments, life. To
recount such good things as these, and to speak of them as having no
connection with God, the author of all good things, is to lose sight
of the excellence of the order in the things, and of the great evil of
the error which leads to such a conclusion.
Chapter 30.âThe Number of Good Things in Those Natures Which
Manichæus Places in the Region of Darkness.
33. "But," is the reply, "the orders of beings inhabiting those five
natures were fierce and destructive."Â As if I were praising their
fierceness and destructiveness. I, you see, join with you in
condemning the evils you attribute to them; join you with me in
praising the good things which you ascribe to them:Â so it will
appear that there is a mixture of good and evil in what you call the
last extremity of evil. If I join you in condemning what is
mischievous in this region, you must join with me in praising what is
beneficial. For these beings could not have been produced, or
nourished, or have continued to inhabit that region, without some
salutary influence. I join with you in condemning the darkness; join
with me in praising the productiveness. For while you call the
darkness immeasurable, you speak of "suitable productions."Â
Darkness, indeed, is not a real substance, and means no more than the
absence of light, as nakedness means the want of clothing, and
emptiness the want of material contents:Â so that darkness could
produce nothing, although a region in darknessâthat is, in the absence
of lightâmight produce something. But passing over this for the
present, it is certain that where productions arise there must be a
beneficent adaptation of substances, as well as a symmetrical
arrangement and construction in unity of the members of the beings
produced,âa wise adjustment making them agree with one another. And
who will deny that all these things are more to be praised than
darkness is to be condemned? If I join with you in condemning the
muddiness of the waters, you must join with me in praising the waters
as far as they possessed the form and quality of water, and also the
agreement of the members of the inhabitants swimming in the waters,
their life sustaining and directing their body, and every particular
adaptation of substances for the benefit of health. For though you
find fault with the waters as turbid and muddy, still, in allowing
them the quality of producing and maintaining their living
inhabitants, you imply that there was some kind of bodily form, and
similarity of parts, giving unity and congruity of character;
otherwise there could be no body at all:Â and, as a rational being,
you must see that all these things are to be praised. And however
great you make the ferocity of these inhabitants, and their
massacrings and devastations in their assaults, you still leave them
the regular limits of form, by which the members of each body are made
to agree together, and their beneficial adaptations, and the
regulating power of the living principle binding together the parts of
the body in a friendly and harmonious union. And if all these are
regarded with common sense it will be seen that they are more to be
commended than the faults are to be condemned. I join with you in
condemning the frightfulness of the winds; join with me in praising
their nature, as giving breath and nourishment, and their material
form in its continuousness and diffusion by the connection of its
parts:Â for by these things these winds had the power of producing
and nourishing, and sustaining in vigor these inhabitants you speak
of; and also in these inhabitantsâbesides the other things which have
already been commended in all animated creaturesâthis particular power
of going quickly and easily whence and whither they please, and the
harmonious stroke of their wings in flight, and their regular
motion. I join with you in condemning the destructiveness of fire;
join with me in commending the productiveness of this fire, and the
growth of these productions, and the adaptation of the fire to the
beings produced, so that they had coherence, and came to perfection in
measure and shape, and could live and have their abode there:Â for
you see that all these things deserve admiration and praise, not only
in the fire which is thus habitable, but in the inhabitants too. I
join with you in condemning the denseness of smoke, and the savage
character of the prince who, as you say, abode in it; join with me in
praising the similarity of all the parts in this very smoke, by which
it preserves the harmony and proportion of its parts among themselves,
according to its own nature, and has an unity which makes it what it
is:Â for no one can calmly reflect on these things without wonder and
praise. Besides, even to the smoke you give the power and energy of
production, for you say that princes inhabited it; so that in that
region the smoke is productive, which never happens here, and,
moreover, affords a wholesome dwelling place to its inhabitants.
Chapter 31.âThe Same Subject Continued.
34. And even in the prince of smoke himself, instead of mentioning
only his ferocity as a bad quality, ought you not to have taken notice
of the other things in his nature which you must allow to be
commendable? For he had a soul and a body; the soul life-giving, and
the body endowed with life. Since the soul governed and the body
obeyed, the soul took the lead and the body followed; the soul gave
consistency, the body was not dissolved; the soul gave harmonious
motion, and the body was constructed of a well-proportioned framework
of members. In this single prince are you not induced to express
approval of the orderly peace or the peaceful order? And what
applies to one applies to all the rest. You say he was fierce and
cruel to others. This is not what I commend, but the other important
things which you will not take notice of. Those things, when
perceived and considered,âafter advice by any one who has without
consideration put faith in Manichæus,âlead him to a clear conviction
that, in speaking of those natures, he speaks of things good in a
sense, not perfect and un-created, like God the one Trinity, nor of
the higher rank of created things, like the holy angels and the
ever-blessed powers; but of the lowest class, and ranked according to
the small measure of their endowments. These things are thought to
be blameworthy by the uninstructed when they compare them with higher
things; and in view of their want of some good, the good they have
gets the name of evil, because it is defective. My reason also for
thus discussing the natures enumerated by Manichæus is that the
things named are things familiar to us in this world. We are
familiar with darkness, waters, winds, fire, smoke; we are familiar,
too, with animals, creeping, swimming, flying; with quadrupeds and
biped. With the exception of darkness (which, as I have said
already, is nothing but the absence of light, and the perception of it
is only the absence of sight, as the perception of silence is the
absence of hearing; not that darkness is anything, but that light is
not, as neither that silence is anything, but that sound is not), all
the other things are natural qualities and are familiar to all; and
the form of those natures, which is commendable and good as far as it
exists, no wise man attributes to any other author than God, the
author of all good things.[284]284
Chapter 32.âManichæus Got the Arrangement of His Fanciful Notions
from Visible Objects.
35. For in giving to these natures which he has learned from visible
things, an arrangement according to his fanciful ideas, to represent
the race of darkness, Manichæus is clearly in error. First of all,
he makes darkness productive, which is impossible. But, he replies,
this darkness was unlike what you are familiar with. How, then, can
you make me understand about it? After so many promises to give
knowledge, will you force me to take your word for it? Suppose I
believe you, this at least is certain, that if the darkness had no
form, as darkness usually has not, it could produce nothing; if it had
form, it was better than ordinary darkness:Â whereas, when you call
it different from the ordinary kind, you wish us to believe that it is
worse. You might as well say that silence, which is the same to the
ear as darkness to the eyes, produced some deaf or dumb animals in
that region; and then, in reply to the objection that silence is not a
nature, you might say that it was different silence from ordinary
silence; in a word, you might say what you pleased to those whom you
have once misled into believing you. No doubt, the obvious facts
relating to the origin of animal life led Manichæus to say that
serpents were produced in darkness. However, there are serpents
which have such sharp sight, and such pleasure in light, that they
seem to give evidence of the most weighty kind against this idea.Â
Then the idea of swimming things in the water might easily be got
here, and applied to the fanciful objects in that region; and so of
flying things in the winds, for the motion of the lower air in this
world, where birds fly, is called wind. Where he got the idea of the
quadrupeds in fire, no one can tell. Still he said this
deliberately, though without sufficient thought, and from great
misconception. The reason usually given is, that quadrupeds are
voracious and salacious. But many men surpass any quadruped in
voracity, though they are bipeds, and are called children of the
smoke, and not of fire. Geese, too, are as voracious as any animal;
and though he might place them in fire as bipeds, or in the water
because they love to swim, or in the winds because they have wings and
sometimes fly, they certainly have nothing to do with fire in this
classification. As regards salaciousness, I suppose he was thinking
of neighing horses, which sometimes bite through the bridle and rush
at the mares; and writing hastily, with this in his mind, he forgot
the common sparrow, in comparison of which the hottest stallion is
cold. The reason they give for assigning bipeds to the smoke is,
that bipeds are conceited and proud, for men are derived from this
class; and the idea, which is a plausible one, is that smoke resembles
proud people in rising up into the air, round and swelling. This
idea might warrant a figurative description of proud men, or an
allegorical expression or explanation, but not the belief that bipeds
are born in smoke and of smoke. They might with equal reason be said
to be born in dust, for it often rises up to the heaven with a similar
circling and lofty motion; or in the clouds, for they are often drawn
up from the earth in such a way, that those looking from a distance
are uncertain whether they are clouds or smoke. Once more, why, in
the case of the waters and the winds, does he suit the inhabitants to
the character of the place, as we see swimming things in water, and
flying things in the wind; whereas, in the face of fire and smoke,
this bold liar is not ashamed to assign to these places the most
unlikely inhabitants? For fire burns quadrupeds, and consumes them,
and smoke suffocates and kills bipeds. At least he must acknowledge
that he has made these natures better in the race of darkness than
they are here, though he wishes us to think everything to be worse.Â
For, according to this, the fire there produced and nourished
quadrupeds, and gave them a lodging not only harmless, but most
convenient. The smoke, too, provided room for the offspring of its
own benign bosom, and cherished them up to the rank of prince. Thus
we see that these lies, which have added to the number of heretics,
arose from the perception by carnal sense, only without care or
discernment, of visible objects in this world, and when thus
conceived, were brought forth by fancy, and then presumptuously
written and published.
Chapter 33.âEvery Nature, as Nature, is Good.
36. But the consideration we wish most to urge is the truth of the
Catholic doctrine, if they can understand it, that God is the author
of all natures. I urged this before when I said, I join with you in
your condemnation of destructiveness, of blindness, of dense
muddiness, of terrific violence, of perishableness, of the ferocity of
the princes, and so on; join with me in commending form,
classification, arrangement, harmony, unity of structure, symmetry and
correspondence of members, provision for vital breath and nourishment,
wholesome adaptation, regulation and control by the mind, and the
subjection of the bodies, and the assimilation and agreement of parts
in the natures, both those inhabiting and those inhabited, and all the
other things of the same kind. From this, if they would only think
honestly, they would understand that it implies a mixture of good and
evil, even in the region where they suppose evil to be alone and in
perfection:Â so that if the evils mentioned were taken away, the good
things will remain, without anything to detract from the commendation
given to them; whereas, if the good things are taken away, no nature
is left. From this every one sees, who can see, that every nature,
as far as it is nature, is good; since in one and the same thing in
which I found something to praise, and he found something to blame, if
the good things are taken away, no nature will remain; but if the
disagreeable things are taken away, the nature will remain
unimpaired. Take from waters their thickness and muddiness, and pure
clear water remains; take from them the consistence of their parts,
and no water will be left. If then, after the evil is removed, the
nature remains in a purer state, and does not remain at all when the
good is taken away, it must be the good which makes the nature of the
thing in which it is, while the evil is not nature, but contrary to
nature. Take from the winds their terribleness and excessive force,
with which you find fault, you can conceive of winds as gentle and
mild; take from them the similarity of their parts which gives them
continuity of substance, and the unity essential to material
existence, and no nature remains to be conceived of. It would be
tedious to go through all the cases; but all who consider the subject
free from party spirit must see that in their list of natures the
disagreeable things mentioned are additions to the nature; and when
they are removed, the natures remain better than before. This shows
that the natures, as far as they are natures, are good; for when you
take from them the good instead of the evil, no natures remain. And
attend, you who wish to arrive at a correct judgment, to what is said
of the fierce prince himself. If you take away his ferocity, see how
many excellent things will remain; his material frame, the symmetry of
the members on one side with those on the other, the unity of his
form, the settled continuity of his parts, the orderly adjustment of
the mind as ruling and animating, and the body as subject and
animated. The removal of these things, and of others I may have
omitted to mention, will leave no nature remaining.
Chapter 34.âNature Cannot Be Without Some Good. The Manichæans
Dwell Upon the Evils.
37. But perhaps you will say that these evils cannot be removed from
the natures, and must therefore be considered natural. The question
at present is not what can be taken away, and what cannot; but it
certainly helps to a clear perception that these natures, as far as
they are natures, are good, when we see that the good things can be
thought of without these evil things, while without these good things
no nature can be conceived of. I can conceive of waters without
muddy commotion; but without settled continuity of parts no material
form is an object of thought or of sensation in any way. Therefore
even these muddy waters could not exist without the good which was the
condition of their material existence. As to the reply that these
evil things cannot be taken from such natures, I rejoin that neither
can the good things be taken away. Why, then, should you call these
things natural evils, on account of the evil things which you suppose
cannot be taken away, and yet refuse to call them natural good things,
on account of the good things which, as has been proved, cannot be
taken away?
38. You may next ask, as you usually do for a last resource, whence
come these evils which I have said that I too disapprove of. I shall
perhaps tell you, if you first tell me whence are those good things
which you too are obliged to commend, if you would not be altogether
unreasonable. But why should I ask this, when we both acknowledge
that all good things whatever, and how great soever, are from the one
God, who is supremely good? You must therefore yourselves oppose
Manichæus who has placed all these important good things which we
have mentioned and justly commended,âthe continuity and agreement of
parts in each nature, the health and vigor of the animated creatures,
and the other things which it would be wearisome to repeat,â(in an
imaginary region of darkness, so as to separate them altogether from
that God whom he allows to be the author of all good things.)Â He
lost sight of those good things, while taking notice only of what was
disagreeable; as if one, frightened by a lionâs roaring, and seeing
him dragging away and tearing the bodies of cattle or human beings
which he had seized, should from childish pusillanimity be so
overpowered with fear as to see nothing but the cruelty and ferocity
of the lion; and overlooking or disregarding all the other qualities,
should exclaim against the nature of this animal as not only evil, but
a great evil, his fear adding to his vehemence. But were he to see a
tame lion, with its ferocity subdued, especially if he had never been
frightened by a lion, he would have leisure, in the absence of danger
and terror, to observe and admire the beauty of the animal. My only
remark on this is one closely connected with our subject:Â that any
nature may be in some case disagreeable, so as to excite hatred
towards the whole nature; though it is clear that the form of a real
living beast, even when it excites terror in the woods, is far better
than that of the artificial imitation which is commended in a painting
on the wall. We must not then be misled into this error by
Manichæus, or be hindered from observing the forms of the natures, by
his finding fault with some things in them in such a way as to make us
disapprove of them entirely, when it is impossible to show that they
deserve entire disapproval. And when our minds are thus composed and
prepared to form a just judgment, we may ask whence come those evils
which I have said that I condemn. It will be easier to see this if
we class them all under one name.
Chapter 35.âEvil Alone is Corruption. Corruption is Not Nature, But
Contrary to Nature. Corruption Implies Previous Good.
39. For who can doubt that the whole of that which is called evil is
nothing else than corruption? Different evils may, indeed, be called
by different names; but that which is the evil of all things in which
any evil is perceptible is corruption. So the corruption of an
educated mind is ignorance; the corruption of a prudent mind is
imprudence; the corruption of a just mind, injustice; the corruption
of a brave mind, cowardice; the corruption of a calm, peaceful mind,
cupidity, fear, sorrow, pride. Again, in a living body, the
corruption of health is pain and disease; the corruption of strength
is exhaustion; the corruption of rest is toil. Again, in any
corporeal thing, the corruption of beauty is ugliness; the corruption
of straightness is crookedness; the corruption of order is confusion;
the corruption of entireness is disseverance, or fracture, or
diminution. It would be long and laborious to mention by name all
the corruptions of the things here mentioned, and of countless other
things; for in many cases the words may apply to the mind as well as
to the body, and in innumerable cases the corruption has a distinct
name of its own. But enough has been said to show that corruption
does harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that
corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corruption is
the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not nature,
no nature is evil.
40. But if, perchance, you cannot follow this, consider again, that
whatever is corrupted is deprived of some good:Â for if it were not
corrupted, it would be incorrupt; or if it could not in any way be
corrupted, it would be incorruptible. Now, if corruption is an evil,
both incorruption and incorruptibility must be good things. We are
not, however, speaking at present of incorruptible nature, but of
things which admit of corruption, and which, while not corrupted, may
be called incorrupt, but not incorruptible. That alone can be called
incorruptible which not only is not corrupted, but also cannot in any
part be corrupted. Whatever things, then, being incorrupt, but
liable to corruption, begin to be corrupted, are deprived of the good
which they had as incorrupt. Nor is this a slight good, for
corruption is a great evil. And the continued increase of corruption
implies the continued presence of good, of which they may be
deprived. Accordingly, the natures supposed to exist in the region
of darkness must have been either corruptible or incorruptible. If
they were incorruptible, they were in possession of a good than which
nothing is higher. If they were corruptible, they were either
corrupted or not corrupted. If they were not corrupted, they were
incorrupt, to say which of anything is to give it great praise. If
they were corrupted, they were deprived of this great good of
incorruption; but the deprivation implies the previous possession of
the good they are deprived of; and if they possessed this good, they
were not the perfection of evil, and consequently all the Manichæan
story is a falsehood.
Chapter 36.âThe Source of Evil or of Corruption of Good.
41. After thus inquiring what evil is, and learning that it is not
nature, but against nature, we must next inquire whence it is. If
Manichæus had done this, he might have escaped falling into the snare
of these serious errors. Out of time and out of order, he began with
inquiring into the origin of evil, without first asking what evil was;
and so his inquiry led him only to the reception of foolish fancies,
of which the mind, much fed by the bodily senses, with difficulty rids
itself. Perhaps, then, some one, desiring no longer argument, but
delivery from error, will ask, Whence is this corruption which we find
to be the common evil of good things which are not incorruptible?Â
Such an inquirer will soon find the answer if he seeks for truth with
great earnestness, and knocks reverently with sustained assiduity.Â
For while man can use words as a kind of sign for the expression of
his thoughts, teaching is the work of the incorruptible Truth itself,
who is the one true, the one internal Teacher. He became external
also, that He might recall us from the external to the internal; and
taking on Himself the form of a servant, that He might bring down His
height to the knowledge of those rising up to Him, He condescended to
appear in lowliness to the low. In His name let us ask, and through
Him let us seek mercy of the Father while making this inquiry. For
to answer in a word the question, Whence is corruption? it is hence,
because these natures that are capable of corruption were not begotten
by God, but made by Him out of nothing; and as we already proved that
those natures are good, no one can say with propriety that they were
not good as made by God. If it is said that God made them perfectly
good, it must be remembered that the only perfect good is God Himself,
the maker of those good things.
Chapter 37.âGod Alone Perfectly Good.
42. What harm, you ask, would follow if those things too were
perfectly good? Still, should any one, who admits and believes the
perfect goodness of God the Father, inquire what source we should
reverently assign to any other perfectly good thing, supposing it to
exist, our only correct reply would be, that it is of God the Father,
who is perfectly good. And we must bear in mind that what is of Him
is born of Him, and not made by Him out of nothing, and that it is
therefore perfectly, that is, incorruptibly, good like God Himself.Â
So we see that it is unreasonable to require that things made out of
nothing should be as perfectly good as He who was begotten of God
Himself, and who is one as God is one, otherwise God would have
begotten something unlike Himself. Hence it shows ignorance and
impiety to seek for brethren for this only-begotten Son through whom
all good things were made by the Father out of nothing, except in
this, that He condescended to appear as man. Accordingly in
Scripture He is called both only-begotten and first-begotten;
only-begotten of the Father, and first-begotten from the dead. "And
we beheld," says John, "His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten
of the Father, full of grace and truth."[285]285Â And Paul says,
"that He might be the first-born among many brethren."[286]286
43. But should we say, These things made out of nothing are not good
things, but only Godâs nature is good, we shall be unjust to good
things of great value. And there is impiety in calling it a defect
in anything not to be what God is, and in denying a thing to be good
because it is inferior to God. Pray submit then, thou nature of the
rational soul, to be somewhat less than God, but only so far less,
that after Him nothing else is above thee. Submit, I say, and yield
to Him, lest He drive thee still lower into depths where the
punishment inflicted will continually detract more and more from the
good which thou hast. Thou exaltest thyself against God, if thou art
indignant at His preceding thee; and thou art very contumacious in thy
thoughts of Him, if thou dost not rejoice unspeakably in the
possession of this good, that He alone is above thee. This being
settled as certain, thou art not to say, God should have made me the
only nature: there should be no good thing after me. It could not
be that the next good thing to God should be the last. And in this
is seen most clearly how great dignity God conferred on thee, that He
who in the order of nature alone rules over thee, made other good
things for thee to rule over. Nor be surprised that they are not now
in all respects subject to thee, and that sometimes they pain thee;
for thy Lord has greater authority over the things subject to thee
than thou hast, as a master over the servants of his servants. What
wonder, then, if, when thou sinnest, that is, disobeyest thy Lord, the
things thou before ruledst over are made instrumental in thy
punishment? For what is so just, or what is more just than God?Â
For this befell human nature in Adam, of whom this is not the place to
speak. Suffice it to say, the righteous Ruler acts in character both
in just rewards and in just punishments, in the happiness of those who
live rightly, and in the penalty inflicted on sinners. Nor yet art
thou[287]287 left without mercy, since by an appointed distribution of
things and times thou art called to return. Thus the righteous
control of the supreme Creator extends even to earthly good things,
which are corrupted and restored, that thou mightest have consolations
mingled with punishments; that thou mightest both praise God when
delighted by the order of good things, and mightest take refuge in Him
when tried by experience of evils. So, as far as earthly things are
subject to thee, they teach thee that thou art their ruler; as far as
they distress thee, they teach thee to be subject to thy Lord.
Chapter 38.âNature Made by God; Corruption Comes from Nothing.
44. In this way, though corruption is an evil, and though it comes
not from the Author of natures, but from their being made out of
nothing, still, in Godâs government and control over all that He has
made, even corruption is so ordered that it hurts only the lowest
natures, for the punishment of the condemned, and for the trial and
instruction of the returning, that they may keep near to the
incorruptible God, and remain incorrupt, which is our only good; as is
said by the prophet, "But it is good for me that I keep near to
God."[288]288Â And you must not say, God did not make corruptible
natures:Â for, as far as they are natures, God made them; but as far
as they are corruptible, God did not make them:Â for corruption
cannot come from Him who alone is incorruptible. If you can receive
this, give thanks to God; if you cannot, be quiet and do not condemn
what you do not yet understand, but humbly wait on Him who is the
light of the mind that thou mayest know. For in the expression
"corruptible nature" there are two words, and not one only. So, in
the expression, God made out of nothing, "God" and "nothing" are two
separate words. Render therefore to each of these words that which
belongs to each, so that the word "nature" may go with the word
"God,"and the word "corruptible" with the word "nothing."Â And yet
even the corruptions, though they have not their origin from God, are
to be overruled by Him in accordance with the order of inanimate
things and the deserts of His intelligent creatures. Thus we say
rightly that reward and punishment are both from God. For Godâs not
making corruption is consistent with His giving over to corruption the
man who deserves to be corrupted, that is, who has begun to corrupt
himself by sinning, that he who has wilfully yielded to the
allurements of corruption may, against his will, suffer its pains.
Chapter 39.âIn What Sense Evils are from God.
45. Not only is it written in the Old Testament, "I make good, and
create evil;"[289]289 but more clearly in the New Testament, where the
Lord says, "Fear not them which kill the body, and have no more that
they can do; but fear him who, after he has killed the body, has power
to cast the soul into hell."[290]290Â And that to voluntary
corruption penal corruption is added in the divine judgment, is
plainly declared by the Apostle Paul, when he says, "The temple of God
is holy, which temple ye are; whoever corrupts the temple of God, him
will God corrupt."[291]291Â If this had been said in the Old Law, how
vehemently would the Manichæans have denounced it as making God a
corrupter! And from fear of the word, many Latin translators make
it, "him shall God destroy," instead of corrupt, avoiding the
offensive word without any change of meaning. Although these would
inveigh against any passage in the Old Law or the prophets if God was
called in it a destroyer. But the Greek original here shows that
corrupt is the true word; for it is written distinctly, "Whoever
corrupts the temple of God, him will God corrupt."Â If the
Manichæans are asked to explain the words, they will say, to escape
making God a corrupter, that corrupt here means to give over to
corruption, or some such explanation. Did they read the Old Law in
this spirit, they would both find many admirable things in it; and
instead of spitefully attacking passages which they did not
understand, they would reverently postpone the inquiry.
Chapter 40.âCorruption Tends to Non-Existence.
46. But if any one does not believe that corruption comes from
nothing, let him place before himself existence and non-existenceâone,
as it were, on one side, and the other on the other (to speak so as
not to outstrip the slow to understand); then let him set something,
say the body of an animal, between them, and let him ask himself
whether, while the body is being formed and produced, while its size
is increasing, while it gains nourishment, health, strength, beauty,
stability, it is tending, as regards its duration and permanence, to
this side or that, to existence or non-existence. He will see
without difficulty, that even in the rudimentary form there is an
existence, and that the more the body is established and built up in
form, and figure and strength, the more does it come to exist, and to
tend to the side of existence. Then, again, let the body begin to be
corrupted; let its whole condition be enfeebled, let its vigor
languish, its strength decay, its beauty be defaced, its framework be
sundered, the consistency of its parts give way and go to pieces; and
let him ask now where the body is tending in this corruption, whether
to existence or non-existence:Â he will not surely be so blind or
stupid as to doubt how to answer himself, or as not to see that, in
proportion as anything is corrupted, in that proportion it approaches
decease. But whatever tends to decease tends to non-existence.Â
Since, then, we must believe that God exists immutably and
incorruptibly, while what is called nothing is clearly altogether
nonexistent; and since, after setting before yourself existence and
non-existence, you have observed that the more a visible object
increases the more it tends towards existence, while the more it is
corrupted the more it tends towards non-existence, why are you at a
loss to tell regarding any nature what in it is from God, and what
from nothing; seeing that visible form is natural, and corruption
against nature? The increase of form leads to existence, and we
acknowledge God as supreme existence; the increase of corruption leads
to non-existence, and we know that what is non-existent is nothing.Â
Why then, I say, are you at a loss to tell regarding a corruptible
nature, when you have both the words nature and corruptible, what is
from God, and what from nothing? And why do you inquire for a nature
contrary to God, since, if you confess that He is the supreme
existence, it follows that non-existence is contrary to Him?[292]292
Chapter 41.âCorruption is by Godâs Permission, and Comes from Us.
47. You ask, Why does corruption take from nature what God has given
to it? It takes nothing but where God permits; and He permits in
righteous and well-ordered judgment, according to the degrees of
non-intelligent and the deserts of intelligent creatures. The word
uttered passes away as an object of sense, and perishes in silence;
and yet the coming and going of these passing words make our speech,
and the regular intervals of silence give pleasing and appropriate
distinction; and so it is with temporal natures which have this lowest
form of beauty, that transition gives them being, and the death of
what they give birth to gives them individuality. And if our sense
and memory could rightly take in the order and proportions of this
beauty, it would so please us, that we should not dare to give the
name of corruptions to those imperfections which give rise to the
distinction. And when distress comes to us through their peculiar
beauty, by the loss of beloved temporal things passing away, we both
pay the penalty of our sins, and are exhorted to set our affection on
eternal things.
Chapter 42.âExhortation to the Chief Good.
48. Let us, then, not seek in this beauty for what has not been
given to it (and from not having what we seek for, this is the lowest
form of beauty); and in that which has been given to it, let us praise
God, because He has bestowed this great good of visible form even on
the lowest degree of beauty. And let us not cleave as lovers to this
beauty, but as praisers of God let us rise above it; and from this
superior position let us pronounce judgment on it, instead of so being
bound up in it as to be judged along with it. And let us hasten on
to that good which has no motion in space or advancement in time, from
which all natures in space and time receive their sensible being and
their form. To see this good let us purify our heart by faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ, who says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God."[293]293Â For the eyes needed in order to see this
good are not those with which we see the light spread through space,
which has part in one place and part in another, instead of being all
in every place. The sight and the discernment we are to purify is
that by which we see, as far as is allowed in this life, what is just,
what is pious, what is the beauty of wisdom. He who sees these
things, values them far above the fullness of all regions in space,
and finds that the vision of these things requires not the extension
of his perception through distances in space, but its invigoration by
an immaterial influence.[294]294
Chapter 43.âConclusion.
49. And as this vision is greatly hindered by those fancies which
are originated by the carnal sense, and are retained and modified by
the imagination, let us abhor this heresy which has been led by faith
in its fancies to represent the divine substance as extended and
diffused through space, even through infinite space, and to cut short
one side so as to make room for evil,ânot being able to perceive that
evil is not nature, but against nature; and to beautify this very evil
with such visible appearance, and forms, and consistency of parts
prevailing in its several natures, not being able to conceive of any
nature without those good things, that the evils found fault with in
it are buried under a countless abundance of good things.
Here let us close this part of the treatise. The other absurdities
of Manichæus will be exposed in what follows, by the permission and
help of God.[295]295
St. AUGUSTIN:
reply to
faustus the manichæan,
[contra faustum manichæum].
A.D. 400.
translated by
rev. richard stothert, m.a.,
bombay
Reply to Faustus the Manichæan.
[Contra Faustum Manichæum.] a.d. 400.
ââââââââââââ
Written about the year 400. [Faustus was undoubtedly the acutest,
most determined and most unscrupulous opponent of orthodox
Christianity in the age of Augustin. The occasion of Augustinâs
great writing against him was the publication of Faustusâ attack on
the Old Testament Scriptures, and on the New Testament so far as it
was at variance with Manichæan error. Faustus seems to have
followed in the footsteps of Adimantus, against whom Augustin had
written some years before, but to have gone considerably beyond
Adimantus in the recklessness of his statements. The incarnation of
Christ, involving his birth from a woman, is one of the main points of
attack. He makes the variations in the genealogical records of the
Gospels a ground for rejecting the whole as spurious. He supposed
the Gospels, in their present form, to be not the works of the
Apostles, but rather of later Judaizing falsifiers. The entire Old
Testament system he treats with the utmost contempt, blaspheming the
Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets, etc., on the ground of their private
lives and their teachings. Most of the objections to the morality of
the Old Testament that are now current were already familiarly used in
the time of Augustin. Augustinâs answers are only partially
satisfactory, owing to his imperfect view of the relation of the old
dispensation to the new; but in the age in which they were written
they were doubtless very effective. The writing is interesting from
the point of view of Biblical criticism, as well as from that of
polemics against Manichæism.âA.H.N.]
Book I.
Who Faustus was. Faustusâs object in writing the polemical treatise
that forms the basis of Augustinâs reply. Â Augustinâs remarks
thereon.
1. Faustus was an African by race, a citizen of Mileum; he was
eloquent and clever, but had adopted the shocking tenets of the
Manichæan heresy. He is mentioned in my Confessions,[296]296 where
there is an account of my acquaintance with him. This man published
a certain volume against the true Christian faith and the Catholic
truth. A copy reached us, and was read by the brethren, who called
for an answer from me, as part of the service of love which I owe to
them. Now, therefore, in the name and with the help of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, I undertake the task, that all my readers may
know that acuteness of mind and elegance of style are of no use to a
man unless the Lord directs his steps.[297]297Â In the mysterious
equity of divine mercy, God often bestows His help on the slow and the
feeble; while from the want of this help, the most acute and eloquent
run into error only with greater rapidity and willfulness. I will
give the opinions of Faustus as if stated by himself, and mine as if
in reply to him.
2. Faustus said: As the learned Adimantus, the only teacher since
the sainted Manichæus deserving of our attention, has plentifully
exposed and thoroughly refuted the errors of Judaism and of
semi-Christianity, I think it not amiss that you should be supplied in
writing with brief and pointed replies to the captious objections of
our adversaries, that when, like children of the wily serpent, they
try to bewilder you with their quibbles, you may be prepared to give
intelligent answers. In this way they will be kept to the subject,
instead of wandering from one thing to another. And I have placed
our opinions and those of our opponent over against one another, as
plainly and briefly as possible, so as not to perplex the reader with
a long and intricate discourse.
3. Augustin replies: You warn against semi-Christians, which you
say we are; but we warn against pseudo-Christians, which we have shown
you to be. Semi-Christianity may be imperfect without being false.Â
So, then, if the faith of those whom you try to mislead is imperfect,
would it not be better to supply what is lacking than to rob them of
what they have? It was to imperfect Christians that the apostle
wrote, "joying and beholding your conversation," and "the deficiency
in your faith in Christ."[298]298Â The apostle had in view a
spiritual structure, as he says elsewhere, "Ye are Godâs
building;"[299]299 and in this structure he found both a reason for
joy and a reason for exertion. He rejoiced to see part already
finished; and the necessity of bringing the edifice to perfection
called for exertion. Imperfect Christians as we are, you pursue us
with the desire to pervert what you call our semi-Christianity by
false doctrine; while even those who are so deficient in faith as to
be unable to reply to all your sophisms, are wise enough at least to
know that they must not have anything at all to do with you. You
look for semi-Christians to deceive:Â we wish to prove you
pseudo-Christians, that Christians may learn something from your
refutation, and that the less advanced may learn to avoid you. Do
you call us children of the serpent? You have surely forgotten how
often you have found fault with the prohibition in Paradise, and have
praised the serpent for opening Adamâs eyes. You have the better
claim to the title which you give us. The serpent owns you as well
when you blame him as when you praise him.
ââââââââââââ
Book II.
Faustus claims to believe the Gospel, yet refuses to accept the
genealogical tables on various grounds which Augustin seeks to set
aside.
1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I
therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not
follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore
believe that Christ was born. This I do not believe; because Christ
does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and
in fact, begins with Christâs preaching. As for the genealogy, the
author himself does not venture to call it the gospel. For what did
he write? "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of
David."[300]300Â The book of the generation is not the book of the
gospel. It is more like a birth-register, the star confirming the
event. Mark, on the other hand, who recorded the preaching of the
Son of God, without any genealogy, begins most suitably with the
words, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God."Â It is plain that
the genealogy is not the gospel. Matthew himself says, that after
John was put in prison, Jesus began to preach the gospel of the
kingdom; so that what is mentioned before this is the genealogy, and
not the gospel. Why did not Matthew begin with, "The gospel of Jesus
Christ the Son of God," but because he thought it sinful to call the
genealogy the gospel? Understand, then, what you have hitherto
overlooked âthe distinction between the genealogy and the gospel. Do
I then admit the truth of the gospel? Yes; understanding by the
gospel the preaching of Christ. I have plenty to say about the
generations too, if you wish. But you seem to me now to wish to know
not whether I accept the gospel, but whether I accept the generations.
2. Augustin replied: Well, in answer to your own questions, you
tell us first that you believe the gospel, and next, that you do not
believe in the birth of Christ; and your reason is, that the birth of
Christ is not in the gospel. What, then, will you answer the apostle
when he says, "Remember that Christ Jesus rose from the dead, of the
seed of David, according to my gospel?"[301]301Â You surely are
ignorant, or pretend to be ignorant, what the gospel is. You use the
word, not as the apostle teaches, but as suits your own errors. What
the apostles call the gospel you depart from; for you do not believe
that Christ was of the seed of David. This was Paulâs gospel; and it
was also the gospel of the other apostles, and of all faithful
stewards of so great a mystery. For Paul says elsewhere, "Whether,
therefore, I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."[302]302Â
They did not all write the gospel, but they all preached it. The
name evangelist is properly given to the narrators of the birth, the
actions, the words, the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
word gospel means good news, and might be used of any good news, but
is properly applied to the narrative of the Saviour. If, then, you
teach something different, you must have departed from the gospel.Â
Assuredly those babes whom you despise as semi-Christians will oppose
you, when they hear their mother Charity declaring by the mouth of the
apostle, "If any one preach another gospel than that which we have
preached to you, let him be accursed."[303]303Â Since, then, Paul,
according to his gospel, preached that Christ was of the seed of
David, and you deny this and preach something else, may you be
accursed! And what can you mean by saying that Christ never declares
Himself to have been born of men, when on every occasion He calls
Himself the Son of man?
3. You learned men, forsooth, dress up for our benefit some
wonderful First Man, who came down from the race of light to war with
the race of darkness, armed with his waters against the waters of the
enemy, and with his fire against their fire, and with his winds
against their winds. And why not with his smoke against their smoke,
and with his darkness against their darkness? According to you, he
was armed against smoke with air, and against darkness with light.Â
So it appears that smoke and darkness are bad, since they could not
belong to his goodness. The other three, againâwater, wind, and
fireâare good. How, then, could these belong to the evil of the
enemy? You reply that the water of the race of darkness was evil,
while that which the First Man brought was good; and so, too, his good
wind and fire fought against the evil wind and fire of the
adversary. But why could he not bring good smoke against evil
smoke? Your falsehoods seem to vanish in smoke. Well, your First
Man warred against an opposite nature. And yet only one of the five
things he brought was the opposite of what the hostile race had. The
light was opposed to the darkness, but the four others are not opposed
to one another. Air is not the opposite of smoke, and still less is
water the opposite of water, or wind of wind, or fire of fire.
4. One is shocked at your wild fancies about this First Man changing
the elements which he brought, that he might conquer his enemies by
pleasing them. So you make what you call the kingdom of falsehood
keep honestly to its own nature, while truth is changeable in order to
deceive. Jesus Christ, according to you, is the son of this First
Man. Truth springs, forsooth, from your fiction. You praise this
First Man for using changeable and delusive forms in the contest. If
you, then, speak the truth, you do not imitate him. If you imitate
him, you deceive as he did. But our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
the true and truthful Son of God, the true and truthful Son of man,
both of which He testifies of Himself, derived the eternity of His
godhead from true God, and His incarnation from true man. Your First
Man is not the first man of the apostle. "The first man," he says,
"was of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven, heavenly.Â
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; as is the
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. As we have borne the
image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the
heavenly."[304]304Â The first man of the earth, earthy, is Adam, who
was made of dust. The second man from heaven, heavenly, is the Lord
Jesus Christ; for, being the Son of God, He became flesh that He might
be a man outwardly, while He remained God within; that He might be
both the true Son of God, by whom we were made, and the true Son of
man, by whom we are made anew. Why do you conjure up this fabulous
First Man of yours, and refuse to acknowledge the first man of the
apostle? Is this not a fulfillment of what the apostle says:Â
"Turning away their ears from the truth, they will give heed to
fables?"[305]305Â According to Paul, the first man is of the earth,
earthy; according to Manichæus, he is not earthy, and is equipped
with five elements of some unreal, unintelligible kind. Paul says:Â
"If any one should have announced to you differently from what we have
announced let him be accursed."Â Therefore lest Paul be a liar, let
Manichæus be accursed.
5. Again, you find fault with the star by which the Magi were led to
worship the infant Christ, which you should be ashamed of doing, when
you represent your fabulous Christ, the son of your fabulous First Man
not as announced by a star, but as bound up in all the
stars.[306]306Â For you say that he mingled with the principles of
darkness in his conflict with the race of darkness, that by capturing
these principles the world might be made out of the mixture. So
that, by your profane fancies, Christ is not only mingled with heaven
and all the stars, but conjoined and compounded with the earth and all
its productions,[307]307âa Saviour no more, but needing to be saved by
you, by your eating and disgorging Him.
This foolish custom of making your disciples bring you food, that your
teeth and stomach may be the means of relieving Christ, who is bound
up in it, is a consequence of your profane fancies. You declare that
Christ is liberated in this wayânot, however, entirely; for you hold
that some tiny particles of no value still remain in the excrement, to
be mixed up and compounded again and again in various material forms,
and to be released and purified at any rate by the fire in which the
world will be burned up, if not before. Nay, even then, you say,
Christ is not entirely liberated; but some extreme particles of His
good and divine nature, which have been so defiled that they cannot be
cleansed, are condemned to stay for ever in the horrid mass of
darkness. And these people pretend to be offended with our saying
that a star announced the birth of the Son of God, as if this were
placing His birth under the influence of a constellation; while they
subject Him not to stars only, but to such polluting contact with all
material things, with the juices of all vegetables, and with the decay
of all flesh, and with the decomposition of all food, in which He is
bound up, that the only way of releasing Him, at least one great
means, is that men, that is the Elect of the Manichæans, should
succeed in digesting their dinner.
We, too, deny the influence of the stars upon the birth of any man;
for we maintain that, by the just law of God, the free-will of man,
which chooses good or evil, is under no constraint of necessity. How
much less do we subject to any constellation the incarnation of the
eternal Creator and Lord of all! When Christ was born after the
flesh, the star which the Magi saw had no power as governing, but
attended as a witness. Instead of assuming control over Him, it
acknowledged Him by the homage it did. Besides, this star was not
one of those which from the beginning of the world continue in the
course ordained by the Creator. Along with the new birth from the
Virgin appeared a new star, which served as a guide to the Magi who
were themselves seeking for Christ; for it went before them till they
reached the place where they found the Word of God in the form of a
child. But what astrologer ever thought of making a star leave its
course, and come down to the child that is born, as they imagine,
under it? They think that the stars affect the birth, not that the
birth changes the course of the stars; so, if the star in the Gospel
was one of those heavenly bodies, how could it determine Christâs
action, when it was compelled to change its own action at Christâs
birth? But if, as is more likely, a star which did not exist before
appeared to point out Christ, it was the effect of Christâs birth, and
not the cause of it. Christ was not born because the star was there;
but the star was there because Christ was born. If there was any
fate, it was in the birth, and not in the star. The word fate is
derived from a word which means to speak; and since Christ is the Word
of God by which all things were spoken before they were, the
conjunction of stars is not the fate of Christ, but Christ is the fate
of the stars. The same will that made the heavens took our earthly
nature. The same power that ruled the stars laid down His life and
took it again.
6. Why, then, should the narrative of the birth not be the gospel,
since it conveys such good news as heals our malady? Is it because
Matthew begins, not like Mark, with the words, "The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ," but, "The book of the generation of Jesus
Christ?"Â In this way, John, too, might be said not to have written
the gospel, for he has not the words, Beginning of the gospel, or Book
of the gospel, but, "In the beginning was the Word."Â Perhaps the
clever word-maker Faustus will call the introduction in John a
Verbidium, as he called that in Matthew a Genesidium. The wonder is,
that you are so impudent as to give the name of gospel to your silly
stories. What good news is there in telling us that, in the conflict
against some strange hostile nation, God could protect His own kingdom
only by sending part of His own nature into the greedy jaws of the
former, and to be so defiled, that after all those toils and tortures
it cannot all be purged? Is this bad news the gospel? Every one
who has even a slender knowledge of Greek knows that gospel means good
news. But where is your good news, when your God himself is said to
weep as under eclipse till the darkness and defilement are removed
from his members? And when he ceases to weep, it seems he becomes
cruel. For what has that part of him which is to be involved in the
mass done to deserve this condemnation? This part must go on weeping
for ever. But no; whoever examines this news will not weep because
it is bad, but will laugh because it is not true.
ââââââââââââ
Book III.
Faustus objects to the incarnation of God on the ground that the
evangelists are at variance with each other, and that incarnation is
unsuitable to deity. Augustin attempts to remove the critical and
theological difficulties.
1. Faustus said: Do I believe in the incarnation? For my part,
this is the very thing I long tried to persuade myself of, that God
was born; but the discrepancy in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew
stumbled me, as I knew not which to follow. For I thought it might
happen that, from not being omniscient, I might take the true for
false, and the false for true. So, in despair of settling this
dispute, I betook myself to Mark and John, two authorities still, and
evangelists as much as the others. I approved with good reason of
the beginning of Mark and John, for they have nothing of David, or
Mary, or Joseph. John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God," meaning Christ. Mark says,
"The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," as if correcting
Matthew, who calls him the Son of David. Perhaps, however, the Jesus
of Matthew is a different person from the Jesus of Mark. This is my
reason for not believing in the birth of Christ.
Remove this difficulty, if you can, by harmonizing the accounts, and I
am ready to yield. In any case, however, it is hardly consistent to
believe that God, the God of Christians, was born from the womb.
2. Augustin replied: Had you read the Gospel with care, and
inquired into those places where you found opposition, instead of
rashly condemning them, you would have seen that the recognition of
the authority of the evangelists by so many learned men all over the
world, in spite of this most obvious discrepancy, proves that there is
more in it than appears at first sight. Any one can see, as well as
you, that the ancestors of Christ in Matthew and Luke are different;
while Joseph appears in both, at the end in Matthew and at the
beginning in Luke. Joseph, it is plain, might be called the father
of Christ, on account of his being in a certain sense the husband of
the mother of Christ; and so his name, as the male representative,
appears at the beginning or end of the genealogies. Any one can see
as well as you that Joseph has one father in Matthew and another in
Luke, and so with the grandfather and with all the rest up to David.Â
Did all the able and learned men, not many Latin writers certainly,
but innumerable Greek, who have examined most attentively the sacred
Scriptures, overlook this manifest difference? Of course they saw
it. No one can help seeing it. But with a due regard to the high
authority of Scripture, they believed that there was something here
which would be given to those that ask, and denied to those that
snarl; would be found by those that seek, and taken away from those
that criticise; would be open to those that knock, and shut against
those that contradict. They asked, sought, and knocked; they
received, found, and entered in.
3. The whole question is how Joseph had two fathers. Supposing
this possible, both genealogies may be correct. With two fathers,
why not two grandfathers, and two great-grandfathers, and so on, up to
David, who was the father both of Solomon, who is mentioned in
Matthewâs list, and of Nathan, who occurs in Luke? This is the
difficulty with many people who think it impossible that two men
should have one and the same son, forgetting the very obvious fact
that a man may be called the son of the person who adopted him as well
as of the person who begot him.
Adoption, we know, was familiar to the ancients; for even women
adopted the children of other women, as Sarah adopted Ishmael, and
Leah her handmaidâs son, and Pharaohâs daughter Moses. Jacob, too,
adopted his grandsons, the children of Joseph. Moreover, the word
adoption is of great importance in the system of our faith, as is seen
from the apostolic writings. For the Apostle Paul, speaking of the
advantages of the Jews, says:Â "Whose are the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law; whose are the
fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed for ever."[308]308Â And again:Â "We ourselves also
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God,
even the redemption of the body."[309]309Â Again, elsewhere:Â "But
in the fullness of time, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under
the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."[310]310Â These
passages show clearly that adoption is a significant symbol. God has
an only Son, whom He begot from His own substance, of whom it is said,
"Being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal to
God."[311]311Â Us He begot not of His own substance, for we belong to
the creation which is not begotten, but made; but that He might make
us the brothers of Christ, He adopted us. That act, then, by which
God, when we were not born of Him, but created and formed, begot us by
His word and grace, is called adoption. So John says, "He gave them
power to become the sons of God."[312]312
Since, therefore; the practice of adoption is common among our
fathers, and in Scripture, is there not irrational profanity in the
hasty condemnation of the evangelists as false because the genealogies
are different, as if both could not be true, instead of considering
calmly the simple fact that frequently in human life one man may have
two fathers, one of whose flesh he is born, and another of whose will
he is afterwards made a son by adoption? If the second is not
rightly called father, neither are we right in saying, "Our Father
which art in heaven," to Him of whose substance we were not born, but
of whose grace and most merciful will we were adopted, according to
apostolic doctrine, and truth most sure. For one is to us God, and
Lord, and Father:Â God, for by Him we are created, though of human
parents; Lord, for we are His subjects; Father, for by His adoption we
are born again. Careful students of sacred Scripture easily saw,
from a little consideration, how, in the different genealogies of the
two evangelists, Joseph had two fathers, and consequently two lists of
ancestors. You might have seen this too, if you had not been blinded
by the love of contradiction. Other things far beyond your
understanding have been discovered in the careful investigation of all
parts of these narratives. The familiar occurrence of one man
begetting a son and another adopting him, so that one man has two
fathers, you might, in spite of Manichæan error, have thought of as
an explanation, if you had not been reading in a hostile spirit.
4. But why Matthew begins with Abraham and descends to Joseph, while
Luke begins with Joseph and ascends, not to Abraham, but to God, who
made man, and, by giving a commandment, gave him power to become, by
believing, a son of God; and why Matthew records the generations at
the commencement of his book, Luke after the baptism of the Saviour by
John; and what is the meaning of the number of the generations in
Matthew, who divides them into three sections of fourteen each, though
in the whole sum there appears to be one wanting; while in Luke the
number of generations recorded after the baptism amount to
seventy-seven, which number the Lord Himself enjoins in connection
with the forgiveness of sins, saying, "Not only seven times, but
seventy-seven times;"âthese things you will never understand, unless
either you are taught by some Catholic of superior stamp, who has
studied the sacred Scriptures, and has made all the progress possible,
or you yourselves turn from your error, and in a Christian spirit ask
that you may receive, seek that you may find, and knock that it may be
opened to you.
5. Since, then, this double fatherhood of nature and adoption
removes the difficulty arising from the discrepancy of the
genealogies, there is no occasion for Faustus to leave the two
evangelists and betake himself to the other two, which would be a
greater affront to those he betook himself to than to those he left.Â
For the sacred writers do not desire to be favored at the expense of
their brethren. For their joy is in union, and they are one in
Christ; and if one says one thing, and another another, or one in one
way and another in another, still they all speak truth, and in no way
contradict one another; only let the reader be reverent and humble,
not in an heretical spirit seeking occasion for strife, but with a
believing heart desiring edification. Now, in this opinion that the
evangelists give the ancestors of different fathers, as it is quite
possible for a man to have two fathers, there is nothing inconsistent
with truth. So the evangelists are harmonized, and you, by Faustusâs
promise are bound to yield at once.
6. You may perhaps be troubled by that additional remark which he
makes:Â "In any case, however, it is hardly consistent to believe
that God, the God of Christians, was born from the womb."Â As if we
believed that the divine nature came from the womb of a woman. Have
I not just quoted the testimony of the apostle, speaking of the
Jews:Â "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh,
Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever?"Â Christ,
therefore, our Lord and Saviour, true Son of God in His divinity, and
true son of man according to the flesh, not as He is God over all was
born of a woman, but in that feeble nature which He took of us, that
in it He might die for us, and heal it in us:Â not as in the form of
God, in which He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, was He
born of a woman, but in the form of a servant, in taking which He
emptied Himself. He is therefore said to have emptied Himself
because He took the form of a servant, not because He lost the form of
God. For in the unchangeable possession of that nature by which in
the form of God He is equal to the Father, He took our changeable
nature, by which He might be born of a virgin. You, while you
protest against putting the flesh of Christ in a virginâs womb, place
the very divinity of God in the womb not only of human beings, but of
dogs and swine. You refuse to believe that the flesh of Christ was
conceived in the Virginâs womb, in which God was not found nor even
changed; while you assert that in all men and beasts, in the seed of
male and in the womb of female, in all conceptions on land or in
water, an actual part of God and the divine nature is continually
bound, and shut up, and contaminated, never to be wholly set
free.[313]313
ââââââââââââ
Book IV.
Faustusâs reasons for rejecting the Old Testament, and Augustinâs
animadversions thereon.
1. Faustus said: Do I believe the Old Testament? If it bequeaths
anything to me, I believe it; if not, I reject it. It would be an
excess of forwardness to take the documents of others which pronounce
me disinherited. Remember that the promise of Canaan in the Old
Testament is made to Jews, that is, to the circumcised, who offer
sacrifice, and abstain from swineâs flesh, and from the other animals
which Moses pronounces unclean, and observe Sabbaths, and the feast of
unleavened bread, and other things of the same kind which the author
of the Testament enjoined. Christians have not adopted these
observances, and no one keeps them; so that if we will not take the
inheritance, we should surrender the documents. This is my first
reason for rejecting the Old Testament, unless you teach me better.Â
My second reason is, that this inheritance is such a poor fleshly
thing, without any spiritual blessings, that after the New Testament,
and its glorious promise of the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, I
think it not worth the taking.
2. Augustin replied: No one doubts that promises of temporal
things are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason it is
called the Old Testament; or that the kingdom of heaven and the
promise of eternal life belong to the New Testament. But that in
these temporal things were figures of future things which should be
fulfilled in us upon whom the ends of the ages are come, is not my
fancy, but the judgment of the apostle, when he says of such things,
"These things were our examples;" and again, "These things happened to
them for an example, and they are written for us on whom the ends of
the ages are come."[314]314Â We receive the Old Testament, therefore,
not in order to obtain the fulfillment of these promises, but to see
in them predictions of the New Testament; for the Old bears witness to
the New. Whence the Lord, after He rose from the dead, and allowed
His disciples not only to see but to handle Him, still, lest they
should doubt their mortal and fleshly senses, gave them further
confirmation from the testimony of the ancient books, saying, "It was
necessary that all things should be fulfilled which were written in
the law of Moses, and in the Prophets and Psalms, concerning
me."[315]315 Â Our hope, therefore, rests not on the promise of
temporal things. Nor do we believe that the holy and spiritual men
of these timesâthe patriarchs and prophetsâwere taken up with earthly
things. For they understood, by the revelation of the Spirit of God,
what was suitable for that time, and how God appointed all these
sayings and actions as types and predictions of the future. Their
great desire was for the New Testament; but they had a personal duty
to perform in those predictions, by which the new things of the future
were foretold. So the life as well as the tongue of these men was
prophetic. The carnal people, indeed, thought only of present
blessings, though even in connection with the people there were
prophecies of the future.
These things you do not understand, because, as the prophet said,
"Unless you believe, you shall not understand."[316]316Â For you are
not instructed in the kingdom of heaven,âthat is, in the true Catholic
Church of Christ. If you were, you would bring forth from the
treasure of the sacred Scriptures things old as well as new. For the
Lord Himself says, "Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom
of heaven is like an householder who brings forth from his treasure
things new and old."[317]317Â And so, while you profess to receive
only the new promises of God, you have retained the oldness of the
flesh, adding only the novelty of error; of which novelty the apostle
says, "Shun profane novelties of words, for they increase unto more
ungodliness, and their speech eats like a cancer. Of whom is
Hymenæus and Philetus, who concerning the faith have erred, saying
that the resurrection is past already, and have overthrown the faith
of some."[318]318Â Here you see the source of your false doctrine, in
teaching that the resurrection is only of souls by the preaching of
the truth, and that there will be no resurrection of the body. But
how can you understand spiritual things of the inner man, who is
renewed in the knowledge of God, when in the oldness of the flesh, if
you do not possess temporal things, you concoct fanciful notions about
them in those images of carnal things of which the whole of your false
doctrine consists? You boast of despising as worthless the land of
Canaan, which was an actual thing, and actually given to the Jews; and
yet you tell of a land of light cut asunder on one side, as by a
narrow wedge, by the land of the race of darkness,âa thing which does
not exist, and which you believe from the delusion of your minds; so
that your life is not supported by having it, and your mind is wasted
in desiring it.[319]319
ââââââââââââ
Book V.
Faustus claims that the Manichæans and not the Catholics are
consistent believers in the Gospel, and seeks to establish this claim
by comparing Manichæan and Catholic obedience to the precepts of the
Gospel. Augustin exposes the hypocrisy of the Manichæans and
praises the asceticism of Catholics.
1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? You ask me if I
believe it, though my obedience to its commands shows that I do. I
should rather ask you if you believe it, since you give no proof of
your belief. I have left my father, mother, wife, and children, and
all else that the gospel requires;[320]320 and do you ask if I believe
the gospel? Perhaps you do not know what is called the gospel. The
gospel is nothing else than the preaching and the precept of Christ.Â
I have parted with all gold and silver, and have left off carrying
money in my purse; content with daily food; without anxiety for
tomorrow; and without solicitude about how I shall be fed, or
where-withal I shall be clothed:Â and do you ask if I believe the
gospel? You see in me the blessings of the gospel;[321]321 and do
you ask if I believe the gospel? You see me poor, meek, a
peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing
persecutions and enmity for righteousnessâ sake; and do you doubt my
belief in the gospel? One can understand now how John the Baptist,
after seeing Jesus, and also hearing of His works, yet asked whether
He was Christ. Jesus properly and justly did not deign to reply that
He was; but reminded him of the works of which he had already heard:Â
"The blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised."[322]322 In the
same way, I might very well reply to your question whether I believe
the gospel, by saying, I have left all, father, mother, wife,
children, gold, silver, eating, drinking, luxuries, pleasures; take
this as a sufficient answer to your questions, and believe that you
will be blessed if you are not offended in me.[323]323
2. But, according to you, to believe the gospel is not only to obey
its commands, but also to believe in all that is written in it; and,
first of all, that God was born. But neither is believing the gospel
only to believe that Jesus was born, but also to do what He
commands. So, if you say that I do not believe the gospel because I
disbelieve the incarnation, much more do you not believe because you
disregard the commandments. At any rate, we are on a par till these
questions are settled. If your disregard of the precepts does not
prevent you from professing faith in the gospel, why should my
rejection of the genealogy prevent me? And if, as you say, to
believe the gospel includes both faith in the genealogies and
obedience to the precepts, why do you condemn me, since we both are
imperfect? What one wants the other has. But if, as there can be
no doubt, belief in the gospel consists solely in obedience to the
commands of God, your sin is twofold. As the proverb says, the
deserter accuses the soldier. But suppose, since you will have it
so, that there are these two parts of perfect faith, one consisting in
word, or the confession that Christ was born, the other in deed or the
observance of the precepts; it is plain that my part is hard and
painful, yours light and easy. It is natural that the multitude
should flock to you and away from me, for they know not that the
kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. Why, then, do you blame
me for taking the harder part, and leaving to you, as to a weak
brother, the easy part? You have the idea that your part of faith,
or confessing that Christ was born, has more power to save the soul
than the other parts.
3. Let us then ask Christ Himself, and learn from His own mouth,
what is the chief means of our salvation. Who shall enter, O Christ,
into Thy kingdom? He that doeth the will of my Father in
heaven,[324]324 is His reply; not, "He that confesses that I was
born."Â And again, He says to His disciples, "Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded
you."[325]325Â It is not, "teaching them that I was born," but, "to
observe my commandments."Â Again, "Ye are my friends if ye do what I
command you;"[326]326 not, "if you believe that I was born."Â Again,
"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love,"[327]327 and
in many other places. Also in the sermon on the mount, when He
taught, "Blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, blessed are the
peacemakers, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are they that
mourn, blessed are they that hunger, blessed are they that are
persecuted for righteousnessâ sake,"[328]328 He nowhere says, "Blessed
are they that confess that I was born."Â And in the separation of the
sheep from the goats in the judgment, He says that He will say to them
on the right hand, "I was hungry, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty,
and ye gave me drink,"[329]329 and so on; therefore "inherit the
kingdom."Â Not, "Because ye believe that I was born, inherit the
kingdom."Â Again, to the rich man seeking for eternal life, He says,
"Go, sell all that thou hast, and follow me;"[330]330 not, "Believe
that I was born, that you may have eternal life."Â You see, the
kingdom, life, happiness, are everywhere promised to the part I have
chosen of what you call the two parts of faith, and nowhere to your
part. Show, if you can, a place where it is written that whoso
confesses that Christ was born of a woman is blessed, or shall inherit
the kingdom, or have eternal life. Even supposing, then, that there
are two parts of faith, your part has no blessing. But what if we
prove that your part is not a part of faith at all? It will follow
that you are foolish, which indeed will be proved beyond a doubt. At
present, it is enough to have shown that our part is crowned with the
beatitudes. Besides, we have also a beatitude for a confession in
words:Â for we confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living
God; and Jesus declares with His own lips that this confession has a
benediction, when He says to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona;
for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven."[331]331Â So that we have not one, but both these
parts of faith, and in both alike are we pronounced blessed by Christ;
for in one we reduce faith to practice, while in the other our
confession is unmixed with blasphemy.
4. Augustin replied: I have already said that the Lord Jesus
Christ repeatedly calls Himself the Son of man, and that the
Manichæans have contrived a silly story about some fabulous First
Man, who figures in their impious heresy, not earthly, but combined
with spurious elements, in opposition to the apostle, who says, "The
first man is of the earth, earthy;"[332]332 and that the apostle
carefully warns us, "If any one preaches to you differently from what
we have preached, let him be accursed."[333]333Â So that we must
believe Christ to be the Son of man according to apostolic truth, not
according to Manichæan error. And since the evangelists assert that
Christ was born of a woman, of the seed of David, and Paul writing to
Timothy says, "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was
raised from the dead, according to my gospel,"[334]334 it is clear
what sense we must believe Christ to be the Son of man; for being the
Son of God by whom we were made, He also by His incarnation became the
Son of man, that He might die for our sins, and rise again for our
justification.[335]335Â Accordingly He calls Himself both Son of God
and Son of man. To take only one instance out of many, in the Gospel
of John it is written, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour
cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in
Himself, so He hath given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath
given Him power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of
man."[336]336Â He says, "They shall hear the voice of the Son of
God;" and He says, "because He is the Son of man."Â As the Son of
man, He has received power to execute judgment, because He will come
to judgment in human form, that He may be seen by the good and the
wicked. In this form He ascended into heaven, and that voice was
heard by His disciples, "He shall so come as ye have seen Him go into
heaven."[337]337Â As the Son of God, as God equal to and one with the
Father, He will not be seen by the wicked; for "blessed are the pure
in heart, for they shall see God." Â Since, then, He promises eternal
life to those that believe in Him, and since to believe in Him is to
believe in the true Christ, such as He declares Himself and His
apostles declare Him to be, true Son of God and true Son of man; you,
Manichæans, who believe on a false and spurious son of a false and
spurious man, and teach that God Himself, from fear of the assault of
the hostile race, gave up His own members to be tortured, and after
all not to be wholly liberated, are plainly far from that eternal life
which Christ promises to those who believe in Him. It is true, He
said to Peter when he confessed Him to be the Son of God, "Blessed art
thou, Simon. Barjona."Â But does He promise nothing to those who
believe Him to be the Son of man, when the Son of God and the Son of
man are the same? Besides, eternal life is expressly promised to
those who believe in the Son of man. "As Moses," He says, "lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,
that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life."[338]338 What more do you wish? Believe then in the Son of
man, that you may have eternal life; for He is also the Son of God,
who can give eternal life:Â for He is "the true God and eternal
life," as the same John says in his epistle. John also adds, that he
is antichrist who denies that Christ has come in the flesh.[339]339
5. There is no need, then that you should extol so much the
perfection of Christâs commands, because you obey the precepts of the
gospel. For the precepts, supposing you really to fulfill them,
would not profit you without true faith. Do you not know that the
apostle says, "If I distribute all my goods to the poor, and give my
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me
nothing?"[340]340Â Why do you boast of having Christian poverty, when
you are destitute of Christian charity? Robbers have a kind of
charity to one another, arising from a mutual consciousness of guilt
and crime; but this is not the charity commended by the apostle. In
another passage he distinguishes true charity from all base and
vicious affections, by saying, "Now the end of the commandment is
charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith
unfeigned."[341]341Â How then can you have true charity from a
fictitious faith?[342]342Â You persist in a faith corrupted by
falsehood:Â for your First Man, according to you, used deceit in the
conflict by changing his form, while his enemies remained in their own
nature; and, besides, you maintain that Christ, who says, "I am the
truth," feigned His incarnation, His death on the cross, the wounds of
His passion, the marks shown after His resurrection. If you speak
the truth, and your Christ speaks falsehood, you must be better than
he. But if you really follow your own Christ, your truthfulness may
be doubted, and your obedience to the precepts you speak of may be
only a pretence. Is it true, as Faustus says, that you have no money
in your purses? He means, probably, that your money is in boxes and
bags; nor would we blame you for this, if you did not profess one
thing and practise another. Constantius, who is still alive, and is
now our brother in Catholic Christianity, once gathered many of your
sect into his house at Rome, to keep these precepts of Manichæus,
which you think so much of, though they are very silly and childish.Â
The precepts proved too much for your weakness, and the gathering was
entirely broken up. Those who persevered separated from your
communion, and are called Mattarians, because they sleep on mats,âa
very different bed from the feathers of Faustus and his goatskin
coverlets, and all the grandeur that made him despise not only the
Mattarians, but also the house of his poor father in Mileum. Away,
then, with this accursed hypocrisy from your writing, if not from your
conduct; or else your language will conflict with your life by your
deceitful words, as your First Man with the race of darkness by his
deceitful elements.
6. I am, however, addressing not merely men who fail to do what they
are commanded, but the members of a deluded sect. For the precepts
of Manichæus are such that, if you do not keep them, you are
deceivers; if you do keep them, you are deceived. Christ never
taught you that you should not pluck a vegetable for fear of
committing homicide; for when His disciples were hungry when passing
through a field of corn, He did not forbid them to pluck the ears on
the Sabbath-day; which was a rebuke to the Jews of the time since the
action was on Sabbath; and a rebuke in the action itself to the future
Manichæans. The precept of Manichæus, however, only requires you
to do nothing while others commit homicide for you; though the real
homicide is that of ruining miserable souls by such doctrines of
devils.
7. The language of Faustus has the typhus of heresy in it, and is
the language of overweening arrogance. "You see in me" he says, "the
beatitudes of the gospel; and do you ask if I believe the gospel?Â
You see me poor, meek, a peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning,
hungering, thirsting, bearing persecution and enmity for
righteousnessâ sake; and do you doubt my belief in the gospel?"Â If
to justify oneself were to be just, Faustus would have flown to heaven
while uttering these words. I say nothing of the luxurious habits of
Faustus, known to all the followers of the Manichæans, and especially
to those at Rome. I shall suppose a Manichæan such as Constantius
sought for, when he enforced the observance of these precepts with the
sincere desire to see them observed. How can I see him to be poor in
spirit, when he is so proud as to believe that his own soul is God,
and is not ashamed to speak of God as in bondage? How can I see him
meek, when he affronts all the authority of the evangelists rather
than believe? How a peacemaker, when he holds that the divine nature
itself by which God is whatever is, and is the only true existence,
could not remain in lasting peace? How pure in heart, when his heart
is filled with so many impious notions? How mourning, unless it is
for his God captive and bound till he be freed and escape, with the
loss, however, of a part which is to be united by the Father to the
mass of darkness, and is not to be mourned for? How hungering and
thirsting for righteousness, which Faustus omits in his writings lest,
no doubt, he should be thought destitute of righteousness? But how
can they hunger and thirst after righteousness, whose perfect
righteousness will consist in exulting over their brethren condemned
to darkness, not for any fault of their own, but for being
irremediably contaminated by the pollution against which they were
sent by the Father to contend?
8. How do you suffer persecution and enmity for righteousnessâ sake,
when, according to you, it is righteous to preach and teach these
impieties? The wonder is, that the gentleness of Christian times
allows such perverse iniquity to pass wholly or almost unpunished.Â
And yet, as if we were blind or silly, you tell us that your suffering
reproach and persecution is a great proof of your righteousness. If
people are just according to the amount of their suffering, atrocious
criminals of all kinds suffer much more than you. But, at any rate,
if we are to grant that suffering endured on account of any sort of
profession of Christianity proves the sufferer to be in possession of
true faith and righteousness, you must admit that any case of greater
suffering that we can show proves the possession of truer faith and
greater righteousness. Of such cases you know many among our
martyrs, and chiefly Cyprian himself, whose writings also bear witness
to his belief that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. For this
faith, which you abhor, he suffered and died along with many Christian
believers of that day, who suffered as much, or more. Faustus, when
shown to be a Manichæan by evidence, or by his own confession, on the
intercession of the Christians themselves, who brought him before the
proconsul, was, along with some others, only banished to an island,
which can hardly be called a punishment at all, for it is what Godâs
servants do of their own accord every day when they wish to retire
from the tumult of the world. Besides, earthly sovereigns often by a
public decree give release from this banishment as an act of mercy.Â
And in this way all were afterwards released at once. Confess, then,
that they were in possession of a truer faith and a more righteous
life, who were accounted worthy to suffer for it much more than you
ever suffered. Or else, cease boasting of the abhorrence which many
feel for you, and learn to distinguish between suffering for blasphemy
and suffering for righteousness. What it is you suffer for, your own
books will show in a way that deserves your most particular attention.
9. Those evangelical precepts of peculiar sublimity which you make
people who know no better believe that you obey, are really obeyed by
multitudes in our communion. Are there not among us many of both
sexes who have entirely refrained from sexual intercourse, and many
formerly married who practise continence? Are there not many others
who give largely of their property, or give it up altogether, and many
who keep the body in subjection by fasts, either frequent or daily, or
protracted beyond belief? Then there are fraternities whose members
have no property of their own, but all things common, including only
things necessary for food and clothing, living with one soul and one
heart towards God, inflamed with a common feeling of charity. In all
such professions many turn out to be deceivers and reprobates, while
many who are so are never discovered; many, too, who at first walk
well, fall away rapidly from willfulness. Many are found in times of
trial to have adopted this kind of life with another intention than
they professed; and again, many in humility and steadfastness
persevere in their course to the end, and are saved. There are
apparent diversities in these societies; but one charity unites all
who, from some necessity, in obedience to the apostleâs injunction,
have their wives as if they had them not, and buy as if they bought
not, and use this world as if they used it not. With these are
joined, in the abundant riches of Godâs mercy, the inferior class of
those to whom it is said, "Defraud not one another, except it be with
consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But
I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."[343]343Â To such
the same apostle also says, "Now therefore there is utterly a fault
among you, that ye go to law one with another;" while, in
consideration of their infirmity, he adds, "If ye have judgments of
things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least
esteemed in the Church."[344]344Â For in the kingdom of heaven there
are not only those who, that they may be perfect, sell or leave all
they have and follow the Lord; but others in the partnership of
charity are joined like a mercenary force to the Christian army, to
whom it will be said at last, "I was hungry, and ye gave me meat," and
so on. Otherwise, there would be no salvation for those to whom the
apostle gives so many anxious and particular directions about their
families, telling the wives to be obedient to their husbands, and
husbands to love their wives; children to obey their parents, and
parents to bring up their children in the instruction and admonition
of the Lord; servants to obey with fear their masters according to the
flesh, and masters to render to their servants what is just and
equal. The apostle is far from condemning such people as regardless
of gospel precepts, or unworthy of eternal life. For where the Lord
exhorts the strong to attain perfection, saying, "If any man take not
up his cross and follow me, he cannot be my disciple," He immediately
adds, for the consolation of the weak, "Whoso receiveth a just man in
the name of a just man shall receive a just manâs reward; and whoso
receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a
prophetâs reward."Â So that not only he who gives Timothy a little
wine for his stomachâs sake, and his frequent infirmities, but he who
gives to a strong man a cup of cold water only in the name of a
disciple, shall not lose his reward.[345]345
10. If it is true that a man cannot receive the gospel without
giving up everything, why do you delude your followers, by allowing
them to keep in your service their wives, and children, and
households, and houses, and fields? Indeed, you may well allow them
to disregard the precepts of the gospel:Â for all you promise them is
not a resurrection, but a change to another mortal existence, in which
they shall live the silly, childish, impious life of those you call
the Elect, the life you live yourself, and are so much praised for; or
if they possess greater merit, they shall enter into melons or
cucumbers, or some eatables which you will masticate, that they may be
quickly purified by your digestion. Least of all should you who
teach such doctrines profess any regard for the gospel. For if the
faith of the gospel had any connection with such nonsense, the Lord
should have said, not, "I was hungry, and ye gave me meat;" but, "Ye
were hungry, and ye ate me," or, "I was hungry, and I ate you." For,
by your absurdities, a man will not be received into the kingdom of
God for the service of giving food to the saints, but, because he has
eaten them and belched them out, or has himself been eaten and belched
into heaven. Instead of saying, "Lord, when saw we Thee hungry, and
fed Thee?" the righteous must say, "When saw we Thee hungry, and were
eaten by Thee?"Â And He must answer, not, "When ye gave food to one
of the least of these my brethren, you gave to me;" but, "When you
were eaten by one of the least of these my brethren, you were eaten by
me."
11. Believing and teaching such monstrosities, and living
accordingly, you yet have the boldness to say that you obey the
precepts of the gospel, and to decry the Catholic Church, which
includes many weak as well as strong, both of whom the Lord blesses,
because both according to their measure obey the precepts of the
gospel and hope in its promises. The blindness of hostility makes
you see only the tares in our harvest:Â for you might easily see
wheat too, if you were willing that there should be any. But among
you, those who are pretended Manichæans are wicked, and those who are
really Manichæans are silly. For where the faith itself is false,
he who hypocritically professes it acts deceitfully, while he who
truly believes is deceived. Such a faith cannot produce a good life,
for every manâs life is good or bad according as his heart is
engaged. If your affections were set upon spiritual and intellectual
good, instead of material forms, you would not pay homage to the
material sun as a divine substance, and as the light of wisdom, which
every one knows you do, though I now only mention it in passing.
ââââââââââââ
Book VI.
Faustus avows his disbelief in the Old Testament and his disregard of
its precepts, and accuses Catholics of inconsistency in neglecting its
ordinances, while claiming to accept it as authoritative. Augustin
explains the Catholic view of the relation of the Old Testament to the
New.
1. Faustus said: You ask if I believe the Old Testament. Of
course not, for I do not keep its precepts. Neither, I imagine, do
you. I reject circumcision as disgusting; and if I mistake not, so
do you. I reject the observance of Sabbaths as superfluous: I
suppose you do the same. I reject sacrifice as idolatry, as
doubtless you also do. Swineâs flesh is not the only flesh I abstain
from; nor is it the only flesh you eat. I think all flesh unclean:Â
you think none unclean. Both alike, in these opinions, throw over
the Old Testament. We both look upon the weeks of unleavened bread
and the feast of tabernacles as unnecessary and useless. Not to
patch linen garments with purple; to count it adultery to make a
garment of linen and wool; to call it sacrilege to yoke together an ox
and an ass when necessary; not to appoint as priest a bald man, or a
man with red hair, or any similar peculiarity, as being unclean in the
sight of God, are things which we both despise and laugh at, and rank
as of neither first nor second importance; and yet they are all
precepts and judgments of the Old Testament. You cannot blame me for
rejecting the Old Testament; for whether it is right or wrong to do
so, you do it as much as I. As for the difference between your faith
and mine, it is this, that while you choose to act deceitfully, and
meanly to praise in words what in your heart you hate, I, not having
learned the art of deception, frankly declare that I hate both these
abominable precepts and their authors.
2. Augustin replied: How and for what purpose the Old Testament is
received by the heirs of the New Testament has been already
explained.[346]346Â But as the remarks of Faustus were then about the
promises of the Old Testament, and now he speaks of the precepts, I
reply that he displays ignorance of the difference between moral and
symbolical precepts. For example, "Thou shalt not covet" is a moral
precept; "Thou shalt circumcise every male on the eighth day" is a
symbolical precept. From not making this distinction, the
Manichæans, and all who find fault with the writings of the Old
Testament, not seeing that whatever observance God appointed for the
former dispensation was a shadow of future things, because these
observances are now discontinued, condemn them, though no doubt what
is unsuitable now was perfectly suitable then as prefiguring the
things now revealed. In this they contradict the apostle who says,
"All these things happened to them for an example, and they were
written for our learning, on whom the end of the world is
come."[347]347Â The apostle here explains why these writings are to
be received, and why it is no longer necessary to continue the
symbolical observances. For when he says, "They were written for our
learning," he clearly shows that we should be very diligent in reading
and in discovering the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures, and
that we should have great veneration for them, since it was for us
that they were written. Again, when he says, "They are our
examples," and "these things happened to them for an example," he
shows that, now that the things themselves are clearly revealed, the
observance of the actions by which these things were prefigured is no
longer binding. So he says elsewhere, "Let no man judge you in meat,
or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon or of
the sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to come."[348]348Â
Here also, when he says, "Let no one judge you" in these things, he
shows that we are no longer bound to observe them. And when he says,
"which are a shadow of things to come," he explains how these
observances were binding at the time when the things fully disclosed
to us were symbolized by these shadows of future things.
3. Assuredly, if the Manichæans were justified by the resurrection
of the Lord,âthe day of whose resurrection, the third after His
passion, was the eighth day, coming after the Sabbath, that is, after
the seventh day,âtheir carnal minds would be delivered from the
darkness of earthly passions which rests on them; and rejoicing in the
circumcision of the heart, they would not ridicule it as prefigured in
the Old Testament by circumcision in the flesh, although they should
not enforce this observance under the New Testament. But, as the
apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure. But to the impure
and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and conscience
are defiled."[349]349Â So these people, who are so pure in their own
eyes, that they regard, or pretend to regard, as impure these members
of their bodies, are so defiled with unbelief and error, that, while
they abhor the circumcision of the flesh,âwhich the apostle calls a
seal of the righteousness of faith,âthey believe that the divine
members of their God are subjected to restraint and contamination in
these very carnal members of theirs. For they say that flesh is
unclean; and it follows that God, in the part which is detained by the
flesh, is made unclean:Â for they declare that He must be cleansed,
and that till this is done, as far as it can be done, He undergoes all
the passions to which flesh is subject, not only in suffering pain and
distress, but also in sensual gratification. For it is for His sake,
they say, that they abstain from sexual intercourse, that He may not
be bound more closely in the bondage of the flesh, nor suffer more
defilement. The apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure."Â
And if this is true of men, who may be led into evil by a perverse
will, how much more must all things be pure to God, who remains for
ever immutable and immaculate! In those books which you defile with
your violent reproaches, it is said of the divine wisdom, that "no
defiled thing falleth into it, and it goeth everywhere by reason of
its pureness."[350]350Â It is mere prurient absurdity to find fault
with the sign of human regeneration appointed by that God, to whom all
things are pure, to be put on the organ of human generation, while you
hold that your God, to whom nothing is pure, is in a part of his
nature subjected to taint and corruption by the vicious actions in
which impure men employ the members of their body. For if you think
there is pollution in conjugal intercourse, what must there be in all
the practices of the licentious? If you ask, then, as you often do,
whether God could not find some other way of sealing the righteousness
of faith, the answer is, Why not this way, since all things are pure
to the pure, much more to God? And we have the authority of the
apostle for saying that circumcision was the seal of the righteousness
of the faith of Abraham. As for you, you must try not to blush when
you are asked whether your God had nothing better to do than to
entangle part of his nature with these members that you revile so
much. These are delicate subjects to speak of, on account of the
penal corruption attending the propagation of man. They are things
which call into exercise the modesty of the chaste, the passions of
the impure, and the justice of God.
4. The rest of the Sabbath we consider no longer binding as an
observance, now that the hope of our eternal rest has been revealed.Â
But it is a very useful thing to read of, and to reflect on. In
prophetic times, when things now manifested were prefigured and
predicted by actions as well as words, this sign of which we read was
a presage of the reality which we possess. But I wish to know why
you observe a sort of partial rest. The Jews, on their Sabbath,
which they still keep in a carnal manner, neither gather any fruit in
the field, nor dress and cook it at home. But you, in your rest,
wait till one of your followers takes his knife or hook to the garden,
to get food for you by murdering the vegetables, and brings back,
strange to say, living corpses. For if cutting plants is not murder,
why are you afraid to do it? And yet, if the plants are murdered,
what becomes of the life which is to obtain release and restoration
from your mastication and digestion? Well, you take the living
vegetables, and certainly you ought, if it could be done to swallow
them whole; so that after the one wound your follower has been guilty
of inflicting in pulling them, of which you will no doubt consent to
absolve him, they may reach without loss or injury your private
laboratory, where your God may be healed of his wound. Instead of
this, you not only tear them with your teeth, but, if it pleases your
taste, mince them, inflicting a multitude of wounds in the most
criminal manner. Plainly it would be a most advantageous thing if
you would rest at home too, and not only once a week, like the Jews,
but every day of the week. The cucumbers suffer while you are
cooking them, without any benefit to the life that is in them:Â for a
boiling pot cannot be compared to a saintly stomach. And yet you
ridicule as superfluous the rest of the Sabbath. Would it not be
better, not only to refrain from finding fault with the fathers for
this observance, in whose case it was not superfluous, but, even now
that it is superfluous, to observe this rest yourselves instead of
your own, which has no symbolical use, and is condemned as grounded on
falsehood? According to your own foolish opinions, you are guilty of
a defective observance of your own rest, though the observance itself
is foolish in the judgment of truth. You maintain that the fruit
suffers when it is pulled from the tree, when it is cut and scraped,
and cooked, and eaten. So you are wrong in eating anything that can
not be swallowed raw and unhurt, so that the wound inflicted might not
be from you, but from your follower in pulling them. You declare
that you could not give release to so great a quantity of life, if you
were to eat only things which could be swallowed without cooking or
mastication. But if this release compensates for all the pains you
inflict, why is it unlawful for you to pull the fruit? Fruit may be
eaten raw, as some of your sect make a point of eating raw vegetables
of all kinds. But before it can be eaten at all, it must be pulled
or fall off, or be taken in some way from the ground or from the
tree. You might well be pardoned for pulling it, since nothing can
be done without that, but not for torturing the members of your God to
the extent you do in dressing your food. One of your silly notions
is that the tree weeps when the fruit is pulled. Doubtless the life
in the tree knows all things, and perceives who it is that comes to
it. If the elect were to come and pull the fruit, would not the tree
rejoice to escape the misery of having its fruit plucked by others,
and to gain felicity by enduring a little momentary pain? And yet,
while you multiply the pains and troubles of the fruit after it is
plucked, you will not pluck it. Explain that, if you can! Fasting
itself is a mistake in your case. There should be no intermission in
the task of purging away the dross of the excrements from the
spiritual gold, and of releasing the divine members from
confinement. The most merciful man among you is he who keeps himself
always in good health, takes raw food, and eats a great deal. But
you are cruel when you eat, in making your food undergo so much
suffering; and you are cruel when you fast, in desisting from the work
of liberating the divine members.[351]351
5. With all this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old
Testament, and to call them idolatry, and to attribute to us the same
impious notion. To answer for ourselves in the first place, while we
consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize
sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things
prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in
many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we
now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has
been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of
worship, while it retains its symbolical authority. For these things
"were written for our learning, upon whom the end of the world is
come."[352]352Â What you object to in sacrifice is the slaughter of
animals, though the whole animal creation is intended conditionally in
some way for the use of man. You are merciful to beasts, believing
them to contain the souls of human beings, while you refuse a piece of
bread to a hungry beggar. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand, was
cruel to the swine when He granted the request of the devils to be
allowed to enter into them.[353]353Â The same Lord Jesus, before the
sacrifice of His passion, said to a leper whom He had cured, "Go, show
thyself to the priest, and give the offering, as Moses commanded, for
a testimony unto them."[354]354Â When God, by the prophets,
repeatedly declares that He needs no offering, as indeed reason
teaches us that offerings cannot be needed by Him who stands in need
of nothing, the human mind is led to inquire what God wished to teach
us by these sacrifices. For, assuredly, He would not have required
offerings of which He had no need, except to teach us something that
it would profit us to know, and which was suitably set forth by means
of these symbols. How much better and more honorable it would be for
you to be still bound by these sacrifices, which have an instructive
meaning, though they are not now necessary, than to require your
followers to offer to you as food what you believe to be living
victims. The Apostle Paul says most appropriately of some who
preached the gospel to gratify their appetite, that their "god was
their belly."[355]355Â But the arrogance of your impiety goes much
beyond this; for, instead of making your belly your god, you do what
is far worse in making your belly the purifier of God. Surely it is
great madness to make a pretence of piety in not slaughtering animals,
while you hold that the souls of animals inhabit all the food you eat,
and yet make what you call living creatures suffer such torture from
your hands and teeth.
6. If you will not eat flesh why should you not slay animals in
sacrifice to your God, in order that their souls, which you hold to be
not only human, but so divine as to be members of God Himself, may be
released from the confinement of flesh, and be saved from returning by
the efficacy of your prayers? Perhaps, however, your stomach gives
more effectual aid than your intellect, and that part of divinity
which has had the advantage of passing through your bowels is more
likely to be saved than that which has only the benefit of your
prayers. Your objection to eating flesh will be that you cannot eat
animals alive, and so the operation of your stomach will not avail for
the liberation of their souls. Happy vegetables, that, torn up with
the hand, cut with knives, tortured in fire, ground by teeth, yet
reach alive the altars of your intestines! Unhappy sheep and oxen,
that are not so tenacious of life, and therefore are refused entrance
into your bodies! Such is the absurdity of your notions. And you
persist in making out an opposition in us to the Old Testament,
because we consider no flesh unclean:Â according to the opinion of
the apostle, "To the pure all things are pure;"[356]356 and according
to the saying of our Lord Himself, "Not that which goeth into your
mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out."[357]357Â This was not
said to the crowd only, as your Adimantus, whom Faustus, in his attack
on the Old Testament, praises as second only to Manichæus, wishes us
to understand; but when retired from the crowd, the Lord repeated this
still more plainly and pointedly to His disciples. Adimantus quotes
this saying of our Lord in opposition to the Old Testament, where the
people are prohibited from eating some animals which are pronounced
unclean; and doubtless he was afraid that he should be asked why,
since he quotes a passage from the Gospel about man not being defiled
by what enters into his mouth and passes into his belly, and out into
the draft, he yet considers not some only, but all flesh unclean, and
abstains from eating it. It is in order to escape from this strait,
when the plain truth is too much for his error, that he makes the Lord
say this to the crowd; as if the Lord were in the habit of speaking
the truth only in small companies, while He blurted out falsehoods in
public. To speak of the Lord in this way is blasphemy. And all who
read the passage can see that the Lord said the same thing more
plainly to His disciples in private. Since Faustus praises Adimantus
so much at the beginning of this book of his, placing him next to
Manichæus, let him say in a word whether it is true or false that a
man is not defiled by what enters into his mouth. If it is false,
why does this great teacher Adimantus quote it against the Old
Testament? If it is true, why, in spite of this, do you believe that
eating any flesh will defile you? It is true, if you choose this
explanation, that the apostle does not say that all things are pure to
heretics, but, "to the pure all things are pure."Â The apostle also
goes on to explain why all things are not pure to heretics:Â "To the
impure and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and
conscience are defiled."[358]358 So to the Manichæans there is
absolutely nothing pure; for they hold that the very substance or
nature of God not only may be, but has actually been defiled, and so
defiled that it can never be wholly restored and purified. What do
they mean when they call animals unclean, and refrain from eating
them, when it is impossible for them to think anything, whether food
or whatever it may be, clean? According to them, vegetables too,
fruits, all kinds of crops, the earth and sky, are defiled by mixture
with the race of darkness. Why do they not act up to their opinions
about other things as well as about animals? Why do they not abstain
altogether, and starve themselves to death, instead of persisting in
their blasphemies? If they will not repent and reform, this is
evidently the best thing that they could do.
7. The saying of the apostle, that "to the pure all things are
pure," and that "every creature of God is good," is not opposed to the
prohibitions of the Old Testament; and the explanation, if they can
understand it, is this. The apostle speaks of the natures of the
things, while the Old Testament calls some animals unclean, not in
their nature, but symbolically, on account of the prefigurative
character of that dispensation. For instance, a pig and a lamb are
both clean in their nature, for every creature of God is good; but
symbolically, a lamb is clean, and a pig unclean. So the words wise
and fool are both clean in their nature, as words composed of letters
but fool may be called symbolically unclean, because it means an
unclean thing. Perhaps a pig is the same among symbols as a fool is
among real things. The animal, and the four letters which compose
the word, may mean the same thing. No doubt the animal is pronounced
unclean by the law, because it does not chew the cud; which is not a
fault but its nature. But the men of whom this animal is a symbol
are unclean, not by nature, but from their own fault; because, though
they gladly hear the words of wisdom, they never reflect on them
afterwards. For to recall, in quiet repose, some useful instruction
from the stomach of memory to the mouth of reflection, is a kind of
spiritual rumination. The animals above mentioned are a symbol of
those people who do not do this. And the prohibition of the flesh of
these animals is a warning against this fault. Another passage of
Scripture speaks of the precious treasure of wisdom, and describes
ruminating as clean, and not ruminating as unclean:Â "A precious
treasure resteth in the mouth of a wise man; but a foolish man
swallows it up."[359]359Â Symbols of this kind, either in words or in
things, give useful and pleasant exercise to intelligent minds in the
way of inquiry and comparison. But formerly people were required not
only to hear, but to practise many such things. For at that time it
was necessary that, by deeds as well as by words, those things should
be foreshadowed which were in after times to be revealed. After the
revelation by Christ and in Christ, the community of believers is not
burdened with the practice of the observances, but is admonished to
give heed to the prophecy. This is our reason for accounting no
animals unclean, in accordance with the saying of the Lord and of the
apostle, while we are not opposed to the Old Testament, where some
animals are pronounced unclean. Now let us hear why you consider all
animal food unclean.
8. One of your false doctrines is, that flesh is unclean on account
of mixture with the race of darkness. But this would make not only
flesh unclean, but your God himself, in that part which he sent to
become subject to absorption and contamination, in order that the
enemy might be conquered and taken captive. Besides, on account of
this mixture, all that you eat must be unclean. But you say flesh is
especially unclean. It requires patience to listen to all their
absurd reasons for this peculiar impurity of flesh. I will mention
only what will suffice to show the inveterate folly of these critics
of the Old Testament, who, while they denounce flesh, savor only
fleshly things, and have no sort of spiritual perception. And a
lengthy discussion of this question may perhaps enable us to dispense
with saying much on some other points. The following, then, is an
account of their vain delusions in this matter:âIn that battle, when
the First Man ensnared the race of darkness by deceitful elements,
princes of both sexes belonging to this race were taken. By means of
these princes the world was constructed; and among those used in the
formation of the heavenly bodies, were some pregnant females. When
the sky began to rotate, the rapid circular motion made these females
give birth to abortions, which, being of both sexes, fell on the
earth, and lived, and grew, and came together, and produced
offspring. Hence sprang all animal life in earth, air, and
sea.[360]360Â Now if the origin of flesh is from heaven, that is no
reason for thinking it especially unclean. Indeed, in this
construction of the world, they hold that these principles of darkness
were arranged higher or lower, according to the greater or less amount
of good mixed with them in the construction of the various parts of
the world. So flesh ought to be cleaner than vegetables which come
out of the earth, for it comes from heaven. And how irrational to
suppose that the abortions, before becoming animate, were so lively,
though in an abortive state, that after falling from the sky, they
could live and multiply; whereas, after becoming animate, they die if
brought forth prematurely, and a fall from a very moderate height is
enough to kill them! The kingdom of life in contest with the kingdom
of death ought to have improved them, by giving them life instead of
making them more perishable than before. If the perishableness is a
consequence of a change of nature, it is wrong to say that there is a
bad nature. The change is the only cause of the perishableness.Â
Both natures are good, though one is better than the other. Whence
then comes the peculiar impurity of flesh as it exists in this world,
sprung, as they say, from heaven? They tell us, indeed, of the first
bodies of these principles of darkness being generated like worms from
trees of darkness; and the trees, they say, are produced from the five
elements. But supposing that the bodies of animals come in the first
place from trees, and afterwards from heaven, why should they be more
unclean than the fruit of trees? Perhaps it will be said that what
remains after death is unclean, because the life is no longer there.Â
For the same reason fruits and vegetables must be unclean, for they
die when they are pulled or cut. As we saw before, the elect get
others to bring their food to them, that they may not be guilty of
murder. Perhaps, since they say that every living being has two
souls, one of the race of light, and the other of the race of
darkness, the good soul leaves at death, and the bad soul remains.Â
But, in that case, the animal would be as much alive as it was in the
kingdom of darkness, when it had only the soul of its own race, with
which it had rebelled against the kingdom of God. So, since both
souls leave at death, why call the flesh unclean, as if only the good
soul had left? Any life that remains must be of both kinds; for some
remains of the members of God are found, we are told, even in filth.Â
There is therefore no reason for making flesh more unclean than
fruits. The truth is, they pretend to great chastity in holding
flesh unclean because it is generated. But if the divine body is
more grossly shut in by flesh, there is all the more reason that they
should liberate it by eating. And there are innumerable kinds of
worms not produced from sexual intercourse; some in the neighborhood
of Venice come from trees, which they should eat, since there is not
the same reason for their being unclean. Besides, there are the
frogs produced by the earth after a shower of rain.[361]361Â Let them
liberate the members of their God from these. Let them rebuke the
mistake of mankind in preferring fowls and pigeons produced from males
and females to the pure frogs, daughters of heaven and earth. By
this theory, the first principles of darkness produced from trees must
be purer than Manichæus, who was produced by generation; and his
followers, for the same reason, must be less pure than the lice which
spring from the perspiration of their bodies. But if everything that
comes from flesh is unclean, because the origin of flesh itself is
unclean, fruits and vegetables must also be unclean, because they are
manured with dung. After this, what becomes of the notion that
fruits are cleaner than flesh? Dung is the most unclean product of
flesh, and also the most fertilizing manure. Their doctrine is, that
the life escapes in the mastication and digestion of the food, so that
only a particle remains in the excrement. How is it, then, that this
particle of life has such an effect on the growth and the quality of
your favorite food? Flesh is nourished by the productions of the
earth, not by its excrements; while the earth is nourished by the
excrements of flesh, not by its productions. Let them say which is
the cleaner. Or let them turn from being unbelieving and impure to
whom nothing is clean, and join with us in embracing the doctrine of
the apostle, that to the pure all things are pure; that the earth is
the Lordâs, and the fullness thereof; that every creature of God is
good. All things in nature are good in their own order; and no one
sins in using them, unless, by disobedience to God, he transgresses
his own order, and disturbs their order by using them amiss.
9. The elders who pleased God kept their own order by their
obedience, in observing, according to Godâs arrangement, what was
appointed as suitable to certain times. So, although all animals
intended for food are by nature clean, they abstained from some which
had then a symbolical uncleanness, in preparation for the future
revelation of the things signified. And so with regard to unleavened
bread and all such things, in which the apostle says there was a
shadow of future things, neglect of their observance under the old
dispensation, when this observance was enjoined, and was employed to
prefigure what was afterwards to be revealed, would have been as
criminal, as it would now be foolish in us, after the light of the New
Testament has arisen, to think that these predictive observances could
be of any use to us. On the other hand, since the Old Testament
teaches us that the things now revealed were so long ago prefigured,
that we may be firm and faithful in our adherence to them, it would be
blasphemy and impiety to discard these books, simply because the Lord
requires of us now not a literal, but a spiritual and intelligent
regard to their contents. They were written, as the apostle says,
for our admonition, on whom the end of the world is come.[362]362Â
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our
learning."[363]363Â Not to eat unleavened bread in the appointed
seven days was a sin in the time of the Old Testament; in the time of
the New Testament it is not a sin. But having the hope of a future
world through Christ, who makes us altogether new by clothing our
souls with righteousness and our bodies with immortality, to believe
that the bondage and infirmity of our original corruption will prevail
over us or over our actions, must continue to be a sin, till the seven
days of the course of time are accomplished. In the time of the Old
Testament, this, under the disguise of a type, was perceived by some
saints. In the time of the New Testament it is fully declared and
publicly preached.[364]364
What was then a precept of Scripture is now a testimony. Formerly,
not to keep the feast of tabernacles was a sin, which is not the case
now. But not to form part of the building of Godâs tabernacle, which
is the Church, is always a sin. Formerly this was acted in a figure;
now the record serves as testimony. The ancient tabernacle, indeed,
would not have been called the tabernacle of the testimony, unless as
an appropriate symbol it had borne testimony to some truth which was
to be revealed in its own time. To patch linen garments with purple,
or to wear a garment of woollen and linen together, is not a sin
now. But to live intemperately, and to wish to combine opposite
modes of life,âas when a woman devoted to religion wears the ornaments
of married women, or when one who has not abstained from marriage
dresses like a virgin,âis always sin. So it is sin whenever
inconsistent things are combined in any manâs life. This, which is
now a moral truth, was then symbolized in dress. What was then a
type is now revealed truth. So the same Scripture which then
required symbolical actions, now testifies to the things signified.Â
The prefigurative observance is now a record for the confirmation of
our faith. Formerly it was unlawful to plough with an ox and an ass
together; now it is lawful. The apostle explains this when he quotes
the text about not muzzling the ox that is treading out the corn. He
says, "Does God care for oxen?"Â What, then, have we to do with an
obsolete prohibition? The apostle teaches us in the following words,
"For our sakes it is written."[365]365Â It must be impiety in us not
to read what was written for our sakes; for it is more for our sakes,
to whom the revelation belongs, than for theirs who had only the
figure. There is no harm in joining an ox with an ass where it is
required. But to put a wise man and a fool together, not that one
should teach and the other obey, but that both with equal authority
should declare the word of God, cannot be done without causing
offence. So the same Scripture which was once a command enjoining
the shadow in which future things were veiled, is now an authoritative
witness to the unveiled truth.
In what he says of the uncleanness of a man that is bald or has red
hair, Faustus is inaccurate, or the manuscript he has used is
incorrect.[366]366Â Would that Faustus were not ashamed to bear on
his forehead the cross of Christ, the want of which is baldness,
instead of maintaining that Christ, who says, "I am the truth," showed
unreal marks, after His resurrection, of unreal wounds! Faustus says
he has not learned the art of deceiving, and speaks what he thinks.Â
He cannot therefore be a disciple of his Christ, whom he madly
declares to have shown false marks of wounds to his disciples when
they doubted. Are we to believe Faustus, not only in his other
absurdities, but also when he tells us that he does not deceive us in
calling Christ a deceiver? Is he better than Christ? Is he not a
deceiver, while Christ is? Or does he prove himself to be a disciple
not of the truthful Christ, but of the deceiver Manichæus, by this
very falsehood, when he boasts that he has not learned the art of
deceiving?
ââââââââââââ
Book VII.
The genealogical question is again taken up and argued on both sides.
1. Faustus said: You ask why I do not believe in the genealogy of
Jesus. There are many reasons; but the principal is, that He never
declares with His own lips that He had an earthly father or descent,
but on the contrary, that he is not of this world, that He came forth
from God the Father, that He descended from heaven, that He has no
mother or brethren except those who do the will of His Father in
heaven. Besides, the framers of these genealogies do not seem to
have known Jesus before His birth or soon after it, so as to have the
credibility of eye-witnesses of what they narrate. They became
acquainted with Jesus as a young man of about thirty years of age, if
it is not blasphemy to speak of the age of a divine being. Now the
question regarding a witness is always whether he has seen or heard
what he testifies to. But the writers of these genealogies never
assert that they heard the account from Jesus Himself, nor even the
fact of His birth; nor did they see Him till they came to know Him
after his baptism, many years after the time of His birth. To me,
therefore, and to every sensible man, it appears as foolish to believe
this account, as it would be to call into court a blind and deaf
witness.
2. Augustin replied: As regards what Faustus calls his principal
reason for not receiving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a complete
refutation is found in the passages formerly quoted, where Christ
declares Himself to be the Son of man, and in what we have said of the
identity of the Son of man with the Son of God:Â that in His Godhead
He has no earthly descent, while after the flesh He is of the seed of
David, as the apostle teaches. We are to believe, therefore, that He
came forth from the Father, that He descended from heaven, and also
that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst men. If the words,
"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?"[367]367 are quoted to
show that Christ had no earthly mother or descent, it follows that we
must believe that His disciples, whom He here teaches by His own
example to set no value on earthly relationship, as compared with the
kingdom of heaven, had no fathers, because Christ says to them, "Call
no man father upon earth; for one is your Father, even God."[368]368Â
What He taught them to do with reference to their fathers, He Himself
first did in reference to His own mother and brethren; as in many
other things He condescended to set us an example, and to go before
that we might follow in His footsteps. Faustusâ principal objection
to the genealogy fails completely; and after the defeat of this
invincible force, the rest is easily routed. He says that the
apostles who declared Christ to be the Son of man as well as the Son
of God are not to be believed, because they were not present at the
birth of Christ, whom they joined when He had reached manhood, nor
heard of it from Christ Himself. Why then do they believe John when
he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All
things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made,"[369]369 and such passages, which they agree to, without
understanding them? Where did John see this, or did he ever hear it
from the Lord Himself? In whatever way John learned this, those who
narrate the nativity may have learned also. Again, how do they know
that the Lord said, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?"Â If
on the authority of the evangelist, why do they not also believe that
the mother and the brethren of Christ were seeking for Him? They
believe that Christ said these words, which they misunderstand, while
they deny a fact resting on the same authority. Once more, if
Matthew could not know that Christ was born, because he knew Him only
in His manhood, how could Manichæus, who lived so long after, know
that He was not born? They will say that Manichæus knew this from
the Holy Spirit which was in him. Certainly the Holy Spirit would
make him speak the truth. But why not rather believe what Christâs
own disciples tell us, who were personally acquainted with Him, and
who not only had the gift of inspiration to supply defects in their
knowledge, but in a purely natural way obtained information of the
birth of Christ, and of His descent, when the event was fresh in
memory? And yet he dares to call the apostles deaf and blind. Why
were you not deaf and blind, to prevent you from learning such profane
nonsense, and dumb too, to prevent you from uttering it?
ââââââââââââ
Book VIII.
Faustus maintains that to hold to the Old Testament after the giving
of the New is putting new cloth on an old garment. Augustin further
explains the relation of the Old Testament to the New, and reproaches
the Manichæans with carnality.
1. Faustus said: Another reason for not receiving the Old
Testament is, that I am provided with the New; and Scripture says that
old and new do not agree. For "no one putteth a piece of new cloth
unto an old garment, otherwise the rent is made worse."[370]370Â To
avoid making a worse rent, as you have done, I do not mix Christian
newness with Hebrew oldness. Every one accounts it mean, when a man
has got a new dress, not to give the old one to his inferiors. So,
even if I were a Jew by birth, as the apostles were, it would be
proper for me, on receiving the New Testament, to discard the Old, as
the apostles did. And having the advantage of being born free from
the yoke of bondage, and being early introduced into the full liberty
of Christ, what a foolish and ungrateful wretch I should be to put
myself again under the yoke! This is what Paul blames the Galatians
for; because, going back to circumcision, they turned again to the
weak and beggarly elements, whereunto they desired again to be in
bondage.[371]371Â Why should I do what I see another blamed for
doing? My going into bondage would be worse than their returning to
it.
2. Augustin replied: We have already shown sufficiently why and
how we maintain the authority of the Old Testament, not for the
imitation of Jewish bondage, but for the confirmation of Christian
liberty. It is not I, but the apostle, who says, "All these things
happened to them as an example, and they were written for our
admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come."[372]372 Â We do
not therefore, as bondmen, observe what was enjoined as predictive of
us; but as free, we read what was written to confirm us. So any one
may see that the apostle remonstrates with the Galatians not for
devoutly reading what Scripture says of circumcision, but for
superstitiously desiring to be circumcised. We do not put a new
cloth to an old garment, but we are instructed in the kingdom of
heaven, like the householder, whom the Lord describes as bringing out
of his treasure things new and old.[373]373Â He who puts a new cloth
to an old garment is the man who attempts spiritual self-denial before
he has renounced fleshly hope. Examine the passage, and you will see
that, when the Lord was asked about fasting, He replied, "No man
putteth a new cloth to an old garment."Â The disciples had still a
carnal affection for the Lord; for they were afraid that, if He died,
they would lose Him. So He calls Peter Satan for dissuading Him from
suffering, because he understood not the things of God, but the things
of men.[374]374Â The fleshly character of your hope is evident from
your fancies about the kingdom of God, and from your paying homage and
devotion to the light of the sun, which the carnal eye perceives, as
if it were an image of heaven. So your carnal mind is the old
garment to which you join your fasts. Moreover, if a new cloth and
an old garment do not agree, how do the members of your God come to be
not only joined or fastened, but to be united far more intimately by
mixture and coherence to the principles of darkness? Perhaps both
are old, because both are false, and both of the carnal mind. Or
perhaps you wish to prove that one was new and the other old, by the
rent being made worse, in tearing away the unhappy piece of the
kingdom of light, to be doomed to eternal imprisonment in the mass of
darkness. So this pretended artist in the fashions of the sacred
Scriptures is found stitching together absurdities, and dressing
himself in the rags of his own invention.
ââââââââââââ
Book IX.
Faustus argues that if the apostles born under the old covenant could
lawfully depart from it, much more can he having been born a
Gentile. Augustin explains the relation of Jews and Gentiles alike
to the Gospel.
1. Faustus said: Another reason for not receiving the Old
Testament is, that if it was allowable for the apostles, who were born
under it, to abandon it, much more may I, who was not born under it,
be excused for not thrusting myself into it. We Gentiles are not
born Jews, nor Christians either. Out of the same Gentile world some
are induced by the Old Testament to become Jews, and some by the New
Testament to become Christians. It is as if two trees, a sweet and a
bitter, drew from one soil the sap which each assimilates to its own
nature. The apostle passed from the bitter to the sweet; it would be
madness in me to change from the sweet to the bitter.
2. Augustin replied: You say that the apostle, in leaving Judaism,
passed from the bitter to the sweet. But the apostle himself says
that the Jews, who would not believe in Christ, were branches broken
off, and that the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the
good olive, that is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might
partake of the fatness of the olive. For, in warning the Gentiles
not to be proud on account of the fall of the Jews, he says:Â "For I
speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles.Â
I magnify my office; if by any means I may provoke to emulation them
which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting
away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving
of them be, but life from the dead? For if the first fruit be holy,
the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.Â
And if some of the branches are broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches:Â
but if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.Â
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou
standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared
not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.Â
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:Â on them which
fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His
goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if
they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able
to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree,
which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural
branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I would not,
brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery (lest ye should
be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part is happened to
Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all
Israel shall be saved."[375]375Â It appears from this, that you, who
do not wish to be graffed into this root, though you are not broken
off, like the carnal unbelieving Jews, remain still in the bitterness
of the wild olive. Your worship of the sun and moon has the true
Gentile flavor. You are none the less in the wild olive of the
Gentiles, because you have added thorns of a new kind, and worship
along with the sun and moon a false Christ, the fabrication not of
your hands, but of your perverse heart. Come, then, and be grafted
into the root of the olive tree, in his return to which the apostle
rejoices, after by unbelief he had been among the broken branches.Â
He speaks of himself as set free, when he made the happy transition
from Judaism to Christianity. For Christ was always preached in the
olive tree, and those who did not believe on Him when He came were
broken off, while those who believed were grafted in. These are thus
warned against pride:Â "Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God
spared not the natural branches, neither will He spare thee."Â And to
prevent despair of those broken off, he adds:Â "And they also, if
they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able
to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree,
which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural
branches, be grafted into their own olive tree."Â The apostle
rejoices in being delivered from the condition of a broken branch, and
in being restored to the fatness of the olive tree. So you who have
been broken off by error should return and be grafted in again.Â
Those who are still in the wild olive should separate themselves from
its barrenness, and become partakers of fertility.
ââââââââââââ
Book X.
Faustus insists that the Old Testament promises are radically
different from those of the New. Augustin admits a difference, but
maintains that the moral precepts are the same in both.
1. Faustus said: Another reason for not receiving the Old
Testament is, that both the Old and the New teach us not to covet what
belongs to others. Everything in the Old Testament is of this
kind. It promises riches, and plenty, and children, and childrenâs
children, and long life, and withal the land of Canaan; but only to
the circumcised, the Sabbath observers, those offering sacrifices, and
abstaining from swineâs flesh. Now I, like every other Christian,
pay no attention to these things, as being trifling and useless for
the salvation of the soul. I conclude, therefore, that the promises
do not belong to me. And mindful of the commandment, Thou shall not
covet, I gladly leave to the Jews their own property, and content
myself with the gospel, and with the bright inheritance of the kingdom
of heaven. If a Jew were to claim part in the gospel, I should
justly reproach him with claiming what he had no right to, because he
does not obey its precepts. And a Jew might say the same to me if I
professed to receive the Old Testament while I disregard its
requirements.
2. Augustin replied: Faustus is not ashamed to repeat the same
nonsense again and again. But it is tiresome to repeat the same
answers, though it is to repeat truth. What Faustus says here has
already been answered.[376]376Â But if a Jew asks me why I profess to
believe the Old Testament while I do not observe its precepts, my
reply is this:Â The moral precepts of the law are observed by
Christians; the symbolical precepts were properly observed during the
time that the things now revealed were prefigured. Accordingly,
those observances, which I regard as no longer binding, I still look
upon as a testimony, as I do also the carnal promises from which the
Old Testament derives its name. For although the gospel teaches me
to hope for eternal blessings, I also find a confirmation of the
gospel in those things which "happened to them for an example, and
were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are
come." So much for our answer to the Jews. And now we have
something to say to the Manichæans.
3. By showing the way in which we regard the authority of the Old
Testament we have answered the Jews, by whose question about our not
observing the precepts Faustus thought we would be puzzled. But what
answer can you give to the question, why you deceive simple-minded
people by professing to believe in the New Testament, while you not
only do not believe it, but assail it with all your force? It will
be more difficult for you to answer this than it was for us to answer
the Jews. We hold all that is written in the Old Testament to be
true, and enjoined by God for suitable times. But in your inability
to find a reason for not receiving what is written in the New
Testament, you are obliged, as a last resource, to pretend that the
passages are not genuine. This is the last gasp of a heretic in the
clutches of truth; or rather it is the breath of corruption itself.Â
Faustus, however, confesses that the Old Testament as well as the New
teaches him not to covet. His own God could never have taught him
this. For if this God did not covet what belonged to another, why
did he construct new worlds in the region of darkness? Perhaps the
race of darkness first coveted his kingdom. But this would be to
imitate their bad example. Perhaps the kingdom of light was
previously of small extent, and war was desirable in order to enlarge
it by conquest. In that case, no doubt, there was covetousness,
though the hostile race was allowed to begin the wars to justify the
conquest. If there had been no such desire, there was no necessity
to extend the kingdom beyond its old limits into the region of the
conquered foe. If the Manichæans would only learn from these
Scriptures the moral precepts, one of which is, Do not covet, instead
of taking offence at the symbolical precept, they would acknowledge in
meekness and candor that they suited the time then present. We do
not covet what belongs to another, when we read in the Old Testament
what "happened to them for examples, and was written for our
admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come."Â It is surely
not coveting when a man reads what is written for his benefit.
ââââââââââââ
Book XI.
Faustus quotes passages to show that the Apostle Paul abandoned belief
in the incarnation, to which he earlier held. Augustin shows that
the apostle was consistent with himself in the utterances quoted.
1. Faustus said: Assuredly I believe the apostle. And yet I do
not believe that the Son of God was born of the seed of David
according to the flesh,[377]377 because I do not believe that Godâs
apostle could contradict himself, and have one opinion about our Lord
at one time, and another at another. But, granting that he wrote
this,âsince you will not hear of anything being spurious in his
writings,âit is not against us. For this seems to be Paulâs old
belief about Jesus, when he thought, like everybody else, that Jesus
was the son of David. Afterwards, when he learned that this was
false, he corrects himself; and in his Epistle to the Corinthians he
says:Â "We know no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no
more."[378]378 Observe the difference between these two verses. In
one he asserts that Jesus was the son of David after the flesh; in the
other he says that now he knows no man after the flesh. If Paul
wrote both, it can only have been in the way I have stated. In the
next verse he adds:Â "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become
new."Â The belief that Jesus was born of the seed of David according
to the flesh is of this old transitory kind; whereas the faith which
knows no man after the flesh is new and permanent. So, he says
elsewhere:Â "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as
a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away
childish things."[379]379Â We are thus warranted in preferring the
new and amended confession of Paul to his old and faulty one. And if
you hold by what is said in the Epistle to the Romans, why should not
we hold by what is said to the Corinthians? But it is only by your
insisting on the correctness of the text that we are made to represent
Paul as building again the things which he destroyed, in spite of his
own repudiation of such prevarication. If the verse is Paulâs, he
has corrected himself. If Paul should not be supposed to have
written anything requiring correction, the verse is not his.
2. Augustin replied: As I said a little ago, when these men are
beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their
grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration
only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in
error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny
their genuineness. But if this answer is admitted, or allowed to
have any weight, it will be useless to quote any book or any passage
against your errors. It is one thing to reject the books themselves,
and to profess no regard for their authority, as the Pagans reject our
Scriptures, and the Jews the New Testament, and as we reject any books
peculiar to your sect, or any other heretical sect, and also the
apocryphal books, which are so called, not because of any mysterious
regard paid to them, but because they are mysterious in their origin,
and in the absence of clear evidence, have only some obscure
presumption to rest upon; and it is another thing to say, This holy
man wrote only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are
his, and some are not. And then, when you are asked for a proof,
instead of referring to more correct or more ancient manuscripts, or
to a greater number, or to the original text, your reply is, This
verse is his, because it makes for me; and this is not his, because it
is against me. Are you, then, the rule of truth? Can nothing be
true that is against you? But what answer could you give to an
opponent as insane as yourself, if he confronts you by saying, The
passage in your favor is spurious, and that against you is genuine?Â
Perhaps you will produce a book, all of which can be explained so as
to support you. Then, instead of rejecting a passage, he will reply
by condemning the whole book as spurious. You have no resource
against such an opponent. For all the testimony you can bring in
favor of your book from antiquity or tradition will avail nothing.Â
In this respect the testimony of the Catholic Church is conspicuous,
as supported by a succession of bishops from the original seats of the
apostles up to the present time, and by the consent of so many
nations. Accordingly, should there be a question about the text of
some passage, as there are a few passages with various readings well
known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult
the manuscripts of the country where the religion was first taught;
and if these still varied, we should take the text of the greater
number, or of the more ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we
should consult the original text. This is the method employed by
those who, in any question about the Scriptures, do not lose sight of
the regard due to their authority, and inquire with the view of
gaining information, not of raising disputes.[380]380
3. As regards the passage from Paulâs epistle which teaches, in
opposition to your heresy, that the Son of God was born of the seed of
David, it is found in all manuscripts both new and old of all
Churches, and in all languages. So the profession which Faustus
makes of believing the apostle is hypocritical. Instead of saying,
"Assuredly I believe," he should have said, Assuredly I do not
believe, as he would have said if he had not wished to deceive
people. What part of his belief does he get from the apostle? Not
the first man, of whom the apostle says that he is of the earth,
earthy; and again, "The first man Adam was made a living soul."Â
Faustusâ First Man is neither of the earth, earthy, nor made a living
soul, but of the substance of God, and the same in essence as God; and
this being is said to have mixed up with the race of darkness his
members, or vesture, or weapons, that is, the five elements, which
also are part of the substance of God, so that they became subject to
confinement and pollution. Nor does Faustus get from Paul his Second
Man, of whom Paul says that He is from heaven, and that He is the last
Adam, and a quickening spirit; and also that He was born of the seed
of David after the flesh, that He was made of a woman, made under the
law, that He might redeem them that were under the law.[381]381Â Of
Him Paul says to Timothy:Â "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed
of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel."[382]382Â
And this resurrection he quotes as an example of our resurrection:Â
"I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how
that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that
He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the
Scriptures."Â And a little further on he draws an inference from this
doctrine:Â "Now, if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead,
how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead?"[383]383Â Our professed believer in Paul believes nothing of
all this. He denies that Jesus was born of the seed of David, that
He was made of a woman (by the word woman is not meant a wife in the
common sense of the word, but merely one of the female sex, as in the
book of Genesis, where it is said that God made a woman before she was
brought to Adam[384]384); he denies His death, His burial, and His
resurrection. He holds that Christ had not a mortal body, and
therefore could not really die; and that the marks of His wounds which
He showed to His disciples when He appeared to them alive after His
resurrection, which Paul also mentions,[385]385 were not real. He
denies, too, that our mortal body will be raised again, changed into a
spiritual body; as Paul teaches:Â "It is sown a natural body, it is
raised a spiritual body."Â To illustrate this distinction between the
natural and the spiritual body, the apostle adds what I have quoted
already about the first and the last Adam. Then he goes on: "But
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God."Â And to explain what he means by flesh and blood, that it is
not the bodily substance, but corruption, which will not enter into
the resurrection of the just, he immediately says, "Neither shall
corruption inherit incorruption."Â And in case any one should still
suppose that it is not what is buried that is to rise again, but that
it is as if one garment were laid aside and a better taken instead, he
proceeds to show distinctly that the same body will be changed for the
better, as the garments of Christ on the mount were not displaced, but
transfigured:Â "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all be
changed, but we shall all rise."[386]386Â Then he shows who are to be
changed:Â "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet:Â for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise
incorruptible, and we shall be changed."Â And if it should be said
that it is not as regards our mortal and corruptible body, but as
regards our soul, that we are to be changed, it should be observed
that the apostle is not speaking of the soul, but of the body, as is
evident from the question he starts with:Â "But some one will say,
How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?"Â So also,
in the conclusion of his argument, he leaves no doubt of what he is
speaking:Â "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality."[387]387Â Faustus denies this; and
the God whom Paul declares to be "immortal, incorruptible, to whom
alone is glory and honor,"[388]388 he makes corruptible. For in this
monstrous and horrible fiction of theirs, the substance and nature of
God was in danger of being wholly corrupted by the race of darkness,
and to save the rest part actually was corrupted. And to crown all
this, he tries to deceive the ignorant who are not learned in the
sacred Scriptures, by making this profession:Â I assuredly believe
the Apostle Paul; when he ought to have said, I assuredly do not
believe.
4. But Faustus has a proof to show that Paul changed his mind, and,
in writing to the Corinthians, corrected what he had written to the
Romans; or else that he never wrote the passage which appears as his,
about Jesus Christ being born of the seed of David according to the
flesh. And what is this proof? If the passage, he says, in the
Epistle to the Romans is true, "the Son of God, who was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh," what he says to the Corinthians
cannot be true, "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know
we Him no more."Â We must therefore show that both these passages are
true, and not opposed to one another. The agreement of the
manuscripts proves both to be genuine. In some Latin versions the
word "born"[389]389 is used instead of "made,"[390]390 which is not so
literal a rendering, but gives the same meaning. For both these
translations, as well as the original, teach that Christ was of the
seed of David after the flesh. We must not for a moment suppose that
Paul corrected himself on account of a change of opinion. Faustus
himself felt the impropriety and impiety of such an explanation, and
preferred to say that the passage was spurious, instead of that Paul
was mistaken.
5. As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or
practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they
contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and
recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected
in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle
says:Â "And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this
unto you."[391]391Â Such writings are read with the right of
judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave
room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is
a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to
apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and
New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us
from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension
of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the
submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by
an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say,
The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is
faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In
the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes
find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same
authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other
books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not
understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in
favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such
cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is
some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the
doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence
of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to
receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one
prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page
will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for
the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to
that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless
confusion.[392]392
6. With regard, then, to this apparent contradiction between the
passage which speaks of the Son of God being of the seed of David, to
the words, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now
henceforth know we Him no more," even though both quotations were not
from the writings of one apostle,âthough one were from Paul, and the
other from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or prophet,âsuch is
the equality of canonical authority, that it would not be allowable to
doubt of either. For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if
from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the
most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery
and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious
research. In the case before us both quotations are from the
canonical, that is, the genuine epistles of Paul. We cannot say that
the manuscript is faulty, for the best Latin translations
substantially agree; or that the translations are wrong, for the best
texts have the same reading. So that, if any one is perplexed by the
apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not
understand. Accordingly it remains for me to explain how both
passages, instead of being contradictory, may be harmonized by one
rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer will find all perplexity
removed by a careful examination.
7. That the Son of God was made man of the seed of David, is not
only said in other places by Paul, but is taught elsewhere in sacred
Scripture. As regards the words, "Though we have known Christ after
the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more," the context shows
what is the apostleâs meaning. Here, or elsewhere, he views with an
assured hope, as if it were already present and in actual possession,
our future life, which is now fulfilled in our risen Head and
Mediator, the man Christ Jesus. This life will certainly not be
after the flesh, even as Christâs life is now not after the flesh.Â
For by flesh the apostle here means not the substance of our bodies,
in which sense the Lord used the word when, after His resurrection, He
said, "Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as
ye see me have,"[393]393 but the corruption and mortality of flesh,
which will then not be in us, as now it is not in Christ. The
apostle uses the word flesh in the sense of corruption in the passage
about the resurrection quoted before:Â "Flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption inherit
incorruption."Â So, after the event described in the next verse,
"Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall all rise, but we shall not all
be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump (for the trumpet shall sound); and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality,"[394]394âthen flesh, in the sense of the substance of the
body, will, after this change, no longer have flesh, in the sense of
the corruption of mortality; and yet, as regards its own nature, it
will be the same flesh, the same which rises and which is changed.Â
What the Lord said after His resurrection is true, "Handle me, and
see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;" and
what the apostle says is true, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God."Â The first is said of the bodily substance, which
exists as the subject of the change:Â the second is said of the
corruption of the flesh, which will cease to exist, for, after its
change, flesh will not be corrupted. So, "we have known Christ after
the flesh," that is, after the mortality of flesh, before His
resurrection; "now henceforth we know Him no more," because, as the
same apostle says, "Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more,
and death hath no more dominion over Him."[395]395Â The words, "we
have known Christ after the flesh," strictly speaking, imply that
Christ was after the flesh, for what never was cannot be known. And
it is not "we have supposed," but "we have known."Â But not to insist
on a word, in case some one should say that known is used in the sense
of supposed, it is astonishing, if one could be surprised at want of
sight in a blind man, that these blind people do not perceive that if
what the apostle says about not knowing Christ after the flesh proves
that Christ had not flesh, then what he says in the same place of not
knowing any one henceforth after the flesh proves that all those here
referred to had not flesh. For when he speaks of not knowing any
one, he cannot intend to speak only of Christ; but in his realization
of the future life with those who are to be changed at the
resurrection, he says, "Henceforth we know no man after the flesh;"
that is, we have such an assured hope of our future incorruption and
immortality, that the thought of it makes us rejoice even now. So he
says elsewhere:Â "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things
that are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set
your affections upon things above, and not on things on the
earth."[396]396Â It is true we have not yet risen as Christ has, but
we are said to have risen with Him on account of the hope which we
have in Him. So again he says: "According to His mercy He saved
us, by the washing of regeneration."[397]397Â Evidently what we
obtain in the washing of regeneration is not the salvation itself, but
the hope of it. And yet, because this hope is certain, we are said
to be saved, as if the salvation were already bestowed. Elsewhere it
is said explicitly:Â "We groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, even the redemption of our body. For we are saved by
hope. But hope which is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why
doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for what we see not, then do we
with patience wait for it."[398]398Â The apostle says not, "we are to
be saved," but, "We are now saved," that is, in hope, though not yet
in reality. And in the same way it is in hope, though not yet in
reality, that we now know no man after the flesh. This hope is in
Christ, in whom what we hope for as promised to us has already been
fulfilled. He is risen, and death has no more dominion over Him.Â
Though we have known Him after the flesh, before His death, when there
was in His body that mortality which the apostle properly calls flesh,
now henceforth know we Him no more; for that mortal of His has now put
on immortality, and His flesh, in the sense of mortality, no longer
exists.
8. The context of the passage containing this clause of which our
adversaries make such a bad use, brings out its real meaning. "The
love of Christ," we read, "constrains us, because we thus judge, that
if one died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that they
which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to Him who
died for them, and rose again. Therefore henceforth know we no man
after the flesh; and though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet
now henceforth know we Him no more."Â The words, "that they which
live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died
for them, and rose again," show plainly that the resurrection of
Christ is the ground of the apostleâs statement. To live not to
themselves, but to Him, must mean to live not after the flesh, in the
hope of earthly and perishable goods, but after the spirit, in the
hope of resurrection,âa resurrection already accomplished in Christ.Â
Of those, then, for whom Christ died and rose again, and who live
henceforth not to themselves, but to Him, the Apostle says that he
knows no one after the flesh, on account of the hope of future
immortality to which they were looking forward,âa hope which in Christ
was already a reality. So, though he has known Christ after the
flesh, before His death, now he knows Him no more; for he knows that
He has risen, and that death has no more dominion over Him. And
because in Christ we all are even now in hope, though not in reality,
what Christ is, he adds:Â "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature:Â old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new. And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to
Himself by Christ."[399]399Â What the new creatureâthat is, the
people renewed by faithâhopes for regarding itself, it has already in
Christ; and the hope will also hereafter be actually realized. And,
as regards this hope, old things have passed away, because we are no
longer in the times of the Old Testament, expecting a temporal and
carnal kingdom of God; and all things are become new, making the
promise of the kingdom of heaven, where there shall be no death or
corruption, the ground of our confidence. But in the resurrection of
the dead it will not be as a matter of hope, but in reality, that old
things shall pass away, when the last enemy, death, shall be
destroyed; and all things shall become new when this corruptible has
put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality. This
has already taken place in Christ, whom Paul accordingly, in reality,
knew no longer after the flesh. But not yet in reality, but only in
hope, did he know no one after the flesh of those for whom Christ died
and rose again. For, as he says to the Ephesians, we are already
saved by grace. The whole passage is to the purpose: "But God, who
is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when
we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by whose
grace we have been saved."Â The words, "hath quickened us together
with Christ," correspond to what he said to the Corinthians, "that
they which live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him that
died for them and rose again."Â And in the words, "by whose grace we
have been saved," he speaks of the thing hoped for as already
accomplished. So, in the passage quoted above, he says explicitly,
"We have been saved by hope."Â And here he proceeds to specify future
events as if already accomplished. "And has raised us up together,"
he says, "and has made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus."Â Christ is certainly already seated in heavenly places, but
we not yet. But as in an assured hope we already possess the future,
he says that we sit in heavenly places, not in ourselves, but in
Him. And to show that it is still future, in case it should be
thought that what is spoken of as accomplished in hope has been
accomplished in reality, he adds, "that He might show in the ages to
come the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us in
Christ Jesus."[400]400Â So also we must understand the following
passage:Â "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which
were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death."[401]401Â He says, "when we were in the flesh," as if they
were no longer in the flesh. He means to say, when we were in the
hope of fleshly things, referring to the time when the law, which can
be fulfilled only by spiritual love, was in force, in order that by
transgression the offence might abound, that after the revelation of
the New Testament, grace and the gift by grace might much more
abound. And to the same effect he says elsewhere, "They which are in
the flesh cannot please God;" and then, to show that he does not mean
those not yet dead, he adds, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit."[402]402Â The meaning is, those who are in the hope of
fleshly good cannot please God; but you are not in the hope of fleshly
things, but in the hope of spiritual things, that is, of the kingdom
of heaven, where the body itself, which now is natural, will, by the
change in the resurrection, be, according to the capacity of its
nature, a spiritual body. For "it is sown a natural body, it will be
raised a spiritual body."Â If, then, the apostle knew no one after
the flesh of those who were said to be not in the flesh, because they
were not in the hope of fleshly things, although they still were
burdened with corruptible and mortal flesh; how much more
significantly could he say of Christ that he no longer knew Him after
the flesh, seeing that in the body of Christ what they hoped for had
already been accomplished! Surely it is better and more reverential
to examine the passages of sacred Scripture so as to discover their
agreement with one another, than to accept some as true, and condemn
others as false, whenever any difficulty occurs beyond the power of
our weak intellect to solve. As to the apostle in his childhood
understanding as a child, this is said merely as an
illustration.[403]403Â And when he was a child he was not a spiritual
man, as he was when he produced for the edification of the churches
those writings which are not, as other books, merely a profitable
study, but which authoritatively claim our belief as part of the
ecclesiastical canon.
ââââââââââââ
Book XII.
Faustus denies that the prophets predicted Christ. Augustin proves
such prediction from the New Testament, and expounds at length the
principal types of Christ in the Old Testament.
1. Faustus said: Why do I not believe the prophets? Rather why
do you believe them? On account, you will reply, of their prophecies
about Christ. For my part, I have read the prophets with the most
eager attention, and have found no such prophecies. And surely it
shows a weak faith not to believe in Christ without proofs and
testimonies. Indeed, you yourselves are accustomed to teach that
Christian faith is so simple and absolute as not to admit of laborious
investigations. Why, then, should you destroy the simplicity of
faith by buttressing it with evidences, and Jewish evidences too? Or
if you are changing your opinion about evidences, what more
trustworthy witness could you have than God Himself testifying to His
own Son when He sent Him on earth,ânot by a prophet or an
interpreter,âby a voice immediately from heaven:Â "This is my beloved
Son, believe Him?"[404]404Â And again He testifies of Himself:Â "I
came forth from the Father, and am come into the world;"[405]405 and
in many similar passages. When the Jews quarrelled with this
testimony, saying "Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy witness is not
true," He replied:Â "Although I bear witness of myself, my witness is
true. It is written in your law, The witness of two men is true. I
am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me beareth
witness of me."[406]406 He does not mention the prophets. Again He
appeals to the testimony of His own works, saying, "If ye believe not
me, believe the works;"[407]407 not, "If ye believe not me, believe
the prophets."Â Accordingly we require no testimonies concerning our
Saviour. All we look for in the prophets is prudence and virtue, and
a good example, which, you are well aware, are not to be found in the
Jewish prophets. This, no doubt, explains your referring me at once
to their predictions as a reason for believing them, without a word
about their actions. This may be good policy, but it is not in
harmony with the declaration of Scripture, that it is impossible to
gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. This may serve
meanwhile as a brief and sufficient reply to the question, why we do
not believe the prophets. The fact that they did not prophesy of
Christ is abundantly proved in the writings of our fathers. I shall
only add this, that if the Hebrew prophets knew and preached Christ,
and yet lived such vicious lives, what Paul says of the wise men among
the Gentiles might be applied to them:Â "Though they knew God, they
glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful; but they became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."[408]408Â
You see the knowledge of great things is worth little, unless the life
corresponds.
2. Augustin replied: The meaning of all this is, that the Hebrew
prophets foretold nothing of Christ, and that, if they did, their
predictions are of no use to us, and they themselves did not live
suitably to the dignity of such prophecies. We must therefore prove
the fact of the prophecies; and their use for the truth and
steadfastness of our faith; and that the lives of the prophets were in
harmony with their words. In this threefold discussion, it would
take a long time under the first head to quote from all the books the
passages in which Christ may be shown to have been predicted.Â
Faustusâ frivolity may be met effectually by the weight of one great
authority. Although Faustus does not believe the prophets, he
professes to believe the apostles. Above, as if to satisfy the
doubts of some opponent, he declares that he assuredly believes the
Apostle Paul.[409]409Â Let us then hear what Paul says of the
prophets. His words are: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called
to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which He had
promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His
Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh."[410]410 What more does Faustus wish? Will he maintain that
the apostle is speaking of some other prophets, and not of the Hebrew
prophets? In any case, the gospel spoken of as promised was
concerning the Son of God, who was made for Him of the seed of David
according to the flesh:Â and to this gospel the apostle says that he
was separated. So that the Manichæan heresy is opposed to faith in
the gospel, which teaches that the Son of God was made of the seed of
David according to the flesh. Besides, there are many passages where
the apostle plainly testifies in behalf of the Hebrew prophets, with
an authority by which the necks of these proud Manichæans are broken.
3. "I speak the truth in Christ," says the apostle, "I lie not, my
conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great
heaviness and continual sorrow of heart. For I could wish that
myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen
according to the flesh:Â who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law,
and the service and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom,
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for
ever."[411]411Â Here is the most abundant and express testimony and
the most solemn commendation. The adoption here spoken of is
evidently through the Son of God; as the apostle says to the
Galatians:Â "In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son, made of
a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that were under
the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."[412]412Â And
the glory spoken of is chiefly that of which he says in the same
Epistle to the Romans:Â "What advantage hath the Jew? or what profit
is there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because unto
them were committed the oracles of God."[413]413 Can the Manichæans
tell us of any oracles of God committed to the Jews besides those of
the Hebrew prophets? And why are the covenants said to belong
especially to the Israelites, but because not only was the Old
Testament given to them, but also the New was prefigured in the Old?Â
Our opponents often display much ignorant ferocity in attacking the
dispensation of the law given to the Israelites, not understanding
that God wishes us to be not under the law, but under grace. They
are here answered by the apostle himself, who, in speaking of the
advantages of the Jews, mentions this as one, that they had the giving
of the law. If the law had been bad, the apostle would not have
referred to it in praise of the Jews. And if Christ had not been
preached by the law, the Lord Himself would not have said, "If ye
believe Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me;"[414]414
nor would He have borne the testimony He did after His resurrection,
saying, "All things must needs be fulfilled that were written in the
law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning
me."[415]415
4. But because the Manichæans preach another Christ, and not Him
whom the apostles preached, but a false Christ of their own false
contrivance, in imitation of whose falsehood they themselves speak
lies, though they may perhaps be believed when they are not ashamed to
profess to be the followers of a deceiver, that has befallen them
which the apostle asserts of the unbelieving Jews:Â "When Moses is
read, a veil is upon their heart."Â Neither will this veil which
keeps them from understanding Moses be taken away from them till they
turn to Christ; not a Christ of their own making, but the Christ of
the Hebrew prophets. For, as the apostle says, "When thou shalt turn
to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away."[416]416Â We cannot wonder
that they do not believe in the Christ who rose from the dead, and who
said, "All things must needs be fulfilled which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me;"
for this Christ has Himself told us what Abraham said to a
hard-hearted rich man when he was in torment in hell, and asked
Abraham to send some one to his brothers to teach them, that they
might not come too into that place of torment. Abrahamâs reply
was:Â "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them."Â And
when the rich man said that they would not believe unless some one
rose from the dead, he received this most truthful answer:Â "If they
hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even though
one rose from the dead."[417]417 Wherefore, the Manichæans will not
hear Moses and the prophets, and so they do not believe Christ, though
He rose from the dead. Indeed, they do not even believe that Christ
rose from the dead. For how can they believe that He rose, when they
do not believe that He died? For, again, how can they believe that
He died, when they deny that He had a mortal body?
5. But we reject those false teachers whose Christ is false, or
rather, whose Christ never existed. For we have a Christ true and
truthful, foretold by the prophets, preached by the apostles, who in
innumerable places refer to the testimonies of the law and the
prophets in support of their preaching. Paul, in one short sentence,
gives the right view of this subject. "Now," he says, "the
righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by
the law and the prophets."[418]418Â What prophets, if not of Israel,
to whom, as he expressly says, pertain the covenants, and the giving
of the law, and the promises? And what promises, but about Christ?Â
Elsewhere, speaking of Christ, he says concisely:Â "All the promises
of God are in Him yea."[419]419Â Paul tells me that the giving of the
law pertained to the Israelites. He also tells me that Christ is the
end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. He
also tells me that all the promises of God are in Christ yea. And
you tell me that the prophets of Israel foretold nothing of Christ.
 Shall I believe the absurdities of Manichæus relating a vain and
long fable in opposition to Paul? or shall I believe Paul when he
forewarns us:Â "If any man preach to you another gospel than that
which we have preached, let him be accursed?"
6. Our opponents may perhaps ask us to point out passages where
Christ is predicted by the prophets of Israel. One would think they
might be satisfied with the authority of the apostles, who declare
that what we read in the writings of the Hebrew prophets was fulfilled
in Christ, or with that of Christ Himself, who says that these things
were written of Him. Whoever is unable to point out the passages
should lay the blame on his own ignorance; for the apostles and Christ
and the sacred Scriptures are not chargeable with falsehood.Â
However, one instance out of many may be adduced. The apostle, in
the verses following the passage quoted above, says:Â "The word of
God cannot fail. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel;
neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
children:Â but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called:Â that is, they
which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God; but the children of promise are counted for the seed."[420]420Â
What can our opponent say against this, in view of the declaration
made to Abraham:Â "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed?"Â At the time when the apostle gave the following exposition
of this promise, "To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made.Â
He saith not, To seed, as of many, but as of one, To thy seed, which
is Christ,"[421]421 a doubt on this point might then have been less
inexcusable, for at that time all nations had not yet believed on
Christ, who is preached as of the seed of Abraham. But now that we
see the fulfillment of what we read in the ancient prophecy,ânow that
all nations are actually blessed in the seed of Abraham, to whom it
was said thousands of years ago, "In thy seed shall all nations be
blessed,"âit is mere obstinate folly to try to bring in another
Christ, not of the seed of Abraham, or to hold that there are no
predictions of Christ in the prophetical books of the children of
Abraham.
7. To enumerate all the passages in the Hebrew prophets referring to
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, would exceed the limits of a
volume, not to speak of the brief replies of which this treatise
consists. The whole contents of these Scriptures are either directly
or indirectly about Christ. Often the reference is allegorical or
enigmatical, perhaps in a verbal allusion, or in a historical
narrative, requiring diligence in the student, and rewarding him with
the pleasure of discovery. Other passages, again, are plain; for,
without the help of what is clear, we could not understand what is
obscure. And even the figurative passages, when brought together,
will be found so harmonious in their testimony to Christ as to put to
shame the obtuseness of the sceptic.
8. In the creation God finished His works in six days, and rested on
the seventh. The history of the world contains six periods marked by
the dealings of God with men. The first period is from Adam to Noah;
the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David;
the fourth, from David to the captivity in Babylon; the fifth, from
the captivity to the advent of lowliness of our Lord Jesus Christ; the
sixth is now in progress, and will end in the coming of the exalted
Saviour to judgment. What answers to the seventh day is the rest of
the saints,ânot in this life, but in another, where the rich man saw
Lazarus at rest while he was tormented in hell; where there is no
evening, because there is no decay. On the sixth day, in Genesis,
man is formed after the image of God; in the sixth period of the world
there is the clear discovery of our transformation in the renewing of
our mind, according to the image of Him who created us, as the apostle
says.[422]422Â As a wife was made for Adam from his side while he
slept, the Church becomes the property of her dying Saviour, by the
sacrament of the blood which flowed from His side after His death.Â
The woman made out of her husbandâs side is called Eve, or Life, and
the mother of living beings; and the Lord says in the Gospel:Â
"Except a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he has no life in
him."[423]423Â The whole narrative of Genesis, in the most minute
details, is a prophecy of Christ and of the Church with reference
either to the good Christians or to the bad. There is a significance
in the words of the apostle when he calls Adam "the figure of Him that
was to come;"[424]424 and when he says, "A man shall leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and
the Church."[425]425Â This points most obviously to the way in which
Christ left His Father; for "though He was in the form of God, and
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, He emptied Himself, and
took upon Him the form of a servant."[426]426Â And so, too, He left
His mother, the synagogue of the Jews which cleaved to the carnality
of the Old Testament, and was united to the Church His holy bride,
that in the peace of the New Testament they two might be one flesh.Â
For though with the Father He was God, by whom we were made, He became
in the flesh partaker of our nature, that we might become the body of
which He is the head.
9. As Cainâs sacrifice of the fruit of the ground is rejected, while
Abelâs sacrifice of his sheep and the fat thereof is accepted, so the
faith of the New Testament praising God in the harmless service of
grace is preferred to the earthly observances of the Old Testament.Â
For though the Jews were right in practising these things, they were
guilty of unbelief in not distinguishing the time of the New Testament
when Christ came, from the time of the Old Testament. God said to
Cain, "If thou offerest well, yet if thou dividest not well, thou hast
sinned."[427]427Â If Cain had obeyed God when He said, "Be content,
for to thee shall be its reference, and thou shalt rule over it," he
would have referred his sin to himself, by taking the blame of it, and
confessing it to God; and so assisted by supplies of grace, he would
have ruled over his sin, instead of acting as the servant of sin in
killing his innocent brother. So also the Jews, of whom all these
things are a figure, if they had been content, instead of being
turbulent, and had acknowledged the time of salvation through the
pardon of sins by grace, and heard Christ saying, "They that are whole
need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance;"[428]428 and, "Every one that
committeth sin is the servant of sin;" and, "If the Son make you free,
ye shall be free indeed,"[429]429âthey would in confession have
referred their sin to themselves, saying to the Physician, as it is
written in the Psalm, "I said, Lord, be merciful to me; heal my soul,
for I have sinned against Thee."[430]430Â And being made free by the
hope of grace, they would have ruled over sin as long as it continued
in their mortal body. But now, being ignorant of Godâs
righteousness, and wishing to establish a righteousness of their own,
proud of the works of the law, instead of being humbled on account of
their sins, they have not been content; and in subjection to sin
reigning in their mortal body, so as to make them obey it in the lusts
thereof, they have stumbled on the stone of stumbling, and have been
inflamed with hatred against him whose works they grieved to see
accepted by God. The man who was born blind, and had been made to
see, said to them, "We know that God heareth not sinners; but if any
man serve Him, and do His will, him He heareth;"[431]431 as if he had
said, God regardeth not the sacrifice of Cain, but he regards the
sacrifice of Abel. Abel, the younger brother, is killed by the elder
brother; Christ, the head of the younger people, is killed by the
elder people of the Jews. Abel dies in the field; Christ dies on
Calvary.
10. God asks Cain where his brother is, not as if He did not know,
but as a judge asks a guilty criminal. Cain replies that he knows
not, and that he is not his brotherâs keeper. And what answer can
the Jews give at this day, when we ask them with the voice of God,
that is, of the sacred Scriptures, about Christ, except that they do
not know the Christ that we speak of? Cainâs ignorance was
pretended, and the Jews are deceived in their refusal of Christ.Â
Moreover, they would have been in a sense keepers of Christ, if they
had been willing to receive and keep the Christian faith. For the
man who keeps Christ in his heart does not ask, like Cain, Am I my
brotherâs keeper? Then God says to Cain, "What hast thou done? The
voice of thy brotherâs blood crieth unto me from the ground."Â So the
voice of God in the Holy Scriptures accuses the Jews. For the blood
of Christ has a loud voice on the earth, when the responsive Amen of
those who believe in Him comes from all nations. This is the voice
of Christâs blood, because the clear voice of the faithful redeemed by
His blood is the voice of the blood itself.
11. Then God says to Cain: "Thou art cursed from the earth, which
hath opened its mouth to receive thy brotherâs blood at thy hand.Â
For thou shalt till the earth, and it shall no longer yield unto thee
its strength. A mourner and an abject shalt thou be on the earth."Â
It is not, Cursed is the earth, but, Cursed art thou from the earth,
which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brotherâs blood at thy
hand. So the unbelieving people of the Jews is cursed from the
earth, that is, from the Church, which in the confession of sins has
opened its mouth to receive the blood shed for the remission of sins
by the hand of the people that would not be under grace, but under the
law. And this murderer is cursed by the Church; that is, the Church
admits and avows the curse pronounced by the apostle:Â "Whoever are
of the works of the law are under the curse of the law."[432]432Â
Then, after saying, Cursed art thou from the earth, which has opened
its mouth to receive thy brotherâs blood at thy hand, what follows is
not, For thou shalt till it, but, Thou shalt till the earth, and it
shall not yield to thee its strength. The earth he is to till is not
necessarily the same as that which opened its mouth to receive his
brotherâs blood at his hand. From this earth he is cursed, and so he
tills an earth which shall no longer yield to him its strength. That
is, the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed,
because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an
earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while
the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this
tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in
impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While
they will not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in reading
the Old Testament is not taken away. This veil is taken away only by
Christ, who does not do away with the reading of the Old Testament,
but with the covering which hides its virtue. So, at the crucifixion
of Christ, the veil was rent in twain, that by the passion of Christ
hidden mysteries might be revealed to believers who turn to Him with a
mouth opened in confession to drink His blood. In this way the
Jewish people, like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal
observance of the law, which does not yield to them its strength,
because they do not perceive in it the grace of Christ. So too, the
flesh of Christ was the ground from which by crucifying Him the Jews
produced our salvation, for He died for our offences. But this
ground did not yield to them its strength, for they were not justified
by the virtue of His resurrection, for He arose again for our
justification. As the apostle says: "He was crucified in weakness,
but He liveth by the power of God."[433]433Â This is the power of
that ground which is unknown to the ungodly and unbelieving. When
Christ rose, He did not appear to those who had crucified Him. So
Cain was not allowed to see the strength of the ground which he tilled
to sow his seed in it; as God said, "Thou shalt till the ground, and
it shall no longer yield unto thee its strength."
12. "Groaning and trembling shalt thou be on the earth." Here no
one can fail to see that in every land where the Jews are scattered
they mourn for the loss of their kingdom, and are in terrified
subjection to the immensely superior number of Christians. So Cain
answered, and said:Â "My case is worse, if Thou drivest me out this
day from the face of the earth, and from Thy face shall I be hid, and
I shall be a mourner and an outcast on the earth; and it shall be that
every one that findeth me shall slay me."Â Here he groans indeed in
terror, lest after losing his earthly possession he should suffer the
death of the body. This he calls a worse case than that of the
ground not yielding to him its strength, or than that of spiritual
death. For his mind is carnal; for he thinks little of being hid
from the face of God, that is, of being under the anger of God, were
it not that he may be found and slain. This is the carnal mind that
tills the ground, but does not obtain its strength. To be carnally
minded is death; but he, in ignorance of this, mourns for the loss of
his earthly possession, and is in terror of bodily death. But what
does God reply? "Not so," He says; "but whosoever shall kill Cain,
vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."Â That is, It is not as
thou sayest; not by bodily death shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews
perish. For whoever destroys them in this way shall suffer sevenfold
vengeance, that is, shall bring upon himself the sevenfold penalty
under which the Jews lie for the crucifixion of Christ. So to the
end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews
will be a proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by
those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.
13. "And the Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest any one finding him
should slay him."Â It is a most notable fact, that all the nations
subjugated by Rome adopted the heathenish ceremonies of the Roman
worship; while the Jewish nation, whether under Pagan or Christian
monarchs, has never lost the sign of their law, by which they are
distinguished from all other nations and peoples. No emperor or
monarch who finds under his government the people with this mark kills
them, that is, makes them cease to be Jews, and as Jews to be separate
in their observances, and unlike the rest of the world. Only when a
Jew comes over to Christ, he is no longer Cain, nor goes out from the
presence of God, nor dwells in the land of Nod, which is said to mean
commotion. Against this evil of commotion the Psalmist prays,
"Suffer not my feet to be moved;"[434]434 and again, "Let not the
hands of the wicked remove me;"[435]435 and, "Those that trouble me
will rejoice when I am moved:"[436]436Â and, "The Lord is at my right
hand, that I should not be moved;"[437]437 and so in innumerable
places. This evil comes upon those who leave the presence of God,
that is, His loving-kindness. Thus the Psalmist says, "I said in my
prosperity, I shall never be moved."Â But observe what follows,
"Lord, by Thy favor Thou hast given strength to my honor; Thou didst
hide Thy face, and I was troubled;"[438]438 which teaches us that not
in itself, but by participation in the light of God, can any soul
possess beauty, or honor, or strength. The Manichæans should think
of this, to keep them from the blasphemy of identifying themselves
with the nature and substance of God. But they cannot think, because
they are not content. The Sabbath of the heart they are strangers
to. If they were content, as Cain was told to be, they would refer
their sin to themselves; that is, they would lay the blame on
themselves, and not on a race of darkness that no one ever heard of,
and so by the grace of God they would prevail over their sin. But
now the Manichæans, and all who oppose the truth by their various
heresies, leave the presence of God, like Cain and the scattered Jews,
and inhabit the land of commotion, that is, of carnal disquietude,
instead of the enjoyment of God, that is instead of Eden, which is
interpreted Feasting, where Paradise was planted. But not to depart
too much from the argument of this treatise I must limit myself to a
few, short remarks under this head.
14. Omitting therefore many passages in these Books where Christ may
be found, but which require longer explanation and proof, although the
most hidden meanings are the sweetest, convincing testimony may be
obtained from the enumeration of such things as the following:âThat
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, pleased God, and was translated, as
there is to be a seventh day of rest into which all will be translated
who, during the sixth day of the worldâs history, are created anew by
the incarnate Word. That Noah, with his family is saved by water and
wood, as the family of Christ is saved by baptism, as representing the
suffering of the cross. That this ark is made of beams formed in a
square, as the Church is constructed of saints prepared unto every
good work: for a square stands firm on any side. That the length
is six times the breadth, and ten times the height, like a human body,
to show that Christ appeared in a human body. That the breadth
reaches to fifty cubits; as the apostle says, "Our heart is
enlarged,"[439]439 that is, with spiritual love, of which he says
again, "The love of God is shed abroad in our heart by the Holy Ghost,
which is given unto us."[440]440Â For in the fiftieth day after His
resurrection, Christ sent His Holy Spirit to enlarge the hearts of His
disciples. That it is three hundred cubits long, to make up six
times fifty; as there are six periods in the history of the world
during which Christ has never ceased to be preached,âin five foretold
by the prophets, and in the sixth proclaimed in the gospel. That it
is thirty cubits high, a tenth part of the length; because Christ is
our height, who in his thirtieth year gave His sanction to the
doctrine of the gospel, by declaring that He came not to destroy the
law, but to fulfil it. Now the ten commandments are to be the heart
of the law; and so the length of the ark is ten times thirty. Noah
himself, too, was the tenth from Adam. That the beams of the ark are
fastened within and without with pitch, to signify by compact union
the forbearance of love, which keeps the brotherly connection from
being impaired, and the bond of peace from being broken by the
offences which try the Church either from without or from within.Â
For pitch is a glutinous substance, of great energy and force, to
represent the ardor of love which, with great power of endurance,
beareth all things in the maintenance of spiritual communion.
15. That all kinds of animals are inclosed in the ark; as the Church
contains all nations, which was also set forth in the vessel shown to
Peter. That clean and unclean animals are in the ark; as good and
bad take part in the sacraments of the Church. That the clean are in
sevens, and the unclean in twos; not because the bad are fewer than
the good, but because the good preserve the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace; and the Spirit is spoken of in Scripture as having a
sevenfold operation, as being "the Holy Spirit of wisdom and
understanding, of counsel and might, of knowledge and piety, and of
the fear of God."[441]441Â So also the number fifty, which is
connected with the advent of the Holy Spirit, is made up of seven
times seven, and one over; whence it is said, "Endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[442]442Â The bad, again,
are in twos, as being easily divided, from their tendency to schism.Â
That Noah, counting his family, was the eighth; because the hope of
our resurrection has appeared in Christ, who rose from the dead on the
eighth day, that is, on the day after the seventh, or Sabbath day.Â
This day was the third from His passion; but in the ordinary reckoning
of days, it is both the eighth and the first.
16. That the whole ark together is finished in a cubit above; as the
Church, the body of Christ gathered into unity, is raised to
perfection. So Christ says in the Gospel: "He that gathereth not
with me, scattereth."[443]443Â That the entrance is on the side; as
no man enters the Church except by the sacrament of the remission of
sins which flowed from Christâs opened side. That the lower spaces
of the ark are divided into two and three chambers:Â as the multitude
of all nations in the Church is divided into two, as circumcised and
uncircumcised; or into three, as descended from the three sons of
Noah. And these parts of the ark are called lower, because in this
earthly state there is a difference of races, and above we are
completed in one. Above there is no diversity; for Christ is all and
in all, finishing us, as it were, in one cubit above with heavenly
unity.
17. That the flood came seven days after Noah entered the ark; as we
are baptized in the hope of the future rest, which was denoted by the
seventh day. That all flesh on the face of the earth, outside the
ark, was destroyed by the flood; as, beyond the communion of the
Church, though the water of baptism is the same, it is efficacious
only for destruction, and not for salvation. That it rained for
forty days and forty nights; as the sacrament of heavenly baptism
washes away all the guilt of the sins against the ten commandments
throughout all the four quarters of the world (four times ten is
forty), whether that guilt has been contracted in the day of
prosperity or in the night of adversity.
18. That Noah was five hundred years old when God told him to make
the ark, and six hundred when he entered the ark; which shows that the
ark was made during one hundred years, which seem to correspond to the
years of an age of the world. So the sixth age is occupied with the
construction of the Church by the preaching of the gospel. The man
who avails himself of the offer of salvation is made like a square
beam, fitted for every good work, and forms part of the sacred
fabric. Again, it was the second month of the six hundredth year
when Noah entered the ark, and in two months there are sixty days; so
that here, as in every multiple of six, we have the number denoting
the sixth age.
19. That mention is made of the twenty seventh day of the month; as
we have already seen the significance of the square in the beams.Â
Here especially it is significant; for as twenty-seven is the cube of
three, there is a trinity in the means by which we are, as it were,
squared, or fitted for every good work. By the memory we remember
God; by the understanding we know Him; by the will we love Him. That
in the seventh month the ark rested; reminding us again of the seventh
day of rest. And here again, to denote the perfection of those at
rest, the twenty-seventh day of the month is mentioned for the second
time. So what is promised in hope is realized in experience. There
is here a combination of seven and eight; for the water rose fifteen
cubits above the mountains, pointing to a profound mystery in
baptism,âthe sacrament of our regeneration. For the seventh day of
rest is connected with the eighth of resurrection. For when the
saints receive again their bodies after the rest of the intermediate
state, the rest will not cease; but rather the whole man, body and
soul united, renewed in the immortal health, will attain to the
realization of his hope in the enjoyment of eternal life. Thus the
sacrament of baptism, like the waters of Noah, rises above all the
wisdom of the proud. Seven and eight are also combined in the number
of one hundred and fifty, made up of seventy and eighty, which was the
number of days during which the water prevailed, pointing out the deep
import of baptism in consecrating the new man to hold the faith of
rest and resurrection.
20. That the raven sent out after forty days did not return, being
either prevented by the water or attracted by some floating carcase;
as men defiled by impure desire, and therefore eager for things
outside in the world, are either baptized, or are led astray into the
company of those to whom, as they are outside the ark, that is,
outside the Church, baptism is destructive. That the dove when sent
forth found no rest, and returned; as in the New Testament rest is not
promised to the saints in this world. The dove was sent forth after
forty days, a period denoting the length of human life. When again
sent forth after seven days, denoting the sevenfold operation of the
Spirit, the dove brought back a fruitful olive branch; as some even
who are baptized outside of the Church, if not destitute of the
fatness of charity, may come after all, as it were in the evening, and
be brought into the one communion by the mouth of the dove in the kiss
of peace. That, when again sent forth after seven days, the dove did
not return; as, at the end of the world, the rest of the saints shall
no longer be in the sacrament of hope, as now, while in the communion
of the Church, they drink what flowed from the side of Christ, but in
the perfection of eternal safety, when the kingdom shall be delivered
up to God and the Father, and when, in that unclouded contemplation of
unchangeable truth, we shall no longer need natural symbols.
21. There are many other points which we cannot take notice of even
in this cursory manner. Why in the six hundred and first year of
Noahâs lifeâthat is, after six hundred years were completedâthe
covering of the ark is removed, and the hidden mystery, as it were,
disclosed. Why the earth is said to have dried on the twenty-seventh
day of the second month; as if the number fifty-seven denoted the
completion of the rite of baptism. For the twenty-seventh day of the
second month is the fifty-seventh day of the year; and the number
fifty-seven is seven times eight, which are the numbers of the spirit
and the body, with one over, to denote the bond of unity. Why they
leave the ark together, though they entered separately. For it is
said:Â "Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sonsâ wives
with him, into the ark;" the men and the women being spoken of
separately; which denotes the time when the flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. But they go forth, Noah
and his wife, and his sons and their wives,âthe men and women
together. For in the end of the world, and in the resurrection of
the just, the body will be united to the spirit in perfect harmony,
undisturbed by the wants and the passions of mortality. Why, after
leaving the ark, only clean animals are offered in sacrifice to God,
though both clean and unclean were in the ark.
22. Then, again, it is significant that when God speaks to Noah, and
begins anew, as it were, in order, by repetition in various forms, to
draw attention to the figure of the Church, the sons of Noah are
blessed, and told to replenish the earth, and all animals are given to
them for food; as was said to Peter of the vessel, "Kill and eat."Â
That they are told to pour out the blood when they eat; that the
former life may not be kept shut up in the conscience, but may be, as
it were, poured out in confession. That God makes the bow, which
appears in the clouds only when the sun shines, the sign of His
covenant with men, and with every living thing, that He will not
destroy them with a flood; as those do not perish by the flood, in
separation from the Church, who in the clouds of Godâthat is, in the
prophets and in all the sacred Scripturesâdiscern the glory of Christ,
instead of seeking their own glory. The worshippers of the sun,
however, need not pride themselves on this; for they must understand
that the sun, as also a lion, a lamb, and a stone, are used as types
of Christ because they have some resemblance, not because they are of
the same substance.
23. Again, the sufferings of Christ from His own nation are
evidently denoted by Noah being drunk with the wine of the vineyard he
planted, and his being uncovered in his tent. For the mortality of
Christâs flesh was uncovered, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to
the Greeks foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and
Greeks, both Shem and Japhet, the power of God and the wisdom of
God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the
weakness of God is stronger than men.[444]444
Moreover, the two sons, the eldest and the youngest, carrying the
garment backwards, are a figure of the two peoples, and the sacrament
of the past and completed passions of the Lord. They do not see the
nakedness of their father, because they do not consent to Christâs
death; and yet they honor it with a covering, as knowing whence they
were born. The middle son is the Jewish people, for they neither
held the first place with the apostles, nor believed subsequently with
the Gentiles. They saw the nakedness of their father, because they
consented to Christâs death; and they told it to their brethren
outside, for what was hidden in the prophets was disclosed by the
Jews. And thus they are the servants of their brethren. For what
else is this nation now but a desk for the Christians, bearing the law
and the prophets, and testifying to the doctrine of the Church, so
that we honor in the sacrament what they disclose in the letter?
24. Again, every one must be impressed, and be either enlightened or
confirmed in the faith, by the blessing of the two sons who honored
the nakedness of their father, though they turned away their faces, as
displeased with the evil done by the vine. "Blessed," he says, "be
the Lord God of Shem."Â For although God is the God of all nations,
even the Gentiles acknowledge Him to be in a peculiar sense the God of
Israel. And how is this to be explained but by the blessing of
Japhet? The occupation of all the world by the Church among the
Gentiles was exactly foretold in the words:Â "Let God enlarge Japhet,
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem." That is for the Manichæan
to attend to. You see what the state of the world actually is. The
very thing that you are astonished and grieved at in us is this, that
God is enlarging Japhet. Is He not dwelling in the tents of
Shem?âthat is, in the churches built by the apostles, the sons of the
prophets. Hear what Paul says to the believing Gentiles: "Ye were
at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants; having no hope of the
promise, and without God in the world."Â In these words there is a
description of the state of Japhet before he dwelt in the tents of
Shem. But observe what follows: "Now then;" he says, "ye are no
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints,
and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief
corner-stone."[445]445Â Here we have Japhet enlarged, and dwelling in
the tents of Shem. These testimonies are taken from the epistles of
the apostles, which you yourselves acknowledge, and read, and profess
to follow. You occupy an unhappy middle position in a building of
which Christ is not the chief corner-stone. For you do not belong to
the wall of those who, like the apostles, being of the circumcision,
believed in Christ; nor to the wall of those who, being of the
uncircumcision, like all the Gentiles, are joined in the unity of
faith, as in the fellowship of the corner-stone. However, all who
accept and read any books of our canon in which Christ is spoken of as
having been born and having suffered in the flesh, and who do not
unite with us in a common veiling with the sacrament of the mortality,
uncovered by the passion, but without the knowledge of piety and
charity make known that from which we all are born,âalthough they
differ among themselves, whether as Jews and heretics, or as heretics
of one kind or other,âare still all useful to the Church, as being all
alike servants, either in bearing witness to or in proving some
truth. For of heretics it is said: "There must be heresies, that
those who are approved among you may be manifested."[446]446Â Go on,
then, with your objections to the Old Testament Scriptures! Go on,
ye servants of Ham! You have despised the flesh from which you were
born when uncovered. For you could not have called yourselves
Christians unless Christ had come into the world, as foretold by the
prophets, and had drunk of His own vine that cup which could not pass
from Him, and had slept in His passion, as in the drunkenness of the
folly which is wiser than men; and so, in the hidden counsel of God,
the disclosure had been made of that infirmity of mortal flesh which
is stronger than men. For unless the Word of God had taken on
Himself this infirmity, the name of Christian, in which you also
glory, would not exist in the earth. Go on, then, as I have said.Â
Declare in mockery what we may honor with reverence. Let the Church
use you as her servants to make manifest those members who are
approved. So particular are the predictions of the prophets
regarding the state and the sufferings of the Church, that we can find
a place even for you in what is said of the destructive error by which
the reprobate are to perish, while the approved are to be manifested.
25. You say that Christ was not foretold by the prophets of Israel,
when, in fact, their Scriptures teem with such predictions, if you
would only examine them carefully, instead of treating them with
levity. Who in Abraham leaves his country and kindred that he may
become rich and prosperous among strangers, but He who, leaving the
land and country of the Jews, of whom He was born in the flesh, is now
extending His power, as we see, among the Gentiles? Who in Isaac
carried the wood for His own sacrifice, but He who carried His own
cross? Who is the ram for sacrifice, caught by the horns in a. bush,
but He who was fastened to the cross as an offering for us?
26. Who in the angel striving with Jacob, on the one hand is
constrained to give him a blessing, as the weaker to the stronger, the
conquered to the conqueror, and on the other hand puts his thigh-bone
out of joint, but He who, when He suffered the people of Israel to
prevail against Him, blessed those among them who believed, while the
multitude, like Jacobâs thigh-bone, halted in their carnality? Who
is the stone placed under Jacobâs head, but Christ the head of man?Â
And in its anointing the very name of Christ is expressed, for, as all
know, Christ means anointed. Christ refers to this in the Gospel,
and declares it to be a type of Himself, when He said of Nathanael
that he was an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile, and when
Nathanael, resting his head, as it were, on this Stone, or on Christ,
confessed Him as the Son of God and the King of Israel anointing the
Stone by his confession, in which he acknowledged Jesus to be
Christ. On this occasion the Lord made appropriate mention of what
Jacob saw in his dream "Verily I say unto you, Ye shall see heaven
opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
man."[447]447Â This Jacob saw, who in the blessing was called Israel,
when he had the stone for a pillow, and had the vision of the ladder
reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of God were
ascending and descending.[448]448Â The angels denote the evangelists,
or preachers of Christ. They ascend when they rise above the created
universe to describe the supreme majesty of the divine nature of
Christ as being in the beginning God with God, by whom all things were
made. They descend to tell of His being made of a woman, made under
the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law. Christ
is the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, or from the carnal to the
spiritual:Â for by His assistance the carnal ascend to spirituality;
and the spiritual may be said to descend to nourish the carnal with
milk when they cannot speak to them as to spiritual, but as to
carnal.[449]449Â There is thus both an ascent and a descent upon the
Son of man. For the Son of man is above as our head, being Himself
the Saviour; and He is below in His body, the Church. He is the
ladder, for He says, "I am the way."Â We ascend to Him to see Him in
heavenly places; we descend to Him for the nourishment of His weak
members. And the ascent and descent are by Him as well as to Him.Â
Following His example, those who preach Him not only rise to behold
Him exalted, but let themselves down to give a plain announcement of
the truth. So the apostle ascends, "Whether we be beside ourselves,
it is to God;" and descends, "Whether we be sober, it is for your
sake." And by whom did he ascend and descend? "For the love of
Christ constraineth us:Â for we thus judge, that if one died for all,
then all died; and that He died for all, that they which live should
no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for them, and
rose again."[450]450
27. The man who does not find pleasure in these views of sacred
Scripture is turned away to fables, because he cannot bear sound
doctrine. The fables have an attraction for childish minds in people
of all ages; but we who are of the body of Christ should say with the
Psalmist; "O Lord, the wicked have spoken to me pleasing things, but
they are not after Thy law."[451]451Â In every page of these
Scriptures, while I pursue my search as a son of Adam in the sweat of
my brow, Christ either openly or covertly meets and refreshes me.Â
Where the discovery is laborious my ardor is increased, and the spoil
obtained is eagerly devoured, and is hidden in my heart for my
nourishment.
28. Christ appears to me in Joseph, who was persecuted and sold by
his brethren, and after his troubles obtained honor in Egypt. We
have seen the troubles of Christ in the world, of which Egypt was a
figure, in the sufferings of the martyrs. And now we see the honor
of Christ in the same world which He subdues to Himself, in exchange
for the food which He bestows. Christ appears to me in the rod of
Moses, which became a serpent when cast on the earth as a figure of
His death, which came from the serpent. Again, when caught by the
tail it became a rod, as a figure of His return after the
accomplishment of His work in His resurrection to what He was before,
destroying death by His new life, so as to leave no trace of the
serpent. We, too, who are His body, glide along in the same
mortality through the folds of time; but when at last the tail of this
course of things is laid hold of by the hand of judgment that it shall
go no further, we shall be renewed, and rising from the destruction of
death, the last enemy, we shall be the sceptre of government in the
right hand of God.
29. Of the departure of Israel from Egypt, let us hear what the
apostle himself says:Â "I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in
the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of
the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock which
followed them, and that rock was Christ."[452]452 The explanation of
one thing is a key to the rest. For if the rock is Christ from its
stability, is not the manna Christ, the living bread which came down
from heaven, which gives spiritual life to those who truly feed on
it? The Israelites died because they received the figure only in its
carnal sense. The apostle, by calling it spiritual food, shows its
reference to Christ, as the spiritual drink is explained by the words,
"That rock was Christ," which explain the whole. Then is not the
cloud and the pillar Christ, who by His uprightness and strength
supports our feebleness; who shines by night and not by day, that they
who see not may see, and that they who see may be made blind? In the
clouds and the Red Sea there is the baptism consecrated by the blood
of Christ. The enemies following behind perish, as past sins are put
away.
30. The Israelites are led through the wilderness, as those who are
baptized are in the wilderness while on the way to the promised land,
hoping and patiently waiting for that which they see not. In the
wilderness are severe trials, lest they should in heart return to
Egypt. Still Christ does not leave them; the pillar does not go
away. The bitter waters are sweetened by wood, as hostile people
become friendly by learning to honor the cross of Christ. The twelve
fountains watering the seventy palm trees are a figure of apostolic
grace watering the nations. As seven is multiplied by ten, so the
decalogue is fulfilled in the sevenfold operation of the Spirit. The
enemy attempting to stop them in their way is overcome by Moses
stretching out his hands in the figure of the cross. The deadly
bites of serpents are healed by the brazen serpent, which was lifted
up that they might look at it. The Lord Himself gives the
explanation of this:Â "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever
believeth in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life."[453]453Â
So in many other things we may find a protest against the obstinacy of
unbelieving hearts. In the passover a lamb is killed, representing
Christ, of whom it is said in the Gospel, "Behold the Lamb of God, who
taketh away the sin of the world!"[454]454Â In the passover the bones
of the lamb were not to be broken; and on the cross the bones of the
Lord were not broken. The evangelist, in reference to this, quotes
the words, "A bone of Him shall not be broken."[455]455Â The posts
were marked with blood to keep away destruction, as people are marked
on their foreheads with the sign of the Lordâs passion for their
salvation. The law was given on the fiftieth day after the passover;
so the Holy Spirit came on the fiftieth day after the passion of the
Lord. The law is said to have been written with the finger of God;
and the Lord says of the Holy Spirit, "With the finger of God I cast
out devils."[456]456Â Such are the Scriptures in which Faustus, after
shutting his eyes, declares that he can see no prediction of Christ.Â
But we need not wonder that he should have eyes to read and yet no
heart to understand, since, instead of knocking in devout faith at the
door of the heavenly secret, he dares to act in profane hostility.Â
So let it be, for so it ought to be. Let the gate of salvation be
shut to the proud. The meek, to whom God teaches His ways, will find
all these things in the Scriptures, and those things which he does not
see he will believe from what he sees.
31. He will see Jesus leading the people into the land of promise;
for this name was given to the leader of Israel, not at first, or by
chance, but on account of the work to which he was called. He will
see the cluster from the land of promise hanging from a wooden pole.Â
He will see in Jericho, as in this perishing world, an harlot, one of
those of whom the Lord says that they go before the proud into the
kingdom of heaven, putting out of her window a scarlet line symbolical
of blood, as confession is made with the mouth for the remission of
sins. He will see the walls of Jericho, like the frail defences of
the world, fall when compassed seven times by the ark of the covenant;
as now in the course of the seven days of time the covenant of God
compasses the whole globe, that in the end, death, the last enemy, may
be destroyed, and the Church, like one single house, be saved from the
destruction of the ungodly, purified from the defilement of
fornication by the window of confession in the blood of remission.
32. He will see the times of the judges precede those of the kings,
as the judgment will precede the kingdom. And under both the judges
and the kings he will see Christ and the Church repeatedly prefigured
in many and various ways. Who was in Samson, when he killed the lion
that met him as he went to get a wife among strangers, but He who,
when going to call His Church from among the Gentiles, said, "Be of
good cheer, I have overcome the world?"[457]457Â What means the hive
in the mouth of the slain lion, but that, as we see, the very laws of
the earthly kingdom which once raged against Christ have now lost
their fierceness, and have become a protection for the preaching of
gospel sweetness? What is that woman boldly piercing the temples of
the enemy with a wooden nail, but the faith of the Church casting down
the kingdom of the devil by the cross of Christ? What is the fleece
wet while the ground was dry, and again the fleece dry while the
ground was wet, but the Hebrew nation at first possessing alone in its
typical institution Christ the mystery of God, while the whole world
was in ignorance? And now the whole world has this mystery revealed,
while the Jews are destitute of it.
33. To mention only a few things in the times of the kings, at the
very outset does not the change in the priesthood when Eli was
rejected and Samuel chosen, and in the kingdom when Saul was rejected
and David chosen, clearly predict the new priesthood and kingdom to
come in our Lord Jesus Christ, when the old, which was a shadow of the
new, was rejected? Did not David, when he ate the shew-bread, which
it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat, prefigure the union
of the kingdom and priesthood in one person, Jesus Christ? In the
separation of the ten tribes from the temple while two were left, is
there not a figure of what the apostle asserts of the whole nation:Â
"A remnant is saved by the election of grace."?[458]458
34. In the time of famine, Elijah is fed by ravens bringing bread in
the morning and flesh in the evening; but the Manichæans cannot in
this perceive Christ, who, as it were, hungers for our salvation, and
to whom sinners come in confession, having now the first-fruits of the
Spirit, while in the end, that is to say in the evening of the age,
they will have the resurrection of their bodies also. Elijah is sent
to be fed by a widow woman of another nation, who was going to gather
two sticks before she died, denoting the two wooden beams of the
cross. Her meal and oil are blessed, as the fruit and cheerfulness
of charity do not diminish by expenditure, for God loveth a cheerful
giver.[459]459
35. The children that mocked Elisha by calling out Baldhead, are
devoured by wild beasts, as those who in childish folly scoff at
Christ crucified on Calvary are destroyed by devils. Elisha sends
his servants to lay his staff on the dead body, but it does not
revive; he comes himself, and lays himself exactly upon the dead body,
and it revives:Â as the Word of God sent the law by His servant,
without any profit to mankind dead in sins; and yet it was not sent
without purpose by Him who knew the necessity of its being first
sent. Then He Himself came, conformed Himself to us by participation
in our death, and we were revived. When they were cutting down wood
with axes, the iron, flying off the wood, sank to the bottom of the
river, and came up again when the wood was thrown in by Elisha. So,
when Christâs bodily presence was cutting down the unfruitful trees
among the unbelieving Jews, according to the saying of John, "Behold,
the axe is laid to the roots of the tree,"[460]460 by the death they
inflicted, Christ was separated from His body, and descended to the
depths of the infernal world; and then, when His body was laid in the
tomb, like the wood on the water, His spirit returned, like the iron
to the handle, and He rose. The reader will observe how many things
of this kind are omitted for the sake of brevity.
36. As regards the departure to Babylon, where the Spirit of God by
the prophet Jeremiah enjoins them to go, telling them to pray for the
people in whose land they dwell as strangers, because in their peace
they would find peace, and to build houses, and plant vineyards and
gardens,âthe figurative meaning is plain, when we consider that the
true Israelites, in whom is no guile, passed over in the ministry of
the apostles with the ordinances of the gospel into the kingdom of the
Gentiles. So the apostle, like an echo of Jeremiah, says to us, "I
will first of all that prayer, supplications, intercessions and giving
of thanks be made for all men, and for those in authority, that we may
live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and charity; for this
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have
all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the
truth."[461]461Â Accordingly the basilicas of Christian congregations
have been built by believers as abodes of peace, and vineyards of the
faithful have been renewed, and gardens planted, where chief among the
plants is the mustard tree, in whose wide-spreading branches the pride
of the Gentiles, like the birds of heaven, in its soaring ambition,
takes shelter. Again, in the return from captivity after seventy
years, according to Jeremiahâs prophecy, and in the restoration of the
temple, every believer in Christ must see a figure of our return as
the Church of God from the exile of this world to the heavenly
Jerusalem, after the seven days of time have fulfilled their course.Â
Joshua the high priest, after the captivity, who rebuilt the temple,
was a figure of Jesus Christ, the true High Priest of our
restoration. The prophet Zechariah saw this Joshua in a filthy
garment; and after the devil who stood by to accuse him was defeated,
the filthy garment was taken from him, and a dress of honor and glory
given him. So the body of Jesus Christ, which is the Church, when
the adversary is conquered in the judgment at the end of the world,
will pass from the pains of exile to the glory of everlasting
safety. This is the song of the Psalmist at the dedication of his
house:Â "Thou hast turned for me my mourning into gladness; Thou hast
removed my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness, that my glory may
sing praise unto Thee, and not be silent."[462]462
37. It is impossible, in a digression like this, to refer, however
briefly, to all the figurative predictions of Christ which are to be
found in the law and the prophets. Will it be said that these things
happened in the regular course of things, and that it is a mere
ingenious fancy to make them typical of Christ? Such an objection
might come from Jews and Pagans; but those who wish to be considered
Christians must yield to the authority of the apostle when he says,
"All these things happened to them for an example;" and again, "These
things are our examples."[463]463Â For if two men, Ishmael and Isaac,
are types of the two covenants, can it be supposed that there is no
significance in the vast number of particulars which have no
historical or natural value? Suppose we were to see some Hebrew
characters written on the wall of a noble building, should we be so
foolish as to conclude that, because we cannot understand the
characters, they are not intended to be read, and are mere painting,
without any meaning? So, whoever with a candid mind reads all these
things that are contained in the Old Testament Scriptures, must feel
constrained to acknowledge that they have a meaning.
38. As an example of those particulars which have no meaning at all
if not a symbolical one:Â Granting that it was necessary that woman
should be made as an help meet for man, what natural reason can be
assigned for her being taken from his side while he slept? Granting
that an ark was required in order to escape from the flood, why should
it have precisely these dimensions, and why should they be recorded
for the devout study of future generations? Granting that the
animals were brought into the ark to preserve the various races, why
should there be seven clean and two unclean? Granting that the ark
must have a door, why should it be in the side, and why should this
fact be committed to writing? Abraham is commanded to sacrifice his
son:Â we may allow that this proof of his obedience was required in
order to make it conspicuous in all ages; we may allow, too, that it
was a proper thing for the son to carry the wood instead of the aged
father, and that in the end the fatal stroke was forbidden, lest the
father should be left childless. But what had the shedding of the
ramâs blood to do with Abrahamâs trial? or if it was necessary to
complete the sacrifice, was the ram any the better of being caught by
the horns in a bush? The human mind, that is to say, a rational
mind, is led by the consideration of the way in which these apparently
superfluous things are blended with what is necessary, first to
acknowledge their significance, and then to try to discover it.
39. The Jews themselves, who scoff at the crucified Saviour in whom
we believe, and who consequently will not allow that Christ is
predicted in the sayings and actions recorded in the Old Testament,
are compelled to come to us for an explanation of those things which,
if not explained, must appear trifling and ridiculous. This led
Philo, a Jew of great learning, whom the Greeks speak of as rivalling
Plato in eloquence, to attempt to explain some things without any
reference to Christ, in whom he did not believe. His attempt only
shows the inferiority of all ingenious speculations, when made without
keeping Christ in view, to whom all the predictions really point. So
true is that saying of the apostle:Â "When they shall turn to the
Lord, the veil shall be taken away."[464]464Â For instance, Noahâs
ark is, according to Philo, a type of the human body, member by
member:Â with this view, he shows that the numerical proportions
agree perfectly. For there is no reason why a type of Christ should
not be a type of the human body, too, since the Saviour of mankind
appeared in a human body, though what is typical of a human body is
not necessarily typical of Christ. Philoâs explanation fails,
however, as regards the door in the side of the ark. He actually,
for the sake of saying something, makes this door represent the lower
apertures of the body. He has the hardihood to put this in words,
and on paper. Indeed, he knew not the door and could not understand
the symbol. Had he turned to Christ the veil would have been taken
away, and he would have found the sacraments of the Church flowing
from the side of Christâs human body. For, according to the
announcement, "They two shall be one flesh," some things in the ark
which is a type of Christ, refer to Christ, and some to the Church.Â
This contrast between the explanations which keep Christ in view, and
all other ingenious perversions, is the same in every particular of
all the figures in Scripture.
40. The Pagans, too, cannot deny our right to give a figurative
meaning to both words and things, especially as we can point to the
fulfillment of the types and figures. For the Pagans themselves try
to find in their own fables figures of natural and religious truth.Â
Sometimes they give clear explanations, while at other times they
disguise their meaning, and what is sacred in the temples becomes a
jest in the theatres. They unite a disgraceful licentiousness to a
degrading superstition.
41. Besides this wonderful agreement between the types and the
things typified, the adversary may be convinced by plain prophetic
intimations, such as this:Â "In thy seed shall all nations be
blessed."Â This was said to Abraham,[465]465 and again to
Isaac,[466]466 and again to Jacob.[467]467Â Hence the significance of
the words "I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob."[468]468Â
God fulfills His promise to their seed in blessing all nations. With
a like significance, Abraham himself, when he made his servant swear,
told him to put his hand under his thigh;[469]469 for he knew that
thence would come the flesh of Christ, in whom we have now, not the
promise of blessing to all nations, but the promise fulfilled.
42. I should like to know, or rather, it would be well not to know,
with what blindness of mind Faustus reads the passage where Jacob
calls his sons, and says, "Assemble, that I may tell you the things
that are to happen in the last day. Assemble and hear, ye sons of
Jacob; give ear to Israel, your father."Â Surely these are the words
of a prophet. What, then, does he say of his son Judah, of whose
tribe Christ came of the seed of David according to the flesh, as the
apostle teaches? "Judah," he says, "thy brethren shall praise
thee:Â thy hand shall be upon the backs of thine enemies; the sons of
thy father shall bow down to thee. Judah is a lionâs whelp; my son
and offspring:Â bowing down, thou hast gone up:Â thou sleepest as a
lion, and as a young lion, who will rouse him up? A prince shall not
depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, till those things come
which have been laid up for him. He also is the desire of nations:Â
binding his foal unto the vine, and his assâs colt with sackcloth, he
shall wash his garment in wine, and his clothes in the blood of
grapes:Â his eyes are bright with wine, and his teeth whiter than
milk."[470]470Â There is no falsehood or obscurity in these words
when we read them in the clear light of Christ. We see His brethren
the apostles and all His joint-heirs praising Him, seeking, not their
own glory, but His. We see His hands on the backs of His enemies,
who are bent and bowed to the earth by the growth of the Christian
communities in spite of their opposition. We see Him worshipped by
the sons of Jacob, the remnant saved according to the election of
grace. Christ, who was born as an infant, is the lionâs whelp, as it
is added, My son and offspring, to show why this whelp, in whose
praise it is said, "The lionâs whelp is stronger than the
herd,"[471]471 is even in infancy stronger than its elders. We see
Christ ascending the cross, and bowing down when He gave up His
spirit. We see Him sleeping as a lion, because in death itself He
was not the conquered, but the conqueror, and as a lionâs whelp; for
the reason of His birth and of His death was the same. And He is
raised from the dead by Him whom no man hath seen or can see; for the
words, "Who will raise Him up?" point to an unknown power. A prince
did not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, till in due
time those things came which had been laid up in the promise. For we
learn from the authentic history of the Jews themselves, that Herod,
under whom Christ was born, was their first foreign king. So the
sceptre did not depart from the seed of Judah till the things laid up
for him came. Then, as the promise is not only to the believing
Jews, it is added:Â "He is the desire of the nations."Â Christ bound
His foalâthat is, His peopleâto the vine, when He preached in
sackcloth, crying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."Â
The Gentiles made subject to Him are represented by the assâs colt, on
which He also sat, leading it into Jerusalem, that is, the vision of
peace teaching the meek His ways. We see Him washing His garments in
wine; for He is one with the glorious Church, which He presents to
Himself, not having spot or wrinkle; to whom also it is said by
Isaiah:Â "Though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as
snow."[472]472 How is this done but by the remission of sins? And
the wine is none other than that of which it is said that it is "shed
for many, for the remission of sins."Â Christ is the cluster that
hung on the pole. So it is added, "and His clothes in the blood of
the grape."Â Again, what is said of His eyes being bright with wine,
is understood by those members of His body who are enabled, in holy
aberration of mind from the current of earthly things, to gaze on the
eternal light of wisdom. So Paul says in a passage quoted before:Â
"If we be beside ourselves, it is to God."Â Those are the eyes bright
with wine. But he adds: "If we be sober, it is for your sakes."Â
The babes needing to be fed with milk are not forgotten, as is denoted
by the words, "His teeth are whiter than milk."
43. What can our deluded adversaries say to such plain examples,
which leave no room for perverse denial, or even for sceptical
uncertainty? I call on the Manichæans to begin to inquire into
these subjects, and to admit the force of these evidences, on which I
have no time to dwell; nor do I wish to make a selection, in case the
ignorant reader should think there are no others, while the Christian
student might blame me for the omission of many points more striking
than those which occur to me at the moment. You will find many
passages which require no such explanation as has been given here of
Jacobâs prophecy. For instance, every reader can understand the
words, "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter," and the whole of that
plain prophecy, "With His stripes we are healed"â"He bore our
sins."[473]473Â We have a poetical gospel in the words:Â "They
pierced my hands and feet. They have told all my bones. They look
and stare upon me. They divided my garments among them, and cast
lots on my vesture."[474]474Â The blind even may now see the
fulfillment of the words:Â "All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn unto the Lord, and all kingdoms of the nations shall worship
before Him."Â The words in the Gospel, "My soul is sorrowful, even
unto death," "My soul is troubled," are a repetition of the words in
the Psalm, "I slept in trouble."[475]475Â And who made Him sleep?Â
Whose voices cried, Crucify him, crucify him? The Psalm tells us:Â
"The sons of men, their teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue
a sharp sword."[476]476Â But they could not prevent His resurrection,
or His ascension above the heavens, or His filling the earth with the
glory of His name; for the Psalm says:Â "Be Thou exalted, O God,
above the heavens, and let Thy glory be above all the earth."Â Every
one must apply these words to Christ:Â "The Lord said unto me, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will
give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts
of the earth for Thy possession."[477]477Â And what Jeremiah says of
wisdom plainly applies to Christ:Â "Jacob delivered it to his son,
and Israel to his chosen one. Afterwards He appeared on earth, and
conversed with men."[478]478
44. The same Saviour is spoken of in Daniel, where the Son of man
appears before the Ancient of days, and receives a kingdom without
end, that all nations may serve Him.[479]479Â In the passage quoted
from Daniel by the Lord Himself, "When ye shall see the abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy
place, let him that readeth understand,"[480]480 the number of weeks
points not only to Christ, but to the very time of His advent. With
the Jews, who look to Christ for salvation as we do, but deny that He
has come and suffered, we can argue from actual events. Besides the
conversion of the heathen, now so universal, as prophesied of Christ
in their own Scriptures, there are the events in the history of the
Jews themselves. Their holy place is thrown down, the sacrifice has
ceased, and the priest, and the ancient anointing; which was all
clearly foretold by Daniel when he prophesied of the anointing of the
Most Holy.[481]481Â Now, that all these things have taken place, we
ask the Jews for the anointed Most Holy, and they have no answer to
give. But it is from the Old Testament that the Jews derive all the
knowledge they have of Christ and His advent. Why do they ask John
whether he is Christ? Why do they say to the Lord, "How long dost
thou make us to doubt? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly."Â
Why do Peter and Andrew and Philip say to Nathanael, "We have found
Messias, which is interpreted Christ," but because this name was known
to them from the prophecies of their Scriptures? In no other nation
were the kings and priests anointed, and called Anointed or Christs.Â
Nor could this symbolical anointing be discontinued till the coming of
Him who was thus prefigured. For among all their anointed ones the
Jews looked for one who was to save them. But in the mysterious
justice of God they were blinded; and thinking only of the power of
the Messiah, they did not understand His weakness, in which He died
for us. In the book of Wisdom it is prophesied of the Jews: "Let
us condemn him to an ignominious death; for he will be proved in his
words. If he is truly the Son of God, He will aid him; and deliver
him from the hand of his enemies. Thus they thought, and erred; for
their wickedness blinded them."[482]482Â These words apply also to
those who, in spite of all these evidences, in spite of such a series
of prophecies, and of their fulfillment, still deny that Christ is
foretold in the Scriptures. As often as they repeat this denial, we
can produce fresh proofs, with the help of Him who has made such
provision against human perversity, that proofs already given need not
be repeated.
45. Faustus has an evasive objection, which he no doubt thinks a
most ingenious way of eluding the force of the clearest evidence of
prophecy, but of which one is unwilling to take any notice, because
answering it may give it an appearance of importance which it does not
really possess. What could be more irrational than to say that it is
weak faith which will not believe in Christ without evidence? Do our
adversaries, then, believe in testimony about Christ? Faustus wishes
us to believe the voice from heaven as distinguished from human
testimony. But did they hear this voice? Has not the knowledge of
it come to us through human testimony? The apostle describes the
transmission of this knowledge, when he says:Â "How shall they call
on Him on whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on
Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a
preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? As it is
written, "How beautiful are the feet of them who publish peace, who
bring good tidings!"[483]483Â Clearly, in the preaching of the
apostles there was a reference to prophetic testimony. The apostles
quoted the predictions of the prophets, to prove the truth and
importance of their doctrines. For although their preaching was
accompanied with the power of working miracles, the miracles would
have been ascribed to magic, as some even now venture to insinuate,
unless the apostles had shown that the authority of the prophets was
in their favor. The testimony of prophets who lived so long before
could not be ascribed to magical arts. Perhaps the reason why
Faustus will not have us believe the Hebrew prophets as witnesses of
the true Christ, is because he believes Persian heresies about a false
Christ.
46. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Christian
mind must first be nourished in simple faith, in order that it may
become capable of understanding things heavenly and eternal. Thus it
is said by the prophet:Â "Unless ye believe, ye shall not
understand."[484]484Â Simple faith is that by which, before we attain
to the height of the knowledge of the love of Christ, that we may be
filled with all the fullness of God, we believe that not without
reason was the dispensation of Christâs humiliation, in which He was
born and suffered as man, foretold so long before by the prophets
through a prophetic race, a prophetic people, a prophetic kingdom.Â
This faith teaches us, that in the foolishness which is wiser than
men, and in the weakness which is stronger than men, is contained the
hidden means of our justification and glorification. There are hid
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, which are opened to no one
who despises the nourishment transmitted through the breast of his
mother that is, the milk of apostolic and prophetic instruction; or
who, thinking himself too old for infantile nourishment, devours
heretical poison instead of the food of wisdom, for which he rashly
thought himself prepared. To require simple faith is quite
consistent with requiring faith in the prophets. The very use of
simple faith is to believe the prophets at the outset, while the
understanding of the person who speaks in the prophets is attained
after the mind has been purified and strengthened.
47. But, it is said, if the prophets foretold Christ, they did not
live in a way becoming their office. How can you tell whether they
did or not? You are bad judges of what it is to live well or ill,
whose justice consists in giving relief to an inanimate melon by
eating it, instead of giving food to the starving beggar. It is
enough for the babes in the Catholic Church, who do not yet know the
perfect justice of the human soul, and the difference between the
justice aimed at and that actually attained, to think of those men
according to the wholesome doctrine of the apostles, that the just
lives by faith. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for
righteousness. For the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the Gentiles by faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thy seed shall all nations be blessed."[485]485Â These are
the words of the apostle. If you would, at his clear well-known
voice, wake up from your unprofitable dreams, you would follow in the
footsteps of our father Abraham, and would be blessed, along with all
nations, in his seed. For, as the apostle says, "He received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which
he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all
that believe in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of
circumcision not only to those who are of the circumcision, but also
to those who follow the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham
in uncircumcision."[486]486Â Since the righteousness of Abrahamâs
faith is thus set forth as an example to us, that we too, being
justified by faith, may have peace with God, we ought to understand
his manner of life, without finding fault with it; lest, by a
premature separation from mother-Church, we prove abortions, instead
of being brought forth in due time, when the conception has arrived at
completeness.
48. This is a brief reply to Faustus in behalf of the character of
the patriarchs and prophets. It is the reply of the babes of our
faith, among whom I would reckon myself, inasmuch as I would not find
fault with the life of the ancient saints, even if I did not
understand its mystical character. Their life is proclaimed to us
with approval by the apostles in their Gospel, as they themselves in
their prophecy foretold the future apostles, that the two Testaments,
like the seraphim, might cry to one another, "Holy, holy, holy is the
Lord God of hosts."[487]487Â When Faustus, instead of the vague
general accusation which he makes here, condemns particular actions in
the lives of the patriarchs and the prophets, the Lord their God, and
ours also, will assist me to reply suitably and appropriately to the
separate charges. For the present, the reader must choose whether to
believe the commendation of the Apostle Paul or the accusations of
Faustus the Manichæan.[488]488
ââââââââââââ
Book XIII.
Faustus asserts that even if the Old Testament could be shown to
contain predictions, it would be of interest only to the Jews, pagan
literature subserving the same purpose for Gentiles. Augustin shows
the value of prophesy for Gentiles and Jews alike.
1. Faustus said: We are asked how we worship Christ when we reject
the prophets, who declared the promise of His advent. It is doubtful
whether, on examination, it can be shown that the Hebrew prophets
foretold our Christ, that is, the Son of God. But were it so, what
does it matter to us? If these testimonies of the prophets that you
speak of were the means of converting any one from Judaism to
Christianity, and if he should afterwards neglect these prophets, he
would certainly be in the wrong, and would be chargeable with
ingratitude. But we are by nature Gentiles, of the uncircumcision;
as Paul says, born under another law. Those whom the Gentiles call
poets were our first religious teachers, and from them we were
afterwards converted to Christianity. We did not first become Jews,
so as to reach Christianity through faith in their prophets; but were
attracted solely by the fame, and the virtues, and the wisdom of our
liberator Jesus Christ. If I were still in the religion of my
fathers, and a preacher were to come using the prophets as evidence in
favor of Christianity, I should think him mad for attempting to
support what is doubtful by what is still more doubtful to a Gentile
of another religion altogether. He would require first to persuade
me to believe the prophets, and then through the prophets to believe
Christ. And to prove the truth of the prophets, other prophets would
be necessary. For if the prophets bear witness to Christ, who bears
witness to the prophets? You will perhaps say that Christ and the
prophets mutually support each other. But a Pagan, who has nothing
to do with either, would believe neither the evidence of Christ to the
prophets, nor that of the prophets to Christ. If the Pagan becomes a
Christian, he has to thank his own faith, and nothing else. Let us,
for the sake of illustration, suppose ourselves conversing with a
Gentile inquirer. We tell him to believe in Christ, because He is
God. He asks for proof. We refer him to the prophets. He asks,
What prophets? We reply, The Hebrew. He smiles, and says that he
does not believe them. We remind him that Christ testifies to
them. He replies, laughing, that we must first make him believe in
Christ. The result of such a conversation is that we are silenced,
and the inquirer departs, thinking us more zealous than wise. Again,
I say, the Christian Church, which consists more of Gentiles than of
Jews, can owe nothing to Hebrew witnesses. If, as is said, any
prophecies of Christ are to be found in the Sibyl,[489]489 or in
Hermes,[490]490 called Trismegistus, or Orpheus, or any heathen poet,
they might aid the faith of those who, like us, are converts from
heathenism to Christianity. But the testimony of the Hebrews is
useless to us before conversion, for then we cannot believe them; and
superfluous after, for we believe without them.
2. Augustin replied: After the long reply of last book, a short
answer may suffice here. To one who has read that reply, it must
seem insanity in Faustus to persist in denying that Christ was
foretold by the Hebrew prophets, when the Hebrew nation was the only
one in which the name Christ had a peculiar sacredness as applied to
kings and priests; in which sense it continued to be applied till the
coming of Him whom those kings and priests typified. Where did the
Manichæan learn the name of Christ? If from Manichæus, it is very
strange that Africans, not to speak of others, should believe the
Persian Manichæus, since Faustus finds fault with the Romans and
Greeks, and other Gentiles, for believing the Hebrew prophets as
belonging to another race. According to Faustus, the predictions of
the Sibyl, or Orpheus, or any heathen poet, are more suitable for
leading Gentiles to believe in Christ. He forgets that none of these
are read in the churches, whereas the voice of the Hebrew prophets,
sounding everywhere, draws swarms of people to Christianity. When it
is so evident that men are everywhere led to Christ by the Hebrew
prophets, it is great absurdity to say that those prophets are not
suitable for the Gentiles.
3. Christ as foretold by the Hebrew prophets does not please you;
but this is the Christ in whom the Gentile nations believe, with whom,
according to you, Hebrew prophecy should have no weight. They
receive the gospel which, as Paul says, "God had promised before by
His prophets in the Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh."[491]491Â So we read in
Isaiah:Â "There shall be a Root of Jesse, which shall rise to reign
in the nations; in Him shall the Gentiles trust."[492]492Â And
again:Â "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they
shall call His name Emmanuel,"[493]493 which is, being interpreted,
God with us. Nor let the Manichæan think that Christ is foretold
only as a man by the Hebrew prophets; for this is what Faustus seems
to insinuate when he says, "Our Christ is the Son of God," as if the
Christ of the Hebrews was not the Son of God. We can prove Christ
the virginâs son of Hebrew prophecy to be God. For the Lord Himself
teaches the carnal Jews not to think that, because He is foretold as
the son of David, He is therefore no more than that. He asks:Â
"What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?" They reply: "Of
David."Â Then, to remind them of the name Emmanuel, God with us, He
says:Â "How does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, till I make Thine
enemies Thy footstool?"[494]494Â Here, then, Christ appears as God in
Hebrew prophecy. What prophecy can the Manichæans show with the
name of Christ in it?
4. Manichæus indeed was not a prophet of Christ, but calls himself
an apostle, which is a shameless falsehood; for it is well known that
this heresy began not only after Tertullian, but after Cyprian. In
all his letters Manichæus begins thus: "Manichæus, an apostle of
Jesus Christ." Why do you believe what Manichæus says of Christ?Â
What evidence does he give of his apostleship? This very name of
Christ is known to us only from the Jews, who, in their application of
it to their kings and priests, were not individually, but nationally,
prophets of Christ and Christâs kingdom. What right has he to use
this name, who forbids you to believe the Hebrew prophets, that he may
make you the heretical disciples of a false Christ, as he himself is a
false and heretical apostle? And if Faustus quotes as evidence in
his own support some prophets who, according to him, foretell Christ,
how will he satisfy his supposed inquirer, who will not believe either
the prophets or Faustus? Will he take our apostles as witnesses?Â
Unless he can find some apostles in life, he must read their writings;
and these are all against him. They teach our doctrine that Christ
was born of the Virgin Mary, that He was the Son of God, of the seed
of David according to the flesh. He cannot pretend that the writings
have been tampered with, for that would be to attack the credit of his
own witnesses. Or if he produces his own manuscripts of the
apostolic writings, he must also obtain for them the authority of the
churches founded by the apostles themselves, by showing that they have
been preserved and transmitted with their sanction. It will be
difficult for a man to make me believe him on the evidence of writings
which derive all their authority from his own word, which I do not
believe.
5. But perhaps you believe the common report about Christ. Faustus
makes a feeble suggestion of this kind as a last resource, to escape
being obliged either to produce his worthless authorities, or to come
under the power of those opposed to him. Well, if report is your
authority, you should consider the consequences of trusting to such
evidence. There are many bad things reported of you which you do not
wish people to believe. Is it reasonable to make the same evidence
true about Christ and false about yourselves? In fact, you deny the
common report about Christ. For the report most widely spread, and
which every one has heard repeated, is that which distinctly asserts
that Christ was born of the seed of David, according to the promise
made in the Hebrew Scriptures to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob:Â "In
thy seed shall all nations be blessed."Â You will not admit this
Hebrew testimony, but you do not seem to have any other. The
authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many
nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils,
is against you. Your books have no authority, for it is an authority
maintained by only a few, and these the worshippers of an untruthful
God and Christ. If they are not following the example of the beings
they worship, their testimony must be against their own false
doctrine. And, once more, common report gives a very bad account of
you, and invariably asserts, in opposition to you, that Christ was of
the seed of David. You did not hear the voice of the Father from
heaven. You did not see the works by which Christ bore witness to
Himself. The books which tell of these things you profess to
receive, that you may maintain a delusive appearance of Christianity;
but when anything is quoted against you, you say that the books have
been tampered with. You quote the passage where Christ says, "If ye
believe not me, believe the works;" and again, "I am one that bear
witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me;"
but you will not let us quote in reply such passages as these:Â
"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think that ye have eternal
life, and they are they that testify of me;" "If ye believed Moses, ye
would believe me, for he wrote of me;" "They have Moses and the
prophets, let them hear them;" "If they hear not Moses and the
prophets, neither will they believe though one rose from the dead."Â
What have you to say for yourselves? Where is your authority? If
you reject these passages of Scripture, in spite of the weighty
authority in their favor, what miracles can you show? However, if
you did work miracles, we should be on our guard against receiving
their evidence in your case; for the Lord has forewarned us:Â "Many
false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and shall do many signs
and wonders, that they may deceive, if it were possible, the very
elect:Â behold, I have told you before."[495]495Â This shows that
the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other; for
it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen,
as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long
before their occurrence.
6. Are, then, your doctrines so manifestly true, that they require
no support from miracles or from any testimony? Show us these
self-evident truths, if you have anything of the kind to show. Your
legends, as we have already seen, are long and silly, old wives fables
for the amusement of women and children. The beginning is detached
from the rest, the middle is unsound, and the end is a miserable
failure. If you begin with the immortal, invisible, incorruptible
God, what need was there of His fighting with the race of darkness?Â
And as for the middle of your theory, what becomes of the
incorruptibility and unchangeableness of God, when His members in
fruits and vegetables are purified by your mastication and
digestion? And for the end, is it just that the wretched soul should
be punished with lasting confinement in the mass of darkness, because
its God is unable to cleanse it of the defilement contracted from evil
external to itself in the fulfillment of His own commission? You are
at a loss for a reply. See the worthlessness of your boasted
manuscripts, numerous and valuable as you say they are! Alas for the
toils of the antiquaries! Alas for the property of the unhappy
owners! Alas for the food of the deluded followers! Destitute as
you are of Scripture authority, of the power of miracles, of moral
excellence, and of sound doctrine, depart ashamed, and return
penitent, confessing that true Christ, who is the Saviour of all who
believe in Him, whose name and whose Church are now displayed as they
were of old foretold, not by some being issuing from subterranean
darkness, but by a nation in a distinct kingdom established for this
purpose, that there those things might be figuratively predicted of
Christ which are now in reality fulfilled, and the prophets might
foretell in writing what the apostles now exhibit in their preaching.
7. Let us suppose, then, a conversation with a heathen inquirer, in
which Faustus described us as making a poor appearance, though his own
appearance was much more deplorable. If we say to the heathen,
Believe in Christ, for He is God, and, on his asking for evidence,
produce the authority of the prophets, if he says that he does not
believe the prophets, because they are Hebrew and he is a Gentile, we
can prove the truth of the prophets from the actual fulfillment of
their prophecies. He could scarcely be ignorant of the persecutions
suffered by the early Christians from the kings of this world; or if
he was ignorant, he could be informed from history and the records of
imperial laws. But this is what we find foretold long ago by the
prophet, saying, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a
vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the princes
take counsel together against the Lord, and against His Christ."Â The
rest of the Psalm shows that this is not said of David. For what
follows might convince the most stubborn unbeliever:Â "The Lord said
unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me,
and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the ends
of the earth for Thy possession."[496]496Â This never happened to the
Jews, whose king, David was, but is now plainly fulfilled in the
subjection of all nations to the name of Christ. This and many
similar prophecies, which it would take too long to quote, would
surely impress the mind of the inquirer. He would see these very
kings of the earth now happily subdued by Christ, and all nations
serving Him; and he would hear the words of the Psalm in which this
was so long before predicted:Â "All the kings of the earth shall bow
down to Him; all nations shall serve Him."[497]497Â And if he were to
read the whole of that Psalm, which is figuratively applied to
Solomon, he would find that Christ is the true King of peace, for
Solomon means peaceful; and he would find many things in the Psalm
applicable to Christ, which have no reference at all to the literal
King Solomon. Then there is that other Psalm where God is spoken of
as anointed by God, the very word anointed pointing to Christ, showing
that Christ is God, for God is represented as being
anointed.[498]498Â In reading what is said in this Psalm of Christ
and of the Church, he would find that what is there foretold is
fulfilled in the present state of the world. He would see the idols
of the nations perishing from off the earth, and he would find that
this is predicted by the prophets, as in Jeremiah, "Then shall ye say
unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall
perish from the earth, and from under heaven;"[499]499 and again, "O
Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of
affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto Thee from the ends of the
earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity,
and things wherein there is no profit. Shall a man make gods unto
himself, and they are no gods? Therefore, behold, I will at that
time cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my
might; and they shall know that I am the Lord."[500]500Â Hearing
these prophecies, and seeing their actual fulfillment, I need not say
that he would be affected; for we know by experience how the hearts of
believers are confirmed by seeing ancient predictions now receiving
their accomplishment.
8. In the same prophet the inquirer would find clear proof that
Christ is not merely one of the great men that have appeared in the
world. For Jeremiah goes on to say: "Cursed be the man that
trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth
from the Lord:Â for he shall be like the heath in the desert, and
shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places
of the wilderness, in a salt land not inhabited. Blessed is the man
that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is:Â for he shall
be as a tree beside the water, that spreadeth out its roots by the
river:Â he shall not fear when heat cometh, but his leaf shall be
green; he shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall
cease from yielding fruit."[501]501Â On hearing this curse pronounced
in the figurative language of prophecy on him that trusts in man, and
the blessing in similar style on him that trusts in God, the inquirer
might have doubts about our doctrine, in which we teach not only that
Christ is God, so that our trust is not in man, but also that He is
man because He took our nature. So some err by denying Christâs
humanity, while they allow His divinity. Others, again, assert His
humanity, but deny His divinity, and so either become infidels or
incur the guilt of trusting in man. The inquirer, then, might say
that the prophet says only that Christ is God, without any reference
to His human nature; whereas, in our apostolic doctrine, Christ is not
only God in whom we may safely trust, but the Mediator between God and
manâthe man Jesus. The prophet explains this in the words in which
he seems to check himself, and to supply the omission:Â "His heart,"
he says "is sorrowful throughout; and He is man, and who shall know
Him?"[502]502Â He is man, in order that in the form of a servant He
might heal the hard in heart, and that they might acknowledge as God
Him who became man for their sakes, that their trust might be not in
man, but in God-man. He is man taking the form of a servant. And
who shall know Him? For "He was in the form of God, and thought it
not robbery to be equal to God."[503]503Â He is man, for "the Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And who shall know Him? For
"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."[504]504Â And truly His heart was sorrowful
throughout. For even as regards His own disciples His heart was
sorrowful, when He said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet
have ye not known me?"Â "Have I been so long time with you" answers
to the words "He is man," and "Have ye not known me?" to "Who shall
know Him?"Â And the person is none other but He who says, "He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father."[505]505Â So that our trust is not
in man, to be under the curse of the prophet, but in God-man, that is,
in the Son of God, the Saviour Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God
and man. In the form of a servant the Father is greater than He; in
the form of God He is equal with the Father.
9. In Isaiah we read: "The pride of man shall be brought low; and
the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And they shall hide the
workmanship of their hands in the clefts of the rocks, and in dens and
caves of the earth, from fear of the Lord, and from the glory of His
power, when He shall arise to shake terribly the earth. For in that
day a man shall cast away his idols of gold and silver, which they
have made to worship, as useless and hurtful."[506]506Â Perhaps the
inquirer himself, who, as Faustus supposes, would laugh and say that
he does not believe the Hebrew prophets, has hid idols made with hands
in some cleft, or cave, or den. Or he may know a friend, or
neighbor, or fellow-citizen who has done this from the fear of the
Lord, who by the severe prohibition of the kings of the earth, now
serving and bowing down to him, as the prophet predicted, shakes the
earth, that is, breaks the stubborn heart of worldly men. The
inquirer is not likely to disbelieve the Hebrew prophets, when he
finds their predictions fulfilled, perhaps in his own person.
10. One might rather fear that the inquirer, in the midst of such
copious evidence, would say that the Christians composed those
writings when the events described had already begun to take place, in
order that those occurrences might appear to be not due to a merely
human purpose, but as if divinely foretold. One might fear this,
were it not for the widely spread and widely known people of the Jews;
that Cain, with the mark that he should not be killed by any one; that
Ham, the servant of his brethren, carrying as a load the books for
their instruction. From the Jewish manuscripts we prove that these
things were not written by us to suit the event, but were long ago
published and preserved as prophecies in the Jewish nation. These
prophecies are now explained in their accomplishment:Â for even what
is obscure in themâbecause these things happened to them as an
example, and were written for our benefit, on whom the ends of the
world are comeâis now made plain; and what was hidden in the shadows
of the future is now visible in the light of actual experience.
11. The inquirer might bring forward as a difficulty the fact that
those in whose books these prophecies are found are not united with us
in the gospel. But when convinced that this also is foretold, he
would feel how strong the evidence is. The prophecies of the
unbelief of the Jews no one can avoid seeing, no one can pretend to be
blind to them. No one can doubt that Isaiah spoke of the Jews when
he said, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his masterâs crib; but
Israel hath not known, and my people hath not considered;"[507]507 or
again, in the words quoted by the apostle, "I have stretched out my
hands all the day to a wicked and gainsaying people;"[508]508 and
especially where he says, "God has given them the spirit of remorse,
eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, and
should not understand,"[509]509 and many similar passages. If the
inquirer objected that it was not the fault of the Jews if God blinded
them so that they did not know Christ, we should try in the simplest
manner possible to make him understand that this blindness is the just
punishment of other secret sins known to God. We should prove that
the apostle recognizes this principle when he says of some persons,
"God gave them up to the lusts of their own hearts, and to a reprobate
mind, to do things not convenient;"[510]510 and that the prophets
themselves speak of this. For, to revert to the words of Jeremiah,
"He is man, and who shall know Him?" lest it should be an excuse for
the Jews that they did not know,âfor if they had known, as the apostle
says, "they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,"[511]511âthe
prophet goes on to show that their ignorance was the result of secret
criminality; for he says:Â "I the Lord search the heart and try the
reins, to give to every one according to his ways, and according to
the fruits of his doings."
12. If the next difficulty in the mind of the inquirer arose from
the divisions and heresies among those called Christians, he would
learn that this too is taken notice of by the prophets. For, as if
it was natural that, after being satisfied about the blindness of the
Jews, this objection from the divisions among Christians should occur,
Jeremiah, observing this order in his prophecy, immediately adds in
the passage already quoted:Â "The partridge is clamorous, gathering
what it has not brought forth, making riches without judgment."Â For
the partridge is notoriously quarrelsome, and is often caught from its
eagerness in quarreling. So the heretics discuss not to find the
truth, but with a dogged determination to gain the victory one way or
another, that they may gather, as the prophet says, what they have not
brought forth. For those whom they lead astray are Christians
already born of the gospel, whom the Christian profession of the
heretics misleads. Thus they make riches not with judgment, but with
inconsiderate haste. For they do not consider that the followers
whom they gather as their riches are taken from the genuine original
Christian society, and deprived of its benefits; and as the apostle
describes these heretics in the words:Â "As Jannes and Jambres
withstood Moses, so they also resist the truth:Â men of corrupt
minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no
further:Â for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs
also was."[512]512Â So the prophet goes on to say of the partridge,
which gathers what it has not brought forth:Â "In the midst of his
days they shall leave him, and in the end he shall be a fool;" that
is, he who at first misled people by a promising display of superior
wisdom, shall be a fool, that is, shall be seen to be a fool. He
will be seen when his folly is manifest to all men, and to those to
whom he was at first a wise man he will then be a fool.
13. As if anticipating that the inquirer would ask next by what
plain mark a young disciple, not yet able to distinguish the truth
among so many errors, might find the true Church of Christ, since the
clear fulfillment of so many predictions compelled him to believe in
Christ, the prophet answers this question in what follows, and teaches
that the Church of Christ, which he describes prophetically, is
conspicuously visible. His words are: "A glorious high throne is
our sanctuary."[513]513Â This glorious throne is the Church of which
the apostle says:Â "The temple of God is holy, which temple ye
are."[514]514Â The Lord also, foreseeing the conspicuousness of the
Church as a help to young disciples who might be misled, says, "A city
that is set on an hill cannot be hid."[515]515Â Since, then, a
glorious high throne is our sanctuary, no attention is to be paid to
those who would lead us into sectarianism, saying, "Lo, here is
Christ," or "Lo there."Â Lo here, lo there, speaks of division; but
the true city is on a mountain, and the mountain is that which, as we
read in the prophet Daniel, grew from a little stone till it filled
the whole earth.[516]516Â And no attention should be paid to those
who, professing some hidden mystery confined to a small number, say,
Behold, He is in the chamber; behold, in the desert:Â for a city set
on an hill cannot be hid, and a glorious high throne is our sanctuary.
14. After considering these instances of the fulfillment of prophecy
about kings and people acting as persecutors, and then becoming
believers, about the destruction of idols, about the blindness of the
Jews, about their testimony to the writings which they have preserved,
about the folly of heretics, about the dignity of the Church of true
and genuine Christians, the inquirer would most reasonably receive the
testimony of these prophets about the divinity of Christ. No doubt,
if we were to begin by urging him to believe prophecies yet
unfulfilled, he might justly answer, What have I to do with these
prophets, of whose truth I have no evidence? But, in view of the
manifest accomplishment of so many remarkable predictions, no candid
person would despise either the things which were thought worthy of
being predicted in those early times with so much solemnity, or those
who made the predictions. To none can we trust more safely, as
regards either events long past or those still future, than to men
whose words are supported by the evidence of so many notable
predictions having been fulfilled.
15. If any truth about God or the Son of God is taught or predicted
in the Sibyl or Sibyls, or in Orpheus, or in Hermes, if there ever was
such a person, or in any other heathen poets, or theologians, or
sages, or philosophers, it may be useful for the refutation of Pagan
error, but cannot lead us to believe in these writers. For while
they spoke, because they could not help it, of the God whom we
worship, they either taught their fellow-countrymen to worship idols
and demons, or allowed them to do so without daring to protest against
it. But our sacred writers, with the authority and assistance of
God, were the means of establishing and preserving among their people
a government under which heathen customs were condemned as
sacrilege. If any among this people fell into idolatry or
demon-worship, they were either punished by the laws, or met by the
awful denunciations of the prophets. They worshipped one God, the
maker of heaven and earth. They had rites; but these rites were
prophetic, or symbolical of things to come, and were to cease on the
appearance of the things signified. The whole state was one great
prophet, with its king and priest symbolically anointed which was
discontinued, not by the wish of the Jews themselves, who were in
ignorance through unbelief, but only on the coming of Him who was God,
anointed with spiritual grace above His fellows, the holy of holies,
the true King who should govern us, the true Priest who should offer
Himself for us. In a word, the predictions of heathen ingenuity
regarding Christâs coming are as different from sacred prophecy as the
confession of devils from the proclamation of angels.
16. By such arguments, which might be expanded if we were discussing
with one brought up in heathenism, and might be supported by proofs in
still greater number, the inquirer whom Faustus has brought before us
would certainly be led to believe, unless he preferred his sins to his
salvation. As a believer, he would be taken to be cherished in the
bosom of the Catholic Church, and would be taught in due course the
conduct required of him. He would see many who do not practise the
required duties; but this would not shake his faith, even though these
people should belong to the same Church and partake of the same
sacraments as himself. He would understand that few share in the
inheritance of God, while many partake in its outward signs; that few
are united in holiness of life, and in the gift of love shed abroad in
our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us, which is a hidden
spring that no stranger can approach; and that many join in the
solemnity of the sacrament, which he that eats and drinks unworthily
eats and drinks judgment to himself, while he who neglects to eat it
shall not have life in him,[517]517 and so shall never reach eternal
life. He will understand, too, that the good are called few as
compared with the multitude of the evil, but that as scattered over
the world there are very many growing among the tares, and mixed with
the chaff, till the day of harvest and of purging. As this is taught
in the Gospel, so is it foretold by the prophets. We read, "As a
lily among thorns, so is my beloved among the daughters;"[518]518 and
again, "I have dwelt in the tabernacles of Kedar; peaceful among them
that hated peace;"[519]519 and again, "Mark in the forehead those who
sigh and cry for the iniquities of my people, which are done in the
midst of them."[520]520Â The inquirer would be confirmed by such
passages; and being now a fellow-citizen with the saints and of the
household of God, no longer an alien from Israel, but an Israelite
indeed, in whom is no guile, would learn to utter from a guileless
heart the words which follow in the passage of Jeremiah already
quoted, "O Lord, the patience of Israel:Â let all that forsake Thee
be dismayed."Â After speaking of the partridge that is clamorous, and
gathers what it has not brought forth; and after extolling the city
set on an hill which cannot be hid, to prevent heretics from drawing
men away from the Catholic Church; after the words, "A glorious high
throne is our sanctuary," he seems to ask himself, What do we make of
all those evil men who are found mixed with the Church, and who become
more numerous as the Church extends, and as all nations are united in
Christ? And then follow the words, "O Lord, the patience of
Israel."Â Patience is necessary to obey the command, "Suffer both to
grow together till the harvest."[521]521Â Impatience towards the evil
might lead to forsaking the good, who in the strict sense are the body
of Christ, and to forsake them would be to forsake Him. So the
prophet goes on to say, "Let all that forsake Thee be dismayed; let
those who have departed to the earth be confounded."Â The earth is
man trusting in himself, and inducing others to trust in him. So the
prophet adds:Â "Let them be overthrown, for they have forsaken the
Lord, the fountain of life."Â This is the cry of the partridge, that
it has got the fountain of life, and will give it; and so men are
gathered to it, and depart from Christ, as if Christ, whose name they
had professed, had not fulfilled His promise. The partridge gathers
those whom it has not brought forth. And in order to do this, it
declares, The salvation which Christ promises is with me; I will give
it. In opposition to this the prophet says: "Heal me, O Lord, and
I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved."Â So we read in the
apostle, "Let no man glory in men;"[522]522 or in the words of the
prophet, "Thou art my praise."[523]523Â Such is a specimen of
instruction in apostolic and prophetic doctrine, by which a man may be
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
17. Faustus has not told us how he would prove the divinity of
Christ to the heathen, whom he makes to say:Â I believe neither the
prophets in support of Christ, nor Christ in support of the
prophets. It would be absurd to suppose that such a man would
believe what Christ says of Himself, when he disbelieves what He says
of others. For if he thinks Him unworthy of credit in one case, he
must think Him so in all, or at least more so when speaking of Himself
than when speaking of others. Perhaps, failing this, Faustus would
read to him the Sibyls and Orpheus, and any heathen prophecies about
Christ that he could find. But how could he do this, when he
confesses that he knows none? His words are: "If, as is said, any
prophecies of Christ are to be found in the Sibyl, or in Hermes,
called Trismegistus, or Orpheus, or any heathen poet."Â How could he
read writings of which he knows nothing, and which he supposes to
exist only from report, to one who will not believe either the
prophets or Christ? What, then, would he do? Would he bring
forward Manichæus as a witness to Christ? The opposite of this is
what the Manichæans do. They take advantage of the widespread
fragrance of the name of Christ to gain acceptance for Manichæus,
that the edge of their poisoned cup may be sweetened with this
honey. Taking hold of the promises of Christ to His disciples that
He would send the Paraclete, that is, the Comforter or Advocate, they
say that this Paraclete is Manichæus, or in Manichæus, and so steal
an entrance into the minds of men who do not know when He who was
promised by Christ really came. Those who have read the canonical
book called the Acts of the Apostles find a reference to Christâs
promise, and an account of its fulfillment. Faustus, then, has no
proof to give to the inquirer. It is not likely that any one will be
so infatuated as to take the authority of Manichæus when he rejects
that of Christ. Would he not reply in derision, if not in anger, Why
do you ask me to believe Persian books, when you forbid me to believe
Hebrew books? The Manichæan has no hold on the inquirer, unless he
is already in some way convinced of the truth of Christianity. When
he finds him willing to believe Christ, then he deludes him with the
representation of Christ given by Manichæus. So the partridge
gathers what it has not brought forth. When will you whom he gathers
leave him? When will you see him to be a fool, who tells you that
Hebrew testimony is worthless in the case of unbelievers, and
superfluous to believers?
18. If believers are to throw away all the books which have led them
to believe, I see no reason why they should continue reading the
Gospel itself. The Gospel, too, must be worthless to this inquirer,
who, according to Faustusâ pitiful supposition, rejects with ridicule
the authority of Christ. And to the believer it must be superfluous,
if true notices of Christ are superfluous to believers. And if the
Gospel should be read by the believer, that he may not forget what he
has believed, so should the prophets, that he may not forget why he
believed. For if he forgets this his faith cannot be firm. By this
principle, you should throw away the books of Manichæus, on the
authority of which you already believe that lightâthat is, Godâfought
with darkness, and that, in order to bind darkness, the light was
first swallowed up and bound, and polluted and mangled by darkness, to
be restored, and liberated, and purified, and healed by your eating,
for which you are rewarded by not being condemned to the mass of
darkness for ever, along with that part of the light which cannot be
extricated. This fiction is sufficiently published by your practice
and your words. Why do you seek for the testimony of books, and add
to the embarrassment of your God by the consumption of strength in the
needless task of writing manuscripts? Burn all your parchments, with
their finely-ornamented binding; so you will be rid of a useless
burden, and your God who suffers confinement in the volume will be set
free. What a mercy it would be to the members of your God, if you
could boil your books and eat them! There might be a difficulty,
however, from the prohibition of animal food. Then the writing must
share in the impurity of the sheepskin. Indeed, you are to blame for
this, for, like what you say was done in the first war between light
and darkness, you brought what was clean in the pen in contact with
the uncleanness of the parchment. Or perhaps, for the sake of the
colors, we may put it the other way; and so the darkness would be
yours, in the ink which you brought against the light of the white
pages. If these remarks irritate you, you should rather be angry
with yourselves for believing doctrines of which these are the
necessary consequences. As for the books of the apostles and
prophets, we read them as a record of our faith, to encourage our hope
and animate our love. These books are in perfect harmony with one
another; and their harmony, like the music of a heavenly trumpet,
wakens us from the torpor of worldliness, and urges us on to the prize
of our high calling. The apostle, after quoting from the prophets
the words, "The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on me,"
goes on to speak of the benefit of reading the prophets:Â "For
whatsoever things were written beforetime were written for our
learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures,
might have hope."[524]524Â If Faustus denies this, we can only say
with Paul, "If any one shall preach to you another doctrine than that
ye have received, let him be accursed."[525]525
ââââââââââââ
Book XIV.
Faustus abhors Moses for the awful curse he has pronounced upon
Christ. Augustin expounds the Christian doctrine of the suffering
Saviour by comparing Old and New Testament passages.
1. Faustus said: If you ask why we do not believe Moses, it is on
account of our love and reverence for Christ. The most reckless man
cannot regard with pleasure a person who has cursed his father. So
we abhor Moses, not so much for his blasphemy of everything human and
divine, as for the awful curse he has pronounced upon Christ the Son
of God, who for our salvation hung on the tree. Whether Moses did
this intentionally or not is your concern. Either way, he cannot be
excused, or considered worthy of belief. His words are, "Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree."[526]526Â You tell me to believe
this man, though, if he was inspired, he must have cursed Christ
knowingly and intentionally; and if he did it in ignorance, he cannot
have been divine. Take either alternative. Moses was no prophet,
and while cursing in his usual manner, he fell ignorantly into the sin
of blasphemy against God. Or he was indeed divine, and foresaw the
future; and from ill-will to our salvation, he directs the venom of
his malediction against Him who was to accomplish that salvation on a
tree. He who thus injures the Son cannot surely have seen or known
the Father. He who knew nothing of the final ascension of the Son,
cannot surely have foretold His advent. Moreover, the extent of the
injury inflicted by this curse is to be considered. For it denounces
all the righteous men and martyrs, and sufferers of every kind, who
have died in this way, as Peter and Andrew, and the rest. Such a
cruel denunciation could never have come from Moses if he had been a
prophet, unless he was a bitter enemy of these sufferers. For he
pronounces them cursed not only of men but of God. What hope, then,
of blessing remains to Christ, or his apostles, or to us if we happen
to be crucified for Christâs sake? It indicates great
thoughtlessness in Moses, and the want of all divine inspiration, that
he overlooked the fact that men are hung on a tree for very different
reasons, some for their crimes, and others who suffer in the cause of
God and of righteousness. In this thoughtless way lie heaps all
together without distinction under the same curse; whereas if he had
had any sense, not to say inspiration, if he wished to single out the
punishment of the cross from all others as specially detestable, he
would have said, Cursed is every guilty and impious person that
hangeth on a tree. This would have made a distinction between the
guilty and the innocent. And yet even this would have been
incorrect, for Christ took the malefactor from the cross along with
himself into the Paradise of his Father. What becomes of the curse
on every one that hangeth on a tree? Was Barabbas, the notorious
robber, who certainly was not hung on a tree, but was set free from
prison at the request of the Jews, more blessed than the thief who
accompanied Christ from the cross to heaven? Again, there is a curse
on the man that worships the sun or the moon. Now if under a heathen
monarch I am forced to worship the sun, and if from fear of this curse
I refuse, shall I incur this other curse by suffering the punishment
of crucifixion? Perhaps Moses was in the habit of cursing everything
good. We think no more of his denunciation than of an old wifeâs
scolding. So we find him pronouncing a curse on all youths of both
sexes, when he says:Â "Cursed is every one that raiseth not up a seed
in Israel."[527]527Â This is aimed directly at Jesus, who, according
to you, was born among the Jews, and raised up no seed to continue his
family. It points too at his disciples, some of whom he took from
the wives they had married, and some who were unmarried he forbade to
take wives. We have good reason, you see, for expressing our
abhorrence of the daring style in which Moses hurls his maledictions
against Christ, against light, against chastity, against everything
divine. You cannot make much of the distinction between hanging on a
tree and being crucified, as you often try to do by way of apology;
for Paul repudiates such a distinction when he says, "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as
it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."[528]528
2. Augustin replied: The pious Faustus is pained because Christ is
cursed by Moses. His love for Christ makes him hate Moses. Before
explaining the sacred import and the piety of the words, "Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree," I would ask these pious people why
they are angry with Moses, since his curse does not affect their
Christ. If Christ hung on the tree, He must have been fastened to it
with nails, the marks of which He showed to His doubting disciple
after His resurrection. Accordingly He must have had a vulnerable
and mortal body, which the Manichæans deny. Call the wounds and the
marks false, and it follows that His hanging on the tree was false.Â
This Christ is not affected by the curse, and there is no occasion for
this indignation against the person uttering the curse. If they
pretend to be angry with Moses for cursing what they call the false
death of Christ, what are we to think of themselves, who do not curse
Christ, but, what is much worse, make Him a liar? If it is wrong to
curse mortality, it is a much more heinous offense to sully the purity
of truth. But let us make these heretical cavils an occasion for
explaining this mystery to believers.
3. Death comes upon man as the punishment of sin, and so is itself
called sin; not that a man sins in dying, but because sin is the cause
of his death. So the word tongue, which properly means the fleshy
substance between the teeth and the palate, is applied in a secondary
sense to the result of the tongueâs action. In this sense we speak
of a Latin tongue and a Greek tongue. The word hand, too, means both
the members of the body we use in working, and the writing which is
done with the hand. In this sense we speak of writing as being
proved to be the hand of a certain person, or of recognizing the hand
of a friend. The writing is certainly not a member of the body, but
the name hand is given to it because it is the hand that does it. So
sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and death the
consequence of sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving
death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought
on human nature by sin. This is what hung on the tree; this is what
was cursed by Moses. Thus was death condemned that its reign might
cease, and cursed that it might be destroyed. By Christâs taking our
sin in this sense, its condemnation is our deliverance, while to
remain in subjection to sin is to be condemned.
4. What does Faustus find strange in the curse pronounced on sin, on
death, and on human mortality, which Christ had on account of manâs
sin, though He Himself was sinless? Christâs body was derived from
Adam, for His mother the Virgin Mary was a child of Adam. But God
said in Paradise, "On the day that ye eat, ye shall surely die."Â
This is the curse which hung on the tree. A man may deny that Christ
was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who believes that
Christ died, and acknowledges that death is the fruit of sin, and is
itself called sin, will understand who it is that is cursed by Moses,
when he hears the apostle saying "For our old man is crucified with
Him."[529]529Â The apostle boldly says of Christ, "He was made a
curse for us;" for he could also venture to say, "He died for all."Â
"He died," and "He was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of
the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which
merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though
guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do
away with our punishment.
5. These things are not my conjectures, but are affirmed constantly
by the apostle, with an emphasis sufficient to rouse the careless and
to silence the gainsayers. "God," he says, "sent His Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the
flesh."[530]530Â Christâs flesh was not sinful, because it was not
born of Mary by ordinary generation; but because death is the effect
of sin, this flesh, in being mortal, had the likeness of sinful
flesh. This is called sin in the following words, "that by sin He
might condemn sin in the flesh."Â Again he says:Â "He hath made Him
to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him."[531]531Â Why should not Moses call
accursed what Paul calls sin? In this prediction the prophet claims
a share with the apostle in the reproach of the heretics. For
whoever finds fault with the word cursed in the prophet, must find
fault with the word sin in the apostle; for curse and sin go together.
6. If we read, "Cursed of God is every one that hangeth on a tree,"
the addition of the words "of God" creates no difficulty. For had
not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His Son to
bear and to abolish it. And there is nothing strange in Godâs
cursing what He hates. For His readiness to give us the immortality
which will be had at the coming of Christ, is in proportion to the
compassion with which He hated our death when it hung on the cross at
the death of Christ. And if Moses curses every one that hangeth on a
tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee that righteous
men would be crucified, but rather because He foresaw that heretics
would deny the death of the Lord to be real, and would try to disprove
the application of this curse to Christ, in order that they might
disprove the reality of His death. For if Christâs death was not
real, nothing cursed hung on the cross when He was crucified, for the
crucifixion cannot have been real. Moses cries from the distant past
to these heretics:Â Your evasion in denying the reality of the death
of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree;
not this one or that, but absolutely every one. What! the Son of
God? Yes, assuredly. This is the very thing you object to, and
that you are so anxious to evade. You will not allow that He was
cursed for us, because you will not allow that He died for us.Â
Exemption from Adamâs curse implies exemption from his death. But as
Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He
was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences,
He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies
death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our
punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He
was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing
our punishment. And these words "every one" are intended to check
the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse
to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead
to the denial of the true death of Christ.
7. The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand
that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as
cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our
substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the
Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer
real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christâs
humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a
charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you
must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the
apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He,
without taking our sin, took its punishment. Now the punishment of
sin cannot be blessed, or else it would be a thing to be desired.Â
The curse is pronounced by divine justice, and it will be well for us
if we are redeemed from it. Confess then that Christ died, and you
may confess that He bore the curse for us; and that when Moses said,
"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," he said in fact, To hang
on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die. He might have said,
"Cursed is every one that is mortal," or "Cursed is every one dying;"
but the prophet knew that Christ would suffer on the cross, and that
heretics would say that He hung on the tree only in appearance,
without really dying. So he exclaims, Cursed; meaning that He really
died. He knew that the death of sinful man, which Christ though
sinless bore, came from that curse, "If ye touch it, ye shall surely
die."Â Thus also, the serpent hung on the pole was intended to show
that Christ did not feign death, but that the real death into which
the serpent by his fatal counsel cast mankind was hung on the cross of
Christâs passion. The Manichæans turn away from the view of this
real death, and so they are not healed of the poison of the serpent,
as we read that in the wilderness as many as looked were healed.
8. It is true, some ignorantly distinguish between hanging on a tree
and being crucified. So some explain this passage as referring to
Judas. But how do they know whether he hung himself from wood or
from stone? Faustus is right in saying that the apostle obliges us
to refer the words to Christ. Such ignorant Catholics are the prey
of the Manichæans. Such they get hold of and entangle in their
sophistry. Such were we when we fell into this heresy, and adhered
to it. Such were we, when, not by our own strength, but by the mercy
of God, we were rescued.
9. What attacks on divine things does Faustus speak of when he
charges Moses with sparing nothing human or divine? He makes the
charge without stopping to prove it. We know, on the contrary, that
Moses gave due praise to everything really divine, and in human
affairs was a just ruler, considering his times and the grace of his
dispensation. It will be time to prove this when we see any proof of
Faustusâ charges. It may be clever to make such charges cautiously,
but there is great incaution in the cleverness which ruins its
possessor. It is good to be clever on the side of truth, but it is a
poor thing to be clever in opposition to the truth. Faustus says
that Moses spared nothing human or divine; not that he spared no god
or man. If he said that Moses did not spare God, it could easily be
shown in reply that Moses everywhere does honor to the true God, whom
he declares to be the Maker of heaven and earth. Again, if he said
that Moses spared none of the gods, he would betray himself to
Christians as a worshipper of the false gods that Moses denounces; and
so he would be prevented from gathering what he has not brought forth,
by the brood taking refuge under the wings of the Mother Church.Â
Faustus tries to ensnare the babes, by saying that Moses spared
nothing divine, wishing not to frighten Christians with a profession
of belief in the gods, which would be plainly opposed to Christianity,
and at the same time appearing to take the side of the Pagans against
us; for they know that Moses has said many plain and pointed things
against the idols and gods of the heathen, which are devils.
10. If the Manichæans disapprove of Moses on this account, let them
confess that they are worshippers of idols and devils. This, indeed,
may be the case without their being aware of it. The apostle tells
us that "in the last days some shall depart from the faith, giving
heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils, speaking lies in
hypocrisy."[532]532Â Whence but from devils, who are fond of
falsehood, could the idea have come that Christâs sufferings and death
were unreal, and that the marks which He showed of His wounds were
unreal? Are these not the doctrines of lying devils, which teach
that Christ, the Truth itself, was a deceiver? Besides, the
Manichæans openly teach the worship, if not of devils, still of
created things, which the apostle condemns in the words, "They
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator."[533]533
11. As there is an unconscious worship of idols and devils in the
fanciful legends of the Manichæans, so they knowingly serve the
creature in their worship of the sun and moon. And in what they call
their service of the Creator they really serve their own fancy, and
not the Creator at all. For they deny that God created those things
which the apostle plainly declares to be the creatures of God, when he
says of food, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be
refused, if it is received with thanksgiving."[534]534Â This is sound
doctrine, which you cannot bear, and so turn to fables. The apostle
praises the creature of God, but forbids the worship of it; and in the
same way Moses gives due praise to the sun and moon, while at the same
time he states the fact of their having been made by God, and placed
by Him in their courses,âthe sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule
the night. Probably you think Moses spared nothing divine, simply
because he forbade the worship of the sun and moon, whereas you turn
towards them in all directions in your worship. But the sun and moon
take no pleasure in your false praises. It is the devil, the
transgressor, that delights in false praises. The powers of heaven,
who have not fallen by sin, wish their Creator to be praised in them;
and their true praise is that which does no wrong to their Creator.Â
He is wronged when they are said to be His members, or parts of His
substance. For He is perfect and independent, underived, not divided
or scattered in space, but unchangeably self-existent,
self-sufficient, and blessed in Himself. In the abundance of His
goodness, He by His word spoke, and they were made:Â He commanded,
and they were created. And if earthly bodies are good, of which the
apostle spoke when he said that no food is unclean, because every
creature of God is good, much more the heavenly bodies, of which the
sun and moon are the chief; for the apostle says again, "The glory of
the terrestrial is one, and the glory of the celestial is
another."[535]535
12. Moses, then, casts no reproach on the sun and moon when he
prohibits their worship. He praises them as heavenly bodies; while
he also praises God as the Creator of both heavenly and earthly, and
will not allow of His being insulted by giving the worship due to Him
to those who are praised only as dependent upon Him. Faustus prides
himself on the ingenuity of his objection to the curse pronounced by
Moses on the worship of the sun and moon. He says, "If under a
heathen monarch I am forced to worship the sun, and if from fear of
this curse I refuse, shall I incur this other curse by suffering the
punishment of crucifixion?"Â No heathen monarch is forcing you to
worship the sun:Â nor would the sun itself force you, if it were
reigning on the earth, as neither does it now wish to be worshipped.Â
As the Creator bears with blasphemers till the judgment, so these
celestial bodies bear with their deluded worshippers till the judgment
of the Creator. It should be observed that no Christian monarch
could enforce the worship of the sun. Faustus instances a heathen
monarch, for he knows that their worship of the sun is a heathen
custom. Yet, in spite of this opposition to Christianity, the
partridge takes the name of Christ, that it may gather what it has not
brought forth. The answer to this objection is easy, and the force
of truth will soon break the horns of this dilemma. Suppose, then, a
Christian threatened by royal authority with being hung on a tree if
he will not worship the sun. If I avoid, you say, the curse
pronounced by the law on the worshipper of the sun, I incur the curse
pronounced by the same law on him that hangs on a tree. So you will
be in a difficulty; only that you worship the sun without being forced
by anybody. But a true Christian, built on the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, distinguishes the curses, and the reasons of
them. He sees that one refers to the mortal body which is hung on
the tree, and the other to the mind which worships the sun. For
though the body bows in worship,âwhich also is a heinous offence,âthe
belief or imagination of the object worshipped is an act of the
mind. The death implied in both curses is in one case the death of
the body, and in the other the death of the soul. It is better to
have the curse in bodily death,âwhich will be removed in the
resurrection,âthan the curse in the death of the soul, condemning it
along with the body to eternal fire. The Lord solves this difficulty
in the words:Â "Fear not them that kill the body, but cannot kill the
soul; but fear him who has power to cast both soul and body into
hell-fire."[536]536Â In other words, fear not the curse of bodily
death, which in time is removed; but fear the curse of spiritual
death, which leads to the eternal torment of both soul and body. Be
assured, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree is no old wifeâs
railing, but a prophetical utterance. Christ, by the curse, takes
the curse away, as He takes away death by death, and sin by sin. In
the words, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," there is no
more blasphemy than in the words of the apostle, "He died," or, "Our
old man was crucified along with Him,"[537]537 or, "By sin He
condemned sin,"[538]538 or, "He made Him to be sin for us who knew no
sin,"[539]539 and in many similar passages. Confess, then, that when
you exclaim against the curse of Christ, you exclaim against His
death. If this is not an old wifeâs railing on your part, it is
devilish delusion, which makes you deny the death of Christ because
your own souls are dead. You teach people that Christâs death was
feigned, making Christ your leader in the falsehood with which you use
the name of Christian to mislead men.
13. If Faustus thinks Moses an enemy of continence or virginity
because he says, "Cursed is everyone that raiseth not up seed in
Israel," let them hear the words of Isaiah:Â "Thus saith the Lord to
all eunuchs; To them who keep my precepts, and choose the things that
please me, and regard my covenant, will I give in my house and within
my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I
will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut
off."[540]540Â Though our adversaries disagree with Moses, if they
agree with Isaiah it is something gained. It is enough for us to
know that the same God spoke by both Moses and Isaiah, and that every
one is cursed who raiseth not up seed in Israel, both then when
begetting children in marriage (for the continuation of the people was
a civil duty), and now because no one spiritually born should rest
content without seeking spiritual increase in the production of
Christians by preaching Christ, each one according to his ability.Â
So that the times of both Testaments are briefly described in the
words, "Cursed is every one that raiseth not up seed in
Israel."[541]541
ââââââââââââ
Book XV.
Faustus rejects the Old Testament because it leaves no room for
Christ. Christ the one Bridegroom suffices for His Bride the
Church. Augustin answers as well as he can, and reproves the
Manichæans with presumption in claiming to be the Bride of Christ.
1. Faustus said: Why do we not receive the Old Testament?Â
Because when a vessel is full, what is poured on it is not received,
but allowed to run over; and a full stomach rejects what it cannot
hold. So the Jews, satisfied with the Old Testament, reject the New;
and we who have received the New Testament from Christ, reject the
Old. You receive both because you are only half filled with each,
and the one is not completed, but corrupted by the other. For
vessels half filled should not be filled up with anything of a
different nature from what they already contain. If it contains
wine, it should be filled up with wine, honey with honey, vinegar with
vinegar. For to pour gall on honey, or water on wine, or alkalies on
vinegar, is not addition, but adulteration. This is why we do not
receive the Old Testament. Our Church, the bride of Christ, the poor
bride of a rich bridegroom, is content with the possession of her
husband, and scorns the wealth of inferior lovers, and despises the
gifts of the Old Testament and of its author, and from regard to her
own character, receives only the letters of her husband. We leave
the Old Testament to your Church, that, like a bride faithless to her
spouse, delights in the letters and gifts of another. This lover who
corrupts your chastity, the God of the Hebrews in his stone tablets
promises you gold and silver, and abundance of food, and the land of
Canaan. Such low rewards have tempted you to be unfaithful to
Christ, after all the rich dowry bestowed by him. By such
attractions the God of the Hebrews gains over the bride of Christ.Â
You must know that you are cheated, and that these promises are
false. This God is in poverty and beggary, and cannot do what he
promises. For if he cannot give these things to the synagogue, his
proper wife, who obeys him in all things like a servant, how can he
bestow them on you who are strangers, and who proudly throw off his
yoke from your necks? Go on, then, as you have begun, join the new
cloth to the old garment, put the new wine in old bottles, serve two
masters without pleasing either, make Christianity a monster, half
horse and half man; but allow us to serve only Christ, content with
his immortal dower, and imitating the apostle who says, "Our
sufficiency is of God, who has made us able ministers of the New
Testament."[542]542Â In the God of the Hebrews we have no interest
whatever; for neither can he perform his promises, nor do we desire
that he should. The liberality of Christ has made us indifferent to
the flatteries of this stranger. This figure of the relation of the
wife to her husband is sanctioned by Paul, who says:Â "The woman that
has a husband is bound to her husband as long as he liveth; but if her
husband die, she is freed from the law of her husband. So, then, if
while her husband liveth she be joined to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is not an
adulteress, though she be married to another man."[543]543Â Here he
shows that there is a spiritual adultery in being united to Christ
before repudiating the author of the law, and counting him, as it
were, as dead. This applies chiefly to the Jews who believe in
Christ, and who ought to forget their former superstition. We who
have been converted to Christ from heathenism, look upon the God of
the Hebrews not merely as dead, but as never having existed, and do
not need to be told to forget him. A Jew, when he believes, should
regard Adonai as dead; a Gentile should regard his idol as dead; and
so with everything that has been held sacred before conversion. One
who, after giving up idolatry, worships both the God of the Hebrews
and Christ, is like an abandoned woman, who after the death of one
husband marries two others.
2. Augustin replied: Let all who have given their hearts to Christ
say whether they can listen patiently to these things, unless Christ
Himself enable them. Faustus, full of the new honey, rejects the old
vinegar; and Paul, full of the old vinegar, has poured out half that
the new honey may be poured in, not to be kept, but to be corrupted.Â
When the apostle calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be
an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, this is the new honey.Â
But when he adds, "which He promised before by His prophets in the
Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh,"[544]544 this is the old vinegar. Who could
bear to hear this, unless the apostle himself consoled us by saying:Â
"There must be heresies, that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you?"[545]545Â Why should we repeat what we said
already?[546]546âthat the new cloth and the old garment, the new wine
and the old bottles, mean not two Testaments, but two lives and two
hopes,âthat the relation of the two Testaments is figuratively
described by the Lord when He says:Â "Therefore every scribe
instructed in the kingdom of God is like an householder bringing out
of his treasure things new and old."[547]547Â The reader may remember
this as said before, or he may find it on looking back. For if any
one tries to serve God with two hopes, one of earthly felicity, and
the other of the kingdom of heaven, the two hopes cannot agree; and
when the latter is shaken by some affliction, the former will be lost
too. Thus it is said, No man can serve two masters; which Christ
explains thus:Â "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."[548]548Â But to
those who rightly understand it, the Old Testament is a prophecy of
the New. Even in that ancient people, the holy patriarchs and
prophets, who understood the part they performed, or which they were
instrumental in performing, had this hope of eternal life in the New
Testament. They belonged to the New Testament, because they
understood and loved it, though revealed only in figure. Those
belonging to the Old Testament were the people who cared for nothing
else but the temporal promises, without understanding them as
significant of eternal things. But all this has already been more
than enough insisted on.
3. It is amazingly bold in the impious and impure sect of the
Manichæans to boast of being the chaste bride of Christ. All the
effect of such a boast on the really chaste members of the holy Church
is to remind them of the apostleâs warning against deceivers:Â "I
have joined you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to
Christ. But I fear lest, as the serpent deceived Eve by his guile,
so your minds also should be corrupted from the purity which is in
Christ."[549]549Â What else do those preachers of another gospel than
that which we have received try to do, but to corrupt us from the
purity which we preserve for Christ, when they stigmatize the law of
God as old, and praise their own falsehoods as new, as if all that is
new must be good, and all that is old bad? The Apostle John,
however, praises the old commandment, and the Apostle Paul bids us
avoid novelties in doctrine. As an unworthy son and servant of the
Catholic Church, the true bride of the true Christ, I too, as
appointed to give out food to my fellow-servants, would speak to her a
word of counsel. Continue ever to shun the profane errors of the
Manichæans, which have been tried by the experience of thine own
children, and condemned by their recovery. By that heresy I was once
separated from thy fellowship, and after running into danger which
ought to have been avoided, I escaped. Restored to thy service, my
experience may perhaps be profitable to thee. Unless thy true and
truthful Bridegroom, from whose side thou wert made, had obtained the
remission of sins through His own real blood, the gulf of error would
have swallowed me up; I should have become dust, and been devoured by
the serpent. Be not misled by the name of truth. The truth is in
thine own milk, and in thine own bread. They have the name only, and
not the thing. Thy full-grown children, indeed, are secure; but I
speak to thy babes, my brothers, and sons, and masters, whom thou, the
virgin mother, fertile as pure, dost cherish into life under thine
anxious wings, or dost nourish with the milk of infancy. I call upon
these, thy tender offspring, not to be seduced by noisy vanities, but
rather to pronounce accursed any one that preaches to them another
gospel than that which they have received in thee. I call upon these
not to leave the true and truthful Christ, in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge; not to forsake the abundance of His
goodness which He has laid up for them that fear Him, and has wrought
for them that trust in Him.[550]550Â How can they expect to find
truthful words in one who preaches an untruthful Christ? Scorn the
reproaches cast on thee, for thou knowest well that the gift which
thou desirest from thy Bridegroom is eternal life, for He Himself is
eternal life.
4. It is a silly falsehood that thou hast been seduced to another
God, who promises abundance of food and the land of Canaan. For thou
canst perceive how the saints of old, who were also thy children, were
enlightened by these figures which were prophecies of thee. Thou
needest not regard the poor jest against the stone tablets, for the
stony heart of which they were in old times a figure is not in thee.Â
For thou art an epistle of the apostles, "written not with ink, but
with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone, but on the
fleshy tables of the heart."[551]551Â Our opponents ignorantly think
that these words are in their favor, and that the apostle finds fault
with the dispensation of the Old Testament, whereas they are the words
of the prophet. This utterance of the apostles was a fulfillment of
the long anterior utterances of the prophet whom the Manichæans
reject, for they believe the apostles without understanding them.Â
The prophet says:Â "I will take away from them the stony heart, and I
will give them a heart of flesh."[552]552Â What is this but "Not on
tables of stones but on the fleshy tables of the heart"? For by the
heart of flesh and the fleshy tables is not meant a carnal
understanding:Â but as flesh feels, whereas a stone cannot, the
insensibility of stone signifies an unintelligent heart, and the
sensibility of flesh signifies an intelligent heart. Instead, then,
of scoffing at thee, they deserve to be ridiculed who say that earth,
and wood, and stones have sense, and that their life is more
intelligent than animal life. So, not to speak of the truth, even
their own fiction obliges them to confess that the law written on
tables of stone was purer than their sacred parchments. Or perhaps
they prefer sheepskin to stone, because their legends make stones the
bones of princes. In any case, the ark of the Old Testament was a
cleaner covering for the tables of stone than the goatskin of their
manuscripts. Laugh at these things, while pitying them, to show
their falsehood and absurdity. With a heart no longer stony, thou
canst see in these stone tablets a suitableness to that hard-hearted
people; and at the same time thou canst find even there the stone, thy
Bridegroom, described by Peter as "a living stone, rejected by men,
but chosen of God, and precious."Â To them He was "a stone of
stumbling and a rock of offence;" but to thee, "the stone which the
builders rejected has become the head of the corner."[553]553Â This
is all explained by Peter, and is quoted from the prophets, with whom
these heretics have nothing to do. Fear not, then, to read these
tabletsâthey are from thy Husband; to others the stone was a sign of
insensibility, but to thee of strength and stability. With the
finger of God these tablets were written; with the finger of God thy
Lord cast out devils; with the finger of God drive thou away the
doctrines of lying devils which sear the conscience. With these
tablets thou canst confound the seducer who calls himself the
Paraclete, that he may impose upon thee by a sacred name. For on the
fiftieth day after the passover the tables were given; and on the
fiftieth day after the passion of thy Bride-groomâof whom the passover
was a typeâthe finger of God, the Holy Spirit, the promised Paraclete,
was given. Fear not the tablets which convey to thee ancient
writings now made plain. Only be not under the law, lest fear
prevent thy fulfilling it; but be under grace, that love, which is the
fulfilling of the law, may be in thee. For it was in a review of
these very tablets that the friend of thy Bridegroom said:Â "For thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not
covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is contained in this
word, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill
to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the
law."[554]554Â One table contains the precept of love to God, and the
other of love to man. And He who first sent these tablets Himself
came to enjoin those precepts on which hang the law and the
prophets.[555]555 Â In the first precept is the chastity of thy
espousals; in the second is the unity of thy members. In the one
thou art united to divinity; in the other thou dost gather a
society. And these two precepts are identical with the ten, of which
three relate to God, and seven to our neighbor. Such is the chaste
tablet in which thy Lover and thy Beloved of old prefigured to thee
the new song on a psaltery of ten strings; Himself to be extended on
the cross for thee, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh, and
that the righteouness of the law might be fulfilled in thee. Such is
the conjugal tablet, which may well be hated by the unfaithful wife.
5. I turn now to thee, thou deluded and deluding congregation of
Manichæus,âwedded to so many elements, or rather prostituted to so
many devils, and impregnated with blasphemous falsehoods,âdost thou
dare to slander as unchaste the marriage of the Catholic Church with
thy Lord? Behold thy lovers, one balancing creation, and the other
bearing it up like Atlas. For one, by thy account, holds the sources
of the elements, and hangs the world in space; while the other keeps
him up by kneeling down and carrying the weight on his shoulders.Â
Where are those beings? And if they are so occupied, how can they
come to visit thee, to spend an idle hour in getting their shoulders
or their fingers relieved by thy soft, soothing touch? But thou art
deceived by evil spirits which commit adultery with thee, that thou
mayest conceive falsehoods and bring forth vanities. Well mayest
thou reject the message of the true God, as opposed to thy parchments,
where in the vain imaginations of a wanton mind thou hast gone after
so many false gods. The fictions of the poets are more respectable
than thine, in this at least, that they deceive no one; while the
fables in thy books, by assuming an appearance of truth, mislead the
childish, both young and old, and pervert their minds. As the
apostle says, they have itching ears, and turn away from hearing the
truth to listen to fables.[556]556Â How shouldest thou bear the sound
doctrine of these tables, where the first commandment is, "Hear, O
Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord,"[557]557 when thy corrupt
affections find shameful delight in so many false deities? Dost thou
not remember thy love-song, where thou describest the chief ruler in
perennial majesty, crowned with flowers, and of fiery countenance?Â
To have even one such lover is shameful; for a chaste wife seeks not a
husband crowned with flowers. And thou canst not say that this
description or representation has a typical meaning, for thou art wont
to praise Manichæus for nothing more than for speaking to thee the
simple naked truth without the disguise of figures. So the God of
thy song is a real king, bearing a sceptre and crowned with flowers.Â
When he wears a crown of flowers, he ought to put aside his sceptre;
for effeminacy and majesty are incongruous. And then he is not thy
only lover; for the song goes on to tell of twelve seasons clothed in
flowers, and filled with song, throwing their flowers at their
fatherâs face. These are twelve great gods of thine, three in each
of the four regions surrounding the first deity. How this deity can
be infinite, when he is thus circumscribed, no one can say. Besides,
there are countless principalities, and hosts of gods, and troops of
angels, which thou sayest were not created by God, but produced from
His substance.
6. Thou art thus convicted of worshipping gods without number; for
thou canst not bear the sound doctrine which teaches that there is one
Son of one God, and one Spirit of both. And these, instead of being
without number, are not three Gods; for not only is their substance
one and the same, but their operation by means of this substance is
also one and the same, while they have a separate manifestation in the
material creation. These things thou dost not understand, and canst
not receive. Thou art full, as thou sayest, for thou art steeped in
blasphemous absurdities. Will thou continue burying thyself under
such crudities? Sing on, then, and open thine eyes, if thou canst,
to thine own shame. In this doctrine of lying devils thou art
invited to fabulous dwellings of angels in a happy clime, and to
fragrant fields where nectar flows for ever from trees and hills, in
seas and rivers. These are the fictions of thy foolish heart, which
revels in such idle fancies. Such expressions are sometimes used as
figurative descriptions of the abundance of spiritual enjoyments; and
they lead the mind of the student to inquire into their hidden
meaning. Sometimes there is a material representation to the bodily
senses, as the fire in the bush, the rod becoming a serpent, and the
serpent a rod, the garment of the Lord not divided by His persecutors,
the anointing of His feet or of His head by a devout woman, the
branches of the multitude preceding and following Him when riding on
the ass. Sometimes, either in sleep or in a trance, the spirit is
informed by means of figures taken from material things, as Jacobâs
ladder, and the stone in Daniel cut out without hands and growing into
a mountain, and Peterâs vessel, and all that John saw. Sometimes the
figures are only in the language; as in the Song of Songs, and in the
parable of a householder making a marriage for his son, or that of the
prodigal son, or that of the man who planted a vineyard and let it out
to husbandmen. Thou boastest of Manichæus as having come last, not
to use figures, but to explain them. His expositions throw light on
ancient types, and leave no problem unsolved. This idea is supported
by the assertion that the ancient types, in vision or in action or in
words, had in view the coming of Manichæus, by whom they were all to
be explained; while he, knowing that no one is to follow him, makes
use of a style free from all figurative expressions. What, then, are
those fields, and shady hills, and crowns of flowers, and fragrant
odors, in which the desires of thy fleshly mind take pleasure? If
they are not significant figures, they are either idle fancies or
delirious dreams. If they are figures, away with the impostor who
seduces thee with the promise of naked truth, and then mocks thee with
idle tales. His ministers and his wretched deluded followers are
wont to bait their hook with that saying of the apostle, "Now we see
through a glass in a figure, but then face to face."[558]558Â As if,
forsooth, the Apostle Paul knew in part, and prophesied in part, and
saw through a glass in a figure; whereas all this is removed at the
coming of Manichæus, who brings that which is perfect, and reveals
the truth face to face. O fallen and shameless! still to continue
uttering such folly, still feeding on the wind, still embracing the
idols of thine own heart. Hast thou, then, seen face to face the
king with the sceptre, and the crown of flowers, and the hosts of
gods, and the great worldholder with six faces and radiant with light,
and that other exalted ruler surrounded with troops of angels, and the
invincible warrior with a spear in his right hand and a shield in his
left, and the famous sovereign who moves the three wheels of fire,
water, and wind, and Atlas, chief of all, bearing the world on his
shoulders, and supporting himself on his arms? These, and a thousand
other marvels, hast thou seen face to face, or are thy songs doctrines
learned from lying devils, though thou knowest it not? Alas!
miserable prostitute to these dreams, such are the vanities which thou
drinkest up instead of the truth; and, drunk with this deadly poison,
thou darest with this jest of the tablets to affront the matronly
purity of the spouse of the only Son of God; because no longer under
the tutorship of the law, but under the control of grace, neither
proud in activity nor crouching in fear, she lives by faith, and hope,
and love, the Israel in whom there is no guile, who hears what is
written:Â "The Lord thy God is one God."Â This thou hearest not, and
art gone a whoring after a multitude of false gods.
7. Of necessity these tables are against thee, for the second
commandment is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain;" whereas thou dost attribute the vanity of falsehood to Christ
Himself, who, to remove the vanity of the fleshly mind, rose in a true
body, visible to the bodily eye. So also the third commandment about
the rest of the Sabbath is against thee, for thou art tossed about by
a multitude of restless fancies. How these three commandments relate
to the love of God, thou hast neither the power nor the will to
understand. Shamefully headstrong and turbulent, thou hast reached
the height of folly, vanity, and worthlessness; thy beauty is spoiled,
and thine order perished. I know thee, for I was once the same.Â
How shall I now teach thee that these three precepts relate to the
love of God, of whom, and by whom, and in whom are all things? How
canst thou understand this, when thy pernicious doctrines prevent thee
from understanding and from obeying the seven precepts relating to the
love of our neighbor, which is the bond of human society? The first
of these precepts is, "Honor thy father and mother;" which Paul quotes
as the first commandment with promise, and himself repeats the
injunction. But thou art taught by thy doctrine of devils to regard
thy parents as thine enemies, because their union brought thee into
the bonds of flesh, and laid impure fetters even on thy god. The
doctrine that the production of children is an evil, directly opposes
the next precept, "Thou shall not commit adultery;" for those who
believe this doctrine, in order that their wives may not conceive, are
led to commit adultery even in marriage. They take wives, as the law
declares, for the procreation of children; but from this erroneous
fear of polluting the substance of the deity, their intercourse with
their wives is not of a lawful character; and the production of
children, which is the proper end of marriage, they seek to avoid.Â
As the apostle long ago predicted of thee, thou dost indeed forbid to
marry, for thou seekest to destroy the purpose of marriage. Thy
doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the
bed-chamber into a brothel. This false doctrine leads in a similar
way to the transgression of the commandment, "Thou shall not kill."Â
For thou dost not give bread to the hungry, from fear of imprisoning
in flesh the member of thy God. From fear of fancied murder, thou
dost actually commit murder. For if thou wast to meet a beggar
starving for want of food, by the law of God to refuse him food would
be murder; while to give food would be murder by the law of
Manichæus. Not one commandment in the decalogue dost thou
observe. If thou wert to abstain from theft, thou wouldst be guilty
of allowing bread or food, whatever it might be, to undergo the misery
of being devoured by a man of no merit, instead of running off with it
to the laboratory of the stomach of thine elect; and so by theft
saving thy god from the imprisonment with which he is threatened, and
also from that from which he already suffers. Then, if thou art
caught in the theft, wilt thou not swear by this god that thou art not
guilty? For what will he do to thee when thou sayest to him, I swore
by thee falsely, but it was for thy benefit; a regard for thine honor
would have been fatal to thee? So the precept, Thou shall not bear
false witness, will be broken, not only in thy testimony, but in thine
oath, for the sake of the liberation of the members of thy god. The
commandment, "Thou shall not covet thy neighborâs wife," is the only
one which thy false doctrine does not oblige thee to break. But if
it is unlawful to covet our neighborâs wife, what must it be to excite
covetousness in others? Remember thy beautiful gods and goddesses
presenting themselves with the purpose of exciting desire in the male
and female leaders of darkness, in order that the gratification of
this passion might effect the liberation of this god, who is in
confinement everywhere, and who requires the assistance of such
self-degradation. The last commandment, "Thou shall not covet the
possessions of thy neighbor," it is wholly impossible for thee to
obey. Does not this god of thine delude thee with the promise of
making new worlds in a region belonging to another, to be the scene of
thine imaginary triumph after thine imaginary conquest? In the
desire for the accomplishment of these wild fancies, while at the same
time thou believest that this land of darkness is in the closest
neighborhood with thine own substance, thou certainly covetest the
possessions of thy neighbor. Well indeed mayest thou dislike the
tables which contain such good precepts in opposition to thy false
doctrine. The three relating to the love of God thou dost entirely
set aside. The seven by which human society is preserved thou
keepest only from a regard to the opinion of men, or from fear of
human laws; or good customs make thee averse to some crimes; or thou
art restrained by the natural principle of not doing to another what
thou wouldst not have done to thyself. But whether thou doest what
thou wouldst not have done to thyself, or refrainest from doing what
thou wouldst not have done to thyself, thou seest the opposition of
the heresy to the law, whether thou actest according to it or not.
8. The true bride of Christ, whom thou hast the audacity to taunt
with the stone tablets, knows the difference between the letter and
the spirit, or in other words, between law and grace; and serving God
no longer in the oldness of the letter, but in newness of spirit, she
is not under the law, but under grace. She is not blinded by a
spirit of controversy, but learns meekly from the apostle what is this
law which we are not to be under; for "it was given," he says, "on
account of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the
promise was made."[559]559Â And again:Â "It entered, that the
offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace has much more
abounded."[560]560Â Not that the law is sin, though it cannot give
life without grace, but rather increases the guilt; for "where there
is no law, there is no transgression."[561]561Â The letter without
the spirit, the law without grace, can only condemn. So the apostle
explains his meaning, in case any should not understand:Â "What shall
we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. For I had not known sin
but by the law. For I had not known lust unless the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
deceived me, and by it slew me. Therefore the law is holy, and the
commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good
made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin,
wrought death in me by that which is good."[562]562Â She at whom thou
scoffest knows what this means; for she asks earnestly, and seeks
humbly, and knocks meekly. She sees that no fault is found with the
law, when it is said, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
life," any more than with knowledge, when it is said, "Knowledge
puffeth up, but love edifieth."[563]563Â The passage runs thus:Â "We
know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love
edifieth."Â The apostle certainly had no desire to be puffed up; but
he had knowledge, because knowledge joined with love not only does not
puff up, but strengthens. So the letter when joined with the spirit,
and the law when joined with grace, is no longer the letter and the
law in the same sense as when by itself it kills by abounding sin.Â
In this sense the law is even called the strength of sin, because its
strict prohibitions increase the fatal pleasure of sin. Even thus,
however, the law is not evil; but "sin, that it may appear sin, works
death by that which is good."Â So things that are not evil may often
be hurtful to certain people. The Manichæans, when they have sore
eyes, will shut out their god the sun. The bride of Christ, then, is
dead to the law, that is, to sin, which abounds more from the
prohibition of the law; for the law apart from grace commands, but
does not enable. Being dead to the law in this sense, that she may
be married to another who rose from the dead, she makes this
distinction without any reproach to the law, which would be blasphemy
against its author. This is thy crime; for though the apostle tells
thee that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and
good, thou dost not acknowledge it as the production of a good
being. Its author thou makest to be one of the princes of
darkness. Here the truth confronts thee. They are the words of the
Apostle Paul:Â "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just,
and good."Â Such is the law given by Him who appointed for a great
symbolical use the tablets which thou foolishly deridest. The same
law which was given by Moses becomes through Jesus Christ grace and
truth; for the spirit is joined to the letter, that the righteousness
of the law might begin to be fulfilled, which when unfulfilled only
added the guilt of transgression. The law which is holy, and just,
and good, is the same law by which sin works death, and to which we
must die, that we may be married to another who rose from the dead.Â
Hear what the apostle adds:Â "But sin, that it might appear sin,
wrought death in me by that which is good, that sin by the commandment
might become exceeding sinful."Â Deaf and blind, dost thou not now
hear and see? "Sin wrought death in me," he says, "by that which is
good."Â The law is always good:Â whether it hurts those who are
destitute of grace, or benefits those who are filled with grace,
itself is always good; as the sun is always good, for every creature
of God is good, whether it hurts weak eyes or gladdens the sight of
the healthy. Grace fits the mind for keeping the law, as health fits
the eyes for seeing the sun. And as healthy eyes die not to the
pleasure of seeing the sun, but to that painful effect of the rays
which beat upon the eye so as to increase the darkness; so the mind,
healed by the love of the spirit, dies not to the justice of the law,
but to the guilt and transgression which followed on the law in the
absence of grace. So it is said "The law is good, if used lawfully;"
and immediately after of the same law, "Knowing this, that the law is
not made for a righteous man."Â The man who delights in righteousness
itself, does not require the restraint of the letter.
9. The bride of Christ rejoices in the hope of full salvation, and
desires for thee a happy conversion from fables to truth. She
desires that the fear of Adoneus, as if he were a strange lover, may
not prevent thy escape from the seductions of the wily serpent.Â
Adonai is a Hebrew word, meaning Lord, as applied only to God. In
the same way the Greek word latria means service, in the sense of the
service of God; and Amen means true, in a special sacred sense. This
is to be learned only from the Hebrew Scriptures, or from a
translation. The Church of Christ understands and loves these names,
without regarding the evils of those who scoff because they are
ignorant. What she does not yet understand, she believes may be
explained, as similar things have already been explained to her. If
she is charged with loving Emmanuel, she laughs at the ignorance of
the accuser, and holds fast by the truth of this name. If she is
charged with loving Messiah, she scorns her powerless adversary, and
clings to her anointed Master. Her prayer for thee is, that thou
also mayest be cured of thy errors, and be built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets. The monstrosity with which thou
ignorantly chargest the true doctrine, is really to be found in the
world which, according to thy fanciful stories, is made partly of thy
god and partly of the world of darkness. This world, half savage and
half divine, is worse than monstrous. The view of such follies
should make thee humble and penitent, and should lead thee to shun the
serpent, who seduces thee into such errors. If thou dost not believe
what Moses says of the guile of the serpent, thou mayest be warned by
Paul, who, when speaking of presenting the Church as a chaste virgin
to Christ, says, "I fear lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
craftiness, your minds also should be corrupted from the simplicity
and purity which is in Christ."[564]564Â In spite of this warning,
thou hast been so misled, so infatuated by the serpentâs fatal
enchantments, that while he has persuaded other heretics to believe
various falsehoods, he has persuaded thee to believe that he is
Christ. Others, though fallen into the maze of manifold error, still
admit the truth of the apostleâs warning. But thou art so far gone
in corruption, and so lost to shame, that thou holdest as Christ the
very being by whom the apostle declares that Eve was beguiled, and
against whom he thus seeks to put the virgin bride of Christ on her
guard. Thy heart is darkened by the deceiver, who intoxicates thee
with dreams of glittering groves. What are these promises but
dreams? What reason is there to believe them true? O drunken, but
not with wine!
10. Thou hast the impious audacity to accuse the God of the prophets
of not fulfilling His promises even to His servants the Jews. Thou
dost not mention, however, any promise that is unfulfilled; otherwise
it might be shown, either that the promise has been fulfilled, and so
that thou dost not understand it, or that it is yet to be fulfilled,
and so that thou dost not believe it. What promise has been
fulfilled to thee, to make it probable that thou wilt obtain new
worlds gained from the region of darkness? If there are prophets who
predict the Manichæans with praise, and if it is said that the
existence of the sect is a fulfillment of this prediction, it must
first be proved that these predictions were not forged by Manichæus
in order to gain followers. He does not consider falsehood sinful.Â
If he declares in praise of Christ that He showed false marks of
wounds in His body, he can have no scruple about showing false
predictions in his sheepskin volumes. Assuredly there are
predictions of the Manichæans, less clear in the prophets, and most
explicit in the apostle. For example: "The Spirit," he says,
"speaketh expressly, that in the last times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils,
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared, forbidding
to marry, abstaining from meats, which God has created to be received
with thanksgiving by believers, and those who know the truth. For
every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be
received with thanksgiving."[565]565Â The fulfillment of this in the
Manichæans is as clear as day to all that know them, and has already
been proved as fully as time permits.
11. She whom the apostle warns against the guile of the serpent by
which thou hast been corrupted, that he may present her as a chaste
virgin to Christ, her only husband, acknowledges the God of the
prophets as the true God, and her own God. So many of His promises
have already been fulfilled to her, that she looks confidently for the
fulfillment of the rest. Nor can any one say that these prophecies
have been forged to suit the present time, for they are found in the
books of the Jews. What could be more unlikely than that all nations
should be blessed in Abrahamâs seed, as it was promised? And yet how
plainly is this promise now fulfilled! The last promise is made in
the following short prophecy:Â "Blessed are they that dwell in Thy
house:Â they shall ever praise Thee."[566]566Â When trial is past,
and death, the last enemy, is destroyed, there will be rest in the
constant occupation of praising God, where there shall be no arrivals
and no departures. So the prophet says elsewhere: "Praise the
Lord, O Jerusalem; celebrate thy God, O Zion:Â for He hath
strengthened the bars of thy gates; He hath blessed thy children
within thee."[567]567Â The gates are shut, so that none can go in or
out. The Bridegroom Himself says in the Gospel, that He will not
open to the foolish virgins though they knock. This Jerusalem, the
holy Church, the bride of Christ, is described fully in the Revelation
of John. And that which commends the promises of future bliss to the
belief of this chaste virgin is, that now she is in possession of what
was foretold of her by the same prophets. For she is thus
described:Â "Hearken, O daughter, and regard, and incline thine ear;
forget also thine own people, and thy fatherâs house. For the King
hath greatly desired thy beauty; and He is thy God. The daughters of
Tyre shall worship Him with gifts; the rich among the people shall
entreat thy favor. The daughter of the King is all glorious within;
her clothing is of wrought gold. The virgins following her shall be
brought unto the King:Â her companions shall be brought unto thee;
with gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought into the temple of
the King. Instead of thy fathers, children shall be born to thee,
whom thou shall make princes over all the earth. Thy name shall be
remembered to all generations:Â therefore shall the people praise
thee for ever and ever."[568]568Â Unhappy victim of the serpentâs
guile, the inward beauty of the daughter of the King is not for thee
even to think of. For this purity of mind is that which thou hast
lost in opening thine eyes to love and worship the sun and moon. And
so by the just judgment of God thou art estranged from the tree of
life, which is eternal and internal wisdom; and with thee nothing is
called or accounted truth or wisdom but that light which enters the
eyes opened to evil, and which in thy impure mind expands and shapes
itself into fanciful images. These are thy abominable whoredoms.Â
Still the truth calls on thee to reflect and return. Return to me,
and thou shall be cleansed and restored, if thy shame leads thee to
repentance. Hear these words of the true Truth, who neither with
feigned shapes fought against the race of darkness, nor with feigned
blood redeemed thee.
ââââââââââââ
Book XVI.
Faustus willing to believe not only that the Jewish but that all
Gentile prophets wrote of Christ, if it should be proved; but he would
none the less insist upon rejecting their superstitions. Augustin
maintains that all Moses wrote is of Christ, and that his writings
must be either accepted or rejected as a whole.
1. Faustus said: You ask why we do not believe Moses, when Christ
says, "Moses wrote of me; and if ye believed Moses, ye would also
believe me."Â I should be glad if not only Moses, but all prophets,
Jew and Gentile, had written of Christ. It would be no hindrance,
but a help to our faith, if we could cull testimonies from all hands
agreeing in favor of our God. You could extract the prophecies of
Christ out of the superstition which we should hate as much as ever.Â
I am quite willing to believe that Moses, though so much the opposite
of Christ, may seem to have written of Him. No one but would gladly
find a flower in every thorn, and food in every plant, and honey in
every insect, although we would not feed on insects or on grass, nor
wear thorns as a crown. No one but would wish pearls to be found in
every deep, and gems in every land, and fruit on every tree. We may
eat fish from the sea without drinking the water. We may take the
useful, and reject what is hurtful. And why may we not take the
prophecies of Christ from a religion the rites of which we condemn as
useless? This need not make us liable to be led into the bondage of
the errors; for we do not hate the unclean spirits less because they
confessed plainly and openly that Jesus was the Son of God. If any
similar testimony is found in Moses, I will accept it. But I will
not on this account be brought into subjection to his law, which to my
mind is pure Paganism. There is no reason whatever for thinking that
I can have any objections to receiving prophecies of Christ from every
spirit.
2. Since you have proved that Christ declared that Moses wrote of
him, I should be very grateful if you would show me what he has
written. I have searched the Scriptures, as we are told to do, and
have found no prophecies of Christ, either because there are none, or
because I could not understand them. The only escape from this
perplexity was in one or other of two conclusions. Either this verse
must be spurious, or Jesus a liar. As it is not consistent with
piety to suppose God a liar, I preferred to attribute falsehood to the
writers, rather than to the Author, of truth. Moreover, He Himself
tells that those who came before him were thieves and robbers, which
applies first of all to Moses. And when, on the occasion of His
speaking of His own majesty, and calling Himself the light of the
world, the Jews angrily rejoined, "Thou bearest witness of thyself,
thy witness is not true," I do not find that He appealed to the
prophecies of Moses, as might have been expected. Instead of this,
as having no connection with the Jews, and receiving no testimony from
their fathers, He replied:Â "It is written in your law, that the
testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself,
and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me."[569]569Â He
referred to the voice from heaven which all had heard:Â "This is my
beloved Son, believe Him."Â I think it likely that if Christ had said
that Moses wrote of Him, the ingenious hostility of the Jews would
have led them at once to ask what He supposed Moses to have written.Â
The silence of the Jews is a proof that Jesus never made such a
statement.
3. My chief reason, however, for suspecting the genuineness of this
verse is what I said before, that in all my search of the writings of
Moses I have found no prophecy of Christ. But now that I have found
in you a reader of superior intelligence, I hope to learn something;
and I promise to be grateful if no feeling of ill-will prevents you
from giving me the benefit of your higher attainments, as your lofty
style of reproof entitles me to expect from you. I ask for
instruction in whatever the writings of Moses contain about our God
and Lord which has escaped me in reading. I beseech you not to use
the ignorant argument that Christ affirms Moses to have written of
Him. For suppose you had not to deal with me, as in my case there is
an obligation to believe Him whom I profess to follow, but with a Jew
or a Gentile, in reply to the statement that Moses wrote of Christ,
they will ask for proofs. What shall we say to them? We cannot
quote Christâs authority, for they do not believe in Him. We must
point out what Moses wrote.
4. What, then, shall we point to? Shall it be that passage which
you often quote where the God of Moses says to him:Â "I will raise up
unto them from among their brethren a prophet like unto
thee?"[570]570Â But the Jew can see that this does not refer to
Christ, and there is every reason against our thinking that it does.Â
Christ was not a prophet, nor was He like Moses:Â for Moses was a
man, and Christ was God; Moses was a sinner, and Christ sinless; Moses
was born by ordinary generation, and Christ of a virgin according to
you, or, as I hold, not born at all:Â Moses, for offending his God,
was put to death on the mountain; and Christ suffered voluntarily, and
the Father was well pleased in Him. If we were to assert that Christ
was a prophet like Moses, the Jew would either deride us as ignorant
or pronounce us untruthful.
5. Or shall we take another favorite passage of yours: "They shall
see their life hanging, and shall not believe their life?"[571]571Â
You insert the words "on a tree," which are not in the original.Â
Nothing can be easier than to show that this has no reference to
Christ. Moses is uttering dire threatenings in case the people
should depart from his law, and says among other things that they
would be taken captive by their enemies, and would be expecting death
day and night, having no confidence in the life allowed them by their
conquerors, so that their life would hang in uncertainty from fear of
impending danger. This passage will not do, we must try others. I
cannot admit that the words, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree," refer to Christ, or when it is said that the prince or prophet
must be killed who should try to turn away the people from their God,
or should break any of the commandments.[572]572 Â That Christ did
this I am obliged to grant. But if you assert that these things were
written of Christ, it may be asked in reply, What spirit dictated
these prophecies in which Moses curses Christ and orders him to be
killed? If he had the Spirit of God, these things are not written of
Christ; if they are written of Christ, he had not the Spirit of God.Â
The Spirit of God would not curse Christ, or order Him to be killed.Â
To vindicate Moses, you must confess that these passages too have no
reference to Christ. So, if you have no others to show, there are
none. If there are none, Christ could not have said that there were;
and if Christ did not say so, that verse is spurious.
6. The next verse too is suspicious, "If ye believed Moses, ye would
also believe me;" for the religion of Moses is so entirely different
from that of Christ, that if the Jews believed one, they could not
believe the other. Moses strictly forbids any work to be done on
Sabbath, and gives as a reason for this prohibition that God made the
world and all that is therein in six days, and rested on the seventh
day, which is Sabbath; and therefore blessed or sanctified it as His
haven of repose after toil, and commanded that breaking the Sabbath
should be punished with death. The Jews, in obedience to Moses,
insisted strongly on this, and so would not even listen to Christ when
He told them that God always works, and that no day is appointed for
the intermission of His pure and unwearied energy, and that
accordingly He Himself had to work incessantly even on Sabbath. "My
Father," he says, "worketh always, and I too must work."[573]573Â
Again, Moses places circumcision among the rites pleasing to God, and
commands every male to be circumcised in the foreskin of his flesh,
and declares that this is a necessary sign of the covenant which God
made with Abraham, and that every male not circumcised would be cut
off from his tribe, and from his part in the inheritance promised to
Abraham and to his seed.[574]574Â In this observance, too, the Jews
were very zealous, and consequently could not believe in Christ, who
made light of these things, and declared that a man when circumcised
became twofold a child of hell.[575]575Â Again, Moses is very
particular about the distinction in animal foods, and discourses like
an epicure on the merits of fish, and birds, and quadrupeds, and
orders some to be eaten as clean, and others which are unclean not to
be touched. Among the unclean he reckons the swine and the hare, and
fish without scales, and quadrupeds that neither divide the hoof nor
chew the cud. In this also the Jews carefully obeyed Moses, and so
could not believe in Christ, who taught that all food is alike, and
though he allowed no animal food to his own disciples, gave full
liberty to the laity to eat whatever they pleased, and taught that men
are polluted not by what goes into the mouth, but by the evil things
which come out of it. In these and many other things the doctrine of
Jesus, as everybody knows, contradicts that of Moses.
7. Not to enumerate all the points of difference, it is enough to
mention this one fact, that most Christian sects, and, as is well
known, the Catholics, pay no regard to what is prescribed in the
writings of Moses. If this does not originate in some error, but in
the doctrine correctly transmitted from Christ and His disciples, you
surely must acknowledge that the teaching of Jesus is opposed to that
of Moses, and that the Jews did not believe in Christ on account of
their attachment to Moses. How can it be otherwise than false that
Jesus said to the Jews, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me
also," when it is perfectly clear that their belief in Moses prevented
them from believing in Jesus, which they might have done if they had
left off believing in Moses? Again I ask you to show me anything
that Moses wrote of Christ.
8. Elsewhere Faustus says: When you find no passage to point to,
you use this weak and inappropriate argument, that a Christian is
bound to believe Christ when he says that Moses wrote of Him, and that
whoever does not believe this is not a Christian. It would be far
better to confess at once that you cannot find any passage. This
argument might be used with me, because my reverence for Christ
compels me to believe what He says. Still it may be a question
whether this is Christâs own declaration, requiring absolute belief,
or only the writerâs, to be carefully examined. And disbelief in
falsehood is no offence to Christ, but to impostors. But of whatever
use this argument may be with Christians, it is wholly inapplicable in
the case of the Jew or Gentile, with whom we are supposed to be
discussing. And even with Christians the argument is
objectionable. When the Apostle Thomas was in doubt, Christ did not
spurn him from Him. Instead of saying, "Believe, if thou art a
disciple; whoever does not believe is not a disciple," Christ sought
to heal the wounds of his mind by showing him the marks of the wounds
in His own body. Does it become you then to tell me that I am not a
Christian because I am in doubt, not about Christ, but about the
genuineness of a remark attributed to Christ? But, you say, He calls
those especially blessed, who have not seen, and yet have believed.Â
If you think that this refers to believing without the use of judgment
and reason, you are welcome to this blind blessedness. I shall be
content with rational blessedness.
9. Augustin replied: Your idea of taking any prophecies of Christ
to be found in Moses, as a fish out of the sea, while you throw away
the water from which the fish is taken, is a clever one. But since
all that Moses wrote is of Christ, or relates to Christ, either as
predicting Him by words and actions, or as illustrating His grace and
glory, you, with your faith in the untrue and untruthful Christ from
the writings of Manichæus, and your unbelief in Moses, will not even
eat the fish. Moreover, though you are sincere in your hostility to
Moses, you are hypocritical in your praise of fish. For how can you
say that there is no harm in eating a fish taken out of the sea, when
your doctrine is that such food is so hurtful, that you would rather
starve than make use of it? If all flesh is unclean, as you say it
is, and if the wretched life of your god is confined in all water or
plants, from which it is liberated by your using them for food,
according to your own vile superstition, you must throw away the fish
you have praised, and drink the water and eat the thistles you speak
of as useless. As for your comparison of the servant of God to
devils, as if his prophecies of Christ resembled their confession, the
servant does not refuse to bear the reproach of his master. If the
Master of the house was called Beelzebub, how much more they of His
household![576]576Â You have learned this reproach from Christâs
enemies; and you are worse than they were. They did not believe that
Jesus was Christ, and therefore thought Him an impostor. But the
only doctrine you believe in is that which dares to make Christ a
liar.
10. What reason have you for saying that the law of Moses is pure
Paganism? Is it because it speaks of a temple, and an altar of
sacrifices, and priests? But all these names are found also in the
New Testament. "Destroy," Christ says, "this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up;"[577]577 and again, "When thou offerest thy
gift at the altar;"[578]578 and again, "Go, show thyself to the
priest, and offer for thyself a sacrifice as Moses commanded, for a
testimony unto them."[579]579Â What these things prefigured the Lord
Himself partly tells us, when He calls His own body the temple; and we
learn also from the apostle, who says, "The temple of God is holy,
which temple ye are;"[580]580 and again, "I beseech you therefore by
the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable to God;"[581]581 and in similar passages. As the
same apostle says, in words which cannot be too often quoted, these
things were our examples, for they were not the work of devils, but of
the one true God who made heaven and earth, and who, though not
needing such things, yet, suiting His requirements to the time, made
ancient observances significant of future realities. Since you
pretend to abhor Paganism, though it is only that you may lead astray
by your deception unlearned Christians or those not established in the
faith, show us any authority in Christian books for your worship and
service of the sun and moon. Your heresy is liker Paganism than the
law of Moses is. For you do not worship Christ, but only something
that you call Christ, a fiction of your own fancy; and the gods you
serve are either the bodies visible in the heavens, or hosts of your
own contrivance. If you do not build shrines for these worthless
idols, the creatures of the imagination, you make your hearts their
temple.
11. You ask me to show what Moses wrote of Christ. Many passages
have already been pointed out. But who could point out all?Â
Besides, when any quotation is made, you are ready perversely to try
to give the words another meaning; or if the evidence is too strong to
be resisted, you will say that you take the passage as a sweet fish
out of the salt water, and that you will not therefore consent to
drink all the brine of the books of Moses. It will be enough, then,
to take those passages in the Hebrew law which Faustus has chosen for
criticism, and to show that, when rightly understood, they apply to
Christ. For if the things which our adversary ridicules and condemns
are made to prove that he himself is condemned by Christian truth, it
will be evident that either the mere quotation or the careful
examination of the other passages will be enough to show their
agreement with Christian faith. Well, then, O thou full of all
subtilty, when the Lord in the Gospel says, "If ye believed Moses, ye
would believe me also, for he wrote of me,"[582]582 there is no
occasion for the great perplexity you pretend to be in, or for the
alternative of either pronouncing this verse spurious or calling Jesus
a liar. The verse is as genuine as its words are true. I
preferred, says Faustus, to attribute falsehood to the writers, rather
than to the Author of truth. What sort of faith can you have in
Christ as the author of truth, when your doctrine is that His flesh
and His death, His wounds and their marks, were feigned? And where
is your authority for saying that Christ is the author of truth, if
you dare to attribute falsehood to those who wrote of Him, whose
testimony has come down to us with the confirmation of those
immediately succeeding them? You have not seen Christ, nor has He
conversed with you as with the apostles, nor called you from heaven as
He did Saul. What knowledge or belief can we have of Christ, but on
the authority of Scripture? Or if there is falsehood in the Gospel
which has been widely published among all nations, and has been held
in such high sacredness in all churches since the name of Christ was
first preached, where shall we find a trustworthy record of Christ?Â
If the Gospel is called in question in spite of the general consent
regarding it, there can be no writing which a man may not call
spurious if he does not wish to believe it.
12. You go on to quote Christâs words, that all who came before Him
were thieves and robbers. How do you know that these were Christâs
words, but from the Gospel? You profess faith in these words, as if
you had heard them from the mouth of the Lord Himself. But if any
one declares the verse to be spurious, and denies that Christ said
this, you will have, in reply, to exert yourself in vindication of the
authority of the Gospel. Unhappy being! what you refuse to believe
is written in the same place as that which you quote as spoken by the
Lord Himself. We believe both, for we believe the sacred narrative
in which both are contained. We believe both that Moses wrote of
Christ, and that all that came before Christ were thieves and
robbers. By their coming He means their not being sent. Those who
were sent, as Moses and the holy prophets, came not before Him, but
with Him. They did not proudly wish to precede Him, but were the
humble bearers of the message which He uttered by them. According to
the meaning which you give to the Lordâs words, it is plain that with
you there can be no prophets. And so you have made a Christ for
yourselves who should prophesy a Christ to come. If you have any
prophets of your own, they will have, of course, no authority, as not
being recognized by any others; but if there are any that you dare to
quote as prophesying that Christ would come in an unreal body, and
would suffer an unreal death, and would show to His doubting disciples
unreal marks of wounds, not to speak of the abominable nature of such
prophecies, and of the evident untruthfulness of those who commend
falsehood in Christ, by your own interpretation those prophets must
have been thieves and robbers, for they could not have spoken of
Christ as coming in any manner unless they had come before Him. If
by those who came before Christ we understand those who would not come
with Him,âthat is, with the Word of God,âbut without being sent by God
brought their own falsehoods to men, you yourselves, although you are
born in this world after the death and the resurrection of Christ, are
thieves and robbers. For, without waiting for His illumination that
you might preach His truth, you have come before Him to preach up your
own deceits.
13. In the passage where we read of the Jews saying to Christ, Thou
bearest witness of thyself, thy witness is not true, you do not see
that Christ replies by saying that Moses wrote of Him, simply because
you have not got the eye of piety to see with. The answer of Christ
is this:Â "It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men
is true; I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent
me beareth witness of me."[583]583Â What does this mean, if rightly
understood, but that this number of witnesses required by the law was
fixed upon and consecrated in the spirit of prophecy, that even thus
might be prefigured the future revelation of the Father and Son, whose
spirit is the Holy Spirit of the inseparable Trinity? So it is
written:Â "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
established."[584]584Â As a matter of fact, one witness generally
speaks the truth, while a number tell lies. And the world, in its
conversion to Christianity, believed one apostle preaching the gospel
rather than the mistaken multitude who persecuted him. There was a
special reason for requiring this number of witnesses, and in His
answer the Lord implied that Moses prophesied of Him. Do you carp at
His saying your law instead of the law of God? But, as every one
knows, this is the common expression in Scripture. Your law means
the law given to you. So the apostle speaks of his gospel, while at
the same time he declares that he received it not from man, but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ. You might as well say that Christ denies
God to be His Father, when He uses the words your Father instead of
our Father. Again, you should refuse to believe the voice which you
allude to as having come from heaven, This is my beloved Son, believe
Him, because you did not hear it. But if you believe this because
you find it in the sacred Scriptures, you will also find there what
you deny, that Moses wrote of Christ, besides many other things that
you do not acknowledge as true. Do you not see that your own
mischievous argument may be used to prove that this voice never came
from heaven? To your own destruction, and to the detriment of the
welfare of mankind, you try to weaken the authority of the gospel, by
arguing that it cannot be true that Christ said that Moses wrote of
Him; because if He had said this, the ingenious hostility of the Jews
would have led them at once to ask what He supposed Moses to have
written of Him. In the same way, it might be impiously argued that
if that voice had really come from heaven, all the Jews who heard it
would have believed. Why are you so unreasonable as not to consider
that, as it was possible for the Jews to remain hardened in unbelief
after hearing the voice from heaven, so it was possible for them, when
Christ said that Moses wrote of Him, to refrain from asking what Moses
wrote, because in their ingenious hostility they were afraid of being
proved to be in the wrong?
14. Besides that this argument is an impious assault on the gospel,
Faustus himself is aware of its feebleness, and therefore insists more
on what he calls his chief difficulty,âthat in all his search of the
writings of Moses he has found no prophecies of Christ. The obvious
reply is, that he does not understand. And if any one asks why he
does not understand, the answer is that he reads with a hostile,
unbelieving mind; he does not search in order to know, but thinks he
knows when he is ignorant. This vainglorious presumption either
blinds the eye of his understanding so as to prevent his seeing
anything, or distorts his vision, so that his remarks of approval or
disapproval are misdirected. I ask, he says, for instruction in
whatever the writings of Moses contain about our God and Lord, which
has escaped me in reading. I reply at once that it has all escaped
him, for all is written of Christ. As we cannot go through the
whole, I will, with the help of God, comply with your request, to the
extent I have already promised, by showing that the passages which you
specially criticise refer to Christ. You tell me not to use the
ignorant argument that Christ affirms Moses to have written of Him.Â
But if I use this argument, it is not because I am ignorant, but
because I am a believer. I acknowledge that this argument will not
convince a Gentile or a Jew. But, in spite of all your evasions, you
are obliged to confess that it tells against you, who boast of
possessing a kind of Christianity. You say, Suppose you had not to
deal with me, as in my case there is an obligation to believe Him whom
I profess to follow, but with a Jew or a Gentile. This is as much as
to say that you, at any rate, with whom I have at present to do, are
satisfied that Moses wrote of Christ; for you are not bold enough to
discard altogether the well-grounded authority of the Gospel where
Christâs own declaration is recorded. Even when you attack this
authority indirectly, you feel that you are attacking your own
position. You are aware that if you refuse to believe the Gospel,
which is so generally known and received, you must fail utterly in the
attempt to substitute for it any trustworthy record of the sayings and
doings of Christ. You are afraid that the loss of the Christian name
might lead to the exposure of your absurdities to universal scorn and
condemnation. Accordingly you try to recover yourself, by saying
that your profession of Christianity obliges you to believe these
words of the Gospel. So you, at any rate, which is all that we need
care for just now, are caught and slain in this death blow to your
errors. You are forced to confess that Moses wrote of Christ,
because the Gospel, which your profession obliges you to believe,
states that Christ said so. As regards a discussion with a Jew or a
Gentile, I have already shown as well as I could how I think it should
be conducted.
15. I still hold that there is a reference to Christ in the passage
which you select for refutation, where God says to Moses, "I will
raise up unto them from among their brethren a prophet like unto
thee."[585]585Â The string of showy antitheses with which you try to
ornament your dull discourse does not at all affect my belief of this
truth. You attempt to prove, by a comparison of Christ and Moses,
that they are unlike, and that therefore the words, "I will raise up a
prophet like unto thee," cannot be understood of Christ. You specify
a number of particulars in which you find a diversity:Â that the one
is man, and the other God; that one is a sinner, the other sinless;
that one is born of ordinary generation, the other, as we hold, of a
virgin, and, as you hold, not even of a virgin; the one incurs Godâs
anger, and is put to death on a mountain, the other suffers
voluntarily, having throughout the approval of His Father. But
surely things may be said to be like, although they are not like in
every respect. Besides the resemblance between things of the same
nature, as between two men, or between parents and children, or
between men in general, or any species of animals, or in trees,
between one olive and another, or one laurel and another, there is
often a resemblance in things of a different nature, as between a wild
and a tame olive, or between wheat and barley. These things are to
some extent allied. But there is the greatest possible distance
between the Son of God, by whom all things were made, and a beast or a
stone. And yet in the Gospel we read, "Behold the Lamb of
God,"[586]586 and in the apostle, "That rock was Christ."[587]587Â
This could not be said except on the supposition of some
resemblance. What wonder, then, if Christ condescended to become
like Moses, when He was made like the lamb which God by Moses
commanded His people to eat as a type of Christ, enjoining that its
blood should be used as a means of protection, and that it should be
called the Passover, which every one must admit to be fulfilled in
Christ? The Scripture, I acknowledge, shows points of difference;
and the Scripture also, as I call on you to acknowledge, shows points
of resemblance. There are points of both kinds, and one can be
proved as well as the other. Christ is unlike man, for He is God;
and it is written of Him that He is "over all, God blessed for
ever."[588]588Â Christ is also like man, for He is man; and it is
likewise written of Him, that He is the "Mediator between God and man,
the man Christ Jesus."[589]589Â Christ is unlike a sinner, for He is
ever holy; and He is like a sinner, for "God sent His Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the
flesh."[590]590Â Christ is unlike a man born in ordinary generation,
for He was born of a virgin; and yet He is like, for He too was born
of a woman, to whom it was said, "That holy thing which shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God."[591]591Â Christ is unlike a
man, who dies on account of his own sin, for He died without sin, and
of His own free-will; and again, He is like, for He too died a real
death of the body.
16. You ought not to say, in disparagement of Moses, that he was a
sinner, and that he was put to death on a mountain because his God was
angry with him. For Moses could glory in the Lord as his Saviour,
who is also the Saviour of him who says, "Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."[592]592Â Moses, indeed,
is accused by the voice of God, because his faith showed signs of
weakness when he was commanded to draw water out of the
rock.[593]593Â In this he may have sinned as Peter did, when from the
weakness of his faith he became afraid in the midst of the
waves.[594]594Â But we cannot think from this, that he who, as the
Gospel tells us, was counted worthy to be present with the Lord along
with holy Elias on the mount of transfiguration, was separated from
the eternal fellowship of the saints. The sacred history shows in
what favor he was with God even after his sin. But since you may ask
why God speaks of this sin as deserving the punishment of death, and
as I have promised to point out prophecies of Christ in those passages
which you select for criticism, I will try, with the Lordâs help, to
show that what you object to in the death of Moses is, when rightly
understood, prophetical of Christ.
17. We often find in the symbolical passages of Scripture, that the
same person appears in different characters on different occasions.Â
So, on this occasion, Moses represents and prefigures the Jewish
people as placed under the law. As, then, Moses, when he struck the
rock with his rod, doubted the power of God, so the people who were
under the law given by Moses, when they nailed Christ to the cross,
did not believe Him to be the power of God. And as water flowed from
the smitten rock for those that were athirst, so life comes to
believers from the stroke of the Lordâs passion. The testimony of
the apostle is clear and decisive on this point, when he says, "This
rock was Christ."[595]595Â In the command of God, that the death of
the flesh of Moses should take place on the mountain, we see the
divine appointment that the carnal doubt of the divinity of Christ
should die on Christâs exaltation. As the rock is Christ, so is the
mountain. The rock is the fortitude of His humiliation; the mountain
the height of His exaltation. For as the apostle says, "This rock
was Christ," so Christ Himself says, "A city set upon an hill cannot
be hid,"[596]596 showing that He is the hill, and believers the city
built upon the glory of His name. The carnal mind lives when, like
the smitten rock, the humiliation of Christ on the cross is
despised. For Christ crucified is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and
to the Greeks foolishness. And the carnal mind dies when, like the
mountain-top, Christ is seen in His exaltation. "For to them that
are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the
wisdom of God."[597]597Â Moses therefore ascended the mount, that in
the death of the flesh he might be received by the living spirit. If
Faustus had ascended, he would not have uttered carnal objections from
a dead mind. It was the carnal mind that made Peter dread the
smiting of the rock, when, on the occasion of the Lordâs foretelling
His passion, he said, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; spare Thyself."Â
And this sin too was severely rebuked, when the Lord replied, "Get
thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me:Â for thou
savorest not the things which be of God, but those which be of
men."[598]598Â And where did this carnal distrust die but in the
glorification of Christ, as on a mountain height? If it was alive
when Peter timidly denied Christ, it was dead when he fearlessly
preached Him. It was alive in Saul, when, in his aversion to the
offense of the cross, he made havoc of the Christian faith, and where
but on this mountain had it died, when Paul was able to say, "I live
no longer, but Christ liveth in me?"[599]599
18. What other reason has your heretical folly to give for thinking
that there is no prophecy of Christ in the words, "I will raise up
unto them a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee?"Â Your
showing Christ to be unlike Moses is no reason; for we can show that
in other respects He is like. How can you object to Christâs being
called a prophet, since He condescended to be a man, and actually
foretold many future events? What is a prophet, but one who predicts
events beyond human foresight? So Christ says of Himself: "A
prophet is not without honor, save in his own country."[600]600Â But,
turning from you, since you have already acknowledged that your
profession of Christianity obliges you to believe the Gospel, I
address myself to the Jew, who enjoys the poor privilege of liberty
from the yoke of Christ, and who therefore thinks it allowable to
say:Â Your Christ spoke falsely; Moses wrote nothing of him.
19. Let the Jews say what prophet is meant in this promise of God to
Moses:Â "I will raise up unto them a Prophet from among their
brethren, like unto thee."Â Many prophets appeared after Moses; but
one in particular is here pointed out. The Jews will perhaps
naturally think of the successor of Moses, who led into the promised
land the people that Moses had brought out of Egypt. Having this
successor of Moses in his mind, he may perhaps laugh at me for asking
to what prophet the words of the promise refer, since it is recorded
who followed Moses in ruling and leading the people. When he has
laughed at my ignorance, as Faustus supposes him to do, I will still
continue my inquiries, and will desire my laughing opponent to give me
a serious answer to the question why Moses changed the name of this
successor, who was preferred to himself as the leader of the people
into the promised land, to show that the law given by Moses not to
save, but to convince the sinner, cannot lead us into heaven, but only
the grace and truth which are by Jesus Christ. This successor was
called Osea, and Moses gave him the name of Jesus. Why then did he
give him this name when he sent him from the valley of Pharan into the
land into which he was to lead the people?[601]601Â The true Jesus
says, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and
receive you unto myself."[602]602Â I will ask the Jew if the prophet
does not show the prophetical meaning of these things when he says,
"God shall come from Africa, and the Holy One from Pharan."Â Does
this not mean that the holy God would come with the name of him who
came from Africa by Pharan, that is, with the name of Jesus? Then,
again, it is the Word of God Himself who speaks when He promises to
provide this successor to Moses, speaking of him as an angel,âa name
commonly given in Scripture to those carrying any message. The words
are:Â "Behold I send my angel before thy face, to preserve thee in
the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have sworn to give
thee. Take heed unto him, and obey, and beware of unbelief in him;
for he will not take anything from thee wrongfully, for my name is in
him."[603]603 Consider these words. Let the Jew, not to speak of
the Manichæan, say what other angel he can find in Scripture to whom
these words apply, but this leader who was to bring the people into
the land of promise. Then let him inquire who it was that succeeded
Moses, and brought in the people. He will find that it was Jesus,
and that this was not his name at first, but after his name was
changed. It follows that He who said, "My name is in him," is the
true Jesus, the leader who brings His people into the inheritance of
eternal life, according to the New Testament, of which the Old was a
figure. Â No event or action could have a more distinctly prophetical
character than this, where the very name is a prediction.
20. It follows that this Jew, if he wishes to be a Jew inwardly, in
the spirit, and not in the letter, if he wishes to be thought a true
Israelite, in whom is no guile, will recognize in this dead Jesus, who
led the people into the land of mortality, a figure of the true living
Jesus, whom he may follow into the land of life. In this way, he
will no longer in a hostile spirit resist so plain a prophecy, but,
influenced by the allusion to the Jesus of the Old Testament, he will
be prepared to listen meekly to Him whose name he bore, and who leads
to the true land of promise; for He says, "Blessed are the meek, for
they shall inherit the land."[604]604Â The Gentile also, if his heart
is not too stony, if he is one of those stones from which God raises
up children unto Abraham, must allow it to be wonderful that in the
ancient books of the people of whom Jesus was born, so plain a
prophecy, including His very name, is found recorded; and must remark
at the same time, that it is not any man of the name of Jesus who is
prophesied of, but a divine person, because God said that His name was
in that man who was appointed to rule the people, and to lead them
into the kingdom, and who by a change of name was called Jesus. In
His being sent with this new name, He brings a great and divine
message, and is therefore called an Angel, which, as every tyro in
Greek knows, means messenger. No Gentile, therefore, if he were not
perverse and obstinate, would despise these books merely because he is
not subject to the law of the Hebrews, to whom the books belong; but
would think highly of the books, no matter whose they were, on finding
in them prophecies of such ancient date, and of what he sees now
taking place. Instead of despising Christ Jesus because He is
foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, he would conclude that one thought
worthy of being the subject of prophetic description, whoever the
writers might be, for so many ages before His coming into the
world,âsometimes in plain announcements, sometimes in figure by
symbolic actions and utterances,âmust claim to be regarded with
profound admiration and reverence, and to be followed with implicit
reliance. Thus the facts of Christian history would prove the truth
of the prophecy, and the prophecy would prove the claims of Christ.Â
Call this fancy, if it is not actually the case that men all over the
world have been led, and are now led, to believe in Christ by reading
these books.
21. In view of the multitudes from all nations who have become
zealous believers in these books, it is laughably absurd to tell us
that it is impossible to persuade a Gentile to learn the Christian
faith from Jewish books. Indeed, it is a great confirmation of our
faith that such important testimony is borne by enemies. The
believing Gentiles cannot suppose these testimonies to Christ to be
recent forgeries; for they find them in books held sacred for so many
ages by those who crucified Christ, and still regarded with the
highest veneration by those who every day blaspheme Christ. If the
prophecies of Christ were the production of the preachers of Christ,
we might suspect their genuineness. But now the preacher expounds
the text of the blasphemer. In this way the Most High God orders the
blindness of the ungodly for the profit of the saint, in His righteous
government bringing good out of evil, that those who by their own
choice live wickedly may be, in His just judgment, made the
instruments of His will. So, lest those that were to preach Christ
to the world should be thought to have forged the prophecies which
speak of Christ as to be born, to work miracles, to suffer unjustly,
to die, to rise again, to ascend to heaven, to publish the gospel of
eternal life among all nations, the unbelief of the Jews has been made
of signal benefit to us; so that those who do not receive in their
heart for their own good these truths, carry, in their hands for our
benefit the writings in which these truths are contained. And the
unbelief of the Jews increases rather than lessens the authority of
the books, for this blindness is itself foretold. They testify to
the truth by their not understanding it. By not understanding the
books which predict that they would not understand, they prove these
books to be true.
22. In the passage, "Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not
believe thy life,"[605]605 Faustus is deceived by the ambiguity of the
words. The words may be differently interpreted; but that they
cannot be understood of Christ is not said by Faustus, nor can be said
by anyone who does not deny that Christ is life, or that He was seen
by the Jews hanging on the cross, or that they did not believe Him.Â
Since Christ Himself says, "I am the life,"[606]606 and since there is
no doubt that He was seen hanging by the unbelieving Jews, I see no
reason for doubting that this was written of Christ; for, as Christ
says, Moses wrote of Him. Since we have already refuted Faustusâ
arguments by which he tries to show that the words, "I will raise up
from among their brethren a prophet like unto thee," do not apply to
Christ, because Christ is not like Moses, we need not insist on this
other prophecy. Since, in the one case, his argument is that Christ
is unlike Moses, so here he ought to argue that Christ is not the
life, or that He was not seen hanging by the unbelieving Jews. But
as he has not said this, and as no one will now venture to say so,
there should be no difficulty in accepting this too as a prophecy of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, uttered by His servant. These
words, says Faustus, occur in a chapter of curses. But why should it
be the less a prophecy because it occurs in the midst of prophecies?Â
Or why should it not be a prophecy of Christ, although the context
does not seem to refer to Christ? Indeed, among all the curses which
the Jews brought on themselves by their sinful pride, nothing could be
worse than this, that they should see their Lifeâthat is, the Son of
God âhanging, and should not believe their Life. For the curses of
prophecy are not hostile imprecations, but announcements of coming
judgment. Hostile imprecations are forbidden, for it is said,
"Bless, and curse not."[607]607Â But prophetic announcements are
often found in the writings of the saints, as when the Apostle Paul
says:Â "Alexander the coppersmith has done me much evil; the Lord
shall reward him according to his works."[608]608Â So it might be
thought that the apostle was prompted by angry feeling to utter this
imprecation:Â "I would that they were even made eunuchs that trouble
you."[609]609Â But if we remember who the writer is, we may see in
this ambiguous expression an ingenious style of benediction. For
there are eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
of heavenâs sake.[610]610Â If Faustus had a pious appetite for
Christian food, he would have found a similar ambiguity in the words
of Moses. By the Jews the declaration, "Thou shalt see thy life
hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," may have been understood to
mean that they would see their life to be in danger from the threats
and plots of their enemies, and would not expect to live. But the
child of the Gospel, who has heard Christ say, "He wrote of me,"
distinguishes in the ambiguity of the prophecy between what is thrown
to swine and what is addressed to man. To his mind the thought
immediately suggests itself of Christ hanging as the life of man, and
of the Jews not believing in Him for this very reason, that they saw
Him hanging. As to the objection that these words, "Thou shalt see
thy life hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," are the only words
referring to Christ in a passage containing maledictions not
applicable to Christ, some might grant that this is true. For this
prophecy might very well occur among the curses pronounced by the
prophet upon the ungodly people, for these curses are of different
kinds. But I, and those who with me consider more closely the saying
of the Lord in His Gospel, which is not, He wrote also of me, as
admitting that Moses wrote other things not referring to Christ, but,
"He wrote of me," as teaching that in searching the Scriptures we
should view them as intended solely to illustrate the grace of Christ,
see a reference to Christ in the rest of the passage also. But it
would take too much time to explain this here.
23. So far from these words of Faustusâ quotation being proved not
to refer to Christ by their occurring among the other curses, these
curses cannot be rightly understood except as prophecies of the glory
of Christ, in which lies the happiness of man. And what is true of
these curses is still more true of this quotation. If it could be
said of Moses that his words have a different meaning from what was in
his mind, I would rather suppose him to have prophesied without
knowing it, than allow that the words, "Thou shalt see thy life
hanging, and shalt not believe thy life," are not applicable to
Christ. So the words of Caiaphas had a different meaning from what
he intended, when, in his hostility to Christ, he said that it was
expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole
nation should not perish, where the Evangelist added that he said this
not of himself, but, since he was high priest, he
prophesied.[611]611Â But Moses was not Caiaphas; and therefore when
Moses said to the Hebrew people, "Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and
shalt not believe thy life," he not only spoke of Christ, as he
certainly did, even though he spoke without knowing the meaning of
what he said, but he knew that he spoke of Christ. For he was a most
faithful steward of the prophetic mystery, that is, of the priestly
unction which gives the knowledge of the name of Christ; and in this
mystery even Caiaphas, wicked as he was, was able to prophesy without
knowing it. The prophetic unction enabled him to prophesy, though
his wicked life prevented him from knowing it. Who then can say that
there are no prophecies of Christ in Moses, with whom began that
unction to which we owe the knowledge of Christâs name, and by which
even Caiaphas, the persecutor of Christ, prophesied of Christ without
knowing it?
24. We have already said as much as appeared desirable of the curse
pronounced on every one that hangs on a tree. Enough has been said
to show that the command to kill any prophet or prince who tried to
turn away the children of Israel from their God, or to break any
commandment, is not directed against Christ. The more we consider
the words and actions of our Lord Jesus Christ, the more clearly will
this appear; for Christ never tried to turn away any of the Israelites
from their God. The God whom Moses taught the people to love and
serve, is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, whom the Lord
Jesus Christ speaks of by this name, using the name in refutation of
the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead. He says, "Of
the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read what God said from the
bush to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all
live unto Him."[612]612Â In the same words with which Christ answered
the Sadducees we may answer the Manichæans, for they too deny the
resurrection, though in a different way. Again, when Christ said, in
praise of the centurionâs faith, "Verily I say unto you, I have not
found so great faith, no, not in Israel," He added, "And I say unto
you, that many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven;
but the children of the kingdom shall go into outer
darkness."[613]613Â If, then, as Faustus must admit, the God of whom
Moses spoke was the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, of whom
Christ also spoke, as these passages prove, it follows that Christ did
not try to turn away the people from their God. On the contrary, He
warned them that they would go into outer darkness, because He saw
that they were turned away from their God, in whose kingdom He says
the Gentiles called from the whole world will sit down with Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob; implying that they would believe in the God of
Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. So the apostle also says:Â
"The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by
faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In thy seed
shall all nations be blessed."[614]614Â It is implied that those who
are blessed in the seed of Abraham shall imitate the faith of
Abraham. Christ, then, did not try to turn away the Israelites from
their God, but rather charged them with being turned away. The idea
that Christ broke one of the commandments given by Moses is not a new
one, for the Jews thought so; but it is a mistake, for the Jews were
in the wrong. Let Faustus mention the commandment which he supposes
the Lord to have broken, and we will point out his mistake, as we have
done already, when it was required. Meanwhile it is enough to say,
that if the Lord had broken any commandment, He could not have found
fault with the Jews for doing so. For when the Jews blamed His
disciples for eating with unwashen hands, in which they transgressed
not a commandment of God, but the traditions of the elders, Christ
said, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God, that ye may
observe your traditions?"Â He then quotes a commandment of God, which
we know to have been given by Moses. "For God said," He adds, "Honor
thy father and mother, and he that curseth father or mother shall die
the death. But ye say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, It
is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, is not
obliged to honor his father. So ye make the word of God of none
effect by your traditions."[615]615Â From this several things maybe
learned:Â that Christ did not turn away the Jews from their God; that
He not only did not Himself break Godâs commandments, but found fault
with those who did so; and that it was God Himself who gave these
commandments by Moses.
25. In fulfillment of our promise that we would prove the reference
to Christ in those passages selected by Faustus from the writings of
Moses for adverse criticism, since we cannot here point out the
reference to Christ which we believe to exist in all the writings of
Moses, it becomes our duty to show that this commandment of Moses,
that every prophet or prince should be killed who tried to turn away
the people from their God, or to break any commandment, refers to the
preservation of the faith which is taught in the Church of Christ.Â
Moses no doubt knew in the spirit of prophecy, and from what he
himself heard from God, that many heretics would arise to teach errors
of all kinds against the doctrine of Christ, and to preach another
Christ than the true Christ. For the true Christ is He that was
foretold in the prophecies uttered by Moses himself, and by the other
holy men of that nation. Moses accordingly commanded that whoever
tried to teach another Christ should be put to death. In obedience
to this command, the voice of the Catholic Church, as with the
spiritual two-edged sword of both Testaments, puts to death all who
try to turn us away from our God, or to break any of the
commandments. And chief among these is Manichæus himself; for the
truth of the law and the prophets convinces him of error as trying to
turn us away from our God, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
whom Christ acknowledges, and as trying to break the commandments of
the law, which, even when they are only figurative, we regard as
prophetic of Christ.
26. Faustus uses an argument which is either very deceitful or very
stupid. And as Faustus is not stupid, it is probable that he used
the argument intentionally, with the design of misleading the careless
reader. He says: If these things are not written of Christ, and if
you cannot show any others, it follows that there are none at all.Â
The proposition is true; but it remains to be proved, both that these
things are not written of Christ, and that no other can be shown.Â
Faustus has not proved this; for we have shown both how these things
are to be understood of Christ, and that there are many other things
which have no meaning but as applied to Christ. So it does not
follow, as Faustus says, that nothing was written by Moses of
Christ. Let us repeat Faustusâ argument: If these things are not
written of Christ, and if you cannot show any others, it follows that
there are none at all. Perfectly so. But as both these things and
many others have been shown to be written of Christ, or with reference
to Christ, the true conclusion is that Faustusâ argument is
worthless. In the passages quoted by Faustus, he has tried, though
without success, to show that they were not written of Christ. But
in order to draw the conclusion that there are none at all, he should
first have proved that no others can be shown. Instead of this, he
takes for granted that the readers of his book will be blind, or the
hearers deaf, so that the omission will be overlooked, and runs on
thus:Â If there are none, Christ could not have asserted that there
were any. And if Christ did not make this assertion, it follows that
this verse is spurious. Here is a man who thinks so much of what he
says himself, that he does not consider the possibility of another
person saying the opposite. Where is your wit? Is this all you
could say for a bad cause? But if the badness of the cause made you
utter folly, the bad cause was your own choice. To prove your
antecedent false, we have only to show some other things written of
Christ. If there are some, it will not be true that there are
none. And if there are some, Christ may have asserted that there
were. And if Christ may have asserted this, it follows that this
verse of the Gospel is not spurious. Coming back, then, to Faustusâ
proposition, If you cannot show any other, it follows that there are
none at all, it requires to be proved that we cannot show any other.Â
We need only refer to what we showed before, as sufficient to prove
the truth of the text in the Gospel, in which Christ says, "If ye
believed Moses, ye would also believe me; for he wrote of me."Â And
even though from dullness of mind we could find nothing written of
Christ by Moses, still, so strong is the evidence in support of the
authority of the Gospel, that it would be incumbent on us to believe
that not only some things, but everything written by Moses, refers to
Christ; for He says not, He wrote also of me, but, He wrote of me.Â
The truth then is this, that even though there were doubts, which God
forbid, of the genuineness of this verse, the doubt would be removed
by the number of testimonies to Christ which we find in Moses; while,
on the other hand, even if we could find none, we should still be
bound to believe that these are to be found, because no doubts can be
admitted regarding any verse in the Gospel.
27. As to your argument that the doctrine of Moses was unlike that
of Christ, and that therefore it was improbable that if they believed
Moses, they would believe Christ too; and that it would rather follow
that their belief in one would imply of necessity opposition to the
other,âyou could not have said this if you had turned your mindâs eye
for a moment to see men all the world over, when they are not blinded
by a contentious spirit, learned and unlearned, Greek and barbarian,
wise and unwise, to whom the apostle called himself a debtor,[616]616
believing in both Christ and Moses. If it was improbable that the
Jews would believe both Christ and Moses, it is still more improbable
that all the world would do so. But as we see all nations believing
both, and in a common and well-grounded faith holding the agreement of
the prophecy of the one with the gospel of the other, it was no
impossible thing to which this one nation was called, when Christ said
to them, "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me."Â Rather we
should be amazed at the guilty obstinacy of the Jews, who refused to
do what we see the whole world has done.
28. Regarding the Sabbath and circumcision, and the distinction in
foods, in which you say the teaching of Moses differs from what
Christians are taught by Christ, we have already shown that, as the
apostle says, "all those things were our examples."[617]617Â The
difference is not in the doctrine, but in the time. There was a time
when it was proper that these things should be figuratively predicted;
and there is now a different time when it is proper that they should
be openly declared and fully accomplished. It is not surprising that
the Jews, who understood the Sabbath in a carnal sense, should oppose
Christ, who began to open up its spiritual meaning. Reply, if you
can, to the apostle, who declares that the rest of the Sabbath was a
shadow of something future.[618]618Â If the Jews opposed Christ
because they did not understand what the true Sabbath is, there is no
reason why you should oppose Him, or refuse to learn what true
innocence is. For on that occasion when Jesus appears especially to
set aside the Sabbath, when His disciples were hungry, and pulled the
ears of corn through which they were passing, and ate them, Jesus, in
replying to the Jews, declared His disciples to be innocent. "If you
knew," He said "what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent."[619]619Â They
should rather have pitied the wants of the disciples, for hunger
forced them to do what they did. But pulling ears of corn, which is
innocence in the teaching of Christ, is murder in the teaching of
Manichæus. Or was it an act of charity in the apostles to pull the
ears of corn, that they might in eating set free the members of God,
as in your foolish notions? Then it must be cruelty in you not to do
the same. Faustusâ reason for setting aside the Sabbath is because
he knows that Godâs power is exercised without cessation, and without
weariness. It is for those to say this, who believe that all times
are the production of an eternal act of Godâs will. But you will
find it difficult to reconcile this with your doctrine, that the
rebellion of the race of darkness broke your godâs rest, which was
also disturbed by a sudden attack of the enemy; or perhaps God never
had rest, as he foresaw this from eternity, and could not feel at ease
in the prospect of so dire a conflict, with such loss and disaster to
his members.
29. Unless Christ had considered this Sabbathâwhich in your want of
knowledge and of piety you laugh atâone of the prophecies written of
Himself, He would not have borne such a testimony to it as He did.Â
For when, as you say in praise of Christ, He suffered voluntarily, and
so could choose His own time for suffering and for resurrection, He
brought it about that His body rested from all its works on Sabbath in
the tomb, and that His resurrection on the third day, which we call
the Lordâs day, the day after the Sabbath, and therefore the eighth,
proved the circumcision of the eighth day to be also prophetical of
Him. Â For what does circumcision mean, but the eradication of the
mortality which comes from our carnal generation? So the apostle
says:Â "Putting off from Himself His flesh, He made a show of
principalities and powers, triumphing over them in Himself."[620]620Â
The flesh here said to be put off is that mortality of flesh on
account of which the body is properly called flesh. The flesh is the
mortality, for in the immortality of the resurrection there will be no
flesh; as it is written, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the
kingdom of God."Â You are accustomed to argue from these words
against our faith in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body,
which has already taken place in the Lord Himself. You keep out of
view the following words, in which the apostle explains his meaning.Â
To show what he here means by flesh, he adds, "Neither shall
corruption inherit incorruption."Â For this body, which from its
mortality is properly called flesh, is changed in the resurrection, so
as to be no longer corruptible and mortal. This is the apostleâs
statement, and not a supposition of ours, as his next words prove.Â
"Lo" he says, "I show you a mystery:Â we shall all rise again, but we
shall not all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump; for the last trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality."[621]621Â To put on immortality, the body puts off
mortality. This is the mystery of circumcision, which by the law
took place on the eighth day; and on the eighth day, the Lordâs day,
the day after the Sabbath, was fulfilled in its true meaning by the
Lord. Hence it is said, "Putting off His flesh, He made a show of
principalities and powers."Â For by means of this mortality the
hostile powers of hell ruled over us. Christ is said to have made a
show or example of these, because in Himself, our Head, He gave an
example which will be fully realized in the liberation of His whole
body, the Church, from the power of the devil at the last
resurrection. This is our faith. And according to the prophetic
declaration quoted by Paul, "The just shall live by faith."Â This is
our justification.[622]622Â Even Pagans believe that Christ died.Â
But only Christians believe that Christ rose again. "If thou confess
with thy mouth," says the apostle, "that Jesus is the Lord, and
believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved."[623]623Â Again, because we are justified by faith in
Christâs resurrection, the apostle says, "He died for our offenses,
and rose again for our justification."[624]624Â And because this
resurrection by faith in which we are justified was prefigured by the
circumcision of the eighth day, the apostle says of Abraham, with whom
the observance began, "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of
the righteousness of faith."[625]625Â Circumcision, then, is one of
the prophecies of Christ, written by Moses, of whom Christ said, "He
wrote of me."Â In the words of the Lord, "Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of
hell than yourselves,"[626]626 it is not the circumcision of the
proselyte which is meant, but his imitation of the conduct of the
scribes and Pharisees, which the Lord forbids His disciples to
imitate, when He says:Â "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Mosesâ
seat:Â what they say unto you, do; but do not after their works; for
they say, and do not."[627]627Â These words of the Lord teach us both
the honor due to the teaching of Moses, in whose seat even bad men
were obliged to teach good things, and the reason of the proselyte
becoming a child of hell, which was not that he heard from the
Pharisees the words of the law, but that he copied their example.Â
Such a circumcised proselyte might have been addressed in the words of
Paul:Â "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the
law."[628]628Â His imitation of the Pharisees in not keeping the law
made him a child of hell. Â And he was twofold more than they,
probably because of his neglecting to fulfill what he voluntarily
undertook, when, not being born a Jew, he chose to become a Jew.
30. Your scoff is very inappropriate, when you say that Moses
discusses like a glutton what should be eaten, and commands some
things to be freely used as clean, and other things as unclean to be
not even touched. A glutton makes no distinction, except in choosing
the sweetest food. Perhaps you wish to commend to the admiration of
the uninitiated the innocence of your abstemious habits, by appearing
not to know, or to have forgotten, that swineâs flesh tastes better
than mutton. But as this too was written by Moses of Christ in
figurative prophecy, in which the flesh of animals signifies those who
are to be united to the body of Christ, which is the Church, or who
are to be cast out, you are typified by the unclean animals; for your
disagreement with the Catholic faith shows that you do not ruminate on
the word of wisdom, and that you do not divide the hoof, in the sense
of making a correct distinction between the Old Testament and the
New. But you show still more audacity in adopting the erroneous
opinions of your Adimantus.
31. You follow Adimantus in saying that Christ made no distinction
in food, except in entirely prohibiting the use of animal food to His
disciples, while He allowed the laity to eat anything that is eatable;
and declared that they were not polluted by what enters into the
mouth, but that the unseemly things which come out of the mouth are
the things which defile a man. These words of yours are unseemly
indeed, for they express notorious falsehood. If Christ taught that
the evil things which come out of the mouth are the only things that
defile a man, why should they not be the only things to defile His
disciples, so as to make it unnecessary that any food should be
forbidden or unclean? Is it only the laity that are not polluted by
what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out of it? In that case,
they are better protected from impurity than the saints, who are
polluted both by what goes in and by what comes out. But as Christ,
comparing Himself with John, who came neither eating nor drinking,
says that He came eating and drinking, I should like to know what He
ate and drank. When exposing the perversity which found fault with
both, He says:Â "John came neither eating nor drinking; and ye say,
He hath a devil. The Son of man cometh eating and drinking; and ye
say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and
sinners."[629]629 We know what John ate and drank. For it is not
said that he drank nothing, but that he drank no wine or strong drink;
so he must have drunk water. He did not live without food, but his
food was locusts and wild honey.[630]630Â When Christ says that John
did not eat or drink, He means that he did not use the food which the
Jews used. And because the Lord used this food, He is spoken of, in
contrast with John, as eating and drinking. Will it be said that it
was bread and vegetables which the Lord ate, and which John did not
eat? It would be strange if one was said not to eat, because he used
locusts and honey, while the other is said to eat simply because he
used bread and vegetables. But whatever may be thought of the
eating, certainly no one could be called a wine-bibber unless he used
wine. Why then do you call wine unclean? It is not in order to
subdue the body by abstinence that you prohibit these things, but
because they are unclean, for you say that they are the poisonous
filth of the race of darkness; whereas the apostle says, "To the pure
all things are pure."[631]631Â Christ, according to this doctrine,
taught that all food was alike, but forbade His disciples to use what
the Manichæans call unclean. Where do you find this prohibition?Â
You are not afraid to deceive men by falsehood; but in Godâs righteous
providence, you are so blinded that you provide us with the means of
refuting you. For I cannot resist quoting for examination the whole
of that passage of the Gospel which Faustus uses against Moses; that
we may see from it the falsehood of what was said first by Adimantus,
and here by Faustus, that the Lord Jesus forbade the use of animal
food to His disciples, and allowed it to the laity. After Christâs
reply to the accusation that His disciples ate with unwashen hands, we
read in the Gospel as follows:Â "And He called the multitude, and
said unto them, Hear and understand. Not that which goeth into the
mouth defileth a man:Â but that which cometh out of the mouth, this
defileth a man. Then came His disciples, and said unto Him, Knowest
Thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?"Â
Here, when addressed by His disciples, He ought certainly, according
to the Manichæans, to have given them special instructions to abstain
from animal food, and to show that His words, "Not that which goeth
into the mouth defileth a man, but that which goeth out of the mouth,"
applied to the multitude only. Let us hear, then, what, according to
the evangelist, the Lord replied, not to the multitude, but to His
disciples:Â "But He answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly
Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they
be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both
shall fall into the ditch."Â The reason of this was, that in their
desire to observe their own traditions, they did not understand the
commandments of God. As yet the disciples had not asked the Master
how they were to understand what He had said to the multitude. But
now they do so; for the evangelist adds:Â "Then answered Peter and
said unto Him, Declare unto us this parable."Â This shows that Peter
thought that when the Lord said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth
defileth a man, but that which goeth out of the mouth," He did not
speak plainly and literally, but, as usual, wished to convey some
instruction under the guise of a parable. When His disciples, then,
put this question in private, does He tell them, as the Manichæans
say, that all animal food is unclean, and that they must never touch
it? Instead of this, He rebukes them for not understanding His plain
language, and for thinking it a parable when it was not. We read:Â
"And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye
yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into
the belly, and is cast out into the drought? But those things which
proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile
the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These
are the things which defile a man:Â but to eat with unwashen hands
defileth not a man."[632]632
32. Here we have a complete exposure of the falsehood of the
Manichæans: for it is plain that the Lord did not in this matter
teach one thing to the multitude, and another in private to His
disciples. Here is abundant evidence that the error and deceit are
in the Manichæans, and not in Moses, nor in Christ, nor in the
doctrine taught figuratively in one Testament and plainly in the
other,âprophesied in one, and fulfilled in the other. How can the
Manichæans say that the Catholics regard none of the things that
Moses wrote, when in fact they observe them all, not now in the
figures, but in what the figures were intended to foretell? No one
would say that one who reads the Scripture subsequently to its being
written does not observe it because he does not form the letters which
he reads. The letters are the figures of the sounds which he utters;
and though he does not form the letters, he cannot read without
examining them. The reason why the Jews did not believe in Christ,
was because they did not observe even the plain literal precepts of
Moses. So Christ says to them: "Ye pay tithe of mint and cummin,
and omit the weightier matters of the law, mercy and judgment. Ye
strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. These ought ye to have done,
and not to leave the other undone."[633]633Â So also He told them
that by their traditions they made of none effect the commandment of
God to give honor to parents. On account of this pride and
perversity in neglecting what they understood, they were justly
blinded, so that they could not understand the other things.
33. You see, my argument is not that if you are a Christian you must
believe Christ when He says that Moses wrote of Him, and that if you
do not believe this you are no Christian. The account you give of
yourself in asking to be dealt with as a Jew or a Gentile is your own
affair. My endeavor is to leave no avenue of error open to you. I
have shut you out, too, from that precipice to which you rush as a
last resort, when you say that these are spurious passages in the
Gospel; so that, freed from the pernicious influence of this opinion,
you may be reduced to the necessity of believing in Christ. You say
you wish to be taught like the Christian Thomas, whom Christ did not
spurn from Him because he doubted of Him, but, in order to heal the
wounds of his mind, showed him the marks of the wounds in His own
body. These are your own words. It is well that you desire to be
taught as Thomas was. I feared you would make out this passage too
to be spurious. Believe, then, the marks of Christâs wounds. For
if the marks were real, the wounds must have been real. And the
wounds could not have been real, unless His body had been capable of
real wounds; which upsets at once the whole error of the
Manichæans. If you say that the marks were unreal which Christ
showed to His doubting disciple, it follows that He must be a
deceitful teacher, and that you wish to be deceived in being taught by
Him. But as no one wishes to be deceived, while many wish to
deceive, it is probable that you would rather imitate the teaching
which you ascribe to Christ than the learning you ascribe to Thomas.Â
If, then, you believe that Christ deceived a doubting inquirer by
false marks of wounds, you must yourself be regarded, not as a safe
teacher, but as a dangerous impostor. On the other hand, if Thomas
touched the real marks of Christâs wounds, you must confess that
Christ had a real body. So, if you believe as Thomas did, you are no
more a Manichæan. If you do not believe even with Thomas, you must
be left to your infidelity.
ââââââââââââ
Book XVII.
Faustus rejects Christâs declaration that He came not to destroy the
law and the prophets but to fulfill them, on the ground that it is
found only in Matthew, who was not present when the words purport to
have been spoken. Augustin rebukes the folly of refusing to believe
Matthew and yet believing Manichæus, and shows what the passage of
scripture really means.
1. Faustus said: You ask why we do not receive the law and the
prophets, when Christ said that he came not to destroy them, but to
fulfill them. Where do we learn that Jesus said this? From
Matthew, who declares that he said it on the mount. In whose
presence was it said? In the presence of Peter, Andrew, James, and
Johnâonly these four; for the rest, including Matthew himself, were
not yet chosen. Is it not the case that one of these fourâJohn,
namelyâwrote a Gospel? It is. Does he mention this saying of
Jesus? No. How, then, does it happen that what is not recorded by
John, who was on the mount, is recorded by Matthew, who became a
follower of Christ long after He came down from the mount? In the
first place, then, we must doubt whether Jesus ever said these words,
since the proper witness is silent on the matter, and we have only the
authority of a less trustworthy witness. But, besides this, we shall
find that it is not Matthew that has imposed upon us, but some one
else under his name, as is evident from the indirect style of the
narrative. Thus we read: "As Jesus passed by, He saw a man, named
Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and called him; and he
immediately rose up, and followed Him."[634]634Â No one writing of
himself would say, He saw a man, and called him; and he followed Him;
but, He saw me, and called me, and I followed Him. Evidently this
was written not by Matthew himself, but by some one else under his
name. Since, then, the passage already quoted would not be true even
if it had been written by Matthew, since he was not present when Jesus
spoke on the mount; much more is its falsehood evident from the fact
that the writer was not Matthew himself, but some one borrowing the
names both of Jesus and of Matthew.
2. The passage itself, in which Christ tells the Jews not to think
that He came to destroy the law, is rather designed to show that He
did destroy it. For, had He not done something of the kind, the Jews
would not have suspected Him. His words are: "Think not that I am
come to destroy the law."Â Suppose the Jews had replied, What actions
of thine might lead us to suspect this? Is it because thou exposest
circumcision, breakest the Sabbath, discardest sacrifices, makest no
distinction in foods? this would be the natural answer to the words,
Think not. The Jews had the best possible reason for thinking that
Jesus destroyed the law. If this was not to destroy the law, what
is? But, indeed, the law and the prophets consider themselves
already so faultlessly perfect, that they have no desire to be
fulfilled. Their author and father condemns adding to them as much
as taking away anything from them; as we read in Deuteronomy:Â "These
precepts which I deliver unto thee this day, O Israel, thou shalt
observe to do; thou shalt not turn aside from them to the right hand
or to the left; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it, that
thy God may bless thee."[635]635Â Whether, therefore, Jesus turned
aside to the right by adding to the law and the prophets in order to
fulfill them, or to the left in taking away from them to destroy them,
either way he offended the author of the law. So this verse must
either have some other meaning, or be spurious.
3. Augustin replied: What amazing folly, to disbelieve what
Matthew records of Christ, while you believe Manichæus! If Matthew
is not to be believed because he was not present when Christ said, "I
came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill," was
Manichæus present, was he even born, when Christ appeared among
men? According, then, to your rule, you should not believe anything
that Manichæus says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to
believe what Manichæus says of Christ; not because he was not present
as a witness of Christâs words and actions, but because he contradicts
Christâs disciples, and the Gospel which rests on their authority.Â
The apostle, speaking in the Holy Spirit, tells us that such teachers
would arise. With reference to such, he says to believers: "If any
man preaches to you another gospel than that ye have received, let him
be accursed."[636]636Â If no one can say what is true of Christ
unless he has himself seen and heard Him, no one now can be trusted.Â
But if believers can now say what is true of Christ because the truth
has been handed down in word or writing by those who saw and heard,
why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his fellow-disciple
John, if John was present and he himself was not, as from the writings
of John both we who are born so long after and those who shall be born
after us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels
of Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the
Gospel of Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides,
the Lord Himself might have told Matthew what those called before him
had already been witnesses of. Your idea is, that John should have
recorded this saying of the Lord, as he was present on the occasion.Â
As if it might not happen that, since it was impossible to write all
that be heard from the Lord, he set himself to write some, omitting
this among others. Does he not say at the close of his Gospel:Â
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written"?[637]637Â This
proves that he omitted many things intentionally. But if you choose
John as an authority regarding the law and the prophets, I ask you
only to believe his testimony to them. It is John who writes that
Isaiah saw the glory of Christ.[638]638Â It is in his Gospel we find
the text already treated of:Â "If ye believed Moses, ye would also
believe me; for he wrote of me."[639]639Â Your evasions are met on
every side. You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the
gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe
what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.
4. Faustus thinks himself wonderfully clever in proving that Matthew
was not the writer of this Gospel, because, when speaking of his own
election, he says not, He saw me, and said to me, Follow me; but, He
saw him, and said to him, Follow me. This must have been said either
in ignorance or from a design to mislead. Faustus can hardly be so
ignorant as not to have read or heard that narrators, when speaking of
themselves, often use a construction as if speaking of another. It
is more probable that Faustus wished to bewilder those more ignorant
than himself, in the hope of getting hold on not a few unacquainted
with these things. It is needless to resort to other writings to
quote examples of this construction from profane authors for the
information of our friends, and for the refutation of Faustus. We
find examples in passages quoted above from Moses by Faustus himself,
without any denial, or rather with the assertion, that they were
written by Moses, only not written of Christ. When Moses, then,
writes of himself, does he say, I said this, or I did that, and not
rather, Moses said, and Moses did? Or does he say, The Lord called
me, The Lord said to me, and not rather, The Lord called Moses, The
Lord said to Moses, and so on? So Matthew, too, speaks of himself in
the third person. And John does the same; for towards the end of his
book he says:Â "Peter, turning, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved,
who also lay on His breast at supper, and who said to the Lord, Who is
it that shall betray Thee?"Â Does he say, Peter, turning, saw me?Â
Or will you argue from this that John did not write this Gospel? But
he adds a little after:Â "This is the disciple that testifies of
Jesus, and has written these things; and we know that his testimony is
true."[640]640Â Does he say, I am the disciple who testify of Jesus,
and who have written these things, and we know that my testimony is
true? Evidently this style is common in writers of narratives.Â
There are innumerable instances in which the Lord Himself uses it.Â
"When the Son of man," He says, "cometh, shall He find faith on the
earth?"[641]641 Not, When I come, shall I find? Again, "The Son of
man came eating and drinking;"[642]642 not, I came. Again, "The hour
shall come, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
of God, and they that hear shall live;"[643]643 not, My voice. And
so in many other places. This may suffice to satisfy inquirers and
to refute scoffers.
5. Every one can see the weakness of the argument that Christ could
not have said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the
prophets:Â I came not to destroy, but to fulfill," unless He had done
something to create a suspicion of this kind. Of course, we grant
that the unenlightened Jews may have looked upon Christ as the
destroyer of the law and the prophets; but their very suspicion makes
it certain that the true and truthful One, in saying that He came not
to destroy the law and the prophets, referred to no other law than
that of the Jews. This is proved by the words that follow:Â
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be
fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven."Â This applied to the
Pharisees, who taught the law in word, while they broke it in deed.Â
Christ says of the Pharisees in another place, "What they say, that
do; but do not after their works:Â for they say, and do
not."[644]644Â So here also He adds, "For I say unto you, Except your
righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven;"[645]645 that is,
Unless ye shall both do and teach what they teach without doing, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. This law, therefore,
which the Pharisees taught without keeping it, Christ says He came not
to destroy, but to fulfill; for this was the law connected with the
seat of Moses in which the Pharisees sat, who because they said
without doing, are to be heard, but not to be imitated.
6. Faustus does not understand, or pretends not to understand, what
it is to fulfill the law. He supposes the expression to mean the
addition of words to the law, regarding which it is written that
nothing is to be added to or taken away from the Scriptures of God.Â
From this Faustus argues that there can be no fulfillment of what is
spoken of as so perfect that nothing can be added to it or taken from
it. Faustus requires to be told that the law is fulfilled by living
as it enjoins. "Love is the fulfilling of the law,"[646]646 as the
apostle says. The Lord has vouchsafed both to manifest and to impart
this love, by sending the Holy Spirit to His believing people. So it
is said by the same apostle:Â "The love of God is shed abroad in our
heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us."[647]647Â And the
Lord Himself says:Â "By this shall all men know that ye are my
disciples, if ye have love one to another."[648]648Â The law, then,
is fulfilled both by the observance of its precepts and by the
accomplishment of its prophecies. For "the law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."[649]649Â The law itself,
by being fulfilled, becomes grace and truth. Grace is the
fulfillment of love, and truth is the accomplishment of the
prophecies. And as both grace and truth are by Christ, it follows
that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; not by
supplying any defects in the law, but by obedience to what is written
in the law. Christâs own words declare this. For He does not say,
One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till its
defects are supplied, but "till all be fulfilled."
ââââââââââââ
Book XVIII.
The relation of Christ to prophecy, continued.
1. Faustus said: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill
it."Â If these are Christâs words, unless they have some other
meaning, they are as much against you as against me. Your
Christianity as well as mine is based on the belief that Christ came
to destroy the law and the prophets. Your actions prove this, even
though in words you deny it. It is on this ground that you disregard
the precepts of the law and the prophets. It is on this ground that
we both acknowledge Jesus as the founder of the New Testament, in
which is implied the acknowledgment that the Old Testament is
destroyed. How, then, can we believe that Christ said these words
without first confessing that hitherto we have been wholly in error,
and without showing our repentance by entering on a course of
obedience to the law and the prophets, and of careful observance of
their requirements, whatever they may be? This done, we may honestly
believe that Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it. As it is, you accuse me of not believing what you do not
believe yourself, and what therefore is false.
2. But grant that we have been in the wrong hitherto. What is to
be done now? Shall we come under the law, since Christ has not
destroyed, but fulfilled it? Shall we by circumcision add shame to
shame, and believe that God is pleased with such sacraments? Shall
we observe the rest of the Sabbath, and bind ourselves in the fetters
of Saturn? Shall we glut the demon of the Jews, for he is not God,
with the slaughter of bulls, rams, and goats, not to say of men; and
adopt, only with greater cruelty, in obedience to the law and the
prophets, the practices on account of which we abandoned idolatry?Â
Shall we, in fine, call the flesh of some animals clean, and that of
others unclean, among which, according to the law and the prophets,
swineâs flesh has a particular defilement? Of course you will allow
that as Christians we must not do any of these things, for you
remember that Christ says that a man when circumcised becomes twofold
a child of hell.[650]650Â It is plain also that Christ neither
observed the Sabbath himself, nor commanded it to be observed. And
regarding foods, he says expressly that man is not defiled by anything
that goes into his mouth, but rather by the things which come out of
it.[651]651Â Regarding sacrifices, too, he often says that God
desires mercy, and not sacrifice.[652]652Â What becomes, then, of the
statement that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it? If
Christ said this, he must have meant something else, or, what is not
to be thought of, he told a lie, or he never said it. No Christian
will allow that Jesus spoke falsely; therefore he must either not have
said this, or said it with another meaning.
3. For my part, as a Manichæan, this verse has little difficulty
for me, for at the outset I am taught to believe that many things
which pass in Scripture under the name of the Saviour are spurious,
and that they must therefore be tested to find whether they are true,
and sound, and genuine; for the enemy who comes by night has corrupted
almost every passage by sowing tares among the wheat. So I am not
alarmed by these words, notwithstanding the sacred name affixed to
them; for I still claim the liberty to examine whether this comes from
the hand of the good sower, who sows in the day-time, or of the evil
one, who sows in the night. But what escape from this difficulty can
there be for you, who receive everything without examination,
condemning the use of reason, which is the prerogative of human
nature, and thinking it impiety to distinguish between truth and
falsehood, and as much afraid of separating between what is good and
what is not as children are of ghosts? For suppose a Jew or any one
acquainted with these words should ask you why you do not keep the
precepts of the law and the prophets, since Christ says that he came
not to destroy but to fulfill them:Â you will be obliged either to
join in the superstitious follies of the Jews, or to declare this
verse false, or to deny that you are a follower of Christ.
4. Augustin replied: Since you continue repeating what has been so
often exposed and refuted, we must be content to repeat the
refutation. The things in the law and the prophets which Christians
do not observe, are only the types of what they do observe. These
types were figures of things to come, and are necessarily removed when
the things themselves are fully revealed by Christ, that in this very
removal the law and the prophets may be fulfilled. So it is written
in the prophets that God would give a new covenant, "not as I gave to
their fathers."[653]653Â Such was the hardness of heart of the people
under the Old Testament, that many precepts were given to them, not so
much because they were good, as because they suited the people.Â
Still, in all these things the future was foretold and prefigured,
although the people did not understand the meaning of their own
observances. After the manifest appearance of the things thus
signified, we are not required to observe the types; but we read them
to see their meaning. So, again, it is foretold in the prophets, "I
will take away their stony heart, and will give them a heart of
flesh,"[654]654âthat is, a sensible heart, instead of an insensible
one. To this the apostle alludes in the words: "Not in tables of
stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart."[655]655Â The fleshy
tables of the heart are the same as the heart of flesh. Since, then,
the removal of these observances is foretold, the law and the prophets
could not have been fulfilled but by this removal. Now, however, the
prediction is accomplished, and the fulfillment of the law and the
prophets is found in what at first sight seems the very opposite.
5. We are not afraid to meet your scoff at the Sabbath, when you
call it the fetters of Saturn. It is a silly and unmeaning
expression, which occurred to you only because you are in the habit of
worshipping the sun on what you call Sunday. What you call Sunday we
call the Lordâs day, and on it we do not worship the sun, but the
Lordâs resurrection. And in the same way, the fathers observed the
rest of the Sabbath, not because they worshipped Saturn, but because
it was incumbent at that time, for it was a shadow of things to come,
as the apostle testifies.[656]656Â The Gentiles, of whom the apostle
says that they "worshipped and served the creature rather than the
Creator,"[657]657 gave the names of their gods to the days of the
week. And so far you do the same, except that you worship only the
two brightest luminaries, and not the rest of the stars, as the
Gentiles did. Besides, the Gentiles gave the names of their gods to
the months. In honor of Romulus, whom they believed to be the son of
Mars, they dedicated the first month to Mars, and called it March.Â
The next month, April, is named not from any god, but from the word
for opening, because the buds generally open in this month. The
third month is called May, in honor of Maia the mother of Mercury.Â
The fourth is called June, from Juno. The rest to December used to
be named according to their number. The fifth and sixth, however,
got the names of July and August from men to whom divine honors were
decreed; while the others, from September to December, continued to be
named from their number. January, again, is named from Janus, and
February from the rites of the Luperci called Februæ. Must we say
that you worship the god Mars in the month of March? But that is the
month in which you hold the feast you call Bema with great pomp. But
if you think it allowable to observe the month of March without
thinking of Mars, why do you try to bring in the name of Saturn in
connection with the rest of the seventh day enjoined in Scripture,
merely because the Gentiles call the day Saturday? The Scripture
name for the day is Sabbath, which means rest. Â Your scoff is as
unreasonable as it is profane.
6. As regards animal sacrifices, every Christian knows that they
were enjoined as suitable to a perverse people, and not because God
had any pleasure in them. Still, even in these sacrifices there were
types of what we enjoy; for we cannot obtain purification or the
propitiation of God without blood. The fulfillment of these types is
in Christ, by whose blood we are purified and redeemed. In these
figures of the divine oracles, the bull represents Christ, because
with the horns of His cross He scatters the wicked; the lamb, from His
matchless innocence; the goat, from His being made in the likeness of
sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin.[658]658Â Whatever
kind of sacrifice you choose to specify, I will show you a prophecy of
Christ in it. Thus we have shown regarding circumcision, and the
Sabbath, and the distinction of food, and the sacrifice of animals,
that all these things were our examples, and our prophecies, which
Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, by fulfilling what was
thus foretold. Your opponent is the apostle, whose opinion I give in
his own words:Â "All these things were our examples."[659]659
7. If you have learned from Manichæus the willful impiety of
admitting only those parts of the Gospel which do not contradict your
errors, while you reject the rest, we have learned from the apostle
the pious caution of looking on every one as accursed that preaches to
us another gospel than that which we have received. Hence Catholic
Christians look upon you as among the tares; for, in the Lordâs
exposition of the meaning of the tares, they are not falsehood mixed
with truth in the Scriptures, but children of the wicked oneâthat is,
people who imitate the deceitfulness of the devil. It is not true
that Catholic Christians believe everything; for they do not believe
Manichæus or any of the heretics. Nor do they condemn the use of
human reason; but what you call reasoning they prove to be
fallacious. Nor do they think it profane to distinguish truth from
falsehood; for they distinguish between the truth of the Catholic
faith and the falsehood of your doctrines. Nor do they fear to
separate good from evil; but they contend that evil, instead of being
natural, is unnatural. They know nothing of your race of darkness,
which, you say, is produced from a principle of its own, and fights
against the kingdom of God, and of which your god seems really to be
more frightened than children are of ghosts; for, according to you, he
covered himself with a veil, that he might not see his own members
taken and plundered by the assault of the enemy. To conclude,
Catholic Christians are in no difficulty regarding the words of
Christ, though in one sense they may be said not to observe the law
and the prophets; for by the grace of Christ they keep the law by
their love to God and man; and on these two commandments hang all the
law and the prophets.[660]660Â Besides, they see in Christ and the
Church the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Old Testament,
whether in the form of actions, or of symbolic rites, or of figurative
language. So we neither join in superstitious follies, nor declare
this verse false; nor deny that we are followers of Christ; for on
those principles which I have set forth to the best of my power, the
law and the prophets which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill,
are no other than those recognized by the Church.
ââââââââââââ
Book XIX.
Faustus is willing to admit that Christ may have said that He came not
to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them; but if He
did, it was to pacify the Jews and in a modified sense. Augustin
replies, and still further elaborates the Catholic view of prophecy
and its fulfillment.
1. Faustus said: I will grant that Christ said that he came not to
destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. But why did
Jesus say this? Was it to pacify the Jews, who were enraged at
seeing their sacred institutions trampled upon by Christ, and regarded
him as a wild blasphemer, not to be listened to, much less to be
followed? Or was it for our instruction as Gentile believers, that
we might learn meekly and patiently to bear the yoke of commandment
laid on our necks by the law and the prophets of the Jews? You
yourself can hardly suppose that Christâs words were intended to bring
us under the authority of the law and the prophets of the Hebrews.Â
So that the other explanation which I have given of the words must be
the true one. Every one knows that the Jews were always ready to
attack Christ, both with words and with actual violence. Naturally,
then, they would be enraged at the idea that Christ was destroying
their law and their prophets; and, to appease them, Christ might very
well tell them not to think that he came to destroy the law, but that
he came to fulfill it. There was no falsehood or deceit in this, for
he used the word law in a general sense, not of any particular law.
2. There are three laws. One is that of the Hebrews, which the
apostle calls the law of sin and death.[661]661Â The second is that
of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature. "For the
Gentiles," he says, "do by nature the things contained in the law;
and, not having the law, they are a law into themselves; who show the
work of the law written on their hearts."[662]662Â The third law is
the truth of which the apostle speaks when he says, "The law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin
and death."[663]663Â Since, then, there are three laws, we must
carefully inquire which of the three Christ spoke of when He said that
He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. In the same way,
there are prophets of the Jews, and prophets of the Gentiles, and
prophets of truth. With the prophets of the Jews, of course, every
one is acquainted. If any one is in doubt about the prophets of the
Gentiles, let him hear what Paul says when writing of the Cretans to
Titus:Â "A prophet of their own has said, The Cretans are always
liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."[664]664 Â This proves that the
Gentiles also had their prophets. The truth also has its prophets,
as we learn from Jesus as well as from Paul. Jesus says: "Behold, I
send unto you wise men and prophets, and some of them ye shall kill in
divers places."[665]665Â And Paul says:Â "The Lord Himself appointed
first apostles, and then prophets."[666]666
3. As "the law and the prophets" may have three different meanings,
it is uncertain in what sense the words are used by Jesus, though we
may form a conjecture from what follows. For if Jesus had gone on to
speak of circumcision, and Sabbaths, and sacrifices, and the
observances of the Hebrews, and had added something as a fulfillment,
there could have been no doubt that it was the law and the prophets of
the Jews of which He said that He came not to destroy, but to fulfill
them. But Christ, without any allusion to these, speaks only of
commandments which date from the earliest times:Â "Thou shall not
kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not bear false
witness."Â These, it can be proved, were of old promulgated in the
world by Enoch and Seth, and the other righteous men, to whom the
precepts were delivered by angels of lofty rank, in order to tame the
savage nature of men. From this it appears that Jesus spoke of the
law and the prophets of truth. And so we find him giving a
fulfillment of those precepts already quoted. "Ye have heard," He
says, "that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; but
I say unto you, Be not even angry."Â This is the fulfillment.Â
Again:Â "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit
adultery; but I say unto you, Do not lust even."Â This is the
fulfillment. Again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not bear false
witness; but I say unto you, Swear not."Â This too is the
fulfillment. He thus both confirms the old precepts and supplies
their defects. Where He seems to speak of some Jewish precepts,
instead of fulfilling them, He substitutes for them precepts of an
opposite tendency. He proceeds thus: "Ye have heard that it has
been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto
you, Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also." This is not fulfillment, but destruction. Again:Â
"It has been said, Thou shall love thy friend, and hate thine enemy;
but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for your
persecutors." This too is destruction. Again: "It has been said,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement; but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery, and is himself an adulterer if he afterwards marries another
woman."[667]667Â These precepts are evidently destroyed because they
are the precepts of Moses; while the others are fulfilled because they
are the precepts of the righteous men of antiquity. If you agree to
this explanation, we may allow that Jesus said that he came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If you disapprove of this
explanation, give one of your own. Only beware of making Jesus a
liar, and of making yourself a Jew, by binding yourself to fulfill the
law because Christ did not destroy it.
4. If one of the Nazareans, or Symmachians, as they are sometimes
called, were arguing with me from these words of Jesus that he came
not to destroy the law, I should find some difficulty in answering
him. For it is undeniable that, at his coming, Jesus was both in
body and mind subject to the influence of the law and the prophets.Â
Those people, moreover, whom I allude to, practise circumcision, and
keep the Sabbath, and abstain from swineâs flesh and such like things,
according to the law, although they profess to be Christians. They
are evidently misled as well as you, by this verse in which Christ
says that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. It
would not be easy to reply to such opponents without first getting rid
of this troublesome verse. But with you I have no difficulty, for
you have nothing to go upon; and instead of using arguments, you seem
disposed, in mere mischief, to induce me to believe that Christ said
what you evidently do not yourself believe him to have said. On the
strength of this verse you accuse me of dullness and evasiveness,
without yourself giving any indication of keeping the law instead of
destroying it. Do you too, like a Jew or a Nazarean, glory in the
obscene distinction of being circumcised? Do you pride yourself in
the observance of the Sabbath? Can you congratulate yourself on
being innocent of swineâs flesh? Or can you boast of having
gratified the appetite of the Deity by the blood of sacrifices and the
incense of Jewish offerings? If not, why do you contend that Christ
came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it?
5. I give unceasing thanks to my teacher, who prevented me from
falling into this error, so that I am still a Christian. For I, like
you, from reading this verse without sufficient consideration, had
almost resolved to become a Jew. And with reason; for if Christ came
not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and as a vessel in order to
be filled full must not be empty, but partly filled already, I
concluded that no one could become a Christian but an Israelite,
nearly filled already with the law and the prophets, and coming to
Christ to be filled to the full extent of his capacity. I concluded,
too, that in thus coming he must not destroy what he already
possesses; otherwise it would be a case, not of fulfilling, but of
emptying. Then it appeared that I, as a Gentile, could get nothing
by coming to Christ, for I brought nothing that he could fill up by
his additions. This preparatory supply is found, on inquiry, to
consist of Sabbaths, circumcision, sacrifices, new moons, baptisms,
feasts of unleavened bread, distinctions of foods, drink, and clothes,
and other things, too many to specify. This, then, it appeared, was
what Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. Naturally it must
appear so:Â for what is a law without precepts, or prophets without
predictions? Besides, there is that terrible curse pronounced upon
those who abide not in all things that are written in the book of the
law to do them.[668]668Â With the fear of this curse appearing to
come from God on the one side, and with Christ on the other side,
seeming, as the Son of God, to say that he came not to destroy these
things, but to fulfill them, what was to prevent me from becoming a
Jew? The wise instruction of Manichæus saved me from this danger.
6. But how can you venture to quote this verse against me? Or why
should it be against me only, when it is as much against yourself?Â
If Christ does not destroy the law and the prophets, neither must
Christians do so. Why then do you destroy them? Do you begin to
perceive that you are no Christian? How can you profane with all
kinds of work the day pronounced sacred in the law and in all the
prophets, on which they say that God, the maker of the world, himself
rested, without dreading the penalty of death pronounced against
Sabbath-breakers, or the curse on the transgressor? How can you
refuse to receive in your person the unseemly mark of circumcision,
which the law and all the prophets declare to be honorable, especially
in the case of Abraham, after what was thought to be his faith; for
does not the God of the Jews proclaim that whosoever is without this
mark of infamy shall perish from his people? How can you neglect the
appointed sacrifices, which were made so much of both by Moses and the
prophets under the law, and by Abraham in his faith? And how can you
defile your souls by making no distinction in foods, if you believe
that Christ came not to destroy these things, but to fulfill them?Â
Why do you discard the annual feast of unleavened bread, and the
appointed sacrifice of the lamb, which, according to the law and the
prophets, is to be observed for ever? Why, in a word, do you treat
so lightly the new moons, the baptisms, and the feast of tabernacles,
and all the other carnal ordinances of the law and the prophets, if
Christ did not destroy them? I have therefore good reason for saying
that, in order to justify your neglect of these things, you must
either abandon your profession of being Christâs disciple, or
acknowledge that Christ himself has already destroyed them; and from
this acknowledgment it must follow, either that this text is spurious
in which Christ is made to say that he came not to destroy the law,
but to fulfill it, or that the words have an entirely different
meaning from what you suppose.
7. Augustin replied: If you allow, in consideration of the
authority of the Gospel, that Christ said that He came not to destroy
the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, you should show the
same consideration to the authority of the apostle, when he says, "All
these things were our examples;" and again of Christ, "He was not yea
and nay, but in Him was yea; for all the promises of God are in Him
yea;"[669]669 that is, they are set forth and fulfilled in Him. In
this way you will see in the clearest light both what law Christ
fulfilled, and how He fulfilled it. It is a vain attempt that you
make to escape by your three kinds of law and your three kinds of
prophets. It is quite plain, and the New Testament leaves no doubt
on the matter, what law and what prophets Christ came not to destroy,
but to fulfill. The law given by Moses is that which by Jesus Christ
became grace and truth.[670]670Â The law given by Moses is that of
which Christ says, "He wrote of me."[671]671Â For undoubtedly this is
the law which entered that the offence might abound;[672]672 words
which you often ignorantly quote as a reproach to the law. Read what
is there said of this law:Â "The law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death
unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, wrought
death in me by that which is good."[673]673Â The entrance of the law
made the offense abound, not because the law required what was wrong,
but because the proud and self-confident incurred additional guilt as
transgressors after their acquaintance with the holy, and just, and
good commandments of the law; so that, being thus humbled, they might
learn that only by grace through faith could they be freed from
subjection to the law as transgressors, and be reconciled to the law
as righteous. So the same apostle says: "For before faith came, we
were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which was afterwards
revealed. Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ Jesus;
but after faith came, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster."[674]674Â That is, we are no longer subject to the
penalty of the law, because we are set free by grace. Before we
received in humility the grace of the Spirit, the letter was only
death to us, for it required obedience which we could not render.Â
Thus Paul also says:Â "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
life."[675]675Â Again, he says:Â "For if a law had been given which
could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the
law; but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise
by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe."[676]676Â And once more:Â "What the law could not do, in
that it was weak through the flesh, God sent His Son in the likeness
of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh, that
the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit."[677]677Â Here we see Christ
coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As the law brought
the proud under the guilt of transgression, increasing their sin by
commandments which they could not obey, so the righteousness of the
same law is fulfilled by the grace of the Spirit in those who learn
from Christ to be meek and lowly in heart; for Christ came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Moreover, because even for those
who are under grace it is difficult in this mortal life perfectly to
keep what is written in the law, Thou shall not covet, Christ, by the
sacrifice of His flesh, as our Priest obtains pardon for us. And in
this also He fulfills the law; for what we fail in through weakness is
supplied by His perfection, who is the Head, while we are His
members. Thus John says: "My little children, these things write I
unto you, that ye sin not; and if any man sin, we have an Advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:Â He is the propitiation
for our sins."[678]678
8. Christ also fulfilled the prophecies, because the promises of God
were made good in Him. As the apostle says in the verse quoted
above, "The promises of God are in Him yea."Â Again, he says:Â "Now
I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers."[679]679Â Whatever, then, was promised in the prophets,
whether expressly or in figure, whether by words or by actions, was
fulfilled in Him who came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but
to fulfill them. You do not perceive that if Christians were to
continue in the use of acts and observances by which things to come
were prefigured, the only meaning would be that the things prefigured
had not yet come. Either the thing prefigured has not come, or if it
has, the figure becomes superfluous or misleading. Therefore, if
Christians do not practise some things enjoined in the Hebrews by the
prophets, this, so far from showing, as you think, that Christ did not
fulfill the prophets, rather shows that He did. So completely did
Christ fulfill what these types prefigured, that it is no longer
prefigured. So the Lord Himself says: "The law and the prophets
were until John."[680]680Â For the law which shut up transgressors in
increased guilt, and to the faith which was afterwards revealed,
became grace through Jesus Christ, by whom grace superabounded. Thus
the law, which was not fulfilled in the requirement of the letter, was
fulfilled in the liberty of grace. In the same way, everything in
the law that was prophetic of the Saviourâs advent, whether in words
or in typical actions, became truth in Jesus Christ. For "the law
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ."[681]681Â At Christâs advent the kingdom of God began to be
preached; for the law and the prophets were until John:Â the law,
that its transgressors might desire salvation; the prophets, that they
might foretell the Saviour. No doubt there have been prophets in the
Church since the ascension of Christ. Of these prophets Paul says:Â
"God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers," and so on.[682]682Â It is not of these
prophets that it was said, "The law and the prophets were until John,"
but of those who prophesied the first coming of Christ, which
evidently cannot be prophesied now that it has taken place.
9. Accordingly, when you ask why a Christian is not circumcised if
Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is,
that a Christian is not circumcised precisely for this reason, that
what was prefigured by circumcision is fulfilled in Christ.Â
Circumcision was the type of the removal of our fleshly nature, which
was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, and which the sacrament
of baptism teaches us to look forward to in our own resurrection.Â
The sacrament of the new life is not wholly discontinued, for our
resurrection from the dead is still to come; but this sacrament has
been improved by the substitution of baptism for circumcision, because
now a pattern of the eternal life which is to come is afforded us in
the resurrection of Christ, whereas formerly there was nothing of the
kind. So, when you ask why a Christian does not keep the Sabbath, if
Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is,
that a Christian does not keep the Sabbath precisely because what was
prefigured in the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. For we have our
Sabbath in Him who said, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and
learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest
unto your souls."[683]683
10. When you ask why a Christian does not observe the distinction in
food as enjoined in the law, if Christ came not to destroy the law,
but to fulfill it, I reply, that a Christian does not observe this
distinction precisely because what was thus prefigured is now
fulfilled in Christ, who admits into His body, which in His saints He
has predestined to eternal life, nothing which in human conduct
corresponds to the characteristics of the forbidden animals. When
you ask, again, why a Christian does not offer sacrifices to God of
the flesh and blood of slain animals, if Christ came not to destroy
the law, but to fulfill it, I reply, that it would be improper for a
Christian to offer such sacrifices, now that what was thus prefigured
has been fulfilled in Christâs offering of His own body and blood.Â
When you ask why a Christian does not keep the feast of unleavened
bread as the Jews did, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it, I reply, that a Christian does not keep this feast
precisely because what was thus prefigured is fulfilled in Christ, who
leads us to a new life by purging out the leaven of the old
life.[684]684Â When you ask why a Christian does not keep the feast
of the paschal lamb, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it, my reply is, that he does not keep it precisely because
what was thus prefigured has been fulfilled in the sufferings of
Christ, the Lamb without spot. When you ask why a Christian does not
keep the feasts of the new moon appointed in the law, if Christ came
not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, I reply, that he does not
keep them precisely because what was thus prefigured is fulfilled in
Christ. For the feast of the new moon prefigured the new creature,
of which the apostle says:Â "If therefore there is any new creature
in Christ Jesus, the old things have passed away; behold, all things
are become new."[685]685Â When you ask why a Christian does not
observe the baptisms for various kinds of uncleanness according to the
law, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, I
reply, that he does not observe them precisely because they were
figures of things to come, which Christ has fulfilled. For He came
to bury us with Himself by baptism into death, that as Christ rose
again from the dead, so we also should walk in newness of
life.[686]686Â When you ask why Christians do not keep the feast of
tabernacles, if the law is not destroyed, but fulfilled by Christ, I
reply that believers are Godâs tabernacle, in whom, as they are united
and built together in love, God condescends to dwell, so that
Christians do not keep this feast precisely because what was thus
prefigured is now fulfilled by Christ in His Church.
11. I touch upon these things merely in passing with the utmost
brevity, rather than omit them altogether. The subjects, taken
separately, have filled many large volumes, written to prove that
these observances were typical of Christ. So it appears that all the
things in the Old Testament which you think are not observed by
Christians because Christ destroyed the law, are in fact not observed
because Christ fulfilled the law. The very intention of the
observances was to prefigure Christ. Now that Christ has come,
instead of its being strange or absurd that what was done to prefigure
His advent should not be done any more, it is perfectly right and
reasonable. The typical observances intended to prefigure the coming
of Christ would be observed still, had they not been fulfilled by the
coming of Christ; so far is it from being the case that our not
observing them now is any proof of their not being fulfilled by
Christâs coming. There can be no religious society, whether the
religion be true or false, without some sacrament or visible symbol to
serve as a bond of union. The importance of these sacraments cannot
be overstated, and only scoffers will treat them lightly. For if
piety requires them, it must be impiety to neglect them.
12. It is true, the ungodly may partake in the visible sacraments of
godliness, as we read that Simon Magus received holy baptism. Such
are they of whom the apostle says that "they have the form of
godliness, but deny the power of it."[687]687Â The power of godliness
is the end of the commandment, that is, love out of a pure heart, and
of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.[688]688Â So the Apostle
Peter, speaking of the sacrament of the ark, in which the family of
Noah was saved from the deluge, says, "So by a similar figure baptism
also saves you."Â And lest they should rest content with the visible
sacrament, by which they had the form of godliness, and should deny
its power in their lives by profligate conduct, he immediately adds,
"Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience."[689]689
13. Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were celebrated
in obedience to the law, were types of Christ who was to come; and
when Christ fulfilled them by His advent they were done away, and were
done away because they were fulfilled. For Christ came not to
destroy, but to fulfill. And now that the righteousness of faith is
revealed, and the children of God are called into liberty, and the
yoke of bondage which was required for a carnal and stiffnecked people
is taken away, other sacraments are instituted, greater in efficacy,
more beneficial in their use, easier in performance, and fewer in
number.
14. And if the righteous men of old, who saw in the sacraments of
their time the promise of a future revelation of faith, which even
then their piety enabled them to discern in the dim light of prophecy,
and by which they lived, for the just can live only by faith;[690]690
if, then, these righteous men of old were ready to suffer, as many
actually did suffer, all trials and tortures for the sake of those
typical sacraments which prefigured things in the future; if we praise
the three children and Daniel, because they refused to be defiled by
meat from the kingâs table, from their regard for the sacrament of
their day; if we feel the strongest admiration for the Maccabees, who
refused to touch food which Christians lawfully use;[691]691 how much
more should a Christian in our day be ready to suffer all things for
Christâs baptism, for Christâs Eucharist, for Christâs sacred sign,
since these are proofs of the accomplishment of what the former
sacraments only pointed forward to in the future! For what is still
promised to the Church, the body of Christ, is both clearly made
known, and in the Saviour Himself, the Head of the body, the Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, has already been
accomplished. Is not the promise of eternal life by resurrection
from the dead? This we see fulfilled in the flesh of Him of whom it
is said, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.[692]692Â In
former days faith was dim, for the saints and righteous men of those
times all believed and hoped for the same things, and all these
sacraments and ceremonies pointed to the future; but now we have the
revelation of the faith to which the people were shut up under the
law;[693]693 and what is now promised to believers in the judgment is
already accomplished in the example of Him who came not to destroy the
law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.
15. It is a question among the students of the sacred Scriptures,
whether the faith in Christ before His passion and resurrection, which
the righteous men of old learned by revelation or gathered from
prophecy, had the same efficacy as faith has now that Christ has
suffered and risen; or whether the actual shedding of the blood of the
Lamb of God, which was, as He Himself says, for many for the remission
of sins,[694]694 conferred any benefit in the way of purifying or
adding to the purity of those who looked forward in faith to the death
of Christ, but left the world before it took place; whether, in fact,
Christâs death reached to the dead, so as to effect their
liberation. To discuss this question here, or to prove what has been
ascertained on the subject, would take too long, besides being foreign
from our present purpose.
16. Meanwhile it is sufficient to prove, in opposition to Faustusâ
ignorant cavils, how greatly they mistake who conclude, from the
change in signs and sacraments, that there must be a difference in the
things which were prefigured in the rites of a prophetic dispensation,
and which are declared to be accomplished in the rites of the gospel;
or those, on the other hand, who think that as the things are the
same, the sacraments which announce their accomplishment should not
differ from the sacraments which foretold that accomplishment. For
if in language the form of the verb changes in the number of letters
and syllables according to the tense, as done signifies the past, and
to be done the future, why should not the symbols which declare
Christâs death and resurrection to be accomplished, differ from those
which predicted their accomplishment, as we see a difference in the
form and sound of the words, past and future, suffered and to suffer,
risen and to rise? For material symbols are nothing else than
visible speech, which, though sacred, is changeable and transitory.Â
For while God is eternal, the water of baptism, and all that is
material in the sacrament, is transitory: Â the very word "God," which
must be pronounced in the consecration, is a sound which passes in a
moment. The actions and sounds pass away, but their efficacy remains
the same, and the spiritual gift thus communicated is eternal. To
say, therefore, that if Christ had not destroyed the law and the
prophets, the sacraments of the law and the prophets would continue to
be observed in the congregations of the Christian Church, is the same
as to say that if Christ had not destroyed the law and the prophets,
He would still be predicted as about to be born, to suffer, and to
rise again; whereas, in fact, it is proved that He did not destroy,
but fulfill those things, because the prophecies of His birth, and
passion, and resurrection, which were represented in these ancient
sacraments, have ceased, and the sacraments now observed by Christians
contain the announcement that He has been born, has suffered, has
risen. He who came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to
fulfill them, by this fulfillment did away with those things which
foretold the accomplishment of what is thus shown to be now
accomplished. Precisely in the same way, he might substitute for the
expressions, "He is to be born, is to suffer, is to rise," which were
in these times appropriate, the expressions, "He has been born, has
suffered, has risen," which are appropriate now that the others are
accomplished, and so done away.
17. Corresponding to this change in words is the change which
naturally took place in the substitution of new sacraments instead of
those of the Old Testament. In the case of the first Christians, who
came to the faith as Jews, it was by degrees that they were brought to
change their customs, and to have a clear perception of the truth; and
permission was given them by the apostle to preserve their hereditary
worship and belief, in which they had been born and brought up; and
those who had to do with them were required to make allowance for this
reluctance to accept new customs. So the apostle circumcised
Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, when they went
among people of this kind; and he himself accommodated his practice to
theirs, not hypocritically, but for a wise purpose. For these
practices were harmless in the case of those born and brought up in
them, though they were no longer required to prefigure things to
come. It would have done more harm to condemn them as hurtful in the
case of those to whose time it was intended that they should
continue. Christ, who came to fulfill all these prophecies, found
those people trained in their own religion. But in the case of those
who had no such training, but were brought to Christ, the
corner-stone, from the opposite wall of circumcision, there was no
obligation to adopt Jewish customs. If, indeed, like Timothy, they
chose to accommodate themselves to the views of those of the
circumcision who were still wedded to their old sacraments, they were
free to do so. But if they supposed that their hope and salvation
depended on these works of the law, they were warned against them as a
fatal danger. So the apostle says: "Behold, I Paul say unto you,
that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;"[695]695
that is, if they were circumcised, as they were intending to be, in
compliance with some corrupt teachers, who told them that without
these works of the law they could not be saved. For when, chiefly
through the preaching of the Apostle Paul, the Gentiles were coming to
the faith of Christ, as it was proper that they should come, without
being burdened with Jewish observancesâfor those who were grown up
were deterred from the faith by fear of ceremonies to which they were
not accustomed, especially of circumcision; and if they who had not
been trained from their birth to such observances had been made
proselytes in the usual way, it would have implied that the coming of
Christ still required to be predicted as a future event;âwhen, then,
the Gentiles were admitted without these ceremonies, those of the
circumcision who believed, not understanding why the Gentiles were not
required to adopt their customs, nor why they themselves were still
allowed to retain them, began to disturb the Church with carnal
contentions, because the Gentiles were admitted into the people of God
without being made proselytes in the usual way by circumcision and the
other legal observances. Some also of the converted Gentiles were
bent on these ceremonies, from fear of the Jews among whom they
lived. Against these Gentiles the Apostle Paul often wrote, and when
Peter was carried away by their hypocrisy, he corrected him with a
brotherly rebuke.[696]696Â Afterwards, when the apostles met in
council, decreed that these works of the law were not obligatory in
the case of the Gentiles,[697]697 some Christians of the circumcision
were displeased, because they failed to understand that these
observances were permissible only in those who had been trained in
them before the revelation of faith, to bring to a close the prophetic
life in those who were engaged in it before the prophecy was
fulfilled, lest by a compulsory abandonment it should seem to be
condemned rather than closed; while to lay these things on the
Gentiles would imply either that they were not instituted to prefigure
Christ, or that Christ was still to be prefigured. The ancient
people of God, before Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets,
were required to observe all these things by which Christ was
prefigured. It was freedom to those who understood the meaning of
the observance, but it was bondage to those who did not. But the
people in those latter times who come to believe in Christ as having
already come, and suffered, and risen, in the case of those whom this
faith found trained to those sacraments, are neither required to
observe them, nor prohibited from doing so; while there is a
prohibition in the case of those who were not bound by the ties of
custom, or by any necessity, to accommodate themselves to the practice
of others, so that it might become manifest that these things were
instituted to prefigure Christ, and that after His coming they were to
cease, because the promises had been fulfilled. Some believers of
the circumcision who did not understand this were displeased with this
tolerant arrangement which the Holy Spirit effected through the
apostles, and stubbornly insisted on the Gentiles becoming Jews.Â
These are the people of whom Faustus speaks under the name of
Symmachians or Nazareans. Their number is now very small, but the
sect still continues.
18. The Manichæans, therefore have no ground for saying, in
disparagement of the law and the prophets, that Christ came to destroy
rather than to fulfill them, because Christians do not observe what is
there enjoined:Â for the only things which they do not observe are
those that prefigured Christ, and these are not observed because their
fulfillment is in Christ, and what is fulfilled is no longer
prefigured; the typical observances having properly come to a close in
the time of those who, after being trained in such things, had come to
believe in Christ as their fulfillment. Do not Christians observe
the precept of Scripture "Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy God is one
God;" "Thou shalt not make unto thee an image," and so on? Do make
Christians not observe the precept, "Thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord thy God in vain?"Â Do Christians not observe the Sabbath,
even in the sense of a true rest? Do Christians not honor their
parents, according to the commandment? Do Christians not abstain
from fornication, and murder, and theft, and false witness, from
coveting their neighborâs wife, and from coveting his property,âall of
which things are written in the law? These moral precepts are
distinct from typical sacraments:Â the former are fulfilled by the
aid of divine grace, the latter by the accomplishment of what they
promise. Both are fulfilled in Christ, who has ever been the
bestower of this grace, which is also now revealed in Him, and who now
makes manifest the accomplishment of what He in former times promised;
for "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ."[698]698Â Again, these things which concern the keeping of a
good conscience are fulfilled in the faith which worketh by
love;[699]699 while types of the future pass away when they are
accomplished. But even the types are not destroyed, but fulfilled;
for Christ, in bringing to light what the types signified, does not
prove them vain or illusory.
19. Faustus, therefore, is wrong in supposing that the Lord Jesus
fulfilled some precepts of righteous men who lived before the law of
Moses, such as, "Thou shall not kill," which Christ did not oppose,
but rather confirmed by His prohibition of anger and abuse; and that
He destroyed some things apparently peculiar to the Hebrew law, such
as, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which Christ seems
rather to abolish than to confirm, when He says, "But I say unto you,
that ye resist not evil; but if any one smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also,"[700]700 and so on. But we say that even
these things which Faustus thinks Christ destroyed by enjoining the
opposite, were suitable to the times of the Old Testament, and were
not destroyed, but fulfilled by Christ.
20. In the first place let me ask our opponents if these ancient
righteous men, Enoch and Seth, whom Faustus mentions particularly, and
any others who lived before Moses, or even, if you choose, before
Abraham, were angry with their brother without a cause, or said to
their brother, Thou fool. If not, why may they not have taught these
things as well as preached them? And if they taught these things,
how can Christ be said to have fulfilled their righteousness or their
teaching, any more than that of Moses, by adding, "But I say unto you,
if any man is angry with his brother, or if he says Racha, or if he
says, Thou fool, he shall be in danger of the judgment, or of the
council, or of hell-fire," since these men did these very things
themselves, and enjoined them upon others? Will it be said that they
were ignorant of its being the duty of a righteous man to restrain his
passion, and not to provoke his brother with angry abuse; or that,
knowing this, they were unable to act accordingly? In that case,
they deserved the punishment of hell, and could not have been
righteous. But no one will venture to say that in their
righteousness there was such ignorance of duty, and such a want of
self-control, as to make them liable to the punishment of hell. How,
then, can Christ be said to have fulfilled the law, by which these men
lived by means of adding things without which they could have had no
righteousness at all? Will it be said that a hasty temper and bad
language are sinful only since the time of Christ, while formerly such
qualities of the heart and speech were allowable; as we find some
institutions vary according to the times, so that what is proper at
one time is improper at another, and vice versa? You will not be so
foolish as to make this assertion. But even were you to do so, the
reply will be that, according to this idea, Christ came not to fulfill
what was defective in the old law, but to institute a law which did
not previously exist; if it is true that with the righteous men of old
it was not a sin to say to their brother, Thou fool, which Christ
pronounces so sinful, that whoever does so is in danger of hell. So,
then, you have not succeeded in finding any law of which it can be
said that Christ supplied its defect by these additions.
21. Will it be said that the law in these early times was incomplete
as regards not committing adultery, till it was completed by the Lord,
who added that no one should look on a woman to lust after her? This
is what you imply in the way you quote the words, "Ye have heard that
it has been said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:Â but I say unto
you, Do not lust even."Â "Here," you say, "is the fulfillment."Â But
let us take the words as they stand in the Gospel, without any of your
modifications, and see what character you give to those righteous men
of antiquity. The words are: "Ye have heard that it has been said,
thou shall not commit adultery; but I say unto you, that whosoever
looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart."[701]701Â In your opinion, then, Enoch and
Seth, and the rest, committed adultery in their hearts; and either
their heart was not the temple of God, or they committed adultery in
the temple of God. But if you dare not say this, how can you say
that Christ, when He came, fulfilled the law, which was already in the
time of those men complete?
22. As regards not swearing, in which also you say that Christ
completed the law given to these righteous men of antiquity, I cannot
be certain that they did not swear, for we find that Paul the apostle
swore. With you, swearing is still a common practice, for you swear
by the light, which you love as flies do; for the light of the mind
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, as distinct from
mere natural light, you know nothing of. You swear, too, by your
master Manichæus, whose name in his own tongue was Manes. As the
name Manes seemed to be connected with the Greek word for madness, you
have changed it by adding a suffix, which only makes matters worse, by
giving the new meaning of pouring forth madness. One of your own
sect told me that the name Manichæus was intended to be derived from
the Greek words for pouring forth manna; for câ¢ein means to pour.Â
But, as it is, you only express the idea of madness with greater
emphasis. For by adding the two syllables, while you have forgotten
to insert another letter in the beginning of the word, you make it not
Mannichæus, but Manichæus; which must mean that he pours forth
madness in his long unprofitable discourses. Again, you often swear
by the Paraclete,ânot the Paraclete promised and sent by Christ to His
disciples, but this same madness-pourer himself. Since, then, you
are constantly swearing, I should like to know in what sense you make
Christ to have fulfilled this part of the law, which is one you
mention as belonging to the earliest times. And what do you make of
the oaths of the apostle? For as to your authority, it cannot weigh
much with yourselves, not to speak of me or any other person. It is
therefore evident that Christâs words, "I am come not to destroy the
law, but to fulfill it," have not the meaning which you give them.Â
Christ makes no reference in these words to His comments on the
ancient sayings which He quotes, and of which His discourse was an
explanation, but not a fulfillment.
23. Thus, as regards murder, which was understood to mean merely the
destruction of the body, by which a man is deprived of life, the Lord
explained that every unjust disposition to injure our brother is a
kind of murder. So John also says, "He that hateth his brother is a
murderer."[702]702Â And as it was thought that adultery meant only
the act of unlawful intercourse with a woman, the Master showed that
the lust He describes is also adultery. Again, because perjury is a
heinous sin, while there is no sin either in not swearing at all or in
swearing truly, the Lord wished to secure us from departing from the
truth by not swearing at all, rather than that we should be in danger
of perjury by being in the habit of swearing truly. For one who
never swears is less in danger of swearing falsely than one who is in
the habit of swearing truly. So, in the discourses of the apostle
which are recorded, he never used an oath, lest he should ever fall
unawares into perjury from being in the habit of swearing. In his
writings, on the other hand, where he had more leisure and opportunity
for caution, we find him using oaths in several places,[703]703 to
teach us that there is no sin in swearing truly, but that, on account
of the infirmity of human nature, we are best preserved from perjury
by not swearing at all. These considerations will also make it
evident that the things which Faustus supposes to be peculiar to Moses
were not destroyed by Christ, as he says they were.
24. To take, for instance, this saying of the ancients, "Thou shalt
love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy," how does Faustus make out
that this is peculiar to Moses? Does not the Apostle Paul speak of
some men as hateful to God?[704]704Â And, indeed, in connection with
this saying, the Lord enjoins on us that we should imitate God. His
words are:Â "That ye may be the children of your Father in heaven,
who maketh the sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and the unjust."[705]705Â In one sense we must hate
our enemies, after the example of God, to whom Paul says some men are
hateful; while, at the same time, we must also love our enemies after
the example of God, who makes the sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. If we understand
this, we shall find that the Lord, in explaining to those who did not
rightly understand the saying, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, made use
of it to show that they should love their enemy, which was a new idea
to them. It would take too long to show the consistency of the two
things here. But when the Manichæans condemn without exception the
precept, Thou shall hate thine enemy, they may easily be met with the
question whether their god loves the race of darkness. Or, if we
should love our enemies now, because they have a part of good, should
we not also hate them as having a part of evil? So even in this way
it would appear that there is no opposition between the saying of
ancient times, Thou shall hate thine enemy, and that of the Gospel,
Love your enemies. For every wicked man should be hated as far as he
is wicked; while he should be loved as a man. The vice which we
rightly hate in him is to be condemned, that by its removal the human
nature which we rightly love in him may be amended. This is
precisely the principle we maintain, that we should hate our enemy for
what is evil in him, that is, for his wickedness; while we also love
our enemy for that which is good in him, that is, for his nature as a
social and rational being. The difference between us and the
Manichæans is, that we prove the man to be wicked, not by nature,
either his own or any other, but by his own will; whereas they think
that a man is evil on account of the nature of the race of darkness,
which, according to them, was an object of dread to God when he
existed entire, and by which also he was partly conquered, so that he
cannot be entirely set free. The intention of the Lord, then, is to
correct those who, from knowing without understanding what was said by
them of old time, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, hated their fellow-men
instead of only hating their wickedness; and for this purpose He says,
Love your enemies. Instead of destroying what is written about
hatred of enemies in the law, of which He said, "I am come not to
destroy the law, but to fulfill it," He would have us learn, from the
duty of loving our enemies, how it is possible in the case of one and
the same person, both to hate him for his sin, and to love him for his
nature. It is too much to expect our perverse opponents to
understand this. But we can silence them, by showing that by their
irrational objection they condemn their own god, of whom they cannot
say that he loves the race of darkness; so that in enjoining on every
one to love his enemy, they cannot quote his example. There would
appear to be more love of their enemy in the race of darkness than in
the god of the Manichæans. The story is, that the race of darkness
coveted the domain of light bordering on their territory, and, from a
desire to possess it, formed the plan of invading it. Nor is there
any sin in desiring true goodness and blessedness. For the Lord
says, "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take
it by force."[706]706Â This fabulous race of darkness, then, wished
to take by force the good they desired, for its beautiful and
attractive appearance. But God, instead of returning the love of
those who wished to possess Him, hated it so as to endeavor to
annihilate them. If, therefore, the evil love the good in the desire
to possess it, while the good hate the evil in fear of being defiled,
I ask the Manichæans, which of these obeys the precept of the Lord,
"Love your enemies"? If you insist on making these precepts opposed
to one another, it will follow that your god obeyed what is written in
the law of Moses, "Thou shall hate thine enemy"; while the race of
darkness obeyed what is written in the Gospel, "Love your enemies."Â
However, you have never succeeded in explaining the difference between
the flies that fly in the day-time and the moths that fly at night;
for both, according to you, belong to the race of darkness. How is
it that one kind love the light, contrary to their nature; while the
other kind avoid it, and prefer the darkness from which they sprung?Â
Strange, that filthy sewers should breed a cleaner sort than dark
closets!
25. Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which was said
by them of old time, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and
what the Lord says, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but
if any one smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also," and so on.[707]707Â The old precept as well as the new is
intended to check the vehemence of hatred, and to curb the impetuosity
of angry passion. For who will of his own accord be satisfied with a
revenge equal to the injury? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt,
eager for slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make
their enemy suffer enough? If a man receives a blow, does he not
summon his assailant, that he may be condemned in the court of law?Â
Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he not fall upon the man
with hand and heel, or perhaps with a weapon, if he can get hold of
one? To put a restraint upon a revenge so unjust from its excess,
the law established the principle of compensation, that the penalty
should correspond to the injury inflicted. So the precept, "an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a
fire that was quenched, was rather a covering to prevent the fire
already kindled from spreading. For there is a just revenge due to
the injured person from his assailant; so that when we pardon, we give
up what we might justly claim. Thus, in the Lordâs prayer, we are
taught to forgive others their debts that God may forgive us our
debts. There is no injustice in asking back a debt, though there is
kindness in forgiving it. But as, in swearing, one who swears, even
though truly, is in danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger
who never swears; and while swearing truly is not a sin, we are
further from sin by not swearing; so that the command not to swear is
a guard against perjury:Â in the same way since it is sinful to wish
to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is no sin in
wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes
for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge.Â
It is sin to demand more than is due, though it is no sin to demand a
debt. And the best security against the sin of making an unjust
demand is to demand nothing, especially considering the danger of
being compelled to pay the debt to Him who is indebted to none.Â
Thus, I would explain the passage as follows:Â It has been said by
them of old time, Thou shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take
no revenge at all:  here is the fulfillment. It is thus that
Faustus, after quoting, "It has been said, Thou shall not swear
falsely; but I say unto you, swear not at all," adds:Â here is the
fulfillment. I might use the same expression if I thought that by
the addition of these words Christ supplied a defect in the law, and
not rather that the intention of the law to prevent unjust revenge is
best secured by not taking revenge at all, in the same way as the
intention to prevent perjury is best secured by not swearing at all.Â
For if "an eye for an eye" is opposed to "If any one smite thee on the
cheek, turn to him the other also," is there not as much opposition
between "Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oath," and "Swear not
at all?"[708]708Â If Faustus thinks that there is not destruction,
but fulfillment, in the one case, he ought to think the same of the
other. For if "Swear not" is the fulfillment of "Swear truly," why
should not "Take no revenge" be the fulfillment of "Take revenge
justly"?
So, according to my interpretation, there is in both cases a guard
against sin, either of false swearing or of unjust revenge; though, as
regards giving up the right to revenge, there is the additional
consideration that, by forgiving such debts, we shall obtain the
forgiveness of our debts. The old precept was required in the case
of a self-willed people, to teach them not to be extravagant in their
demands. Thus, when the rage eager for unrestrained vengeance, was
subdued, there would be leisure for any one so disposed to consider
the desirableness of having his own debt cancelled by the Lord, and so
to be led by this consideration to forgive the debt of his
fellow-servant.
26. Again, we shall find on examination, that there is no opposition
between the precept of the Lord about not putting away a wife, and
what was said by them of old time:Â "Whosoever putteth away his wife,
let him give her a writing of divorcement."[709]709Â The Lord
explains the intention of the law, which required a bill of divorce in
every case where a wife was put away. The precept not to put away a
wife is the opposite of saying that a man may put away his wife if he
pleases; which is not what the law says. On the contrary, to prevent
the wife from being put away, the law required this intermediate step,
that the eagerness for separation might be checked by the writing of
the bill, and the man might have time to think of the evil of putting
away his wife; especially since, as it is said, among the Hebrews it
was unlawful for any but the scribes to write Hebrew:Â for the
scribes claimed the possession of superior wisdom; and if they were
men of upright and pious character, their pursuits might justly
entitle them to make this claim. In requiring, therefore, that in
putting away his wife, a man should give her a writing of divorcement,
the design was that he should be obliged to have recourse to those
from whom he might expect to receive a cautious interpretation of the
law, and suitable advice against separation. Having no other way of
getting the bill written, the man should be obliged to submit to their
direction, and to allow of their endeavors to restore peace and
harmony between him and his wife. In a case where the hatred could
not be overcome or checked, the bill would of course be written. A
wife might with reason be put away when wise counsel failed to restore
the proper feeling and affection in the mind of her husband. If the
wife is not loved, she is to be put away. And that she may not be
put away, it is the husbandâs duty to love her. Now, while a man
cannot be forced to love against his will, he may be influenced by
advice and persuasion. This was the duty of the scribe, as a wise
and upright man; and the law gave him the opportunity, by requiring
the husband in all cases of quarrel to go to him, to get the bill of
divorcement written. No good or prudent man would write the bill
unless it were a case of such obstinate aversion as to make
reconciliation impossible. But according to your impious notions,
there can be nothing in putting away a wife; for matrimony, according
to you, is a criminal indulgence. The word "matrimony" shows that a
man takes a wife in order that she may become a mother, which would be
an evil in your estimation. According to you, this would imply that
part of your god is overcome and captured by the race of darkness, and
bound in the fetters of flesh.
27. But, to explain the point in hand: If Christ, in adding the
words, "But I say unto you," to the quotations He makes of ancient
sayings, neither fulfilled the law of primitive times by His
additions, nor destroyed the law given to Moses by opposite precepts,
but rather paid such deference to the Hebrew law in all the quotations
He made from it, as to make His own remarks chiefly explanatory of
what the law stated less distinctly, or a means of securing the design
intended by the law, it follows that from the words, "I came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfill it" we are not to understand that
Christ by His precepts filled up what was wanting in the law; but that
what the literal command failed in doing from the pride and
disobedience of men, is accomplished by grace in those who are brought
to repentance and humility. The fulfillment is not in additional
words, but in acts of obedience. So the apostle says "Faith worketh
by love;"[710]710 and again, He that loveth another hath fulfilled the
law."[711]711Â This love, by which also the righteousness of the law
can be fulfilled was bestowed in its significance by Christ in His
coming, through the spirit which He sent according to His promise; and
therefore He said, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill
it."Â This is the New Testament in which the promise of the kingdom
of heaven is made to this love; which was typified in the Old
Testament, suitably to the times of that dispensation. So Christ
says again; "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another."[712]712
28. So we find in the Old Testament all or nearly all the counsels
and precepts which Christ introduces with the words "But I say unto
you."Â Against anger it is written, "Mine eyes troubled because of
anger;"[713]713 and again, "Better is he that conquers his anger, than
he that taketh a city."[714]714Â Against hard words, "The stroke of a
whip maketh a wound; but the stroke of the tongue breaketh the
bones."[715]715Â Against adultery in the heart, "Thou shall not covet
thy neighborâs wife."[716]716Â It is not, "Thou shall not commit
adultery;" but, "Thou shall not covet."Â The apostle, in quoting
this, says:Â "I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou
shalt not covet."[717]717Â Regarding patience in not offering
resistance, a man is praised who "giveth his cheek to him that smiteth
him, and who is filled full with reproach."[718]718Â Of love to
enemies it is said:Â "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst,
give him drink."[719]719Â This also is quoted by the
apostle.[720]720Â In the Psalm, too, it is said, "I was a peace maker
among them that hated peace;"[721]721 and in many similar passages.Â
In connection also with our imitating God in refraining from taking
revenge, and in loving even the wicked, there is a passage containing
a full description of God in this character; for it is written:Â "To
Thee alone ever belongeth great strength, and who can withstand the
power of Thine arm? For the whole world before Thee is as a little
grain of the balance; yea, as a drop of the morning dew that falleth
down upon the earth. But Thou hast mercy upon all, for Thou canst do
all things, and winkest at the sins of men, because of repentance.Â
For Thou lovest all things that are, and abhorrest nothing which Thou
hast made; for never wouldest Thou have made anything if Thou hadst
hated it. And how could anything have endured, if it had not been
Thy will? or been preserved, if not called by Thee? But Thou sparest
all; for they are Thine, O Lord, Thou lover of souls. For Thy good
Spirit is in all things; therefore chastenest Thou them by little and
little that offend, and warnest them by putting them in remembrance
wherein they have offended, that learning their wickedness, they may
believe in Thee, O Lord."[722]722Â Christ exhorts us to imitate this
long-suffering goodness of God, who maketh the sun to rise upon the
evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;
that we may not be careful to revenge, but may do good to them that
hate us, and so may be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is
perfect.[723]723Â From another passage in these ancient books we
learn that, by not exacting the vengeance due to us, we obtain the
remission of our own sins; and that by not forgiving the debts of
others, we incur the danger of being refused forgiveness when we pray
for the remission of our own debts:Â "He that revengeth shall find
vengeance from the Lord, and He will surely keep his sin in
remembrance. Forgive thy neighbor the hurt that he hath done to
thee; so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest. One man
beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek pardon of the Lord?Â
He showeth no mercy to a man who is like himself; and doth he ask
forgiveness of his own sins? If he that is but flesh nourishes
hatred, and asks for favor from the Lord, who will entreat for the
pardon of his sins?"[724]724
29. As regards not putting away a wife, there is no need to quote
any other passage of the Old Testament than that referred to most
appropriately in the Lordâs reply to the Jews when they questioned Him
on this subject. For when they asked whether it is lawful for a man
to put away his wife for any reason, the Lord answered:Â "Have ye not
read, that He that made them at the beginning made them male and
female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh? Therefore they are no longer twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined, let no man put asunder."[725]725Â Here the
Jews, who thought that they acted according to the intention of the
law of Moses in putting away their wives, are made to see from the
book of Moses that a wife should not be put away. And, by the way,
we learn here, from Christâs own declaration, that God made and joined
male and female; so that by denying this, the Manichæans are guilty
of opposing the gospel of Christ as well as the writings of Moses.Â
And supposing their doctrine to be true, that the devil made and
joined male and female, we see the diabolical cunning of Faustus in
finding fault with Moses for dissolving marriages by granting a bill
of divorce, and praising Christ for strengthening the union by the
precept in the Gospel. Instead of this, Faustus, consistently with
his own foolish and impious notions, should have praised Moses for
separating what was made and joined by the devil, and should have
blamed Christ for ratifying a bond of the devilâs workmanship. To
return, let us hear the good Master explain how Moses, who wrote of
the conjugal chastity in the first union of male and female as so holy
and inviolable, afterwards allowed the people to put away their
wives. For when the Jews replied, "Why did Moses then command to
give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"Â Christ said
unto them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart, suffered you
to put away your wives."[726]726Â This passage we have already
explained.[727]727Â The hardness must have been great indeed which
could not be induced to admit the restoration of wedded love, even
though by means of the writing an opportunity was afforded for advice
to be given to this effect by wise and upright men. Then the Lord
quoted the same law, to show both what was enjoined on the good and
what was permitted to the hard; for, from what is written of the union
of male and female, He proved that a wife must not be put away, and
pointed out the divine authority for the union; and shows from the
same Scriptures that a bill of divorcement was to be given because of
the hardness of the heart, which might be subdued or might not.
30. Since, then, all these excellent precepts of the Lord, which
Faustus tries to prove to be contrary to the old books of the Hebrews,
are found in these very books, the only sense in which the Lord came
not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, is this, that besides the
fulfillment of the prophetic types, which are set aside by their
actual accomplishment, the precepts also, in which the law is holy,
and just, and good, are fulfilled in us, not by the oldness of the
letter which commands, and increases the offence of the proud by the
additional guilt of transgression, but by the newness of the Spirit,
who aids us, and by the obedience of the humble, through the saving
grace which sets us free. For, while all these sublime precepts are
found in the ancient books, still the end to which they point is not
there revealed; although the holy men who foresaw the revelation lived
in accordance with it, either veiling it in prophecy as suited the
time, or themselves discovering the truth thus veiled.
31. I am disposed, after careful examination, to doubt whether the
expression so often used by the Lord, "the kingdom of heaven," can be
found in these books. It is said, indeed, "Love wisdom, that ye may
reign for ever."[728]728Â And if eternal life had not been clearly
made known in the Old Testament, the Lord would not have said, as He
did even to the unbelieving Jews:Â "Search the Scriptures, for in
them ye think that ye have eternal life, and they are they that
testify of me."[729]729Â And to the same effect are the words of the
Psalmist:Â "I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the
Lord."[730]730Â And again:Â "Enlighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the
sleep of death."[731]731Â Again, we read, "The souls of the righteous
are in the hand of the Lord, and pain shall not touch them;" and
immediately following:Â "They are in peace; and if they have suffered
torture from men, their hope is full of immortality; and after a few
trouble, they shall enjoy many rewards."[732]732Â Again, in another
place:Â "The righteous shall live for ever, and their reward is with
the Lord, and their concern with the Highest; therefore shall they
receive from the hand of the Lord a kingdom of glory and a crown of
beauty."[733]733Â These and many similar declarations of eternal
life, in more or less explicit terms, are found in these writings.Â
Even the resurrection of the body is spoken of by the prophets. The
Pharisees, accordingly, were fierce opponents of the Sadducees, who
disbelieved the resurrection. This we learn not only from the
canonical Acts of the Apostles, which the Manichæans reject, because
it tells of the advent of the Paraclete promised by the Lord, but also
from the Gospel, when the Sadducees question the Lord about the woman
who married seven brothers, one dying after the other, whose wife she
would be in the resurrection.[734]734Â As regards, then, eternal life
and the resurrection of the dead, numerous testimonies are to be found
in these Scriptures. But I do not find there the expression, "the
kingdom of heaven."Â This expression belongs properly to the
revelation of the New Testament, because in the resurrection our
earthly bodies shall, by that change which Paul fully describes,
become spiritual bodies, and so heavenly, that thus we may possess the
kingdom of heaven. And this expression was reserved for Him whose
advent as King to govern and Priest to sanctify His believing people,
was ushered in by all the symbolism of the old covenant, in its
genealogies, its typical acts and words, its sacrifices and ceremonies
and feasts, and in all its prophetic utterances and events and
figures. He came full of grace and truth, in His grace helping us to
obey the precepts, and in His truth securing the accomplishment of the
promises. He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
ââââââââââââ
Book XX.
Faustus repels the charge of sun-worship, and maintains that while the
Manichæans believe that Godâs power dwells in the sun and his wisdom
in the moon, they yet worship one deity, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. They are not a schism of the Gentiles, nor a sect.Â
Augustin emphasizes the charge of polytheism, and goes into an
elaborate comparison of Manichæan and pagan mythology.
1. Faustus said: You ask why we worship the sun, if we are a sect
or separate religion, and not Pagans, or merely a schism of the
Gentiles. It may therefore be as well to inquire into the matter,
that we may see whether the name of Gentiles is more applicable to you
or to us. Perhaps, in giving you in a friendly way this simple
account of my faith, I shall appear to be making an apology for it, as
if I were ashamed, which God forbid, of doing homage to the divine
luminaries. You may take it as you please; but I shall not regret
what I have done if I succeed in conveying to some at least this much
knowledge, that our religion has nothing in common with that of the
Gentiles.
2. We worship, then, one deity under the threefold appellation of
the Almighty God the Father, and his son Christ, and the Holy
Spirit. While these are one and the same, we believe also that the
Father properly dwells in the highest or principal light, which Paul
calls "light inaccessible,"[735]735 and the Son in his second or
visible light. And as the Son is himself twofold, according to the
apostle, who speaks of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of
God,[736]736 we believe that His power dwells in the sun, and His
wisdom in the moon. We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third
majesty, has His seat and His home in the whole circle of the
atmosphere. By His influence and spiritual infusion, the earth
conceives and brings forth the mortal Jesus, who, as hanging from
every tree, is the life and salvation of men.[737]737Â Though you
oppose these doctrines so violently, your religion resembles ours in
attaching the same sacredness to the bread and wine that we do to
everything. This is our belief, which you will have an opportunity
of hearing more of, if you wish to do so. Meanwhile there is some
force in the consideration that you or any one that is asked where his
God dwells, will say that he dwells in light; so that the testimony in
favor of my worship is almost universal.
3. As to your calling us a schism of the Gentiles, and not a sect, I
suppose the word schism applies to those who have the same doctrines
and worship as other people, and only choose to meet separately. The
word sect, again, applies to those whose doctrine is quite unlike that
of others, and who have made a form of divine worship peculiar to
themselves. If this is what the words mean, in the first place, in
our doctrine and worship we have no resemblance to the Pagans. We
shall see presently whether you have. The Pagan doctrine is, that
all things good and evil, mean and glorious, fading and unfading,
changeable and unchangeable, material and divine, have only one
principle. In opposition to this, my belief is that God is the
principle of all good things, and Hyle [matters] of the opposite.Â
Hyle is the name given by our master in divinity to the principle or
nature of evil. The Pagans accordingly think it right to worship God
with altars, and shrines, and images, and sacrifices, and incense.Â
Here also my practice differs entirely from theirs:Â for I look upon
myself as a reasonable temple of God, if I am worthy to be so; and I
consider Christ his Son as the living image of his living majesty; and
I hold a mind well cultivated to be the true altar, and pure and
simple prayers to be the true way of paying divine honors and of
offering sacrifices. Is this being a schism of the Pagans?
4. As regards the worship of the Almighty God, you might call us a
schism of the Jews, for all Jews are bold enough to profess this
worship, were it not for the difference in the form of our worship,
though it may be questioned whether the Jews really worship the
Almighty. But the doctrine I have mentioned is common to the Pagans
in their worship of the sun, and to the Jews in their worship of the
Almighty. Even in relation to you, we are not properly a schism,
though we acknowledge Christ and worship Him; for our worship and
doctrine are different from yours. In a schism, little or no change
is made from the original; as, for instance, you, in your schism from
the Gentiles, have brought with you the doctrine of a single
principle, for you believe that all things are of God. The
sacrifices you change into love-feasts, the idols into martyrs, to
whom you pray as they do to their idols. Â You appease the shades of
the departed with wine and food. You keep the same holidays as the
Gentiles; for example, the calends and the solstices. In your way of
living you have made no change. Plainly you are a mere schism; for
the only difference from the original is that you meet separately.Â
In this you have followed the Jews, who separated from the Gentiles,
but differed only in not having images. For they used temples, and
sacrifices, and altars, and a priesthood, and the whole round of
ceremonies the same as those of the Gentiles, only more
superstitious. Like the Pagans, they believe in a single principle;
so that both you and the Jews are schisms of the Gentiles, for you
have the same faith, and nearly the same worship, and you call
yourselves sects only because you meet separately. The fact is,
there are only two sects, the Gentiles and ourselves. We and the
Gentiles are as contrary in our belief as truth and falsehood, day and
night, poverty and wealth, health and sickness. You, again, are not
a sect in relation either to truth or to error. You are merely a
schism and a schism not of truth, but of error.
5. Augustin replied: O hateful mixture of ignorance and cunning!Â
Why do you put arguments in the mouth of your opponent, which no one
that knows you would use? We do not call you Pagans, or a schism of
Pagans; but we say that you resemble them in worshipping many gods.Â
But you are far worse than Pagans, for they worship things which
exist, though they should not be worshipped:Â for idols have an
existence, though for salvation they are nought. So, to worship a
tree with prayers, instead of improving it by cultivation, is not to
worship nothing, but to worship in a wrong way. When the apostle
says that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to
demons, and not to God,"[738]738 he means that these demons exist to
whom the sacrifices are made, and with whom he wishes us not to be
partakers. So, too, heaven and earth, the sea and air, the sun and
moon, and the other heavenly bodies, are all objects which have a
sensible existence. When the Pagans worship these as gods, or as
parts of one great God (for some of them identify the universe with
the Supreme Deity), they worship things which have an existence. In
arguing with Pagans, we do not deny the existence of these things, but
we say that they should not be worshipped; and we recommend the
worship of the invisible Creator of all these things, in whom alone
man can find the happiness which all allow that he desires. To
those, again, who worship what is invisible and immaterial, but still
is created, as the soul or mind of man, we say that happiness is not
to be found in the creature even under this form, and that we must
worship the true God, who is not only invisible, but unchangeable; for
He alone is to be worshipped, in the enjoyment of whom the worshipper
finds happiness, and without whom the soul must be wretched, whatever
else it possesses. You, on the other hand, who worship things which
have no existence at all except in your fictitious legends, would be
nearer true piety and religion if you were Pagans, or if you were
worshippers of what has an existence, though not a proper object of
worship. In fact, you do not properly worship the sun, though he
carries your prayers with him in his course round the heavens.
6. Your statements about the sun himself are so false and absurd,
that if he were to repay you for the injury done to him, he would
scorch you to death. First of all, you call the sun a ship, so that
you are not only astray worlds off, as the saying is, but adrift.Â
Next, while every one sees that the sun is round, which is the form
corresponding from its perfection to his position among the heavenly
bodies, you maintain that he is triangular, that is, that his light
shines on the earth through a triangular window in heaven. Hence it
is that you bend and bow your heads to the sun, while you worship not
this visible sun, but some imaginary ship which you suppose to be
shining through a triangular opening. Assuredly this ship would
never have been heard of, if the words required for the composition of
heretical fictions had to be paid for, like the wood required for the
beams of a ship. All this is comparatively harmless, however
ridiculous or pitiable. Very different is your wicked fancy about
youths of both sexes proceeding from this ship, whose beauty excites
eager desire in the princes and princesses of darkness; and so the
members of your god are released from this humiliating confinement in
the members of the race of darkness, by means of sinful passion and
sensual appetite. And to these filthy rags of yours you would unite
the mystery of the Trinity; for you say that the Father dwells in a
secret light, the power of the Son in the sun, and His wisdom in the
moon, and the Holy Spirit in the air.
7. As for this threefold or rather fourfold fiction, what shall I
say of the secret light of the Father, but that you can think of no
light except what you have seen? From your knowledge of visible
light, with which beasts and insects as well as men are familiar, you
form some vague idea in your mind, and call it the light in which God
the Father dwells with His subjects. How can you distinguish between
the light by which we see, and that by which we understand, when,
according to your ideas, to understand truth is nothing else than to
form the conception of material forms, either finite or in some cases
infinite; and you actually believe in these wild fancies? It is
manifest that the act of my mind in thinking of your region of light
which has no existence, is entirely different from my conception of
Alexandria, which exists, though I have not seen it. And, again, the
act of forming a conception of Alexandria, which I have never seen, is
very different from thinking of Carthage, which I know. But this
difference is insignificant as compared with that between my thinking
of material things which I know from seeing them, and my understanding
justice, chastity, faith, truth, love, goodness, and things of this
nature. Can you describe this intellectual light, which gives us a
clear perception of the distinction between itself and other things,
as well as of the distinction between those things themselves? And
yet even this is not the sense in which it can be said that God is
light, for this light is created, whereas God is the Creator; the
light is made, and He is the Maker; the light is changeable. For the
intellect changes from dislike to desire, from ignorance to knowledge,
from forgetfulness to recollection; whereas God remains the same in
will, in truth, and in eternity. From God we derive the beginning of
existence, the principle of knowledge, the law of affection. From
God all animals, rational and irrational, derive the nature of their
life, the capacity of sensation, the faculty of emotion. From God
all bodies derive their subsistence in extension, their beauty in
number, and their order in weight. This light is one divine being,
in an inseparable triune existence; and yet, without supposing the
assumption of any bodily form, you assign to separate places parts of
the immaterial, spiritual, and unchangeable substance. And instead
of three places for the Trinity, you have four:Â one, the light
inaccessible, which you know nothing about, for the Father; two, the
sun and moon, for the Son; and again one, the circle of the
atmosphere, for the Holy Spirit. Of the inaccessible light of the
Father I shall say nothing further at present, for orthodox believers
do not separate the Son and the Spirit from the Father in relation to
this light.
8. It is difficult to understand how you have been taken with the
absurd idea of placing the power of the Son in the sun, and His wisdom
in the moon. For, as the Son remains inseparably in the Father, His
wisdom and power cannot be separated from one another, so that one
should be in the sun and the other in the moon. Only material things
can be thus assigned to separate places. If you only understood
this, it would have prevented you from taking the productions of a
diseased fancy as the material for so many fictions. But there is
inconsistency and improbability as well as falsehood in your ideas.Â
For, according to you, the seat of wisdom is inferior in brightness to
the seat of power. Now energy and productiveness are the qualities
of power, whereas light teaches and manifests; so that if the sun had
the greater heat, and the moon the greater light, these absurdities
might appear to have some likelihood to men of carnal minds, who know
nothing except through material conceptions. From the connection
between great heat and motion, they might identify power with heat;
while light from its brightness, and as making things discernible,
they might represent wisdom. But what folly as well as profanity, in
placing power in the sun, which excels so much in light, and wisdom in
the moon, which is so inferior in brightness! And while you separate
Christ from Himself, you do not distinguish between Christ and the
Holy Spirit; whereas Christ is one, the power of God, and the wisdom
of God, and the Spirit is a distinct person. But according to you,
the air, which you make the seat of the Spirit, fills and pervades the
universe. So the sun and moon in their course are always united to
the air. But the moon approaches the sun at one time, and recedes
from it at another. So that, if we may believe you, or rather, if we
may allow ourselves to be imposed on by you, wisdom recedes from power
by half the circumference of a circle, and again approaches it by the
other half. And when wisdom is full, it is at a distance from
power. For when the moon is full, the distance between the two
bodies is so great, that the moon rises in the east while the sun is
setting in the west. But as the loss of power produces weakness, the
fuller the moon is, the weaker must wisdom be. If, as is certainly
true, the wisdom of God is unchangeable in power, and the power of God
unchangeable in wisdom, how can you separate them so as to assign them
to different places? And how can the place be different when the
substance is the same? Is this not the infatuation of subjection to
material fancies; showing such a want of power and wisdom that your
wisdom is as weak as your power is foolish? This execrable absurdity
would divide Christ between the sun and the moon,âHis power in one,
and His wisdom in the other; so that He would be incomplete in both,
lacking wisdom in the sun, and power in the moon, while in both He
supplies youths, male and female, to excite the affection of the
princes and princesses of darkness. Such are the tenets which you
learn and profess. Such is the faith which directs your conduct.Â
And can you wonder that you are regarded with abhorrence?
9. But besides your errors regarding these conspicuous and familiar
luminaries, which you worship not for what they are, but for what your
wild fancy makes them to be, your other absurdities are still worse
than this. Your illustrious World-bearer, and Atlas who helps to
hold him up, are unreal beings. Like innumerable other creatures of
your fancy, they have no existence, and yet you worship them. For
this reason we say that you are worse than Pagans, while you resemble
them in worshipping many gods. You are worse, because, while they
worship things which exist though they are not gods, you worship
things which are neither gods nor anything else, for they have no
existence. The Pagans, too, have fables, but they know them to be
fables; and either look upon them as amusing poetical fancies, or try
to explain them as representing the nature of things, or the life of
man. Thus they say that Vulcan is lame, because flame in common fire
has an irregular motion:Â that Fortune is blind, because of the
uncertainty of what are called fortuitous occurrences:Â that there
are three Fates, with distaff, and spindle, and fingers spinning wool
into thread, because there are three times,âthe past, already spun and
wound on the spindle; the present, which is passing through the
fingers of the spinner; and the future, still in wool bound to the
distaff, and soon to pass through the fingers to the spindle, that is,
through the present into the future:Â and that Venus is the wife of
Vulcan, because pleasure has a natural connection with heat; and that
she is the mistress of Mars, because pleasure is not properly the
companion of warriors:Â and that Cupid is a boy with wings and a bow,
from the wounds inflicted by thoughtless, inconstant passion in the
hearts of unhappy beings: and so with many other fables. The great
absurdity is in their continuing to worship these beings, after giving
such explanations; for the worship without the explanations, though
criminal, would be a less heinous crime. The very explanations prove
that they do not worship that God, the enjoyment of whom can alone
give happiness, but things which He has created. And even in the
creature they worship not only the virtues, as in Minerva, who sprang
from the head of Jupiter, and who represents prudence,âa quality of
reason which, according to Plato, has its seat in the head,âbut their
vices, too, as in Cupid. Thus one of their dramatic poets says,
"Sinful passion, in favor of vice, made Love a god."[739]739Â Even
bodily evils had temples in Rome, as in the case of pallor and
fever. Not to dwell on the sin of the worshippers of these idols,
who are in a way affected by the bodily forms, so that they pay homage
to them as deities, when they see them set up in some lofty place, and
treated with great honor and reverence, there is greater sin in the
very explanations which are intended as apologies for these dumb, and
deaf, and blind, and lifeless objects. Still, though, as I have
said, these things are nothing in the way of salvation or of
usefulness, both they and the things they are said to represent are
real existences. But your First Man, warring with the five elements;
and your Mighty Spirit, who constructs the world from the captive
bodies of the race of darkness, or rather from the members of your god
in subjection and bondage; and your World-holder, who has in his hand
the remains of these members, and who bewails the capture and bondage
and pollution of the rest; and your giant Atlas, who keeps up the
World-holder on his shoulders, lest he should from weariness throw
away his burden, and so prevent the completion of the final imitation
of the mass of darkness, which is to be the last scene in your
drama;âthese and countless other absurdities are not represented in
painting or sculpture, or in any explanation; and yet you believe and
worship things which have no existence, while you taunt the Christians
with being credulous for believing in realities with a faith which
pacifies the mind under its influence. The objects of your worship
can be shown to have no existence by many proofs, which I do not bring
forward here, because, though I could without difficulty discourse
philosophically on the construction of the world, it would take too
long to do so here. One proof suffices. If these things are real,
God must be subject to change, and corruption, and contamination; a
supposition as blasphemous as it is irrational. All these things,
therefore, are vain, and false, and unreal. Thus you are much worse
than those Pagans, with whom all are familiar, and who still preserve
traces of their old customs, of which they themselves are ashamed; for
while they worship things which are not gods, you worship things which
do not exist.
10. If you think that your doctrines are true because they are
unlike the errors of the Pagans, and that we are in error because we
perhaps differ more from you than from them, you might as well say
that a dead man is in good health because he is not sick; or that good
health is undesirable, because it differs less from sickness than from
death. Or if the Pagans should be viewed in many cases as rather
dead than sick, you might as well praise the ashes in the tomb because
they have no longer the human shape, as compared with the living body,
which does not differ so much from a corpse as from ashes. It is
thus we are reproached for having more resemblance to the dead body of
Paganism than to the ashes of Manichæism. But in division, it often
happens that a thing is placed in different classes, according to the
point of resemblance on which the division proceeds. For instance,
if animals are divided into those that fly and those that cannot fly,
in this division men and beasts are classed together as distinct from
birds, because they are both unable to fly. But if they are divided
into rational and irrational, beasts and birds are classed together as
distinct from men, for they are both destitute of reason. Faustus
did not think of this when he said:Â There are in fact only two
sects, the Gentiles and ourselves, for we are directly opposed to them
in our belief. The opposition he means is this, that the Gentiles
believe in a single principle, whereas the Manichæans believe also in
the principle of the race of darkness. Certainly, according to this
division we agree in general with the Pagans. But if we divide all
who have a religion into those who worship one God and those who
worship many gods, the Manichæans must be classed along with the
Pagans, and we along with the Jews. This is another distinction,
which may be said to make only two sects. Perhaps you will say that
you hold all your gods to be of one substance, which the Pagans do
not. But you at least resemble them in assigning to your gods
different powers, and functions, and employments. One does battle
with the race of darkness; another constructs the world from the part
which is captured; another, standing above, has the world in his hand;
another holds him up from below; another turns the wheels of the fires
and winds and waters beneath; another, in his circuit of the heavens,
gathers with his beams the members of your god from cesspools.Â
Indeed, your gods have innumerable occupations, according to your
fabulous descriptions, which you neither explain nor represent in a
visible form. But again, if men were divided into those who believe
that God takes an interest in human affairs and those who do not, the
Pagans and Jews, and you and all heretics that have anything of
Christianity, will be classed together, as opposed to the Epicureans,
and any others holding similar views. As this is a principle of
importance, here again we may say that there are only two sects, and
you belong to the same sect as we do. You will hardly venture to
dissent from us in the opinion that God is concerned in human affairs,
so that in this matter your opposition to the Epicureans makes you
side with us. Thus, according to the nature of the division, what is
in one class at one time, is in another at another time:Â things
joined here are separated there:Â in some things we are classed with
others, and they with us; in other things we are classed separately,
and stand alone. Â If Faustus thought of this, he would not talk such
eloquent nonsense.
11. But what are we to make of these words of Faustus: The Holy
Spirit, by his influence and spiritual infusion, makes the earth
conceive and bring forth the mortal Jesus, who, as hanging from every
tree, is the life and salvation of men? Letting pass for a moment
the absurdity of this statement, we observe the folly of believing
that the mortal Jesus can be conceived through the power of the Holy
Spirit by the earth, but not by the Virgin Mary. Dare you compare
the holiness of that chaste virginâs womb with any piece of ground
where trees and plants grow? Do you pretend to look with abhorrence
upon a pure virgin, while you do not shrink from believing that Jesus
is produced in gardens watered by the filthy drains of a city? For
plants of all kinds spring up and are nourished in such moisture.Â
You will have Jesus to be born in this way, while you cry out against
the idea of His being born of a virgin. Do you think flesh more
unclean than the excrements which its nature rejects? Is the filth
cleaner than the flesh which expels it? Are you not aware how fields
are manured in order to make them productive? Your folly comes to
this, that the Holy Spirit, who, according to you, despised the womb
of Mary, makes the earth conceive more fruitfully in proportion as it
is carefully enriched with animal off-scourings. Do you reply that
the Holy Spirit preserves His incorruptible purity everywhere? I ask
again, Why not also in the virginâs womb? Passing from the
conception, you maintain in regard to the mortal Jesusâwho, as you
say, is born from the earth, which has conceived by the power of the
Holy Spiritâthat He hangs in the shape of fruit from every tree:Â so
that, besides this pollution, He suffers additional defilement from
the flesh of the countless animals that eat the fruit; except, indeed,
the small amount that is purified by your eating it. While we
believe and confess Christ the Son of God, and the Word of God, to
have become flesh without suffering defilement, because the divine
substance is not defiled by flesh, as it is not defiled by anything,
your fanciful notions would make Jesus to be defiled even as hanging
on the tree, before entering the flesh of any animal; for if He were
not defiled, there would be no need of His being purified by your
eating Him. And if all trees are the cross of Christ, as Faustus
seems to imply when he says that Jesus hangs from every tree, why do
you not pluck the fruit, and so take Jesus down from hanging on the
tree to bury Him in your stomach, which would correspond to the good
deed of Joseph of Arimathea, when he took down the true Jesus from the
cross to bury Him?[740]740 Why should it be impious to take Christ
from the tree, while it is pious to lay Him in the tomb? Perhaps you
wish to apply to yourselves the words quoted from the prophet by Paul,
"Their throat is an open sepulchre:"[741]741Â and so you wait with
open mouth till some one comes to use your throat as the best
sepulchre for Christ. Once more, how many Christs do you make? Is
there one whom you call the mortal Christ, whom the earth conceives
and brings forth by the power of the Holy Spirit; and another
crucified by the Jews under Pontius Pilate; and a third whom you
divide between the sun and the moon? Or is it one and the same
person, part of whom is confined in the trees, to be released by the
help of the other part which is not confined? If this is the case,
and you allow that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, though it is
difficult to see how he could have suffered without flesh, as you say
he did, the great question is, with whom he left those ships you speak
of, that he might come down and suffer these things, which he
certainly could not have suffered without having a body of some
kind. A mere spiritual presence could not have made him liable to
these sufferings, and in his bodily presence he could not be at the
same time in the sun, in the moon, and on the cross. So, then, if he
had not a body, he was not crucified; and if he had a body, the
question is, where he got it:Â for, according to you, all bodies
belong to the race of darkness, though you cannot think of the divine
substance except as being material. Thus you must say either that
Christ was crucified without a body; which is utterly absurd; or that
he was crucified in appearance and not in reality, which is blasphemy;
or that all bodies do not belong to the race of darkness, but that the
divine substance has also a body, and that not an immortal body, but
liable to crucifixion and death, which, again, is altogether
erroneous; or that Christ had a mortal body from the race of darkness,
so that, while you will not allow that Christâs body came from the
Virgin Mary, you derive it from the race of demons. Finally, as in
Faustusâ statement, in which he alludes in the briefest manner
possible to the lengthy stories of Manichæan invention, the earth by
the power of the Holy Spirit conceives and brings forth the mortal
Jesus, who, hanging from every tree, is the life and salvation of men,
why should this Saviour be represented by whatever is hanging, because
he hung on the tree, and not by whatever is born, because he was
born? But if you mean that the Jesus on the trees, and the Jesus
crucified under Pontius Pilate, and the Jesus divided between the sun
and the moon, are all one and the same substance, why do you not give
the name of Jesus to your whole host of deities? Why should not your
World-holder be Jesus too, and Atlas, and the King of Honour, and the
Mighty Spirit, and the First Man, and all the rest, with their various
names and occupations?
12. So, with regard to the Holy Spirit, how can you say that he is
the third person, when the persons you mention are innumerable? Or
why is he not Jesus himself? And why does Faustus mislead people, in
trying to make out an agreement between himself and true Christians,
from whom he differs only too widely, by saying, We worship one God
under the threefold appellation of the Almighty God the Father, Christ
his Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why is the appellation only threefold,
instead of being manifold? And why is the distinction in appellation
only, and not in reality, if there are as many persons as there are
names? For it is not as if you gave three names to the same thing,
as the same weapon may be called a short sword, a dagger, or a dirk;
or as you give the name of moon, and the lesser ship, and the luminary
of night, and so on, to the same thing. For you cannot say that the
First Man is the same as the Mighty Spirit, or as the World-Holder, or
as the giant Atlas. They are all distinct persons, and you do not
call any of them Christ. How can there be one Deity with opposite
functions? Or why should not Christ himself be the single person, if
in one substance Christ hangs on the trees, and was persecuted by the
Jews, and exists in the sun and moon? The fact is, your fancies are
all astray, and are no better than the dreams of insanity.
13. How can Faustus think that we resemble the Manichæans in
attaching sacredness to bread and wine, when they consider it
sacrilege to taste wine? They acknowledge their god in the grape,
but not in the cup; perhaps they are shocked at his being trampled on
and bottled. It is not any bread and wine that we hold sacred as a
natural production, as if Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as
the Manichæans fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol.Â
What is not consecrated, though it is bread and wine, is only
nourishment or refreshment, with no sacredness about it; although we
bless and thank God for every gift, bodily as well as spiritual.Â
According to your notion, Christ is confined in everything you eat,
and is released by digestion from the additional confinement of your
intestines. So, when you eat, your god suffers; and when you digest,
you suffer from his recovery. When he fills you, your gain is his
loss. This might be considered kindness on his part, because he
suffers in you for your benefit, were it not that he gains freedom by
escaping and leaving you empty. Â There is not the least resemblance
between our reverence for the bread and wine, and your doctrines,
which have no truth in them. To compare the two is even more foolish
than to say, as some do, that in the bread and wine we worship Ceres
and Bacchus. I refer to this now, to show where you got your silly
idea that our fathers kept the Sabbath in honor of Saturn. For as
there is no connection with the worship of the Pagan deities Ceres and
Bacchus in our observance of the sacrament of the bread and wine,
which you approve so highly that you wish to resemble us in it, so
there was no subjection to Saturn in the case of our fathers, who
observed the rest of the Sabbath in a manner suitable to prophetic
times.
14. You might have found a resemblance in your religion to that of
the Pagans as regards Hyle [matter], which the Pagans often speak
of. You, on the contrary, maintain that you are directly opposed to
them in your belief in the evil principle which your teacher in
theology calls Hyle. But here you only show your ignorance, and,
with an affectation of learning, use this word without knowing what it
means. The Greeks, when speaking of nature, give the name Hyle to
the subject-matter of things, which has no form of its own, but admits
of all bodily forms, and is known only through these changeable
phenomena, not being itself an object of sensation or perception.Â
Some Gentiles, indeed, erroneously make this matter co-eternal with
God, as not being derived from Him, though the bodily forms are. In
this manifest error you resemble the Pagans, for you hold that Hyle
has a principle of its own, and does not come from God. It is only
ignorance that leads you to deny this resemblance. In saying that
Hyle has no form of its own, and can take its forms only from God, the
Pagans come near to the truth which we believe in contradistinction
from your errors. Not knowing what Hyle or the subject-matter of
things is, you make it the race of darkness, in which you place not
only innumerable bodily forms of five different kinds, but also a
formative mind. Such, indeed, is your ignorance or insanity, that
you call this mind Hyle, and make it give forms instead of taking
them. If there were such a formative mind as you speak of, and
bodily elements capable of form, the word Hyle would properly be
applicable to the bodily elements, which would be the matter to be
formed by the mind, which you make the principle of evil. Even this
would not be a quite accurate use of the word Hyle, which has no form
of any kind; whereas these elements, although capable of new forms,
have already the form of elements, and belong to different kinds.Â
Still this use of the word would not be so much amiss, notwithstanding
your ignorance; for it would thus be applied, as it properly is, to
that which takes form, and not to that which gives it. Even here,
however, your folly and impiety would appear in tracing so much that
is good to the evil principle, from your not knowing that all natures
of every kind, all forms in their proportion, and all weights in their
order, can come only from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.Â
As it is, you know neither what Hyle is, nor what evil is. Would
that I could persuade you to refrain from misleading people still more
ignorant than yourselves!
15. Every one must see the folly of your boasting of superiority to
the Pagans because they use altars and temples, images and sacrifices
and incense, in the worship of God, which you do not. As if it were
not better to build an altar and offer sacrifice to a stone, which has
some kind of existence, than to employ a heated imagination in
worshipping things which have no existence at all. And what do you
mean by saying that you are a rational temple of God? Can that be
Godâs temple which is partly the construction of the devil? And is
this not true of you, as you say that all your members and your whole
body were formed by the evil principle which you call Hyle, and that
part of this formative mind dwells in the body along with part of your
god? And as this part of your god is bound and confined, you should
be called the prison of God rather than his temple. Perhaps it is
your soul that is the temple of God, as you have it from the region of
light. But you generally call your soul not a temple, but a part or
member of God. So, when you say you are the temple of God, it must
be in your body, which, you say, was formed by the devil. Thus you
blaspheme the temple of God, calling it not only the workmanship of
Satan, but the prison-house of God. The apostle, on the other hand,
says:Â "The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."Â And to
show that this refers not merely to the soul, he says expressly:Â
"Know ye not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, which
is in you, which ye have of God?"[742]742Â You call the workmanship
of devils the temple of God, and there, to use Faustusâ words, you
place Christ, the Son of God, the living image of living majesty.Â
Your impiety may well contrive a fabulous temple for a fabulous
Christ. The image you speak of must be so called, because it is the
creature of your imagination.
16. If your mind is an altar, you see whose altar it is. You may
see from the very doctrines and duties in which you say you are
trained. You are taught not to give food to a beggar; and so your
altar smokes with the sacrifice of cruelty. Such altars the Lord
destroys; for in words quoted from the law He tells us what offering
pleases God:Â "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."Â Observe on what
occasion the Lord uses these words. It was when, in passing through
a field, the disciples plucked the ears of corn because they were
hungry. Your doctrine would lead you to call this murder. Your
mind is an altar, not of God, but of lying devils, by whose doctrines
the evil conscience is seared as with a hot iron,[743]743 calling
murder what the truth calls innocence. For in His words to the Jews,
Christ by anticipation deals a fatal blow to you:Â "If ye had known
what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not
have condemned the guiltless."[744]744
17. Nor can you say that you honor God with sacrifices in the shape
of pure and simple prayers:Â for, in your low, dishonoring notions
about the divine nature and substance, you make your god to be the
victim in the sacrifices of Pagans; so far are you from pleasing the
true God with your sacrifices. For you hold that God is confined not
only in trees and plants, or in the human body, but also in the flesh
of animals, which contaminates Him with its impurity. And how can
your soul give praise to God, when you actually reproach Him by
calling your soul a particle of His substance taken captive by the
race of darkness; as if God could not maintain the conflict except by
this corruption of His members, and this dishonorable captivity?Â
Instead of honoring God in your prayers, you insult Him. For what
sin did you commit, when you belonged to Him, that you should be thus
punished by the god you cry to, not because you left Him sinfully of
your own choice; for he himself gave you to His enemies, to obtain
peace for His kingdom? You are not even given as hostages to be
honorably guarded. Nor is it as when a shepherd lays a snare to
catch a wild beast:Â for he does not put one of his own members in
the snare, but some animal from his flock; and generally, so that the
wild beast is caught before the animal is hurt. You, though you are
the members of your god, are given to the enemy, whose ferocity you
keep off from your god only by being contaminated with their impurity,
infected with their corruptions, without any fault of your own. You
cannot in your prayers use the words:Â "Free us, O Lord, for the
glory of Thy name; and for Thy nameâs sake pardon our sins."[745]745Â
Your prayer is:Â "Free us by Thy skill, for we suffer here
oppression, and torture, and pollution, only that Thou mayest mourn
unmolested in Thy kingdom."Â These are words of reproach, not of
entreaty. Nor can you use the words taught us by the Master of
truth:Â "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."[746]746Â
For who are the debtors who have sinned against you? If it is the
race of darkness, you do not forgive their debts, but make them be
utterly cast out and shut up in eternal imprisonment. And how can
God forgive your debts, when He rather sinned against you by sending
you into such a state, than you against Him, whom you obeyed by
going? If this was not a sin in Him, because He was compelled to do
it, this excuse must apply you, now that you have been overthrown in
the conflict, more than to Him before the conflict began. You suffer
now from the mixture of evil, which was not the case with Him when
nevertheless He was compelled to send you. So either He requires
that you should forgive Him his debt; or, if He is not in debt to you,
still less are you to Him. It appears that your sacrifices and your
pure and simple prayers are false and vile blasphemies.
18. How is it, by the way, that you use the words temple, altar,
sacrifice, for the purpose of commending your own practices? If such
things can be spoken of as properly belonging to true religion, they
must constitute the true worship of the true God. And if there is
such a thing as true sacrifice to the true God, which is implied in
the expression divine honors, there must be some one true sacrifice of
which the rest are imitations. On the one hand, we have the spurious
imitations in the case of false and lying gods, that is, of devils,
who proudly demand divine honors from their deluded votaries, as is or
was the case in the temples and idols of the Gentiles. On the other
hand, we have the prophetic intimations of one most true sacrifice to
be offered for the sins of all believers, as in the sacrifices
enjoined by God on our fathers; along with which there was also the
symbolical anointing typical of Christ, as the name Christ itself
means anointed. The animal sacrifices, therefore, presumptuously
claimed by devils, were an imitation of the true sacrifice which is
due only to the one true God, and which Christ alone offered on His
altar. Thus the apostle says: "The sacrifices which the Gentiles
offer, they offer to devils, and not to God."[747]747Â He does not
find fault with sacrifices, but with offering to devils. The
Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God
in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution,
typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also
commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation
of the body and blood of Christ. The Manichæans understand neither
the sinfulness of the Gentile sacrifices, nor the importance of the
Hebrew sacrifices, nor the use of the ordinance of the Christian
sacrifice. Their own errors are the offering they present to the
devil who has deceived them. And thus they depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils, speaking
lies in hypocrisy.
19. It may be well that Faustus, or at least that those who are
charmed with Faustusâ writings, should know that the doctrine of a
single principle did not come to us from the Gentiles; for the belief
in one true God, from whom every kind of nature is derived, is a part
of the original truth retained among the Gentiles, notwithstanding
their having fallen away to many false gods. For the Gentile
philosophers had the knowledge of God, because, as the apostle says,
"the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."Â But, as
the apostle adds, "when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things."[748]748Â These are the idols of the
Gentiles, which they cannot explain except by referring to the
creatures made by God; so that this very explanation of their
idolatry, on which the more enlightened Gentiles were wont to pride
themselves as a proof of their superiority, shows the truth of the
following words of the apostle:Â "They worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever."[749]749Â
Where you differ from the Gentiles, you are in error; where you
resemble them, you are worse than they. You do not believe, as they
do, in a single principle; and so you fall into the impiety of
believing the substance of the one true God to be liable to
subjugation and corruption. As regards the worship of a plurality of
gods, the doctrine of lying devils has led the Gentiles to worship
many idols, and you to worship many phantasms.
20. We do not turn the sacrifices of the Gentiles into love-feasts,
as Faustus says we do. Our love-feasts are rather a substitute for
the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord, in the words already quoted:Â "I
will have mercy, and not sacrifice."Â At our love-feasts the poor
obtain vegetable or animal food; and so the creature of God is used,
as far as it is suitable, for the nourishment of man, who is also
Godâs creature. You have been led by lying devils, not in
self-denial, but in blasphemous error, "to abstain from meats which
God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which
believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and
nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."[750]750Â
In return for the bounties of the Creator, you ungratefully insult Him
with your impiety; and because in our love-feasts flesh is often given
to the poor, you compare Christian charity to Pagan sacrifices. This
indeed, is another point in which you resemble some Pagans. You
consider it a crime to kill animals, because you think that the souls
of men pass into them; which is an idea found in the writings of some
Gentile philosophers, although their successors appear to have thought
differently. But here again you are most in error: for they
dreaded slaughtering a relative in the animal; but you dread the
slaughter of your god, for you hold even the souls of animals to be
his members.
21. As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the
accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should
not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing
how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the
Manichæan inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion
found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished
from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into
martyrs, he speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and
appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food. Do you,
then, believe in shades? We never heard you speak of such things,
nor have we read of them in your books. In fact, you generally
oppose such ideas:Â for you tell us that the souls of the dead, if
they are wicked, or not purified, are made to pass through various
changes, or suffer punishment still more severe; while the good souls
are placed in ships, and sail through heaven to that imaginary region
of light which they died fighting for. According to you, then, no
souls remain near the burying-place of the body; and how can there be
any shades of the departed? What and where are they? Faustusâ love
of evil-speaking has made him forget his own creed; or perhaps he
spoke in his sleep about ghosts, and did not wake up even when he saw
his words in writing. It is true that Christians pay religious honor
to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to
obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers.Â
But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs,
although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at
the altar in the saintsâ burying-place ever says, We bring an offering
to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to
God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those
thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the
place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples,
and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard
the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards
holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are
prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel.Â
There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we
know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater
confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those
still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the
Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in
doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship
belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry,
which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we
never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to
a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is
instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of
caution. For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels,
refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone. We see this
in Paul and Barnabas, when the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to
them as gods, on account of the miracles they performed. They rent
their clothes, and restrained the people, crying out to them, and
persuading them that they were not gods. Â We see it also in the
angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow
himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, "I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethen."[751]751Â Those who claim this
worship are proud spirits, the devil and his angels, as we see in all
the temples and rites of the Gentiles. Some proud men, too, have
copied their example; as is related of some kings of Babylon. Thus
the holy Daniel was accused and persecuted, because when the king made
a decree that no petition should be made to any god, but only to the
king, he was found worshipping and praying to his own God, that is,
the one true God.[752]752Â As for those who drink to excess at the
feasts of the martyrs, we of course condemn their conduct; for to do
so even in their own houses would be contrary to sound doctrine. But
we must try to amend what is bad as well as prescribe what is good,
and must of necessity bear for a time with some things that are not
according to our teaching. The rules of Christian conduct are not to
be taken from the indulgences of the intemperate or the infirmities of
the weak. Still, even in this, the guilt of intemperance is much
less than that of impiety. To sacrifice to the martyrs, even
fasting, is worse than to go home intoxicated from their feast:Â to
sacrifice to the martyrs, I say, which is a different thing from
sacrificing to God in memory of the martyrs, as we do constantly, in
the manner required since the revelation of the New Testament, for
this belongs to the worship or latria which is due to God alone. But
it is vain to try to make these heretics understand the full meaning
of these words of the Psalmist:Â "He that offereth the sacrifice of
praise glorifieth me, and in this way will I show him my
salvation."[753]753Â Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood
of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the
passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice;
after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the
sacrament. Between the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the Hebrews
there is all the difference that there is between a false imitation
and a typical anticipation. We do not despise or denounce the
virginity of holy women because there were vestal virgins. And, in
the same way, it is no reproach to the sacrifices of our fathers that
the Gentiles also had sacrifices. The difference between the
Christian and vestal virginity is great, yet it consists wholly in the
being to whom the vow is made and paid; and so the difference in the
being to whom the sacrifices of the Pagans and Hebrews are made and
offered makes a wide difference between them. In the one case they
are offered to devils, who presumptuously make this claim in order to
be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honor. In the other
case they are offered to the one true God, as a type of the true
sacrifice, which also was to be offered to Him in the passion of the
body and blood of Christ.
22. Faustus is wrong in saying that our Jewish forefathers, in their
separation from the Gentiles, retained the temple, and sacrifices, and
altars, and priesthood, and abandoned only graven images or idols, for
they might have sacrificed, as some do, without any graven image, to
trees and mountains, or even to the sun and moon and the stars. If
they had thus rendered to these objects the worship called latria,
they would have served the creature instead of the Creator, and so
would have fallen into the serious error of heathenish superstition;
and even without idols, they would have found devils ready to take
advantage of their error, and to accept their offerings. For these
proud and wicked spirits feed not, as some foolishly suppose, on the
smell of the sacrifice, and the smoke, but on the errors of men.Â
They enjoy not bodily refreshment, but a malevolent gratification,
when they in any way deceive people, or when, with a bold assumption
of borrowed majesty, they boast of receiving divine honors. It was
not, therefore, only the idols of the Gentiles that our Jewish
forefathers abandoned. They sacrificed neither to the earth nor to
any earthly thing, nor to the sea, nor to heaven, nor to the hosts of
heaven, but laid the victims on the altar of the one God, Creator of
all, who required these offerings as a means of foreshadowing the true
victim, by whom He has reconciled us to Himself in the remission of
sins through our Lord Jesus Christ. So Paul, addressing believers,
who are made the body of which Christ is the Head, says:Â "I beseech
you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God."[754]754Â The
Manichæans, on the other hand, say that human bodies are the
workmanship of the race of darkness, and the prison in which the
captive deity is confined. Thus Faustusâ doctrine is very different
from Paulâs. But since whosover preaches to you another gospel than
that ye have received must be accursed, what Christ says in Paul is
the truth, while Manichæus in Faustus is accursed.
23. Faustus says also, without knowing what he says, that we have
retained the manners of the Gentiles. But seeing that the just lives
by faith, and that the end of the commandment is love out of a pure
heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, and that these
three, faith, hope, and love, abide to form the life of believers, it
is impossible that there should be similarity in the manners of those
who differ in these three things. Those who believe differently, and
hope differently, and love differently, must also live differently.Â
And if we resemble the Gentiles in our use of such things as food and
drink, and houses and clothes and baths, and those of us who marry, in
taking and keeping wives, and in begetting and bringing up children as
our heirs, there is still a great difference between the man who uses
these things for some end of his own, and the man who, in using them,
gives thanks to God, having no unworthy or erroneous ideas about
God. For as you, according to your own heresy, though you eat the
same bread as other men, and live upon the produce of the same plants
and the water of the same fountain, and are clothed like others in
wool and linen, yet lead a different life, not because you eat or
drink, or dress differently, but because you differ from others in
your ideas and in your faith, and in all these things have in view an
end of your ownâthe end, namely, set forth in your false doctrines; in
the same way we, though we resemble the Gentiles in the use of this
and other things, do not resemble them in our life; for while the
things are the same, the end is different:Â for the end we have in
view is, according to the just commandment of God, love out of a pure
heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned; from which some
having erred, are turned to vain jangling. In this vain jangling you
bear the palm, for you do not attend to the fact that so great is the
difference of life produced by a different faith, even when the things
in possession and use are the same, that though your followers have
wives, and in spite of themselves get children, for whom they gather
and store up wealth; though they eat flesh, drink wine, bathe, reap
harvests, gather vintages, engage in trade, and occupy high official
positions, you nevertheless reckon them as belonging to you, and not
to the Gentiles, though in their actions they approach nearer to the
Gentiles than to you. And though some of the Gentiles in some things
resemble you more than your own followers,âthose, for instance, who in
superstitious devotion abstain from flesh, and wine, and marriage,âyou
still count your own followers, even though they use all these things,
and so are unlike you, as belonging to the flock of Manichæus rather
than those who resemble you in their practices. You consider as
belonging to you a woman that believes in Manichæus, though she is a
mother, rather than a Sibyl, though she never marries. But you will
say that many who are called Catholic Christians are adulterers,
robbers, misers, drunkards, and whatever else is contrary to sound
doctrine. I ask if none such are to be found in your company, which
is almost too small to be called a company. And because there are
some among the Pagans who are not of this character, do you consider
them as better than yourselves? And yet, in fact, your heresy is so
blasphemous, that even your followers who are not of such a character
are worse than the Pagans who are. It is therefore no impeachment to
sound doctrine, which alone is Catholic, that many wish to take its
name, who will not yield to its beneficial influence. We must bear
in mind the true meaning of the contrast which the Lord makes between
the little company and the mass of mankind, as spread over all the
world; for the company of saints and believers is small, as the amount
of grain is small when compared with the heap of chaff; and yet the
good grain is quite sufficient far to outnumber you, good and bad
together, for good and bad are both strangers to the truth. In a
word, we are not a schism of the Gentiles, for we differ from them
greatly for the better; nor are you, for you differ from them greatly
for the worse.[755]755
ââââââââââââ
Book XXI.
Faustus denies that Manichæans believe in two gods. Hyle no god.Â
Augustin discusses at large the doctrine of God and Hyle, and fixes
the charge of dualism upon the Manichæans.
1. Faustus said: Do we believe in one God or in two? In one, of
course. If we are accused of making two gods, I reply that it cannot
be shown that we ever said anything of the kind. Why do you suspect
us of this? Because, you say, you believe in two principles, good
and evil. It is true, we believe in two principles; but one we call
God, and the other Hyle, or, to use common popular language, the
devil. If you think this means two gods, you may as well think that
the health and sickness of which doctors speak are two kinds of
health, or that good and evil are two kinds of good, or that wealth
and poverty are two kinds of wealth. If I were describing two
things, one white and the other black, or one hot and the other cold,
or one sweet and the other bitter, it would appear like idiocy or
insanity in you to say that I was describing two white things, or two
hot things, or two sweet things. So, when I assert that there are
two principles, God and Hyle, you have no reason for saying that I
believe in two gods. Do you think that we must call them both gods
because we attribute, as is proper, all the power of evil to Hyle, and
all the power of good to God? If so, you may as well say that a
poison and the antidote must both be called antidotes, because each
has a power of its own, and certain effects follow from the action of
both. So also, you may say that a physician and a poisoner are both
physicians; or that a just and an unjust man are both just, because
both do something. If this is absurd, it is still more absurd to say
that God and Hyle must both be gods, because they both produce certain
effects. It is a very childish and impotent way of arguing, when you
cannot refute my statements, to make a quarrel about names. I grant
that we, too, sometimes call the hostile nature God; not that we
believe it to be God, but that this name is already adopted by the
worshippers of this nature, who in their error suppose it to be God.Â
Thus the apostle says:Â "The god of this world has blinded the minds
of them that believe not."[756]756Â He calls him God, because he
would be so called by his worshippers; adding that he blinds their
minds, to show that he is not the true God.
2. Augustin replied: You often speak in your discourses of two
gods, as indeed you acknowledge, though at first you denied it. And
you give as a reason for thus speaking the words of the apostle:Â
"The god of this world has blinded the minds of them that believe
not."Â Most of us punctuate this sentence differently, and explain it
as meaning that the true God has blinded the minds of unbelievers.Â
They put a stop after the word God, and read the following words
together. Or without this punctuation you may, for the sake of
exposition, change the order of the words, and read, "In whom God has
blinded the minds of unbelievers of this world," which gives the same
sense. The act of blinding the minds of unbelievers may in one sense
be ascribed to God, as the effect not of malice, but of justice.Â
Thus Paul himself says elsewhere, "Is God unjust, who taketh
vengeance?"[757]757 and again, "What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For Moses saith, I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have compassion on whom I
will have compassion."Â Observe what he adds, after asserting the
undeniable truth that there is no unrighteousness with God:Â "But
what if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known,
endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for
destruction, and that He might manifest the riches of His grace
towards the vessels of mercy, which He hath before prepared unto
glory?"[758]758 etc. Here it evidently cannot be said that it is one
God who shows his wrath, and makes known his power in the vessels of
wrath fitted for destruction, and another God who shows his riches in
the vessels of mercy. According to the apostleâs doctrine, it is one
and the same God who does both. Hence he says again, "For this cause
God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart, to uncleanness, to
dishonor their own bodies between themselves;" and immediately after,
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;" and again,
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind."[759]759Â Here we see how the
true and just God blinds the minds of unbelievers. For in all these
words quoted from the apostle no other God is understood than He whose
Son, sent by Him, came saying, "For judgment am I come into this
world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see
might be made blind."[760]760Â Here, again, it is plain to the minds
of believers how God blinds the minds of unbelievers. For among the
secret things, which contain the righteous principles of Godâs
judgment, there is a secret which determines that the minds of some
shall be blinded, and the minds of some enlightened. Regarding this,
it is well said of God, "Thy judgments are a great deep."[761]761Â
The apostle, in admiration of the unfathomable depth of this abyss,
exclaims:Â "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and of the
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways
past finding out!"[762]762
3. You cannot distinguish between what God does in mercy and what He
does in judgment, because you can neither understand nor use the words
of our Psalter:Â "I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O
Lord."[763]763Â Accordingly, whatever in the feebleness of your frail
humanity seems amiss to you, you separate entirely from the will and
judgment of God:Â for you are provided with another evil god, not by
a discovery of truth, but by an invention of folly; and to this god
you attribute not only what you do unjustly, but also what you suffer
justly. Thus you assign to God the bestowal of blessings, and take
from Him the infliction of judgments, as if He of whom Christ says
that He has prepared everlasting fire for the wicked were a different
being from Him who makes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Why do you not
understand that this great goodness and great severity belong to one
God, but because you have not learned to sing of mercy and judgment?Â
Is not He who causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
sends rain on the just and on the unjust, the same who also breaks off
the natural branches, and engrafts contrary to nature the wild olive
tree? Does not the apostle, in reference to this, say of this one
God:Â "Thou seest, then, the goodness and severity of God:Â to them
which were broken off, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou
continue in His goodness?"[764]764Â Here it is to be observed how the
apostle takes away neither judicial severity from God, nor free-will
from man. It is a profound mystery, impenetrable by human thought,
how God both condemns the ungodly and justifies the ungodly; for both
these things are said of Him in the truth of the Holy Scriptures.Â
But is the mysteriousness of the divine judgments any reason for
taking pleasure in cavilling against them? How much more becoming,
and more suitable to the limitation of our powers, to feel the same
awe which the apostle felt, and to exclaim, "O the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are
His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"Â How much better thus
to admire what you cannot explain, than to try to make an evil god in
addition to the true God, simply because you cannot understand the one
good God! For it is not a question of names, but of actions.
4. Faustus glibly defends himself by saying, "We speak not of two
gods, but of God and Hyle."Â But when you ask for the meaning of
Hyle, you find that it is in fact another god. If the Manichæans
gave the name of Hyle, as the ancients did, to the unformed matter
which is susceptible of bodily forms, we should not accuse them of
making two gods. But it is pure folly and madness to give to matter
the power of forming bodies, or to deny that what has this power is
God. When you give to some other being the power which belongs to
the true God of making the qualities and forms, by which bodies,
elements, and animals exist, according to their respective modes,
whatever name you choose to give to this being, you are chargeable
with making another god. There are indeed two errors in this
blasphemous doctrine. In the first place, you ascribe the act of God
to a being whom you are ashamed to call god; though you must call him
god as long as you make him do things which only God can do. In the
second place, the good things done by a good God you call bad, and
ascribe to an evil god, because you feel a childish horror of whatever
shocks the frailty of fallen humanity, and a childish pleasure in the
opposite. So you think snakes are made by an evil being; while you
consider the sun so great a good, that you believe it to be not the
creature of God, but an emission from His substance. You must know
that the true God, in whom, alas, you have not yet come to believe,
made both the snake along with the lower creatures, and the sun along
with other exalted creatures. Moreover, among still more exalted
creatures, not heavenly bodies, but spiritual beings, He has made what
far surpasses the light of the sun, and what no carnal man can
perceive, much less you, who, in your condemnation of flesh, condemn
the very principle by which you determine good and evil. For your
only idea of evil is from the disagreeableness of some things to the
fleshly sense; and your only idea of good is from sensual
gratification.
5. When I consider the things lowest in the scale of nature, which
are within our view, and which, though earthly, and feeble, and
mortal, are still the works of God, I am lost in admiration of the
Creator, who is so great, in the great works and no less great in the
small. For the divine skill seen in the formation of all creatures
in heaven and earth is always like itself, even in those things that
differ from one another; for it is everywhere perfect, in the
perfection which it gives to everything in its own kind. We see each
creature made not as a whole by itself, but in relation to the rest of
the creation; so that the whole divine skill is displayed in the
formation of each, arranging each in its proper place and order, and
providing what is suitable for all, both separately and unitedly.Â
See here, lowest in the scale, the animals which fly, and swim, and
walk, and creep. These are mortal creatures, whose life, as it is
written, "is as a vapor which appeareth for a little time."[765]765Â
Each of these, according to the capacity of its kind, contributes the
measure appointed in the goodness of the Creator to the completeness
of the whole, so that the lowest partake in the good which the highest
possess in a greater degree. Show me, if you can, any animal,
however despicable, whose soul hates its own flesh, and does not
rather nourish and cherish it, by its vital motion minister to its
growth and direct its activity, and exercise a sort of management over
a little universe of its own, which it makes subservient to its own
preservation. Even in the discipline of his own body by a rational
being, who brings his body under, that earthly passion may not hinder
his perception of wisdom, there is love for his own flesh, which he
then reduces to obedience, which is its proper condition. Indeed,
you yourselves, although your heresy teaches you a fleshly abhorrence
of the flesh, cannot help loving your own flesh, and caring for its
safety and comfort, both by avoiding all injury from blows, and falls,
and inclement weather, and by seeking for the means of keeping it in
health. Thus the law of nature is too strong for your false
doctrine.
6. Looking at the flesh itself, do we not see in the construction of
its vital parts, in the symmetry of form, in the position and
arrangement of the limbs of action and the organs of sensation, all
acting in harmony; do we not see in the adjustment of measures, in the
proportion of numbers, in the order of weights, the handiwork of the
true God, of whom it is truly said, "Thou hast ordered all things in
measure, and number, and weight"?[766]766Â If your heart was not
hardened and corrupted by falsehood, you would understand the
invisible things of God from the things which He has made, even in
these feeble creatures of flesh. For who is the author of the things
I have mentioned, but He whose unity is the standard of all measure,
whose wisdom is the model of all beauty, and whose law is the rule of
all order? If you are blind to these things, hear at least the words
of the apostle.
7. For the apostle, in speaking of the love which husbands ought to
have for their wives gives, as an example, the love of the soul for
the body. The words are: "He that loveth his wife, loveth
himself:Â for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as Christ the Church."[767]767Â Look at the whole
animal creation, and you find in the instinctive self-preservation of
every animal this natural principle of love to its own flesh. It is
so not only with men, who, when they live aright, both provide for the
safety of their flesh, and keep their carnal appetites in subjection
to the use of reason; the brutes also avoid pain, and shrink from
death, and escape as rapidly as they can from whatever might break up
the construction of their bodies, or dissolve the connection of spirit
and flesh; for the brutes, too, nourish and cherish their own flesh.Â
"For no one ever yet," says the apostle, "hated his own flesh, but
nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the Church."Â See where
the apostle begins, and to what he ascends. Consider, if you can,
the greatness which creation derives from its Creator, embracing as it
does the whole extent from the host of heaven down to flesh and blood,
with the beauty of manifold form, and the order of successive
gradations.
8. The same apostle again, when speaking of spiritual gifts as
diverse, and yet tending to harmonious action, to illustrate a matter
so great, and divine, and mysterious, makes a comparison with the
human body,âthus plainly intimating that this flesh is the handiwork
of God. The whole passage, as found in the Epistle to the
Corinthians, is so much to the point, that though it is long, I think
it not amiss to insert it all:Â "Now concerning spiritual gifts,
brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were
Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.Â
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit
of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is
the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts,
but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of administrations,
but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it
is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of
the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is
given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of
knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to
another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the
working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of
spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the
interpretation of tongues:Â but all these worketh that one and the
self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will. For as
the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that
one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink
into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the
foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am
not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the
whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set
the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him.Â
And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are
they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the
hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have
no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem
to be more feeble, are necessary; and those members of the body which
we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant
honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our
comely parts have no need; but God hath tempered the body together,
having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked:Â that
there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should
have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer,
all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the
members rejoice with it."[768]768Â Apart altogether from Christian
faith, which would lead you to believe the apostle, if you have common
sense to perceive what is self-evident, let each examine and see for
himself the plain truth regarding those things of which the apostle
speaks,âwhat greatness belongs to the least, and what goodness to the
lowest; for these are the things which the apostle extols, in order to
illustrate by means of these common and visible bodily objects, unseen
spiritual realities of the most exalted nature.
9. Whoever, then, denies that our body and its members, which the
apostle so approves and extols, are the handiwork of God, you see whom
he contradicts, preaching contrary to what you have received. So,
instead of refuting his opinions, I may leave him to be accursed of
all Christians. The apostle says, God tempered the body. Faustus
says, Not God, but Hyle. Anathemas are more suitable than arguments
to such contradictions. You cannot say that God is here called the
God of this world. And if any one understands the passage where this
expression does occur to mean that the devil blinds the minds of
unbelievers, we grant that he does so by his evil suggestions, from
yielding to which, men lose the light of righteousness in Godâs
righteous retribution. This is all in accordance with sacred
Scripture. The apostle himself speaks of temptation from without:Â
"I fear lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so
your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is
in Christ."[769]769Â To the same purpose are the words, "Evil
communications corrupt good manners;"[770]770 and when he speaks of a
man deceiving himself, "Whoever thinketh himself to be anything, when
he is nothing, deceiveth himself;"[771]771 or again, in the passage
already quoted of the judgment of God, "God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient."[772]772Â Similarly, in the Old Testament, after the
words, "God did not create death, nor hath He pleasure in the
destruction of the living," we read, "By the envy of the devil death
entered into the world."[773]773Â And again of death, that men may
not put the blame from themselves, "The wicked invite her with hands
and voice; and thinking her a friend, they are drawn down."[774]774Â
Elsewhere, however, it is said, "Good and evil, life and death, riches
and poverty, are from the Lord God."[775]775Â This seems perplexing
to people who do not understand that, apart from the manifest judgment
to follow hereafter upon every evil work, there is an actual judgment
at the time; so that in one action, besides the craft of the deceiver
and the wickedness of the voluntary agent, there is also the just
penalty of the judge:Â for while the devil suggests, and man
consents, God abandons. So, if you join the words, God of this
world, and understand that the devil blinds unbelievers by his
mischievous delusions, the meaning is not a bad one. For the word
God is not used by itself, but with the qualification of this world,
that is, of wicked men, who seek to prosper only in this age. In
this sense the world is also called evil, where it is written, "that
He might deliver us from this present evil age."[776]776Â In the same
way, in the expression, "whose god is their belly," it is only in
connection with the word whose that the belly is called god. So
also, in the Psalms, the devils would not be called gods without
adding "of the nations."[777]777Â But in the passage we are now
considering it is not said, The god of this world, or, Whose god is
their belly, or, The gods of the nations are devils; but simply, God
has tempered the body, which can be understood only of the true God,
the Creator of all. There is no disparaging addition here, as in the
other cases. But perhaps Faustus will say that God tempered the
body, not as the maker of it, in the arrangement of its members, but
by mixing His light with it. Thus Faustus would attribute to some
other being than God the construction of the body, and the arrangement
of its members, while God tempered the evil of the construction by the
mixture of His goodness. Such are the inventions with which the
Manichæans cram feeble minds. But God, in aid of the feeble, by the
mouth of the sacred writers rebukes this opinion. For we read a few
verses before:Â "God has placed the members every one of them in the
body, as it has pleased Him."Â Evidently, God is said to have
tempered the body, because He has constructed it of many members,
which in their union preserve the variety of their respective
functions.
10. Do the Manichæans suppose that the animals which, according to
their wild notions, were constructed by Hyle in the race of darkness,
had not this harmonious action of their members, commended by the
apostle, before God mixed His light with them; so that then the head
did say to the feet, or the eye to the hand, I have no need of thee?Â
This is not and cannot be the Manichæan doctrine, for they describe
the animals as using all these members, and speak of them as creeping,
walking, swimming, flying, each in its own kind. They could all see,
too, and hear, and use the other senses, and nourish and cherish their
own bodies with appropriate means and appliances. Hence, moreover,
they had the power of reproduction, for they are spoken of as having
offspring. All these things, of which Faust speaks disparagingly as
the works of Hyle, could not be done without that harmonious
arrangement which the apostle praises and ascribes to God. Is it not
now plain who is to be followed, and who is to be pronounced
accursed? Indeed, the Manichæans tell us of animals that could
speak; and their speeches were heard and understood and approved of by
all creatures, whether creeping things, or quadrupeds, or birds, or
fish. Amazing and supernatural eloquence! Especially as they had
no grammarian or elocutionist to teach them, and had not passed
through the painful experience of the cane and the birch. Why,
Faustus himself began late in life to learn oratory, that he might
discourse eloquently on these absurdities; and with all his
cleverness, after ruining his health by study, his preaching has
gained a mere handful of followers. What a pity that he was born in
the light, and not in that region of darkness! If he had discoursed
there against the light, the whole animal creation, from the biped to
the centipede, from the dragon to the shell-fish, would have listened
eagerly, and obeyed at once; whereas, when he discourses here against
the race of darkness, he is oftener called eloquent than learned, and
oftener still a false teacher of the worst kind. And among the few
Manichæans who extol him as a great teacher, he has none of the lower
animals as his disciples; and not even his horse is any the wiser for
his masterâs instructions, so that the mixture of a part of deity
seems only to make the animals more stupid. What absurdity is
this! When will these deluded beings have the sense to compare the
description in the Manichæan fiction of what the animals were
formerly in their own region, with what they are now in this world?Â
Then their bodies were strong, now they are feeble; then their power
of vision was such that they were induced to invade the region of God
on account of the beauty which they saw, now it is too weak to face
the rays of the sun; then they had intelligence sufficient to
understand a discourse addressed to them, now they have no ability of
the kind; then this astonishing and effective eloquence was natural,
now eloquence of the most meagre kind requires diligent study and
preparation. How many good things did the race of darkness lose by
the mixture of good!
11. Faustus has displayed his ingenuity, in the remarks to which I
am now replying, by making for himself a long list of oppositesâhealth
and sickness, riches and poverty, white and black, cold and hot, sweet
and bitter. We need not say much about black and white. Or, if
there is a character for good or evil in colors, so that white must be
ascribed to God and black to Hyle; if God threw a white color on the
wings of birds, when Hyle, as the Manichæans say, created them, where
had the crows gone to when the swans got whitened? Nor need we
discuss heat and cold, for both are good in moderation, and dangerous
in excess. With regard to the rest, Faustus probably intended that
good and evil, which he might as well have put first, should be
understood as including the rest, so that health, riches, white, hot,
sweet, should belong to good; and sickness, poverty, black, cold,
bitter, to evil. The ignorance and folly of this is obvious. It
might look like reviling if I were to take up separately white and
black, hot and cold, sweet and bitter, health and sickness. For if
white and sweet are both good, and black and bitter evil, how is it
that most grapes and all olives become black as they become sweet, and
so get good by getting evil? And if heat and health are both good,
and cold and sickness evil, why do bodies become sick when heated?Â
Is it healthy to have fever? But I let these things pass, for they
may have been put down hastily, or they may have been given as merely
instances of opposition, and not as being good and bad, especially as
it is nowhere stated that the fire among the race of darkness is cold,
so that heat in this case must unquestionably be evil.
12. We pass on, then, to health, riches, sweetness, which Faustus
evidently accounts good in his contrasts. Was there no health of
body in the race of darkness where animals were born and grew up and
brought forth, and had such vitality, that when some that were with
child were taken, as the story is, and were put in bonds in heaven,
even the abortive offspring of a premature birth, falling from heaven
to earth, nevertheless lived, and grew, and produced the innumerable
kinds of animals which now exist? Or were there no riches where
trees could grow not only in water and wind, but in smoke and fire,
and could bear such a rich produce, that animals, according to their
several kinds, sprang from the fruit, and were provided with the means
of subsistence from those fertile trees, and showed how well fed they
were by a numerous progeny? And all this where there was no toil in
cultivation, and no inclement change from summer to winter, for there
was no sun to give variety to the seasons by his annual course.Â
There must have been perennial productiveness where the trees were not
only born in their own element, but had a supply of appropriate
nourishment to make them constantly fertile; as we see orange-trees
bearing fruit all the year round if they are well watered. The
riches must have been abundant, and they must have been secure from
harm; for there could be no fear of hailstorms when there were no
light-gatherers who, in your fable, set the thunder in motion.
13. Nor would the beings in this race of darkness have sought for
food if it had not been sweet and pleasant, so that they would have
died from want. For we find that all bodies have their peculiar
wants, according to which food is either agreeable or offensive. If
it is agreeable, it is said to be sweet or pleasant; if it is
offensive, it is said to be bitter or sour, or in some way
disagreeable. In human beings we find that one desires food which
another dislikes, from a difference in constitution or habit or state
of health. Still more, animals of quite different make can find
pleasure in food which is disagreeable to us. Why else should the
goats feed so eagerly on the wild olives? This food is sweet to
them, as in some sicknesses honey tastes bitter to us. To a
thoughtful inquirer these things suggest the beauty of the arrangement
in which each finds what suits it, and the greatness of the good which
extends from the lowest to the highest, and from the material to the
spiritual. As for the race of darkness, if an animal sprung from any
element fed on what was produced by that element, doubtless the food
must have been sweet from its appropriateness. Again, if this animal
had found food of another element, the want of appropriateness would
have appeared in its offensiveness to the taste. Such offensiveness
is called sourness, or bitterness, or disagreeableness, or something
of the kind; or if its adverse nature is such as to destroy the
harmony of the bodily constitution, and so take away life or reduce
the strength, it is called poison, simply on account of this want of
appropriateness, while it may nourish the kind of life to which it is
appropriate. So, if a hawk eat the bread which is our daily food, it
dies; and we die if we eat hellebore, which cattle often feed on, and
which may itself in a certain form be used as a medicine. If Faustus
had known or thought of this, he would not have given poison and
antidote as an example of the two natures of good and evil, as if God
were the antidote and Hyle the poison. For the same thing, of one
and the same nature, kills or cures, as it is used appropriately or
inappropriately. In the Manichæan legends, their god might be said
to have been poison to the race of darkness; for he so injured their
bodies, that from being strong, they became utterly feeble. But then
again, as the light was itself taken, and subjected to loss and
injury, it may be said to have been poison to itself.
14. Instead of one good and one evil principle, you seem to make
both good or both evil, or rather two good and two evil; for they are
good in themselves, and evil to one another. We may see afterwards
which is the better or the worse; but meanwhile we may think of them
as both good in themselves. Thus God reigned in one region, while
Hyle reigned in the other. There was health in both kingdoms, and
rich produce in both; both had a numerous progeny, and both tasted the
sweetness of pleasures suitable to their respective natures. But the
race of darkness, say the Manichæans, excepting the part which was
evil to the light which it bordered on, was also evil to itself. As,
however, I have already pointed out many good things in it, if you can
point out its evils, there will still be two good kingdoms, though the
one where there are no evils will be the better of the two. What,
then, do you call its evils? They plundered, and killed, and
devoured one another, according to Faustus. But if they did nothing
else than this, how could such numerous hosts be born and grow up to
maturity? They must have enjoyed peace and tranquillity too. But,
allowing the kingdom where there is no discord to be the better of the
two, still they should both be called good, rather than one good and
the other bad. Thus the better kingdom will be that where they
killed neither themselves nor one another; and the worse, or less
good, where, though they fought with one another, each separate animal
preserved its own nature in health and safety. But we cannot make
much difference between your god and the prince of darkness, whom no
one opposed, whose reign was acknowledged by all, and whose proposals
were unanimously agreed to. All this implies great peace and
harmony. Those kingdoms are happy where all agree heartily in
obedience to the king. Moreover, the rule of this prince extended
not only to his own species, or to bipeds whom you make the parents of
mankind, but to all kinds of animals, who waited in his presence,
obeying his commands, and believing his declarations. Do you think
people are so stupid as not to recognize the attributes of deity in
your description of this prince, or to think it possible that you can
have another? If the authority of this prince rested on his
resources, he must have been very powerful; if on his fame, he must
have been renowned; if on love, the regard must have been universal;
if on fear, he must have kept the strictest order. If some evils,
then, were mixed with so many good things, who that knows the meaning
of words would call this the nature of evil? Besides, if you call
this the nature of evil, because it was not only evil to the other
nature, but was also evil in itself, was there no evil, think you, in
the dire necessity to which your god was subjected before the mixture
with the opposite nature, so that he was compelled to fight with it,
and to send his own members to be swallowed up so mercilessly as to be
beyond the hope of complete recovery? This was a great evil in that
nature before its mixture with the only thing you allow to be evil.Â
Your god must either have had it in his power not to be injured and
sullied by the race of darkness, in which case his own folly must have
brought him into trouble; or if his substance was liable to
corruption, the object of your worship is not the incorruptible God of
whom the apostle speaks.[778]778Â Does not, then this liability to
corruption, even apart from the actual experience, seem to you to be
an evil in your god?
15. It is plain, moreover, that either he must have been destitute
of prescience,âa great defect, surely, in the Deity, not to know what
is coming; or if he had prescience, he can never have felt secure, but
must have been in constant terror, which you must allow to be a
serious evil. There must have been the fear at every moment, that
the time might be come for that conflict in which his members suffered
such loss and contamination, that to liberate and purify them costs
infinite labor, and, after all, can be done only partially. If it is
going too far to attribute this state of alarm to the Deity himself,
his members at least must have dreaded the prospect of suffering all
these evils. Then, again, if they were ignorant of what was to
happen, the substance of your god must have been so far wanting in
prescience. How many evils do you reckon in your chief good?Â
Perhaps you will say that they had no fear, because they foresaw,
along with the suffering, their liberation and triumph. But still
they must have feared for their companions, if they knew that they
were to be cut off from their kingdom, and bound for ever in the mass
of darkness.
16. Had they not the charity to feel a kindly sympathy for those who
were doomed to suffer eternal punishment, without having committed any
sin? These souls that were to be bound up with the mass, were not
they too part of your god? Were they not of the same origin, the
same substance? They at least must have felt grief or fear in the
prospect of their own eternal bondage. To say that they did not know
what was to happen, while the others did, is to make one and the same
substance partly acquainted with the future, and partly ignorant.Â
How can you call this substance the pure, and perfect, and supreme
good, if there were such evils in it, even before its mixture with the
evil principle? You will have to confess your two principles either
both good or both evil. If you make two evils, you may make either
of them the worse, as you please. But if you make two goods, we
shall have to inquire which you make the better. Meanwhile there is
an end to your doctrine of two principles, one good and the other
evil, which are in fact two gods, one good and the other evil. But
if hurting another is evil, they both hurt one another. Perhaps the
greater evil was in the principle that first began the attack. But
if one began the injury, the other returned it; and not by the law of
compensation, an eye for an eye, which you are foolish enough to find
fault with, but with far greater severity. You must choose which you
will call the worse,âthe one that began the injury, or the one that
had the will and the power to do still greater injury. The one tried
to get a share in the enjoyment of light; the other effected the
entire overthrow of its opponent. If the one had got what it
desired, it would certainly have done no harm to itself. But the
other, in the discomfiture of its adversary, did great mischief to
part of itself; reminding us of the well-known passionate exclamation,
which is on record as having been actually used, "Perish our friends,
if that will rid us of our enemies."[779]779Â For part of your god
was sent to suffer hopeless contamination, that there might be a
covering for the mass in which the enemy is to be buried for ever
alive. So much will he continue to be dreaded even when conquered
and bound, that the security, such as it is, of one part of the deity
must be purchased by the eternal misery of the other parts. Such is
the harmlessness of the good principle! Your god, it appears, is
guilty of the crime with which you charge the race of darknessâof
injuring both friends and enemies. The charge is proved in the case
of your god, by that final mass in which his enemies are confined,
while his own subjects are involved in it. In fact, the principle
that you call god is the more injurious of the two, both to friends
and to enemies. In the case of Hyle, there was no desire to destroy
the opposite kingdom, but only to possess it; and though some of its
subjects were put to death by the violence of others, they appeared
again in other forms, so that in the alternation of life and death
they had intervals of enjoyment in their history. But your god, with
all the omnipotence and perfect excellence that you ascribe to him,
dooms his enemies to eternal destruction, and his friends to eternal
punishment. And the height of insanity is in believing that while
internal contest occasions the injury of the members of Hyle, victory
brings punishment to the members of God. What means this folly? To
use Faustusâ comparison of God and Hyle to the antidote and poison,
the antidote seems to be more mischievous than the poison. We do not
hear of Hyle shutting up God for ever in a mass of darkness, or
driving its own members into it; or, which is worst of all, slandering
this unfortunate remnant, as an excuse for not effecting its
purification. For Manichæus, in his Fundamental Epistle, says that
these souls deserved to be thus punished, because they allowed
themselves to be led away from their original brightness, and became
enemies of holy light; whereas it was God himself that sent them to
lose themselves in the region of darkness, that light might be opposed
to light:Â which was unjust, if he forced them against their will;
while, if they went willingly, he is ungrateful in punishing them.Â
These souls can never have been happy, if they were tormented with
fear before the conflict, from knowing that they were to become
enemies to their original principle, and then in the conflict were
hopelessly contaminated, and afterwards eternally condemned. On the
other hand, they can never have been divine, if before the conflict
they were unaware of what was coming, from want of prescience, and
then showed feebleness in the conflict, and suffered misery
afterwards. And what is true of them must be true of God, since they
are of the same substance. Is there any hope of your seeing the
folly of these blasphemies? You attempt, indeed, to vindicate the
goodness of God, by asserting that Hyle when shut up is prevented from
doing any more injury to itself. Hyle, it seems, is to get some
good, when it has no longer any good mixed with it. Perhaps, as God
before the conflict had the evil of necessity, when the good was
unmixed with evil, so Hyle after the conflict is to have the good of
rest, when the evil is unmixed with good. Your principles are thus
either two evils, one worse than the other; or two goods, both
imperfect, but one better than the other. The better, however, is
the more miserable; for if the issue of this great conflict is that
the enemy gets some good by the cessation of mutual injuries in Hyle,
while Godâs own subjects suffer the serious evil of being driven into
the mass of darkness, we may ask who has got the victory. The
poison, we are to understand, is Hyle, where, nevertheless, animal
life found a plentiful supply of the means of growth and
productiveness; while the antidote is God, who could condemn his own
members, but could not restore them. In reality, it is as absurd to
call the one Hyle, as it is to call the other God. These are the
follies of men who turn to fables because they cannot bear sound
doctrine.[780]780
ââââââââââââ
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."Â 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.Â
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;[781]781 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.[782]782Â The
narrative is not ours, which tells how Lot, Abrahamâs brother, after
his escape from Sodom, lay with his two daughters on the
mountain[783]783 (better for him to have perished in the conflagration
of Sodom, than to have burned with incestuous passion); or how Isaac
imitated his fatherâs conduct, and called his wife Rebecca his sister,
that he might gain a shameful livelihood by her;[784]784 or how his
son Jacob, husband of four wivesâtwo full sisters, Rachel and Leah,
and their handmaidsâled 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;[785]785 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 harlotâs dress which
Tamar put on, knowing that her father-in-law was in the habit of
associating with such characters;[786]786 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;[787]787 or how his son
Solomon had three hundred wives, and seven hundred concubines, and
princesses without number;[788]788 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;[789]789 or how Moses
committed murder,[790]790 and plundered Egypt,[791]791 and waged wars,
and commanded, or himself perpetrated, many cruelties.[792]792Â 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?Â
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."[793]793Â 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."Â
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;"[794]794 and
again, "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath
shined in our hearts."[795]795Â So also, in the Old Testament, the
name "Brightness of eternal light"[796]796 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."[797]797Â 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 Manichæus, 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."[798]798Â "God is light, and
in Him is no darkness at all;" but the wicked shall not see light, as
is said in Isaiah.[799]799Â 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."Â From what light this light came is clear; for the
words are, "God said."Â 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."[800]800Â 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:Â 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 Godâs 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? Godâs 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 Manichæans 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 Manichæans 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 Christâs 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."[801]801Â We have already given our
explanation of the words, "God saw that it was good."Â Better men may
give a better explanation. Meanwhile let the Manichæans explain
Christâs 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 Christâs 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
Godâs saying, "Where art thou, Adam?"[802]802 the same may be said of
Christâs asking, "Who touched me?"[803]803Â 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;"[804]804 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;"[805]805 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;"[806]806 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:Â with His friends, because He said, "The servant that
knows his lordâs 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;"[807]807 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:Â "They that have
sinned without law shall perish without law, and they that have sinned
in the law shall be judged by the law."[808]808Â 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;[809]809 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;"[810]810
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 Godâs 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;"[811]811 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?"[812]812Â 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;"[813]813 and, "If we receive
good at the hand of the Lord, shall we not also receive
evil?"[814]814Â So we read also in the New Testament, "Whom I love I
rebuke and chasten;"[815]815 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."[816]816Â If a
Pagan were to make such objections to the New Testament, would not the
Manichæans 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:Â 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
Manichæans, 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 Manichæans 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 Paulâs speech at Athens.[817]817Â 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:Â 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:Â 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.[818]818Â 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.[819]819Â 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.[820]820Â 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.Â
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 Godâs 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
bridegroomâs 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 Faustusâ 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.Â
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.[821]821Â 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 Manichæans
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:Â for strength is perfected
in weakness."[822]822Â Here a just man is not spared that his
strength might be perfected in weakness by Him who had given him an
angel of Satan to buffet him. If you say that the devil gave this
angel, it follows that the devil sought to prevent Paulâs 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:Â "I have delivered them to Satan, that
they may learn not to blaspheme."[823]823Â 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:Â "Thou couldst have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above."[824]824Â
Paul also, besides recording his own experience, says that the
afflictions and persecutions of the righteous exhibit the judgment of
God.[825]825Â This truth is set forth at length by the Apostle Peter
in the passage already quoted, where he says:Â "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?"[826]826Â 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:Â "It is better, if the will of
the Spirit of God be so, that we suffer for well-doing than for
evil-doing."[827]827Â 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:Â 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 anger, 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 Manichæans, 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.Â
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:Â "If one member suffers, all the members suffer with
it."[828]828Â 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.Â
Conquered already by this greater enemy, he fought under his
conquerorâs 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?Â
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"?Â
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, Godâs own members, his
substanceâin 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 Godâs 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 Faustusâ last charge against our
God), than to have been so cruel to his own members,âfirst 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.Â
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 free-will, and place it in a fabulous nature of evil.Â
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 this, to choose the god whom we
indeed do not worship, but whom you think or pretend to think we
worship? Though he spares not his servants, whether righteous or
sinful, making no proper separation, and not distinguishing between
punishment and discipline, is he not better than the god who spares
not his own members though innocent, if necessity is no crime, or
guilty from their 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 been 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.[829]829
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 Manichæus, 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 Manichæans,
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,ânot discerning
between the manner of the time when the promise was under a veil, and
that of the time when the promise is revealed,âI 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;[830]830 or with childishness, because He stooped down and
wrote on the ground, and, after answering the people who were
questioning Him, began writing again.[831]831Â 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.[832]832Â 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.[833]833Â Hence it may with reason be said, that as the
poetical usage of words differs from the solecisms and barbarisms of
the unlearned, so, in 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 wifeâs
handmaid, ought to be corrected not by caning only, but by severe
scourging, that he may not suffer the doom of adulterers in eternal
punishment. This indeed is a comparison of great and important
subjects with trifles; and it is not intended that a 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.[834]834
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.Â
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.Â
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.[835]835Â 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 incorruption laid up in heaven, and of the perfecting
of righteousness to the measure of an inexpressible satisfaction, for
which in our pilgrimage we must hunger and 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.Â
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 Abrahamâs intercourse with the handmaid.Â
For as the eternal lawâthat is, the will of God the Creator of allâfor
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 Manichæans, 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.Â
Instead, therefore, of an irrational craving in Abraham to have
children, we find in Manichæus 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 wifeâs being privy to her
husbandâs 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 husbandâs body, as he has over hers;[836]836 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,âthe 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,[837]837 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 out of a manâs own body, else
the apostle could not call us the seed of Abraham:Â 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."[838]838Â 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.Â
In other cases, Faustusâ 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:Â 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, lest he himself should be
killed, and his wife fall into the hands of strangers and
evil-doers:Â 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 Abrahamâs wife, restored her with honor uninjured.Â
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:Â he concealed part of the truth, but said nothing false.
35. Â It is waste of time to observe Faustusâ 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 Manichæus 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.Â
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;"[839]839
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.[840]840Â And, by
the same use of the word, those called in the Gospel the Lordâs
brothers are certainly not children of the Virgin Mary, but all the
blood relations of the Lord.[841]841
36. Some may say, Why did not Abrahamâs 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."[842]842 Â 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;[843]843 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,[844]844ânot
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:[845]845Â 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,âhis life,
namely,âto avoid tempting God he did what he could; and in what he
could not do, he trusted to God. Unable to conceal his being a man,
he concealed his being a husband, lest he should be put to death;
trusting to God to preserve his wifeâs purity.
37. There might also be a difference of opinion on the nice point
whether Saraâs chastity would have been violated even if some one had
intercourse with her, since she submitted to this to save her
husbandâs life, both with his knowledge and by his authority. In
this there would be no desertion of conjugal fidelity or rebellion
against her husbandâs 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 wifeâs 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:Â so that
we regard the explanation already given of Abrahamâs 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,"[846]846 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.[847]847Â 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."[848]848Â 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."Â 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;"[849]849 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:Â "He is both a man, and who shall know Him?"[850]850Â 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 Faustusâ 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. Lotâs wife was the
type of a different class of men,âof 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.[851]851Â The Lord Himself says:Â "No man that putteth his
hand to the plough, and looketh back, is fit for the kingdom of
Heaven."[852]852Â Nor did He omit to mention the case of Lotâs 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 Lotâs
wife."[853]853Â 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.Â
"The law is good" says the apostle, "if a man use it
lawfully."[854]854
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 Lotâs 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 Faustusâ 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 Lotâs 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, Lotâs
daughters thought it necessary to fulfill it without his knowledge.Â
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.Â
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 manâs sins.Â
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 Lotâs daughters the action is related, not commended.Â
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 manâs sin. It is Godâs writing, but not His doing; He does
not propose these things for our imitation, but holds them up for our
warning.
46. Faustusâ effrontery appears notably in his accusing Isaac also,
the son of Abraham of pretending that his wife Rebecca was his
sister.[855]855Â 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 Faustusâ 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:Â 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 Churchâs 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:Â 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,[856]856 and so make mistakes.Â
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.[857]857Â 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."[858]858Â 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 Christâs discipleship the
man sought not Christâs 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,ânot 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.[859]859 The Manichæans 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.Â
His being hired by one of his wives proves what is here said, in plain
opposition to the libels of the Manichæans. 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 Rachelâs 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."[860]860Â
Rachel had a bargain with her sister, and, being in her sisterâs 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."[861]861Â 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 Manichæans 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:Â 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.[862]862Â 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; but here the sons of the slaves receive
the land of promise along with the sons of the free women:Â 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,âone
temporal, in which we suffer pain, and one eternal, in which we shall
behold the blessedness of God. We see the one in the Lordâs passion,
and the other in His resurrection. The names of the women point to
this meaning:Â 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, Jacobâs 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.[863]863Â For Laban means making
white; and we read that Jacob served Laban for Rachel.[864]864Â 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:Â 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
neighborâs wife; Thou shall not covet thy neighborâs 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,âto be poor in spirit, to be meek,
to be a mourner, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, to be
merciful, pure, and a peacemaker.[865]865Â 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:Â "It is not the custom in our country to marry the
younger before the elder."[866]866Â 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."[867]867Â 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;"[868]868 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[869]869 for whom they are in labors more abundantly, in
stripes above measure, in deaths often,[870]870âfor whom they have
fightings without and fears within.[871]871Â 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,[872]872 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.Â
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[873]873), 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 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."[874]874Â Moreover, as the pure intellectual perception of
that which is not matter, and so is not the object of the bodliy
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 Leahâs 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."[875]875Â
To such the apostle says:Â "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?"[876]876Â 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:Â
"What they say, do; but do not after their works."[877]877Â And
again, the apostolic life, when enduring imprisonment, says:Â
"Whether Christ is preached in pretence or in truth, I therein do
rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."[878]878Â 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 Rachelâs 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.Â
So the apostle says, that it is proper to have a good report of those
that are without;[879]879 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
common 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 sonâs mandrakes also?"[880]880Â 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 sonâs
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.Â
This is clearly shown by Leahâs 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 sonâs mandrakes."[881]881Â 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:Â "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."[882]882
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 Scriptureânot 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 Manichæans, 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?[883]883
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.Â
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,[884]884 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.Â
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"ânot 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;[885]885 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 Manichæism 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.[886]886Â But this is
merely narrated without being condemned. Or if Manichæan 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?[887]887Â 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 Faustusâ calumnies is to damage this
very assertion, that Christ was born of the tribe of Judah.Â
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 Jacobâs family merely, and not Christâs birth, he might have
taken the case of Reuben the first-born, who committed the unnatural
crime of defiling his fatherâs bed, of which fornication the apostle
says, that it was not so much as named among the Gentiles.[888]888Â
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 harlotâs
disguise in this case, were it not that Tamarâs 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 Christâs 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,[889]889 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
goatsâthat is, from the righteous or the wicked.[890]890Â 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 Faustusâ 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.Â
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.[891]891Â So,
too, he was right in banishing those that had familiar spirits and
wizards out of the land.[892]892Â 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;[893]893 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.[894]894Â 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 Davidâs 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 Manichæans will find, if
they read the Scriptures, that God rebukes David more than Faustus
does.[895]895Â 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.[896]896Â They will
read of his memorable humility under divine chastisement, when the
kingly neck was so bowed under the Masterâs 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.[897]897Â 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 Davidâs heart smite him with regret for
having secretly cut off a small piece of Saulâs 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 themâhow, 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 fatherâs 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 Davidâs 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
Davidâs 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 pardonedâthat 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 Davidâs 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.[898]898Â 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,[899]899 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 Godâs 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.Â
For Christ, not by human sense, but by divine knowledge, could inspect
and infallibly discriminate the sources from which the words came.Â
Besides, there are multitudes who confess that Christ is the Son of
the living God, without meriting the same approval as Peterânot 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;[900]900 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 manâs 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;[901]901 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,"âfrom
which passage we have already sufficiently answered the presumptuous
cavils of the Manichæans;âthis Moses, the servant of the living, the
true, the most high God, that made heaven and earth, not of a foreign
substance, but of nothingânot from the pressure of necessity, but from
plenitude of goodnessânot by the suffering of His members, but by the
power of His word;âthis 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;âthis great and good man is not to be judged
of from Faustusâ 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.Â
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:Â 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."[902]902Â To take the sword is to
use weapons against a manâs 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 Faustusâ 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,[903]903 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, Godâs 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, Godâs 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?"[904]904Â 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 servantâs 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."Â The servants, however, were stopped when they wished
to do this prematurely:Â "Lest by chance, when ye would gather the
tares, ye root up the wheat also with them."[905]905Â 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 Lordâs permitting the devils to
enter the swine, which they asked to be allowed to do with a
mischievous intent,[906]906 especially as the Manichæans 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 Abrahamâs 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."Â 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
all 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."[907]907 But as the Manichæans are in the habit of
speaking evil of John, let them hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself
ordering this money to be given to Cæsar, which John tells the
soldiers to be content with. "Give," He says, "to Cæsar the things
that are Cæsarâs."[908]908 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:Â 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;[909]909 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,[910]910 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,âfor 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,âhow 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:Â but if any one strike thee on the right
cheek, turn to him the left also,"[911]911 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.Â
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 Christâwho called Saul by a voice from
heaven, and having changed him from a wolf to a sheep, sent him into
the midst of wolvesâto 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.[912]912Â
Peterâs 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 Fatherâs will had given Him.[913]913Â 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.Â
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.[914]914Â The patriarchs and prophets, then,
have a kingdom in this world, to show that these kingdoms, too, are
given and taken away by God:Â the apostles and martyrs had no kingdom
here, to show the superior desirableness of the kingdom of heaven.Â
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;[915]915 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,[916]916 "All kings of the earth shall bow to Him, all nations
shall serve Him,"[917]917 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 Manichæans 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.Â
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."Â 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 Lordâs
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."Â Hence we find Peter with a weapon when he cut off
the assailantâs 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.[918]918Â 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.Â
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 Godâs 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 Adamâs sin; and Scripture truly declares that in him all die, and
that by him sin entered into the world, and death by sin.[919]919Â
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;[920]920 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."[921]921Â 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 manâs 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,[922]922 who
can tell whether it may be good or bad in any particular caseâin time
of peace, to reign or to serve, or to be at ease or to dieâor 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.Â
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:Â "If Thou wilt
forgive their sin, forgive it; and if not, blot me out of Thy
book."[923]923Â 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.[924]924Â Others, too, he delivered up,
that they might learn not to blaspheme.[925]925Â In the apocryphal
books of the Manichæans 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 manâs
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 Manichæans, 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 Manichæans 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 Godâs 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 Faustusâ malicious and impious charges which has to
be answered, is about the Lordâs saying to the prophet Hosea, "Take
unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms."[926]926Â 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."[927]927Â 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 Manichæans 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 Faustusâ 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 manâs 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
Faustusâ 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;"[928]928 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,"[929]929 but
they have also children born into guilty bondage, as Simon was born of
Philip.[930]930Â 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."[931]931Â 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.Â
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."Â 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."[932]932Â 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 Tamarâs 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.[933]933Â The two sons of Judah represent two classes of kings
who governed illâthose 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 worldâthe 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 elder 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.[934]934Â 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.Â
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.Â
Again, in the time when Judah ceased to have a king of its own tribe,
the elder Herod does not count as one of the 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 Cæsar. 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 Lordâs
passion.[935]935Â 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
Cæsar."[936]936 Nor was Cæsar 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 Cæsar.
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:Â He is the desire of
nations."[937]937Â 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.[938]938Â Christ was born in the time of the elder Herod, and
suffered in the time of Herod the tetrarch. He who thus came to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel was typified by Judah when he went
to shear his sheep in Thamna, which means, 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;[939]939 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.[940]940Â On account of this vision,
among those born of woman, there has arisen no greater than
he;[941]941 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;[942]942 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.[943]943
86. Next, we have Tamar changing her dress; for Tamar also means
changing. Still, the name of bitterness must be retainedânot that
bitterness in which gall was given to the Lord, but that in which
Peter wept bitterly.[944]944Â For Judah means confession; and
bitterness is mingled with confession as a type of true repentance.Â
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."[945]945Â In the dress Tamar put on there is a confession
of sins; and Tamar sitting in this dress at the gate of Ãnan or Ãnaim,
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."[946]946Â 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:Â and whom He
justified, them He also glorified."[947]947Â 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!"[948]948Â 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 Davidâs 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?"[949]949Â Bersabee means, well of
satisfaction, or seventh well:Â 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;[950]950 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.[951]951Â To forty-nine, which is seven times seven, one is
added to denote unity. To this effect is the saying of the
apostle:Â "Bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[952]952Â 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.[953]953Â Uriah, Bersabeeâs 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 Solomonâs 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
Lotâs 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 prophetâs 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:Â 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:Â
for great shall be the day of Jezreel. Say ye unto your brethren, My
people; and to your sister, She hath found mercy."[954]954Â Since the
typical meaning of the command and of the prophetâs 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."[955]955Â 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:Â which
had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."[956]956Â 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."[957]957Â 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 Judæa which were in Christ;"[958]958 and
again, he explains the passage in the Psalms, where the Lord is called
the cornerstone,[959]959 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:Â 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;"[960]960
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."Â 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.[961]961
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;[962]962 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.[963]963Â 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 Manichæans 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."[964]964Â 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."[965]965
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.Â
But why should he have made them drink it? Every one must feel
anxious to discover the typical significance of this action.Â
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."[966]966Â
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.Â
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;"[967]967 for, as there is nothing hid from His heat,[968]968
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."[969]969Â 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.Â
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 Manichæans 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 manâs 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 Manichæans falsely
and fanatically allege, they might still be shown to be superior not
only to those whom the Manichæans 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 Manichæan 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 Faustusâ 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.Â
But, says the Manichæan, 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 Manichæism 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 Faustusâ
vagaries.[970]970
ââââââââââââ
Book XXIII.
Faustus recurs to the genealogical difficulty and insists that even
according to Matthew Jesus was not Son of God until His baptism.Â
Augustin sets forth the Catholic view of the relation of the divine
and the human in the person of Christ.
1. Faustus said: On one occasion, when addressing a large
audience, I was asked by one of the crowd, Do you believe that Jesus
was born of Mary? I replied, Which Jesus do you mean? for in the
Hebrew it is the name of several people. One was the son of Nun, the
follower of Moses;[971]971 another was the son of Josedech the high
priest;[972]972 again, another is spoken of as the son of
David;[973]973 and another is the Son of God.[974]974Â Of which of
these do you ask whether I believe him to have been born of Mary?Â
His answer was, The Son of God, of course. On what evidence, said I,
oral or written, am I to believe this? He replied, On the authority
of Matthew. What, said I, did Matthew write? He replied, "The book
of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of
Abraham" (Matt. i. 1). Then said I, I was afraid you were going to
say, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and I
was prepared to correct you. Now that you have quoted the verse
accurately, you must nevertheless be advised to pay attention to the
words. Matthew does not profess to give an account of the generation
of the Son of God, but of the son of David.
2. I will, for the present, suppose that this person was right in
saying that the son of David was born of Mary. It still remains
true, that in this whole passage of the generation no mention is made
of the Son of God till we come to the baptism; so that it is an
injurious misrepresentation on your part to speak of this writer as
making the Son of God the inmate of a womb. The writer, indeed,
seems to cry out against such an idea, and in the very title of his
book to clear himself of such blasphemy, asserting that the person
whose birth he describes is the son of David, not the Son of God.Â
And if you attend to the writerâs meaning and purpose, you will see
that what he wishes us to believe of Jesus the Son of God is not so
much that He was born of Mary, as that He became the Son of God by
baptism at the river Jordan. He tells us that the person of whom he
spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and
became the Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thirty
years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to
Him, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee."[975]975 Â It
appears from this, that what was born, as is supposed, of Mary thirty
years before, was not the Son of God, but what was afterwards made so
by baptism at Jordan, that is, the new man, the same as in us when we
were converted from Gentile error, and believe in God. This doctrine
may or may not agree with what you call the Catholic faith; at all
events, it is what Matthew says, if Matthew is the real author. The
words, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee, or, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, do not occur in connection
with the story of Maryâs motherhood, but with the putting away of sin
at Jordan. This is what is written; and if you believe this
doctrine, you must be called a Matthæan, for you will no longer be a
Catholic. The Catholic doctrine is well known; and it is as unlike
Matthewâs representations as it is unlike the truth. In the words of
your creed, you declare that you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, who was born of the Virgin Mary. According to you, therefore,
the Son of God comes from Mary; according to Matthew, from the Jordan;
while we believe Him to come from God. Thus the doctrine of Matthew,
if we are right in assigning the authorship to him, is as different
from yours as from ours; only we acknowledge that he is more cautious
than you in ascribing the being born of a woman to the son of David,
and not to the Son of God. As for you, your only alternative is to
deny that those statements were made, as they appear to be, by
Matthew, or to allow that you have abandoned the faith of the
apostles.
3. For our part, while no one can alter our conviction that the Son
of God comes from God, we might indulge a credulous disposition, to
the extent of admitting the fiction, that Jesus became the Son of God
at Jordan, but not that the Son of God was born of a woman. Then,
again, the son said to have been born of Mary cannot properly be
called the son of David, unless it is ascertained that he was begotten
by Joseph. You say he was not, and therefore you must allow him not
to have been the son of David, even though he were the son of Mary.Â
The genealogy proceeds in the line of Hebrew fathers from Abraham to
David, and from David to Joseph; and as we are told that Joseph was
not the real father of Jesus, Jesus cannot be said to be the son of
David. To begin with calling Jesus the son of David, and then to go
on to tell of his being born of Mary before the consummation of her
marriage with Joseph, is pure madness. And if the son of Mary cannot
be called the son of David, on account of his not being the son of
Joseph, still less can the name be given to the Son of God.
4. Moreover, the Virgin herself appears to have belonged not to the
tribe of Judah, to which the Jewish kings belonged, and which all
agree was Davidâs tribe, but to the priestly tribe of Levi. This
appears from the fact that the Virginâs father Joachim was a priest;
and his name does not occur in the genealogy. How, then, can Mary be
brought within the pale of relationship to David, when she has neither
father nor husband belonging to it? Consequently, Maryâs son cannot
possibly be the son of David, unless you can bring the mother into
some connection with Joseph, so as to be either his wife or his
daughter.
5. Augustin replied: The Catholic, which is also the apostolic,
doctrine, is, that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is both the Son
of God in His divine nature, and the Son of David after the flesh.Â
This we prove from the writings of the evangelists and apostles, so
that no one can reject our proofs without also rejecting these
writings. Faustusâ plan is to represent some one as saying a few
words, without bringing forward any evidence in answer to Faustusâ
fertile sophistry. But with all his ingenuity, the proofs I have to
give will leave Faustus no reply, but that these passages are spurious
interpolations in the sacred record,âa reply which serves as a means
of escaping, or of trying to escape, the force of the plainest
statements in Holy Scripture. We have already in this treatise
sufficiently exposed the irrational absurdity, as well as the daring
profanity, of such criticism; and not to exceed all limits, we must
avoid repetition. It cannot be necessary that we should bring
together all the passages scattered throughout Scripture, which show,
in answer to Faustus, that in the books of the highest and most sacred
authority He who is called the only-begotten Son of God, even God with
God, is also called the Son of David, on account of His taking the
form of a servant from the Virgin Mary, the wife of Joseph. To
instance only Matthew, since Faustusâ argument refers to this Gospel,
as the whole book cannot be quoted here, let whoever choose read it,
and see how Matthew carries on to the passion and the resurrection the
narrative of Him whom He calls the Son of David in the introduction to
the genealogy. Of this same Son of David he speaks as being
conceived and born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost. He also
applies to this the declaration of the prophet, "Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name
Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us."[976]976Â Again,
He who was called, even from the Virginâs womb, God-with-us, is said
to have heard, when He was baptized by John, a voice from heaven,
saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[977]977Â
Will Faustus say that to be called God is less than to be called the
Son of God? He seems to think so, for he tries to prove that because
this voice came from heaven at the time of the baptism, therefore,
according to Matthew, He must then have become the Son of God; whereas
the same evangelist, in a previous passage, quotes the sacred
announcement made by the prophet, in which the child born of the
Virgin is called God-with-us.
6. It is remarkable how, amid his wild irrelevancies, this wretched
trifler loses no available opportunity of darkening the declarations
of Scripture by the fabulous creations of his own fancy. Thus he
says of Abraham, that when he took his handmaid to wife he disbelieved
Godâs promise that he should have a child by Sarah; whereas, in fact,
this promise had not at that time been given. Then he accuses
Abraham of falsehood in calling Sarah his sister, not having read what
may be learned on the authority of Scripture about the family of
Sarah. Abrahamâs son Isaac also he accuses of falsely calling his
wife his sister, though a distinct account is given of her family.Â
Then he accuses Jacob of there being a daily quarrel among his four
wives, which should be the first to appropriate him on his return from
the field, while nothing of this is said in Scripture. And this is
the man who pretends to hate the writers of the sacred books for their
falsehood, and who has the effrontery so to misrepresent even the
gospel record, though its authority is admitted by all as possessing
the most abundant confirmation, as to try to make it appear, not
indeed that Matthew himself,âfor in that case he would have been
forced to yield to apostolic authority,âbut that some one under the
name of Matthew, has written about Christ what he refuses to believe,
and attempts to refute with a contumelious ingenuity!
7. The voice from heaven at the Jordan should be compared with the
voice heard on the Mount.[978]978Â In neither case do the words,
"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," imply that He was
not the Son of God before; for He who from the Virginâs womb took the
form of a servant "was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery
to be equal with God."[979]979Â And the same Apostle Paul himself
says distinctly elsewhere, "But in the fullness of time, God sent His
Son, made of a woman, made under the law;"[980]980 that is, a woman in
the Hebrew sense, not a wife, but one of the female sex. The Son of
God is both Lord of David in His divine nature, and Son of David as
being of the seed of David after the flesh. And if it were not
profitable for us to believe this, the same apostle would not have
made it so prominent as he does, when he says to Timothy, "Remember
that Christ Jesus, of the seed of David, rose from the dead, according
to my gospel."[981]981Â And he carefully enjoins believers to regard
as accursed whoever preaches another gospel contrary to this.
8. This assailant of the holy Gospel need find no difficulty in the
fact that Christ is called the Son of David, though He was born of a
virgin, and though Joseph was not His real father; while the genealogy
is brought down by the evangelist Matthew, not to Mary, but to
Joseph. First of all, the husband, as the man, is the more
honorable; and Joseph was Maryâs husband, though she did not live with
him, for Matthew himself mentions that she was called Josephâs wife by
the angel; as it is also from Matthew that we learn that Mary
conceived not by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit. But if this,
instead of being a true narrative written by Matthew the apostle, was
a false narrative written by some one else under his name, is it
likely that he would have contradicted himself in such an apparent
manner, and in passages so immediately connected, as to speak of the
Son of David as born of Mary without conjugal intercourse, and then,
in giving His genealogy, to bring it down to the very man with whom
the Virgin is expressly said not to have had intercourse, unless he
had some reason for doing so? Even supposing there were two writers,
one calling Christ the Son of David, and giving an account of Christâs
progenitors from David down to Joseph; while the other does not call
Christ the Son of David, and says that He was born of the Virgin Mary
without intercourse with any man; those statements are not
irreconcilable, so as to prove that one or both writers must be
false. It will appear on reflection that both accounts might be
true; for Joseph might be called the husband of Mary, though she was
his wife only in affection, and in the intercourse of the mind, which
is more intimate than that of the body. In this way it might be
proper that the husband of the virgin-mother of Christ should have a
place in the list of Christâs ancestors. It might also be the case
that some of Davidâs blood flowed in Mary herself, so that the flesh
of Christ, although produced from a virgin, still owed its origin to
Davidâs seed. But as, in fact, both statements are made by one and
the same writer, who informs us both that Joseph was the husband of
Mary and that the mother of Christ was a virgin, and that Christ was
of the seed of David, and that Joseph is in the list of Christâs
progenitors in the line of David, those who prefer the authority of
the sacred Gospel to that of heretical fiction must conclude that Mary
was not unconnected with the family of David, and that she was
properly called the wife of Joseph, because being a woman she was in
spiritual alliance with him, though there was no bodily connection.Â
Joseph, too, it is plain, could not be omitted in the genealogy; for,
from the superiority of his sex, such an omission would be equivalent
to a denial of his relation to the woman with whom he was inwardly
united; and believers in Christ are taught not to think carnal
connection the chief thing in marriage, as if without this they could
not be man and wife, but to imitate in Christian wedlock as closely as
possible the parents of Christ, that so they may have the more
intimate union with the members of Christ.
9. We believe that Mary, as well as Joseph, was of the family of
David, because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that
Christ was of the seed of David after the flesh, and that His mother
was the Virgin Mary, He having no human father. Therefore, whoever
denies the relationship of Mary to David, evidently opposes the
pre-eminent authority of these passages of Scripture; and to maintain
this opposition he must bring evidence in support of his statement
from writings acknowledged by the Church as canonical and catholic,
not from any writings he pleases. In the matters of which we are now
treating, only the canonical writings have any weight with us; for
they only are received and acknowledged by the Church spread over all
the world, which is itself a fulfillment of the prophecies regarding
it contained in these writings. Accordingly, I am not bound to admit
the uncanonical account of Maryâs birth which Faustus adopts, that her
father was a priest of the tribe of Levi, of the name of Joachim.Â
But even were I to admit this account, I should still contend that
Joachim must have in some way belonged to the family of David, and had
somehow been adopted from the tribe of Judah into that of Levi; or if
not he, one of his ancestors; or, at least, that while born in the
tribe of Levi, he had still some relation to the line of David; as
Faustus himself acknowledges that Mary, though belonging to the tribe
of Levi, could be given to a husband of the tribe of Judah; and he
expressly says that if Mary were Josephâs daughter, the name Son of
David would be applicable to Christ. In this way, by the marriage of
Josephâs daughter in the tribe of Levi, her son, though born in the
tribe of Levi, might not improperly be called the Son of David. And
so, if the mother of that Joachim, who in the passage quoted by
Faustus is called the father of Mary, married in the tribe of Levi
while she belonged to the tribe of Judah and to the family of David,
there would thus be a sufficient reason for speaking of Joachim and
Mary and Maryâs son as belonging to the seed of David. If I felt
obliged to pay any regard to the apocryphal scripture in which Joachim
is called the father of Mary, I should adopt some such explanation as
the above, rather than admit any falsehood in the Gospel, where it is
written both that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and our Saviour, was
of the seed of David after the flesh, and that He was born of the
Virgin Mary. It is enough for us that the enemies of these
Scriptures, which record these truths and which we believe, cannot
prove against them any charge of falsehood.
10. Faustus cannot pretend then I am unable to prove that Mary was
of the family of David, as I have shown him unable to prove that she
was not. I produce the strongest evidence from Scriptures of
established authority, which declare that Christ was of the seed of
David, and that He was born without a father of the Virgin Mary.Â
Faustus expresses what he considers a most becoming indignation
against impropriety when he says, It is an injurious misrepresentation
of the writer to make him speak of the Son of God as the inmate of a
womb. Of course, the Catholic doctrine which teaches that Christ the
Son of God was born in the flesh of a virgin, does not make the Son of
God the inmate of her womb in the sense of having no existence beyond
it, as if He had abandoned the government of heaven and earth, or as
if He had left the presence of the Father. The mistake is with the
Manichæans, whose understanding is so incapable of forming a
conception of anything except what is material, that they cannot
comprehend how the Word of God, who is the virtue and wisdom of God,
while remaining in Himself and with the Father, and while governing
the universe, reaches from end to end in strength, and sweetly orders
all things.[982]982Â In the faultless procedure of this adorable
providence, He appointed for Himself an earthly mother; and to free
His servants from the bondage of corruption He took in this mother the
form of a servant, that is, a mortal body; and this body which He took
He showed openly, and when it had been exposed, even to suffering and
death, He raised it again from the dead, and built again the temple
which had been destroyed. You who shrink from this doctrine as
blasphemous, make the members of your god to be confined not in a
virginâs womb, but in the wombs of all female animals, from elephants
down to flies. Perhaps you think the less of the true Christ,
because the Word is said so to have become incarnate in the Virginâs
womb as to provide a temple for Himself in human nature, while His own
nature continued unaltered in its integrity; and, on the other hand,
you think the more of your god, because in the bonds and pollution of
his confinement in flesh, in the part which is to be made fast to the
mass of darkness, he seeks for help to no purpose, or is even rendered
powerless to ask for help.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXIV.
Faustus explains the Manichæan denial that man was made by God as
applying to the fleshly man not to the spiritual. Augustin
elucidates the Apostle Paulâs contrasts between flesh and spirit so as
to exclude the Manichæan view.
1. Faustus said: We are asked the reason for our denial that man
is made by God. But we do not assert that man is in no sense made by
God; we only ask in what sense, and when, and how. For, according to
the apostle, there are two men, one of whom he calls sometimes the
outer man, generally the earthy, sometimes, too, the old man:Â the
other he calls the inner or heavenly or new man.[983]983Â The
question is, Which of these is made by God? For there are likewise
two times of our nativity; one when nature brought us forth into this
light, binding us in the bonds of flesh; and the other, when the truth
regenerated us on our conversion from error and our entrance into the
faith. It is this second birth of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel,
when He says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God."[984]984Â Nicodemus, not knowing what Christ meant, was at a
loss, and inquired how this could be, for an old man could not enter
into his motherâs womb and be born a second time. Jesus said in
reply, "Except a man be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, he
cannot see the kingdom of God."Â Then He adds, "That which is born of
the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."Â
Hence, as the birth in which our bodies originate is not the only
birth, but there is another in which we are born again in spirit, an
important question arises from this distinction as to which of those
births it is in which God makes us. The manner of birth also is
twofold. In the humiliating process of ordinary generation, we
spring from the heat of animal passion; but when we are brought into
the faith, we are formed under good instruction in honor and purity in
Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit. For this reason, in all religion,
and especially in the Christian religion, young children are invited
to membership. This is hinted at in the words of His apostle: "My
little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be
formed in you."[985]985Â The question, then, is not whether God makes
man, but what man He makes, and when, and how. For if it is when we
are fashioned in the womb that God forms us after His own image, which
is the common belief of Gentiles and Jews, and which is also your
belief, then God makes the old man, and produces us by means of
sensual passion, which does not seem suitable to His divine nature.Â
But if it is when we are converted and brought to a better life that
we are formed by God, which is the general doctrine of Christ and His
apostles, and which is also our doctrine, in this case God makes us
new men, and produces us in honor and purity, which would agree
perfectly with His sacred and adorable majesty. If you do not reject
Paulâs authority, we will prove to you from him what man God makes,
and when, and how. He says to the Ephesians, "That ye put off
according to your former conversation the old man, which is corrupt
through deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness
and holiness of truth."[986]986Â This shows that in the creation of
man after the image of God, it is another man that is spoken of, and
another birth, and another manner of birth. The putting off and
putting on of which he speaks, point to the time of the reception of
the truth; and the assertion that the new man is created by God
implies that the old man is created neither by God nor after God.Â
And when he adds, that this new man is made in holiness and
righteousness and truth, he thus points to another manner of birth of
which this is the character, and which, as I have said, differs widely
from the manner in which bodily generation is effected. And as he
declares that only the former is of God, it follows that the latter is
not. Again, writing to the Colossians, he uses words to the same
effect:Â "Put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man,
which is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of Him
who created Him in you."Â Here he not only shows that it is the new
man that God makes, but he declares the time and manner of the
formation, for the words in the knowledge of God point to the time of
believing. Then he adds, according to the image of Him who created
him, to make it clear that the old man is not the image of God, nor
formed by God. Moreover, the following words, "Where there is
neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor
Scythian,"[987]987 show more plainly still that the birth by which we
are made male and female, Greeks and Jews, Scythians and Barbarians,
is not the birth in which God effects the formation of man; but that
the birth with which God has to do is that in which we lose the
difference of nation and sex and condition, and become one like Him
who is one, that is, Christ. So the same apostle says again, "As
many as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ:Â there is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor female, there is
neither bond nor free; but all are one in Christ."[988]988Â Man,
then, is made by God, not when from one he is divided into many, but
when from many he becomes one. The division is in the first birth,
or that of the body; union comes by the second, which is immaterial
and divine. This affords sufficient ground for our opinion, that the
birth of the body should be ascribed to nature, and the second birth
to the Supernal Majesty. So the same apostle says again to the
Corinthians, "I have begotten you in Christ Jesus by the
gospel;"[989]989 and, speaking of himself, to the Galatians, "When it
pleased Him, who separated me from my motherâs womb, to reveal His Son
in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately I
conferred not with flesh and blood."[990]990 Â It is plain that
everywhere he speaks of the second or spiritual birth as that in which
we are made by God, as distinct from the indecency of the first birth,
in which we are on a level with other animals as regards dignity and
purity, as we are conceived in the maternal womb, and are formed, and
brought forth. You may observe that in this matter the dispute
between us is not so much about a question of doctrine as of
interpretation. For you think that it is the old or outer or earthy
man that is said to have been made by God; while we apply this to the
heavenly man, giving the superiority to the inner or new man. And
our opinion is not rash or groundless, for we have learned it from
Christ and His apostles, who are proved to have been the first in the
world who thus taught.
2. Augustin replied: The Apostle Paul certainly uses the
expression the inner man for the spirit of the mind, and the outer man
for the body and for this mortal life; but we nowhere find him making
these two different men, but one, which is all made by God, both the
inner and the outer. However, it is made in the image of God only as
regards the inner, which, besides being immaterial, is rational, and
is not possessed by the lower animals. God, then, did not make one
man after His own image, and another man not after that image; but the
one man, which includes both the inner and the outer, He made after
His own image, not as regards the possession of a body and of mortal
life, but as regards the rational mind with the power of knowing God,
and with the superiority as compared with all irrational creatures
which the possession of reason implies. Faustus allows that the
inner man is made by God, when, as he says, it is renewed in the
knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him. I readily
admit this on the apostleâs authority. Why does not Faustus admit on
the same authority that "God has placed the members every one in the
body, as it has pleased Him"?[991]991Â Here we learn from the same
apostle that God is the framer of the outer man too. Why does
Faustus take only what he thinks to be in his own favor, while he
leaves out or rejects what upsets the follies of the Manichæans?Â
Moreover, in treating of the earthy and the heavenly man, and making
the distinction between the mortal and the immortal, between that
which we are in Adam and that which we shall be in Christ, the apostle
quotes the declaration of the law regarding the earthy or natural
body, referring to the very book and the very passage where it is
written that God made the earthy man too. Speaking of the manner in
which the dead shall rise again, and of the body with which they shall
come, after using the similitude of the seeds of corn, that they are
sown bare grain, and that God gives them a body as it pleases Him, and
to every seed his own body,âthus, by the way, overthrowing the error
of the Manichæans, who say that grains and plants, and all roots and
shoots, are created by the race of darkness, and not by God, who,
according to them, instead of exerting power in the production of
these objects, is Himself subject to confinement in them,âhe goes on,
after this refutation of Manichæan impieties, to describe the
different kinds of flesh. "All flesh," he says, "is not the same
flesh."Â Then he speaks of celestial and terrestrial bodies, and then
of the change of our body by which it will become spiritual and
heavenly. "It is sown," he says, "in dishonor, it shall rise in
glory; it is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power; it is sown a
natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body."Â Then, in order to
show the origin of the animal body, he says, "There is a natural body,
and there is a spiritual body; as it is written, The first man, Adam,
was made a living soul."[992]992Â Now this is written in
Genesis,[993]993 where it is related how God made man, and animated
the body which He had formed of the earth. By the old man the
apostle simply means the old life, which is a life in sin, and is
after the manner of Adam, of whom it is said, "By one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in
that all have sinned."[994]994Â Thus the whole of this man, both the
inner and the outer part, has become old because of sin, and liable to
the punishment of mortality. There is, however, a restoration of the
inner man, when it is renewed after the image of its Creator, in the
putting off of unrighteousnessâthat is, the old man, and putting on
righteousnessâthat is, the new man. But when that which is sown a
natural body shall rise a spiritual body, the outer man too shall
attain the dignity of a celestial character; so that all that has been
created may be created anew, and all that has been made be remade by
the Creator and Maker Himself. This is briefly explained in the
words:Â "The body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life
because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised up
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the
dead will also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit dwelling in
you."[995]995Â No one instructed in the Catholic doctrine but knows
that it is in the body that some are male and some female, not in the
spirit of the mind, in which we are renewed after the image of God.Â
But elsewhere the apostle teaches that God is the Maker of both; for
he says, "Neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without
the woman, in the Lord; for as the woman is of the man, so is the man
by the woman; but all things are of God."[996]996Â The only reply
given to this, by the perverse stupidity of those who are alienated
from the life of God by the ignorance which is in them, on account of
the blindness of their heart, is, that whatever pleases them in the
apostolic writings is true, and whatever displeases them is false.Â
This is the insanity of the Manichæans, who will be wise if they
cease to be Manichæans. As it is, if they are asked whether it is
He that remakes and renews the inner man (which they acknowledge to be
renewed after the image of God, and they themselves quote the passage
in support of this; and, according to Faustus, God makes man when the
inner man is renewed in the image of God), they will answer, yes.Â
And if we then go on to ask when God made what He now renews, they
must devise some subterfuge to prevent the exposure of their
absurdities. For, according to them, the inner man is not formed or
created or originated by God, but is part of His own substance sent
against His enemies; and instead of becoming old by sin, it is through
necessity captured and damaged by the enemy. Not to repeat all the
nonsense they talk, the first man they speak of is not the man of the
earth earthy that the apostle speaks of,[997]997 but an invention
proceeding from their own magazine of untruths. Faustus, though he
chooses man as a subject for discussion, says not a word of this first
man; for he is afraid that his opponents in the discussion might come
to know something about him.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXV.
Faustus seeks to bring into ridicule the orthodox claim to believe in
the infinity of God by caricaturing the anthropomorphic
representations of the Old Testament. Augustin expresses his despair
of being able to induce the Manichæans to adopt right views of the
infinitude of God so long as they continue to regard the soul and God
as extended in space.
1. Faustus said: Is God finite or infinite? He must be finite
unless you are mistaken in addressing Him as the God of Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob; unless, indeed, the being thus addressed is different
from the God you call infinite. In the case of the God of Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob, the mark of circumcision, which separated these
men from fellowship with other people, marked also the limit of Godâs
power as extending only to them. And a being whose power is finite
cannot himself be infinite. Moreover, in this address, you do not
mention even the ancients before Abraham, such as Enoch, Noah, and
Shem, and others like them, whom you allow to have been righteous
though in uncircumcision; but because they lacked this distinguishing
mark, you will not call God their God, but only of Abraham and his
seed. Now, if God is one and infinite, what need of such careful
particularity in addressing Him, as if it was not enough to name God,
without adding whose God He isâAbrahamâs, namely, and Isaacâs and
Jacobâs; as if Abraham were a landmark to steer by in your invocation,
to escape shipwreck among a shoal of deities? The Jews, who are
circumcised, may very properly address this deity, as having a reason
for it, because they call God the God of circumcision, in contrast to
the gods of uncircumcision. But why you should do the same, it is
difficult to understand; for you do not pretend to have Abrahamâs
sign, though you invoke his God. If we understand the matter
rightly, the Jews and their God seem to have set marks upon one
another for the purpose of recognition, that they might not lose each
other. So God gave them the disgusting mark of circumcision, that,
in whatever land or among whatever people they might be, they might by
being circumcised be known to be His. They again marked God by
calling Him the God of their fathers, that, wherever He might be,
though among a crowd of gods, He might, on hearing the name God of
Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, know at once that He was
addressed. So we often see, in a number of people of the same name,
that no one answers till called by his surname. In the same way the
shepherd or herdsman makes use of a brand to prevent his property
being taken by others. In thus marking God by calling Him the God of
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, you show not only that He is finite, but
also that you have no connection with Him, because you have not the
mark of circumcision by which He recognizes His own. Therefore, if
this is the God you worship, there can be no doubt of His being
finite. But if you say that God is infinite, you must first of all
give up this finite deity, and by altering your invocation, show your
penitence for your past errors. We have thus proved God to be
finite, taking you on your own ground. But to determine whether the
supreme and true God is infinite or not, we need only refer to the
opposition between good and evil. If evil does not exist, then
certainly God is infinite; otherwise He must be finite. Evil,
however, undoubtedly exists; therefore God is not infinite. It is
where good stops that evil begins.
2. Augustin replied: No one that knows you would dream of asking
you about the infinitude of God, or of discussing the matter with
you. For, before there can be any degree of spirituality in any of
your conceptions, you must first have your minds cleared by simple
faith, and by some elementary knowledge, from the illusions of carnal
and material ideas. This your heresy prevents you from doing, for it
invariably represents the body and the soul and God as extended in
space, either finite or infinite, while the idea of space is
applicable only to the body. As long as this is the case, it will be
better for you to leave this matter alone; for you can teach no truth
regarding it, any more than in other matters; and in this you are
unfit for learning, as you might do in other things, if you were not
proud and quarrelsome. For in such questions as how God can be
finite, when no space can contain Him; how He can be infinite, when
the Son knows Him perfectly; how He can be finite, and yet unbounded;
how He can be infinite, and yet perfect; how He can be finite, who is
without measure; how He can be infinite, who is the measure of all
thingsâall carnal ideas go for nothing; and if the carnality is to be
removed, it must first become ashamed of itself. Accordingly, your
best way of ending the matter you have brought forward of God as
finite or infinite, is to say no more about it till you cease going so
far astray from Christ, who is the end of the law. Of the God of
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob we have already said enough to show why He
who is the true God of all creatures wished to be familiarly known by
His people under this name. On circumcision, too, we have already
spoken in several places in answer to ignorant reproaches. The
Manichæans would find nothing to ridicule in this sign if they would
view it as appointed by God, to be an appropriate symbol of the
putting off of the flesh. They ought thus to consider the rite with
a Christian instead of a heretical mind; as it is written, "To the
pure all things are pure."Â But, considering the truth of the
following words, "To the unclean and unbelieving nothing is pure, but
even their mind and conscience are defiled,"[998]998 we must remind
our witty opponents, that if circumcision is indecent, as they say it
is, they should rather weep than laugh at it; for their god is exposed
to restraint and contamination in conjunction both with the skin which
is cut and with the blood which is shed.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXVI.
Faustus insists that Jesus might have died though not born, by the
exercise of divine power, yet he rejects birth and death alike.Â
Augustin maintains that there are some things that even God cannot do,
one of which is to die. He refutes the docetism of the Manichæans.
1. Faustus said: You ask, If Jesus was not born, how did He die?Â
Well this is a probability, such as one makes use of in want of
proofs. We will, however, answer the question by examples taken from
what you generally believe. If they are true, they will prove our
case; if they are false, they will help you no more than they will
us. You say then, How could Jesus die, if He were not man? In
return, I ask you, How did Elias not die, though he was a man? Could
a mortal encroach upon the limits of immortality, and could not Christ
add to His immortality whatever experience of death was required? If
Elias, contrary to nature, lives for ever, why not allow that Jesus,
with no greater contrariety to nature, could remain in death for three
days? Besides that, it is not only Elias, but Moses and Enoch you
believe to be immortal, and to have been taken up with their bodies to
heaven. Accordingly, if it is a good argument that Jesus was a man
because He died, it is an equally good argument that Elias was not a
man because he did not die. But as it is false that Elias was not a
man, notwithstanding his supposed immortality, so it is false that
Jesus was a man, though He is considered to have died. The truth is,
if you will believe it, that the Hebrews were in a mistake regarding
both the death of Jesus and the immortality of Elias. For it is
equally untrue that Jesus died and that Elias did not die. But you
believe whatever you please; and for the rest, you appeal to nature.Â
And, allowing this appeal, nature is against both the death of the
immortal and the immortality of the mortal. And if we refer to the
power of effecting their purpose as possessed by God and by man, it
seems more possible for Jesus to die than for Elias not to die; for
the power of Jesus is greater than that of Elias. But if you exalt
the weaker to heaven, though nature is against it, and, forgetting his
condition as a mortal, endow him with eternal felicity, why should I
not admit that Jesus could die if He pleased, even though I were to
grant His death to have been real, and not a mere semblance? For, as
from the outset of His taking the likeness of man He underwent in
appearance all the experiences of humanity, it was quite consistent
that He should complete the system by appearing to die.
2. Moreover, it is to be remembered that this reference to what
nature grants as possible, should be made in connection with all the
history of Jesus, and not only with His death. According to nature,
it is impossible that a man blind from his birth should see the light;
and yet Jesus appears to have performed a miracle of this kind, so
that the Jews themselves exclaimed that from the beginning of the
world it was not seen that one opened the eyes of a man born
blind.[999]999Â So also healing a withered hand, giving the power of
utterance and expression to those born dumb, restoring animation to
the dead, with the recovery of their bodily frame after dissolution
had begun, produce a feeling of amazement, and must seem utterly
incredible in view of what is naturally possible and impossible. And
yet, as Christians, we believe all the things to have been done by the
same person; for we regard not the law of nature, but the powerful
operation of God. There is a story, too, of Jesus having been cast
from the brow of a hill, and having escaped unhurt. If, then, when
thrown down from a height He did not die, simply because He chose not
to die, why should He not have had the power to die when He pleased?Â
We take this way of answering you because you have a fancy for
discussion, and affect to use logical weapons not properly belonging
to you. As regards our own belief, it is no more true that Jesus
died than that Elias is immortal.
3. Augustin replied: As to Enoch and Elias and Moses, our belief
is determined not by Faustusâ suppositions, but by the declarations of
Scripture, resting as they do on foundations of the strongest and
surest evidence. People in error, as you are, are unfit to decide
what is natural, and what contrary to nature. We admit that what is
contrary to the ordinary course of human experience is commonly spoken
of as contrary to nature. Thus the apostle uses the words, "If thou
art cut out of the wild olive, and engrafted contrary to nature in the
good olive."[1000]1000Â Contrary to nature is here used in the sense
of contrary to human experience of the course of nature; as that a
wild olive engrafted in a good olive should bring forth the fatness of
the olive instead of wild berries. But God, the Author and Creator
of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature; for whatever is done
by Him who appoints all natural order and measure and proportion must
be natural in every case. And man himself acts contrary to nature
only when he sins; and then by punishment he is brought back to nature
again. The natural order of justice requires either that sin should
not be committed or that it should not go unpunished. In either
case, the natural order is preserved, if not by the soul, at least by
God. For sin pains the conscience, and brings grief on the mind of
the sinner, by the loss of the light of justice, even should no
physical sufferings follow, which are inflicted for correction, or are
reserved for the incorrigible. There is, however, no impropriety in
saying that God does a thing contrary to nature, when it is contrary
to what we know of nature. For we give the name nature to the usual
common course of nature; and whatever God does contrary to this, we
call a prodigy, or a miracle. But against the supreme law of nature,
which is beyond the knowledge both of the ungodly and of weak
believers, God never acts, any more than He acts against Himself. As
regards spiritual and rational beings, to which class the human soul
belongs, the more they partake of this unchangeable law and light, the
more clearly they see what is possible, and what impossible; and
again, the greater their distance from it, the less their perception
of the future, and the more frequent their surprise at strange
occurrences.
4. Thus of what happened to Elias we are ignorant; but still we
believe the truthful declarations of Scripture regarding him. Of one
thing we are certain, that what God willed happened, and that except
by Godâs will nothing can happen to any one. So, if I am told that
it is possible that the flesh of a certain man shall be changed into a
celestial body, I allow the possibility, but I cannot tell whether it
will be done; and the reason of my ignorance is, that I am not
acquainted with the will of God in the matter. That it will be done
if it is Godâs will, is perfectly clear and indubitable. Again, if I
am told that something would happen if God did not prevent it from
happening, I reply confidently that what is to happen is the action of
God, not the event which might otherwise have happened. For God
knows His own future action, and therefore He knows also the effect of
that action in preventing the happening of what would otherwise have
happened; and, beyond all question, what God knows is more certain
than what man thinks. Hence it is as impossible for what is future
not to happen, as for what is past not to have happened; for it can
never be Godâs will that anything should, in the same sense, be both
true and false. Therefore all that is properly future cannot but
happen; what does not happen never was future; even as all things
which are properly in the past did indubitably take place.
5. Accordingly, to say, if God is almighty, let Him make what has
been done to be undone, is in fact to say, if God is almighty, let Him
make a thing to be in the same sense both true and false. God can
put an end to the existence of anything, when the thing to be put an
end to has a present existence; as when He puts an end by death to the
existence of any one who has been brought into existence in birth; for
in this case there is an actual existence which may be put a stop to.
 But when a thing does not exist, the existence cannot be put a stop
to. Now, what is past no longer exists and whatever has an existence
which can be put an end to cannot be past. What is truly past is no
longer present; and the truth of its past existence is in our
judgment, not in the thing itself which no longer exists. The
proposition asserting anything to be past is true when the thing no
longer exists. God cannot make such a proposition false, because He
cannot contradict the truth. The truth in this case, or the true
judgment, is first of all in our own mind, when we know and give
expression to it. But should it disappear from our minds by our
forgetting it, it would still remain as truth. It will always be
true that the past thing which is no longer present had an existence;
and the truth of its past existence after it has stopped is the same
as the truth of its future existence before it began to be. This
truth cannot be contradicted by God, in whom abides the supreme and
unchangeable truth, and whose illumination is the source of all the
truth to be found in any mind or understanding. Now God is not
omnipotent in the sense of being able to die; nor does this inability
prevent His being omnipotent. True omnipotence belongs to Him who
truly exists, and who alone is the source of all existence, both
spiritual and corporeal. The Creator makes what use He pleases of
all His creatures; and His pleasure is in harmony with true and
unchangeable justice, by which, as by His own nature, He, Himself
unchangeable, brings to pass the changes of all changeable things
according to the desert of their natures or of their actions. No
one, therefore, would be so foolish as to deny that Elias being a
creature of God could be changed either for the worse or for the
better; or that by the will of the omnipotent God he could be changed
in a manner unusual among men. So we can have no reason for doubting
what on the high authority of Scripture is related of him, unless we
limit the power of God to things which we are familiar with.
6. Faustusâ argument is, If Elias who was a man could escape death,
why might not Christ have the power of dying, since He was more than
man? This is the same as to say, If human nature can be changed for
the better, why should not the divine nature be changed for the
worse?âa weak argument, seeing that human nature is changeable, while
the divine nature is not. Such a method of inference would lead to
the glaring absurdity, that if God can bestow eternal glory on man, He
must also have the power of consigning Himself to eternal misery.Â
Faustus will reply that his argument refers only to three days of
death for God, as compared with eternal life for man. Well, if you
understood the three days of death in the sense of the death of the
flesh which God took as a part of our mortal nature, you would be
quite correct; for the truth of the gospel makes known that the death
of Christ for three days was for the eternal life of men. But in
arguing that there is no impropriety in asserting a death of three
days of the divine nature itself, without any assumption of mortality,
because human nature can be endowed with immortality, you display the
folly of one who knows neither God nor the gifts of God. And indeed,
since you make part of your god to be fastened to the mass of darkness
for ever, how can you escape the absurd conclusion already mentioned,
that God consigns Himself to eternal misery? You will then require
to prove that part of light is light, while part of God is not God.Â
To give you in a word, without argument, the true reason of our faith,
as regards Elias having been caught up to heaven from the earth,
though only a man, and as regards Christ being truly born of a virgin,
and truly dying on the cross, our belief in both cases is grounded on
the declaration of Holy Scripture,[1001]1001 which it is piety to
believe, and impiety to disbelieve. What is said of Elias you
pretend to deny, for you will pretend anything. Regarding Christ,
although even you do not go the length of saying that He could not
die, though He could be born, still you deny His birth from a virgin,
and assert His death on the cross to have been feigned, which is
equivalent to denying it too, except as a mockery for the delusion of
men; and you allow so much merely to obtain indulgence for your own
falsehoods from the believers in these fictions.
7. The question which Faustus makes it appear that he is asked by a
Catholic, If Jesus was not born, how could He die? could be asked only
by one who overlooked the fact that Adam died, though he was not
born. Who will venture to say that the Son of God could not, if He
had pleased, have made for Himself a true human body in the same way
as He did for Adam; for all things were made by Him?[1002]1002 or who
will deny that He who is the Almighty Son of the Almighty could, if He
had chosen, have taken a body from a heavenly substance, or from air
or vapor, and have so changed it into the precise character of a human
body, as that He might have lived as a man, and have died in it? Or,
once more, if He had chosen to take a body of none of the material
substances which He had made, but to create for Himself from nothing
real flesh, as all things were created by Him from nothing, none of us
will oppose this by saying that He could not have done it. The
reason of our believing Him to have been born of the Virgin Mary, is
not that He could not otherwise have appeared among men in a true
body, but because it is so written in the Scripture, which we must
believe in order to be Christians, or to be saved. We believe, then,
that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, because it is so written in
the Gospel; we believe that He died on the cross, because it is so
written in the Gospel; we believe that both His birth and death were
real, because the Gospel is no fiction. Why He chose to suffer all
these things in a body taken from a woman is a matter known only to
Himself. Perhaps He took this way of giving importance and honor to
both the sexes which He had created, taking the form of a man, and
being born of a woman; or there may have been some other reason, we
cannot tell. But this may be confidently affirmed, that what took
place was exactly as we are told in the Gospel narrative, and that
what the wisdom of God determined upon was exactly what ought to have
happened. We place the authority of the Gospel above all heretical
discussions; and we admire the counsel of divine wisdom more than any
counsel of any creature.
8. Faustus calls upon us to believe him, and says, The truth is, if
you will believe it, that the Hebrews were in a mistake regarding both
the death of Jesus and the immortality of Elias. And a little after
he adds, As from the outset of His taking the likeness of man He
underwent in appearance all the experiences of humanity, it was quite
consistent that He should seal the dispensation by appearing to die.Â
How can this infamous liar, who declares that Christ feigned death,
expect to be believed? Did Christ utter falsehood when He said, "It
behoves the Son of man to be killed, and to rise the third
day?"[1003]1003Â And do you tell us to believe what you say, as if
you utter no falsehoods? In that case, Peter was more truthful than
Christ when he said to Him, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not
be unto Thee;" for which it was said to him, "Get thee behind me,
Satan."[1004]1004Â This rebuke was not lost upon Peter, for, after
his correction and full preparation, he preached even to his own death
the truth of the death of Christ. But if Peter deserved to be called
Satan for thinking that Christ would not die, what should you be
called, when you not only deny that Christ died, but assert that He
feigned death? You give, as a reason for Christâs appearing to die,
that He underwent in appearance all the experiences of humanity. But
that He feigned all the experiences of humanity is only your opinion
in opposition to the Gospel. In reality, when the evangelist says
that Jesus slept,[1005]1005 that He was hungry,[1006]1006 that He was
thirsty,[1007]1007 that He was sorrowful,[1008]1008 or glad, and so
on,âthese things are all true in the senseof not being feigned, but
actual experiences; only that they were undergone, not from a mere
natural necessity, but in the exercise of a controlling will, and of
divine power. In the case of a man, anger, sorrow, sleeping, being
hungry and thirsty, are often involuntary; in Christ they were acts of
His own will. So also men are born without any act of their own
will, and suffer against their will; while Christ was born and
suffered by His own will. Still, the things are true; and the
accurate narrative of them is intended to instruct whoever believes in
Christâs gospel in the truth, not to delude him with falsehoods.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXVII.
Faustus warns against pressing too far the argument, that if Jesus was
not born He cannot have suffered. Augustin accepts the birth and
death alike on the testimony of the Gospel narrative, which is higher
authority than the falsehood of Manichæus.
1. Faustus said: If Jesus was not born, He cannot have suffered;
but since He did suffer, He must have been born. I advise you not to
have recourse to logical inference in these matters, or else your
whole faith will be shaken. For, even according to you, Jesus was
born miraculously of a virgin; which the argument from consequents to
antecedents shows to be false. For your argument might thus be
turned against you:Â If Jesus was born of a woman, He must have been
begotten by a man; but He was not begotten by a man, therefore He was
not born of a woman. If, as you believe, He could be born without
being begotten, why could He not also suffer without being brought
forth?
2. Augustin replied: The argument which you here reply to is one
which could be used only by such ignorant people as you succeed in
misleading, not by those who know enough to refute you. Jesus could
both be born without being begotten and suffer without being brought
forth. His being one and not the other was the effect of His own
will. He chose to be born without being begotten, and not to suffer
without being brought forth. And if you ask how I know that He was
brought forth, and that He suffered, I read this in the faithful
Gospel narrative. If I ask how you know what you state, you bring
forward the authority of Manichæus, and charge the Gospel with
falsehood. Even if Manichæus did not set forth falsehood as an
excellence in Christ, I should not believe his statements. His
praise of falsehood comes from nothing that he found in Christ, but
from his own moral character.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXVIII.
Faustus recurs to the genealogy and insists upon examining it as
regards its consistency with itself. Augustin takes his stand on
Scripture authority and maintains that Matthewâs statements as to the
birth of Christ must be accepted as final.
1. Faustus said: Christ, you say, could not have died, had He not
been born. I reply, If He was born, He cannot have been God; or if
He could both be God and be born, why could He not both be born and
die? Plainly, arguments and necessary consequences are not
applicable to those matters, where the question is of the account to
be given of Jesus. The answer must be obtained from His own
statements, or from the statements of His apostles regarding Him.Â
The genealogy must be examined as regards its consistency with itself,
instead of arguing from the supposition of Christâs death to the fact
of His birth; for He might have suffered without having been born, or
He might have been born, and yet never have suffered; for you
yourselves acknowledge that with God nothing is impossible, which is
inconsistent with the denial that Christ could have suffered without
having been born.
2. Augustin replied: You are always answering arguments which no
one uses, instead of our real arguments, which you cannot answer. No
one says that Christ could not die if He had not been born; for Adam
died though he had not been born. What we say is, Christ was born,
because this is said not by this or that heretic, but in the holy
Gospel; and He died, for this too is written, not in some heretical
production, but in the holy Gospel. You set aside argument on the
question of the true account to be given of Jesus, and refer to what
He says of Himself, and what His apostles say of Him; and yet, when I
begin to quote the Gospel of His apostle Matthew, where we have the
whole narrative of Christâs birth, you forthwith deny that Matthew
wrote the narrative, though this is affirmed by the continuous
testimony of the whole Church, from the days of apostolic presidency
to the bishops of our own time. What authority will you quote
against this? Perhaps some book of Manichæus, where it is denied
that Jesus was born of a virgin. As, then, I believe your book to be
the production of Manichæus, since it has been kept and handed down
among the disciples of Manichæus, from the time when he lived to the
present time, by a regular succession of your presidents, so I ask you
to believe the book which I quote to have been written by Matthew,
since it has been handed down from the days of Matthew in the Church,
without any break in the connection between that time and the
present. The question then is, whether we are to believe the
statements of an apostle who was in the company of Christ while He was
on earth, or of a man away in Persia, born long after Christ. But
perhaps you will quote some other book bearing the name of an apostle
known to have been chosen by Christ; and you will find there that
Christ was not born of Mary. Since, then, one of the books must be
false, the question in this case is, whether we are to yield our
belief to a book acknowledged and approved as handed down from the
beginning in the Church founded by Christ Himself, and maintained
through the apostles and their successors in an unbroken connection
all over the world to the present day; or to a book which this Church
condemns as unknown, and which, moreover, is brought forward by men
who prove their veracity by praising Christ for falsehood.
3. Here you will say, Examine the genealogy as given in the two
Gospels, and see if it is consistent with itself. The answer to this
has been given already.[1009]1009Â Your difficulty is how Joseph
could have two fathers. But even if you could not have thought of
the explanation, that one was his own father, and the other adopted,
you should not have been so ready to put yourself in opposition to
such high authority. Now that this explanation has been given you, I
call upon you to acknowledge the truth of the Gospel, and above all to
cease your mischievous and unreasonable attacks upon the truth.
4. Faustus most plausibly refers to what Jesus said of Himself.Â
But how is this to be known except from the narratives of His
disciples? And if we do not believe them when they tell us that
Christ was born of a virgin, how shall we believe what they record as
said by Christ of Himself? For, as regards any writing professing to
come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how is it
not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the
Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His
apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and
extended to our own day, and in which is found the fulfillment of many
former predictions, while those concerning the last days are sure to
be accomplished in the future? In regard to the appearance of such a
writing, it would require to be considered from what quarter it
issued. Supposing it to have issued from Christ Himself, those in
immediate connection with Him might very well have received it, and
have transmitted it to others. In this case, the authority of the
writing would be fully established by the traditions of various
communities, and of their presidents, as I have already said. Who,
then, is so infatuated as in our day to believe that the Epistle of
Christ issued by Manichæus is genuine, or to disbelieve Matthewâs
narrative of Christâs words and actions? Or, if the question is of
Matthew being the real author, who would not, in this also, believe
what he finds in the Church, which has a distinct history in unbroken
connection from the days of Matthew to the present time, rather than a
Persian interloper, who comes more than two hundred years after, and
wishes us to believe his account of Christâs words and actions rather
than that of Matthew; whereas, even in the case of the Apostle Paul,
who was called from heaven after the Lordâs ascension, the Church
would not have believed him, had there not been apostles in life with
whom he might communicate, and compare his gospel with theirs, so as
to be recognized as belonging to the same society? When it was
ascertained that Paul preached what the apostles preached, and that he
lived in fellowship and harmony with them, and when Godâs testimony
was added by Paulâs working miracles like those done by the apostles,
his authority became so great, that his words are now received in the
Church, as if, to use his own appropriate words, Christ were speaking
in him.[1010]1010 Manichæus, on the other hand, thinks that the
Church of Christ should believe what he says in opposition to the
Scriptures, which are supported by such strong and continuous
evidence, and in which the Church finds an emphatic injunction, that
whoever preaches to her differently from what she has received must be
anathema.[1011]1011
5. Faustus tells us that he has good grounds for concluding that
these Scriptures are unworthy of credit. And yet he speaks of not
using arguments. But the argument too shall be refuted. The end of
the whole argument is to bring the soul to believe that the reason of
its misery in this world is, that it is the means of preventing God
from being deprived of His kingdom, and that Godâs substance and
nature is so exposed to change, corruption, injury, and contamination,
that part of it is incurably defiled, and is consigned by Himself to
eternal punishment in the mass of darkness, though, when it was in
harmless union with Himself, and guilty of no crime, He knowingly sent
it where it was to suffer defilement. This is the end of all your
arguments and fictions; and would that there were an end of them as
regards your heart and your lips, that you might sometime desist from
believing and uttering those execrable blasphemies! But, says
Faustus, I prove from the writings themselves that they cannot be in
all points trustworthy, for they contradict one another. Why not
say, then, that they are wholly untrustworthy, if their testimony is
inconsistent and self-contradictory? But, says Faustus, I say what I
think to be in accordance with truth. With what truth? The truth
is only your own fiction, which begins with Godâs battle, goes on to
His contamination, and ends with His damnation. No one, says
Faustus, believes writings which contradict themselves. But if you
think they do this, it is because you do not understand them; for your
ignorance has been manifested in regard to the passages you have
quoted in support of your opinion, and the same will appear in regard
to any quotations you may still make. So there is no reason for our
not believing these writings, supported as they are by such weighty
testimony; and this is itself the best reason for pronouncing accursed
those whose preaching differs from what is there written.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXIX.
Faustus seeks to justify the docetism of the Manichæans. Augustin
insists that there is nothing disgraceful in being born.
1. Faustus said: If Christ was visible, and suffered without
having been born, this was sorcery. This argument of yours may be
turned against you, by replying that it was sorcery if He was
conceived or brought forth without being begotten. It is not in
accordance with the law of nature that a virgin should bring forth,
and still less that she should still be a virgin after bringing
forth. Why, then, do you refuse to admit that Christ, in a
preternatural manner, suffered without submitting to the condition of
birth? Believe me: in substance, both our beliefs are contrary to
nature; but our belief is decent, and yours is not. We give an
explanation of Christâs passion which is at least probable, while the
only explanation you give of His birth is false. In fine, we hold
that He suffered in appearance, and did not really die; you believe in
an actual birth, and conception in the womb. If it is not so, you
have only to acknowledge that the birth too was a delusion, and our
whole dispute will be at an end. As to what you frequently allege,
that Christ could not have appeared or spoken to men without having
been born, it is absurd; for, as our teachers have shown, angels have
often appeared and spoken to men.
2. Augustin replied: We do not say that to die without having been
born is sorcery; for, as we have said already, this happened in the
case of Adam. But, though it had never happened, who will venture to
say that Christ could not, if He had so pleased, have come without
taking His body from a virgin, and yet appearing in a true body to
redeem us by a true death? However, it was better that He should be,
as He actually was, born of a virgin, and, by His condescension, do
honor to both sexes, for whose deliverance He was to die, by taking a
manâs body born of a woman. In this He testifies emphatically
against you, and refutes your doctrine, which makes the sexes the work
of the devil. What we call sorcery in your doctrine is your making
Christâs passion and death to have been only in appearance, so that,
by a spectral illusion, He seemed to die when He did not. Hence you
must also make His resurrection spectral and illusory and false; for
if there was no true death, there could not be a real resurrection.Â
Hence also the marks which He showed to His doubting disciples must
have been false; and Thomas was not assured by truth, but cheated by a
lie, when he exclaimed, "My Lord, and my God."[1012]1012Â And yet you
would have us believe that your tongue utters truth, though Christâs
whole body was a falsehood. Our argument against you is, that the
Christ you make is such that you cannot be His true disciples unless
you too practise deceit. The fact that Christâs body was the only
one born of a virgin does not prove that there was sorcery in His
birth, any more than there is sorcery in its being the only body to
rise again on the third day, never to die any more. Will you say
that there was sorcery in all the Lordâs miracles because they were
unusual? They really happened, and their appearance, as seen by men,
was true, and not an illusion; and when they are said to be contrary
to nature, it is not that they oppose nature, but that they transcend
the method of nature to which we are accustomed. May God keep the
minds of His people who are still babes in Christ from being
influenced by Faustus, when he recommends as a duty that we should
acknowledge Christâs birth to have been illusory and not real, that so
we may end our dispute! Nay, verily, rather let us continue to
contend for the truth against them, than agree with them in falsehood.
3. But if we are to end the controversy by saying this, why do not
our opponents themselves say it? While they assert the death of
Christ to have been not real but feigned, why do they make out that He
had no birth at all, not even of the same kind as His death? If they
had so much regard for the authority of the evangelist as to oblige
them to admit that Christ suffered, at least in appearance, it is the
same authority which testifies to His birth. Two evangelists,
indeed, give the story of the birth;[1013]1013 but in all we read of
Jesus having a mother.[1014]1014Â Perhaps Faustus was unwilling to
make the birth an illusion, because the difference of the genealogies
given in Matthew and Luke causes an apparent discrepancy. But,
supposing a man ignorant, there are many things also relating to the
passion of Christ in which he will think the evangelists disagree;
suppose him instructed, he finds entire agreement. Can it be right
to feign death, and wrong to feign birth? And yet Faustus will have
us acknowledge the birth to be feigned, in order to put an end to the
dispute. It will appear presently in our reply to another objection
what we think to be the reason why Faustus will not admit of any
birth, even a feigned one.
4. We deny that there is anything disgraceful in the bodies of
saints. Some members, indeed, are called uncomely, because they have
not so pleasing an appearance as those constantly in view.[1015]1015Â
But attend to what the apostle says, when from the unity and harmony
of the body he enjoins charity on the Church:Â "Much more those
members of the body, which seem to be feeble, are necessary:Â and
those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon
these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more
abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God
hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to
that part which lacked:Â that there should be no schism in the
body."[1016]1016Â The licentious and intemperate use of those members
is disgraceful, but not the members themselves; for they are preserved
in purity not only by the unmarried, but also by wedded fathers and
mothers of holy life, in whose case the natural appetite, as serving
not lust, but an intelligent purpose in the production of children, is
in no way disgraceful. Still more, in the holy Virgin Mary, who by
faith conceived the body of Christ, there was nothing disgraceful in
the members which served not for a common natural conception, but for
a miraculous birth. In order that we might conceive Christ in
sincere hearts, and, as it were, produce Him in confession, it was
meet that His body should come from the substance of His mother
without injury to her bodily purity. We cannot suppose that the
mother of Christ suffered loss by His birth, or that the gift of
productiveness displaced the grace of virginity. If these
occurrences, which were real and no illusion, are new and strange, and
contrary to the common course of nature, the reason is, that they are
great, and amazing, and divine; and all the more on this account are
they true, and firm, and sure. Angels, says Faustus, appeared and
spoke without having been born. As if we held that Christ could not
have appeared or spoken without having been born of a woman! He
could, but He chose not; and what He chose was best. And that He
chose to do what He did is plain, because He acted, not like your god,
from necessity, but voluntarily. That He was born we know, because
we put faith not in a heretic, but in Christâs gospel.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXX.
Faustus repels the insinuation that the prophecy of Paul with
reference to those that should forbid to marry, abstain from meats,
etc., applies to the Manichæans more than to the Catholic ascetics,
who are held in the highest esteem in the Church. Augustin justifies
this application of the prophecy, and shows the difference between
Manichæan and Christian asceticism.
1. Faustus said: You apply to us the words of Paul: "Some shall
depart from the faith, giving heed to lying spirits, and doctrines of
devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared as
with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats, which God
has created to be received with thanksgiving by
believers."[1017]1017Â I refuse to admit that the apostle said this,
unless you first acknowledge that Moses and the prophets taught
doctrines of devils, and were the interpreters of a lying and
malignant spirit; since they enjoin with great emphasis abstinence
from swineâs flesh and other meats, which they call unclean. This
case must first be settled; and you must consider long and carefully
how their teaching is to be viewed:Â whether they said these things
from God, or from the devil. As regards these matters, either Moses
and the prophets must be condemned along with us; or we must be
acquitted along with them. You are unjust in condemning us, as you
do now, as followers of the doctrine of devils, because we require the
priestly class to abstain from animal food; for we limit the
prohibition to the priesthood, while you hold that your prophets, and
Moses himself, who forbade all classes of men to eat the flesh of
swine, and hares, and conies, besides all varieties of cuttle-fish,
and all fish wanting scales, said this not in a lying spirit, nor in
the doctrine of devils, but from God, and in the Holy Spirit. Even
supposing, then, that Paul said these words, you can convince me only
by condemning Moses and the prophets; and so, though you will not do
it for reason or truth, you will contradict Moses for the sake of your
belly.
2. Besides, you have in your Book of Daniel the account of the three
youths, which you will find it difficult to reconcile with the opinion
that to abstain from meats is the doctrine of devils. For we are
told that they abstained not only from what the law forbade, but even
from what it allowed;[1018]1018 and you are wont to praise them, and
count them as martyrs; though they too followed the doctrine of
devils, if this is to be taken as the apostleâs opinion. And Daniel
himself declares that he fasted for three weeks, not eating flesh or
drinking wine, while he prayed for his people.[1019]1019Â How is it
that he boasts of this doctrine of devils, and glories in the
falsehood of a lying spirit?
3. Again, what are we to think of you, or of the better class of
Christians among you, some of whom abstain from swineâs flesh, some
from the flesh of quadrupeds, and some from all animal food, while all
the Church admires them for it, and regards them with profound
veneration, as only not gods? You obstinately refuse to consider
that if the words quoted from the apostle are true and genuine, these
people too are misled by doctrines of devils. And there is another
observance which no one will venture to explain away or to deny, for
it is known to all, and is practised yearly with particular attention
in the congregation of Catholics all over the worldâI mean the fast of
forty days, in the due observance of which a man must abstain from all
the things which, according to this verse, were created by God that we
might receive them, while at the same time he calls this abstinence a
doctrine of devils. So, my dear friends, shall we say that you too,
during this fast, while celebrating the mysteries of Christâs passion,
live after the manner of devils, and are deluded by a seducing spirit,
and speak lies in hypocrisy, and have your conscience seared with a
hot iron? If this does not apply to you, neither does it apply to
us. What is to be thought of this verse, or its author; or to whom
does it apply, since it agrees neither with the traditions of the Old
Testament, nor with the institutions of the New? As regards the New
Testament, the proof is from your own practice; and though the Old
requires abstinence only from certain things, still it requires
abstinence. On the other hand, this opinion of yours makes all
abstinence from animal food a doctrine of devils. If this is your
belief, once more I say it, you must condemn Moses, and reject the
prophets, and pass the same sentence on yourselves; for, as they
always abstained from certain kinds of food, so you sometimes abstain
from all food.
4. But if you think that in making a distinction in food, Moses and
the prophets established a divine ordinance, and not a doctrine of
devils; if Daniel in the Holy Spirit observed a fast of three weeks;
if the youths Ananias, Azarias, and Mishael, under divine guidance,
chose to live on cabbage or pulse; if, again, those among you who
abstain, do it not at the instigation of devils; if your abstinence
from wine and flesh for forty days is not superstitious, but by divine
command,âconsider, I beseech you, if it is not perfect madness to
suppose these words to be Paulâs that abstinence from food and
forbidding to marry are doctrines of devils. Paul cannot have said
that to dedicate virgins to Christ is a doctrine of devils. But you
read the words, and inconsiderately, as usual, apply them to us,
without seeing that this stamps your virgins too as led away by the
doctrine of devils, and that you are the functionaries of the devils
in your constant endeavors to induce virgins to make this profession,
so that in all your churches the virgins nearly outnumber the married
women. Why do you still adhere to such practises? Why do you
ensnare wretched young women, if it is the will of devils, and not of
Christ, that they fulfill? But, first of all, I wish to know if
making virgins is, in all cases, the doctrine of devils, or only the
prohibition of marriage. If it is the prohibition, it does not apply
to us, for we too hold it equally foolish to prevent one who wishes,
as it is criminal and impious to force one who has some reluctance.Â
But if you say that to encourage the proposal, and not to resist such
a desire, is all the doctrine of devils, to say nothing of the
consequence as regards you, the apostle himself will be thus brought
into danger, if he must be considered as having introduced the
doctrines of devils into Iconium, when Thecla, after having been
betrothed, was by his discourse inflamed with the desire of perpetual
virginity.[1020]1020Â And what shall we say of Jesus, the Master
Himself, and the source of all sanctity, who is the unwedded spouse of
the virgins who make this profession, and who, when specifying in the
Gospel three kinds of eunuchs, natural, artificial, and voluntary,
gives the palm to those who have "made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven,"[1021]1021 meaning the youths of both sexes who
have extirpated from their hearts the desire of marriage, and who in
the Church act as eunuchs of the Kingâs palace? Is this also the
doctrine of devils? Are those words, too, spoken in a seducing
spirit? And if Paul and Christ are proved to be priests of devils,
is not their spirit the same that speaks in God? I do not mention
the other apostles of our Lord, Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and the example
of celibacy, the blessed John, who in various ways commended to young
men and maidens the excellence of this profession, leaving to us, and
to you too, the form for making virgins. I do not mention them,
because you do not admit them into the canon, and so you will not
scruple impiously to impute to them doctrines of devils. But will
you say the same of Christ, or of the Apostle Paul, who, we know,
everywhere expressed the same preference for unmarried women to the
married, and gave an example of it in the case of the saintly
Thecla? But if the doctrine preached by Paul to Thecla, and which
the other apostles also preached, was not the doctrine of devils, how
can we believe that Paul left on record his opinion, that the very
exhortation to sanctity is the injunction and the doctrine of
devils? To make virgins simply by exhortation, without forbidding to
marry, is not peculiar to you. That is our principle too; and he
must be not only a fool, but a madman, who thinks that a private law
can forbid what the public law allows. As regards marriage,
therefore, we too encourage virgins to remain as they are when they
are willing to do so; we do not make them virgins against their
will. For we know the force of will and of natural appetite when
opposed by public law; much more when the law is only private, and
every one is at liberty to disobey it. If, then, it is no crime to
make virgins in this manner, we are guiltless as well as you. If it
is wrong to make virgins in any way, you are guilty as well as we.Â
So that what you mean, or intend, by quoting this verse against us, it
is impossible to say.
5. Augustin replied: Listen, and you shall hear what we mean and
intend by quoting this verse against you, since you say that you do
not know. It is not that you abstain from animal food; for, as you
observe, our ancient fathers abstained from some kinds of food, not,
however, as condemning them, but with a typical meaning, which you do
not understand, and of which I have said already in this work all that
appeared necessary. Besides, Christians, not heretics, but
Catholics, in order to subdue the body, that the soul may be more
humbled in prayer, abstain not only from animal food, but also from
some vegetable productions, without, however, believing them to be
unclean. A few do this always; and at certain seasons or days, as in
Lent, almost all, more or less, according to the choice or ability of
individuals. You, on the other hand, deny that the creature is good,
and call it unclean, saying that animals are made by the devil of the
worst impurities in the substance of evil and so you reject them with
horror, as being the most cruel and loathsome places of confinement of
your god. You, as a concession, allow your followers, as distinct
from the priests, to eat animal food; as the apostle allows, in
certain cases, not marriage in the general sense, but the indulgence
of passion in marriage.[1022]1022Â It is only sin which is thus made
allowance for. This is the feeling you have toward all animal food;
you have learned it from your heresy, and you teach it to your
followers. Â You make allowance for your followers, because, as I said
before, they supply you with necessaries; but you grant them
indulgence without saying that it is not sinful. For yourselves, you
shun contact with this evil and impurity; and hence our reason for
quoting this verse against you is found in the words of the apostle
which follow those with which you end the quotation. Perhaps it was
for this reason that you left out the words, and then say that you do
not know what we mean or intend by the quotation; for it suited you
better to omit the account of our intention than to express it. For,
after speaking of abstaining from meats, which God has created to be
received with thanksgiving by believers, the apostle goes on, "And by
them who know the truth; for every creature of God is good, and
nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:Â for it
is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."[1023]1023Â This you
deny; for your idea, and motive, and belief in abstaining from such
food is, that they are not typically, but naturally, evil and
impure. In this assuredly you blaspheme the Creator; and in this is
the doctrine of devils. You need not be surprised that, so long
before the event, this prediction regarding you was made by the Holy
Spirit.
6. So, again, if your exhortations to virginity resembled the
teaching of the apostle, "He who giveth in marriage doeth well, and he
who giveth not in marriage doeth better;"[1024]1024 if you taught that
marriage is good, and virginity better, as the Church teaches which is
truly Christâs Church, you would not have been described in the
Spiritâs prediction as forbidding to marry. What a man forbids he
makes evil; but a good thing may be placed second to a better thing
without being forbidden. Moreover, the only honorable kind of
marriage, or marriage entered into for its proper and legitimate
purpose, is precisely that you hate most. So, though you may not
forbid sexual intercourse, you forbid marriage; for the peculiarity of
marriage is, that it is not merely for the gratification of passion,
but, as is written in the contract, for the procreation of children.Â
And, though you allow many of your followers to retain their
connection with you in spite of their refusal, or their inability, to
obey you, you cannot deny that you make the prohibition. The
prohibition is part of your false doctrine, while the toleration is
only for the interests of the society. And here we see the reason,
which I have delayed till now to mention, for your making not the
birth but only the death of Christ feigned and illusory. Death being
the separation of the soul, that is, of the nature of your god, from
the body which belongs to his enemies, for it is the work of the
devil, you uphold and approve of it; and thus, according to your
creed, it was meet that Christ, though He did not die, should commend
death by appearing to die. In birth, again, you believe your god to
be bound instead of released; and so you will not allow that Christ
was born even in this illusory fashion. You would have thought
better of Mary had she ceased to be a virgin without being a mother,
than as being a mother without ceasing to be a virgin. You see,
then, that there is a great difference between exhorting to virginity
as the better of two good things, and forbidding to marry by
denouncing the true purpose of marriage; between abstaining from food
as a symbolic observance, or for the mortification of the body, and
abstaining from food which God has created for the reason that God did
not create it. In one case, we have the doctrine of the prophets and
apostles; in the other, the doctrine of lying devils.
ââââââââââââ
Book XXXI.
The scripture passage:Â "To the pure all things are pure, but to the
impure and defiled is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience
are defiled," is discussed from both the Manichæan and the Catholic
points of view, Faustus objecting to its application to his party and
Augustin insisting on its application.
1. Faustus said: "To the pure all things are pure. But to the
impure and defiled is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience
are defiled."Â As regards this verse, too, it is very doubtful
whether, for your own sake, you should believe it to have been written
by Paul. For it would follow that Moses and the prophets were not
only influenced by devils in making so much in their laws of the
distinctions in food, but also that they themselves were impure and
defiled in their mind and conscience, so that the following words also
might properly be applied to them:Â "They profess to know God, but in
works deny Him."[1025]1025Â This is applicable to no one more than to
Moses and the prophets, who are known to have lived very differently
from what was becoming in men knowing God. Up to this time I have
thought only of adulteries and frauds and murders as defiling the
conscience of Moses and the prophets; but now, from what this verse
says, it is plain that they were also defiled, because they looked
upon something as defiled. How, then, can you persist in thinking
that the vision of the divine majesty can have been bestowed on such
men, when it is written that only the pure in heart can see God?Â
Even supposing that they had been pure from unlawful crimes, this
superstitious abstinence from certain kinds of food, if it defiles the
mind, is enough to debar them from the sight of deity. Gone for
ever, too, is the boast of Daniel, and of the three youths, who, till
now that we are told that nothing is unclean, have been regarded among
the Jews as persons of great purity and excellence of character,
because, in observance of hereditary customs, they carefully avoided
defiling themselves with Gentile food, especially that of
sacrifices.[1026]1026Â Now it appears that they were defiled in mind
and conscience most of all when they were closing their mouth against
blood and idol-feasts.
2. But perhaps their ignorance may excuse them; for, as this
Christian doctrine of all things being pure to the pure had not then
appeared, they may have thought some things impure. But there can be
no excuse for you in the face of Paulâs announcement, that there is
nothing which is not pure, and that abstinence from certain food is
the doctrine of devils, and that those who think anything defiled are
polluted in their mind, if you not only abstain, as we have said, but
make a merit of it, and believe that you become more acceptable to
Christ in proportion as you are more abstemious, or, according to this
new doctrine, as your minds are defiled and your conscience
polluted. It should also be observed that, while there are three
religions in the world which, though in a very different manner,
appoint chastity and abstinence as the means of purification of the
mind, the religions, namely, of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the
Christians, the opinion that everything is pure cannot have come from
any one of the three. It is certainly not from Judaism, nor from
Paganism, which also makes a distinction of food; the only difference
being, that the Hebrew classification of animals does not harmonize
with the Pagan. Then as to the Christian faith, if you think it
peculiar to Christianity to consider nothing defiled, you must first
of all confess that there are no Christians among you. For things
offered to idols, and what dies of itself, to mention nothing else,
are regarded by you all as great defilement. If, again, this is a
Christian practice, on your part, the doctrine which is opposed to all
abstinence from impurities cannot be traced to Christianity either.Â
How, then, could Paul have said what is not in keeping with any
religion? In fact, when the apostle from a Jew became a Christian,
it was a change of customs more than of religion. As for the writer
of this verse, there seems to be no religion which favors his opinion.
3. Be sure, then, whenever you discover anything else in Scripture
to assail our faith with, to see, in the first place, that it is not
against you, before you commence your attack on us. For instance,
there is the passage you continually quote about Peter, that he once
saw a vessel let down from heaven in which were all kinds of animals
and serpents, and that, when he was surprised and astonished, a voice
was heard, saying to him, Peter, kill and eat whatsoever thou seest in
the vessel, and that he replied, Lord I will not touch what is common
or unclean. On this the voice spoke again, What I have cleansed,
call not unclean.[1027]1027Â This, indeed, seems to have an
allegorical meaning, and not to refer to the absence of distinction in
food. But as you choose to give it this meaning, you are bound to
feed upon all wild animals, and scorpions, and snakes, and reptiles in
general, in compliance with this vision of Peterâs. In this way, you
will show that you are really obedient to the voice which Peter is
said to have heard. But you must never forget that you at the same
time condemn Moses and the prophets, who considered many things
polluted which, according to this utterance, God has sanctified.
4. Augustin replied: When the apostle says, "To the pure all
things are pure," he refers to the natures which God had created,âas
it is written by Moses in Genesis, "And God made all things; and
behold they were very good,"[1028]1028ânot to the typical meanings,
according to which God, by the same Moses, distinguished the clean
from the unclean. Of this we have already spoken at length more than
once, and need not dwell on it here. It is clear that the apostle
called those impure who, after the revelation of the New Testament,
still advocated the observance of the shadows of things to come, as if
without them the Gentiles could not obtain the salvation which is in
Christ, because in this they were carnally minded; and he called them
unbelieving, because they did not distinguish between the time of the
law and the time of grace. To them, he says, nothing is pure,
because they made an erroneous and sinful use both of what they
received and of what they rejected; which is true of all unbelievers,
but especially of you Manichæans, for to you nothing whatever is
pure. For, although you take great care to keep the food which you
use separate from the contamination of flesh, still it is not pure to
you, for the only creator of it you allow is the devil. And you
hold, that, by eating it, you release your god, who suffers
confinement and pollution in it. One would think you might consider
yourselves pure, since your stomach is the proper place for purifying
your god. But even your own bodies, in your opinion, are of the
nature and handiwork of the race of darkness; while your souls are
still affected by the pollution of your bodies. What, then, is pure
to you? Not the things you eat; not the receptacle of your food; not
yourselves, by whom it is purified. Thus you see against whom the
words of the apostle are directed; he expresses himself so as to
include all who are impure and unbelieving, but first and chiefly to
condemn you. To the pure, therefore, all things are pure, in the
nature in which they were created; but to the ancient Jewish people
all things were not pure in their typical significance; and, as
regards bodily health, or the customs of society, all things are not
suitable to us. But when things are in their proper places, and the
order of nature is preserved, to the pure all things are pure; but to
the impure and unbelieving, among whom you stand first, nothing is
pure. You might make a wholesome application to yourselves of the
following words of the apostle, if you desired a cure for your seared
consciences. The words are: "Their very mind and conscience are
defiled."
ââââââââââââ
Book XXXII.
Faustus fails to understand why he should be required either to accept
or reject the New Testament as a whole, while the Catholics accept or
reject the various parts of the Old Testament at pleasure. Augustin
denies that the Catholics treat the Old Testament arbitrarily, and
explains their attitude towards it.
1. Faustus said: You say, that if we believe the Gospel, we must
believe everything that is written in it. Why, then, since you
believe the Old Testament, do you not believe all that is found in any
part of it? Instead of that, you cull out only the prophecies
telling of a future King of the Jews, for you suppose this to be
Jesus, along with a few precepts of common morality, such as, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and all the rest you
pass over, thinking of the other things as Paul thought of the things
which he held to be dung.[1029]1029Â Why, then, should it seem
strange or singular in me that I select from the New Testament
whatever is purest, and helpful for my salvation, while I set aside
the interpolations of your predecessors, which impair its dignity and
grace?
 2. If there are parts of the Testament of the Father which we are
not bound to observe (for you attribute the Jewish law to the Father,
and it is well known that many things in it shock you, and make you
ashamed, so that in heart you no longer regard it as free from
corruption, though, as you believe, the Father Himself partly wrote it
for you with His own finger while part was written by Moses, who was
faithful and trustworthy), the Testament of the Son must be equally
liable to corruption, and may equally well contain objectionable
things; especially as it is allowed not to have been written by the
Son Himself, nor by His apostles, but long after, by some unknown men,
who, lest they should be suspected of writing of things they knew
nothing of, gave to their books the names of the apostles, or of those
who were thought to have followed the apostles, declaring the contents
to be according to these originals. In this, I think, they do
grievous wrong to the disciples of Christ, by quoting their authority
for the discordant and contradictory statements in these writings,
saying that it was according to them that they wrote the Gospels,
which are so full of errors and discrepancies, both in facts and in
opinions, that they can be harmonized neither with themselves nor with
one another. This is nothing else than to slander good men, and to
bring the charge of dissension on the brotherhood of the disciples.Â
In reading the Gospels, the clear intention of our heart perceives the
errors, and, to avoid all injustice, we accept whatever is useful, in
the way of building up our faith, and promoting the glory of the Lord
Christ, and of the Almighty God, His Father, while we reject the rest
as unbecoming the majesty of God and Christ, and inconsistent with our
belief.
3. To return to what I said of your not accepting everything in the
Old Testament. You do not admit carnal circumcision, though that is
what is written;[1030]1030 nor resting from all occupation on the
Sabbath, though that is enjoined;[1031]1031 and instead of
propitiating God, as Moses recommends, by offerings and sacrifices,
you cast these things aside as utterly out of keeping with Christian
worship, and as having nothing at all to recommend them. In some
cases, however, you make a division, and while you accept one part,
you reject the other. Thus, in the Passover, which is also the
annual feast of the Old Testament, while it is written that in this
observance you must slay a lamb to be eaten in the evening, and that
you must abstain from leaven for seven days, and be content with
unleavened bread and bitter herbs,[1032]1032 you accept the feast, but
pay no attention to the rules for its observance. It is the same
with the feast of Pentecost, or seven weeks, and the accompaniment of
a certain kind and number of sacrifices which Moses
enjoins:[1033]1033Â you observe the feast, but you condemn the
propitiatory rites, which are part of it, because they are not in
harmony with Christianity. As regards the command to abstain from
Gentile food, you are zealous believers in the uncleanness of things
offered to idols, and of what has died of itself; but you are not so
ready to believe the prohibition of swineâs flesh, and hares, and
conies, and mullets, and cuttle-fish, and all the fish that you have a
relish for, although Moses pronounces them all unclean.
4. I do not suppose that you will consent, or even listen, to such
things as that a father-in-law should lie with his daughter-in-law, as
Judah did; or a father with his daughters, like Lot; or prophets with
harlots, like Hosea; or that a husband should sell his wife for a
night to her lover, like Abraham; or that a man should marry two
sisters, like Jacob; or that the rulers of the people and the men you
consider as most inspired should keep their mistresses by hundreds and
thousands; or, according to the provision made in Deuteronomy about
wives, that the wife of one brother, if he dies without children,
should marry the surviving brother, and that he should raise up seed
from her instead of his brother; and that if the man refuses to do
this, the fair plaintiff should bring her case before the elders, that
the brother may be called and admonished to perform this religious
duty; and that, if he persists in his refusal, he must not go
unpunished, but the woman must loose his shoe from his right foot, and
strike him in the face, and send him away, spat upon and accursed, to
perpetuate the reproach in his family.[1034]1034Â These, and such as
these, are the examples and precepts of the Old Testament. If they
are good, why do you not practise them? If they are bad, why do you
not condemn the Old Testament, in which they are found? But if you
think that these are spurious interpolations, that is precisely what
we think of the New Testament. You have no right to claim from us an
acknowledgment for the New Testament which you yourselves do not make
for the Old.
5. Since you hold to the divine authorship of the Old as well as of
the New Testament, it would surely be more consistent and more
becoming, as you do not obey its precepts, to confess that it has been
corrupted by improper additions, than to treat it so contemptuously,
if it is genuine and uncorrupted. Accordingly, my explanation of
your neglect of the requirements of the Old Testament has always been,
and still is, that you are either wise enough to reject them as
spurious, or that you have the boldness and irreverence to disregard
them if they are true. At any rate, when you would oblige me to
believe everything contained in the documents of the New Testament
because I receive the Testament itself, you should consider that,
though you profess to receive the Old Testament, you in your heart
disbelieve many things in it. Thus, you do not admit as true or
authoritative the declaration of the Old Testament, that every one
that hangeth on a tree is accursed,[1035]1035 for this would apply to
Jesus; or that every man is accursed who does not raise up seed in
Israel,[1036]1036 for that would include all of both sexes devoted to
God; or that whoever is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin
will be cut off from among his people,[1037]1037 for that would apply
to all Christians; or that whoever breaks the Sabbath must be stoned
to death;[1038]1038 or that no mercy should be shown to the man who
breaks a single precept of the Old Testament. If you really believe
these things as certainly enjoined by God, you would, in the time of
Christ, have been the first to assail Him, and you would now have no
quarrel with the Jews, who, in persecuting Christ with heart and soul,
acted in obedience to their own God.
6. I am aware that instead of boldly pronouncing these passages
spurious, you make out that these things were required of the Jews
till the coming of Jesus; and that now that He is come, according, as
you say, to the predictions of this Old Testament, He Himself teaches
what we should receive, and what we should set aside as obsolete.Â
Whether the prophets predicted the coming of Jesus we shall see
presently. Meanwhile, I need say no more than that if Jesus, after
being predicted in the Old Testament, now subjects it to this sweeping
criticism, and teaches us to receive a few things and to throw over
many things, in the same way the Paraclete who is promised in the New
Testament teaches us what part of it to receive, and what to reject;
as Jesus Himself says in the Gospel, when promising the Paraclete, "He
shall guide you into all truth, and shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance."[1039]1039Â So then, with the
help of the Paraclete, we may take the same liberties with the New
Testament as Jesus enables you to take with the Old, unless you
suppose that the Testament of the Son is of greater value than that of
the Father, if it is really the Fatherâs; so that while many parts of
the one are to be condemned, the other must be exempted from all
disapproval; and that, too, when we know, as I said before, that it
was not written by Christ or by His apostles.
7. Hence, as you receive nothing in the Old Testament except the
prophecies and the common precepts of practical morality, which we
quoted above, while you set aside circumcision, and sacrifices, and
the Sabbath and its observance, and the feast of unleavened bread, why
should not we receive nothing in the New Testament but what we find
said in honor and praise of the majesty of the Son, either by Himself
or by His apostles, with the proviso, in the case of the apostles,
that it was said by them after reaching perfection, and when no longer
in unbelief; while we take no notice of the rest, which, if said at
the time, was the utterance of ignorance or inexperience, or, if not,
was added by crafty opponents with a malicious intention, or was
stated by the writers without due consideration, and so handed down as
authentic? Take as examples, the shameful birth of Jesus from a
woman, His being circumcised like the Jews, His offering sacrifice
like the Gentiles, His being baptized in a humiliating manner, His
being led about by the devil in the wilderness, and His being tempted
by him in the most distressing way. With these exceptions, besides
whatever has been inserted under the pretence of being a quotation
from the Old Testament, we believe the whole, especially the mystic
nailing to the cross, emblematic of the wounds of the soul in its
passion; as also the sound moral precepts of Jesus, and His parables,
and the whole of His immortal discourse, which sets forth especially
the distinction of the two natures, and therefore must undoubtedly be
His. There is, then, no reason for your thinking it obligatory in me
to believe all the contents of the Gospels; for you, as has been
proved, take so dainty a sip from the Old Testament, that you hardly,
so to speak, wet your lips with it.
8. Augustin replied: We give to the whole Old Testament Scriptures
their due praise as true and divine; you impugn the Scriptures of the
New Testament as having been tampered with and corrupted. Those
things in the Old Testament which we do not observe we hold to have
been suitable appointments for the time and the people of that
dispensation, besides being symbolical to us of truths in which they
have still a spiritual use, though the outward observance is
abolished; and this opinion is proved to be the doctrine of the
apostolic writings. You, on the other hand, find fault with
everything in the New Testament which you do not receive, and assert
that these passages were not spoken or written by Christ or His
apostles. In these respects there is a manifest difference between
us. When, therefore, you are asked why you do not receive all the
contents of the New Testament, but, while you approve of some things,
reject a great many in the very same books as false and spurious
interpolations, you must not pretend to imitate us in the distinction
which we make, reverently and in faith, but must give account of your
own presumption.
9. If we are asked why we do not worship God as the Hebrew fathers
of the Old Testament worshipped Him, we reply that God has taught us
differently by the New Testament fathers, and yet in no opposition to
the Old Testament, but as that Testament itself predicted. For it is
thus foretold by the prophet:Â "Behold, the days come, saith the
Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made
with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of
the land of Egypt."[1040]1040Â Thus it was foretold that that
covenant would not continue, but that there would be a new one. And
to the objection that we do not belong to the house of Israel or to
the house of Judah, we answer according to the teaching of the
apostle, who calls Christ the seed of Abraham, and says to us, as
belonging to Christâs body, "Therefore ye are Abrahamâs
seed."[1041]1041Â Again, if we are asked why we regard that Testament
as authoritative when we do not observe its ordinances, we find the
answer to this also in the apostolic writings; for the apostle says,
"Let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holiday, or
a new moon, or of Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come."[1042]1042Â Here we learn both that we ought to read of these
observances, and acknowledge them to be of divine institution, in
order to preserve the memory of the prophecy, for they were shadows of
things to come; and also that we need pay no regard to those who would
judge us for not continuing the outward observance; as the apostle
says elsewhere to the same purpose, "These things happened to them for
an example; and they are written for our admonition, on whom the end
of the ages are come."[1043]1043Â So, when we read anything in the
books of the Old Testament which we are not required to observe in the
New Testament, or which is even forbidden, instead of finding fault
with it, we should ask what it means; for the very discontinuance of
the observance proves it to be, not condemned, but fulfilled. On
this head we have already spoken repeatedly.
10. To take, for example, this requirement on which Faustus
ignorantly grounds his charge against the Old Testament, that a man
should take his brotherâs wife to raise up seed for his brother, to be
called by his name; what does this prefigure, but that every preacher
of the gospel should so labor in the Church as to raise up seed to his
deceased brother, that is, Christ, who died for us, and that this seed
should bear His name? Moreover, the apostle fulfills this
requirement not now in the typical observance, but in the spiritual
reality, when he reproves those of whom he says that he had begotten
them in Christ Jesus by the gospel,[1044]1044 and points out to them
their error in wishing to be of Paul. "Was Paul," he says,
"crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of
Paul?"[1045]1045Â As if he should say, I have begotten you for my
deceased brother; your name is Christian, not Paulian. Then, too,
whoever refuses the ministry of the gospel when chosen by the Church,
justly deserves the contempt of the Church. So we see that the
spitting in the face is accompanied with a sign of reproach in loosing
a shoe from one foot, to exclude the man from the company of those to
whom the apostle says, "Let your feet be shod with the preparation of
the gospel of peace;"[1046]1046 and of whom the prophet thus speaks,
"How beautiful are the feet of them who publish peace, who bring good
tidings of good!"[1047]1047Â The man who holds the faith of the
gospel so as both to profit himself and to be ready when called to
serve the Church, is properly represented as shod on both feet. But
the man who thinks it enough to secure his own safety by believing,
and shirks the duty of benefiting others, has the reproach of being
unshod, not in type, but in reality.
11. Faustus needlessly objects to our observance of the passover,
taunting us with differing from the Jewish observance:Â for in the
gospel we have the true Lamb, not in shadow, but in substance; and
instead of prefiguring the death, we commemorate it daily, and
especially in the yearly festival. Thus also the day of our paschal
feast does not correspond with the Jewish observance, for we take in
the Lordâs day, on which Christ rose. And as to the feast of
unleavened bread, all Christians sound in the faith keep it, not in
the leaven of the old life, that is, of wickedness, but in the truth
and sincerity of the faith;[1048]1048 not for seven days, but always,
as was typified by the number seven, for days are always counted by
sevens. And if this observance is somewhat difficult in this world
since the way which leads to life is strait and narrow,[1049]1049 the
future reward is sure; and this difficulty is typified in the bitter
herbs, which are a little distasteful.
12. The Pentecost, too, we observe, that is, the fiftieth day from
the passion and resurrection of the Lord, for on that day He sent to
us the Holy Paraclete whom He had promised; as was prefigured in the
Jewish passover, for on the fiftieth day after the slaying of the
lamb, Moses on the mount received the law written with the finger of
God.[1050]1050Â If you read the Gospel, you will see that the Spirit
is there called the finger of God.[1051]1051Â Remarkable events which
happened on certain days are annually commemorated in the Church, that
the recurrence of this festival may preserve the recollection of
things so important and salutary. If you ask, then, why we keep the
passover, it is because Christ was then sacrificed for us. If you
ask why we do not retain the Jewish ceremonies, it is because they
prefigured future realities which we commemorate as past; and the
difference between the future and the past is seen in the different
words we use for them. Of this we have already said enough.
13. Again, if you ask why, of all the kinds of food prohibited in
the former typical dispensation, we abstain only from food offered to
idols and from what dies of itself, you shall hear, if for once you
will prefer the truth to idle calumnies. The reason why it is not
expedient for a Christian to eat food offered to idols is given by the
apostle:Â "I would not," he says, "that ye should have fellowship
with demons."Â Not that he finds fault with sacrifice itself, as
offered by the fathers to typify the blood of the sacrifice with which
Christ has redeemed us. For he first says, "The things which the
Gentiles offer, they offer to demons, and not to God;" and then adds
these words:Â "I would not that ye should have fellowship with
demons."[1052]1052Â If the uncleanness were in the nature of
sacrificial flesh, it would necessarily pollute even when eaten in
ignorance. But the reason for not partaking knowingly is not in the
nature of the food, but, for conscience sake, not to seem to have
fellowship with demons. As regards what dies of itself, I suppose
the reason why such food was prohibited was that the flesh of animals
which have died of themselves is diseased, and is not likely to be
wholesome, which is the chief thing in food. The observance of
pouring out the blood which was enjoined in ancient times upon Noah
himself after the deluge,[1053]1053 the meaning of which we have
already explained, is thought by many to be what is meant in the Acts
of the Apostles, where we read that the Gentiles were required to
abstain from fornication, and from things sacrificed, and from
blood,[1054]1054 that is, from flesh of which the blood has not been
poured out. Others give a different meaning to the words, and think
that to abstain from blood means not to be polluted with the crime of
murder. It would take too long to settle this question, and it is
not necessary. For, allowing that the apostles did on that occasion
require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to
eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have consulted the time in
choosing an easy observance that could not be burdensome to any one,
and which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelities, for
the sake of the Corner-stone, who makes both one in Himself;[1055]1055
while at the same time they would be reminded how the Church of all
nations was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave this
command,âa type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the
apostles by the accession of the Gentiles to the faith. But since
the close of that period during which the two walls of the
circumcision and the uncircumcision, although united in the
Corner-stone, still retained some distinctive peculiarities, and now
that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none who are
outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound
to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not
been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on
the neck without shedding their blood. Any who still are afraid to
touch these things are laughed at by the rest:Â so general is the
conviction of the truth, that "not what entereth into the mouth
defileth you, but what cometh out of it;"[1056]1056 that evil lies in
the commission of sin, and not in the nature of any food in ordinary
use.
14. As regards the deeds of the ancients, both those which seem
sinful to foolish and ignorant people, when they are not so, and those
which really are sinful, we have already explained why they have been
written, and how this rather adds to than impairs the dignity of
Scripture. So, too, about the curse on him who hangeth on a tree,
and on him who raises not up seed in Israel, our reply has already
been given in the proper place, when meeting Faustusâ
objections.[1057]1057Â And in reply to all objections whatsoever,
whether we have already answered them separately, or whether they are
contained in the remarks of Faustus which we are now considering, we
appeal to our established principles, on which we maintain the
authority of sacred Scripture. The principle is this, that all
things written in the books of the Old Testament are to be received
with approval and admiration, as most true and most profitable to
eternal life; and that those precepts which are no longer observed
outwardly are to be understood as having been most suitable in those
times, and are to be viewed as having been shadows of things to come,
of which we may now perceive the fulfillments. Accordingly, whoever
in those times neglected the observance of these symbolical precepts
was righteously condemned to suffer the punishment required by the
divine statute, as any one would be now if he were impiously to
profane the sacraments of the New Testament, which differ from the old
observances only as this time differs from that. For as praise is
due to the righteous men of old who refused not to die for the Old
Testament sacraments, so it is due to the martyrs of the New
Testament. And as a sick man should not find fault with the medical
treatment, because one thing is prescribed to-day and another
to-morrow, and what was at first required is afterwards forbidden,
since the method of cure depends on this; so the human race, sick and
sore as it is from Adam to the end of the world, as long as the
corrupted body weighs down the mind,[1058]1058 should not find fault
with the divine prescriptions, if sometimes the same observances are
enjoined, and sometimes an old observance is exchanged for one of a
different kind; especially as there was a promise of a change in the
appointments.
15. Hence there is no force in the analogy which Faustus institutes
between Christâs pointing out to us what to believe and what to reject
in the Old Testament, in which He Himself is predicted, and the
Paracleteâs doing the same to you as regards the New Testament, where
there is a similar prediction of Him. There might have been some
plausibility in this, had there been anything in the Old Testament
which we denounced as a mistake, or as not of divine authority, or as
untrue. We do nothing of the kind; we receive everything, both what
we observe as rules of conduct, and what we no longer observe, but
still recognize as having been prophetical observances, once enjoined
and now fulfilled. And besides, the promise of the Paraclete is
found in those books, all the contents of which you do not accept; and
His mission is recorded in the book which you shrink from even
naming. For, as is stated above, and has been said repeatedly, there
is a distinct narrative in the Acts of the Apostles of the mission of
the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the effect produced showed who
it was. For all who first received Him spoke with tongues;[1059]1059
and in this sign there was a promise that in all tongues, or in all
nations, the Church of after times would faithfully proclaim the
doctrine of the Spirit as well as of the Father and of the Son.
16. Why, then, do you not accept everything in the New Testament?Â
Is it because the books have not the authority of Christâs apostles,
or because the apostles taught what was wrong? You reply that the
books have not the authority of the apostles. That the apostles were
wrong in their teaching is what Pagans say. But what can you say to
prove that the publication of these books cannot be traced to the
apostles? You reply that in many things they contradict themselves
and one another. Nothing could be more untrue; the fact is, you do
not understand. In every case where Faustus has brought forward what
you think a discrepancy, we have shown that there was none; and we
will do the same in every other case. It is intolerable that the
reader or learner should dare to lay the blame on Scriptures of such
high authority, instead of confessing his own stupidity. Did the
Paraclete teach you that these writings are not of the apostlesâ
authorship, but written by others under their names? But where is
the proof that it was the Paraclete from whom you learned this? If
you say that the Paraclete was promised and sent by Christ, we reply
that your Paraclete was neither promised nor sent by Christ; and we
also show you when He sent the Paraclete whom He promised. What
proof have you that Christ sent your Paraclete? Where do you get the
evidence in support of your informant, or rather misinformant? You
reply that you find the proof in the Gospel. In what Gospel? You
do not accept all the Gospel, and you say that it has been tampered
with. Will you first accuse your witness of corruption, and then
call for his evidence? To believe him when you wish it, and then
disbelieve him when you wish it, is to believe nobody but yourself.Â
If we were prepared to believe you, there would be no need of a
witness at all. Moreover, in the promise of the Holy Spirit as the
Paraclete, it is said, "He shall lead you into all truth;"[1060]1060
but how can you be led into all truth by one who teaches you that
Christ was a deceiver? And again, if you were to prove that all that
is said in the Gospel of the promise of the Paraclete could apply to
no one but Manichæus, as the predictions of the prophets are
applicable to Christ; and if you quoted passages from those
manuscripts which you say are genuine, we might say that on this very
point, as proving Manichæus to be the only person intended, the
passages have been altered in the interest of your sect. Your only
answer to this would be, that you could not possibly alter documents
already in the possession of all Christians; for at the very outset of
such an attempt, it would be met by an appeal to older copies. But
if this proves that the books could not be corrupted by you, it also
proves that they could not be corrupted by any one. The first person
who ventured to do such a thing would be convicted by a comparison of
older manuscripts; especially as the Scripture is to be found not in
one language only, but in many. As it is, false readings are
sometimes corrected by comparing older copies or the original
language. Hence you must either acknowledge these documents as
genuine, and then your heresy cannot stand a moment; or if they are
spurious, you cannot use their authority in support of your doctrine
of the Paraclete, and so you refute yourselves.
17. Further, what is said in the promise of the Paraclete shows that
it cannot possibly refer to Manichæus, who came so many years
after. For it is distinctly said by John, that the Holy Spirit was
to come immediately after the resurrection and ascension of the
Lord:Â "For the Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not
yet glorified."[1061]1061Â Now, if the reason why the Spirit was not
given was, that Jesus was not glorified, He would necessarily be given
immediately on the glorification of Jesus. In the same way, the
Cataphrygians[1062]1062 said that they had received the promised
Paraclete; and so they fell away from the Catholic faith, forbidding
what Paul allowed, and condemning second marriages, which he made
lawful. They turned to their own use the words spoken of the Spirit,
"He shall lead you into all truth," as if, forsooth, Paul and the
other apostles had not taught all the truth, but had left room for the
Paraclete of the Cataphrygians. The same meaning they forced from
the words of Paul:Â "We know in part, and we prophesy in part; but
when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall
be done away;"[1063]1063 making out that the apostle knew and
prophesied in part, when he said, "Let him do what he will; if he
marries, he sinneth not,"[1064]1064 and that this is done away by the
perfection of the Phrygian Paraclete.[1065]1065Â And if they are told
that they are condemned by the authority of the Church, which is the
subject of such ancient promises, and is spread all over the world,
they reply that this is in exact fulfillment of what is said of the
Paraclete, that the world cannot receive Him.[1066]1066Â And are not
those passages, "He shall lead you into all truth," and, "When that
which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away,"
and, "The world cannot receive Him," precisely those in which you find
a prediction of Manichæus? And so every heresy arising under the
name of the Paraclete will have the boldness to make an equally
plausible application to itself of such texts. For there is no
heresy but will call itself the truth; and the prouder it is, the more
likely it will be to call itself perfect truth:Â and so it will
profess to lead into all truth; and since that which is perfect has
come by it, it will try to do away with the doctrine of the apostles,
to which its own errors are opposed. And as the Church holds by the
earnest admonition of the apostle, that "whoever preaches another
gospel to you than that which ye have received, let him be
accursed;"[1067]1067 when the heretical preacher begins to be
pronounced accursed by all the world, will he not forthwith exclaim,
This is what is written, "The world cannot receive Him"?
18. Where, then, will you find the proof required to show that it is
from the Paraclete that you have learned that the Gospels were not
written by the apostles? On the other hand, we have proof that the
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, came immediately after the glorification
of Jesus. For "He was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified."Â We have proof also that He leads into all truth, for the
only way to truth is by love, and "the love of God," says the apostle,
"is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto
us."[1068]1068Â We show, too, that in the words, "when that which is
perfect is come," Paul spoke of the perfection in the enjoyment of
eternal life. For in the same place he says: "Now we see through a
glass darkly, but then face to face."[1069]1069Â You cannot
reasonably maintain that we see God face to face here. Therefore
that which is perfect has not come to you. It is thus clear what the
apostle thought on this subject. This perfection will not come to
the saints till the accomplishment of what John speaks of:Â "Now we
are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but
we know that when it shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall
see Him as He is."[1070]1070Â Then we shall be led into all truth by
the Holy Spirit, of which we have now received the pledge. Again,
the words, "The world cannot receive Him," plainly point to those who
are usually called the world in Scriptureâthe lovers of the world, the
wicked, or carnal; of whom the apostle says:Â "The natural man
perceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God."[1071]1071Â
Those are said to be of this world who can understand nothing beyond
material things, which are the objects of sense in this world; as is
the case with you, when, in your admiration of the sun and moon, you
suppose all divine things to resemble them. Deceivers, and being
deceived, you call the author of this silly theory the Paraclete.Â
But as you have no proof of his being the Paraclete, you have no
reliable ground for the statement that the Gospel writings, which you
receive only in part, are not of apostolic authorship. Thus your
only remaining argument is, that these writings contain things
disparaging to the glory of Christ; such as, that He was born of a
virgin, that He was circumcised, that the customary sacrifice was
offered for Him, that He was baptized, that He was tempted of the
devil.
19. With those exceptions, including also the testimonies quoted
from the Old Testament, you profess, to use the words of Faustus, to
receive all the rest, especially the mystic nailing to the cross,
emblematic of the wounds of the soul in its passion; as also the sound
moral precepts of Jesus, and the whole of His immortal discourse,
which sets forth especially the distinction of the two natures, and
therefore must undoubtedly be His. Your design clearly is to deprive
Scripture of all authority, and to make every manâs mind the judge
what passage of Scripture he is to approve of, and what to disapprove
of. This is not to be subject to Scripture in matters of faith, but
to make Scripture subject to you. Instead of making the high
authority of Scripture the reason of approval, every man makes his
approval the reason for thinking a passage correct. If, then, you
discard authority, to what, poor feeble soul, darkened by the mists of
carnality, to what, I beseech you, will you betake yourself? Set
aside authority, and let us hear the reason of your beliefs. Is it
by a logical process that your long story about the nature of God
concludes necessarily with this startling announcement, that this
nature is subject to injury and corruption? And how do you know that
there are eight continents and ten heavens, and that Atlas bears up
the world, and that it hangs from the great world-holder, and
innumerable things of the same kind? Who is your authority?Â
Manichæus, of course, you will say. But, unhappy being, this is not
sight, but faith. If, then, you submit to receive a load of endless
fictions at the bidding of an obscure and irrational authority, so
that you believe all those things because they are written in the
books which your misguided judgment pronounces trustworthy, though
there is no evidence of their truth, why not rather submit to the
authority of the Gospel, which is so well founded, so confirmed, so
generally acknowledged and admired, and which has an unbroken series
of testimonies from the apostles down to our own day, that so you may
have an intelligent belief, and may come to know that all your
objections are the fruit of folly and perversity; and that there is
more truth in the opinion that the unchangeable nature of God should
take part of mortality, so as, without injury to itself from this
union, to do and to suffer not feignedly, but really, whatever it
behoved the mortal nature to do and to suffer for the salvation of the
human race from which it was taken, than in the belief that the nature
of God is subject to injury and corruption, and that, after suffering
pollution and captivity, it cannot be wholly freed and purified, but
is condemned by a supreme divine necessity to eternal punishment in
the mass of darkness?
20. You say, in reply, that you believe in what Manichæus has not
proved, because he has so clearly proved the existence of two natures,
good and evil, in this world. But here is the very source of your
unhappy delusion; for as in the Gospels, so in the world, your idea of
what is evil is derived entirely from the effect on your senses of
such disagreeable things as serpents, fire, poison, and so on; and the
only good you know of is what has an agreeable effect on your senses,
as pleasant flavors, and sweet smells, and sunlight, and whatever else
recommends itself strongly to your eyes, or your nostrils, or your
palate, or any other organ of sensation. But had you begun with
looking on the book of nature as the production of the Creator of all,
and had you believed that your own finite understanding might be at
fault wherever anything seemed to be amiss, instead of venturing to
find fault with the works of God, you would not have been led into
these impious follies and blasphemous fancies with which, in your
ignorance of what evil really is, you heap all evils upon God.
21. We can now answer the question, how we know that these books
were written by the apostles. In a word, we know this in the same
way that you know that the books whose authority you are so deluded as
to prefer were written by Manichæus. For, suppose some one should
raise a question on this point, and should contend, in arguing with
you, that the books which you attribute to Manichæus are not of his
authorship; your only reply would be, to ridicule the absurdity of
thus gratuitously calling in question a matter confirmed by successive
testimonies of such wide extent. As, then, it is certain that these
books are the production of Manichæus, and as it is ridiculous in one
born so many years after to start objections of his own, and so raise
a discussion on the point; with equal certainty may we pronounce it
absurd, or rather pitiable, in Manichæus or his followers to bring
such objections against writings originally well authenticated, and
carefully handed down from the times of the apostles to our own day
through a constant succession of custodians.
22. We have now only to compare the authority of Manichæus with
that of the apostles. The genuineness of the writings is equally
certain in both cases. But no one will compare Manichæus to the
apostles, unless he ceases to be a follower of Christ, who sent the
apostles. Who that did not misunderstand Christâs words ever found
in them the doctrine of two natures opposed to one another, and having
each its own principle? Again, the apostles, as becomes the
disciples of truth, declare the birth and passion of Christ to have
been real events; while Manichæus, who boasts that he leads into all
truth, would lead us to a Christ whose very passion he declares to
have been an illusion. The apostles say that Christ was circumcised
in the flesh which He took of the seed of Abraham; Manichæus says
that God, in his own nature, was cut in pieces by the race of
darkness. The apostles say that a sacrifice was offered for Christ
as an infant in our nature, according to the institutions of the time;
Manichæus, that a member, not of humanity, but of the divine
substance itself, must be sacrificed to the whole host of demons by
being introduced into the nature of the hostile race. The apostles
say that Christ, to set us an example, was baptized in the Jordan;
Manichæus, that God immersed himself in the pollution of darkness,
and that he will never wholly emerge, but that the part which cannot
be purified will be condemned to eternal punishment. The apostles
say that Christ, in our nature, was tempted by the chief of the
demons; Manichæus, that part of God was taken captive by the race of
demons. And in the temptation of Christ He resists the tempter;
while in the captivity of God, the part taken captive cannot be
restored to its origin even after victory. To conclude, Manichæus,
under the guise of an improvement, preaches another gospel, which is
the doctrine of devils; and the apostles, after the doctrine of
Christ, enjoin that whoever preaches another gospel shall be
accursed.[1072]1072
ââââââââââââ
Book XXXIII.
Faustus does not think it would be a great honor to sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose moral characters as set forth in the
Old Testament he detests. He justifies his subjective criticism of
Scripture. Augustin sums up the argument, claims the victory, and
exhorts the Manichæans to abandon their opposition to the Old
Testament notwithstanding the difficulties that it presents, and to
recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.
1. Faustus said: You quote from the Gospel the words, "Many shall
come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven,"[1073]1073 and ask why we
do not acknowledge the patriarchs. Now, we should be the last to
grudge to any human being that God should have compassion on him, and
bring him out of perdition to salvation. At the same time, we should
acknowledge in such a case the clemency shown in this act of
compassion, and not the merit of the person whose life is undeniably
blameworthy. Thus, in the case of the Jewish fathers, Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, who are mentioned by Christ in this verse, supposing
it to be genuine, although they led wicked lives, as we may learn from
their descendant Moses, or whoever was the author of the history
called Genesis, which describes their conduct as having been most
shocking and detestable; we are ready to allow that they may, after
all, be in the kingdom of heaven, in the place which they neither
believed in, nor hoped for, as is plain enough from their books. But
then it must be kept in mind that, as you yourselves confess, if they
did attain to what is spoken of in this verse, it was something very
different from the nether dungeons of woe to which their own deserts
consigned them, and that their deliverance was the work of our Lord
Christ, and the result of His mystic passion. Who would grudge to
the thief on the cross that deliverance was granted to him by the same
Lord, and that Christ said that on that very day he should be with Him
in the paradise of His Father?[1074]1074Â Who is so hard-hearted as
to disapprove of this act of benevolence? Still, it does not follow
that, because Jesus pardoned a thief, we must approve of the habits
and practices of thieves; any more than of the publicans and harlots,
whose faults Jesus pardoned, declaring that they would go into the
kingdom of heaven before those who behaved proudly.[1075]1075Â For,
when He acquitted the woman accused by the Jews as sinful, and as
having been caught in adultery, He told her to sin no
more.[1076]1076Â If, then, He has done something of the same kind in
the case of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, all the praise is His; for
such actions towards souls are becoming in Him who maketh His sun to
rise upon the evil and upon the good, and sendeth rain on the just and
on the unjust.[1077]1077Â One thing perplexes me in your doctrine:Â
why you limit your statements to the fathers of the Jews, and are not
of opinion that the Gentile patriarchs had also a share in this grace
of our Redeemer; especially as the Christian Church consists of their
children more than of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You
will say that the Gentiles worshipped idols, and the Jews the Almighty
God, and that therefore Jesus had regard only to the Jews. It would
seem from this that the worship of the Almighty God is the sure way to
hell, and that the Son must come to the aid of the worshipper of the
Father. That is as you please. For my part, I am ready to join you
in the belief that the fathers reached heaven, not by any merit of
their own, but by that divine mercy which is stronger than sin.
2. However, there is a difficulty in deciding as regards this verse
too, whether the words were really spoken to Christ, for there is a
discrepancy in the narratives. For while two evangelists, Matthew
and Luke, both alike tell of the centurion whose servant was sick, and
to whom these words of Jesus are supposed to have applied, that He had
not seen so great faith, no, not in Israel, as in this man, though a
Gentile and a Pagan, because he said that he was not worthy that Jesus
should come under his roof, but wished Him only to speak the word, and
his servant should be healed; Matthew alone adds that Jesus went on to
say, "Verily I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and
from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be
cast into outer darkness."Â By the many who should come are meant the
Pagans, on account of the centurion, in whom, although he was a
Gentile, so great faith was found; and the children of the kingdom are
the Jews, in whom there was no faith found. Luke, again, though he
too mentions the occurrence in his Gospel as part of the narrative of
the miracles of Christ, says nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.Â
If it is said that he omitted it because it had been already said by
Matthew, why does he tell the story at all of the centurion and his
servant, since that, too, has the advantage of being recorded at
length in Matthewâs ingenious narrative? But the passage is
corrupt. For, in describing the centurionâs application to Jesus,
Matthew says that he came himself to ask for a cure; while Luke says
he did not, but sent elders of the Jews, and that they, in case Jesus
should despise the centurion as a Gentile (for they will have Jesus to
be a thorough Jew), set about persuading Him, by saying that he was
worthy for whom He should do this, because he loved their nation, and
had built them a synagogue;[1078]1078 here again taking for granted
that the Son of God was concerned in a pagan centurion having thought
it proper to build a synagogue for the Jews. The words in question
are, indeed, found in Luke also, perhaps because on reflection he
thought they might be genuine; but they are found in another place,
and in a connection altogether different. The passage is where Jesus
says to His disciples, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for
many shall come seeking to enter in, and shall not be able. When
once the Master of the house has entered in, and has shut to the door,
ye shall begin to stand without, and to knock, saying Lord, open to
us. And He shall answer and say, I know you not. Then ye shall
begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast
taught in our streets and synagogues; but He shall say unto you, I
know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.Â
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, entering into the
kingdom of God, and you yourselves cast out. And they shall come
from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the
south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God."[1079]1079Â The part
where it is said that many shall be shut out of the kingdom of God,
who have only borne the name of Christ, without doing His works, is
not left out by Matthew; but he makes no mention here of Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob. In the same way, Luke mentions the centurion and
his servant, without alluding in that connection to Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob. Since it is uncertain when the words were spoken,
we are at liberty to doubt whether they were spoken at all.
3. It is not without reason that we bring a critical judgment to the
study of Scriptures where there are such discrepancies and
contradictions. By thus examining everything, and comparing one
passage with another, we determine which contains Christâs actual
words, and what may or may not be genuine. For your predecessors
have made many interpolations in the words of our Lord, which thus
appear under His name, while they disagree with His doctrine.Â
Besides, as we have proved again and again, the writings are not the
production of Christ or of His apostles, but a compilation of rumors
and beliefs, made, long after their departure, by some obscure
semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and published by them
under the name of the apostles, or of those considered the followers
of the apostles, so as to give the appearance of apostolic authority
to all these blunders and falsehoods. But whatever you make of that,
as regards this verse, I repeat that I do not insist on rejecting
it. It is enough for my position, that, as I said before, and as you
are obliged to confess, before the coming of our Lord all the
patriarchs and prophets of Israel lay in infernal darkness for their
sins. Even though they may have been restored to light and liberty
by Christ, that has nothing to do with the hateful character of their
lives. We hate and eschew not their persons, but their characters;
not as they are now, when they are purified, but as they were, when
impure. So, whatever you think of this verse, it does not affect
us:Â for if it is genuine, it only illustrates Christâs goodness and
compassion; and if it is spurious, those who wrote it are to blame.Â
Our cause is as safe as it always is.
4. Augustin replied: Poor safety, indeed! when you contradict
yourself by hating the patriarchs as impure, at the same time that you
grieve for your impure god. You allow that, since the advent of the
Saviour, the patriarchs have had purity restored, and have enjoyed the
rest of the blessed; while your god, even after the Saviourâs advent,
still lies in darkness, is still sunk in the ocean of iniquity, still
wallows in the mire of all uncleanness. These men, therefore, were
not only better than your god in their lives, but also happier in
their death. Where was the abode of the just who departed from this
life before Christâs coming in the flesh, and whether their condition
also was improved by the passion of Christ, in whom they had believed
as to come, and to suffer, and to rise again, and had, moreover,
foretold this in suitable language under the guidance of the Spirit of
prophecy, is to be discovered from the Holy Scriptures, if any clear
discovery in this matter is possible; we are not called on to adopt
the crude notions of all and sundry, still less the heretical opinions
of men who have gone astray into such egregious error. There is a
vain attempt here on the part of Faustus to introduce by a side-door
the idea that we may obtain something after this life besides the due
reward of our conduct in this life. It will be better for you to
abandon your error while you are still alive, and to embrace and hold
the truths of the Catholic faith. Otherwise the expectations of the
unrighteous will be sadly disappointed when God begins to fulfill His
threatenings to the unrighteous.
5. I have already given what I considered a sufficient answer to
Faustusâ calumnies of the lives of the patriarchs. That they were
punished at their death, or that they were justified after the Lordâs
passion, is not what we learn from His commendation of them, when He
admonished the Jews that, if they were Abrahamâs children, they should
do the works of Abraham, and said that Abraham desired to see His day,
and was glad when he saw it;[1080]1080 and that it was into his bosom,
that is, some deep recess of blissful repose, that the angels carried
the poor sufferer who was despised by the proud rich man.[1081]1081Â
And what are we to make of the Apostle Paul? Is there any idea of
justification after death in his praise of Abraham, when he says that
before he was circumcised he believed God, and that it was counted to
him for righteousness?[1082]1082Â And so much importance does he
attach to this, that the single ground which he specifies for our
becoming Abrahamâs children, though not descended from him in the
flesh, is, that we follow the footsteps of his faith.
6. You are so hardened in your errors against the testimonies of
Scripture, that nothing can be made of you; for whenever anything is
quoted against you, you have the boldness to say that it is written
not by the apostle, but by some pretender under his name. The
doctrine of demons which you preach is so opposed to Christian
doctrine, that you could not continue, as professing Christians, to
maintain it, unless you denied the truth of the apostolic writings.Â
How can you thus do injury to your own souls? Where will you find
any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings? How can
we be sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic
origin of those books which are attributed to the apostles by the
Church which the apostles themselves founded, and which occupies so
conspicuous a place in all lands, and if at the same time we
acknowledge as the undoubted production of the apostles what is
brought forward by heretics in opposition to the Church, whose
authors, from whom they derive their name, lived long after the
apostles? And do we not see in profane literature that there are
well-known authors under whose names many things have been published
after their time which have been rejected, either from inconsistency
with their ascertained writings, or from their not having been known
in the lifetime of the authors, so as to be banded down with the
confirmatory statement of the authors themselves, or of their
friends? To give a single example, were not some books published
lately under the name of the distinguished physician Hippocrates,
which were not received as authoritative by physicians? And this
decision remained unaltered in spite of some similarity in style and
matter:Â for, when compared to the genuine writings of Hippocrates,
these books were found to be inferior; besides that they were not
recognized as his at the time when his authorship of his genuine
productions was ascertained. Those books, again, from a comparison
with which the productions of questionable origin were rejected, are
with certainty attributed to Hippocrates; and any one who denies their
authorship is answered only by ridicule, simply because there is a
succession of testimonies to the books from the time of Hippocrates to
the present day, which makes it unreasonable either now or hereafter
to have any doubt on the subject. How do we know the authorship of
the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other similar
writers, but by the unbroken chain of evidence? So also with the
numerous commentaries on the ecclesiastical books, which have no
canonical authority, and yet show a desire of usefulness and a spirit
of inquiry. How is the authorship ascertained in each case, except
by the authorâs having brought his work into public notice as much as
possible in his own lifetime, and, by the transmission of the
information from one to another in continuous order, the belief
becoming more certain as it becomes more general, up to our own day;
so that, when we are questioned as to the authorship of any book, we
have no difficulty in answering? But why speak of old books? Take
the books now before us:Â should any one, after some years, deny that
this book was written by me, or that Faustusâ was written by him,
where is evidence for the fact to be found but in the information
possessed by some at the present time, and transmitted by them through
successive generations even to distant times? From all this it
follows, that no one who has not yielded to the malicious and
deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can be so blinded by passion as
to deny the ability of the Church of the apostlesâa community of
brethren as numerous as they were faithfulâto transmit their writings
unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have
been occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the present
day, especially when we are accustomed to see this happen in the case
of ordinary writings both in the Church and out of it.
7. But Faustus finds contradictions in the Gospels. Say, rather,
that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too
foolish to understand, and too blind to see. If you were animated
with piety instead of being misled by party spirit, you might easily,
by examining these passages, discover a wonderful and most instructive
harmony among the writers. Who, in reading two narratives of the
same event, would think of charging one or both of the authors with
error or falsehood, because one omits what the other mentions, or one
tells concisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other
relates in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also
how it was done? This is what Faustus does in his attempt to impeach
the truth of the Gospels; as if Lukeâs omitting some saying of Christ
recorded in Matthew implied a denial on the part of Luke of Matthewâs
statement. There is no real difficulty in the case; and to make a
difficulty shows want of thought, or of the ability to think. There
is, indeed, a point in the narrative of the centurion which is
discussed among believers, and on which objections are raised by
unbelievers of no great learning, who prove their quarrelsomeness,
when, after being instructed, they do not give up their errors. The
point is, that Matthew says that the centurion came to Jesus
"beseeching Him, and saying;" while Luke says that he sent to Jesus
the elders of the Jews with this same request, that He would heal his
servant who was sick; and that when He came near the house he sent
others, through whom he said that he was not worthy that Jesus should
come into his house, and that he was not worthy to come himself to
Jesus. How, then, do we read in Matthew, "He came to Him, beseeching
Him, and saying, My servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and
grievously tormented?"[1083]1083Â The explanation is, that Matthewâs
narrative is correct, but brief, mentioning the centurionâs coming to
Jesus, without saying whether he came himself or by others, or whether
the words about his servant were spoken by himself or through
others. But is it not common to speak of a person as coming near to
a thing, although he may not reach it? And even the word reach,
which is the strongest form of expression, is frequently used in cases
where the person spoken of acts through others, as when we say he took
his case to court, he reached the presence of the judge; or, again, he
reached the presence of some man in power, although it may probably
have been through his friends, and the person may not have seen him
whose presence he is said to have reached. And from the word for to
reach we give the name of Perventors to those who by ambitious arts
gain access, either personally or through friends, to the, so to
speak, inaccessible minds of the great. Are we, then, in reading to
forget the common usage of speech? Or must the sacred Scripture have
a language of its own? The cavils of forward critics are thus met by
a reference to the usual forms of speech.
8. Those who examine this matter not in a disputatious but in a calm
believing spirit are invited to come to Jesus, not outwardly but in
heart, not in bodily presence but in the power of faith, as the
centurion did, and then they will better understand Matthewâs
narrative. To such it is said in the Psalm "Come unto Him, and be
enlightened; and your faces shall not be ashamed."[1084]1084Â Hence
we learn that the centurion, whose faith was so highly spoken of, came
to Christ more truly than the people who carried his message. We
find an analogous case in the woman with the issue of blood, who was
healed by touching the hem of Christâs garment, when Christ said,
"Some one hath touched me."Â The disciples wondered what Christ meant
by saying, "Who hath touched me?" "Some one hath touched me," when the
crowd was thronging Him. In fact, they made this reply: "The crowd
throngeth Thee, and sayest Thou, Who hath touched me?"[1085]1085Â
Now, as the people thronged Christ while the woman touched Him, so the
messengers were sent to Christ, but the centurion really came to
Him. In Matthew we have a not infrequent form of expression, and at
the same time a symbolical import; while in Luke there is a simple
narrative of the whole event, such as to draw our attention to the
manner in which Matthew has recorded it. I wish one of those people
who found their silly objections to the Gospels on such trifling
difficulties would himself tell a story twice over, honestly giving a
true account of what happened, and that his words were written down
and read over to him. We should then see whether he would not say
more or less at one time than at another; and whether the order would
not be changed, not only of words, but of things; and whether he would
not put some opinion of his own into the mouth of another, because,
though he never heard him say it, he knew it perfectly well to be in
his mind; and whether he would not sometimes put in a few words what
he had before related at length. In these and other ways, which
might perhaps be reduced to rule, the narratives of the same thing by
two persons, or two narratives by the same person, might differ in
many things without being opposed, might be unlike without being
contradictory. Thus are undone all the bandages with which poor
Manichæans stifle themselves to keep in the spirit of error, and to
keep out all that might lead to their salvation.
9. Now that all Faustusâ calumnies have been refuted, those at least
on the subjects here treated of at large and explained fully as the
Lord has enabled me, I close with a word of counsel to you who are
implicated in those shocking and damnable errors, that, if you
acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise
that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the
ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops
in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day
throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. Â There
the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and its predictions
fulfilled. If you ask for demonstration, consider first what you
are, how unfit for comprehending the nature of your own soul, not to
speak of God; I mean an intelligent comprehension, such as you profess
to desire, or to have once desired, and not the notions of a credulous
fancy. Admitting this incompetency, which must continue while you
remain as you are, you may at least be referred to the natural
conviction of every human mind, unless it is corrupted by error, of
the perfect unchangeableness and incorruptibility of the nature and
substance of God. Admit this, or believe it, and you will no longer
be Manichæans, so that in course of time you may become Catholics.
St. AUGUSTIN:
concerning the nature of good,
against the manichæans.
 [de natura boni contra manichæos].
circa A.D. 495.
translated by
albert h. newman, d.d., ll.d.,
professor of church history and comparative religion, in toronto
baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.
Concerning the Nature of Good,
Against the Manichæans.
[De Natura Boni Contra Manichæos.] c. a.d. 405.
In One Book.
Written after the year 404. It is put in the Retractations
immediately after the De Actis cum Felice Manichæo, which was written
about the end of the year 404. It is one of the most argumentative
of the Anti-Manichæan treatises, and so one of the most abstruse and
difficult. The lines of argument here pursued have already been
employed in part in the earlier treatises. The most interesting
portions of the contents of the treatise, and the most damaging to the
Manichæans, are the long extracts from Maniâs Thesaurus, and his
Fundamental Epistle.âA.H.N.
Chapter 1.âGod the Highest and Unchangeable Good, from Whom are All
Other Good Things, Spiritual and Corporeal.
The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God, and
consequently He is unchangeable good, hence truly eternal and truly
immortal. All other good things are only from Him, not of Him. For
what is of Him, is Himself. And consequently if He alone is
unchangeable, all things that He has made, because He has made them
out of nothing, are changeable. For He is so omnipotent, that even
out of nothing, that is out of what is absolutely non-existent, He is
able to make good things both great and small, both celestial and
terrestrial, both spiritual and corporeal. But because He is also
just, He has not put those things that He has made out of nothing on
an equality with that which He begat out of Himself. Because,
therefore, no good things whether great or small, through whatever
gradations of things, can exist except from God; but since every
nature, so far as it is nature, is good, it follows that no nature can
exist save from the most high and true God:Â because all things even
not in the highest degree good, but related to the highest good, and
again, because all good things, even those of most recent origin,
which are far from the highest good, can have their existence only
from the highest good. Therefore every spirit, though subject to
change, and every corporeal entity, is from God, and all this, having
been made, is nature. For every nature is either spirit or body.Â
Unchangeable spirit is God, changeable spirit, having been made, is
nature, but is better than body; but body is not spirit, unless when
the wind, because it is invisible to us and yet its power is felt as
something not inconsiderable, is in a certain sense called spirit.
Chapter 2.âHow This May Suffice for Correcting the Manichæans.
But for the sake of those who, not being able to understand that all
nature, that is, every spirit and every body, is naturally good, are
moved by the iniquity of spirit and the mortality of body, and on this
account endeavor to bring in another nature of wicked spirit and
mortal body, which God did not make, we determine thus to bring to
their understanding what we say can be brought. For they acknowledge
that no good thing can exist save from the highest and true God, which
also is true and suffices for correcting them, if they are willing to
give heed.
Chapter 3.âMeasure, Form, and Order, Generic Goods in Things Made by
God.
For we Catholic Christians worship God, from whom are all good things
whether great or small; from whom is all measure great or small; from
whom is all form great or small; from whom is all order great or
small. For all things in proportion as they are better measured,
formed, and ordered, are assuredly good in a higher degree; but in
proportion as they are measured, formed, and ordered in an inferior
degree, are they the less good. These three things, therefore,
measure, form, and order,ânot to speak of innumerable other things
that are shown to pertain to these three,âthese three things,
therefore, measure, form, order, are as it were generic goods in
things made by God, whether in spirit or in body. God is, therefore,
above every measure of the creature, above every form, above every
order, nor is He above by local spaces, but by ineffable and singular
potency, from whom is every measure, every form, every order. These
three things, where they are great, are great goods, where they are
small, are small goods; where they are absent, there is no good. And
again where these things are great, there are great natures, where
they are small, there are small natures, where they are absent, there
is no nature. Therefore all nature is good.
Chapter 4.âEvil is Corruption of Measure, Form, or Order.
When accordingly it is inquired, whence is evil, it must first be
inquired, what is evil, which is nothing else than corruption, either
of the measure, or the form, or the order, that belong to nature.Â
Nature therefore which has been corrupted, is called evil, for
assuredly when incorrupt it is good; but even when corrupt, so far as
it is nature it is good, so far as it is corrupted it is evil.
Chapter 5.âThe Corrupted Nature of a More Excellent Order Sometimes
Better Than an Inferior Nature Even Uncorrupted.
But it may happen, that a certain nature which has been ranked as more
excellent by reason of natural measure and form, though corrupt, is
even yet better than another incorrupt which has been ranked lower by
reason of an inferior natural measure and form:Â as in the estimation
of men, according to the quality which presents itself to view,
corrupt gold is assuredly better than incorrupt silver, and corrupt
silver than incorrupt lead; so also in more powerful spiritual natures
a rational spirit even corrupted through an evil will is better than
an irrational though incorrupt, and better is any spirit whatever even
corrupt than any body whatever though incorrupt. For better is a
nature which, when it is present in a body, furnishes it with life,
than that to which life is furnished. But however corrupt may be the
spirit of life that has been made, it can furnish life to a body, and
hence, though corrupt, it is better than the body though incorrupt.
Chapter 6.âNature Which Cannot Be Corrupted is the Highest Good; That
Which Can, is Some Good.
But if corruption take away all measure, all form, all order from
corruptible things, no nature will remain. And consequently every
nature which cannot be corrupted is the highest good, as is God. But
every nature that can be corrupted is also itself some good; for
corruption cannot injure it, except by taking away from or diminishing
that which is good.
Chapter 7.âThe Corruption of Rational Spirits is on the One Hand
Voluntary, on the Other Penal.
But to the most excellent creatures, that is, to rational spirits, God
has offered this, that if they will not they cannot be corrupted; that
is, if they should maintain obedience under the Lord their God, so
should they adhere to his incorruptible beauty; but if they do not
will to maintain obedience, since willingly they are corrupted in
sins, unwillingly they shall be corrupted in punishment, since God is
such a good that it is well for no one who deserts Him, and among the
things made by God the rational nature is so great a good, that there
is no good by which it may be blessed except God. Sinners,
therefore, are ordained to punishment; which ordination is punishment
for the reason that it is not conformable to their nature, but it is
justice because it is conformable to their fault.
Chapter 8.âFrom the Corruption and Destruction of Inferior Things is
the Beauty of the Universe.
But the rest of things that are made of nothing, which are assuredly
inferior to the rational soul, can be neither blessed nor miserable.Â
But because in proportion to their fashion and appearance are things
themselves good, nor could there be good things in a less or the least
degree except from God, they are so ordered that the more infirm yield
to the firmer, the weaker to the stronger, the more impotent to the
more powerful; and so earthly things harmonize with celestial, as
being subject to the things that are pre-eminent. But to things
falling away, and succeeding, a certain temporal beauty in its kind
belongs, so that neither those things that die, or cease to be what
they were, degrade or disturb the fashion and appearance and order of
the universal creation; as a speech well composed is assuredly
beautiful, although in it syllables and all sounds rush past as it
were in being born and in dying.
Chapter 9.âPunishment is Constituted for the Sinning Nature that It
May Be Rightly Ordered.
What sort of punishment, and how great, is due to each fault, belongs
to Divine judgment, not to human; which punishment assuredly when it
is remitted in the case of the converted, there is great goodness on
the part of God, and when it is deservedly inflicted, there is no
injustice on the part of God; because nature is better ordered by
justly smarting under punishment than by rejoicing with impunity in
sin; which nature nevertheless, even thus having some measure, form,
and order, in whatever extremity there is as yet some good, which
things, if they were absolutely taken away, and utterly consumed,
there will be accordingly no good, because no nature will remain.
Chapter 10.âNatures Corruptible, Because Made of Nothing.
All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as
they are from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him;
because they would be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever
measure, of whatever form, of whatever order, they are, they are so
because it is God by whom they were made; but they are not immutable,
because it is nothing of which they were made. For it is
sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish
to make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him
out of nothing.
Chapter 11.âGod Cannot Suffer Harm, Nor Can Any Other Nature Except by
His Permission.
Wherefore neither can Godâs nature suffer harm, nor can any nature
under God suffer harm unjustly:Â for when by sinning unjustly some do
harm, an unjust will is imputed to them; but the power by which they
are permitted to do harm is from God alone, who knows, while they
themselves are ignorant, what they ought to suffer, whom He permits
them to harm.
Chapter 12.âAll Good Things are from God Alone.
All these things are so perspicuous, so assured, that if they who
introduce another nature which God did not make, were willing to give
attention, they would not be filled with so great blasphemies, as that
they should place so great good things in supreme evil, and so great
evil things in God. For what the truth compels them to acknowledge,
namely, that all good things are from God alone, suffices for their
correction, if they were willing to give heed, as I said above. Not,
therefore, are great good things from one, and small good things from
another; but good things great and small are from the supremely good
alone, which is God.
Chapter 13.âIndividual Good Things, Whether Small or Great, are from
God.
Let us, therefore, bring before our minds good things however great,
which it is fitting that we attribute to God as their author, and
these having been eliminated let us see whether any nature will
remain. All life both great and small, all power great and small,
all safety great and small, all memory great and small, all virtue
great and small, all intellect great and small, all tranquillity great
and small, all plenty great and small, all sensation great and small,
all light great and small, all suavity[1086]1086 great and small, all
measure great and small, all beauty great and small, all peace great
and small, and whatever other like things may occur, especially such
as are found throughout all things, whether spiritual or corporeal,
every measure, every form, every order both great and small, are from
the Lord God. All which good things whoever should wish to abuse,
pays the penalty by divine judgment; but where none of these things
shall have been present at all, no nature will remain.
Chapter 14.âSmall Good Things in Comparison with Greater are Called by
Contrary Names.
But in all these things, whatever are small are called by contrary
names in comparison with greater things; as in the form of a man
because the beauty is greater, the beauty of the ape in comparison
with it is called deformity. And the imprudent are deceived, as if
the former is good, and the latter evil, nor do they regard in the
body of the ape its own fashion, the equality of members on both
sides, the agreement of parts, the protection of safety, and other
things which it would be tedious to enumerate.
Chapter 15.âIn the Body of the Ape the Good of Beauty is Present,
Though in a Less Degree.
But that what we have said may be understood, and may satisfy those
too slow of comprehension, or that even the pertinacious and those
repugnant to the most manifest truth may be compelled to confess what
is true, let them be asked, whether corruption can harm the body of an
ape? But if it can, so that it may become more hideous, what
diminishes but the good of beauty? Whence as long as the nature of
the body subsists, so long something will remain. If, accordingly,
good having been consumed, nature is consumed, the nature is therefore
good. So also we say that slow is contrary to swift, but yet he who
does not move at all cannot even be called slow. So we say that a
heavy voice is contrary to a sharp voice, or a harsh to a musical; but
if you completely remove any kind of voice, there is silence where
there is no voice, which silence, nevertheless, for the simple reason
that there is no voice, is usually opposed to voice as something
contrary thereto. So also lucid and obscure are called as it were
two contrary things, yet even obscure things have something of light,
which being absolutely wanting, darkness is the absence of light in
the same way in which silence is the absence of voice.
Chapter 16.âPrivations in Things are Fittingly Ordered by God.
Yet even these privations of things are so ordered in the universe of
nature, that to those wisely considering they not unfittingly have
their vicissitudes. For by not illuminating certain places and
times, God has also made the darkness as fittingly as the day. For
if we by restraining the voice fittingly interpose silence in
speaking, how much more does He, as the perfect framer of all things,
fittingly make privations of things? Whence also in the hymn of the
three children, light and darkness alike praise God,[1087]1087 that
is, bring forth praise in the hearts of those who well consider.
Chapter 17.âNature, in as Far as It is Nature, No Evil.
No nature, therefore, as far as it is nature, is evil; but to each
nature there is no evil except to be diminished in respect of good.Â
But if by being diminished it should be consumed so that there is no
good, no nature would be left; not only such as the Manichæans
introduce, where so great good things are found that their exceeding
blindness is wonderful, but such as any one can introduce.
Chapter 18.âHyle, Which Was Called by the Ancients the Formless
Material of Things, is Not an Evil.
For neither is that material, which the ancients called Hyle, to be
called an evil. I do not say that which Manichæus with most
senseless vanity, not knowing what he says, denominates Hyle, namely,
the former of corporeal beings; whence it is rightly said to him, that
he introduces another god. For nobody can form and create corporeal
beings but God alone; for neither are they created unless there
subsist with them measure, form, and order, which I think that now
even they themselves confess to be good things, and things that cannot
be except from God. But by Hyle I mean a certain material absolutely
formless and without quality, whence those qualities that we perceive
are formed, as the ancients said. For hence also wood is called in
Greek Ãlj, because it is adapted to workmen, not that itself may make
anything, but that it is the material of which something may be
made. Nor is that Hyle, therefore, to be called an evil which cannot
be perceived through any appearance, but can scarcely be thought of
through any sort of privation of appearance. For this has also a
capacity of forms; for if it cannot receive the form imposed by the
workman, neither assuredly may it be called material. Hence if form
is some good, whence those who excel in it are called
beautiful,[1088]1088 as from appearance they are called
handsome,[1089]1089 even the capacity of form is undoubtedly something
good. As because wisdom is a good, no one doubts that to be capable
of wisdom is a good. And because every good is from God, no one
ought to doubt that even matter, if there is any, has its existence
from God alone.
Chapter 19.âTo Have True Existence is an Exclusive Prerogative of God.
Magnificently and divinely, therefore, our God said to his servant:Â
"I am that I am," and "Thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He
who is sent me to you."[1090]1090Â For He truly is because He is
unchangeable. For every change makes what was not, to be:Â
therefore He truly is, who is unchangeable; but all other things that
were made by Him have received being from Him each in its own
measure. To Him who is highest, therefore nothing can be contrary,
save what is not; and consequently as from Him everything that is good
has its being, so from Him is everything that by nature exists; since
everything that exists by nature is good. Thus every nature is good,
and everything good is from God; therefore every nature is from God.
Chapter 20.âPain Only in Good Natures.
But pain which some suppose to be in an especial manner an evil,
whether it be in mind or in body, cannot exist except in good
natures. For the very fact of resistance in any being leading to
pain, involves a refusal not to be what it was, because it was
something good; but when a being is compelled to something better, the
pain is useful, when to something worse, it is useless. Therefore in
the case of the mind, the will resisting a greater power causes pain;
in the case of the body, sensation resisting a more powerful body
causes pain. But evils without pain are worse: for it is worse to
rejoice iniquity than to bewail corruption; yet even such rejoicing
cannot exist save from the attainment of inferior good things. But
iniquity is the desertion of better things. Likewise in a body, a
wound with pain is better than painless putrescence, which is
especially called the corruption which the dead flesh of the Lord did
not see, that is, did not suffer, as was predicted in prophecy:Â
"Thou shall not suffer Thy Holy one to see corruption."[1091]1091Â
For who denies that He was wounded by the piercing of the nails, and
that He was stabbed with the lance?[1092]1092Â But even what is
properly called by men corporeal corruption, that is, putrescence
itself, if as yet there is anything left to consume, increases by the
diminution of the good. But if corruption shall have absolutely
consumed it, so that there is no good, no nature will remain, for
there will be nothing that corruption may corrupt; and so there will
not even be putrescence, for there will be nowhere at all for it to
be.
Chapter 21.âFrom Measure Things are Said to Be
Moderate-Sized.[1093]1093
Therefore now by common usage things small and mean are said to have
measure, because some measure remains in them, without which they
would no longer be moderate-sized, but would not exist at all. But
those things that by reason of too much progress are called
immoderate, are blamed for very excessiveness; but yet it is necessary
that those things themselves be restrained in some manner under God
who has disposed all things in extension, number, and
weight.[1094]1094
Chapter 22.âMeasure in Some Sense is Suitable to God Himself.
But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be
spoken of as limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is
bestowed upon all things, so that they may in any measure exist. Nor
again ought God to be called measured, as if He received measure from
any one. But if we say that He is the highest measure, by chance we
say something; if indeed in speaking of the highest measure we mean
the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a measure is
good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified, without
praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak
of no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with
praise as when it is said:Â "And of His kingdom there shall be no
limit."[1095]1095Â For it might also be said, "There shall be no
measure," so that measure might be used in the sense of limit; for He
who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at all.
Chapter 23.âWhence a Bad Measure, a Bad Form, a Bad Order May
Sometimes Be Spoken of.
Therefore a bad measure, a bad form, a bad order, are either so called
because they are less than they should be, or because they are not
adapted to those things to which they should be adapted; so that they
may be called bad as being alien and incongruous; as if any one should
be said not to have done in a good measure because he has done less
than he ought, or because he has done in such a thing as he ought not
to have done, or more than was fitting, or not conveniently; so that
the very fact of that being reprehended which is done in a bad
measure, is justly reprehended for no other cause than that the
measure is not there maintained. Likewise a form is called bad
either in comparison with something more handsome or more beautiful,
this form being less, that greater, not in size but in comeliness; or
because it is out of harmony with the thing to which it is applied, so
that it seems alien and unsuitable. As if a man should walk forth
into a public place naked, which nakedness does not offend if seen in
a bath. Likewise also order is called bad when order itself is
maintained in an inferior degree. Hence not order, but rather
disorder, is bad; since either the ordering is less than it should be,
or not as it should be. Yet where there is any measure, any form,
any order, there is some good and some nature; but where there is no
measure, no form, no order, there is no good, no nature.
Chapter 24.âIt is Proved by the Testimonies of Scripture that God is
Unchangeable. The Son of God Begotten, Not Made.
Those things which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way
has traced out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine
Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler intellect are not
able to comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and
so may deserve to know. But let not those who understand, but are
less instructed in ecclesiastical literature, suppose that we set
forth these things from our own intellect rather than what are in
those Books. Accordingly, that God is unchangeable is written in the
Psalms:Â "Thou shalt change them and they shall be changed; but Thou
thyself art the same."[1096]1096Â And in the book of Wisdom,
concerning wisdom:Â "Remaining in herself, she renews all
things."[1097]1097Â Whence also the Apostle Paul:Â "To the
invisible, incorruptible, only God."[1098]1098Â And the Apostle
James:Â "Every best giving and every perfect gift is from above,
descending from the Father of light, with whom there is no
changeableness, neither obscuring of influence."[1099]1099Â Likewise
because what He begat of Himself is what He Himself is, it is said in
brief by the Son Himself:Â "I and the Father are one."[1100]1100Â
But because the Son was not made, since through Him were all things
made, thus it is written:Â "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word; this was in the beginning
with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was made
nothing;"[1101]1101 that is, without Him was not anything made.
Chapter 25.âThis Last Expression Misunderstood by Some.
For no attention should be paid to the ravings of men who think that
nothing should be understood to mean something, and moreover think to
compel any one to vanity of this kind on the ground that nothing is
placed at the end of the sentence. Therefore, they say, it was made,
and because it was made, nothing is itself something. They have lost
their senses by zeal in contradicting, and do not understand that it
makes no difference whether it be said:Â "Without Him was made
nothing," or "without Him nothing was made."Â For even if the order
were the last mentioned, they could nevertheless say, that nothing is
itself something because it was made. For in the case of what is in
truth something, what difference does it make if it be said "Without
him a house was made," so long as it is understood that something was
made without him, which something is a house? So also because it is
said:Â "Without Him was made nothing," since nothing is assuredly not
anything, when it is truly and properly spoken, it makes no difference
whether it be said:Â "Without Him was made nothing or Without Him
nothing was made," or "nothing was made."Â But who cares to speak
with men who can say of this very expression of mine "It makes no
difference," "Therefore it makes some difference, for nothing itself
is something?"Â But those whose brains are not addled, see it as a
thing most manifest that this something is to be understood when it
says "It makes no difference," as when I say "It matters in no
respect."Â But these, if they should say to any one, "What hast thou
done?" and he should reply that he has done nothing, would, according
to this mode of disputation, falsely accuse him saying, "Thou hast
done something, therefore, because thou hast done nothing; for nothing
is itself something."Â But they have also the Lord Himself placing
this word at the end of a sentence, when He says:Â "And in secret
have I spoken nothing."[1102]1102Â Let them read, therefore, and be
silent.[1103]1103
Chapter 26.âThat Creatures are Made of Nothing.
Because therefore God made all things which He did not beget of
Himself, not of those things that already existed, but of those things
that did not exist at all, that is, of nothing," the Apostle Paul
says:Â "Who calls the things that are not as if they
are."[1104]1104Â But still more plainly it is written in the book of
Maccabees:Â "I pray thee, son, look at the heaven and the earth and
all the things that are in them; see and know that it was not these of
which the Lord God made us."[1105]1105Â And from this that is written
in the Psalm:Â "He spake, and they were made."[1106]1106Â It is
manifest, that not of Himself He begat these things, but that He made
them by word and command. But what is not of Himself is assuredly of
nothing. For there was not anything of which he should make them,
concerning which the apostle says most openly:Â "For from Him, and
through Him, and in Him are all things."[1107]1107
Chapter 27.â"From Him" And "Of Him" Do Not Mean The Same Thing.
But "from Him" does not mean the same as "of Him."[1108]1108Â For
what is of Him may be said to be from Him; but not everything that is
from Him is rightly said to be of Him. For from Him are heaven and
earth, because He made them; but not of Him because they are not of
His substance. As in the case of a man who begets a son and makes a
house, from himself is the son, from himself is the house, but the son
is of him, the house is of earth and wood. But this is so, because
as a man he cannot make something even of nothing; but God of whom are
all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things, had
no need of any material which He had not made to assist His
omnipotence.
Chapter 28.âSin Not From God, But From The Will of Those Sinning.
But when we hear:Â "All things are from Him, and through Him, and in
Him," we ought assuredly to understand all natures which naturally
exist. For sins, which do not preserve but vitiate nature, are not
from Him; which sins, Holy Scripture in many ways testifies, are from
the will of those sinning, especially in the passage where the apostle
says:Â "But dost thou suppose this, O man, that judgest those who do
such things, and doest them, that thou shall escape the judgment of
God? Or dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience,
and long-suffering, not knowing that the patience of God leadeth thee
to repentance? But according to the hardness of thy heart and thy
impenitent heart, thou treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day
of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will
render unto every one according to his works."[1109]1109
Chapter 29.âThat God is Not Defiled by Our Sins.
And yet, though all things that He established are in Him, those who
sin do not defile Him, of whose wisdom it is said:Â "She touches all
things by reason of her purity, and nothing defiled assails
her."[1110]1110Â For it behooves us to believe that as God is
incorruptible and unchangeable, so also is He consequently
undefilable.
Chapter 30.âThat Good Things, Even the Least, and Those that are
Earthly, are by God.
But that God made even the least things, that is, earthly and mortal
things, must undoubtedly be understood from that passage of the
apostle, where, speaking of the members of our flesh:Â "For if one
member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it, and if one
member suffers, all the members suffer with it;" also this he then
says:Â "God has placed the members each one of them in the body as he
willed;" and "God has tempered the body, giving to that to which it
was wanting greater honor, that there should be no schism in the body,
but that the members should have the same care one for
another."[1111]1111Â But what the apostle thus praises in the measure
and form and order of the members of the flesh, you find in the flesh
of all animals, alike the greatest and the least; for all flesh is
among earthly goods, and consequently is esteemed among the least.
Chapter 31.âTo Punish and to Forgive Sins Belong Equally to God.
Likewise because it belongs to divine judgment, not human, what sort
of punishment and how great is due to every fault, it is thus
written:Â "O the height of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge
of God! how inscrutable are His judgments and his ways past finding
out!"[1112]1112Â Likewise because by the goodness of God sins are
forgiven to the converted, the very fact that Christ was sent
sufficiently shows, who not in His own nature as God, but in our
nature, which He assumed from a woman, died for us; which goodness of
God with reference to us, and which love of God, the apostle thus sets
forth:Â "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were
yet sinners Christ died for us; much more now being justified in His
blood we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were
enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much
more being reconciled we shall be saved in His life."[1113]1113Â But
because even when due punishment is rendered to sinners, there is no
unrighteousness on Godâs part, he thus says:Â "What shall we say?Â
Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath?"[1114]1114Â But in one
place he has briefly admonished that goodness and severity are alike
from Him, saying:Â "Thou seest then the goodness and severity of God;
toward them that have fallen, severity, but towards thee goodness, if
thou shouldst continue in goodness."[1115]1115
Chapter 32.âFrom God Also is the Very Power to Be Hurtful.
Likewise because the power even of those that are hurtful is from God
alone, thus it stands written, Wisdom speaking:Â "Through me kings
reign and tyrants hold the land through me."[1116]1116Â The apostle
also says:Â "For there is no power but of God."[1117]1117Â But that
it is worthily done is written in the book of Job:Â "Who maketh to
reign a man that is a hypocrite, on account of the perversity of the
people."[1118]1118Â And concerning the people of Israel God says:Â
"I gave them a king in my wrath."[1119]1119Â For it is not
unrighteous, that the wicked receiving the power of being hurtful,
both the patience of the good should be proved and the iniquity of the
evil punished. For through power given to the Devil both Job was
proved so that he might appear righteous,[1120]1120 and Peter was
tempted lest he should be presumptuous,[1121]1121 and Paul was
buffeted lest he should be exalted,[1122]1122 and Judas was damned so
that he should hang himself.[1123]1123Â When, therefore, through the
power which He has given the Devil, God Himself shall have done all
things righteously, nevertheless punishment shall at last be rendered
to the Devil not for these things justly done, but for the unrighteous
willing to be hurtful, which belonged to himself, when it shall be
said to the impious who persevered in consenting to his wickedness,
"Go ye into everlasting fire which my God has prepared for the Devil
and his angels."[1124]1124
Chapter 33.âThat Evil Angels Have Been Made Evil, Not by God, But by
Sinning.
But because evil angels also were not constituted evil by God, but
were made evil by sinning, Peter in his epistle says:Â "For if God
spared not angels when they sinned, but casting them down into the
dungeons of smoky hell, He delivered them to be reserved for
punishment in judgment."[1125]1125Â Hence Peter shows that there is
still due to them the penalty of the last judgment, concerning which
the Lord says:Â "Go ye into everlasting fire, which has been prepared
for the Devil and his angels."Â Although they have already penally
received this hell, that is, an inferior smoky air as a prison, which
nevertheless since it is also called heaven, is not that heaven in
which there are stars, but this lower heaven by the smoke of which the
clouds are conglobulated, and where the birds fly; for both a cloudy
heaven is spoken of, and flying things are called heavenly. As when
the Apostle Paul calls those evil angels, against whom as enemies by
living piously we contend, "spiritual things of wickedness in heavenly
places."[1126]1126Â That this may not be understood of the upper
heavens, he plainly says elsewhere:Â "According to the presence of
the prince of this air, who now worketh in the sons of
disobedience."[1127]1127
Chapter 34.âThat Sin is Not the Striving for an Evil Nature, But the
Desertion of a Better.
Likewise because sin, or unrighteousness, is not the striving after
evil nature but the desertion of better, it is thus found written in
the Scriptures:Â "Every creature of God is good."[1128]1128Â And
accordingly every tree also which God planted in Paradise is assuredly
good. Man did not therefore strive after an evil nature when he
touched the forbidden tree; but by deserting what was better, he
committed an evil deed. Since the Creator is better than any
creature which He has made, His command should not have been deserted,
that the thing forbidden, however good, might be touched; since the
better having been deserted, the good of the creature was striven for,
which was touched contrary to the command of the Creator. God did
not plant an evil tree in Paradise; but He Himself was better who
prohibited its being touched.
Chapter 35.âThe Tree Was Forbidden to Adam Not Because It Was Evil,
But Because It Was Good for Man to Be Subject to God.
For besides, He had made the prohibition, in order to show that the
nature of the rational soul ought not to be in its own power, but in
subjection to God, and that it guards the order of its salvation
through obedience, corrupting it through disobedience. Hence also He
called the tree, the touching of which He forbade, the tree "of the
knowledge of good and evil;"[1129]1129 because when man should have
touched it in the face of the prohibition, he would experience the
penalty of sin, and so would know the difference between the good of
obedience, and the evil of disobedience.
Chapter 36.âNo Creature of God is Evil, But to Abuse a Creature of God
is Evil.
For who is so foolish as to think a creature of God, especially one
planted in Paradise, blameworthy; when indeed not even thorns and
thistles, which the earth brought forth, according to the judiciary
judgment of God, for wearing out the sinner in labor, should be
blamed? For even such herbs have their measure and form and order,
which whoever considers soberly will find praiseworthy; but they are
evil to that nature which ought thus to be restrained as a recompense
for sin. Therefore, as I have said, sin is not the striving after an
evil nature, but the desertion of a better, and so the deed itself is
evil, not the nature which the sinner uses amiss. For it is evil to
use amiss that which is good. Whence the apostle reproves certain
ones as condemned by divine judgment, "Who have worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator."[1130]1130Â He does not reprove
the creature, which he who should do would act injuriously towards the
Creator, but those who, deserting the better, have used amiss the
good.
Chapter 37.âGod Makes Good Use of the Evil Deeds of Sinners.
Accordingly, if all natures should guard their own proper measure and
form and order, there would be no evil:Â but if any one should wish
to misuse these good things, not even thus does he vanquish the will
of God, who knows how to order righteously even the unrighteous; so
that if they themselves through the iniquity of their will should
misuse His good things, He through the righteousness of His power may
use their evil deeds, rightly ordaining to punishment those who have
perversely ordained themselves to sins.
Chapter 38.âEternal Fire Torturing the Wicked, Not Evil.
For neither is eternal fire itself, which is to torture the impious,
an evil nature, since it has its measure, its form and its order
depraved by no iniquity; but it is an evil torture for the damned, to
whose sins it is due. For neither is yonder light, because it
tortures the blear-eyed, an evil nature.
Chapter 39.âFire is Called Eternal, Not as God Is, But Because Without
End.
But fire is eternal, not as God is eternal, because, though without
end, yet is not without beginning; but God is also without
beginning. Then, although it may be employed perpetually for the
punishment of sinners, yet it is mutable nature. But that is true
eternity which is true immortality, that is that highest immutability,
which cannot be changed at all. For it is one thing not to suffer
change, when change is possible, and another thing to be absolutely
incapable of change. Therefore, just as man is called good, yet not
as God, of whom it was said, "There is none good save God
alone;"[1131]1131 and just as the soul is called immortal, yet not as
God, of whom it was said, "Who alone hath immortality;"[1132]1132 and
just as a man is called wise, yet not as God, of whom it was said, "To
God the only wise;"[1133]1133 so fire is called eternal, yet not as
God, whose alone is immortality itself and true eternity.
Chapter 40.âNeither Can God Suffer Hurt, Nor Any Other, Save by the
Just Ordination of God.
Since these things are so, according to the Catholic faith, and
wholesome doctrine, and truth perspicuous to those of good
understanding, neither can any one hurt the nature of God, nor can the
nature of God unrighteously hurt any one, or suffer any one to do hurt
with impunity. "For he that doeth hurt shall receive," says the
apostle, "according to the hurt that he has done; and there is no
accepting of persons with God."[1134]1134
Chapter 41.âHow Great Good Things the Manichæans Put in the Nature of
Evil, and How Great Evil Things in the Nature of Good.
But if the Manichæans were willing, without pernicious zeal for
defending their error, and with the fear of God, to think, they would
not most criminally blaspheme by supposing two natures, the one good,
which they call God, the other evil, which God did not make:Â so
erring, so delirious, nay so insane, are they that they do not see,
that even in what they call the nature of supreme evil they place so
great good things:Â life, power, safety, memory, intellect,
temperance, virtue, plenty, sense, light, suavity, extensions,
numbers, peace, measure, form, order; but in what they call supreme
good, so many evil things:Â death, sickness, forgetfulness,
foolishness, confusion, impotence, need, stolidity, blindness, pain,
unrighteousness, disgrace, war, intemperance, deformity, perversity.Â
For they say that the princes of darkness also have been alive in
their own nature, and in their own kingdom were safe, and remembered
and understood. For they say that the Prince of Darkness harangued
in such a manner, that neither could he have said such things, nor
could he have been heard by those by whom he was said to have been
heard, without memory and understanding; and to have had a temper
suitable to his mind and body, and to have ruled by virtue of power,
and to have had abundance and fruitfulness with respect to his
elements, and they are said to have perceived themselves mutually and
the light as near at hand, and to have had eyes by which they could
see the light afar off; which eyes assuredly could not have seen the
light without some light (whence also they are rightly called light);
and they are said to have enjoyed exceedingly the sweetness of their
pleasures, and to have been determined by measured members and
dwelling-places. But unless there had been some sort of beauty
there, they would not have loved their wives, nor would their bodies
have been steady by adaptation of parts; without which, those things
could not have been done there which the Manichæans insanely say were
done. And unless some peace had been there, they would not have
obeyed their Prince. Unless measure had been there, they would have
done nothing else than eat or drink, or rage, or whatever they might
have done, without any society:Â although not even those that did
these things would have had determinate forms, unless measure had been
there. But now the Manichæans say that they did such things that
they cannot be denied to have had in all their actions measures
suitable to themselves. But if form had not been there, no natural
quality would have there subsisted. But if there had been no order
there, some would not have ruled, others been ruled; they would not
have lived harmoniously in their element; in fine, they would not have
had their members adapted to their places, so that they could not do
all those things that the Manichæans vainly fable. But if they say
that Godâs nature does not die, what according to their vanity does
Christ raise from the dead? If they say that it does not grow sick,
what does He cure? If they say that it is not subject to
forgetfulness, what does He remind? If they say that it is not
deficient in wisdom, what does He teach? If they say that it is not
confused, what does He restore? If they say that it was not
vanquished and taken captive, what does He liberate? If they say
that it was not in need, to what does He minister aid? If they say
that it did not lose feeling, what does He animate? If they say that
it has not been blinded, what does He illuminate? If it is not in
pain, to what does He give relief? If it is not unrighteous, what
does He correct through precepts? If it is not in disgrace, what
does He cleanse? If it is not in war, to what does He promise
peace? If it is not deficient in moderation, upon what does He
impose the measure of law? If it is not deformed, what does He
reform? If it is not perverse, what does He emend? For all these
things done by Christ, they say, are to be attributed not to that
thing which was made by God, and which has become depraved by its own
free choice in sinning, but to the very nature, yea to the very
substance of God, which is what God Himself is.
Chapter 42.âManichæan Blasphemies Concerning the Nature of God.
What can be compared to those blasphemies? Absolutely nothing,
unless the errors of other sectaries be considered; but if that error
be compared with itself in another aspect, of which we have not yet
spoken, it will be convicted of far worse and more execrable
blasphemy. For they say that some souls, which they will have to be
of the substance of God and of absolutely the same nature, which have
not sinned of their own accord, but have been overcome and oppressed
by the race of darkness, which they call evil, for combating which
they descended not of their own accord, but at the command of the
Father, are fettered forever in the horrible sphere of darkness. So
according to their sacrilegious vaporings, God liberated Himself in a
certain part from a great evil, but again condemned Himself in another
part, which He could not liberate, and triumphed over the enemy itself
as if it had been vanquished from above. O criminal, incredible
audacity, to believe, to speak, to proclaim such things about God!Â
Which when they endeavor to defend, that with their eyes shut they may
rush headlong into yet worse things, they say that the commingling of
the evil nature does these things, in order that the good nature of
God may suffer so great evils: Â for that this good nature in its own
sphere could or can suffer no one of these things. As if a nature
were lauded as incorruptible, because it does not hurt itself, and not
because it cannot suffer hurt from another. Then if the nature of
God hurt the nature of darkness, and the nature of darkness hurt the
nature of God, there are therefore two evil things which hurt each
other in turn, and the race of darkness was the better disposed,
because if it committed hurt it did it unwillingly; for it did not
wish to commit hurt, but to enjoy the good which belonged to God.Â
But God wished to extinguish it, as Manichæus most openly raves forth
in his epistle of the ruinous Foundation. For forgetting that he had
shortly before said:Â "But His most resplendent realms were so
founded upon the shining and happy land, that they could never be
either moved or shaken by any one;" he afterwards said:Â "But the
Father of the most blessed light, knowing that great ruin and
desolation which would arise from the darkness, threaten his holy
worlds, unless he should send in opposition a deity excellent and
renowned, mighty in strength, by whom he might at the same time
overcome and destroy the race of darkness, which having been
extinguished, the inhabitants of light would enjoy perpetual rest."Â
Behold, he feared ruin and desolation that threatened his worlds!Â
Assuredly they were so founded upon the shining and happy land that
they never could be either moved or shaken by any one? Behold, from
fear he wished to hurt the neighboring race, which he endeavored to
destroy and extinguish, in order that the inhabitants of light might
enjoy perpetual rest. Why did he not add, and perpetual bondage?Â
Were not these souls that he fettered forever in the sphere of
darkness, the inhabitants of light, of whom he says plainly, that
"they have suffered themselves to err from their former bright
nature?" when against his will he is compelled to say, that they
sinned by free will, while he wishes to ascribe sin only to the
necessity of the contrary nature:Â everywhere ignorant what to say,
and as if he were himself already in the sphere of darkness which he
invented, seeking, and not finding, how he may escape. But let him
say what he will to the seduced and miserable men by whom he is
honored far more highly than Christ, that at this price he may sell to
them such long and sacrilegious fables. Let him say what he will,
let him shut up, as it were, in a sphere, as in a prison, the race of
darkness, and let him fasten outside the nature of light, to which he
promised perpetual rest on the extinction of the enemy:Â behold, the
penalty of light is worse than that of darkness; the penalty of the
divine nature is worse than that of the adverse race. But since
although the latter is in the midst of darkness it pertains to its
nature to dwell in darkness; but souls which are the very same thing
that God is, cannot be received, he says, into those peaceful realms,
and are alienated from the life and liberty of the holy light, and are
fettered in the aforesaid horrible sphere:Â whence he says, "Those
souls shall adhere to the things that they have loved, having been
left in the same sphere of darkness, bringing this upon themselves by
their own deserts."Â Is not this assuredly free voluntary choice?Â
See how insanely he ignores what he says, and by making
self-contradictory statements wages a worse war against himself than
against the God of the race of darkness itself. Accordingly, if the
souls of light are damned, because they loved darkness, the race of
darkness, which loved light, is unjustly damned. And the race of
darkness indeed loved light from the beginning, violently, it may be,
but yet so as to wish for its possession, not its extinction:Â but
the nature of light wished to extinguish in war the darkness;
therefore when vanquished it loved darkness. Choose which you
will:Â whether it was compelled by necessity to love darkness, or
seduced by free will. If by necessity, wherefore is it damned? if by
free will, wherefore is the nature of God involved in so great
iniquity? If the nature of God was compelled by necessity to love
darkness, it did not vanquish, but was vanquished:Â if by free will,
why do the wretches hesitate any longer to attribute the will to sin
to the nature which God made out of nothing, lest they should thereby
attribute it to the light which He begat?
Chapter 43.âMany Evils Before His Commingling with Evil are Attributed
to the Nature of God by the Manichæans.
What if we should also show that before the commingling of evil, which
stupid fable they have most madly believed, great evils were in what
they call the nature of light? what will it seem possible to add to
these blasphemies? For before the conflict, there was the hard and
inevitable necessity of fighting:Â here is truly a great evil, before
evil is commingled with good. Let them say whence this is, when as
yet no commingling had taken place? But if there was no necessity,
there was therefore free will:Â whence also this so great evil, that
God himself should wish to hurt his own nature, which could not be
hurt by the enemy, by sending it to be cruelly commingled, to be
basely purged, to be unjustly damned? Behold, the great evil of a
pernicious, noxious, and savage will, before any evil from the
contrary nature was mingled with it! Or perchance he did not know
that this would happen to his members, that they should love darkness
and become hostile to holy light, as Manichæus says, that is, not
only to their own God, but also to the Father from whom they had their
being? Whence therefore this so great evil of ignorance, before any
evil from the nature of darkness was mingled with it? But if he knew
that this would happen, either there was in him everlasting cruelty,
if he did not grieve over the contamination and damnation of his own
nature that was to take place, or everlasting misery, if he did so
grieve:Â whence also this so great evil of your supreme good before
any commingling with your supreme evil? Assuredly that part of the
nature itself which was fettered in the eternal chain of that sphere,
if it knew not that this fate awaited it, even so was there
everlasting ignorance in the nature of God, but if it knew, then
everlasting misery:Â whence this so great evil before any evil from
the contrary nature was commingled? Or perchance did it, in the
greatness of its love (charity), rejoice that through its punishment
perpetual rest was prepared for the residue of the inhabitants of
light? Let him who sees how abominable it is to say this, pronounce
an anathema. But if this should be done so that at least the good
nature itself should not become hostile to the light, it might be
possible, perchance, not for the nature of God indeed, but for some
man, as it were, to be regarded as praiseworthy, who for the sake of
his country should be willing to suffer something of evil, which evil
indeed could be only for a time, and not forever:Â but now also they
speak of that fettering in the sphere of darkness as eternal, and not
indeed of a certain thing but of the nature of God; and assuredly it
were a most unrighteous, and execrable, and ineffably sacrilegious
joy, if the nature of God rejoiced that it should love darkness, and
should become hostile to holy light. Whence this so monstrous and
abominable evil before any evil from the contrary nature was
commingled? Who can endure insanity so perverse and so impious, as
to attribute so great good things to supreme evil, and so great evils
to supreme good, which is God?
Chapter 44.âIncredible Turpitudes in God Imagined by Manichæus.
But now when they speak of that part of the nature of God as
everywhere mixed up in heaven, in earth, in all bodies dry and moist,
in all sorts of flesh, in all seeds of trees, herbs, men, and
animals:Â not as present by the power of divinity, for administering
and ruling all things, undefilably, inviolably, incorruptibly, without
any connection with them, which we say of God; but fettered,
oppressed, polluted, to be loosed and liberated, as they say, not only
through the running to and fro of the sun and the moon, and through
the powers of light, but also through their Elect:Â what sacrilegious
and incredible turpitudes this kind of error recommends to them even
if it does not induce them to accept, it is horrible to speak of.Â
For they say that the powers of light are transformed into beautiful
males and are set over against the women of the race of darkness; and
that the same powers again are transformed into beautiful females and
are set over against the males of the race of darkness; that through
their beauty they enkindle the foulest lust of the princes of
darkness, and in this manner vital substance, that is, the nature of
God, which they say is held fettered in their bodies, having been
loosed from their members relaxed through lust, flies away, and when
it has been taken up or cleansed, is liberated. This the wretches
read, this they say, this they hear, this they believe, this they put
as follows, in the seventh book of their Thesaurus (for so they call a
certain writing of Manichæus, in which these blasphemies stand
written):Â "Then the blessed Father, who has bright ships, little
apartments, dwelling-places, or magnitudes, according to his
indwelling clemency, brings the help by which he is drawn out and
liberated from the impious bonds, straits, and torments of his vital
substance. And so by his own invisible nod he transforms those
powers of his, which are held in this most brilliant ship, and makes
them to bring forth adverse powers, which have been arranged in the
various tracts of the heavens. Since these consist of both sexes,
male and female, he orders the aforesaid powers to bring forth partly
in the form of beardless youths, for the adverse race of females,
partly in the form of bright maidens, for the contrary race of
males:Â knowing that all these hostile powers on account of the
deadly and most foul lust innate in them, are very easily taken
captive, delivered up to these most beautiful forms which appear, and
in this manner they are dissolved. But you may know that this same
blessed Father of ours is identical with his powers, which for a
necessary reason he transforms into the undefiled likeness of youths
and maidens. But these he uses as his own arms, and through them he
accomplishes his will. But there are bright ships full of these
divine powers, which are stationed after the likeness of marriage over
against the infernal races, and who with alacrity and ease effect at
the very moment what they have planned. Therefore, when reason
demands that these same holy powers should appear to males,
straightway also they show by their dress the likeness of most
beautiful maidens. Again when females are to be dealt with, putting
aside the forms of maidens, they show the forms of beardless youths.Â
But by this handsome appearance of theirs, ardor and lust increase,
and in this way the chain of their worst thoughts is loosed, and the
living soul which was held by their members, relaxed by this occasion
escapes, and is mingled with its own most pure air; when the souls
thoroughly cleansed ascend to the bright ships, which have been
prepared for conveying them and for ferrying them over to their own
country. But that which still bears the stains of the adverse race,
descends little by little through billows and fires, and is mingled
with trees and other plants and with all seeds, and is plunged into
divers fires. And in what manner the figures of youths and maidens
from that great and most glorious ship appear to the contrary powers
which live in the heavens and have a fiery nature; and from that
handsome appearance, part of the life which is held in their members
having been released is conducted away through fires into the earth:Â
in the same manner also, that most high power, which dwells in the
ship of vital waters appears in the likeness of youths and holy
maidens to those powers whose nature is cold and moist, and which are
arranged in the heavens. And indeed to those that are females, among
these the form of youths appears, but to the males, the form of
maidens. By his changing and diversity of divine and most beautiful
persons, the princes male and female of the moist and cold race are
loosed, and what is vital in them escapes; but whatever should remain,
having been relaxed, is conducted into the earth through cold, and is
mingled with all the races of darkness" Who can endure this? Who
can believe, not indeed that it is true, but that it could even be
said? Behold those who fear to anathematize Manichæus teaching
these things, and do not fear to believe in a God doing them and
suffering them!
Chapter 45.âCertain Unspeakable Turpitudes Believed, Not Without
Reason, Concerning the Manichæans Themselves.
But they say, that through their own Elect that same commingled part
and nature of God is purged, by eating and drinking forsooth, (because
they say that it is held fettered in all foods); that when they are
taken up by the Elect for the nourishment of the body in eating and
drinking, it is loosed, sealed, and liberated through their
sanctity. Nor do the wretches pay heed to the fact that this is
believed about them not without good reason, and they deny it in vain,
so long as they do not anathematize the books of Manichæus and cease
to be Manichæans. For if, as they say, a part of God is fettered in
all seeds, and is purged by eating on the part of the Elect; who may
not properly believe, that they do what they read in the Thesaurus was
done among the powers of heaven and the princes of darkness; since
indeed they say that their flesh is also from the race of darkness,
and since they do not hesitate to believe and to affirm that the vital
substance fettered in them is a part of God? Which assuredly if it
is to be loosed, and purged by eating, as their lamentable error
compels them to acknowledge; who does not see, who does not shudder at
the greatness and the unspeakableness of what follows?
Chapter 46.âThe Unspeakable Doctrine of the Fundamental Epistle.
For they even say that Adam, the first man, was created by certain
princes of darkness so that the light might be held by them lest it
should escape. For in the epistle which they call Fundamental,
Manichæus wrote as follows respecting the way in which the Prince of
Darkness, whom they represent as the father of the first man, spoke to
the rest of his allied princes of darkness, and how he acted:Â
"Therefore with wicked inventions he said to those present:Â What
does this huge light that is rising seem to you to be? See how the
pole moves, how it shakes most of the powers. Wherefore it is right
for me rather to ask you beforehand for whatever light you have in
your powers:Â since thus I will form an image of that great one who
has appeared in his glory, through which we may be able to rule, freed
in some measure from the conversation of darkness. Hearing these
things, and deliberating for a long time among themselves, they
thought it most just to furnish what was demanded of them. For they
did not have confidence in being able to retain the light that they
had forever; hence they thought it better to offer it to their Prince,
by no means without hope that in this way they would rule. It must
be considered therefore how they furnished the light that they had.Â
For this also is scattered throughout all the divine scriptures and
the heavenly secrets; but to the wise it is easy enough to know how it
was given:Â for it is known immediately and openly by him who should
truly and faithfully wish to consider. Since there was a promiscuous
throng of those who had come together, females and males of course, he
impelled them to copulate among themselves:Â in which copulation the
males emitted seed, the females were made pregnant. But the
offspring were like those who had begotten them, the first obtaining
as it were the largest portion of the parentsâ strength. Taking
these as a special gift their Prince rejoiced. And just as even now
we see take place, that the nature of evil taking thence strength
forms the fashioner of bodies, so also the aforesaid Prince, taking
the offspring of his companions, which had the senses of their
parents, sagacity, light, procreated at the same time with themselves
in the process of generation, devoured them; and very many powers
having been taken from food of this kind, in which there was present
not only fortitude, but much more astuteness and depraved
sensibilities from the ferocious race of the progenitors, he called
his own spouse to himself, springing from the same stock as himself,
emitted, like the rest the abundance of evils that he had devoured,
himself also adding something from his own thought and power, so that
his disposition became the former and arranger of all the things that
he had poured forth; whose consort received these things as soil
cultivated in the best way is accustomed to receive seed. For in her
were constructed and woven together the images of all heavenly and
earthly powers, so that what was formed obtained the likeness, so to
speak, of a full orb."
Chapter 47.âHe Compels to the Perpetration of Horrible Turpitudes.
O abominable monster! Â O execrable perdition and ruin of deluded
souls! I am not speaking of the blasphemy of saying these things
about the nature of God which is thus fettered. Let the wretches
deluded and hunted by deadly error give heed to this at least, that if
a part of their God is fettered by the copulation of males and females
which they profess to loose and purge by eating it, the necessity of
this unspeakable error compels them not only to loose and purge the
part of God from bread and vegetables and fruits, which alone they are
seen publicly to partake of, but also from that which might be
fettered through copulation, if conception should take place. That
they do this some are said to have confessed before a public tribunal,
not only in Paphlagonia, but also in Gaul, as I heard in Rome from a
certain Catholic Christian; and when they were asked by the authority
of what writing they did these things, they betrayed this fact
concerning the Thesaurus that I have just mentioned. But when this
is cast in their teeth, they are in the habit of replying, that some
enemy or other has withdrawn from their number, that is from the
number of their Elect, and has made a schism, and has founded a most
foul heresy of this kind. Whence it is manifest that even if they do
not themselves practise this thing, some who do practise it do it on
the basis of their books. Therefore let them reject the books, if
they abhor the crime, which they are compelled to commit, if they hold
to the books; or if they do not commit them, they endeavor in
opposition to the books to live more purely. But what do they do
when it is said to them, either purge the light from whatever seeds
you can, so that you cannot refuse to do that which you assert that
you do not do; or else anathematize Manichæus, when he says that a
part of God is in all seeds, and that it is fettered by copulation,
but that whatever of light, that is, of the aforesaid part of God,
should become the food of the Elect, is purged by being eaten. Do
you see what he compels you to believe, and do you still hesitate to
anathematize him? What do they do, I say, when this is said to
them? To what subterfuges do they betake themselves, when either so
nefarious a doctrine is to be anathematized, or so nefarious a
turpitude committed, in comparison with which all those intolerable
evils to which I have already called attention, seem tolerable,
namely, that they say of the nature of God that it was pressed by
necessity to wage war, that it was either secure by everlasting
ignorance, or was disturbed by everlasting grief and fear, when the
corruption of commingling and the chain of everlasting damnation
should come upon it, that finally as a result of the conflict it
should be taken captive, oppressed, polluted, that after a false
victory it should be fettered forever in a horrible sphere and
separated from its original blessedness, while if considered in
themselves they cannot be endured?
Chapter 48.âAugustin Prays that the Manichæans May Be Restored to
Their Senses.
O great is Thy patience, Lord, full of compassion and gracious, slow
to anger, and plenteous in mercy, and true;[1135]1135 who makest Thy
sun to rise upon the good and the evil, and who sendest rain upon the
just and the unjust;[1136]1136 who willest not the death of the
sinner, so much as that he return and live;[1137]1137 who reproving in
parts, dost give place to repentance, that wickedness having been
abandoned, they may believe on Thee, O Lord;[1138]1138 who by Thy
patience dost lead to repentance, although many according to the
hardness of their heart and their impenitent heart treasure up for
themselves wrath against the day of wrath and of the revelation of Thy
righteous judgment, who wilt render to every man according to his
works;[1139]1139 who in the day when a man shall have turned from his
iniquity to Thy mercy and truth, wilt forget all his
iniquities:[1140]1140Â stand before us, grant unto us that through
our ministry, by which Thou hast been pleased to refute this execrable
and too horrible error, as many have already been liberated, many also
may be liberated, and whether through the sacrament of Thy holy
baptism, or through the sacrifice of a broken spirit and a contrite
and humbled heart,[1141]1141 in the sorrow of repentance, they may
deserve to receive the remission of their sins and blasphemies, by
which through ignorance they have offended Thee. For nothing is of
any avail, save Thy surpassing mercy and power, and the truth of Thy
baptism, and the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Thy holy Church; so
that we must not despair of men as long as by Thy patience they live
on this earth, who even knowing how great an evil it is to think or to
say such things about Thee, are detained in that malign profession on
account of the use or the attainment of temporal or earthly
convenience, if rebuked by Thy reproaches they in any way flee to Thy
ineffable goodness, and prefer to all the enticements of the carnal
life, the heavenly and eternal life.
w r I t I n g s
in connection with the
donatist controversy.
translated by the
rev. j. r. king, m.a.,
vicar of st. peterâs in the east, oxford; and late fellow and tutor of
merton college, oxford.
revised, with additional notes,
by the
rev. chester d. hartranft, d.d.,
professor of biblical and ecclesiastical history, in the theological
seminary at hartford, conn.
Introductory Essay.
By Rev. Chester D. Hartranft, D.D.
ââââââââââââ
Chapter I.âBibliography.
A. Sources.
I. Â Â Of course all the Anti-Donatist writings of Augustin are found
in the general editions from Amerbach, 1506, to Migne, 1861. A few
are also collected in Du Pinâs edd. of Optatus Mil. 1. In the
Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum Historiam pertinentia. 2. In the
Gesta Collationis Carthagini habitae Honorii Caesaris iussu inter
Catholicos et Donatistas. See also the different Collections of
Councils, Labbe, Baluze, Harduin, Mansi, etc. Since these works are
discussed in Chapter II. it is unnecessary to repeat the titles
here. Cp. titles in Retractationes: and Indiculus librorum,
tractatuum et epistolarum S. Augustini, ed. cura Possidii, cap. III.
II.           Separate editions of Augustinâs
Anti-Donatist writings. (From Schönemannâs Bibliotheca, and other
bibliographies.)
1.  S. Augustini liber seu Epistola de unitate Ecclesiae contra
Petiliani Donat. Epistolam, Argumentis, Notis atque Analysi
illustrata, studio Justi Caluini. Moguntiae. 1602.
2.  SS. Cypriani et Augustini de unitate Ecclesiae tractatus.Â
Accedit Georgii Calixti, S. Theo. Doct. et in Acad. Julia Prof.
primarii, in eorundem librorum lectionem Introductionis fragmentum
edente Frid. Ulrico Calixto. Georgii filio. Helmæstadii ex
typogr. Calixt. 1657. 8.
3.     Aurelii Augustini, Episcopi Hipponensis, Liber de Unitate
Ecclesiae contra Donatistas. Ext. cum Commentariis uberrimis et
utillisimis in Melchioris Lydeckeri Historia illustrata Ecclesiae
Africanae, cujus totum pæne tomum secundum constituit inscriptum:
     Tomus secundus ad Librum Augustini de Unitate Ecclesiae
contra Donatistas, de principiis Ecclesiae Africanae, illiusque fide
in Articulis de Capite Christo et Ecclesia, de Unitate et Schismate,
plurimisque Religionis Christianae capitibus agit. Ultrajecti apud
viduam Guil. Clerck, 1690. 4.
4.  D. Augustini liber de moderate coercendis haereticis ed
Bonifacium Comitem. Nic. Bergius Revalensis Holmiae, 1696, in 8.
III.           Translations.
1.     Epistre ou le Livre de St. Augustin de lâUnité de
lâEglise, contre Petilien, Evesque Donatiste, avec certaines
observations pour entendre les lieux plus difficiles par Jac.Â
Tigeou, imprimé à Reims par Jean de Foigny. 1567. 8.
2.     LâEpistre à Vincent, Evesque de lâheresie Rogatiane,
traduict de latin par Clément Vaillant. A Paris, Mathurin
Prevost. 1573. 8.
3.     Traité du Baptême trad. par lâabbé Dujat, chapelain
dâÃtampes. Paris. 1778. 12.
4.     Writings in connection with the Donatist controversy,
translated by the Rev. J. R. King, M.A. In the Series of
Translations of the Works of Augustin. Edinburgh. T. & T. Clark.
 1872.
5.     Ausgewählte Schriften des heil. Aurelius Augustinus,
Kirchenlehrers, nach aem Urtexte ubersetzt. Mit einer kurzen
Lebensbeschreibung des Heiligen von J. Motzberger. 1871â1879. In
the Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Kempten, 1869 sqq.
B. Literature.
This is a selected literature of the Donatist controversy so far as
Augustin was connected with it.
I.   In the Benedictine editions occur:
1.     Their Vita S. Aurelii Augustini. Tom. XI. Antw., pp.
1â344. Tom. I. Migne, pp. 65â578.
2.     Praefatio of Tom. IX. Antw. s. p. Migne, pp. 9â24.
3.     Index opusculorum S. Augustini contra Donatistas. Tom.
IX. Antw., pp. 463, 4. Migne, pp. 757â760.
4.     Excerpta et scripta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam
pertinentia. Tom. IX. Antw., App. pp. 7â50. Migne, pp. 773â842.
5.     Epistolarum ordo chronologicus.    Tom. II. Antw.,
s. p. Migne, pp. 13â48.
II.           Possidius: Vita S. Aurelii Augustini.Â
Reprinted in Migne Aug. Op. Tom. I., pp. 33â66. Cp. Migne Pat.
Lat. L. p. 407.
III.           Ecclesiastica Historia. By the Magdeburg
Centuriators. 1559â1574. Tom. II. and III., Centuria, IV. and V.,
contain the Donatist history.
IV.           Balduinius, Franc.
1.     Delibatio Africanae historiae ecclesticae, s. Optati
libri VII. de Schismate Donatistarum, etc. Paris, 1563. A second
edition with improved readings. Ib., 1569. In this the prefaces
and annotations are of value. Reprinted in Du Pinâs ed. of Optatus
Mil.
2.     Historia Carthaginensis Collationis sive disputationis de
ecclesia, olim habitae inter Catholicos et Donatistas. Paris,
1566. 8. Reprinted in Du Pin. ib.
V.           Baronius. Annales Ecclesiatici.Â
1588â1607. Tom. III.-V., contain the Donatist history.
VI.              Albaspinæus: Optati Mel. opera cum
notis et observationibus Gabrielis Albaspinæi. Paris, 1631.Â
Valuable mainly for the observations; reprinted in Du Pinâs ed. of
Optatus.
VII.              Casaubonus: Optati Mel. de
schismate Donatistarum libri VII. In eosd. notae et emendationes
Merici Casauboni. Lond. 1631. These notes are of value and are
reproduced with those of other editions in the Annotationes Variorum
of Du Pinâs ed.
VIII.              Valesius Henricus: Eusebii Pamph.
Historia ecc., libri de Vita Constantini, Panegyricus, Const. Oratio
ad Sanctorum coetum, gr. et lat. cum annotatt. Paris, 1659 and
often. In this is his dissertation: De schismate Donatistarum.
IX. Long, Thomas, B.D. History of the Donatists. Lond. 1677. 8.
X. Du Pin: Nouvelle Bibliothéque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques.
1.  St. Augustin. Tom. III. première partie, pp. 522â839,
1690. Particularly the review of vol. IX. of Augustinâs collected
works, pp. 792â811.
2.  In Tom. II., Troisième partie, 1701, there are also many
allusions to the history and literature.
3.  In his ed. of Optatus Mel., Historia Donatistarum.
XI.   Ittig, Thomas: de Haeresiarchis Åvi apostolici at apostol.
prox. Lips. 1690â1703. 4.
XII.              Leydecker Melchior; Historia
Ecclesiastica Africana. 2 Tom. 4, See above. Traj. 1690. 4.
XIII.              Witsius, Hermann: Miscellaneorum
Sacrorum libri. 2 vols. Amst. 1692. 4. In vol. I. Dissertatio de
schismate Donatistarum.
XIV.              Bernino: Historia di tutte
lâheresie descritta da Domenico Bernino. Venezia 1711. Tom. I.,
contains hist. of Donatism.
XV.              Storren, J. Ph.: ansführlicher und
gründlicher Bericht von den Namen, Ursprung, v.s.w. der Donatisten.Â
Frankf. 1723. 8.
XVI.              Norisius, Henricus: Opera omnia
nunc prim. collecta et ordinata. Veronae, Tumermani, 1729â32, fol.Â
4vols. The fourth volume contains his posthumous work on History of
Donatism, as finished by Ballerini.
XVII.                 Tillemont: in his Memoires
pour servir a lâhistoire Ecclésiastique:
1.     Tom. VI. Histoire du schisme des Donatistes, où lâon
marque aussi tout ce qui regardé lâEglise dâAfrique depuis lâan 305,
jusques en lâan 391que S. Augustin fut fait Prestre. 1732.
2.     Tom. XIII. La Vie de Saint Augustin, dans laquelle on
trouvera lâhistoire des Donatistes de son temps, et celle des
Pelagiens. 1732.
XVIII.                 Orsi: Della Istoria
Ecclesiastica descritta da F. Guiseppe Agostino Orsi. Tom. IV.
(1741) and V. (1749) contain the history ot the Donatists.
XIX.              Walch, Ch. Wilh. Fr.:  Entwurf
einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und
Religionsstreitigkeiten, bis auf die Zeiten der Reformation.Â
Leipzig, 1768. Vierter Theil: Von der Spaltung der Donatisten;
with its three sections:
a.     Von der historie der Donatisten.
b.     Von den zwischen den Donatisten und ihren Gegnern
geführten Religionsstreitigkeiten.
c.     Beurtheilung der Donatistichen Streitigkeiten. This
work was the beginning of a new critical estimate of the documents.
XX.              Schröckh, Johann Mattheus:Â
Christliche Kirchengeschichte. Sechster Theil: 1784, but
particularly Elfter Theil, 1786. A juster estimate of Donatism.
XXI.              Morcellii, Steph. Ant.: Africa
christiana in tres partes distributa. 3 vols. 4Brixiae, 1816â17.Â
4. P. II. for Donatism.
XXII.                 Bindemann, C.: Der heilige
Augustinus, 1844â1869. Bdd. II. & III. contain excellent analyses of
the works on Donatism, as well as a history during Augustinâs life.
XXIII.                 Roux, Adrianus: Dissertatio
de Aurelio Augustino, adversario Donatistarum. Lugduni Batavorum,
1838. A brief summary of the works and doctrine.
XXIV.                 Ribbeck: Donatus und
Augustinus oder der erste entscheidende Kampf zwischen Separatismus
und Kirche. Ein Kirchenhistorischer Versuch von Ferdinand Ribbeck.Â
Elberfeld. 1857. 8. An uncritical history; but a vigorous
analysis, apologetic and polemic.
XXV.                 Deutsch: Drei Actenstücke
zur Geschichte Donatismus. Neu herausgegeben und erklärt von Martin
Deutsch. Berlin, 1875. The first work on the textual and
historical criticism of the sources.
XXVI.                 Voelter: Der Ursprung des
Donatismus, nach den Quellen untersucht und dargestellt von Lic Dr.
Daniel Voelter. Freiburg i. B. und Tübingen, 1883. This keen
writer, at present Prof. Ord. in Univ. of Amsterdam, has gone still
further into textual and historical criticism, and gives fair promise
of a more impartial hearing for Donatism. It is to be hoped that he
will fulfill his qualified promise of further research.
Among the general church histories particular mention may be made of
Gieseler, Neander, Lindner, Niedner, Robertson, Ritter, Hergenröther,
Schaff. The articles on Augustin, Donatism and related persons and
topics in Ceillier, Ersch und Gruber, Herzog, Schaff-Herzog, Smithâs
Dictionary of Christian Biography, Wetzer and Welte, Lichtenberger,
are more or less noteworthy. Mention must also be made of the
Patrologies, the biographies, Hefeleâs Conciliengeschichte, the
Analyses Patrum, etc.
Chapter II.âAn Analysis of Augustinâs Writings Against the Donatists.
The object of this chapter is to present a rudimentary outline and
summary of all that Augustin penned or spoke against those traditional
North African Christians whom he was pleased to regard as
schismatics. It will be arranged, so far as may be, in chronological
order, following the dates suggested by the Benedictine edition. The
necessary brevity precludes anything but a very meagre treatment of so
considerable a theme. The writer takes no responsibility for the
ecclesiological tenets of the great Father, nor will he enter here
into any criticism of the text and truth of the documents, upon which
the historical argument was so laboriously and peremptorily built, to
the utter ignoring of the Donatist archives, and the protests of their
scholars against the validity and integrity of their opponentsâ
records. Both parties claimed to be the historic Catholic church;
both were little apart in doctrine, worship, and polity; both tended
toward externalism in piety; both accused one another of fraud in
inventing records. Later Romanism in its bright spirit of selection
took much spoil from either camp.
The city of Augustinâs birth, its neighborhood, indeed the whole
ecclesiastical province of Numidia, was a stronghold for this puristic
school. Is it not singular, then, that it seems to have made no
impression upon his early years? As a child he had witnessed its
brief restoration under Julian, and then the severe or lax efforts at
suppression under succeeding emperors; the Rogatian schism and the
Tychonian reformation were quite familiar to him in his Manichæan
period; but the Confessions are silent as to any such stamp or hold
upon his mind. His activity begins with his ordination to the
presbyterate, a time marked in Donatist annals by the Maximianist
separation, and increases as he becomes bishop. From about 392 to
near the close of his life, pen and voice were seldom still. In all
those years the outlinear thoughts grew in breadth and depth; endless
are the forms in which his few and radical conceptions manifest
themselves; never does he lose sight of the popular effect, so that he
knows when to relax his love of word-play and delight in mysterious
inductions, in order to make the chief themes plain to the dullest
mind.
How varied the channels through which he struggled for the mastery of
his idea of the Church! In the pulpit he made Donatism the occasion
of many a polemic, many an appeal; in his correspondence it was an
ever-recurrent topic; it was the staple of many a tract and book;
verse was not shunned to destroy its fashionableness and popularity;
commentaries and manuals for the meditative hour or for the training
of the theological student, abounded in warnings against its
aggressiveness; no opportunity for debate or conference or epistolary
discussion was left unimproved. And no wonder: it was a living
thing, of the street, of the market, of the social circle, of the
home; it threatened at times to obliterate the transmarine view of the
church from North Africa; its spirit of political independence and
plea for religious liberty went to the hearts of a people, more and
more restive under the decline of the Empire.
The literary creations of Donatism had been somewhat more fertile than
that of Cæcilianism. We must not belittle Donatus the Great,
Parmenian, Petilian, Gaudentius, and certainly the eminence of
Tychonius is confessed by Augustin himself. Up to this time Optatus
of Milevis had been the only forcible opponent. But against the
great Augustin whom could they bring into the field? And against the
great Augustin, backed by the energy of the State, there was little
hope of fairness. Augustin found a new and weighty school.Â
Donatism, with its impossible ideal, already began to despise the
culture which seemed to help its defeat and withdrew into its
sensitive shell after the manner of all puristic tendencies under
persecution.
The two prevalent lines of attack are the historical on the origin of
the schism, which involved the dissection of the documents, and the
doctrinal, or the discussion of the true notes of the Church from the
basis of the Scriptures. This latter Augustin preferred, because
final; he bowed to no patristic. One or the other or both may be
traced in all his works, great or small, against them. Out of so
protracted a controversy there grew up a symmetrical and comprehensive
theory of the Church and the Sacraments on either side.
Of three fundamental points of Donatism, as perpetuated practices of
North Africa, rebaptism and the encouragement of a martyr spirit with
its attendant feasts, the continuance of the Seniores in the
government of the Church, we find Augustin aiming mainly at the
overthrow of the first two. One of his earliest letters suggests to
his bishop some means for checking the drunkenness and great excess
connected with the Natalitia. Passing to the specific subject in
view:
In the early period of his presbyterate, (possibly about 392, others
place it later), Augustin journeyed through Mutugenna, which
apparently belonged to his bishopâs see. He learned how pacifically
disposed Maximin, Donatist bishop of Sinaita, was. The friendly
feeling thus kindled toward him was shaken by the rumor that he had
rebaptized a defecting Catholic deacon of Mutugenna; not willing to
credit the story, he visited the deaconâs home. His parents
testified to their sonâs reception into the same office by the
Donatists. In the absence of Bishop Valerius, he writes to Maximin
with entreaty, refusing to credit the repetition of the rite, and
urging him to remain firm in the convictions which had been imputed to
him. He solicits a reply, that both letters may be read in the
public service, after the dismission of the military. The prominent
points of the letter are:Â while declining to recognize the validity
of Maximinâs orders, he does not refuse to salute him as Dominus
dulcissimus, and Pater venerabilis. His solicitude as a shepherd to
do his duty to all the sheep, constrains him to force himself upon
their attention, and to be eager for correspondence or conference with
a view to bringing them back to the fold. He is perfectly assured of
the absolute and final correctness of his idea of the Church, and of
the hopeless error of Donatism, an error so great as to merit eternal
destruction. He discriminates, however, between heresy and schism at
this time. Rebaptism in any case is a sin, but as applied to
apostatizing Catholics, is an immanissimum scelus. There is only one
baptism; that of Christ; as there was no double circumcision, so the
sacrament of the New Testament should not be repeated. The Church is
the owner of the nations which are Christâs inheritance, and of the
ends of the earth, which are his possession; hence it is universal;
the seamless robe should not be rent. Moreover the Lordâs
threshing-floor has chaff upon it along with the wheat, and therefore
he urged the disuse of imputations through unworthy members on either
side, whether Macarius or Circumcelliones. The schism made itself
disastrously felt in all domestic and social relations. He engages
to avoid anything that would look like using the power of the state
for coercing conscience, and begs that on Maximinâs side the
Circumcelliones may be restrained. [Ep. xxiii.]
A Plenary council of all Africa was convened in Hippo-Regius in 393,
before which Augustin preached the sermon. His subject was Faith and
the Creed:Â his handling made such an impression that he was induced
to expand it into the treatise: De Fide et Symbolo. In explaining
the article credimus et sanctam ecclesiam, utique catholicam, he
reflects on heretics and schismatics as claiming the title of churches
for their congregations; and distinguishes between these two opponents
of the Catholic body, heretics erring in doctrine, schismatics, while
similar to the Catholic body in views of truth yet transgressing in
the rupture of fraternal love. Neither pertain to the true Church of
God. (Cp. Retractt. I. xvii).
 Determined if possible to win the ear of all classes, the presbyter
next affected a poem, "Psalmus contra Partem Donati," in the art of an
Abecedarium, running the letters to U. The line with which it began
was to be chanted as a refrain after each group of usually twelve
lines connected with each letter, the whole closing with an extended
epilogue. A generally vulgar performance it is, and purposely
disclaimed all metrical dignity; and yet it contains the germs of his
logical and historical opinions on the controverted points. The
Church is a net in the sea of the world, enclosing the good and bad,
which are not to be separated until the net is drawn to the shore.Â
Those who accuse the Catholics of tradition, were themselves traditors
and broke the net. The history is repeated, and all proof of the
Donatist charges declared to be wanting. Unity is a note of the
Church, and toleration within the net essential to its preservation.Â
Over against Macarius he puts the violent Circumcelliones. The
wicked members of the Church do not contaminate the good by a
communion which is only outward and not of the heart. The
threshing-floor has chaff upon it; wheat and tares must grow
together. The Catholics rear the Elijah altar, the Donatist the Baal
altar over against it. Christ endured Judas. Why rebaptize us, he
exclaims, when you do not repeat the rite upon your once expelled but
now restored Maximianists? Surely it is better to draw life from the
real root. The character of him who administers the sacrament has
nothing to do with its efficiency; and so he returns to the necessity
for toleration within the net, as Judas was forborne in the apostolic
company. The epilogue pictures the personified Church expostulating
with the Donatists for quarreling with their Mother, and presents a
loose summary of the previous arguments.
It is doubtful whether, even in the fashion of the times, so lengthy a
poem could become a street theme, or find many repeaters in the
markets and inns of Hippo or Carthage, although the refrain for peace
and truthful judgment might catch the ear of the more zealous. [Cp.
Retractt. I. xx.].
The Bishop of Carthage, Donatus the Great, the sphinx of Donatism, had
written a book to vindicate the claim of his church to the only
Christian baptism. The work obtained considerable currency, and
maintained its authority, even in Augustinâs day, so he answered it
during the year 393, most probably, in a treatise of one book now no
longer extant, but which has been given the title:Â "Contra Epistolam
Donati hæretici," The Retractations (I. xxi.) correct some points
which had been held in this work. (1). According to the Ambrosian
view, Augustin here identified Peter with the rock, on which the
Church was to be built; but afterwards he regarded that rock as
Christ, who was the subject of the Petrine confession; on Christ was
the Church to be built, and to the Church as thus reared, were given
the keys. (2). The Donatus present at the Roman Synod, he had spoken
of as the bishop of Carthage, the author of the book, which error is
corrected in the Retractations. (3). He had also charged the writer
with falsifying a favorite passage of their side, Ecclus. xxxiv. 30,
but afterwards found that some codices read according to the Donatist
quotation, and apologizes for his assertions.
Doubtless many of the sermons preached during his presbyterate had
reference to the schism, but the chronology of these is too uncertain
to allow of any definite arrangement.
We pass to the period of his co-bishopric with the aged Valerius,
which dates from 395 A.D.
Evodius, a brother connected with the Church at Hippo Regius, had a
chance meeting with Proculeianus, bishop of the Donatist body in that
diocese. The two fell into a discussion of their mutual
differences. Evodius spoke in rather a lofty and censorious way,
after the fashion of his side, and wounded the feelings of the older
disputant, for the Donatists, like all kindred bodies, cultivated an
undue sensitiveness and were altogether too ready to take offense.Â
Proculeianus, however, expressed a perfect readiness to have a
friendly debate with Augustin in the presence of competent men. In
view of this suggestion, and in the absence of Valerius, Augustin,
always anxious to improve such an opening, addressed a letter to
Proculeianus (c. 396), with courteous recognition, and no such sharp
denial of the episcopal function as in the case of Maximin. He
apologizes for the severe language of his friend, and in every way
avoids any expression which might cause the tendrils again to be drawn
in. The methods suggested for discussion show the anxiety of
Augustin to beat out the fire of Donatism; there is the debate before
chosen hearers, all the statements to be written out for use; or there
is the private discussion through mutual discourse, to be read to one
another and corrected, and so given to the people; or the single
correspondence with a view to public lections, or any possible way
that the aged bishop himself might prefer. He urges that the dead
bury their dead, and the past history be left out of the debate; the
present with its burning dissensions affords sufficient topics. As
the people seek the bishop to arbitrate in their private litigations,
let these worthies cultivate peace in this broader field; to this end
he invites to prayer and conference. (Ep. xxxiii.).
Apparently the letter led to nothing practical. A new turn was given
to matters. A son had beaten his mother, and threatened her life; to
avoid Catholic discipline, he joined the Donatists and was rebaptized
by them:Â as Augustin says, he wounded also his spiritual mother by
contemning her sacrament. Public registration of the facts were made
by Augustin, all the more because the reported instructions, given by
bishop Proculeianus to his presbyter Victor concerning the affair, had
already been denied. The case presented an opportunity for getting
at some rule for the recognition of one anotherâs discipline.Â
Accordingly Augustin addresses himself to Eusebius, a judicious
Donatist of higher rank. He professes that his aim is peace; he
emphasizes with impatient vehemence his opposition to coercive
measures in matters of conscience:Â neque me id agere ut ad
communionem catholicam quisquam cogatur invitus. He asks Eusebius to
find out whether Proculeianus had given the order to his presbyter as
recorded; whether the bishop would consent to a collation between
themselves and ten selected men on each side, agreeably to the
original suggestion so that the whole question might be discussed from
the Scriptural grounds, not the historical. Some proposals for a
meeting either at the Donatist region of Constantina, or at their
projected council at Milevis, he could not accept, because both lay
outside of his diocese. If Proculeianus objected to the dialectic
and rhetorical skill of his counter bishop, the latter would propose
Samsucius, bishop of Turris, an earnest but uncultivated man, as a
substitute to lead the Catholic side. (Ep. xxxiv.).
Eusebius declined to interfere on the ground that he could not be a
judge, so Augustin replies (Ep. xxxv.) that he had only asked him to
make some inquiries, because the bishop refused to have any direct
communication. The need for some adjustment concerning discipline
had become very pressing; a Catholic subdeacon and some nuns under
rebuke had been received into full standing by the Donatists, yet
their subsequent career had been even more scandalous. Augustin
claimed that the Catholics always respected the penal enactments of
their opponents. To show his own hostility to compulsory
conversions, he cites the case of a daughter, who against the paternal
will had joined the Donatists, and had professed among them; when the
father was about to use violence for her recall, he was dissuaded by
Augustin, and when a presbyter of Proculeianus had shouted abusive
epithets at him, although upon the property of a Catholic woman, he
neither replied nor allowed others to resent the insult.
A practical treatise is ascribed by some to this time, called de Agone
Christiano. In expounding the faith he warns against different
groups of heretics and schismatics. In Chap. xxix. 31, he cautions
against listening to the Donatist party, who deny the one holy
Catholic church to be diffused throughout the whole world, and claim
it to be alone in Africa, and there among themselves, against the
plain Scripture teaching of its universality; they affirm that the
prophecies of its extension have already been fulfilled, after which
the whole church perished outside of their remnant. He alludes to
the divisions which have befallen them as a retribution for their
separation. If the end shall come after the preaching of the gospel
to all nations, how can all nations have lapsed from the faith, when
there remain some who are yet to hear and believe? This system robs
Christ of His glory, and is to be avoided by all who love the
Church. (Cp. Retractt. II. iii.).
In 397 A.D., at the death of Valerius, he became sole bishop. In
this year, while on a visit to Tibursi, he had met with Glorius and
other Donatists, with whom he held a friendly disputation on the
origin and history of the schism, during which some Donatist documents
were produced which he declared to be false, and from memory
recapitulated the archives current on his side. Augustin pursued his
journey to Gelizi, where he attended to some episcopal duties, and
brought back with him a copy of the Catholic Gesta, and spent a day
with these friends in reading them, but could not quite finish. He
subsequently reproduces this story with the arguments in a letter.Â
(Ep. xliii.). The chief burden is a criticism of the Acts, highly
important in its place, but it must be passed by here save to remark
that in speaking of Bishop Secundus, he suggests that it would have
been better to appeal to the principalities of Rome or of some other
apostolic church, than to have proceeded as he did; he should have
preserved the unity at all hazards; had the case been inexplicable, he
should have left it to God; if definable, he should have addressed the
transmarine bishops, after finding that his peers at home could not
adjust the difficulty; disobedience on the part of Cæcilian to such
an order, would have made him the author of the schism; but now the
Donatist altar is set up against the Universal Church. It may be
well to note that throughout the survey of these acts, there appears a
manifest contradiction as to the beginning of the appellations. In
the next place, the Donatists are held guilty of schism, rebaptism,
and resistance to civil correction; of non-communion with those
churches concerning whom they read in their lections; and of the
demand for purism against the Lordâs parable. The angels of the
churches in the apocalypse are ecclesiastical powers, not heavenly
messengers. The Church cannot be charged with the crimes of the evil
men in it. Toleration is the only practice by which unity can be
conserved; Moses bore with murmurers, David with Saul, Samuel with the
sons of Eli, Christ with Judas. They themselves forbear with
Circumcelliones, with Optatus bishop of Thamugada. The emphasis,
however, is not so much upon those matters as upon schism. He would
rather leave the archives and elucidate the doctrine, in which he
claims to have the book of the world; that the Catholics are the
Lordâs inheritance; that they stand in fellowship with the churches of
the New Testament; they are the light of the world. A divine rebuke
has befallen Donatism in all the tenets of its particularity, by the
schism and return of the Maximianists.
No open door was passed by. On a journey to Cirta, possibly about
the beginning of 398 A.D., he visited with clerical friends the aged
Donatist, bishop Fortunius, at Tibursi. A great company gathered who
interrupted the debate; all attempts at taking notes were finally
given up. In a letter (Ep. xliv.) to the Donatists, Eleusius,
Glorius, and the two Felixes, who were of the number of those
addressed in the previous epistle, he speaks of their witness to the
conciliatory disposition of Fortunius, and recounts the substance of
the interview, with the desire that it may be submitted to that bishop
for correction. The discussion had opened with the question of the
Church. Fortunius regretted that Augustin was not in it; the latter
reversed the wish. What is the Church? Is it diffused throughout
the whole world, or is it confined to Africa? Can the Donatists send
letters of communion to any of the apostolic churches? Thence they
dissected the Donatist claim to be the people of God, on account of
their subjection to persecution; in which it appears that they
recorded the schism of the whole world from themselves as the true
Church as due to sympathy with the Macarian persecution; up to that
time they had held fellowship with the whole world, and as proof
thereof brought forward a letter of a council of Sardica addressed to
them. From the condemnation of Athanasius and Julius by this
document, Augustin, to whom it was new, concluded that this was an
Arian council, and was only the more damaging to their theory. The
note of persecution being resumed, he maintained that there was no
approved suffering unless for a just cause, and hence the justice of
the cause must first be established. Though Ambrose had endured
violence at the hand of the soldiery, they would deny him to be a
Christian, for they would rebaptize even him. Maximianists on the
other hand were confessed to be just, although they had been
dispossessed of their basilicas by the Primianist appeal to the
state. As an offset, Fortunius urged the curious fact that before
the election of Majorinus, an interventor had been chosen, whom the
Cæcilianists put out of the way. On the following day Augustin had
to confess that there was no example in the New Testament to justify
compulsion in matters of faith. The next topic was Discipline.Â
Augustin pleaded for toleration in order to keep unity. A point as
to Johannic baptism sprang up, but was not pressed. From this time
the debate became miscellaneous and repetitious; in its progress
Fortunius confessed reluctantly that rebaptism was a fixed practice
among them, and that even a Catholic bishop so highly esteemed among
the Donatists for his non-persecuting spirit as was Genethlius, would
have to submit to the rite before he could be recognized by their
body. Augustin proposes a further examination of matters, with a
view to peace, but the pacific Fortunius doubts whether many of the
so-called Catholics really desire concord, to which Augustin replies
that he can find ten men who would heartily enter into such a
conference.
On the next day the venerable Donatist calls upon his opponent to
resume their talk, until an ordination called Augustin away; we also
obtain information of the CÅlicolæ professing a new sort of baptism,
with whose leader he desired to confer. The letter closes with a
proposition to meet in the little village of Titia, near Tibursi,
where there was no church, and the population pretty equally divided,
and where no crowd could disturb the progress of the investigation;
thither all documents should be brought and the whole subject
canvassed for as long a time as it might take to terminate the
discussion.
During the year Augustin issued a weighty work, which stands closely
related to these visits to Fortunius. It was in two books named by
himself: Contra partem Donati. Unhappily it is lost, but in the
Retractations (II. v.), he says, that in the first book he had opposed
the use of the secular power for compelling the schismatics to return
to the communion of the State Church, a form of discipline which
experience afterwards persuaded him was necessary and wholesome.
Possibly it was at the close of the year 398 that a hint from the
Donatist bishop Honoratus was brought by Herotes to Augustin, to the
effect that they carry on a correspondence on the questions in dispute
between them, and avoid the uproar of public debates. Augustin
acquiesces heartily, and at once plunges (Ep. xlix.) into the
doctrinal aspect of the matter. He begins with the note of
Universality, the Church is diffused through the whole world, to
establish which he brings forward some of his key passages, Ps. ii. 7,
8, Matt. xxiv. 14, Rom. i. 5. With all the apostolic churches
Catholics communicate, Donatists do not. How then can this
universality be limited? Why call the Catholic church Macarian, when
the name of Macarius or Donatus is not known in any of these gospel
regions? It rests with Donatists to prove how the Church is lost
from the whole world and is confined to them. Catholics can rely on
the Scriptures only for their theory. Correspondence seems to him
also the better plan for discussion. Whether this mutual approach
went further is not known.
It may have been in 399 A.D. that the Donatist presbyter Crispinus had
met Augustin at Carthage; the two joined words, and both seem to have
become heated; the former made promise to resume the parley at a later
date, to the fulfillment of which the bishop had occasionally urged
him. When Crispinus was elevated to the see of Calama, c. 400 A.D.,
and was not far from Augustinâs diocese, the latter addressed him a
letter (Ep. li.) rehearsing these facts. A new rumor credited
Crispinus with being ready to enter the arena once more. All
salutation is avoided in Augustinâs letter, because the Donatists had
accused him of servility. For the sake of accuracy and instruction
he proposes simply to correspond, whether by one interchange of
letters or by many. He pleads that present interests alone may be
touched upon. Schism according to the Old Testament was more
severely punished than idolatry or the burning of the sacred scroll.Â
The charge of traditorship is set off by the acceptance of the
Maximianists, whom the council of Bagai had condemned in such severe
terms. If a mistake was made with regard to them why not in
Cæcilianâs case? If these were really guilty, you consulted the
wider duties of unity and toleration, and why not carry these
principles farther and apply them to communion with the Catholics?Â
As to the charge of persecution, Augustin will not enter into the
merits of the matter theoretically, nor stop to plead the mildness of
the measures used, but at once asks why the Donatists used the State
to dislodge the Maximianists, and to deny the Catholics the possession
of genuine baptism is made foolish by the recognition of the rite as
existing among the Maximianists who had been cut off, and were
restored without a renewal of the ceremony. The whole world had been
condemned by the Donatists without an opportunity of being heard, and
yet they accept the sacrament of the condemned Felicianus and
Prætextatus. While they deny the validity of the symbol as
administered by apostolic communions, and by the missionary churches
which brought the light to Africa, they maintain that their little
fraction alone is its possessor. Summarizing these arguments as a
weight for the bishop to stagger under, he invokes the peace of Christ
to conquer his heart.
In this same year one of his relatives, Severinus, who was a Donatist,
sent a communication to him at Hippo by a special messenger, with a
view of reopening friendly intercourse with his kinsman; and Augustin
seizes it as a way to reestablish as well the higher kinship in Christ
(Ep. lii.). The Church is an unconcealable city set on a hill; it is
Catholic, being diffused throughout the whole world. The party of
Donatus is cut off from the historic root of the Oriental churches,
and therefore cannot bring forth the fruits of peace and love; indeed
it suppresses Christ by its rebaptism. Had their charges been
genuine the transmarine bishops would have supported them; at any rate
they should not have withdrawn from the Unity, but rather have
practiced toleration. He hopes that the bonds of custom may be
broken by Severinus, and that both may find their truest relationship
in Christ, since the state of schism is a despising of the eternal
heritage and of perpetual salvation.
Further along in the year, a Donatist presbyter had sent to Generosus
an ordo Christianitatis, or episcopal succession of Constantina, his
native city, asserting that it had been delivered by an angel from
heaven. About nothing were the church externalists of every camp so
eager as the preservation of the succession in proof of antiquity.Â
Generosus had only laughed at the manâs stupidity, but nevertheless
wrote to the bishop of Hippo about it. Fortunatus, Alypius and
Augustin combine in a reply, undeniably written by the latter,
commending him (Ep. liii.). The ordo Christianitatis of the whole
world is theirs, from which the Donatists do not hesitate to separate
themselves. This presbyterâs fiction would have to be rejected at
any rate, even had it come from an angel, since all other gospels than
that which teaches the universality of the Church are anathema. That
doctrine is in Matt. xxiv. 14, Gen. xii. 3, Gal. iii. 16. The true
ordo is the Roman, which he gives from Peter to Anastasius, the
cotemporary pope; no Donatist is found in this list; yet as Montenses
and Cutzupitæ, they have intruded into Rome. Had there been an
actual tradition, or any wicked man in the Church, that would not have
vitiated the ordo, or the Church, for the law of Christ is plain,
Matt. xxiii. 3, a passage again and again quoted by Augustin to
substantiate this thought. They are separated from the peace of
these very churches, concerning which they read in their codices, and
sing pax tecum. There follows a very full and notable summary of the
acts, as a refutation of the schism. He prefers the Scriptural
proofs, which certify to the world-wide reach of Christâs inheritance,
and its existence among all nations; from this they are separated by a
nefarious schism, and charge upon the Catholics the crimes of the
chaff on the threshing-floor, which must be mixed with the grain until
the winnowing; these accusations do not affect the wheat which grows
with the tares in the field until the end. Their divinely appointed
retribution is in the history of the Maximianists, with whom they now
commune, and affirm that they are not stained thereby; let them apply
that lenity of judgment to the inheritance of Christ. The angel then
was either Satan, or the man is Satanic, yet his salvation is desired;
the sharp writing concerning him is without odium, and seeks only his
correction.
Celer was a Donatist, a man of middle age and of considerable estate
and civil position. He afterwards rose to the proconsulship.Â
Augustin expresses (Ep. lvi.) a peculiar respect and affection for
him, as a man of integrity and seriousness. He had desired direct
instruction from the bishop, both in a matter of Christian culture and
in the controversies between the two parties. Weighed down with the
cares of visitation, Augustin had to delegate his presbyter Optatus to
the reading and explanations of the bishopâs works and views in
Celerâs leisure hours. The superior claims of the life beyond are
set before him, together with the overwhelming force of the proofs
against the schism, so that the dullest with patience and attention
can get correction. The sundering of the bonds of custom and of a
perversity that has become familiar, is a matter requiring great
strength of character, for which step however, he, under God, would be
readily capable.
But Celer was not persuaded to change his church connection by this
first endeavor. On the contrary, Augustin thought he saw a laxity in
the enforcement of the repressive measure ordered by the government,
and so wrote a second time (Ep. lvii.). He affirms that there is no
just cause for separation from that Catholic church which prophets and
evangelist have declared should be diffused through the whole world.Â
A long retained codex of Augustin, which had been loaned to Celer
through Cæcilian, his own son, who seems to have been under the
special tutelage of the bishop, was designed to convince the state
official on this very point (we do not know which writing it may have
been), should inclination or leisure lead him to its perusal, and
whatever difficulties might occur, Augustin was ready to answer. He
desires him also to stir up his subordinates to greater care in
restoring the Catholic unity in the region of Hippo; indeed he
cautions him to diligence on his own estates; a friend there, who
fears to be strict in the carrying out of the statutes, could have his
position alleviated by a word from Celer his patron. From this point
we notice a decided sympathy with the effort to break up Donatism by
force.
Parmenian, the successor of Donatus the Great in the see of Carthage,
was one of the brightest disputants on their side. Against him
Optatus of Milevis had directed his review of the schism, full indeed
of grave historical blunders, but not lacking in that suavity which
those who think they have the keys of heaven sometimes affect. When
Tychonius had exposed some of the inconsequences and weaknesses of the
Donatist theory of the Church, Parmenian undertook a reply, whose main
object was to fortify the propositions, (1) that the evil defile the
good in the Church, and must therefore be cut off; and (2) that
puristic folly, that the Donatist community was absolutely pure in its
membership and priesthood. To this much-esteemed work, Augustin
replies (c. 400 A.D.) in three books:Â Contra Epistolam Parmeniani.
In Book I. the main question is, who really incurred the guilt of
schism, and initiated the appeal to the State? He opens with the
praise of Tychonius as man and author, but misses the acute drift of
that great manâs argument. He seeks to answer the data of the origin
of the separation as given by Parmenian, who attributes it to the
joint movement of Gaul, Spain and Italy in seeking to make their views
universal, and to the influence of Hosius over Constantine, in winning
him to their opinion; nor does Parmenius cease to deprecate the
imperial intervention. Augustin defends this use of the secular arm,
but accuses the Donatists by their history of beginning it in the
appeal to Constantine, in the treatment of the Rogatists and
Maximianists, in the abuses of the Circumcelliones, in their petition
to Julian.
Book II. discusses the texts alleged by the Donatists in support of
the purity of the Church, the need of discipline, the sole validity of
their baptism and ordination, the blamelessness of their members and
clergy. While both fail in exegetical principles, Parmenian, after
the manner of his school, is aggravatingly guilty of using mere
catch-words, without regard to text or context. He quotes
indiscriminately whatever sounds favorable to his cause. Some of the
passages are: Is. v. 20, Prov. xvii. 15, Is. lix. 1â8, Ecclus. x. 2,
Is. lxvi. 3, Prov. xxi. 27, and others. Augustin gives his
interpretations, and does not fail to prod his opponent with barbs of
Optatus, Maximianists, and Circumcelliones.
Book III. handles further the theory of purism in the light of
Scriptural proofs. The first part is mainly an endeavor to give the
true significance of I Cor. v. 12, 13. (Compare his correction in
the Retractt. II. xvii.). Augustin is constrained to confess the
need of some internal discipline, and then enforces with wider range
the notes of universality, unity and toleration, especially as
illustrated by Cyprian. [Cp. Retractt.. II. xvii.].
In the work against Parmenian, he had promised to write more fully on
this subject of baptism, the frequent persuasions of the brethren also
moved him so that in this same year (400 A.D.) he issued the seven
books De Baptismo: Contra Donatistas. The double purpose is to
define that sacrament as the property of Christ, and to overthrow the
Donatist appeal to the authority of Cyprian and the famous council of
Carthage, with its eighty-seven deliverances in favor of the
repetition of the rite. Since this is one of the works translated in
the accompanying volume any further analysis may be passed by. [Cp.
Retractt. II. xviii.].
In this period of frequent and heated controversy, a Donatist layman,
Centurius by name, brought some of their quotations and writings, and
supported with Scriptural proofs to the Church in Hippo. It seems to
have begun with an exposition of Prov. ix. 17. (N. Afr. version and
LXX). Augustin answered them briefly in a tractate, which he
entitles: Contra quod attulit Centurius a Donatistis. It is
however not extant. In the Retractations (II. xix.) it is placed
immediately after the work on Baptism.
Meanwhile, and as the Retractations tell us, before he had finished
his work on the Trinity, and his literal commentary on Genesis, he
found it desirable to reply to the pastoral letter of Petilian,
Donatist bishop of Constantina; unfortunately only a part of the
epistle came into his hand, so strenuous and vigilant were the efforts
to hide their literature from the eyes of this ardent foe. He
replied with one book to so much as he had received, c. 400 A.D.Â
Some of his clergy subsequently obtained and wrote out a complete
copy, so that he composed the second book, c. 401 A.D. Meanwhile
Petilian responded to the first issue, and this necessitated a third
book, c. 401 or 402 A.D. The three books were collected into one
treatise, and are known under the title Contra Litteras Petiliani.Â
The main object of the series is the refutation of Petilianâs
proposition: "Conscientia namque (sancte) dantis attenditur, quæ
(qui) abluat accipientis."Â "Nam qui fidem (sciens) a perfido
sumpserit, non fidem percipit, sed reatum."Â "What we look for is the
conscience of the giver (him who gives in holiness), to cleanse that
of the recipient."Â "For he who (wittingly) receives faith from the
faithless receives not faith, but guilt."Â Since the work is also a
part of this volume, we need not dwell on it farther. [Cp. Retractt.
II. xxv.]
The civil restraints were applied with vigor on the one side and
resented on the other by the retaliatory Circumcelliones. To
Pammachius, a man of senatorial rank, Augustin, in 401 A.D., sends a
letter [Ep. lviii.] of exuberant congratulations and flatteries,
because he had compelled some of his Numidian tenants to return to the
mother Church; a converting agency which he condemns unmercifully when
practiced by the Donatists. The plan, he says, would have been urged
upon other landholders, had the clergy not been afraid of the scornful
finger of the Donatists, who were in such favor with the proprietors,
that an effort like this might have failed. He desires the senator
to circulate this letter wherever there was promise of effect. The
bishop, now thoroughly committed to these arbitrary procedures, was in
some trepidation lest the plausible arguments which the Donatists were
urging, might shake the resolution of Pammachius himself, and so he
sends a secret commission of instruction.
The coercive measures yielded fruit, and the question about the status
of recedent Donatist clergy now became pressing. Augustin had
already met with a certain Theodore on this subject, and in a letter
addressed to him [Ep. lxi.] c. 401, recapitulated the proposition then
agreed upon, to be used as a basis for treatment with all who wanted
to come over. The Catholic church opposed only the schism and the
rebaptism among the Donatists; what was good she was ready to
acknowledge. Baptism itself, ordination, self-denial, celibacy,
doctrinal views, especially as to the Trinity, these were confessedly
right, only to reap the profit of them, it was essential for Donatists
to be in the unity and in the root.
The Council of Carthage of September 13, 401, adopted this view, Can.
2. There had also been a remarkable scarcity of Catholic clergy, so
that application had been made to Rome and Milan for relief; probably
this had its influence upon so charitable a view of schismatic
ordination.
It was alleged that Crispinus, the bishop of Calama, had bought a
state farm at Mappalia, and had rebaptized the tenants. Augustin was
roused by this counter-irritant and wrote him a letter, c. 402 A.D.
[Ep. lxvi.], wondering what he would do if the authorities were to
impose the fine for every offense. He pleads for an answer to
Christ, whose was all the world, because bought with his blood, while
the Donatist would affirm that Christ had lost all the world save
Africa. He urges a public discussion of the mooted points before
these converts, which should be reported and done into Punic as a test
of their freedom in this conversion, and frankly enough offers to do
the same for any case of coercion on his side. Unless Crispinus and
his helpers acquiesce, he will hold them guilty.
The uppermost talk of those times was the extraordinary charity of the
Donatists toward the Maximianists. One form of apology for such a
seeming vacation of all their tenets was to say, e.g., of Felicianus
of Musti, that he was ignorantly condemned when innocent and absent,
so in his absence, he was reinstated. This statement was made by a
Donatis bishop, Clarentius, in reply to the inquiries of Naucelio.Â
Alypius and Augustin, who were made aware of this defense, urged in
criticism [Ep. lxx.] that the Council of Bagai was therefore guilty in
condemning Felicianus unheard, and all the more in that they afterward
found him to be innocent. Either he ought not to have been condemned
if he was innocent, or if guilty, he ought not to have been received
back. If the council erred, why not apply such a liability to error
to the origin of the schism; might not Cæcilian, unheard, have been
condemned although innocent? But, as a matter of fact, Felicianus
was found guilty while in thorough and declared sympathy with
Maximian, and the state was called upon to enforce his ejection. If
he was welcomed without rebaptism, why not treat the Church diffused
through the whole world with the same consideration?
It was probably in the year 402 that he addressed a general appeal to
the Donatist [Ep. lxxvi.], not to endanger their salvation by
continuance in schism. If they counted the surrender of the sacred
books so great a sin, how much more grievous a transgression ought the
refusal to obey the plain commands of these books as to unity be
considered. He brings forward the usual array of passages to
demonstrate the universality of the Church, and that any limitation of
this note, can only be at the end of the world. The attempt to
separate the wheat from the tares before the harvest, is only a proof
that they are of the tares. A rapid survey of the origin of the
schism follows, and all the archives are made to tell against them.Â
He asks how they can hold any theory of purism while they regard
Optatus as a martyr and welcome the excommunicated Maximianists?Â
Schism in the Scriptures is punished more severely than the burning of
the books. Why complain about traditorship when Maximianists are
received? Why abuse the imperial laws directed against them, when
they had invoked the same against the Maximianists? If theirs is the
only baptism, what is the baptism of these Maximianists, which is
without question validated? He challenges the Donatist bishops to
discuss these matters with their laity, if they persist in declining
to meet the Catholics, and bids the sheep beware of the wolves and
their den.
The ad Catholicos Epistola, popularly known as de Unitate Ecclesiæ,
is pretty generally attributed to Augustin, and is addressed to the
brethren of his charge; it may be taken as a contrast to the previous
letter directed to the Donatists, and not unlikely saw the light in
402 A.D. This book is designed as a continuance of the controversy
with Petilian, and indeed a further correspondence is proposed, so
that the work must have appeared before that bishopâs death, which is
generally placed in this year. The chief question between the two
parties is, Where is the Church? Is it with Catholic or Donatist?Â
The Church is one and Catholic:Â it is the body of Christ, consisting
of Him as its Head and those in Him as members. The historical issue
in any of four possibilities of truth or falsity does not justify
separation from this body. The point is, What does the Lord say?Â
The Donatist should believe in the books, which he says were delivered
up, and put aside all other documents except the divine canons. Do
the Scriptures say that the Church is in Africa only, and in the few
Cutzupitanæ or Montenses at Rome, and in the house or patrimony of
one woman in Spain, or is it in the whole world? A second time does
he start out with a definition of the Church, as having for its head
the Only Begotten Son, and for its body the members in Him; as
bridegroom and bride, two in one flesh. Any divergence from the Head
or the body, whether caused by difference in doctrine or government,
is per se outside of the Church. He meets the two favorite
Donatistic comparisons of the divine institution with the ark and
Gideonâs fleece, and then enlarges upon the note of universality, with
included unity, by Scripture texts from the Law, the Prophets,
especially Isaiah, and the Psalms. From the Donatist position these
are not fulfilled, because, say they, men are unwilling. Men were
created with free will; they believe or disbelieve according to
that. When the Church began to increase in the world, men refused to
persevere, and the Christian religion was lost from all the nations
with the exception of the Donatists. All this, replies Augustin, as
if the Spirit of God did not know the future volitions of men. But
Christ, after the resurrection, said that the Law, the Prophets and
the Psalms testified of Him, and that the fulfillment of his kingdom
should begin from Jerusalem. He then follows out the expansion of
the Church as given in the Acts, and the foundation of Christian
communities as mentioned in the Epistles and the Revelation. The
Donatists reply to this theory of development that the Church perished
save among them in North Africa. It is among the few: for which
they cite a similar state of things under Enoch, Noah, Lot, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and the Kingdom of Judah. The spread of the Church
did indeed begin from Jerusalem, but afterwards an apostasy befell it,
in the progress of which the communion of the Donatists alone remained
faithful. Augustin says the fact that there are evil persons in the
Church is simply a proof of the fulfillment of those parables of our
Lord, which illustrate the mixed characters in his kingdom. There is
indeed a paucity of the good, but within that communion. Then
follows a discussion of the geographical limitation, the Donatists
maintaining that the Oriental churches and the rest mentioned in the
sacred canon had receded from the faith. Especially is their
favorite paragraph, a passage from Cant. i. 7, commented upon. He
presses the continuous preaching among all nations, after which event
the end is to come; there must be such a universal growth to that
end. Let us cease drawing from the acts and sayings of men about
this great matter, and take the simple testimony of the Scriptures.Â
But the Donatists object:Â If the Church be among you why do you
compel us by force to enter its peace? Or if we are evil why do you
desire us? and if we are tares why hinder us from growing until the
harvest? Augustin then justifies the system of correction adopted in
loving care for their salvation, not failing to remind them of the
Circumcelliones and their own action with regard to the
Maximianists. Another inquiry of the Donatists was, How will you
recognize us if we come to you? Augustin says, as the universally
founded Church is wont to receive, put away all hatred and your
sacraments are acknowledged. This leads to the discussion of baptism
and of that related topic, the effect, of the celebrantâs character,
upon the recipient. He returns finally to the note of universality
as essential to the unity, with the one Head and the one body.
Somewhere about 404 A.D. two official cases of discipline had occurred
in Augustinâs monasterium, which had grieved the pride of the clergy,
because they had boasted of their establishment as really purer than
the puristic body gathered about the Donatist bishop Proculeianus.Â
They were more troubled about this than about the sins of the
suspected brethren, one of whom, however, seemed to have considerable
injustice done him. While discussing this matter [in Ep. lxxviii.]
he incidentally mentions the lapse of two Donatists, who had been
received into Augustinâs communion, and whose conduct the clergy had
regarded as a proof of the laxity of discipline under Proculeianus.
A sermon on the 95th Ps. (96) may have been preached in the year 404
or thereabouts, in which he rebukes the Donatists for their pride in
claiming either that they, the few in Africa, are the ones bought by
Christ, or that they are so great because this large gift was bestowed
on them alone. And in commenting on v. 10, dicite in nationibus,
Dominus regnavit a ligno, etc., he twits them with seeking this reign
by the wood through the cudgels of the Circumcelliones; and enlarges
too upon the theme of universality, against their undiscoverable here
and there.
Cæcilianus, whose exact civil office, whether vicar or præfectus
annonæ is yet undetermined, Augustin addresses as præses in Ep.
lxxxvi., which is ascribed to 405 A.D. The severer edicts of
Honorius had just been published. This official had carried them out
with telling earnestness. His administration in the greater part of
Africa is particularly commended; the bishop begs of him to restore
the Catholic unity also in Hippo and the frontiers of Numidia. The
ill-success of his own work is not due to lack of episcopal duty, and
he asks Cæcilianus to inquire of the clergy, or of the bearer, a
commissioned presbyter, about the true state of matters; he would have
the State begin with monitions in the hope of preventing a resort to
severer remedies.
Emeritus, the bishop of Julia Cæsarea, one of the seven Donatist
disputants at the later conference, did not shun correspondence or
association with his opponents. He is described as a man of parts
and character. Augustin had written a letter to him, which is not
preserved, and it had received no reply. He once more seeks to win
him to a friendly discussion or correspondence [Ep. lxxxvii.], in this
time of general return to the mother Church. He would have all men
of culture come back to the true fellowship. What Emeritusâs
particular ground for continuing in separation may be he does not
know. He proceeds to discuss universality, purism, the validity of
the documents, the heinousness of schism, the paucity of numbers, and
the right of coercion.
The enforcement of the civil edicts was followed by violent outbreaks
of the Circumcelliones, especially in Augustinâs diocese. The clergy
united in a protest [Ep. lxxxviii.] addressed to the venerable Bishop
Januarius, a Donatist, probably in 406 A.D. They claim (1) that they
are receiving evil for good. (2) The appeal to the state was begun
by the Majorinists, and two full documents are given in proof. (3)
All decrees of the empire since, are the simple execution of the edict
of Constantine against the party of Donatus which these had wanted to
be issued against Cæcilian. (4) The acts of the Circumcelliones;
were the real occasion for sharper efforts at suppression; instances
of their cruelty are mentioned. (5) The Catholics have pursued a
conciliatory policy by conferences and by desiring a mitigation of the
penalties, which were frustrated the one by refusals, the other by a
gross assault on the Catholic bishop of Bagai; all who come into the
hands of the state clergy, are treated with merciful persuasion. (6)
Various proposals for peace are suggested.
Festus, a government official and a landed proprietor apparently in
Hippo, had written a letter urging a return of the Donatists to the
mother Church. It bore little fruit, and he asks Augustin first to
instruct him and also to give him a tractate for general use.Â
Augustin, c. 406. [Ep. lxxxix.], enforces the duty of perseverance in
the civil reclamation of the Donatists; their claim of persecution as
a note attesting them to be the true people of God is folly, because
it is not the mere suffering but the cause for which one suffers that
makes a martyr. He exhorts him to read the archives and see how the
schismatics initiated the appeal to the secular power, and how all
things that have befallen them through that arm would have been the
just fate of the Cæcilianists, had the Donatist course been
approved. Besides, why this unjust treatment of the Church universal
in condemning it unheard, and rebaptizing its members, who have done
them no wrong? The theory that baptism alone is valid when
administered by the just, is putting a trust in man which the
Scriptures condemn; the sacrament is not manâs but Christâs; further,
one would prefer to be baptized by a bad man, for then he would
receive grace from Christ directly, according to their subterfuge.Â
He is vexed with their active and passive opposition; the mother has
to correct, although her obstinate child may not like it. They aver
that the Catholics accept them without requiring any change in them,
but the change required is great, no less a one than from error to
truth. The bishop proposes as a substitute for Festusâs plan, the
sending of an authorized messenger secretly to himself, and they would
devise together a method for the correction of the Donatists.
In the second sermon on Ps. cii. (ci.) preached about this time, when
enlarging upon the unity he ridicules the Donatist assertion that the
Church which was among all the nations had perished, as the impudent
voice of those who are not in it declares. So is their affirmation
that Scripture prophecies about the spread of the kingdom have been
fulfilled; all nations have believed, but this diffused communion
apostatized and perished. He rebukes the conceit that the Lordâs
saying, I am with you, even to the end of the world, was designed for
them alone, the Lord foreseeing that the party of Donatus would be in
the earth. If emperors have propounded laws against heretics, it is
a part of the predictions which foretold how kings would serve the
Lord. Thence he expands the notes of universality and perpetuity.
Cresconius, a layman and philologist, read Augustinâs first book in
answer to Petilian, and wrote a reply, which, however, was circulated
among the Donatists only. Augustin at last secured a copy, and wrote
(406 A.D., some say as late as 409) Contra Cresconium Grammaticum
Partis Donati, libri IV. Three of these books controvert the
arguments of Cresconius; part of the third and the fourth entire is a
detailed polemic history of the Maximian schism.
In Book I. he alludes to the occasion of the writing, and hesitates
between being regarded as contumelious if he declined an answer, and
arrogant, should he reply. Cresconius had attacked eloquence, which
Augustin defends as simply the art of speaking, and as not to be
condemned because it has been abused. You do not condemn military
armament for your country because others have taken up arms against
the country; the physician does not refuse to use all drugs because
some are baneful; because there are sophists one is not to deny the
value of eloquence. Cresconius seemed to regard its cultivation as
injurious to the simplicity of Christian law and teaching. He also
had accused Augustin of persistent arrogance in his pertinacious
pursuit of the Donatists. Augustin claims to do a good work with
good ends in view, and says its fruit has been a rich harvest for the
Church. So the discussion passes on to the use of dialectics, which
Cresconius assails, but Augustin defends as nothing else than a
demonstration of results, either the true from the true or the false
from the false. He justifies not disputatiousness, but the arguments
by which truth is built up, for Christ employed it, and St. Paul
wielded its weapons not only with the Jews but with Epicureans and
Stoics. In all this we have an illustration of that unfortunate
tendency to undervalue culture whenever a puristic community passes
into the fires. Augustin applies the art to one of the points which
Cresconius had discussed, viz., rebaptism. He had endeavored to
prove that it was solely among them. Augustin concedes that the rite
is there, but not its profit; in order to enjoy its profit, it must be
administered lawfully. The oneness of baptism as a ceremony is not
dependent on the oneness of the Church, whereas its profit is. A
reprobate society of heretics can have a good baptism, but it is not
properly and not profitably administered among them; the proper and
profitable administration is solely in the Church to salvation; the
rite outside is to judgment.
In Book II. after a résumé of the previous book, he notices first
the criticism as to the true construction of the name DonatistÅ; it
should rather be Donatiani as Cresconius claimed. He is ready to
concede this, and in his controversy with the philologist will use
that form, but on all other occasion he would prefer the more familiar
termination. Cresconius also protests against the term heretic as
applied to them, which he regards as a divergence of views from the
Christian faith; while a schism has sprung up among those for whom the
same Christ was born, died and rose again, who have one religion, the
same sacraments, and no diversity in Christian observance. Augustin,
however, while not particularly dwelling on these agreements, presses
upon him the articles of divergence, and asks why they rebaptize?Â
The recognition of Donatist ordination concerning which Cresconius had
asked, Augustin declares to be a matter of charity. As to the
question of Cresconius, Why, if the Donatists are such heretics and so
sacrilegious, if they are indeed guilty of a nefarious and inexpiable
crime, some purification is not adopted when they come over to the
Catholic church? Augustin answers: We do not regard it as
inexpiable, and baptism is not to be repeated, it is Christâs; on
coming to us the Donatist receives the Spirit signified by that rite;
he begins to have healthfully what he previously had hurtfully and
unworthily. The relation of the celebrant to the symbol as presented
by Cresconius is a modification of Petilianism. "Regard is had,"
says he, "to the conscience of the giver, not according to its
actuality, which cannot be perceived but according to his reputation,
whether that be true or false."Â Augustin does not fail to crowd him
for the change of base. The favorite passages of Ps. cxli. 5, Jer.
xv. 18, and Ecclus. xxxiv. 31, are gone over. Then he answers the
charge made by Cresconius, as to the right of any sinner to baptize
among the Catholics. Finally, he reviews Cyprianâs relation to
rebaptism, who is not a canonical authority for him; the Scriptures
alone are such; but the Donatists ought to consider that decision of
his to remain in unity from the fact that the mixed nature of its
membership requires toleration.
Book III. Augustin contends that the Donatists by their schism from
especially the Eastern churches had violated the principle of
toleration, which their boasted leader had so strenuously enforced.Â
There follows then a seriatim consideration of the points made by
Cresconius, similar to those maintained by Petilian, as to the
importance of the origin and the head and root in baptism, or the
character of the celebrant, and the rebaptism by Paul of Johnâs
disciples. The case of Optatus and the Maximianists next come under
review, as witnesses against their testimonies. Cresconius says he
will neither absolve nor condemn Optatus, and as to the Maximianists,
he professes to have made special inquiry into the whole history.Â
The Synod had granted a season of delay during which all who returned
should be held innocent. Of this very many availed themselves; the
baptism of these was valid; those who remained outside lost both
baptism and the church. Augustin refutes the statement from its
inherent contradictions and from the language of the Synod against the
Maximianists. Cresconius also brings forward the Sardican councilâs
letter to Donatus as a proof of sustained fellowship. Augustin
declares it to be an Arian council; and he insists on paralleling all
Cresconius would say about Cæcilianism with the career of the
Maximianists. With reference to persecution, he cites in extenso
their own persecutions, the case of Severus, bishop of Thubursicubur;
the acts of Optatus; his own treatment at a collation by the
Circumcelliones; the case of Crispinus, the Donatist bishop of Calama;
their own invocation of the state against the Maximianists. Thence
he returns to the doctrine of the unity as universal with many of the
familiar Scripture texts, and asserts by the documents that the
Donatists were the occasion of the rupture.
Book IV. is a review of Cresconiusâs work by the light of the
Maximianist records. Beginning with a pleasantry as to their
eloquence and dialectic spirit, he follows in detail the points of
Cresconius whether doctrinal or historical as to Cæcilian, mainly
with Maximianist data as offsets. Cresconius charges Augustin with
having called Petilian Satan, and so violating the peace he
professes. Augustin claims that he only compared the error not the
person, to Satan. Nor had Cresconius forgotten to bring out the
Manichæism of his opponent. Augustin reminds him both of what he
had written against them and also of what sins were forgiven in the
return of Maximian, who was an old man when Augustin was but young;
these were the sins of his youth. The theories of fellowship, of
persecution, of baptism, are all considered in the light of their own
council of Bagai and its sequences. [Cp. Retractt. II. xxvi.].
After concluding his work against Cresconius, he issued, probably in
this same year, a little treatise he had promised, containing a
collection of proofs both for Donatist and Catholic popular use. To
the pledge itself an unknown Donatist replied, which led to the
production of a second book, whose title Augustin designed to be:Â
Contra nescio quem Donatistam. The original promise was fulfilled in
the publication of the Probationes et Testimonia contra Donatistas,
embracing all the ecclesiastical and public acts and Scripture proofs
bearing on the questions between them. It was designed mainly for
public reading in the basilicas. Both were joined in one book,
although apparently afterwards separated. In each he confesses to
the error of placing the purgation of Felix after instead of before
the vindication of Cæcilian. At this writing he still regarded the
Donatists as psychics and babes, but in his old age corrects his
application of the words to them, since he came to consider them
rather as dead and lost. Unfortunately neither treatise has been
preserved. [Cp. Retractt. II. xxvii. and xxviii.].
He also conceived the plan of preparing a polemic for the people who
had little time for extended reading, by refuting the entire theory of
the schism through the story of the excision and restoration of the
Maximianists. It appeared c. 406 A.D. under the name of Admonitio
Donatistarum de Maximianistis: this too is lost. [Cp. Retractt.
II. xxix.].
An acquaintance of earlier days in Carthage, Vincentius, had become
bishop of the little Rogatist fragment as the immediate successor of
Rogatus himself at Cartenna. He, or some one of that little band,
had written a letter to Augustin with a pretty strong plea against
persecution. This was not unlikely in c. 408 A.D., and Augustin
answers in one of his most weighty epistles (Ep. xciii.), under the
supposition that Vincentius was the author, and vindicates the help of
the State. Evidently a change had come over Numidia, for he boasts
of the multitudes who had been converted, and rejoices in the fruitful
use of the secular arm for their salvation. Even Circumcelliones had
become steadfast Catholics. Coercion stimulates the thoughtless and
those bound by custom, and delivers these held back by fear; it is
like a wholesome medicine, or the wounds inflicted by a friend. God
chastens in order to better the life and to bring men to repentance.Â
The householder instructs us to compel them to come in. Sarah and
Hagar are types; so the mother Church corrects her children.Â
Everything depends on the aim in persecution, whether it be done for
oppression or for good; it is the difference between Pharaoh and Moses
in their treatment of Israel. The Father gave up the Son, and the
Son gave Himself up; while Judas betrayed Him. The righteousness of
the end for which one suffers alone constitutes martyrdom. The
Rogatist is not suffering for righteousness but for unrighteousness.Â
Augustin is constrained to confess that there are no persecutions
recorded in the New Testament as inflicted by Christians, but explains
the omission as due to the fact that rulers were not yet members of
the Church. He thinks, too, that the moderate and discriminating
form of the correction employed, helps to justify a resort thereto.Â
If the Rogatists have nothing to do with the violence of the
Circumcelliones, and use no force as the rest of the Donatists do, it
is because they are so few and feeble. The Donatists, however, did
use the secular arm against the Maximianists, and in the appeal to
Julian. He will not allow a distinction between resort to law for
the recovery of property and for the coercion of the conscience. He
claims that to regain oneâs own in this way has no apostolic
warrant. The Donatists, too, sought imperial aid to coerce
Cæcilianus. Why shall not Catholics return in kind? The very
edict of confiscation which had hit them they had hoped might fall on
the head of Cæcilian and his followers. What Tychonius said
describes the very essence of Donatist arbitrariness:Â quod volumus
sanctum est. The sin of separation from the whole world followed;
the universal church was condemned unheard, and the toleration which
Cyprian urged disregarded. He traces his own change of views from
the non-coercive to the coercive policy, the success of the method in
hastening conversions won him wholly as an enthusiastic and persistent
supporter. He bids Vincentius flee from the wrath to come. What is
his little handful compared with the universal Church? This note of
universality he develops in extenso against their limitation, and
especially their new definition of Catholic, as obedience to all the
laws and the sacraments, and to their childish allegory of Cant. i.
7. He hints that in the ancient times there might have been a little
schism which anticipated the Rogatists, and which had called itself
exclusively the Church. He thinks it is also the duty of the State
to suppress idolatry. The passage quoted from Hilary by Vincentius,
as to the few who in Asia in his day were believers in spite of the
spread of the Church, Augustin softens into an excited picture of the
dark times of persecution. Next, he discusses the position of
Cyprian. All patristic testimony, however, is of no final value; the
only authority is the Word of God. Moreover, if Cyprian be quoted,
why not on the side of his love for unity and toleration? The
averment that the Church, with the exception of the Rogatists,
perished by fellowship with the unbaptized, is met with the fact that
in Cyprianâs time men had been received without rebaptism into the
Church, and therefore the Church, according to their theory, must have
perished before their day; if it, however, survived that condition,
then there is no excuse left for a schism on that ground. One is not
of higher merit than Cyprian simply because he may abhor that fatherâs
error, any more than they who did not fall into Peterâs mistake are
above him in worth on that account. Indeed Cyprian may have
rectified his fault before death; and some say that those passages are
interpolations. Augustin, however, concedes their authenticity.Â
Cyprian, in his Epistle to Antonianus, shows how the African bishops
maintained unity in spite of the corrupt lives of some colleagues;
variations of opinion were allowed; neither were they contaminated by
such a fellowship, nor was the Church destroyed. Tychonius states
the result of a Donatist council which granted fellowship to those in
their own body who had been guilty of tradition, and that without
rebaptism, in case the restored should oppose such a repetition of the
rite. Deuterius, bishop of Macriana, had admitted traditors to his
communion without renewing the sacrament, and many witnesses of both
facts were living in Tychoniusâs own day. Parmenian had indeed
replied to the arguments, but could not gainsay the facts. Augustin
professes in all sincerity his anxiety for the salvation of the
jeopardized Donatists; the Church acknowledges the Sacrament which
they have administered, and desires them to have the profit thereof.Â
In defence of rebaptism Vincentius had alleged the case of Paul,
repeating the ceremony after John. Augustin asks was John then a
heretic? If not, it is for you to say why the ordinance was
iterated; Christâs baptism is always the same and must not be
iterated; it has nothing to do with the merit or demerit of the
individual, or else Paul would not have declined its continuous
administration. He begs him to put no confidence in the accident of
their being a little company, and not to arrogate to themselves the
title of Catholic, in the sense of being keepers of the entire law and
all the sacraments, nor to peculiar sanctity as the few who were to
have faith at the coming of the Son of Man. The Church does not take
pleasure in correction, save for conversion; she abhors those who seek
Donatist property out of sheer covetousness, yet all property does
belong to the true Church. She has also no delight in any who
disregard Donatist discipline, by receiving members who have been
ejected from that body for sin. The Catholic Church sustains the
unity, and recognizes the mixture of chaff and wheat, good and bad
fish, the goats and the sheep. He bids him come to that Church into
whose fellowship Vincentius had described Augustin as entering. He
closes with reflections on the aggravations in the sin of schism and
on the need of repentance.
Olympius had recently been elevated to the dignity of magister
officiorum. He had written to Augustin soliciting his advice on the
best way for the civil authority to help the Church. Augustin, c.
408 [Ep. xcvii.], welcomes his elevation, commends his devotion to the
body of Christ, and is glad to have his own timidity relieved by this
invitation to lay before the highest official the exacting needs of
the hour. These had become grave; the very success of coercion had
precipitated new commotions among the Circumcelliones and their
clerical abettors. A commission had sailed in mid-winter to solicit
imperial help against their fury. The first point he would suggest,
but without having had the opportunity of consultation, save probably
with bishop Severus, is to declare by proclamation that the imperial
edicts were not the invention of Stilicho, as the Donatists and
heathen boasted. As to further plans, the episcopal commission would
doubtless consult with him on their return from court. He invites
Olympius to rejoice with him on the practical benefits of coercion
thus far.
It may have been a little later (c. 408 or 409) that Augustin writes
to Donatus the proconsul (Ep. c.) regretting indeed that the Church
must avail herself of the State, but he is gratified that so devoted a
son is wielding the sword for her. The crimes against the Church are
greater than all other crimes, but in her discipline he deprecates any
spirit of revenge, and pleads most beseechingly against the infliction
of capital punishment; that would be a deterrent to the bringing in of
any charges against the guilty. He asks for a republication of the
repressive laws, since the enemy is boasting of their repeal.
Augustin wrote a general letter to the Donatist people in c. 409 [Ep.
cv.], in which he declares that the Catholic effort at their
conversion is the work of peacemakers. Some Donatist presbyters had
ordered the Catholics to let their people alone, if they did not want
to be killed, but Augustin would all the rather ask the people to
recede from the schismatics because they were separated from that body
for which Christ died. Catholics must seek for the stolen sheep that
had on them the mark of Christ. The charge of being traditors, says
he, we meet with a like accusation against you, and then you bid us
leave. You claim to be the Church on this unproved charge, unmindful
of what law, prophecy, Psalms, Apostles and Gospels say as to its
universality beginning at Jerusalem. You are not in communion with
that universal body, and you prevent the escape of others from a
similar perdition. The objection as to persecution he meets with an
invitation to look at the deeds of clergy and Circumcelliones, and
cites instances of grievous ill-treatment toward voluntary converts:Â
Marcus, presbyter of Casphalia, Restitutus of Victoria, Marcianus of
Urga, Maximinus and Possidius, and then protests against their general
violence and robberies, and especially against attributing martyrdom
to those who had only been punished for their crimes. To all this
compulsion we oppose the State, he affirms, and many of your own
people rejoice in deliverance from your oppressions. You have filled
Africa with false charges as to Cæcilian, Felix, etc., and though we
do not place our hope in man, yet we do recognize the State as the
servant of the Church. Nebuchadnezzar is an example both of the
persecutor and the correctionist. You despise the baptism of Christ;
ought this not to be punished? He then reviews the history of the
case in the light of the documents; commenting on them as forms of
their own appeal to the State. The liberty of error is most deadly
to the soul. Christ and the Apostles command unity, and this command
the Emperors seek to enforce. Only Julian and the heathen emperors
were persecutors; the only martyrs are those who suffer for Catholic
truth. The whole imperial legislation against Donatism is the
outcome of the original statute of Constantine and sprang after all
from their appeal. He next discusses their view of baptism and
insists that the rite is independent of the character of the
celebrant; were it dependent, then, according to their notion, we
should rather desire to be baptized by a bad man, in order to receive
the grace directly from Christ. The appeal to unity follows. Make
concord with us he urges; we love you and desire to serve you, even by
the aid of the temporal laws; we do not want you to perish as aliens
from your Catholic mother. Your charges you are unable to
substantiate, and yet you avoid all conference with us, as if to shun
fellowship with sinners; a false pride, which is rebuked by Paulâs
conduct, by the Lordâs in his treatment of Judas; the Lord held
conference even with the devil. This he follows with extended
Scriptural proofs of the universality of the Church. He reminds them
again of the unproved charges which apply rather to themselves; but he
has no desire for the historical argument, rather for the doctrinal.Â
The Catholic aim is their conversion, whether by the persuasion of
argument or the correction of laws. They should remember the mixed
nature of the Church, and that mere contact with evil does not
defile. If you hold to Christ, hold also to His Church; you kill us
who seek to tell you the truth, and do not want you to perish in
evil. May God vindicate us and his cause by slaying your errors and
making you rejoice with us in the truth.
On the death of Proculeianus, Macrobius succeeded to the see of Hippo
Regius. Augustin hears that he is about to rebaptize a subdeacon
(Rusticianus) who under discipline left the Catholics. Augustin
urges him [Ep. cvi.], c. 409, not to do this by his desire to have
life in God, and to please God by not making the sacraments vain, and
by his hope of not being separated from the body of Christ
eternally. The Donatists have admitted the validity of baptism as
administered by Felicianus and Primianus, why then rebaptize others?
and begs him to search that case as a test of the whole matter.
Maximus and Theodore had been commissioned to deliver the previous
letter to Bishop Macrobius. He at first declined to listen to its
reading, but was at last persuaded to attend, and in reply said:Â It
was his duty to receive all who came, and to give faith to those who
asked it. Into the question about Primian he would not enter,
because of his own recent ordination; he was not a judge of his
father, and he would remain in what his predecessors had accepted.Â
These replies were conveyed to Augustin in the letter cvii. (c. 409)
by the two commissioners.
In still further hope of reaching Bishop Macrobius, Augustin addressed
another epistle, (cviii. ) c. 409, to him in answer to the objections
offered by him at the interview with the commissioners. 1. As to the
point that he must receive those who come and give them the faith they
ask:Â Augustin proposes the case of some one who has received the
rite in their communion, but had been separated from it for a time,
and having returned, conscientiously desires to be rebaptized;
Macrobius, according to his objection, could not repeat the rite, but
would proceed to instruct him. Why repeat it when Augustin
administers it? May be you will quote, "keep thyself from strange
water and do not drink from a strange fountain."Â How then will you
explain the reception of Felicianus? 2. As to the second conclusion,
that you would remain in the faith of your predecessors:Â It is a
pity for a young man of good parts to say so; nothing compels you to
remain in evil; you had better be in the Church which began in
Jerusalem and spread thence through the world. 3. And if you will
not judge your fathers why judge my fathers? If not Primian, why
Cæcilian? Why deny us to be brethren? why rend the body? why
extinguish the baptism of Christ, who baptizes with the Spirit, and
who gave Himself for the Church? Yet your colleagues in effect do
yield to the truth in their recognition of the Maximianists. Judge
not the evil but do judge what was good in Primian. That act of his,
the reception of the Maximianists, absolves the nations who are
ignorant of what you accuse us. He then traces the whole development
of that schism and its overthrow, to show that those schismatics were
not rebaptized at their return. That history Augustin considers a
divinely appointed refutation of all the Donatist tenets. He
proceeds to criticise their Scripture proofs, Prov. ix. 18, Jer. xv.
18, Eccl. xxxiv. 30, Ps. cxli. 5, which he turns against them through
the story of the schism. He next addresses himself to their theory
of fellowship, and discusses their proof texts, I Tim. v. 22, Is. lii.
11, I Cor. v. 6; Ezekiel, Daniel, the Apostles, Christ and Paul all
rebuke this purism. Cyprianâs authority for rebaptism is reviewed.Â
Augustin repeats the doubts of very many as to the authenticity of
those parts of his works which favor this view; but granted that they
are valid, Cyprian, nevertheless, maintained unity and toleration, and
by martyrdom purged his mistake. There is, however, no martyrdom
outside of the unity, as that father also testified. Cyprian
acknowledged as well the presence of many evil persons in the ministry
and in the Church, but stood to it that unity must not be sacrificed
on that account. The Church is a mixed society; this is Christâs
law. Had Macrobiusâs associates remembered the parable of the wheat
and tares they would not have separated. This argument is concluded
with a sort of summary of the points traversed before. As to the
note of persecution:Â that alone is a martyrdom which surrenders the
life for a good cause. The Donatists too used the State in the case
of the Maximianists, and to them belong the Circumcelliones. The
matter of unity and the connected points of toleration and fellowship
are again enlarged upon.
A sermon attributed to Augustin, De Rusticiano subdiacono a Donatistis
rebaptizato et in diaconum ordinato, falls in the same year, 409, with
the letter to Bishop Macrobius. There is an outburst of deep grief
over the act. It would appear that Rusticianus had been a special
favorite of Augustin, on whom he had expended much care; but he had
become involved in scurrilous deeds, in feasting and intemperance, day
and night, and was plunged in debt, and at last was excommunicated by
his presbyter, and so fled to the Donatists, by whom he was rebaptized
and made a deacon; this defection happened in the diocese of the
bishop Valerius (?); so Augustin interposed through Maximius and
Theodorus with Bishop Macrobius, but in vain. He deplores the
disgrace done to the sacrament, as dishonor done to the sign of the
King. The repetition is contradicted by the procedure with regard to
the returning Maximianists. He corrects the misinterpretation of
Ecclus. xxxiv. 30. He wishes for the Donatists the experience of the
prodigal, that they may be forgiven by return to the Church and so
attain to the profit of charity.
Great calamities were befalling the Church in all parts of the
world. Victorianus, a presbyter, wrote to Augustin for relief from
doubts as to the office of such afflictions; in the bishopâs reply,
[Ep. cxi.] possibly of Nov., 409, he mentions the cruelties of the
Donatists at Hippo exceeding those of the Barbarians, especially in
the resort to acidified lime, clubbing, robberies, and other
destructive measures to compel rebaptism; forty-eight in one place
were thus forced to a repetition. The coercion policy, in other
words, had stimulated some of the Donatists to retaliation.
Donatus had resigned his proconsulship. Augustin writes [Ep. cxii.]
at the end of 409 or beginning of 410 A.D., to express his regrets at
not meeting him on his visit to Tibilis; his retirement would now give
leisure for a larger development in graces, and would lead him to
esteem the superiority of eternal things. He praises him for his
official worth, which indeed was in everybodyâs mouth, but he urges
him not to defer to that popularity, but to seek the higher
approbation. After reminding him of the duty of Christian progress,
he asks for a reply and an exhortation to be addressed to all his
dependents at Sinitis and Hippo to return to the Church. Greetings
are sent to his father, whom the son had been instrumental in
converting to the faith.
Petilian of Constantina had written a treatise, de unico baptismo,
which Constantinus had come into possession of through some Donatist
presbyter, and then gave it to Augustin while they were in the
country, imploring him to answer it. He did so, c. 410, in the book
bearing the same title. He scorns those who desire secrecy in such
matters; when the deeds are public let the discussion be. Petilian
claims that the only true baptism is theirs:Â and therefore it is not
repeated by the sacrilegious theorists. Yes, replies Augustin,
baptism is indeed one, but it is Christâs, not yours; yours is only a
repetition of the rite. We correct what is yours and recognize what
is Christâs. Therefore we do not repeat it. So Christ corrected
what was evil and recognized what was good among the Jews. So Paul
exposed the sin of the heathen world but acknowledged what truth it
had. Moreover you perform the ceremony, but it is to destruction:Â
there is no real advantage in baptism outside of the Church.Â
Petilian pleads for rebaptism because Paul rebaptized Johnâs
disciples; but, says Augustin, that is to declare John a heretic.Â
These are two different things, as indeed Petilian himself suggests,
some might say, and then gives two irrelevant passages, Matt. xii. 30,
and vii. 21â23, as if the Catholics had no fellowship with Christ and
were not recognized by Him. Augustin, after considering the import
of these passages, avers the readiness of the Church to recognize the
baptism of Christ as administered by Donatists when they return to the
Church; for to deny Christâs baptism because it is administered by
heretics, is to say Christ Himself should be denied, when even demons
confess Him. There is a belief in God outside of the Church; the
devils believe in Him outside of the Church. So there is one baptism
of Christ which may exist also outside of the Church. Petilianâs
declaration that true baptism is where the true faith is, Augustin
disproves by citing the case of the unbelieving and schismatic, yet
baptized Corinthians. So all the ages of the kingdom bear witness to
a like state of things. The action of Agrippinus and Cyprian on the
one side, and of Stephen on the other, as to rebaptism is reviewed;
differing in this, they yet maintained unity, especially Cyprian.Â
Further, if the contact of evil men within the fellowship really
defiles the good, then the Church perished in Cyprianâs time; where
could Donatus then have been spiritually born? If there is no such
pollution, then there is no occasion to rage for separation. The
origin of the schism is then denied from documentary testimony, and
the charges declared to be not sustained; on the other hand, these
archives prove the schismatics to have been traditors. A summary of
the main points concludes his plea for the sole baptism as that of
Christ. [Cp. Retractt. II. xxxiv.].
After this book against Petilian just mentioned had been finished, he
wrote another work of larger proportions and with more thoroughness,
in refutation of their schism, by the data of the Maximian schism,
which he considered a full surrender of all their particularism.Â
This has been styled: De Maximianistis contra Donatistas. It is
lost, but noticed in the Retractations (II. xxxv.) immediately after
de unico Baptismo.
At Carthage, about May 15, 411, he preached in praise of peace (Sermo
ccclvii.). After its eulogy, he summons his hearers to the love of
that peace; and recalls Donatists as alienated from the unity unto the
concord which exists in the Church only. Patience and prayer are
better means to their conquest than reproof. After the pentecostal
fast he bade them exercise hospitality toward the guests who should
attend the Conference.
The two edicts concerning the great Conference had been issued by
Marcellinus. The Donatists had sent in their protest to the second,
while the Catholic bishops sent in their acquiescence in a letter [Ep.
cxxviii.], which is ascribed to Augustinâs hand. It was of course
written before June 1, 411, the day appointed for the opening. They
agree to all the provisions for maintaining an orderly discussion; to
the time and place of meeting; to the numbers to be present; to the
requirement that all the delegated disputants sign their deliverances;
to the countersignatures; to the order prohibiting the people from
access to the Conference. If the Donatists prove the Church
universal to have been lost and to be solely with them, the Catholic
bishops will resign their sees; if, however, the collation prove the
universality of the Church, then they suggest the recognition of the
ordination and office of the Donatist clergy, and propose details for
the succession in case of any jointure. The conciliatory example of
Christ persuades them to this step; the peace of Christ in the Church
is higher than the episcopate. The Donatist use of the civil
authority against the Maximianists, and their gladness in receiving
the returning schismatics without rebaptism, and without any
diminution of their honors, give hope of a return to the root.
Before the meeting of the Conference, Augustin preached a sermon (No.
ccclviii.) in Carthage, on peace and love, of which the main thoughts
were the peace to which the Catholics cling and which they love under
the persuasion of the divine testimonies; the victory of truth is
love. He presents the Scripture proofs of charity and universality;
the inheritance should not be divided. Donatus and Cæcilian were
but men, but baptism is Christâs and not manâs. The charity spread
abroad in the heart is a broad commandment. He invites the Donatists
to share in the Churchâs possessions, and to be bishops along with the
Catholics, and pleads for a joint fraternal recognition; the Catholics
seek peace and want to build up the Church. He finally requests the
people to keep aloof from the place of dispute, but invokes their
prayers in its behalf.
The objection to the second edict on the part of the Donatists
respecting the restriction upon the number to be present at the
collation, led the Catholics to write a second letter to Marcellinus,
which is most likely also from the pen of Augustin. [Ep. cxxix.].Â
Solicitude over the opposition is expressed; some seem disposed to
present a hindrance to the peaceful progress of the Conference; and
yet the writers hope that the thought and suspicion may not prove
true, but that the desire of the whole body may after all be to press
into the unity of the Catholic Church. Then they go on, very
wrongfully in such a document, to discuss their favorite note of the
universality of the Church, as the body of Christ was not stolen, so
neither are His members outside of the few in Africa, dead. From
Jerusalem outward was to be its progress and thence it filled the
whole world. The fact that the Donatists have the very same
Scriptures as the Catholics which contain these proofs of
universality, fills the complainants with grief for them. The Jews
who denied the resurrection rejected also the New Testament; but the
Donatists receive it, and yet they deny the note of universality, and
accuse the Catholics of being traditors of the sacred books. Now at
the collation probably they wish to be in full numbers, in order to
search completely the Scriptures; and through their innumerable
testimonies they long to come en masse, not to create a tumult, but to
put an end to the old discord. It is true that they have found fault
with our use of the State; and yet the Scriptures vindicate such a
recourse, and the Donatists themselves appealed to Constantine. The
Scriptures too show the mixed character of the Church, wheat and
chaff, good and bad fish, to the final harvest, the winnowing, and the
further shore. Perhaps they see the wrong of their opposition to the
Church. The case of the Maximianists has shown their willingness to
use the power of the State and to ignore rebaptism; and probably moved
by these things, they want to come in such large numbers in the
interest not of tumult but of peace. They desire to show that they
are not so few as their enemies report them to be. The Catholic
numbers exceed in proconsular Africa, and, except in Numidia, are more
numerous than in the rest of the African provinces; and most of all
when one comes to compare the whole world with the few Donatists.Â
Why, however, could not the number be just as well certified by the
subscription? Even though quiet be preserved, yet at such a
Conference the murmur of such a crowd will impede the progress of the
work. If they all are allowed to be present, the writers,
nevertheless, will limit themselves to the delegation suggested by the
Judge, and then no blame for disorder can attach to them. If,
however, the protest has been made in behalf of unity, they all will
be present joyfully to welcome the Donatists as brethren.
The Mandatum Catholicorum, a sort of voucher and letter of instruction
for the disputants on the side of the State Church, was undoubtedly
the product of Augustinâs pen. After a preamble which attests the
sufficiency of the Church through her divine proofs against all
heretics and schismatics, and the desire of Church and State to settle
the long pending controversy in Africa, and the duty to enlighten men
as to the eternal salvation, which things had induced them to convene
and to select defenders, there follows the note of the universality,
which, as the great proposition, is expanded with many proof texts
from the Old and the New Testament. This truth is to be defended
against the Donatist assertion that the universal Church had perished
through contamination with Cæcilian; for the Church is a mixed
society of good and evil, and not to be condemned on this account, but
its unity is to be preserved by toleration. If they maintain this
view, the documents concerning Cæcilianâs character must be
examined. The contestants must prove that the Church was thus
defiled, or else the evil do not defile the good in this unity. The
mandate then gives Scriptural and also post-apostolic proofs on this
point, especially from Cyprian, and quotes the Donatist action
concerning the Maximianists. The next topic is baptism as a
sacrament of Christ and not of man, and as independent of the
character of the celebrant:Â the Maximian schism again affords
material for the confutation of this Donatistic tenet. They are
instructed also to use the archives to show that their opponents
initiated civil appellation.
In the session of the second day, Augustin is the speaker, mainly on
the matter of delay and adjournment.
In the third session, he appears as the chief disputant on the
doctrinal and historical points, and also as answering the letter of
the Donatists in reply to the mandate.
In a sermon preached after the close of the Conference, (Sermo ccclix.
on Ecclus. xxv. 2), he exhorted all Christians to be brethren; the
Catholics desire to have the Donatists unite with them in worship in
the universal Church. The history of Cæcilian should not affect the
doctrine of the body. He claims a triumph indeed for his side and
rejoices over the many who are returning to the mother Church, but
candidly confesses that many harden themselves in their opposition.Â
His exordium appeals for a restoration of brotherly harmony.
A little later in the year, probably, Augustin preached from Gal. vi.
2â5 (Sermo clxiv.), in which he rebukes those who say:Â "We are
saints, we do not carry your burdens, therefore we do not communicate
with you;"and says:Â "your ancestors carry burdens of separation,
burdens of schism, burdens of heresy, burdens of dissension, burdens
of animosity, burdens of false proofs, burdens of calumnious
accusations."Â In your boast of non-participation in otherâs sins,
you desert the flock, the threshing-floor and the net. The traditors
who had condemned the absent Cæcilian dissolved connection with the
whole world. He reminds them of the Maximianists; he charges them
with breaking the parables, and yet inculcates patience. The whole
sermon indicates that the effect of the conference had been to
embitter both sides.
Another sermon (xcix.) on Luke vii. 36, 50, was also preached about
this time, in which he conceives that the Puristic noli me tangere may
develop into a system for sin-pardoning, and justification and
sanctification; the men of the Gesta Collationis are likely to bring
about such a machine religion. Already do they say: if men do not
remit sins, then what Christ says is false as to loosing on earth and
in heaven. With this conception of the tendency of their tenets he
further says against them, that the cleansing in baptism does not
depend on the man.
In a fragment of another sermon (ccclx.), preached on the vigils of
Maximian, he personates a Donatist, who has returned to the unity,
thanking the Lord that the lost is found, and expressing his joy in
the vine, the unity, the baptism and peace of Christ.
The authorized acts of the council of 411 were too unwieldy for either
general or popular use, and a compendium framed from them was too
obscure; so Augustin, about the close of 411, determined to make a
digest, called the Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis. It gives
the collations of the three days, but it is thoroughly disconnected
without the official account, for too many links known to the actors
alone are not apparent to the uninitiated; too much of what would
throw light on the animus of the parties in power is passed over, and
a considerable deal of the minor business necessary to the
understanding of the spirit of the debate does not appear. A reader
would certainly get a still more one-sided and intolerant idea of the
Conference from the digest than from the Gesta. The analysis of the
order of business would require a comparison with the Gesta
Collationis, and that lies outside of our present purpose. [Cp.
Retractt. II. xxxix.].
The decision of the Conference again stirred up a counter movement by
the Circumcelliones, especially in Augustinâs diocese, during which
some terrible outrages were perpetrated; the presbyter Restitutus was
killed; the presbyter Innocentius was clubbed and mutilated. A trial
was instituted by Marcellinus and the crimes confessed. Augustin
hastens to write to him [Ep. cxxxiii.], somewhere about the opening of
412 A.D., imploring that the punishment be not capital or retaliatory;
restraint and labor would be just. He commends the tribune-notaryâs
moderation in the examination, in that he did not resort to torture
for extorting evidence, but only to whipping. He commands him, as
bishop, not to proceed to extremity, which would be an injury to the
Church, or at least to the diocese of Hippo. Since the pronouncing
of the sentence presumably belonged to the proconsul, he had also
indicted a letter to him.
Apringius, the proconsul, was a brother of Marcellinus. To him
Augustin addressed a letter in the same interest, and at the same
date. [Ep. cxxxiv.]Â For the use of his newly gained authority, he
was accountable to God; he was also a Christian, so that Augustin felt
a greater confidence in petitioning and in warning, and begs that he
may regard his interference as a part of a bishopâs zeal for the
welfare of the Church. He repeats the story of the arrest of the
Circumcelliones and Donatist clergy, the trial by Apringiusâs own
brother, the tribune-notary, Marcellinus, and the gentleness of the
hearing, in which the accused confessed their crime, especially as to
the copresbyters. He now begs for a mild punishment; in the one case
it cannot be strictly retaliatory; in that of the homicide he fears it
may be capital punishment. Apringius must not only consider the
State, but the Church, and respect her clemency. He is not only a
ruler of exalted power but a son of Christian piety. Our enemies
boast of persecution; we must give them no occasion for it. These
acts should be read for the cure of the minds which have been
perverted. If the extreme penalty has to fall, spare at least the
children. He implores him to imitate the patience and mildness of
the Church and of Christ.
Augustin, in 412, writes to Marcellinus [Ep. cxxxix.] expressing his
delight that the proceedings connected with the trial are in
preparation, and for the intention of having them read in the churches
of the city, and, if possible, in all the churches of his diocese.Â
The crimes mentioned are the same as before, with added confessions of
many who were in some degree abettors. These are the men who refuse
to commune with the Catholic Church for fear of pollution from wicked
men, and yet refuse to leave a schism debased by such a fellowship.Â
It was a question in Marcellinusâs mind whether the Gesta should be
read in the Donatist church of Theoprepia in Carthage. Augustin
urges it, and if it be too small then in some other quarter, in that
region of the city. Augustin pleads for a mild punishment in
imitation of the clemency of the Church; however weak it may seem at
the outset, men will afterward regard it with favor, and the reading
of the Gesta will be more welcome and more effective by the contrast
between Donatist cruelty and Catholic moderation. He speaks of the
commission of the bishop Bonifacius and the bearer Peregrinus, who
were empowered to treat upon some new measures for the benefit of the
Church. The Donatist Bishop Macrobius was busy reopening the
churches of his sect, followed by a band of both sexes. In the
absence of Celer, a Donatist, his procurator, Spondeus, a Catholic,
had broken their audacity. He is commended to the favorable notice
of Marcellinus. While Spondeus was on a visit to Carthage, Macrobius
had actually reopened the Donatist churches on the estates of Celer.Â
He was assisted by Donatus, a rebaptized deacon and a leader in the
slaughter; from which fact other outrages might be expected. Should
the plea for mildness not be granted, Augustin asks that his letters
urging clemency [Epp. cxxxiii. and cxxxiv.] be read along with the
Gesta. At least let a remission be granted to give time for an
appeal to the Emperors, for no martyrs desire their blood to be
avenged by death. In apologizing for his inability to complete his
work on the baptism of infants, he urges the variety of his labors;
among other things he had completed the Breviculus Collationis, as a
compend for those who had not the leisure to read the entire
proceedings of the Conference; also a letter addressed to the Donatist
laity.
The Donatists were charged with circulating the story of the bribery
of the cognitor or judge of the Conference. The letter from the
council of Zerta, June 14, 412, in refutation of this was written by
Augustin, [Ep. cxli.] in which it is said that they had become
acquainted with this rumor so easily credited by the common people.Â
The vote of the council was to authorize a refutation of it as a
falsehood. The Donatists had been convicted of mendacity in the
charge which they had made and signed against the Catholics as
traditors; they had also invented stories to account for the signature
of an absent bishop. How can they be believed in such a charge
against the cognitor? Since the acts of the Collation are so
voluminous we present herewith a digest. The meeting, the election
of disputants and scribes, the matter of the subscriptions, are then
recapitulated. In the attempt at discussion, the whole aim of the
Donatist disputants was to avoid coming to the point to be debated,
while the Catholic representatives exerted themselves to reach just
that goal and nothing else. When at last the Donatists were forced
to the issue, they were vanquished by the clear testimony of the
Scriptures to the universality of the Church. Any one separated from
this unity has not life; the wrath of God abides upon him. The
communion with the wicked does not defile any one by the mere
participation in the sacraments, but only by agreement with their
deeds. All these truths they had to acknowledge. The Catholics had
prevented a confusion between the doctrinal and historical sides of
the question. In the discussion of the documents, the chief offset
to all the points was found in the case of the Maximianists, although
the Donatists plead that a case should not be prejudged by a case, nor
a person by a person. All the accusations which had been
concentrated against Cæcilian they were unable to meet with proofs.Â
Defeated men are wont to suggest such a defense as the corruption of
the judge. Then says the paper in effect: If you will believe us,
let us hold fast to the unity which God commands and loves. But if
you are unwilling to believe us, read the proceedings themselves, or
allow them to be read to you, and do you yourselves test whether what
we have written to you be true. If you decline all these, and will
still cleave to the Donatists, we are clear from your judgment. If
you will renounce the schism, we will welcome you to the peace of
Christ, and you will have the profit of that sacrament which was
administered among you to judgment.
The Donatist presbyters Saturninus and Eufrates had joined the
Catholic Church and maintained their rank. Augustin writes [Ep.
cxlii.], c. 412 A.D., to express his joy at their arrival and bids
them not to grieve at his absence, for they are now in the one Church
whose note of universality he expands as the one Body of the one Head,
and as the one house in all the earth; in the unity of this house we
rejoice as embracive of those transmarine churches, to whom the appeal
had vainly been made by the Donatists. He who lives evilly in this
Church eats and drinks condemnation to himself, but whoever lives
correctly, another case and another person cannot prejudge him. The
Donatists had protested against the parallel proofs drawn from the
Maximianists, on the ground that a case should not be prejudged by a
case nor a person by a person. On the Lordâs threshing-floor the
chaff must be tolerated. He exhorts them to a faithful discharge of
their clerical duties, especially in mercifulness and also in prayer
for the removal of the schism.
The hostility of the Donatists was increased by the Collation. Their
clergy charged the judge with bribery, and protested against the
unfairness of the trial, the compulsion of the meeting, the unjust
decision. Augustin felt compelled to write, c. 412 A.D., to the
people in order to stay the fury of their leaders. The treatise is
known as Ad Donatistas post Collationem. Why make such a charge?Â
Why does Primian say, it is unworthy for the sons of the martyrs to
meet in the same place with the offspring of traditors? Why did they
come? Why were they unable to prove the old accusations? And how
are they the sons of martyrs? The universality of the Church was
demonstrated at the Conference. Donatists do not commune with the
churches addressed in those epistles which they read at their
services, because they say these perished by communion with the
African Cæcilians, and yet they put in the plea that a case should
not be prejudged by a case nor a person by a person. He meets the
Cæcilian charge by the Maximianists in spite of this caveat. He
represents all the New Testament churches and the East as
expostulating on the basis of this very plea with the Donatists for
separation from them. So the case and the person of the bad does not
prejudice the case and the person of the good; they must abide
together until the end. He condemns their arrogant pretense to
holiness. The wicked must be tolerated in the Church, but their
deeds are not to be participated in. Cyprian would not destroy the
unity because bad people were in it; frequent are the examples of such
forbearance in the Scriptures, and the principle was not changed after
the resurrection of Christ; it continued in force in the New Testament
Church; the winnowing and severance come at the end of the world.Â
They would perhaps deny their own words as uttered in the Conference
were they not written; that was the beauty of requiring
subscription. They charge too that the sentence against them was
pronounced in the night. Augustin playfully speaks of many good
things which have been said and done in the night. He subsequently
reminds them of the days in which they tried to prove the origin of
heresy, and their defeat at every point of the Cæcilian history. It
appears here again that the Donatists had a considerable body of acts
of their own. The plea of persecution as a note of the Church and as
an experience of the Donatists was one of the points urged at the
conference in the Donatist reply to the Catholic mandate, and by
Primian, to which we have the usual answer. Another complaint of the
Donatists was that they were tried by those who had been condemned by
themselves, and were compelled to unite with sinners; to which
Augustin gives a little Maximianist parallel and then considers the
questions of purism, the paucity of believers, the need of discipline,
the fellowship of a mixed community which ought not to degenerate into
a participation in the deeds of the wicked therein. These are
discussed with considerable detail of quotations from the Old and New
Testaments. Some who thought Cæcilian guilty would not break the
unity; they imitated Cyprian. He charges their clergy with
duplicity. He reminds them of the deception practiced in presenting
the signature of a Donatist, who was already dead; so with regard to
the show of numbers in attendance and the alleged multitude absent,
and also the means adopted for securing delay, the interruptions and
turnings of the debate from the true object in view. He vindicates
the cognitorâs method and rulings. He then renews the discussion
concerning the archival origin of the schism. In conclusion he
addresses them as brethren and exhorts them to love peace and unity.
The Donatists of Cirta, clergy and people, had returned to the
Catholic Church and had written a letter of thanks to Augustin for his
preaching, under which they had been persuaded to renounce the
schism. Augustin in reply [Ep. cxliv.], probably at end of 412 A.D.,
says that this is not manâs work, but Godâs. Their allusion to the
conversion of the drunken and luxurious Polemo by Xenocrates, draws
from him the reflection, that such a change of character, though not a
Christian repentance, is, nevertheless, a work of God. So he bids
them not to give thanks to himself but to God, for their return to the
unity. Those who still are alienated, whether from love or fear, he
charges to remember the undeceived scrutiny of God; to weigh Scripture
testimony as to the universality of the Church; and the documents as
to the origin of the schism. The case has been tried or not been
tried by the transmarine churches; if not, then there is no existing
ground for the separation; if it has, the defeated ones are the
separatists. But alas! the obstacles to their persuasion are
well-nigh insuperable. He hopes that the mutual desire for his visit
to them may be fulfilled.
About the beginning of the year 413, appeared the book De Fide et
Operibus. In Chap. iv. 6, he speaks of the need of coercion against
the Donatists as disturbers of the peace of the Church, as separaters
of the tares from the wheat before the time, as those who have blindly
preferred to cut themselves off from the unity; commixture of evil and
good is a necessity, and we ought to remain in that fellowship which
is not at all destitute of discipline. [Cp. Retractt. II. xxxviii.]
Donatus, a Donatist presbyter, and another person connected with that
body, had been arrested by order of Augustin about the beginning of
416 A.D. Mounted upon a beast against his will, he dashed himself to
the ground and so received injuries which his less obstinate companion
escaped. Augustin writes [Ep. clxxiii.] to vindicate himself as
concerned about the salvation of the recusants, and puts the blame of
the wounds upon the offender. Donatus urged in opposition to this
style of conversion that no one should be compelled to be good.Â
Augustin claims on the other hand that many are compelled to take the
good office of a bishop against their will. Donatus argues that God
had given us free will, therefore a man should not be compelled even
to be good. Augustin replies that the effort of a good will is to
restrain and change the evil will, because of the awful results which
follow a vitiated will. Why were the Israelites compelled to go to
the land of promise? Why was Paul forced to turn from persecution to
the embrace of the truth? Why do parents correct children? Why are
negligent shepherds blamed? You are an errant sheep, with the Lordâs
mark upon you, and I as shepherd must save you from perishing. Of
your own will you threw yourself into a well, but it would have been
wicked to leave you there where you had cast yourself according to
your will, and hence the attendants took you out; how much more is it
a duty to save you from eternal death. Besides, it is unlawful to
inflict death upon yourself. He reminds him that the Scriptures do
not allow suicide; and controverts his use of I. Cor. xiii. 3, "though
I give my body to be burned."Â Severed from charity and unity,
nothing can profit, not even the surrender of the body to burning.Â
The points of the recent joint Conference are then dwelt upon.Â
Donatus was understood to have criticized the saying of his party as
to the Maximianist parallel:Â do not prejudge a case by a case or a
person by a person. Augustin twits him in this wise: If you object
to this, then you are deceived concerning it, because you oppose your
authority to theirs, and if you say it is not true, the hope of
vindicating the great schism falls through entirely. He presses him
to weigh all the proceedings. But Donatus objects also that the Lord
did not cause the seventy to come back, and did not put a barrier in
the way of the twelve when he asked, "Will ye also go away?"Â
Augustin says that was in the beginning of Christianity; kings were
not yet converted; now the State helps the Church. Our Lord said
prophetically, Compel them to come in. So we hunt you in the hedges;
the unwilling sheep is brought to the true pasture.
The series of Tractatus on the Gospel of John, which are ascribed to
416 A.D., contain many reflections on Donatism. We can only notice
the passages:
Tractatus IV.       in Jo. i. 19â33.
Tractatus V.        in Jo. i. 33.
Tractatus VI.       in Jo. i. 32, 33. Quite fully.
Tractatus IX.       in Jo. ii. 1â11.
Tractatus X.        in Jo. ii. 12â21.
Tractatus XI.       in Jo. ii. 23â25, and iii. 1â5.
Tractatus XII. Â Â Â Â Â Â in Jo. iii. 6â21.
Tractatus XIII.      in Jo. iii. 22â29.
To the same year are ascribed the Tractatus on the I. Ep. of John.
Tractatus I.            1 Jo. i. and ii. 1â11.
Tractatus II.        1 Jo. ii. 12â17.
Tractatus III.       1 Jo. ii. 18â27.
Tractatus IV.       1 Jo. iii. 1â8.
In the Retractations, II. xlvi., we read of a book addressed to
Emeritus, the Donatist bishop of Cæsarea, in the province of
Mauritania Cæsariensis. [See Ep. lxxxvii.] He speaks of him as
the best of the seven Donatist disputants at the Conference. The
work marked briefly the lines on which the Donatists were defeated.Â
Its title is:Â Ad Emeritum Donatistarum Episcopum, post collationem,
liber unus. Since the Retractations place it before De Gestis
Pelagii, and De Correctione Donatistarum, it was most likely written
in the beginning of 417 A.D.
Boniface had requested from Augustin a letter of instructions on the
relation of the Donatists to the Arians. The bishop replies, c. 417
[Ep. clxxxv.], which he himself calls a book de Correctione
Donatistarum. [Cp. Retractt. II. xlviii.]. Since this is
translated in the present volume, we will omit any further notice.
The above-mentioned Emeritus was present at a Synod of the Catholics,
near Deuterius, September 20, 418. At a service held two days after,
Augustin preached the Sermo ad Cæsariensis Ecclesiæ plebem.Â
Emeritus was present. In the church during a previous colloquy with
Augustin he had said:Â I cannot will what you will, but I can will
what I will. Augustin in this sermon (and the writing has all the
abruptness and repetition of an extempore address) urges him to will
what God wills, viz., peace, and that now, in response to the cry of
the people; and if you ask why I, who call you schismatics and
heretics, desire to receive you, it is because you are brethren;
because you have the baptism of Christ; because I want you to have
salvation:Â one can have everything outside the Church except
salvation; he can have honor, he can have the sacraments, he can sing
Allelulia, he can respond Amen, he can hold to the gospels, he can
have faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
and can preach. Persecution after all is rather of you. The
failure of the archival evidence as to Cæcilian is alleged as usual,
and hence no reason for separation exists. He recites too the story
of the seizure, escape, reseizure, compulsory baptism and ordination
of Petilian, while at the time a Catholic catechumen. This occurred
at Constantina, when that city and region were largely Donatist. He
was seized unto death, do we not draw him to salvation? Here or
nowhere, says Augustin, repeating the voice of the people, is the
place for peace.
There was a gathering of clergy (the bishops Alypius, Augustinus,
Possidius, Rusticus Palladius, etc., many presbyters and deacons and a
considerable number of people) in the exedra of the larger church at
Cæsarea, c. 418 A.D. Emeritus, the Donatist bishop of the city, was
also present. Augustin addresses those devoted to the unity, and
says that when he came to the city on the day before yesterday he
found Emeritus returned from a journey. Augustin met him in the
street and invited him to the Church, and Emeritus consented without
any demur. The sermon of Augustin is full of the peace, love and
related themes of the Church, in hope of winning Emeritus. He
alludes to the many conversions in the city and since the collation;
if Emeritus has anything new to say in defense of his side, he invites
him to state it. Emeritus had been reported as affirming that at the
Conference the Donatists were overcome by power rather than by
truth. Augustin then addresses inquiries to Emeritus directly: as
to why he had come if he was defeated at the council; or if he thought
his party had triumphed, then to state the ground for such an
opinion. Emeritus said: The acts show whether I am defeated or
not, whether I am defeated by truth or oppressed by power.Â
Augustin: Then why do you come? Emeritus: That I might say this
very thing which you ask, and so on. Under some taunting and
arrogant observations to the brethren, Emeritus keeps quiet. From
Augustinâs statement it appears that the Acts were read during Lent,
at Thagaste, Constantina, Hippo, and all the faithful churches. Part
of these Gesta are then read by Alypius, viz, the imperial convocation
of the Conference, and comments are made by Augustin. Then follows
his application of the lessons afforded by the Maximianist schism, in
which he says the Donatists make shipwreck of all their tenets.Â
Emeritus, however, remained a silent hearer. The account of the
above meeting is given in the treatise:Â De Gestis cum Emerito,
Cæsariensi Donatistarum Episcopo liber unus. [Cp. Retractt. II.
li.]
The book de Patientia is assigned to 418 A.D. In Chapter xiii. he
contrasts genuine and false martyrdom.
Dulcitius had been appointed Tribune-notary. The effect of his
carrying out of the renewed edicts against the Donatists was
signalized by many conversions, but also by many suicides. He had
written to Augustin requesting directions about how he ought to
proceed against the heretics. Augustin replies [Ep. cciv.], c. 420
A.D., that his work had indeed persuaded many to return to their
salvation, but others were stirred either to kill the Catholics or
themselves. We indeed do desire the return of all to unity, yet some
are doubtless predestinated to perish by an occult yet just decree of
God. They perish not only in their own fires but in that of
Gehenna. The Church grieves over them as David over his son,
although they have met the deserved punishment of rebels. Augustin
does not find fault with the notaryâs edict at Thamugada, only with
the phrase:Â You may know that you are to be given over to the death
which you deserve; for that is not contained in the rescripts. In
the second edict there is a clearer statement of the notaryâs aim.Â
Augustin also criticizes his courtesy toward Gaudentius, the Donatist
bishop of Thamugada. As to a special reply to that bishop Augustin
urges a more diligent refutation of the fallacious doctrines by which
the Donatists are accustomed to be seduced. He had already done this
in very many works, but adds some points by way of suggestion. He
alone is a martyr who dies for a true cause. Manâs will is free, but
nevertheless amenable to divine and human laws. The State can punish
not only adulteries and homicides, but also sacrileges. Many think
it strange that we do not rebaptize, but the sacrament once given
ought not to be repeated. Suicides are utterly prohibited by the
Scriptures. The case of Razius gives the Donatist no pretext, for
the deed is simply mentioned but not commended. (II. Mac. xiv.
37â46). In conclusion he intimates that in answer to the united wish
of the people of Thamugada, of himself and of Eleusinus, the tribune
of that place, that Augustin should answer both epistles of
Gaudentius, the Donatist bishop, and especially the latter of the two,
which contained Scriptural proofs, he will write such a criticism.
Dulcitius had written a pacific letter to Gaudentius, the Donatist
bishop of Thamugada, one of the quieter members of the seven Donatist
disputants, concerning the enforcement of the imperial edicts.Â
Gaudentius replied in two epistles, one short, the other longer and
fortified by Scripture proofs. Augustin was requested to answer
these, which he does (c. 420) in the work Contra Gaudentium
Donatistarum Episcopum, Libra duo. In Book I. he makes a change of
form from the Petilian cast of personal dialogue, because of the
captious fault found with that way as savoring of untruth, and takes a
duller formula, "Verba Epistolæ" and "ad hæc responsio," whose
dryness and literality the most sensitive Donatist could take no
exception to. In the first epistle of Gaudentius, the fairly
courteous strain in which he had replied to the tribune-notary, with
titles and recognition of character, Augustin rather resents by saying
that the Catholic had treated the heretic too kindly and incautiously,
and bids Gaudentius consider what he had said at the Collation.Â
Gaudentius proposes to remain in the communion where the name of God
and of his Christ is and where the Sacraments are, and pleads for
religious liberty against compulsion as to matters of faith; and
concludes, by another hand, with wishing him well and desiring his
recession from the disquieting of Christians. Augustin objects that
Gaudentius had not reproduced the language of Dulcitius correctly, and
accuses the Donatists of holding the truth of baptism in the iniquity
of human error; he comments on their false eagerness for death; he
responds to all the good wishes for the tribune, but not that he
should cease from correcting the heretics.
The second epistle of Gaudentius is mainly a protest from Scriptural
grounds; against persecution he brings forward the case of Gabinus,
who, if bad, should not have been received without correction, that
is, baptism; but if innocent, why kill the innocent Donatists from
whom he came to you? The false rumor about Emeritus, as having
turned Catholic, is another instance of this persecution. The duty
of a persecuted pastor is to be a doer of the law and to lay down his
life for the sheep; there is no place whither the persecuted may now
flee; the divine right of free will is restrained by the arbitrary
laws of the emperor; persecution is a note of the Church from the
blessings attached to it by Christ and the apostles. The peace of
Christ invites the willing but does not compel the unwilling; a thing
very different from the war-bearing peace and the bloody unity which
their oppressors present. We rejoice in the hatred of the world;
there is a martyr host of the apocalypse; Christians may yield up
their souls in testimony against sacrilege, as Razius did. He begs
Dulcitius to turn to the few who have the solidity and not the
semblance of truth. God gave prophets not kings to teach the
people: the Saviour sent fishermen not soldiers. God never needs
the aid of soldiers. Gaudentius charges the Catholics with coveting
the Donatist possessions. The farewell is in another handwriting, in
which he wishes Dulcitius well, and advises him to pursue a lenient
and temperate course.
The points of Augustinâs reply are in no way different save form from
those so constantly presented, unless there be an increase of
roughness and a more hardened idea of the Churchâs right to use
coercion. As to Gabinus, the Churchâs course with regard to him is a
vindication of the right to receive a convert without rebaptism:Â in
communion with charity and unity he received the profit of that rite
which had been administered among the Donatists. In the case of
Emeritus, Augustin confesses that the rumor of his having turned
Catholic was false; but Emeritus came to Cæsarea of his own will; he
came to the Church where a multitude was present; he could say nothing
for his or his partyâs defense; he kept quiet. Â The argument against
suicide from the case of Razius is well made; he died rather in
suffering for the state; and besides the narrative does not commend
the deed, but only states it; then too the books have not the weight
that the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms carry with them. The plea
for correction is precisely as usual. The doctrines of universality
and unity and charity are incidentally brought forward.Â
Circumcelliones, Secundus and Maximianists furnish the concluding
parallels.
Book II. Gaudentius had written a reply to Augustinâs first book. He
had taken refuge under the example of Cyprian; but Augustin now refers
him to the writings of Cyprian on De Simplicitate Prælatorum seu De
Catholicæ Ecclesiæ unitate, showing Cyprianâs belief in the
universality of the Church which Augustin expands by the explanation
of the term Catholic. Purgation of the Church is not by separation,
but by toleration, as Cyprian too held in his letter to Maximus and
others. The explanation of the field not as the Church, but rather
as the world outside of the Church, had been supported at the
Conference and is repeated by Gaudentius; and also its alternative,
that were the field the Church then it must have perished from the
tares which were in it. If so, says Augustin, then the ancestors of
the Donatists would have perished. The period of separation is at
the end, when the Gospel shall have been preached in the whole
world. As to their theme of rebaptism, Augustin replies that he had
already before referred him to his Maximianist practice, so that the
action of Agrippinus and Cyprian are vain for him. And then too,
according to Cyprianâs own confession, and Stephenâs testimony, there
were crimes in the Church in their day; did the Church perish then?Â
If so where was Donatus born? If not, then why did the party of
Donatus separate? They are guilty of the very schism which Cyprian
particularly deprecated as a cure, instead of toleration and
discipline, for the ills of the Church. As to baptism: The
Catholics recognize the Donatist rite, for the sacrament cannot be
lost upon those who receive it among Catholics and then pass over to
heretics; they have the truth but in iniquity; the truth is not the
property of the Donatists. The apostle recognized such truth as he
found among the Gentiles. Gaudentius had vindicated his reference to
the tribuneâs letter, as to the Donatists having the names of God and
of his Christ, and quoted the passage in proof. Augustin
acknowledges his mistake, which, however, was not intentional, and he
apologizes for the tribuneâs error as that of a military man who was
not familiar with theology. Since Gaudentius had called the tribune
religious in his first letter, Augustin accuses him of insincerity and
berates him as superstitious. He also corrects Gaudentius for saying
that God sent Jonah not to the king but only to the people of Nineveh,
for the king compelled the humiliation of his subjects. In
conclusion he quotes from Cyprianâs letter to Maximus in behalf of
universality and tolerant unity. His exordium is an earnest appeal
to the Catholics to maintain all the notes of the Church. [Cp.
Retractt. II. lix.].
Felicia had been a Donatist originally and was converted by force.Â
She had devoted herself to the virgin life and apparently had become
head of a religious house; but by reason of some wicked deeds of the
clergy, possibly the extortion and rapacity of Antonius at Fussala,
she was much disturbed and seemed inclined to relapse into her earlier
puristic notions, if not to return to the body that upheld them. To
quiet her doubts Augustin writes Ep. ccviii. c. 423. The Lord had
predicted offenses. There are two kinds of shepherds over the flock,
and will be to the end:Â the flock too has the good and the bad in
it. The gathering is the present duty, the separation will be the
future one; this latter is the Lordâs prerogative. To abide in unity
under such circumstances is a duty until the winnowing, and one is to
believe what these shepherds teach, not what they do. Good and bad
are therefore in the world under the widely diffused Catholic Church;
the Donatist has no such note of universality. Love Christ and the
Church, and then He will not permit you to lose the fruit of your
virginity and to perish with the lost. If you go out of this life,
separated from the unity of the body of Christ, this preserved
integrity of the body will not profit you. You were compelled to
come in; be thankful to those who compelled you. Show your devotion
to the Lord, as your only hope, by being unmoved with these offenses,
and by cleaving to his body, the Church.
A letter addressed to Pope CÅlestine is ascribed to Augustin [Ep.
ccix. c. 423]; its authenticity has been disputed. The author, in
giving an account of the appointment of Antonius as bishop of Fussala,
remarks that at Fussala, a castellum about forty miles distant from
Hippo, as in all the adjoining region, there had been a Donatist
population; in Fussala itself there had not been a solitary Catholic;
the Punic was the common language. The coercive measures had
converted the whole territory, but the process had also aroused a
violent opposition in the form of robbery, beating, blinding,
murder. After its conversion, the distance from Hippo and the great
numbers to be instructed, required a new bishopric, the history of
which and the troubles growing out of it, the author further relates.
In that valuable book De doctrina christiana, (begun in 397, but ended
in 426, including the part having reference to our subject III. xxx.
42), Augustin quotes approvingly from the book of Tychonius the De
septem regulis, and prefaces a discussion of these rules by an
allusion to the treatise of Tychonius, which had refuted some of the
narrow and puristic doctrines of the Church, as held by his own party;
this we have already seen was answered by Parmenian, whose letter in
turn was dissected by Augustin. The first, second, fourth and
seventh of these rules bear especially upon the doctrinal points under
discussion. [Cp. Retractt. II. iv. and Tychonius de Septem Regulis
is reprinted in Migne. Pat. Lat. xviii.]
In his de HÅresibus [c. 428 A.D.] Chapter lxix. gives a brief account
of the Donatiani or Donatistæ: (a) as to origin and progress; (b)
Donatusâs view of the Trinity; (c) the Montenses at Rome; (d) the
Circumcelliones; (e) the schism of Maximian.
This was his parting arrow after the thirty-six years of battle.Â
Catholics and Donatists passed under the persecutions of the Arian
Vandals. Two years after this treatise Augustin laid aside his
weapons to enter the land of eternal peace and unity.
More or less extended allusions are made to Donatism in the following
sermons, arranged in the order of the Benedictine editions; for the
years in which they were delivered cannot be determined. Want of
space prevents the presentation of any analysis.
Sermo X.        1 Kings iii. 16â28.
Sermo XLV.        Is. lvii. 13 and 2 Cor. vii. 1.
Sermo XLVI.       Ez. xxxiv. 1â16.
Sermo XLVII. Â Â Â Â Â Â Ez. xxxiv. 17â31.
Sermo LXXI.       Matt. xii. 32.
Sermo LXXXVIII.      Matt. xx. 30â34.
Sermo XC.            Matt. xxii. 1â14.
Sermo CVII.          Luc. xii. 13â21.
Sermo CXXIX.      Jo. v. 39â47.
Sermo CXXXVII.      Jo. x. 1â16.
Sermo CXXXVIII.      Jo. x. 11â16.
Sermo CLXXXIII.      1 Jo. iv. 2.
Sermo CCXVIII.      Luc. xxiv. 38â47.
Sermo CCXLIX.      Jo. xxi. 1â14.
Sermo CCLII. Â Â Â Â Â Â Jo. xxi. 1â14.
Sermo CCLXV.      The Ascension.
Sermo CCLXVI.      Ps. cxli. (cxl.) 5.
Sermo CCLXVIII.      Pentecost.
Sermo CCLXIX.      Pentecost.
Sermo CCLXXXV.      Anniversary of the martyrs Castus and
Ãmilus.
Sermo CCXCII.      John the Baptist.
Sermo CCCXXV.      Anniversary of the Twenty Martyrs.
Similar references are to be found in the expositions and sermons
based on the Psalms. The first column is the Hebrew and English
order; the second that of LXX. and Vulgate.
Exposition of Psalms XI. (X.)
Exposition of Psalms XXVI. (XXV.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms XXXI. (XXX.) Sermons I. and II.
Exposition of Psalms XXXIII. (XXXII.) Sermon II.
Exposition of Psalms XXXIV. (XXXIII.) Sermon II.
Exposition of Psalms XXXVI. (XXXV.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms XXXVII. (XXXVI.) Sermons II. (archival) and III.
Exposition of Psalms XL. (XXXIX.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms LV. (LIV.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms LVIII. (LVII.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms LXXXVI. (LXXXV.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms XCIX. (XCVIII.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms CXX. (CXIX.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms CXXV. (CXXIV.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms CXXXIII. (CXXXII.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms CXLVI. (CXLV.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms CXLVII. 12â20 (CXLVII.) Sermon.
Exposition of Psalms CXLIX. Sermon.
The time of writing the de Utilitate Jejunii is unknown. Chapter V.
9, contrasts pagan, heretical and Catholic fasts; heretics claim
indeed to fast in order to please God; how can they, when they sever
the unity? All heretics perish; they are the dividers of the
inheritance of Christ.
ââââââââââââ
In conclusion the reviser desires to commend the fidelity and lucidity
of the translation made by the Rev. J. R. King, M.A.
No changes made by the reviser have been indicated, since all could
not be without confusion. The translation had taken most of its
notes and references from the Benedictines. The citations of Cyprian
are according to the numerals in Hartelâs edition.
Preface
ââââââââââââ
The schism of the Donatists, with which the treatises in the present
volume are concerned, arose indirectly out of the persecution under
Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century. At that time
Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, and his archdeacon Cæcilianus, had
endeavored to check the fanatical spirit in which many of the
Christians courted martyrdom; and consequently, on the death of
Mensurius in 311, and the elevation of Cæcilianus to the see of
Carthage in his place, the opposing party, alleging that Felix, bishop
of Aptunga, by whom Cæcilianus had been consecrated, had been a
traditor, and that therefore his consecration was invalid, set up
against him Majorinus, who was succeeded in 315 by Donatus. The
party had by this time gained strength, through the professions that
they made of extreme purity in the discipline which they maintained,
and had gone so far, under the advice of another Donatus, bishop of
Casæ Nigræ in Numidia, as to accuse Cæcilianus before the Roman
Emperor Constantine,âthus setting the first precedent for referring a
spiritual cause to the decision of a civil magistrate. Constantine
accepted the appeal, and in 313 the matter was laid for decision
before Melchiades, bishop of Rome, and three bishops of the province
of Gaul. They decided in favor of the validity of the consecration
of Cæcilianus; and a similar verdict was given by a council held at
Arles, by direction of the Emperor, in the following year. The party
of Majorinus then appealed to the personal judgment of the Emperor,
which was likewise given against them, not without strong expressions
of his anger at their pertinacity. This was followed by severe laws
directed against their schism; but so far from crushing them, the
attack seemed only to increase their enthusiasm and develope their
resources. And, under the leadership of Donatus, the successor of
Majorinus, their influence spread widely throughout Africa, and
continued to prevail, in spite of various efforts at their forcible
suppression, during the whole of the fourth century. They especially
brought on themselves the vengeance of the civil powers, by the
turbulence of certain fanatical ascetics who embraced their cause, and
who, under the name of Circumcelliones, spread terror through the
country, seeking martydom for themselves, and offering violence to
every one who opposed them.
Towards the close of the century, this schism attracted the attention
of Augustin, then a priest of Hippo Regius in Numidia. The
controversy seems to have had for him a special attraction, not merely
because of its intrinsic importance, but also because of the field
which it presented for his unrivalled powers as a dialectician.Â
These the Donatists had recently provoked, by inconsistently receiving
back into their body a deacon of Carthage named Maximianus who had
separated himself from them, and by recognizing as valid all baptism
administered by his followers. Hence they naturally shrank from
engaging in a contest with an antagonist who was sure to make the most
of such a deviation from the very principles on which they based their
schism; and, on the other hand, Augustin was so firmly convinced that
his own position was impregnable, that he seems to have thought that
if he could only secure a thorough and dispassionate discussion of the
matter, the Donatists must necessarily be brought to acknowledge not
only their theoretical errors, but also the practical sinfulness of
their separation from the Church. Throughout the controversy,
however, he appears to have put out of sight two considerations:Â
first, the influence of party spirit and prejudice in blinding men to
argument; and, secondly, the necessity of treating his opponents in a
logical discussion as on an equal footing with himself. The first
was in some degree an unavoidable element of disappointment; but
Augustin made concession yet more difficult on the part of his
opponents, by expecting them to acknowledge his superior position as a
member of the Catholic Church, whose duty it was to expose the error
of their views. He practically begs the very point at issue, by
assuming that he, and not the Donatists, was in the Catholic
communion; and though his argument is conducted independently of this
premise, yet it naturally rendered them more unwilling to admit its
force.
This dogmatism was of less consequence in the first pamphlet which
Augustin published on the subject,âhis Alphabetical Psalm, in which he
set forth the history and errors of the Donatists in a popular
form,âsince it was not intended as a controversial treatise, but only
as a means of enlightening the less educated as to the Catholic tenets
on the question in dispute. His next work, written in answer to a
letter of Donatus of Carthage, in which the latter tried to prove that
the baptism of Christ existed only in his communion, is unfortunately
lost; and we can only gather hints as to the further part which he
took in the controversy during the next few years from certain of his
letters, especially those to the Donatist Bishops Honoratus and
Crispinus.[1142]1142Â From the former he claims the admission that
the exclusiveness of the Donatists proves that they are not the Church
of Christ; and his letter to the latter contains an invitation to
discuss the leading points at issue, which Crispinus seems to have
declined.
In the year 400 he wrote two books Against the Party of Donatus, which
are also lost; and about the same time he published his refutation of
the letter of Parmenianus in answer to Tichonius, in which he handles
and solves the famous question, whether, while abiding in unity in the
communion of the same sacraments, the wicked pollute the good by their
society.[1143]1143
Then followed his seven books On Baptism, included in this volume, in
which he shows the emptiness of the arguments of the Donatists for the
repetition of baptism; and proves that so far was Cyprian from being
on their side, that his letters and conduct are of the highest value
as overthrowing their position, and utterly condemning their
separation from the Church.
Not long after this, Petilianus, bishop of Cirta or Constantina, the
most eminent theologian among the Donatist divines, wrote a letter to
his clergy against the Catholics, of which Augustin managed to obtain
a copy, though the Donatists used their utmost care to keep it from
him; and he replied to it in two books, written at different
times,âthe first in the year 400, before he was in possession of the
whole letter, the remainder in 402. To the first book Petilianus
made an answer, of which we gather the main tenor from a third book
written by Augustin in reply to it. It appears to have been full of
vehement abuse, and to have assumed the question in dispute, that the
existence of the true Church, and the catholicity of any branch of it,
depended on the purity and orthodoxy of all its ministers; so that the
guilt or heresy of any minister would invalidate the whole of his
ministerial acts. Hence he argued that Cæcilianus being the
spiritual father of the so-called Catholics, and having been a
traditor, none of them could possibly have been lawfully baptized,
much less rightfully ordained.
Augustin admits neither of his assumptions; but, leaving the guilt or
innocence of Cæcilianus as a point which was irrelevant (though
practically the case against him utterly broke down), he addresses
himself to the other point, and argues most conclusively that all the
functions of the clergy in celebrating the rites of the Church being
purely ministerial, the efficacy of those rites could in no way depend
upon the excellence of the individual minister, but was derived
entirely from Christ. Hence there was a certainty of the grace
bestowed through the several ordinances, which otherwise there could
not possibly have been, had their virtue depended on the character of
any man, in whom even an unblemished reputation might have been the
fruit of a skilled hypocrisy.
The third treatise in this volume belongs to a later period, being a
letter written to Bonifacius, the Roman Count of Africa under
Valentinian the Third. He had written to Augustin to consult him as
to the best means of dealing with the Donatists; and Augustin in his
reply points out to him his mistake in supposing that the Donatists
shared in the errors of the Arians, whilst he urges him to use
moderation in his coercive measures; though both here and in his
answer to Petilianus we find him countenancing the theory that the
State has a right to interfere in constraining men to keep within the
Church. Starting with a forced interpretation of the words, "Compel
them to come in," in Luke xiv. 23, he enunciates principles of
coercion which, though in him they were subdued and rendered
practically of little moment by the spirit of love which formed so
large an element in his character, yet found their natural development
in the despotic intolerance of the Papacy, and the horrors of the
Inquisition. It is probable that he was himself in some degree
misled by confounding the necessity of repressing the violence of the
Circumcelliones, which was a real offense against the State, with the
expediency of enforcing spiritual unity by temporal authority.
The Donatist treatises have met with little attention from individual
editors. There is a dissertation, De Aur. Augustino adversario
Donatistarum, by Adrien Roux, published at Louvain in 1838;[1144]1144
but it is believed that no treatises of this series have ever before
been translated into English, nor are they separately edited. They
are in themselves a valuable authority for an important scene in the
history of the Church, and afford a good example both of the strength
and the weakness of Augustinâs writing,âits strength, in the
exhaustive way in which he tears to pieces his opponentâs arguments,
and the clearness with which he exposes the fallacies of their
reasoning; its weakness, in the persistency with which he pursues a
point long after its discussion might fairly have been closed, as
though he hardly knew when he had gained the victory; and his tendency
to claim, by right of his position, a vantage-ground which did not in
reality belong to him till the superiority of his cause was proved.
J. R. King
Oxford, March, 1870.
the
SEVEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTIN,
BISHOP OF HIPPO,
ON
BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS
[DE BAPTISIMO CONTRA DONATISTAS.]
CIRCA A.D. 400.
translated by the
rev. j. r. king, m.a.,
vicar of st. peterâs in the east, oxford; and late fellow and tutor of
mERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD
The
Seven Books of Augustin,
Bishop of Hippo
On Baptism, Against the Donatists
_________________
This treatise was written about 400 A.D. Concerning it Aug. in
Retract. Book II. c. xviii., says:Â I have written seven books on
Baptism against the Donatists, who strive to defend themselves by the
authority of the most blessed bishop and martyr Cyprian; in which I
show that nothing is so effectual for the refutation of the Donatists,
and for shutting their mouths directly from upholding their schism
against the Catholic Church, as the letters and act of Cyprian.
_________________
Book I.
He proves that baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion
by heretics or schismatics, but that it ought not to be received from
them; and that it is of no avail to any while in a state of heresy or
schism.
Chapter 1.â1. In the treatise which we wrote against the published
epistle of Parmenianus[1145]1145 to Tichonius,[1146]1146 we promised
that at some future time we would treat the question of baptism more
thoroughly;[1147]1147 and indeed, even if we had not made this
promise, we are not unmindful that this is a debt fairly due from us
to the prayers of our brethren. Wherefore in this treatise we have
undertaken, with the help of God, not only to refute the objections
which the Donatists have been wont to urge against us in this matter,
but also to advance what God may enable us to say in respect of the
authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian, which they endeavor to use as
a prop, to prevent their perversity from falling before the attacks of
truth.[1148]1148Â And this we propose to do, in order that all whose
judgment is not blinded by party spirit may understand that, so far
from Cyprianâs authority being in their favor, it tends directly to
their refutation and discomfiture.
2. In the treatise above mentioned, it has already been said that
the grace of baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion,
just as it can be also there retained. But no one of the Donatists
themselves denies that even apostates retain the grace of baptism; for
when they return within the pale of the Church, and are converted
through repentance, it is never given to them a second time, and so it
is ruled that it never could have been lost. So those, too, who in
the sacrilege of schism depart from the communion of the Church,
certainly retain the grace of baptism, which they received before
their departure, seeing that, in case of their return, it is not again
conferred on them whence it is proved, that what they had received
while within the unity of the Church, they could not have lost in
their separation. But if it can be retained outside, why may it not
also be given there? If you say, "It is not rightly given without
the pale;" we answer, "As it is not rightly retained, and yet is in
some sense retained, so it is not indeed rightly given, but yet it is
given."Â But as, by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be
profitably possessed which was possessed to no profit in exclusion
from unity, so, by the same reconciliation, that begins to be
profitable which without it was given to no profit. Yet it cannot be
allowed that it should be said that that was not given which was
given, nor that any one should reproach a man with not having given
this, while confessing that he had given what he had himself
received. For the sacrament of baptism is what the person possesses
who is baptized; and the sacrament of conferring baptism is what he
possesses who is ordained. And as the baptized person, if he depart
from the unity of the Church, does not thereby lose the sacrament of
baptism, so also he who is ordained, if he depart from the unity of
the Church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring baptism. For
neither sacrament may be wronged. If a sacrament necessarily becomes
void in the case of the wicked, both must become void; if it remain
valid with the wicked, this must be so with both. If, therefore, the
baptism be acknowledged which he could not lose who severed himself
from the unity of the Church, that baptism must also be acknowledged
which was administered by one who by his secession had not lost the
sacrament of conferring baptism. For as those who return to the
Church, if they had been baptized before their secession, are not
rebaptized, so those who return, having been ordained before their
secession, are certainly not ordained again; but either they again
exercise their former ministry, if the interests of the Church require
it, or if they do not exercise it, at any rate they retain the
sacrament of their ordination; and hence it is, that when hands are
laid on them,[1149]1149 to mark their reconciliation, they are not
ranked with the laity. For Felicianus,[1150]1150 when he separated
himself from them with Maximianus, was not held by the Donatists
themselves to have lost either the sacrament of baptism or the
sacrament of conferring baptism. For now he is a recognized member
of their own body, in company with those very men whom he baptized
while he was separated from them in the schism of Maximianus. And so
others could receive from them, whilst they still had not joined our
society, what they themselves had not lost by severance from our
society. And hence it is clear that they are guilty of impiety who
endeavor to rebaptize those who are in Catholic unity; and we act
rightly who do not dare to repudiate Godâs sacraments, even when
administered in schism. For in all points in which they think with
us, they also are in communion with us, and only are severed from us
in those points in which they dissent from us. For contact and
disunion are not to be measured by different laws in the case of
material or spiritual affinities. For as union of bodies arises from
continuity of position, so in the agreement of wills there is a kind
of contact between souls. If, therefore, a man who has severed
himself from unity wishes to do anything different from that which had
been impressed on him while in the state of unity, in this point he
does sever himself, and is no longer a part of the united whole; but
wherever he desires to conduct himself as is customary in the state of
unity, in which he himself learned and received the lessons which he
seeks to follow, in these points he remains a member, and is united to
the corporate whole.
Chapter 2.â3. And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in
some matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things
wherein they agree with us we do not forbid them to do; but in those
things in which they differ from us, we earnestly encourage them to
come and receive them from us, or return and recover them, as the case
may be; and with whatever means we can, we lovingly busy ourselves,
that they, freed from faults and corrected, may choose this course.Â
We do not therefore say to them, "Abstain from giving baptism," but
"Abstain from giving it in schism."Â Nor do we say to those whom we
see them on the point of baptizing, "Do not receive the baptism," but
"Do not receive it in schism."Â For if any one were compelled by
urgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from whom to receive
baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should
receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament
which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he
forthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a
Catholic. But if he should be delivered from the death of the body,
on his restoring himself in bodily presence to that Catholic
congregation from which in heart he had never departed, so far from
blaming his conduct, we should praise it with the greatest truth and
confidence; because he trusted that God was present to his heart,
while he was striving to preserve unity, and was unwilling to depart
this life without the sacrament of holy baptism, which he knew to be
of God, and not of men; wherever he might find it. But if any one
who has it in his power to receive baptism within the Catholic Church
prefers, from some perversity of mind, to be baptized in schism, even
if he afterwards bethinks himself to come to the Catholic Church,
because he is assured that there that sacrament will profit him, which
can indeed be received but cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all
question he is perverse, and guilty of sin, and that the more flagrant
in proportion as it was committed wilfully. For that he entertains
no doubt that the sacrament is rightly received in the Church, is
proved by his conviction that it is there that he must look for profit
even from what he has received elsewhere.
Chapter 3.â4. There are two propositions, moreover, which we
affirm,âthat baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that in it
alone can it be rightly received,âboth of which the Donatists deny.Â
Likewise there are two other propositions which we affirm,âthat
baptism exists among the Donatists, but that with them it is not
rightly received, of which two they strenuously confirm the former,
that baptism exists with them; but they are unwilling to allow the
latter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly received. Of these
four propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we both agree.Â
For that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, that it is rightly
received there, and that it is not rightly received among the
Donatists, are assertions made only by ourselves; but that baptism
exists also among the Donatists, is asserted by them and allowed by
us. If any one, therefore, is desirous of being baptized, and is
already convinced that he ought to choose our Church as a medium for
Christian salvation, and that the baptism of Christ is only profitable
in it, even when it has been received elsewhere, but yet wishes to be
baptized in the schism of Donatus, because not they only, nor we only,
but both parties alike say that baptism exists with them, let him
pause and look to the other three points. For if he has made up his
mind to follow us in the points which they deny, though he prefers
what both of us acknowledge, to what only we assert, it is enough for
our purpose that he prefers what they do not affirm and we alone
assert, to what they alone assert. That baptism exists in the
Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it is rightly
received in the Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it is
not rightly received in the schism of Donatus, we assert and they
deny. As, therefore, he is the more ready to believe what we alone
assert should be believed, so let him be the more ready to do what we
alone declare should be done. But let him believe more firmly, if he
be so disposed, what both parties assert should be believed, than what
we alone maintain. For he is inclined to believe more firmly that
the baptism of Christ exists in the schism of Donatus, because that is
acknowledged by both of us, than that it exists in the Catholic
Church, an assertion made alone by the Catholics. But again, he is
more ready to believe that the baptism of Christ exists also with us,
as we alone assert, than that it does not exist with us, as they alone
assert. For he has already determined and is fully convinced, that
where we differ, our authority is to be preferred to theirs. So that
he is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that baptism is
rightly received with us, than that it is not rightly so received,
since that rests only on their assertion. And, by the same rule, he
is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that it is not rightly
received with them, than as they alone assert, that it is rightly so
received. He finds, therefore, that his confidence in being baptized
among the Donatists is somewhat profitless, seeing that, though we
both acknowledge that baptism exists with them, yet we do not both
declare that it ought to be received from them. But he has made up
his mind to cling rather to us in matters where we disagree. Let him
therefore feel confidence in receiving baptism in our communion, where
he is assured that it both exists and is rightly received; and let him
not receive it in a communion, where those whose opinion he has
determined to follow acknowledge indeed that it exists, but say that
it cannot rightly be received. Nay, even if he should hold it to be
a doubtful question, whether or no it is impossible for that to be
rightly received among the Donatists which he is assured can rightly
be received in the Catholic Church, he would commit a grievous sin, in
matters concerning the salvation of his soul, in the mere fact of
preferring uncertainty to certainty. At any rate, he must be quite
sure that a man can be rightly baptized in the Catholic Church, from
the mere fact that he has determined to come over to it, even if he be
baptized elsewhere. But let him at least acknowledge it to be matter
of uncertainty whether a man be not improperly baptized among the
Donatists, when he finds this asserted by those whose opinion he is
convinced should be preferred to theirs; and, preferring certainty to
uncertainty, let him be baptized here, where he has good grounds for
being assured that it is rightly done, in the fact that when he
thought of doing it elsewhere, he had still determined that he ought
afterwards to come over to this side.
Chapter 4.â5. Further, if any one fails to understand how it can be
that we assert that the sacrament is not rightly conferred among the
Donatists, while we confess that it exists among them, let him observe
that we also deny that it exists rightly among them, just as they deny
that it exists rightly among those who quit their communion. Let him
also consider the analogy of the military mark, which, though it can
both be retained, as by deserters, and, also be received by those who
are not in the army, yet ought not to be either received or retained
outside its ranks; and, at the same time, it is not changed or renewed
when a man is enlisted or brought back to his service. However, we
must distinguish between the case of those who unwittingly join the
ranks of these heretics, under the impression that they are entering
the true Church of Christ, and those who know that there is no other
Catholic Church save that which, according to the promise, is spread
abroad throughout the whole world, and extends even to the utmost
limits of the earth; which, rising amid tares, and seeking rest in the
future from the weariness of offenses, says in the Book of Psalms,
"From the end of the earth I cried unto Thee, while my heart was in
weariness:Â Thou didst exalt me on a rock."[1151]1151Â But the rock
was Christ, in whom the apostle says that we are now raised up, and
set together in heavenly places, though not yet actually, but only in
hope.[1152]1152Â And so the psalm goes on to say, "Thou wast my
guide, because Thou art become my hope, a tower of strength from the
face of the enemy."[1153]1153Â By means of His promises, which are
like spears and javelins stored up in a strongly fortified place, the
enemy is not only guarded against, but overthrown, as he clothes his
wolves in sheepâs clothing,[1154]1154 that they may say, "Lo, here is
Christ, or there;"[1155]1155 and that they may separate many from the
Catholic city which is built upon a hill, and bring them down to the
isolation of their own snares, so as utterly to destroy them. And
these men, knowing this, choose to receive the baptism of Christ
without the limits of the communion of the unity of Christâs body,
though they intend afterwards, with the sacrament which they have
received elsewhere, to pass into that very communion. For they
propose to receive Christâs baptism in antagonism to the Church of
Christ, well knowing that it is so even on the very day on which they
receive it. And if this is a sin, who is the man that will say,
Grant that for a single day I may commit sin? For if he proposes to
pass over to the Catholic Church, I would fain ask why. What other
answer can he give, but that it is ill to belong to the party of
Donatus, and not to the unity of the Catholic Church? Just so many
days, then, as you commit this ill, of so many daysâ sin are you going
to be guilty. And it may be said that there is greater sin in more
daysâ commission of it, and less in fewer; but in no wise can it be
said that no sin is committed at all. But what is the need of
allowing this accursed wrong for a single day, or a single hour? For
the man who wishes this license to be granted him, might as well ask
of the Church, or of God Himself, that for a single day he should be
permitted to apostatize. For there is no reason why he should fear
to be an apostate for a day, if he does not shrink from being for that
time a schismatic or a heretic.
Chapter 5.â6. I prefer, he says, to receive Christâs baptism where
both parties agree that it exists. But those whom you intend to join
say that it cannot be received there rightly; and those who say that
it can be received there rightly are the party whom you mean to
quit. What they say, therefore, whom you yourself consider of
inferior authority, in opposition to what those say whom you yourself
prefer, is, if not false, at any rate, to use a milder term, at least
uncertain. I entreat you, therefore, to prefer what is true to what
is false, or what is certain to what is uncertain. For it is not
only those whom you are going to join, but you yourself who are going
to join them, that confess that what you want can be rightly received
in that body which you mean to join when you have received it
elsewhere. For if you had any doubts whether it could be rightly
received there, you would also have doubts whether you ought to make
the change. If, therefore, it is doubtful whether it be not sin to
receive baptism from the party of Donatus, who can doubt but that it
is certain sin not to prefer receiving it where it is certain that it
is not sin? And those who are baptized there through ignorance,
thinking that it is the true Church of Christ, are guilty of less sin
in comparison than these, though even they are wounded by the impiety
of schism; nor do they escape a grievous hurt, because others suffer
even more. For when it is said to certain men, "It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for
you,"[1156]1156 it is not meant that the men of Sodom shall escape
torment, but only that the others shall be even more grievously
tormented.
7. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity
and doubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give
heed and receive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those
who, when they are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their
madness to their own destruction. For the condemnation of the party
of Maximianus, and their restoration after they had been condemned,
together with those whom they had sacrilegiously, to use the language
of their own Council,[1157]1157 baptized in schism, settles the whole
question in dispute, and removes all controversy. There is no point
at issue between ourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with
Primianus, which could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of
Christ may not only be retained, but even conferred by those who are
severed from the Church. For as they themselves are obliged to
confess that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true
baptism, inasmuch as they now acknowledge them as members of their own
body, with no other baptism than that which they received in schism;
so we say that that is Christâs baptism, even without the pale of
Catholic communion, which they confer who are cut off from that
communion, inasmuch as they had not lost it when they were cut off.Â
And what they themselves think that they conferred on those persons
whom Felicianus baptized in schism, when they admitted them to
reconcilation with themselves, viz., not that they should receive that
which they did not as yet possess, but that what they had received to
no advantage in schism, and were already in possession of, should be
of profit to them, this God really confers and bestows through the
Catholic communion on those who come from any heresy or schism in
which they received the baptism of Christ; viz., not that they should
begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not possessing it before,
but that what they already possessed should now begin to profit them.
Chapter 6.â8. Between us, then, and what we may call the
genuine[1158]1158 Donatists, whose bishop is Primianus at Carthage,
there is now no controversy on this point. For God willed that it
should be ended by means of the followers of Maximianus, that they
should be compelled by the precedent of his case to acknowledge what
they would not allow at the persuasion of Christian charity. But
this brings us to consider next, whether those men do not seem to have
something to say for themselves, who refuse communion with the party
of Primianus, contending that in their body there remains greater
sincerity of Donatism, just in proportion to the paucity of their
numbers. And even if these were only the party of Maximianus, we
should not be justified in despising their salvation. How much more,
then, are we bound to consider it, when we find that this same party
of Donatus is split up into many most minute fractions, all which
small sections of the body blame the one much larger portion which has
Primianus for its head, because they receive the baptism of the
followers of Maximianus; while each endeavors to maintain that it is
the sole receptacle of true baptism, which exists nowhere else,
neither in the whole of the world where the Catholic Church extends
itself, nor in that larger main body of the Donatists, nor even in the
other minute sections, but only in itself. Whereas, if all these
fragments would listen not to the voice of man, but to the most
unmistakable manifestation of the truth, and would be willing to curb
the fiery temper of their own perversity, they would return from their
own barrenness, not indeed to the main body of Donatus, a mere
fragment of which they are a smaller fragment, but to the
never-failing fruitfulness of the root of the Catholic Church. For
all of them who are not against us are for us; but when they gather
not with us, they scatter abroad.
Chapter 7.â9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on
mere human arguments,âsince there is so much obscurity in this
question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of
Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the
bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt
among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the
several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long
varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was
established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the
whole world:[1159]1159âI therefore bring forward from the gospel clear
proofs, by which I propose, with Godâs help, to prove how rightly and
truly in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of
every schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation
should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained
sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than
wounded by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the
gospel, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth
not with me scattereth abroad."[1160]1160Â Yet when the disciples had
brought word to Him that they had seen one casting out devils in His
name, and had forbidden him, because he followed not them, He said,
"Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. For
there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly
speak evil of me."[1161]1161Â If, indeed, there were nothing in this
man requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting
himself outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all
Christian brotherhood, should gather in Christâs name; and so there
would be no truth in this, "He that is not with me is against me; and
he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."Â But if he required
correction in the point where the disciples in their ignorance were
anxious to check him, why did our Lord, by saying, "Forbid him not,"
prevent this check from being given? And how can that be true which
He then says, "He that is not against you is for you?"Â For in this
point he was not against, but for them, when he was working miracles
of healing in Christâs name. That both, therefore, should be true,
as both are true,âboth the declaration, that "he that is not with me
is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad;"
and also the injunction, "Forbid him not; for he that is not against
you is for you,"âwhat must we understand, except that the man was to
be confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of
which he was not against the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be
blamed for separating himself from the Church, whereby his gathering
became a scattering; and if it should have so happened that he sought
union with the Church, he should not have received what he already
possessed, but be made to set right the points wherein he had gone
astray?
Chapter 8.â10. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius
unheard, nor did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy
that an angel should be sent to him, and that he should behold the
messenger, through whom he might assuredly have learned everything
that was necessary, without requiring that any man should come to
him. But since all the good that he had in his prayers and alms
could not benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the
bond of Christian brotherhood and peace, he was ordered to send to
Peter, and through him learned Christ; and, being also baptized by his
orders, he was joined by the tie of communion to the fellowship of
Christians, to which before he was bound only by the likeness of good
works.[1162]1162Â And indeed it would have been most fatal to despise
what he did not yet possess, vaunting himself in what he had. So too
those who, by separating themselves from the society of their fellows,
to the overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity, if they
observe none of the things which they have received in that society,
are separated in everything; and so any one whom they have joined to
their society, if he afterwards wish to come over to the Church, ought
to receive everything which he has not already received. But if they
observe some of the same things, in respect of these they have not
severed themselves; and so far they are still a part of the framework
of the Church, while in all other respects they are cut off from it.Â
Accordingly, any one whom they have associated with themselves is
united to the Church in all those points in which they are not
separated from it. And therefore, if he wish to come over to the
Church, he is made sound in those points in which he was unsound and
went astray; but where he was sound in union with the Church, he is
not cured, but recognized,âlest in desiring to cure what is sound we
should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize
they heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them
more seriously with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the
people of the Lord were smitten with the sword;[1163]1163 but
schismatics were swallowed up by the earth opening her
mouth.[1164]1164Â And the apostle says, "Though I have all faith, so
that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing."[1165]1165
11. If any one is brought to the surgeon, afflicted with a grievous
wound in some vital part of the body, and the surgeon says that unless
it is cured it must cause death, the friends who brought him do not, I
presume, act so foolishly as to count over to the surgeon all his
sound limbs, and, drawing his attention to them, make answer to him,
"Can it be that all these sound limbs are of no avail to save his
life, and that one wounded limb is enough to cause his death?"Â They
certainly do not say this, but they entrust him to the surgeon to be
cured. Nor, again, because they so entrust him, do they ask the
surgeon to cure the limbs that are sound as well; but they desire him
to apply drugs with all care to the one part from which death is
threatening the other sound parts too, with the certainty that it must
come, unless the wound be healed. What will it then profit a man
that he has sound faith, or perhaps only soundness in the sacrament of
faith, when the soundness of his charity is done away with by the
fatal wound of schism, so that by the overthrow of it the other
points, which were in themselves sound, are brought into the infection
of death? To prevent which, the mercy of God, through the unity of
His holy Church, does not cease striving that they may come and be
healed by the medicine of reconciliation, through the bond of peace.Â
And let them not think that they are sound because we admit that they
have something sound in them; nor let them think, on the other hand,
that what is sound must needs be healed, because we show that in some
parts there is a wound. So that in the soundness of the sacrament,
because they are not against us, they are for us; but in the wound of
schism, because they gather not with Christ, they scatter abroad.Â
Let them not be exalted by what they have. Why do they pass the eyes
of pride over those parts only which are sound? Let them condescend
also to look humbly on their wound, and give heed not only to what
they have, but also to what is wanting in them.
Chapter 9.â12. Let them see how many things, and what important
things, are of no avail, if a certain single thing be wanting, and let
them see what that one thing is. And herein let them hear not my
words, but those of the apostle:Â "Though I speak with the tongues of
men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding
brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy,
and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing."[1166]1166Â What does it profit them, therefore, if they
have both the voice of angels in the sacred mysteries, and the gift of
prophecy, as had Caiaphas[1167]1167 and Saul,[1168]1168 that so they
may be found prophesying, of whom Holy Scripture testifies that they
were worthy of condemnation? If they not only know, but even possess
the sacraments, as Simon Magus did;[1169]1169 if they have faith, as
the devils confessed Christ (for we must not suppose that they did not
believe when they said, "What have we to do with Thee, O Son of God?Â
We know Thee who Thou art"[1170]1170; if they distribute of themselves
their own substance to the poor, as many do, not only in the Catholic
Church, but in the different heretical bodies; if, under the pressure
of any persecution, they give their bodies with us to be burned for
the faith which they like us confess:Â yet because they do all these
things apart from the Church, not "forbearing one another in love,"
nor "endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of
peace,"[1171]1171 insomuch as they have not charity, they cannot
attain to eternal salvation, even with all those good things which
profit them not.
Chapter 10.â13. But they think within themselves that they show very
great subtlety in asking whether the baptism of Christ in the party of
Donatus makes men sons or not; so that, if we allow that it does make
them sons, they may assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which
could give birth to sons in the baptism of Christ; and since the
Church must be one, they may allege that ours is no Church. But if
we say that it does not make them sons, "Why then," say they, "do you
not cause those who pass from us to you to be born again in baptism,
after they have been baptized with us, if they are not thereby born as
yet?"
14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in
virtue of what constitutes its division, and not from what causes its
union with the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and
charity, but it is joined in one baptism. And so there is one Church
which alone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its
own in these communions of different bodies which are separate from
itself, it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in
each of them that it, not they, has the power of generation. For
neither is it their separation that generates, but what they have
retained of the essence of the Church; and if they were to go on to
abandon this, they would lose the power of generation. The
generation, then, in each case proceeds from the Church, whose
sacraments are retained, from which any such birth can alone in any
case proceed,âalthough not all who receive its birth belong to its
unity, which shall save those who persevere even to the end. Nor is
it those only that do not belong to it who are openly guilty of the
manifest sacrilege of schism, but also those who, being outwardly
joined to its unity, are yet separated by a life of sin. For the
Church had herself given birth to Simon Magus through the sacrament of
baptism; and yet it was declared to him that he had no part in the
inheritance of Christ.[1172]1172Â Did he lack anything in respect of
baptism, of the gospel, of the sacraments? But in that he wanted
charity, he was born in vain; and perhaps it had been well for him
that he had never been born at all. Was anything wanting to their
birth to whom the apostle says, "I have fed you with milk, and not
with meat, even as babes in Christ"? Yet he recalls them from the
sacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing, because they were
carnal:Â "I have fed you," he says, "with milk, and not with meat:Â
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye
able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you
envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while
one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not
men?"[1173]1173Â For of these he says above:Â "Now I beseech you,
brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the
same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same
judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by
them which are of the house of Chlöe, that there are contentions
among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of
Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ
divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name
of Paul?"[1174]1174Â These, therefore, if they continued in the same
perverse obstinacy, were doubtless indeed born, but yet would not
belong by the bond of peace and unity to the very Church in respect of
which they were born. Therefore she herself bears them in her own
womb and in the womb of her handmaids, by virtue of the same
sacraments, as though by virtue of the seed of her husband. For it
is not without meaning that the apostle says that all these things
were done by way of figure.[1175]1175Â But those who are too proud,
and are not joined to their lawful mother, are like Ishmael, of whom
it is said, "Cast out this bond-woman and her Son:Â for the son of
the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with
Isaac."[1176]1176Â But those who peacefully love the lawful wife of
their father, whose sons they are by lawful descent, are like the sons
of Jacob, born indeed of handmaids, but yet receiving the same
inheritance.[1177]1177Â But those who are born within the family, of
the womb of the mother herself, and then neglect the grace they have
received, are like Isaacâs son Esau, who was rejected, God Himself
bearing witness to it, and saying, "I loved Jacob, and I hated
Esau;"[1178]1178 and that though they were twin-brethren, the
offspring of the same womb.
Chapter 11.â15. They ask also, "Whether sins are remitted in baptism
in the party of Donatus:"Â so that, if we say that they are remitted,
they may answer, then the Holy Spirit is there; for when by the
breathing of our Lord the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, He
then went on to say, "Baptize all nations in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."[1179]1179Â Whose soever sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye
retain, they are retained."[1180]1180Â And if it is so, they say,
then our communion is the Church of Christ; for the Holy Spirit does
not work the remission of sins except in the Church. And if our
communion is the Church of Christ, then your communion is not the
Church of Christ. For that is one, wherever it is, of which it is
said, "My dove is but one; she is the only one of her
mother;"[1181]1181 nor can there be just so many churches as there are
schisms. But if we should say that sins are not there remitted,
then, say they, there is no true baptism there; and therefore ought
you to baptize those whom you receive from us. And since you do not
do this, you confess that you are not in the Church of Christ.
16. To these we reply, following the Scriptures, by asking them to
answer themselves what they ask of us. For I beg them to tell us
whether there is any remission of sins where there is not charity; for
sins are the darkness of the soul. For we find St. John saying, "He
that hateth his brother is still in darkness."[1182]1182Â But none
would create schisms, if they were not blinded by hatred of their
brethren. If, therefore, we say that sins are not remitted there,
how is he regenerate who is baptized among them? And what is
regeneration in baptism, except the being renovated from the
corruption of the old man? And how can he be so renovated whose past
sins are not remitted? But if he be not regenerate, neither does he
put on Christ; from which it seems to follow that he ought to be
baptized again. For the apostle says, "For as many of you as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;"[1183]1183 and if he has
not so put on Christ, neither should he be considered to have been
baptized in Christ. Further, since we say that he has been baptized
in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ; and if we confess
this, we confess that he is regenerate. And if this be so, how does
St. John say, "He that hateth his brother remaineth still in
darkness," if remission of his sins has already taken place? Can it
be that schism does not involve hatred of oneâs brethren? Who will
maintain this, when both the origin of, and perseverance in schism
consists in nothing else save hatred of the brethren?
17. They think that they solve this question when they say: "There
is then no remission of sins in schism, and therefore no creation of
the new man by regeneration, and accordingly neither is there the
baptism of Christ."Â But since we confess that the baptism of Christ
exists in schism, we propose this question to them for solution:Â Was
Simon Magus endued with the true baptism of Christ? They will
answer, Yes; being compelled to do so by the authority of holy
Scripture. I ask them whether they confess that he received
remission of his sins. They will certainly acknowledge it. So I
ask why Peter said to him that he had no part in the lot of the
saints. Because, they say, he sinned afterwards, wishing to buy with
money the gift of God, which he believed the apostles were able to
sell.
Chapter 12.â18. What if he approached baptism itself in deceit? were
his sins remitted, or were they not? Let them choose which they
will. Whichever they choose will answer our purpose. If they say
they were remitted, how then shall "the Holy Spirit of discipline flee
deceit,"[1184]1184 if in him who was full of deceit He worked
remission of sins? If they say they were not remitted, I ask
whether, if he should afterwards confess his sin with contrition of
heart and true sorrow, it would be judged that he ought to be baptized
again. And if it is mere madness to assert this, then let them
confess that a man can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ,
and that yet his heart, persisting in malice or sacrilege, may not
allow remission of sins to be given; and so let them understand that
men may be baptized in communions severed from the Church, in which
Christâs baptism is given and received in the said celebration of the
sacrament, but that it will only then be of avail for the remission of
sins, when the recipient, being reconciled to the unity of the Church,
is purged from the sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were
retained, and their remission prevented. For, as in the case of him
who had approached the sacrament in deceit there is no second baptism,
but he is purged by faithful discipline and truthful confession, which
he could not be without baptism, so that what was given before becomes
then powerful to work his salvation, when the former deceit is done
away by the truthful confession; so also in the case of the man who,
while an enemy to the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy
or schism the baptism of Christ, which the schismatics in question had
not lost from among them, though by his sacrilege his sins were not
remitted, yet, when he corrects his error, and comes over to the
communion and unity of the Church, he ought not to be again
baptized:Â because by his very reconciliation to the peace of the
Church he receives this benefit, that the sacrament now begins in
unity to be of avail for the remission of his sins, which could not so
avail him as received in schism.
19. But if they should say that in the man who has approached the
sacrament in deceit, his sins are indeed removed by the holy power of
so great a sacrament at the moment when he received it, but return
immediately in consequence of his deceit:Â so that the Holy Spirit
has both been present with him at his baptism for the removal of his
sins, and has also fled before his perseverance in deceit so that they
should return:Â so that both declarations prove true,âboth, "As many
of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" and
also, "The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit;"âthat is to
say, that both the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and
the sinfulness of deceit strips him of Christ; like the case of a man
who passes from darkness through light into darkness again, his eyes
being always directed towards darkness, though the light cannot but
penetrate them as he passes;âif they should say this, let them
understand that this is also the case with those who are baptized
without the pale of the Church, but yet with the baptism of the
Church, which is holy in itself, wherever it may be; and which
therefore belongs not to those who separate themselves, but to the
body from which they are separated; while yet it avails even among
them so far, that they pass through its light back to their own
darkness, their sins, which in that moment had been dispelled by the
holiness of baptism, returning immediately upon them, as though it
were the darkness returning which the light had dispelled while they
were passing through it.
20. For that sins which have been remitted do return upon a man,
where there is no brotherly love, is most clearly taught by our Lord,
in the case of the servant whom He found owing Him ten thousand
talents, and to whom He yet forgave all at his entreaty. But when he
refused to have pity on his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred
pence, the Lord commanded him to pay what He had forgiven him. The
time, then, at which pardon is received through baptism is as it were
the time for rendering accounts, so that all the debts which are found
to be due may be remitted. Yet it was not afterwards that the
servant lent his fellow-servant the money, which he had so pitilessly
exacted when the other was unable to pay it; but his fellow-servant
already owed him the debt, when he himself, on rendering his accounts
to his master, was excused a debt of so vast an amount. He had not
first excused his fellow-servant, and so come to receive forgiveness
from his Lord. This is proved by the words of the fellow-servant:Â
"Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."Â Otherwise he would
have said, "You forgave me it before; why do you again demand it?"Â
This is made more clear by the words of the Lord Himself. For He
says, "But the same servant went out, and found one of his
fellow-servants which was owing[1185]1185 him a hundred
pence."[1186]1186Â He does not say, "To whom he had already forgiven
a debt of a hundred pence."Â Since then He says, "was owing him," it
is clear that he had not forgiven him the debt. And indeed it would
have been better, and more in accordance with the position of a man
who was going to render an account of so great a debt, and expected
forbearance from his lord, that he should first have forgiven his
fellow-servant what was due to him, and so have come to render the
account when there was such need for imploring the compassion of his
lord. Yet the fact that he had not yet forgiven his fellow-servant,
did not prevent his lord from forgiving him all his debts on the
occasion of receiving his accounts. But what advantage was it to
him, since they all immediately returned with redoubled force upon his
head, in consequence of his persistent want of charity? So the grace
of baptism is not prevented from giving remission of all sins, even if
he to whom they are forgiven continues to cherish hatred towards his
brother in his heart. For the guilt of yesterday is remitted, and
all that was before it, nay, even the guilt of the very hour and
moment previous to baptism, and during baptism itself. But then he
immediately begins again to be responsible, not only for the days,
hours, moments which ensue, but also for the past,âthe guilt of all
the sins which were remitted returning on him, as happens only too
frequently in the Church.
Chapter 13.â21. For it often happens that a man has an enemy whom he
hates most unjustly; although we are commanded to love even our unjust
enemies, and to pray for them. But in some sudden danger of death he
begins to be uneasy, and desires baptism, which he receives in such
haste, that the emergency scarcely admits of the necessary formal
examination of a few words, much less of a long conversation, so that
this hatred should be driven from his heart, even supposing it to be
known to the minister who baptizes him. Certainly cases of this sort
are still found to occur not only with us, but also with them. What
shall we say then? Are this manâs sins forgiven or not? Let them
choose just which alternative they prefer. For if they are forgiven,
they immediately return:Â this is the teaching of the gospel, the
authoritative announcement of truth. Whether, therefore, they are
forgiven or not, medicine is necessary afterwards; and yet if the man
lives, and learns that his fault stands in need of correction, and
corrects it, he is not baptized anew, either with them or with us.Â
So in the points in which schismatics and heretics neither entertain
different opinions nor observe different practice from ourselves, we
do not correct them when they join us, but rather commend what we find
in them. For where they do not differ from us, they are not
separated from us. But because these things do them no good so long
as they are schismatics or heretics, on account of other points in
which they differ from us, not to mention the most grievous sin that
is involved in separation itself, therefore, whether their sins remain
in them, or return again immediately after remission, in either case
we exhort them to come to the soundness of peace and Christian
charity, not only that they may obtain something which they had not
before, but also that what they had may begin to be of use to them.
Chapter 14.â22. It is to no purpose, then, that they say to us, "If
you acknowledge our baptism, what do we lack that should make you
suppose that we ought to think seriously of joining your communion?"Â
For we reply, We do not acknowledge any baptism of yours; for it is
not the baptism of schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the
Church, wheresoever it may be found, and whithersoever it may be
transferred. Â But it is in no sense yours, except because you
entertain false opinions, and do sacrilegious acts, and have impiously
separated yourselves from the Church. For if everything else in your
practice and opinions were true, and still you were to persist in this
same separation, contrary to the bond of brotherly peace, contrary to
the union of all the brethren, who have been manifest, according to
the promise, in all the world; the particulars of whose history, and
the secrets of whose hearts, you never could have known or considered
in every case, so as to have a right to condemn them; who, moreover,
cannot be liable to condemnation for submitting themselves to the
judges of the Church rather than to one of the parties to the
dispute,âin this one thing, at least, in such a case, you are
deficient, in which he is deficient who lacks charity. Why should we
go over our argument again? Look and see yourselves in the apostle,
how much there is that you lack. For what does it matter to him who
lacks charity, whether he be carried away outside the Church at once
by some blast of temptation, or remain within the Lordâs harvest, so
as to be separated only at the final winnowing? And yet even such,
if they have once been born in baptism, need not be born again.
Chapter 15.â23. For it is the Church that gives birth to all, either
within her pale, of her own womb; or beyond it, of the seed of her
bridegroom,â(either of herself, or of her handmaid.[1187]1187)Â But
Esau, even though born of the lawful wife, was separated from the
people of God because he quarrelled with his brother. And Asher,
born indeed by the authority of a wife, but yet of a handmaid, was
admitted to the land of promise on account of his brotherly
good-will. Whence also it was not the being born of a handmaid, but
his quarrelling with his brother, that stood in the way of Ishmael, to
cause his separation from the people of God; and he received no
benefit from the power of the wife, whose son he rather was, inasmuch
as it was in virtue of her conjugal rights that he was both conceived
in and born of the womb of the handmaid. Just as with the Donatists
it is by the right of the Church, which exists in baptism, that
whosoever is born receives his birth; but if they agree with their
brethren, through the unity of peace they come to the land of promise,
not to be again cast out from the bosom of their true mother, but to
be acknowledged in the seed of their father; but if they persevere in
discord, they will belong to the line of Ishmael. For Ishmael was
first, and then Isaac; and Esau was the elder, Jacob the younger.Â
Not that heresy gives birth before the Church, or that the Church
herself gives birth first to those who are carnal or animal, and
afterwards to those who are spiritual; but because, in the actual lot
of our mortality, in which we are born of the seed of Adam, "that was
not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward
that which is spiritual."[1188]1188Â But from mere animal sensation,
because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God,"[1189]1189 arise all dissensions and schisms. And the apostle
says[1190]1190 that all who persevere in this animal sensation belong
to the old covenant. that is, to the desire of earthly promises, which
are indeed the type of the spiritual; but "the natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God."[1191]1191
24. At whatever time, therefore, men have begun to be of such a
nature in this life, that, although they have partaken of such divine
sacraments as were appointed for the dispensation under which they
lived, they yet savor of carnal things, and hope for and desire carnal
things from God, whether in this life or afterwards, they are yet
carnal. But the Church, which is the people of God, is an ancient
institution even in the pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal
interest in some men, a spiritual interest in others. To the carnal
belongs the old covenant, to the spiritual the new. But in the first
days both were hidden, from Adam even to Moses. But by Moses the old
covenant was made manifest, and in it was hidden the new covenant,
because after a secret fashion it was typified. But so soon as the
Lord came in the flesh, the new covenant was revealed; yet, though the
sacraments of the old covenant passed away; the dispositions peculiar
to it did not pass away. For they still exist in those whom the
apostle declares to be already born indeed by the sacrament of the new
covenant, but yet capable, as being natural, of receiving the things
of the Spirit of God. For, as in the sacraments of the old covenant
some persons were already spiritual, belonging secretly to the new
covenant, which was then concealed, so now also in the sacrament of
the new covenant, which has been by this time revealed, many live who
are natural. And if they will not advance to receive the things of
the Spirit of God, to which the discourse of the apostle urges them,
they will still belong to the old covenant. But if they advance,
even before they receive them, yet by their very advance and approach
they belong to the new covenant; and if, before becoming spiritual,
they are snatched away from this life, yet through the protection of
the holiness of the sacrament they are reckoned in the land of the
living, where the Lord is our hope and our portion. Nor can I find
any truer interpretation of the scripture, "Thine eyes did see my
substance, yet being imperfect"[1192]1192 considering what follows,
"And in Thy book shall all be written."[1193]1193
Chapter 16.â25. But the same mother which brought forth Abel, and
Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, brought forth also Moses and the
prophets who succeeded him till the coming of our Lord; and the mother
which gave birth to them gave birth also to our apostles and martyrs,
and all good Christians. For all these that have appeared have been
born indeed at different times, but are included in the society of our
people; and it is as citizens of the same state that they have
experienced the labors of this pilgrimage, and some of them are
experiencing them, and others will experience them even to the end.Â
Again, the mother who brought forth Cain, and Ham, and Ishmael, and
Esau, brought forth also Dathan and others like him in the same
people; and she who gave birth to them gave birth also to Judas the
false apostle, and Simon Magus, and all the other false Christians who
up to this time have persisted obstinately in their carnal affections,
whether they have been mingled in the unity of the Church, or
separated from it in open schism. But when men of this kind have the
gospel preached to them, and receive the sacraments at the hand of
those who are spiritual, it is as though Rebecca gave birth to them of
her own womb, as she did to Esau; but when they are produced in the
midst of the people of God through the instrumentality of those who
preach the gospel not sincerely,[1194]1194 Sarah is indeed the mother,
but through Hagar. So when good spiritual disciples are produced by
the preaching or baptism of those who are carnal, Leah, indeed, or
Rachel, gives birth to them in her right as wife, but from the womb of
a handmaid. But when good and faithful disciples are born of those
who are spiritual in the gospel, and either attain to the development
of spiritual age, or do not cease to strive in that direction, or are
only deterred from doing so by want of power, these are born like
Isaac from the womb of Sarah, or Jacob from the womb of Rebecca, in
the new life and the new covenant.
Chapter 17.â26. Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are
openly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is
chaff, whether they persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the
threshing-floor, or, when temptation befalls them, are carried out as
it were by the blast of some wind. And even that man is always
severed from the unity of the Church which is without spot or
wrinkle,[1195]1195 who associates with the congregation of the saints
in carnal obstinacy. Yet we ought to despair of no man, whether he
be one who shows himself to be of this nature within the pale of the
Church, or whether he more openly opposes it from without. But the
spiritual, or those who are steadily advancing with pious exertion
towards this end, do not stray without the pale; since even when, by
some perversity or necessity among men, they seem to be driven forth,
they are more approved than if they had remained within, since they
are in no degree roused to contend against the Church, but remain
rooted in the strongest foundation of Christian charity on the solid
rock of unity. For hereunto belongs what is said in the sacrifice of
Abraham:Â "But the birds divided he not."[1196]1196
Chapter 18.â27. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I
have argued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest
schism which is called by the name of the Donatists, it only remains
that on the subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what
the universal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism.Â
And yet, if within the Church different men still held different
opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till
some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an
universal Council, it would have been right for the charity which
seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as
it is written "For charity shall cover the multitude of
sins."[1197]1197Â For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of
all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its
presence there is found pardon for the absence of some missing things.
28. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the
blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,âto come at last to him of
whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed,
whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that
time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared
authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council,[1198]1198 what
practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in
common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African
churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion
of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized
anew. And I take it, that the reason why the Lord did not reveal the
error in this to a man of such eminence, was, that his pious humility
and charity in guarding the peace and health of the Church might be
made manifest, and might be noticed, so as to serve as an example of
healing power, so to speak, not only to Christians of that age, but
also to those who should come after. For when a bishop of so
important a Church, himself a man of so great merit and virtue,
endowed with such excellence of heart and power of eloquence,
entertained an opinion about baptism different from that which was to
be confirmed by a more diligent searching into the truth; though many
of his colleagues held what was not yet made manifest by authority,
but was sanctioned by the past custom of the Church, and afterwards
embraced by the whole Catholic world; yet under these circumstances he
did not sever himself, by refusal of communion, from the others who
thought differently, and indeed never ceased to urge on the others
that they should "forbear one another in love, endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[1199]1199Â For so, while
the framework of the body remained whole, if any infirmity occurred in
certain of its members, it might rather regain its health from their
general soundness, than be deprived of the chance of any healing care
by their death in severance from the body. And if he had severed
himself, how many were there to follow! what a name was he likely to
make for himself among men! how much more widely would the name of
Cyprianist have spread than that of Donatist! But he was not a son
of perdition, one of those of whom it is said, "Thou castedst them
down while they were elevated;"[1200]1200 but he was the son of the
peace of the Church, who in the clear illumination of his mind failed
to see one thing, only that through him another thing might be more
excellently seen. "And yet," says the apostle, "show I unto you a
more excellent way:Â though I speak with the tongues of men and of
angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal."[1201]1201Â He had therefore imperfect insight into
the hidden mystery of the sacrament. But if he had known the
mysteries of all sacraments, without having charity, it would have
been nothing. But as he, with imperfect insight into the mystery,
was careful to preserve charity with all courage and humility and
faith, he deserved to come to the crown of martyrdom; so that, if any
cloud had crept over the clearness of his intellect from his infirmity
as man, it might be dispelled by the glorious brightness of his
blood. For it was not in vain that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He
declared Himself to be the vine, and His disciples, as it were, the
branches in the vine, gave command that those which bare no fruit
should be cut off, and removed from the vine as useless
branches.[1202]1202Â But what is really fruit, save that new
offspring, of which He further says, "A new commandment I give unto
you, that ye love one another?"[1203]1203Â This is that very charity,
without which the rest profiteth nothing. The apostle also says:Â
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;"[1204]1204 which
all begin with charity, and with the rest of the combination forms one
unity in a kind of wondrous cluster.[1205]1205Â Nor is it again in
vain that our Lord added, "And every branch that beareth fruit, my
Father purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit,"[1206]1206 but
because those who are strong in the fruit of charity may yet have
something which requires purging, which the Husbandman will not leave
untended. Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of
baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was
afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent
consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic
unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared
away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
Chapter 19.â29. But that I may not seem to be uttering these praises
of the blessed martyr (which, indeed, are not his, but rather those of
Him by whose grace he showed himself what he was), in order to escape
the burden of proof, let us now bring forward from his letters the
testimony by which the mouths of the Donatists may most of all be
stopped. For they advance his authority before the unlearned, to
show that in a manner they do well when they baptize afresh the
faithful who come to them. Too wretched are theyâand, unless they
correct themselves, even by themselves are they utterly condemnedâwho
choose in the example set them by so great a man to imitate just that
fault, which only did not injure him, because he walked with constant
steps even to the end in that from which they have strayed who "have
not known the way of peace."[1207]1207Â It is true that Christâs
baptism is holy; and although it may exist among heretics or
schismatics, yet it does not belong to the heresy or schism; and
therefore even those who come from thence to the Catholic Church
herself ought not to be baptized afresh. Yet to err on this point is
one thing; it is another thing that those who are straying from the
peace of the Church, and have fallen headlong into the pit of schism,
should go on to decide that any who join them ought to be baptized
again. For the former is a speck on the brightness of a holy soul
which abundance of charity[1208]1208 would fain have covered; the
latter is a stain in their nether foulness which the hatred of peace
in their countenance ostentatiously brings to light. But the subject
for our further consideration, relating to the authority of the
blessed Cyprian, we will commence from a fresh beginning.
Book II.
In which Augustin proves that it is to no purpose that the Donatists
bring forward the authority of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is
really more opposed to them than to the Catholics. For that he held
that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on the subject of
baptizing heretics in the Catholic Church when they join its
communion, should only be received on condition that peace should be
maintained with those who entertained the opposite view, and that the
unity of the Church should never be broken by any kind of schism.
Chapter 1.â1. How much the arguments make for us, that is, for
catholic peace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward
against us from the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much
they prove against those who bring them forward, it is my intention,
with the help of God, to show in the ensuing book. If, therefore, in
the course of my argument, I am obliged to repeat what I have already
said in other treatises (although I will do so as little as I can,)
yet this ought not to be objected to by those who have already read
them and agree with them; since it is not only right that those things
which are necessary for instruction should be frequently instilled
into men of dull intelligence, but even in the case of those who are
endowed with larger understanding, it contributes very much both to
make their learning easier and their powers of teaching readier, where
the same points are handled and discussed in many various ways. For
I know how much it discourages a reader, when he comes upon any knotty
question in the book which he has in hand, to find himself presently
referred for its solution to another which he happens not to have.Â
Wherefore, if I am compelled, by the urgency of the present questions,
to repeat what I have already said in other books, I would seek
forgiveness from those who know those books already, that those who
are ignorant may have their difficulties removed; for it is better to
give to one who has already, than to abstain from satisfying any one
who is in want.
 2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is
closed[1209]1209 by the force of truth, with which they will not
agree? "Cyprian," say they, "whose great merits and vast learning we
all know, decreed in a Council,[1210]1210 with many of his
fellow-bishops contributing their several opinions, that all heretics
and schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the communion of
the one Church, are without baptism; and therefore, whosoever has
joined the communion of the Church after being baptized by them must
be baptized in the Church."Â The authority of Cyprian does not alarm
me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the
great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way
greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said
Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? "For neither
did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His
Church,[1211]1211 when Paul afterwards disputed with him about
circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to
himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be
obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise
Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he
admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate
grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord
and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions,
but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions
of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and
weal."[1212]1212Â Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we
also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the
primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was
corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the
matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it
was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly
according to the truth of the gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to
judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in which he calls God to
witness that he does not lie; for he says, "Now the things which I
write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;"[1213]1213 and, after
this sacred and awful calling of God to witness, he told the whole
tale, saying in the course of it, "But when I saw that they walked not
uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter
before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews?"[1214]1214âif Peter, I say, could compel the
Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of
truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in
opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards
held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh? I
suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter
in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest
I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that
the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate
whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees,
yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom. And whether it may
be the case that the hearts of those who confess and die for the true
faith in the unity of charity take precedence of each other in
different points, the Lord Himself will know, by the hidden and
wondrous dispensation of whose grace the thief hanging on the cross
once for all confesses Him, and is sent on the selfsame day to
paradise,[1215]1215 while Peter, the follower of our Lord, denies Him
thrice, and has his crown postponed:[1216]1216Â for us it were rash
to form a judgment from the evidence. But if any one were now found
compelling a man to be circumcised after the Jewish fashion, as a
necessary preliminary for baptism, this would meet with much more
general repudiation by mankind, than if a man should be compelled to
be baptized again. Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected
by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the bond of peace
and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and
constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a single
bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been
established by the statutes of the universal Church? For this same
Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to
remain in the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on
this point, as is shown by his own opening address at the beginning of
the very Council which is quoted by the Donatists. For it is as
follows:
Chapter 2.â3. "When, on the calends of September, very many bishops
from the provinces of Africa,[1217]1217 Numidia, and Mauritania, with
their presbyters and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great
part of the laity also being present; and when the letter addressed by
Jubaianus[1218]1218 to Cyprian, as also the answer of Cyprian to
Jubaianus, on the subject of baptizing heretics, had been read,
Cyprian said:Â âYe have heard, most beloved colleagues, what
Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my
moderate ability concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of
heretics, and what answer I gave him,âgiving a judgment which we have
once and again and often given, that heretics coming to the Church
ought to be baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church.Â
Another letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which,
agreeably to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our
epistle, he not only expressed his assent, but returned thanks also,
acknowledging that he had received instruction. It remains that we
severally declare our opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor
depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us.Â
For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by
tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying,
inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power,
has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged
by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await
the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of
setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts
therein.â"
Chapter 3.â4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics
raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this
address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the
peace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health
therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont,
indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion,
his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism,
and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church?Â
But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both
of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and
that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later
letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt
or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right
and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written,
or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be
refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the
truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in
the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more
learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and
further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several
districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt,
to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole
Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier
are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual
experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed,
and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any
whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck
through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with
holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?
Chapter 4.â5. Â Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only
increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to
use the words, "Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience,
that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should
rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our
brethren and colleagues, for the common health and
weal,"[1219]1219âhe, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing
to correct his own opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is
as certain that the baptism of Christ can be given by those who have
strayed from the fold, as that it could not be lost when they strayed;
on which subject we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves
venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the
unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would
unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this
question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and
decree of a plenary Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example
for his allowing himself quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one
junior colleague, how much more readily would he himself, with the
Council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole
world, when the truth had been thus brought to light? For, indeed,
so holy and peaceful a soul would have been most ready to assent to
the arguments of any single person who could prove to him the truth;
and perhaps he even did so,[1220]1220 though we have no knowledge of
the fact. For it was neither possible that all the proceedings which
took place between the bishops at that time should have been committed
to writing, nor are we acquainted with all that was so committed.Â
For how could a matter which was involved in such mists of disputation
even have been brought to the full illumination and authoritative
decision of a plenary Council, had it not first been known to be
discussed for some considerable time in the various districts of the
world, with many discussions and comparisons of the views of the
bishop on every side? But this is one effect of the soundness of
peace, that when any doubtful points are long under investigation, and
when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at the truth, they
produce difference of opinion in the course of brotherly disputation,
till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth; yet the bond of unity
remains, lest in the part that is cut away there should be found the
incurable wound of deadly error.
Chapter 5.â6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly
revealed to the more learned, that their patient and humble charity,
from which proceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the
way in which they preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on
matters of comparative obscurity, or in the temper with which they
receive the truth, when they learn that it has been declared to be
contrary to what they thought. And of these two we have a
manifestation in the blessed Cyprian of the one, viz., of the way in
which he preserved unity with those from whom he differed in
opinion. For he says, "Judging no one nor depriving any one of the
right of communion if he differ from us."[1221]1221Â And the other,
viz., in what temper he could receive the truth when found to be
different from what he thought it, though his letters are silent on
the point, is yet proclaimed by his merits. If there is no letter
extant to prove it, it is witnessed by his crown of martyrdom; if the
Council of bishops declare it not, it is declared by the host of
angels. For it is no small proof of a most peaceful soul, that he
won the crown of martyrdom in that unity from which he would not
separate, even though he differed from it. For we are but men; and
it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should hold views
at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too
great love for our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters,
even to the sacrilege of dividing the communion of the Church, and of
founding heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil. But
never in any point to entertain an opinion at variance with the truth
is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we are men, yet
forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the
resurrection,[1222]1222 at any rate, so long as we are wanting in the
perfection of angels, let us at least be without the presumption of
the devil. Accordingly the apostle says, "There hath no temptation
taken you but such as is common to man."[1223]1223Â It is therefore
part of manâs nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore he says in
another place, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus
minded:Â and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal
even this unto you."[1224]1224Â But to whom does He reveal it when it
is His will (be it in this life or in the life to come), save to those
who walk in the way of peace, and stray not aside into any schism?Â
Not to such as those who have not known the way of peace,[1225]1225 or
for some other cause have broken the bond of unity. And so, when the
apostle said, "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall
reveal even this unto you," lest they should think that besides the
way of peace their own wrong views might be revealed to them, he
immediately added, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained,
let us walk by the same rule."[1226]1226Â And Cyprian, walking by
this rule, by the most persistent tolerance, not simply by the
shedding of his blood, but because it was shed in unity (for if he
gave his body to be burned, and had not charity, it would profit him
nothing[1227]1227), came by the confession of martyrdom to the light
of the angels, and if not before, at least then, acknowledged the
revelation of the truth on that point on which, while yet in error, he
did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong opinion to the bond of
unity.
Chapter 6.â7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to
this? If our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought
differently in the time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of
the Church, till God revealed to them the truth of the point on which
they were in error, why then have ye by your sacrilegious separation
broken the bond of peace? But if yours is the true opinion about
baptism, Cyprian and the others, in conjunction with whom ye set forth
that he held such a Council, remained in unity with those who thought
otherwise; why, therefore, have ye broken the bond of peace? Choose
which alternative ye will, ye are compelled to pronounce an opinion
against your schism. Answer me, wherefore have ye separated
yourselves? Wherefore have ye erected an altar in opposition to the
whole world? Wherefore do ye not communicate with the Churches to
which apostolic epistles have been sent, which you yourselves read and
acknowledge, in accordance with whose tenor you say that you order
your lives? Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? I
suppose in order that ye might not perish by communion with wicked
men. How then was it that Cyprian, and so many of his colleagues,
did not perish? For though they believed that heretics and
schismatics did not possess baptism, yet they chose rather to hold
communion with them when they had been received into the Church
without baptism, although they believed that their flagrant and
sacrilegious sins were yet upon their heads, than to be separated from
the unity of the Church, according to the words of Cyprian, "Judging
no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ
from us."
8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot
but perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian.Â
Whence then sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where
was he baptized, where was he ordained, since the Church had been
already destroyed by the contagion of communion with the wicked? But
if the Church still existed, the wicked could do no harm to the good
in one communion with them. Wherefore did ye separate yourselves?Â
Behold, I see in unity Cyprian and others, his colleagues, who, on
holding a council, decided that those who have been baptized without
the communion of the Church have no true baptism, and that therefore
it must be given them when they join the Church. But again, behold I
see in the same unity that certain men think differently in this
matter, and that, recognizing in those who come from heretics and
schismatics the baptism of Christ, they do not venture to baptize them
afresh. All of these catholic unity embraces in her motherly breast,
bearing each otherâs burdens by turns, and endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,[1228]1228 till God should
reveal to one or other of them any error in their views. If the one
party held the truth, were they infected by the others, or no? If
the others held the truth, were they infected by the first, or no?Â
Choose which ye will. If there was contamination, the Church even
then ceased to exist; answer me, therefore, whence came ye forth
hither? But if the Church remained, the good are in no wise
contaminated by the bad in such communion; answer me, therefore, why
did ye break the bond?
9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism,
bring no infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up the
sacred books?[1229]1229Â For that there were traditors of your number
is proved by the clearest testimony of history. And if you had then
brought true evidence against those whom you were accusing, you would
have proved your cause before the unity of the whole world, so that
you would have been retained whilst they were shut out. And if you
endeavored to do this, and did not succeed, the world is not to blame,
which trusted the judges of the Church rather than the beaten parties
in the suit; whilst, if you would not urge your suit, the world again
is not to blame, which could not condemn men without their cause being
heard. Why, then, did you separate yourselves from the innocent?Â
You cannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But this I pass
over. But so much I say, that if the traditors could have defiled
you, who were not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary, you
were beaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and
heretics, received into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism,
have defiled Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself. And
inasmuch as the Church continued to exist, it is clear that it could
not be defiled. Wherefore, then, did you separate yourselves, I do
not say from the innocent, as the facts proved them, but from the
traditors, as they were never proved to be? Are the sins of
traditors, as I began to say, heavier than those of schismatics? Let
us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights
we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and
this is light;" but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of
holy Scripture, as out of the Lordâs treasure-house, and let us weigh
them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh
them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord. At
the time when the Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment,
that there was need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an
idol was made and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the
wrath of a scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was
punished with the sword,[1230]1230 the burning of the book by
slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land,[1231]1231 schism by
the earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism
while the rest were consumed with fire from heaven.[1232]1232Â Who
will now doubt that that was the worse crime which received the
heavier punishment? If men coming from such sacrilegious company,
without baptism, as you maintain, could not defile Cyprian, how could
those defile you who were not convicted but supposed betrayers of the
sacred books?[1233]1233Â For if they had not only given up the books
to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own hands, they
would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed
schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the
lighter punishment, not at manâs discretion, but by the judgment of
God.
Chapter 7.â10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If
there is any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find
no possible answer to these arguments. "We are not left," they say,
"so utterly without resource, but that we can still answer, It is our
will. âWho art thou that judgest another manâs servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth.â"[1234]1234Â They do not understand
that this was said to men who were wishing to judge, not of open
facts, but of the hearts of other men. For how does the apostle
himself come to say so much about the sins of schisms and heresies?Â
Or how comes that verse in the Psalms, "If of a truth ye love justice,
judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?"[1235]1235Â But why does the Lord
Himself say, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
righteous judgment,"[1236]1236 if we may not judge any man? Lastly,
why, in the case of those traditors, whom they have judged
unrighteously, have they themselves ventured to pass any judgments at
all on another manâs servants? To their own master they were
standing or falling. Or why, in the case of the recent followers of
Maximianus, have they not hesitated to bring forward the judgment
delivered with the infallible voice, as they aver, of a plenary
Council, in such terms as to compare them with those first schismatics
whom the earth swallowed up alive? And yet some of them, as they
cannot deny, they either condemned though innocent, or received back
again in their guilt. But when a truth is urged which they cannot
gainsay, they mutter a truly wholesome murmuring:Â "It is our will:Â
âWho art thou that judgest another manâs servant? to his own master he
standeth or falleth.â"Â But when a weak sheep is espied in the
desert, and the pastor who should reclaim it to the fold is nowhere to
be seen, then there is setting of teeth, and breaking of the weak
neck:Â "Thou wouldst be a good man, wert thou not a traditor.Â
Consult the welfare of thy soul; be a Christian."Â What
unconscionable madness! When it is said to a Christian, "Be a
Christian," what other lesson is taught, save a denial that he is a
Christian? Was it not the same lesson which those persecutors of the
Christians wished to teach, by resisting whom the crown of martyrdom
was gained? Or must we even look on crime as lighter when committed
with threatening of the sword than with treachery of the tongue?
11. Â Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in
sheepâs clothing,[1237]1237 think that the letters of the blessed
Cyprian are in your favor. Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile
Cyprian, or did it not? If it did, the Church perished from that
instant, and there remained no source from which ye might spring. If
it did not, then by what offense on the part of others can the
guiltless possibly be defiled, if the sacrilege of schism cannot
defile them? Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves?
 Wherefore, while shunning the lighter offenses, which are inventions
of your own, have ye committed the heaviest offense of all, the
sacrilege of schism? Will ye now perchance confess that those men
were no longer schismatics or heretics who had been baptized without
the communion of the Church, or in some heresy or schism, because by
coming over to the Church, and renouncing their former errors, they
had ceased to be what formerly they were? How then was it, that
though they were not baptized, their sins remained not on their
heads? Was it that the baptism was Christâs, but that it could not
profit them without the communion of the Church; yet when they came
over, and, renouncing their past error, were received into the
communion of the Church by the laying on of hands, then, being now
rooted and founded in charity, without which all other things are
profitless, they began to receive profit for the remission of sins and
the sanctification of their lives from that sacrament, which, while
without the pale of the Church, they possessed in vain?
12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of
Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the
example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question
of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the
Church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was
wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of
schismatics and heretics:Â she healed the wounded part, but did not
meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose, from
apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have
been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are
preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found
either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors),âthis
most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to
be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus.[1238]1238Â
But, according to the teaching which springs from a more careful
investigation into the truth, which, after great doubt and
fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a plenary Council,
we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to
receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus. Accordingly, when so
great a question forced itself upon him, and it was difficult to
decide the point, whether remission of sins and manâs spiritual
regeneration could take place among heretics or schismatics, and the
authority of Agrippinus was there to guide him, with that of some few
men who shared in his misapprehension of this question, having
preferred attempting something new to maintaining a custom which they
did not understand how to defend; under these circumstances
considerations of probability forced themselves into the eyes of his
soul, and barred the way to the thorough investigation of the truth.
Chapter 8.â13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any other
motive in the free expression and earlier utterance of what he thought
in opposition to the custom of the Church, save that he should
thankfully receive any one that could be found with a fuller
revelation of the truth, and that he should show forth a pattern for
imitation, not only of diligence in teaching, but also of modesty in
learning; but that, if no one should be found to bring forward any
argument by which those considerations of probability should be
refuted, then he should abide by his opinion, with the full
consciousness that he had neither concealed what he conceived to be
the truth, nor violated the unity which he loved. For so he
understood the words of the apostle:Â "Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another
that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace."[1239]1239Â "In which
passage he has taught and shown, that many things are revealed to
individuals for the better, and that we ought not each to strive
pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but if anything
has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly embrace
it."[1240]1240Â At any rate, in these words he not only advised those
to agree with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any who
could to bring forward arguments by which the maintenance of the
former custom might rather be established; that if they should be of
such a nature as not to admit of refutation, he might show in his own
person with what sincerity he said "that we ought not each to strive
pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but that, if
anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly
embrace it."[1241]1241Â But inasmuch as none appeared, except such as
simply urged the custom against him, and the arguments which they
produced in its favor were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul
like his, this mighty reasoner was not content to give up his
opinions, which, though they were not true, as he was himself unable
to see, were at any rate not confuted, in favor of a custom which had
truth on its side, but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not
his predecessor Agrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout
Africa, first tempted him to desert this custom, even by the decision
of a Council, he certainly would not have dared to argue against it.Â
But, amid the perplexities of so obscure a question, and seeing
everywhere around him a strong universal custom, he would rather have
put restraint upon himself by prayer and stretching forth his mind
towards God, so as to have perceived or taught that for truth which
was afterwards decided by a plenary Council. But when he had found
relief amid his weariness in the authority of the former
Council[1242]1242 which was held by Agrippinus, he preferred
maintaining what was in a manner the discovery of his predecessors, to
expending further toil in investigation. For, at the end of his
letter to Quintus, he thus shows how he has sought repose, if one may
use the expression, for his weariness, in what might be termed the
resting-place of authority.[1243]1243
Chapter 9.â14. Â "This, moreover," says he, "Agrippinus, a man of
excellent memory, with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time
governed the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia,
did establish and, after the investigation of a mutual Council had
weighed it, confirm; whose sentence, being both religious and
legitimate and salutary in accordance with the Catholic faith and
Church, we also have followed."[1244]1244Â By this witness he gives
sufficient proof how much more ready he would have been to bear his
testimony, had any Council been held to discuss this matter which
either embraced the whole Church, or at least represented our brethren
beyond the sea.[1245]1245Â But such a Council had not yet been held,
because the whole world was bound together by the powerful bond of
custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose to those who wished
to introduce what was new, because they could not comprehend the
truth. Afterwards, however, while the question became matter for
discussion and investigation amongst many on either side, the new
practice was not only invented, but even submitted to the authority
and power of a plenary Council,âafter the martyrdom of Cyprian, it is
true, but before we were born.[1246]1246Â But that this was indeed
the custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed by a plenary
Council, in which the truth was brought to light, and many
difficulties cleared away, is plain enough from the words of the
blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus, which was
quoted as being read in the Council.[1247]1247Â For he says, "But
some one asks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming
out of heresy to the Church, have already been admitted without
baptism?" where certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually
done, though he would have wished it otherwise; and in the very fact
of his quoting the Council of Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the
custom of the Church was different. Nor indeed was it requisite that
he should seek to establish the practice by this Council, if it was
already sanctioned by custom; and in the Council itself some of the
speakers expressly declare, in giving their opinion, that they went
against the custom of the Church in deciding what they thought was
right. Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one point, which
surely none can fail to see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be
followed, it is to be followed rather in maintaining unity than in
altering the custom of the Church; but if respect is paid to his
Council, it must at any rate yield place to the later Council of the
universal Church, of which he rejoiced to be a member, often warning
his associates that they should all follow his example in upholding
the coherence of the whole body. For both later Councils are
preferred among later generations to those of earlier date; and the
whole is always, with good reason, looked upon as superior to the
parts.
Chapter 10.â15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown
that the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of
the Church those who had been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held
communion with those who did admit them, according to his express
declaration, "Judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us?"[1248]1248Â If he was polluted by
communion with persons of this kind, why do they follow his authority
in the question of baptism? But if he was not polluted by communion
with them, why do they not follow his example in maintaining unity?Â
Have they anything to urge in their defense except the plea, "We
choose to have it so?"Â What other answer have any sinful or wicked
men to the discourse of truth or justice,âthe voluptuous, for
instance, the drunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any
way, thieves, robbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers,
idolaters,âwhat other answer can they make when convicted by the voice
of truth, except "I choose to do it;" "It is my pleasure so"? And if
they have in them a tinge of Christianity, they say further, "Who art
thou that judgest another manâs servant?"[1249]1249Â Yet these have
so much more remains of modesty, that when, in accordance with divine
and human law, they meet with punishment for their abandoned life and
deeds, they do not style themselves martyrs; while the Donatists wish
at once to lead a sacrilegious life and enjoy a blameless reputation,
to suffer no punishment for their wicked deeds, and to gain a martyrâs
glory in their just punishment. As if they were not experiencing the
greater mercy and patience of God, in proportion as "executing His
judgments upon them by little and little, He giveth them place of
repentance,"[1250]1250 and ceases not to redouble His scourgings in
this life; that, considering what they suffer, and why they suffer it,
they may in time grow wise; and that those who have received the
baptism of the party of Maximianus in order to preserve the unity of
Donatus, may the more readily embrace the baptism of the whole world
in order to preserve the peace of Christ; that they may be restored to
the root, may be reconciled to the unity of the Church, may see that
they have nothing left for them to say, though something yet remains
for them to do; that for their former deeds the sacrifice of
loving-kindness may be offered to a long-suffering God, whose unity
they have broken by their wicked sin, on whose sacraments they have
inflicted such a lasting wrong. For "the Lord is merciful and
gracious, slow to anger, plenteous in mercy and truth."[1251]1251Â
Let them embrace His mercy and long-suffering in this life, and fear
His truth in the next. For He willeth not the death of a sinner, but
rather that he should turn from his way and live;[1252]1252 because He
bends His judgment against the wrongs that have been inflicted on
Him. This is our exhortation.
Chapter 11.â16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies,
because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent,
because we fear to shrink from pressing our point with all the force
that lies within our power, because we obey the apostle when he says,
"Preach the word; be instant in season out of season; reprove, rebuke,
exhort."[1253]1253Â But, as the gospel says, "They love the praise of
men more than the praise of God;"[1254]1254 and while they fear to
incur blame for a time, they do not fear to incur damnation for
ever. They see, too, themselves what wrong they are doing; they see
that they have no answer which they can make, but they overspread the
inexperienced with mists, whilst they themselves are being swallowed
up alive,âthat is, are perishing knowingly and willfully. They see
that men are amazed, and look with abhorrence on the fact that they
have divided themselves into many schisms, especially in
Carthage,[1255]1255 the capital and most noted city of all Africa;
they have endeavored to patch up the disgrace of their rags.Â
Thinking that they could annihilate the followers of Maximianus, they
pressed heavily on them through the agency of Optatus the
Gildonian;[1256]1256 they inflicted on them many wrongs amid the
cruellest of persecutions. Then they received back some, thinking
that all could be converted under the influence of the same terror;
but they were unwilling to do those whom they received the wrong of
baptizing afresh those who had been baptized by them in their schism,
or rather of causing them to be baptized again within their communion
by the very same men by whom they had been baptized outside, and thus
they at once made an exception to their own impious custom. They
feel how wickedly they are acting in assailing the baptism of the
whole world, when they have received the baptism of the followers of
Maximianus. But they fear those whom they have themselves
rebaptized, lest they should receive no mercy from them, when they
have shown it to others; lest these should call them to account for
their souls when they have ceased to destroy those of other men.
Chapter 12.â17. What answer they can give about the followers of
Maximianus whom they have received, they cannot divine. If they say,
"Those we received were innocent," the answer is obvious, "Then you
had condemned the innocent."Â If they say, "We did it in ignorance,"
then you judged rashly (just as you passed a rash judgment on the
traditors), and your declaration was false that "you must know that
they were condemned by the truthful voice of a plenary
Council."[1257]1257Â For indeed the innocent could never be condemned
by a voice of truth. If they say, "We did not condemn them," it is
only necessary to cite the Council, to cite the names of bishops and
states alike. If they say, "The Council itself is none of ours,"
then we cite the records of the proconsular province, where more than
once they quoted the same Council to justify the exclusion of the
followers of Maximianus from the basilicas, and to confound them by
the din of the judges and the force of their allies. If they say
that Felicianus of Musti, and Prætextatus of Assavæ, whom they
afterwards received, were not of the party of Maximianus, then we cite
the records in which they demanded, in the courts of law, that these
persons should be excluded from the Council which they held against
the party of Maximianus. If they say, "They were received for the
sake of peace," our answer is, "Why then do ye not acknowledge the
only true and full peace? Who urged you, who compelled you to
receive a schismatic whom you had condemned, to preserve the peace of
Donatus, and to condemn the world unheard, in violation of the peace
of Christ?" Truth hems them in on every side. They see that there
is no answer left for them to make, and they think that there is
nothing left for them to do; they cannot find out what to say. They
are not allowed to be silent. They had rather strive with perverse
utterance against truth, than be restored to peace by a confession of
their faults.
Chapter 13.â18. But who can fail to understand what they may be
saying in their hearts? "What then are we to do," say they, "with
those whom we have already rebaptized?"Â Return with them to the
Church. Bring those whom you have wounded to be healed by the
medicine of peace:Â bring those whom you have slain to be brought to
life again by the life of charity. Brotherly union has great power
in propitiating God. "If two of you," says our Lord, "shall agree on
earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for
them."[1258]1258Â If for two men who agree, how much more for two
communities? Let us throw ourselves together on our knees before the
Lord. Do you share with us our unity; let us share with you your
contrition and let charity cover the multitude of sins.[1259]1259Â
Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he
considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not
sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him;
how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the
communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to
believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely
in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon.Â
For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in
writing as follows to Jubaianus:Â "But some will say, âWhat then will
become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy,
were admitted without baptism?â The Lord is able of His mercy to
grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who,
being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church
fallen asleep."[1260]1260
Chapter 14.â19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all,
or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed,
which is more repugnant and abhorrent to menâs feelings; but when I
have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is
determined, not by manâs feelings, but by the authority of God, I find
a statement by our Lord on either side.  For He said to Peter, "He
who is washed has no need of washing a second time;"[1261]1261 and to
Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God."[1262]1262Â What is the purport of the
more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like
us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may
see what a difference there is between "has no need of washing," and
"cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."Â The Church, lastly,
herself holds as her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit
a man to her altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has
been rebaptized may be admitted after penance, surely this plainly
proves that his baptism is considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian
thought that those whom he considered to be unbaptized yet had some
share in pardon, in virtue of the bond of unity, the Lord has power to
be reconciled even to the rebaptized by means of the simple bond of
unity and peace, and by this same compensating power of peace to
mitigate His displeasure against those by whom they were rebaptized,
and to pardon all the errors which they had committed while in error,
on their offering the sacrifice of charity, which covereth the
multitude of sins; so that He looks not to the number of those who
have been wounded by their separation, but to the greater number who
have been delivered from bondage by their return. For in the same
bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived that, through the mercy of
God, those whom he considered to have been admitted to the Church
without baptism, were yet not severed from the gifts of the Church, we
also believe that through the same mercy of God the rebaptized can
earn their pardon at His hands.
Chapter 15.â20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the
blessed Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her
bosom either some that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized,
either the one section or the other must have won their salvation only
by the force of simple unity. For if those who came over from the
heretics were not baptized, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly
admitted into the Church; and yet he himself did not despair of their
obtaining pardon from the mercy of God in virtue of the unity of the
Church. So again, if they were already baptized, it was not right to
rebaptize them. What, therefore, was there to aid the other section,
save the same charity that delighted in unity, so that what was hidden
from manâs weakness, in the consideration of the sacrament, might not
be reckoned, by the mercy of God, as a fault in those who were lovers
of peace? Why, then, while ye fear those whom ye have rebaptized, do
ye grudge yourselves and them the entrance to salvation? There was
at one time a doubt upon the subject of baptism; those who held
different opinions yet remained in unity. In course of time, owing
to the certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away.Â
The question which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation
from the Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once
more within the fold. Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement,
which Cyprian did not desert while yet disturbed with doubt; or if now
you are dissatisfied with the example of Cyprian, who held communion
with those who were received with the baptism of heretics, declaring
openly that we should "neither judge any one, nor deprive any one of
the right of communion if he differ from us,"[1263]1263 whither are ye
going, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You are bound to fly
even from yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the position
where he abode. But if neither his own sins nor those of others
could stand in his way, on account of the abundance of his charity and
his love of brotherly kindness and the bond of peace, do you return to
us, where you will find much less hindrance in the way of either us or
you from the fictions which your party have invented.
Book III.
Augustin undertakes the refutation of the arguments which might be
derived from the epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, to give color to the
view that the baptism of Christ could not be conferred by heretics.
Chapter 1.â1. I think that it may now be considered clear to every
one, that the authority of the blessed Cyprian for the maintenance of
the bond of peace, and the avoiding of any violation of that most
wholesome charity which preserves unity in the Church, may be urged on
our side rather than on the side of the Donatists. For if they have
chosen to act upon his example in rebaptizing Catholics, because he
thought that heretics ought to be baptized on joining the Catholic
Church, shall not we rather follow his example, whereby he laid down a
manifest rule that one ought in no wise, by the establishment of a
separate communion, to secede from the Catholic communion, that is,
from the body of Christians dispersed throughout the world, even on
the admission of evil and sacrilegious men, since he was unwilling
even to remove from the right of communion those whom he considered to
have received sacrilegious men without baptism into the Catholic
communion, saying, "Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right of
communion if he differ from us?"[1264]1264
Chapter 2.â2. Nevertheless, I see what may still be required of me,
viz., that I should answer those plausible arguments, by which, in
even earlier times, Agrippinus, or Cyprian himself, or those in Africa
who agreed with them, or any others in far distant lands beyond the
sea, were moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even
regionary Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think
that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the
ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the
most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world in order that an error
which had begun to creep into the minds of some men, through
discussions of this kind, might be cured by the more powerful truth
and universal healing power of unity coming on the side of safety.Â
And so they may see with what security I approach this discourse. If
I am unable to gain my point, and show how those arguments may be
refuted which they bring forward from the Council and the epistles of
Cyprian, to the effect that Christâs baptism may not be given by the
hands of heretics, I shall still remain safely in the Church, in whose
communion Cyprian himself remained with those who differed from him.
3. But if they say that the Catholic Church existed then, because
there were a few, or, if they prefer it, even a considerable number,
who denied the validity of any baptism conferred in an heretical body,
and baptized all who came from thence, what then? Did the Church not
exist at all before Agrippinus, with whom that new kind of system
began, at variance with all previous custom? Or how, again after the
time of Agrippinus, when, unless there had been a return to the
primitive custom, there would have been no need for Cyprian to set on
foot another Council? Was there no Church then, because such a
custom as this prevailed everywhere, that the baptism of Christ should
be considered nothing but the baptism of Christ, even though it were
proved to have been conferred in a body of heretics or schismatics?Â
But if the Church existed even then, and had not perished through a
breach of its continuity, but was, on the contrary, holding its
ground, and receiving increase in every nation, surely it is the
safest plan to abide by this same custom, which then embraced good and
bad alike in unity. But if there was then no Church in existence,
because sacrilegious heretics were received without baptism, and this
prevailed by universal custom, whence has Donatus made his
appearance? From what land did he spring? or from what sea did he
emerge? or from what sky did he fall? And so we, as I had begun to
say, are safe in the communion of that Church, throughout the whole
extent of which the custom now prevails, which prevailed in like
manner through its whole extent before the time of Agrippinus, and in
the interval between Agrippinus and Cyprian, and whose unity neither
Agrippinus nor Cyprian ever deserted, nor those who agreed with them,
although they entertained different views from the rest of their
brethrenâall of them remaining in the same communion of unity with the
very men from whom they differed in opinion. But let the Donatists
themselves consider what their true position is, if they neither can
say whence they derived their origin, if the Church had already been
destroyed by the plague-spot of communion with heretics and
schismatics received into her bosom without baptism; nor again agree
with Cyprian himself, for he declared that he remained in communion
with those who received heretics and schismatics, and so also with
those who were received as well:Â while they have separated
themselves from the communion of the whole world, on account of the
charge of having delivered up the sacred books, which they brought
against the men whom they maligned in Africa, but failed to convict
when brought to trial beyond the sea; although, even had the crimes
which they alleged been true, they were much less heinous than the
sins of heresy and schism; and yet these could not defile Cyprian in
the persons of those who came from them without baptism, as he
conceived, and were admitted without baptism into the Catholic
communion. Nor, in the very point in which they say that they
imitate Cyprian, can they find any answer to make about acknowledging
the baptism of the followers of Maximianus, together with those whom,
though they belonged to the party that they had first condemned in
their own plenary Council, and then gone on to prosecute even at the
tribunal of the secular power, they yet received back into their
communion, in the episcopate of the very same bishop under whom they
had been condemned. Wherefore, if the communion of wicked men
destroyed the Church in the time of Cyprian, they have no source from
which they can derive their own communion; and if the Church was not
destroyed, they have no excuse for their separation from it.Â
Moreover, they are neither following the example of Cyprian, since
they have burst the bond of unity, nor abiding by their own Council,
since they have recognized the baptism of the followers of Maximianus.
Chapter 3.â4. Let us therefore, seeing that we adhere to the example
of Cyprian, go on now to consider Cyprianâs Council. What says
Cyprian? "Ye have heard," he says, "most beloved colleagues, what
Jubaianus our fellow-bishop has written to me, consulting my moderate
ability concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and
what answer I gave him,âgiving a judgment which we have once and again
and often given, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be
baptized and sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another
letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably
to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he
not only expressed his assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging
that he had received instruction."[1265]1265Â In these words of the
blessed Cyprian, we find that he had been consulted by Jubaianus, and
what answer he had given to his questions, and how Jubaianus
acknowledged with gratitude that he had received instruction. Ought
we then to be thought unreasonably persistent if we desire to consider
this same epistle by which Jubaianus was convinced? For till such
time as we are also convinced (if there are any arguments of truth
whereby this can be done), Cyprian himself has established our
security by the right of Catholic communion.
5. For he goes on to say: "It remains that we severally declare
our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any
one of the right of communion if he differ from us."[1266]1266Â He
allows me, therefore, without losing the right of communion, not only
to continue inquiring into the truth, but even to hold opinions
differing from his own. "For no one of us," he says, "setteth
himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his
colleagues to a necessity of obeying."Â What could be more kind? what
more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from
inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in
the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his
own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself
judge another,"âthat is, I suppose, in those questions which have not
yet been brought to perfect clearness of solution; for he knew what a
deep question about the sacrament was then occupying the whole Church
with every kind of disputation, and gave free liberty of inquiry to
every man, that the truth might be made known by investigation. For
he was surely not uttering what was false, and trying to catch his
simpler colleagues in their speech, so that, when they should have
betrayed that they held opinions at variance with his, he might then
propose, in violation of his promise, that they should be
excommunicated. Far be it from a soul so holy to entertain such
accursed treachery; indeed, they who hold such a view about such a
man, thinking that it conduces to his praise, do but show that it
would be in accordance with their own nature. I for my part will in
no wise believe that Cyprian, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic martyr,
whose greatness only made him proportionately humble in all things, so
as to find favor before the Lord,[1267]1267 should ever, especially in
the sacred Council of his colleagues, have uttered with his mouth what
was not echoed in his heart, especially as he further adds, "But we
must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has
the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of
judging of our acts therein."[1268]1268Â When, then, he called to
their remembrance so solemn a judgment, hoping to hear the truth from
his colleagues, would he first set them the example of lying? May
God avert such madness from every Christian man, and how much more
from Cyprian! We have therefore the free liberty of inquiry granted
to us by the most moderate and most truthful speech of Cyprian.
Chapter 4.â6. Next his colleagues proceed to deliver their several
opinions. But first they listened to the letter written to
Jubaianus; for it was read, as was mentioned in the preamble. Let it
therefore be read among ourselves also, that we too, with the help of
God, may discover from it what we ought to think. "What!" I think I
hear some one saying, "do you proceed to tell us what Cyprian wrote to
Jubaianus?"Â I have read the letter, I confess, and should certainly
have been a convert to his views, had I not been induced to consider
the matter more carefully by the vast weight of authority, originating
in those whom the Church, distributed throughout the world amid so
many nations, of Latins, Greeks, barbarians, not to mention the Jewish
race itself, has been able to produce,âthat same Church which gave
birth to Cyprian himself,âmen whom I could in no wise bring myself to
think had been unwilling without reason to hold this view,ânot because
it was impossible that in so difficult a question the opinion of one
or of a few might not have been more near the truth than that of more,
but because one must not lightly, without full consideration and
investigation of the matter to the best of his abilities, decide in
favor of a single individual, or even of a few, against the decision
of so very many men of the same religion and communion, all endowed
with great talent and abundant learning. And so how much was
suggested to me on more diligent inquiry, even by the letter of
Cyprian himself, in favor of the view which is now held by the
Catholic Church, that the baptism of Christ is to be recognized and
approved, not by the standard of their merits by whom it is
administered, but by His alone of whom it is said, "The same is He
which baptizeth,"[1269]1269 will be shown naturally in the course of
our argument. Let us therefore suppose that the letter which was
written by Cyprian to Jubaianus has been read among us, as it was read
in the Council.[1270]1270Â And I would have every one read it who
means to read what I am going to say, lest he might possibly think
that I have suppressed some things of consequence. For it would take
too much time, and be irrelevant to the elucidation of the matter in
hand, were we at this moment to quote all the words of this epistle.
Chapter 5.â7. But if any one should ask what I hold in the meantime,
while discussing this question, I answer that, in the first place, the
letter of Cyprian suggested to me what I should hold till I should see
clearly the nature of the question which next begins to be
discussed. For Cyprian himself says: "But some will say, âWhat
then will become of those who in times past, coming to the Church from
heresy, were admitted without baptism?â"[1271]1271Â Whether they were
really without baptism, or whether they were admitted because those
who admitted them conceived that they had partaken of baptism, is a
matter for our future consideration. At any rate, Cyprian himself
shows plainly enough what was the ordinary custom of the Church, when
he says that in past time those who came to the Church from heresy
were admitted without baptism.
8. For in the Council itself Castus of Sicca says: "He who,
despising truth, presumes to follow custom, is either envious or
evil-disposed towards the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or
is ungrateful towards God, by whose inspiration His Church is
instructed."[1272]1272Â Whether the truth had been revealed, we shall
investigate hereafter; at any rate, he acknowledges that the custom of
the Church was different.
Chapter 6.â9. Libosus also of Vaga says: "The Lord says in the
gospel, âI am the Truth.â[1273]1273Â He does not say, âI am
custom.â Therefore, when the truth is made manifest, custom must
give way to truth."[1274]1274Â Clearly, no one could doubt that
custom must give way to truth where it is made manifest. But we
shall see presently about the manifestation of the truth. Meanwhile
he also makes it clear that custom was on the other side.
Chapter 7.â10. Zosimus also of Tharassa said: "When a revelation
of the truth has been made, error must give way to truth; for even
Peter, who at the first circumcised, afterwards gave way to Paul when
he declared the truth."[1275]1275Â He indeed chose to say error, not
custom; but in saying "for even Peter, who at the first circumcised,
afterwards gave way to Paul when he declared the truth," he shows
plainly enough that there was a custom also on the subject of baptism
at variance with his views. At the same time, also, he warns us that
it was not impossible that Cyprian might have held an opinion about
baptism at variance with that required by the truth, as held by the
Church both before and after him, if even Peter could hold a view at
variance with the truth as taught us by the Apostle Paul.[1276]1276
Chapter 8.â11. Likewise Felix of Buslacene said: "In admitting
heretics without the baptism of the Church, let no one prefer custom
to reason and truth; because reason and truth always prevail to the
exclusion of custom."[1277]1277Â Nothing could be better, if it be
reason, and if it be truth; but this we shall see presently.Â
Meanwhile, it is clear from the words of this man also that the custom
was the other way.
Chapter 9.â12. Likewise Honoratus of Tucca[1278]1278 said: "Since
Christ is the Truth, we ought to follow truth rather than
custom."[1279]1279Â By all these declarations it is proved that we
are not excluded from the communion of the Church, till it shall have
been clearly shown what is the nature of the truth, which they say
must be preferred to our custom. But if the truth has made it clear
that the very regulation ought to be maintained which the said custom
had prescribed, then it is evident both that this custom was not
established or confirmed in vain, and also that, in consequence of the
discussions in question, the most wholesome observance of so great a
sacrament, which could never, indeed, have been changed in the
Catholic Church, was even more watchfully guarded with the most
scrupulous caution, when it had received the further corroboration of
Councils.
Chapter 10.â13. Therefore Cyprian writes to Jubaianus as follows,
"concerning the baptism of heretics, who, being placed without, and
set down out of the Church," seem to him to "claim to themselves a
matter over which they have neither right nor power. Which we," he
says, "cannot account valid or lawful, since it is clear that among
them it is unlawful."[1280]1280Â Neither, indeed, do we deny that a
man who is baptized among heretics, or in any schism outside the
Church, derives no profit from it so far as he is partner in the
perverseness of the heretics and schismatics; nor do we hold that
those who baptize, although they confer the real true sacrament of
baptism, are yet acting rightly, in gathering adherents outside the
Church, and entertaining opinions contrary to the Church. But it is
one thing to be without a sacrament, another thing to be in possession
of it wrongly, and to usurp it unlawfully. Therefore they do not
cease to be sacraments of Christ and the Church, merely because they
are unlawfully used, not only by heretics, but by all kinds of wicked
and impious persons. These, indeed, ought to be corrected and
punished, but the sacraments should be acknowledged and revered.
14. Cyprian, indeed, says that on this subject not one, but two or
more Councils were held; always, however, in Africa. For indeed in
one he mentions that seventy-one bishops had been
assembled,[1281]1281âto all whose authority we do not hesitate, with
all due deference to Cyprian, to prefer the authority, supported by
many more bishops, of the whole Church spread throughout the whole
world, of which Cyprian himself rejoiced that he was an inseparable
member.
15. Nor is the water "profane and adulterous"[1282]1282 over which
the name of God is invoked, even though it be invoked by profane and
adulterous persons; because neither the creature itself of water, nor
the name invoked, is adulterous. But the baptism of Christ,
consecrated by the words of the gospel, is necessarily holy, however
polluted and unclean its ministers may be; because its inherent
sanctity cannot be polluted, and the divine excellence abides in its
sacrament, whether to the salvation of those who use it aright, or to
the destruction of those who use it wrong. Would you indeed maintain
that, while the light of the sun or of a candle, diffused through
unclean places, contracts no foulness in itself therefrom, yet the
baptism of Christ can be defiled by the sins of any man, whatsoever he
may be? For if we turn our thoughts to the visible materials
themselves, which are to us the medium of the sacraments, every one
must know that they admit of corruption. But if we think on that
which they convey to us, who can fail to see that it is incorruptible,
however much the men through whose ministry it is conveyed are either
being rewarded or punished for the character of their lives?
Chapter 11.â16. But Cyprian was right in not being moved by what
Jubaianus wrote, that "the followers of Novatian[1283]1283 rebaptize
those who come to them from the Catholic Church."[1284]1284Â For, in
the first place, it does not follow that whatever heretics have done
in a perverse spirit of mimicry, Catholics are therefore to abstain
from doing, because the heretics do the same. And again, the reasons
are different for which heretics and the Catholic Church ought
respectively to abstain from rebaptizing. For it would not be right
for heretics to do so, even if it were fitting in the Catholic Church;
because their argument is, that among the Catholics is wanting that
which they themselves received whilst still within the pale, and took
away with them when they departed. Whereas the reason why the
Catholic Church should not administer again the baptism which was
given among heretics, is that it may not seem to decide that a power
which is Christâs alone belongs to its members, or to pronounce that
to be wanting in the heretics which they have received within her
pale, and certainly could not lose by straying outside. For thus
much Cyprian himself, with all the rest, established, that if any
should return from heresy to the Church, they should be received back,
not by baptism, but by the discipline of penitence; whence it is clear
that they cannot be held to lose by their secession what is not
restored to them when they return. Nor ought it for a moment to be
said that, as their heresy is their own, as their error is their own,
as the sacrilege of disunion is their own, so also the baptism is
their own, which is really Christâs. Accordingly, while the evils
which are their own are corrected when they return, so in that which
is not theirs His presence should be recognised, from whom it is.
Chapter 12.â17. But the blessed Cyprian shows that it was no new or
sudden thing that he decided, because the practice had already begun
under Agrippinus. "Many years," he says, "and much time has passed
away since, under Agrippinus of honored memory, a large assembly of
bishops determined this point."Â Accordingly, under Agrippinus, at
any rate, the thing was new. But I cannot understand what Cyprian
means by saying, "And thenceforward to the present day, so many
thousand heretics in our provinces, having been converted to our
Church, showed no hesitation or dislike, but rather with full consent
of reason and will, have embraced the opportunity of the grace of the
laver of life and the baptism unto salvation,"[1285]1285 unless indeed
he says, "thenceforward to the present day," because from the time
when they were baptized in the Church, in accordance with the Council
of Agrippinus, no question of excommunication had arisen in the case
of any of the rebaptized. Yet if the custom of baptizing those who
came over from heretics remained in force from the time of Agrippinus
to that of Cyprian, why should new Councils have been held by Cyprian
on this point? Why does he say to this same Jubaianus that he is not
doing anything new or sudden, but only what had been established by
Agrippinus? For why should Jubaianus be disturbed by the question of
novelty, so as to require to be satisfied by the authority of
Agrippinus, if this was the continuous practice of the Church from
Agrippinus till Cyprian? Why, lastly, did so many of his colleagues
urge that reason and truth must be preferred to custom, instead of
saying that those who wished to act otherwise were acting contrary to
truth and custom alike?
Chapter 13.â18. But as regards the remission of sins, whether it is
granted through baptism at the hands of the heretics, I have already
expressed my opinion on this point in a former book;[1286]1286 but I
will shortly recapitulate it here. If remission of sins is there
conferred by the sacredness of baptism, the sins return again through
obstinate perseverance in heresy or schism; and therefore such men
must needs return to the peace of the Catholic Church, that they may
cease to be heretics and schismatics, and deserve that those sins
which had returned on them should be cleansed away by love working in
the bond of unity. But if, although among heretics and schismatics
it be still the same baptism of Christ, it yet cannot work remission
of sins owing to this same foulness of discord and wickedness of
dissent, then the same baptism begins to be of avail for the remission
of sins when they come to the peace of the Church,â[not][1287]1287
that what has been already truly remitted should not be retained; nor
that heretical baptism should be repudiated as belonging to a
different religion, or as being different from our own, so that a
second baptism should be administered; but that the very same baptism,
which was working death by reason of discord outside the Church, may
work salvation by reason of the peace within. It was, in fact, the
same savor of which the apostle says, "We are a sweet savor of Christ
in every place;" and yet, says he, "both in them that are saved and in
them that perish. To the one we are the savor of life unto life; and
to the other the savor of death unto death."[1288]1288Â And although
he used these words with reference to another subject, I have applied
them to this, that men may understand that what is good may not only
work life to those who use it aright, but also death to those who use
it wrong.
Chapter 14.â19. Nor is it material, when we are considering the
question of the genuineness and holiness of the sacrament, "what the
recipient of the sacrament believes, and with what faith he is
imbued."Â It is of the very highest consequence as regards the
entrance into salvation, but is wholly immaterial as regards the
question of the sacrament. For it is quite possible that a man may
be possessed of the genuine sacrament and a corrupted faith, as it is
possible that he may hold the words of the creed in their integrity,
and yet entertain an erroneous belief about the Trinity, or the
resurrection, or any other point. For it is no slight matter, even
within the Catholic Church itself, to hold a faith entirely consistent
with the truth about even God Himself, to say nothing of any of His
creatures. Is it then to be maintained, that if any one who has been
baptized within the Catholic Church itself should afterwards, in the
course of reading, or by listening to instruction, or by quiet
argument, find out, through Godâs own revelation, that he had before
believed otherwise than he ought, it is requisite that he should
therefore be baptized afresh? But what carnal and natural man is
there who does not stray through the vain conceits[1289]1289 of his
own heart, and picture Godâs nature to himself to be such as he has
imagined out of his carnal sense, and differ from the true conception
of God as far as vanity from truth? Most truly, indeed, speaks the
apostle, filled with the light of truth:Â "The natural man," says he,
"receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."[1290]1290Â And yet
herein he was speaking of men whom he himself shows to have been
baptized. For he says to them, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were
ye baptized in the name of Paul?"[1291]1291Â These men had therefore
the sacrament of baptism; and yet, inasmuch as their wisdom was of the
flesh, what could they believe about God otherwise than according to
the perception of their flesh, according to which "the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God?"Â To such he says:Â
"I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal,
even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with
meat:Â for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are
ye able. For ye are yet carnal."[1292]1292 For such are carried
about with every wind of doctrine, of which kind he says, "That we be
no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine."[1293]1293Â It is then true that, if these men shall
have advanced even to the spiritual age of the inner man, and in the
integrity of understanding shall have learned how far different from
the requirements of the truth has been the belief which they have been
led by the fallacious character of their conceits to entertain of God,
they are therefore to be baptized again? For, on this principle, it
would be possible for a Catholic catechumen to light upon the writings
of some heretic, and, not having the knowledge requisite for
discerning truth from error, he might entertain some belief contrary
to the Catholic faith, yet not condemned by the words of the creed,
just as, under color of the same words, innumerable heretical errors
have sprung up. Supposing, then, that the catechumen was under the
impression that he was studying the work of some great and learned
Catholic, and was baptized with that belief in the Catholic Church,
and by subsequent research should discover what he ought to believe,
so that, embracing the Catholic faith, he should reject his former
error, ought he, on confessing this, to be baptized again? Or
supposing that, before learning and confessing this for himself, he
should be found to entertain such an opinion, and should be taught
what he ought to reject and what he should believe, and it were to
become clear that he had held this false belief when he was baptized,
ought he therefore to be baptized again? Why should we maintain the
contrary? Because the sanctity of the sacrament, consecrated in the
words of the gospel, remains upon him in its integrity, just as he
received it from the hands of the minister, although he, being firmly
rooted in the vanity of his carnal mind entertained a belief other
than was right at the time when he was baptized. Wherefore it is
manifest that it is possible that, with defective faith, the sacrament
of baptism may yet remain without defect in any man; and therefore all
that is said about the diversity of the several heretics is beside the
question. For in each person that is to be corrected which is found
to be amiss by the man who undertakes his correction. That is to be
made whole which is unsound; that is to be given which is wanting,
and, above all, the peace of Christian charity, without which the rest
is profitless. Yet, as the rest is there, we must not administer it
as though it were wanting, only take care that its possession be to
the profit, not the hurt of him who has it, through the very bond of
peace and excellence of charity.
Chapter 15.â20. Accordingly, if Marcion consecrated the sacrament of
baptism with the words of the gospel, "In the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"[1294]1294 the sacrament was
complete, although his faith expressed under the same words, seeing
that he held opinions not taught by the Catholic truth, was not
complete, but stained with the falsity of fables.[1295]1295Â For
under these same words, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost," not Marcion only, or Valentinus, or Arius, or
Eunomius, but the carnal babes of the Church themselves (to whom the
apostle said, "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as
unto carnal"), if they could be individually asked for an accurate
exposition of their opinions, would probably show a diversity of
opinions as numerous as the persons who held them, "for the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."Â Can it, however,
be said on this account that they do not receive the complete
sacrament? or that, if they shall advance, and correct the vanity of
their carnal opinions, they must seek again what they had received?Â
Each man receives after the fashion of his own faith; yet how much
does he obtain under the guidance of that mercy of God, in the
confident assurance of which the same apostle says, "If in anything ye
be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you"?[1296]1296Â
Yet the snares of heretics and schismatics prove for this reason only
too pernicious to the carnally-minded, because their very progress is
intercepted when their vain opinions are confirmed in opposition to
the Catholic truth, and the perversity of their dissension is
strengthened against the Catholic peace. Yet if the sacraments are
the same, they are everywhere complete, even when they are wrongly
understood, and perverted to be instruments of discord, just as the
very writings of the gospel, if they are only the same, are everywhere
complete, even though quoted with a boundless variety of false
opinions. For as to what Jeremiah says:â"Why do those who grieve me
prevail against me? My wound is stubborn, whence shall I be
healed? In its origin it became unto me as lying water, having no
certainty,"[1297]1297âif the term "water" were never used figuratively
and in the allegorical language of prophecy except to signify baptism,
we should have trouble in discovering what these words of Jeremiah
meant; but as it is, when "waters" are expressly used in the
Apocalypse[1298]1298 to signify "peoples," I do not see why, by "lying
water having no certainty," I should not understand, a "lying people,
whom I cannot trust."
Chapter 16.â21. But when it is said that "the Holy Spirit is given
by the imposition of hands in the Catholic Church only, I suppose that
our ancestors meant that we should understand thereby what the apostle
says, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the
Holy Ghost which is given unto us."[1299]1299Â For this is that very
love which is wanting in all who are cut off from the communion of the
Catholic Church; and for lack of this, "though they speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, though they understand all mysteries and
all knowledge, and though they have the gift of prophecy, and all
faith, so that they could remove mountains, and though they bestow all
their goods to feed the poor, and though they give their bodies to be
burned, it profiteth them nothing."[1300]1300Â But those are wanting
in Godâs love who do not care for the unity of the Church; and
consequently we are right in understanding that the Holy Spirit may be
said not to be received except in the Catholic Church. For the Holy
Spirit is not only given by the laying on of hands amid the testimony
of temporal sensible miracles, as He was given in former days to be
the credentials of a rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the
first beginnings of the Church. For who expects in these days that
those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit
should forthwith begin to speak with tongues? but it is understood
that invisibly and imperceptibly, on account of the bond of peace,
divine love is breathed into their hearts, so that they may be able to
say, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost which is given unto us."Â But there are many operations of the
Holy Spirit, which the same apostle commemorates in a certain passage
at such length as he thinks sufficient, and then concludes:Â "But all
these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as He will."[1301]1301Â Since, then, the sacrament is one
thing, which even Simon Magus could have;[1302]1302 and the operation
of the Spirit is another thing, which is even often found in wicked
men, as Saul had the gift of prophecy;[1303]1303 and that operation of
the same Spirit is a third thing, which only the good can have, as
"the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a
good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:"[1304]1304Â whatever,
therefore, may be received by heretics and schismatics, the charity
which covereth the multitude of sins is the especial gift of Catholic
unity and peace; nor is it found in all that are within that bond,
since not all that are within it are of it, as we shall see in the
proper place. At any rate, outside the bond that love cannot exist,
without which all the other requisites, even if they can be recognized
and approved, cannot profit or release from sin. But the laying on
of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism,
incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered
over a man?[1305]1305
Chapter 17.â22. "For as regards the fact that to preserve the figure
of unity the Lord gave the power to Peter that whatsoever he should
loose on earth should be loosed,"[1306]1306 it is clear that that
unity is also described as one dove without fault.[1307]1307Â Can it
be said, then, that to this same dove belong all those greedy ones,
whose existence in the same Catholic Church Cyprian himself so
grievously bewailed? For birds of prey, I believe, cannot be called
doves, but rather hawks. How then did they baptize those who used to
plunder estates by treacherous deceit, and increase their profits by
compound usury,[1308]1308 if baptism is only given by that indivisible
and chaste and perfect dove, that unity which can only be understood
as existing among the good? Is it possible that, by the prayers of
the saints who are spiritual within the Church, as though by the
frequent lamentations of the dove, a great sacrament is dispensed,
with a secret administration of the mercy of God, so that their sins
also are loosed who are baptized, not by the dove but by the hawk, if
they come to that sacrament in the peace of Catholic unity? But if
this be so, why should it not also be the case that, as each man comes
from heresy or schism to the Catholic peace, his sins should be loosed
through their prayers? But the integrity of the sacrament is
everywhere recognized, though it will not avail for the irrevocable
remission of sins outside the unity of the Church. Nor will the
prayers of the saints, or, in other words, the groanings of that one
dove, be able to help one who is set in heresy or schism; just as they
are not able to help one who is placed within the Church, if by a
wicked life he himself retain the debts of his sins against himself,
and that though he be baptized, not by this hawk, but by the pious
ministry of the dove herself.
Chapter 18â23. "As my Father hath sent me," says our Lord, "even so
send I you. And what He had said this, He breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye
remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain,
they are retained."[1309]1309Â Therefore, if they represented the
Church, and this was said to them as to the Church herself, it follows
that the peace of the Church looses sins, and estrangement from the
Church retains them, not according to the will of men, but according
to the will of God and the prayers of the saints who are spiritual,
who "judge all things, but themselves are judged of no
man."[1310]1310Â For the rock retains, the rock remits; the dove
retains, the dove remits; unity retains, unity remits. But the peace
of this unity exists only in the good, in those who are either already
spiritual, or are advancing by the obedience of concord to spiritual
things; it exists not in the bad, whether they make disturbances
abroad, or are endured within the Church with lamentations, baptizing
and being baptized. But just as those who are tolerated with
groanings within the Church, although they do not belong to the same
unity of the dove, and to that "glorious Church, not having spot or
wrinkle, or any such thing,"[1311]1311 yet if they are corrected, and
confess that they approached to baptism most unworthily, are not
baptized again, but begin to belong to the dove, through whose groans
those sins are remitted which were retained in them who were estranged
from her peace; so those also who are more openly without the Church,
if they have received the same sacraments, are not freed from their
sins on coming, after correction, to the unity of the Church, by a
repetition of baptism, but by the same law of charity and bond of
unity. For if "those only may baptize who are set over the Church,
and established by the law of the gospel and ordination as appointed
by the Lord," were they in any wise of this kind who seized on estates
by treacherous frauds, and increased their gains by compound
interest? I trow not, since those are established by ordination as
appointed of the Lord, of whom the apostle, in giving them a standard,
says, "Not greedy, not given to filthy lucre."[1312]1312Â Yet men of
this kind used to baptize in the time of Cyprian himself; and he
confesses with many lamentations that they were his fellow-bishops,
and endures them with the great reward of tolerance. Yet did they
not confer remission of sins, which is granted through the prayers of
the saints, that is, the groans of the dove, whoever it be that
baptizes, if those to whom it is given belong to her peace. For the
Lord would not say to robbers and usurers, "Whose soever sins ye
remit, they shall be remitted to him; and whose soever sins ye retain,
they shall be retained."Â "Outside the Church, indeed, nothing can be
either bound or loosed, since there there is no one who can either
bind or loose;" but he is loosed who has made peace with the dove, and
he is bound who is not at peace with the dove, whether he is openly
without, or appears to be within.
24. But we know that Dathan, Korah, and Abiram,[1313]1313 who tried
to usurp to themselves the right of sacrificing, contrary to the unity
of the people of God, and also the sons of Aaron who offered strange
fire upon the altar,[1314]1314 did not escape punishment. Nor do we
say that such offenses remain unpunished, unless those guilty of them
correct themselves, if the patience of God leading them to
repentance[1315]1315 give them time for correction.
Chapter 19.â25. They indeed who say that baptism is not to be
repeated, because only hands were laid on those whom Philip the deacon
had baptized,[1316]1316 are saying what is quite beside the point; and
far be it from us, in seeking the truth, to use such arguments as
this. Wherefore we are all the further from "yielding to
heretics,"[1317]1317 if we deny that what they possess of Christâs
Church is their own property, and do not refuse to acknowledge the
standard of our General because of the crimes of deserters; nay, all
the more because "the Lord our God is a jealous God,"[1318]1318 let us
refuse, whenever we see anything of His with an alien, to allow him to
consider it his own. For of a truth the jealous God Himself rebukes
the woman who commits fornication against Him, as the type of an
erring people, and says that she gave to her lovers what belonged to
Him, and again received from them what was not theirs but His. In
the hands of the adulterous woman and the adulterous lovers, God in
His wrath, as a jealous God, recognizes His gifts; and do we say that
baptism, consecrated in the words of the gospel, belongs to heretics?
and are we willing, from consideration of their deeds, to attribute to
them even what belongs to God, as though they had the power to pollute
it, or as though they could make what is Godâs to be their own,
because they themselves have refused to belong to God?
26. Who is that adulterous woman whom the prophet Hosea points out,
who said, "I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my
water, my wool and my flax, and everything that befits
me?"[1319]1319Â Let us grant that we may understand this also of the
people of the Jews that went astray; yet whom else are the false
Christians (such as are all heretics and schismatics) wont to imitate,
except false Israelites? For there were also true Israelites, as the
Lord Himself bears witness to Nathanael, "Behold an Israelite indeed,
in whom is no guile."[1320]1320Â But who are true Christians, save
those of whom the same Lord said, "He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me?"[1321]1321Â But what is it to
keep His commandments, except to abide in love? Whence also He says,
"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another;" and
again, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye
have love one to another."[1322]1322Â But who can doubt that this was
spoken not only to those who heard His words with their fleshly ears
when He was present with them, but also to those who learn His words
through the gospel, when He is sitting on His throne in heaven? For
He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.[1323]1323Â But the
fulfilling of the law is love.[1324]1324Â And in this Cyprian
abounded greatly, insomuch that though he held a different view
concerning baptism, he yet did not forsake the unity of the Church,
and was in the Lordâs vine a branch firmly rooted, bearing fruit,
which the heavenly Husbandman purged with the knife of suffering, that
it should bear more fruit.[1325]1325Â But the enemies of this
brotherly love, whether they are openly without, or appear to be
within, are false Christians, and antichrists. For when they have
found an opportunity, they go out, as it is written:Â "A man wishing
to separate himself from his friends, seeketh
opportunities."[1326]1326Â But even if occasions are wanting, while
they seem to be within, they are severed from that invisible bond of
love. Whence St. John says, "They went out from us, but they were
not of us; for had they been of us, they would no doubt have continued
with us."[1327]1327Â He does not say that they ceased to be of us by
going out, but that they went out because they were not of us. The
Apostle Paul also speaks of certain men who had erred concerning the
truth, and were overthrowing the faith of some; whose word was eating
as a canker. Yet in saying that they should be avoided, he
nevertheless intimates that they were all in one great house, but as
vessels to dishonor,âI suppose because they had not as yet gone out.Â
Or if they had already gone out, how can he say that they were in the
same great house with the honorable vessels, unless it was in virtue
of the sacraments themselves, which even in the severed meetings of
heretics are not changed, that he speaks of all as belonging to the
same great house, though in different degrees of esteem, some to honor
and some to dishonor? For thus he speaks in his Epistle to
Timothy:Â "But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will
increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a
canker; of whom is Hymenæus and Philetus; who concerning the truth
have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and
overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God
standeth firm, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His.Â
And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from
iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold
and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and
some to dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he
shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the masterâs
use, and prepared unto every good work."[1328]1328Â But what is it to
purge oneself from such as these, except what he said just before,
"Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."Â
And lest any one should think that, as being in one great house with
them, he might perish with such as these, he has most carefully
forewarned them, "The Lord knoweth them that are His,"âthose, namely,
who, by departing from iniquity, purge themselves from the vessels
made to dishonor, lest they should perish with them whom they are
compelled to tolerate in the great house.
27. They, therefore, who are wicked, evildoers, carnal, fleshly,
devilish, think that they receive at the hands of their seducers what
are the gifts of God alone, whether sacraments, or any spiritual
workings about present salvation. But these men have not love
towards God, but are busied about those by whose pride they are led
astray, and are compared to the adulterous woman, whom the prophet
introduces as saying, "I will go after my lovers, that give me my
bread and my water, my wool and my flax, and my oil, and everything
that befits me."Â For thus arise heresies and schisms, when the
fleshly people which is not founded on the love of God says, "I will
go after my lovers," with whom, either by corruption of her faith, or
by the puffing up of her pride, she shamefully commits adultery. But
for the sake of those who, having undergone the difficulties, and
straits, and barriers of the empty reasoning of those by whom they are
led astray, afterwards feel the prickings of fear, and return to the
way of peace, to seeking God in all sincerity,âfor their sake He goes
on to say, "Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns,
and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. And she shall
follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them:Â and she
shall seek them, but she shall not find them:Â then shall she say, I
will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me
than now."Â Then, that they may not attribute to their seducers what
they have that is sound, and derived from the doctrine of truth, by
which they lead them astray to the falseness of their own dogmas and
dissensions; that they may not think that what is sound in them
belongs to them, he immediately added, "And she did not know that I
gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her money; but she
made vessels of gold and silver for Baal."[1329]1329Â For she had
said above, "I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread," etc.,
not at all understanding that all this, which was held soundly and
lawfully by her seducers, was of God, and not of men. Nor would even
they themselves claim these things for themselves, and as it were
assert a right in them, had not they in turn been led astray by a
people which had gone astray, when faith is reposed in them, and such
honors are paid to them, that they should be enabled thereby to say
such things, and claim such things for themselves, that their error
should be called truth, and their iniquity be thought righteousness,
in virtue of the sacraments and Scriptures, which they hold, not for
salvation, but only in appearance. Accordingly, the same adulterous
woman is addressed by the mouth of Ezekiel:Â "Thou hast also taken
thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee,
and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with
them; and tookest my[1330]1330 broidered garments, and coveredst
them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them. My
meat also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith
I fed thee, thou hast even set it before thine idols for a sweet
savor:Â and this thou hast done."[1331]1331Â For she turns all the
sacraments, and the words of the sacred books, to the images of her
own idols, with which her carnal mind delights to wallow. Nor yet,
because those images are false, and the doctrines of devils, speaking
lies in hypocrisy,[1332]1332 are those sacraments and divine
utterances therefore so to lose their due honor, as to be thought to
belong to such as these; seeing that the Lord says," Of my gold, and
my silver, and my broidered garments, and mine oil, and mine incense,
and my meat," and so forth. Ought we, because those erring ones
think that these things belong to their seducers, therefore not to
recognize whose they really are, when He Himself says, "And she did
not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her
money"? For He did not say that she did not have these things
because she was an adulteress; but she is said to have had them, and
that not as belonging to herself or her lovers, but to God, whose
alone they are. Although, therefore, she had her fornication, yet
those things wherewith she adorned it, whether as seduced or in her
turn seducing, belonged not to her, but to God. If these things were
spoken in a figure of the Jewish nation, when the scribes and
Pharisees were rejecting the commandment of God in order to set up
their own traditions, so that they were in a manner committing
whoredom with a people which was abandoning their God; and yet for all
that, whoredom at that time among the people, such as the Lord brought
to light by convicting it, did not cause that the mysteries should
belong to them, which were not theirs but Godâs, who, in speaking to
the adulteress, says that all these things were His; whence the Lord
Himself also sent those whom He cleansed from leprosy to the same
mysteries, that they should offer sacrifice for themselves before the
priests, because that sacrifice had not become efficacious for them,
which He Himself afterwards wished to be commemorated in the Church
for all of them, because He Himself proclaimed the tidings to them
all;âif this be so, how much the more ought we, when we find the
sacraments of the New Testament among certain heretics or schismatics,
not to attribute them to these men, nor to condemn them, as though we
could not recognize them? We ought to recognize the gifts of the
true husband, though in the possession of an adulteress, and to amend,
by the word of truth, that whoredom which is the true possession of
the unchaste woman, instead of finding fault with the gifts, which
belong entirely to the pitying Lord.
28. From these considerations, and such as these, our forefathers,
not only before the time of Cyprian and Agrippinus, but even
afterwards, maintained a most wholesome custom, that whenever they
found anything divine and lawful remaining in its integrity even in
the midst of any heresy or schism, they approved rather than
repudiated it; but whatever they found that was alien, and peculiar to
that false doctrine or division, this they convicted in the light of
the truth, and healed. The points, however, which remain to be
considered in the letter written by Jubaianus, must, I think, when
looking at the size of this book, be taken in hand and treated with a
fresh beginning.
Book IV.
In which he treats of what follows in the same epistle of Cyprian to
Jubaianus.
Chapter 1.â1. The comparison of the Church with Paradise[1333]1333
shows us that men may indeed receive her baptism outside her pale, but
that no one outside can either receive or retain the salvation of
eternal happiness. For, as the words of Scripture testify, the
streams from the fountain of Paradise flowed copiously even beyond its
bounds. Record indeed is made of their names; and through what
countries they flow, and that they are situated beyond the limits of
Paradise, is known to all;[1334]1334 and yet in Mesopotamia, and in
Egypt, to which countries those rivers extended, there is not found
that blessedness of life which is recorded in Paradise. Accordingly,
though the waters of Paradise are found beyond its boundaries, yet its
happiness is in Paradise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the
Church may exist outside, but the gift of the life of happiness is
found alone within the Church, which has been founded on a rock, which
has received the keys of binding and loosing.[1335]1335Â "She it is
alone who holds as her privilege the whole power of her Bridegroom and
Lord;"[1336]1336 by virtue of which power as bride, she can bring
forth sons even of handmaids. And these, if they be not high-minded,
shall be called into the lot of the inheritance; but if they be
high-minded, they shall remain outside.
Chapter 2.â2. All the more, then, because "we are fighting[1337]1337
for the honor and unity" of the Church, let us beware of giving to
heretics the credit of whatever we acknowledged among them as
belonging to the Church; but let us teach them by argument, that what
they possess that is derived from unity is of no efficacy to their
salvation, unless they shall return to that same unity. For "the
water of the Church is full of faith, and salvation, and
holiness"[1338]1338 to those who use it rightly. No one, however,
can use it well outside the Church. But to those who use it
perversely, whether within or without the Church, it is employed to
work punishment, and does not conduce to their reward. And so
baptism "cannot be corrupted and polluted," though it be handled by
the corrupt or by adulterers, just as also "the Church herself is
uncorrupt, and pure, and chaste."[1339]1339Â And so no share in it
belongs to the avaricious, or thieves, or usurers,âmany of whom, by
the testimony of Cyprian himself in many places of his letters, exist
not only without, but actually within the Church,âand yet they both
are baptized and do baptize, with no change in their hearts.
3. For this, too, he says, in one of his epistles[1340]1340 to the
clergy on the subject of prayer toGod, in which, after the fashion of
the holy Daniel, he represents the sins of his people as falling upon
himself. For among many other evils of which he makes mention, he
speaks of them also as "renouncing the world in words only and not in
deeds;" as the apostle says of certain men, "They profess that they
know God, but in works they deny Him."[1341]1341Â These, therefore,
the blessed Cyprian shows to be contained within the Church herself,
who are baptized without their hearts being changed for the better,
seeing that they renounce the world in words and not in deeds, as the
Apostle Peter says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also
now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience),"[1342]1342 which certainly they had not
of whom it is said that they "renounced the world in words only, and
not in deeds;" and yet he does his utmost, by chiding and convincing
them, to make them at length walk in the way of Christ, and be His
friends rather than friends of the world.
Chapter 3.â4. And if they would have obeyed him, and begun to live
rightly, not as false but as true Christians, would he have ordered
them to be baptized anew? Surely not; but their true conversion
would have gained this for them, that the sacrament which availed for
their destruction while they were yet unchanged, should begin when
they changed to avail for their salvation.
5. For neither are they "devoted to the Church"[1343]1343 who seem
to be within and live contrary to Christ, that is, act against His
commandments; nor can they be considered in any way to belong to that
Church, which He so purifies by the washing of water, "that He may
present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or
any such thing."[1344]1344Â But if they are not in that Church to
whose members they do not belong, they are not in the Church of which
it is said, "My dove is but one; she is the only one of her
mother;"[1345]1345 for she herself is without spot or wrinkle. Or
else let him who can assert that those are members of this dove who
renounce the world in words but not in deeds. Meantime there is one
thing which we see, from which I think it was said, "He that regardeth
the day, regardeth it unto the Lord,"[1346]1346 for God judgeth every
day. For, according to His foreknowledge, who knows whom He has
foreordained before the foundation of the world to be made like to the
image of His Son, many who are even openly outside, and are called
heretics, are better than many good Catholics. For we see what they
are to-day, what they shall be to-morrow we know not. And with God,
with whom the future is already present, they already are what they
shall hereafter be. But we, according to what each man is at
present, inquire whether they are to be to-day reckoned among the
members of the Church which is called the one dove, and the Bride of
Christ without a spot or wrinkle,[1347]1347 of whom Cyprian says in
the letter which I have quoted above, that "they did not keep in the
way of the Lord, nor observe the commandments given unto them for
their salvation; that they did not fulfill the will of their Lord,
being eager about their property and gains, following the dictates of
pride, giving way to envy and dissension, careless about
single-mindedness and faith, renouncing the world in words only and
not in deeds, pleasing each himself, and displeasing all
men."[1348]1348Â But if the dove does not acknowledge them among her
members, and if the Lord shall say to them, supposing that they
continue in the same perversity, "I never knew you:Â depart from me,
ye that work iniquity;"[1349]1349 then they seem indeed to be in the
Church, but are not; "nay, they even act against the Church. How
then can they baptize with the baptism of the Church,"[1350]1350 which
is of avail neither to themselves, nor to those who receive it from
them, unless they are changed in heart with a true conversion, so that
the sacrament itself, which did not avail them when they received it
whilst they were renouncing the world in words and not in deeds, may
begin to profit them when they shall begin to renounce it in deeds
also? And so too in the case of those whose separation from the
Church is open; for neither these nor those are as yet among the
members of the dove, but some of them perhaps will be at some future
time.
Chapter 4.â6. We do not, therefore, "acknowledge the baptism of
heretics,"[1351]1351 when we refuse to baptize after them; but because
we acknowledge the ordinance to be of Christ even among evil men,
whether openly separated from us, or secretly severed whilst within
our body, we receive it with due respect, having corrected those who
were wrong in the points wherein they went astray. However as I seem
to be hard pressed when it is said to me, "Does then a heretic confer
remission of sins?" so I in turn press hard when I say, Does then he
who violates the commands of Heaven, the avaricious man, the robber,
the usurer, the envious man, does he who renounces the world in words
and not in deeds, confer such remission? If you mean by the force of
Godâs sacrament, then both the one and the other; if by his own merit,
neither of them. For that sacrament, even in the hands of wicked
men, is known to be of Christ; but neither the one nor the other of
these men is found in the body of the one uncorrupt, holy, chaste
dove, which has neither spot nor wrinkle. And just as baptism is of
no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in
deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or
schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive
profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already
in him.
7. "He therefore that is baptized in heresy does not become the
temple of God;[1352]1352 but does it therefore follow that he is not
to be considered as baptized? For neither does the avaricious man,
baptized within the Church, become the temple of God unless he depart
from his avarice; for they who become the temple of God certainly
inherit the kingdom of God. But the apostle says, among many other
things, "Neither the covetous, nor extortioners, shall inherit the
kingdom of God."[1353]1353Â For in another place the same apostle
compares covetousness to the worship of idols:Â "Nor covetous man,"
he says, "who is an idolater;"[1354]1354 which meaning the same
Cyprian has so far extended in a letter to Antonianus, that he did not
hesitate to compare the sin of covetousness with that of men who in
time of persecution had declared in writing that they would offer
incense.[1355]1355Â The man, then, who is baptized in heresy in the
name of the Holy Trinity, yet does not become the temple of God unless
he abandons his heresy, just as the covetous man who has been baptized
in the same name does not become the temple of God unless he abandons
his covetousness, which is idolatry. For this, too, the same apostle
says:Â "What agreement hath the temple of God with
idols?"[1356]1356Â Let it not, then, be asked of us "of what God he
is made the temple"[1357]1357 when we say that he is not made the
temple of God at all. Yet he is not therefore unbaptized, nor does
his foul error cause that what he has received, consecrated in the
words of the gospel, should not be the holy sacrament; just as the
other manâs covetousness (which is idolatry) and great uncleanness
cannot prevent what he receives from being holy baptism, even though
he be baptized with the same words of the gospel by another man
covetous like himself.
Chapter 5.â8. "Further," Cyprian goes on to say, "in vain do some,
who are overcome by reason, oppose to us custom, as though custom were
superior to truth, or that were not to be followed in spiritual things
which has been revealed by the Holy Spirit, as the better
way."[1358]1358Â This is clearly true, since reason and truth are to
be preferred to custom. But when truth supports custom, nothing
should be more strongly maintained. Then he proceeds as follows:Â
"For one may pardon a man who merely errs, as the Apostle Paul says of
himself, âWho was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious;
but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly;â[1359]1359 but he
who, after inspiration and revelation given, perseveres advisedly and
knowingly in his former error, sins without hope of pardon on the
ground of ignorance. For he rests on a kind of presumption and
obstinacy, when he is overcome by reason."Â This is most true, that
his sin is much more grievous who has sinned wittingly than his who
has sinned through ignorance. And so in the case of the holy
Cyprian, who was not only learned, but also patient of instruction,
which he so fully himself understood to be a part of the praise of the
bishop whom the apostle describes,[1360]1360 that he said, "This also
should be approved in a bishop, that he not only teach with knowledge,
but also learn with patience."[1361]1361Â I do not doubt that if he
had had the opportunity of discussing this question, which has been so
long and so much disputed in the Church, with the pious and learned
men to whom we owe it that subsequently that ancient custom was
confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council, he would have shown,
without hesitation, not only how learned he was in those things which
he had grasped with all the security of truth, but also how ready he
was to receive instruction in what he had failed to perceive. And
yet, since it is so clear that it is much more grievous to sin
wittingly than in ignorance, I should be glad if any one would tell me
which is the worse,âthe man who falls into heresy, not knowing how
great a sin it is, or the man who refuses to abandon his covetousness,
knowing its enormity? I might even put the question thus: If one
man unwittingly fall into heresy, and another knowingly refuse to
depart from idolatry, since the apostle himself says, "The covetous
man, which is an idolater;" and Cyprian too understood the same
passage in just the same way, when he says, in his letter to
Antonianus, "Nor let the new heretics flatter themselves in this, that
they say they do not communicate with idolaters, whereas there are
amongst them both adulterers and covetous persons, who are held guilty
of the sin of idolatry; âfor know this, and understand, that no
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God;â[1362]1362
and again, âMortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;
fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,
and covetousness, which is idolatry.â"[1363]1363Â I ask, therefore,
which sins more deeply,âhe who ignorantly has fallen into heresy, or
he who wittingly has refused to abandon covetousness, that is
idolatry? According to that rule by which the sins of those who sin
wittingly are placed before those of the ignorant, the man who is
covetous with knowledge takes the first place in sin. But as it is
possible that the greatness of the actual sin should produce the same
effect in the case of heresy that the witting commission of the sin
produces in that of covetousness, let us suppose the ignorant heretic
to be on a par in guilt with the consciously covetous man, although
the evidence which Cyprian himself has advanced from the apostle does
not seem to prove this. For what is it that we abominate in heretics
except their blasphemies? But when he wished to show that ignorance
of the sin may conduce to ease in obtaining pardon, he advanced a
proof from the case of the apostle, when he says, "Who was before a
blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy,
because I did it ignorantly."[1364]1364Â But if possible, as I said
before, let the sins of the two menâthe blasphemy of the unconscious,
and the idolatry of the conscious sinnerâbe esteemed of equal weight;
and let them be judged by the same sentence,âhe who, in seeking for
Christ, falls into a truth-like setting forth of what is false, and he
who wittingly resists Christ speaking through His apostle, "seeing
that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which is an
idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of
God,"[1365]1365âand then I would ask why baptism and the words of the
gospel are held as naught in the former case, and accounted valid in
the latter, when each is alike found to be estranged from the members
of the dove. Is it because the former is an open combatant outside,
that he should not be admitted, the latter a cunning assenter within
the fold, that he may not be expelled?
Chapter 6.â9. But as regards his saying, "Nor let any one affirm
that what they have received from the apostles, that they follow; for
the apostles handed down only one Church and one baptism, and that
appointed only in the same Church:"[1366]1366Â this does not so much
move me to venture to condemn the baptism of Christ when found amongst
heretics (just as it is necessary to recognize the gospel itself when
I find it with them, though I abominate their error), as it warns me
that there were some even in the times of the holy Cyprian who traced
to the authority of the apostles that custom against which the African
Councils were held, and in respect of which he himself said a little
above, "In vain do those who are beaten by reason oppose to us the
authority of custom."Â Nor do I find the reason why the same Cyprian
found this very custom, which after his time was confirmed by nothing
less than a plenary Council of the whole world, already so strong
before his time, that when with all his learning he sought an
authority worth following for changing it, he found nothing but a
Council of Agrippinus held in Africa a very few years before his own
time. And seeing that this was not enough for him, as against the
custom of the whole world, he laid hold on these reasons which we just
now, considering them with great care, and being confirmed by the
antiquity of the custom itself, and by the subsequent authority of a
plenary Council, found to be truth-like rather than true; which,
however, seemed to him true, as he toiled in a question of the
greatest obscurity, and was in doubt about the remission of
sins,âwhether it could fail to be given in the baptism of Christ, and
whether it could be given among heretics. In which matter, if an
imperfect revelation of the truth was given to Cyprian, that the
greatness of his love in not deserting the unity of the Church might
be made manifest, there is yet not any reason why any one should
venture to claim superiority over the strong defenses and excellence
of his virtues, and the abundance of graces which were found in him,
merely because, with the instruction derived from the strength of a
general Council, he sees something which Cyprian did not see, because
the Church had not yet held a plenary Council on the matter. Just as
no one is so insane as to set himself up as surpassing the merits of
the Apostle Peter, because, taught by the epistles of the Apostle
Paul, and confirmed by the custom of the Church herself, he does not
compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Peter once had done.[1367]1367
10. We do not then "find that any one, after being baptized among
heretics, was afterwards admitted by the apostles with the same
baptism, and communicated;"[1368]1368 but neither do we find this,
that any one coming from the society of heretics, who had been
baptized among them, was baptized anew by the apostles. But this
custom, which even then those who looked back to past ages could not
find to have been invented by men of a later time, is rightly believed
to have been handed down from the apostles. And there are many other
things of the same kind, which it would be tedious to recount.Â
Wherefore, if they had something to say for themselves to whom
Cyprian, wishing to persuade them of the truth of his own view, says,
"Let no one say, What we have received from the apostles, that we
follow," with how much more force we now say, What the custom of the
Church has always held, what this argument has failed to prove false,
and what a plenary Council has confirmed, this we follow! To this we
may add that it may also be said, after a careful inquiry into the
reasoning on both sides of the discussion, and into the evidence of
Scripture, What truth has declared, that we follow.
Chapter 7.â11. For in fact, as to what some opposed to the reasoning
of Cyprian, that the apostle says, "Notwithstanding every way, whether
in pretence or in truth, let Christ be preached;"[1369]1369 Cyprian
rightly exposed their error, showing that it has nothing to do with
the case of heretics, since the apostle was speaking of those who were
acting within the Church, with malicious envy seeking their own
profit. They announced Christ, indeed, according to the truth
whereby we believe in Christ, but not in the spirit in which He was
announced by the good evangelists to the sons of the dove. "For
Paul," he says, "in his epistle was not speaking of heretics, or of
their baptism, so that it could be shown that he had laid down
anything concerning this matter. He was speaking of brethren,
whether as walking disorderly and contrary to the discipline of the
Church, or as keeping the discipline of the Church in the fear of
God. And he declared that some of them spoke the word of God
steadfastly and fearlessly, but that some were acting in envy and
strife; that some had kept themselves encompassed with kindly
Christian love, but that others entertained malice and strife:Â but
yet that he patiently endured all things, with the view that, whether
in truth or in pretence, the name of Christ, which Paul preached,
might come to the knowledge of the greatest number, and that the
sowing of the word, which was as yet a new and unaccustomed work,
might spread more widely by the preaching of those that spoke.Â
Furthermore, it is one thing for those who are within the Church to
speak in the name of Christ, another thing for those who are without,
acting against the Church, to baptize in the name of
Christ."[1370]1370Â These words of Cyprian seem to warn us that we
must distinguish between those who are bad outside, and those who are
bad within the Church. And those whom he says that the apostle
represents as preaching the gospel impurely and of envy, he says truly
were within. This much, however, I think I may say without rashness,
if no one outside can have anything which is of Christ, neither can
any one within have anything which is of the devil. For if that
closed garden can contain the thorns of the devil, why cannot the
fountain of Christ equally flow beyond the gardenâs bounds? But if
it cannot contain them, whence, even in the time of the Apostle Paul
himself, did there arise amongst those who were within so great an
evil of envy and malicious strife? For these are the words of
Cyprian. Can it be that envy and malicious strife are a small
evil? How then were those in unity who were not at peace? For it
is not my voice, nor that of any man, but of the Lord Himself; nor did
the sound go forth from men, but from angels, at the birth of Christ,
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good
will."[1371]1371Â And this certainly would not have been proclaimed
by the voice of angels when Christ was born upon the earth, unless God
wished this to be understood, that those are in the unity of the body
of Christ who are united in the peace of Christ, and those are in the
peace of Christ who are of good will. Furthermore, as good will is
shown in kindliness, so is bad will shown in malice.
Chapter 8.â12. In short, we may see how great an evil in itself is
envy, which cannot be other than malicious. Let us not look for
other testimony. Cyprian himself is sufficient for us, through whose
mouth the Lord poured forth so many thunders in most perfect truth,
and uttered so many useful precepts about envy and malignity. Let us
therefore read the letter of Cyprian about envy and malignity, and see
how great an evil it is to envy those better than ourselves,âan evil
whose origin he shows in memorable words to have sprung from the devil
himself. "To feel jealousy," he says, "of what you regard as good,
and to envy those who are better than yourselves, to some, dearest
brethren, seems a light and minute offense."[1372]1372Â And again a
little later, when he was inquiring into the source and origin of the
evil, he says, "From this the devil, in the very beginning of the
world, perished first himself, and led others to
destruction."[1373]1373Â And further on in the same chapter:Â "What
an evil, dearest brethren, is that by which an angel fell! by which
that exalted and illustrious loftiness was able to be deceived and
overthrown! by which he was deceived who was the deceiver! From that
time envy stalks upon the earth, when man, about to perish through
malignity, submits himself to the teacher of perdition,âwhen he who
envies imitates the devil, as it is written, âThrough envy of the
devil came death into the world, and they that do hold of his side do
find it.â"[1374]1374Â How true, how forcible are these words of
Cyprian, in an epistle known throughout the world, we cannot fail to
recognize. It was truly fitting for Cyprian to argue and warn most
forcibly about envy and malignity, from which most deadly evil he
proved his own heart to be so far removed by the abundance of his
Christian love; by carefully guarding which he remained in the unity
of communion with his colleagues, who without ill-feeling entertained
different views about baptism, whilst he himself differed in opinion
from them, not through any contention of ill will, but through human
infirmity, erring in a point which God, in His own good time, would
reveal to him by reason of his perseverance in love. For he says
openly, "Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right of communion
if he differ from us. For no one of us setteth himself up as a
bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a
necessity of obeying."[1375]1375Â And in the end of the epistle
before us he says, "These things I have written to you briefly,
dearest brother, according to my poor ability, prescribing to or
prejudging no one, so as to prevent each bishop from doing what he
thinks right in the free exercise of his own judgment. We, so far as
in us lies, do not strive on behalf of heretics with our colleges and
fellow-bishops, with whom we hold the harmony that God enjoins, and
the peace of our Lord, especially as the apostle says, âIf any man
seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God.â[1376]1376Â Christian love in our souls, the honor of our
fraternity, the bond of faith, the harmony of the priesthood, all
these are maintained by us with patience and gentleness. For this
cause we have also, so far as our poor ability admitted, by the
permission and inspiration of the Lord, written now a treatise on the
benefit of patience,[1377]1377 which we have sent to you in
consideration of our mutual affection."[1378]1378
Chapter 9.â13. By this patience of Christian love he not only
endured the difference of opinion manifested in all kindliness by his
good colleagues on an obscure point, as he also himself received
toleration, till, in process of time, when it so pleased God, what had
always been a most wholesome custom was further confirmed by a
declaration of the truth in a plenary Council, but he even put up with
those who were manifestly bad, as was very well known to himself, who
did not entertain a different view in consequence of the obscurity of
the question, but acted contrary to their preaching in the evil
practices of an abandoned life, as the apostle says of them, "Thou
that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?"[1379]1379Â
For Cyprian says in his letter of such bishops of his own time, his
own colleagues, and remaining in communion with him, "While they had
brethren starving in the Church, they tried to amass large sums of
money, they took possession of estates by fraudulent proceedings, they
multiplied their gains by accumulated usuries."[1380]1380Â For here
there is no obscure question. Scripture declares openly, "Neither
covetous nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God;"[1381]1381
and "He that putteth out his money to usury,"[1382]1382 and "No
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."[1383]1383Â
He therefore certainly would not, without knowledge, have brought
accusations of such covetousness, that men not only greedily treasured
up their own goods, but also fraudulently appropriated the goods of
others, or of idolatry existing in such enormity as he understands and
proves it to exist; nor assuredly would he bear false witness against
his fellow-bishops. And yet with the bowels of fatherly and motherly
love he endured them, lest that, by rooting out the tares before their
time, the wheat should also have been rooted up,[1384]1384 imitating
assuredly the Apostle Paul, who, with the same love towards the
Church, endured those who were ill-disposed and envious towards
him.[1385]1385
14. But yet because "by the envy of the devil death entered into the
world, and they that do hold of his side do find it,"[1386]1386 not
because they are created by God, but because they go astray of
themselves, as Cyprian also says himself, seeing that the devil,
before he was a devil, was an angel, and good, how can it be that they
who are of the devilâs side are in the unity of Christ? Beyond all
doubt, as the Lord Himself says, "an enemy hath done this," who "sowed
tares among the wheat."[1387]1387Â As therefore what is of the devil
within the fold must be convicted, so what is of Christ without must
be recognized. Has the devil what is his within the unity of the
Church, and shall Christ not have what is His without? This,
perhaps, might be said of individual men, that as the devil has none
that are his among the holy angels, so God has none that are His
outside the communion of the Church. But though it may be allowed to
the devil to mingle tares, that is, wicked men, with this Church which
still wears the mortal nature of flesh, so long as it is wandering far
from God, he being allowed this just because of the pilgrimage of the
Church herself, that men may desire more ardently the rest of that
country which the angels enjoy, yet this cannot be said of the
sacraments. For, as the tares within the Church can have and handle
them, though not for salvation, but for the destruction to which they
are destined in the fire, so also can the tares without, which
received them from seceders from within; for they did not lose them by
seceding. This, indeed, is made plain from the fact that baptism is
not conferred again on their return, when any of the very men who
seceded happen to come back again. And let not any one say, Why,
what fruit hath the tares? For if this be so, their condition is the
same, so far as this goes, both inside and without. For it surely
cannot be that grains of corn are found in the tares inside, and not
in those without. But when the question is of the sacrament, we do
not consider whether the tares bear any fruit, but whether they have
any share of heaven; for the tares, both within and without, share the
rain with the wheat itself, which rain is in itself heavenly and
sweet, even though under its influence the tares grow up in
barrenness. And so the sacrament, according to the gospel of Christ,
is divine and pleasant; nor is it to be esteemed as naught because of
the barrenness of those on whom its dew falls even without.
Chapter 10.â15. But some one may say that the tares within may more
easily be converted into wheat. I grant that it is so; but what has
this to do with the question of repeating baptism? You surely do not
maintain that if a man converted from heresy, through the occasion and
opportunity given by his conversion, should bear fruit before another
who, being within the Church, is more slow to be washed from his
iniquity, and so corrected and changed, the former therefore needs not
to be baptized again, but the churchman to be baptized again, who was
outstripped by him who came from the heretics, because of the greater
slowness of his amendment. It has nothing, therefore, to do with the
question now at issue who is later or slower in being converted from
his especial waywardness to the straight path of faith, or hope, or
charity. For although the bad within the fold are more easily made
good yet it will sometimes happen that certain of the number of those
outside will outstrip in their conversion certain of those within; and
while these remain in barrenness, the former, being restored to unity
and communion, will bear fruit with patience, thirty-fold, or
sixty-fold, or a hundred-fold.[1388]1388Â Or if those only are to be
called tares who remain in perverse error to the end, there are many
ears of corn outside, and many tares within.
16. But it will be urged that the bad outside are worse than those
within. It is indeed a weighty question, whether Nicolaus, being
already severed from the Church,[1389]1389 or Simon, who was still
within it,[1390]1390 was the worse,âthe one being a heretic, the other
a sorcerer. But if the mere fact of division, as being the clearest
token of violated charity, is held to be the worse evil, I grant that
it is so. Yet many, though they have lost all feelings of charity,
yet do not secede from considerations of worldly profit; and as they
seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christâs,[1391]1391
what they are unwilling to secede from is not the unity of Christ, but
their own temporal advantage. Whence it is said in praise of
charity, that she "seeketh not her own."[1392]1392
17. Now, therefore, the question is, how could men of the party of
the devil belong to the Church, which has no spot, or wrinkle, or any
such thing,[1393]1393 of which also it is said, "My dove is
one?"[1394]1394Â But if they cannot, it is clear that she groans
among those who are not of her, some treacherously laying wait within,
some barking at her gate without. Such men, however, even within,
both receive baptism, and possess it, and transmit it holy in itself;
nor is it in any way defiled by their wickedness, in which they
persevere even to the end. Wherefore the same blessed Cyprian
teaches us that baptism is to be considered as consecrated in itself
by the words of the gospel, as the Church has received, without
joining to it or mingling with it any consideration of waywardness and
wickedness on the part of either minister or recipients; since he
himself points out to us both truths,âboth that there have been some
within the Church who did not cherish kindly Christian love, but
practised envy and unkind dissension, of whom the Apostle Paul spoke;
and also that the envious belong to the devilâs party, as he testifies
in the most open way in the epistle which he wrote about envy and
malignity. Wherefore, since it is clearly possible that in those who
belong to the devilâs party, Christâs sacrament may yet be holy,ânot,
indeed, to their salvation, but to their condemnation, and that not
only if they are led astray after they have been baptized, but even if
they were such in heart when they received the sacrament, renouncing
the world (as the same Cyprian shows) in words only and not in
deeds;[1395]1395 and since even if afterwards they be brought into the
right way, the sacrament is not to be again administered which they
received when they were astray; so far as I can see, the case is
already clear and evident, that in the question of baptism we have to
consider, not who gives, but what he gives; not who receives, but what
he receives; not who has, but what he has. For if men of the party
of the devil, and therefore in no way belonging to the one dove, can
yet receive, and have, and give baptism in all its holiness, in no way
defiled by their waywardness, as we are taught by the letters of
Cyprian himself, how are we ascribing to heretics what does not belong
to them? how are we saying that what is really Christâs is theirs, and
not rather recognizing in them the signs of our Sovereign, and
correcting the deeds of deserters from Him? Wherefore it is one
thing, as the holy Cyprian says, "for those within in the Church, to
speak in the name of Christ, another thing for those without, who are
acting against the Church, to baptize in His name."[1396]1396Â But
both many who are within act against the Church by evil living, and by
enticing weak souls to copy their lives; and some who are without
speak in Christâs name, and are not forbidden to work the works of
Christ, but only to be without, since for the healing of their souls
we grasp at them, or reason with them, or exhort them. For he, too,
was without who did not follow Christ with His disciples, and yet in
Christâs name was casting out devils, which the Lord enjoined that he
should not be prevented from doing;[1397]1397 although, certainly, in
the point where he was imperfect he was to be made whole, in
accordance with the words of the Lord, in which He says, "He that is
not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad."[1398]1398Â Therefore both some things are done
outside in the name of Christ not against the Church, and some things
are done inside on the devilâs part which are against the Church.
Chapter 11.â18. What shall we say of what is also wonderful, that he
who carefully observes may find that it is possible that certain
persons, without violating Christian charity, may yet teach what is
useless, as Peter wished to compel the Gentiles to observe Jewish
customs,[1399]1399 as Cyprian himself would force heretics to be
baptized anew? whence the apostle says to such good members, who are
rooted in charity, and yet walk not rightly in some points, "If in
anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto
you;"[1400]1400 and that some again, though devoid of charity, may
teach something wholesome? of whom the Lord says, "The scribes and the
Pharisees sit in Mosesâ seat:Â all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works:Â for
they say and do not."[1401]1401Â Whence the apostle also says of
those envious and malicious ones who yet preach salvation through
Christ, "Whether in pretense, or in truth, let Christ be
preached."[1402]1402Â Wherefore, both within and without, the
waywardness of man is to be corrected, but the divine sacraments and
utterances are not to be attributed to men. He is not, therefore, a
"patron of heretics" who refuses to attribute to them what he knows
not to belong to them, even though it be found among them. We do not
grant baptism to be theirs; but we recognize His baptism of whom it is
said, "The same is He which baptizeth,"[1403]1403 wheresoever we find
it. But if "the treacherous and blasphemous man" continue in his
treachery and blasphemy, he receives no "remission of sins either
without" or within the Church; or if, by the power of the sacrament,
he receives it for the moment, the same force operates both without
and within, as the power of the name of Christ used to work the
expulsion of devils even without the Church.
Chapter 12.â19. But he urges that "we find that the apostles, in all
their epistles, execrated and abhorred the sacrilegious wickedness of
heretics, so as to say that âtheir word does spread as a
canker.â"[1404]1404 What then? Does not Paul also show that those
who said, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die," were
corrupters of good manners by their evil communications, adding
immediately afterwards, "Evil communications corrupt good manners;"
and yet he intimated that these were within the Church when he says,
"How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead?"[1405]1405Â But when does he fail to express his abhorrence of
the covetous? Or could anything be said in stronger terms, than that
covetousness should be called idolatry, as the same apostle
declared?[1406]1406Â Nor did Cyprian understand his language
otherwise, inserting it when need required in his letters; though he
confesses that in his time there were in the Church not covetous men
of an ordinary type, but robbers and usurers, and these found not
among the masses, but among the bishops. And yet I should be willing
to understand that those of whom the apostle says, "Their word does
spread as a canker," were without the Church, but Cyprian himself will
not allow me. For, when showing, in his letter to
Antonianus,[1407]1407 that no man ought to sever himself from the
unity of the Church before the time of the final separation of the
just and unjust, merely because of the admixture of evil men in the
Church, when he makes it manifest how holy he was, and deserving of
the illustrious martyrdom which he won, he says, "What swelling of
arrogance it is, what forgetfulness of humility and gentleness, that
any one should dare or believe that he can do what the Lord did not
grant even to the apostles,âto think that he can distinguish the tares
from the wheat, or, as if it were granted to him to carry the fan and
purge the floor, to endeavor to separate the chaff from the grain!Â
And whereas the apostle says, âBut in a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of
earth,â[1408]1408 that he should seem to choose those of gold and of
silver, and despise and cast away and condemn those of wood and of
earth, when really the vessels of wood are only to be burned in the
day of the Lord by the burning of the divine conflagration, and those
of earth are to be broken by Him to whom the ârod of iron[1409]1409
has been given.â"[1410]1410Â By this argument, therefore, against
those who, under the pretext of avoiding the society of wicked men,
had severed themselves from the unity of the Church, Cyprian shows
that by the great house of which the apostle spoke, in which there
were not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of
earth, he understood nothing else but the Church, in which there
should be good and bad, till at the last day it should be cleansed as
a threshing-floor by the winnowing-fan. And if this be so, in the
Church herself, that is, in the great house itself, there were vessels
to dishonor, whose word did spread like a canker. For the apostle,
speaking of them, taught as follows:Â "And their word," he says,
"will spread as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenæus and Philetus; who
concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past
already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the
foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth
them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ
depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of
earth."[1411]1411Â If, therefore, they whose words did spread as doth
a canker were as it were vessels to dishonor in the great house, and
by that "great house" Cyprian understands the unity of the Church
itself, surely it cannot be that their canker polluted the baptism of
Christ. Accordingly, neither without, any more than within, can any
one who is of the devilâs party, either in himself or in any other
person, stain the sacrament which is of Christ. It is not,
therefore, the case that "the word which spreads as a canker to the
ears of those who hear it gives remission of sins;"[1412]1412 but when
baptism is given in the words of the gospel, however great be the
perverseness of understanding on the part either of him through whom,
or of him to whom it is given, the sacrament itself is holy in itself
on account of Him whose sacrament it is. And if any one, receiving
it at the hands of a misguided man, yet does not receive the
perversity of the minister, but only the holiness of the mystery,
being closely bound to the unity of the Church in good faith and hope
and charity, he receives remission of his sins,ânot by the words which
do eat as doth a canker, but by the sacraments of the gospel flowing
from a heavenly source. But if the recipient himself be misguided,
on the one hand, what is given is of no avail for the salvation of the
misguided man; and yet, on the other hand, that which is received
remains holy in the recipient, and is not renewed to him if he be
brought to the right way.
Chapter 13.â20. There is therefore "no fellowship between
righteousness and unrighteousness,"[1413]1413 not only without, but
also within the Church; for "the Lord knoweth them that are His," and
"Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."Â
There is also "no communion between light and darkness,"[1414]1414 not
only without, but also within the Church; for "he that hateth his
brother is still in darkness."[1415]1415Â And they at any rate hated
Paul, who, preaching Christ of envy and malicious strife, supposed
that they added affliction to his bonds;[1416]1416 and yet the same
Cyprian understands these still to have been within the Church.Â
Since, therefore, "neither darkness can enlighten, nor unrighteousness
justify,"[1417]1417 as Cyprian again says, I ask, how could those men
baptize within the very Church herself? I ask, how could those
vessels which the large house contains not to honor, but to dishonor,
administer what is holy for the sanctifying of men within the great
house itself, unless because that holiness of the sacrament cannot be
polluted even by the unclean, either when it is given at their hands,
or when it is received by those who in heart and life are not changed
for the better? of whom, as situated within the Church, Cyprian
himself says, "Renouncing the world in word only, and not in
deed."[1418]1418
21. There are therefore also within the Church "enemies of God,
whose hearts the spirit of Antichrist has possessed;" and yet they,
"deal with spiritual and divine things,"[1419]1419 which cannot profit
for their salvation so long as they remain such as they are; and yet
neither can they pollute them by their own uncleanness. With regard
to what he says, therefore, "that they have no part given them in the
saving grace of the Church, who, scattering and fighting against the
Church of Christ, are called adversaries by Christ Himself, and
antichrists by His apostles,[1420]1420 this must be received under the
consideration that there are men of this kind both within and
without. But the separation of those that are within from the
perfection and unity of the dove is not only known in the case of some
men to God, but even in the case of some to their fellow-men; for, by
regarding their openly abandoned life and confirmed wickedness, and
comparing it with the rules of Godâs commandments, they understand to
what a multitude of tares and chaff, situated now some within and some
without, but destined to be most manifestly separated at the last day,
the Lord will then say, "Depart from me, ye that work
iniquity,"[1421]1421 and "Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for
the devil and his angels."[1422]1422
Chapter 14.â22. But we must not despair of the conversion of any
man, whether situated within or without, so long as "the goodness of
God leadeth him to repentance,"[1423]1423 and "visits their
transgressions with the rod, and their inquiry with stripes."Â For in
this way "He does not utterly take from them His
loving-kindness,"[1424]1424 if they will themselves sometimes "love
their own soul, pleasing God."[1425]1425Â But as the good man "that
shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved,"[1426]1426 so the
bad man, whether within or without, who shall persevere in his
wickedness to the end, shall not be saved. Nor do we say that "all,
wheresoever and howsoever baptized, obtain the grace of
baptism,"[1427]1427 if by the grace of baptism is understood the
actual salvation which is conferred by the celebration of the
sacrament; but many fail to obtain this salvation even within the
Church, although it is clear that they possess the sacrament, which is
holy in itself. Well, therefore, does the Lord warn us in the gospel
that we should not company with ill-advisers,[1428]1428 who walk under
the pretence of Christâs name; but these are found both within and
without, as, in fact, they do not proceed without unless they have
first been ill-disposed within. And we know that the apostle said of
the vessels placed in the great house, "If a man therefore purge
himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and
meet for the Masterâs use, and prepared unto every good
work."[1429]1429Â But in what manner each man ought to purge himself
from these he shows a little above, saying, "Let every one that nameth
the name of Christ depart from iniquity,"[1430]1430 that he may not in
the last day, with the chaff, whether with that which has already been
driven from the threshing-floor, or with that which is to be separated
at the last, hear the command, "Depart from me, ye that work
iniquity."[1431]1431Â Whence it appears, indeed, as Cyprian says,
that "we are not at once to admit and adopt whatsoever is professed in
the name of Christ, but only what is done in the truth of
Christ."[1432]1432Â But it is not an action done in the truth of
Christ that men should "seize on estates by fraudulent pretenses, and
increase their gains by accumulated usury,"[1433]1433 or that they
should "renounce the world in word only;"[1434]1434 and yet, that all
this is done within the Church, Cyprian himself bears sufficient
testimony.
Chapter 15.â23. To go on to the point which he pursues at great
length, that "they who blaspheme the Father of Christ cannot be
baptized in Christ,"[1435]1435 since it is clear that they blaspheme
through error (for he who comes to the baptism of Christ will not
openly blaspheme the Father of Christ, but he is led to blaspheme by
holding a view contrary to the teaching of the truth about the Father
of Christ), we have already shown at sufficient length that baptism,
consecrated in the words of the gospel, is not affected by the error
of any man, whether ministrant or recipient, whether he hold views
contrary to the revelation of divine teaching on the subject of the
Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost. For many carnal and natural
men are baptized even within the Church, as the apostle expressly
says:Â "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God;"[1436]1436 and after they had received baptism, he says that they
"are yet carnal."[1437]1437Â But according to it carnal sense, a soul
given up to fleshly appetites cannot entertain but fleshly wisdom
about God. Wherefore many, progressing after baptism, and especially
those who have been baptized in infancy or early youth, in proportion
as their intellect becomes clearer and brighter, while "the inward man
is renewed day by day,"[1438]1438 throw away their former opinions
which they held about God while they were mocked with vain imaginings,
with scorn and horror and confession of their mistake. And yet they
are not therefore considered not to have received baptism, or to have
received baptism of a kind corresponding to their error; but in them
both the perfection of the sacrament is honored and the delusion of
their mind is corrected, even though it had become inveterate through
long confirmation, or been, perhaps, maintained in many
controversies. Wherefore even the heretic, who is manifestly
without, if he has there received baptism as ordained in the gospel,
has certainly not received baptism of a kind corresponding to the
error which blinds him. And therefore, in returning into the way of
wisdom he perceives that he ought to relinquish what he has held
amiss, he must not at the same time give up the good which he had
received; nor because his error is to be condemned, is the baptism of
Christ in him to be therefore extinguished. For it is already
sufficiently clear, from the case of those who happen to be baptized
within the Church with false views about God, that the truth of the
sacrament is to be distinguished from the error of him who believes
amiss, although both may be found in the same man. And therefore,
when any one grounded in any error, even outside the Church, has yet
been baptized with the true sacrament, when he is restored to the
unity of the Church, a true baptism cannot take the place of a true
baptism, as a true faith takes the place of a false one, because a
thing cannot take the place of itself, since neither can it give
place. Heretics therefore join the Catholic Church to this end, that
what they have evil of themselves may be corrected, not that what they
have good of God should be repeated.
Chapter 16.â24. Some one says, Does it then make no difference, if
two men, rooted in like error and wickedness, be baptized without
change of life or heart, one without, the other within the Church? I
acknowledge that there is a difference. For he is worse who is
baptized without, in addition to his other sin,ânot because of his
baptism, however, but because he is without; for the evil of division
is in itself far from insignificant or trivial. Yet the difference
exists only if he who is baptized within has desired to be within not
for the sake of any earthly or temporal advantage, but because he has
preferred the unity of the Church spread throughout the world to the
divisions of schism; otherwise he too must be considered among those
who are without. Let us therefore put the two cases in this way.Â
Let us suppose that the one, for the sake of argument, held the same
opinions as Photinus[1439]1439 about Christ, and was baptized in his
heresy outside the communion of the Catholic Church; and that another
held the same opinion but was baptized in the Catholic Church,
believing that his view was really the Catholic faith. I consider
him as not yet a heretic, unless, when the doctrine of the Catholic
faith is made clear to him, he chooses to resist it, and prefers that
which he already holds; and till this is the case, it is clear that he
who was baptized outside is the worse. And so in the one case
erroneous opinion alone, in the other the sin of schism also, requires
correction; but in neither of them is the truth of the sacrament to be
repeated. But if any one holds the same view as the first, and knows
that it is only in heresy severed from the Church that such a view is
taught or learned, but yet for the sake of some temporal emolument has
desired to be baptized in the Catholic unity, or, having been already
baptized in it, is unwilling on account of the said emolument to
secede from it, he is not only to be considered as seceding, but his
offense is aggravated, in so far as to the error of heresy and the
division of unity he adds the deceit of hypocrisy. Wherefore the
depravity of each man, in proportion as it is more dangerous and
wanting in straightforwardness, must be corrected with the more
earnestness and energy; and yet, if he has anything that is good in
him, especially if it be not of himself, but from God, we ought not to
think it of no value because of his depravity, or to be blamed like
it, or to be ascribed to it, rather than to His bountiful goodness,
who even to a soul that plays the harlot, and goes after her lovers,
yet gives His bread, and His wine, and His oil, and other food or
ornaments, which are neither from herself nor from her lovers, but
from Him who in compassion for her is even desirous to warn her to
whom she should return.[1440]1440
Chapter 17.â25. "Can the power of baptism," says Cyprian, "be
greater or better than confession? than martyrdom? that a man should
confess Christ before men, and be baptized in his own blood? And
yet," he goes on to say, "neither does this baptism profit the
heretic, even though for confessing Christ he be put to death outside
the Church."[1441]1441Â This is most true; for, by being put to death
outside the Church, he is proved not to have had charity, of which the
apostle says, "Though I give my body to be burned, and have not
charity, it profiteth me nothing."[1442]1442Â But if martyrdom is of
no avail for this reason, because it has not charity, neither does it
profit those who, as Paul says, and Cyprian further sets forth, are
living within the Church without charity in envy and malice; and yet
they can both receive and transmit true baptism. "Salvation," he
says, "is not without the Church."[1443]1443Â Who says that it is?Â
And therefore, whatever men have that belongs to the Church, it
profits them nothing towards salvation outside the Church. But it is
one thing not to have, another to have so as to be of no use. He who
has not must be baptized that he may have; but he who has to no avail
must be corrected, that what he has may profit him. Nor is the water
in the baptism of heretics "adulterous,"[1444]1444 because neither is
the creature itself which God made evil, nor is fault to be found with
the words of the gospel in the mouths of any who are astray; but the
fault is theirs in whom there is an adulterous spirit, even though it
may receive the adornment of the sacrament from a lawful spouse.Â
Baptism therefore can "be common to us, and the heretics,"[1445]1445
just as the gospel can be common to us, whatever difference there may
be between our faith and their error,âwhether they think otherwise
than the truth about the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or,
being cut away from unity, do not gather with Christ, but scatter
abroad,[1446]1446âseeing that the sacrament of baptism can be common
to us, if we are the wheat of the Lord, with the covetous within the
Church, and with robbers, and drunkards, and other pestilent persons
of the same sort, of whom it is said, "They shall not inherit the
kingdom of God,"[1447]1447 and yet the vices by which they are
separated from the kingdom of God are not shared by us.
Chapter 18.â26. Nor indeed, is it of heresies alone that the apostle
says "that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God."Â But it may be worth while to look for a moment at the things
which he groups together. "The works of the flesh," he says "are
manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and
such like:Â of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you
in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God."[1448]1448Â Let us suppose some one, therefore,
chaste, continent, free from covetousness, no idolater, hospitable,
charitable to the needy, no manâs enemy, not contentious, patient,
quiet, jealous of none, envying none, sober, frugal, but a heretic; it
is of course clear to all that for this one fault only, that he is a
heretic, he will fail to inherit the kingdom of God. Let us suppose
another, a fornicator, unclean, lascivious, covetous, or even more
openly given to idolatry, a student of witchcraft, a lover of strife
and contention, envious, hot-tempered, seditious, jealous, drunken,
and a reveller, but a Catholic; can it be that for this sole merit,
that he is a Catholic, he will inherit the kingdom of God, though his
deeds are of the kind of which the apostle thus concludes:Â "Of the
which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God?"Â If
we say this, we lead ourselves astray. For the word of God does not
lead us astray, which is neither silent, nor lenient, nor deceptive
through any flattery. Indeed, it speaks to the same effect
elsewhere:Â "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean
person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance
in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with
vain words."[1449]1449Â We have no reason, therefore, to complain of
the word of God. It certainly says, and says openly and freely, that
those who live a wicked life have no part in the kingdom of God.
Chapter 19.â27. Let us therefore not flatter the Catholic who is
hemmed in with all these vices, nor venture, merely because he is a
Catholic Christian, to promise him the impunity which holy Scripture
does not promise him; nor, if he has any one of the faults above
mentioned, ought we to promise him a partnership in that heavenly
land. For, in writing to the Corinthians, the apostle enumerates the
several sins, under each of which it is implicitly understood that it
shall not inherit the kingdom of God:Â "Be not deceived," he says:Â
"neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom
of God."[1450]1450Â He does not say, those who possess all these
vices together shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but neither these
nor those:Â so that, as each is named, you may understand that no one
of them shall inherit the kingdom of God. As, therefore, heretics
shall not possess the kingdom of God, so the covetous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God. Nor can we indeed doubt that the
punishments themselves, with which they shall be tortured who do not
inherit the kingdom of God, will vary in proportion to the difference
of their offences, and that some will be more severe than others; so
that in the eternal fire itself there will be different tortures in
the punishments, corresponding to the different weights of guilt.Â
For indeed it was not idly that the Lord said, "It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for
thee."[1451]1451Â But yet, so far as failing to inherit the kingdom
of God is concerned, it is just as certain, if you choose any one of
the less heinous of these vices, as if you choose more than one, or
some one which you saw was more atrocious; and because those will
inherit the kingdom of God whom the Judge shall set on His right hand,
and for those who shall not be found worthy to be set at the right
hand nothing will remain but to be at the left, no other announcement
is left for them to hear like goats from the mouth of the Shepherd,
except, "Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels;"[1452]1452 though in that fire, as I said before, it may be
that different punishments will be awarded corresponding to the
difference of the sins.
Chapter 20.â28. But on the question whether we ought to prefer a
Catholic of the most abandoned character to a heretic in whose life,
except that he is a heretic, men can find nothing to blame, I do not
venture to give a hasty judgment. But if any one says, because he is
a heretic, he cannot be this only without other vices also
following,âfor he is carnal and natural, and therefore must be also
envious, and hot-tempered, and jealous, and hostile to truth itself,
and utterly estranged from it,âlet him fairly understand, that of
those other faults of which he is supposed to have chosen some one
less flagrant, a single one cannot exist by itself in any man, because
he in turn is carnal and natural; as, to take the case of drunkenness,
which people have now become accustomed to talk of not only without
horror, but with some degree of merriment, can it possibly exist alone
in any one in whom it is found? For what drunkard is not also
contentious, and hot-tempered, and jealous, and at variance with all
soundness of counsel, and at grievous enmity with those who rebuke
him? Further, it is not easy for him to avoid being a fornicator and
adulterer, though he may be no heretic; just as a heretic may be no
drunkard, nor adulterer, nor fornicator, nor lascivious, nor a lover
of money, or given to witchcraft, and cannot well be all these
together. Nor indeed is any one vice followed by all the rest.Â
Supposing, therefore, two men,âone a Catholic with all these vices,
the other a heretic free from all from which a heretic can be
free,âalthough they do not both contend against the faith, and yet
each lives contrary to the faith, and each is deceived by a vain hope,
and each is far removed from charity of spirit, and therefore each is
severed from connection with the body of the one dove; why do we
recognise in one of them the sacrament of Christ, and not in the
other, as though it belonged to this or that man, whilst really it is
the same in both, and belongs to God alone, and is good even in the
worst of men? And if of the men who have it, one is worse than
another, it does not follow that the sacrament which they have is
worse in the one than in the other, seeing that neither in the case of
two bad Catholics, if one be worse than the other, does he possess a
worse baptism, nor, if one of them be good and another bad, is baptism
bad in the bad one and good in the good one; but it is good in both.Â
Just as the light of the sun, or even of a lamp, is certainly not less
brilliant when displayed to bad eyes than when seen by better ones;
but it is the same in the case of both, although it either cheers or
hurts them differently according to the difference of their powers.
Chapter 21.â29. With regard to the objection brought against
Cyprian, that the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain
for Christâs nameâs sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do
not quite see what it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed, they
urged that heretics could much more be admitted with baptism to
Christâs kingdom, to which catechumens were admitted without it, since
He Himself has said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."[1453]1453Â Now, in this
matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic
catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized
heretic; nor yet do we thereby do dishonor to the sacrament of baptism
which the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do
we consider that the sacrament of the catechumen[1454]1454 is to be
preferred to the sacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some
catechumens are better and more faithful than some baptized persons.Â
For the centurion Cornelius, before baptism, was better than Simon,
who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was
filled with the Holy Spirit;[1455]1455 Simon, even after baptism, was
puffed up with an unclean spirit.[1456]1456Â Cornelius, however,
would have been convicted of contempt for so holy a sacrament, if,
even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to be
baptized. But when he was baptized, he received in no wise a better
sacrament than Simon; but the different merits of the men were made
manifest under the equal holiness of the same sacramentâso true is it
that the good or ill deserving of the recipient does not increase or
diminish the holiness of baptism. But as baptism is wanting to a
good catechumen to his receiving the kingdom of heaven, so true
conversion is wanting to a bad man though baptized. For He who said,
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God," said also Himself, "except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall
in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."[1457]1457Â For that the
righteousness of the catechumens might not feel secure, it is written,
"Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God."Â And again, that the unrighteousness
of the baptized might not feel secure because they had received
baptism, it is written, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven."Â The one were too little without the
other; the two make perfect the heir of that inheritance. As, then,
we ought not to depreciate a manâs righteousness, which begins to
exist before he is joined to the Church, as the righteousness of
Cornelius began to exist before he was in the body of Christian
men,âwhich righteousness was not thought worthless, or the angel would
not have said to him, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up as a
memorial before God;" nor did it yet suffice for his obtaining the
kingdom of heaven, or he would not have been told to send to
Peter,[1458]1458âso neither ought we to depreciate the sacrament of
baptism, even though it has been received outside the Church. But
since it is of no avail for salvation unless he who has baptism indeed
in full perfection be incorporated into the Church, correcting also
his own depravity, let us therefore correct the error of the heretics,
that we may recognize what in them is not their own but Christâs.
Chapter 22.â30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by
martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the
blessed Cyprian adduces[1459]1459 from the thief, to whom, though he
was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in
Paradise."[1460]1460Â On considering which, again and again, I find
that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was
wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if
recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism
for want of time.[1461]1461Â For neither was that thief crucified for
the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he
suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was
shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power,
even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle
says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation."[1462]1462Â But the want is
supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is
prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the
moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than
in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should
also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy
Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was
received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by
every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke
with tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have
the authority of an apostle as the warrant. So far ought all of us
to be from being induced by any imperfection in the inner man, if it
so happen that before baptism a person has advanced, through the
workings of a pious heart, to spiritual understanding, to despise a
sacrament which is applied to the body by the hands of the minister,
but which is Godâs own means for working spiritually a manâs
dedication to Himself. Nor do I conceive that the function of
baptizing was assigned to John, so that it should be called Johnâs
baptism, for any other reason except that the Lord Himself, who had
appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism of His
servant,[1463]1463 might consecrate the path of humility, and show
most plainly by such an action how high a value was to be placed on
His own baptism, with which He Himself was afterwards to baptize.Â
For He saw, like an excellent physician of eternal salvation, that
overweening pride would be found in some, who, having made such
progress in the understanding of the truth and in uprightness of
character that they would not hesitate to place themselves, both in
life and knowledge, above many that were baptized, would think it was
unnecessary for them to be baptized, since they felt that they had
attained a frame of mind to which many that were baptized were still
only endeavoring to raise themselves.
Chapter 23.â31. But what is the precise value of the sanctification
of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want
of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what
is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to
say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would
not have received the baptism of a servant. But since we must look
at it in itself, without entering upon the question of the salvation
of the recipient, which it is intended to work, it shows clearly
enough that both in the bad, and in those who renounce the world in
word and not in deed, it is itself complete, though they cannot
receive salvation unless they amend their lives. But as in the
thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was
necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was
spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself
is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be
unavoidably wanting. And this is the firm tradition of the universal
Church, in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet
unable "with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the
mouth to make confession unto salvation," as the thief could do; nay,
who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon
them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and
yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose.
Chapter 24.â32. And if any one seek for divine authority in this
matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as
instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is
rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still
we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism
in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was
received by Godâs earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham
was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the
Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham
himself, that "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith," having already believed in his heart, so
that "it was counted unto him for righteousness."[1464]1464Â Why,
therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male
child in order on the eighth day,[1465]1465 though it could not yet
believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for
righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail?Â
And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of
Mosesâ son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet
uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he
should be circumcised,[1466]1466 and when this was done, the danger of
death was removed. As therefore in Abraham the justification of
faith came first, and circumcision was added afterwards as the seal of
faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the
gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added
afterwards in the laver of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was
circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this
righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated
the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew
up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so
in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given
first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the
heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the
outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the
Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism,
because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want
of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that
the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from
perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither
believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with
the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for
them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their
behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God,
because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to
answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the
same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel
what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, "He is of age, he
shall speak for himself."[1467]1467
Chapter 25.â33. By all these considerations it is proved that the
sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart
another; but that manâs salvation is made complete through the two
together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it
necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the
sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart;
and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of
the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily
wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting
intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And
baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but,
with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism
has not been received, but never when it has been despised. Nor can
there be said in any way to be a turning of the heart to God when the
sacrament of God is treated with contempt. Therefore we are right in
censuring, anathematizing, abhorring, and abominating the perversity
of heart shown by heretics; yet it does not follow that they have not
the sacrament of the gospel, because they have not what makes it of
avail. Wherefore, when they come to the true faith, and by penitence
seek remission of their sins, we are not flattering or deceiving them,
when we instruct them by heavenly discipline for the kingdom of
heaven, correcting and reforming in them their errors and
perverseness, to the intent that we may by no means do violence to
what is sound in them, nor, because of manâs fault, declare that
anything which he may have in him from God is either valueless or
faulty.
Chapter 26.â34. A few things still remain to be noticed in the
epistle to Jubaianus; but since these will raise the question both of
the past custom of the Church and of the baptism of John, which is
wont to excite no small doubt in those who pay slight attention to a
matter which is sufficiently obvious, seeing that those who had
received the baptism of John were commanded by the apostle to be
baptized again[1468]1468 they are not to be treated in a hasty manner,
and had better be reserved for another book, that the dimensions of
this may not be inconveniently large.
Book V.
He examines the last part of the epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus,
together with his epistle to Quintus, the letter of the African synod
to the Numidian bishops, and Cyprianâs epistle to Pompeius.
Chapter 1.â1. We have the testimony of the blessed Cyprian, that the
custom of the Catholic Church is at present retained, when men coming
from the side of heretics or schismatics, if they have received
baptism as consecrated in the words of the gospel, are not baptized
afresh. For he himself proposed to himself the question, and that as
coming from the mouth of brethren either seeking the truth or
contending for the truth. For in the course of the arguments by
which he wished to show that heretics should be baptized again, which
we have sufficiently considered for our present purpose in the former
books, he says:Â "But some will say, What then will become of those
who in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted
without baptism?"[1469]1469Â In this question is involved the
shipwreck of the whole cause of the Donatists, with whom our contest
is on this point. For if those had not really baptism who were thus
received on coming from heretics, and their sins were still upon them,
then, when such men were admitted to communion, either by those who
came before Cyprian or by Cyprian himself, we must acknowledge that
one of two things occurred,âeither that the Church perished then and
there from the pollution of communion with such men, or that any one
abiding in unity is not injured by even the notorious sins of other
men. But since they cannot say that the Church then perished through
the contamination arising from communion with those who, as Cyprian
says, were admitted into it without baptismâfor otherwise they cannot
maintain the validity of their own origin if the Church then perished,
seeing that the list of consuls proves that more than forty years
elapsed between the martyrdom of Cyprian and the burning of the sacred
books,[1470]1470 from which they took occasion to make a schism,
spreading abroad the smoke of their calumnies,âit therefore is left
for them to acknowledge that the unity of Christ is not polluted by
any such communion, even with known offenders. And, after this
confession, they will be unable to discover any reason which will
justify them in maintaining that they were bound to separate from the
churches of the whole world, which, as we read, were equally founded
by the apostles, seeing that, while the others could not have perished
from any admixture of offenders, of whatsoever kind, they, though they
would not have perished if they had remained in unity with them,
brought destruction on themselves in schism, by separating themselves
from their brethren, and breaking the bond of peace. For the
sacrilege of schism is most clearly evident in them, if they had no
sufficient cause for separation. And it is clear that there was no
sufficient cause for separation, if even the presence of notorious
offenders cannot pollute the good while they abide in unity. But
that the good, abiding in unity, are not polluted even by notorious
offenders, we teach on the testimony of Cyprian, who says that "men in
past times, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without
baptism;" and yet, if the wickedness of their sacrilege, which was
still upon them, seeing it had not been purged away by baptism, could
not pollute and destroy the holiness of the Church, it cannot perish
by any infection from wicked men. Wherefore, if they allow that
Cyprian spoke the truth, they are convicted of schism on his
testimony; if they maintain that he does not speak truth, let them not
use his testimony on the question of baptism.
Chapter 2.â2. But now that we have begun a disputation with a man of
peace like Cyprian, let us go on. For when he had brought an
objection against himself, which he knew was urged by his brethren,
"What then will become of those who in times past, coming to the
Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism? The Lord," he
answers, "is able of His mercy to grant indulgence, and not to
separate from the gifts of His Church those who, being admitted in all
honesty to His Church, have fallen asleep within the
Church."[1471]1471Â Well indeed has he assumed that charity can cover
the multitude of sins. But if they really had baptism, and this were
not rightly perceived by those who thought that they should be
baptized again, that error was covered by the charity of unity so long
as it contained, not the discord and spirit of the devil, but merely
human infirmity, until, as the apostle says, "if they were otherwise
minded, the Lord should reveal it to them."[1472]1472Â But woe unto
those who, being torn asunder from unity by a sacrilegious rupture,
either rebaptize, if baptism exists with both us and them, or do not
baptize at all, if baptism exist in the Catholic Church only.Â
Whether, therefore, they rebaptize, or fail to baptize, they are not
in the bond of peace; wherefore let them apply a remedy to which they
please of these two wounds. But if we admit to the Church without
baptism, we are of the number of those who, as Cyprian has assumed,
may receive pardon because they preserved unity. But if (as is, I
think, already clear from what has been said in the earlier books)
Christian baptism can preserve its integrity even amid the perversity
of heretics, then even though any in those times did rebaptize, yet
without departing from the bond of unity, they might still attain to
pardon in virtue of that same love of peace, through which Cyprian
bears witness that those admitted even without baptism might obtain
that they should not be separated from the gifts of the Church.Â
Further, if it is true that with heretics and schismatics the baptism
of Christ does not exist, how much less could the sins of others hurt
those who were fixed in unity, if even menâs own sins were forgiven
when they came to it even without baptism! For if, according to
Cyprian, the bond of unity is of such efficacy, how could they be hurt
by other menâs sins, who were unwilling to separate themselves from
unity, if even the unbaptized, who wished to come to it from heresy,
thereby escaped the destruction due to their own sins?
Chapter. 3.â3. But in what Cyprian adds, saying, "Nor yet because
men once have erred must there be always error, since it rather befits
wise and God-fearing men gladly and unhesitatingly to follow truth,
when it is clearly laid before their eyes, than obstinately and
persistently to fight for heretics against their brethren and their
fellow-priests,"[1473]1473 he is uttering the most perfect truth; and
the man who resists the manifest truth is opposing himself rather than
his neighbors. But, so far as I can judge, it is perfectly clear and
certain, from the many arguments which I have already adduced, that
the baptism of Christ cannot be invalidated even by the perversity of
heretics, when it is given or received among them. But, granting
that it is not yet certain, at any rate no one who has considered what
has been said, even from a hostile point of view, will assert that the
question has been decided the other way. Therefore we are not
striving against manifest truth, but either, as I think, we are
striving in behalf of what is clearly true, or, at any rate, as those
may hold who think that the question has not yet been solved, we are
seeking for the truth. And therefore, if the truth be other than we
think, yet we are receiving those baptized by heretics with the same
honesty of heart with which those received them whom, Cyprian
supposed, in virtue of their cleaving to the unity of the Church, to
be capable of pardon. But if the baptism of Christ, as is indicated
by the many arguments used above, can retain its integrity amid any
defect either of life or faith, whether on the part of those who seem
to be within, and yet do not belong to the members of the one dove or
on the part of those whose severance from her extends to being openly
without, then those who sought its repetition in those former days
deserved the same pardon for their charity in clinging to unity, which
Cyprian thought that those deserved for charity of the same kind whom
he believed to have been admitted without baptism. They therefore
who, without any cause (since, as Cyprian himself shows, the bad
cannot hurt the good in the unity of the Church), have cut themselves
off from the charity which is shown in this unity, have lost all place
of pardon, and whilst they would incur destruction by the very crime
of schism, even though they did not rebaptize those who had been
baptized in the Catholic Church, of how bitter punishment are they
deserving, who are either endeavoring to give to the Catholics who
have it what Cyprian affirms that they themselves have not, or, as is
clear from the facts of the case, are bringing as a charge against the
Catholic Church that she has not what even they themselves possess?
Chapter 4.â4. But since now, as I said before, we have begun a
disputation with the epistles of Cyprian, I think that I should not
seem even to him, if he were present, "to be contending obstinately
and persistently in defense of heretics against my brethren and my
fellow-priests," when he learned the powerful reasons which move us to
believe that even among heretics, who are perversely obstinate in
their malignant error, the baptism of Christ is yet in itself most
holy, and most highly to be reverenced. And seeing that he himself,
whose testimony has such weight with us, bears witness that they were
wont in past times to be admitted without a second baptism, I would
have any one, who is induced by Cyprianâs arguments to hold it as
certain that heretics ought to be baptized afresh, yet consider that
those who, on account of weight of the arguments on the other side,
are not as yet persuaded that this should be so, hold the same place
as those in past time, who in all honesty admitted men who were
baptized in heresy on the simple correction of their individual error,
and who were capable of salvation with them in virtue of the bond of
unity. And let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church,
and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many
powerful proofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian
himself, and by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the
baptism of Christ, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be
perverted by the error of any man on earth,âlet such an one
understand, that they who then thought otherwise, but yet preserved
their charity, can be saved by the same bond of unity. And herein he
should also understand of those who, in the society of the Church
dispersed throughout the world, could not have been defiled by any
tares, by any chaff, so long as they themselves desired to be fruitful
corn, and who therefore severed themselves from the same bond of unity
without any cause for the divorce, that at any rate, whichever of the
two opinions be true,âthat which Cyprian then held, or that which was
maintained by the universal voice of the Catholic Church, which
Cyprian did not abandon,âin either case they, having most openly
placed themselves outside in the plain sacrilege of schism, cannot
possibly be saved, and all that they possess of the holy sacraments,
and of the free gifts of the one legitimate Bridegroom, is of avail,
while they continue what they are, for their confusion rather than the
salvation of their souls.
Chapter 5.â5. Wherefore, even if heretics should be truly anxious to
correct their error and come to the Church, for the very reason that
they believed that they had no baptism unless they received it in the
Church, even under these circumstances we should not be bound to yield
to their desire for the repetition of baptism; but rather they should
be taught, on the one hand, that baptism, though perfect in itself,
could in no way profit their perversity if they would not submit to be
corrected; and, on the other hand, that the perfection of baptism
could not be impaired by their perversity, while refusing to be
corrected:Â and again, that no further perfection is added to baptism
in them because they are submitting to correction; but that, while
they themselves are quitting their iniquity, that which was before
within them to their destruction is now beginning to be of profit for
salvation. For, learning this, they will both recognize the need of
salvation in Catholic unity, and will cease to claim as their own what
is really Christâs, and will not confound the sacrament of truth,
although existing in themselves, with their own individual error.
6. To this we may add a further reason, that men, by a sort of
hidden inspiration from heaven, shrink from any one who for the second
time receives baptism which he had already received in any quarter
whatsoever, insomuch that the very heretics themselves, when their
arguments start with that subject, rub their forehead in perplexity,
and almost all their laity, even those who have grown old in their
body, and have conceived an obstinate animosity against the Catholic
Church, confess that this one point in their system displeases them;
and many who, for the sake of gaining some secular advantage, or
avoiding some disadvantage, wish to secede to them, strive with many
secret efforts that they may have granted to them, as a peculiar and
individual privilege, that they should not be rebaptized; and some,
who are led to place credence in their other vain delusions and false
accusations against the Catholic Church, are recalled to unity by this
one consideration, that they are unwilling to associate with them lest
they should be compelled to be rebaptized. And the Donatists,
through fear of this feeling, which has so thorough possession of all
menâs hearts, have consented to acknowledge the baptism which was
conferred among the followers of Maximianus, whom they had condemned,
and so to cut short their own tongues and close their mouths, in
preference to baptizing again so many men of the people of Musti, and
Assuræ, and other districts, whom they received with Felicianus and
Prætextatus, and the others who had been condemned by them and
afterwards returned to them.
Chapter 6.â7. For when this is done occasionally in the case of
individuals, at great intervals of time and space, the enormity of the
deed is not equally felt; but if all were suddenly to be brought
together who had been baptized in course of time by the aforesaid
followers of Maximianus, either under pressure of the peril of death
or at their Easter solemnities, and it were told them that they must
be baptized again, because what they had already received in the
sacrilege of schism was null and void, they might indeed say what
obstinate perseverance in their error would compel them to say, that
they might hide the rigor and iciness of their hardness under any kind
of false shade of consistency against the warmth of truth. But in
fact, because the party of Maximianus could not bear this, and because
the very men who would have to enforce it could not endure what must
needs have been done in the case of so many men at once, especially as
those very men would be rebaptizing them in the party of Primianus who
had already baptized them in the party of Maximianus, for these
reasons their baptism was received, and the pride of the Donatists was
cut short. And this course they would certainly not have chosen to
adopt, had they not thought that more harm would have been done to
their cause by the offense men would have taken at the repetition of
the baptism, than by the reputation lost in abandoning their
defense. And this I would not say with any idea that we ought to be
restrained by consideration of human feelings, if the truth compelled
those who came from heretics to be baptized afresh. But because the
holy Cyprian says, "that heretics might have been all the more
impelled to the necessity of coming over, if only they were to be
rebaptized in the Catholic Church,"[1474]1474 on this account I have
wished to place on record the intensity of the repugnance to this act
which is seated deeply in the heart of nearly every one,âa repugnance
which I can believe was inspired by God Himself, that the Church might
be fortified by the instinct of repugnance against any possible
arguments which the weak cannot dispel.
Chapter 7.â8. Truly, when I look at the actual words of Cyprian, I
am warned to say some things which are very necessary for the solution
of this question. "For if they were to see," he says, "that it was
settled and established by our formal decision and vote, that the
baptism with which they are baptized in heresy is considered just and
lawful, they will think that they are in just and lawful possession of
the Church also, and all its other gifts."[1475]1475Â He does not say
"that they will think they are in possession," but "in just and lawful
possession of the gifts of the Church."Â But we say that we cannot
allow that they are in just and lawful possession of baptism. That
they are in possession of it we cannot deny, when we recognize the
sacrament of the Lord in the words of the gospel. They have
therefore lawful baptism, but they do not have it lawfully. For
whosoever has it both in Catholic unity, and living worthily of it,
both has lawful baptism and has it lawfully; but whosoever has it
either within the Catholic Church itself, as chaff mixed with the
wheat, or outside, as chaff carried away by the wind, has indeed
lawful baptism, but not lawfully. For he has it as he uses it. But
the man does not use it lawfully who uses it against the law,âwhich
every one does, who, being baptized, yet leads an abandoned life,
whether inside or without the Church.
Chapter 8.â9. Wherefore, as the apostle said of the law, "The law is
good, if a man use it lawfully,"[1476]1476 so we may fairly say of
baptism, Baptism is good, if a man use it lawfully. And as they who
used the law unlawfully could not in that case cause that it should
not be in itself good, or make it null and void, so any one who uses
baptism unlawfully, either because he lives in heresy, or because he
lives the worst of lives, yet cannot cause that the baptism should be
otherwise than good, or altogether null and void. And so, when he is
converted either to Catholic unity, or to a mode of living worthy of
so great a sacrament, he begins to have not another and a lawful
baptism, but that same baptism in a lawful manner. Nor does the
remission of irrevocable sins follow on baptism, unless a man not only
have lawful baptism, but have it lawfully; and yet it does not follow
that if a man have it not lawfully, so that his sins are either not
remitted, or, being remitted, are brought on him again, therefore the
sacrament of baptism should be in the baptized person either bad or
null and void. For as Judas, to whom the Lord gave a morsel, gave a
place within himself of the devil, not by receiving what was bad, but
by receiving it badly,[1477]1477 so each person, on receiving the
sacrament of the Lord, does not cause that it is bad because he is bad
himself, or that he has received nothing because he has not received
it to salvation. For it was none the less the body of the Lord and
the blood of the Lord, even in those to whom the apostle said, "He
that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to
himself."[1478]1478 Â Let the heretics therefore seek in the Catholic
Church not what they have, but what they have not,âthat is, the end of
the commandment, without which many holy things may be possessed, but
they cannot profit. "Now, the end of the commandment is charity out
of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned."[1479]1479Â Let them therefore hasten to the unity and
truth of the Catholic Church, not that they may have the sacrament of
washing, if they have been already bathed in it, although in heresy,
but that they may have it to their health.
Chapter 9.â10. Now we must see what is said of the baptism of
John. For "we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that those who had
already been baptized with the baptism of John were yet baptized by
Paul,"[1480]1480 simply because the baptism of John was not the
baptism of Christ, but a baptism allowed by Christ to John, so as to
be called especially Johnâs baptism; as the same John says, "A man can
receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven."[1481]1481Â And
that he might not possibly seem to receive this from God the Father in
such wise as not to receive it from the Son, speaking presently of
Christ Himself, he says, "Of His fullness have all we
received."[1482]1482Â But by the grace of a certain dispensation John
received this, which was to last not for long, but only long enough to
prepare for the Lord the way in which he must needs be the
forerunner. And as our Lord was presently to enter on this way with
all humility, and to lead those who humbly followed Him to perfection,
as He washed the feet of His servants,[1483]1483 so was He willing to
be baptized with the baptism of a servant.[1484]1484Â For as He set
Himself to minister to the feet of those whose guide He was Himself,
so He submitted Himself to the gift of John which He Himself had
given, that all might understand what sacrilegious arrogance they
would show in despising the baptism which they ought each of them to
receive from the Lord, when the Lord Himself accepted what He Himself
had bestowed upon a servant, that he might give it as his own; and
that when John, than whom no greater had arisen among them that are
born of women,[1485]1485 bore such testimony to Christ, as to confess
that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of His shoe,[1486]1486
Christ might both, by receiving his baptism, be found to be the
humblest among men, and, by taking away the place for the baptism of
John, be believed to be the most high God, at once the teacher of
humility and the giver of exaltation.
11. For to none of the prophets, to no one at all in holy Scripture,
do we read that it was granted to baptize in the water of repentance
for the remission of sins, as it was granted to John; that, causing
the hearts of the people to hang upon him through this marvellous
grace, he might prepare in them the way for Him whom he declared to be
so infinitely greater than himself. But the Lord Jesus Christ
cleanses His Church by such a baptism that on receiving it no other is
required; while John gave a first washing with such a baptism that on
receiving it there was further need of the baptism of the Lord,ânot
that the first baptism should be repeated, but that the baptism of
Christ, for whom he was preparing the way, might be further bestowed
on those who had received the baptism of John. For if Christâs
humility were not to be commended to our notice, neither would there
be any need of the baptism of John; again, if the end were in John,
after his baptism there would be no need of the baptism of Christ.Â
But because "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth,"[1487]1487 it was shown by John to whom men should
go, and in whom, when they had reached Him, they should rest. The
same, John, therefore, set forth both the exalted nature of the Lord,
when he placed Him far before himself, and His humility, when he
baptized Him as the lowest of the people. But if John had baptized
Christ alone, he would be thought to have been the dispenser of a
better baptism, in that with which Christ alone was baptized, than the
baptism of Christ with which Christians are baptized; and again, if
all ought to be baptized first with the baptism of John, and then with
that of Christ, the baptism of Christ would deservedly seem to be
lacking in fullness and perfection, as not sufficing for salvation.Â
Wherefore the Lord was baptized with the baptism of John, that He
might bend the proud necks of men to His own health-giving baptism;
and He was not alone baptized with it, lest He should show His own to
be inferior to this, with which none but He Himself had deserved to be
baptized; and He did not allow it to continue longer, lest the one
baptism with which He baptizes might seem to need the other to precede
it.
Chapter 10.â12. I ask, therefore, if sins were remitted by the
baptism of John, what more could the baptism of Christ confer on those
whom the Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the baptism of
Christ after they had received the baptism of John? But if sins were
not remitted by the baptism of John, were those men in the days of
Cyprian better than John, of whom he says himself that they "used to
seize on estates by treacherous frauds, and increase their gains by
accumulated usuries,"[1488]1488 through whose, administration of
baptism the remission of sins was yet conferred? Or was it because
they were contained within the unity of the Church? What then? Was
John not contained within that unity, the friend of the Bridegroom,
the preparer of the way of the Lord, the baptizer of the Lord
Himself? Who will be mad enough to assert this? Wherefore,
although my belief is that John so baptized with the water of
repentance for the remission of sins, that those who were baptized by
him received the expectation of the remission of their sins, the
actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord,âjust as the
resurrection which is expected at the last day is fulfilled in hope in
us, as the apostle says, that "He hath raised us up together, and made
us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus;"[1489]1489 and
again, "For we are saved by hope;"[1490]1490 or as again John himself,
while he says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, for
the remission of your sins,"[1491]1491 yet says, on seeing our Lord,
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world,"[1492]1492ânevertheless I am not disposed to contend vehemently
against any one who maintains that sins were remitted even in the
baptism of John, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred by
the baptism of Christ on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized
anew.[1493]1493
Chapter 11.â13. For we must look at the point which especially
concerns the matter before us (whatever be the nature of the baptism
of John, since it is clear that he belongs to the unity of Christ),
viz., what is the reason for which it was right that men should be
baptized again after receiving the baptism of the holy John, and why
they ought not to be baptized again after receiving the baptism of the
covetous bishops. For no one denies that in the Lordâs field John
was as wheat, bearing an hundred-fold, if that be the highest rate of
increase; also no one doubts that covetousness, which is idolatry, is
reckoned in the Lordâs harvest among the chaff. Why then is a man
baptized again after receiving baptism from the wheat, and not after
receiving it from the chaff? If it was because he was better than
John that Paul baptized after John, why did not also Cyprian baptize
after his usurious colleagues, than whom he was better beyond all
comparison? If it was because they were in unity with him that he
did not baptize after such colleagues, neither ought Paul to have
baptized after John, because they were joined together in the same
unity. Can it be that defrauders and extortioners belong to the
members of that one dove, and that he does not belong to it to whom
the full power of the Lord Jesus Christ was shown by the appearance of
the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove?[1494]1494Â Truly he belongs
most closely to it; but the others, who must be separated from it
either by the occasion of some scandal, or by the winnowing at the
last day, do not by any means belong to it, and yet baptism was
repeated after John and not after them. What then is the cause,
except that the baptism which Paul ordered them to receive was not the
same as that which was given at the hands of John? And so in the
same unity of the Church, the baptism of Christ cannot be repeated
though it be given by an usurious minister; but those who receive the
baptism of John, even from the hands of John Himself, ought to be
afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ.
Chapter 12.â14. Accordingly, I too might use the words of the
blessed Cyprian to turn the hearts of those that hear me to the
consideration of something truly marvellous, if I were to say "that
John, who was accounted greater among the prophets,âhe who was filled
with divine grace while yet in his motherâs womb; he who was upheld in
the spirit and power of Elias; who was not the adversary, but a
forerunner and herald of the Lord:Â who not only foretold our Lord in
words, but also showed Him to the sight; who baptized Christ Himself,
through whom all others are baptized,"[1495]1495âhe was not worthy to
baptize in such wise that those who were baptized by him should not be
baptized again after him; and shall no one think that a man should be
baptized in the Church after he had been baptized by the covetous, by
defrauders, by extortioners, by usurers? Is not the answer ready to
this invidious question, Why do you think this unmeet, as though
either John were dishonored, or the covetous man honored? But His
baptism ought not to be repeated, of whom John says, "The same is He
which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."[1496]1496Â For whoever be the
minister by whose hands it is given, it is His baptism of whom it was
said, "The same is He which baptizeth."Â But neither was the baptism
of John himself repeated, when the Apostle Paul commanded those who
had been baptized by him to be baptized in Christ. For what they had
not received from the friend of the Bridegroom, this it was right that
they should receive from the Bridegroom Himself, of whom that friend
had said, "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Chapter 13.â15. For the Lord Jesus might, if He had so thought fit,
have given the power of His baptism to some one or more of His chief
servants, whom He had already made His friends, such as those to whom
He says, "Henceforth I call you not servants, but friends;"[1497]1497
that, as Aaron was shown to be the priest by the rod that
budded,[1498]1498 so in His Church, when more and greater miracles are
performed, the ministers of more excellent holiness, and the
dispensers of His mysteries, might be made manifest by some sign, as
those who alone ought to baptize. But if this had been done, then
though the power of baptizing were given them by the Lord, yet it
would necessarily be called their own baptism, as in the case of the
baptism of John. And so Paul gives thanks to God that he baptized
none of those men who, as though forgetting in whose name they had
been baptized, were for dividing themselves into factions under the
names of different individuals.[1499]1499Â For when baptism is as
valid at the hands of a contemptible man as it was when given by an
apostle, it is recognized as the baptism neither of this man nor of
that, but of Christ; as John bears witness that he learned, in the
case of the Lord Himself, through the appearance of the dove. For in
what other respect he said, "And I knew Him not," I cannot clearly
see. For if he had not known Him in any sense, he could not have
said to Him when He came to his baptism, "I have need to be baptized
of Thee."[1500]1500Â What is it, therefore, that he says, "I saw the
Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him.Â
And I knew Him not:Â but He that sent me to baptizewith water, the
same said unto me, Upon whom thou shall see the Spirit descending, and
remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost?"[1501]1501Â The dove clearly descended on Him after He was
baptized. But while He was yet coming to be baptized, John had said,
"I have need to be baptized of Thee."Â He therefore already knew
Him. What does he therefore mean by the words, "I knew Him not:Â
but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon
whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the
same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost," since this took place
after He was baptized, unless it were that he knew Him in respect of
certain attributes, and in respect of others knew Him not? He knew
Him, indeed, as the Son of God, the Bridegroom, of whose fullness all
should receive; but whereas of His fullness he himself had so received
the power of baptizing that it should be called the baptism of John,
he did not know whether He would so give it to others also, or whether
He would have His own baptism in such wise, that at whosesoever hands
it was given, whether by a man that brought forth fruit a hundredfold,
or sixtyfold, or thirtyfold, whether by the wheat or by the chaff, it
should be known to be of Him alone; and this he learned through the
Spirit descending like a dove, and abiding on Him.
Chapter 14.â16. Accordingly we find the apostles using the
expressions, "My glorying,"[1502]1502 though it was certainly in the
Lord; and "Mine office,"[1503]1503 and "My knowledge,"[1504]1504 and
"My gospel,"[1505]1505 although it was confessedly bestowed and given
by the Lord; but no one of them ever once said, "My baptism."Â For
neither is the glorying of all of them equal, nor do they all minister
with equal powers, nor are they all endowed with equal knowledge, and
in preaching the gospel one works more forcibly than another, and so
one may be said to be more learned than another in the doctrine of
salvation itself; but one cannot be said to be more or less baptized
than another, whether he be baptized by a greater or a less worthy
minister. So when "the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousnness, idolatry,
witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, strife, seditions, heresies,
envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like;"[1506]1506 if it be
strange that it should be said, "Men were baptized after John, and are
not baptized after heretics," why is it not equally strange that it
should be said, "Men were baptized after John, and are not baptized
after the envious," seeing that Cyprian himself bears witness in his
epistle concerning envy and malignity that the covetous are of the
party of the devil, and Cyprian himself makes it manifest from the
words of the Apostle Paul, as we have shown above, that in the time of
the apostles themselves there were envious persons in the Church of
Christ among the very preachers of the name of Christ?
Chapter 15.â17. That therefore the baptism of John was not the same
as the baptism of Christ, has, I think, been shown with sufficient
clearness; and therefore no argument can be drawn from it that baptism
should be repeated after heretics because it was repeated after
John:Â since John was not a heretic, and could have a baptism, which,
though granted by Christ, was yet not the very baptism of Christ,
seeing that he had the love of Christ; while a heretic can have at
once the baptism of Christ and the perversity of the devil, as another
within the Church may have at once the baptism of Christ and the envy
of the devil.
18. But it will be urged that baptism after a heretic is much more
required, because John was not a heretic, and yet baptism was repeated
after him. On this principle, a man may say, much more must we
rebaptize after a drunkard, because John was sober, and yet baptism
was repeated after him. And we shall have no answer to make to such
a man, save that the baptism of Christ was given to those who were
baptized by John, because they had it not; but where men have the
baptism of Christ, no iniquity on their part can possibly effect that
the baptism of Christ should fail to be in them.
19. It is not therefore true that "by baptizing first, the heretic
obtains the right of baptism;"[1507]1507 but because he did not
baptize with his own baptism, and though he did not possess the right
of baptizing, yet that which he gave is Christâs, and he who received
it is Christâs. For many things are given wrongfully and yet they
are not therefore said to be non-existent or not given at all. For
neither does he who renounces the world in word only and not in deed
receive baptism lawfully, and yet he does receive it. For both
Cyprian records that there were such men in the Church in his day, and
we ourselves experience and lament the fact.
20. But it is strange in what sense it can be said that "baptism and
the Church cannot in any way be separated and detached from one
another."[1508]1508Â For if baptism remains inseparably in him who is
baptized, how can it be that he can be separated from the Church, and
baptism cannot? But it is clear that baptism does remain inseparably
in the baptized person; because into whatever depth of evil, and into
whatever fearful whirlpool of sin the baptized person may fall, even
to the ruin of apostasy, he yet is not bereft of his baptism. And
therefore, if through repentance he returns, it is not given again,
because it is judged that he could not have been bereft of it. But
who can ever doubt that a baptized person can be separated from the
Church? For hence all the heresies have proceeded which deceive by
the use of Christian terms.
Chapter 16.âWherefore, since it is manifest that the baptism remains
in the baptized person when he is separated from the Church, the
baptism which is in him is certainly separated with him. And
therefore not all who retain the baptism retain the Church, just as
not all who retain the Church retain eternal life. Or if we say that
only those retain the Church who observe the commandments of God, we
at once concede that there are many who retain baptism, and do not
retain the Church.
21. Therefore the heretic is not "the first to seize baptism," since
he has received it from the Church. Nor, though he seceded, could
baptism have been lost by him whom we assert no longer to retain the
Church, and yet allow to retain baptism. Nor does any one "yield his
birthright, and give it to a heretic,"[1509]1509 because he says that
he took away with him what he could not give lawfully, but what would
yet be according to law when given; or that he no longer has lawfully
what yet is in accordance with law in his possession. But the
birthright rests only in a holy conversation and good life, to which
all belong of whom that bride consists as her members which has no
spot or wrinkle,[1510]1510 or that dove that groans amid the
wickedness of the many crows,âunless it be that, while Esau lost his
birthright from his lust after a mess of pottage,[1511]1511 we are yet
to hold that it is retained by defrauders, robbers, usurers, envious
persons, drunkards and the like, over whose existence in the Church of
his time Cyprian groaned in his epistles. Wherefore, either it is
not the same thing to retain the Church and to retain the birthright
in divine things, or, if every one who retains the Church also retains
the birthright, then all those wicked ones do not retain the Church
who yet both seem and are allowed by every one of us to give baptism
within the Church; for no one, save the man who is wholly ignorant of
sacred things, would say that they retain the birthright in sacred
things.
Chapter 17.â22. But, having considered and handled all these points,
we have now come to that peaceful utterance of Cyprian at the end of
the epistle, with which I am never sated, though I read and re-read it
again and again,âso great is the pleasantness of brotherly love which
breathes forth from it, so great the sweetness of charity in which it
abounds. "These things," he says, "we have written unto you, dearest
brother, shortly, according to our poor ability, prescribing to or
prejudging no one, lest each bishop should not do what he thinks
right, in the free exercise of his own will. We, so far as in us
lies, do not contend on the subject of heretics with our colleagues
and fellow-bishops, with whom we maintain concord and peace in the
Lord; especially as the apostle also says, âIf any man seem to be
contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of
God.â[1512]1512Â We observe patiently and gently charity of spirit,
the honor of our brotherhood, the bond of faith, the harmony of the
priesthood. For this reason also, to the best of our poor ability,
by the permission and the inspiration of God we have written this
treatise on âThe Good of Patience,â which we have sent to you in
consideration of our mutual love."[1513]1513
23. There are many things to be considered in these words, wherein
the brightness of Christian charity shines forth in this man, who
"loved the beauty of the Lordâs house, and the place of the tabernacle
of His habitation."[1514]1514Â First, that he did not conceal what he
felt; then, that he set it forth so gently and peacefully, in that he
maintained the peace of the Church with those who thought otherwise,
because he understood how great healthfulness was bound up in the bond
of peace, loving it so much, and maintaining it with sobriety, seeing
and feeling that even men who think differently may entertain their
several sentiments with saving charity. For he would not say that he
could maintain divine concord or the peace of the Lord with evil men;
for the good man can observe peace towards wicked men, but he cannot
be united with them in the peace which they have not. Lastly, that
prescribing to no one, and prejudging no one, lest each bishop should
not do what he thinks right in the free exercise of his own will, he
has left for us also, whatsoever we may be, a place for treating
peacefully of those things with him. For he is present, not only in
his letters, but by that very charity which existed in so
extraordinary a degree in him, and which can never die. Longing,
therefore, with the aid of his prayers, to cling to and be in union
with him, if I be not hindered by the unmeetness of my sins, I will
learn if I can through his letters with how great peace and comfort
the Lord administered His Church through him; and, putting on the
bowels of humility through the moving influence of his discourse, if,
in common with the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine more true
than his, I will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in
which he, though holding different views, was yet not severed from the
Church throughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet
undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed
from those of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great
moderation, that he would not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the
Church of God by any stain of schism, a greater strength of excellence
appeared in him than would have been shown if, without that virtue, he
had held views on every point not only true, but coinciding with their
own. Nor should I be acting as he would wish, if I were to pretend
to prefer his talent and his fluency of discourse and copiousness of
learning to the holy Council of all nations, whereat he was assuredly
present through the unity of his spirit, especially as he is now
placed in such full light of truth as to see with perfect certainty
what he was here seeking in the spirit of perfect peace. For out of
that rich abundance he smiles at all that here seems eloquence in us,
as though it were the first essay of infancy; there he sees by what
rule of piety he acted here, that nothing should be dearer in the
Church to him than unity. There, too, with unspeakable delight he
beholds with what prescient and most merciful providence the Lord,
that He might heal our swellings, "chose the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise,"[1515]1515 and, in the ordering of the
members of His Church, placed all things in such a healthful way, that
men should not say that they were chosen to the help of the gospel for
their own talent or learning, of whose source they yet were ignorant,
and so be puffed up with deadly pride. Oh, how Cyprian rejoices!Â
With how much more perfect calmness does he behold how greatly it
conduces to the health of the human race, that in the writings even of
Christian and pious orators there should be found what merits blame,
and in the writings of the fishermen there should nothing of the sort
be found! And so I, being fully assured of this joy of that holy
soul, neither in any way venture to think or say that my writings are
free from every kind of error, nor, in opposing that opinion of his,
wherein it seemed to him that those who came from among heretics were
to be received otherwise than either they had been in former days, as
he himself bears witness, or are now received, as is the reasonable
custom, confirmed by a plenary Council of the whole Christian world,
do I set against him my own view, but that of the holy Catholic
Church, which he so loved and loves, in which he brought forth such
abundant fruit with tolerance, whose entirety he himself was not, but
in whose entirety he remained; whose root he never left, but, though
he already brought forth fruit from its root, he was purged by the
heavenly Husbandman that he should bring forth more fruit;[1516]1516
for whose peace and safety, that the wheat might not be rooted out
together with the tares, he both reproved with the freedom of truth,
and endured with the grace of charity, so many evils on the part of
men who were placed in unity with himself.
Chapter 18.â24. Whence Cyprian himself[1517]1517 again admonishes us
with the greatest fullness, that many who were dead in their
trespasses and sins, although they did not belong to the body of
Christ, and the members of that innocent and guileless dove (so that
if she alone baptized, they certainly could not baptize), yet to all
appearance seemed both to be baptized and to baptize within the
Church. And among them, however dead they are, their baptism
nevertheless lives, which is not dead, and death shall have no more
dominion over it. Since, therefore, there be dead men within the
Church, nor are they concealed, for else Cyprian would not have spoken
of them so much, who either do not belong at all to that living dove,
or at least do not as yet belong to her; and since there be dead men
without, who yet more clearly do not belong to her at all, or not as
yet; and since it is true that "another man cannot be quickened by one
who himself liveth not,"âit is therefore clear that those who within
are baptized by such persons, if they approach the sacrament with true
conversion of heart, are quickened by Him whose baptism it is. But
if they renounce the world in word and not in deed, as Cyprian
declares to be the case with some who are within, it is then manifest
that they are not themselves quickened unless they be converted, and
yet that they have true baptism even though they be not converted.Â
Whence also it is likewise clear that those who are dead without,
although they neither "live themselves, nor quicken others," yet have
the living baptism, which would profit them unto life so soon as they
should be converted unto peace.
Chapter 19.â25. Wherefore, as regards those who received the persons
who came from heresy in the same baptism of Christ with which they had
been baptized outside the Church, and said "that they followed ancient
custom," as indeed the Church now receives such, it is in vain urged
against them "that among the ancients there were as yet only the first
beginning of heresy and schisms,[1518]1518 so that those were involved
in them who were seceders from the Church, and had originally been
baptized within the Church, so that it was not necessary that they
should be baptized again when they returned and did penance."Â For so
soon as each several heresy existed, and departed from the communion
of the Catholic Church, it was possible that, I will not even say the
next day, but even on that very day, its votaries might have baptized
some who flocked to them. And therefore if this was the old custom,
that they should be so received into the Church (as could not be
denied even by those who maintained the contrary part in the
discussion), there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who pays
careful attention to the matter, that those also were so received who
had been baptized without in heresy.
26. But I cannot see what show of reason there is in this, that the
name of "erring sheep"[1519]1519 should be denied to one whose lot it
has been that, while seeking the salvation which is in Christ, he has
fallen into the error of heretics, and been baptized in their body;
while he is held to have become a sheep already within the body of the
Catholic Church herself, who has renounced the world in words and not
in deeds, and has received baptism in such falseness of heart as
this. Or if such an one also does not become a sheep unless after
turning to God with a true heart, then, as he is not baptized at the
time when he becomes a sheep, if he had been already baptized, but was
not yet a sheep; so he too, who comes from the heretics that he may
become a sheep, is not then to be baptized if he had been already
baptized with the same baptism, though he was not yet a sheep.Â
Wherefore, since even all the bad that are withinâthe covetous, the
envious, the drunkards, and those that live contrary to the discipline
of Christâmay be deservedly called liars, and in darkness, and dead,
and antichrists, do they yet therefore not baptize, on the ground that
"there can be nothing common between truth and falsehood, between
light and darkness, between death and immortality, between Antichrist
and Christ?"[1520]1520
27. He makes an assumption, then, not "of mere custom," but "of the
reason of truth itself,"[1521]1521 when he says that the sacrament of
God cannot be turned to error by the error of any men, since it is
declared to exist even in those who have erred. Assuredly the
Apostle John says most plainly, "He that hateth his brother is in
darkness even until now;"[1522]1522 and again, "Whosoever hateth his
brother is a murderer;"[1523]1523 and why, therefore, do they baptize
those within the Church whom Cyprian himself declares to be in the
envy of malice?[1524]1524
Chapter 20.âHow does a murderer cleanse and sanctify the
water?[1525]1525 How can darkness bless the oil? But if God is
present in His sacraments to confirm His words by whomsoever the
sacraments may be administered, then both the sacraments of God are
everywhere valid, and evil men whom they profit not are everywhere
perverse.
28. But what kind of argument is this, that "a heretic must be
considered not to have baptism, because he has not the Church?"Â And
it must be acknowledged that "when he is baptized, he is questioned
about the Church."[1526]1526Â Just as though the same question about
the Church were not put in baptism to him who within the Church
renounces the world in word and not in deed. As therefore his false
answer does not prevent what he receives from being baptism, so also
the false reply of the other about the holy Church does not prevent
what he receives from being baptism; and as the former, if he
afterwards fulfill with truth what he promised in falsehood, does not
receive a second baptism, but only an amended life, so also in the
case of the latter, if he come afterwards to the Church about which he
gave a false answer to the question put to him, thinking that he had
it when he had it not, the Church herself which he did not possess is
given him, but what he had received is not repeated. But I cannot
tell why it should be, that while God can "sanctify the oil" in answer
to the words which proceed out of the mouth of a murderer, "He yet
cannot sanctify it on the altar reared by a heretic," unless it be
that He who is not hindered by the false conversion of the heart of
man within the Church is hindered by the false erection of some wood
without from deigning to be present in His sacraments, though no
falseness on the part of men can hinder Him. If, therefore, what is
said in the gospel, that "God heareth not sinners,"[1527]1527 extends
so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated by a sinner, how then
does He hear a murderer praying, either over the water of baptism, or
over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over the heads of those on
whom his hand is laid? All which things are nevertheless done, and
are valid, even at the hands of murderers, that is, at the hands of
those who hate their brethren, even within, in the Church itself.Â
Since "no one can give what he does not possess himself,"[1528]1528
how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And yet such an one even
baptizeth within the Church. It is God, therefore, that gives the
Holy Spirit even when a man of this kind is baptizing.
Chapter 21.â29. But as to what he says, that "he who comes to the
Church is to be baptized and renewed, that within he may be hallowed
through the holy,"[1529]1529 what will he do, if within also he meets
with those who are not holy? Or can it be that the murderer is
holy? And if the reason for his being baptized in the Church is that
"he should put off this very thing also that he, being a man that
sought to come to God, fell, through the deceit of error, on one
profane,"[1530]1530 where is he afterwards to put off this, that he
may chance, while seeking a man of God within the Church itself, to
have fallen, through the deceit of error, on a murderer? If "there
cannot be in a man something that is void and something that is
valid,"[1531]1531 why is it possible that in a murderer the sacrament
should be holy and his heart unholy? If "whosoever cannot give the
Holy Spirit cannot baptize,"[1532]1532 why does the murderer baptize
within the Church? Or how has the murderer the Holy Spirit, when
every one that has the Holy Spirit is filled with light, but "he who
hates his brother is still in darkness?"[1533]1533Â If because "there
is one baptism, and one Spirit,"[1534]1534 therefore they cannot have
the one baptism who have not the one Spirit, why do the innocent man
and the murderer within the Church have the one baptism and not have
the one Spirit? So therefore the heretic and the Catholic may have
the one baptism, and yet not have the one Church, as in the Catholic
Church the innocent man and the murderer may have the one baptism,
though they have not the one Spirit; for as there is one baptism, so
there is one Spirit and one Church. And so the result is, that in
each person we must acknowledge what he already has, and to each
person we must give what he has not. If "nothing can be confirmed
and ratified with God which has been done by those whom God calls His
enemies and foes,"[1535]1535 why is the baptism confirmed which is
given by murderers? Are we not to call murderers the enemies and
foes of the Lord? But "he that hateth his brother is a murderer."Â
How then did they baptize who hated Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ,
and thereby hated Jesus Himself, since He Himself said to Saul, "Why
persecutest thou me?"[1536]1536 when he was persecuting His servants,
and since at the last He Himself shall say, "Inasmuch as ye did it not
to one of the least of these that are mine, ye did it not to
me?"[1537]1537Â Wherefore all who go out from us are not of us, but
not all who are with us are of us; just as when men thresh, all that
flies from the threshing-floor is shown not to be corn, but not all
that remains there is therefore corn. And so John too says, "They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us."[1538]1538Â Wherefore God
gives the sacrament of grace even through the hands of wicked men, but
the grace itself only by Himself or through His saints. And
therefore He gives remission of sins either of Himself, or through the
members of that dove to whom He says, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they
are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained."[1539]1539Â But since no one can doubt that baptism, which
is the sacrament of the remission of sins, is possessed even by
murderers, who are yet in darkness because the hatred of their
brethren is not excluded from their hearts, therefore either no
remission of sins is given to them if their baptism is accompanied by
no change of heart for the better, or if the sins are remitted, they
at once return on them again. And we learn that the baptism is holy
in itself, because it is of God; and whether it be given or whether it
be received by men of such like character, it cannot be polluted by
any perversity of theirs, either within, or yet outside the Church.
Chapter 22.â30. Accordingly we agree with Cyprian that "heretics
cannot give remission of sins;"[1540]1540 but we maintain that they
can give baptism,âwhich indeed in them, both when they give and when
they receive it, is profitable only to their destruction, as misusing
so great a gift of God; just as also the malicious and envious, whom
Cyprian himself acknowledges to be within the Church, cannot give
remission of sins, while we all confess that they can give baptism.Â
For if it was said of those who have sinned against us, "If ye forgive
not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses,"[1541]1541 how much more impossible is it that their sins
should be forgiven who hate the brethren by whom they are loved, and
are baptized in that very hatred; and yet when they are brought to the
right way, baptism is not given them anew, but that very pardon which
they did not then deserve is granted them in their true conversion?Â
And so even what Cyprian wrote to Quintus, and what, in conjunction
with his colleagues Liberalis, Caldonius, Junius, and the rest, he
wrote to Saturninus, Maximus, and others, is all found, on due
consideration, to be in no wise meet to be preferred as against the
agreement of the whole Catholic Church, of which they rejoiced that
they were members, and from which they neither cut themselves away nor
allowed others to be cut away who held a contrary opinion, until at
length, by the will of the Lord, it was made manifest, by a plenary
Council many years afterwards, what was the more perfect way, and that
not by the institution of any novelty, but by confirming what was old.
Chapter 23.â31. Cyprian writes also to Pompeius[1542]1542 about this
selfsame matter, and clearly shows in that letter that Stephen, who,
as we learn, was then bishop of the Roman Church, not only did not
agree with him upon the points before us, but even wrote and taught
the opposite views. But Stephen certainly did not "communicate with
heretics,"[1543]1543 merely because he did not dare to impugn the
baptism of Christ, which he knew remained perfect in the midst of
their perversity. For if none have baptism who entertain false views
about God, it has been proved sufficiently, in my opinion, that this
may happen even within the Church. "The apostles," indeed, "gave no
injunctions on the point;"[1544]1544 but the custom, which is opposed
to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic
tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the
whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by
the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.
32. But it will be urged that it is written of heretics that "they
are condemned of themselves."[1545]1545Â What then? are they not also
condemned of themselves to whom it was said, "For wherein thou judgest
another, thou condemnest thyself?"[1546]1546Â But to these the
apostle says, "Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou
steal?"[1547]1547 and so forth. And such truly were they who, being
bishops and established in Catholic unity with Cyprian himself, used
to plunder estates by treacherous frauds, preaching all the time to
the people the words of the apostle, who says, "Nor shall extortioners
inherit the kingdom of God."[1548]1548
33. Wherefore I will do no more than run shortly through the other
sentiments founded on the same rules, which are in the aforesaid
letter written to Pompeius. By what authority of holy Scripture is
it shown that "it is against the commandment of God that persons
coming from the society of heretics, if they have already there
received the baptism of Christ, are not baptized again?"[1549]1549Â
But it is clearly shown that many pretended Christians, though they
are not joined in the same bond of charity with the saints, without
which anything holy that they may have been able to possess is of no
profit to them, yet have baptism in common with the saints, as has
been already sufficiently proved with the greatest fullness. He says
"that the Church, and the Spirit, and baptism, are mutually incapable
of separation from each other, and therefore" he wishes that "those
who are separated from the Church and the Holy Spirit should be
understood to be separated also from baptism."[1550]1550Â But if this
is the case, then when any one has received baptism in the Catholic
Church, it remains so long in him as he himself remains in the Church,
which is not so. For it is not restored to him when he returns, just
because he did not lose it when he seceded. But as the disaffected
sons have not the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the beloved sons,
and yet they have baptism; so heretics also have not the Church as
Catholics have, and yet they have baptism. "For the Holy Spirit of
discipline will flee deceit,"[1551]1551 and yet baptism will not flee
from it. And so, as baptism can continue in one from whom the Holy
Spirit withdraws Himself, so can baptism continue where the Church is
not. But if "the laying on of hands" were not "applied to one coming
from heresy,"[1552]1552 he would be as it were judged to be wholly
blameless; but for the uniting of love, which is the greatest gift of
the Holy Spirit, without which any other holy thing that there may be
in a man is profitless to his salvation, hands are laid on heretics
when they are brought to a knowledge of the truth.[1553]1553
Chapter 24.â34. I remember that I have already discussed at
sufficient length the question of "the temple of God," and how this
saying is to be taken, "As many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ."[1554]1554Â For neither are the covetous
the temple of God, since it is written, "What agreement hath the
temple of God with idols?"[1555]1555Â And Cyprian has adduced the
testimony of Paul to the fact that covetousness is idolatry. But men
put on Christ, sometimes so far as to receive the sacrament, sometimes
so much further as to receive holiness of life. And the first of
these is common to good and bad alike; the second, peculiar to the
good and pious. Wherefore, if "baptism cannot be without the
Spirit," then heretics have the Spirit also,âbut to destruction, not
to salvation, just as was the case with Saul.[1556]1556Â For in the
Holy Spirit devils are cast out through the name of Christ, which even
he was able to do who was without the Church, which called forth a
suggestion from the disciples to their Lord.[1557]1557Â Just as the
covetous have the Holy Spirit, who yet are not the temple of God.Â
For "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"Â If therefore
the covetous have not the Spirit of God, and yet have baptism, it is
possible for baptism to exist without the Spirit of God.
35. If therefore heresy is rendered "unable to engender sons to God
through Christ, because it is not the bride of Christ,"[1558]1558
neither can that crowd of evil men established within the Church,
since it is also not the bride of Christ; for the bride of Christ is
described as being without spot or wrinkle.[1559]1559Â Therefore
either not all baptized persons are the sons of God, or even that
which is not the bride can engender the sons of God. But as it is
asked whether "he is spiritually born who has received the baptism of
Christ in the midst of heretics,"[1560]1560 so it may be asked whether
he is spiritually born who has received the baptism of Christ in the
Catholic Church, without being turned to God in a true heart, of whom
it cannot be said that he has not received baptism.
Chapter 25.â36. I am unwilling to go on to handle again what Cyprian
poured forth with signs of irritation against Stephen, as it is,
moreover, quite unnecessary. For they are but the selfsame arguments
which have already been sufficiently discussed; and it is better to
pass over those points which involved the danger of baneful
dissension. But Stephen thought that we should even hold aloof from
those who endeavored to destroy the primitive custom in the matter of
receiving heretics; whereas Cyprian, moved by the difficulty of the
question itself, and being most largely endowed with the holy bowels
of Christian charity, thought that we ought to remain at unity with
those who differed in opinion from ourselves. Therefore, although he
was not without excitement, though of a truly brotherly kind, in his
indignation, yet the peace of Christ prevailed in their hearts, that
in such a dispute no evil of schism should arise between them. But
it was not found that "hence grew more abundant heresies and
schisms,"[1561]1561 because what is of Christ in them is approved, and
what is of themselves is condemned; for all the more those who hold
this law of rebaptizing were cut into smaller fragments.
Chapter 26.â37. To go on to what he says, "that a bishop should be
âteachable,â"[1562]1562 adding, "But he is teachable who is gentle and
meek to learn; for a bishop ought not only to teach, but to learn as
well, since he is indeed the better teacher who daily grows and
advances by learning better things;"[1563]1563âin these words
assuredly the holy man, endowed with pious charity, sufficiently
points out that we should not hesitate to read his letters in such a
sense, that we should feel no difficulty if the Church should
afterwards confirm what had been discovered by further and longer
discussions; because, as there were many things which the learned
Cyprian might teach, so there was still something which the teachable
Cyprian might learn. But the admonition that he gives us, "that we
should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and
thence turn the channel of truth to our times,"[1564]1564 is most
excellent, and should be followed without hesitation. It is handed
down to us, therefore, as he himself records, by the apostles, that
there is "one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and
one Church, and one baptism."[1565]1565Â Since then we find that in
the times of the apostles themselves there were some who had not the
one hope, but had the one baptism, the truth is so brought down to us
from the fountain itself, that it is clear to us that it is possible
that though there is one Church, as there is one hope, and one
baptism, they may yet have the one baptism who have not the one
Church; just as even in those early times it was possible that men
should have the one baptism who had not the one hope. For how had
they one hope with the holy and the just, who used to say, "Let us eat
and drink, for to-morrow we die,"[1566]1566 asserting that there was
no resurrection of the dead? And yet they were among the very men to
whom the same apostle says, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were you
baptized in the name of Paul?"[1567]1567Â For he writes most
manifestly to them, saying, "How say some among you that there is no
resurrection of the dead?"[1568]1568
Chapter 27.â38. And in that the Church is thus described in the Song
of Songs, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut
up, a fountain sealed, a well of living water; thy plants are an
orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits;"[1569]1569 I dare not
understand this save of the holy and just,ânot of the covetous, and
defrauders, and robbers, and usurers, and drunkards, and the envious,
of whom we yet both learn most fully from Cyprianâs letters, as I have
often shown, and teach ourselves, that they had baptism in common with
the just, in common with whom they certainly had not Christian
charity. For I would that some one would tell me how they "crept
into the garden enclosed and the fountain sealed," of whom Cyprian
bears witness that they renounced the world in word and not in deed,
and that yet they were within the Church. For if they both are
themselves there, and are themselves the bride of Christ, can she then
be as she is described "without spot or wrinkle,"[1570]1570 and is the
fair dove defiled with such a portion of her members? Are these the
thorns among which she is a lily, as it is said in the same
Song?[1571]1571Â So far therefore, as the lily extends, so far does
"the garden enclosed and the fountain sealed," namely, through all
those just persons who are Jews inwardly in the circumcision of the
heart[1572]1572 (for "the kingâs daughter is all glorious
within"[1573]1573), in whom is the fixed number of the saints
predestined before the foundation of the world. But that multitude
of thorns, whether in secret or in open separation, is pressing on it
from without, above number. "If I would declare them," it is said,
"and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered."[1574]1574Â
The number, therefore, of the just persons, "who are the called
according to His purpose,"[1575]1575 of whom it is said, "The Lord
knoweth them that are His,"[1576]1576 is itself "the garden enclosed,
the fountain sealed, a well of living water, the orchard of
pomegranates with pleasant fruits."Â Of this number some live
according to the Spirit, and enter on the excellent way of charity;
and when they "restore a man that is overtaken in a fault in the
spirit of meekness, they consider themselves, lest they also be
tempted."[1577]1577Â And when it happens that they also are
themselves overtaken, the affection of charity is but a little
checked, and not extinguished; and again rising up and being kindled
afresh, it is restored to its former course. For they know how to
say, "My soul melteth for heaviness:Â strengthen thou me according
unto Thy word."[1578]1578Â But when "in anything they be otherwise
minded, God shall reveal even this unto them,"[1579]1579 if they abide
in the burning flame of charity, and do not break the bond of peace.Â
But some who are yet carnal, and full of fleshly appetites, are
instant in working out their progress; and that they may become fit
for heavenly food, they are nourished with the milk of the holy
mysteries, they avoid in the fear of God whatever is manifestly
corrupt even in the opinion of the world, and they strive most
watchfully that they may be less and less delighted with worldly and
temporal matters. They observe most constantly the rule of faith
which has been sought out with diligence; and if in aught they stray
from it, they submit to speedy correction under Catholic authority,
although, in Cyprianâs words, they be tossed about, by reason of their
fleshly appetite, with the various conflicts of phantasies. There
are some also who as yet live wickedly, or even lie in heresies or the
superstitions of the Gentiles, and yet even then "the Lord knoweth
them that are His."Â For, in that unspeakable foreknowledge of God,
many who seem to be without are in reality within, and many who seem
to be within yet really are without. Of all those, therefore, who,
if I may so say, are inwardly and secretly within, is that "enclosed
garden" composed, "the fountain sealed, a well of living water, the
orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits."Â The divinely
imparted gifts of these are partly peculiar to themselves, as in this
world the charity that never faileth, and in the world to come eternal
life; partly they are common with evil and perverse men, as all the
other things in which consist the holy mysteries.
Chapter 28.â39. Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an
easier and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was the
builder and pilot. For Peter says that in the ark of Noah, "few,
that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto
even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards
God)."[1580]1580Â Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in
Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds,
how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the
answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who,
making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet
persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of
life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian
himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the
Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the
same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved
except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His
mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church
those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen
asleep within her pale."[1581]1581Â If not by water, how in the
ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church,
certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is
therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be
considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really
baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to
them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved
in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been
baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of
God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad
use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who
was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak
of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of
the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who
are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same
water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are
also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore
it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed
within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so
it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics
are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish. But what the most
blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and how the heretics
are utterly crushed by his authority; notwithstanding the much I have
already said, I have yet determined to set forth by itself, if God
will, with somewhat greater fullness and perspicuity, so soon as I
shall have first said about his Council what I think is due from me,
which, in Godâs will, I shall attempt in the following book.
Book VI.
In which is considered the Council of Carthage, held under the
authority and presidency of Cyprian, to determine the question of the
baptism of heretics.
Chapter 1.â1. It might perhaps have been sufficient, that after the
reasons have been so often repeated, and considered, and discussed
with such variety of treatment, supplemented too, with the addition of
proofs from holy Scripture, and the concurrent testimony of so many
passages from Cyprian himself, even those who are slow of heart should
thus understand, as I believe they do, that the baptism of Christ
cannot be rendered void by any perversity on the part of man, whether
in administering or receiving it. And when we find that in those
times, when the point in question was decided in a manner contrary to
ancient custom, after discussions carried on without violation of
saving charity and unity, it appeared to some even eminent men who
were bishops of Christ, among whom the blessed Cyprian was specially
conspicuous, that the baptism of Christ could not exist among heretics
or schismatics, this simply arose from their not distinguishing the
sacrament from the effect or use of the sacrament; and because its
effect and use were not found among heretics in freeing them from
their sins and setting their hearts right, the sacrament itself was
also thought to be wanting among them. But if we turn our eyes to
the multitude of chaff within the Church, since these also who are
perverse and lead an abandoned life in unity itself appear to have no
power either of giving or retaining remission of sins, seeing that it
is not to the wicked but the good sons that it was said, "Whosesoever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye
retain, they are retained,"[1582]1582 yet that such persons both have,
and give, and receive the sacrament of baptism, was sufficiently
manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the
whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed
by the authority of a plenary Council; so that even the sheep which
was straying outside, and had received the mark of the Lord from false
plunderers outside, if it seek the salvation of Christian unity, is
purified from error, is freed from captivity, is healed of its wound,
and yet the mark of the Lord is recognized rather than rejected in it;
since the mark itself is often impressed both by wolves and on wolves,
who seem indeed to be within the fold, but yet are proved by the
fruits of their conduct, in which they persevere even to the end, not
to belong to that sheep which is one in many; because, according to
the foreknowledge of God, as many sheep wander outside, so many wolves
lurk treacherously within, among whom the Lord yet knoweth them that
are His, which hear only the voice of the Shepherd, even when He calls
by the voice of men like the Pharisees, of whom it was said,
"Whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do."[1583]1583
2. For as the spiritual man, keeping "the end of the commandment,"
that is, "charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and
of faith unfeigned,"[1584]1584 can see some things less clearly out of
a body which is yet "corruptible and presseth down the
soul,"[1585]1585 and is liable to be otherwise minded in some things
which God will reveal[1586]1586 to him in His own good time if he
abide in the same charity, so in a carnal and perverse man something
good and useful may be found, which has its origin not in the man
himself, but in some other source. For as in the fruitful branch
there is found something which must be purged that it may bring forth
more fruit, so also a grape is often found to hang on a cane that is
barren and dry or fettered. And so, as it is foolish to love the
portions which require purging in the fruitful branch, while he acts
wisely who does not reject the sweet fruit wherever it may hang, so,
if any one cuts himself off from unity by rebaptizing, simply because
it seemed to Cyprian that one ought to baptize again those who came
from the heretics, such a man turns aside from what merits praise in
that great man, and follows what requires correction, and does not
even attain to the very thing he follows after. For Cyprian, while
grievously abhorring, in his zeal for God, all those who severed
themselves from unity, thought that thereby they were separated from
baptism itself; while these men, thinking it at most a slight offense
that they themselves are severed from the unity of Christ, even
maintain that His baptism is not in that unity, but issued forth with
them. Therefore they are so far from the fruitfulness of Cyprian, as
not even to be equal to the parts in him which needed purging.
Chapter 2.â3. Again, if any one not having charity, and walking in
the abandoned paths of a most wicked life, seems to be within while he
really is without, and at the same time does not seek for the
repetition of baptism even in the case of heretics, it in no wise
helps his barrenness, because he is not rendered fruitful with his own
fruit, but laden with that of others. But it is possible that some
one may flourish in the root of charity, and may be most rightly
minded in the point in which Cyprian was otherwise minded, and yet
there may be more that is fruitful in Cyprian than in him, more that
requires purging in him than in Cyprian. Not only, therefore, do we
not compare bad Catholics with the blessed Cyprian, but even good
Catholics we do not hastily pronounce to be on an equality with him
whom our pious mother Church counts among the few rare men of
surpassing excellence and grace, although these others may recognize
the baptism of Christ even among heretics, while he thought otherwise;
so that, by the instance of Cyprian, who saw one point less clearly,
and yet remained most firm in the unity of the Church, it might be
shown more clearly to heretics what a sacrilegious crime it was to
break the bond of peace. For neither were the blind Pharisees,
although they sometimes enjoined what was right to be done, to be
compared to the Apostle Peter, though he at times enjoined what was
not right. But not only is their dryness not to be compared to his
greenness, but even the fruit of others may not be deemed equal to his
fertility. For no one now compels the Gentiles to judaize, and yet
no one now in the Church, however great his progress in goodness, may
be compared with the apostleship of Peter. Wherefore, while
rendering due reverence, and paying, so far as I can, the fitting
honor to the peaceful bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I yet
venture to say that his view concerning the baptism of schismatics and
heretics was contrary to that which was afterwards brought to light by
a decision, not of mine, but of the whole Church, confirmed and
strengthened by the authority of a plenary Council:Â just as, while
paying the reverence he deserves to Peter, the first of the apostles
and most eminent of martyrs, I yet venture to say that he did not do
right in compelling the Gentiles to judaize; for this also, I say, not
of my own teaching, but according to the wholesome doctrine of the
Apostle Paul, retained and preserved through out the whole
Church.[1587]1587
4. Therefore, in discussing the opinion of Cyprian, though myself of
far inferior merit to Cyprian, I say that good and bad alike can have,
can give, can receive the sacrament of baptism,âthe good, indeed, to
their health and profit; the bad to their destruction and ruin,âwhile
the sacrament itself is of equal perfectness in both of them; and that
it is of no consequence to its equal perfectness in all, how much
worse the man may be that has it among the bad, just as it makes no
difference how much better he may be that has it among the good. And
accordingly it makes no difference either how much worse he may be
that confers it, as it makes no difference how much better he may be;
and so it makes no difference how much worse he may be that receives
it, as it makes no difference how much better he may be. For the
sacrament is equally holy, in virtue of its own excellence, both in
those who are unequally just, and in those who are unequally unjust.
Chapter 3.â5. But I think that we have sufficiently shown, both from
the canon of Scripture, and from the letters of Cyprian himself, that
bad men, while by no means converted to a better mind, can have, and
confer, and receive baptism, of whom it is most clear that they do not
belong to the holy Church of God, though they seem to be within it,
inasmuch as they are covetous, robbers, usurers, envious, evil
thinkers, and the like; while she is one dove,[1588]1588 modest and
chaste, a bride without spot or wrinkle,[1589]1589 a garden enclosed,
a fountain sealed, an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant
fruits,[1590]1590 with all similar properties which are attributed to
her; and all this can only be understood to be in the good, and holy,
and just,âfollowing, that is, not only the operations of the gifts of
God, which are common to good and bad alike, but also the inner bond
of charity conspicuous in those who have the Holy Spirit, to whom the
Lord says, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."[1591]1591
Chapter 4.â6. And so it is clear that no good ground is shown herein
why the bad man, who has baptism, may not also confer it; and as he
has it to destruction, so he may also confer it to destruction,ânot
because this is the character of the thing conferred, nor of the
person conferring, but because it is the character of him on whom it
is conferred. For when a bad man confers it on a good man, that is,
on one in the bond of unity, converted with a true conversion, the
wickedness of him who confers it makes no severance between the good
sacrament which is conferred, and the good member of the Church on
whom it is conferred. And when his sins are forgiven him on his true
conversion to God, they are forgiven by those to whom he is united by
his true conversion. For the same Spirit forgives them, which is
given to all the saints that cling to one another in love, whether
they know one another in the body or not. Similarly when a manâs
sins are retained, they are assuredly retained by those from whom he,
in whom they are retained, separates himself by dissimilarity of life,
and by the turning away of a corrupt heart, whether they know him in
the body or not.
Chapter 5.â7. Wherefore all bad men are separated in the spirit from
the good; but if they are separated in the body also by a manifest
dissension, they are made yet worse. But, as it has been said, it
makes no difference to the holiness of baptism how much worse the man
may be that has it, or how much worse he that confers it:Â yet he
that is separated may confer it, as he that is separated may have it;
but as he has it to destruction, so he may confer it to destruction.Â
But he on whom he confers it may receive it to his soulâs health, if
he, on his part, receive it not in separation; as it has happened to
many that, in a catholic spirit, and with heart not alienated from the
unity of peace, they have, under some pressure of impending death,
turned hastily to some heretic and received from him the baptism of
Christ without any share in his perversity, so that, whether dying or
restored to life, they by no means remain in communion with those to
whom they never passed in heart. But if the recipient himself has
received the baptism in separation, he receives it so much the more to
his destruction, in proportion to the greatness of the good which he
has not received well; and it tends the more to his destruction in his
separation, as it would avail the more to the salvation of one in
unity. And so, if, reforming himself from his perverseness and
turning from his separation, he should come to the Catholic peace, his
sins are remitted through the bond of peace and the same baptism under
which his sins were retained through the sacrilege of separation,
because that is always holy both in the just and the unjust, which is
neither increased by the righteousness nor diminished by the
unrighteousness of any man.
8. This being the case, what bearing has it on so clear a truth,
that many of his fellow-bishops agreed with Cyprian in that opinion,
and advanced their own several opinions on the same side, except that
his charity towards the unity of Christ might become more and more
conspicuous? For if he had been the only one to hold that opinion,
with no one to agree with him, he might have been thought, in
remaining, to have shrunk from the sin of schism, because he found no
companions in his error; but when so many agreed with him, he showed,
by remaining in unity with the rest who thought differently from him,
that he preserved the most sacred bond of universal catholicity, not
from any fear of isolation, but from the love of peace. Wherefore it
might indeed seem now to be superfluous to consider the several
opinions of the other bishops also in that Council; but since those
who are slow in heart think that no answer has been made at all, if to
any passage in any discourse the answer which might be brought to bear
on the spot be given not there but somewhere else, it is better that
by reading much they should be polished into sharpness, than that by
understanding little they should have room left for complaining that
the argument has not been fairly conducted.
Chapter 6.â9. First, then, let us record for further consideration
the case proposed for decision by Cyprian himself, with which he
initiates the proceedings of the Council, and by which he shows a
peaceful spirit, abounding in the fruitfulness of Christian charity.Â
"Ye have read," he says, "most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our
fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my poor ability about the
unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what I have written back
to him, expressing to him the same opinion that I have expressed once
and again and often, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be
baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another
letter also of Jubaianus has been read to you, in which, agreeably to
his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not
only expressed his assent to it, but also gratefully acknowledged that
he had received instruction. It remains that we should individually
express our opinions on this same subject, judging no one, and
removing no one from the right of communion if he should entertain a
different opinion. For neither does any one of us set himself up as
a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror force his colleagues to
the necessity of obeying, since every bishop, in the free use of his
liberty and power, has the right of free judgment, and can no more be
judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we are all
awaiting the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone has the power
both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging
of our actions."[1592]1592
Chapter 7.â10. I have already, I think, argued to the best of my
power, in the preceding books, in the interests of Catholic unanimity
and counsel, in whose unity these continued as pious members, in reply
not only to the letter which Cyprian wrote to Jubaianus, but also to
that which he sent to Quintus, and that which, in conjunction with
certain of his colleagues, he sent to certain other colleagues, and
that which he sent to Pompeius. Wherefore it seems now to be fitting
to consider also what the others severally thought, and that with the
liberty of which he himself would not deprive us, as he says, "Judging
no one, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain
different opinions."Â And that he did not say this with the object of
arriving at the hidden thoughts of his colleagues, extracted as it
were from their secret lurking-places, but because he really loved
peace and unity, is very easily to be seen from other passages of the
same sort, where he wrote to individuals as to Jubaianus himself.Â
"These things," he says, "we have written very shortly in answer to
you, most beloved brother, according to our poor ability, not
preventing any one of the bishops by our writing or judgment, from
acting as he thinks right, having a free exercise of his own
judgment."[1593]1593Â And that it might not seem that any one,
because of his entertaining different opinions in this same free
exercise of his judgment, should be driven from the society of his
brethren, he goes on to say, "We, so far as lies in us, do not strive
on behalf of heretics against our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with
whom we maintain godly unity and the peace of our Lord;"[1594]1594 and
a little later he says, "Charity of spirit, respect for our
fraternity, the bond of faith, the harmony of the priesthood, are by
us maintained with patience and gentleness."[1595]1595Â And so also
in the epistle which he wrote to Magnus, when he was asked whether
there was any difference in the efficacy of baptism by sprinkling or
by immersion, "In this matter," he says, "I am too modest and
diffident to prevent any one by my judgment from thinking as he deems
right, and acting as he thinks."[1596]1596Â By which discourses he
clearly shows that these subjects were being handled by them at a time
when they were not yet received as decided beyond all question, but
were being investigated with great care as being yet unrevealed. We,
therefore, maintaining on the subject of the identity of all baptisms
what must be acknowledged everywhere to be the custom[1597]1597 of the
universal Church, and what is confirmed by the decision of general
Councils,[1598]1598 and taking greater confidence also from the words
of Cyprian, which allowed me even then to hold opinions differing from
his own without forfeiting the right of communion, seeing that greater
importance and praise were attached to unity, such as the blessed
Cyprian and his colleagues, with whom he held that Council, maintained
with those of different opinions, disturbing and overthrowing thereby
the seditious calumnies of heretics and schismatics in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, who, speaking by His apostle, says, "Forbearing one
another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace;"[1599]1599 and again, by the mouth of the same apostle,
"If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this
unto you,"[1600]1600âwe, I say, propose for consideration and
discussion the opinions of the holy bishops, without violating the
bond of unity and peace with them, in maintaining which we imitate
them so far as we can by the aid of the Lord Himself.
Chapter 8.â11. Cæcilius of Bilta[1601]1601 said: "I know of one
baptism in the one Church and of none outside the Church. The one
will be where there is true hope and sure faith. Â For so it is
written, âOne faith, one hope, one baptism.â[1602]1602Â Not among
heretics, where there is no hope and a false faith; where all things
are done by a lie; where one possessed of a devil exorcises; the
question of the sacrament is asked by one from whose mouth and words
proceeds a cancer; the faithless gives faith; the guilty gives pardon
for sins and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ; one accursed
of God blesses; the dead promises life; the unpeaceful gives peace;
the blasphemer calls on God; the profane administers the priesthood;
the sacrilegious sets up the altar. To all this is added this
further evil that the servant of the devil dares to celebrate the
eucharist. If this be not so, let those who stand by them prove that
all of it is false concerning heretics. See the kind of things to
which the Church is compelled to assent, being forced to communicate
without baptism or the remission of sins. This, brethren, we ought
to shun and avoid, separating ourselves from so great a sin, and
holding to the one baptism which is granted to the Church
alone."[1603]1603
12. To this I answer, that all who even within the Church profess
that they know God, but deny Him in their deeds, such as are the
covetous and envious, and those who, because they hate their brethren,
are pronounced to be murderers, not on my testimony, but on that of
the holy Apostle John,[1604]1604âall these are both devoid of hope,
because they have a bad conscience; and are faithless, because they do
not do what they have vowed to God; and liars, because they make false
professions; and possessed of devils, because they give place in their
heart to the devil and his angels; and their words work corruption,
since they corrupt good manners by evil communications; and they are
infidels, because they laugh at the threats which God utters against
such men; and accursed, because they live wickedly; and antichrists,
because their lives are opposed to Christ; and cursed of God, since
holy Scripture everywhere calls down curses on such men; and dead,
because they are without the life of righteousness; and unpeaceful,
because by their contrary deeds they are at variance with Godâs
behests; and blasphemous, because by their abandoned acts despite is
done to the name of Christian; and profane, because they are
spiritually shut out from that inner sanctuary of God; and
sacrilegious, because by their evil life they defile the temple of God
within themselves; and servants of the devil, because they do service
to fraud and covetousness, which is idolatry. That of such a kind
are some, nay very many, even within the Church, is testified both by
Paul the apostle and by Cyprian the bishop. Why, then, do they
baptize? Why also are some, who "renounce the world in words and not
in deeds," baptized without being converted from a life like this, and
not rebaptized when they are converted? And as to what he says with
such indignation, "See the kind of things to which the Church is
compelled to assent, being forced to communicate without baptism or
the remission of sins," he could never have used such expressions had
there not been the other bishops who elsewhere forced men to such
things. Whence also it is shown that at that time those men held the
truer views who did not depart from the primitive custom, which is
since confirmed by the consent of a general Council.[1605]1605Â But
what does he mean by adding, "This, brethren, we ought to shun and
avoid, separating ourselves from so great a sin?"Â For if he means
that he is not to do nor to approve of this, that is another matter;
but if he means to condemn and sever from him those that hold the
contrary opinion, he is setting himself against the earlier words of
Cyprian, "Judging no man, nor depriving any of the right of communion
if he differ from us."
Chapter 9.â13. The elder Felix[1606]1606 of Migirpa said: "I think
that every one coming from heresy should be baptized. For in vain
does any one suppose that he has been baptized there, seeing that
there is no baptism save the one true baptism in the Church; for there
is one Lord, and one faith, and one Church, in which rests the one
baptism, and holiness, and the rest. For the things that are
practised without have no power to work salvation."
14. To what Felix of Migirpa said we answer as follows. If the one
true baptism did not exist except in the Church, it surely would not
exist in those who depart from unity. But it does exist in them,
since they do not receive it when they return, simply because they had
not lost it when they departed. But as regards his statement, that
"the things that are practised without have no power to work
salvation," I agree with him, and think that it is quite true; for it
is one thing that baptism should not be there, and another that it
should have no power to work salvation. For when men come to the
peace of the Catholic Church, then what was in them before they joined
it, but did not profit them, begins at once to profit them.
Chapter 10.â15. To the declaration of Polycarp of
Adrumetum,[1607]1607 that "those who declare the baptism of heretics
to be valid, make ours of none effect," we answer, if that is the
baptism of heretics which is given by heretics, then that is the
baptism of the covetous and murderers which is given by them within
the Church. But if this be not their baptism, neither is the other
the baptism of heretics; and so it is Christâs, by whomsoever it be
given.
Chapter 11.â16. Novatus of Thamugadis[1608]1608 said: "Though we
know that all Scripture gives its testimony respecting saving baptism,
yet we ought to express our belief that heretics and schismatics,
coming to the Church with the semblance of having been baptized, ought
to be baptized in the unfailing fountain; and that therefore,
according to the testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the
decree of those most holy men, our colleagues,[1609]1609 all
schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church ought to be
baptized; and that, moreover, all that seemed to have received
ordination should be admitted as simple laymen."
17. Novatus of Thamugadis has stated what he has done, but he has
brought forward no proofs by which to show that he ought to have acted
as he did. For he has made mention of the testimony of the
Scriptures, and the decree of his colleagues, but he has not adduced
out of them anything which we could consider.
Chapter 12.â18. Nemesianus of Tubunæ[1610]1610 said: "That the
baptism which is given by heretics and schismatics is not true is
everywhere declared in the holy Scriptures, inasmuch as their very
prelates are false Christs and false prophets, as the Lord declares by
the mouth of Solomon, âWhoso trusteth in lies, the same feedeth the
winds; he also followeth flying birds. For he deserteth the ways of
his own vineyard, and hath strayed from the paths of his own field.Â
For he walketh through pathless and dry places, and a land destined to
thirst; and he gathereth fruitless weeds in his hands.â[1611]1611Â
And again, âAbstain from strange water, and drink not of a strange
fountain, that thou mayest live long, and that years may be added to
thy life.â[1612]1612Â And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spake
with His own voice, saying, âExcept a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.â[1613]1613Â This is
the Spirit which from the beginning âmoved upon the face of the
waters.â[1614]1614Â For neither can the Spirit act without the water,
nor the water without the Spirit. Ill, therefore, for themselves do
some interpret, saying that by imposition of hands they receive the
Holy Ghost, and are received into the Church, when it is manifest that
they ought to be born again by both sacraments in the Catholic
Church. For then indeed will they be able to become the sons of God,
as the apostle says, âEndeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God.â[1615]1615 All this the Catholic Church asserts. And
again he says in the gospel, âThat which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; for the Spirit
is God, and is born of God.â[1616]1616Â Therefore all things
whatsoever all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as the apostle
says, âNow the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these:Â
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, seditions, heresies, and such
like:Â of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in
time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God.â[1617]1617Â The apostle condemns, equally with all
the wicked, those also who cause divisions, that is, schismatics and
heretics. Unless therefore they receive that saving baptism which is
one, and found only in the Catholic Church, they cannot be saved, but
will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord."
19. Nemesianus of Tubunæ has advanced many passages of Scripture to
prove his point; but he has in fact said much on behalf of the view of
the Catholic Church, which we have undertaken to set forth and
maintain. Unless, indeed, we must suppose that he does not "trust in
what is false" who trusts in the hope of things temporal, as do all
covetous men and robbers, and those "who renounce the world in words
but not in deeds," of whom Cyprian yet bears witness that such men not
only baptize, but even are baptized within the Church.[1618]1618Â For
they themselves also "follow flying birds,"[1619]1619 since they do
not attain to what they desire. But not only the heretic, but
everyone who leads an evil life "deserteth the ways of his own
vineyard, and hath strayed from the paths of his own field. And he
walketh through pathless and dry places, and a land destined to
thirst; and he gathereth fruitless weeds in his hands;" because all
justice is fruitful, and all iniquity is barren. Those, again, who
"drink strange water out of a strange fountain," are found not only
among heretics, but among all who do not live according to the
teaching of God, and do live according to the teaching of the devil.Â
For if he were speaking of baptism, he would not say, "Do not drink of
a strange fountain," but, do not wash thyself in a strange fountain.Â
Again, I do not see at all what aid he gets towards proving his point
from the words of our Lord, "Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."[1620]1620Â For it
is one thing to say that every one who shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven is first born again of water and the Spirit, because except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven, which is the Lordâs saying, and is true; another
thing to say that every one who is born of water and the Spirit shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is assuredly false. For
Simon Magus also was born of water and of the Spirit,[1621]1621 and
yet he did not enter into the kingdom of heaven; and this may possibly
be the case with heretics as well. Or if only those are born of the
Spirit who are changed with a true conversion, all "who renounce the
world in word and not in deed" are assuredly not born of the Spirit,
but of water only, and yet they are within the Church, according to
the testimony of Cyprian. For we must perforce grant one of two
things,âeither those who renounce the world deceitfully are born of
the Spirit, though it is to their destruction, not to salvation, and
therefore heretics may be so born; or if what is written, that "the
Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit,"[1622]1622 extends to
proving as much as this, that those who renounce the world deceitfully
are not born of the Spirit, then a man may be baptized with water, and
not born of the Spirit, and Nemesianus says in vain that neither the
Spirit can work without the water, nor the water without the Spirit.Â
Indeed it has been already often shown how it is possible that men
should have one baptism in common who have not one Church, as it is
possible that in the body of the Church herself those who are
sanctified by their righteousness, and those who are polluted through
their covetousness, may not have the same one Spirit, and yet have the
same one baptism. For it is said "one body," that is, the Church,
just as it is said "one Spirit" and "one baptism."Â The other
arguments which he has adduced rather favor our position. For he has
brought forward a proof from the gospel, in the words, "That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit; for the Spirit is God, and born of God;"[1623]1623 and he has
advanced the argument that therefore all things that are done by any
heretic or schismatic are carnal, as the apostle says, "The works of
the flesh are manifest, which are these:Â fornication, uncleanness;"
and so he goes through the list which the apostle there enumerates,
amongst which he has reckoned heresies, since "they who do such things
shall not inherit the kingdom of God."[1624]1624Â Then he goes on to
add, that "therefore the apostle condemns with all wicked men those
also who cause division, that is, schismatics and heretics."Â And in
this he does well, that when he enumerates the works of the flesh,
among which are also heresies, he found and declared that the apostle
condemns them all alike. Let him therefore question the holy Cyprian
himself, and learn from him how many even within the Church live
according to the evil works of the flesh, which the apostle condemns
in common with the heresies, and yet these both baptize and are
baptized. Why then are heretics alone said to be incapable of
possessing baptism, which is possessed by the very partners in their
condemnation?
Chapter 13.â20. Januarius of Lambæse[1625]1625 said: "Following
the authority of the holy Scriptures, I pronounce that all heretics
should be baptized, and so admitted into the holy Church."[1626]1626
21. To him we answer, that, following the authority of the holy
Scriptures, a universal Council of the whole world decreed that the
baptism of Christ was not to be disavowed even when found among
heretics. But if he had brought forward any proof from the
Scriptures, we should have shown either that they were not against us,
or even that they were for us, as we proceed to do with him who
follows.
Chapter 14.â22. Lucius of Castra Galbæ[1627]1627 said: "Since the
Lord hath said in His gospel, âYe are the salt of the earth:Â but if
the salt have lost his savor, that which is salted from it shall be
thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden
under foot of men;â[1628]1628 and seeing that again, after His
resurrection, when sending forth His apostles, He commanded them,
saying, âAll power is given unto me in heaven and in earth:Â go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,â[1629]1629âsince then
it is plain that heretics, that is, the enemies of Christ, have not
the full confession of the sacrament, also that schismatics cannot
reason with spiritual wisdom, since they themselves, by withdrawing
when they have lost their savor from the Church, which is one, have
become contrary to it,[1630]1630 let that be done which is written,
âThe houses of those that are opposed to the law must needs be
cleansed;â[1631]1631 and it therefore follows that those who have been
polluted by being baptized by men opposed to Christ should first be
cleansed, and only then baptized."[1632]1632
23. Lucius of Castra Galbæ has brought forward a proof from the
gospel, in the words of the Lord, "Ye are the salt of the earth:Â but
if the salt have lost his savor, that which is salted from it shall be
good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of
men;" just as though we maintained that men when cast out were of any
profit for the salvation either of themselves or of any one else.Â
But those also who, though seeming to be within, are yet of such a
kind, not only are without spiritually, but will in the end be
separated in the body also. For all such are for nothing. But it
does not therefore follow that the sacrament of baptism which is in
them is nothing. For even in the very men who are cast out, if they
return to their senses and come back, the salvation which had departed
from them returns; but the baptism does not return, because it never
had departed. And in what the Lord says, "Go therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost," He did not permit any to baptize except the
good, inasmuch as He did not say to the bad, "Whosesoever sins ye
remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained."[1633]1633Â How then do the wicked baptize within,
who cannot remit sins? How also is it that they baptize the wicked
whose hearts are not changed, whose sins are yet upon them, as John
says, "He that hateth his brother is in darkness even until
now?"[1634]1634Â But if the sins of these men are remitted when they
join themselves in the close bonds of love to the good and just,
through whom sins are remitted in the Church, though they have been
baptized by the wicked, so the sins of those also are remitted who
come from without and join themselves by the inner bond of peace to
the same framework of the body of Christ. Yet the baptism of Christ
should be acknowledged in both, and held invalid in none, whether
before they are converted, though then it profit them nothing, or
after they are converted, that so it may profit them, as he says,
"Since they themselves, by withdrawing when they have lost their savor
from the Church, which is one, have become contrary to it, let that be
done which is written, âThe houses of those that are opposed to the
law must need be cleansed.â And it therefore follows," he goes on to
say, "that those who have been polluted by being baptized by men
opposed to Christ should first be cleansed, and only then baptized."Â
What then? Are thieves and murderers not contrary to the law, which
says, "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal?"[1635]1635Â "They
must therefore needs be cleansed." Who will deny it? And yet not
only those who are baptized by such within the Church, but also those
who, being such themselves, are baptized without being changed in
heart, are nevertheless exempt from further baptism when they are so
changed. So great is the force of the sacrament of mere baptism,
that though we allow that a man who has been baptized and continues to
lead an evil life requires to be cleansed, we yet forbid him to be any
more baptized.
Chapter 15.â24. Crescens of Cirta[1636]1636 said: "The letters of
our most beloved Cyprian to Jubaianus, and also to Stephen,[1637]1637
having been read in so large an assembly of our most holy brethren in
the priesthood, containing as they do so large a body of sacred
testimony derived from the Scriptures that give us our God,[1638]1638
that we have every reason to assent to them, being all united by the
grace of God, I give my judgment that all heretics or schismatics who
wish to come to the Catholic Church should not enter therein unless
they have been first exorcised and baptized; with the obvious
exception of those who have been originally baptized in the Catholic
Church, these being reconciled and admitted to the penance of the
Church by the imposition of hands."[1639]1639
25. Here we are warned once more to inquire why he says, "Except, of
course, those who have been originally baptized in the Catholic
Church."Â Is it because they had not lost what they had before
received? Why then could they not also transmit outside the Church
what they were able to possess outside? Is it that outside it is
unlawfully transmitted? But neither is it lawfully possessed
outside, and yet it is possessed; so it is unlawfully given outside,
but yet it is given. But what is given to the person returning from
heresy who had been baptized inside, is given to the person coming to
the Church who had been baptized outside,âthat is, that he may have
lawfully inside what before he had unlawfully outside. But perhaps
some one may ask what was said on this point in the letter of the
blessed Cyprian to Stephen, which is mentioned in this judgment,
though not in the opening address to the Council,âI suppose because it
was not considered necessary. For Crescens stated that the letter
itself had been read in the assembly, which I have no doubt was done,
if I am not mistaken, as is customary, in order that the bishops,
being already assembled, might receive some information at the same
time on the subject contained in that letter. For it certainly has
no bearing on the present subject; and I am more surprised at Crescens
having thought fit to mention it at all, than at its having been
passed over in the opening address. But if any one thinks that I
have shrunk from bringing forward something which has been urged in it
that is essential to the present point, let him read it and see that
what I say is true; or if he finds it otherwise, let him convict me of
falsehood. For that letter contains nothing whatsoever about baptism
administered among heretics or schismatics, which is the subject of
our present argument.[1640]1640
Chapter 16.â26. Nicomedes of Segermi[1641]1641 said: "My judgment
is that heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, because they
can obtain no remission of sins among sinners outside."[1642]1642
27. The answer to which is: The judgment of the whole Catholic
Church is that heretics, being already baptized with the baptism of
Christ, although in heresy, should not be rebaptized on coming to the
Church. For if there is no remission of sins among sinners, neither
can sinners within the Church remit sins; and yet those who have been
baptized by them are not rebaptized.
Chapter 17.â28. Monnulus of Girba[1643]1643 said: "The truth of
our mother, the Catholic Church, hath continued, and still continues
among us, brethren, especially in the threefold nature[1644]1644 of
baptism, as our Lord says, âGo, baptize all nations in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.â[1645]1645Â Since,
therefore," he goes on to say, "we know clearly that heretics have
neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost, they ought, on coming to our
mother, the Church, to be truly regenerated and baptized, that the
cancer which they had, and the wrath of condemnation, and the
destructive energy of error[1646]1646 may be sanctified by the holy
and heavenly laver."[1647]1647
29. To this we answer, That all who are baptized with the baptism
that is consecrated in the words of the gospel have the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost in the sacrament alone; but that in heart
and in life neither do those have them who live an abandoned and
accursed life within.
Chapter 18.â30. Secundinus of Cedias[1648]1648 said: "Since our
Lord Christ said, âHe that is not with me is against me,â[1649]1649
and the Apostle John declares those who go out from the Church to be
antichrists,[1650]1650 without all doubt the enemies of Christ, and
those who are called antichrists, cannot minister the grace of the
baptism which gives salvation; and therefore my judgment is that those
who take refuge in the Church from the snares of heresy should be
baptized by us, who of His condescension are called the friends of
God."[1651]1651
31. The answer to which is, That all are the opponents of Christ, to
whom, on their saying, "Lord, have we not in Thy name done many
wonderful things?" with all the rest that is there recorded, He shall
at the last day answer, "I never knew you:Â depart from me, ye that
work iniquity,"[1652]1652âall which kind of chaff is destined for the
fire, if it persevere to the last in its wickedness, whether any part
of it fly outside before its winnowing, or whether it seem to be
within. If, therefore, those heretics who come to the Church are to
be again baptized, that they may be baptized by the friends of God,
are those covetous men, those robbers, murderers, the friends of God,
or must those whom they have baptized be baptized afresh?
Chapter 19.â32. Felix of Bagai[1653]1653 said: "As when the blind
leads the blind, both fall into the ditch,[1654]1654 so when a heretic
baptizes a heretic, both fall together into death."
33. This is true, but it does not follow that what he adds is
true. "And therefore," he says, "the heretic must be baptized and
brought to life, lest we who are alive should hold communion with the
dead."[1655]1655Â Were they not dead who said, "Let us eat and drink,
for to-morrow we die?"[1656]1656 for they did not believe in the
resurrection of the dead. Those then who were corrupted by their
evil communications, and followed them, were not they likewise falling
with them into the pit? And yet among them there were men to whom
the apostle was writing as being already baptized; nor would they,
therefore, if they were corrected, be baptized afresh. Does not the
same apostle say, "To be carnally-minded is death?"[1657]1657 and
certainly the covetous, the deceivers, the robbers, in the midst of
whom Cyprian himself was groaning, were carnally-minded. What
then? Did the dead hurt him who was living in unity? Or who would
say, that because such men had or gave the baptism of Christ, that it
was therefore violated by their iniquities?
Chapter 20.â34. Polianus of Mileum[1658]1658 said: "It is right
that a heretic should be baptized in the holy Church."[1659]1659
35. Nothing, indeed, could be expressed more shortly. But I think
this too is short:Â It is right that the baptism of Christ should not
be depreciated in the Church of Christ.
Chapter 21.â36. Theogenes of Hippo Regius[1660]1660 said:Â
"According to the sacrament of the heavenly grace of God which we have
received, we believe in the one only baptism which is in the holy
Church."[1661]1661
37. This may be my own judgment also. For it is so balanced, that
it contains nothing contrary to the truth. For we also believe in
the one only baptism which is in the holy Church. Had he said,
indeed, We believe in that which is in the holy Church alone, the same
answer must have been made to him as to the rest. But as it is,
since he has expressed himself in this wise, "We believe in the one
only baptism which is in the holy Church," so that it is asserted that
it exists in the holy Church, but not denied that it may be elsewhere
as well, whatever his meaning may have been, there is no need to argue
against these words. For if I were questioned on the several points,
first, whether there was one baptism, I should answer that there was
one. Then if I were asked, whether this was in the holy Church, I
should answer that it was. In the third place, if it were asked
whether I believed in this baptism, I should answer that I did so
believe; and consequently I should answer that I believed in the one
baptism which is in the holy Church. But if it were asked whether it
was found in the holy Church alone, and not among heretics and
schismatics, I should answer that, in common with the whole Church, I
believed the contrary. But since he did not insert this in his
judgment, I should consider that it was mere wantonness if I added
words which I did not find there, for the sake of arguing against
them. For if he were to say, There is one water of the river
Euphrates, which is in Paradise, no one could gainsay the truth of
what he said. But if he were asked whether that water were in
Paradise and nowhere else, and were to say that this was so, he would
be saying what was false. For, besides Paradise, it is also in those
lands into which it flows from that source. But who is rash enough
to say that he would have been likely to assert what is false, when it
is quite possible that he was asserting what is true? Wherefore the
words of this judgment require no contradiction, because they in no
wise run counter to the truth.
Chapter 22.â38. Dativus of Badiæ[1662]1662 said "We, so far as lies
within our power, refuse to communicate with a heretic, unless he has
been baptized in the Church, and received remission of his
sins."[1663]1663
39. The answer to this is: If your reason for wishing him to be
baptized is that he has not received remission of sins, supposing you
find a man within the Church who has been baptized, though
entertaining hatred towards his brother, since the Lord cannot lie,
who says, "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses,"[1664]1664 will you bid such an one,
when corrected, to be baptized afresh? Assuredly not; so neither
should you bid the heretic. It is clear that we must not pass
unnoticed why he did not briefly say, "We do not communicate with a
heretic," but added, "so far as lies within our power."Â For he saw
that a greater number agreed with this view, from whose communion,
however, he and his friends could not separate themselves, lest unity
should be impaired, and so he added, "so far as lies within our
power,"âshowing beyond all doubt that he did not willingly communicate
with those whom he held to be without baptism, but that yet all things
were to be endured for the sake of peace and unity; just as was done
also by those who thought that Dativus and his party were in the
wrong, and who held what afterwards was taught by a fuller declaration
of the truth, and urged by ancient custom, which received the stronger
confirmation of a later Council; yet in turn, with anxious piety, they
showed toleration towards each other, though without violation of
Christian charity they entertained different opinions, endeavoring to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,[1665]1665 till God
should reveal to one of them, were he otherwise minded, even this
error of his ways.[1666]1666Â And to this I would have those give
heed, by whom unity is attacked on the authority of this very Council
by which it is declared how much unity should be loved.
Chapter 23.â40. Successus of Abbir Germaniciana[1667]1667 said:Â
"Heretics may either do nothing or everything. If they can baptize,
they can also give the Holy Spirit; but if they cannot give the Holy
Spirit, because they do not possess the Holy Spirit, then can they not
either spiritually baptize. Therefore we give our judgment that
heretics should be baptized."[1668]1668
41. To this we may answer almost word for word: Murderers may
either do nothing or everything. If they can baptize, they can also
give the Holy Spirit; but if they cannot give the Holy Spirit, because
they do not possess the Holy Spirit, then can they not either
spiritually baptize. Therefore we give our judgment that persons
baptized by murderers, or murderers themselves who have been baptized
without being converted, should, when they have corrected themselves,
be baptized. Yet this is not true. For "whosoever hateth his
brother is a murderer;"[1669]1669 and Cyprian knew such men within the
Church, who certainly baptized. Therefore it is to no purpose that
words of this sort are used concerning heretics.
Chapter 24.â42. Fortunatus of Thuccabori[1670]1670 said: "Jesus
Christ our Lord and God, the Son of God the Father and Creator, built
His Church upon a rock, not upon heresy, and gave the power of
baptizing to bishops, not to heretics. Wherefore those who are
outside the Church, and stand against Christ, scattering His sheep and
flock, cannot baptize outside."[1671]1671
43. He added the word "outside" in order that he might not be
answered with a like brevity to Successus. For otherwise he might
also have been answered word for word:Â Jesus Christ our Lord and
God, the Son of God the Father and Creator, built His Church upon a
rock, not upon iniquity, and gave the power of baptizing to bishops,
not to the unrighteous. Wherefore those who do not belong to the
rock on which they build, who hear the word of God and do
it,[1672]1672 but, living contrary to Christ in hearing the word and
not doing it, and hereby building on the sand, in this way scatter His
sheep and flock by the example of an abandoned character, cannot
baptize. Might not this be said with all the semblance of truth? and
yet it is false. For the unrighteous do baptize, since those robbers
are unrighteous whom Cyprian maintained to be at unity with
himself.[1673]1673Â But for this reason, says the Donatist, he adds
"outside." Why therefore can they not baptize outside? Is it
because they are worse from the very fact that they are outside? But
it makes no difference, in respect of the validity of baptism, how
much worse the minister may be. For there is not so much difference
between bad and worse as between good and bad; and yet, when the bad
baptizes, he gives the selfsame sacrament as the good. Therefore,
also, when the worse baptizes, he gives the selfsame sacrament as the
less bad. Or is it that it is not in respect of manâs merit, but of
the sacrament of baptism itself, that it cannot be given outside? If
this were so, neither could it be possessed outside, and it would be
necessary that a man should be baptized again so often as he left the
Church and again returned to it.
44. Further, if we inquire more carefully what is meant by
"outside," especially as he himself makes mention of the rock on which
the Church is built, are not they in the Church who are on the rock,
and they who are not on the rock, not in the Church either? Now,
therefore, let us see whether they build their house upon a rock who
hear the words of Christ and do them not. The Lord Himself declares
the contrary, saying, "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and
doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house
upon a rock;" and a little later, "Every one that heareth these
sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish
man, which built his house upon the sand."[1674]1674Â If, therefore,
the Church is on a rock, those who are on the sand, because they are
outside the rock, are necessarily outside the Church. Let us
recollect, therefore, how many Cyprian mentions as placed within who
build upon the sand, that is, who hear the words of Christ and do them
not. And therefore, because they are on the sand, they are proved to
be outside the rock, that is, outside the Church; yet even while they
are so situated, and are either not yet or never changed for the
better, not only do they baptize and are baptized, but the baptism
which they have remains valid in them though they are destined to
damnation.
45. Neither can it be said in this place,[1675]1675 Yet who is there
that doeth all the words of the Lord which are written in the
evangelic sermon itself,[1676]1676 at the end of which He says, that
he who heard the said words and did them built upon a rock, and he who
heard them and did them not built upon the sand? For, granting that
by certain persons all the words are not accomplished, yet in the same
sermon He has appointed the remedy, saying, "Forgive, and ye shall be
forgiven."[1677]1677Â And after the Lordâs prayer had been recorded
in detail in the same sermon, He says, "For I say unto you, if ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you:Â but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses."[1678]1678Â Hence also Peter says,
"For charity shall cover the multitude of sins;"[1679]1679 which
charity they certainly did not have, and on this account they built
upon the sand, of whom the same Cyprian says, that within the Church
they held conversation, even in the time of the apostles, in unkindly
hatred alien from Christian charity;[1680]1680 and therefore they
seemed indeed to be within, but really were without, because they were
not on that rock by which the Church is signified.
Chapter 25.â46. Sedatus of Tuburbo[1681]1681 said: "Inasmuch as
water, sanctified by the prayer of the priest in the Church, washes
away sins, just so much does it multiply sins when infected, as by a
cancer, with the words of heretics. Wherefore one must strive, with
all such efforts as conduce to peace, that no one who has been
infected and tainted by heretical error should refuse to receive the
one true baptism, with which whosoever is not baptized shall not
inherit the kingdom of heaven."[1682]1682
47. To this we answer, that if the water is not sanctified, when
through want of skill the priest who prays utters some words of error,
many, not only of the bad, but of the good brethren in the Church
itself, fail to sanctify the water. For the prayers of many are
corrected every day on being recited to men of greater learning, and
many things are found in them contrary to the Catholic faith.Â
Supposing, then, that it were shown that some persons were baptized
when these prayers had been uttered over the water, will they be
bidden to be baptized afresh? Why not? Because generally the fault
in the prayer is more than counterbalanced by the intent of him who
offers it; and those fixed words of the gospel, without which baptism
cannot be consecrated, are of such efficacy, that, by their virtue,
anything faulty that is uttered in the prayer contrary to the rule of
faith is made of no effect, just as the devil is excluded by the name
of Christ. For it is clear that if a heretic utters a faulty prayer,
he has no good intent of love whereby that want of skill may be
compensated, and therefore he is like any envious or spiteful person
in the Catholic Church itself, such as Cyprian proves to exist within
the Church. Or one might offer some prayer, as not unfrequently
happens, in which he should speak against the rule of faith, since
many rush into the use of prayers which are composed not only by
unskillful men who love to talk, but even by heretics, and in the
simplicity of ignorance, not being able to discern their true
character, use them, thinking they are good; and yet what is erroneous
in them does not vitiate what is right, but rather it is rendered null
thereby, just as in the man of good hope and approved faith, who yet
is but a man, if in anything he be otherwise minded, what he holds
aright is not thereby vitiated until God reveal to him also that in
which he is otherwise minded.[1683]1683Â But supposing that the man
himself is wicked and perverse, then, if he should offer an upright
prayer, in no part contrary to the Catholic faith, it does not follow
that because the prayer is right the man himself is also right; and if
over some he offer an erroneous prayer, God is present to uphold the
words of His gospel, without which the baptism of Christ cannot be
consecrated, and He Himself consecrates His sacrament, that in the
recipient, either before he is baptized, or when he is baptized, or at
some future time when he turns in truth to God, that very sacrament
may be profitable to salvation, which, were he not to be converted,
would be powerful to his destruction. But who is there who does not
know that there is no baptism of Christ, if the words of the gospel in
which consists the outward visible sign be not forthcoming? But you
will more easily find heretics who do not baptize at all, than any who
baptize without those words. And therefore we say, not that every
baptism (for in many of the blasphemous rites of idols men are said to
be baptized), but that the baptism of Christ, that is, every baptism
consecrated in the words of the gospel, is everywhere the same, and
cannot be vitiated by any perversity on the part of any men.[1684]1684
48. We must certainly not lightly pass over in this judgment that he
here inserted a clause, and says, "Wherefore we must strive, with all
such efforts as conduce to peace, that no one who has been infected,"
etc. For he had regard to those words of the blessed Cyprian in his
opening speech, "Judging no man, nor depriving any of the right of
communion if he entertain a different view."Â See of what power is
the love of unity and peace in the good sons of the Church, that they
should choose rather to show tolerance towards those whom they called
sacrilegious and profane, being admitted, as they thought, without the
sacrament of baptism, if they could not correct them as they thought
was right, than on their account to break that holy bond, lest on
account of the tares the wheat also should be rooted
out,[1685]1685âpermitting, so far as rested with them, as in that
noblest judgment of Solomon, that the infant body should rather be
nourished by the false mother than be cut in pieces.[1686]1686Â But
this was the opinion both of those who held the truer view about the
sacrament of baptism, and of those to whom God, in consideration of
their great love, was purposing to reveal any point in which they were
otherwise minded.
Chapter 26.â49. Privatianus of Sufetula[1687]1687 said: "He who
says that heretics have the power of baptizing should first say who it
was that founded heresy. For if heresy is of God, it may have the
divine favor; but if it be not of God, how can it either have or
confer on any one the grace of God?"[1688]1688
50. This man may thus be answered word for word: He who says that
malicious and envious persons have the power of baptizing, should
first say who was the founder of malice and envy. For if malice and
envy are of God, they may have the divine favor; but if they are not
of God, how can they either have or confer on any one the grace of
God? But as these words are in the same way most manifestly false,
so are also those which these were uttered to confute. For the
malicious and envious baptize, as even Cyprian himself allows, because
he bears testimony that they also are within. So therefore even
heretics may baptize, because baptism is the sacrament of Christ; but
envy and heresy are the works of the devil. Yet though a man
possesses them, he does not thereby cause that if he have the
sacrament of Christ, it also should itself be reckoned in the number
of the devilâs works.
Chapter 27.â51. Privatus of Sufes[1689]1689 said: "What can be
said of the man who approves the baptism of heretics, save that he
communicates with heretics?"[1690]1690
52. To this we answer: It is not the baptism of heretics which we
approve in heretics, as it is not the baptism of the covetous, or the
treacherous, or deceitful, or of robbers, or of envious men which we
approve in them; for all of these are unjust, but Christ is just,
whose sacrament existing in them, they do not in its essence
violate. Otherwise another man might say: What can be said of the
man who approves the baptism of the unjust, save that he communicates
with the unjust. And if this objection were brought against the
Catholic Church herself, it would be answered just as I have answered
the above.
Chapter 28.â53. Hortensianus of Lares[1691]1691 said: "How many
baptisms there are, let those who uphold or favor heretics
determine. We assert one baptism of the Church, which we only know
in the Church. Or how can those baptize any one in the name of
Christ whom Christ Himself declares to be His enemies?"[1692]1692
54. Giving answer to this man in a like tenor of words, we say:Â
Let those who uphold or favor the unrighteous see to it:Â we recall
to the Church when we can the one baptism which we know to be of the
Church alone, wherever it be found. Or how can they baptize any one
in the name of Christ whom Christ Himself declares to be His
enemies? For He says to all the unrighteous, "I never knew you:Â
depart from me, ye that work iniquity;"[1693]1693 and yet, when they
baptize, it is not themselves that baptize, but He of whom John says,
"The same is He which baptizeth."[1694]1694
Chapter 29.â55. Cassius of Macomades[1695]1695 said:Â "Since there
cannot be two baptisms, he who grants baptism unto heretics takes it
away from himself. I therefore declare my judgment that heretics,
those objects for our tears, those masses of corruption,[1696]1696
should be baptized when they begin to come to the Church, and that so
being washed by the sacred and divine laver, and enlightened with the
light of life, they may be received into the Church,âas being now made
not enemies, but peaceful; not strangers, but of the household of the
faith of the Lord; not bastards,[1697]1697 but sons of God; partaking
not of error, but of salvation,âwith the exception of those who, being
believers transplanted from the Church, had gone over to heresy, and
that these should be restored by the laying on of hands."[1698]1698
56. Another might say: Since there cannot be two baptisms, he who
grants baptism to the unrighteous takes it away from himself. But
even our opponents would join us in resisting such a man when he says
that we grant baptism to the unrighteous, which is not of the
unrighteous, like their unrighteousness, but of Christ, of whom is
righteousness, and whose sacrament, even among the unrighteous, is not
unrighteous. What, therefore, they would join us in saying of the
unrighteous, that let them say to themselves of heretics. And
therefore he should rather have said as follows:Â I therefore give my
judgment that heretics, those objects for our tears, those masses of
corruption, should not be baptized when they begin to come to the
Church, if they already have the baptism of Christ, but should be
corrected from their error. For we may similarly say of the
unrighteous, of whom the heretics are a part:Â I therefore give my
judgment that the unrighteous, those objects for our tears, and masses
of corruption, if they have been already baptized, should not be
baptized again when they begin to come to the Church, that is, to that
rock outside which are all who hear the words of Christ and do them
not; but being already washed with the sacred and divine laver, and
now further enlightened with the light of truth, should be received
into the Church no longer as enemies but as peaceful, for the
unrighteous have no peace; no longer as strangers, but of the
household of the faith of the Lord, for to the unrighteous it is said,
"How then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine
unto me?"[1699]1699 no longer as bastards, but the sons of God, for
the unrighteous are the sons of the devil, partaking not of error but
of salvation, for un-righteousness cannot save. And by the Church I
mean that rock, that dove, that garden enclosed and fountain sealed,
which is recognized only in the wheat, not in the chaff, whether that
be scattered far apart by the wind, or appear to be mingled with the
corn even till the last winnowing. In vain, therefore, did Cassius
add, "With the exception of those who, being believers transplanted
from the Church, had gone over to heresy."Â For if even they
themselves had lost baptism by seceding, to themselves also let it be
restored; but if they had not lost it, let what was given by them
receive due recognition.
Chapter 30.â57. Another Januarius of Vicus Cæsaris[1700]1700
said:Â "If error does not obey truth, much more does truth refuse
assent to error; and therefore we stand by the Church in which we
preside, so that, claiming her baptism for herself alone, we baptize
those whom the Church has not baptized."[1701]1701
58. We answer: Whom the Church baptizes, those that rock baptizes
outside which are all they who hear the words of Christ and do them
not. Let all, therefore, be baptized again who have been baptized by
such. But if this is not done, then, as we recognize the baptism of
Christ in these, so should we recognize it in heretics, though we
either condemn or correct their unrighteousness and error.
Chapter 31.â59. Another Secundinus of Carpis[1702]1702 said: "Are
heretics Christians or not? If they are Christians, why are they not
in the Church of God? If they are not Christians, let them be made
so.[1703]1703Â Else what will be the reference in the discourse of
the Lord, in which He says, âHe that is not with me is against me; and
he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad?â[1704]1704Â Whence
it is clear that on strange children and the offspring of Antichrist
the Holy Spirit cannot descend by the laying on of hands alone, since
it is clear that heretics have not baptism."[1705]1705
60. To this we answer: Are the unrighteous Christians or not? If
they are Christians, why are they not on that rock on which the Church
is built? for they hear the words of Christ and do them not. If they
are not Christians, let them be made so. Else what will be the
reference in the discourse of our Lord, in which He says, "He that is
not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad?"Â For they scatter His sheep who lead them to the
ruin of their lives by a false imitation of the Lord. Whence it is
clear that upon strange children (as all the unrighteous are called),
and upon the offspring of Antichrist (which all are who oppose
themselves to Christ), the Holy Spirit cannot descend by the laying on
of hands alone, if there be not added a true conversion of the heart;
since it is clear that the unrighteous, so long as they are
unrighteous, may indeed have baptism, but cannot have the salvation of
which baptism is the sacrament. For let us see whether heretics are
described in that psalm where the following words are used of strange
children:Â "Deliver me, O Lord, from the hand of strange children,
whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of
falsehood:Â whose sons are like young shoots well established, and
their daughters polished after the similitude of the temple. Their
garners are full, affording all manner of store; their sheep are
fruitful, bringing forth plenteously in their streets; their oxen are
strong: there is no breaking down of their fence, no opening of a
passage out, no complaining in their streets. Men deemed happy the
people that is in such a case; rather blessed is the people whose God
is the Lord."[1706]1706Â If, therefore, those are strange children
who place their happiness in temporal things, and in the abundance of
earthly prosperity, and despise the commandments of the Lord, let us
see whether these are not the very same of whom Cyprian so speaks,
transforming them also into himself, that he may show that he is
speaking of men with whom he held communion in the sacraments:Â "In
not keeping," he says, "the way of the Lord, nor observing the
heavenly commandments given us for our salvation. Our Lord did the
will of His Father, and we do not do the will of the Lord, being eager
about our patrimony or our gains, following after pride, and so
forth."[1707]1707Â But if these could both have and transmit baptism,
why is it denied that it may exist among strange children, whom he yet
exhorts, that, by keeping the heavenly commandments conveyed to them
through the only-begotten Son, they should deserve to be His brethren
and the sons of God?
Chapter 32.â61. Victoricus of Thabraca[1708]1708 said: "If
heretics may baptize, and give remission of sins, why do we destroy
their credit, and call them heretics?"[1709]1709
62. What if another were to say: If the unrighteous may baptize,
and give remission of sins, why do we destroy their credit, and call
them unrighteous? The answer which we should give to such an one
concerning the unrighteous may also be given to the other concerning
heretics,âthat is, in the first place, that the baptism with which
they baptize is not theirs; and secondly, that it does not follow that
whosoever has the baptism of Christ is also certain of the remission
of his sins if he has this only in the outward sign, and is not
converted with a true conversion of the heart, so that he who gives
remission should himself have remission of his sins.
Chapter 33.â63. Another Felix of Uthina[1710]1710 said: "No one
can doubt, most holy brethren in the priesthood, that human
presumption has not so much power as the adorable and venerable
majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ. Remembering then the danger, we
ought not only to observe this ourselves, but to confirm it by our
general consent, that all heretics who come to the bosom of our mother
the Church be baptized, that the heretical mind, which has been
polluted by long-continued corruption, may be reformed when cleansed
by the sanctification of the laver."[1711]1711
64. Perhaps the man who has placed the strength of his case for the
baptizing of heretics in the cleansing away of the long-continued
corruption, would spare those who, having fallen headlong into some
heresy, had remained in it a brief space, and presently being
corrected, had passed from thence to the Catholic Church.Â
Furthermore, he has himself failed to observe that it might be said
that all unrighteous persons who come to that rock, in which is
understood the Church, should be baptized, so that the unrighteous
mind, which was building outside the rock upon the sand by hearing the
words of Christ and not doing them, might be reformed when cleansed by
the sanctification of the laver; and yet this is not done if they have
been baptized already, even if it be proved that such was their
character when they were baptized, that is, that they "renounced the
world in words and not in deeds."
Chapter 34.â65. Quietus of Burug[1712]1712 said: "We who live by
faith ought with believing observance to obey what has been before
foretold for our instruction. For it is written in Solomon, âHe that
is washed by one dead, what availeth his washing?â[1713]1713Â Which
assuredly he says of those who are washed by heretics, and of those
who wash. For if they who are baptized among them receive eternal
life through the remission of their sins, why do they come to the
Church? But if no salvation is received from a dead person, and they
therefore, acknowledging their former error, return with penance to
the truth, they ought to be sanctified with the one life-giving
baptism which is in the Catholic Church."[1714]1714
66. What it is to be baptized by the dead, we have already, without
prejudice to the more careful consideration of the same scripture,
sufficiently declared before.[1715]1715Â But I would ask why it is
that they wish heretics alone to be considered dead, when Paul the
apostle has said generally of sin, "The wages of sin is
death;"[1716]1716 and again, "To be carnally minded is
death."[1717]1717Â And when he says that a widow that liveth in
pleasure is dead,[1718]1718 how are they not dead "who renounce the
world in words and not in deeds"? What, therefore, is the profit of
washing in him who is baptized by them, except, indeed, that if he
himself also is of the same character, he has the laver indeed, but it
does not profit him to salvation? But if he by whom he is baptized
is such, but the man who is baptized is turned to the Lord with no
false heart, he is not baptized by that dead person, but by that
living One of whom it is said, "The same is He which
baptizeth."[1719]1719Â But to what he says of heretics, that if they
who are baptized among them receive eternal life through the remission
of their sins, why do they come to the Church? we answer:Â They come
for this reason, that although they have received the baptism of
Christ up to the point of the celebration of the sacrament, yet they
cannot attain to life eternal save through the charity of unity; just
as neither would those envious and malicious ones attain to life
eternal, who would not have their sins forgiven them, even if they
entertained hatred only against those from whom they suffered wrong;
since the Truth said, "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither
will your Father forgive your trespasses,"[1720]1720 how much less
when they were hating those towards whom they were rewarding evil for
good?[1721]1721Â And yet these men, though "renouncing the world in
words and not in deeds," would not be baptized again, if they should
afterwards be corrected, but they would be made holy by the one living
baptism. And this is indeed in the Catholic Church, but not in it
alone, as neither is it in the saints alone who are built upon the
rock, and of whom that one dove is composed.[1722]1722
Chapter 35.â67. Castus of Sicca[1723]1723 said: He who presumes to
follow custom in despite of truth is either envious and evilly
disposed towards the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or else
he is ungrateful towards God, by whose inspiration His Church is
instructed."[1724]1724
68. If this man proved that those who differed from him, and held
the view that has since been held by the whole world under the
sanction of a Christian Council, were following custom so as to
despise truth, we should have reason for fearing these words; but
seeing that this custom is found both to have had its origin in truth
and to have been confirmed by truth, we have nothing to fear in this
judgment. And yet, if they were envious or evilly disposed towards
the brethren, or ungrateful towards God, see with what kind of men
they were willing to hold communion; see what kind of men, holding
different opinions from their own, they treated as Cyprian enjoined
them at the first, not removing them from the right of communion; see
by what kind of men they were not polluted in the preservation of
unity; see how greatly the bond of peace was to be loved; see what
views they hold who bring charges against us, founded on the Council
of bishops, their predecessors, whose example they do not imitate, and
by whose example, when the rights of the case are considered, they are
condemned. If it was the custom, as this judgment bears witness,
that heretics coming to the Church should be received with the baptism
which they already had, either this was done rightly, or the evil do
not pollute the good in unity. If it was rightly done, why do they
accuse the world because they are so received? But if the evil do
not pollute the good in unity, how do they defend themselves against
the charge of sacrilegious separation?
Chapter 36.â69. Eucratius of Theni[1725]1725 said: "Our God and
Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, fully
laid down our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the law
of the Church, saying, âGo ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.â[1726]1726Â Therefore the false and unrighteous baptism of
heretics is to be repudiated by us, and contradicted with all
solemnity of witness, seeing that from their mouth issues not life,
but poison, not heavenly grace, but blaspheming of the Trinity. And
so it is plain that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized
with perfect and Catholic baptism, that, being purified from the
blasphemy of their presumption, they may be reformed by the grace of
the Holy Spirit."[1727]1727
70. Clearly, if the baptism is not consecrated in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it should be considered
to be of the heretics, and repudiated as unrighteous by us with all
solemnity of witness; but if we discern this name in it, we do better
to distinguish the words of the gospel from heretical error, and
approve what is sound in them, correcting what is faulty.
Chapter 37.â71. Libosus of Vaga[1728]1728 said:Â "The Lord says in
the gospel, âI am the truth;â[1729]1729 He did not say, I am custom.Â
Therefore, when the truth is made manifest, let custom yield to truth;
so that, if even in time past any one did not baptize heretics in the
Church, he may now begin to baptize them."[1730]1730
72. Here he has in no way tried to show how that is the truth to
which he says that custom ought to yield. But it is of more
importance that he helps us against those who have separated
themselves from unity, by confessing that the custom existed, than
that he thinks it ought to yield to a truth which he does not show.Â
For the custom is of such a nature, that if it admitted sacrilegious
men to the altar of Christ without the cleansing of baptism, and
polluted none of the good men who remained in unity, then all who have
cut themselves off from the same unity, in which they could not be
polluted by the contagion of any evil persons whatsoever, have
separated themselves without reason, and have committed the manifest
sacrilege of schism. But if all perished in pollution through that
custom, from what cavern do they issue without the original truth, and
with all the cunning of calumny? If, however, the custom was a right
one by which heretics were thus received, let them abandon their
madness, let them confess their error; let them come to the Catholic
Church, not that they may be bathed again with the sacrament of
baptism, but that they may be cured from the wound of severance.
Chapter 38.â73. Lucius of Thebaste[1731]1731 said: "I declare my
judgment that heretics, and blasphemers, and unrighteous men, who with
various words pluck away the sacred and adorable words of the
Scriptures, should be held accursed, and therefore exorcised and
baptized."[1732]1732
74. I too think that they should be held accursed, but not that
therefore they should be exorcised and baptized; for it is their own
falsehood which I hold accursed, but Christâs sacrament which I
venerate.
Chapter 39.â75. Eugenius of Ammedera[1733]1733 said: "I too
pronounce this same judgment, that heretics should be
baptized."[1734]1734
76. To him we answer: But this is not the judgment which the
Church pronounces, to which also God has now revealed in a plenary
Council the point in which ye were then still otherwise
minded,[1735]1735 but because saving charity was in you, ye remained
in unity.
Chapter 40.â77. Also another Felix of Ammacura[1736]1736 said: "I
too, following the authority of the holy Scriptures, give my judgment
that heretics should be baptized, and with them those also who
maintain that they have been baptized among schismatics. For if,
according to the warning of Christ, our fountain is sealed to
ourselves,[1737]1737 let all the enemies of our Church understand that
it cannot belong to others; nor can He who is the Shepherd of our
flock give the water unto salvation to two different peoples. And
therefore it is clear that neither heretics nor schismatics can
receive anything heavenly, who dare to accept from men that are
sinners and aliens from the Church. When the giver has no ground to
stand upon, surely neither can the receiver derive any
profit."[1738]1738
78. To him we answer, that the holy Scriptures nowhere have enjoined
that heretics baptized among heretics should be baptized afresh, but
that they have shown in many places that all are aliens from the
Church who are not on the rock, nor belong to the members of the dove,
and yet that they baptize and are baptized and have the sacrament of
salvation without salvation. But how our fountain is like the
fountain of Paradise, in that, like it, it flows forth even beyond the
bounds of Paradise, has been sufficiently set forth above;[1739]1739
and that "He who is the Shepherd of our flock cannot give the water
unto salvation to two different peoples," that is, to one that is His
own, and to another that is alien, I fully agree in admitting. But
does it follow that because the water is not unto salvation it is not
the identical water? For the water of the deluge was for salvation
unto those who were placed within the ark, but it brought death to
those without, and yet it was the same water. And many aliens, that
is to say, envious persons, whom Cyprian declares and proves from
Scripture to be of the party of the devil, seem as it were to be
within, and yet, if they were not without the ark, they would not
perish by water. For such men are slain by baptism, as the sweet
savor of Christ was unto death to those of whom the apostle
speaks.[1740]1740Â Why then do not either heretics or schismatics
receive anything heavenly, just as thorns or tares, like those who
were without the ark received indeed the rain from the floods of
heaven, but to destruction, not to salvation? And so I do not take
the pains to refute what he said in conclusion:Â "When the giver has
no ground to stand upon, surely neither can the receiver derive any
profit," since we also say that it does not profit the receivers while
they receive it in heresy, consenting with the heretics; and therefore
they come to Catholic peace and unity, not that they may receive
baptism, but that what they had received may begin to profit them.
Chapter 41.â79. Also another Januarius of Muzuli[1741]1741 said:Â
"I wonder that, while all acknowledge that there is one baptism, all
do not understand the unity of the same baptism. For the Church and
heresy are two distinct things. If heretics have baptism we have it
not; but if we have it, heretics cannot have it. But there is no
doubt that the Church alone possesses the baptism of Christ, since it
alone possesses both the favor and the truth of Christ."[1742]1742
80. Another might equally say, and say with equal want of truth: I
wonder that, while all confess there is one baptism, all do not
understand the unity of baptism. For righteousness and
unrighteousness are two distinct things. If the unrighteous have
baptism, the righteous have it not; but if the righteous have it, the
unrighteous cannot have it. But there is no doubt that the righteous
alone possess the baptism of Christ, since they alone possess both the
favor and the truth of Christ. This is certainly false, as they
confess themselves. For those envious ones also who are of the party
of the devil, though placed within the Church, as Cyprian tells us,
and who were well known to the Apostle Paul, had baptism, but did not
belong to the members of that dove which is safely sheltered on the
rock.
Chapter 42.â81. Adelphius of Thasbalte[1743]1743 said: "It is
surely without cause that they find fault with the truth in false and
invidious terms, saying that we rebaptize, since the Church does not
rebaptize heretics, but baptizes them."[1744]1744
82. Truly enough it does not rebaptize them, because it only
baptizes those who were not baptized before; and this earlier custom
has only been confirmed in a later Council by a more careful
perfecting of the truth.
Chapter 43.â83. Demetrius of the Lesser Leptis[1745]1745 said: "We
uphold one baptism, because we claim for the Catholic Church alone
what is her own. But those who say that heretics baptize truly and
lawfully are themselves the men who make, not two, but many baptisms;
for since heresies are many in number, the baptisms, too, will be
reckoned according to their number."[1746]1746
84. To him we answer: If this were so, then would as many baptisms
be reckoned as there are works of the flesh, of which the apostle says
"that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God;"[1747]1747 among which are reckoned also heresies; and so many of
those very works are tolerated within the Church as though in the
chaff, and yet there is one baptism for them all, which is not
vitiated by any work of unrighteousness.
Chapter 44.â85. Vincentius of Thibari[1748]1748 said: "We know
that heretics are worse than heathens. If they, being converted,
wish to come to God, they have assuredly a rule of truth, which the
Lord by His divine precept committed to the apostles, saying, âGo ye,
lay on hands in my name, cast out devils;â[1749]1749 and in another
place, âGo ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.â[1750]1750Â
Therefore, first by the laying on of hands in exorcism, secondly by
regeneration in baptism, they may come to the promises of Christ; but
my judgment is that in no other way should this be done."[1751]1751
86. By what rule he asserts that heretics are worse than heathens I
do not know, seeing that the Lord says, "If he neglect to hear the
Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a
publican."[1752]1752 Is a heretic worse even than such? I do not
gainsay it. I do not, however, allow that because the man himself is
worse than a heathen, that is, than a Gentile and pagan, therefore
whatever the sacrament contains that is Christâs is mingled with his
vices and character, and perishes through the corruption of such
admixture. For if even those who depart from the Church, and become
not the followers but the founders of heresies, have been baptized
before their secession, they continue to have baptism, although,
according to the above rule, they are worse than heathens; for if on
correction they return, they do not receive it, as they certainly
would do if they had lost it. It is therefore possible that a man
may be worse than a heathen, and yet that the sacrament of Christ may
not only be in him, but be not a whit inferior to what it is in a holy
and righteous man. For although to the extent of his powers he has
not preserved the sacrament, but done it violence in heart and will,
yet so far as the sacramentâs own nature is concerned, it has remained
unhurt in its integrity even in the man who despised and rejected
it. Were not the people of Sodom heathens, that is to say,
Gentiles? The Jews therefore were worse, to whom the Lord says, "It
shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment
than for thee;"[1753]1753 and to whom the prophet says, "Thou hast
justified Sodom,"[1754]1754 that is to say, in comparison with thee
Sodom is righteous. Shall we, however, maintain that on this account
the holy sacraments which existed among the Jews partook of the nature
of the Jews themselves,âthose sacraments which the Lord Himself also
accepted, and sent the lepers whom He had cleansed to fulfill
them,[1755]1755 of which when Zacharias was administering them, the
angel stood by him, and declared that his prayer had been heard while
he was sacrificing in the temple?[1756]1756Â These same sacraments
were both in the good men of that time, and in those bad men who were
worse than are the heathens, seeing that they were ranked before the
Sodomites for wickedness, and yet those sacraments were perfect and
holy in both.
87. For even if the Gentiles themselves could have anything holy and
right in their doctrines, our saints did not condemn it, however much
the Gentiles themselves were to be detested for their superstitions
and idolatry and pride, and the rest of their corruptions, and to be
punished with judgment from heaven unless they submitted to
correction. For when Paul the apostle also was saying something
concerning God before the Athenians, he adduced as a proof of what he
said, that certain of them had said something to the same
effect,[1757]1757 which certainly would not be condemned but
recognized in them if they should come to Christ. And the holy
Cyprian uses similar evidence against the same heathens; for, speaking
of the magi, he says, "The chief of them, however, Hostanes, asserts
both that the form of the true God cannot be seen, and also that true
angels stand beside His seat. In which Plato also agrees in like
manner, and, maintaining the existence of one God, he calls the others
angels or demons. Hermes Trismegistus also speaks of one God, and
confesses that He is incomprehensible, and past our powers of
estimation."[1758]1758Â If, therefore, they were to come to the
perception of salvation in Christ, it surely would not be said to
them, This that ye have is bad, or false; but clearly it would
deservedly be said, Though this in you is perfect and true, yet it
would profit nothing unless ye came to the grace of Christ. If,
therefore, anything that is holy can be found and rightly approved in
the very heathens, although the salvation which is of Christ is not
yet to be granted to them, we ought not, even though heretics are
worse than they, to be moved to the desire of correcting what is bad
in them belonging to themselves, without being willing to acknowledge
what is good in them of Christ. But we will set forth from a fresh
preface to consider the remaining judgments of this Council.
Book VII.
In which the remaining judgments of the Council of Carthage are
examined.
Chapter 1.â1. Let us not be considered troublesome to our readers,
if we discuss the same question often and from different points of
view. For although the Holy Catholic Church throughout all nations
be fortified by the authority of primitive custom and of a plenary
Council against those arguments which throw some darkness over the
question about baptism, whether it can be the same among heretics and
schismatics that it is in the Catholic Church, yet, since a different
opinion has at one time been entertained in the unity of the Church
itself, by men who are in no wise to be despised, and especially by
Cyprian, whose authority men endeavor to use against us who are far
removed from his charity, we are therefore compelled to make use of
the opportunity of examining and considering all that we find on this
subject in his Council and letters, in order, as it were, to handle at
some considerable length this same question, and to show how it has
more truly been the decision of the whole body of the Catholic Church,
that heretics or schismatics, who have received baptism already in the
body from which they came, should be admitted with it into the
communion of the Catholic Church, being corrected in their error and
rooted and grounded in the faith, that, so far as concerns the
sacrament of baptism, there should not be an addition of something
that was wanting, but a turning to profit of what was in them. And
the holy Cyprian indeed, now that the corruptible body no longer
presseth down the soul, nor the earthly tabernacle presseth down the
mind that museth upon many things,[1759]1759 sees with greater
clearness that truth to which his charity made him deserving to
attain. May he therefore help us by his prayers, while we labor in
the mortality of the flesh as in a darksome cloud, that if the Lord so
grant it, we may imitate so far as we can the good that was in him.Â
But if he thought otherwise than right on any point, and persuaded
certain of his brethren and colleagues to entertain his views in a
matter which he now sees clearly through the revelation of Him whom he
loved, let us, who are far inferior to his merits, yet following, as
our weakness will allow, the authority of the Catholic Church of which
he was himself a conspicuous and most noble member, strive our utmost
against heretics and schismatics, seeing that they, being cut off from
the unity which he maintained, and barren of the love with which he
was fruitful, and fallen away from the humility in which he stood, are
disavowed and condemned the more by him, in proportion as he knows
that they wish to search out his writings for purposes of treachery,
and are unwilling to imitate what he did for the maintainance of
peace,âlike those who, calling themselves Nazarene Christians, and
circumcising the foreskin of their flesh after the fashion of the
Jews, being heretics by birth in that error from which Peter, when
straying from the truth, was called by Paul[1760]1760 persist in the
same to the present day. As therefore they have remained in their
perversity cut off from the body of the Church, while Peter has been
crowned in the primacy of the apostles through the glory of martyrdom,
so these men, while Cyprian, through the abundance of his love, has
been received into the portion of the saints through the brightness of
his passion, are obliged to recognize themselves as exiles from unity,
and, in defence of their calumnies, set up a citizen of unity as an
opponent against the very home of unity. Let us, therefore, go on to
examine the other judgments of that Council after the same fashion.
Chapter 2.â2. Marcus of Mactaris[1761]1761 said: "It is not to be
wondered at if heretics, being enemies and opponents of the truth,
claim to themselves what has been entrusted and vouchsafed to other
men. What is marvellous is that some of us, traitors to the truth,
uphold heretics and oppose Christians; therefore we decree that
heretics should be baptized."[1762]1762
3. To him we answer: It is indeed much more to be wondered at, and
deserving of expressions of great praise, that Cyprian and his
colleagues had such love for unity that they continued in unity with
those whom they considered to be traitors to the truth, without any
apprehension of being polluted by them. For when Marcus said, "It is
marvellous that some of us, traitors to the truth, uphold heretics and
oppose Christians," it seemed natural that he should add, Therefore we
decree that communion should not be held with them. This he did not
say; but what he does say is, "Therefore we decree that heretics
should be baptized," adhering to what the peaceful Cyprian had
enjoined in the first instance, saying, "Judging no man, nor removing
any from the right of communion if he entertain a different
opinion."Â While, therefore, the Donatists calumniate us and call us
traditors, I should be glad to know, supposing that any Jew or pagan
were found, who, after reading the records of that Council should call
both us and them, according to their own rules, traitors to the truth,
how we should be able to make our joint defense so as to refute and
wash away so grave a charge. They give the name of traditors to men
whom they were never able in times past to convict of the offense, and
whom they cannot now show to be involved in it, being themselves
rather shown to be liable to the same charge. But what has this to
do with us? What shall we say of them who, by their own showing, are
unquestionably traitors? For if we, however falsely, are called
traditors, because, as they allege, we took part in the same communion
with traditors, we have all taken part with the traditors in question,
seeing that in the time of the blessed Cyprian the party of Donatus
had not yet separated itself from unity. For the delivery of the
sacred books, from which they began to be called traditors, occurred
somewhat more than forty years after his martyrdom. If, therefore,
we are traditors, because we sprang from traditors, as they believe or
pretend, we both of us derive our origin from those other traitors.Â
For there is no room for saying that they did not communicate with
these traitors, since they call them men of their own party. In the
words of the Council which they are most forward to quote, "Some of
us," it declares, "traitors to the truth, uphold heretics."Â To this
is added the testimony of Cyprian, showing clearly that he remained in
communion with them, when he says, "Judging no man, nor removing any
from the right of communion if he entertain a different opinion."Â
For those who entertained a different opinion were the very persons
whom Marcus calls traitors to the truth because they upheld heretics,
as he maintains, by receiving them into the Church without baptism.Â
That it was, moreover, the custom that they should be so received, is
testified both by Cyprian himself in many passages, and by some
bishops in this Council. Whence it is evident that, if heretics have
not baptism, the Church of Christ of those days was full of traitors,
who upheld them by receiving them in this way. I would urge,
therefore, that we plead our cause in common against the charge of
treason which they cannot disavow, and therein our special case will
be argued against the charge of delivering the books, which they could
not prove against us. But let us argue the point as though they had
convicted us; and what we shall answer jointly to those who urge
against both of us the general treason of our forefathers, that we
will answer to these men who urge against us that our forefathers gave
up the sacred books. For as we were dead because our forefathers
delivered up the books, which caused them to divide themselves from
us, so both we and they themselves are dead through the treason of our
forefathers, from whom both we and they are sprung. But since they
say they live, they hold that that treason does not in any way affect
them, therefore neither are we affected by the delivery of the
books. And it should be observed that, according to them, the
treason is indisputable:Â while, according to us, there is no truth
either in the former charge of treason, because we say that heretics
also may have the baptism of Christ; nor in the latter charge of
delivering the books, because in that they were themselves beaten.Â
They have therefore no reason for separating themselves by the wicked
sin of schism, because, if our forefathers were not guilty of
delivering up the books, as we say, there is no charge which can
affect us at all; but if they were guilty of the sin, as these men
say, then it is just as far from affecting us as the sin of those
other traitors is from affecting either us or them. And hence, since
there is no charge that can implicate us from the unrighteousness of
our forefathers, the charge arising against them from their own schism
is manifestly proved.
Chapter 3.â4. Satius of Sicilibba[1763]1763 said: "If heretics
receive forgiveness of their sins in their own baptism, it is without
reason that they come to the Church. For since it is for sins that
men are punished in the day of judgment, heretics have nothing to fear
in the judgment of Christ if they have obtained remission of their
sins."[1764]1764
5. This too might also have been our own judgment; but let its
author beware in what spirit it was said. For it is expressed in
terms of such import, that I should feel no compunction in consenting
and subscribing to it in the same spirit in which I too believe that
heretics may indeed have the baptism of Christ, but cannot have the
remission of their sins. But he does not say, If heretics baptize or
are baptized, but "If heretics," he says, "receive forgiveness of
their sins in their own baptism, it is without reason that they come
to the Church."Â For if we were to set in the place of heretics those
whom Cyprian knew within the Church as "renouncing the world in words
alone and not in deeds," we also might express this same judgment, in
just so many words, with the most perfect truth. If those who only
seem to be converted receive forgiveness of their sins in their own
baptism, it is without reason that they are afterwards led on to a
true conversion. For since it is for sins that men are punished in
the day of judgment, "those who renounce the world in words and not in
deeds" have nothing to fear in the judgment of Christ if they have
obtained remission of their sins. But this reasoning is only made
perfect by some such context as is formed by the addition of the
words. But they ought to fear the judgment of Christ, and to lose no
time in being converted in the truth of their hearts; and, when they
have done this, it is certainly not necessary that they should be
baptized a second time. It was possible, therefore, for them to
receive baptism, and either not to receive remission of their sins, or
to be burdened again at once with the load of sins which were forgiven
them; and so the same is the case also with the heretics.
Chapter 4.â6. Victor of Gor[1765]1765 said: "Seeing that sins are
forgiven only in the baptism of the Church, he who admits heretics to
communion without baptism is guilty of two errors contrary to reason;
for, on the one hand, he does not cleanse the heretics, and, on the
other, he defiles the Christians."[1766]1766
7. To this we answer that the baptism of the Church exists even
among heretics, though they themselves are not within the Church; just
as the water of Paradise was found in the land of Egypt, though that
land was not itself in Paradise. We do not therefore admit heretics
to communion without baptism; and since they come with their
waywardness corrected, we receive not their sins, but the sacraments
of Christ. And, in respect of the remission of their sins, we say
again here exactly what we said above. And certainly, in regard of
what he says at the end of his judgment, declaring that he "is guilty
of two errors contrary to reason, seeing that on the one hand he does
not cleanse the heretics, and on the other he defiles the Christians,"
Cyprian himself is the first and the most earnest in repudiating this
with the colleagues who agreed with him. For neither did he think
that he was defiled, when, on account of the bond of peace, he decreed
that it was right to hold communion with such men, when he used the
words, "Judging no one, nor removing any from the right of communion
if he entertain a different opinion."Â Or, if heretics defile the
Church by being admitted to communion without being baptized, then the
whole Church has been defiled in virtue of that custom which has been
so often recorded here. And just as those men call us traditors
because of our forefathers, in whom they were able to prove nothing of
the sort when they laid the charge against them, so, if every man
partakes of the character of those with whom he may have held
communion, all were then made heretics. And if every one who asserts
this is mad, it must be false that Victor says, when he declares that
"he who admits heretics to communion without baptism, not only fails
to cleanse the heretics, but pollutes the Christians as well."Â Or if
this be true, they were then not admitted without baptism, but those
men had the baptism of Christ, although it was given and received
among heretics, who were so admitted in accordance with that custom
which these very men acknowledged to exist; and on the same grounds
they are even now rightly admitted in the same manner.
Chapter 5.â8. Aurelius of Utica[1767]1767 said: "Since the apostle
says that we ought not to be partakers with the sins of other
men,[1768]1768 what else does he do but make himself partaker with the
sins of other men, who holds communion with heretics without the
baptism of the Church? And therefore I pronounce my judgment that
heretics should be baptized, that they may receive remission of their
sins, and so communion be allowed to them."[1769]1769
9. The answer is: Therefore Cyprian and all those bishops were
partakers in the sins of other men, inasmuch as they remained in
communion with such men, when they removed no one from the right of
communion who entertained a different opinion. Where, then, is the
Church? Then, to say nothing for the moment of heretics,âsince the
words of this judgment are applicable also to other sinners, such as
Cyprian saw with lamentation to be in the Church with him, whom, while
he confuted them, he yet tolerated,âwhere is the Church, which,
according to these words must be held to have perished from that very
moment by the contagion of their sins? But if, as is the most firmly
established truth, the Church both has remained and does remain, the
partaking of the sins of others, which is forbidden by the apostle,
must be considered only to consist in consenting to them. But let
heretics be baptized again, that they may receive remission of their
sins, if the wayward and the envious are baptized again, who, seeing
that "they renounced the world in words and not in deeds," were indeed
able to receive baptism, but did not obtain remission of their sins,
as the Lord says, "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither
will your Father forgive your trespasses."[1770]1770
Chapter 6.â10. Iambus of Germaniciana[1771]1771 said: "Those who
approve the baptism of heretics disapprove ours, so as to deny that
such as are, I will not say washed, but defiled outside the Church,
ought to be baptized within the Church."[1772]1772
11. To him we answer, that none of our party approves the baptism of
heretics, but all the baptism of Christ, even though it be found in
heretics who are as it were chaff outside the Church, as it may be
found in other unrighteous men who are as chaff within the Church.Â
For if those who are baptized without the Church are not washed, but
defiled, assuredly those who are baptized outside the rock on which
the Church is built are not washed, but defiled. But all are without
the said rock who hear the words of Christ and do them not. Or if it
be the case that they are washed indeed in baptism, but yet continue
in the defilement of their unrighteousness, from which they were
unwilling to be changed for the better, the same is true also of the
heretics.
Chapter 7.â12. Lucianus of Rucuma[1773]1773 said: "It is written,
âAnd God saw the light that it was good, and God divided the light
from the darkness.â[1774]1774Â If light and darkness can agree, then
can there be something in common between us and heretics. Therefore
I give my judgment that heretics should be baptized."[1775]1775
13. To him the answer is: If light and darkness can agree, then
can there be something common between the righteous and unrighteous.Â
Let him therefore declare his judgment that those unrighteous should
be baptized afresh whom Cyprian confuted within the Church itself; or
let him who can say if those are not unrighteous "who renounce the
world in words and not in deeds."
Chapter 8.â14. Pelagianus of Luperciana[1776]1776 said: "It is
written, âEither the Lord is God, or Baal is God.â[1777]1777Â So now
either the Church is the Church, or heresy is the Church. Further,
if heresy be not the Church, how can the baptism of the Church exist
among heretics?"[1778]1778
15. To him we may answer as follows: Either Paradise is Paradise,
or Egypt is Paradise. Further, if Egypt be not Paradise, how can the
water of Paradise be in Egypt? But it will be said to us that it
extends even thither by flowing forth from Paradise. In like manner,
therefore, baptism extends to heretics. Also we say: Either the
rock is the Church, or the sand is the Church. Further, since the
sand is not the Church, how can baptism exist with those who build
upon the sand by hearing the words of Christ and doing them
not?[1779]1779Â And yet it does exist with them; and in like manner
also it exists among the heretics.
Chapter 9.â16. Jader of Midila[1780]1780 said: "We know that there
is but one baptism in the Catholic Church, and therefore we ought not
to admit a heretic unless he has been baptized in our body, lest he
should think that he has been baptized outside the Catholic
Church."[1781]1781
17. To him our answer is, that if this were said of those
unrighteous men who are outside the rock, it certainly would be
falsely said. And so it is therefore also in the case of heretics.
Chapter 10.â18. Likewise another Felix of Marazana[1782]1782 said:Â
"There is one faith, one baptism,[1783]1783 but of the Catholic
Church, to which alone is given authority to baptize."[1784]1784
19. What if another were to say as follows: One faith, one
baptism, but of the righteous only, to whom alone authority is given
to baptize? As these words might be refuted, so also may the
judgment of Felix be refuted. Do even the unrighteous who are
not[1785]1785 changed in heart in baptism, while "they renounce the
world in words and not in deeds" yet belong to the members of the
Church? Let them consider whether such a Church is the actual rock,
the very dove, the bride herself without spot or wrinkle.[1786]1786
Chapter 11.â20. Paul of Bobba[1787]1787 said: "I for my part am
not moved if some fail to uphold the faith and truth of the Church,
seeing that the apostle says âFor what if some did not believe? shall
their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid:Â
yea let God be true, but every man a liar.â[1788]1788Â But if God be
true, how can the truth of baptism be in the company of heretics,
where God is not?"[1789]1789
21. To him we answer: What is God among the covetous? And yet
baptism exists among them; and so also it exists among heretics. For
they among whom God is, are the temple of God. "But what agreement
hath the temple of God with idols?"[1790]1790Â Further, Paul
considers, and Cyprian agrees with him, that covetousness is idolatry;
and Cyprian himself again associates with his colleagues, who were
robbers, but yet baptized, with great reward of toleration.
Chapter 12.â22. Pomponius of Dionysiana[1791]1791 said: "It is
manifest that heretics cannot baptize and give remission of sins,
seeing that no power is given to them that they should be able either
to loose or bind anything on earth."[1792]1792
23. The answer is: This power is not given to murderers either,
that is, to those who hate their brothers. For it was not said to
such as these, "whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."[1793]1793Â
And yet they baptize, and both Paul tolerates them in the same
communion of baptism, and Cyprian acknowledges them.
Chapter 13.â24. Venantius of Tinisa[1794]1794 said: "If a husband,
going on a journey into foreign countries, had entrusted the
guardianship of his wife to a friend, he would surely keep her that
was entrusted to his care with the utmost diligence, that her chastity
and holiness might not be defiled by any one. Christ our Lord and
God, when going to the Father, committed His bride to our care:Â do
we keep her uncorrupt and undefiled, or do we betray her purity and
chastity to adulterers and corrupters? For he who makes the baptism
of Christ common with heretics betrays the bride of Christ to
adulterers."[1795]1795
25. We answer: What of those who, when they are baptized, turn
themselves to the Lord with their lips and not with their heart? do
not they possess an adulterous mind? Are not they themselves lovers
of the world, which they renounce in words and not in deeds; and they
corrupt good manners through evil communications, saying, "Let us eat
and drink; for to-morrow we die?"[1796]1796Â Did not the discourse of
the apostle take heed even against such as these, when he says, "But I
fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtilty, so your minds [also] should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ?"[1797]1797Â When, therefore, Cyprian held the
baptism of Christ to be in common with such men, did he therefore
betray the bride of Christ into the hands of adulterers, or did he not
rather recognize the necklace of the Bridegroom even on an adulteress?
Chapter 14.â26. Aymnius[1798]1798 of Ausuaga[1799]1799 said: "We
have received one baptism, which same also we administer; but he who
says that authority is given to heretics also to baptize, the same
makes two baptisms."[1800]1800
27. To him we answer: Why does not he also make two baptisms who
maintains that the unrighteous also can baptize? For although the
righteous and unrighteous are in themselves opposed to one another,
yet the baptism which the righteous give, such as was Paul, or such as
was also Cyprian, is not contrary to the baptism which those
unrighteous men were wont to give who hated Paul, whom Cyprian
understands to have been not heretics, but bad Catholics; and although
the moderation which was found in Cyprian, and the covetousness which
was found in his colleagues, are in themselves opposed to one another,
yet the baptism which Cyprian used to give was not contrary to the
baptism which his colleagues who opposed him used to give, but one and
the same with it, because in both cases it is He that baptizes of whom
it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth."[1801]1801
Chapter 15.â28. Saturninus of Victoriana[1802]1802 said: "If
heretics may baptize, they are excused and defended in doing unlawful
things; nor do I see why either Christ called them His adversaries, or
the apostle called them antichrists."[1803]1803
29. To him we answer: We say that heretics have no authority to
baptize in the same sense in which we say that defrauders have no
authority to baptize. For not only to the heretic, but to the
sinner, God says, "What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or
that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?"Â To the same
person He assuredly says, "When thou sawest a thief, then thou
consentedst with him."[1804]1804Â How much worse, therefore, are
those who did not consent with thieves, but themselves were wont to
plunder farms with treacherous deceits? Yet Cyprian did not consent
with them, though he did tolerate them in the corn-field of the
Catholic Church, lest the wheat should be rooted out together with
it. And yet at the same time the baptism which they themselves
conferred was the very selfsame baptism, because it was not of them,
but of Christ. As therefore they, although the baptism of Christ be
recognized in them, were yet not excused and defended in doing
unlawful things, and Christ rightly called those His adversaries who
were destined, by persevering in such things, to hear the doom,
"Depart from me, ye that work iniquity,"[1805]1805 whence also they
are called antichrists, because they are contrary to Christ while they
live in opposition to His words, so likewise is it the case with
heretics.
Chapter 16.â30. Another Saturninus of Tucca[1806]1806 said: "The
Gentiles, although they worship idols, yet acknowledge and confess the
supreme God, the Father and Creator. Against Him Marcion blasphemes,
and some men do not blush to approve the baptism of
Marcion.[1807]1807Â How do such priests either maintain or vindicate
the priesthood of God, who do not baptize the enemies of God, and hold
communion with them while they are thus unbaptized?"[1808]1808
31. The answer is this: Truly when such terms as this are used,
all moderation is passed; nor do they take into consideration that
even they themselves hold communion with such men, "judging no one,
nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a
contrary opinion."Â But Saturninus has used an argument in this very
judgment of his, which might furnish materials for his admonition (if
he would pay attention to it), that in each man what is wrong should
be corrected, and what is right should be approved, since he says,
"The Gentiles, although they worship idols, yet acknowledge and
confess the supreme God, the Father and Creator."Â If, then, any
Gentile of such a kind should come to God, would he wish to correct
and change this point in him, that he acknowledged and confessed God
the Father and Creator? I trow not. But he would amend in him his
idolatry, which was an evil in him; and he would give to him the
sacraments of Christ, which he did not possess; and anything that was
wayward which he found in him he would correct; and anything which had
been wanting he would supply. So also in the Marcionist heretic he
would acknowledge the perfectness of baptism, he would correct his
waywardness, he would teach him Catholic truth.
Chapter 17.â32. Marcellus of Zama[1809]1809 said: "Since sins are
remitted only in the baptism of the Church, he who does not baptize a
heretic holds communion with a sinner."[1810]1810
33. What, does he who holds communion with one who does this not
hold communion with a sinner? But what else did all of them do, "in
judging no one, or removing from the right of communion any one who
entertained a different opinion"? Where, then, is the Church? Are
those things not an obstacle to those who are patient, and tolerate
the tares lest the wheat should be rooted out together with them? I
would have them therefore say, who have committed the sacrilege of
schism by separating themselves from the whole world, how it comes
that they have in their mouths the judgment of Cyprian, while they do
not have in their hearts the patience of Cyprian. But to this
Marcellus we have an answer in what has been said above concerning
baptism and the remission of sins, explaining how there can be baptism
in a man although there be in him no remission of his sins.
Chapter 18.â34. Irenæus of Ululi[1811]1811 said: "If the Church
does not baptize a heretic, because it is said that he has been
baptized already, then heresy is the greater."[1812]1812
35. The answer is: On the same principle it might be said, If
therefore the Church does not baptize the covetous man, because it is
said that he has been baptized already, then covetousness is the
greater. But this is false, therefore the other is also false.
Chapter 19.â36. Donatus of Cibaliana[1813]1813 said: "I
acknowledge one Church, and one baptism that appertains thereto. If
there is any one who says that the grace of baptism exists among
heretics, he must first show and prove that the Church exists with
them."[1814]1814
37. To him we answer: If you say that the grace of baptism is
identical with baptism, then it exists among heretics; but if baptism
is the sacrament or outward sign of grace, while the grace itself is
the abolition of sins, then the grace of baptism does not exist with
heretics. But so there is one baptism and one Church, just as there
is one faith. As therefore the good and bad, not having one hope,
can yet have one baptism, so those who have not one common Church can
have one common baptism.
Chapter 20.â38. Zozimus of Tharassa[1815]1815 said: "When a
revelation has been made of the truth, error must give way to truth;
inasmuch as Peter also, who before was wont to circumcise, gave way to
Paul when he declared the truth."[1816]1816
39. The answer is: This may also be considered as the expression
of our judgment too, and this is just what has been done in respect of
this question of baptism. For after that the truth had been more
clearly revealed, error gave way to truth, when that most wholesome
custom was further confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council.Â
It is well, however, that they so constantly bear in mind that it was
possible even for Peter, the chief of the apostles, to have been at
one time minded otherwise than the truth required; which we believe,
without any disrespect to Cyprian, to have been the case with him, and
that with all our love for Cyprian, for it is not right that he should
be loved with greater love than Peter.
Chapter 21.â40. Julianus of Telepte[1817]1817 said: "It is
written, âA man can receive nothing, except it be given him from
heaven;â[1818]1818 if heresy is from heaven, it can give
baptism."[1819]1819
41. Let him hear another also saying: If covetousness is from
heaven, it can give baptism. And yet the covetous do confer it; so
therefore also may the heretics.
Chapter 22.â42. Faustus of Timida Regia[1820]1820 said: "Let not
these persons flatter themselves who favor heretics. He who
interferes with the baptism of the Church on behalf of heretics makes
them Christians, and us heretics."[1821]1821
43. To him we answer: If any one were to say that a man who, when
he received baptism had not received remission of his sins, because he
entertained hatred towards his brother in his heart, was nevertheless
not to be baptized again when he dismissed that hatred from his heart,
does such a man interfere with the baptism of the Church on behalf of
murderers, or does he make them righteous and us murderers? Let him
therefore understand the same also in the case of heretics.
Chapter 23.â44. Geminius of Furni[1822]1822 said: "Certain of our
colleagues may prefer heretics to themselves, they cannot prefer them
to us:Â and therefore what we have once decreed we hold, that we
should baptize those who come to us from heretics."[1823]1823
45. This man also acknowledges most openly that certain of his
colleagues entertained opinions contrary to his own:Â whence again
and again the love of unity is confirmed, because they were separated
from one another by no schism, till God should reveal to one or other
of them anything wherein they were otherwise minded.[1824]1824Â But
to him our answer is, that his colleagues did not prefer heretics to
themselves, but that, as the baptism of Christ is acknowledged in the
covetous, in the fraudulent, in robbers, in murderers, so also they
acknowledged it in heretics.
Chapter 24.â46. Rogatianus of Nova[1825]1825 said: "Christ
established the Church, the devil heresy:Â how can the synagogue of
Satan have the baptism of Christ?"[1826]1826
47. To him our answer is: Is it true that because Christ
established the well-affectioned, and the devil the envious, therefore
the party of the devil, which is proved to be among the envious,
cannot have the baptism of Christ?
Chapter 25.â48. Therapius of Bulla[1827]1827 said: "If a man gives
up and betrays the baptism of Christ to heretics, what else can he be
said to be but a Judas to the Bride of Christ?"[1828]1828
49. How great a condemnation have we here of all schismatics, who
have separated themselves by wicked sacrilege from the inheritance of
Christ dispersed throughout the whole world, if Cyprian held communion
with such as was the traitor Judas, and yet was not defiled by them;
or if he was defiled, then were all made such as Judas; or if they
were not, then the evil deeds of those who went before do not belong
to those who came after even though they were the offspring of the
same communion. Why, therefore, do they cast in our teeth the
traditores, against whom they did not prove their charge, and do not
cast in their own teeth Judas, with whom Cyprian and his colleagues
held communion? Behold the Council in which these men are wont to
boast! We indeed say, that he who approves the baptism of Christ
even in heretics, does not betray to heretics the baptism of Christ;
just in the same way as he does not betray to murderers the baptism of
Christ who approves the baptism of Christ even in murderers:Â but
inasmuch as they profess to prescribe to us from the decrees of this
Council what opinions we ought to hold, let them first assent to it
themselves. See how therein were compared to the traitor Judas, all
who said that heretics, although baptized in heresy, should not be
baptized again. Yet with such Cyprian was willing to hold communion,
when he said, "Judging no man, nor depriving any of the right of
communion if he entertain a contrary opinion."Â But that there had
been men of such a sort in former times within the Church, is made
clear by the sentence in which he says:Â "But some one will say,
What, then, shall be done with these men who in times past were
admitted into the Church without baptism?"[1829]1829Â That such had
been the custom of the Church, is testified again and again by the
very men who compose this Council. If, therefore, any one who does
this "can be said to be nothing else but a Judas to the Bride of
Christ," according to the terms in which the judgment of Therapius is
couched; but Judas, according to the teaching of the gospel, was a
traitor; then all those men held communion with traitors who at that
time uttered those very judgments, and before they uttered them they
all had become traitors through that custom which at that time was
retained by the Church. All, thereforeâthat is to say, both we and
they themselves who were the offspring of that unityâare traitors.Â
But we defend ourselves in two ways:Â first, because without
prejudice to the right of unity, as Cyprian himself declared in his
opening speech, we do not assent to the decrees of this Council in
which this judgment was pronounced; and secondly, because we hold that
the wicked in no way hurt the good in Catholic unity, until at the
last the chaff be separated from the wheat. But our opponents,
inasmuch as they both shelter themselves as it were under the decrees
of this Council, and maintain that the good perish as by a kind of
infection from communion with the wicked, have no resource to save
them from allowing both that the earlier Christians, whose offspring
they are, were traitors, inasmuch as they are convicted by their own
Council; and that the deeds of those who went before them do reflect
on them, since they throw in our teeth the deeds of our ancestors.
Chapter 26.â50. Also another Lucius of Membresa[1830]1830 said:Â
"It is written, âGod heareth not sinners.â[1831]1831Â How can he who
is a sinner be heard in baptism?"[1832]1832
51. We answer: How is the covetous man heard, or the robber, and
usurer, and murderer? Are they not sinners? And yet Cyprian, while
he finds fault with them in the Catholic Church, yet tolerates them.
Chapter 27.â52. Also another Felix of Buslaceni[1833]1833 said:Â
"In admitting heretics to the Church without baptism, let no one place
custom before reason and truth; for reason and truth always exclude
custom."[1834]1834
53. To him our answer is: You do not show the truth; you confess
the existence of the custom. We should therefore do right in
maintaining the custom which has since been confirmed by a plenary
Council, even if the truth were still concealed, which we believe to
have been already made manifest.
Chapter 28.â54. Another Saturninus of Abitini[1835]1835 said: "If
Antichrist can give to any one the grace of Christ, then can heretics
also baptize, who are called Antichrists."[1836]1836
55. What if another were to say, If a murderer can give the grace of
Christ, then can they also baptize that hate their brethren who are
called murderers? For certainly he would seem in a way to speak the
truth, and yet they can baptize; in like manner, therefore, can the
heretics as well.
Chapter 29.â56. Quintus of Aggya[1837]1837 said: "He who has a
thing can give it; but what can the heretics give, who are well known
to have nothing?"[1838]1838
57. To him our answer is: If, then, any man can give a thing who
has it, it is clear that heretics can give baptism:Â for when they
separate from the Church, they have still the sacrament of washing
which they had received while in the Church; for when they return they
do not again receive it, because they had not lost it when they
withdrew from the Church.
Chapter 30.â58. Another Julianus of Marcelliana[1839]1839 said:
 "If a man can serve two masters, God and mammon,[1840]1840 then
baptism also can serve two, the Christian and the heretic."[1841]1841
59. Truly, if it can serve the self-restrained and the covetous man,
the sober and the drunken, the well-affectioned and the murderer, why
should it not also serve the Christian and the heretic?âwhom, indeed,
it does not really serve; but it ministers to them, and is
administered by them, for salvation to those who use it right, and for
judgment to such as use it wrong.
Chapter 31.â60. Tenax of Horrea Celiæ[1842]1842 said: "There is
one baptism, but of the Church; and where the Church is not, there
baptism also cannot be."[1843]1843
61. To him we answer: How then comes it that it may be where the
rock is not, but only sand; seeing that the Church is on the rock, and
not on sand?
Chapter 32.â62. Another Victor of Assuras[1844]1844 said: "It is
written, that âthere is one God and one Christ, one Church and one
baptism.â[1845]1845Â How then can any one baptize in a place where
there is not either God, or Christ, or the Church?"[1846]1846
63. How can any one baptize either in that sand, where the Church is
not, seeing that it is on the rock; nor God and Christ, seeing that
there is not there the temple of God and Christ?
Chapter 33.â64. Donatulus of Capse[1847]1847 said: "I also have
always entertained this opinion, that heretics, who have gained
nothing outside the Church, should be baptized when they are converted
to the Church."[1848]1848
65. To this the answer is: They have, indeed, gained nothing
outside the Church, but that is nothing towards salvation, not nothing
towards the sacrament. For salvation is peculiar to the good; but
the sacraments are common to the good and bad alike.
Chapter 34.â66. Verulus of Rusiccade[1849]1849 said: "A man that
is a heretic cannot give that which he has not; much more is this the
case with a schismatic, who has lost what he had."[1850]1850
67. We have already shown that they still have it, because they do
not lose it when they separate themselves. For they do not receive
it again when they return:Â wherefore, if it was thought that they
could not give it because they were supposed not to have it, let it
now be understood that they can give it, because it is understood that
they also have it.
Chapter 35.â68. Pudentianus of Cuiculi[1851]1851 said:Â "My recent
ordination to the episcopate induced me, brethren, to wait and hear
what my elders would decide. For it is plain that heresies have and
can have nothing; and so, if any come from them, it is determined
righteously that they should be baptized."[1852]1852
69. As, therefore, we have already answered those who went before,
for whose judgment this man was waiting, so be it understood that we
have answered himself.
Chapter 36.â70. Peter of Hippo Diarrhytus[1853]1853 said: "Since
there is one baptism in the Catholic Church, it is clear that a man
cannot be baptized outside the Church; and therefore I give my
judgment, that those who have been bathed in heresy or in schism ought
to be baptized on coming to the Church."[1854]1854
71. There is one baptism in the Catholic Church, in such a sense
that, when any have gone out from it, it does not become two in those
who go out, but remains one and the same. What, therefore, is
recognized in those who return, should also be recognized in those who
received it from men who have separated themselves, since they did not
lose it when they went apart into heresy.
Chapter 37.â72. Likewise another Lucius of Ausafa[1855]1855 said:Â
"According to the motion of my mind and of the Holy Spirit, since
there is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Christ,
and one hope, one Spirit, one Church, there ought also to be only one
baptism. And therefore I say, both that if anything has been set on
foot or done among the heretics, that it ought to be rescinded; and
also, that they who come out from among the heretics should be
baptized in the Church."[1856]1856
73. Let it therefore be pronounced of no effect that they baptize,
who hear the words of God and do them not, when they shall begin to
pass from unrighteousness to righteousness, that is, from the sand to
the rock. And if this is not done, because what there was in them of
Christ was not violated by their unrighteousness, then let this also
be understood in the case of heretics:Â for neither is there the same
hope in the unrighteous, so long as they are on the sand, as there is
in those who are upon the rock; and yet there is in both the same
baptism, although as it is said that there is one hope, so also is it
said that there is one baptism.
Chapter 38.â74. Felix of Gurgites[1857]1857 said: "I give my
judgment, that, according to the precepts of the holy Scriptures,
those who have been unlawfully baptized outside the Church by
heretics, if they wish to flee to the Church, should obtain the grace
of baptism where it is lawfully given."[1858]1858
75. Our answer is: Let them indeed begin to have in a lawful
manner to salvation what they before had unlawfully to destruction;
because each man is justified under the same baptism, when he has
turned himself to God with a true heart, as that under which he was
condemned, when on receiving it he "renounced the world in words
alone, and not in deeds."
Chapter 39.â76. Pusillus of Lamasba[1859]1859 said: "I believe
that baptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic
Church. Whatsoever is without the Catholic Church is mere
pretense."[1860]1860
77. This indeed is true, that "baptism is not unto salvation except
within the Catholic Church."Â For in itself it can indeed exist
outside the Catholic Church as well; but there it is not unto
salvation, because there it does not work salvation; just as that
sweet savor of Christ is certainly not unto salvation in them that
perish,[1861]1861 though from a fault not in itself, but in them.Â
But "whatsoever is without the Catholic Church is mere pretense," yet
only in so far as it is not Catholic. Â But there may be something
Catholic outside the Catholic Church, just as the name of Christ could
exist outside the congregation of Christ, in which name he who did not
follow with the disciples was casting out devils.[1862]1862Â For
there may be pretense also within the Catholic Church, as is
unquestionable in the case of those "who renounce the world in words
and not in deeds," and yet the pretense is not Catholic. As,
therefore, there is in the Catholic Church something which is not
Catholic, so there may be something which is Catholic outside the
Catholic Church.
Chapter 40.â78. Salvianus of Gazaufala[1863]1863 said: "It is
generally known that heretics have nothing; and therefore they come to
us, that they may receive what previously they did not
have."[1864]1864
79. Our answer is: On this theory, the very men who founded
heresies are not heretics themselves, because they separated
themselves from the Church, and certainly they previously had what
they received there. But if it is absurd to say that those are not
heretics through whom the rest became heretics, it is therefore
possible that a heretic should have what turns to his destruction
through his evil use of it.
Chapter 41.â80. Honoratus of Tucca[1865]1865 said: "Since Christ
is the truth, we ought to follow the truth rather than custom; that we
may sanctify by the baptism of the Church the heretics who come to us,
simply because they could receive nothing outside."[1866]1866
81. This man, too, is a witness to the custom, in which he gives us
the greatest assistance, whatever else he may appear to say against
us. But this is not the reason why heretics come over to us, because
they have received nothing outside, but that what they did receive may
begin to be of use to them: Â for this it could not be outside in any
wise.
Chapter 42.â82. Victor of Octavus[1867]1867 said: "As ye
yourselves also know, I have not been long appointed a bishop, and
therefore I waited for the counsel of my seniors. This therefore I
express as my opinion, that whosoever comes from heresy should
undoubtedly be baptized."[1868]1868
83. What, therefore, has been answered to those for whom he waited,
may be taken as the answer also to himself.
Chapter 43.â84. Clarus of Mascula[1869]1869 said: "The sentence of
our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, when He sent forth His apostles,
and gave the power which had been given Him of His Father to them
alone, whose successors we are, governing the Church of the Lord with
the same power, and baptizing those who believe the faith. And
therefore heretics, who, being without, have neither power nor the
Church of Christ, cannot baptize any one with His baptism."[1870]1870
85. Are, then, ill-affectioned murderers successors of the
apostles? Why, then, do they baptize? Is it because they are not
outside? But they are outside the rock, to which the Lord gave the
keys, and on which He said that He would build His Church.[1871]1871
Chapter 44.â86. Secundianus of Thambei[1872]1872 said: "We ought
not to deceive heretics by our too great forwardness, that not having
been baptized in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having
therefore not received remission of their sins, they may not impute to
us, when the day of judgment comes, that we have been the cause of
their not being baptized, and not having obtained the indulgence of
the grace of God. On which account, since there is one Church and
one baptism, when they are converted to us, let them receive together
with the Church the baptism also of the Church."[1873]1873
87. Nay, when they are transferred to the rock, and joined to the
society of the Dove, let them receive the remission of their sins,
which they could not have outside the rock and outside the Dove,
whether they were openly without, like the heretics, or apparently
within, like the abandoned Catholics; of whom, however, it is clear
that they both have and confer baptism without remission of sins, when
even from themselves it is received by men, who, being not changed for
the better, honor God with their lips, while their heart is far from
Him.[1874]1874Â Yet it is true that there is one baptism, just as
there is one Dove, though those who are not in the one communion of
the Dove may yet have baptism in common.
Chapter 45.â88. Also another Aurelius of Chullabi[1875]1875 said:Â
"The Apostle John has laid down in his epistle the following
precept:Â âIf there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:Â for he
that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.â[1876]1876Â
How can such men be admitted without consideration into the house of
God, who are forbidden to be admitted into our private house? Or how
can we hold communion with them without the baptism of Christ, when,
if we only so much as bid them God speed, we are partakers of their
evil deeds?"[1877]1877
89. In respect of this testimony of John there is no need of further
disputation, since it has no reference at all to the question of
baptism, which we are at present discussing. For he says, "If any
come unto you, and bring not the doctrine of Christ."Â But heretics
leaving the doctrine of their error are converted to the doctrine of
Christ, that they may be incorporated with the Church, and may begin
to belong to the members of that Dove whose sacrament they previously
had; and therefore what previously they lacked belonging to it is
given to them, that is to say, peace and charity out of a pure heart,
and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.[1878]1878Â But what
they previously had belonging to the Dove is acknowledged, and
received without any depreciation; just as in the adulteress God
recognises His gifts, even when she is following her lovers; because
when after her fornication is corrected she is turned again to
chastity, those gifts are not laid to her charge, but she herself is
corrected.[1879]1879Â But just as Cyprian might have defended himself
if this testimony of John had been cast in his teeth whilst he was
holding communion with men like these, so let those against whom it is
spoken make their own defense. For to the question before us, as I
said before, it has no reference at all. For John says that we are
not to bid God speed to men of strange doctrine; but Paul the apostle
says, with even greater vehemence, "If any man that is called a
brother be covetous, or a drunkard," or anything of the sort, with
such an one no not to eat;[1880]1880 and yet Cyprian used to admit to
fellowship, not with his private table, but with the altar of God, his
colleagues who were usurers, and treacherous, and fraudulent, and
robbers. But in what manner this may be defended has been
sufficiently set forth in other books already.
Chapter 46.â90. Litteus[1881]1881 of Gemelli[1882]1882 said: "âIf
the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.â[1883]1883Â
Since, therefore, it is clear that heretics can give no
light[1884]1884 to any one, as being blind themselves, therefore their
baptism is invalid."[1885]1885
91. Neither do we say that it is valid for salvation so long as they
are heretics, just as it is of no value to those murderers of whom we
spoke, so long as they hate their brethren:Â for they also themselves
are in darkness, and if any one follows them they fall together into
the ditch; and yet it does not follow that they either have not
baptism or are unable to confer it.
Chapter 47.â92. Natalis of Oëa[1886]1886 said: "It is not only I
myself who am present, but also Pompeius of Sabrati,[1887]1887 and
Dioga of Leptis Magna,[1888]1888 who commissioned me to represent
their views, being absent indeed in body, but present in spirit, who
deliver this same judgment as our colleagues, that heretics cannot
have communion with us, unless they have been baptized with the
baptism of the Church."[1889]1889
93. He means, I suppose, that communion which belongs to the society
of the Dove; for in the partaking of the sacraments they doubtless
held communion with them, judging no man, nor removing any from the
right of communion if he held a different opinion. But with whatever
reference he spoke, there is no great need for these words being
refuted. For certainly a heretic would not be admitted to communion,
unless he had been baptized with the baptism of the Church. But it
is clear that the baptism of the Church exists even among heretics if
it be consecrated with the words of the gospel; just as the gospel
itself belongs to the Church, and has nothing to do with their
waywardness, but certainly retains its own holiness.
Chapter 48.â94. Junius of Neapolis[1890]1890 said: "I do not
depart from the judgment which we once pronounced, that we should
baptize heretics on their coming to the Church."[1891]1891
95. Since this man has adduced no argument nor proof from the
Scriptures, he need not detain us long.
Chapter 49.â96. Cyprian of Carthage said: "My opinion has been set
forth with the greatest fullness in the letter which has been written
to our colleague Jubaianus,[1892]1892 that heretics being called
enemies of Christ and antichrists according to the testimony of the
gospel and the apostles, should, when they come to the Church, be
baptized with the one baptism of the Church, that from enemies they
may be made friends, and that from antichrists they may be made
Christians."[1893]1893
97. What need is there of further disputation here, seeing that we
have already handled with the utmost care that very epistle to
Jubaianus of which he has made mention? And as to what he has said
here, let us not forget that it might be said of all unrighteous men
who, as he himself bears witness, are in the Catholic Church, and
whose power of possessing and of conferring baptism is not questioned
by any of us. For they come to the Church, who pass to Christ from
the party of the devil, and build upon the rock, and are incorporated
with the Dove, and are placed in security in the garden enclosed and
fountain sealed; where none of those are found who live contrary to
the precepts of Christ, wherever they may seem to be. For in the
epistle which he wrote to Magnus, while discussing this very question,
he himself warned us at sufficient length, and in no ambiguous terms,
of what kind of society we should understand that the Church
consists. For he says, in speaking of a certain man, "Let him become
an alien and profane, an enemy to the peace and unity of the Lord, not
dwelling in the house of God, that is to say, in the Church of Christ,
in which none dwell save those who are of one heart and of one
mind."[1894]1894Â Let those, therefore, who would lay injunctions on
us on the authority of Cyprian, pay attention for a time to what we
here say. For if only those who are of one heart and of one mind
dwell in the Church of Christ, beyond all question those were not
dwelling in the Church of Christ, however much they might appear to be
within, who of envy and contention were announcing Christ without
charity; by whom he understands, not the heretics and schismatics who
are mentioned by the Apostle Paul,[1895]1895 but false brethren
holding conversation with him within, who certainly ought not to have
baptized, because they were not dwelling in the Church, in which he
himself says that none dwell save those who are of one heart and of
one mind:Â unless, indeed, any one be so far removed from the truth
as to say that those were of one heart and of one mind who were
envious and malevolent, and contentious without charity; and yet they
used to baptize:Â nor did the detestable waywardness which they
displayed in any degree violate or diminish from the sacrament of
Christ, which was handled and dispensed by them.
Chapter 50.â98. It is indeed worth while to consider the whole of
the passage in the aforesaid letter to Magnus, which he has put
together as follows:Â "Not dwelling," he says, "in the house of
Godâthat is to say, in the Church of Christâin which none dwell save
those that are of one heart and of one mind, as the Holy Spirit says
in the Psalms, speaking of âGod that maketh men to be of one mind in
an house.â[1896]1896Â Finally, the very sacrifices of the Lord
declare that Christians are united among themselves by a firm and
inseparable love for one another. For when the Lord calls bread,
which is compacted together by the union of many grains, His
body,[1897]1897 He is signifying one people, whom He bore, compacted
into one body; and when He calls wine, which is pressed out from a
multitude of branches and clusters and brought together into one, His
blood,[1898]1898 He also signifies one flock joined together by the
mingling of a multitude united into one."Â These words of the blessed
Cyprian show that he both understood and loved the glory of the house
of God, which house he asserted to consist of those who are of one
heart and of one mind, proving it by the testimony of the prophets and
the meaning of the sacraments, and in which house certainly were not
found those envious persons, those malevolent without charity, who
nevertheless used to baptize. From whence it is clear that the
sacrament of Christ can both be in and be administered by those who
are not in the Church of Christ, in which Cyprian himself bears
witness that there are none dwelling save those who are of one heart
and of one mind. Nor can it indeed be said that they are allowed to
baptize so long as they are undetected, seeing that the Apostle Paul
did not fail to detect those of whose ministry he bears unquestionable
testimony in his epistle, saying that he rejoices that they also were
proclaiming Christ. For he says of them, "Whether in pretense or in
truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will
rejoice."[1899]1899
Chapter 51.â99. Taking all these things, therefore, into
consideration, I think that I am not rash in saying that there are
some in the house of God after such a fashion as not to be themselves
the very house of God, which is said to be built upon a
rock,[1900]1900 which is called the one dove,[1901]1901 which is
styled the beauteous bride without spot or wrinkle,[1902]1902 and a
garden enclosed, a fountain sealed, a well of living water, an orchard
of pomegranates with pleasant fruits;[1903]1903 which house also
received the keys, and the power of binding and loosing.[1904]1904Â
If any one shall neglect this house when it arrests and corrects him,
the Lord says, "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican."[1905]1905Â Of this house it is said, "Lord, I have loved
the habitation of Thy house, and the place where Thine honor
dwelleth;"[1906]1906 and, "He maketh men to be of one mind in an
house;"[1907]1907 and, "I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go
into the house of the Lord;"[1908]1908 and, "Blessed are they that
dwell in Thy house, O Lord; they will be still praising
Thee;"[1909]1909 with countless other passages to the same effect.Â
This house is also called wheat, bringing forth fruit with patience,
some thirty-fold, some sixtyfold, and some an hundredfold.[1910]1910Â
This house is also in vessels of gold and of silver,[1911]1911 and in
precious stones and imperishable woods. To this house it is said,
"Forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace;"[1912]1912 and, "For the temple of God is
holy, which temple ye are."[1913]1913Â For this house is composed of
those that are good and faithful, and of the holy servants of God
dispersed throughout the world, and bound together by the unity of the
Spirit, whether they know each other personally or not. But we hold
that others are said to be in the house after such a sort, that they
belong not to the substance of the house, nor to the society of
fruitful and peaceful justice, but only as the chaff is said to be
among the corn; for that they are in the house we cannot deny, when
the apostle says, "But in a great house there are not only vessels of
gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor,
and some to dishonor."[1914]1914Â Of this countless multitude are
found to be not only the crowd which within the Church afflicts the
hearts of the saints, who are so few in comparison with so vast a
host, but also the heresies and schisms which exist in those who have
burst the meshes of the net, and may now be said to be rather out of
the house than in the house, of whom it is said, "They went out from
us, but they were not of us."[1915]1915Â For they are more thoroughly
separated, now that they are also divided from us in the body, than
are those who live within the Church in a carnal and worldly fashion,
and are separated from us in the spirit.
Chapter 52.â100. Of all these several classes, then, no one doubts
respecting those first, who are in the house of God in such a sense as
themselves to be the house of God, whether they be already spiritual,
or as yet only babes nurtured with milk, but still making progress
with earnestness of heart, towards that which is spiritual, that such
men both have baptism so as to be of profit to themselves, and
transmit it to those who follow their example so as to benefit them;
but that in its transmission to those who are false, whom the Holy
Spirit shuns, though they themselves, so far as lies with them, confer
it so as to be of profit, yet the others receive it in vain, since
they do not imitate those from whom they receive it. But they who
are in the great house after the fashion of vessels to dishonor, both
have baptism without profit to themselves, and transmit it without
profit to those who follow their example:Â those, however, receive it
with profit, who are united in heart and character, not to their
ministers, but to the holy house of God. But those who are more
thoroughly separated, so as to be rather out of the house than in the
house, have baptism without any profit to themselves; and, moreover,
there is no profit to those who receive it from them, unless they be
compelled by urgent necessity to receive it, and their heart in
receiving it does not depart from the bond of unity:Â yet
nevertheless they possess it, though the possession be of no avail;
and it is received from them, even when it is of no profit to those
who so receive it, though, in order that it may become of use, they
must depart from their heresy or schism, and cleave to that house of
God. And this ought to be done, not only by heretics and
schismatics, but also by those who are in the house through communion
in the sacraments, yet so as to be outside the house through the
perversity of their character. For so the sacrament begins to be of
profit even to themselves, which previously was of no avail.
Chapter 53.â101. The question is also commonly raised, whether
baptism is to be held valid which is received from one who had not
himself received it, if, from some promptings of curiosity, he had
chanced to learn how it ought to be conferred; and whether it makes no
difference in what spirit the recipient receives it, whether in
mockery or in sincerity:Â if in mockery, whether the difference
arises when the mockery is of deceit, as in the Church, or in what is
thought to be the Church; or when it is in jest, as in a play:Â and
which is the more accursed, to receive it deceitfully in the Church,
or in heresy or schism without deceit, that is to say, with full
sincerity of heart:Â or whether it be worse to receive it deceitfully
in heresy or in good faith in a play, if any one were to be moved by a
sudden feeling of religion in the midst of his acting. And yet, if
we compare such an one even with him who receives it deceitfully in
the Catholic Church itself, I should be surprised if any one were to
doubt which of the two should be preferred; for I do not see of what
avail the intention of him who gives in truth can be to him who
receives deceitfully. But let us consider, in the case of some one
also giving it in deceit, when both the given and the recipient are
acting deceitfully in the unity of the Catholic Church itself, whether
this should rather be acknowledged as baptism, or that which is given
in a play, if any one should be found who received it faithfully from
a sudden impulse of religion:Â or whether it be not true that, so far
as the men themselves are concerned, there is a very great difference
between the believing recipient in a play, and the mocking recipient
in the Church; but that in regard to the genuineness of the sacrament
there is no difference. For if it makes no difference in respect to
the genuineness of the sacrament within the Catholic Church itself,
whether certain persons celebrate it in truth or in deceit, so long as
both still celebrate the same thing, I cannot see why it should make a
difference outside, seeing that he who receives it is not cloaked by
his deceit, but he is changed by his religious impulse. Or have
those truthful persons among whom it is celebrated more power for the
confirmation of the sacrament, than those deceitful men by whom and in
whom it is celebrated can exert for its invalidation? And yet, if
the deceit be subsequently brought to light, no one seeks a repetition
of the sacrament; but the fraud is either punished by excommunication
or set right by penitence.
102. But the safe course for us is, not to advance with any rashness
of judgment in setting forth a view which has neither been started in
any regionary Council of the Catholic Church nor established in a
plenary one; but to assert, with all the confidence of a voice that
cannot be gainsaid, what has been confirmed by the consent of the
universal Church, under the direction of our Lord God and Saviour
Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, if any one were to press meâsupposing I
were duly seated in a Council in which a question were raised on
points like theseâto declare what my own opinion was, without
reference to the previously expressed views of others, whose judgment
I would rather follow, if I were under the influence of the same
feelings as led me to assert what I have said before, I should have no
hesitation in saying that all men possess baptism who have received it
in any place, from any sort of men, provided that it were consecrated
in the words of the gospel, and received without deceit on their part
with some degree of faith; although it would be of no profit to them
for the salvation of their souls if they were without charity, by
which they might be grafted into the Catholic Church. For "though I
have faith," says the apostle, "so that I could remove mountains, but
have not charity, I am nothing."[1916]1916Â Just as already, from the
established decrees of our predecessors, I have no hesitation in
saying that all those have baptism who, though they receive it
deceitfully, yet receive it in the Church, or where the Church is
thought to be by those in whose society it is received, of whom it was
said, "They went out from us."[1917]1917Â But when there was no
society of those who so believed, and when the man who received it did
not himself hold such belief, but the whole thing was done as a farce,
or a comedy, or a jest,âif I were asked whether the baptism which was
thus conferred should be approved, I should declare my opinion that we
ought to pray for the declaration of Godâs judgment through the medium
of some revelation seeking it with united prayer and earnest groanings
of suppliant devotion, humbly deferring all the time to the decision
of those who were to give their judgment after me, in case they should
set forth anything as already known and determined. And, therefore,
how much the more must I be considered to have given my opinion now
without prejudice to the utterance of more diligent research or
authority higher than my own!
Chapter 54.â103. But now I think that it is fully time for me to
bring to their due termination these books also on the subject of
baptism, in which our Lord God has shown to us, through the words of
the peaceful Bishop Cyprian and his brethren who agreed with him, how
great is the love which should be felt for catholic unity; so that
even where they were otherwise minded until God should reveal even
this to them,[1918]1918 they should rather bear with those who thought
differently from themselves, than sever themselves from them by a
wicked schism; whereby the mouths of the Donatists are wholly closed,
even if we say nothing of the followers of Maximian. For if the
wicked pollute the good in unity, then even Cyprian himself already
found no Church to which he could be joined. But if the wicked do
not infect the good in unity, then the sacrilegious Donatist has no
ground to set before himself for separation. But if baptism is both
possessed and transferred by the multitude of others who work the
works of the flesh, of which it is said, that "they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God,"[1919]1919 then it is
possessed and transferred also by heretics, who are numbered among
those works; because they could have transferred it had they remained,
and did not lose it by their secession. But men of this kind confer
it on their fellows as fruitlessly and uselessly as the others who
resemble them, inasmuch as they shall not inherit the kingdom of
God. And as, when those others are brought into the right path, it
is not that baptism begins to be present, having been absent before,
but that it begins to profit them, having been already in them; so is
it the case with heretics as well. Whence Cyprian and those who
thought with him could not impose limits on the Catholic Church, which
they would not mutilate. But in that they were otherwise minded we
feel no fear, seeing that we too share in their veneration for Peter;
yet in that they did not depart from unity we rejoice, seeing that we,
like them, are founded on the rock.
the
three BOOKS OF AUGUSTIN,
BISHOP OF HIPPO,
in answer
to the letters of petilian,
the donatist
[contra litteras petiliani donatistà cortensis, episcopi.]
CIRCA A.D. 400.
translated by the
rev. j. r. king, m.a.,
vicar of st. peterâs in the east, oxford; and late fellow and tutor of
mERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD
The
Three Books of Augustin,
Bishop of Hippo
in answer to
The Letters of Petilian, the Donatist,
Bishop of cirta.
_________________
Written c. 400 A.D., some say 398 A.D., but Augustin places it some
time after the treatise on Baptism: Retractt. Bk. ii. xxv. From
the same, we gather the following points as to the origin of this
treatise:Â Before A. had finished his books on the Trinity and his
word-for-word commentary on Genesis, a reply to a letter which
Petilian had addressed to his followers, only a small part of which
however had come into A.âs hands, demanded immediate preparation.Â
This constitutes Book First. Subsequently the whole document was
obtained, and he was engaged in preparing the second Book, c. 401; but
even before the full treatise of Petilian had been secured, the latter
had obtained A.âs first book, and afterwards put an epistle abusive of
A. in circulation. The answer to this latter is Book Third, c.
402. Petilian was originally an advocate. The opponents charged
him with having become a Donatist by compulsion, with assuming the
title of Paraclete, and with endeavoring to prevent all access on
their part to his writings.
_________________
Book I.
Written in the form of a letter addressed to the Catholics, in which
the first portion of the letter which Petilian had written to his
adherents is examined and refuted.
Augustin, to the well-beloved brethren that belong to the care of our
charge, greeting in the Lord:
Chapter 1.â1. Ye know that we have often wished to bring forward
into open notoriety, and to confute, not so much from our own
arguments as from theirs, the sacrilegious error of the Donatist
heretics; whence it came to pass that we wrote letters even to some of
their leaders,ânot indeed for purposes of communion with them, for of
that they had already in times past rendered themselves unworthy by
dissenting from the Church; nor yet in terms of reproach, but of a
conciliatory character, with the view that, having discussed the
question with us which caused them to break off from the holy
communion of the whole world, they might, on consideration of the
truth, be willing to be corrected, and might not defend the headstrong
perversity of their predecessors with a yet more foolish obstinacy,
but might be reunited to the Catholic stock, so as to bring forth the
fruits of charity. But as it is written, "With those who have hated
peace I am more peaceful,"[1920]1920 so they rejected my letters, just
as they hate the very name of peace, in whose interests they were
written. Now, however, as I was in the church of Constantina,
Absentius[1921]1921 being present, with my colleague Fortunatus, his
bishop, the brethren brought before my notice a letter, which they
said that a bishop of the said schism had addressed to his presbyters,
as was set forth in the superscription of the letter itself. When I
had read it, I was so amazed to find that in his very first words he
cut away the very roots of the whole claims of his party to communion,
that I was unwilling to believe that it could be the letter of a man
who, if fame speaks truly, is especially conspicuous among them for
learning and eloquence. But some of those who were present when I
read it, being acquainted with the polish and embellishment of his
composition, gradually persuaded me that it was undoubtedly his
address. I thought, however, that whoever the author might be, it
required refutation, lest the writer should seem to himself, in the
company of the inexperienced, to have written something of weight
against the Catholic Church.
2. The first point, then, that he lays down in his letter is the
statement, "that we find fault with them for the repetition of
baptism, while we ourselves pollute our souls with a laver stained
with guilt."Â But to what profit is it that I should reproduce all
his insulting terms? For, since it is one thing to strengthen
proofs, another thing to meddle with abusive words by way of
refutation, let us rather turn our attention to the mode in which he
has sought to prove that we do not possess baptism, and that therefore
they do not require the repetition of what was already present, but
confer what hitherto was wanting. For he says: "What we look for
is the conscience of the giver to cleanse that of the recipient."Â
But supposing the conscience of the giver is concealed from view, and
perhaps defiled with sin, how will it be able to cleanse the
conscience of the recipient, if, as he says, "what we look for is the
conscience of the giver to cleanse that of the recipient?"Â For if he
should say that it makes no matter to the recipient what amount of
evil may lie concealed from view in the conscience of the giver,
perhaps that ignorance may have such a degree of efficacy as this,
that a man cannot be defiled by the guilt of the conscience of him
from whom he receives baptism, so long as he is unaware of it. Let
it then be granted that the guilty conscience of his neighbor cannot
defile a man so long as he is unaware of it, but is it therefore clear
that it can further cleanse him from his own guilt?
Chapter 2.â3. Whence, then, is a man to be cleansed who receives
baptism, when the conscience of the giver is polluted without the
knowledge of him who is to receive it? Especially when he goes on to
say, "For he who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith,
but guilt."Â There stands before us one that is faithless ready to
baptize, and he who should be baptized is ignorant of his
faithlessness: what think you that he will receive? Faith, or
guilt? If you answer faith, then you will grant that it is possible
that a man should receive not guilt, but faith, from him that is
faithless; and the former saying will be false, that "he who receives
faith from the faithless receives not faith, but guilt."Â For we find
that it is possible that a man should receive faith even from one that
is faithless, if he be not aware of the faithlessness of the giver.Â
For he does not say, He who receives faith from one that is openly and
notoriously faithless; but he says, "He who receives faith from the
faithless receives not faith, but guilt;" which certainly is false
when a person is baptized by one who hides his faithlessness. But if
he shall say, Even when the faithlessness of the baptizer is
concealed, the recipient receives not faith from him, but guilt, then
let them rebaptize those who are well known to have been baptized by
men who in their own body have long concealed a life of guilt, but
have eventually been detected, convicted, and condemned.
Chapter 3.âFor, so long as they escaped detection, they could not
bestow faith on any whom they baptized, but only guilt, if it be true
that whosoever receives faith from one that is faithless receives not
faith, but guilt. Let them therefore be baptized by the good, that
they may be enabled to receive not guilt, but faith.
4. But how, again, shall they have any certainty about the good who
are to give them faith, if what we look to is the conscience of the
giver, which is unseen by the eyes of the proposed recipient?Â
Therefore, according to their judgment, the salvation of the spirit is
made uncertain, so long as in opposition to the holy Scriptures, which
say, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in
man,"[1922]1922 and, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in
man,"[1923]1923 they remove the hope of those who are to be baptized
from the Lord their God, and persuade them that it should be placed in
man; the practical result of which is, that their salvation becomes
not merely uncertain, but actually null and void. For "salvation
belongeth unto the Lord,"[1924]1924 and "vain is the help of
man."[1925]1925Â Therefore, whosoever places his trust in man, even
in one whom he knows to be just and innocent, is accursed. Whence
also the Apostle Paul finds fault with those who said they were of
Paul saying, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the
name of Paul?"[1926]1926
Chapter 4.â5. Wherefore, if they were in error, and would have
perished had they not been corrected, who wished to be of Paul, what
must we suppose to be the hope of those who wished to be of Donatus?Â
For they use their utmost endeavors to prove that the origin, root,
and head of the baptized person is none other than the individual by
whom he is baptized. The result is, that since it is very often a
matter of uncertainty what kind of man the baptizer is, the hope
therefore of the baptized being of uncertain origin, of uncertain
root, of uncertain head, is of itself uncertain altogether. And
since it is possible that the conscience of the giver may be in such a
condition as to be accursed and defiled without the knowledge of the
recipient, it results that, being of an accursed origin, accursed
root, accursed head, the hope of the baptized may prove to be vain and
ungrounded. For Petilian expressly states in his epistle, that
"everything consists of an origin and root; and if it have not
something for a head, it is nothing."Â And since by the origin and
root and head of the baptized person he wishes to be understood the
man by whom he is baptized, what good does the unhappy recipient
derive from the fact that he does not know how bad a man his baptizer
really is? For he does not know that he himself has a bad head, or
actually no head at all. And yet what hope can a man have, who,
whether he is aware of it or not, has either a very bad head or no
head at all? Can we maintain that his very ignorance forms a head,
when his baptizer is either a bad head or none at all? Surely any
one who thinks this is unmistakeably without a head.
Chapter 5.â6. We ask, therefore, since he says, "He who receives
faith from the faithless receives not faith, but guilt," and
immediately adds to this the further statement, that "everything
consists of an origin and root; and if it have not something for a
head, it is nothing;"âwe ask, I say, in a case where the faithlessness
of the baptizer is undetected:Â If then, the man whom he baptizes
receives faith, and not guilt; if, then, the baptizer is not his
origin and root and head, who is it from whom he receives faith? where
is the origin from which he springs? where is the root of which he is
a shoot? where the head which is his starting-point? Can it be, that
when he who is baptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his
baptizer, it is then Christ who gives faith, it is then Christ who is
the origin and root and head? Alas for human rashness and conceit!Â
Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith, for the
purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you not
allow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the
Christian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of
the Christian? Do we then maintain that, even when spiritual grace
is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful
minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that
One of whom it is said, that "He justifieth the ungodly?"[1927]1927Â
But unless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and
origin of those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom
he had watered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing;
whereas the same Paul says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God
gave the increase:Â so then neither is he that planteth anything, nor
he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase."[1928]1928Â Nor
was the apostle himself their root, but rather He who says, "I am the
vine, ye are the branches."[1929]1929Â How, too, could he be their
head, when he says, that "we, being many, are one body in
Christ,"[1930]1930 and expressly declares in many passages that Christ
Himself is the head of the whole body?
Chapter 6.â7. Wherefore, whether a man receive the sacrament of
baptism from a faithful or a faithless minister, his whole hope is in
Christ, that he fall not under the condemnation that "cursed is he
that placeth his hope in man."Â Otherwise, if each man is born again
in spiritual grace of the same sort as he by whom he is baptized, and
if when he who baptizes him is manifestly a good man, then he himself
gives faith, he is himself the origin and root and head of him who is
being born; whilst, when the baptizer is faithless without its being
known, then the baptized person receives faith from Christ, then he
derives his origin from Christ, then he is rooted in Christ, then he
boasts in Christ as his head,âin that case all who are baptized should
wish that they might have faithless baptizers, and be ignorant of
their faithlessness:Â for however good their baptizers might have
been, Christ is certainly beyond comparison better still; and He will
then be the head of the baptized, if the faithlessness of the baptizer
shall escape detection.
Chapter 7.â8. But if it is perfect madness to hold such a view (for
it is Christ always that justifieth the ungodly, by changing his
ungodliness into Christianity; it is from Christ always that faith is
received, Christ is always the origin of the regenerate and the head
of the Church), what weight, then, will those words have, which
thoughtless readers value by their sound, without inquiring what their
inner meaning is? For the man who does not content himself with
hearing the words with his ear, but considers the meaning of the
phrase, when he hears, "What we look to is the conscience of the
giver, that it may cleanse the conscience of the recipient," will
answer, The conscience of man is often unknown to me, but I am certain
of the mercy of Christ:Â when he hears, "He who receives faith from
the faithless receives not faith, but guilt," will answer, Christ is
not faithless, from whom I receive not guilt, but faith:Â when he
hears, "Everything consists of an origin and root; and if it have not
something for a head, is nothing," will answer, My origin is Christ,
my root is Christ, my head is Christ. When he hears, "Nor does
anything well receive second birth, unless it be born again of good
seed," he will answer, The seed of which I am born again is the Word
of God, which I am warned to hear with attention, even though he
through whom I hear it does not himself do what he preaches; according
to the words of the Lord, which make me herein safe, "All whatsoever
they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
works:Â for they say, and do not."[1931]1931Â When he hears, "What
perversity must it be, that he who is guilty through his own sins
should make another free from guilt!" he will answer, No one makes me
free from guilt but He who died for our sins, and rose again for our
justification. For I believe, not in the minister by whose hands I
am baptized, but in Him who justifieth the ungodly, that my faith may
be counted unto me for righteousness.[1932]1932
Chapter 8.â9. When he hears, "Every good tree bringeth good fruit,
but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit:Â do men gather grapes
of thorns?"[1933]1933 and, "A good man out of the good treasure of his
heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil
treasure bringeth forth evil things;"[1934]1934 he will answer, This
therefore is good fruit, that I should be a good tree, that is, a good
man, that I should show forth good fruit, that is, good works. But
this will be given to me, not by him that planteth, nor by him that
watereth, but by God that giveth the increase. For if the good tree
be the good baptizer, so that his good fruit should be the man whom he
baptizes, then any one who has been baptized by a bad man, even if his
wickedness be not manifest, will have no power to be good, for he is
sprung from an evil tree. For a good tree is one thing; a tree whose
quality is concealed, but yet bad, is another. Or if, when the tree
is bad, but hides its badness, then whosoever is baptized by it is
born not of it, but of Christ; then they are justified with more
perfect holiness who are baptized by the bad who hide their evil
nature, than they who are baptized by the manifestly good.[1935]1935
Chapter 9.â10. Again, when he hears, "He that is washed by one dead,
his washing profiteth him nought,"[1936]1936 he will answer, "Christ,
being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion
over Him:"[1937]1937Â of whom it is said, "The same is He which
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."[1938]1938Â But they are baptized by
the dead, who are baptized in the temples of idols. For even they
themselves do not suppose that they receive the sanctification which
they look for from their priests, but from their gods; and since these
were men, and are dead in such sort as to be now neither upon earth
nor in the rest of heaven,[1939]1939 they are truly baptized by the
dead:Â and the same answer will hold good if there be any other way
in which these words of holy Scripture may be examined, and profitably
discussed and understood. For if in this place I understand a
baptizer who is a sinner, the same absurdity will follow, that
whosoever has been baptized by an ungodly man, even though his
ungodliness be undiscovered, is yet washed in vain, as though baptized
by one dead. For he does not say, He that is baptized by one
manifestly dead, but absolutely, "by one dead."Â And if they consider
any man to be dead whom they know to be a sinner, but any one in their
communion to be alive, even though he manages most adroitly to conceal
a life of wickedness, in the first place with accursed pride they
claim more for themselves than they ascribe to God, that when a sinner
is unveiled to them he should be called dead, but when he is known by
God he is held to be alive. In the next place, if that sinner is to
be called dead who is known to be such by men, what answer will they
make about Optatus, whom they were afraid to condemn though they had
long known his wickedness? Why are those who were baptized by him
not said to have been baptized by one dead? Did he live because the
Count was his faith?[1940]1940âan elegant and well-turned saying of
some early colleagues of their own, which they themselves are wont to
quote with pride, not understanding that at the death of the haughty
Goliath it was his own sword by which his head was cut off.[1941]1941
Chapter 10.â11. Lastly, if they are willing to give the name of dead
neither to the wicked man whose sin is hidden, nor to him whose sin is
manifest, but who has yet not been condemned by them, but only to him
whose sin is manifest and condemned, so that whosoever is baptized by
him is himself baptized by the dead, and his washing profits him
nothing; what are we to say of those whom their own party have
condemned "by the unimpeachable voice of a plenary Council,"[1942]1942
together with Maximianus and the others who ordained him,âI mean
Felicianus of Musti, and Prætextatus of Assura, of whom I speak in
the meantime, who are counted among the twelve ordainers of
Maximianus, as erecting an altar in opposition to their altar at which
Primianus stands? They surely are reckoned by them among the dead.Â
To this we have the express testimony of the noble decree of that
Council of theirs which formerly called forth shouts of
unreserved[1943]1943 applause when it was recited among them for the
purpose of being decreed, but which would now be received in silence
if we should chance to recite it in their ears; whereas they should
rather have been slow at first to rejoice in its eloquence, lest they
should afterwards come to mourn over it when its credit was
destroyed. For in it they speak in the following terms of the
followers of Maximianus, who were shut out from their communion:Â
"Seeing that the shipwrecked members of certain men have been dashed
by the waves of truth upon the sharp rocks, and after the fashion of
the Egyptians, the shores are covered with the bodies of the dying;
whose punishment is intensified in death itself, since after their
life has been wrung from them by the avenging waters, they fail to
find so much as burial."Â In such gross terms indeed, do they insult
those who were guilty of schism from their body, that they call them
dead and unburied; but certainly they ought to have wished that they
might obtain burial, if it were only that they might not have seen
Optatus Gildonianus advancing with a military force, and like a
sweeping wave that dashes beyond its fellows, sucking back Felicianus
and Prætextatus once again within their pale, out of the multitude of
bodies lying unburied on the shore.
Chapter 11.â12. Of these I would ask, whether by coming to their sea
they were restored to life, or whether they are still dead there?Â
For if still they are none the less corpses, then the laver cannot in
any way profit those who are baptized by such dead men. But if they
have been restored to life, yet how can the laver profit those whom
they baptized before outside, while they were lying without life, if
the passage, "He who is baptized by the dead, of what profit is his
baptism to him," is to be understood in the way in which they think?Â
For those whom Prætextatus and Felicianus baptized while they were
yet in communion with Maximianus are now retained among them, sharing
in their communion, without being again baptized, together with the
same men who baptized themâI mean Felicianus and Prætextatus:Â
taking occasion by which fact, if it were not that they cherish the
beginning of their own obstinacy, instead of considering the certain
end of their spiritual salvation, they would certainly be bound to
vigilance, and ought to recover the soundness of their senses, so as
to breathe again in Catholic peace; if only, laying aside the swelling
of their pride, and overcoming the madness of their stubbornness, they
would take heed and see what monstrous sacrilege it is to curse the
baptism of the foreign churches, which we have learned from the sacred
books were planted in primitive times, and to receive the baptism of
the followers of Maximianus, whom they have condemned with their own
lips.
Chapter 12.â13. But our brethren themselves, the sons of the
aforesaid churches, were both ignorant at the time, and still are
ignorant, of what has been done so many years ago in Africa:Â
wherefore they at any rate cannot be defiled by the charges which have
been brought, on the part of the Donatists, against the Africans,
without even knowing whether they were true. But the Donatists
having openly separated and divided themselves off, although they are
even said to have taken part in the ordination of Primianus, yet
condemned the said Primianus, ordained another bishop in opposition to
Primianus, baptized outside the communion of Primianus, rebaptized
after Primianus, and returned to Primianus with their disciples who
had been baptized by themselves outside, and never rebaptized by any
one inside. If such a union with the party of Maximianus does not
pollute the Donatists, how can the mere report concerning the Africans
pollute the foreigners? If the lips meet together without offense in
the kiss of peace, which reciprocally condemned each other, why is
each man that is condemned by them in the churches very far removed by
the intervening sea from their jurisdiction, not saluted with a kiss
as a faithful Catholic, but driven forth with a blast of indignation
as an impious pagan? And if, in receiving the followers of
Maximianus, they made peace in behalf of their own unity, far be it
from us to find fault with them, save that they cut their own throats
by their decision, that whereas, to preserve unity in their schism,
they collect together again what had been parted from themselves, they
yet scorn to reunite their schism itself to the true unity of the
Church.
Chapter 13.â14. If, in the interests of the unity of the party of
Donatus, no one rebaptizes those who were baptized in a wicked schism,
and men, who are guilty of a crime of such enormity as to be compared
by them in their Council to those ancient authors of schism whom the
earth swallowed up alive,[1944]1944 are either unpunished after
separation, or restored again to their position after condemnation;
why is it that, in defence of the unity of Christ, which is spread
throughout the whole inhabited world, of which it has been predicted
that it shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto
the ends of the earth,[1945]1945âa prediction which seems from actual
proof to be in process of fulfillment; why is it that, in defence of
this unity, they do not acknowledge the true and universal law of that
inheritance which rings forth from the books that are common to us
all:Â "I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession?"[1946]1946Â In
behalf of the unity of Donatus, they are not compelled to call
together again what they have scattered abroad, but are warned to hear
the cry of the Scriptures:Â why will they not understand that they
meet with such treatment through the mercy of God, that since they
brought false charges against the Catholic Church, by contact as it
were with which they were unwilling to defile their own excessive
sanctity, they should be compelled by the sovereign authority of
Optatus Gildonianus to receive again and associate with themselves
true offenses of the greatest enormity, condemned by the true voice,
as they say, of their own plenary Council? Let them at length
perceive how they are filled with the true crimes of their own party,
after inventing fictitious crimes wherewith to charge their brethren,
when, even if the charges had been true, they ought at length to feel
how much should be endured in the cause of peace, and in behalf of
Christâs peace to return to a Church which did not condemn crimes
undiscovered, if on behalf of the peace of Donatus they were ready to
pardon such as were condemned.
Chapter 14.â15. Therefore, brethren, let it suffice us that they
should be admonished and corrected on the one point of their conduct
in the matter of the followers of Maximianus. We do not ransack
ancient archives, we do not bring to light the contents of time
honored libraries, we do not publish our proofs to distant lands; but
we bring in, as arbiters betwixt us, all the proofs derived from our
ancestors, we spread abroad the witness that cries aloud throughout
the world.
Chapter 15.â16. Look at the states of Musti[1947]1947 and
Assura:[1948]1948Â there are many still remaining in this life and in
this province who have severed themselves, and many from whom they
have severed themselves; many who have erected an altar, and many
against whom that altar has been erected; many who have condemned, and
many who have been condemned; who have received, and who have been
received; who have been baptized outside, and not baptized again
within:Â if all these things in the cause of unity defile, let the
defiled hold their tongues; if these things in the cause of unity do
not defile, let them submit to correction, and terminate their strife.
Chapter 16.â17. As for the words which follow in his letter, the
writer himself could scarcely fail to laugh at them, when, having made
an unlearned and lying use of the proof in which he quotes the words
of Scripture, "He who is washed by the dead, what profiteth him his
washing?" he endeavors to show to us "how far a traditor being still
in life may be accounted dead."Â And then he goes on further to
say:Â "That man is dead who has not been worthy to be born again in
true baptism; he is likewise dead who, although born in genuine
baptism, has joined himself to a traditor."Â If, therefore, the
followers of Maximianus are not dead, why do the Donatists say, in
their plenary Council, that "the shores are covered with their dying
bodies?"Â But if they are dead, whence is there life in the baptism
which they gave? Again, if Maximianus is not dead, why is a man
baptized again who had been baptized by him? But if he is dead why
is not also Felicianus of Musti dead with him, who ordained him, and
might have died beyond the sea with some African colleague or another
who was a traditor? Or, if he also is himself dead, how is there
life with him in your society in those who, having been baptized
outside by him who is dead, have never been baptized again within?
Chapter 17.â18. Then he further adds: "Both are without the life
of baptism, both he who never had it at all, and he who had it but has
lost it."Â He therefore never had it, whom Felicianus, the follower
of Maximianus or Prætextatus, baptized outside; and these men
themselves have lost what once they had when, therefore, these were
received with their followers, who gave to those whom they baptized
what previously they did not have? and who restored to themselves what
they had lost? But they took away with them the form of baptism, but
lost the veritable excellence of baptism by their wicked schism. Why
do you repudiate the form itself, which is holy at all times and all
places, in the Catholics whom you have not heard, whilst you are
willing to acknowledge it in the followers of Maximianus whom you have
punished?
19. But whatever he seemed to himself to say by way of accusation
about the traitor Judas, I see not how it can concern us, who are not
proved by them to have betrayed our trust; nor, indeed, if such
treason were proved on the part of any who before our time have died
in our communion, would that treason in any way defile us by whom it
was disavowed, and to whom it was displeasing. For if they
themselves are not defiled by offenses condemned by themselves, and
afterwards condoned, how much less can we be defiled by what we have
disavowed so soon as we have heard of them! However weighty,
therefore, his invective against traditors, let him be assured that
they are condemned by me in precisely the same terms. But yet I make
a distinction; for he accuses one on my side who has long been dead
without having been condemned in any investigation made by me. I
point to a man adhering closely to his side, who had been condemned by
him, or at least had been separated by a sacrilegious schism, and whom
he received again with undiminished honor.
Chapter 18.â20. He says: "You who are a most abandoned traditor
have come out in the character of a persecutor and murderer of us who
keep the law."Â If the followers of Maximianus kept the law when they
separated from you, then we may acknowledge you as a keeper of the
law, when you are separated from the Church spread abroad throughout
the world. But if you raise the question of persecutions, I at once
reply:Â If you have suffered anything unjustly, this does not concern
those who, though they disapprove of men who act in such a
way,[1949]1949 yet endure them for the peace that is in unity, in a
manner deserving of all praise. Wherefore you have nothing to bring
up against the Lordâs wheat, who endure the chaff that is among them
till the last winnowing, from whom you never would have separated
yourself, had you not shown yourself lighter than chaff by flying away
under the blast of temptation before the coming of the Winnower. But
not to leave this one example, which the Lord hath thrust back in
their teeth, to close the mouths of these men, for their correction if
they will show themselves to be wise, but for their confusion if they
remain in their folly:Â if those are more just that suffer
persecution than those who inflict it, then those same followers of
Maximianus are the more just, whose basilica was utterly overthrown,
and who were grievously maltreated by the military following of
Optatus, when the mandates of the proconsul, ordering that all of them
should be shut out of the basilicas, were manifestly procured by the
followers of Primianus. Wherefore, if, when the emperors hated their
communion, they ventured on such violent measures for the persecution
of the followers of Maximianus, what would they do if they were
enabled to work their will by being in communion with kings? And if
they did such things as I have mentioned for the correction of the
wicked, why are they surprised that Catholic emperors should decree
with greater power that they should be worked upon and corrected who
endeavor to rebaptize the whole Christian world, when they have no
ground for differing from them? seeing that they, themselves bear
witness that it is right to bear with wicked men even where they have
true charges to bring against them in the cause of peace, since they
received those whom they had themselves condemned, acknowledging the
honors conferred among themselves, and the baptism administered in
schism. Let them at length consider what treatment they deserve at
the hands of the Christian powers of the world, who are the enemies of
Christian unity throughout the world. If, therefore, correction be
bitter, yet let them not fail to be ashamed; lest when they begin to
read what they themselves have written, they be overcome with
laughter, when they do not find in themselves what they wish to find
in others, and fail to recognize[1950]1950 in their own case what they
find fault with in their neighbors.
Chapter 19.â21. What, then, does he mean by quoting in his letter
the words with which our Lord addressed the Jews:Â "Wherefore,
behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some
of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye
scourge?"[1951]1951Â For if by the wise men and the scribes and the
prophets they would have themselves be understood, while we were as it
were the persecutors of the prophets and wise men, why are they
unwilling to speak with us, seeing they are sent to us? For, indeed,
if the man who wrote that epistle which we are at this present moment
answering, were to be pressed by us to acknowledge it as his own,
stamping its authenticity with his signature, I question much whether
he would do it, so thoroughly afraid are they of our possessing any
words of theirs. For when we were anxious by some means or other to
procure the latter part of this same letter, because those from whom
we obtained it were unable to describe the whole of it, no one who was
asked for it was willing to give it to us, so soon as they knew that
we were making a reply to the portion which we had. Therefore, when
they read how the Lord says to the prophet, "Cry aloud, spare not, and
write their sins with my pen,"[1952]1952 these men who are sent to us
as prophets have no fears on this score, but take every precaution
that their crying may not be heard by us:Â which they certainly would
not fear if what they spoke of us were true. But their apprehension
is not groundless, as it is written in the Psalm, "The mouth of them
that speak lies shall be stopped."[1953]1953Â For if the reason that
they do not receive our baptism be that we are a generation of
vipersâto use the expression in his epistleâwhy did they receive the
baptism of the followers of Maximianus, of whom their Council speaks
in the following terms:Â "Because the enfolding of a poisoned womb
has long concealed the baneful offspring of a viperâs seed, and the
moist concretions of conceived iniquity have by slow heat flowed forth
into the members of serpents"? Is it not therefore of themselves
also that it is said in the same Council, "The poison of asps is under
their lips, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet
are swift to shed blood; destruction and unhappiness is in their ways,
and the way of peace have they not known"?[1954]1954Â And yet they
now hold these men themselves in undiminished honor, and receive
within their body those whom these men had baptized without.
Chapter 20.â22. Wherefore all this about the generation of vipers,
and the poison of asps under their lips, and all the other things
which they have said against those which have not known the way of
peace, are really, if they would but speak the truth, more strictly
applicable to themselves, since for the sake of the peace of Donatus
they received the baptism of these men, in respect of which they used
the expressions quoted above in the wording of the decree of the
Council; but the baptism of the Church of Christ dispersed throughout
the world, from which peace itself came into Africa, they repudiate,
to the sacrilegious wounding of the peace of Christ. Which,
therefore, are rather the false prophets, who come in sheepâs
clothing, while inwardly they are ravening wolves,[1955]1955âthey who
either fail to detect the wicked in the Catholic Church, and
communicate with them in all innocence, or else for the sake of the
peace of unity are bearing with those whom they cannot separate from
the threshing-floor of the Lord before the Winnower shall come, or
they who do in schism what they censure in the Catholic Church, and
receive in their own separation, when manifest to all and condemned by
their own voice, what they profess that they shun in the unity of the
Church when it calls for toleration, and does not even certainly
exist?
Chapter 21.â23. Lastly, it has been said, as he himself has also
quoted, "Ye shall know them by their fruits:"[1956]1956Â let us
therefore examine into their fruits. You bring up against our
predecessors their delivery of the sacred books. This very charge we
urge with greater probability against their accusers themselves. And
not to carry our search too far, in the same city of Constantina your
predecessors ordained Silvanus bishop at the very outset of his
schism. He, while he was still a subdeacon, was most unmistakeably
entered as a traditor in the archives of the city.[1957]1957Â If you
on your side bring forward documents against our predecessors, all
that we ask is equal terms, that we should either believe both to be
true or both to be false. If both are true, you are unquestionably
guilty of schism, who have pretended that you avoid offenses in the
communion of the whole world, which you had commonly among you in the
small fragment of your own sect. But again, if both are false, you
are unquestionably guilty of schism, who, on account of the false
charges of giving up the sacred books, are staining yourselves with
the heinous offence of severance from the Church. But if we have
something to urge in accusation while you have nothing, or if our
charges are true whilst yours are false, it is no longer matter of
discussion how thoroughly your mouths are closed.
Chapter 22.â24. What if the holy and true Church of Christ were to
convince and overcome you, even if we held no documents in support of
our cause, or only such as were false, while you had possession of
some genuine proofs of delivery of the sacred books? what would then
remain for you, except that, if you would, you should show your love
of peace, or otherwise should hold your tongues?[1958]1958Â For
whatever, in that case, you might bring forward in evidence, I should
be able to say with the greatest ease and the most perfect truth, that
then you are bound to prove as much to the full and catholic unity of
the Church already spread abroad and established throughout so many
nations, to the end that you should remain within, and that those whom
you convict should be expelled. And if you have endeavored to do
this, certainly you have not been able to make good your proof; and
being vanquished or enraged, you have separated yourselves, with all
the heinous guilt of sacrilege, from the guiltless men who could not
condemn on insufficient proof. But if you have not even endeavored
to do this, then with most accursed and unnatural blindness you have
cut yourselves off from the wheat of Christ, which grows throughout
His whole fields, that is, throughout the whole world, until the end,
because you have taken offense at a few tares in Africa.
Chapter 23.â25. In conclusion, the Testament is said to have been
given to the flames by certain men in the time of persecution. Now
let its lessons be read, from whatever source it has been brought to
light. Certainly in the beginning of the promises of the Testator
this is found to have been said to Abraham:Â "In thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed;"[1959]1959 and this saying is
truthfully interpreted by the apostle:Â "To thy seed," he says,
"which is Christ."[1960]1960Â No betrayal on the part of any man has
made the promises of God of none effect. Hold communion with all the
nations of the earth, and then you may boast that you have preserved
the Testament from the destruction of the flames. But if you will
not do so, which party is the rather to be believed to have insisted
on the burning of the Testament, save that which will not assent to
its teaching when it is brought to light? For how much more
certainly, without any sacrilegious rashness, can he be held to have
joined the company of traditors who now persecutes with his tongue the
Testament which they are said to have persecuted with the flames!Â
You charge us with the persecution:Â the true wheat of the Lord
answers you, "Either it was done justly, or it was done by the chaff
that was among us." What have you to say to this? You object that
we have no baptism:Â the same true wheat of the Lord answers you,
that the form of the sacrament even within the Church fails to profit
some, as it did no good to Simon Magus when he was baptized, much more
it fails to profit those who are without. Â Yet that baptism remains
in them when they depart, is proved from this, that it is not restored
to them when they return. Never, therefore, except by the greatest
shamelessness, will you be able to cry out against that wheat, or to
call them false prophets clad in sheepâs clothing, whilst inwardly
they are ravening wolves; since either they do not know the wicked in
the unity of the Catholic Church, or for the sake of unity bear with
those whom they know.
Chapter 24.â26. But let us turn to the consideration of your
fruits. I pass over the tyrannous exercise of authority in the
cities, and especially in the estates of other men; I pass over the
madness of the Circumcelliones, and the sacrilegious and profane
adoration of the bodies of those who had thrown themselves of their
own accord over precipices, the revellings of drunkenness, and the ten
yearsâ groaning of the whole of Africa under the cruelty of the one
man Optatus Gildonanius:Â all this I pass over, because there are
certain among you who cry out that these things are, and have ever
been displeasing to them. But they say that they bore with them in
the cause of peace, because they could not put them down; wherein they
condemn themselves by their own judgment:Â for if indeed they felt
such love for peace, they never would have rent in twain the bond of
unity. For what madness can be greater, than to be willing to
abandon peace in the midst of peace itself, and to be anxious to
retain it in the midst of discord? Therefore, for the sake of those
who pretend that they do not see the evils of this same faction of
Donatus, which all men see and blame, ignoring them even to the extent
of saying of Optatus himself, "What did he do?"Â "Who accused him?"Â
"Who convicted him?"Â "I know nothing,"Â "I saw nothing,"Â "I heard
nothing,"âfor the sake of these, I say, who pretend that they are
ignorant of what is generally notorious, the party of Maximianus has
arisen, through whom their eyes are opened, and their mouths are
closed:Â for they openly sever themselves; they openly erect altar
against altar; they are openly in a Council[1961]1961 called
sacrilegious and vipers, and swift to shed blood, to be compared with
Dathan and Abiram and Korah, and are condemned in cutting terms of
abhorrence; and are as openly received again with undiminished honors
in company with those whom they have baptized. Such are the fruits
of these men, who do all this for the peace of Donatus, that they may
clothe themselves in sheepâs clothing, and reject the peace of Christ
throughout the world that they may be ravening wolves within the fold.
Chapter 25.â27. I think that I have left unanswered none of the
statements in the letter of Donatus, so far at least as relates to
what I have been able to find in that part of which we are in
possession. I should be glad if they would produce the other part as
well, in case there should be anything in it which does not admit of
refutation. But as for these answers which we have made to him, with
the help of God, I admonish your Christian love, that ye not only
communicate them to those who seek for them, but also force them on
those who show no longing for them. Let them answer anything they
will; and if they shrink from sending a reply to us, let them at any
rate send letters to their own party, only not forbidding that the
contents should be shown to us. For if they do this, they show their
fruits most openly, by which they are proved to demonstration to be
ravening wolves disguised in sheepâs clothing, in that they secretly
lay snares for our sheep, and openly shrink from giving any answer to
the shepherds. We only lay to their charge the sin of schism, in
which they are all most thoroughly involved,ânot the offenses of
certain of their party, which some of them declare to be displeasing
to themselves. If they, on the other hand, abstain from charging us
with the sins of other men, they have nothing they can lay to our
charge, and therefore they are wholly unable to defend themselves from
the charge of schism; because it is by a wicked severance that they
have separated themselves from the threshing-floor of the Lord, and
from the innocent company of the corn that is growing throughout the
world, on account of charges which either are false, and invented by
themselves, or even if true, involve the chaff alone.
Chapter 26.â28. But it is possible that you may expect of me that I
should go on to refute what he has introduced about Manichæus. Now,
in respect of this, the only thing that offends me is that he has
censured a most pestilent and pernicious errorâI mean the heresy of
the Manichæansâin terms of wholly inadequate severity, if indeed they
amount to censure at all, though the Catholic Church has broken down
his defenses by the strongest evidence of truth.[1962]1962Â For the
inheritance of Christ, established in all nations, is secure against
heresies which have been shut out from the inheritance; but, as the
Lord says, "How can Satan cast out Satan?"[1963]1963 so how can the
error of the Donatists have power to overthrow the error of the
Manichæans?[1964]1964
Chapter 27.â29. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, though that error is
exposed and overcome in many ways, and dare not oppose the truth on
any show of reason whatsoever, but only with the unblushing obstinacy
of impudence; yet, not to load your memory with a multitude of proofs,
I would have you bear in mind this one action of the followers of
Maximianus, confront them with this one fact, thrust this in their
teeth, to make them their treacherous tongues, destroy their calumny
with this, as it were a three-pronged dart destroying a three-headed
monster. They charge us with betrayal of the sacred books; they
charge us with persecution; they charge us with false baptism:Â to
all their charges make the same answer about the followers of
Maximianus. For they think that the proofs are lost which show that
their predecessors gave the sacred volumes to the flames; but this at
least they cannot hide, that they have received with unimpaired honors
those who were stained with the sacrilege of schism. Also they think
that those most violent persecutions are hidden, which they direct
against any who oppose them whenever they are able; but whilst
spiritual persecution surpasses bodily persecution, they received with
undiminished honors the followers of Maximianus, whom they themselves
persecuted in the body, and of whom they themselves said, "Their feet
are swift to shed blood;"[1965]1965 and this at any rate they cannot
hide.
Chapter 28.âFinally, they think that the question of baptism is
hidden, with which they deceive wretched souls. But whilst they say
that none have baptism who were baptized outside the communion of the
one Church, they received with undiminished honors the followers of
Maximianus, with those whom they baptized in schism outside the
Donatist communion, and this at least they cannot hide.
30. "But these things," they say, "bring no pollution in the cause
of peace; and it is well to bend to mercy the rigor of extreme
severity, that broken branches may be grafted in anew."Â Accordingly,
in this way the whole question is settled, by defeat in them, by the
impossibility of defeat for us; for if the name of peace be assumed
for even the faintest shadow of defense to justify the bearing with
wicked men in schism, then beyond all doubt the violation of true
peace itself involves detestable guilt, with nothing to be said in its
defence throughout the unity of the world.
Chapter 29.â31. These things, brethren, I would have you retain as
the basis of your action and preaching with untiring gentleness:Â
love men, while you destroy errors; take of the truth without pride;
strive for the truth without cruelty. Pray for those whom you refute
and convince of error. For the prophet prays to God for mercy upon
such as these, saying, "Fill their faces with shame, that they may
seek Thy name, O Lord."[1966]1966Â And this, indeed, the Lord has
done already, so as to fill the faces of the followers of Maximianus
with shame in the sight of all mankind:Â it only remains that they
should learn how to blush to their soulâs health. For so they will
be able to seek the name of the Lord, from which they are turned away
to their utter destruction, whilst they exalt their own name in the
place of that of Christ. May ye live and persevere in Christ, and be
multiplied, and abound in the love of God, and in love towards one
another, and towards all men, brethren well beloved.
Book II.[1967]1967
In which Augustin replies to all the several statements in the letter
of Petilianus, as though disputing with an adversary face to face.
Chapter 1.â1. That we made a full and sufficient answer to the first
part of the letter of Petilianus, which was all that we had been able
to find, will be remembered by all who were able to read or hear what
we replied. But since the whole of it was afterwards found and
copied by our brethren, and sent to us with the view that we should
answer it as a whole, this task was one which our pen could not
escape,ânot that he says anything new in it, to which answer has not
been already made in many ways and at various times; but still, on
account of the brethren of slower comprehension, who, when they read a
matter in any place, cannot always refer to everything that has been
said upon the same subject, I will comply with those who urge me by
all means to reply to every point, and that as though we were carrying
on the discussion face to face in the form of a dialogue. I will set
down the words of his epistle under his name, and I will give the
answer under my own name, as though it had all been taken down by
reporters while we were debating. And so there will be no one who
can complain either that I have passed anything over, or that they
have been unable to understand it for want of distinction between the
parties to the discussion; at the same time that the Donatists
themselves, who are unwilling to argue the question in our presence,
as is shown by the letters which they have circulated among their
party, may thus not fail to find the truth answering them point by
point, just as though they were discussing the matter with us face to
face.
2. In the very beginning of the letter Petilianus said:Â
"Petilianus, a bishop, to his well-beloved brethren, fellow-priests,
and deacons, appointed ministers with us throughout our diocese in the
gospel, grace be to you and peace, from God our Father and from the
Lord Jesus Christ."
3. Augustin answered: I acknowledge the apostolic greeting. You
see who you are that employ it, but see from what source you have
learned what you say. For in these terms Paul salutes the Romans,
and in the same terms the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians,
the Colossians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians. What madness is
it, therefore, to be unwilling to share the salvation of peace with
those very Churches in whose epistles you learned its form of
salutation?
Chapter 2.â4. Petilianus said: "Those who have polluted their
souls with a guilty laver, under the name of baptism, reproach us with
baptizing twice,âthan whose obscenity, indeed, any kind of filth is
more cleanly, seeing that through a perversion of cleanliness they
have come to be made fouler by their washing."
5. Augustin answered: We are neither made fouler by our washing,
nor cleaner by yours. But when the water of baptism is given to any
one in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
it is neither ours nor yours, but His of whom it was said to John,
"Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him,
the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."[1968]1968
Chapter 3.â6. Petilianus said: "For what we look to is the
conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of the recipient."
7. Augustin answered: We therefore need have no anxiety about the
conscience of Christ. But if you assert any man to be the giver, be
he who he may, there will be no certainty about the cleansing of the
recipient, because there is no certainty about the conscience of the
giver.
Chapter 4.â8. Petilianus said: "For he who receives faith from the
faithless, receives not faith but guilt."
9. Augustin answered: Christ is not faithless, from whom the
faithful man receives not guilt but faith. For he believeth on Him
that justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may be counted for
righteousness.[1969]1969
Chapter 5.â10. Petilianus said: "For everything consists of an
origin and root; and if it have not something for a head, it is
nothing:Â nor does anything well receive second birth, unless it be
born again of good seed."
11. Augustin answered: Why will you put yourself forward in the
room of Christ, when you will not place yourself under Him? He is
the origin, and root, and head of him who is being born, and in Him we
feel no fear, as we must in any man, whoever he may be, lest he should
prove to be false and of abandoned character, and we should be found
to be sprung from an abandoned source, growing from an abandoned root,
united to an abandoned head. For what man can feel secure about a
man, when it is written, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in
man?"[1970]1970Â But the seed of which we are born again is the word
of God, that is, the gospel. Whence the apostle says, "For in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."[1971]1971Â And yet he
allows even those to preach the gospel who were preaching it not in
purity, and rejoices in their preaching;[1972]1972 because, although
they were preaching it not in purity, but seeking their own, not the
things which are Jesus Christâs,[1973]1973 yet the gospel which they
preached was pure. And the Lord had said of certain of like
character, "Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but
do not yet after their works:Â for they say, and do not."[1974]1974Â
If, therefore, what is in itself pure is preached in purity, then the
preacher himself also, in that he is a partner with the word, has his
share in begetting the believer; but if he himself be not regenerate,
and yet what he preaches be pure, then the believer is born not from
the barrenness of the minister but from the fruitfulness of the word.
Chapter 6.â12. Petilianus said: "This being the case, brethren,
what perversity must it be, that he who is guilty through his own sins
should make another free from guilt, when the Lord Jesus Christ says,
âEvery good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit:Â do men gather grapes of
thorns?â[1975]1975Â Â And again: Â âA good man, out of the good
treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things:Â and an evil man,
out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.â"[1976]1976
13. Augustin answered: No man, even though he be not guilty
through his own sins, can make his neighbor free from sin, because he
is not God. Otherwise, if we were to expect that out of the
innocence of the baptizer should be produced the innocence of the
baptized, then each will be the more innocent in proportion as he may
have found a more innocent person by whom to be baptized; and will
himself be the less innocent in proportion as he by whom he is
baptized is less innocent. And if the man who baptizes happens to
entertain hatred against another man, this will also be imputed to him
who is baptized. Why, therefore, does the wretched man hasten to be
baptized,âthat his own sins may be forgiven him, or that those of
others may be reckoned against him? Is he like a merchant ship, to
discharge one burden, and to take on him another? But by the good
tree and its good fruit, and the corrupt tree and its evil fruit, we
are wont to understand men and their works, as is consequently shown
in those other words which you also quoted:Â "A good man, out of the
good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things:Â and an evil
man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things."Â But when
a man preaches the word of God, or administers the sacraments of God,
he does not, if he is a bad man, preach or minister out of his own
treasure; but he will be counted among those of whom it is said,
"Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye
after their works:"Â for they bid you observe what is Godâs, but
their works are their own. For if it is as you say, that is, if the
fruit of those who baptize consist in the baptized persons themselves,
you declare a great woe against Africa, if a young Optatus has sprung
up for every one that Optatus baptized.
Chapter 7.â14. Petilianus said: "And again, âHe who is baptized by
one that is dead, his washing profiteth him nothing.â[1977]1977Â He
did not mean that the baptizer was a corpse, a lifeless body, the
remains of a man ready for burial, but one lacking the Spirit of God,
who is compared to a dead body, as He declares to a disciple in
another place, according to the witness of the gospel. For His
disciple says, âLord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But
Jesus said unto him, Follow me, and let the dead bury their
dead.â[1978]1978 The father of the disciple was not baptized. He
declared him as a pagan to belong to the company of pagans; unless he
said this of the unbelieving, The dead cannot bury the dead. He was
dead, therefore, not as smitten by some death, but as smitten even
during life. For he who so lives as to be doomed to eternal death is
tortured by a death in life. To be baptized, therefore, by the dead,
is to have received not life but death. We must therefore consider
and declare how far the traditor is to be accounted dead while yet
alive. He is dead who has not deserved to be born again with a true
baptism; he is likewise dead who, having been born again with a true
baptism, has become involved with a traditor. Both are wanting in
the life of baptism,âboth he who never had it at all, and he who had
it and has lost it. For the Lord Jesus Christ says, âThere shall
come to that man seven spirits more wicked than the former one, and
the last state of that man shall be worse than the first.â"[1979]1979
15. Augustin answered: Seek with greater care to know in what
sense the words which you have quoted from Scripture in proof of your
position were really uttered, and how they should be understood. For
that all unrighteous persons are wont to be called dead in a mystical
sense is clear enough; but Christ, to whom true baptism belongs, which
you say is false because of the faults of men, is alive, sitting at
the right hand of the Father, and He will not die any more through any
infirmity of the flesh:Â death will no more have dominion over
Him.[1980]1980Â And they who are baptized with His baptism are not
baptized by one who is dead. And if it so happen that certain
ministers, being deceitful workers, seeking their own, not the things
which are Jesus Christâs, proclaiming the gospel not in purity, and
preaching Christ of contention and envy, are to be called dead because
of their unrighteousness, yet the sacrament of the living God does not
die even in one that is dead. For that Simon was dead who was
baptized by Philip in Samaria, who wished to purchase the gift of God
for money; but the baptism which he had lived in him still to work his
punishment.[1981]1981
16. But how false the statement is which you make, that "both are
wanting in the life of baptism, both he who never had it at all, and
he who had it and has lost it," you may see from this, that in the
case of those who apostatize after having been baptized, and who
return through penitence, baptism is not restored to them, as it would
be restored if it were lost. In what manner, indeed, do your dead
men baptize according to your interpretation? Must we not reckon the
drunken among the dead (to say nothing of the rest, and to mention
only what is well known and of daily experience among all), seeing
that the apostle says of the widow, "But she that liveth in pleasure
is dead while she liveth?"[1982]1982Â In the next place, in that
Council of yours, in which you condemned Maximianus with his advisers
or his ministers, have you forgotten with what eloquence you said,
"Even after the manner of the Egyptians, the shores are full of the
bodies of the dying, on whom the weightier punishment falls in death
itself, in that, after their life has been wrung from them by the
avenging waters, they have not found so much as burial?"Â And yet you
yourselves may see whether or no one of them, Felicianus, has been
brought to life again; yet he has with him within the communion of
your body those whom he baptized outside. As therefore he is
baptized by One that is alive, who is clothed with the baptism of the
living Christ, so he is baptized by the dead who is wrapped in the
baptism of the dead Saturn, or any one like him; that we may set forth
in the meanwhile, with what brevity we may, in what sense the words
which you have quoted may be understood without any cavilling on the
part of any one of us. For, in the sense in which they are received
by you, you make no effort to explain them, but only strive to
entangle us together with yourselves.
Chapter 8.â17. Petilianus said: "We must consider, I say, and
declare how far the treacherous traditor is to be accounted dead while
yet in life. Judas was an apostle when he betrayed Christ; and the
same man was already dead, having spiritually lost the office of an
apostle, being destined afterwards to die by hanging himself, as it is
written:Â âI have sinned,â says he, âin that I have betrayed the
innocent blood; and he departed, and went and hanged
himself.â[1983]1983Â The traitor perished by the rope:Â he left the
rope for others like himself, of whom the Lord Christ cried aloud to
the Father, âFather, those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none
of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be
fulfilled.â[1984]1984Â For David of old had passed this sentence on
him who was to betray Christ to the unbelievers:Â âLet another take
his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a
widow.â[1985]1985Â See how mighty is the spirit of the prophets, that
it was able to see all future things as though they were present, so
that a traitor who was to be born hereafter should be condemned many
centuries before. Finally, that the said sentence should be
completed, the holy Matthias received the bishopric of that lost
apostle. Let no one be so dull, no one so faithless, as to dispute
this:Â Matthias won for himself a victory, not a wrong, in that he
carried off the spoils of the traitor from the victory of the Lord
Christ. Why then, after this, do you claim to yourself a bishopric
as the heir of a worse traitor? Judas betrayed Christ in the flesh
to the unbelievers; you in the spirit madly betrayed the holy gospel
to the flames of sacrilege. Judas betrayed the Lawgiver to the
unbelievers; you, as it were, betraying all that he had left, gave up
the law of God to be destroyed by men. Whilst, had you loved the
law, like the youthful Maccabees, you would have welcomed death for
the sake of the laws of God (if indeed that can be said to be death to
men which makes them immortal because they died for the Lord); for of
those brethren we learn that one replied to the sacrilegious tyrant
with these words of faith:Â âThou like a fury takest us out of this
present life; but the King of the world (who reigns for ever, and of
His kingdom there shall be no end) shall raise us up who have died for
His laws, unto everlasting life.â[1986]1986Â If you were to burn with
fire the testament of a dead man, would you not be punished as the
falsifier of a will? What therefore is likely to become of you who
have burned the most holy law of our God and Judge? Judas repented
of his deed even in death; you not only do not repent, but stand forth
as a persecutor and butcher of us who keep the law, whilst you are the
most wicked of traditors."
18. Augustin answered: See what a difference there is between your
calumnious words and our truthful assertions. Listen for a little
while. See how you have exaggerated the sin of delivering up the
sacred books, comparing us in most odious terms, like some sophistical
inventor of charges, with the traitor Judas. But when I shall have
answered you on this point with the utmost brevity,âI did not do what
you assert; I did not deliver up the sacred books; your charge is
false; you will never be able to prove it,âwill not all that smoke of
mighty words presently vanish away? Or will you perchance endeavor
to prove the truth of what you say? This, then, you should do first;
and then you might rise against us, as against men who were already
convicted, with whatever mass of invective you might choose. Here is
one absurdity:Â behold again a second.
19. You yourself, when speaking of the foretelling of the
condemnation of Judas, used these expressions:Â "See how mighty is
the spirit of the prophets, that it was able to see all future things
as though they were present, so that a traitor who was to be born
hereafter should be condemned many centuries before;" and yet you did
not see that in the same sure prophecy, and certain and unshaken
truth, in which it was foretold that one of the disciples should
hereafter betray the Christ; it was also foretold that the whole world
should hereafter believe in Christ. Why did you pay attention in the
prophecy to the man who betrayed Christ, and in the same place give no
heed to the world for which Christ was betrayed? Who betrayed
Christ? Judas. To whom did he betray Him? To the Jews. What
did the Jews do to Him? "They pierced my hands and my feet," says
the Psalmist. "I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon
me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my
vesture."[1987]1987Â Of what importance, then, that is which is
bought at such a price, I would have you read a little later in the
psalm itself:Â "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn
unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship
before Thee. For the kingdom is the Lordâs; and He is the governor
among the nations."[1988]1988Â But who is able to suffice for the
quotation of all the other innumerable prophetic passages which bear
witness to the world that is destined to believe? Yet you quote a
prophecy because you see in it the man who sold Christ:Â you do not
see in it the possession which Christ bought by being sold. Here is
the second absurdity:Â behold again the third.
20. Among the many other expressions in your invective, you said:Â
"If you were to burn with fire the testament of a dead man, would you
not be punished as the falsifier of a will? What therefore is likely
to become of you who have burned the most holy law of our God and
Judge?"Â In these words you have paid no attention to what certainly
ought to have moved you, to the question of how it might be that we
should burn the testament, and yet stand fast in the inheritance which
was described in that testament; but it is marvellous that you have
preserved the testament and lost the inheritance. Is it not written
in that testament, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession"?[1989]1989Â Take part in this inheritance, and you may
bring what charges you will against me about the testament. For what
madness is it, that while you shrank from committing the testament to
the flames, you should yet strive against the words of the testator!Â
We, on the other hand, though we hold in our hands the records of the
Church and of the State, in which we read that those who ordained a
rival bishop[1990]1990 in opposition to Cæcilianus were rather the
betrayers of the sacred books, yet do not on this account insult you,
or pursue you with invectives, or mourn over the ashes of the sacred
pages in your hands, or contrast the burning torments of the Maccabees
with the sacrilege of your fear, saying, "You should deliver your own
limbs to the flames rather than the utterances of God."Â For we are
unwilling to be so absurd as to excite an empty uproar against you on
account of the deeds of others, which you either know nothing of, or
else repudiate. But in that we see you separated from the communion
of the whole world (a sin both of the greatest magnitude, and manifest
to all mankind, and common to you all), if I were desirous of
exaggerating, I should find time failing me sooner than words. And
if you should seek to defend yourself on this charge, it could only be
by bringing accusations against the whole world, of such a kind that,
if they could be maintained, you would simply be furnishing matter for
further accusation against yourself; if they could not be maintained,
there is in them no defence for you. Why therefore do you puff
yourself up against me about the betrayal of the sacred books, which
concerns neither you nor me if we abide by the agreement not to charge
each other with the sins of other men:Â and which, if that agreement
does not stand, affects you rather than me? And, yet, even without
any violation of that agreement, I think I may say with perfect
justice that he should be deemed a partner with him who delivered up
Christ who has not delivered himself up to Christ in company with the
whole world. "Then," says the apostle, "then are ye Abrahamâs seed,
and heirs according to the promise."[1991]1991Â And again he says,
"Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."[1992]1992Â And the same
apostle shows that the seed of Abraham belongs to all nations from the
promise which was given to Abraham, "In thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed."[1993]1993Â Wherefore I consider that I am
only making a fair demand in asking that we should for a moment
consider the testament of God, which has already long been opened, and
that we should consider every one to be himself an heir of the traitor
whom we do not find to be a joint-heir with Him whom he betrayed; that
every one should belong to him who sold Christ who denies that Christ
has bought the whole world. For when He showed Himself after His
resurrection to His disciples, and gave His limbs to those who
doubted, that they should handle them, He says this to them, "For thus
it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again
from the dead the third day:Â and that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem."[1994]1994Â See from what an inheritance you estrange
yourselves! see what an Heir you resist! Can it really be that a man
would spare Christ if He were walking here on earth who speaks against
Him while He sits in heaven? Do you not yet understand that whatever
you allege against us you allege against His words? A Christian
world is promised and believed in:Â the promise is fulfilled, and it
is denied. Consider, I entreat of you, what you ought to suffer for
such impiety. And yet, if I know not what you have suffered,âif I
have not seen it, have not wrought it,âthen do you to-day, who do not
suffer the violence of my persecution, render to me an account of your
separation. But you are likely to say over and over again what,
unless you prove it, can affect no one, and if you prove it, has no
bearing upon me.
Chapter 9.â21. Petilianus said: "Hemmed in, therefore, by these
offenses, you cannot be a true bishop."
22. Augustin answered: By what offenses? What have you shown?Â
What have you proved? And if you have proved charges on the part of
I know not whom, what has that to do with the seed of Abraham, in
which all the nations of the earth are blessed?
Chapter 10.â23. Petilianus said: "Did the apostle persecute any
one? or did Christ betray any one?"
24. Augustin answered: I might indeed say that Satan himself was
worse than all wicked men; and yet the apostle delivered a man over to
him for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus.[1995]1995Â And in the same way he
delivered over others, of whom he says, "Whom I have delivered unto
Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."[1996]1996Â And the Lord
Christ drove out the impious merchants from the temple with scourges;
in which connection we also find advanced the testimony of Scripture,
where it says, "The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up."[1997]1997Â
So that we do find the apostle delivering over to condemnation, and
Christ a persecutor. All this I might say, and put you into no small
heat and perturbation, so that you would be compelled to inquire, not
into the complaints of those who suffer, but into the intention of
those who cause the suffering. But do not trouble yourself about
this; I do not say this. But I do say that it has nothing to do with
the seed of Abraham, which is in all nations, if anything has been
done to you which ought not to have been done, perhaps by the chaff
among the harvest of the Lord, which in spite of this is found among
all nations. Do you therefore render an account of your
separation. But first, consider what kind of men you have among you,
with whom you would not wish to be reproached; and see how unjustly
you act, when you cast in our teeth the acts of other men, even if you
proved what you assert. Therefore it will be found that there is no
ground for your separation.
Chapter 11.â25. Petilianus said: "Yet some will be found to say,
We are not the sons of a traditor. Any one is the son of that man
whose deeds he imitates. For those are most assuredly sons, and at
the same time bear a strong resemblance to their parents, who are born
in the likeness of their parents, not only as being of their flesh and
blood, but in respect of their characters and deeds."
26. Augustin answered: A little while ago you were saying nothing
contrary to us, now you even begin to say something in our favor.Â
For this proposition of yours binds you to as much as this, that if
you shall fail to-day to convict us, with whom you are arguing, of
being traditors and murderers, and anything else with which you charge
us, you will then be wholly powerless to hurt us by any charge of the
kind which you may prove against those who have gone before us. For
we cannot be the sons of those to whose deeds our actions bear no
resemblance. And see to what you have committed yourself. If you
should be so successful as to convict some man, even of our own times,
and living with us, of any guilt of the kind, that is in no way to the
prejudice of all the nations of the earth who are blessed in the seed
of Abraham, by separating yourself from whom you are found to be
guilty of sacrilege. Accordingly, unless (as is altogether
impossible) you are acquainted with all men that exist throughout the
world, and have not only made yourself familiar with all their
characters and deeds, but have also proved that they are as bad as you
describe, you have no ground for reproaching all the world, which is
among the saints, with parentage of I know not what description, to
whom you prove that they are like. Nor will it help you at all, even
if you are able to show that those who are not of the same character
take the holy sacraments in common with those who are. In the first
place, because you ought yourselves to look at those with whom you
celebrate those sacraments, to whom you give them, from whom you
receive them, and whom you would be unwilling to have cast up against
you as a reproach. And again, if all those are the sons of Judas,
who was the devil among the apostles, who imitate his deeds, why do we
not call those of the sons of the apostles who make such men
partakers, not in their own deeds, but in the sacraments of the Lord,
as the apostles partook of the supper of the Lord in company with that
traitor? and in this way they are very different from you, who cast in
the teeth of men who are striving for the preservation of unity the
very thing that you do to the rending asunder of unity.
Chapter 12.â27. Petilianus said: "The Lord Jesus said to the Jews
concerning Himself, âIf I do not the works of my Father, believe me
not.â"[1998]1998
28. Augustin answered: I have already answered above, This is both
true, and makes for us against you.
Chapter 13.â29. Petilianus said: Over and over again He reproaches
the false speakers and liars in such terms as these:Â âYe are the
children of the devil, for he also was a slanderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth.â"
30. Augustin answered: We are not wont to say, "He was a
slanderer," but "He was a murderer."[1999]1999Â But we ask how it was
that the devil was a murderer from the beginning; and we find that he
slew the first man, not by drawing a sword, nor by applying to him any
bodily violence, but by persuading him to sin, and thus driving him
from the happiness of Paradise. What, then, was Paradise is now
represented by the Church. Therefore those are the sons of the devil
who slay men by withdrawing them from the Church. But as by the
words of God we know what was the situation of Paradise, so now by the
words of Christ we have learned where the Church is to be found:Â
"Throughout all nations," He says, "beginning at Jerusalem."Â
Whosoever, therefore, separates a man from that complete whole to
place him in any single part, is proved to be a son of the devil and a
murderer. But see, further, what is the application of the
expression which you yourself employed in saying of the devil, "He was
a slanderer, and abode not in the truth."Â For you bring an
accusation against the whole world on account of the sins of others,
though even those others themselves you were more able to accuse than
to convict; and you abode not in the truth of Christ. For He says
that the Church is "throughout all nations, beginning at Jerusalem;"
but ye say that it is in the party of Donatus.
Chapter 14.â31. Petilianus said: "In the third place, also, He
calls the madness of persecutors in like manner by this name, âYe
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?Â
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and
scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them
shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to
city:Â that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,
son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar.â[2000]2000Â Are they then really the sons of vipers according
to the flesh, and not rather serpents in mind, and three-tongued
malice, and deadliness of touch, and burning with the spirit of
poison? They have truly become vipers, who by their bites have
vomited forth death against the innocent people."
32. Augustin answered: If I were to say that this is said of men
of character like unto yourselves, you would reply, "Prove it."Â What
then, have you proved it? Or if you think that it is proved by the
mere fact of its being uttered, there is no need to repeat the same
words. Pronounce the same judgment against yourselves as coming from
us to you. See you not that I too have proved it, if this amounts to
proof? And yet I would have you learn what is really meant by
proof. For indeed I do not even seek for evidence from without to
enable me to prove you vipers. For be well assured that this very
fact marks in you the nature of vipers, that you have not in your
mouth the foundation of truth, but the poison of slanderous abuse, as
it is written, "The poison of asps is under their lips."[2001]2001Â
And because this might be said indiscriminately by any one against any
one, as though it were asked, Under whose lips? he immediately adds,
"Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."[2002]2002Â When,
therefore, you say such things as this against men dispersed
throughout the whole world, of whom you know nothing whatsoever, and
many of whom have never heard the name either of Cæcilianus or of
Donatus, and when you do not hear them answering amid silence, Nothing
of what you say has reference to us; we never saw it; we never did it;
we are totally at a loss to understand what you are saying,âseeing
that you desire nothing else than to say what you are entirely
powerless to prove, how can you help allowing that your mouth is full
of cursing and bitterness? See, therefore, whether you can possibly
show that you are not vipers,[2003]2003 unless you show that all
Christians throughout all nations of the world are traditors, and
murderers, and anything but Christians. Nay, in very truth, even
though you should be able to know and set before us the lives and
deeds of every individual man throughout the world, yet before you can
do that, seeing that you act as you do without any consideration, your
mouth is that of a viper, your mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness. Show to us now, if you can, what prophet, what wise man,
what scribe we have slain, or crucified, or scourged in our
synagogues. Look how much labor you have expended without in any way
being able to prove that Donatus and Marculus[2004]2004 were prophets,
or wise men, or scribes, because, in fact, they were nothing of the
sort. But even if you could prove as much as this, what progress
would you have made towards proving that they had been killed by us,
when even we ourselves did not so much as know them? and how much less
the whole world, whom you calumniate with poisonous mouth?[2005]2005Â
Or whence will you be able to prove that we have a spirit like that of
those who murdered them, when you actually cannot show that they were
murdered by any one at all? Look carefully to all these points, see
whether you can prove any single one of them either about the whole
world, or to the satisfaction of the whole world,âin your persevering
calumnies against which you show that the charges are true in you,
which you falsely propagate against the world.
33. Further, even if we should desire to prove you to be slayers of
the prophets, it would be too long a task to collect the evidence
through all the several instances of the slaughter which your
infuriated leaders of the Circumcelliones, and the actual crowd of men
inflamed by wine and madness, not only have committed since the
beginning of your schism, but even continue to commit at the present
time. To take the case nearest at hand. Let the divine utterances
be produced, which are commonly in the hands of both of us. Let us
consider those to be murderers of the prophets whom we find
contradicting the words of the prophets. What more learned
definition could be given? What could admit of speedier proof? You
would be acting less cruelly in piercing the bodies of the prophets
with a sword, than in endeavoring to destroy the words of the prophets
with your tongue. The prophet says, "All the ends of the world shall
remember and turn unto the Lord."[2006]2006Â Behold and see how this
is being done, how it is being fulfilled. But you not only close
your ears in disbelief against what is said, but you even thrust out
your tongues in madness to speak against what is already being done.Â
Abraham heard the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed,"[2007]2007 and "he believed, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness."[2008]2008Â You see the fact accomplished, and
you cry out against it; and you will not that it should be counted
unto you for unrighteousness, as it fairly would be counted, even if
your refusal to believe was not on the accomplishment, but only on the
utterance of the prophecy. Nay, not only are you not willing that it
should be counted unto you for unrighteousness, but even what you
suffer as the punishment of this impiety you would fain have counted
unto you for righteousness. Or if your conduct is not a persecution
of the prophets, because your instrument is not the sword but the
tongue, what was the reason of its being said under divine
inspiration, "The sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and
their tongue a sharp sword"?[2009]2009Â But what time would suffice
me to collect from all the prophets all the testimonies to the Church
dispersed throughout the world, all of which you endeavor to destroy
and render nought by contradicting them? But you are caught; for
"their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words to the end of
the world."[2010]2010Â I will, however, advance this one saying from
the mouth of the Lord, who is the Witness of witnesses. "All things
must be fulfilled," He says, "which were written in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."Â And what
these were let us hear from Himself:Â "Then opened He their
understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said
unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day:Â and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem."[2011]2011Â See what it is that is written in
the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning
the Lord. See what the Lord Himself revealed about Himself and about
the Church, making Himself manifest, uttering promises about the
Church. But for you, see that you resist such manifest proofs as
these, and as you cannot destroy them, endeavor to pervert them, what
would you do, if you were to come across the bodies of the prophets,
when you rage so madly against the utterances of the prophets, as not
even to hearken to the Lord when He is fulfilling, and making
manifest, and expounding the prophets? For do you not, to the utmost
of`your power, strive to slay the Lord Himself, since even to Himself
you will not yield?
Chapter 15.â34. Petilianus said: "David also spoke of you as
persecutors in the following terms:Â âTheir throat is an open
sepulchre; with their tongues have they deceived; the poison of asps
is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness is
in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known:Â there is no
fear of God before their eyes. Have all the workers of wickedness no
knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread?â"[2012]2012
35. Augustin answered: Their throat is an open sepulchre, whence
they breathe out death by lies. For "the mouth that belieth slayeth
the soul."[2013]2013Â But if nothing is more true than that which
Christ said, that His Church should be throughout all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem, then there is nothing more false than that
which you say, that it is in the party of Donatus. But the tongues
which have deceived are the tongues of those who, whilst they are
acquainted with their own deeds, not only say that they are just men,
but that they are justifiers of men, which is said of One only "that
justifieth the ungodly,"[2014]2014 and that because "He is just and
the justifier."[2015]2015Â As regards the poison of asps, and the
mouth full of cursing and bitterness, we have said enough already.Â
But you have yourselves said that the followers of Maximianus had feet
swift to shed blood, as is testified by the sentence of your plenary
Council, so often quoted in the records of the proconsular province
and of the state. But they, so far as we hear, never killed any one
in the body. You evidently, therefore, understood that the blood of
the soul was shed in spiritual murder by the sword of schism, which
you condemned in Maximianus. See then if your feet are not swift to
shed blood, when you cut off men from the unity of the whole world, if
you were right in saying it of the followers of Maximianus, because
they cut off some from the party of Donatus. Are we again without
the knowledge of the way of peace, who study to preserve the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace? and yet do you possess that
knowledge, who resist the discourse which Christ held with His
disciples after His resurrection, of so peaceful a nature that He
began it with the greeting, "Peace be unto you;"[2016]2016 and that so
strenuously that you are proved to be saying nothing less to Him than
this, "What Thou saidst of the unity of all nations is false; what we
say of the offense of all nations is true"? Who would say such
things as this if they had the fear of God before their eyes? See,
therefore, if in daily saying things like this you are not trying to
destroy the people of God dispersed throughout the world, eating them
up as it were bread.
Chapter 16.â36. Petilianus said: "The Lord Christ also warns us,
saying, âBeware of false prophets, which come unto you in sheepâs
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; and ye shall not know
them by their fruits.â"[2017]2017
37. Augustin answered: If I were to inquire of you by what fruits
you know us to be ravening wolves, you are sure to answer by charging
us with the sins of other men, and these such as were never proved
against those who are said to have been guilty of them. But if you
should ask of me by what fruits we know you rather to be ravening
wolves, I bring against you the charge of schism, which you will deny,
but which I will straightway go on to prove; for, as a matter of fact,
you do not communicate with all the nations of the earth, nor with
those Churches which were founded by the labor of the apostles.Â
Hereupon you will say, "I do not communicate with traditors and
murderers."Â The seed of Abraham answers you, "These are those
charges which you made, which are either not true, or have no
reference to me."Â But these I set aside for the present; do you
meanwhile show me the Church. Now that voice will sound in my ears
which the Lord showed was to be avoided in the false prophets who made
a show of their several parties, and strove to estrange men from the
Catholic Church, "Lo, here is Christ, or there."Â But do you think
that the true sheep of Christ are so utterly destitute of sense, who
are told, "Believe it not,"[2018]2018 that they will hearken to the
wolf when he says, "Lo, here is Christ," and will not hearken to the
Shepherd when He says, "Throughout all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem?"
Chapter 17.â38. Petilianus said: "Thus, thus, thou wicked
persecutor, under whatsoever cloak of righteousness thou hast
concealed thyself, under whatsoever name of peace thou wagest war with
kisses, under whatsoever title of unity thou endeavorest to ensnare
the race of menâthou, who up to this time art cheating and deceiving,
thou art the true son of the devil, showing thy parentage by thy
character."
39. Augustin answered: Consider in reply that these things have
been said by us against you; and that you may know to which of us they
are more appropriate, call to mind what I have said before.
Chapter 18.â40. Petilianus said: "Nor is it, after all, so strange
that you assume to yourself the name of bishop without authority.Â
This is the true custom of the devil, to choose in preference a mode
of deceiving by which he usurps to himself a word of holy meaning, as
the apostle declares to us:Â âAnd no marvel,â he says:Â âfor Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no
great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of
righteousness.â[2019]2019Â Nor is it therefore a marvel if you
falsely call yourself a bishop. For even those fallen angels, lovers
of the maidens of the world, who were corrupted by the corruption of
their flesh, though, from having stripped themselves of divine
excellence, they have ceased to be angels, yet retain the name of
angels, and always esteem themselves as angels, though, being released
from the service of God, they have passed from the likeness of their
character into the army of the devil, as the great God declares, âMy
spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is
flesh.â[2020]2020Â To those guilty ones and to you the Lord Christ
will say, âDepart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared
for the devil and his angels.â[2021]2021Â If there were no evil
angels, the devil would have no angels; of whom the apostle says, that
in the judgment of the resurrection they shall be condemned by the
saints:Â âKnow ye not,â says he, âthat we shall judge
angels?â[2022]2022Â If they were true angels, men would not have
authority to judge the angels of God. So too those sixty apostles,
who, when the twelve were left alone with the Lord Christ, departed in
apostasy from the faith, are so far yet considered among wretched men
to be apostles, that from them Manichæus and the rest entangle many
souls in many devilish sects which they destroyed[2023]2023 that they
might take them in their snares. For indeed the fallen Manichæus,
if fallen he was, is not to be reckoned among those sixty, if it be
that we can find his name as an apostle among the twelve, or if he was
ordained by the voice of Christ when Matthias was elected into the
place of the traitor Judas, or another thirteenth like Paul, who calls
himself the last[2024]2024 of the apostles, expressly that any one who
was later than himself might not be held to be an apostle. For these
are his words:Â âFor I am the last of the apostles, that am not meet
to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of
God.â[2025]2025Â And do not flatter yourselves in this:Â he was a
Jew that had done this. You too, as Gentiles, may work destruction
upon us. For you carry on war without license, against whom we may
not fight in turn. For you desire to live when you have murdered us;
but our victory is either to escape or to be slain."
41. Augustin answered: See how you have quoted the testimony of
holy Scripture, or how you have understood it, when it has no bearing
at all upon the present point at issue. For all that you have
brought forward was simply said to prove that there are false bishops,
just as there are false angels and false apostles. Now we too know
quite well that there are false angels and false apostles, and false
bishops, and, as the true apostle says, false brethren also;[2026]2026
but, seeing that charges such as yours may be brought by either side
against the other, what is required is a certain degree of proof, and
not mere empty words. But if you would see to which of us the charge
of falseness more truly applies, recall to mind what we have said
before, and you will see it there set forth, that we may not become
tedious to our readers by repeating the same thing over and over
again. And yet how is the Church dispersed throughout the world
affected either by what you may have found to say about its chaff,
which is mixed with it throughout the whole world; or by what you said
of Manichæus and the other devilish sects? For if the wheat is not
affected by anything which is said even about the chaff which is still
mingled with it, how much less are the members of Christ dispersed
throughout the whole world affected by monstrosities[2027]2027 which
have been so long and so openly separated from it?[2028]2028
Chapter 19.â42. Petilianus said: "The Lord Jesus Christ commands
us, saying, âWhen they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
another; and if they persecute you in that, flee yet into a third; for
verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of
Israel, till the Son of man be come.â[2029]2029Â If He gives us this
warning in the case of Jews and pagans, you who call yourself a
Christian ought not to imitate the dreadful deeds of the Gentiles.Â
Or do you serve God in such wise that we should be murdered at your
hands? You do err, you do err, if you are wretched enough to
entertain such a belief as this. For God does not have butchers for
His priests."
43. Augustin answered: To flee from one state to another from the
face of persecution has not been enjoined as precept or permission on
heretics or schismatics, such as you are; but it was enjoined on the
preachers of the gospel, whom you resist. And this we may easily
prove in this wise:Â you are now in your own cities, and no man
persecutes you. You must therefore come forth, and give an account
of your separation. For it cannot be maintained that, as the
weakness of the flesh is excused when it yields before the violence of
persecution, so truth also ought to yield to falsehood. Furthermore,
if you are suffering persecution, why do you not retire from the
cities in which you are, that you may fulfill the instructions which
you quote out of the gospel? But if you are not suffering
persecution, why are you unwilling to reply to us? Or if the fact be
that you are afraid lest, when you should have made reply, you then
should suffer persecution, in that case how are you following the
example of those preachers to whom it was said, "Behold, I send you
forth as sheep in the midst of wolves?"Â To whom it was also further
said "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul."[2030]2030Â And how do you escape the charge of acting contrary
to the injunction of the Apostle Peter, who says, "Be ready always to
give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the faith and
hope that is in you?"[2031]2031Â And, lastly, wherefore are you ever
eager to annoy the Catholic Churches by the most violent disturbances,
whenever it is in your power, as is proved by innumerable instances of
simple fact? But you say that you must defend your places, and that
you resist with cudgels and massacres and with whatever else you
can. Wherefore in such a case did you not hearken to the voice of
the Lord, when He says, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not
evil"?[2032]2032Â Or, allowing that it is possible that in some cases
it should be right for violent men to be resisted by bodily force, and
that it does not violate the precept which we receive from the Lord,
"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil," why may it not also be
that a pious man should eject an impious man, or a just man him that
is unjust, in the exercise of duly and lawfully constituted authority,
from seats which are unlawfully usurped, or retained to the despite of
God? For you would not say that the false prophets suffered
persecution at the hands of Elijah, in the same sense that Elijah
suffered persecution from the wickedest of kings?[2033]2033Â Or that
because the Lord was scourged by His persecutors, therefore those whom
He Himself drove out of the temple with scourges are to be put in
comparison with His sufferings? It remains, therefore, that we
should acknowledge that there is no other question requiring solution,
except whether you have been pious or impious in separating yourselves
from the communion of the whole world. For if it shall be found that
you have acted impiously, you would not be surprised if there should
be no lack of ministers of God by whom you might be scourged, seeing
that you suffer persecution not from us, but as it is written, from
their own abominations.[2034]2034
Chapter 20.â44. Petilianus said: "The Lord Christ cries again from
heaven to Paul, âSaul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks.â[2035]2035Â He was then called Saul,
that he might afterwards receive his true name in baptism. But for
you it is not hard so often to persecute Christ in the persons of His
priests, though the Lord Himself cries out, âTouch not mine
anointed.â[2036]2036Â Reckon up all the deaths of the saints, and so
often have you murdered Christ, who lives in each of them.[2037]2037Â
Lastly, if you are not guilty of sacrilege, then a saint cannot be a
murderer."
45. Augustin answered: Defend yourselves from the charge of the
persecution which those men suffered at the hands of your party who
separated themselves from you with the followers of Maximianus, and
therein you will find our defence. For if you say that you committed
no such deeds, we simply read to you the records of the pro-consular
province and the state. If you say that you were right in
persecuting them, why are you unwilling to suffer the like
yourselves? If you say, "But we caused no schism," then let this be
inquired into, and, till it is decided whether it be so or not, let no
one make accusation against persecutors. If you say that even
schismatics ought not to have suffered persecution, I ask whether it
is also the case that they ought not to have been driven out of the
basilicas, in which they lay snares for the leading astray of the
weak, even though it were done by duly constituted authorities? If
you say that this also should not have been done, first restore the
basilicas to the followers of Maximianus, and then discuss the point
with us. If you say that it was right, then see what they ought to
suffer at the hands of duly constituted authority, who, in resisting
it, "resist the ordinance of God."Â Wherefore the apostle expressly
says, "For he beareth not the sword in vain:Â for he is the minister
of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth
evil."[2038]2038Â But even if this had been discovered after the
truth had been searched out with all diligence, that not even after
public trial ought schismatics to undergo any punishment, or be driven
from the positions which they have occupied, for their treachery and
deceit; and if you should say that you are vexed that the followers of
Maximianus should have suffered such conduct at the hands of some of
you,âwhy does not the wheat of the Lord cry out with the more freedom
from the whole field of the Lord, that is, from the world, and say,
Neither are we at all affected by what the tares and the chaff amongst
us do, seeing that it is contrary to our wish? If you confess that
it is sufficient to clear you of responsibility, that all the evil
that is done by men of your party is done in opposition to your
wishes, why then have you separated yourselves? For if your reason
for not separating from the unrighteous among the party of Donatus is
that each man bears his own burden, why have you separated yourselves
from those throughout the world whom you think, or profess to think,
to be unrighteous? Is it that you might all share equally in bearing
the burden of schism?
46. And when we ask of you which of your party you can prove to have
been slain by us, I indeed can remember no law issued by the emperors
to the effect that you should be put to death. Those indeed whose
deaths you quote most frequently to bring us into odium, Marculus and
Donatus, present a great question,âwhether they threw themselves down
a precipice, as your teaching does not hesitate to encourage by
examples of daily occurrence, or whether they were thrown down by the
true command of some authority. For if it is a thing incredible that
the leaders of the Circumcelliones should have wrought upon themselves
a death in accordance with their custom, how much more incredible it
is that the Roman authorities should have been able to condemn them to
a punishment at variance with custom! Accordingly, in considering
this matter, which you think excessive in its hatefulness, supposing
what you say is true, what is there in it which bears upon the Lordâs
wheat? Let the chaff which flew away outside accuse the chaff which
yet remained within for it is not possible that it should all be
separated till the winnowing at the last day. But if what you say is
false, what wonder is it if, when the chaff is carried away as it were
by a light blast of dissension, it even attacks the wheat of the Lord
with false accusations? Wherefore, on the consideration of all such
odious accusations, the wheat of Christ, which is ordered to grow
together with the tares throughout the field, that is, throughout the
whole world, makes this answer to you with a free and fearless
voice:Â If you cannot prove what you say, it has no application to
any one; and if you prove it, it yet does not apply to me. The
result of which is, that whosoever has separated himself from the
unity of the wheat on account of the offenses chargeable against the
tares, or against the chaff, is unable to defend himself from the
charge of murder which is involved in the mere offense of dissension
and schism, as the Scripture says, "Whoso hateth his brother is a
murderer."[2039]2039
Chapter 21.â47. Petilianus said: "Accordingly, as we have said,
the Lord Christ cried, âSaul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is
hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he said, Who art Thou,
Lord? And the Lord said, I am Christ of Nazareth, whom thou
persecutest. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt
Thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into
the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.â And so
presently it goes on, âBut Saul arose from the earth; and when his
eyes were opened, he saw no man.â See here how blindness, coming in
punishment of madness, obscures the light in the eyes of the
persecutor, not to be again expelled except by baptism! Let us see,
therefore, what he did in the city. âAnanias,â it is said, âentered
into the house to Saul, and putting his hands on him, said, Brother
Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou
camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be
filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes
as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and
was baptized.â[2040]2040Â Seeing therefore that Paul, being freed by
baptism from the offense of persecution, received again his eyesight
freed from guilt, why will not you, a persecutor and traditor, blinded
by false baptism be baptized by those whom you persecute?"
48. Augustin answered: You do not prove that I, whom you wish to
baptize afresh, am either a persecutor or a traditor. And if you
prove this charge against any one, yet the persecutor and traditor is
not to be baptized afresh, if he had been baptized already with the
baptism of Christ. For the reason why it was necessary that Paul
should be baptized was that he had never been washed in any baptism of
the kind. Therefore what you have chosen to insert about Paul has no
point of resemblance with the case which you are arguing with us.Â
But if you had not inserted this, you would have found no place for
your childish declamation, "See how blindness comes in punishment of
madness, not to be again expelled except by baptism!"Â For with how
much more force might one exclaim against you, See how blindness comes
in punishment of madness, which, finding its similitude in Simon, not
in Paul, is not expelled from you even when you have received
baptism? For if persecutors ought to be baptized by those whom they
persecute, then let Primianus be baptized by the followers of
Maximianus, whom he persecuted with the utmost eagerness.
Chapter 22.â49. Petilianus said: "It may be urged that Christ said
to His apostles, as you are constantly quoting against us, âHe that is
washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.âÂ
Now if you discuss those words in all their fullness, you are bound by
what immediately follows. For this is what He said, in His very
words:Â âHe that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is
clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. But this he said
on account of Judas, who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are
not all clean.â[2041]2041Â Whosoever, therefore, has incurred the
guilt of treason, has forfeited, like you, his baptism. Again, after
that the betrayer of Christ had himself been condemned, He thus more
fully confirmed His words to the eleven apostles:Â âNow are ye clean
through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in
you.â[2042]2042Â And again He said to these same eleven, âPeace I
leave with you, my peace I give unto you.â[2043]2043Â Seeing, then,
that these things were said to the eleven apostles, when the traitor,
as we have seen, had been condemned, you likewise, being traditors,
are similarly without both peace and baptism."
50. Augustin answered: If therefore every traditor has forfeited
his baptism, it will follow that every one who, having been baptized
by you, has afterwards become a traditor, ought to be baptized
afresh. And if you do not do this, you yourselves sufficiently prove
the falseness of the saying, "Whosoever therefore has incurred the
guilt of treason, has forfeited, like you, his baptism."Â For if he
has forfeited it, let him return and receive it again; but if he
returns and does not receive it, it is clear that he had not forfeited
it. Again, if the reason why it was said to the apostles, "Now are
ye clean," and "My peace I give unto you," was that the traitor had
already left the room, then was not that supper of so great a
sacrament clean and able to give peace, which He distributed to all
before his going out? And if you venture to say this with your eyes
closed against the truth, what can we do save exclaim the more, See
how blindness comes in punishment of the madness of those who wish to
be, as the apostle says, "teachers of the law, understanding neither
what they say, nor whereof they affirm?"[2044]2044Â And yet, unless
blindness came in the way of their pertinacity, it was not a very
difficult matter that you should understand and see that the Lord did
not say in the presence of Judas, Ye are not yet clean, but "Now are
ye clean."Â He added, however, "But not all," because there was one
there who was not clean; yet if he had been polluting the others by
his presence, it would not have been declared to them, "Now are ye
clean," but, as I said before, Ye are not yet clean. But, after
Judas had gone out, He said to them, "Now are ye clean," and did not
add the words, But not all, because he had now departed in whose
presence indeed, as had been said to them, they were already clean,
but not all, because there was one there unclean. Wherefore in these
words the Lord rather declared that in the one company of men
receiving the same sacraments, the uncleanness of some members cannot
hurt the clean. Certainly, if you think that there are among us men
like Judas, you might apply to us the words, "Ye are clean, but not
all."Â But this is not what you say; but you say that because of the
presence of some who are unclean, therefore we are all unclean. This
the Lord did not say to the disciples in the presence of Judas, and
therefore whoever says this has not learned from the good Master what
He says.
Chapter 23.â51. Petilianus said: "But if you say that we give
baptism twice over, truly it is rather you who do this, who slay men
who have been baptized; and this we do not say because you baptize
them, but because you cause each one of them, by the act of slaying
him, to be baptized in his own blood. For the baptism of water or of
the Spirit is as it were doubled when the blood of the martyr is wrung
from him. And so our Saviour also Himself, after being baptized in
the first instance by John, declared that He must be baptized again,
not this time with water nor with the Spirit, but with the baptism of
blood, the cross of suffering, as it is written, âTwo disciples, the
sons of Zebedee, came unto Him, saying, Lord, when thou comest into
thy kingdom grant that we may sit, one on Thy right hand, and the
other on Thy left hand. But Jesus said unto them, Ye ask a difficult
thing:Â can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with
the baptism that I am baptized with? They said unto Him, We are
able. And He said unto them, Ye can indeed drink of the cup that I
drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be
baptized,â[2045]2045 and so forth. If these are two baptisms, you
commend us by your malice, we must needs confess. For when you kill
our bodies, then we do celebrate a second baptism; but it is that we
are baptized with our baptism and with blood, like Christ. Blush,
blush, ye persecutors. Ye make martyrs like unto Christ, who are
sprinkled with the baptism of blood after the water of the genuine
baptism."
52. Augustin answered: In the first place, we reply without delay
that we do not kill you, but you kill yourselves by a true death, when
you cut yourselves off from the living root of unity. In the next
place, if all who are killed are baptized in their own blood, then all
robbers, all unrighteous, impious, accursed men, who are put to death
by the sentence of the law, are to be considered martyrs, because they
are baptized in their own blood. But if only those are baptized in
their own blood who are put to death for righteousnessâ sake, since
theirs is the kingdom of heaven,[2046]2046 you have already seen that
the first question is why you suffer, and only afterwards should we
ask what you suffer. Why therefore do you puff out your cheeks
before you have shown the righteousness of your deeds? Why, does
your tongue resound before your character is approved? If you have
made a schism, you are impious; if you are impious, you die as one
guilty of sacrilege, when you are punished for impiety; if you die as
one guilty of sacrilege, how are you baptized in your blood? Or do
you say, I have not made a schism? Let us then inquire into this.Â
Why do you make an outcry before you prove your case?
53. Or do you say, Even if I am guilty of sacrilege, I ought not to
be slain by you? It is one question as to the enormity of my action,
which you never prove with any truth, another as to the baptism of
your blood, from whence you derive your boast. For I never killed
you, nor do you prove that you are killed by any one. Nor even if
you were to prove it would it in any way affect me, whoever it was
that killed you, whether he did it justly in virtue of power lawfully
given by the Lord, or committed the crime of murder, like the chaff of
the Lordâs harvest, through some evil desire; just as you are in no
way concerned with him who in recent times, with an intolerable
tyranny, attended even by a company of soldiers, not because he feared
any one, but that he might be feared by all, oppressed widows,
destroyed pupils, betrayed the patrimonies of other men, annulled the
marriages of other men, contrived the sale of the property of the
innocent, divided the price of the property when sold with its
mourning owners. I should seem to be saying all this out of the
invention of my own head, if it were not sufficiently obvious of whom
I speak without the mention of his name.[2047]2047Â And if all this
is undoubtedly true, then just as you are not concerned with this, so
neither are we concerned with anything you say, even though it were
true. But if that colleague of yours, being really a just and
innocent man, is maligned by a lying tale, then should we also learn
in no way to give credit to reports, which have been spread abroad of
innocent men, as though they had delivered up the sacred books, or
murdered any of their fellow-men. To this we may add, that I refer
to a man who lived with you, whose birthday you were wont to celebrate
with such large assemblies, with whom you joined in the kiss of peace
in the sacraments, in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to whom in
turn you extended your hands to receive it from his ministering, whose
ears, when they were deaf amid the groanings of all Africa, you durst
not offend by free speech; for paying to whom, even indirectly, a most
witty compliment, by saying that in the Count[2048]2048 he had a god
for his companion, some one of your party was extolled to the skies.Â
But you reproach us with the deeds of men with whom we never lived,
whose faces we never saw, in whose lifetime we were either boys, or
perhaps as yet not even born. What is the meaning, then, of your
great unfairness and perversity, that you should wish to impose on us
the burdens of those whom we never knew, whilst you will not bear the
burdens of your friends? The divine Scriptures exclaim: "When thou
sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him."[2049]2049Â If he
whom you saw did not pollute you, why do you reproach me with one whom
I could not have seen? Or do you say, I did not consent with him,
because his deeds were displeasing to me? But, at any rate, you went
up to the altar of God with him. Come now, if you would defend
yourself, make a distinction between your two positions, and say that
it is one thing to consent together for sin, as the two elders
consented together when they laid a plot against the chastity of
Susannah, and another thing to receive the sacrament of the Lord in
company with a thief, as the apostles received even that first supper
in company with Judas. I am all in favor of your defense. But why
do you not consider how much more easily, in the course of your
defense, you have acquitted all the nations and boundaries of the
earth, throughout which the inheritance of Christ is dispersed? For
if it was possible for you to see a thief, and to share the sacraments
with the thief whom you saw, and yet not to share his sin, how much
less was it possible for the remotest nations of the earth to have
anything in common with the sins of African traditors and persecutors,
supposing your charges and assertions to be true, even though they
held the sacraments in common with them? Or do you say, I saw in him
the bishop, I did not see in him the thief? Say what you will. I
allow this defense also, and in this the world is acquitted of the
charges which you brought against it. For if it was permitted you to
ignore the character of a man whom you knew, why is the whole world
not allowed to be ignorant of those it never knew, unless, indeed, the
Donatists are allowed to be ignorant of what they do not wish to know,
while the nations of the earth may not be ignorant of what they cannot
know?
54. Or do you say, Theft is one thing, delivery of the sacred books
or persecution is another? I grant there is a difference, nor is it
worth while now to show wherein that difference consists. But listen
to the summary of the argument. If he could not make you a thief,
because his thieving was displeasing in your sight, who can make men
traditors or murderers to whom such treachery or murder is
abhorrent? First, then, confess that you share in all the evil of
Optatus, whom you knew, and even so reproach me with any evil which
was found in those whom I knew not. And do not say to me, But my
charges are serious, yours but trifling. You must first acknowledge
them, however trifling they may be in your case, not before I on my
side confess the charges against me, but before I can allow you to say
these serious things about me at all. Did Optatus, whom you knew
make you a thief by being your colleague, or not? Answer me one or
the other. If you say he did not, I ask why he did not,âbecause he
was not a thief himself? or because you do not know it? or because you
disapprove of it? If you say, Because he himself was not a thief,
much more ought we not to believe that those with whom you reproach us
were of such a character as you assert. For if we must not believe
of Optatus what both Christians and pagans and Jews, ay, and what both
our party and yours assert, how much less should we believe what you
assert of any one? But if you say, Because you do not know it, all
the nations of the earth answer you, Much more do we not know of all
that you reproach us with in these men. But if you say, Because you
disapproved of it, they answer you with the same voice, Although you
have never proved the truth of what you say, yet acts like these are
viewed by us with disapproval. But if you say, Lo, Optatus, whom I
knew, made me a thief because he was my colleague, and I was in the
habit of going to the altar with him when he committed those deeds;
but I do not greatly heed it, because the fault was trivial, but your
party made you a traditor and a murderer,âI answer that I do not allow
that I too am made a traditor and a murderer by the sins of other men,
just because you confess that you are made a thief by the sin of
another man; for it must be remembered that you are proved a thief,
not by our judgment, but by your own confession. For we say that
every man must bear his own burden, as the apostle is our
witness.[2050]2050Â But you, of your own accord, have taken the
burden of Optatus on your own shoulders, not because you committed the
theft, or consented to it, but because you declared your conviction
that what another did applied to you. For, as the apostle says, when
speaking of food, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that
there is nothing unclean of itself:Â but to him that esteemeth
anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;"[2051]2051 by the same
rule, it may be said that the sins of others cannot implicate those
who disapprove of them; but if any one thinks that they affect him,
then he is affected by them. Wherefore you do not convict us of
being traditors or murderers, even though you were to prove something
of the sort against those who share the sacraments with us; but the
guilt of theft is fastened on you, even if you disapprove of
everything that Optatus did, not in virtue of our accusation, but by
your own decision. And that you may not think this a trivial fault,
read what the apostle says, "Nor shall thieves inherit the kingdom of
God."[2052]2052Â But those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God
will certainly not be on His right hand among those whom it shall be
said, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world."Â If they are not there, where
will they be except on the left hand? Therefore among those to whom
it shall be said, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels."[2053]2053Â In vain,
therefore, do you indulge in your security, thinking it a trivial
fault which separates you from the kingdom of God, and sends you into
everlasting fire. How much better will you do to betake yourself to
true confusion, saying, Every one of us shall bear his own burden, and
the winnowing fan at the last day shall separate the chaff from the
wheat!
55. But it is evident that you are afraid of its being forthwith
said to you, "Why then, whilst you attempt to place on some menâs
backs the burdens of their neighbors, have you dared to separate
yourselves from the Lordâs corn, dispersed throughout the world,
before the winnowing at the last day?"Â Accordingly, you who
disapprove of the deeds of your party, whilst you are taking
precautions against being charged with the schism which you all have
made, are involving yourselves also in their sins which you did not
commit; and while the shrewd Petilianus is afraid of my being able to
say that am I not such as he thinks Cæcilianus was, he is obliged to
confess that he himself is such as he knows Optatus to have been. Or
are you not such as the common voice of Africa proclaims him to have
been? Then neither are we such as those with whom you reproach us
are either suspected to have been by your mistake, or calumniously
asserted to have been by your madness, or proved to have been by the
truth. Much less is the wheat of the Lord in all the nations of the
earth of such a character, seeing that it never heard the names of
those of whom you speak. There is therefore no reason why you should
perish in such sin of separation and such sacrilege of schism. And
yet, if you are made to suffer for this great impiety by the judgment
of God, you say that you are even baptized in your blood; so that you
are not content with feeling no remorse for your division, but you
must even glory in your punishment.
Chapter 24.â56. Petilianus said: "But you will answer that you
abide by the same declaration, âHe that is once washed needeth not
save to wash his feet.â[2054]2054Â Now the âonceâ is once that has
authority, once that is confirmed by the truth."
57. Augustin answered: Baptism in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Ghost[2055]2055 has Christ for its authority,
not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man.
Chapter 25.â58. Â Petilianus said:Â "For when you in your guilt
perform what is false, I do not celebrate baptism twice, which you
have never celebrated once."
59. Augustin answered: In the first place, you do not convict us
of guilt. And if a guilty man baptizes with a false baptism, then
none of those have true baptism who are baptized by men in your party,
that are, I do not say openly, but even secretly guilty. For if he
who gives baptism gives something that is Godâs, if he is already
guilty in the sight of God, how can he be giving something that is
Godâs if a guilty man cannot give true baptism? But in reality you
wait till he is guilty in your sight as well, as though what he
proposes to confer were something that belonged to you.
Chapter 26.â60. Petilianus said: "For if you mix what is false
with what is true, falsehood often imitates the truth by treading in
its steps. Just in the same way a picture imitates the true man of
nature, depicting with its colors the false resemblance of truth.Â
And in the same way, too, the brilliancy of a mirror catches the
countenance, so as to represent the eyes of him who gazes on it. In
this way it presents to each comer his own countenance, so that the
very features of the comer meet themselves in turn; and of such virtue
is the falsehood of a clear mirror, that the very eyes which see
themselves recognize themselves as though in some one else. And even
when a shadow stands before it, it doubles the reflection, dividing
its unity in great part through a falsehood. Must we then hold that
anything is true, because a lying representation is given of it? But
it is one thing to paint a man, another to give birth to one. For
does any one represent fictitious children to a man who wishes for an
heir? or would any one look for true heirs in the falsehood of a
picture? Truly it is a proof of madness to fall in love with a
picture, letting go oneâs hold of what is true."
61. Augustin answered: Are you then really not ashamed to call the
baptism of Christ a lie, even when it is found in the most false of
men? Far be it from any one to suppose that the wheat of the Lord,
which has been commanded to grow among the tares throughout the whole
field, that is, throughout the whole of this world, until the harvest,
that is, until the end of the world,[2056]2056 can have perished in
consequence of your evil words. Nay, even among the very tares
themselves, which are commanded not to be gathered, but to be
tolerated even to the end, and among the very chaff, which shall only
be separated from the wheat by the winnowing at the last
day,[2057]2057 does any one dare to say that any baptism is false
which is given and received in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost? Would you say that those whom you depose from
their office, whether as your colleagues or your fellow-priests, on
the testimony of women whom they have seduced (since examples of this
kind are not wanting anywhere), were false or true before their crime
was proved against them? You will certainly answer, False. Why
then were they able both to have and to give true baptism? Why did
not their falseness as men corrupt in them the truth of God? Is it
not most truly written, "For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee
deceit?"[2058]2058Â Seeing then that the Holy Spirit fled from them,
how came it that the truth of baptism was in them, except because what
the Holy Spirit fled from was the falseness of man, not the truth of
the sacrament? Further, if even the deceitful have the true baptism,
how do they have it who possess it in truthfulness? Whence you ought
to observe that it is rather your conversation which is colored with
childish pigments; and accordingly, he who neglects the living Word to
take pleasure in such coloring is himself loving the picture in the
place of the reality.
Chapter 27.â62. Petilianus said: "It will be urged against us,
that the Apostle Paul said, âOne Lord, one faith, one
baptism.â[2059]2059Â We profess that there is only one; for it is
certain that those who declare that there are two are mad."
63. Augustin replied: These words of yours are arguments against
yourselves; but in your madness you are not aware of it. For the men
who say there are two baptisms are those who declare their opinion
that the just and the unjust have different baptisms; whereas it
belongs neither to one party nor the other, but in both of them is
one, being Christâs, although they themselves are not one:Â and yet
the baptism, which is one, the just have to salvation, the unjust to
their destruction.
Chapter 28.â64. Petilianus said: "But yet, if I may be allowed the
comparison, it is certain that the sun appears double to the insane,
although it only be that a dark blue cloud often meets it, and its
discolored surface, being struck by the brightness, while the rays of
the sun are reflected from it, seems to send forth as it were rays of
its own. So in the same way in the faith of baptism, it is one thing
to seek for reflections, another to recognize the truth."
65. Augustin answered: What are you saying, if I may ask? When a
dark blue cloud reflects the rays of the sun with which it is struck,
is it only to the insane, and not to all who look on it, that there
appear to be two suns? But when it appears so to the insane as such,
it appears to them alone. But if I may say so without being
troublesome, I would have you take care lest saying such things and
talking in such a way should be itself a sign of madness. I suppose,
however, that what you meant to say was this,âthat the just had the
truth of baptism, the unjust only its reflection. And if this be so,
I venture to say that the reflection was found in that man of our
party,[2060]2060 to whom not God, but a certain Count,[2061]2061 was
God; but that the truth was either in you or in him who uttered the
witty saying against Optatus, when he said that "in the Count he had a
god for his companion."[2062]2062Â And distinguish between those who
were baptized by either of these, and in the one party approve the
true baptism, in the others exclude the reflection, and introduce the
truth.
Chapter 29.â66. Petilianus said: "But to pass rapidly through
these minor points:Â can he be said to lay down the law who is not a
magistrate of the court? or is what he lays down to be considered law,
when in the character of a private person he disturbs public rights?Â
Is it not rather the case that he not only involves himself in guilt,
but is held to be a forger, and that which he composes a forgery?"
67. Augustin answered: What if your private person, whom you deem
a forger, were to set forth to any one the law of the emperor? Would
not the man, when he had compared it with the law of those who have
the genuine law, and found it to be identically the same, lay aside
all care about the source from which he had obtained it, and consider
only what he had obtained? For what the forger gives is false when
he gives it of his own falseness; but when something true is given by
any person, even though he be a forger, yet, although the giver be not
truthful, the gift is notwithstanding true.
Chapter 30.â68. Petilianus said: "Or if any one chance to
recollect the chants of a priest, is he therefore to be deemed a
priest, because with sacrilegious mouth he publishes the strain of a
priest?"
69. Augustin answered: In this question you are speaking just as
though we were at present inquiring what constituted a true priest,
not what constituted true baptism. For that a man should be a true
priest, it is requisite that he should be clothed not with the
sacrament alone, but with righteousness, as it is written, "Let thy
priests be clothed with righteousness."[2063]2063Â But if a man be a
priest in virtue of the sacrament alone, as was the high priest
Caiaphas, the persecutor of the one most true Priest, then even though
he himself be not truthful, yet what he gives is true, if he gives not
what is his own but what is Godâs; as it is said of Caiaphas himself,
"This spake he not of himself:Â but being high priest that year, he
prophesied."[2064]2064Â And yet, to use the same simile which you
employed yourself:Â if you were to hear even from any one that was
profane the prayer of the priest couched in the words suitable to the
mysteries of the gospel, can you possibly say to him, Your prayer is
not true, though he himself may be not only no true priest, but not a
priest at all? seeing that the Apostle Paul said that certain
testimony of I know not what Cretan prophet was true, though he was
not reckoned among the prophets of God for he says, "One of
themselves, even a prophet of their own, said the Cretians are always
liars, evil beasts, slow bellies:Â this witness is true."[2065]2065Â
If, therefore, the apostle even himself bore witness to the testimony
of some obscure prophet of a foreign race, because he found it to be
true, why do not we, when we find in any one what belongs to Christ,
and is true even though the man with whom it may be found be deceitful
and perverse, why do not we in such a case make a distinction between
the fault which is found in the man, and the truth which he has not of
his own but of Godâs? and why do we not say, This sacrament is true,
as Paul said, "This witness is true"? Does it at all follow that we
say, The man himself also is truthful, because we say, This sacrament
is true? Just as I would ask whether the apostle counted that
prophet among the prophets of the Lord, because he confirmed the truth
of what he found to be true in him. Likewise the same apostle, when
he was at Athens, perceived a certain altar among the altars of the
false gods, on which was this inscription, "To the unknown God."Â And
this testimony he made use of to build them up in Christ, to the
extent of quoting the inscription in his sermon, and adding, "Whom,
therefore, ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you."Â Did he,
because he found that altar among the altars of idols, or set up by
sacrilegious hands, therefore condemn or reject what he found in it
that was true? or did he, because of the truth which he found upon it,
therefore persuade them that they ought also to follow the
sacrilegious practices of the pagans? Surely he did neither of the
two; but presently, when, as he judged fitting, he wished to introduce
to their knowledge the Lord Himself unknown to them, but known to him,
he says among other things, that "He is not far from every one of
us:Â for in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said."[2066]2066Â Can it be said that
here also, because he found among the sacrilegious, the evidence of
truth, he either approved their wickedness because of the evidence, or
condemned the evidence because of their wickedness? But it is
unavoidable that you should be always in the wrong, so long as you do
despite to the sacraments of God because of the faults of men, or
think that we take upon ourselves the sacrilege even of your schism,
for the sake of the sacraments of God, to which we are unwilling to do
despite in you.
Chapter 31.â70. Petilianus said: "For there is no power but of
God,"[2067]2067 none in any man of power; as the Lord Jesus Christ
answered Pontius Pilate, âThou couldest have no power at all against
me, except it were given thee from above.â[2068]2068Â And again, in
the words of John, âA man can receive nothing, except it be given him
from heaven.â[2069]2069Â Tell us, therefore, traditor, when you
received the power of imitating the mysteries."
71. Augustin answered: Tell us rather thyself when the power of
baptizing was lost by the whole world through which is dispersed the
inheritance of Christ, and by all that multitude of nations in which
the apostles founded the Churches. You will never be able to tell
us,ânot only because you have calumniated them, and do not prove them
to be traditors, but because, even if you did prove this, yet no guilt
on the part of any evil-doers, whether they be unsuspected, or
deceitful, or be tolerated as the tares or as the chaff, can possibly
overthrow the promises, so that all the nations of the earth should
not be blessed in the seed of Abraham; in which promises you deprive
them of their share when you will not have the communion of unity with
all nations of the earth.
Chapter 32.â72. Petilianus said: "For although there is only one
baptism, yet it is consecrated in three several grades. John gave
water without the name of the Trinity, as he declared himself, saying,
âI indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:Â but He that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.â[2070]2070Â
Christ gave the Holy Spirit, as it is written, âHe breathed on them,
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,â[2071]2071Â And the
Comforter Himself came on the apostles as a fire burning with rustling
flames. O true divinity, which seemed to blaze, not to burn! as it
is written, âAnd suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where the apostles
were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as
of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with
the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance.â[2072]2072Â But you, O persecutor, have not even
the water of repentance, seeing that you hold the power not of the
murdered John, but of the murderer Herod. You therefore, O traditor,
have not the Holy Spirit of Christ; for Christ did not betray others
to death, but was Himself betrayed. For you, therefore, the fire in
the spirit in Hades is full of life,âthat fire which, surging with
hungry tongues of flame, will be able to burn your limbs to all
eternity without consuming them, as it is written of the punishment of
the guilty in hell, âNeither shall their fire be quenched.â"[2073]2073
73. Augustin answered: You are the calumnious slanderer, not the
truthful arguer. Will you not at length cease to make assertions of
a kind which, if you do not prove them, can apply to nobody; and even
if you prove them, certainly cannot apply to the unity of the whole
world, which is in the saints as in the wheat of God? If we too were
pleased to return calumnies for calumnies, we too might possibly be
able to give vent to eloquent slanderers. We too might use the
expression, "With rustling flames;" but to me an expression never
sounds in any way eloquent which is inappropriate in its use. We too
might say, "Surging with hungry tongues of flame;" but we do not wish
that the tongues of flame in our writings, when they are read by any
one in his senses, should be judged hungry for want of the sap of
weightiness, or that the reader himself, while he finds in them no
food of useful sentiments, should be left to suffer from the hunger of
excessive emptiness. See, I declare that your Circumcelliones are
burning, not with rustling but with headlong flames. If you answer,
What is that to us? why do not you, when you reproach with any one
whom you will, not listen in turn to our answer, We too know nothing
of it? If you answer, You do not prove the fact, why may not the
whole world answer you in turn, Neither do you prove it? Let us
agree, therefore, if you please, that you should not charge us with
the guilt of the wicked men whom you consider to belong to us, and
that we should abstain from similar charges against you. So you will
see, by this just agreement, confirmed and ratified, that you have no
charge which you can bring against the seed of Abraham, as found in
all the nations of the earth. But I find without difficulty a
grievous charge to bring against you:Â Why have you impiously
separated yourselves from the seed of Abraham, which is in all nations
of the earth? Against this charge you certainly have no means
whereby you may defend yourselves. For we each of us clear ourselves
of the sins of other men; but this, that you do not hold communion
with all the nations of the earth, which are blessed in the seed of
Abraham, is a very grievous crime, of which not some but all of you
are guilty.
74. And yet you know, as you prove by your quotation, that the Holy
Spirit descended in such wise, that those who were then filled with it
spake with divers tongues:Â what was the meaning of that sign and
prodigy? Why then is the Holy Spirit given now in such wise, that no
one to whom it is given speaks with divers tongues, except because
that miracle then prefigured that all nations of the earth should
believe, and that thus the gospel should be found to be in every
tongue? Just as it was foretold in the psalm so long before:Â
"There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard."Â
This was said with reference to those men who were destined, after
receiving the Holy Spirit, to speak with every kind of tongue. But
because this passage itself signified that the gospel should be found
hereafter in all nations and languages, and that the body of Christ
should sound forth throughout all the world in every tongue, therefore
he goes on to say, "Their sound is gone out throughout all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world."Â Hence it is that the true
Church is hidden from no one. And hence comes that which the Lord
Himself says in the gospel, "A city that is set on a hill cannot be
hid."[2074]2074Â And therefore David continues in the same psalm, "In
the sun hath He placed His tabernacle," that is, in the open light of
day; as we read in the Book of Kings, "For thou didst it secretly; but
I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the
sun."[2075]2075Â And He Himself is "as a bridegroom coming out of His
chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run His race. His going forth
is from the end of heaven:"Â here you have the coming of the Lord in
the flesh. "And His circuit unto the ends of it:" here you have
His resurrection and ascension. "And there is nothing hid from the
heat thereof:"[2076]2076Â here you have the coming of the Holy
Spirit, whom He sent in tongues of fire, that He might make manifest
the glowing heat of charity, which he certainly cannot have who does
not keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace with the Church,
which is throughout all languages.
75. Next, however, with regard to your statement that there is
indeed one baptism,[2077]2077 but that it is consecrated in three
several grades, and to your having distributed the three forms of it
to three persons after such fashion, that you ascribe the water to
John, the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus Christ, and, in the third
place, the fire to the Comforter sent down from above,âconsider for a
moment in how great an error you are involved. For you were brought
to entertain such an opinion simply from the words of John:Â "I
indeed baptize you with water:Â but He that cometh after me is
mightier than I:Â He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with
fire."[2078]2078Â Nor were you willing to take into consideration
that the three things are not attributed to three persons taken one by
one,âwater to John, the Holy Spirit to Christ, fire to the
Comforter,âbut that the three should rather be referred to two
personsâone of them to John, the other two to our Lord. For neither
is it said, I indeed baptize you with water:Â but He that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:Â He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost:Â and the Comforter, who is to
come after Him, He shall baptize you with fire; but "I indeed," He
says, "with water:Â but He that cometh after me with the Holy Ghost,
and with fire."Â One he attributes to himself, two to Him that cometh
after him. You see, therefore, how you have been deceived in the
number. Listen further. You said that there was one baptism
consecrated in three stagesâwater, the Holy Spirit, and fire; and you
assigned three persons to the three stages severallyâJohn to the
water, Christ to the Spirit, the Comforter to the fire. If,
therefore, the water of John bears reference to the same baptism which
is commended as being one, it was not right that those should have
been baptized a second time by the command of the Apostle Paul whom he
found to have been baptized by John. For they already had water,
belonging, as you say, to the same baptism; so that it remained that
they should receive the Holy Spirit and fire, because these were
wanting in the baptism of John, that their baptism might be completed,
being consecrated, as you assert, in three stages. But since they
were ordered to be baptized by the authority of an apostle, it is
sufficiently made manifest that that water with which John baptized
had no reference to the baptism of Christ, but belonged to another
dispensation suited to the exigencies of the times.
76. Lastly, when you wished to prove that the Holy Spirit was given
by Christ, and had brought forward as a proof from the gospel, that
Jesus on rising from the dead breathed into the face of His disciples,
saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost;"[2079]2079 and when you wished to
prove that that last fire which was named in connection with baptism
was found in the tongues of fire which were displayed on the coming of
the Holy Ghost, how came it into your head to say, "And the Comforter
Himself came upon the apostles as a fire burning with rustling
flames," as though there were one Holy Spirit whom He gave by
breathing on the face of His disciples, and another who, after His
ascension, came on the apostles? Are we to suppose, therefore, that
there are two Holy Spirits? Who will be found so utterly mad as to
assert this? Christ therefore Himself gave the same Holy Spirit,
whether by breathing on the face of the disciples, or by sending Him
down from heaven on the day of Pentecost, with undoubted commendation
of His holy sacrament. Accordingly it was not that Christ gave the
Holy Spirit, and the Comforter gave the fire, that the saying might be
fulfilled, "With the Holy Spirit, and with fire;" but the same Christ
Himself gave the Holy Spirit in both cases, making it manifest while
He was yet on earth by His breathing, and when He was ascended into
heaven by the tongues of flame. For that you may know that the words
of John, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," were not
fulfilled at the time when He breathed on His disciples face, so that
they should require to be baptized, when the Comforter should come,
not with the Spirit any longer, but with fire, I would have you
remember the most outspoken words of Scripture, and see what the Lord
Himself said to them when He ascended into heaven:Â "John truly
baptized you with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,
whom ye shall receive not many days hence at Pentecost."[2080]2080Â
What could be plainer than this testimony? But according to your
interpretation, what He should have said was this:Â John verily
baptized you with water; but ye were baptized with the Holy Spirit
when I breathed on your faces; and next in due order shall ye be
baptized with fire, which ye shall receive not many days hence;âin
order that by this means the three stages should be completed, in
which you say that the one baptism was consecrated. And so it proves
to be the case that you are still ignorant of the meaning of the
words, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;" and
you are rash enough to be williing to teach what you do not know
yourselves.
Chapter 33.â77. Petilianus said: "But that I may thoroughly
investigate the baptism in the name of the Trinity, the Lord Christ
said to His apostles:Â âGo ye, and baptize the nations, in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I command you.â[2081]2081Â Whom do you
teach, traditor? Him whom you condemn? Whom do you teach,
traditor? Him whom you slay? Once more, whom do you teach? Him
whom you have made a murderer? How then do you baptize in the name
of the Trinity? You cannot call God your Father. For when the Lord
Christ said, âBlessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
the children of God,â[2082]2082 you who have not peace of soul cannot
have God for your Father. Or how, again, can you baptize in the name
of the Son, who betray that Son Himself, who do not imitate the Son of
God in any of His sufferings or crosses? Or how, again, can you
baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost, when the Holy Ghost came only
on those apostles who were not guilty of treason? Seeing, therefore,
that God is not your Father, neither are you truly born again with the
water of baptism. No one of you is born perfectly. You in your
impiety have neither father nor mother. Seeing, then, that you are
of such a kind, ought I not to baptize you, even though you wash
yourselves a thousand times, after the similitude of the Jews, who as
it were baptize the flesh?"
78. Augustin answered: certainly you had proposed thoroughly to
investigate the baptism in the name of the Trinity, and you had set us
to listen with much attention; but following, as it would seem, what
is the easiest course to you, how soon have you returned to your
customary abuse! This you carry out with genuine fluency. For you
set before yourself what victims you please, against whom to inveigh
with whatsoever bitterness you please:Â in the midst of which last
latitude of discourse you are driven into the greatest straits if any
one does but use the little word, Prove it. For this is what is said
to you by the seed of Abraham; and since in him all nations of the
earth are blessed, they care but little when they are cursed by you.Â
But yet, since you are treating of baptism, which you consider to be
true when it is found in a just man, but false when it is found in the
unjust, see how I too, if I were to investigate baptism in the name of
the Trinity, according to your rule, might say, with great fullness,
as it seems to me, that he has not God for his father who in a Count
has God for his companion,[2083]2083 nor believes that any is his
Christ, save him for whose sake he has endured suffering; and that he
has not the Holy Ghost who burned the wretched Africa in so very
different a fashion with tongues of fire. How then can they have
baptism, or how can they administer it in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Surely you must now perceive that
baptism can exist in an unrighteous man, and be administered by an
unrighteous man, and that no unrighteous baptism, but such as is just
and true,ânot because it belongs to the unrighteous man, but because
it is of God. And herein I am uttering no calumny against you, as
you never cease to do, on some pretense or other, against the whole
world; and, what is even more intolerable, you do not even bring any
proof about the very points on which you found your calumnies. But I
know not how this can possibly be endured, because you not only bring
calumnies against holy men about unrighteous men, but you even bring a
charge against the holy baptism itself, which must needs be holy in
any man, however unrighteous he may be, from a comparison with the
infection arising from the sins of wicked men, so that you say that
baptism partakes of the character of him by whom it is possessed, or
administered, or received. Furthermore, if a man partakes of the
character of him in whose company he approaches sacred mysteries, and
if the sacraments themselves partake of the character of the men in
whom they are, holy men may well be satisfied to find consolation in
the thought that they only fare like holy baptism itself in hearing
false accusations from your lips. But it would be well for you to
see how you are condemned out of your own mouths, if both the sober
among you are counted as drunken from the infection of the drunken in
your ranks, and the merciful among you become robbers from the
infection of the robbers, and whatever evil is found among you in the
persons of wicked men is perforce shared by those who are not wicked;
and if baptism itself is unclean in all of you who are unclean, and if
it is of different kinds according to the varying character of
uncleanness itself, as it must be if it is perforce of the same
character as the man by whom it is possessed or administered. These
suppositions most undoubtedly are false, and accordingly they in no
wise injure us, when you bring them forward against us without looking
back upon yourselves. But they do injure you, because, when you
bring them forward falsely, they do not fall on us; but since you
imagine them to be true, they recoil upon yourselves.
Chapter 34.â79. Petilianus said: "For if the apostles were allowed
to baptize those whom John had washed with the baptism of repentance,
shall it not likewise be allowed to me to baptize men guilty of
sacrilege like yourselves?"
80. Augustin answered: Where then is what you said above, that
there was not one baptism of John and another of Christ, but that
there was one baptism, consecrated in three stages, of which three
stages John gave the water, Christ the Spirit, and the Comforter the
fire? Why then did the apostles repeat the water in the case of
those to whom John had already administered water belonging to the one
baptism which is consecrated in three stages? Surely you must see
how necessary it is that every one should understand the meaning of
what he is discussing.
Chapter 35.â81. Petilianus said: "Nor indeed will it be possible
that the Holy Spirit should be implanted in the heart of any one by
the laying on of the hands of the priest, unless the water of a pure
conscience has gone before to give him birth."
82. Augustin answered: In these few words of yours two errors are
involved; and one of them, indeed, has no great bearing on the
question which is being discussed between us, but yet it helps to
convict you of want of skill. For the Holy Spirit came upon a
hundred and twenty men, without the laying on of any personâs hands,
and again upon Cornelius the centurion and those who were with him,
even before they were baptized.[2084]2084Â But the second error in
these words of yours entirely overthrows your whole case. For you
say that the water of a pure conscience must necessarily precede to
give new birth, before the Holy Spirit can follow on it.Â
Accordingly, either all the water consecrated in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is water of a pure
conscience, not for the merits of those by whom it is administered, or
by whom it is received, but in virtue of the stainless merits of Him
who instituted this baptism; or else if only a pure conscience on the
part both of the ministrant and the recipient can produce the water of
a pure conscience, what do you make of those whom you find to have
been baptized by men who bore a conscience stained with as yet
undiscovered guilt, especially if there exist among the said baptized
persons any one that should confess that he at the time when he was
baptized had a bad conscience, in that he might possbily have desired
to use that opportunity for the accomplishment of some sinful act?Â
When, therefore, it shall be made clear to you that neither the man
who administered baptism, nor the man who received it, had a pure
conscience, will you give your judgment that he ought to be baptized
afresh? You will assuredly neither say nor do anything of the
sort. The purity therefore of baptism is entirely unconnected with
the purity or impurity of the conscience either of the giver or the
recipient. Will you therefore dare to say that the deceiver, or the
robber, or the oppressor of the fatherless and widows, or the sunderer
of marriages, or the betrayer, the seller, the divider of the
patrimony of other men,[2085]2085 was a man of pure conscience? Or
will you further dare to say that those were men of pure conscience,
whom it is hard to imagine wanting in such times, men who made
interest with the man I have described, that they might be baptized,
not for the sake of Christ, nor for the sake of eternal life, but to
conciliate earthly friendships, and to satisfy earthly desires?Â
Further, if you do not venture to say that these were men of pure
conscience, then if you find any of their number who have been
baptized, give to them the water of a pure conscience, which they as
yet have not received; and if you will not do this, then leave off
casting in our teeth a matter which you do not understand, lest you
should be forced to answer in reply to us about a matter which you
know full well.
Chapter 36.â83. Petilianus said: "Which Holy Spirit certainly
cannot come on you, who have not been washed even with the baptism of
repentance; but the water of the traditor, which most truly needs to
be repented of, does but work pollution."
84. Augustin answered: As a matter of fact, not only do you not
prove us to be traditors, but neither did your fathers prove that our
fathers were guilty of that sin; though, even if that had been proved,
the consequence would have been that they would not be our fathers,
according to your earlier assertion, seeing that we had not followed
their deeds:Â yet neither should we on their account be severed from
the companionship of unity, and from the seed of Abraham, in which all
nations of the earth are blessed.[2086]2086Â However, if the water of
Christ be one thing, and the water of the traditor another, because
Christ was not a traditor, why should not the water of Christ be one
thing, and the water of a robber another, since certainly Christ was
not a robber? Do you therefore baptize again after baptism by your
robber, and I will baptize again after the traditor, who is neither
mine nor yours; or, if one must believe the documents which are
produced, who is both mine and yours; or, if we are to believe the
communion of the whole world rather than the party of Donatus, who is
not mine, but yours. But, by a better and a sounder judgment,
because it is according to the words of the apostle, every one of us
shall bear his own burden;[2087]2087 nor is either that robber yours,
if you are not yourselves robbers; nor does any traditor belong to any
one either of us or you, who is not himself a traditor. And yet we
are Catholics, who, following the spirit of that judgment, do not
desert the unity of the Church; but you are heretics, who, on account
of charges, whether true or false, which you have brought against
certain men, are unwilling to maintain Christian charity with the seed
of Abraham.
Chapter 37.â85. Petilianus said: "But that the truth of this may
be made manifest from the apostles, we are taught by their actions, as
it is written:Â âIt came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth,
Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and
finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the
Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so
much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto
them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto Johnâs
baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him
which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they
heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them;
and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were
about twelve.â[2088]2088Â If, therefore, they were baptized that they
might receive the Holy Ghost, why do not you, if you wish to receive
the Holy Ghost, take measures to obtain a true renewing, after your
falsehoods? And if we do ill in urging this, why do you seek after
us? or at any rate, if it is an offense, condemn Paul in the first
instance; the Paul who certainly washed off what had already existed,
whereas we in you give baptism which as yet does not exist. For you
do not, as we have often said before, wash with a true baptism; but
you bring on men an ill repute by your empty name of a false baptism."
86. Augustin answered: "We bring no accusation against Paul, who
gave to men the baptism of Christ because they had not the baptism of
Christ, but the baptism of John, according to their own reply; for,
being asked, Unto what were ye baptized? they answered, Unto Johnâs
baptism; which has nothing to do with the baptism of Christ, and is
neither a part of it nor a step towards it. Otherwise, either at
that time the water of the baptism of Christ was renewed a second
time, or if the baptism of Christ was then made perfect by the two
waters, the baptism is less perfect which is given now, because it is
not given with the water which was given at the hands of John. But
either one of these opinions it is impious and sacrilegious to
entertain. Therefore Paul gave the baptism of Christ to those who
had not the baptism of Christ, but only the baptism of John.
87. But why the baptism of John, which is not necessary now, was
necessary at that time, I have explained elsewhere; and the question
has no bearing on the point at issue between us at the present time,
except so far as that it may appear that the baptism of John was one
thing, the baptism of Christ another,âjust as that baptism was a
different thing with which the apostle says that our fathers were
baptized in the cloud and in the sea, when they passed through the Red
Sea under the guidance of Moses.[2089]2089Â For the law and the
prophets up to the time of John the Baptist had sacraments which
foreshadowed things to come; but the sacraments of our time bear
testimony that that has come already which the former sacraments
foretold should come. John therefore was a foreteller of Christ
nearer to Him in time than all who went before him. And because all
the righteous men and prophets of former times desired to see the
fulfillment of what, through the revelation of the Spirit, they
foresaw would come to pass,âwhence also the Lord Himself says, "That
many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which
ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye
hear, and have not heard them,"[2090]2090âtherefore it was said of
John that he was more than a prophet, and that among all that were
born of women there was none greater than he;[2091]2091 because to the
righteous men who went before him it was only granted to foretell the
coming of Christ, but to John it was given both to foretell Him in His
absence and to behold His presence, so that it should be found that to
him was made manifest what the others had desired. And therefore the
sacrament of his baptism is still connected with the foretelling of
Christâs coming, though as of something very soon to be fulfilled,
seeing that up to his time there were still foretellings of the first
coming of our Lord, of which coming we have now announcements, but no
longer predictions. But the Lord, teaching the way of humility,
condescended to make use of the sacraments which He found here in
reference to the foretelling of His coming, not in order to assist the
operation of His cleansing, but as an example for our piety, that so
He might show to us with what reverence we ought to receive those
sacraments which bear witness that He is already come, when He did not
disdain to make use of those which foreshadowed His coming in the
future. And John, therefore, though the nearest to Christ in point
of time, and within one year of the same age with Him, yet, while he
was baptizing, went before the way of Christ who was still to come;
for which reason it was said of him, "Behold, I send my messenger
before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way before Thee."[2092]2092Â
And he himself preached, saying, "There cometh one mightier than I
after me."[2093]2093Â In like manner, therefore, the circumcision on
the eighth day, which was given to the patriarchs, foretold our
justification, to the putting away of carnal lusts through the
resurrection of our Lord, which took place after the seventh day,
which is the Sabbath-day, on the eighth, that is, the Lordâs day,
which fell on the third day after His burial; yet the infant Christ
received the same circumcision of the flesh, with its prophetic
signification. And as the Passover, which was celebrated by the Jews
with the slaying of a lamb, prefigured the passion of our Lord and His
departure from this world to the Father, yet the same Lord celebrated
the same Passover with His disciples, when they reminded Him of it,
saying, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the
Passover?[2094]2094 so too He Himself also received the baptism of
John, which formed a part of the latest foretelling of His coming.Â
But as the Jewsâ circumcision of the flesh is one thing, and the
ceremony which we observe on the eighth day after persons are baptized
is another;[2095]2095 and the Passover which the Jews still celebrate
with the slaying of a lamb is one thing,[2096]2096 and that which we
receive in the body and blood of our Lord is another,âso the baptism
of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ is another. For by the
former series of rites the latter were foretold as destined to arrive;
by these latter the others are declared to be fulfilled. And even
though Christ received the others, yet are they not necessary for us,
who have received the Lord Himself who was foretold in them. But
when the coming of our Lord was as yet recent, it was necessary for
any one who had received the former that he should be imbued with the
latter also; but it was wholly needless that any one who had been so
imbued should be compelled to go back to the former rites.
88. Wherefore do not seek to raise confusion out of the baptism of
John, the source and intention of which was either such as I have here
set forth; or if any other better explanation of it can be given, this
much still is clear, that the baptism of John and the baptism of
Christ are two distinct and separate things, and that the former was
expressly called the baptism of John, as is clear both from the answer
of those men whose case you quoted, and from the words of our Lord
Himself, when he says, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from
heaven, or of men?"[2097]2097Â But the latter is never called the
baptism of Cæcilianus, or of Donatus, or of Augustin, or of
Petilianus, but the baptism of Christ. For if you think that we are
shameless, because we will not allow that any one should be baptized
after baptism from us, although we see that men were baptized again
who had received the baptism of John, who certainly is incomparably
greater than ourselves, will you maintain that John and Optatus were
of equal dignity? The thing appears ridiculous. And yet I fancy
that you do not hold them to be equals, but consider Optatus the
greater of the two. For the apostle baptized after baptism by
John: you venture to baptize no one after baptism by Optatus. Was
it because Optatus was in unity with you? I know not with what heart
a theory like this can be maintained, if the friend of the
Count,[2098]2098 who had in the Count a god for his companion, is said
to have been in unity, and the friend of the Bridegroom to have been
excluded from it. Â But if John was preeminently in unity, and far
more excellent and greater than all of us and all of you, and yet the
Apostle Paul baptized after him, why do you then not baptize after
Optatus? Unless indeed it be that your blindness brings you into
such a strait that you should say that Optatus had the power of giving
the Holy Spirit, and that John had not! And if you do not say this,
for fear of being ridiculed for your madness even by the insane
themselves, what answer will you be able to make when you are asked
why men should have required to be baptized after receiving baptism
from John, while no one needs to be baptized after receiving it from
Optatus, unless it be that the former were baptized with the baptism
of John, while, whenever any one is baptized with the baptism of
Christ, whether he be baptized by Paul or by Optatus, there is no
difference in the nature of his baptism, though there is so great a
difference between Paul and Optatus? Return then, O ye
transgressors, to a right mind,[2099]2099 and do not seek to weigh the
sacraments of God by considerations of the characters and deeds of
men. For the sacraments are holy through Him to whom they belong;
but when taken in hand worthily, they bring reward, when unworthily,
judgment. And although the men are not one who take in hand the
sacrament of God worthily or unworthily, yet that which is taken in
hand, whether worthily or unworthily, is the same; so that it does not
become better or worse in itself, but only turns to the life or death
of those who handle it in either case. And in respect of what you
said, that "in those whom Paul baptized after they had received the
baptism of John, he washed off what had already existed," you
certainly would not have said it had you taken a moment to consider
what you were saying. For if the baptism of John required washing
off, it must, beyond all doubt, have had some foulness in it. Why
then should I press you further? Recollect or read, and see whence
John received it, so shall you see against whom you have uttered that
blasphemy; and when you have discovered this, your heart will surely
be beaten, if a rein be not set on your tongue.
89. To come next to what you think you say against us with so much
point:Â "If we do ill in urging this, why do you seek after us?"
cannot you even yet call to mind that only those are sought after who
have perished? Or is the incapacity for seeing this an element in
your ruin? For the sheep might say to the shepherd with equal
absurdity, If I do wrong in straying from the flock, why do you search
after me? not understanding that the very reason why it is being
sought is because it thinks there is no need for seeking it. But who
is there that seeks for you, either through His Scriptures, or by
catholic and conciliatory voices, or by the scourgings of temporal
afflictions, save only Him who dispenses that mercy to you in all
things? We therefore seek you that we may find you; for we love you
that you should have life, with the same intensity with which we hate
your error, that it might be destroyed which seeks to ruin you, so
long as it is not itself involved in your destruction. And would to
God that we might seek you in such a manner as even to find, and be
able to say with rejoicing of each one of you, "He was dead, and is
alive again; he was lost, and is found!"[2100]2100
Chapter 38.â90. Petilianus said: "If you declare that you hold the
Catholic Church, the word âcatholicâ is merely the Greek equivalent
for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole,
because you have gone aside into the part."
91. Augustin answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight
knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at
all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that êlon means not
"one," but "the whole;" and that caq@ êlon means "according to the
whole:"Â whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to
the saying of the Lord, "It is not for you to know the times, which
the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power,
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:Â and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and
even in the whole earth."[2101]2101Â Here you have the origin of the
name "Catholic."Â But you are so bent upon running with your eyes
shut against the mountain which grew out of a small stone, according
to the prophecy of Daniel, and filled the whole earth,[2102]2102 that
you actually tell us that we have gone aside into a part, and are not
in the whole among those whose communion is spread throughout the
whole earth. But just in the same way as, supposing you were to say
that I was Petilianus, I should not be able to find any method of
refuting you unless I were to laugh at you as being in jest, or mourn
over you as being mad, so in the present case I see that I have no
other choice but this; and since I do not believe that you are in
jest, you see what alternative remains.
Chapter 39.â92. Petilianus said: "But there is no fellowship of
darkness with light, nor any fellowship of bitterness with the sweet
of honey; there is no fellowship of life with death, of innocence with
guilt, of water with blood; the lees have no fellowship with oil
though they are related to it as being its dregs, but everything that
is reprobate will flow away. It is the very sink of iniquity;
according to the saying of John, âThey went out from us, but they were
not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have
continued with us.â[2103]2103Â There is no gold among their
pollution: all that is precious has been purged away. For it is
written, âAs gold is tried in the furnace, so also are the just tried
by the harassing of tribulation.â[2104]2104Â Cruelty is not a part of
gentleness, nor religion a part of sacrilege; nor can the party of
Macarius[2105]2105 in any way be part of us, because he pollutes the
likeness of our rite. For the enemyâs line, which fills up an
enemyâs name, is no part of the force to which it is opposed; but if
it is truly to be called a part, it will find a suitable motto in the
judgment of Solomon, âLet their part be cut off from the
earth.â"[2106]2106
93. Augustin answered: What is it but sheer madness to utter these
taunts without proving anything? You look at the tares throughout
the world, and pay no heed to the wheat, although both have been
bidden to grow together throughout the whole of it. You look at the
seed sown by the wicked one, which shall be separated in the time of
harvest,[2107]2107 and you pay no heed to the seed of Abraham, in
which all nations of the earth shall be blessed.[2108]2108Â Just as
though you were already a purged mass, and virgin honey, and refined
oil, and pure gold, or rather the very similitude of a whited wall.Â
For, to say nothing of your other faults, do the drunken form a
portion of the sober, or are the covetous reckoned among the portion
of the wise? If men of gentle temper appropriate the term of light,
where shall the madness of the Circumcelliones be esteemed to be,
excepting in the darkness? Why then is baptism, given by men like
these, held valid among you, and the same baptism of Christ not held
valid, by whatsoever men it may be administered throughout the
world? You see, in fact, that you are separated from the communion
of the whole world in so far as this, that you are not indeed all
drunk, nor all of you covetous, nor all men of violence, but that you
are all heretics, and, in virtue of this, are all impious and all
sacrilegious.
94. But as to your saying that the whole world that rejoices in
Christian communion is the party of Macarius, who with any remnant of
sanity in his brain could make such a statement? But because we say
that you are of the party of Donatus, you therefore seek for a man of
whose party you may say we are; and, being in a great strait, you
mention the name of some obscure person, who, if he is known in
Africa, is certainly unknown in any other quarter of the globe. And
therefore hearken to the answer made to you by all the seed of Abraham
from every corner of the earth:Â Of that Macarius, to whose party you
assert us to belong, we know absolutely nothing. Can you reply in
turn that you know nothing of Donatus? But even if we were to say
that you are the party of Optatus, which of you can say that he is
unacquainted with Optatus, unless in the sense that he does not know
him personally, as perhaps he does not know Donatus either? But you
acknowledge that you rejoice in the name of Donatus, do you also take
any pleasure in the name of Optatus? What then can the name of
Donatus profit you, when all of you alike are polluted by Optatus?Â
What advantage can you derive from the sobriety of Donatus, when you
are defiled by the drunkenness of the Circumcelliones? What,
according to your views, are you profited by the innocence of Donatus,
when you are stained by the rapacity of Optatus? For this is your
mistake, that you think that the unrighteousness of a man has more
power in infecting his neighbor than the righteousness of a man has in
purifying those around him. Therefore, if two share in common the
sacraments of God, the one a just man, the other an unrighteous one,
but so that neither the former should imitate the unrighteousness of
the latter, nor the latter the righteousness of the former, you say
that the result is not that both are made just, but that both are made
unrighteous; so that also that holy thing, which both receive in
common, becomes unclean and loses its original holiness. When does
unrighteousness find for herself such advocates as these, through
whose madness she is esteemed victorious? How comes it then that, in
the midst of such mistaken perversity, you congratulate yourselves
upon the name of Donatus, when it shows not that Petilianus deserves
to be what Donatus is, but that Donatus is compelled to be what
Optatus is? But let the house of Israel say, "God is my portion for
ever;"[2109]2109 let the seed of Abraham say in all nations "The Lord
is the portion of mine inheritance."[2110]2110Â For they know how to
speak through the gospel of the glory of the blessed God. For you,
too, through the sacrament which is in you, like Caiaphas the
persecutor of the Lord, prophesy without being aware of
it.[2111]2111 For what in Greek is expressed by the word Macâ¬riov
is in our language simply "Blessed;" and in this way certainly we are
of the party of Macarius, the Blessed One. For what is more blessed
than Christ, of whose party we are, after whom all the ends of the
earth are called, and to whom they all are turned, and in whose sight
all the countries of the nations worship? Therefore the party of
this Macarius, that is to say, of this Blessed One, feels no
apprehension at your last curse, distorted from the words of Solomon,
lest it should perish from the earth. For what is said by him of the
impious you endeavor to apply to the inheritance of Christ, and you
strive to prove that this has been achieved with inexpressible
impiety; for when he was speaking of the impious, he says, "Let their
portion perish from off the earth."[2112]2112Â But when you say, with
reference to the words of Scripture, "I shall give Thee the heathen
for Thine inheritance,"[2113]2113 and "all the ends of the world shall
remember and turn unto the Lord,"[2114]2114 that the promise contained
in them has already perished from the earth, you are seeking to turn
against the inheritance of Christ what was foretold about the lot of
the impious; but so long as the inheritance of Christ endures and
increases, you are perishing in saying such things. For you are not
in every case prophesying through the sacrament of God, since in this
case you are merely uttering evil wishes through your own madness.Â
But the prophecy of the true prophets is more powerful than the evil
speaking of the false prophets.
Chapter 40.â95. Petilianus said: "Paul the apostle also bids us,
âBe ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers:Â for what fellowship
hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light
with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part
hath he that believeth with an infidel?â"[2115]2115
96. Augustin answered: I recognize the words of the apostle; but
how they can help you I cannot see at all. For which of us says that
there is any fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness,
even though the righteous and the unrighteous, as in the case of Judas
and Peter, should be alike partakers of the sacraments? For from one
and the same holy thing Judas received judgment to himself and Peter
salvation, just as you received the sacrament with Optatus, and, if
you were unlike him, were not therefore partakers in his robberies.Â
Or is robbery not unrighteousness? Who would be mad enough to assert
that? What fellowship was there, then, on the part of your
righteousness with his unrighteousness, when you approached together
to the same altar?
Chapter 41.â97. Petilianus said: "And, again, he taught us that
schisms should not arise, in the following terms:Â âNow this I say,
that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of
Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for
you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?â"[2116]2116
98. Augustin answered: Remember all of you who read this, it was
Petilianus who quoted these words from the apostle. For who could
have believed that he would have brought forward words which tell so
much for us against himself?
Chapter 42.â99. Petilianus said: "If Paul uttered these words to
the unlearned and to the righteous, I say this to you who are
unrighteous, Is Christ divided, that you should separate yourselves
from the Church?"
100. Augustin answered: I am afraid lest any one should think that
in this work of mine the writer has made a mistake, and has written
the heading Petilianus said, when he ought to have written Augustin
answered. But I see what your object is: you wished, as it were,
to preoccupy the ground, lest we should bring those words in testimony
against you. But what have you really done, except to cause them to
be quoted twice? If, therefore, you are so much pleased with hearing
the words which make against you, as to render it necessary that they
should be repeated, hear, I pray you, these words as coming from me,
Petilianus:Â Is Christ divided, that you should separate yourselves
from the Church?
Chapter 43.â101. Petilianus said: "Can it be that the traitor
Judas hung himself for you, or did he imbue you with his character,
that, following his deeds, you should seize on the treasures of the
Church, and sell for money to the powers of this world us who are the
heirs of Christ?"
102. Augustin answered: Judas did not die for us, but Christ, to
whom the Church dispersed throughout the world says, "So shall I have
wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me:Â for I trust in Thy
word."[2117]2117Â When, therefore, I hear the words of the Lord,
saying, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth,"[2118]2118 and
through the voice of His prophet, "Their sound is gone out through all
the earth, and their words into the ends of the world,"[2119]2119 no
bodily admixture of evil ever is able to disturb me, if I know how to
say, "Be surety for Thy servant for good:Â let not the proud oppress
me."[2120]2120Â I do not, therefore, concern myself about a vain
calumniation when I have a substantial promise. But if you complain
about matters or places appertaining to the Church, which you used
once to hold, and hold no longer, then the Jews also may say that they
are righteous, and reproach us with unrighteousness, because the
Christians now occupy the place in which of old they impiously
reigned. What then is there unfitting, if, according to a similar
will of the Lord, the Catholics now hold the things which formerly the
heretics used to have? For against all such men as this, that is to
say, against all impious and unrighteous men, those words of the Lord
have force, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and be given
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof;"[2121]2121 or is it
written in vain, "The righteous shall eat of the labors of the
impious"?[2122]2122Â Wherefore you ought rather to be amazed that you
still possess something, than that there is something which you have
lost. But neither need you wonder even at this, for it is by degrees
that the whitened wall falls down. Yet look back at the followers of
Maximianus, see what places they possessed, and by whose agency and
under whose attacks they were driven from them, and do you venture, if
you can, to say that to suffer things like these is righteousness,
while to do them is unrighteousness. In the first place, because you
did the deed, and they suffered them; and secondly, because, according
to the rule of this righteousness, you are found to be inferior. For
they were driven from the ancient palaces by Catholic emperors acting
through judges, while you are not even driven forth by the mandates of
the emperors themselves from the basilicas of unity. For what reason
is this, save that you are of less merit, not only than the rest of
your colleagues, but even than those very men whom you assuredly
condemned as guilty of sacrilege by the mouth of your plenary Council?
Chapter 44.â103. Petilianus said: "For we, as it is written, when
we are baptized, put on Christ who was betrayed;[2123]2123 you, when
you are infected, put on Judas the betrayer."
104. Augustin answered: I also might say, You when you are
infected put on Optatus the betrayer, the robber, the oppressor, the
separater of husband and wife; but far be it from me that the desire
of returning an evil word should provoke me into any falsehood:Â for
neither do you put on Optatus, nor we Judas. Therefore, if each one
who comes to us shall answer to our questions that he has been
baptized in the name of Optatus, he shall be baptized in the name of
Christ; and if you baptized any that came from us and said that they
had been baptized in the name of the traitor Judas, in that case we
have no fault to find with what you have done. But if they had been
baptized in the name of Christ, do you not see what an error you
commit in thinking that the sacraments of God can undergo change
through any changeableness of human sins, or be polluted by defilement
in the life of any man?
Chapter 45.â105. Petilianus said: "But if these are the parties,
the name of member of a party is no prejudice against us. For there
are two ways, the one narrow, in which we walk; the other is for the
impious, wherein they shall perish. And yet, though the designations
be alike, there is a great difference in the reality, that the way of
righteousness should not be defiled by fellowship in a name. "
106. Augustin answered: You have been afraid of the comparison of
your numbers with the multitude throughout the world; and therefore,
in order to win praise for the scantiness of your party, you have
sought to bring in the comparison of yourself walking in the narrow
path. Would to God that you had betaken yourself not to its praise,
but to the path itself! Truly you would have seen that there was the
same scantiness in the Church of all nations; but that the righteous
are said to be few in comparison with the multitude of the
unrighteous, just as, in comparison with the chaff, there may be said
to be few grains of corn in the most abundant crop, and yet these very
grains of themselves, when brought into a heap, fill the barn. For
the followers of Maximianus themselves will surpass you in this
scantiness of number, if you think that righteousness consists in
this, as well as in the persecution involved in the loss of places
which they held.
Chapter 46.â107. Petilianus said: "In the first Psalm David
separates the blessed from the impious, not indeed making them into
parties, but excluding all the impious from holiness. âBlessed is
the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth
in the way of sinners.â Let him who had strayed from the path of
righteousness, so that he should perish, return to it again. âNor
sitteth in the seat of the scornful.â[2124]2124Â When he gives this
warning, O ye miserable men, why do you sit in that seat? âBut his
delight is in the law of the Lord; and in His law doth he meditate day
and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of
water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season:Â his leaf also
shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly
are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.âÂ
He blindeth their eyes, so that they should not see. âTherefore the
ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the
congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the
righteous:Â but the way of the ungodly shall perish.â"[2125]2125
108. Augustin answered: Who is there in the Scriptures that would
not distinguish between these two classes of men? But you
slanderously charge the corn with the offenses of the chaff; and being
yourselves mere chaff, you boast yourselves to be the only corn. But
the true prophets declare that both these classes have been mingled
together throughout the whole world, that is, throughout the whole
corn-field of the Lord, until the winnowing which is to take place on
the day of judgment. But I advise you to read that first Psalm in
the Greek version, and then you will not venture to reproach the whole
world with being of the party of Macarius; because you will perhaps
come to understand of what Macarius there is a party among all the
saints, who throughout all nations are blessed in the seed of
Abraham. For what stands in our language as "Blessed is the man," is
in Greek Macâ¬riov â¡nÃr.  But that Macarius who offends you, if he
is a bad man, neither belongs to this division, nor is to its
prejudice. But if he is a good man, let him prove his own work, that
he may have glory in himself alone, and not in another.[2126]2126
Chapter 47.â109. Petilianus said: "But the same Psalmist has sung
the praises of our baptism. âThe Lord is my shepherd, I shall not
want. He maketh me to lie down in the green pastures: He leadeth
me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in
the paths of righteousness for His nameâs sake. Yea, though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,ââthough the persecutor, he
means, should slay me,ââI will fear no evil:Â for Thou art with me;
Thy rod and Thy staff comfort me.â It was by this that it conquered
Goliath, being armed with the anointing oil. âThou hast prepared a
table before me in the presence of mine enemies:Â Thou anointest my
head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall
follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of
the Lord for ever.â"[2127]2127
110. Augustin answered: This psalm speaks of those who receive
baptism aright, and use as holy what is so holy. For those words
have no reference even to Simon Magus, who yet received the same holy
baptism; and because he would not use it in a holy way, he did not
therefore pollute it, or show that in such cases it should be
repeated. But since you have made mention of Goliath, listen to the
psalm which treats of Goliath himself, and see that he is portrayed in
a new song; for there it is said, "I will sing a new song unto Thee, O
God:Â upon a psaltery, and an instrument of ten strings, will I sing
praise unto Thee."[2128]2128Â And see whether he belongs to this song
who refuses to communicate with the whole earth. For elsewhere it is
said, "O sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the
earth."[2129]2129Â Therefore the whole earth, with whom you are not
in unity, sings the new song. And these too are the words of the
whole earth, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want," etc. These
are not the words of the tares, though they be endured until the
harvest in the same crop. They are not the words of the chaff, but
of the wheat, although they are nourished by one and the same rain,
and are threshed out on the same threshing-floor at the same time,
till they shall be separated the one from the other by the winnowing
at the last day. And yet these both assuredly have the same baptism,
though they are not the same themselves. But if your party also were
the Church of God, you would certainly confess that this psalm has no
application to the infuriated bands of the Circumcelliones. Or if
they too themselves are led through the paths of righteousness, why do
you deny that they are your associates, when you are reproached with
them, although, for the most part, you console yourselves for the
scantiness of your section, not by the rod and staff of the Lord, but
by the cudgels of the Circumcelliones, with which you think that you
are safe even against the Roman laws,âto bring oneself into collision
with which is surely nothing less than to walk through the valley of
the shadow of death? But he with whom the Lord is, fears no evils.Â
Surely, however, you will not venture to say that the words which are
sung in this song belong even to those infuriated men, and yet you not
only acknowledge, but ostentatiously set forth the fact that they have
baptism. These words, therefore, are not used by any who are not
refreshed by the holy water, as are all the righteous men of God; not
by those who are brought to destruction by using it, as was that
magician when baptized by Philip:Â and yet the water itself in both
kinds of men is the same, and of the same degree of sanctity. These
words are not used except by those who will belong to the right hand;
but yet both sheep and goats feed in the same pasture under one
Shepherd, until they shall be separated, that they may receive their
due reward. These words are not used except by those who, like
Peter, receive life from the table of the Lord, not judgment, as did
Judas; and yet the supper was itself the same to both, but it was not
of the same profit to both, because they were not one. These words
are not used except by those who, by being anointed with the sacred
oil, are blessed in spirit also, as was David; not merely consecrated
in the body only, as was Saul:Â and yet, as they had both received
the same outward sign, it was not the sacrament, but the personal
merit that was different in the two cases. These words are not used
except by those who, with converted heart, receive the cup of the Lord
unto eternal life; not by those who eat and drink damnation to
themselves, as the apostle says:[2130]2130Â and yet, though they are
not one, the cup which they receive is one, exerting its power on the
martyrs that they should obtain a heavenly reward, not on the
Circumcelliones, that they should mark precipices with death.Â
Remember, therefore, that the characters of bad men in no wise
interfere with the virtue of the sacraments, so that their holiness
should either be destroyed, or even diminished; but that they injure
the unrighteous men themselves, that they should have them as
witnesses of their damnation, not as aids to health. For beyond all
doubt you should have taken into consideration the actual concluding
words of this psalm, and have understood that, on account of those who
forsake the faith after they have been baptized, it cannot be said by
all who receive holy baptism that "I will dwell in the house of the
Lord for ever:"Â and yet, whether they abide in the faith, or whether
they have fallen away, though they themselves are not one, their
baptism is one, and though they themselves are not both holy, yet the
baptism in both is holy; because even apostates, if they return, are
not baptized as though they had lost the sacrament, but undergo
humiliation, because they have done a despite to it which remains in
them.
Chapter 48.â111. Petilianus said: "Yet that you should not call
yourselves holy, in the first place, I declare that no one has
holiness who has not led a life of innocence."
112. Augustin answered: Show us the tribunal where you have been
enthroned as judge, that the whole world should stand for trial before
you, and with what eyes you have inspected and discussed, I do not say
the consciences, but even the acts of all men, that you should say
that the whole world has lost its innocence. He who was carried up
as far as the third heaven says, "Yea, I judge not mine own
self;"[2131]2131 and do you venture to pronounce sentence on the whole
world, throughout which the inheritance of Christ is spread abroad?Â
In the next place, if what you have said appears to you to be
sufficiently certain, that "no one has holiness who has not led a life
of innocence," I would ask you, if Saul had not the holiness of the
sacrament, what was in him that David reverenced? But if he had
innocence, why did he persecute the innocent? For it was on account
of the sanctity of his anointing that David honored him while alive,
and avenged him after he was dead; and because he cut off so much as a
scrap from his garment, he trembled with a panic-stricken heart.Â
Here you see that Saul had not innocence, and yet he had holiness,ânot
the personal holiness of a holy life (for that no one can have without
innocence), but the holiness of the sacrament of God, which is holy
even in unrighteous men.
Chapter 49.â113. Petilianus said: "For, granting that you
faithless ones are acquainted with the law, without any prejudice to
the law itself, I may say so much as this, the devil knows it too.Â
For in the case of righteous Job he answered the Lord God concerning
the law as though he were himself righteous, as it is written, "And
the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that
there is none like him in the earth, a man without malice, a true
worshipper of God abstaining from every evil; and still he holdeth
fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy
him without cause?"[2132]2132Â And Satan answered the Lord, Skin for
skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. Behold he
speaks in legal phrase, even when he is striving against the law.Â
And a second time he endeavored thus to tempt the Lord Christ with his
discourse, as it is written, âThe devil taketh Jesus into the holy
city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him,
If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:Â for it is written, He
shall give His angels charge concerning thee; and in their hands they
shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a
stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shall not
tempt the Lord thy God.â[2133]2133Â You know the law, I say, as did
the devil, who is conquered in his endeavors, and blushes in his
deeds."
114. Augustin answered: I might indeed ask of you in what law the
words are written which the devil used when he was uttering calumnies
against the holy man Job, if the position which I am set to prove were
this, that you yourself are unacquainted with the law which you assert
the devil to have known, but as this is not the question at issue
between us, I pass it by. But you have endeavored in such sort to
prove that the devil is skilled in the law, as though we maintained
that all who know the law are just. Accordingly, I do not see in
what manner you are assisted by what you have chosen to quote
concerning the devil,âunless, indeed, it may be that we should be
thereby reminded how you imitate the devil himself. For as he
brought forward the words of the law against the Author of the law, so
you also out of the words of the law bring accusation against men whom
you do not know, that you may resist the promises of God which are
made in that very self-same law. Then I should be glad if you would
tell me in whose honor do those confessors of yours achieve their
martyrdom, when they throw themselves over precipices,âin honor of
Christ, who thrust the devil from Him when he made a like suggestion,
or rather in honor of the devil himself, who suggested such a deed to
Christ? There are two especially vile and customary deaths resorted
to by those who kill themselves,âhanging and the precipice. You
assuredly said in the earlier part of this epistle, "The traitor hung
himself:Â he left this death to all who are like him."Â This has no
application whatever to us; for we refuse to reverence with the name
of martyr any who have strangled themselves. With how much greater
show of reason might we say against you, That master of all traitors,
the devil, wished to persuade Christ to throw Himself headlong down,
and was repulsed! What, therefore, must we say of those whom he
persuaded with success? What, indeed, except that they are the
enemies of Christ, the friends of the devil, the disciples of the
seducer, the fellow-disciples of the traitor? For both have learned
to kill themselves from the same master,âJudas by hanging himself, the
others by throwing themselves over precipices.
Chapter 50.â115. Petilianus said: "But that we may destroy your
arguments one by one, if you call yourselves by the name of priests,
it was said by the Lord God, through the mouth of His prophet, âThe
vengeance of the Lord is upon the false priests.â"
116. Augustin answered: Seek rather what you may say with truth,
not whence you may derive abusive words; and what you may teach, not
what reproaches you may cast in our teeth.
Chapter 51.â117. Petilianus said: "If you wretched men claim for
yourselves a seat, as we said before, you assuredly have that one of
which the prophet and psalmist David speaks as being the seat of the
scornful.[2134]2134Â For to you it is rightly left, seeing that the
holy cannot sit therein."
118. Augustin answered: Here again you do not see that this is no
kind of argument, but empty abuse. For this is what I said a little
while ago, You utter the words of the law, but take no heed against
whom you utter them; just as the devil uttered the words of the law,
but failed to perceive to whom he uttered them. He wished to thrust
down our Head, who was presently to ascend on high; but you wish to
reduce to a small fraction the body of that same Head which is
dispersed throughout the entire world. Certainly you yourself said a
little time before that we know the law, and speak in legal terms, but
blush in our deeds. Thus much indeed you say without a proof of
anything; but even though you were to prove it of some men, you would
not be entitled to assert it of these others. However, if all men
throughout all the world were of the character which you most vainly
charge them with, what has the chair done to you of the Roman Church,
in which Peter sat, and which Anastasius fills to-day; or the chair of
the Church of Jerusalem, in which James once sat, and in which John
sits today, with which we are united in catholic unity, and from which
you have severed yourselves by your mad fury? Why do you call the
apostolic chair a seat of the scornful? If it is on account of the
men whom you believe to use the words of the law without performing
it, do you find that our Lord Jesus Christ was moved by the Pharisees,
of whom He says, "They say, and do not," to do any despite to the seat
in which they sat? Did He not commend the seat of Moses, and
maintain the honor of the seat, while He convicted those that sat in
it? For He says, "They sit in Mosesâ seat: all therefore
whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye
after their works:Â for they say, and do not."[2135]2135Â If you
were to think of these things, you would not, on account of men whom
you calumniate, do despite to the apostolic seat, in which you have no
share. But what else is conduct like yours but ignorance of what to
say, combined with want of power to abstain from evil-speaking?
Chapter 52.â119. Petilianus said: "If you suppose that you can
offer sacrifice, God Himself thus speaks of you as most abandoned
sinners:Â âThe wicked man,â He says, âthat sacrificeth a calf is as
if he cut off a dogâs neck; and he that offereth an oblation, as if he
offered swineâs blood.â[2136]2136Â Recognize herein your sacrifice,
who have already poured out human blood. And again He says, âTheir
sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat
thereof shall be polluted.â"[2137]2137
120. Augustin answered: We say that in the case of every man the
sacrifice that is offered partakes of the character of him who
approaches to offer it, or approaches to partake of it; and that those
eat of the sacrifices of such men, who in approaching to them partake
of the character of those who offer them. Therefore, if a bad man
offer sacrifice to God, and a good man receive it at his hands, the
sacrifice is to each man of such character as he himself has shown
himself to be, since we find it also written that "unto the pure all
things are pure."[2138]2138Â In accordance with this true and
catholic judgment, you too are free from pollution by the sacrifice of
Optatus, if you disapproved of his deeds. For certainly his bread
was the bread of mourners, seeing that all Africa was mourning under
his iniquities. But the evil involved in the schism of all your
party makes this bread of mourners common to you all. For, according
to the judgment of your Council, Felicianus of Musti was a shedder of
manâs blood. For you said, in condemning them,[2139]2139 "Their feet
are swift to shed blood."[2140]2140Â See therefore what kind of
sacrifice he offers whom you hold to be a priest, when you have
yourselves convicted him of sacrilege. And if you think that this is
in no way to your prejudice, I would ask you how the emptiness of your
calumnies can be to the prejudice of the whole world?
Chapter 53.â121. Petilianus said: "If you make prayer to God, or
utter supplication, it profits you absolutely nothing whatsoever.Â
For your blood-stained conscience makes your feeble prayers of no
effect; because the Lord God regards purity of conscience more than
the words of supplication, according to the saying of the Lord Christ,
âNot every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.â[2141]2141Â The will of God unquestionably is good, for
therefore we pray as follows in the holy prayer, âThy will be done in
earth, as it is in heaven,â[2142]2142 that, as His will is good, so it
may confer on us whatever may be good. You therefore do not do the
will of God, because you do what is evil every day."
122. Augustin answered: If we on our side were to utter against
you all that you assert against us, would not any one who heard us
consider that we were rather insane litigants than Christian
disputants, if he himself were in his senses? We do not, therefore,
render for railing. For it is not fitting that the servant of the
Lord should strive; but he should be gentle unto all men, willing to
learn, in meekness instructing those that oppose
themselves.[2143]2143Â If, therefore, we reproach you with those who
daily do what is evil among you, we are guilty of striving
unbefittingly, accusing one for the sins of another. But if we
admonish you, that as you are unwilling that these things should be
brought against yourselves, so you should abstain from bringing
against us the sins of other men, we then in meekness are instructing
you, solely in the hope that some time you will return to a better
mind.
Chapter 54.â123. Â Petilianus said:Â "But if it should so happen,
though whether it be so I cannot say, that you cast out devils,
neither will this in you do any good; because the devils themselves
yield neither to your faith nor to your merits, but are driven out in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
124. Augustin answered: God be thanked that you have at length
confessed that the invocation of the name of Christ may be of profit
for the salvation of others, even though it be invoked by sinners!Â
Hence, therefore, you may understand that when the name of Christ is
invoked, the sins of one man do not stand in the way of the salvation
of another. But to determine in what manner we invoke the name of
Christ, we require not your judgment, but the judgment of Christ
Himself who is invoked by us; for He alone can know in what spirit He
is invoked. Yet from His own words we are assured that He is invoked
to their salvation by all nations, who are blessed in the seed of
Abraham.
Chapter 55.â125. Petilianus said: "Even though you do very
virtuous actions, and perform miraculous works, yet on account of your
wickedness the Lord does not know you; even so, according to the words
of the Lord Himself, âMany will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out
devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.â"[2144]2144
126. Augustin answered: We acknowledge the word of the Lord.Â
Hence also the apostle says, "Though I have all faith, so that I could
remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."[2145]2145Â
Here therefore we must inquire who it is that has charity:Â you will
find that it is no one else but those who are lovers of unity. For
as to the driving out of devils, and as to the working of miracles,
seeing that very many do not do such things who yet belong to the
kingdom of God, and very many do them who do not belong to it, neither
our party nor your party have any cause for boasting, if any of them
chance to have this power, since the Lord did not think it right that
even the apostles, who could truly do such things both to profit and
salvation, should boast in things like this, when He says to them, "In
this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather
rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."[2146]2146Â
Wherefore all those things which you have advanced from the writings
of the gospel I also might repeat to you, if I saw you working the
powerful acts of signs and miracles; and so might you repeat them to
me, if you saw me doing things of a like sort. Let us not,
therefore, say one to another what may equally be said on the other
side as well; and, putting aside all quibbles, since we are inquiring
where the Church of Christ is to be found, let us listen to the words
of Christ Himself, who redeemed it with His own blood:Â "Ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria,
and even in the whole earth."[2147]2147Â You see then who it is with
whom a man refuses to communicate who will not communicate with this
Church, which is spread throughout all the world, if at least you hear
whose words these are. For what is a greater proof of madness than
to hold communion with the sacraments of the Lord, and to refuse to
hold communion with the words of the Lord? Such men at any rate are
likely to say, In Thy name have we eaten and drunken, and to hear the
words, "I never knew you,"[2148]2148 seeing that they eat His body and
drink His blood in the sacrament, and do not recognize in the gospel
His members which are spread abroad throughout the earth, and
therefore are not themselves counted among them in the judgment.
Chapter 56.â127. Petilianus said: "But even if, as you yourselves
suppose, you are following the law of the Lord in purity, let us
nevertheless consider the question of the most holy law itself in a
legal form. The Apostle Paul says, âThe law is good, if a man use it
lawfully.â[2149]2149 What then does the law say? âThou shalt not
kill.â What Cain the murderer did once, you have often done in
slaying your brethren."
 128. Augustin answered: We do not wish to be like you: for
there are not wanting words which might be uttered, as you too utter
these; and known also, for you do not know these; and set forth in the
conduct of a life, as these are not set forth by you.
Chapter 57.â129. Petilianus said: "It is written, âThou shalt not
commit adultery.â Each one of you, even though he be chaste in his
body, yet in spirit is an adulterer, because he pollutes his
holiness."
130. Augustin answered: These words also might be spoken with
truth against certain both of our number and of yours; but if their
deeds are condemned by us and you alike, they belong to neither us nor
you. But you wish that what you say against certain men, without
proving it even in their especial case, should be taken just as if you
had established it,ânot in the case of some who have fallen away from
the seed of Abraham, but in reference to all the nations of the earth
who are blessed in the seed of Abraham.
Chapter 58.â131. Petilianus said: "It is written, âThou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbor.â When you falsely declare
to the kings of this world that we hold your opinions, do you not make
up a falsehood?"
132. Augustin answered: If those are not our opinions which you
hold, neither were they your opinions which you received from the
followers of Maximianus. But if they were therefore yours, because
they were guilty of a sacrilegious schism in not communicating with
the party of Donatus, take heed what ground you occupy, and with whose
inheritance you refuse communion, and consider what answer you can
make, not to the kings of this world, but to Christ your King. Of
Him it is said, "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from
the river unto the ends of the earth."[2150]2150Â From what river
does it mean, save that where He was baptized, and where the dove
descended on Him, that mighty token of charity and unity? But you
refuse communion with this unity, and occupy as yet the place of
unity; and you bring us into disfavor with the kings of this world in
making use of the edicts of the proconsul to expel your schismatics
from the place of the party of Donatus. These are not mere words
flying at random through the empty void:Â the men are still alive,
the states bear witness to the fact, the archives of the proconsuls
and of the several towns are quoted in evidence of it. Let then the
voice of calumny be at length silent, which would bring up against the
whole earth the kings of this world, through whose proconsuls you,
yourselves a fragment, would not spare the fragment which was
separated from you. When then we say that you hold our opinions, we
are not shown to be bearing false witness, unless you can show that we
are not in the Church of Christ, which indeed you never cease
alleging, but never will be able to establish; nay, in real truth,
when you say this, you are bringing a charge of false witness no
longer against us, but against the Lord Himself. For we are in the
Church which was foretold by His own testimony, and where He bore
witness to His witnesses, saying, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both
in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole
earth."Â But you show yourselves to be false witnesses not only from
this, that you resist this truth, but also in the very trial in which
you joined issue with the schism of Maximianus. For if you were
acting according to the law of Christ, how much more consistently do
certain Christian emperors frame ordinances in accordance with it, if
even pagan proconsuls can follow its behests in passing judgment?Â
But if you thought that even the laws of an earthly empire were to be
summoned to your aid, we do not blame you for this. It is what Paul
did when he bore witness before his adversaries that he was a Roman
citizen.[2151]2151Â But I would ask by what earthly laws it is
ordained that the followers of Maximianus should be driven from their
place? You will find no law whatever to this effect. But, in point
of fact, you have chosen to expel them under laws which have been
passed against heretics, and against yourselves among their number.Â
You, as though by superior strength, have prevailed against the
weak. Whence they, being wholly powerless, say that they are
innocent, like the wolf in the power of the lion. Yet surely you
could not use laws which were passed against yourselves as instruments
against others, except by the aid of false witness. For if those
laws are founded on truth, then do you come down from the position
which you occupy; but if on falsehood, why did you use them to drive
others from the Church? But how if they both are founded on truth,
and could not be used by you for the expulsion of others except with
the aid of falsehood? For that the judges might submit to their
authority, they were willing to expel heretics from the Church, from
which they ought first to have expelled yourselves; but you declared
yourselves to be Catholics, that you might escape the severity of the
laws which you employed to oppress others. It is for you to
determine what you appear to yourselves among yourselves; at any rate,
under those laws you are not Catholics. Why then have you either
made them false, if they are true, by your false witness, or made use
of them, if they are false, for the oppression of others?
Chapter 59.â133. Petilianus said: "It is written, âThou shalt not
covet anything that is thy neighborâs.â[2152]2152Â You plunder what
is ours, that you may have it for your own."
134. Augustin answered: All things of which unity was in
possession belong to none other than ourselves, who remain in unity,
not in accordance with the calumnies of men, but with the words of
Christ, in whom all the nations of the whole earth are blessed. Nor
do we separate ourselves from the society of the wheat, on account of
the unrighteous men whom we cannot separate from the wheat of the Lord
before the winnowing at the judgment; and if there are any things
which you who are cut off begin already to possess, we do not, because
the Lord has given to us what has been taken away from you, therefore
covet our neighborsâ goods, seeing that they have been made ours by
the authority of Him to whom all things belong; and they are rightly
ours, for you were wont to use them for purposes of schism, but we use
them for the promotion of unity. Otherwise your party might reproach
even the first people of God with coveting their neighborsâ goods,
seeing that they were driven forth before their face by the power of
God, because they used the land amiss; and the Jews in turn
themselves, from whom the kingdom was taken away, according to the
words of the Lord, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
thereof,[2153]2153 may bring a charge against that nation, of coveting
their neighborsâ goods, because the Church of Christ is in possession
where the persecutors of Christ were wont to reign. And, after all,
when it has been said to yourselves, You are coveting the goods of
other men, because you have driven out from the basilicas the
followers of Maximianus, you are at a loss to find any answer that you
can make.
Chapter 60.â135. Petilianus said: "Under what law, then, do you
make out that you are Christians, seeing that you do what is contrary
to the law?"
136. Augustin answered: You are anxious for strife, and not for
argument.
Chapter 61.â137. Petilianus said: "But the Lord Christ says,
âWhosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven.â But He condemns you wretched men
as follows:Â âWhosoever shall break one of these commandments, he
shalt be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.â"
138. Augustin answered: When you happen to quote the testimony of
Scripture as other than it really is, and it does not bear on the
question which is at issue between us, I am not greatly concerned; but
when it interferes with the matter on hand, unless it is quoted truly,
then I think that you have no right to find fault if I remind you how
the passage really stands. For you must be aware that the verse
which you quoted is not as you quoted it, but rather thus:Â
"Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven."Â And immediately He continues, "For I say
unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven."[2154]2154Â For elsewhere He shows and
proves of the Pharisees that they say and do not. It is these,
therefore, to whom He is referring also here, when He said, "Whosoever
shall break one of these commandments, and shall teach men so,"âthat
is, shall teach in words what he has violated in deeds; whose
righteousness He says that our righteousness must excel, in that we
must both keep the commandments and teach men so. And yet not even
on account of those Pharisees, with whom you compare us,ânot from any
motives of prudence, but from malice,âdid our Lord enjoin that the
seat of Moses should be deserted, which seat He doubtless meant to be
a figure of His own; for He said indeed that they who sat in Mosesâ
seat were ever saying and not doing, but warns the people to do what
they say, and not to do what they do,[2155]2155 lest the chair, with
all its holiness, should be deserted, and the unity of the flock
divided through the faithlessness of the shepherds.
Chapter 62.â139. Petilianus said: "And again it is written, âEvery
sin which a man shall sin is without the body; but he that sinneth in
the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,
neither in the world to come.â"
140. Augustin answered: This too is not written as you have quoted
it, and see how far it has led you astray. The apostle, writing to
the Corinthians, says, "Every sin that a man doeth is without the
body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own
body."[2156]2156Â But this is one thing, and that is another which
the Lord said in the gospel:Â "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall
be forgiven unto men:Â but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come."[2157]2157Â But you have begun a sentence from the
writing of the apostle, and ended it as though it were one from the
gospel, which I fancy you have done not with any intention to deceive,
but through mistake; for neither passage has any bearing on the matter
in hand. And why you have said this, and in what sense you have said
it, I am wholly unable to perceive, unless it be that, whereas you had
said above that all were condemned by the Lord who had broken any one
of His commandments, you have considered since how many there are in
your party who break not one but many of them; and lest an objection
should be brought against you on that score, you have sought, by way
of surpassing the difficulty, to bring in a distinction of sins,
whereby it might be seen that it is one thing to break a commandment
in respect of which pardon may easily be obtained, another thing to
sin against the Holy Ghost, which shall receive no forgiveness, either
in this world or in the world to come. In your dread, therefore, of
infection from sin, you were unwilling to pass this over in silence;
and again, in your dread of a question too deep for your powers, you
wish to touch cursorily on it in passing, in such a state of
agitation, that, just as men who are setting about a task in haste,
and consequent confusion, are wont to fasten their dress or shoes
awry, so you have not thought fit either to see what belongs to what,
or in what context or what sense the passage which you quote occurs.Â
But what is the nature of that sin which shall not be forgiven, either
in this world or in the world to come, you are so far from knowing,
that, though you believe that we are actually living in it, you yet
promise us forgiveness of it through your baptism. And yet how could
this be possible, if the sin be of such a nature that it cannot be
forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come?
Chapter 63.â141. Petilianus said: "But wherein do you fulfill the
commandments of God? The Lord Christ said, âBlessed are the poor in
spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.â But you by your malice
in persecution breathe forth the riches of madness."
142. Augustin answered: Address that rather to your own
Circumcelliones.
Chapter 64.â143. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are the meek: for
they shall inherit the earth.â You therefore, not being meek, have
lost both heaven and earth alike."
144. Augustin answered: Again and again you may hear the Lord
saying, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth."[2158]2158Â How
is it, then, that those men have not lost heaven and earth, who, in
order to avoid communicating with all the nations of the earth,
despise the words of Him that sitteth in heaven? For, in proof of
your meekness, it is not your words but the cudgels of the
Circumcelliones which should be examined. You will say, What has
that to do with us? Just as though we were making the remark with
any other object except to extract that answer from you. For the
reason that your schism is a valid charge against you is that you do
not allow that you are chargeable with anotherâs sin, whereas you have
separated from us for no other reason but that you charge us with the
sins of other men.
Chapter 65.â145. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are they that mourn:Â
for they shall be comforted.â You, our butchers, are the cause of
mourning in others:Â you do not mourn yourselves."
146. Augustin answered: Consider for a short space to how many,
and with what intensity, the cry of "Praises be to God," proceeding
from your armed men, has caused others to mourn.[2159]2159Â Do you
say again, What is that to us? Then I too will rejoin again your own
words, What is that to us? What is it to all the nations of the
earth? What is it to those who praise the name of the Lord from the
rising of the sun to the setting of the same? What is it to all the
earth, which sings a new song? What is it to the seed of Abraham, in
which all the nations of the earth are blessed?[2160]2160Â And so the
sacrilege of your schism is chargeable on you, just because the evil
deeds of your companions are not chargeable on you; and because you
are from this that the deeds of those on whose account you separated
from the world, even if you proved your charges to be true, do not
involve the world in sin.
Chapter 66.â147. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are they which do
hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.âÂ
To you it seems to be righteousness that you thirst after our blood."
148. Augustin answered: What shall I say unto thee, O man, except
that thou art calumnious? The unity of Christ, indeed, is hungering
and thirsting after all of you; and I would that it might swallow you
up, for then would you be no longer heretics.
Chapter 67.â149. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are the merciful:Â
for they shall obtain mercy.â But how shall I call you merciful when
you inflict punishment on the righteous? Shall I not rather call you
a most unrighteous communion, so long as you pollute souls?"
150. Augustin answered: You have proved neither point,âneither
that you yourselves are righteous, nor that we inflict punishment on
even the unrighteous; and yet, even as false flattery is generally
cruel, so just correction is ever merciful. For whence is that which
you do not understand:Â "Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a
kindness; and let him reprove me"? For while he says this of the
severity of merciful correction, the Psalmist immediately went on to
say of the gentleness of destructive flattery, "But the oil of sinners
shall not break my head."[2161]2161Â Do you therefore consider
whither you are called, and from what you are summoned away. For how
do you know what feelings he entertains towards you whom you suppose
to be cruel? But whatever be his feelings, every one must bear his
own burden both with us and with you. But I would have you cast away
the burden of schism which you all of you are bearing, that you may
bear your good burdens in unity; and I would bid you mercifully
correct, if you should have the power, all those who are bearing evil
burdens; and, if this be beyond your power, I would bid you bear with
them in peace.
Chapter 68.â151. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are the pure in
heart: for they shall see God.â When will you see God, who are
possessed with blindness in the impure malice of your hearts?"
152. Augustin answered: Wherefore say you this? Can it be that
we reproach all nations with the dark and hidden things which are
declared by men, and do not choose to understand the manifest sayings
which God spake in olden time of all the nations of the earth? This
is indeed great blindness of heart; and if you do not recognize it in
yourselves, that is even greater blindness.
Chapter 69.â153. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are the peacemakers;
for they shall be called the children of God.â[2162]2162Â You make a
pretence of peace by your wickedness, and seek unity by war."
154. Augustin answered: We do not make a pretense of peace by
wickedness, but we preach peace out of the gospel; and if you were at
peace with it, you would be at peace also with us. The risen Lord,
when presenting Himself to the disciples, not only that they should
gaze on Him with their eyes, but also that they should handle Him with
their hands, began His discourse to them with the words, "Peace be
unto you."Â And how this peace itself was to be maintained, He
disclosed to them in the words which followed. For "then opened He
their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and
said unto them, Thus is it written, and thus it behoved Christ to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all
nations, beginning at Jerusalem."[2163]2163Â If you will keep peace
with these words, you will not be at variance with us. For if we
seek unity by war, our war could not be praised in more glorious
terms, seeing that it is written, "Thou shall love thy neighbor as
thyself."[2164]2164Â And again it is written, "No man ever yet hated
his own flesh."[2165]2165Â And yet the flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.[2166]2166Â But if no man
ever yet hated his own flesh, and yet a man lusteth against his own
flesh, here you have unity sought by war, that the body, being subject
to correction, may be brought under submission. But what the spirit
does against the flesh, waging war with it, not in hatred but in love,
this those who are spiritual do against those who are carnal, that
they may do towards them what they do towards themselves, because they
love their neighbors as neighbors indeed. But the war which the
spiritual wage is that correction which is in love:Â their sword is
the word of God. To such a war they are aroused by the trumpet of
the apostle sounding with a mighty force:Â "Preach the word; be
instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all
long-suffering and doctrine."[2167]2167Â See then that we act not
with the sword, but with the word. But you answer what is not true,
while you accuse us falsely. You do not correct your own faults, and
you bring against us those of other men. Christ bears true witness
concerning the nations of the earth; you, in opposition to Christ,
bear false witness against the nations of the earth. If we were to
believe you rather than Christ, you would call us peacemakers; because
we believe Christ rather than you, we are said to make a pretense of
peace by our wickedness. And while you say and do such things as
this, you have the further impudence to quote the words, "Blessed are
the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God."
Chapter 70.â155. Petilianus said: "Though the Apostle Paul says,
âI therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you, brethren, that ye
walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in
love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace.â"[2168]2168
156. Augustin answered: If you would not only say these words, but
hearken to them as well, you would put up even with known evils for
the sake of peace, instead of inventing new ones for the sake of
quarreling, if it were only because you subsequently learned, for the
sake of the peace of Donatus, to put up with the most flagrant and
notorious wickedness of Optatus. What madness is this that you
display? Those who are known are borne with, that a fragment may not
be further split up; those of whom nothing is known are defamed, that
they themselves may not remain in the undivided whole.
Chapter 71.â157. Petilianus said: "To you the prophet says,
âPeace, peace; and where is there peace?â"[2169]2169
158. Augustin answered: It is you that say this to us, not the
prophet. We therefore answer you: If you ask where peace is to be
found, open your eyes, and see of whom it is said, "He maketh wars to
cease in all the world."[2170]2170Â If you ask where peace is to be
found, open your eyes to see that city which cannot be hidden, because
it is built upon a hill; open your eyes to see the mountain itself,
and let Daniel show it to you, growing out of a small stone, and
filling the whole earth.[2171]2171Â But when the prophet says to you,
"Peace, peace; and where is there peace?" what will you show? Will
you show the party of Donatus, unknown to the countless nations to
whom Christ is known? It is surely not the city which cannot be hid;
and whence is this, except that it is not founded on the mountain?Â
"For He is our peace, who hath made both one,"[2172]2172ânot Donatus,
who has made one into two.
Chapter 72.â159. Petilianus said: "âBlessed are they which are
persecuted for righteousnessâ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.â[2173]2173Â You are not blessed; but you make martyrs to be
blessed, with whose souls the heavens are filled, and the earth has
flourished with their memory. You therefore do not honor them
yourselves, but you provide us with objects of honor."
160. Augustin answered: The plain fact is, that if it had not been
said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnessâ sake,"
but had been said instead, Blessed are they who throw themselves over
precipices, then heaven would have been filled with your martyrs. Of
a truth we see many flowers on the earth blooming from their bodies;
but, as the saying goes, the flower is dust and ashes.
Chapter 73.â161. Petilianus said: "Since then you are not blessed
by falsifying the commands of God, the Lord Christ condemns you by His
divine decrees:Â âWoe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men:Â for ye neither go
in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.Â
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea
and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him
twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint, and
anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law,
judgment, mercy, and faith:Â these ought ye to have done, and not to
leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and
swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful
outwardly, but are within full of dead menâs bones, and of all
uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men,
but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.â"[2174]2174
162. Augustin answered: Tell me whether you have said anything
which may not equally be said against you in turn by any slanderous
and evil-speaking tongue. But from what has been said by me before,
any one who wishes may find out that these things may be said against
you, not by way of empty abuse, but with the support of truthful
testimony. As, however, the opportunity is presented to us we must
not pass this by. There is no doubt that to the ancient people of
God circumcision stood in the place of baptism. I ask, therefore,
putting the case that the Pharisees against whom those words you quote
are spoken, had made some proselyte, who, if he were to imitate them,
would, as it is said, become twofold more the child of hell than
themselves, supposing that he were to be converted, and desire to
imitate Simeon, or Zacharias, or Nathanael, would it be necessary that
he should be circumcised again by them? And if it is absurd to put
this case why, although in empty fashion and with empty sounds you
compare us to men like this, do you nevertheless baptize after us?Â
But if you are really men like this, how much better and how much more
in accordance with truth do we act in not baptizing after you, as
neither was it right that those whom I have mentioned should be
circumcised after the worst of Pharisees! Furthermore, when such men
sit in the seat of Moses, for which the Lord preserved its due honor,
why do you blaspheme the apostolic chair on account of men whom,
justly or unjustly, you compare with these?
Chapter 74.â163. Petilianus said: "But these things do not alarm
us Christians; for of the evil deeds which you are destined to commit
we have before a warning given us by the Lord Christ. âBehold,â He
says, âI send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.â[2175]2175Â
You fill up the measure of the madness of wolves, who either lay or
are preparing to lay snares against the Churches in precisely the same
way in which wolves, with their mouths wide open against the fold,
even with destructive eagerness, breathe forth panting anger from
their jaws, suffused with blood."
164. Augustin answered: I should be glad to utter the same
sentiment against you, but not in the words which you have used:Â
they are too inappropriate, or rather mad. But what was required
was, that you should show that we were wolves and that you were sheep,
not by the emptiest of evil-speaking, but by some distinct proofs.Â
For when I too have said, We are sheep, and you are wolves, do you
think that there is any difference caused by the fact that you express
the idea in swelling words? But listen whilst I prove what I
assert. For the Lord says in the gospel, as you know full well,
whether you please it or not, "My sheep hear my voice, and follow
me."[2176]2176Â There are many sayings of the Lord on different
subjects; but supposing, for example, that any one were in doubt
whether the same Lord had risen in the body, and His words were to be
quoted where He says, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye see me have;"âif even after this he should be
unwilling to acquiesce in the belief that His body had risen from the
dead, surely such a man could not be reckoned among the sheep of the
Lord, because he would not hear His voice. And so too now, when the
question between us is, Where is the Church? whilst we quote the words
that follow in the same passage of the gospel, where, after His
resurrection, He gave His body even to be handled by those who were in
doubt, in which He showed the future wide extent of the Church,
saying, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and
to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission
of sins should be preached in His name throughout all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem;"[2177]2177 whereas you will not communicate
with all nations, in whom these words have been fulfilled, how are you
the sheep of this Shepherd, whose words you not only do not obey when
you have heard them, but even fight against them? And so we show to
you from this that you are not sheep. But listen further whence we
show you that, on the contrary, you are wolves. For necessarily,
when it is shown by His own words where the Church is to be found, it
is also clear where we must look for the fold of Christ. Whenever,
therefore, any sheep separate themselves from this fold, which is
expressly pointed out and shown to us by the unmistakeable declaration
of the Lord,âand that, I will not say because of charges falsely
brought, but on account of charges brought, as no one can deny, with
great uncertainty against their fellow-men, and consequently slay
those sheep which they have torn and alienated from the life of unity
and Christian loveâis it not evident that they are ravening wolves?Â
But it will be said that these very men themselves praise and preach
the Lord Christ. They are therefore those of whom He says Himself,
"They come unto you in sheepâs clothing, but inwardly they are
ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them."[2178]2178Â
The sheepâs clothing is seen in the praises of Christ; the fruits of
their wolfish nature in their slanderous teeth.
Chapter 75.â165. Petilianus said: "O wretched traditors! Thus
indeed it was fitting that Scripture should be fulfilled. But in you
I grieve for this, that you have shown yourselves worthy to fulfill
the part of wickedness."
166. Augustin answered: I might rather say, O wretched traditors!
if I were minded, or rather if justice urged me to cast up against all
of you the deeds of some among your number. But as regards what
bears on all of you, O wretched heretics, I on my part will quote the
remainder of your words; for it is written, "There must be also
heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest
among you."[2179]2179Â Therefore "it was fitting thus that Scripture
should be fulfilled. But in you I grieve for this, that you have
shown yourselves worthy to fulfill the part of wickedness."
Chapter 76.â167. Petilianus said: "But to us the Lord Christ, in
opposition to your deadly commands, commanded simple patience and
harmlessness. For what says He? âA new commandment I give unto
you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love
one another.â And again, âBy this shall all men know that ye are my
disciples, if ye have love one to another.â"[2180]2180
168. Augustin answered: If you did not transfer these words, so
widely differing from your character, to the surface of your talk, how
could you be covering yourselves with sheepâs clothing?
Chapter 77.â169. Petilianus said: "Paul also, the apostle, whilst
he was suffering fearful persecutions at the hands of all nations,
endured even more grievous troubles at the hands of false brethren, as
he bears witness of himself, being oftentimes afflicted:Â âIn perils
by the heathen, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils among
false brethren.â[2181]2181Â And again he says, âBe ye followers of
me, even as I also am of Christ.â[2182]2182Â When, therefore, false
brethren like yourselves assault us, we imitate the patience of our
master Paul under our dangers."
170. Augustin answered: Certainly those of whom you speak are
false brethren, of whom the apostle thus complains in another place,
where he is extolling the natural sincerity of Timothy:Â "I have no
man," he says, "like-minded, who will naturally care for your state.Â
For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus
Christâs."[2183]2183Â Undoubtedly he was speaking of those who were
with him at the time when he was writing that epistle; for it could
not be that all Christians in every quarter of the earth were seeking
their own, and not the things which were Jesus Christâs. It was of
those, therefore, as I said, who were with him at the time when he was
writing the words which you have quoted, that he uttered this
lamentation. For who else was it to whom he referred, when he says
in another place, "Without were fightings, within were
fears,"[2184]2184 except those whom he feared all the more intensely
because they were within? If, therefore, you would imitate Paul, you
would be tolerant of false brethren within, not a slanderer of the
innocent without.
Chapter 78.â171. Petilianus said: "For what kind of faith is that
which is in you which is devoid of charity? when Paul himself says,
âThough I speak with the tongues of men, and have the knowledge of
angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and
though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth
me nothing.â"
172. Augustin answered: This is what I said just now, that you
were desirous to be clad in sheepâs clothing, that, if possible, the
sheep might feel your bite before it had any consciousness of your
approach. Is it not that praise of charity in which you indulge that
commonly proves your calumny in the clearest light of truth? Will
you bring it about that those arms shall be no longer ours, because
you endeavor to appropriate them first? Furthermore, these arms are
endowed with life:Â from whatever quarter they are launched, they
recognize whom they should destroy. If they have been sent forth
from our hands, they will fix themselves in you; if they are aimed by
you, they recoil upon yourselves. For in these apostolic words,
which commend the excellence of charity, we are wont to show to you
how profitless it is to man that he should be in possession of faith
or of the sacraments, when he has not charity, that, when you come to
Catholic unity, you may understand what it is that is conferred on
you, and how great a thing it is of which you were at least to some
extent in want; for Christian charity cannot be preserved except in
the unity of the Church:Â and that so you may see that without it you
are nothing, even though you may be in possession of baptism and
faith, and through this latter may be able even to remove mountains.Â
But if this is your opinion as well, let us not repudiate and reject
in you either the sacraments of God which we know, or faith itself,
but let us hold fast charity, without which we are nothing even with
the sacraments and with faith. But we hold fast charity if we cling
to unity; while we cling to unity, if we do not make a fictitious
unity in a party by our own words, but recognize it in a united whole
through the words of Christ.
Chapter 79.â173. Petilianus said: "And again, âCharity suffereth
long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her
own.â But you seek what belongs to other men. âIs not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth
in the truth; beareth all things, endureth all things. Charity never
faileth.â[2185]2185Â This is to say, in short, Charity does not
persecute, does not inflame emperors to take away the lives of other
men; does not plunder other menâs goods; does not go on to murder men
whom it has spoiled."
174. Augustin answered: How often must I tell you the same
thing? If you do not prove these charges, they tell against no one
in the world; and if you prove them, they have no bearing upon us;
just as those things have no bearing upon you which are daily done by
the furious deeds of the insane, by the luxury of the drunken, by the
blindness of the suicides, by the tyranny of robbers. For who can
fail to see that what I say is true? But now if charity were in you,
it would rejoice in the truth. For how neatly it is said under
covering of the sheepâs clothing, "Charity beareth all things,
endureth all things!" but when you come to the test, the wolfâs teeth
cannot be concealed. For when, in obedience to the words of
Scripture, "forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,"[2186]2186 charity would
compel you, even if you knew of any evils within the Church, I do not
say to consent to them, but yet to tolerate them if you could not
prevent them, lest, on account of the wicked who are to be separated
by the winnowing-fan at the last day, you should at the present time
sever the bond of peace by breaking off from the society of good men,
you, resisting her influence, and being cast out by the wind of
levity, charge the wheat with being chaff, and declare that what you
invent of the wicked holds good through the force of contagion even in
the righteous. And when the Lord has said, "The field is the world,
the harvest is the end of the world," though He said of the wheat and
of the tares, "Let both grow together until the harvest,"[2187]2187
you endeavor by your words to bring about a belief that the wheat has
perished throughout the main portion of the field, and only continued
to exist in your little corner,âbeing desirous that Christ should be
proved a liar, but you the man of truth. And you speak, indeed,
against your own conscience; for no one who in any way looks truly at
the gospel will venture in his heart to say that in all the many
nations throughout which is heard the response of Amen, and among whom
Alleluia is sung almost with one single voice, no Christians are to be
found. And yet, that it may not appear that the party of Donatus,
which does not communicate with the several nations of the world, is
involved in error, if any angel from heaven, who could see the whole
world, were to declare that outside your communion good and innocent
men were nowhere to be found, there is little doubt that you would
rejoice over the iniquity of the human race, and boast of having told
the truth before you had received assurance of it. How then is there
in you that charity which rejoices not in iniquity? But be not
deceived. Throughout the field, that is, throughout the world, there
will be found the wheat of the Lord growing till the end of the
world. Christ has said this: Christ is truth. Let charity be in
you, and let it rejoice in the truth. Though an angel from heaven
preach unto you another gospel contrary to His gospel, let him be
accursed.[2188]2188
Chapter 80.â175. Petilianus said: "Lastly, what is the
justification of persecution? I ask you, you wretched men, if it so
be that you think that your sin rests on any authority of law."
176. Augustin answered: He who sins, sins not on the authority of
the law, but against the authority of the law. But since you ask
what is the justification of persecution, I ask you in turn whose
voice it is that says in the psalm, "Whoso privily slandereth his
neighbor, him will I cut off."[2189]2189Â Seek therefore the reason
or the measure of the persecution, and do not display your gross
ignorance by finding fault in general terms with those who persecute
the unrighteous.
Chapter 81.â177. Petilianus said: "But I answer you, on the other
hand, that Jesus Christ never persecuted any one. And when the
apostle found fault with certain parties, and suggested that He should
have recourse to persecution (He Himself having come to create faith
by inviting men to Him, rather than by compelling them), those
apostles say, âMany lay on hands in Thy name, and are not with us:âÂ
but Jesus said, âLet them alone; if they are not against you, they are
on your side.â"
178. Augustin answered: You say truly that you will bring forth
out of your store with greater abundance things which are not written
in the Scriptures. For if you wish to bring forth proofs from holy
Scripture, will you bring forth even those which you cannot find
therein? But it is in your own power to multiply your lies according
to your will. For where is what you quoted written? or when was that
either suggested to our Lord, or answered by our Lord? "Many lay on
hands in Thy name, and are not with us," are words that no one of the
disciples ever uttered to the Son of God; and therefore neither could
the answer have been made by Him, "Let them alone:Â if they are not
against you, they are on your side."Â But there is something somewhat
like it which we really do read in the gospel,âthat a suggestion was
made to the Lord about a certain man who was casting out devils in His
name, but did not follow Him with His disciples; and in that case the
Lord does say, "Forbid him not:Â for he that is not against us is for
us."[2190]2190Â But this has nothing to do with pointing out parties
whom the Lord is supposed to have spared. And if you have been
deceived by an apparent resemblance of sentiment, this is not a lie,
but merely human infirmity. But if you wished to cast a mist of
falsehood over those who are unskilled in holy Scripture, then may you
be pricked to the heart, and covered with confusion and corrected.Â
Yet there is a point which we would urge in respect of this very man
of whom the suggestion was made to our Lord. For even as at that
time, beyond the communion of the disciples, the holiness of Christ
was yet of the greatest efficacy, even so now, beyond the communion of
the Church, the holiness of the sacraments is of avail. For neither
is baptism consecrated save in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. But who will be so utterly insane as to
declare that the name of the Son may be of avail even beyond the
communion of the Church, but that this is not possible with the names
of the Father and of the Holy Ghost? or that it may be of avail in
healing a man, but not in consecrating baptism? But it is manifest
that outside the communion of the Church, and the most holy bond of
unity, and the most excellent gift of charity, neither he by whom the
devil is cast out nor he who is baptized obtains eternal life; just as
those do not obtain it, who through communion in the sacraments seem
indeed to be within, and through the depravity of their character are
understood to be without. But that Christ persecuted even with
bodily chastisement those whom He drove with scourges from the temple,
we have already said above.
Chapter 82.â179. Petilianus said: "But the holy apostle said
this:Â âIn any way, whatsoever it may be,â he says, âlet Christ be
preached.â"
180. Augustin answered: You speak against yourself; but yet, since
you speak on the side of truth, if you love it, let what you say be
counted for you. For I ask of you of whom it was that the Apostle
Paul said this? Let us, if you please, trace this a little further
back. "Some," he says, "preach Christ even of envy and strife; and
some also of good will, some of love, knowing that I am set for the
defense of the gospel. But some indeed preach Christ even of
contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.Â
What then? notwithstanding every way, whether in pretense, or in
truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will
rejoice."[2191]2191Â We see that they preached what was in itself
holy, and pure, and true, but yet not in a pure manner, but of envy
and contention, without charity, without purity. Certainty a short
time ago you appeared to be urging the praises of charity as against
us, according to the witness of the apostle, that where there is no
charity, whatever there is is of no avail; and yet you see that in
those there is no charity, and there was with them the preaching of
Christ, of which the apostle says here that he rejoices. For it is
not that he rejoices in what is evil in them, but in what is good in
the name of Jesus Christ. In him assuredly there was the charity
which "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the
truth."[2192]2192Â The envy, moreover, which was in them is an evil
proceeding from the devil, for by this he has both killed and cast
down. Where then were these wicked men whom the apostle thus
condemns, and in whom there was so much that was good to cause him to
rejoice? Were they within, or without? Choose which you will. If
they were within, then Paul knew them, and yet they did not pollute
him. And so you would not be polluted in the unity of the whole
world by those of whom you make certain charges, whether these be
true, or falsehoods invented by yourselves. Wherefore do you
separate yourself? Why do you destroy yourself by the criminal
sacrilege of schism? But if they were without, then you see that
even in those who were without, and who certainly cannot belong to
everlasting life, since they have not charity, and do not abide in
unity, there is yet found the holiness of the name of Christ, so that
the apostle joyfully confirms their teaching, on account of the
intrinsic holiness of the name, although he repudiates them. We are
right, therefore, in not doing wrong to the actual name, when those
come to us who were without; but we correct the individuals, while we
do honor to the name. Do you therefore take heed, and see how
wickedly you act in the case of those whose acts as it seems you
condemn, by treating as naught the sacrament of the name of Christ,
which is holy in them. And you, indeed, as is shown by your words,
think that those men of whom the apostle spoke were outside the limits
of the Church. Therefore, when you fear persecution from the
Catholics, of which you speak in order to create odium against us, you
have confirmed in heretics the name of Christ to which you do despite
by rebaptizing.
Chapter 83.â181. Petilianus said: "If then there are not some to
whom all this power of faith is found to be in opposition, on what
principle do you persecute, so as to compel men to defile
themselves:?"
182. Augustin answered: We neither persecute you, except so far as
truth persecutes falsehood; nor has it anything to do with us if any
one has persecuted you in other ways, just as it has nothing to do
with you if any of your party do likewise; nor do we compel you to
defile yourselves, but we persuade you to be cured.
Chapter 84.â183. Petilianus said: "But if authority had been given
by some law for persons to be compelled to what is good, you
yourselves, unhappy men, ought to have been compelled by us to embrace
the purest faith. But far be it, far be it from our conscience to
compel any one to embrace our faith."
184. Augustin answered: No one is indeed to be compelled to
embrace the faith against his will; but by the severity, or one might
rather say, by the mercy of God, it is common for treachery to be
chastised with the scourge of tribulation. Is it the case, because
the best morals are chosen by freedom of will, that therefore the
worst morals are not punished by integrity of law? But yet
discipline to punish an evil manner of living is out of the question,
except where principles of good living which had been learned have
come to be despised. If any laws, therefore, have been enacted
against you, you are not thereby forced to do well, but are only
prevented from doing ill.[2193]2193Â For no one can do well unless he
has deliberately chosen, and unless he has loved what is in free will;
but the fear of punishment, even if it does not share in the pleasures
of a good conscience, at any rate keeps the evil desire from escaping
beyond the bounds of thought. Who are they, however, that have
enacted adverse laws by which your audacity could be repressed? Are
they not those of whom the apostle says that "they bear not the sword
in vain; for they are the ministers of God, revengers to execute wrath
upon them that do evil?"[2194]2194Â The whole question therefore is,
whether you are not doing ill, who are charged by the whole world with
the sacrilege of so great a schism. And yet, neglecting the
discussion of this question, you talk on irrelevant matters; and while
you live as robbers, you boast that you die as martyrs.[2195]2195Â
And, through fear either of the laws themselves, or of the odium which
you might incur, or else because you are unequal to the task of
resisting, I do not say so many men, but so many Catholic nations, you
even glory in your gentleness, that you do not compel any to join your
party. According to your way of talking, the hawk, when he has been
prevented by flight from carrying off the fowls, might call himself a
dove. For when have you ever had the power without using it? And
hence you show how you would do more if you only could. When Julian,
envying the peace of Christ, restored to you the churches which
belonged to unity, who could tell of all the massacres which were
committed by you, when the very devils rejoiced with you at the
opening of their temples? In the war with Firmus and his party, let
Mauritania Cæsariensis itself be asked to tell us what the Moor
Rogatus[2196]2196 suffered at your hands. In the time of Gildo,
because one of your colleagues[2197]2197 was his intimate friend, let
the followers of Maximianus be our witnesses to their sufferings.Â
For if one might appeal to Felicianus himself, who is now with you, on
his oath, whether Optatus did not compel him against his will to
return to your communion, he would not dare to open his lips,
especially if the people of Musti could behold his face, who were
witnesses to everything that was done. But let them, as I have said,
be witnesses to what they have suffered at the hands of those with
whom they acted in such wise towards Rogatus. The Catholic Church
herself, though strengthened by the assistance of Catholic princes
ruling by land and sea, was savagely attacked by hostile troops in
arms under Optatus. It was this that first made it necessary to urge
before the vicar Seranus that the law should be put in force against
you which imposes a fine of ten pounds of gold, which none of you have
ever paid to this very day, and yet you charge us with cruelty. But
where could you find a milder course of proceeding, than that crimes
of such magnitude on your part should be punished by the imposition of
a pecuniary fine? Or who could enumerate all the deeds which you
commit in the places which you hold, of your own sovereign will and
pleasure, each one as he can, without any friendship on the part of
judges or any others in authority? Who is there of our party, among
the inhabitants of our towns, who has not either learned something of
this sort from those who came before him, or experienced it for
himself? Is it not the case that at Hippo, where I am, there are not
wanting some who remember that your leader Faustinus gave orders, in
the time of his supreme power, in consequence of the scanty numbers of
the Catholics in the place, that no one should bake their bread for
them, insomuch that a baker, who was the tenant of one of our deacons,
threw away the bread of his landlord unbaked, and though he was not
sentenced to exile under any law, he cut him off from all share in the
necessaries of life not only in a Roman state,[2198]2198 but even in
his own country, and not only in his own country, but in his own
house? Why, even lately, as I myself recall with mourning to this
day, did not Crispinus of Calama, one of your party, having bought a
property, and that only copy-hold,[2199]2199 boldly and unhesitatingly
immerse in the waters of a second baptism no less than eighty souls,
murmuring with miserable groans under the sole influence of terror;
and this in a farm belonging to the Catholic emperors, by whose laws
you were forbidden even to be in any Roman city?[2200]2200Â But what
else was it, save such deeds as these of yours, that made it necessary
for the very laws to be passed of which you complain? The laws,
indeed, are very far from being proportionate to your offenses; but,
such as they are, you may thank yourselves for their existence.Â
Indeed, should we not certainly be driven on all sides from the
country by the furious attacks of your Circumcelliones, who fight
under your command in furious troops, unless we held you as hostages
in the towns, who might well be unwilling to endure under any
circumstances the mere gaze of the people, and the censure of all
honorable men. from very shame, if not from fear? Do not therefore
say, "Far be it, far be it from our conscience, to force any one to
embrace our faith."Â For you do it when you can; and when you do not
do it, it is because you are unable, either from fear of the laws or
the odium which would accompany it, or because of the numbers of those
who would resist.
Chapter 85.â185. Petilianus said: "For the Lord Christ says, âNo
man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
him.â[2201]2201Â But why do we not permit each several person to
follow his free will, since the Lord God Himself has given free will
to men, showing to them, however, the way of righteousness, lest any
one by chance should perish from ignorance of it? For He said, âI
have placed before thee good and evil. I have set fire and water
before thee; choose which thou wilt.â From which choice, you
wretched men, you have chosen for yourselves not water, but rather
fire. âBut yet,â He says, âchoose the good, that thou mayest
live.â[2202]2202Â You who will not choose the good, have, by your own
sentence, declared that you do not wish to live."
186. Augustin answered: If I were to propose to you the question
how God the Father draws men to the Son, when He has left them to
themselves in freedom of action, you would perhaps find it difficult
of solution. For how does He draw them to Him if He leaves them to
themselves, so that each should choose what he pleases? And yet both
these facts are true; but this is a truth which few have intellect
enough to penetrate. As therefore it is possible that, after leaving
men to themselves in free will, the Father should yet draw them to the
Son, so is it also possible that those warnings which are given by the
correction of the laws do not take away free will. For whenever a
man suffers anything that is harsh and unpleasing, he is warned to
consider why it is that he is suffering, so that, if he shall discover
that he is suffering in the cause of justice, he may choose the good
that consists in the very act of suffering as he does in the cause of
justice; but if he sees that it is unrighteousness for which he
suffers, he may be induced, from the consideration that he is
suffering and being tormented most fruitlessly, to change his purpose
for the better, and may at the same time escape both the fruitless
annoyance and the unrighteousness itself, which is likely to prove yet
more hurtful and pernicious in the mischief it produces. And so you,
when kings make any enactments against you, should consider that you
are receiving a warning to consider why this is being done to you.Â
For if it is for righteousnessâ sake, then are they truly your
persecutors; but you are the blessed ones, who, being persecuted for
righteousnessâ sake, shall inherit the kingdom of heaven:[2203]2203Â
but if it is because of the iniquity of your schism, what are they
more than your correctors; while you, like all the others who are
guilty of various crimes, and pay the penalty appointed by the law,
are undoubtedly unhappy both in this world and in that which is to
come? No one, therefore, takes away from you your free will. But I
would urge you diligently to consider which you would rather
choose,âwhether to live corrected in peace, or, by persevering in
malice, to undergo real punishment under the false name of
martyrdom. But I am addressing you just as though you were suffering
something proportionate to your sin, whereas you are committing sins
of such enormity and reigning in such impunity. You are so furious,
that you cause more terror than a war trumpet with your cry of "Praise
to God;" so full of calumny, that even when you throw yourselves over
precipices without any provocation, you impute it to our persecutions.
187. He says also, like the kindest of teachers, "You who will not
choose the good, have, by your own sentence, declared that you do not
wish to live."Â According to this, if we were to believe your
accusations, we should live in kindness; but because we believe the
promises of God, we declare by our own sentence that we do not wish to
live. You remember well, it seems to me, what the apostles answered
to the Jews when they were desired to abstain from preaching Christ.Â
This therefore we also say, that you should answer us whether we ought
rather to obey God or man.[2204]2204Â Traditors, offerers of incense,
persecutors: these are the words of men against men. Christ
remained only in the love of Donatus:Â these are the words of men
extolling the glory of a man under the name of Christ, that the glory
of Christ Himself may be diminished. For it is written, "In the
multitude of people is the kingâs honor: but in the want of people is
the destruction of the prince:"[2205]2205Â these, therefore, are the
words of men. But those words in the gospel, "It behoved Christ to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all
nations, beginning at Jerusalem,"[2206]2206 are the words of Christ,
showing forth the glory which He received from His Father in the
wideness of His kingdom. When we have heard them both, we choose in
preference the communion of the Church, and prefer the words of Christ
to the words of men. I ask, who is there that can say that we have
chosen what is evil, except one who shall say that Christ taught what
was evil?
Chapter 86.â188. Petilianus said: "Is it then the case that God
has ordered the massacre even of schismatics? and if He were to issue
such an order at all, you ought to be slain by some barbarians and
Scythians, not by Christians."
189. Augustin answered: Let your Circumcelliones remain quiet, and
let me entreat you not to terrify us about barbarians. But as to
whether we or you are schismatics, let the question be put neither to
you nor to me, but to Christ, that He may show where His Church is to
be found. Read the gospel then, and there you find the answer, "In
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria and even in the whole
earth."[2207]2207Â If any one, therefore, is not found within the
Church, let not any further question be put to him, but let him either
be corrected or converted, or else, being detected, let him not
complain.
Chapter 87.â190. Petilianus said: "For neither has the Lord God at
any time rejoiced in human blood, seeing that He was even willing that
Cain, the murderer of his brother, should continue to exist in his
murdererâs life."
191. Augustin answered: If God was unwilling that death should be
inflicted on him who slew his brother, preferring that he should
continue to exist in his murdererâs life, see whether this be not the
cause why, seeing that the heart of the king is in the hand of God,
whereby he has himself enacted many laws for your correction and
reproof, yet no law of the king has commanded that you should be put
to death, perhaps with this very object, that any one of you who
persists in the obstinate self-will of his sacrilegious madness should
be tortured with the punishment of the fratricide Cain, that is to
say, with the life of a murderer. For we read that many were slain
in mercy by Moses the servant of the Lord; for in that he prayed thus
in intercession to the Lord for their wicked sacrilege, saying, "O
Lord, if Thou wilt forgive their sinâ; and if not, blot me, I pray
thee, out of the book which Thou hast written,"[2208]2208 his
unspeakable charity and mercy are plainly shown. Could it be, then,
that he was suddenly changed to cruelty, when, on descending from the
mount, he ordered so many thousands to be slain? Consider,
therefore, whether it may not be a sign of greater anger on the part
of God, that, whilst so many laws have been enacted against you, you
have not been ordered by any emperor to be put to death. Or do you
think that you are not to be compared to that fratricide? Hearken to
the Lord speaking through His prophet:Â "From the rising of the sun,
even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the
Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name,
and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen,
saith the Lord of hosts."[2209]2209Â On this brotherâs sacrifice you
show that you look with malignant eyes, over and above the respect
which God pays to it; and if ye have ever heard that "from the rising
of the sun, unto the going down of the same, the Lordâs name is to be
praised,"[2210]2210 which is that living sacrifice of which it is
said, "Offer unto God thanksgiving,"[2211]2211 then will your
countenance fall like that of yonder murderer. But inasmuch as you
cannot kill the whole world, you are involved in the same guilt by
your mere hatred, according to the words of John, "Whosoever hateth
his brother is a murderer."[2212]2212Â And I would that any innocent
brother might rather fall into the hands of your Circumcelliones, to
be murdered by their weapons, than be subjected to the poison of your
tongue and rebaptized.
Chapter 88.â192. Petilianus said: "We advise you, therefore, if so
be that you will hear it willingly, and even though you do not
willingly receive it, yet we warn you that the Lord Christ instituted
for Christians, not any form of slaying, but one of dying only. For
if He loved men who thus delight in battle, He would not have
consented to be slain for us."
193. Augustin answered: Would that your martyrs would follow the
form that He prescribed! they would not throw themselves over
precipices, which He refused to do at the bidding of the
devil.[2213]2213Â But when you persecute our ancestors with false
witness even now that they are dead, whence have you received this
form? In that you endeavor to stain us with the crimes of men we
never knew, while you are unwilling that the most notorious misdeeds
of your own party should be reckoned against you, whence have you
received this form? But we are too much yielding to our own conceit
if we find fault about ourselves, when we see that you utter false
testimony against the Lord Himself, since He Himself both promised and
made manifest that His Church should extend throughout all nations,
and you maintain the contrary. This form, therefore, you did not
receive even from the Jewish persecutors themselves, for they
persecuted His body while He was walking on the earth:Â you persecute
His gospel as He is seated in heaven. Which gospel endured more
meekly the flames of furious kings than it can possibly endure your
tongues; for while they blazed, unity remained, and this it cannot do
amid your words. They who desired that the word of God should perish
in the flames did not believe that it could be despised if read.Â
They would not, therefore, set their flames to work upon the gospel,
if you would let them use your tongues against the gospel. In the
earlier persecution the gospel of Christ was sought by some in their
rage, it was betrayed by others in their fear; it was burned by some
in their rage, it was hidden by others in their love; it was attacked,
but none were found to speak against its truth. The more accursed
share of persecution was reserved for you when the persecution of the
heathen was exhausted. Those who persecuted the name of Christ
believed in Christ:Â now those who are honored for the name of Christ
are found to speak against His truth.
Chapter 89.â194. Petilianus said: "Here you have the fullest
possible proof that a Christian may take no part in the destruction of
another. But the first establishing of this principle was in the
case of Peter, as it is written, âSimon Peter having a sword, drew it,
and smote the high priestâs servant, and cut off his right ear. Then
said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. For all
they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.â"[2214]2214
195. Augustin answered: Why then do you not restrain the weapons
of the Circumcelliones with such words as these? Should you think
that you were going beyond the words of the gospel if you should say,
All they that take the cudgel shall perish with the cudgel? Withhold
not then your pardon, if our ancestors were unable to restrain the men
by whom you complain that Marculus was thrown down a precipice; for
neither is it written in the gospel, He that useth to throw men down a
precipice shall be cast therefrom. And would that, as your charges
are either false or out of date, so the cudgels of those friends of
yours would cease! And yet, perhaps, you take it ill that, if not by
force of law, at any rate in words, we take away their armor from your
legions in saying that they manifest their rage with sticks alone.Â
For that was the ancient fashion of their wickedness, but now they
have advanced too far. For amid their drunken revellings, and amid
the free license of assembling together, wandering in the streets,
jesting, drinking, passing the whole night in company with women who
have no husbands, they have learned not only to brandish cudgels, but
to wield swords and whirl slings. But why should I not say to them
(God knows with what feelings I say it and with what feelings they
receive it!), Madmen, the sword of Peter, though drawn from motives
not yet free from fleshly impurity, was yet drawn in defence of the
body of Christ against the body of His persecutor, but your arms are
portioned out against the cause of Christ; but the body of which He is
the head, that is, His Church, extends throughout all nations. He
Himself has said this, and has ascended into heaven, whither the fury
of the Jews could not follow Him; and it is your fury which attacks
His members in the body, which on His ascension He commended to our
care. In defense of those members all men rage against you, all men
resist you, as many as being in the Catholic Church, and possessing as
yet but little faith, are influenced by the same motives as Peter was
when he drew his sword in the name of Christ. But there is a great
difference between your persecution and theirs. You are like the
servant of the Jewsâ high priest; for in the service of your princes
you arm yourselves against the Catholic Church, that is, against the
body of Christ. But they are such as Peter then was, fighting even
with the strength of their bodies for the body of Christ, that is, the
Church. But if they are bidden to be still, as Peter then was
bidden, how much more should you be warned that, laying aside the
madness of heresy, you should join the unity of those members for
which they so fight? But, being wounded by such men as these, you
hate us also; and, as though you had lost your right ears, you do not
hear the voice of Christ as He sits at the right hand of the Father.Â
But to whom shall I address myself, or how shall I address myself to
them, seeing that in them I find no time wherein to speak? for even
early in the morning they are reeking with wine, drunk, it may be
already in the day, it may be still from overnight. Moreover, they
utter threats, and not they only, but their own bishops utter threats
concerning them, being ready to deny that what they have done has any
bearing on them. May the Lord grant to us a song of degrees, in
which we may say, "When I am with those who hate peace, I am
peaceful. When I would speak with them, they are wont to fight me
without cause."[2215]2215Â For thus says the body of Christ, which
throughout the whole world is assailed by heretics, by some here, by
others there, and by all alike wherever they may be.[2216]2216
Chapter 90.â196. Petilianus said: "Therefore I say, He ordained
that we should undergo death for the faith, which each man should do
for the communion of the Church. For Christianity makes progress by
the deaths of its followers. For if death were feared by the
faithful, no man would be found to live with perfect faith. For the
Lord Christ says, âExcept a corn of wheat fall into the ground and
die, it abideth alone:Â but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit.â"[2217]2217
197. Augustin answered: I should be glad to know which of your
party it was who first threw himself over a precipice. For truly
that grain of corn was fruitful from which so great a crop of similar
suicides has sprung. Tell me, when you make mention of the words of
the Lord, that He says a grain of wheat shall die and bring forth much
fruit, why do you envy the real fruit, which has most truly[2218]2218
sprung up throughout the whole world, and bring up against it all the
charges of the tares or chaff which you have ever either heard of or
invented?
Chapter 91.â198. Petilianus said: "But you scatter thorns and
tares, not seeds of corn so that you ought to be burned together with
them at the last judgment. We do not utter curses; but every thorny
conscience is bound under this penalty by the sentence which God has
pronounced."
199. Augustin answered: Surely, when you mention tares, it might
bring to your minds the thought of wheat as well; for both have been
commanded to grow together in the field until the harvest. But you
fix the eye of malice fiercely on the tares, and maintain, in
opposition to the express declaration of Christ, that they alone have
grown throughout the earth, with the exception of Africa alone.
Chapter 92.â200. Petilianus said: "Where is the saying of the Lord
Christ, âWhosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him
the other alsoâ?[2219]2219Â Where is the patience which He displayed
when they spat upon His face, who Himself with His most holy spittle
opened the eyes of the blind? Where is the saying of the Apostle
Paul, âIf a man smite you in the face?â Where is that other saying
of the same apostle, âIn stripes above measure, in prisons more
frequent, in deaths oftâ?[2220]2220Â He makes mention of the
sufferings which he underwent, not of the deeds which he performed.Â
It had been enough for the Christian faith that these things should be
done by the Jews:Â why do you, wretched men, do these others in
addition?"
201. Augustin answered: Is it then really so, that when men smite
you on the one cheek, you turn to them the other? This is not the
report that your furious bands won for you by wandering everywhere
throughout the whole of Africa with dreadful wickedness. I would
fain have it that men should make a bargain with you, that, in
accordance with the old law, you should seek but "an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth,"[2221]2221 instead of bringing out cudgels in
return for the words which greet your ears.
Chapter 93.â202. Petilianus said: "But what have you to do with
the kings of this world, in whom Christianity has never found anything
save envy towards her? And to teach you shortly the truth of what I
say, A king persecuted the brethren of the Maccabees.[2222]2222Â A
king also condemned the three children to the sanctifying flames,
being ignorant what he did, seeing that he himself was fighting
against God.[2223]2223Â A king sought the life of the infant
Saviour.[2224]2224Â A king exposed Daniel, as he thought, to be eaten
by wild beasts.[2225]2225Â And the Lord Christ Himself was slain by a
kingâs most wicked judge.[2226]2226Â Hence it is that the apostle
cries out, âWe speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the
wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to
nought:Â but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which was
hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none
of the princes of this world knew:Â for had they known it, they would
not have crucified the Lord of glory.â[2227]2227Â But grant that this
was said of the heathen kings of old. Yet you, rulers of this
present age, because you desire to be Christians, do not allow men to
be Christians, seeing that, when they are believing in all honesty of
heart, you draw them by the defilement and mist of your falsehood
wholly over to your wickedness, that with their arms, which were
provided against the enemies of the state, they should assail the
Christians, and should think that, at your instigation, they are doing
the work of Christ if they kill us whom you hate, according to the
saying of the Lord Christ:Â âThe time cometh,â He says, âthat
whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God
service.â[2228]2228Â It makes no matter therefore to you, false
teachers, whether the kings of this world desire to be heathens, which
God forbid, or Christians, so long as you cease not in your efforts to
arm them against the family of Christ. But do you not know, or
rather, have you not read, that the guilt of one who instigates a
murder is greater than the guilt of him who carries it out? Jezebel
had excited the king her husband to the murder of a poor and righteous
man, yet husband and wife alike perished by an equal
punishment.[2229]2229Â Nor indeed is your mode of urging on kings
different from that by which the subtle persuasion of women has often
urged kings on to guilt. For the wife of Herod earned and obtained
the boon by means of her daughter, that the head of John should be
brought to table in a charger.[2230]2230Â Similarly the Jews forced
on Pontius Pilate that he should crucify the Lord Jesus, whose blood
Pilate prayed might remain in vengeance upon them and on their
children.[2231]2231Â So therefore you also overwhelm yourselves with
our blood by your sin. For it does not follow that because it is the
hand of the judge that strikes the blow, your calumnies therefore are
not rather guilty of the deed. For the prophet David says, speaking
in the person of Christ, âWhy do the heathen rage, and the people
imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the
rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His
Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away
their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:Â
the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them
in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure. Yet have I set
my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the
Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten
Thee. Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy
possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash
them in pieces like a potterâs vessel.â And he warned the kings
themselves in the following precepts, that they should not, like
ignorant men devoid of understanding, seek to persecute the
Christians, lest they should themselves be destroyed,âwhich precepts I
would that we could teach them, seeing that they are ignorant of them;
or, at least, that you would show them to them, as doubtless you would
do if you desired that they should live; or, at any rate, if neither
of the other courses be allowed, that your malice would have permitted
them to read them for themselves. The first Psalm of David would
certainly have persuaded them that they should live and reign as
Christians; but meanwhile you deceive them, so long as they entrust
themselves to you. For you represent to them things that are evil,
and you hide from them what is good. Let them then at length read
this, which they should have read already long ago. For what does he
say, âBe wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of
the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.Â
Lay hold of instruction lest the Lord be angry, and ye perish from the
right way. Since how quickly has His wrath kindled over you?Â
Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.â[2232]2232Â You
urge on emperors, I say, with your persuasions, even as Pilate, whom,
as we showed above, the Jews urged on, though he himself cried aloud,
as he washed his hands before them all, âI am innocent of the blood of
this just person,â[2233]2233âas though a person could be clear from
the guilt of a sin who had himself committed it. But, to say nothing
of ancient examples, observe, from instances taken from your own
party, how very many of your emperors and judges have perished in
persecuting us. To pass over Nero, who was the first to persecute
the Christians, Domitian perished almost in the same way as Nero, as
also did Trajan, Geta,[2234]2234 Decius, Valerian, Diocletian;
Maximian also perished, at whose command that men should burn incense
to their gods, burning the sacred volumes, Marcellinus indeed first,
but after him also Mensurius of Carthage, and Cæcilianus, escaped
death from the sacrilegious flames, surviving like some ashes or
cinders from the burning. For the consciousness of the guilt of
burning incense involved you all, as many as agreed with Mensurius.Â
Macarius perished, Ursacius[2235]2235 perished, and all your counts
perished in like manner by the vengeance of God. For Ursacius was
slain in a battle with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with
their savage talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting,
tore him limb from limb. Was not he too a murderer at your
suggestion, who, like king Ahab, whom we showed to have been persuaded
by a woman, slew a poor and righteous man?[2236]2236Â So you too do
not cease to murder us, who are just and poor (poor, that is, in
worldly wealth; for in the grace of God no one of us is poor). For
even if you do not murder a man with your hands, you do not cease to
do so with your butcherous tongues. For it is written, âDeath and
life are in the power of the tongue.â[2237]2237Â All, therefore, who
have been murdered, you, the instigator of the deed, have slain. Nor
indeed does the hand of the butcher glow save at the instigation of
your tongue; and that terrible heat of the breast is inflamed by your
words to take the blood of others,âblood that shall take a just
vengeance upon him who shed it."
203. Augustin answered: If I were to answer adequately, and as I
ought, to this passage, which has been exaggerated and arranged at
such length by you, where you speak in invidious terms against us
concerning the kings of this world, I am much afraid that you would
accuse me too of having wished to excite the anger of kings against
you. And yet, whilst you are borne after your own fashion by the
violence of this invective against all Catholics, you certainly do not
pass me by. I will endeavor, however, to show, if I can, that it is
rather you who have been guilty of this offense by speaking as you
have done, than myself by answering as I shall do. And first of all,
see how you yourself oppose your self; for certainly you prefaced the
passage which you quoted with the words, "What have you to do with the
kings of this world, in whom Christianity has never found anything
save envy towards her?"Â In these words you certainly cut off from us
all access to the kings of this world. And a little later you say,
"And he warned the kings themselves in the following precepts, that
they should not, like ignorant men devoid of understanding, seek to
persecute the Christians, lest they should be themselves
destroyed,âwhich precepts I would that we could teach them, seeing
that they are ignorant of them; or, at least, that you would show them
to them, as doubtless you would do if you desired that they should
live."Â In what way then do you wish us to be the instructors of
kings? And indeed those of our body who have any friendship with
Christian kings commit no sin if they make a right use of that
friendship; but if any are elated by it, they yet sin far less
grievously than you. For what had you, who thus reproach us,âwhat
had you to do with a heathen king, and what is worse, with Julian, the
apostate and enemy of the name of Christ, to whom, when you were
begging that the basilicas should be restored to you as though they
were your own, you ascribed this meed of praise, "that in him justice
alone was found to have a place"?âin which words (for I believe that
you understand the Latin tongue) both the idolatry and the apostasy of
Julian are styled justice. I hold in my hands the petition which
your ancestors presented; the memorial[2238]2238 which embodied their
request; the chronicles, where they made their representation. Watch
and attend. To the enemy of Christ, to the apostate, the antagonist
of Christians, the servant of the devil, that friend, that
representative, that Pontius of yours, made supplication in such words
as these:Â "Go to then, and say to us, What have you to do with the
kings of this world?" that as deaf men you may read to the deaf
nations what you as well as they refuse to hear;" Thou beholdest the
mote that is in thy brotherâs eye, but considerest not the beam that
is in thine own eye."[2239]2239
204. "What," say you, "have you to do with the kings of this world,
in whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards
her?"Â Having said this, you endeavored to reckon up what kings the
righteous had found to be their enemies, and did not consider how many
more might be enumerated who have proved their friends. The
patriarch Abraham was both most friendly treated, and presented with a
token of friendship, by a king who had been warned from heaven not to
defile his wife.[2240]2240Â Isaac his son likewise found a king most
friendly to him.[2241]2241Â Jacob, being received with honor by a
king in Egypt, went so far as to bless him.[2242]2242Â What shall I
say of his son Joseph, who, after the tribulation of a prison, in
which his chastity was tried as gold is tried in the fire, being
raised by Pharaoh to great honors,[2243]2243 even swore by the life of
Pharaoh,[2244]2244ânot as though puffed up with vain conceit, but
being not unmindful of his kindness. The daughter of a king adopted
Moses.[2245]2245Â David took refuge with a king of another race,
compelled thereto by the unrighteousness of the king of
Israel.[2246]2246Â Elijah ran before the chariot of a most wicked
king,ânot by the kingâs command, but from his own loyalty.[2247]2247Â
Elisha thought it good to offer of his own accord to the woman who had
sheltered him anything that she might wish to have obtained from the
king through his intercession.[2248]2248Â But I will come to the
actual times when the people of God were in captivity, in which, to
use a mild expression, a strange forgetfulness came over you. For,
wishing to prove that Christianity has never found anything in kings
saving envy towards her, you made mention of the three children and
Daniel, who suffered at the hands of persecuting kings, and you could
not derive instruction from circumstances not occurring near, but in
the very same passages, viz., from the conduct of the king himself
after the miracle of the flames which did no hurt, whether as shown in
praising and setting forth the name of God, or in honoring the three
children themselves, or from the esteem in which the king held Daniel,
and the gifts with which he honored him, nothing loth to receive them,
when he, rendering the honor that was due to the kingâs power, as
sufficiently appears from his own words, did not hesitate to use the
gift with which he was endowed by God, in interpreting the kingâs
dream. And when, in consequence, the king was compelled by the men
who envied the holy prophet, and heaped calumnies upon him with
sacrilegious madness, most unwillingly to cast him into the den of
lions, sadly though he did it, yet he had the conviction that he would
be safe through the help and protection of his God. Accordingly,
when Daniel, by the miraculous repression of the lionsâ rage, had been
preserved unhurt, when the friendly voice of the king spoke first to
him, in accents of anxiety, he himself replied with benediction from
the den, "O king, live for ever!"[2249]2249Â How came it that, when
your argument was turning on the very same subject, when you were
yourself quoting the examples of the servants of God in whose case
these things were done, you either failed to see, or were unwilling to
see, or seeing and knowing, were silent, in a manner which I know not
how you will defend, about those instances of friendship felt by kings
for the saints? But if it were not that, as a defender of the basest
cause, you are hindered by the desire of building up falsehood, and
thereby turned away either as unwilling or as ignorant from the light
of truth, there can be no doubt that you could, without any
difficulty, recall some good kings as well as some bad ones, and some
friendly to the saints as well as some unfriendly. And we cannot but
wonder that your Circumcelliones thus throw themselves from
precipices. Who was running after you, I pray? What Macarius, what
soldier was pursuing you? Certainly none of our party thrust you
into this abyss of falsehood. Why then did you thus run headlong
with your eyes shut, so that when you said, "What have you to do with
the kings of this world?" you did not add, In whom Christianity has
often found envy towards herself, instead of boldly venturing to say,
"In whom Christianity has never found anything save envy towards
her?"Â Was it really true that you neither thought yourself, nor
considered that those who read your writings would think, how many
instances of kings there were that went against your views? Does he
not know what he says?
205. Or do you think that, because those whom I have mentioned
belonged to olden times, therefore they form no argument against you,
because you did not say, In whom righteousness has never found
anything save envy towards her, but "In whom Christianity has never
found anything saving envy towards her,"âmeaning, perhaps, that it
should be understood that they began to show envy towards the
righteous from the time when they began to bear the name of
Christians? What then is the meaning of those examples from olden
times, by which you even more imprudently wished to prove what you had
so imprudently ventured to assert? For was it not before Christ was
born in the world that the Maccabees, and the three children, and
Daniel, did and suffered what you told of them? And again, why was
it, as I asked just now, that you offered a petition to Julian, the
undoubted foe of Christianity? Why did you seek to recover the
basilicas from him? Why did you declare that only righteousness
found a place with him? If it is the foe of Christianity that hears
such things as these, what then are they from whom he hears them?Â
But it should be observed that Constantine, who was certainly no foe
to the name of Christian, but rather rendered glorious by it, being
mindful of the hope which he maintained in Christ, and deciding most
justly on behalf of His unity, was not worthy to be acknowledged by
you, even when you yourselves appealed to him. Both these were
emperors in Christian times, but yet not both of them were
Christians. But if both of them were foes of Christianity, why did
you thus appeal to one of them? why did you thus present a petition to
the other? For on your ancestors making their petition, Constantine
had given an episcopal judgment both at Rome and at Arles; and yet the
first of them you accused before him, from the other you appealed to
him. But if, as is the case, one of them had believed in Christ, the
other had apostatized from Christ, why is the Christian despised while
furthering the interests of unity, the apostate praised while favoring
deceit? Constantine ordered that the basilicas should be taken from
you, Julian that they should be restored. Do you wish to know which
of these actions is conducive to Christian peace? The one was done
by a man who had believed in Christ, the other by one who had
abandoned Christ. O how you would wish that you could say, It was
indeed ill done that supplication should so be made to Julian, but
what has that to do with us? But if you were to say this, the
Catholic Church would also conquer in these same words, whose saints
dispersed throughout the world are much less concerned with what you
say of those towards whom you feel as you may be disposed to feel.Â
But it is beyond your power to say, It was ill done that supplication
should so be made to Julian. Your throat is closed; your tongue is
checked by an authority close at home. It was Pontius that did it.Â
Pontius presented the petition; Pontius declared that the apostate was
most righteous; Pontius set forth that only righteousness found a
place with the apostate. That Pontius made a petition to him in
these words, we have the express evidence of Julian himself,
mentioning him by name, without any disguise. Your representations
still exist. It is no uncertain rumor, but public documents that
bear witness to the fact. Â Can it be, that because the apostate made
some concession to your prayer, to the detriment of the unity of
Christ, you therefore find truth in what was said, that only
righteousness found a place with him? but because Christian emperors
decide against your wishes, since this appears to them most likely to
contribute to the unity of Christ, therefore they are called the foes
of Christianity? Such folly may all heretics display; and may they
regain wisdom, so that they should be no longer heretics.
206. And when is that fulfilled, you will say, which the Lord
declares, "The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that
he doeth God service"?[2250]2250Â At any rate neither can this be
said of the heathen, who persecuted Christians, not for the sake of
God, but for the sake of their idols. You do not see that if this
had been said of these emperors who rejoice in the name of Christian,
their chief command would certainly have been this, that you should
have been put to death; and this command they never gave at all. But
the men of your party, by opposing the laws in hostile fashion, bring
deserved punishment on themselves; and their own voluntary deaths, so
long as they think that they bring odium on us, they consider in no
wise ruinous to themselves. But if they think that that saying of
Christ refers to kings who honor the name of Christ, let them ask what
the Catholic Church suffered in the East, when, Valens the Arian was
emperor. There indeed I might find what I should understand to be
sufficient fulfillment of the saying of the Lord, "The time cometh,
that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service," that
heretics should not claim, as conducing to their especial glory, the
injunctions issued against their errors by Catholic emperors. But we
remember that that time was fulfilled after the ascension of our Lord,
of which holy Scripture is known by all to be a witness. The Jews
thought that they were doing a service to God when they put the
apostles to death. Among those who thought that they were showing
service to God was even our Saul, though not ours as yet; so that
among his causes for confidence which were past and to be forgotten,
he enumerates the following:Â "An Hebrew," he says, "of the Hebrews;
as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the
Church."[2251]2251Â Here was one who thought that he did God service
when he did what presently he suffered himself. For forty Jews bound
themselves by an oath that they would slay him, when he caused that
this should be made known to the tribune, so that under the protection
of a guard of armed men he escaped their snares.[2252]2252Â But there
was no one yet to say to him, What have you to do (not with kings,
but) with tribunes and the arms of kings? There was no one to say to
him, Dare you seek protection at the hand of soldiers, when your Lord
was dragged by them to undergo His sufferings? There were as yet no
instances of madness such as yours; but there were already examples
being prepared, which should be sufficient for their refutation.
207. Moreover, with what terrible force did you venture to set forth
and utter the following:Â "But to say nothing of ancient examples,
observe, from instances taken from your own party, how very many of
your emperors and judges have perished in persecuting us."Â When I
read this in your letter, I waited with the most earnest expectation
to see what you were going to say, and whom you were going to
enumerate, when, lo and behold! as though passing them over; you began
to quote to me Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Geta, Decius, Valerian,
Diocletian, Maximian. I acknowledge that there were more; but you
have altogether forgotten against whom you are arguing. Were not all
of these pagans, persecuting generally the Christian name on behalf of
their idols? Be vigilant, then; for the men whom you mention were
not of our communion. They were persecuting the whole aggregate of
unity itself, from which we as you think, or you, as Christ teaches,
have gone forth. But you had proposed to show that our emperors and
judges had perished in consequence of persecuting you. Or is it that
you yourself do not require that we should reckon these, because, in
mentioning them, you passed them over, saying, "To pass over Nero;"
and with this reservation did you mean to run through all the rest?Â
What then was the use of their being quoted, if they had nothing to do
with the matter? But what has it to do with me? I now join with
you in leaving these. Next, let that larger number which you
promised to us be produced, unless, indeed, it may be that they cannot
be found, inasmuch as you said that they had perished.
208. For now you go on to make mention of the bishops whom you are
wont to accuse of having delivered up the sacred books, concerning
whom we on our part are wont to answer:Â Either you fail in your
proof, and so it concerns no one at all; or you succeed and then it
still has no concern with us. For they have borne their own burden,
whether it be good or bad; and we indeed believe that it was good.Â
But of whatever character it was, yet it was their own; just as your
bad men have borne their own burden, and neither you theirs nor they
yours. But the common and most evil burden of you all is schism.Â
This we have already often said before. Show us, therefore, not the
names of bishops, but the names of our emperors and judges, who have
perished in persecuting you. For this, is what you had proposed,
this is what you had promised, this is what you had caused us most
eagerly to expect. "Hear," he says, "Macarius perished, Ursacius
perished, and all your counts perished in like manner, by the
vengeance of God."Â You have mentioned only two by name, and neither
of them was emperor. Who would be satisfied with this, I ask? Are
you not utterly dissatisfied with yourself? You promise that you
will mention a vast number of emperors and judges of our party who
perished in persecuting you; and then, without a word of emperors, you
mention two who were either judges or counts. For as to what you
add, "And all your counts perished in like manner by the vengeance of
God," it has nothing to do with the matter. For on this principle
you might some time ago have closed your argument, without mentioning
the name of any one at all. Why then have you not made mention of
our emperors, that is to say, of emperors of our communion? Were you
afraid that you should be indicted for high treason? Where is the
fortitude that marks the Circumcelliones? And further, what do you
mean by introducing those whom you mentioned above in such numbers?Â
They might with more right say to you, Why did you seek us out? For
they did nothing to assist your cause, and yet you mentioned them by
name. What kind of man, then, must you be, who fear to mention those
by name, who, as you say, have perished? At any rate, you might
mention more of the judges and counts, of whom you seem to feel no
fear. But yet you stopped at Macarius and Ursacius. Are these two
whom you mention the vast number of whom you spoke? Are you thinking
of the lesson which we learned as boys? For if you were to ask of me
what number two is, singular or plural, what could I answer, except
that it was plural? But even so I am still not without the means of
reply. I take away Macarius from your list; for you certainly have
not told us how he perished. Or do you maintain that any one who
persecutes you, unless he be immortal on the face of this earth, is to
be deemed when he dies to have died because of you? What if
Constantine had not lived to enjoy so long a reign, and such prolonged
prosperity, who was the first to pass many decrees against your
errors? And what if Julian, who gave you back the basilicas, had not
been so speedily snatched away from life?[2253]2253Â In that case,
when would you make an end of talking such nonsense as you do, seeing
that even now you are unwilling to hold your tongues? And yet
neither do we say that Julian died so soon because he gave back the
basilicas to you. For we might be equally prolix with you in this,
but we are unwilling to be equally foolish. Well, then, as I had
begun to say, from these two we will take away Macarius. For when
you had mentioned the names of two, Macarius and Ursacius, you
repeated the name of Ursacius with the view of showing us how he
deserved his death; and you said, "For Ursacius was slain in a battle
with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage
talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb
from limb."Â Whence it is quite clear, since it is your custom to
excite greater odium against us on account of Macarius, insomuch that
you call us not Ursacians but Macarians, that you would have been sure
to say by far the most concerning him, had you been able to say
anything of the sort about his death. Of these two, therefore, when
you used the plural number, if you take away Macarius, there remains
Ursacius alone, a proper name of the singular number. Where is
therefore the fulfillment of your threatening and tremendous promise
of so many who should support your argument?
209. By this time all men who are in any degree acquainted with the
meaning of words must understand, it seems to me, how ridiculous it is
that, when you had said, "Macarius perished, Ursacius perished, and
all your counts perished in like manner, by the vengeance of God," as
though men were calling upon you to prove the fact, whereas, in
reality, neither hearer nor reader was calling on you for anything
further whatsoever, you immediately strung together a long argument in
order to prove that all our counts perished in like manner by the
vengeance of God. "For Ursacius," you say, "was slain in a battle
with the barbarians, after which birds of prey with their savage
talons, and the greedy teeth of dogs with their biting, tore him limb
from limb."Â In the same way, any one else, who was similarly
ignorant of the meaning of what he says, might assert that all your
bishops perished in prison by the vengeance of God; and when asked how
he could prove this fact, he might at once add, For Optatus, having
been accused of belonging to the company of Gildo, was put to death in
a similar way. Frivolous charges such as these we are compelled to
listen to, to consider, to refute; only we are apprehensive for the
weak, lest, from the greater slowness of their intellect, they should
fall speedily into your toils. But Ursacius, of whom you speak, if
it be the case that he lived a good life, and really died as you
assert, will receive consolation from the promise of God, who says,
"Surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every
beast will I require it."[2254]2254
210. But as to the calumnious charges which you bring against us,
saying that by us the wrath of the kings of the world is excited
against you, so long as we do not teach them the lesson of holy
Scripture, but rather suggest our own desire of war, I do not imagine
that you are so absolutely deaf to the eloquence of the sacred books
themselves as that you should not rather fear that they should be
acquainted with it. But whether you so will or no, they gain
entrance to the Church; and even if we hold our tongues, they give
heed to the readers; and, to say nothing of the rest, they especially
listen with the most marked attention to that very psalm which you
quoted. For you said that we do not teach them, nor, so far as we
can help it, allow them to become acquainted with the words of
Scripture:Â "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye
judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with
trembling. Take hold of instruction lest the Lord be
angry,[2255]2255 etc. Believe that even this is sung, and that they
hear it. But, at any rate, they hear what is written above in the
same psalm, which you, unless I am mistaken, were only unwilling to
pass over, for fear you should be understood to be afraid. They hear
therefore this as well "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the
heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for Thy possession."[2256]2256Â On hearing which, they cannot but
marvel that some should be found to speak against this inheritance of
Christ, endeavoring to reduce it to a little corner of the earth; and
in their marvel they perhaps ask, on account of what they hear in what
follows, "Serve the Lord with fear," wherein they can serve Him, in so
far as they are kings. For all men ought to serve God,âin one sense,
in virtue of the condition common to them all, in that they are men;
in another sense, in virtue of their several gifts, whereby this man
has one function on the earth, and that man has another. For no man,
as a private individual, could command that idols should be taken from
the earth, which it was so long ago foretold should come to
pass.[2257]2257Â Accordingly, when we take into consideration the
social condition of the human race, we find that kings, in the very
fact that they are kings, have a service which they can render to the
Lord in a manner which is impossible for any who have not the power of
kings.
211. When, therefore, they think over what you quote, they hear also
what you yourself quoted concerning the three children, and hear it
with circumstances of marvellous solemnity. For that same Scripture
is most of all sung in the Church at a time when the very festal
nature of the season excites additional fervor even in those who,
during the rest of the year, are more given to be sluggish. What
then do you think must be the feelings of Christian emperors, when
they hear of the three children being cast into the burning fiery
furnace because they were unwilling to consent to the wickedness of
worshipping the image of the king,[2258]2258 unless you suppose that
they consider that the pious liberty of the saints cannot be overcome
either by the power of kings, or by any enormity of punishment, and
that they rejoice that they are not of the number of those kings who
used to punish men that despised idols as though they were guilty of
sacrilege? But, further, when they hear in what follows that the
same king, terrified by the marvellous sight of, not only the three
children, but the very flames performing service unto God, himself too
began to serve God in fear, and to rejoice with reverence, and to lay
hold of instruction, do they not understand that the reason that this
was recorded, and set forth with such publicity, was that an example
might be set both before the servants of God, to prevent them from
committing sacrilege in obedience to kings, and before kings
themselves, that they should show themselves religious by belief in
God? Being willing, therefore, on their part, from the admonition of
the very psalm which you yourself inserted in your writings, both to
be wise, and to receive instruction, and to serve God with fear and to
rejoice unto Him with reverence, and to lay hold of instruction, with
what attention do they listen to what that king said afterwards! For
he said that he would make a decree for all the people over whom he
ruled, that whosoever should speak blasphemy against the God of
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should perish, and their house be
utterly destroyed. And if they know that he made this decree that
blasphemy should not be uttered against the God who tempered the force
of the fire, and liberated the three children, they surely go on to
consider what decrees they ought to make in their kingdom, that the
same God who has granted remission of sins, and given freedom to the
whole earth, should not be treated with scorn among the faithful in
their realm.
212. See therefore, when Christian kings make any decree against you
in defence of Catholic unity, that it be not the case that with your
lips you are accusing them of being unlearned, as it were, in holy
Scripture, while in your hearts you are grieving that they are so well
acquainted with its teaching. For who could put up with the
sacrilegious and hateful fallacy which you advance in the case of one
and the same Daniel, to find fault with kings because he was cast into
the den of lions, and to refuse praise to kings in that he was raised
to exalted honor, seeing that, even when he was cast into the den of
lions, the king himself was more inclined to believe that he would be
safe than that he would be destroyed, and, in anxiety for him, refused
to eat his food? And then do you dare to say to Christians, "What
have you to do with the kings of the world?" because Daniel suffered
persecution at a kingâs hands, and yet not look back upon the same
Daniel faithfully interpreting dreams to kings, calling a king lord,
receiving gifts and honors from a king? And so again do you dare, in
the case of the aforesaid three children, to excite the flames of
odium against kings, because, when they refused to worship the statue,
they were cast into the flames, while at the same time you hold your
tongue, and say nothing about their being thus extolled and honored by
the king? Granted that the king was a persecutor when he cast Daniel
into the lionsâ den; but when, on receiving him safely out again, in
his joy and congratulations he cast in his enemies to be torn in
pieces and devoured by the same lions, what was he then,âa persecutor,
or not?[2259]2259 I call on you to answer me. For if he was, why
did not Daniel himself resist him, as he might so easily have done in
virtue of his great friendship for him, while yet you bid us restrain
kings from persecuting men? But if he was not a persecutor, because
he avenged with prompt justice the outrage committed against a holy
man, what kind of vengeance, I would ask, must be exacted from kings
for indignities offered to the sacraments of Christ, if the limbs of
the prophet required such a vengeance because they were exposed to
danger? Again, I acknowledge that the king, as indeed is manifest,
was a persecutor when he cast the three children into the furnace
because they refused to worship his image; but I ask whether he was
still a persecutor when he set forth the decree that all who should
blaspheme against the one true God should be destroyed, and their
whole house laid waste? For if he was a persecutor, why do you
answer Amen to the words of a persecutor?[2260]2260Â But if he was
not a persecutor, why do you call those persecutors who deter you from
the madness of blasphemy? For if they compel you to worship an idol,
then they are like the impious king, and you are like the three
children; but if they are preventing you from fighting against Christ,
it is you who are impious if you attempt to do this. But what they
may be if they forbid this with terrible threats, I do not presume to
say. Do you find some other name for them, if you will not call them
pious emperors.
213. If I had been the person to bring forward these examples of
Daniel and the three children, you would perhaps resist, and declare
that they ought not to have been brought from those times in
illustration of our days; but God be thanked that you yourself brought
them forward, to prove the point, it is true, which you desired to
establish, but you see that their force was rather in favor of what
you least would wish to prove. Perhaps you will say that this
proceeds from no deceit of yours, but from the fallibility of human
nature. Would that this were true! Amend it, then You will not
lose in reputation nay, it marks unquestionably the higher mind to
extinguish the fire of animosity by a frank confession, than merely to
escape the mist of falsehood by acuteness of the understanding.
Chapter 94.â214. Petilianus said: "Where is the law of God? where
is your Christianity, if you not only commit murders and put men to
death, but also order such things to be done?"
215. Augustin answered: In reply to this, see what the
fellow-heirs of Christ say throughout the world. We neither commit
murders, and put men to death, nor order such things to be done; and
you are raging much more madly than those who do such things, in that
you put such things into the minds of men in opposition to the hopes
of everlasting life.
Chapter 95.â216. Petilianus said: "If you wish that we should be
your friends, why do you drag us to you against our will? But if you
wish that we should be your foes, why do you kill your foes?"
217. Augustin answered: We neither drag you to us against your
will, nor do we kill our foes; but whatever we do in our dealings with
you, though we may do it contrary to your inclination, yet we do it
from our love to you, that you may voluntarily correct yourselves, and
live an amended life. For no one lives against his will; and yet a
boy, in order to learn this lesson of his own free will,[2261]2261 is
beaten contrary to his inclination, and that often by the very man
that is most dear to him. And this, indeed, is what the kings would
desire to say to you if they were to strike you, for to this end their
power has been ordained of God. But you cry out even when they are
not striking you.
Chapter 96.â218. Petilianus said: "But what reason is there, or
what inconsistency of emptiness, in desiring communion with us so
eagerly, when all the time you call us by the false title of
heretics?"
219. Augustin answered: If we so eagerly desired communion with
heretics, we should not be anxious that you should be converted from
the error of heresy; but when the very object of our negotiations with
you is that you should cease to be heretics, how are we eagerly
desiring communion with heretics? For, in fact, it is dissension and
division that make you heretics; but peace and unity make men
Catholics. When, then, you come over from your heresy to us, you
cease to be what we hate, and begin to be what we love.
Chapter 97.â220. Petilianus said: "Choose, in short, which of the
two alternatives you prefer. If innocence is on your side, why do
you persecute us with the sword? Or if you call us guilty, why do
you, who are yourselves innocent, seek for our company?"
221. Augustin answered: O most ingenious dilemma, or rather most
foolish verbosity! Is it not usual for the choice of two
alternatives to be offered to an antagonist, when it is impossible
that he should adopt both? For if you should offer me the choice of
the two propositions, that I should say either that we were innocent,
or that we were guilty; or, again, of the other pair of propositions,
viz., those concerning you, I could not escape choosing either one or
the other. But as it is, you offer me the choice of these two,
whether we are innocent or you are guilty, and wish me to say which of
these two I choose for my reply. But I refuse to make a choice; for
I assert them both, that we are innocent, and that you are guilty. I
say that we are innocent of the false and calumnious accusations which
you bring against us, so far as any of us, being in the Catholic
Church, can say with a safe conscience that we have neither given up
the sacred books, nor taken part in the worship of idols, nor murdered
any man, nor been guilty of any of the other crimes which you allege
against us; and that any who may have committed any such offenses,
which, however, you have not proved in any case, have thereby shut the
doors of the kingdom of heaven, not against us, but against
themselves; "for every man shall bear his own burden."[2262]2262Â
Here you have your answer on the first head. And I further say that
you are all guilty and accursed,ânot some of you owing to the sins of
others, which are wrought among you by certain of your number, and are
censured by certain others, but all of you by the sin of schism; from
which most heinous sacrilege no one of you can say that he is free, so
long as he refuses to hold communion with the unity of all nations,
unless, indeed, he be compelled to say that Christ has told a lie
concerning the Church which is spread abroad among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem.[2263]2263Â And so you have my second
answer. See how I have made you two replies, of which you were
desirous that we should be reduced to choose the one. At any rate,
you should have taken notice that both assertions might be made by us;
and certainly, if this was what you wished, you should have asked it
as a favor of us that we should choose one or the other, when you saw
that it was in our power to choose both.
222. But "if innocence is on your side, why do you persecute us with
the sword?"Â Look back for a moment on your troops, which are not now
armed after the ancient fashion of their fathers only with cudgels,
but have further added to their equipment axes and lances and swords,
and determine for yourselves to which of us the question best belongs,
"Why do you persecute us with the sword?"Â "Or if you call us
guilty," say you, "why do you, who are yourselves innocent, seek for
our company?" Here I answer very briefly. The reason why you,
being guilty, are sought after by the innocent, is that you may cease
to be guilty, and begin to be innocent. Here then I have chosen both
of the alternatives concerning us, and answered both of those
concerning you, only do you in turn choose one of the two. Are you
innocent or guilty? Here you cannot choose to make the two
assertions, and yet choose both, if so it pleases you. For at any
rate you cannot be innocent in reference to the same circumstances in
respect of which you are guilty. If therefore you are innocent do
not be surprised that you are invited to be at peace with your
brethren; but if you are guilty, do not be surprised that you are
sought for punishment by kings. But since of these two alternatives
you assume one for yourselves, and the other is alleged of you by
us,âfor you assume to yourselves innocence and it is alleged of you by
us that you are living impiously,âhear again once more what I shall
say on either head. If you are innocent, why do you speak against
the testimony of Christ? But if you are guilty, why do you not fly
for refuge to His mercy? For His testimony, on the one hand, is to
the unity of the world, and His mercy, on the other, is in brotherly
love.
Chapter 98.â223. Petilianus said: "Lastly, as we have often said
before, how great is your presumption, that you should speak as you
presume to do of kings, when David says, âIt is better to trust in the
Lord than to put confidence in man:Â it is better to trust in the
Lord than to put confidence in princes?â"[2264]2264
224. Augustin answered: We put no confidence in man, but, so far
as we can, we warn men to place their trust in the Lord; nor do we put
confidence in princes, but, so far as we can, we warn princes to put
confidence in the Lord. And though we may seek aid from princes to
promote the advantage of the Church, yet do we not put confidence in
them. For neither did the apostle himself put confidence in that
tribune, in the sense in which the Psalmist talks of putting
confidence in princes, from whom he obtained for himself that an
escort of armed men should be assigned to him; nor did he put
confidence in the armed men, by whose protection he escaped the snares
of the wicked ones, in any such sense as that of the Psalmist where he
speaks of putting confidence in men.[2265]2265Â But neither do we
find fault with you yourselves, because you sought from the emperor
that the basilicas should be restored to you, as though you had put
your trust in Julian the prince; but we find fault with you, that you
have despaired of the witness of Christ, from whose unity you have
separated the basilicas themselves. For you received them at the
bidding of an enemy of Christ, that in them you should despise the
commands of Christ, whilst you find force and truth in what Julian
ordained, saying, "This, moreover, on the petition of Rogatianus,
Pontius, Cassianus, and other bishops, not without an intermixture of
clergy, is added to complete the whole, that those proceedings which
were taken to their prejudice wrongly and without authority being all
annulled, everything should be restored to its former position;" and
yet you find nothing that has either force or truth in what Christ
ordained, saying, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole
earth."[2266]2266Â We entreat you, let yourselves be reformed.Â
Return to this most manifest unity of the whole world; and let all
things be restored to their former position, not in accordance with
the words of the apostate Julian, but in accordance with the words of
our Saviour Christ. Have pity on your own soul. We are not now
comparing Constantine and Julian in order to show how different they
are. We are not saying, If you have not placed confidence in a man
and in a prince, when you said to a pagan and apostate emperor, that
"in him justice only found a place," seeing that the party of Donatus
has universally employed the prayers and the rescript in which those
words occur, as is proved by the records of the audience; much less
ought we to be accused by you, as though we put our confidence in any
man or prince, if without any blasphemous flattery we obtained any
request from Constantine or from the other Christian emperors; or if
they themselves, without our asking for it, but remembering the
account which they shall render to the Lord, under whose words they
tremble when they hear what you yourself have quoted, "Be wise now
therefore, O ye kings," etc., and many other sayings of the sort, make
any ordinance of their own accord in support of the unity of the
Catholic Church. But I say nothing about Constantine. It is Christ
and Julian that we contrast before you; nay, more than this, it is God
and man, the Son of God and the son of hell, the Saviour of our souls
and the destroyer of his own. Why do you maintain the rescript of
Julian in the occupation of the basilicas, and yet not maintain the
gospel of Christ in embracing the peace of the Church? We too cry
out, "Let all things that have been done amiss be restored to their
ancient condition."Â The gospel of Christ is of greater antiquity
than the rescript of Julian; the unity of Christ is of greater
antiquity than the party of Donatus; the prayers of the Church to the
Lord on behalf of the unity of the Church are of greater antiquity
than the prayers of Rogatianus, and Pontius, and Cassianus, to Julian
on behalf of the party of Donatus. Are proceedings wrongly taken
when kings forbid division? and are they not wrongly taken when
bishops divide unity? Is that wrong action when kings minister to
the witness of Christ in defence of the Church? and is it not wrong
action when bishops contradict the witness of Christ in order to deny
the Church? We entreat you, therefore, that the words of Julian
himself, to whom you thus made supplication, may be listened to, not
in opposition to the gospel, but in accordance with the gospel, and
that "all things which have been done amiss may be restored to their
former condition."
Chapter 99.â225. Petilianus said: "On you, yes you, you wretched
men, I call, who, being dismayed with the fear of persecution, whilst
you seek to save your riches, not your souls, love not so much the
faithless faith of the traitors, as the wickedness of the very men
whose protection you have won unto yourselves,âjust in the same way as
sailors, shipwrecked in the waves, plunge into the waves by which they
must be overwhelmed, and in the great danger of their lives seek
unmistakeably the very object of their dread; just as the madness of a
tyrant, that he may be free from apprehension of any person
whatsoever, desires to be feared, though this is fraught with peril to
himself:Â so, so you fly for refuge to the citadel of wickedness,
being willing to look on the loss or punishment of the innocent if you
may escape fear for yourselves. If you consider that you escape
danger when you plunge into ruin, truly also it is a faith that merits
condemnation to observe the faith of a robber. Lastly, it is
trafficking in a madmanâs gains to lose your own souls in order not to
lose your wealth. For the Lord Christ says, âIf a man shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul, what shall a man give in exchange
for his soul?â"[2267]2267
226. Augustin answered: That exhortation of yours would be useful,
I cannot but acknowledge, if any one were to employ it in a good
cause. It is undoubtedly well that you have tried to deter men from
preferring their riches to their souls. But I would have you, who
have heard these words, listen also for a time to us; for we also say
this, but listen in what sense. If kings threaten to take away your
riches, because you are not Jews according to the flesh, or because
you do not worship idols or devils, or because you are not carried
about into any heresies, but abide in Catholic unity, then choose
rather that your riches should perish, that you perish not yourselves;
but be careful to prefer neither anything else, nor the life of this
world itself, to eternal salvation, which is in Christ. But if kings
threaten you with loss or condemnation, simply on the ground that you
are heretics, such things are terrifying you not in cruelty, but in
mercy; and your determination not to fear is a sign not of bravery,
but of obstinacy. Hear then the words of Peter, where he says, "What
glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it
patiently?"[2268]2268 so that herein you have neither consolation upon
earth, nor in the world to come life everlasting; but you have here
the miseries of the unfortunate, and there the hell of heretics. Do
you see, therefore, my brother, with whom I am now arguing, that you
ought first to show whether you hold the truth, and then to exhort men
that in upholding it they should be ready to give up all the blessings
which they possess in this present world? And so, when you do not
show this, because you cannot,ânot that the talent is wanting, but
because the cause is bad,âwhy do you hasten by your exhortations to
make men both beggars and ignorant, both in want and wandering from
the truth, in rags and contentions, household drudges and heretics,
both losing their temporal goods in this world, and finding eternal
evils in the judgment of Christ? But the cautious son, who, while he
stands in dread of his fatherâs rod, keeps away from the lair of the
serpent, escapes both blows and destruction; whereas he who despises
the pains of discipline, when set in rivalry with his own pernicious
will, is both beaten and destroyed. Do you not now understand, O
learned man, that he who has resigned all earthly goods in order to
maintain the peace of Christ, possesses God; whereas he who has lost
even a very few coins in behalf of the party of Donatus is devoid of
heart?
Chapter 100.â227. Petilianus said: "But we who are poor in
spirit[2269]2269 are not apprehensive for our wealth, but rather feel
a dread of wealth. We, âas having nothing, and yet possessing all
things,â[2270]2270 look on our soul as our wealth, and by our
punishments and blood purchase to ourselves the everlasting riches of
heaven. So again the same Lord says, âWhosoever shall lose his
substance, shall find it again an hundred fold.â"
228. Augustin answered: It is not beside the purpose to inquire
into the true meaning of this passage also. For where my purpose is
not interfered with by any mistake which you make, or any false
impression which you convey in quoting from the Scriptures, I do not
concern myself about the matter. It is not then written, "Whosoever
shall lose his substance," but "Whosoever shall lose his life for my
sake."[2271]2271Â And the passage about substance is not, "Whosoever
shall lose," but "Every one that hath forsaken;"[2272]2272 and that
not only with reference to substance of money, but many other things
besides. But you meanwhile have not lost your substance; but whether
you have forsaken it, in that you so boast of poverty, I cannot say.Â
And if by any chance my colleague Fortunatus may know this, being in
the same city with you, he never told me, because I had never asked
him. However, even if you had done this, you have yet yourself
quoted the testimony of the apostle against yourself in this very
epistle which you have written:Â "Though I bestow all my goods to
feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not
charity, it profiteth me nothing."[2273]2273Â For if you had charity,
you would not bring charges against the whole world, which knows
nothing of you, and of which you know no more,âno, not even such
charges as are founded on the proved offenses of the Africans. If
you had charity, you would not picture to yourself a false unity in
your calumnies, but you would learn to recognize the unity that is
most clearly set forth in the words of the Lord:Â "even in the whole
earth."[2274]2274Â But if you did not do this, why do you boast as
though you had done it? Are you really so filled with fear of
riches, that, having nothing, you possess all things? Tell that to
your colleague Crispinus, who lately bought a farm near our city of
Hippo, that he might there plunge men into the lowest
abyss.[2275]2275 Whence I too know this all too well. You perhaps
are not aware of it, and therefore shout out in security, "We stand in
fear of riches."Â And hence I am surprised that that cry of yours has
been allowed to pass Crispinus, so as to reach us. For between
Constantina, where you are, and Hippo, where I am, lies Calama, where
he is, nearer indeed to our side, but still between us. I wonder,
therefore, how it was that he did not first intercept this cry, and
strike it back so that it should not reach to our ears; and that he
did not, in opposition to you, recite in much more copious phrase a
eulogy on riches. For he not only stands in no fear of riches, but
he actually loves them. And certainly, before you utter anything
about the rest, you should rehearse such views to him. If he makes
no corrections, then we have our answer ready. But for yourself, if
it be true that you are poor, you have with you my brother
Fortunatus. You will be more likely with such sentiments to please
him, who is my colleague, than Crispinus, who is your own.
Chapter 101.â229. Petilianus said: "Inasmuch as we live in the
fear of God, we have no fear of the punishments and executions which
you wreak with the sword; but the only thing which we avoid is that by
your most wicked communion you destroy menâs souls, according to the
saying of the Lord Himself: âFear not them which kill the body, but
are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to
destroy both soul and body in hell.â"[2276]2276
230. Augustin answered: You do the destruction which you speak of,
not with a visible sword, but with that of which it is said, "The sons
of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp
sword."[2277]2277Â For with this sword of accusation and calumny
against the world of which you are wholly ignorant, you destroy the
souls of those who lack experience. But if you find fault with a
most wicked communion, as you term it, I would bid you presently, not
with my words, but with your own, to ascend, descend, enter, turn
yourself about, change sides, be such as was Optatus. But if you
return to your senses, and shall find that you are not such as he, not
because he refused to partake of the sacraments with you, but because
you took offense at what he did, then you will acquit the world of
crimes which do not belong to it, and you will find yourself involved
in the sin of schism.
Chapter 102.â231. Petilianus said: "You, therefore, who prefer
rather to be washed with the most false of baptisms than to be
regenerate, not only do not lay aside your sins, but also load your
souls with the offenses of criminals. For as the water of the guilty
has been abandoned by the Holy Spirit, so it is clearly filled full of
the offenses of the traditors. To any wretched man, then, who is
baptized by one of this sort, we would say, If you have wished to be
free from falsehood, you are really drenched with falsity. If you
desired to shut out the sins of the flesh, you will, as the conscience
of the guilty comes upon you, be partakers likewise of their guilt.Â
If you wished to extinguish the flames of avarice, you are drenched
with deceit, you are drenched with wickedness, you are drenched also
with madness. Lastly, if you believe that faith is identical in the
giver and the receiver, you are drenched with the blood of a brother
by him who slays a man. And so it comes to pass that you, who had
come to baptism free from sin, return from baptism guilty of the sin
of murder."
232. Augustin answered: I should like to come to argument with
those who shouted assent when they either heard or read those words of
yours. For such men have not ears in their hearts, but their heart
in their ears. Yet let them read again and again, and consider, and
find out for themselves, not what the sound of those words is, but
what they mean. First of all, to sift the meaning of the last
clause, "So it comes to pass," you say, "that you who had come to
baptism free from sin, return from baptism guilty of the sin of
murder:"Â tell me, to begin with, who there is that comes to baptism
free from sin, with the single exception of Him who came to be
baptized, not that His iniquity should be purged away, but that an
example of humility might be given us? For what shall be forgiven to
one free from sin? Or are you indeed endowed with such an eloquence,
that you can show to us some innocence which yet committeth sin? Do
you not hear the words of Scripture saying, "No one is clean from sin
in Thy sight, not even the infant whose life is but of a single day
upon the earth?"[2278]2278Â For whence else is it that one hastens
even with infants to seek remission of their sins? Do you not hear
the words of another Scripture, "In sin did my mother conceive
me?"[2279]2279Â In the next place, if a man returns a murderer, who
had come without the guilt of murder, merely because he receives
baptism at a murdererâs hands, then all they who returned from
receiving baptism at the hands of Optatus were made partakers with
Optatus. Go now, and see with what face you cast in our teeth that
we excite the wrath of kings against you. Are you not afraid that as
many satellites of Gildo will be sought for among you, as there are
men who may have been baptized by Optatus? Do you see at length how
that sentence of yours, like an empty bladder, has rattled not only
with a meaningless sound, but on your own head?
233. To go on to the other earlier arguments which you have set
before us to be refuted, they are of such a nature that we must needs
allow that every one returns from baptism endued with the character of
him by whom he is baptized; but God forbid that those whom you baptize
should return from you infected with the same madness as possesses you
when you make such a statement! And what a dainty sound there was in
your words, "You are drenched with deceit, you are drenched with
wickedness, you are drenched also with madness!"Â Surely you would
never pour forth words like this unless you were, not drenched, but
filled even to repletion with madness. Is it then true, to say
nothing of the rest, that all who come untainted with covetousness to
receive baptism at the hands of your covetous colleagues, or the
priests of your party, return guilty of covetousness, and that those
who run in soberness to the whirlpool of intoxication to be baptized
return in drunkenness? If you entertain and teach such views as
this, you will have the effrontery even to quote, as making against
us, the passage which you advanced some little time ago:Â "It is
better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is
better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in
princes."[2280]2280Â What is the meaning of your teaching, I would
ask, save only this, that we should put our confidence not in the
Lord, but in man, when you say that the baptized person is made to
resemble him who has baptized him? And since you assume this as the
fundamental principle of your baptism, are men to place their trust in
you? and are those to place their trust in princes who were disposed
to place it in the Lord? Truly I would bid them hearken not to you,
but rather to those proofs which you have urged against ourselves, ay,
and to words more awful yet; for not only is it written, "It is better
to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man," but also, "Cursed
be the man that trusteth in man."[2281]2281
Chapter 103.â234. Petilianus said: "Imitate indeed the prophets,
who feared to have their holy souls deceived with false baptism. For
Jeremiah says of old that among impious men water is as one that
lies. âWater,â he says, âthat lies has not faith.â"
235. Augustin answered: Any one that hears these words, without
being acquainted with the Scriptures, and who does not believe that
you are either so far astray as not to know what you are saying, or
deceiving in such wise that he whom you have deceived should not know
what he says, would believe that the prophet Jeremiah, wishing to be
baptized, had taken precautions not to be baptized by impious men, and
had used these words with this intent. For what was your object in
saying, previous to your quotation of this passage, "Imitate indeed
the prophets, who feared to have their holy souls deceived with false
baptism?"Â Just as though, in the days of Jeremiah, any one were
washed with the sacrament of baptism, except so far as the Pharisees
almost every moment bathed themselves, and their couches and cups and
platters, with the washings which the Lord condemned, as we read in
the gospel.[2282]2282Â How then could Jeremiah have said this, as
though he desired to be baptized, and sought to avoid being baptized
by impious men? He said it, then, when he was complaining of a
faithless people, by the corruption of whose morals he was vexed, not
wishing to associate with their deeds; and yet he did not separate
himself bodily from their congregation, nor seek other sacraments than
those which the people received as suitable to that time, according to
the law of Moses. To this people, therefore, in their evil mode of
life, he gave the name of "a wound," with which the heart of the
righteous man was grievously smitten, whether speaking thus of
himself, or foreshadowing in himself what he foresaw would come to
pass. For he speaks as follows: "O Lord, remember me, and visit
me; make clear my innocence before those who persecute me in no spirit
of long-suffering:Â know that for Thy sake I have suffered rebuke
from those that scorn Thy words. Make their portion complete; and
Thy word shall be unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:Â for I
am called by Thy name, O Lord God of hosts. I sat not in the
assembly of the mockers, but was afraid of the presence of Thy hand; I
sat alone, because I was filled with bitterness. Why do those who
make me sad prevail against me? My wound is grievous; whence shall I
be healed? It is become unto me as lying water, that has no
faith."[2283]2283Â In all this it is manifest what the prophet wished
to be understood, but manifest only to those who do not wish to
distort to their own perverse cause the meaning of what they read.Â
For Jeremiah says that his wound has become unto him as lying water,
which cannot inspire faith; but he wished that by his wound those
should be understood who made him sad by the evil conduct of their
lives. Whence also the apostle says, "Without were fightings, within
were fears;"[2284]2284 and again, "Who is weak, and I am not weak? who
is offended, and I burn not?"[2285]2285Â And because he had no hopes
that they could be reformed, therefore he said, "Whence shall I be
healed?" as though his own pain must needs continue so long as those
among whom he was compelled to live continued what they were. But
that a people is commonly understood under the appellation of water is
shown in the Apocalypse, where we understand "many waters" to mean
"many peoples," not by any conjecture of our own, but by an express
explanation in the place itself.[2286]2286Â Abstain then from
blaspheming the sacrament of baptism from any misunderstanding, or
rather error, even when found in a man of most abandoned character;
for not even in the lying Simon was the baptism which he received a
lying water,[2287]2287 nor do all the liars of your party administer a
lying water when they baptize in the name of the Trinity. For
neither do they begin to be liars only when they are betrayed and
convicted, and so forced to acknowledge their misdeeds; but rather
they were already liars, when, being adulterers and accursed, they
pretended to be chaste and innocent.
Chapter 104.â236. Petilianus said: "David also said, âThe oil of
the sinner shall not anoint my head.â Who is it, therefore, that he
calls a sinner? Is it I who suffer your violence, or you who
persecute the innocent?"
237. Augustin answered: As representing the body of Christ, which
is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth,
dispersed throughout the world, on account of the gospel which was
preached, according to the words of the apostle, "to every creature
which is under heaven:"[2288]2288Â as representing the whole world,
of which David, whose words you cannot understand, has said, "The
world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved;"[2289]2289 whereas
you contend that it not only has been moved, but has been utterly
destroyed:Â as representing this, I answer, I do not persecute the
innocent. But David said, "The oil of the sinner," not of the
traditor; not of him who offers incense, not of the persecutor, but
"of the sinner."Â What then will you make of your interpretation?Â
See first whether you are not yourself a sinner. It is nothing to
the point if you should say, I am not a traditor, I am not an offerer
of incense, I am not a persecutor. I myself, by the grace of God, am
none of these, nor is the world, which cannot be moved. But say, if
you dare, I am not a sinner. For David says, "The oil of the
sinner."Â For so long as any sin, however light, be found in you,
what ground have you for maintaining that you are not concerned in the
expression that is used, "The oil of the sinner"? For I would ask
whether you use the Lordâs prayer in your devotions? For if you do
not use that prayer, which our Lord taught His disciples for their
use, where have you learned another, proportioned to your merits, as
exceeding the merits of the apostles? But if you pray, as our great
Master deigned to teach us, how do you say, "Forgive us our
trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us?"Â For in
this petition we are not referring to those sins which have already
been forgiven us in baptism. Therefore these words in the prayer
either exclude you from being a petitioner to God, or else they make
it manifest that you too are a sinner. Let those then come and kiss
your head who have been baptized by you, whose heads have perished
through your oil. But see to yourself, both what you are and what
you think about yourself. Is it really true that Optatus, whom
pagans, Jews, Christians, men of our party, men of your party, all
proclaim throughout the whole of Africa to have been a thief, a
traitor, an oppressor, a contriver of schism; not a friend, not a
client, but a tool of him[2290]2290 whom one of your party declared to
have been his count, companion, and god,âis it true that he was not a
sinner in any conceivable interpretation of the term? What then will
they do whose heads were anointed by one guilty of a capital
offense? Do not those very men kiss your heads, on whose heads you
pass so serious a judgment by this interpretation which you place upon
the passage? Truly I would bid you bring them forth, and admonish
them to heal themselves. Or is it rather your heads which should be
healed, who run so grievously astray? What then, you will ask, did
David really say: Why do you ask me: rather ask himself. He
answers you in the verse above:Â "The righteous shall smite me in
kindness, and shall reprove me; but let not the oil of the sinner
anoint my head."[2291]2291Â What could be plainer? what more
manifest? I had rather, he says, be healed by a rebuke administered
in kindness, than be deceived and led astray by smooth flattery,
coming on me as an ointment on my head. The self-same sentiment is
found elsewhere in Scripture under other words:Â "Better are the
wounds of a friend than the proffered kisses of an enemy."[2292]2292
Chapter 105.â238. Petilianus said: "But he thus praises the
ointment of concord among brethren:Â âBehold how good and how
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like
the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard,
even Aaronâs beard; that went down to the skirts of his garments; as
the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of
Zion:Â for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for
evermore.â[2293]2293Â Thus, he says, is unity anointed, even as the
priests are anointed."
239. Augustin answered: What you say is true. For that
priesthood in the body of Christ had an anointing, and its salvation
is secured by the bond of unity. For indeed Christ Himself derives
His name from chrism, that is, from anointing. Him the Hebrews call
the Messiah, which word is closely akin to the PhÅnician language, as
is the case with very many other Hebrew words, if not with almost
all.[2294]2294Â What then is meant by the head in that priesthood,
what by the beard, what by the skirts of the garments? So far as the
Lord enables me to understand, the head is none other than the Saviour
of the body, of whom the apostle says, "And He is the head of the
body, the Church."[2295]2295Â By the beard is not unsuitably
understood fortitude. Therefore, on those who show themselves to be
brave in His Church, and cling to the light of His countenance, to
preach the truth without fear, there descends from Christ Himself, as
from the head, a sacred ointment, that is to say, the sanctification
of the Spirit. By the skirts of the garments we are here given to
understand that which is at the top of the garments, through which the
head of Him who gives the clothing enters. By this are signified
those who are perfected in faith within the Church. For in the
skirts is perfection. And I presume you must remember what was said
to a certain rich man:Â "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in
heaven; and come and follow me."[2296]2296Â He indeed went away
sorrowful, slighting what was perfect, choosing what was imperfect.Â
But does it follow that there were wanting those who were so made
perfect by such a surrender of earthly things, that the ointment of
unity descended upon them, as from the head upon the skirts of the
garments? For, putting aside the apostles, and those who were
immediately associated with those leaders and teachers of the Church,
whom we understand to be represented with greater dignity and more
conspicuous fortitude in the beard, read in the Acts of the Apostles,
and see those who "brought the prices of the things that were sold,
and laid them down at the apostlesâ feet. Neither said any of them
that aught of the things which he possessed was his own:Â but they
had all things common:Â and distribution was made unto every man
according as he had need. And the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and of one soul."[2297]2297Â I doubt not that you
are aware that it is so written. Recognize, therefore, how good and
how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.Â
Recognize the beard of Aaron; recognize the skirts of the spiritual
garments. Search the Scriptures themselves, and see where those
things began to be done; you will find that it was in Jerusalem.Â
From this skirt of the garment is woven together the whole fabric of
unity throughout all nations. By this the Head entered into the
garment, that Christ should be clothed with all the variety of the
several nations of the earth, because in this skirt of the garment
appeared the actual variety of tongues. Why, therefore, is the Head
itself, whence that ointment of unity descended, that is, the
spiritual fragrance of brotherly love,âwhy, I say, is the Head itself
exposed to your resistance, while it testifies and declares that
"repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem"?[2298]2298Â And by this ointment
you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed
holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself, but yet
can exist even among the worst of men, wasting their life in the works
of the flesh, and never destined to possess the kingdom of heaven, and
having therefore nothing to do either with the beard of Aaron, or with
the skirts of his garments, or with any fabric of priestly clothing.Â
For where do you intend to place what the apostle enumerates as "the
manifest works of the flesh, which," he says, "are these:Â
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, poisonings,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings,
drunkenness, revellings, and such like:Â of the which I tell you
before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God?"[2299]2299Â I put aside
fornications, which are committed in secret; interpret uncleanness as
you please, I am willing to put it aside as well. Let us put on one
side also poisons, since no one is openly a compounder or giver of
poisons. I put aside also heresies, since you will have it so. I
am in doubt whether I ought to put aside idolatry, since the apostle
classes with it covetousness, which is openly rife among you.Â
However, setting aside all these, are there none among you lascivious,
none covetous, none open in their indulgence of enmities, none fond of
strife, or fond of emulation, wrathful, given to seditions, envious,
drunken, wasting their time in revellings? Are none of such a
character anointed among you? Do none die well known among you to be
given to such things, or openly indulging in them? If you say there
are none, I would have you consider whether you do not come under the
description yourself, since you are manifestly telling lies in the
desire for strife. But if you are yourself severed from men of this
sort, not by bodily separation, but by dissimilarity of life, and if
you behold with lamentation crowds like these around your altars, what
shall we say, since they are anointed with holy oil, and yet, as the
apostle assures us with the clearness of truth, shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Must we do such impious despite to the beard of
Aaron and to the skirts of his garments, as to suppose that they are
to be placed there? Far be that from us. Separate therefore the
visible holy sacrament, which can exist both in the good and in the
bad,âin the former for their reward, in the latter for judgment;
separate it from the invisible unction of charity, which is the
peculiar property of the good. Separate them, separate them, ay, and
may God separate you from the party of Donatus, and call you back
again into the Catholic Church, whence you were torn by them while yet
a catechumen, to be bound by them in the bond of a deadly
distinction. Now are ye not in the mountains of Zion, the dew of
Hermon on the mountains of Zion, in whatever sense that be received by
you; for you are not in the city upon a hill, which has this as its
sure sign, that it cannot be hid. It is known therefore unto all
nations. But the party of Donatus is unknown to the majority of
nations, therefore is it not the true city.
Chapter 106.â240. Petilianus said: "Woe unto you, therefore, who,
by doing violence to what is holy, cut away the bond of unity; whereas
the prophet says, âIf the people shall sin, the priest shall pray for
them:Â but if the priest shall sin, who will pray for him?â"
241. Augustin answered: I seemed too a little while ago, when we
were disputing about the oil of the sinner, to anoint your forehead,
in order that you might say, if you dared, whether you yourself were
not a sinner. You have had the hardihood to say as much. What a
portentous sin! For in that you assert yourself to be a priest, what
else have you maintained by quoting this testimony of the prophet,
save that you are wholly without sin? For if you have sin, who is
there that shall pray for you, according to your understanding of the
words? For thus you blazon yourselves among the wretched people,
quoting from the prophet:Â "If the people shall sin, the priest shall
pray for them:Â but if the priest shall sin, who will pray for
him?[2300]2300 to the intent that they may believe you to be without
sin, and entrust the wiping away their sins to your prayers. Truly
ye are great men, exalted above your fellows, heavenly, godlike,
angels indeed rather than men, who pray for the people, and will not
have the people pray for you! Are you more righteous than Paul, more
perfect than that great apostle, who was wont to commend himself to
the prayers of those whom he taught? "Continue," he says, "in
prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving; withal praying also
for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the
mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds; that I may make it
manifest, as I ought to speak."[2301]2301Â See how prayer is made for
an apostle, which you would have not made for a bishop. Do you
perceive of how devilish a nature your pride is? Prayer is made for
an apostle, that he may make manifest the mystery of Christ as he
ought to speak. Accordingly, if you had a pious people under you,
you ought to have exhorted them to pray for you, that you might not
give utterance as you ought not. Are you more righteous than the
evangelist John, who says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us?"[2302]2302Â Finally, are you
more righteous than Daniel, whom you yourself quoted in this very
epistle, going so far as to say, "The most righteous king cast forth
Daniel, as he supposed, to be devoured by wild beasts?"âa thing which
he never did suppose, since he said to Daniel himself, in the most
friendly spirit, as the context of the lesson shows, "Thy God, whom
thou servest continually, He will deliver thee."[2303]2303Â But on
this subject we have already said much. With regard to the question
now before us, viz., that Daniel was most righteous, it is proved not
by your testimony, though that might be sufficient for me in the
argument which I hold with you, but by the testimony of the Spirit of
God, speaking also by the mouth of Ezekiel, where he named three men
of most eminent righteousness, Noah, Daniel, and Job, who, he said,
were the only men that could be saved from a certain excessive wrath
of God, which was hanging over all the rest.[2304]2304Â A man,
therefore, of the highest righteousness, one of three conspicuous for
righteousness, prays, and says, "While I was speaking, and praying,
and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting
my supplication before the Lord my God."[2305]2305Â And you say that
you are without sin, because forsooth you are a priest; and if the
people sin, you pray for them:Â but if you sin, who shall pray for
you? For clearly by the impiety of such arrogance you show yourself
to be unworthy of the mediation of that Priest whom the prophet would
have to be understood in these words, which you do not understand.Â
For now that no one may ask why this was said, I will explain it so
far as by Godâs grace I shall be able. God was preparing the minds
of men, by His prophet, to desire a Priest of such a sort that none
should pray for Him. He was Himself prefigured in the times of the
first people and the first temple, in which all things were figures
for our ensample. Therefore the high priest used to enter alone into
the holy of holies, that he might make supplication for the people,
which did not enter with the priest into that inner
sanctuary;[2306]2306 just as our High Priest is entered into the
secret places of the heavens, into that truer holy of holies, whilst
we for whom He prays are still placed here.[2307]2307Â It is with
this reference that the prophet says, "If the people shall sin, the
priest shall pray for them:Â but if the priest shall sin, who will
pray for him?"Â Seek therefore a priest of such a kind that he cannot
sin, nor need that one should pray for him. And for this reason
prayer is made for the apostles by the people;[2308]2308 but for that
Priest who is the Master and Lord of the apostles is prayer not
made. Hear John confessing this, and saying, "My little children,
these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin,
we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and
He is the propitiation for our sins."[2309]2309Â "We have," he says;
and "for our sins."Â I pray you, learn humility, that you may not
fall, or rather, that in time you may arise again. For had you not
already fallen, you never would have used such words.
Chapter 107.â242. Petilianus said: "And that none who is a layman
may claim to be free from sin, they are all bound by this
prohibition:Â âBe not partakers of other menâs sins.â"
243. Augustin answered: You are mistaken toto cælo, as the saying
is, by reason of your pride, whilst, by reason of your humility, you
are unwilling to communicate with the whole world. For, in the first
place, this was not spoken to a layman; and, in the second place, you
are wholly ignorant in what sense it was spoken. The apostle,
writing to Timothy, gives this warning to none other than Timothy
himself, to whom he says in another place, "Neglect not the gift that
is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery."[2310]2310Â And by many other proofs it
is made clear that he was not a layman. But in that he says, "Be not
partaker of other menâs sins,"[2311]2311 he means, Be not partaker
voluntarily, or with consent. And hence he immediately subjoins
directions how he shall obey the injunction, saying, "Keep thyself
pure."Â For neither was Paul himself partaker of other menâs sins,
because he endured false brethren, over whom he groans, in bodily
unity; nor did the apostles who preceded him partake of the thievery
and crime of Judas, because they partook of the holy supper with him
when he had already sold his Lord, and been pointed out as the traitor
by that Lord.
Chapter 108.â244. Petilianus said: "By this sentence, again, the
apostle places in the same category those who have fellowship in the
consciousness of evil. âWorthy of death,â he says, âare both those
who do such things, and those who consent with those that do
them.â"[2312]2312
245. Augustin answered: I care not in what manner you have used
these words, they are true. And this is the substance of the
teaching of the Catholic Church, that there is a great difference
between those who consent because they take pleasure in such things,
and those who tolerate while they dislike them. The former make
themselves chaff, while they follow the barrenness of the chaff; the
latter are the grain. Let them wait for Christ, who bears the
winnowing-fan, that they may be separated from the chaff.
Chapter 109.â246. Petilianus said: "Come therefore to the Church,
all ye people, and flee the company of traditors, if you would not
also perish with them. For that you may the more readily know that,
while they are themselves guilty, they yet entertain an excellent
opinion of our faith, let me inform you that I baptize their polluted
ones; they, though may God never grant them such an opportunity,
receive those who are made mine by baptism,âwhich certainly they would
not do if they recognized any defects in our baptism. See therefore
how holy that is which we give, when even our sacrilegious enemy fears
to destroy it."
247. Augustin answered: Against this error I have said much
already, both in this work and elsewhere. But since you think that
in this sentence you have so strong a confirmation of your vain
opinions, that you deemed it right to end your epistle with these
words, that they might remain as it were the fresher in the minds of
your readers, I think it well to make a short reply. We recognize in
heretics that baptism, which belongs not to the heretics but to
Christ, in such sort as in fornicators, in unclean persons or
effeminate, in idolaters, in poisoners, in those who retain enmity, in
those who are fond of contention, in the credulous, in the proud,
given to seditions, in the envious, in drunkards, in revellers; and in
men like these we hold valid the baptism which is not theirs but
Christâs. For of men like these, and among them are included
heretics also, none, as the apostle says, shall inherit the kingdom of
heaven.[2313]2313Â Nor are they to be considered as being in the body
of Christ, which is the Church, simply because they are materially
partakers of the sacraments. For the sacraments indeed are holy,
even in such men as these, and shall be of force in them to greater
condemnation, because they handle and partake of them unworthily.Â
But the men themselves are not within the constitution of the Church,
which increases in the increase of God in its members through
connection and contact with Christ. For that Church is founded on a
rock, as the Lord says, "Upon this rock I will build my
Church."[2314]2314Â But they build on the sand, as the same Lord
says, "Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon
the sand."[2315]2315Â But that you may not suppose that the Church
which is upon a rock is in one part only of the earth, and does not
extend even to its furthest boundaries, hear her voice groaning from
the psalm, amid the evils of her pilgrimage. For she says, "From the
end of the earth have I cried unto Thee; when my heart was distressed
Thou didst lift me up upon the rock; Thou hast led me, Thou, my hope,
hast become a tower of courage from the face of the
enemy."[2316]2316 See how she cries from the end of the earth. She
is not therefore in Africa alone, nor only among the Africans, who
send a bishop from Africa to Rome to a few Montenses,[2317]2317 and
into Spain to the house of one lady.[2318]2318Â See how she is
exalted on a rock. All, therefore, are not to be deemed to be in her
which build upon the sand, that is, which hear the words of Christ and
do them not, even though both among us and among you they have and
transmit the sacrament of baptism. See how her hope is in God the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,ânot in Peter or in Paul, still
less in Donatus or Petilianus. What we fear, therefore, to destroy,
is not yours, but Christâs; and it is holy of itself, even in
sacrilegious hands. For we cannot receive those who come from you,
unless we destroy in them whatsoever appertains to you. For we
destroy the treachery of the deserter, not the stamp of the
sovereign. Accordingly, do you yourself consider and annul what you
said:Â "I," say you, "baptize their polluted ones; they, though may
God never grant them such an opportunity, receive those who are made
mine by baptism."Â For you do not baptize men who are infected, but
you rebaptize them, so as to infect them with the fraud of your
error. But we do not receive men who are made yours by baptism; but
we destroy that error of yours whereby they are made yours, and we
receive the baptism of Christ, by which they are baptized. Therefore
it is not without significance that you introduce the words, "Though
may God never grant them such an opportunity."Â For you said, "They,
though may God never grant them such an opportunity, receive those who
are made mine by baptism."Â For while you in your fear that we may
receive your followers desire to be understood, "may God never give
them the opportunity of receiving such as are mine," I suppose that,
without knowing what it meant, you said, "May God never make them mine
that you should receive them."Â For we pray that those may not be
really yours who come over at the present moment to the Catholic
Church. Nor do they come over so as to be ours by right of baptism,
but by fellowship with us, and that with us they may belong to Christ,
in virtue of their baptism.
Book III.
In this book Augustin refutes the second letter[2319]2319 which
Petilianus wrote to him after having seen the first of Augustinâs
earlier books. This letter had been full of violent language; and
Augustin rather shows that the arguments of Petilianus had been
deficient and irrelevant, than brings forward arguments in support of
his own statements.
Chapter 1.â1. Being able to read, Petilianus, I have read your
letter, in which you have shown with sufficient clearness that, in
supporting the party of Donatus against the Catholic Church, you have
neither been able to say anything to the purpose, nor been allowed to
hold your tongue. What violent emotions did you endure, what a storm
of feelings surged within your heart, on reading the answer which I
made, with all possible brevity and clearness, to that portion of your
letter which alone at that time had come into my hands! For you saw
that the truth which we maintain and defend was confirmed with such
strength of argument, and illustrated with such abundant light, that
you could not find anything which could be said against it, whereby
the charges which we make might be refuted. You observed, also, that
the attention of many who had read it was fixed on you, since they
desired to know what you would say, what you would do, how you would
escape from the difficulty, how you would make your way out of the
strait in which the word of God had encompassed you. Hereupon you,
when you ought to have shown contempt for the opinion of the foolish
ones, and to have gone on to adopt sound and truthful sentiments,
preferred rather to do what Scripture has foretold of men like you:Â
"Thou hast loved evil more than good, and lying rather than to speak
righteousness."[2320]2320Â Just as if I in turn were willing to
recompense unto you railing for railing; in which case, what should we
be but two evil speakers, so that those who read our words would
either preserve their self-respect by throwing us aside with
abhorrence, or eagerly devour what we wrote to gratify their malice?Â
For my own part, since I answer every one, whether in writing or by
word of mouth, even when I have been attacked with insulting
accusations, in such language as the Lord puts in my mouth,
restraining and crushing the stings of empty indignation in the
interests of my hearer or reader, I do not strive to prove myself
superior to my adversary by abusing him, but rather to be a source of
health in him by convicting him of his error.
2. For if those who take into consideration what you have written
have any feelings whatsoever, how did it serve you in the cause which
is at issue between us respecting the Catholic communion and the party
of Donatus, that, leaving a matter which was in a certain sense of
public interest, you should have been led by private animosity to
attack the life of an individual with malicious revilings, just as
though that individual were the question in debate? Did you think so
badly, I do not say of Christians, but of the whole human race, as not
to suppose that your writings might come into the hands of some
prudent men, who would lay aside all thoughts of individuals like us,
and inquire rather into the question which was at issue between us,
and pay heed, not to who and what we were, but to what we might be
able to advance in defense of the truth or against error? You should
have paid respect to these menâs judgment, you should have guarded
yourself against their censure, lest they should think that you could
find nothing to say, unless you set before yourself some one whom you
might abuse by any means within your power. But one may see by the
thoughtlessness and foolishness of some men, who listen eagerly to the
quarrels of any learned disputants, that while they take notice of the
eloquence wherewith you lavish your abuse, they do not perceive with
what truth you are refuted. At the same time, I think your object
partly was that I might be driven, by the necessity of defending
myself, to desert the very cause which I had undertaken; and that so,
while menâs attention was turned to the words of opponents who were
engaged not in disputation, but in quarrelling, the truth might be
obscured, which you are so afraid should come to light and be well
known among men. What therefore was I to do in opposing such a
design as this, except to keep strictly to my subject, neglecting
rather my own defense, praying withal that no personal calumny may
lead me to withdraw from it? I will exalt the house of my God, whose
honor I have loved, with the tribute of a faithful servantâs voice,
but myself I will humiliate and hold of no account. "I had rather be
a door-keeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of
heretics."[2321]2321Â I will therefore turn my discourse from you,
Petilianus, for a time, and direct it rather to those whom you have
endeavored to turn away from me by your revilings, as though my
endeavor rather were that men should be converted unto me, and not
rather with me unto God.
Chapter 2.â3. Hear therefore, all ye who have read his revilings,
what Petilianus has vented against me with more anger than
consideration. To begin with, I will address you in the words of the
apostle, which certainly are true, whatever I myself may be:Â "Let a
man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of
the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a
man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I
should be judged of you, or of manâs judgment:Â yea, I judge not mine
own self."Â With regard to what immediately follows, although I do
not venture to apply to myself the words, "For I am conscious of
nothing in myself,"[2322]2322 yet I say confidently in the sight of
God, that I am conscious in myself of none of those charges which
Petilianus has brought against my life since the time when I was
baptized in Christ; "yet am I not hereby justified, but He that
judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time,
until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of
darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then
shall every man have praise of God. And these things, brethren, I
have in a figure transferred to myself; that ye might learn in us not
to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be
puffed up for one against another."[2323]2323Â "Therefore let no man
glory in men:Â for all things are yours; and ye are Christâs; and
Christ is Godâs."[2324]2324Â Again I say, "Let no man glory in men;"
nay, oftentimes I repeat it, "Let no man glory in men."Â If you
perceive anything in us which is deserving of praise, refer it all to
His praise, from whom is every good gift and every perfect gift; for
it is "from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with
whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."[2325]2325Â For
what have we which we did not receive? and if we have received it, let
us not boast as though we had not received it.[2326]2326Â And in all
these things which you know to be good in us, be ye our followers, at
any rate, if we are Christâs;[2327]2327 but if, on the other hand, you
either suspect, or believe, or see that any evil is in us, hold fast
to that saying of the Lordâs, in which you may safely resolve not to
desert His Church because of menâs ill deeds. Whatsoever we bid you
observe, that observe and do; but whatsoever evil works you think or
know to be in us, those do ye not.[2328]2328Â For this is not the
time for me to justify myself before you, when I have undertaken,
neglecting all considerations of self, to recommend to you what is for
your salvation, that no one should make his boast of men. For
"cursed be the man that trusteth in man."[2329]2329Â So long as this
precept of the Lord and His apostle be adhered to and observed, the
cause which I serve will be victorious, even if I myself, as my enemy
would fain have thought, am faint and oppressed in my own cause. For
if you cling most firmly to what I urge on you with all my might, that
every one is cursed who places his trust in man, so that none should
make his boast of man, then you will in no wise desert the
threshing-floor of the Lord on account of the chaff which either is
now being dispersed beneath the blast of the wind of pride, or will be
separated by the final winnowing;[2330]2330 nor will you fly from the
great house on account of the vessels made to dishonor;[2331]2331 nor
will you quit the net through the breaches made in it because of the
bad fish which are to be separated on the shore;[2332]2332 nor will
you leave the good pastures of unity, because of the goats which are
to be placed on the left when the Good Shepherd shall divide the
flock;[2333]2333 nor will you separate yourselves by an impious
secession, because of the mixture of the tares, from the society of
that good wheat, whose source is that grain that dies and is
multiplied thereby, and that grows together throughout the world until
the harvest. For the field is the world,ânot only Africa; and the
harvest is the end of the world,[2334]2334ânot the era of Donatus.
Chapter 3.â4. These comparisons of the gospel you doubtless
recognize. Nor can we suppose them given for any other purpose,
except that no one should make his boast in man, and that no one
should be puffed up for one against another, or divided one against
another, saying, "I am of Paul," when certainly Paul was not crucified
for you, nor were you baptized in the name of Paul, much less in that
of Cæcilianus, or of any one of us,[2335]2335 that you may learn,
that so long as the chaff is being bruised with the corn, so long as
the bad fishes swim together with the good in the nets of the Lord,
till the time of separation shall come, it is your duty rather to
endure the admixture of the bad out of consideration for the good,
than to violate the principle of brotherly love towards the good from
any consideration of the bad. For this admixture is not for
eternity, but for time alone; nor is it spiritual, but corporal. And
in this the angels will not be liable to err, when they shall collect
the bad from the midst of the good, and commit them to the burning
fiery furnace. For the Lord knoweth those which are His. And if a
man cannot depart bodily from those who practise iniquity so long as
time shall last, at any rate, let every one that nameth the name of
Christ depart from iniquity itself.[2336]2336Â For in the meantime he
may separate himself from the wicked in life, and in morals, and in
heart and will, and in the same respects depart from his society; and
separation such as this should always be maintained. But let the
separation in the body be waited for till the end of time, faithfully,
patiently, bravely. In consideration of which expectation it is
said, "Wait on the Lord; be of good courage, and He shall strengthen
thine heart; wait, I say, upon the Lord."[2337]2337Â For the greatest
palm of toleration is won by those who, among false brethren that have
crept in unawares, seeking their own, and not the things of Jesus
Christ, yet show that they on their part seek not to disturb the love
which is not their own, but Jesus Christâs, by any turbulent or rash
dissension, nor to break the unity of the Lordâs net, in which are
gathered together fish of every kind; till it is drawn to the shore,
that is, till the end of time, by any wicked strife fostered in the
spirit of pride:Â whilst each might think himself to be something,
being really nothing, and so might lead himself astray, and wish that
sufficient reason might be found for the separation of Christian
peoples in the judgment of himself or of his friends, who declare that
they know beyond all question certain wicked men unworthy of communion
in the sacraments of the Christian religion:Â though whatever it may
be that they know of them, they cannot persuade the universal Church,
which, as it was foretold, is spread abroad throughout all nations, to
give credit to their tale. And when they refuse communion with these
men, as men whose character they know, they desert the unity of the
Church; whereas they ought rather, if there really were in them that
charity which endureth all things, themselves to bear what they know
in one nation, lest they should separate themselves from the good whom
they were unable throughout all nations to fill with the teaching of
evil alien to them. Whence even, without discussing the case, in
which they are convicted by the weightiest proofs of having uttered
calumnies against the innocent, they are believed with greater
probability to have invented false charges of giving up the sacred
books, when they are found to have themselves committed the far more
heinous crime of wicked division in the Church. For even, if
whatever imputations they have cast of giving up the sacred books were
true, yet they in no wise ought to have abandoned the society of
Christians, who are commended by holy Scripture even to the ends of
the world, on considerations which they have been familiar with, while
these men showed that they were not acquainted with them.
Chapter 4.â5. Nor would I therefore be understood to urge that
ecclesiastical discipline should be set at naught, and that every one
should be allowed to do exactly as he pleased, without any check,
without a kind of healing chastisement, a lenity which should inspire
fear, the severity of love. For then what will become of the precept
of the apostle, "Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded,
support the weak, be patient toward all men; see that none render evil
for evil unto any man?"[2338]2338Â At any rate, when he added these
last words, "See that none render evil for evil unto any man," he
showed with sufficient clearness that there is no rendering of evil
for evil when one chastises those that are unruly, even though for the
fault of unruliness be administered the punishment of chastising.Â
The punishment of chastising therefore is not an evil, though the
fault be an evil. For indeed it is the steel, not of an enemy
inflicting a wound, but of a surgeon performing an operation. Things
like this are done within the Church, and that spirit of gentleness
within its pale burns with zeal towards God, lest the chaste virgin
which is espoused to one husband, even Christ, should in any of her
members be corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ, as Eve
was beguiled by the subtilty of the serpent.[2339]2339Â
Notwithstanding, far be it from the servants of the father of the
family that they should be unmindful of the precept of their Lord, and
be so inflamed with the fire of holy indignation against the multitude
of the tares, that while they seek to gather them in bundles before
the time, the wheat should be rooted up together with them. And of
this sin these men would be held to be guilty, even though they showed
that those were true charges which they brought against the traditors
whom they accused; because they separated themselves in a spirit of
impious presumption, not only from the wicked, whose society they
professed to be avoiding, but also from the good and faithful in all
nations of the world, to whom they could not prove the truth of what
they said they knew; and with themselves they drew away into the same
destruction many others over whom they had some slight authority, and
who were not wise enough to understand that the unity of the Church
dispersed throughout the world was on no account to be forsaken for
other menâs sins. So that, even though they themselves knew that
they were pressing true charges against certain of their neighbors,
yet in this way a weak brother, for whom Christ died, was perishing
through their knowledge;[2340]2340 whilst, being offended at other
menâs sins, he was destroying in himself the blessing of peace which
he had with the good brethren, who partly had never heard such
charges, partly had shrunk from giving hasty credence to what was
neither discussed nor proved, partly, in the peaceful spirit of
humility, had left these charges, whatsoever they might be, to the
cognizance of the judges of the Church, to whom the whole matter had
been referred, across the sea.
Chapter 5.â6. Do you, therefore, holy scions of our one Catholic
mother, beware with all the watchfulness of which you are capable, in
due submission to the Lord, of the example of crime and error such as
this. With however great light of learning and of reputation he may
shine, however much he may boast himself to be a precious stone, who
endeavors to lead you after him, remember always that that brave woman
who alone is lovely only to her husband, whom holy Scripture portrays
to us in the last chapter of the Book of Proverbs, is more precious
than any precious stones. Let no one say, I will follow such an one,
for it was even he that made me a Christian; or, I will follow such an
one, for it was even he that baptized me. For "neither is he that
planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the
increase."[2341]2341Â And "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love,
dwelleth in God, and God in him."[2342]2342Â No one also that
preaches the name of Christ, and handles or administers the sacrament
of Christ, is to be followed in opposition to the unity of Christ.Â
"Let every man prove his own work; and then shall he have rejoicing in
himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own
burden,"[2343]2343âthe burden, that is, of rendering an account; for
"every one of shall give an account of himself. Let us not therefore
judge one another any more."[2344]2344Â For, so far as relates to the
burdens of mutual love, "bear ye one anotherâs burdens, and so fulfill
the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when
he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."[2345]2345Â Let us therefore
"forbear one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace;"[2346]2346 for no one who gathers outside
that peace is gathering with Christ; but "he that gathering not with
Him scattereth abroad."[2347]2347
Chapter 6.â7. Furthermore, whether concerning Christ, or concerning
His Church, or any other matter whatsoever which is connected with
your faith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means
to be compared with him who said, "Though we," at any rate, as he went
on to say, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto
you than that which" ye have received in the lawful and evangelical
Scripture, "let him be accursed."[2348]2348Â While carrying out this
principle of action in our dealings with you, and with all whom we
desire to gain in Christ, and, amongst other things, while preaching
the holy Church which we read of as promised in the epistles of God,
and see to be fulfilled according to the promises in all nations of
the world, we have earned, not the rendering of thanks, but the flames
of hatred, from those whom we desire to have attracted into His most
peaceful bosom; as though we had bound them fast in that party for
which they cannot find any defense that they should make; or as though
we so long before had given injunctions to prophets and apostles that
they should insert in their books no proofs by which it might be shown
that the party of Donatus was the Church of Christ. And we indeed,
dear brethren, when we hear false charges brought against us by those
whom we have offended by preaching the eloquence of truth, and
confuting the vanity of error, have, as you know, the most abundant
consolation. For if, in the matters which they lay to my charge, the
testimony of my conscience does not stand against me in the sight of
God, where no mortal eye can reach, not only ought I not to be cast
down, but I should even rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is my
reward in heaven.[2349]2349Â For in fact I ought to consider, not how
bitter, but how false is what I hear, and how true He is in defense of
whose name I am exposed to it, and to whom it is said, "Thy name is as
ointment poured forth."[2350]2350Â And deservedly does it smell sweet
in all nations, though those who speak evil of us endeavor to confine
its fragrance within one corner of Africa. Why therefore should we
take amiss that we are reviled by men who thus detract from the glory
of Christ, whose party and schism find offense in what was foretold so
long before of His ascent into the heavens, and of the pouring forth
of His name, as of the savor of ointment:Â "Be Thou exalted, O God,
above the heavens:Â let Thy glory be above all the earth"?[2351]2351
Chapter 7.â8. Whilst we bear the testimony of God to this and the
like effect against the vain speaking of men, we are forced to undergo
bitter insults from the enemies of the glory of Christ. Let them say
what they will, whilst He exhorts us, saying, "Blessed are they which
are persecuted for righteousnessâ sake:Â for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my
sake."Â What He says in the first instance, "for righteousnessâ
sake," He has repeated in the words that He uses afterwards, "for my
sake;" seeing that He "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption, that, according as it is written, He
that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."[2352]2352Â And when He
says, "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in
heaven,"[2353]2353 if I hold in a good conscience what is said "for
righteousnessâ sake," and "for my sake," whosoever willfully detracts
from my reputation is against his will contributing to my reward.Â
For neither did He only instruct me by His word, without also
confirming me by His example. Follow the faith of the holy
Scriptures, and you will find that Christ rose from the dead, ascended
into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father. Follow the
charges brought by His enemies, and you will presently believe that He
was stolen from the sepulchre by His disciples. Why then should we,
while defending His house to the best of the abilities given us by
God, expect to meet with any other treatment from His enemies? "If
they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more
shall they call them of His household?"[2354]2354Â If, therefore, we
suffer, we shall also reign with Him. But if it be not only the
wrath of the accuser that strikes the ear, but also the truth of the
accusation that stings the conscience, what does it profit me if the
whole world were to exalt me with perpetual praise? So neither the
eulogy of him who praises has power to heal a guilty conscience, nor
does the insult of him, who reviles wound the good conscience. Nor,
however, is your hope which is in the Lord deceived, even though we
chance to be in secret what our enemies wish us to be thought; for you
have not placed your hope in us, nor have you ever heard from us any
doctrine of the kind. You therefore are safe, whatever we may be,
who have learned to say, "I have trusted in the Lord; therefore I
shall not slide;"[2355]2355 and "In God have I put my trust:Â I will
not be afraid what man can do unto me."[2356]2356Â And to those who
endeavor to lead you astray to the earthly heights of proud men, you
know how to answer, "In the Lord put I my trust:Â how say ye to my
soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?"[2357]2357
Chapter 8.â9. Nor is it only you that are safe, whatever we may be,
because you are satisfied with the very truth of Christ which is in
us, in so far as it is preached through us, and everywhere throughout
the world, and because, listening to it willingly, so far as it is set
forth by the humble ministry of our tongue, you also think well and
kindly of us,âfor so your hope is in Him whom we preach to you out of
His loving-kindness, which extends over you,âbut further, all of you,
who also received the sacrament of holy baptism from our ministering,
may well rejoice in the same security, seeing that you were baptized,
not into us, but into Christ. You did not therefore put on us, but
Christ; nor did I ask you whether you were converted unto me, but unto
the living God; nor whether you believed in me, but in the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost. But if you answered my question with
truthful hearts, you were placed in a state of salvation, not by the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but by the answer of a good
conscience towards God;[2358]2358 not by a fellow-servant, but by the
Lord; not by the herald, but by the judge. For it is not true, as
Petilianus inconsiderately said, that "the conscience of the giver,"
or, as he added "the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what
we look for to wash the conscience of the recipient."Â For when
something is given that is of God, it is given in holiness, even by a
conscience which is not holy. And certainly it is beyond the power
of the recipient to discern whether the said conscience is holy or not
holy; but that which is given he can discern with clearness. That
which is known to Him who is ever holy is received with perfect
safety, whatever be the character of the minister at whose hands it is
received. For unless the words which are spoken from Mosesâ seat
were necessarily holy, He that is the Truth would never have said,
"Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do."Â But if the
men who uttered holy words were themselves holy, He would not have
said, "Do not ye after their works:Â for they say, and do
not."[2359]2359Â For it is true that in no way do men gather grapes
of thorns, because grapes never spring from the root of a thorn; but
when the shoot of the vine has entwined itself in a thorn hedge, the
fruit which hangs upon it is not therefore looked upon with dread, but
the thorn is avoided, while the grape is plucked.
Chapter 9.â10. Therefore, as I have often said before, and am
desirous to bring home to you, whatsoever we may be, you are safe, who
have God for your Father and His Church for your mother. For
although the goats may feed in company with the sheep, yet they shall
not stand on the right hand; although the chaff may be bruised
together with the wheat, it shall not be gathered into the barn;
although the bad fish may swim in company with the good within the
Lordâs nets, they shall not be gathered into vessels. Let no man
make his boast even in a good man:Â let no man shun the good gifts of
God even in a bad man.
Chapter 10.â11. Let these things suffice you, my beloved Christian
brethren of the Catholic Church, so far as the present business is
concerned; and if you hold fast to this in Catholic affection, so long
as you are one sure flock of the one Shepherd, I am not too much
concerned with the abuse that any enemy may lavish on me, your partner
in the flock, or, at any rate, your watch-dog, so long as he compels
me to bark rather in your defense than in my own. And yet, if it
were necessary for the cause that I should enter on my own defense, I
should do so with the greatest brevity and the greatest ease, joining
freely with all men in condemning and bearing witness against the
whole period of my life before I received the baptism of Christ, so
far as relates to my evil passions and my errors, lest, in defending
that period, I should seem to be seeking my own glory, not His, who by
His grace delivered me even from myself. Wherefore, when I hear that
life of mine abused, in whatever spirit he may be acting who abuses
it, I am not so thankless as to be grieved. However much he finds
fault with any vice of mine, I praise him in the same degree as my
physician. Why then should I disturb myself about defending those
past and obsolete evils in my life, in respect of which, though
Petilianus has said much that is false, he has yet left more that is
true unsaid? But concerning that period of my life which is
subsequent to my baptism, to you who know me I speak unnecessarily in
telling of those things which might be known to all mankind; but those
who know me not ought not to act with such unfairness towards me as to
believe Petilianus rather than you concerning me. For if one should
not give credence to the panegyrics of a friend, neither should one
believe the detraction of an enemy. There remain, therefore, those
things which are hidden in a man, in which conscience alone can bear
testimony, which cannot be a witness before men. Herein Petilianus
says that I am a Manichæan, speaking of the conscience of another
man; I, speaking of my own conscience, aver that I am not. Choose
which of us you had sooner believe. Notwithstanding, since there is
not any need even of this short and easy defense on my part, where the
question at issue is not concerning the merits of any individual,
whoever he may be, but concerning the truth[2360]2360 of the whole
Church, I have more also to say to any of you, who, being of the party
of Donatus, have read the evil words which Petilianus has written
about me, which I should not have heard from him if I had had no care
about the loss of your salvation; but then I should have been wanting
in the bowels of Christian love.
Chapter 11.â12. What wonder is it then, if, when I draw in the grain
that has been shaken forth from the threshing-floor of the Lord,
together with the soil and chaff, I suffer injury from the dust that
rebounds against me; or that, when I am diligently seeking after the
lost sheep of my Lord, I am torn by the briars of thorny tongues? I
entreat you, lay aside for a time all considerations of party feeling,
and judge with some degree of fairness between Petilianus and
myself. I am desirous that you should be acquainted with the cause
of the Church; he, that you should be familiar with mine. For what
other reason than because he dares not bid you disbelieve my
witnesses, whom I am constantly citing in the cause of the Church,âfor
they are prophets and apostles, and Christ Himself, the Lord of
prophets and apostles,âwhereas you easily give him credit in whatever
he may choose to say concerning me, a man against a man, and one,
moreover, of your own party against a stranger to you? And should I
adduce any witnesses to my life, however important the thing he might
say would be, it would not be believed by them, and of this Petilianus
would quickly persuade you; especially when any one would bring
forward a plea for me. Since he is an enemy of the Donatist party,
in virtue of this fact he would also continually be considered your
enemy. Petilianus therefore reigns supreme. Whenever he aims any
abuse at me, of whatever character it may be, you all applaud and
shout assent. This cause he has found wherein the victory is
possible for him, but only with you for judges. He will seek for
neither proof nor witness; for all that he has to prove in his words
is this, that he lavishes most copious abuse on one whom you most
cordially hate. For whereas, when the testimony of divine Scripture
is quoted in such abundance and in such express terms in favor of the
Catholic Church, he remains silent amidst your grief, he has chosen
for himself a subject on which he may speak amidst applause from you;
and though really conquered, yet, pretending that he stands unmoved,
he may make statements concerning me like this, and even worse than
this. It is enough for me,[2361]2361 in respect of the cause which I
am now pleading, that whatsoever I may be found to be, yet the Church
for which I speak unconquered.
Chapter 12.â13. For I am a man of the threshing-floor of Christ:Â
if a bad man, then part of the chaff; if good, then of the grain.Â
The winnowing-fan of this threshing-floor is not the tongue of
Petilianus; and hereby, whatever evil he may have uttered, even with
truth, against the chaff of this threshing-floor, this in no way
prejudices its grain. But whereinsoever he has cast any revilings or
calumnies against the grain itself, its faith is tried on earth, and
its reward increased in the heavens. For where men are holy servants
of the Lord, and are fighting with holiness for God, not against
Petilianus, or any flesh and blood like him, but against
principalities and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this
world,[2362]2362 such as are all enemies of the truth, to whom I would
that we could say, "Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in
the Lord,"[2363]2363âwhere the servants of God, I say, are waging such
a war as this, then all the calumnious revilings that are uttered by
their enemies, which cause an evil report among the malicious and
those that are rash in believing, are weapons on the left hand:Â it
is with such as these that even the devil is defeated. For when we
are tried by good report, whether we resist the exaltation of
ourselves to pride, and are tried by evil report, whether we love even
those very enemies by whom it is invented against us, then we overcome
the devil by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the
left. For when the apostle had used the expression, "By the armor of
righteousness on the right hand and on the left," he at once goes on
to say, as if in explanation of the terms, "By honor and dishonor, by
evil report and good report,"[2364]2364 and so forth,âreckoning honor
and good report among the armor on the right hand, dishonor and evil
report among that upon the left.
Chapter 13.â14. If, therefore, I am a servant of the Lord, and a
soldier that is not reprobate, with whatever eloquence Petilianus
stands forth reviling me, ought I in any way to be annoyed that he has
been appointed for me as a most accomplished craftsman of the armor on
the left? It is necessary that I should fight in this armor as
skillfully as possible in defence of my Lord, and should smite with it
the enemy against whom I wage an unseen fight, who in all cunning
strives and endeavors, with the most perverse and ancient craftiness,
that this should lead me to hate Petilianus, and so be unable to
fulfill the command which Christ has given, that we should "love our
enemies."[2365]2365Â But from this may I be saved by the mercy of Him
who loved me, and gave Himself for me, so that, as He hung upon the
cross, He said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
do;"[2366]2366 and so taught me to say of Petilianus and all other
enemies of mine like him "Father, forgive them; for they know not what
they do.â
Chapter 14.â15. Furthermore, if I have obtained from you, in
accordance with my earnest endeavors, that, laying aside from your
minds all prejudice of party, you should be impartial judges between
Petilianus and myself, I will show to you that he has not replied to
what I wrote, that you may understand that he has been compelled by
lack of truth to abandon the dispute, and also see what revilings he
has allowed himself to utter against the man who so conducted it that
he had no reply to make. And yet what I am going to say displays
itself with such manifest clearness, that, even though your minds were
estranged from me by party prejudice and personal hatred, yet, if you
would only read what is written on both sides, you could not but
confess among yourselves, in your inmost hearts, that I have spoken
truth.
16. For, in replying to the former part of his writings, which then
alone had come into my hands, without taking any notice of his wordy
and sacrilegious revilings, where he says, "Let those men cast in our
teeth our twice-repeated baptism, who, under the name of baptism, have
polluted their souls with a guilty washing; whom I hold to be so
obscene that no manner of filth is less clean than they; whose lot it
has been, by a perversion of cleanliness, to be defiled by the water
wherein they washed;" I thought that what follows was worthy of
discussion and refutation, where he says, "For what we look for is the
conscience of the giver, that the conscience of the recipient may
thereby be cleansed;" and I asked what means were to be found for
cleansing one who receives baptism when the conscience of the giver is
polluted, without the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament
at his hands.[2367]2367
Chapter 15.â17. Read now the most profuse revilings which he has
poured forth whilst puffed up with indignation against me, and see
whether he has given me any answer, when I ask what means are to be
found for cleansing one who receives baptism when the conscience of
the giver is polluted, without the knowledge of him who receives the
sacrament at his hands. I beg of you to search minutely, to examine
every page, to reckon every line, to ponder every word, to sift the
meaning of each syllable, and tell me, if you can discover it, where
he has made answer to the question, What means are to be found for
cleansing the conscience of the recipient who is unaware that the
conscience of the giver is polluted?
18. For how did it bear upon the point that he added a phrase which
he said was suppressed by me, maintaining that he had written in the
following terms:Â "The conscience of him who gives in holiness is
what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient?"Â For to
prove to you that it was not suppressed by me, its addition in no way
hinders my inquiry, or makes up the deficiency which was found in
him. For in the face of those very words I ask again, and I beg of
you to see whether he has given any answer, If "the conscience of him
who gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient," what means are to be found for cleansing the
conscience of the recipient when the conscience of the giver is
stained with guilt, without the knowledge of him who is to receive the
sacrament at his hands? I insist upon an answer being given to
this. Do not allow that any one should be prejudiced by revilings
irrelevant to the matter in hand. If the conscience of him who gives
in holiness is what we look for,âobserve that I do not say "the
conscience of him who gives," but that I added the words, "of him who
gives in holiness,"âif the conscience, then, of him who gives in
holiness is what we look for, what means are to be found for cleansing
one who receives baptism when the conscience of the giver is polluted,
without the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament at his
hands?
Chapter 16.â19. Let him go now, and with panting lungs and swollen
throat find fault with me as a mere dialectician. Nay, let him
summon, not me, but the science of dialectics itself, to the bar of
popular opinion as a forger of lies, and let him open his mouth to its
widest against it, with all the noisiest uproar of a special
pleader. Let him say whatever he pleases before the inexperienced,
that so the learned may be moved to wrath, while the ignorant are
deceived. Let him call me, in virtue of my rhetoric, by the name of
the orator Tertullus, by whom Paul was accused;[2368]2368 and let him
give himself the name of Advocate,[2369]2369 in virtue of the pleading
in which he boasts his former power, and for this reason delude
himself with the notion that he is, or rather was, a namesake of the
Holy Ghost. Let him, with all my heart, exaggerate the foulness of
the Manichæans, and endeavor to divert it on to me by his barking.Â
Let him quote all the exploits of those who have been condemned,
whether known or unknown to me; and let him turn into the calumnious
imputation of a prejudged crime, by some new right entirely his own,
the fact that a former friend of mine there named me in my absence to
the better securing of his own defense. Let him read the titles that
have been placed upon my letters by himself or by his friends, as
suited their pleasure, and boast that he has, as it were, involved me
hopelessly in their expressions. When I acknowledge certain eulogies
of bread, uttered in all simplicity and merriment, let him take away
my character with the absurd imputations of poisonous baseness and
madness. And let him entertain so bad an opinion of your
understanding, as to imagine that he can be believed when he declares
that pernicious love-charms were given to a woman, not only with the
knowledge, but actually with the complicity[2370]2370 of her
husband. What the man who was afterwards to ordain me
bishop[2371]2371 wrote about me in anger, while I was as yet a priest,
he may freely seek to use as evidence against me. That the same man
sought and obtained forgiveness from a holy Council for the wrong he
thus had done me, he is equally at liberty to ignore as being in my
favor,âbeing either so ignorant or so forgetful of Christian
gentleness, and the commandment of the gospel, that he brings as an
accusation against a brother what is wholly unknown to that brother
himself, as he humbly entreats that pardon may in kindness be extended
to him.
Chapter 17.â20. Let him further go on, in his discourse of many but
manifestly empty words, to matters of which he is wholly ignorant, or
in which rather he abuses the ignorance of the mass of those who hear
him, and from the confession of a certain woman, that she had called
herself a catechumen of the Manichæans, being already a full member
of the Catholic Church, let him say or write what he pleases
concerning their baptism,ânot knowing, or pretending not to know, that
the name of catechumen is not bestowed among them upon persons to
denote that they are at some future time to be baptized, but that this
name is given to such as are also called Hearers, on the supposition
that they cannot observe what are considered the higher and greater
commandments, which are observed by those whom they think right to
distinguish and honor by the name of Elect. Let him also maintain
with wonderful rashness, either as himself deceived or as seeking to
deceive, that I was a presbyter among the Manichæans. Let him set
forth and refute, in whatever sense seems good to him, the words of
the third book of my Confessions, which, both in themselves, and from
much that I have said before and since, are perfectly clear to all who
read them. Lastly, let him triumph in my stealing his words, because
I have suppressed two of them, as though the victory were his upon
their restoration.
Chapter 18.â21. Certainly in all these things, as you can learn or
refresh your memory by reading his letter, he has given free scope to
the impulse of his tongue, with all the license of boasting which he
chose to use, but nowhere has he told us where means are to be found
for cleansing the conscience of the recipient, when that of the giver
has been stained with sin without his knowing it. But amid all his
noise, and after all his noise, serious as it is, too terrible as he
himself supposes it to be, I deliberately, as it is said, and to the
purpose,[2372]2372 ask this question once again:Â If the conscience
of him who gives in holiness is what we look for, what means are to be
found for cleansing one who receives baptism without knowing that the
conscience of the giver is stained with sin? And throughout his
whole epistle I find nothing said in answer to this question.
Chapter 19.â22. For perhaps some one of you will say to me, All
these things which he said against you he wished to have force for
this purpose, that he might take away your character, and through you
the character of those with whom you hold communion, that neither they
themselves, nor those whom you endeavor to bring over to your
communion, may hold you to be of any further importance. But, in
deciding whether he has given no answer to the words of your epistle,
we must look at them in the light of the passage in which he proposed
them for consideration. Let us then do so: let us look at his
writings in the light of that very passage. Passing over, therefore,
the passage in which I sought to introduce my subject to the reader,
and to ignore those few prefatory words of his, which were rather
insulting than revelant to the subject under discussion, I go on to
say, "He says, âWhat we look for is the conscience of the giver, to
cleanse that of the recipient.â But supposing the conscience of the
giver is concealed from view, and perhaps defiled with sin, how will
it be able to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, if, as he says,
âwhat we look for is the conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of
the recipient?â For if he should say that it makes no matter to the
recipient what amount of evil may be concealed from view in the
conscience of the giver, perhaps that ignorance may have such a degree
of efficacy as this, that a man cannot be defiled by the guilt of the
conscience of him from whom he receives baptism, so long as he is
unaware of it. Let it then be granted that the guilty conscience of
his neighbor cannot defile a man so long as he is unaware of it; but
is it therefore clear that it can further cleanse him from his own
guilt? Whence then is a man to be cleansed who receives baptism,
when the conscience of the giver is polluted without the knowledge of
him who is to receive it, especially when he goes on to say, âFor he
who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith but
guilt?â"[2373]2373
Chapter 20.â23. All these statements in my letter Petilianus set
before himself for refutation. Let us see, therefore, whether he has
refuted them; whether he has made any answer to them at all. For I
add the words which he calumniously accuses me of having suppressed,
and, having done so, I ask him again the same question in an even
shorter form; for by adding these two words he has helped me much in
shortening this proposition. If the conscience of him who gives in
holiness is what we look for to cleanse that of the recipient, and if
he who has received his faith wittingly from one that is faithless,
receives not faith but guilt, where shall we find means to cleanse the
conscience of the recipient, when he has not known that the conscience
of the giver is stained with guilt, and when he receives his faith
unwittingly from one that is faithless? I ask, where shall we find
means to cleanse it? Let him tell us; let him not pass off into
another subject; let him not cast a mist over the eyes of the
inexperienced. To end with, at any rate, after many tortuous
circumlocutions have been interposed and thoroughly worked out, let
him at last tell us where we shall find means to cleanse the
conscience of the recipient when the stains of guilt in the conscience
of the faithless baptizer are concealed from view, if the conscience
of him who gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse that of
the recipient, and if he who has received his faith wittingly from one
that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt? For the man in
question receives it from a faithless man who has not the conscience
of one who gives in holiness, but a conscience stained with guilt, and
veiled from view. Where then shall we find means to cleanse his
conscience? whence then does he receive his faith? For if he is
neither then cleansed, nor then receives faith, when the faithlessness
and guilt of the baptizer are concealed, why, when these are
afterwards brought to light and condemned, is he not then baptized
afresh, that he may be cleansed and receive faith? But if, while the
faithlessness and guilt of the other are concealed, he is cleansed and
does receive faith, whence does he obtain his cleansing, whence does
he receive faith, when there is not the conscience of one that gives
in holiness to cleanse the conscience of the recipient? Let him tell
us this; let him make reply to this:Â Whence does he obtain his
cleansing, whence does he receive faith, if the conscience of him that
gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient, seeing that this does not exist, when the baptizer conceals
his character of faithlessness and guilt? To this no answer has been
made whatever.
Chapter 21.â24. But see, when he is reduced to straits in the
argument, he again makes an attack on me full of mist and wind, that
the calm clearness of the truth may be obscured; and through the
extremity of his want he becomes full of resources, shown not in
saying what is true, but in unbought empty revilings. Hold fast,
with the keenest attention and utmost perseverance, what he ought to
answer,âthat is, where means may be found for cleansing the conscience
of the recipient when the stains in that of the giver are
concealed,âlest possibly the blast of his eloquence should wrest this
from your hands, and you in turn should be carried away by the dark
tempest of his turgid discourse, so as wholly to fail in seeing whence
he has digressed, and to what point he should return; and see where
the man can wander, whilst he cannot stand in the matter which he has
undertaken. For see how much he says, through having nothing that he
ought to say. He says "that I slide in slippery places, but am held
up; that I neither destroy nor confirm the objections that I make;
that I devise uncertain things in the place of certainty; that I do
not permit my readers to believe what is true, but cause them to look
with increased suspicion on what is doubtful."Â He says "that I have
the accursed talents of the Academic philosopher
Carneades."[2374]2374Â He endeavors to insinuate what the Academics
think of the falseness or the falsehood of human sensation, showing in
this also that he is wholly without knowledge of what he says. Â He
declares that "it is said by them that snow is black, whereas it is
white; and that silver is black; and that a tower is round, or free
from projections, when it is really angular; that an oar is broken in
the water, while it is whole."[2375]2375Â And all this because, when
he had said that "the conscience of him that gives," or "of him that
gives in holiness, is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient," I said in reply, What if the conscience of the giver
be hidden from sight, and possibly be stained with guilt? Here you
have his black snow, and black silver, and his tower round instead of
angular, and the oar in the water broken while yet whole, in that I
suggested a state of the case which might be conceived, and could not
really exist, that the conscience of the giver might be hidden from
view, and possibly might be stained with guilt!
25. Then he continues in the same strain, and cries out: "What is
that what if? what is that possibly? except the uncertain and wavering
hesitation of one who doubts, of whom your poet saysââ
âWhat if I now return to those who say, What if the sky should
fall?â"[2376]2376
Does he mean that when I said, What if the conscience of the giver be
hidden from sight, and possibly be stained with guilt? that it is much
the same as if I had said, What if the sky should fall? There
certainly is the phrase What if, because it is possible that it may be
hidden from view, and it is possible that it may not. For when it is
not known what the giver is thinking of, or what crime he has
committed, then his conscience is certainly hidden from the view of
the recipient; but when his sin is plainly manifest, then it is not
hidden. I used the expression, And possibly may be stained with
guilt, because it is possible that it may be hidden from view and yet
be pure; and again, it is possible that it may be hidden from view and
be stained with guilt. This is the meaning of the What if; this the
meaning of the Possibly. Is this at all like "What if the sky should
fall?"Â O how often have men been convicted, how often have they
confessed themselves that they had consciences stained with guilt and
adultery, whilst men were unwittingly baptized by them after they were
degraded by the sin subsequently brought to light, and yet the sky did
not fall! What have we here to do with Pilus and Furius,[2377]2377
who defended the cause of injustice against justice? What have we
here to do with the atheist Diagoras,[2378]2378 who denied that there
was any God, so that he would seem to be the man of whom the prophet
spoke beforehand, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no
God?"[2379]2379 What have we here to do with these? Why were their
names brought in, except that they might make a diversion in favor of
a man who had nothing to say? that while he is at any rate saying
something, though needlessly, about these, the matter in hand may seem
to be progressing, and an answer may be supposed to be made to a
question which remains without an answer?
Chapter 22.â26. Lastly, if these two or three words, What if, and
Possibly, are so absolutely intolerable, that on their account we
should have aroused from their long sleep the Academics, and
Carneades, and Pilus, and Furius, and Diagoras, and black snow, and
the falling of the sky, and everything else that is equally senseless
and absurd, let them be removed from our argument. For, as a matter
of fact, it is by no means impossible to express what we desire to say
without them. There is quite sufficient for our purpose in what is
found a little later, and has been introduced by himself from my
letter:Â "By what means then is he to be cleansed who receives
baptism when the conscience of the giver is polluted, and that without
the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament?"[2380]2380Â Do
you acknowledge that here there is no What if, no Possibly? Well
then, let an answer be given. Give close heed, lest he be found to
answer this in what follows. "But," says he, "I bind you in your
cavilling to the faith of believing, that you may not wander further
from it. Why do you turn away your life from errors by arguments of
folly? Why do you disturb the system of belief in respect of matters
without reason? By this one word I bind and convince you." It was
Petilianus that said this, not I. These words are from the letter of
Petilianus; but from that letter, to which I just now added the two
words which he accuses me of having suppressed, showing that,
notwithstanding their addition, the pertinency of my question, to
which he makes no answer, remains with greater brevity and
simplicity. It is beyond dispute that these two words are, In
holiness, and Wittingly:Â so that it should not be, "The conscience
of him who gives," but "The conscience of him who gives in holiness;"
and that it should not be, "He who has received his faith from one
that is faithless," but "He who has wittingly received his faith from
one that is faithless."Â And yet I had not really suppressed these
words; but I had not found them in the copy which was placed in my
hands. It is possible enough that it was incorrect; nor indeed is it
wholly beyond the possibility of belief that even by this suggestion
Academic grudge should be roused against me, and that it should be
asserted that, in declaring the copy to be incorrect, I had said much
the same sort of thing as if I had declared that snow was black. For
why should I repay in kind his rash suggestion, and say that, though
he pretends that I suppressed the words, he really added them
afterwards himself, since the copy, which is not angry, can confirm
that mark of incorrectness, without any abusive rashness on my part?
Chapter 23.â27. And, in the first place, with regard to that first
expression, "Of him who gives in holiness," it does not interfere in
the least with my inquiry, by which he is so much distressed, whether
I use the expression, "If the conscience of him that gives is what we
look for," or the fuller phrase, "If the conscience of him that gives
in holiness is what we look for, to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient," by what means then is he to be cleansed who receives
baptism if the conscience of the giver is polluted, without the
knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament? And with regard to
the other word that is added, "wittingly," so that the sentence should
not run, "He who has received his faith from one that is faithless,"
but "He who has wittingly received his faith from one that is
faithless, receives not faith but guilt," I confess that I had said
some things as though the word were absent, but I can easily afford to
do without them; for they caused more hindrance to the facility of my
argument than they gave assistance to its power. For how much more
readily, how much more plainly and shortly, can I put the question
thus:Â "If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we
look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient," and "if he who
has wittingly received his faith from one that is faithless receives
not faith but guilt," by what means is he cleansed, from whom the
stain on the conscience of him who gives, but not in holiness, is
hidden? and whence does he receive true faith, who is baptized
unwittingly by one that is faithless? Let it be declared whence this
shall be, and then the whole theory of baptism will be disclosed; then
all that is matter of investigation will be brought to light,âbut only
if it be declared, not if the time be consumed in evil-speaking.
Chapter 24.â28. Whatever, therefore, he finds in these two
words,âwhether he brings calumnious accusations about their
suppression, or boasts of their being added,âyou perceive that it in
no way hinders my question, to which he can find no answer that he can
make; and therefore, not wishing to remain silent, he takes the
opportunity of making an attack upon my character,âretiring, I should
have said, from the discussion, except that he had never entered on
it. For just as though the question were about me, and not about the
truth of the Church, or of baptism, therefore he says that I, by
suppressing these two words, have argued as though it were no
stumblingblock in the way of my conscience, that I have ignored what
he calls the sacrilegious conscience of him who polluted me. But if
this were so, the addition of the word "wittingly," which is thus
introduced, would be in my favor, and its suppression would tell
against me. For if I had wished that my defense should be urged on
the ground that I should be supposed to have been unacquainted with
the conscience of the man that baptized me, then I would accept
Petilianus as having spoken in my behalf, since he does not say in
general terms, "He that has received his faith from one that is
faithless," but "He that has wittingly received his faith from one
that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt;" so that hence I
might boast that I had received not guilt, but faith, since I could
say I did not receive it wittingly from one that was faithless, but
was unacquainted with the conscience of him that gave it. Â See,
therefore, and reckon carefully, if you can, what an amount of
superfluous words he wastes on the one phrase, "I was unacquainted
with" which he declares that I have used; whereas I never used it at
all,âpartly because the question under discussion was not concerning
me, so that I should need to use it; partly because no fault was
apparent in him that baptized me, so that I should be forced to say in
my defense that I had been unacquainted with his conscience.
Chapter 25.â29. And yet Petilianus, to avoid answering what I have
said, sets before himself what I have not, and draws menâs attention
away from the consideration of his debt, lest they should exact the
answer which he ought to make. He constantly introduces the
expressions, "I have been unacquainted with," "I say," and makes
answer, "But if you were unacquainted with;" and, as though convicting
me, so that it should be out of my power to say, "I was unacquainted
with," he quotes Mensurius, Cæcilianus, Macarius, Taurinus, Romanus,
and declares that "they had acted in opposition to the Church of God,
as I could not fail to know, seeing that I am an African, and already
well advanced in years," whereas, so far as I hear, Mensurius died in
the unity of the communion of the Church, before the faction of
Donatus separated itself therefrom; whilst I had read the history of
Cæcilianus, that they themselves had referred his case to
Constantine, and that he had been once and again acquitted by the
judges whom that emperor had appointed to try the matter, and again a
third time by the sovereign himself, when they appealed to him. But
whatever Macarius and Taurinus and Romanus did, either in their
judicial or executive functions, in behalf of unity as against their
pertinacious madness, it is beyond doubt that it was all done in
accordance with the laws, which these same persons made it unavoidable
should be passed and put in force, by referring the case of
Cæcilianus to the judgment of the emperor.
30. Among many other things which are wholly irrevelant, he says
that "I was so hard hit by the decision of the proconsul Messianus,
that I was forced to fly from Africa."Â And in consequence of this
falsehood (to which, if he was not the author of it, he certainly lent
malicious ears when others maliciously invented it), how many other
falsehoods had he the hardihood not only to utter, but actually to
write with wondrous rashness, seeing that I went to Milan before the
consulship of Banto, and that, in pursuance of the profession of
rhetorician which I then followed, I recited a panegyric in his honor
as consul on the first of January, in the presence of a vast assembly
of men; and after that journey I only returned to Africa after the
death of the tyrant Maximus:Â whereas the proconsul Messianus heard
the case of the Manichæans after the consulship of Banto, as the day
of the chronicles inserted by Petilianus himself sufficiently shows.Â
And if it were necessary to prove this for the satisfaction of those
who are in doubt, or believe the contrary, I could produce many men,
illustrious in their generation, as most sufficient witnesses to all
that period of my life.
Chapter 26.â31. But why do we make inquiry into these points? Why
do we both suffer and cause unnecessary delay? Are we likely to find
out by such a course as this what means we are to use for cleansing
the conscience of the recipient, who does not know that the conscience
of the giver is stained with guilt:Â whence the man is to receive
faith who is unwittingly baptized by one that is faithless?âthe
question which Petilianus had proposed to himself to answer in my
epistle, then going on to say anything else he pleased except what the
matter in hand required. How often has he said, "If ignorant you
were,"âas though I had said, what I never did say, that I was
unacquainted with the conscience of him who baptized me. And he
seemed to have no other object in all that his evil-speaking mouth
poured forth, except that he should appear to prove that I had not
been ignorant of the misdeeds of those among whom I was baptized, and
with whom I was associated in communion, understanding fully, it would
seem, that ignorance did not convict me of guilt. See then that if I
were ignorant, as he has repeated so often, beyond all doubt I should
be innocent of all these crimes. Whence therefore should I be
cleansed, who am unacquainted with the conscience of him who gives but
not in holiness, so that I may be least ensnared by his offenses?Â
Whence then should I receive faith, seeing that I was baptized
unwittingly by one that was faithless? For he has not repeated "If
ignorant you were" so often without purpose, but simply to prevent my
being reputed innocent, esteeming beyond all doubt that no manâs
innocence is violated if he unwittingly receives his faith from one
that is faithless, and is not acquainted with the stains on the
conscience of him that gives, but not in holiness. Let him say,
therefore, by what means such men are to be cleansed, whence they are
to receive not guilt but faith. But let him not deceive you. Let
him not, while uttering much, say nothing; or rather, let him not say
much while saying nothing. Next, to urge a point which occurs to me,
and must not be passed over,âif I am guilty because I have not been
ignorant, to use his own phraseology, and I am proved not to have been
ignorant, because I am an African, and already advanced in years, let
him grant that the youths of other nations throughout the world are
not guilty, who had no opportunity either from their race, or from
that age you bring against me, of knowing the points that are laid to
our charge, be they true, or be they false; and yet they, if they have
fallen into your hands, are rebaptized without any considerations of
such a kind.
Chapter 27.â32. But this is not what we are now inquiring. Let him
rather answer (what he wanders off into the most irrelevant matters in
order to avoid answering) by what means the conscience of the
recipient is cleansed who is unacquainted with the stain on the
conscience of the giver, if the conscience of one that gives in
holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient? and from what source he receive faith who is unwittingly
baptized by one that is faithless, if he that has wittingly received
his faith from one that is faithless receives not faith but guilt?Â
Omitting, therefore, his revilings, which he has cast at me without
any sound consideration, let us still notice that he does not say what
we demand in what follows. But I should like to look at the
garrulous mode in which he has set this forth, as though he were sure
to overwhelm us with confusion. "But let us return," he says, "to
that argument of your fancy, whereby you seem to have represented to
yourself in a form of words the persons you baptize. For since you
do not see the truth, it would have been more seemly to have imagined
what was probable."Â These words of his own, Petilianus put forth by
way of preface, being about to state the words that I had used. Then
he went on to quote:Â "Behold, you say, the faithless man stands
ready to baptize, but he who is to be baptized knows nothing of his
faithlessness."[2381]2381Â He has not quoted the whole of my
proposition and question; and presently he begins to ask me in his
turn, saying, "Who is the man, and from what corner has he started up,
that you propose to us? Why do you seem to see a man who is the
produce of your imagination, in order to avoid seeing one whom you are
bound to see, and to examine and test most carefully? But since I
see that you are unacquainted with the order of the sacrament, I tell
you this as shortly as I can:Â you were bound both to examine your
baptizer, and to be examined by him."Â What is it, then, that we were
waiting for? That he should tell us by what means the conscience of
the recipient is to be cleansed, who is unacquainted with the stain on
the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness, and whence the
man is to receive not guilt but faith, who has received baptism
unwittingly from one that is faithless. All that we have heard is
that the baptizer ought most diligently to be examined by him who
wishes to receive not guilt but faith, that the latter may make
himself acquainted with the conscience of him that gives in holiness,
which is to cleanse the conscience of the recipient. For the man
that has failed to make this examination, and has unwittingly received
baptism from one that is faithless, from the very fact that he did not
make the examination, and therefore did not know of the stain on the
conscience of the giver, was incapacitated from receiving faith
instead of guilt. Why therefore did he add what he made so much of
adding,âthe word wittingly, which he calumniously accused me of having
suppressed? For in his unwillingness that the sentence should run,
"He who has received his faith from one that is faithless, receives
not faith but guilt," he seems to have left some hope to the man that
acts unwittingly. But now, when he is asked whence that man is to
receive faith who is baptized unwittingly by one that is faithless, he
has answered that he ought to have examined his baptizer; so that,
beyond all doubt, he refuses the wretched man permission even to be
ignorant, by not finding out from what source he may receive faith,
unless he has placed his trust in the man that is baptizing him.
Chapter 28.â33. This is what we look upon with horror in your party;
this is what the sentence of God condemns, crying out with the utmost
truth and the utmost clearness, "Cursed is every one that trusteth in
man."[2382]2382Â This is what is most openly forbidden by holy
humility and apostolic love, as Paul declares, "Let no man glory in
men."[2383]2383Â This is the reason that the attack of empty
calumnies and of the bitterest invectives grows even fiercer against
us, that when human authority is as it were overthrown, there may
remain no ground of hope for those to whom we administer the word and
sacrament of God in accordance with the dispensation entrusted unto
us. We make answer to them: How long do you rest your support on
man? The venerable society of the Catholic Church makes answer to
them:Â "Truly my soul waiteth upon God:Â from Him cometh my
salvation. He only is my God and my helper; I shall not be
moved."[2384]2384Â For what other reason have they had for removing
from the house of God, except that they pretended that they could not
endure those vessels made to dishonor, from which the house shall not
be free until the day of judgment? whereas all the time they rather
appear, by their deeds and by the records of the time, to have
themselves been vessels of this kind, while they threw the imputation
in the teeth of others; of which said vessels made unto dishonor, in
order that no one should on their account remove in confusion of mind
from the great house, which alone belongs to the great Father of our
family, the servant of God, one who was good and faithful, or was
capable of receiving faith in baptism, as I have shown above,
expressly says, "Truly my soul waiteth upon God" (on God, you see, and
not on man): "from Him cometh my salvation" (not from man). But
Petilianus would refuse to ascribe to God the cleansing and purifying
of a man, even when the stain upon the conscience of him who gives,
but not in holiness, is hidden from view, and any one receives his
faith unwittingly from one that is faithless. "I tell you this," he
says, "as shortly as I can:Â you were bound both to examine your
baptizer, and to be examined by him."
Chapter 29.â34. I entreat of you, pay attention to this: I ask
where the means shall be found for cleansing the conscience of the
recipient, when he is not acquainted with the stain upon the
conscience of him that gives but not in holiness, if the conscience of
him that gives in holiness is waited for to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient? and from what source he is to receive faith, who is
unwittingly baptized by one that is faithless, if, whosoever has
received his faith wittingly from one that is faithless, receives not
faith but guilt? and he answers me, that both the baptizer and the
baptized should be subjected to examination. And for the proof of
this point, out of which no question arises, he adduces the example of
John, in that he was examined by those who asked him who he claimed to
be,[2385]2385 and that he also in turn examined those to whom he says,
"O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to
come?"[2386]2386 What has this to do with the subject? What has
this to do with the question under discussion? God had vouchsafed to
John the testimony of most eminent holiness of life, confirmed by the
previous witness of the noblest prophecy, both when he was conceived,
and when he was born. But the Jews put their question, already
believing him to be a saint, to find out which of the saints he
maintained himself to be, or whether he was himself the saint of
saints, that is, Christ Jesus. So much favor indeed was shown to
him, that credence would at once have been given to whatever he might
have said about himself. If, therefore, we are to follow this
precedent in declaring that each several baptizer is now to be
examined, then each must also be believed, whatever he may say of
himself. But who is there that is made up of deceit, whom we know
that the Holy Spirit flees from, in accordance with the
Scripture,[2387]2387 who would not wish the best to be believed of
him, or who would hesitate to bring this about by the use of any words
within his reach? Accordingly, when he shall have been asked who he
is, and shall have answered that he is the faithful dispenser of Godâs
ordinances, and that his conscience is not polluted with the stain of
any crime, will this be the whole examination, or will there be a
further more careful investigation into his character and life?Â
Assuredly there will. But it is not written that this was done by
those who in the desert of Jordan asked John who he was.
Chapter 30.â35. Accordingly this precedent is wholly without bearing
on the matter in hand. We might rather say that the declaration of
the apostle sufficiently inculcates this care, when he says, "Let
these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon,
being found blameless."[2388]2388Â And since this is done anxiously
and habitually in both parties, by almost all concerned, how comes it
that so many are found to be reprobates subsequently to the time of
having undertaken this ministry, except that, on the one hand, human
care is often deceived, and, on the other hand, those who have begun
well occasionally deteriorate? And since things of this sort happen
so frequently as to allow no man to hide them or to forget them, what
is the reason that Petilianus now teaches us insultingly, in a few
words, that the baptizer ought to be examined by the candidate for
baptism, since our question is, by what means the conscience of the
recipient is to be cleansed, when the stain on the conscience of him
that gives, but not in holiness, has been concealed from view, if the
conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we look for to
cleanse the conscience of the recipient. "Since I see," he says,
"that you are unacquainted with the order of the sacrament, I tell you
this as shortly as I can:Â you were bound both to examine your
baptizer, and to be examined by him." What an answer to make! He
is surrounded in so many places by such a multitude of men that have
been baptized by ministers who, having in the first instance seemed
righteous and chaste, have subsequently been convicted and degraded in
consequence of the disclosure of their faults:Â and he thinks that he
is avoiding the force of this question, in which we ask by what means
the conscience of the recipient is to be cleansed, when he is
unacquainted with the stain upon the conscience of him that gives but
not in holiness, if the conscience of one that gives in holiness is
what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient,âhe
thinks, I say, that he is avoiding the force of this question, by
saying shortly that the baptizer ought to be examined. Nothing is
more unfortunate than not to be consistent with truth, by which every
one is so shut in, that he cannot find a means of escape. We ask
from whom he is to receive faith who is baptized by one that is
faithless? The answer is, "He ought to have examined his
baptizer."Â Is it therefore the case that, since he does not examine
him, and so even unwittingly receives his faith from one that is
faithless, he receives not faith but guilt? Why then are those men
not baptized afresh, who are found to have been baptized by men that
are detected and convicted reprobates, while their true character was
yet concealed?
Chapter. 31.â36. "And where," he says, "is the word that I added,
wittingly?so that I did not say, He that has received his faith from
one that is faithless; but, He that has received his faith wittingly
from one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt."Â He
therefore who received his faith unwittingly from one that was
faithless, received not guilt but faith; and accordingly I ask from
what source he has received it? And being thus placed in a strait,
he answers, "He ought to have examined him."Â Granted that he ought
to have done so; but, as a matter of fact, he did not, or he was not
able: what is your verdict about him? Was he cleansed, or was he
not? If he was cleansed, I ask from what source? For the polluted
conscience of him that gave but not in holiness, with which he was
unacquainted, could not cleanse him. But if he was not cleansed,
command that he be so now. You give no such orders, therefore he was
cleansed. Tell me by what means? Do you at any rate tell me what
Petilianus has failed to tell. For I propose to you the very same
words which he was unable to answer. "Behold the faithless man
stands ready to baptize; but he who is to be baptized knows nothing of
his faithlessness:Â what do you think that he will receiveâfaith, or
guilt?"[2389]2389Â This is sufficient as a constant form of
question:Â answer, or search diligently to find what he has
answered. You will find abuse that has already been convicted. He
finds fault with me, as though in derision, maintaining that I ought
to suggest what is probable for consideration, since I cannot see the
truth. For, repeating my words, and cutting my sentence in two, he
says, "Behold, you say, the faithless man stands ready to baptize; but
he who is to be baptized knows nothing of his faithlessness."Â Then
he goes on to ask, "Who is the man, and from what corner has he
started up, that you propose to us?"Â Just as though there were some
one or two individuals, and such cases were not constantly occurring
everywhere on either side! Why does he ask of me who the man in
question is, and from what corner he has started up, instead of
looking round, and seeing that the churches are few and far between,
whether in cities or in country districts, which do not contain men
detected in crimes, and degraded from the ministry? While their true
character was concealed, while they wished to be thought good, though
really bad, and to be reputed chaste, though really guilty of
adultery, so long they were involved in deceit; and so the Holy
Spirit, according to the Scripture, was fleeing from them.[2390]2390Â
It is from the crowd, therefore, of these men who hitherto concealed
their character that the faithless man whom I suggested started up.Â
Why does he ask me whence he started up, shutting his eyes to all this
crowd, from which sufficient noise arises to satisfy the blind, if we
take into consideration none but those who might have been convicted
and degraded from their office?
Chapter 32.â37. What shall we say of what he himself advanced in his
epistle, that "Quodvultdeus, having been convicted of two adulteries,
and cast out from among you, was received by those of our
party?"[2391]2391Â What then (I would speak without prejudice to this
man, who proved his case to be a good one, or at least persuaded men
that it was so), when such men among you, being as yet undetected,
administer baptism, what is received at their hands,âfaith, or
guilt? Surely not faith, because they have not the conscience of one
who gives in holiness to cleanse the conscience of the recipient.Â
But yet not guilt either, in virtue of that added word:Â "For he that
has received his faith wittingly from one that is faithless, receives
not faith but guilt."Â But when men were baptized by those of whom I
speak, they were surely ignorant what sort of men they were.Â
Furthermore, not receiving faith from their baptizers, who had not the
conscience of one that gives in holiness, and not receiving guilt,
because they were baptized not knowing but in ignorance of their
faults, they therefore remained without faith and without guilt.Â
They are not, therefore, in the number of men of such abandoned
character. But neither can they be in the number of the faithful,
because, as they could not receive guilt, so neither could they
receive faith from their baptizers. But we see that they are reputed
by you in the number of the faithful, and that no one of you declares
his opinion that they ought to be baptized, but all of you hold valid
the baptism which they have already received. They have therefore
received faith; and yet they have not received it from those who had
not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, to cleanse the
conscience of the recipient. Whence then did they receive it? This
is the point from which I make my effort; this is the question that I
press most earnestly; to this I do most urgently demand an answer.
Chapter 33.â38. See now how Petilianus, to avoid answering this
question, or to avoid being proved to be incapable of answering it,
wanders off vainly into irrelevant matter in abuse of us, accusing us
and proving nothing; and when he chances to make an endeavor to
resist, with something like a show of fighting for his cause, he is
everywhere overcome with the greatest ease. But yet he nowhere gives
an answer of any kind to this one question which we ask:Â If the
conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we look for to
cleanse the conscience of the recipient, by what means is he to be
cleansed who received baptism while the conscience of the giver was
polluted, without the knowledge of him who was to receive it? for in
these words, which he quoted from my epistle, he set me forth as
asking a question, while he showed himself as giving no answer. For
after saying what I have just now recited, and when, on being brought
into a great strait on every side, he had been compelled to say that
the baptizer ought to be examined by the candidate for baptism, and
the candidate in turn by the baptizer; and when he had tried to
fortify this statement by the example of John, in hopes that he might
find auditors either of the greatest negligence or of the greatest
ignorance, he then went on to advance other testimonies of Scripture
wholly irrelevant to the matter in hand, as the saying of the eunuch
to Philip, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be
baptized?"[2392]2392 "inasmuch as he knew," says he, "that those of
abandoned character were prevented;" arguing that the reason why
Philip did not forbid him to be baptized was because he had proved, in
his reading of the Scriptures, how far he believed in Christ,âas
though he had prohibited Simon Magus. And again, he urges that the
prophets were afraid of being deceived by false baptism, and that
therefore Isaiah said, "Lying water that has not faith,"[2393]2393 as
though showing that water among faithless men is lying; whereas it is
not Isaiah but Jeremiah that says this of lying men, calling the
people in a figure water, as is most clearly shown in the
Apocalypse.[2394]2394Â And again, he quotes as words of David, "Let
not the oil of the sinner anoint my head," when David has been
speaking of the flattery of the smooth speaker deceiving with false
praise, so as to lead the head of the man praised to wax great with
pride. And this meaning is made manifest by the words immediately
preceding in the same psalm. For he says, "Let the righteous smite
me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me:Â but the oil of
the sinner shall not break my head."[2395]2395Â What can be clearer
than this sentence? what more manifest? For he declares that he had
rather be reproved in kindness with the sharp correction of the
righteous, so that he may be healed, than anointed with the soft
speaking of the flatterer, so as to be puffed up with pride.
Chapter 34.â39. Petilianus quotes also the warning of the Apostle
John, that we should not believe every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God,[2396]2396 as though this care should be
bestowed in order that the wheat should be separated from the chaff in
this present world before its time, and not rather for fear that the
wheat should be deceived by the chaff; or as though, even if the lying
spirit should have said something that was true, it was to be denied,
because the spirit whom we should abominate had said it. But if any
one thinks this, he is mad enough to contend that Peter ought not to
have said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"[2397]2397
because the devils had already said something to the same
effect.[2398]2398Â Seeing, therefore, that the baptism of Christ,
whether administered by an unrighteous or a righteous man, is nothing
but the baptism of Christ what a cautious man and faithful Christian
should do is to avoid the unrighteousness of man, not to condemn the
sacraments of God.
40. Assuredly in all these things Petilianus gives no answer to the
question, If the conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we
look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, by what means is
he to be cleansed who receives baptism, when the conscience of the
giver is polluted without the knowledge of the proposed recipient? A
certain Cyprian, a colleague of his from Thubursicubur, was caught in
a brothel with a woman of most abandoned character, and was brought
before Primianus of Carthage, and condemned. Now, when this man
baptized before he was detected and condemned, it is manifest that he
had not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, so as to cleanse
the conscience of the recipient. By what means then have they been
cleansed who at this day, after he has been condemned, are certainly
not washed again? It was not necessary to name the man save only to
prevent Petilianus from repeating, "Who is the man, and from what
corner has he started up, that you propose to us?"Â Why did not your
party examine that baptizer, as John, in the opinion of Petilianus,
was examined? Or was the real fact this, that they examined him so
far as man can examine man, but were unable to find him out, as he
long lay hid with cunning falseness?
Chapter 35.âWas the water administered by this man not lying? or is
the oil of the fornicator not the oil of the sinner? or must we hold
what the Catholic Church says, and what is true, that that water and
that oil are not his by whom they were administered, but His whose
name was then invoked? Why did they who were baptized by that
hypocrite, whose sins were concealed, fail to try the spirit, to prove
that it was not of God? For the Holy Spirit of discipline was even
then fleeing from the hypocrite.[2399]2399Â Was it that He was
fleeing from him, but at the same time not deserting His sacraments,
though ministered by him? Lastly, since you do not deny that those
men have been already cleansed, whom you take no care to have cleansed
now that he is condemned, see whether, after shedding over the subject
so many mists in so many different ways, Petilianus, after all, in any
place gives any answer to the question by what means these men have
been cleansed, if what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient is the conscience of one that gives in holiness, such as the
man who was secretly unclean could not have had.
41. Making then, no answer to this which is so urgently asked of
him, and, in the next place, even seeking for himself a latitude of
speech, he says, "since both prophets and apostles have been cautious
enough to fear these things, with what face do you say that the
baptism of the sinner is holy to those who believe with a good
conscience?"Â Just as though I or any Catholic maintained that that
baptism was of the sinner which is administered or received with a
sinner to officiate, instead of being His in virtue of belief in whose
name the candidate is baptized! Then he goes off to an invective
against the traitor Judas, saying against him whatever he can, quoting
the testimony of the prophets uttered concerning him so long a time
before, as though he would steep the Church of Christ dispersed
throughout the world, whose cause is involved in this discussion, in
the impiety of the traitor Judas,ânot considering what this very thing
should have recalled to his mind, that we ought no more to doubt that
that is the Church of Christ which is spread abroad throughout the
world, since this was prophesied with truth so many years before, than
we ought to doubt that it was necessary that Christ should be betrayed
by one of His disciples, because this was prophesied in like manner.
Chapter 36.â42. But after this, when Petilianus came to that
objection of ours, that they allowed the baptism of the followers of
Maximianus, whom they had condemned,[2400]2400âalthough in the
statement of this question he thought it right to use his own words
rather than mine; for neither do we assert that the baptism of sinners
is of profit to us, seeing that we maintain it to belong not only to
no sinners, but to no men whatsoever, in that we are satisfied that it
is Christâs alone,âhaving put the question in this form, he says, "Yet
you obstinately aver that it is right that the baptism of sinners
should be of profit to you, because we too, according to your
statement, maintained the baptism of criminals whom we justly
condemned."Â When he came to this question, as I said before, even
all the show of fight which he had made deserted him. He could not
find any way to go, any means of escape, any path by which, either
through subtle watching or bold enterprise, he could either secretly
steal away, or sally forth by force. "Although this," he says, "I
will demonstrate in my second book, how great the difference is
between those of our party and those of yours whom you call innocent,
yet, in the meantime, first extricate yourselves from the offenses
with which you are acquainted in your colleagues, and then seek out
the mode of dealing with those whom we cast out."Â Would any one, any
man upon the earth, give an answer like this, save one who is setting
himself against the truth, against which he cannot find any answer
that can be made? Accordingly, if we too were to use the same
words:Â In the meantime, first extricate yourselves from the offenses
with which you are acquainted in your colleagues, and then bring up
against us any charge connected with those whom you hold to be wicked
amongst us,âwhat is the result? Have we both won the victory, or are
we both defeated? Nay, rather He has gained the victory for His
Church and in His Church, who has taught us in His Scriptures that no
man should glory in men, and that he that glorieth should glory in the
Lord.[2401]2401Â For behold in our case who assert with the eloquence
of truth that the man who believes is not justified by him by whom he
is baptized, but by Him of whom it is written, "To him that believeth
on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness,"[2402]2402 since we do not glory in men, and strive,
when we glory, to glory in the Lord in virtue of His own gift, how
wholly safe are we, whatever fault or charge Petilianus may have been
able to prove concerning certain men of our communion! For among us,
whatever wicked men are either wholly undetected, or, being known to
certain persons, are yet tolerated for the sake of the bond of unity
and peace, in consideration of other good men to whom their wickedness
is unknown, and before whom they could not be convicted, in order that
the wheat may not be rooted up together with the tares, yet they so
bear the burden of their own wickedness, that no one shares it with
them except those who are pleased with their unrighteousness. Nor
indeed have we any apprehension that those whom they baptize cannot be
justified, since they believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly that
their faith may be counted for righteousness.[2403]2403
Chapter 37.â43. Furthermore, according to our tenets, neither he of
whom Petilianus said that he was cast forth by us for the sin of the
men of Sodom, another being appointed in his place, and that
afterwards he was actually restored to our college,âtalking all the
time without knowing what he was saying,ânor he whom he declares to
have been penitent among you, in whatever degree their respective
cases do or do not admit of any defense, can neither of them prejudice
the Church, which is spread abroad throughout all nations, and
increases in the world until the harvest. For if they were really
wicked members of it that you accuse, then they were already not in
it, but among the chaff; but if they are good, while you defame their
character with unrighteous accusations, they are themselves being
tried like gold, while you burn after the similitude of chaff. Yet
the sins of other men do not defile the Church, which is spread abroad
throughout the whole world, according to most faithful prophesies,
waiting for the end of the world as for its shore, on which, when it
is landed, it will be freed from the bad fish, in company with which
the inconvenience of nature might be borne without sin within the same
nets of the Lord, so long as it was not right to be impatiently
separated from them. Nor yet is the discipline of the Church on this
account neglected by constant and diligent and prudent ministers of
Christ, in whose province crimes are in such wise brought to light
that they cannot be defended on any plea of probability. Innumerable
proofs of this may be found in those who have been bishops or clergy
of the second degree of orders, and now, being degraded, have either
gone abroad into other lands through shame, or have gone over to you
yourselves or to other heresies, or are known in their own districts;
of whom there is so great a multitude dispersed throughout the earth,
that if Petilianus, bridling for a time his rashness in speaking, had
taken them into consideration, he would never have fallen into so
manifestly false and groundless a misconception, as to think that we
ought to join in what he says:Â None of you is free from guilt, where
no one that is guilty is condemned.
Chapter 38.â44. For, to pass over others dwelling in different
quarters of the earth,âfor you will scarcely find any place in which
this kind of men is not represented, from whom it may appear that
overseers and ministers are wont to be condemned even in the Catholic
Church,âwe need not look far to find the example of Honorius of
Milevis. But take the case of Splendonius, whom Petilianus ordained
priest after he had been condemned in the Catholic Church, and
rebaptized by himself, whose condemnation in Gaul, communicated to us
by our brethren, our colleague Fortunatus caused to be publicly read
in Constantina, and whom the same Petilianus afterwards cast forth on
experience of his abominable deceit. From the case of this
Splendonius, when was there a time when he might not have been
reminded after what fashion wicked men are degraded from their office
even in the Catholic Church? I wonder on what precipice of rashness
his heart was resting when he dictated those words in which he
ventured to say, "No one of you is free from guilt, where no one that
is guilty is condemned."Â Wherefore the wicked, being bodily
intermingled with the good, but spiritually separated from them in the
Catholic Church, both when they are undetected through the infirmity
of human nature, and when they are condemned from considerations of
discipline, in every case bear their own burden. And in this way
those are free from danger who are baptized by them with the baptism
of Christ, if they keep free from share in their sins either by
imitation or consent; seeing that in like manner, if they were
baptized by the best of men, they would not be justified except by Him
that justifieth the ungodly:Â since to those that believe on Him that
justifieth the ungodly their faith is counted for righteousness.
Chapter 39.â45. But as for you, when the case of the followers of
Maximianus is brought up against you, who, after being condemned by
the sentence of a Council of 310 bishops;[2404]2404 after being
utterly defeated in the same Council, quoted in the records of so many
proconsuls, in the chronicles of so many municipal towns; after being
driven forth from the basilicas of which they were in possession, by
the order of the judges, enforced by the troops of the several cities,
were yet again received with all honor by you, together with those
whom they had baptized outside the pale of your communion, without any
question respecting their baptism,âwhen confronted, I say, with their
case, you can find no reply to make. Indeed, you are vanquished by
an expressed opinion, not indeed true, but proceeding from yourselves,
by which you maintain that men perish for the faults of others in the
same communion of the sacraments, and that each manâs character is
determined by that of the man by whom he is baptized,âthat he is
guilty if his baptizer is guilty, innocent if he is innocent. But if
these views are true, there can be no doubt that, to say nothing of
innumerable others, you are destroyed by the sins of the followers of
Maximianus, whose guilt your party, in so large a Council, has
exaggerated even to the proportions of the sin of those whom the earth
swallowed up alive. But if the faults of the followers of Maximianus
have not destroyed you, then are these opinions false which you
entertain; and much less have certain indefinite unproved faults of
the Africans been able to destroy the entire world. And accordingly,
as the apostle says, "Every man shall bear his own burden;"[2405]2405
and the baptism of Christ is no oneâs except Christâs; and it is to no
purpose that Petilianus promises that he will take as the subject of
his second book the charges which we bring concerning the followers of
Maximianus, entertaining too low an opinion of menâs intellects, as
though they do not perceive that he has nothing to say.
Chapter 40.â46. For if the baptism which Prætextatus and Felicianus
administered in the communion of Maximianus was their own, why was it
received by you in those whom they baptized as though it were the
baptism of Christ? But if it is truly the baptism of Christ, as
indeed it is, and yet could not profit those who had received it with
the guilt of schism, what do you say that you could have granted to
those whom you have received into your body with the same baptism,
except that, now that the offense of their accursed division is wiped
out by the bond of peace, they should not be compelled to receive the
sacrament of the holy laver as though they had it not, but that, as
what they had was before for their destruction, so it should now begin
to be of profit to them? Or if this is not granted to them in your
communion, because it could not possibly be that it should be granted
to schismatics among schismatics, it is at any rate granted to you in
the Catholic communion, not that you should receive baptism as though
it were lacking in you, but that the baptism which you have actually
received should be of profit to you. For all the sacraments of
Christ, if not combined with the love which belongs to the unity of
Christ, are possessed not unto salvation, but unto judgment. But
since it is not a true verdict, but your verdict, "that through the
baptism of certain traditors the baptism of Christ has perished from
the world in general," it is with good reason that you cannot find any
answer to make respecting the recognition of the baptism of the
followers of Maximianus.
47. See therefore, and remember with the most watchful care, how
Petilianus has made no answer to that very question, which he proposes
to himself in such terms as to seem to make it a starting-point from
which to say something. For the former question he has dismissed
altogether, and has not wished to speak of it to us, because I suppose
it was beyond his power; nor is he at any time, up to the very end of
his volume, going to say anything about it, though he quoted it from
the first part of my epistle as though it were a matter calling for
refutation. For even though he has added the two words which he
accused me of having suppressed, as though they were the strongest
bulwarks of his position, he yet lies wholly defenseless, unable to
find any answer to make when he is asked, If the conscience of one
that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience
of the recipient, where are we to find means for cleansing the
conscience of the man who is unacquainted with the conscience of him
gives, but not in holiness? and if it be the case that any one who has
received his faith from one that is faithless, receives not faith but
guilt, from what source is he to receive not guilt but faith, who is
unwittingly baptized by one that is faithless? To this question it
has long been manifest from what he says that he has made no answer.
48. In the next place, he has gone on, with calumnious mouth, to
abuse monasteries and monks, finding fault also with me, as having
been the founder of this kind of life.[2406]2406Â And what this kind
of life really is he does not know at all, or rather, though it is
perfectly well known throughout all the world, he pretends that he is
unacquainted with it. Then, asserting that I had said that Christ
was the baptizer, he has also added certain words from my epistle as
though I had set this forth as my own sentiment, when I had really
quoted it as his and yours, and it was inveighed against with most
copious harshness, as if it were I who had said these things against
myself, when what he reprehended was not mine, but his and your
sentiment, as I will presently show clearly to the best of my
ability.[2407]2407Â Then he has endeavored to show us, in many
unnecessary words, that Christ does not baptize, but that baptism is
administered in His name, at once in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; of which Trinity itself he has said,
either because it was what he wished, or because it was all that he
could say, that "Christ is the centre of the Trinity."Â In the next
place, he has taken occasion of the names of the sorcerers Simon and
Barjesus to vent against us what insults he thought fit. Then he
goes on, keeping in guarded suspense the case of Optatus of Thamugas,
that he might not be steeped in the odium that arose from it, denying
that neither he or his party could have passed judgment upon him, and
actually intimating in respect of him, that he was crushed in
consequence of suggestions from myself.
Chapter 41.â49. Lastly, he has ended his epistle with an exhortation
and warning to his own party, that they should not be deceived by us,
and with a lamentation over those of our party, that we had made them
worse than they had been before. Having therefore carefully
considered and discussed these points, as appears with sufficient
clearness from the words of the epistle which he wrote, Petilianus has
made no answer at all to the position which I advanced to begin with
in my epistle, when I asked, Supposing it to be true, as he asserts,
that the conscience of one that givesâor rather, to add what he
considers so great a support to his argumentâthat the conscience of
one that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the
conscience of the recipient, by what means he who receives baptism is
to be cleansed, when, if the conscience of the giver is polluted, it
is without the knowledge of the proposed recipient? Whence it is not
surprising that a man resisting in the cause of falsehood, pressed
hard in the straits of the truth that contradicts it, should have
chosen rather to gasp forth mad abuse, than to walk in the path of
that truth which cannot be overcome.
50. And now I would beg of you to pay especial attention to the next
few words, that I may show you clearly what he has been afraid of in
not answering this, and that I may bring into the light what he has
endeavored to shroud in obscurity. It certainly was in his power,
when we asked by what means he is to be cleansed, who receives baptism
when the conscience of the giver is polluted without the knowledge of
the proposed recipient, to answer with the greatest ease, From our
Lord God; and at any rate to say with the utmost confidence, God
wholly cleanses the conscience of the recipient, when he is
unacquainted with the stain upon the conscience of him that gives but
not in holiness. But when a man had already been compelled by the
tenets of your sect to rest the cleansing of the recipient on the
conscience of the giver, in that he had said, "For the conscience of
him that gives," or "of him that gives in holiness, is looked for to
cleanse the conscience of the recipient," he was naturally afraid lest
any one should seem to be better baptized by a wicked man who
concealed his wickedness, than by one that was genuinely and
manifestly good; for in the former case his cleansing would depend not
on the conscience of one that gave in holiness, but on the most
excellent holiness of God Himself. With this apprehension,
therefore, that he might not be involved in so great an absurdity, or
rather madness, as not to know where he could make his escape, he was
unwilling to say by what means the conscience of the recipient should
be cleansed, when he does not know of the stain upon the conscience of
him that gives but not in holiness; and he thought it better, by
making a general confusion with his quarrelsome uproar, to conceal
what was asked of him, than to give a reply to his question, which
should at once discomfit him; never, however, thinking that our letter
could be read by men of such good understanding, or that his would be
read by those who had read ours as well, to which he has professed to
make an answer.
Chapter 42.â51. For what I just now said is put with the greatest
clearness in that very epistle of mine, in answering which he has said
nothing; and I would beg of you to listen for a few moments to what he
there has done. And although you are partisans of his, and hate us,
yet, if you can, bear it with equanimity. For in his former epistle,
to the first portion of whichâthe only portion which had then come
into our handsâI had in the first instance made my reply, he had so
rested the hope that is found in baptism in the baptizer, as to say,
"For everything consists of an origin and root; and if anything has
not a head, it is nothing."Â Since then Petilianus had said this, not
wishing anything to be understood by the origin and root and head of
baptizing a man, except the man by whom he might be baptized, I made a
comment, and said "We ask, therefore, in a case where the
faithlessness of the baptizer is undetected, if then the man whom he
baptizes receives faith and not guilt? if then the baptizer is not his
origin and root and head, who is it from whom he receives faith? where
is the origin from which he springs? where is the root of which he is
a shoot? where the head which is his starting-point? Can it be that,
when he who is baptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his
baptizer, it is then Christ who is the origin and root and head?"Â
This therefore I say and exclaim now also, as I did there as well:Â
"Alas for human rashness and conceit! Why do you not allow that it
is always Christ who gives faith, for the purpose of making a man a
Christian by giving it? Why do you not allow that Christ is always
the origin of the Christian, that the Christian always plants his root
in Christ, that Christ is the Head of the Christian? Will it then be
urged that, even where spiritual grace is dispensed to those that
believe by the hands of a holy and faithful minister, it is still not
the minister himself who justifies, but that One of whom it is said,
âHe justifieth the ungodlyâ?[2408]2408Â But unless we admit this,
either the Apostle Paul was the head and origin of those whom he had
planted, or Apollos the root of those whom he had watered, rather than
He who had given them faith in briefing; whereas the same Paul says,
âI have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So that
neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but
God that giveth the increase.â[2409]2409Â Nor was the apostle himself
their root, but rather He who says, âI am the vine, ye are the
branches.â[2410]2410Â How, too, could he be their head, when he says
that âwe, being many, are one body in Christ,â[2411]2411 and expressly
declares in many passages that Christ Himself is the Head of the whole
body? Wherefore, whether a man receives the sacrament of baptism
from a faithful or a faithless minister his whole hope is in Christ,
that he fall not under the condemnation, that âCursed is he that
placeth his hope in man!â"[2412]2412
Chapter 43.â52. These things, I think, I put with clearness and
truth in my former epistle, when I made answer to Petilianus. These
things I have also now quoted, intimating and commending to you the
truth that our faith rests on something else altogether than man, and
that we believe that the Lord Christ is the cleanser and the justifier
of men that believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly, that their
faith may be counted unto them for righteousness, whether the man who
administers the baptism be righteous, or such an impious and deceitful
man as the Holy Spirit flees. Then I went on to point out what
absurdity would follow were it otherwise, and I said, as I say now:Â
"Otherwise, if each man is born again in spiritual grace of the same
sort as he by whom he is baptized, and if, when he who baptizes him is
manifestly a good man, then he himself gives faith, he is himself the
origin and root and head of him who is being born; whilst, when the
baptizer is faithless without its being known, then the baptized
person receives faith from Christ, then derives his origin from
Christ, then he is rooted in Christ then he boasts in Christ as his
head; in that case all who are baptized should wish that they might
have faithless baptizers, and be ignorant of their faithlessness.Â
For however good their baptizers might have been, Christ is certainly
beyond comparison better still, and He will then be the Head of the
baptized if the faithlessness of the baptizer shall escape
detection. But if it be perfect madness to hold such a view (for it
is Christ always that justifieth the ungodly, by changing his
ungodliness into Christianity; it is from Christ always that faith is
received; Christ is always the origin of the regenerate, and the Head
of the Church), what weight then will those words have, which
thoughtless readers value by their sound, without inquiring what their
inner meaning is?"[2413]2413Â This much I said at that time; this is
written in my epistle.
Chapter 44.â53. Then a little after, as he had said, "This being so,
brethren, what perversity must that be, that he who is guilty by
reason of his own faults should make another free from guilt, whereas
the Lord Jesus Christ says, âEvery good tree bringeth forth good
fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit:Â do men gather
grapes of thorns?â[2414]2414 and again, âA good man, out of the good
treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things:Â and an evil man,
out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things,â"[2415]2415âby
which words Petilianus showed with sufficient clearness, that the man
who baptizes is to be looked on as the tree, and he who is baptized as
the fruit:Â to this I had answered, If the good tree is the good
baptizer, and his good fruit he whom he has baptized, then any one who
has been baptized by a bad man, even if his wickedness be not
manifest, cannot by any possibility be good, for he is sprung from an
evil tree. For a good tree is one thing; a tree whose quality is
concealed, but yet bad, is another. What else did I wish to be
understood by those words, except what I had stated a little above,
that the tree and its fruit do not represent him that baptizes and him
that is baptized; but that the man ought to be received as signified
by the tree, his works and his life by the fruit, which are always
good in the good man, and evil in the evil man, lest this absurdity
should follow, that a man should be bad when baptized by a bad man,
even though his wickedness were concealed, being, as it were, the
fruit of a tree whose quality was unknown, but yet bad? To which he
has answered nothing whatsoever.
Chapter 45.â54. But that neither he nor any one of you might say
that, when any one of concealed bad character is the baptizer, then he
whom he baptizes is not his fruit, but the fruit of Christ, I went on
immediately to point out what a foolish error is consequent also on
that opinion; and I repeated, though in other words, what I had said
shortly before:Â If, when the quality of the tree is concealed, but
evil, any one who may have been baptized by it is born, not of it but
of Christ, then they are justified with greater holiness who are
baptized by wicked men, whose wickedness is concealed, than they who
are baptized by men that are genuinely and manifestly
good.[2416]2416Â Petilianus then, being hemmed in by these
embarrassing straits, said nothing about the earlier part on which
these remarks depended, and in his answer so quoted his absurd
consequence of his error as though I had stated it as my own opinion,
whereas it was really stated in order that he might perceive the
amount of evil consequent on his opinion, and so be forced to alter
it. Imposing, therefore, this deceit on those who hear and read his
words, and never for a moment supposing that what we have written
could be read, he begins a vehement and petulant invective against me,
as though I had thought that all who are baptized ought to wish that
they might have as their baptizers men who are faithless, without
knowing this themselves, since, however good the men might be whom
they had to baptize them, Christ is incomparably better, who will then
be the head of the person baptized, if the faithless baptizer conceal
his true character. As though, too, I had thought that those were
justified with greater holiness who are baptized by evil men, whose
character is concealed, than those who are baptized by men that are
genuinely and manifestly good; when this marvellous piece of madness
was only mentioned by me as following necessarily on the opinion of
those who think with Petilianus, that a man, when baptized, bears the
same relation to his baptizer as fruit does to the tree from which it
springs,âgood fruit springing from a good tree, evil fruit from an
evil tree,âseeing that they, when they are bidden by me to answer
whose fruit they think a man that is baptized to be when he is
baptized by one of secretly bad character, since they do not venture
to rebaptize him, are compelled to answer, that then he is not the
fruit of that man of secretly bad character, but that he is the fruit
of Christ. And so they are followed by a consequence contrary to
their inclination, which none but a madman would entertain,âthat if a
man is the fruit of his baptizer when he is baptized by one that is
genuinely and manifestly good, but when he is baptized by one of
secretly bad character, he is then not his fruit, but the fruit of
Christ,âit cannot but follow that they are justified with greater
holiness who are baptized by men of secretly bad character, than those
who are baptized by men who are genuinely and manifestly good.
Chapter 46.â55. Now, seeing that when Petilianus attributes this to
me as though it were my opinion, he makes it an occasion for a serious
and vehement invective against me, he at any rate shows, by the very
force of his indignation, how great a sin it is in his opinion to
entertain such views; and, accordingly, whatever he has wished it to
appear that he said against me for holding this opinion will be found
to have been really said against himself, who is proved to entertain
the view. For he shows herein by how great force on the side of
truth he is overcome, when he cannot find any other door of escape
except to pretend that it was I who entertained the views which really
are his own. Just as if those whom the apostle confutes for
maintaining that there was no resurrection from the dead, were to wish
to bring an accusation against the same apostle, on the ground that he
said, "Then is Christ not risen," and to maintain that the preaching
of the apostle was vain, and the faith of those who believed in it was
also vain, and that false witnesses were found against God in those
who had said that He raised up Christ from the dead. This is what
Petilianus wished to do to me, never expecting that any one could read
what I had written, which he could not answer, though very anxious
that men should believe him to have answered it. But just as, if any
one had done this to the apostle, the whole calumnious accusation
would have recoiled on the head of those who made it so soon as the
entire passage in his epistle was read, and the preceding words
restored, on which any one who reads them must perceive that those
which I have quoted depend, in the same way, so soon as the preceding
words of my epistle are restored, the accusation which Petilianus
brings against me is cast back with all the greater force upon his own
head, from which he had striven to remove it.
56. For the apostle, in confuting those who denied that there was
any resurrection of the dead, corrects their view by showing the
absurdity which follows those who entertain this view, however loth
they may be to admit the consequence, in order that, while they shrink
in abhorrence from what is impious to say, they may correct what they
have ventured to believe. His argument continues thus: "But if
there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:Â and
if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is
also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because
we have testified of God that He raised up Christ; whom He raised not
up, if so be that the dead rise not."[2417]2417Â In order that, while
they fear to say that Christ had not risen, with the other wicked and
accursed conclusions which follow from such a statement, they may
correct what they said in a spirit of folly and infidelity, that there
is no resurrection of the dead. If, therefore, you take away what
stands at the head of this argument, "If there be no resurrection of
the dead," the rest is spoken amiss, and yet must be ascribed to the
apostle. But if you restore the supposition on which the rest
depends, and place as the hypothesis from which you start, "There is
no resurrection of the dead," then the conclusion will follow rightly,
"Then is Christ not risen, and our preaching is vain, and your faith
is also vain," with all the rest that is appended to it. And all
these statements of the apostle are wise and good, since whatever evil
they have in them is to be imputed to those who denied the
resurrection of the dead. In the same manner also, in my epistle,
take away my supposition, If every one is born again in spiritual
grace of the same character as he by whom he is baptized, and if, when
the man who baptizes is genuinely and manifestly good, he does of
himself give faith, he is the origin and root and head of him who is
being born again; but when the baptizer is a wicked man, and
undetected in his wickedness, then each man who is baptized receives
his faith from Christ, derives his origin from Christ, is rooted in
Christ, makes his boast in Christ as his Head:âtake away, I say, this
hypothesis, on which all that follows depends, and there remains a
saying of the worst description which must fairly be ascribed to me,
viz., that all who are baptized should desire that they should have
faithless men to baptize them, and be ignorant of their
faithlessness. For however good men they may have to baptize them,
Christ is incomparably better who will then be the Head of the
baptized, if the baptizer be a faithless man, but
undetected.[2418]2418Â But let the statements that you make be
restored, and then it will forthwith be found that this which depends
upon it and follows in close connection from it is not my sentiment,
and that any evil which it contains is retorted on the opinion which
you maintain. In like manner, take away the supposition, If the good
baptizer is the good tree, so that he whom he has baptized is his good
fruit, and if, when the character of an evil tree is concealed, then
any one that has been baptized by it is born, not of it, but of
Christ,âtake away this hypothesis, which you were compelled to confess
had its origin in your sect and in the letter of Petilianus, and the
mad conclusion which follows from it will be mine, to be ascribed to
me alone, then they are justified with greater holiness who are
baptized by undetected evil men, than they who are baptized by men
that are genuinely and manifestly good.[2419]2419Â But restore the
hypothesis on which this depends, and you will at once see both that I
have been right in making this statement for your correction, and that
all that with good reason displeases you in this opinion has recoiled
upon your own head.
Chapter 47.â57. Furthermore, in like manner as those who denied the
resurrection of the dead could in no way defend themselves from the
evil consequences which the apostle proved to follow from their
premises, in order to refute their error, saying, "Then is not Christ
raised," with the other conclusions of similar atrocity, unless they
changed their opinions, and acknowledged that there was a resurrection
of the dead; so is it necessary that you should change your opinion,
and cease to rest on man the hope of those who are baptized, if you do
not wish to have imputed to you what we say for your refutation and
correction, that they are justified with greater holiness who are
baptized by undetected evil men than those that are baptized by men
that are genuinely and manifestly good. For if you make your first
assertion, see what I say, unless some one shall suppress this a
second time, and make out that I have entertained the opinion which I
quote for your refutation and correction. See what I lay down as my
premiss, from which hangs the statement which I shall subsequently
make:Â If you rest the hope of those who are to be baptized on the
man by whom they are baptized, and if you maintain, as Petilianus
wrote, that the man who baptizes is the origin and root and head of
him that is baptized; if you receive as the good tree the good man who
baptizes, and as his good fruit the man who has been baptized by him;
then you put it into our heads to ask from what origin he springs,
from what root he shoots up, to what head he is joined, from what tree
he is born, who is baptized by an undetected bad man? For to this
inquiry, belongs also the following, to which I have over and over
again maintained that Petilianus has given no reply:Â By what means
is a man to be cleansed who receives baptism while he is ignorant of
the stain upon the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness?
for this conscience of him that gives, or of him that gives in
holiness, Petilianus wishes to be the origin, root, head, seed, tree
from which the sanctification of the baptized has its
existence,âsprings, begins, sprouts forth, is born.
Chapter 48.â58. When we ask, therefore, by what means the man is to
be cleansed whom you do not baptize again in your communion, even when
it has been made clear that he has been baptized by some one who, on
account of some concealed iniquity, did not at the time possess the
conscience of one that gives in holiness, what answer do you intend to
make, except that he is cleansed by Christ or by God, although,
indeed, Christ is Himself God over all, blessed for ever,[2420]2420 or
by the Holy Spirit since He too is Himself God, because this Trinity
of Persons is one God? Whence Peter, after saying to a man, "Thou
hast dared to lie to the Holy Ghost," immediately went on to add what
was the nature of the Holy Ghost, saying, "Thou hast not lied unto
men, but unto God."[2421]2421Â Lastly, even if you were to say that
he was cleansed and purified by an angel when he is unacquainted with
the pollution in the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness,
take notice that it is said of the saints, when they shall have risen
to eternal life, that they shall then be equal to the angels of
God.[2422]2422Â Any one, therefore, that is cleansed even by an angel
is cleansed with greater holiness than if he were cleansed by any kind
of conscience of man. Why then are you unwilling that it should be
said to you, If cleaning is wrought by the hands of a man when he is
genuinely and manifestly good; but when the man is evil, but
undetected in his wickedness, then since he has not the conscience of
one that gives in holiness, it is no longer he, but God, or an angel,
that cleanses; therefore they who are baptized by undetected evil men
are justified with greater holiness than those who are baptized by men
that are genuinely and manifestly good? And if this opinion is
displeasing to you, as in reality it ought to be displeasing to every
one, then take away the source from which it springs, correct the
premiss to which it is indissolubly bound; for if these do not precede
as hypotheses, the other will not follow as a consequence.
Chapter 49.â59. Do not therefore any longer say, "The conscience of
one that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the
conscience of the recipient," lest you be asked, When a stain on the
conscience of the giver is concealed, who cleanses the conscience of
the recipient? And when you shall have answered, Either God or an
angel (since there is no other answer which you possibly can make),
then should follow a consequence whereby you would be confounded:Â
Those then are justified with greater holiness who are baptized by
undetected evil men, so as to be cleansed by God or by an angel, than
those who are baptized by men who are genuinely and manifestly good,
who cannot be compared with God or with the angels. But prevail upon
yourselves to say what is said by Truth and by the Catholic Church,
that not only when the minister of baptism is evil, but also when he
is holy and good, hope is still not to be placed in man, but in Him
that justifieth the ungodly, in whom if any man believe, his faith is
counted for righteousness.[2423]2423Â For when we say, Christ
baptizes, we do not mean by a visible ministry, as Petilianus
believes, or would have men think that he believes, to be our meaning,
but by a hidden grace, by a hidden power in the Holy Spirit as it is
said of Him by John the Baptist, "The same is He which baptizeth with
the Holy Ghost."[2424]2424Â Nor has He, as Petilianus says, now
ceased to baptize; but He still does it, not by any ministry of the
body, but by the invisible working of His majesty. For in that we
say, He Himself baptizes, we do not mean, He Himself holds and dips in
the water the bodies of the believers; but He Himself invisibly
cleanses, and that He does to the whole Church without exception.Â
Nor, indeed, may we refuse to believe the words of the Apostle Paul
who says concerning Him, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."[2425]2425Â
Here you see that Christ sanctifies; here you see that Christ also
Himself washes, Himself purifies with the self-same washing of water
by the word, wherein the ministers are seen to do their work in the
body. Let no one, therefore, claim unto himself what is of God.Â
The hope of men is only sure when it is fixed on Him who cannot
deceive, since "Cursed be every one that trusteth in man,"[2426]2426
and "Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord His trust."[2427]2427Â
For the faithful steward shall receive as his reward eternal life; but
the unfaithful steward, when he dispenses his lordâs provisions to his
fellow-servants, must in no wise be conceived to make the provisions
useless by his own unfaithfulness. For the Lord says, "Whatsoever
they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
works."[2428]2428Â And this is therefore the injunction that is given
us against evil stewards, that the good things of God should be
received at their hands, but that we should beware of their own evil
life, by reason of its unlikeness to what they thus dispense.
Chapter 50.â60. But if it is clear that Petilianus has made no
answer to those first words of my epistle, and that, when he has
endeavored to make an answer, he has shown all the more clearly how
incapable he was of answering, what shall I say in respect of those
portions of my writings which he has not even attempted to answer, on
which he has not touched at all? And yet if any one shall be willing
to review their character, having in his possession both my writings
and those of Petilianus, I think he will understand by what
confirmation they are supported. And that I may show you this as
shortly as I can, I would beg you to call to mind the proofs that were
advanced from holy Scripture, or refresh your memory by reading both
what he has brought forward as against me, and what I have brought
forward in my answer as against you, and see how I have shown that the
passages which he has brought forward are antagonistic not to me, but
rather to yourselves; whilst he has altogether failed to touch those
which I brought forward as especially necessary, and in that one
passage of the apostle which he has endeavored to make use of as
though it favored him, you will see how he found himself without the
means of making his escape.
61. For the portion of this epistle which he wrote to his
adherentsâfrom the beginning down to the passage in which he says,
"This is the commandment of the Lord to us, âWhen they persecute you
in this city, flee ye into another;â[2429]2429 and if they persecute
you in that also, flee ye to a third"âcame first into my hands, and to
it I made a reply; and when this reply of ours had fallen, in turn,
into his hands, he wrote in answer to it this which I am now refuting,
showing that he has made no reply to mine. In that first portion,
therefore, of his writings to which I first replied, these are the
passages of Scripture which he conceives to be opposed to us:Â "Every
good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. Do men gather grapes of thorns?"[2430]2430 And
again:Â "A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth
forth good things:Â and an evil man, out of the evil treasure,
bringeth forth evil things."[2431]2431Â And again:Â "When a man is
baptized by one that is dead, his washing profiteth him
nothing."[2432]2432Â From these passages he is anxious to show that
the man who is baptized is made to partake of the character of him by
whom he is baptized; I on the other hand, have shown in what sense
these passages should be received, and that they could in no wise aid
his view. But as for the other expressions which he has used against
evil and accursed men, I have sufficiently shown that they are
applicable to the Lordâs wheat, dispersed, as was foretold and
promised, throughout the world, and that they might rather be used by
us against you. Examine them again, and you will find it so.
62. But the passages which I have advanced to assert the truth of
the Catholic Church, are the following:Â As regards the question of
baptism, that our being born again, cleansed, justified by the grace
of God, should not be ascribed to the man who administered the
sacrament, I quoted these:Â "It is better to trust in the Lord than
to put confidence in man:"[2433]2433Â and "Cursed be every one that
trusteth in man;"[2434]2434 and that, "Salvation belongeth unto the
Lord;"[2435]2435 and that, "Vain is the help of man;"[2436]2436 and
that, "Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth,
but God that giveth the increase;"[2437]2437 and that He in whom men
believe justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may be counted to him
for righteousness.[2438]2438Â But in behalf of the unity of the
Church itself, which is spread abroad throughout all the world, with
which you do not hold communion, I urged that the following passages
were prophesied of Christ:Â that "He shall have dominion also from
sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth;"[2439]2439
and, "I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession;"[2440]2440 and that
the covenant of God made with Abraham may be quoted in behalf of our,
that is, of the Catholic communion, in which it is written, "In thy
seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed;"[2441]2441 which seed
the apostle interprets, saying, "And to thy seed, which is
Christ."[2442]2442Â Whence it is evident that in Christ not only
Africans or Africa, but all the nations through which the Catholic
Church is spread abroad, should receive the blessing which was
promised so long before. And that the chaff is to be with the wheat
even to the time of the last winnowing, that no one may excuse the
sacrilege of his own separation from the Church by calumnious
accusations of other menâs offenses, if he shall have left or deserted
the communion of all nations; and to show that the society of
Christians may not be divided on account of evil ministers, that is,
evil rulers in the Church, I further quoted the passage, "All
whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye
after their works; for they say and do not."[2443]2443Â With regard
to these passages of holy Scripture which I advanced to prove my
points, he neither showed how they ought to be otherwise interpreted,
so as to prove that they neither made for us nor against you, nor was
he willing to touch them in any way. Nay, his whole object was could
it have been achieved, that by the tumultuous outpouring of his abuse,
it might never occur to any one at all, who after reading my epistle
might have been willing to read his as well, that these things had
been said by me.
Chapter 51.â63. Next, listen for a short time to the kind of way in
which he has tried to use, in his own behalf, the passages which I had
advanced from the writings of the Apostle Paul. "For you asserted,"
he says, "that the Apostle Paul finds fault with those who used to say
that they were of the Apostle Paul, saying, âWas Paul crucified for
you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?â[2444]2444Â Wherefore,
if they were in error, and would have perished had they not been
corrected, because they wished to be of Paul, what hope can there
possibly be for those who have wished to be of Donatus? For this is
their sole object, that the origin, and root, and head of him that is
baptized should be none other than he by whom he is
baptized."[2445]2445Â These words, and this confirmation from the
writings of the apostle, he has quoted from my epistle, and he has
proposed to himself the task of refuting them. Go on then, I beg of
you, to see how he has fulfilled the task. For he says, "This
assertion is meaningless, and inflated, and childish, and foolish, and
something very far from a true exposition of our faith. For you
would only be right in asserting this, if we were to say, We have been
baptized in the name of Donatus, or Donatus was crucified for us, or
we have been baptized in our own name. But since such things as this
neither have been said nor are said by us,âseeing that we follow the
formula of the holy Trinity,âit is clear that you are mad to bring
such accusations against us. Or if you think that we have been
baptized in the name of Donatus, or in our own name, you are miserably
deceived, and at the same time confess in your sacrilege that you on
your part defile your wretched selves in the name of Cæcilianus."Â
This is the answer which Petilianus has made to those arguments of
mine, not supposingâor rather making a noise that no one might
supposeâthat he has made no answer at all which could bear in any way
upon the question which is under discussion. For who could fail to
see that this witness of the apostle has been adduced by us with all
the more propriety, in that you do not say that you were baptized in
the name of Donatus, or that Donatus was crucified for you, and yet
separate yourselves from the communion of the Catholic Church out of
respect to the party of Donatus; as also those whom Paul was rebuking
certainly did not say that they had been baptized in the name of Paul,
or that Paul has been crucified for them, and yet they were making a
schism in the name of Paul. As therefore in their case, for whom
Christ, not Paul, was crucified, and who were baptized in the name of
Christ, not of Paul, and who yet said, "I am of Paul," the rebuke is
used with all the more propriety, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were
ye baptized in the name of Paul?" to make them cling to Him who was
crucified for them, and in whose name they were baptized, and not be
guilty of division in the name of Paul; so in your case, also, the
rebuke, Was Donatus crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name
of Donatus? is used all the more appositely, because you do not say,
We were baptized in the name of Donatus, and yet desire to be of the
party of Donatus. For you know that it was Christ who was crucified
for you, and Christ in whose name you were baptized; and yet, out of
respect to the name and party of Donatus, you show such obstinacy in
fighting against the unity of Christ, who was crucified for you, and
in whose name you were baptized.
Chapter 52.â64. But if you wish to see that the object of Petilianus
in his writings really was to prove "that the origin, and root, and
head of him that is baptized is none other than he by whom he is
baptized," and that this has not been asserted by me without meaning,
or childishly, or foolishly, review the beginning of the epistle
itself to which I made my reply, or rather pay careful attention to me
as I quote it. "The conscience," he says, "of one that gives in
holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient; for he who has received his faith from one that is
faithless, receives not faith but guilt."Â And as though some one had
said to him, Whence do you derive your proof of this? he goes on to
say, "For everything has its existence from a source and root; and if
anything has not a head, it is nothing; nor does anything well confer
a new birth, unless it be born again of good seed. And this being
so, brethren, what perversity must it be to maintain that he who is
guilty by reason of his own offenses should make another free from
guilt; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ says, âA good tree bringeth forth
good fruit: do men gather grapes of thorns?â And again, âA good
man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good
things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil
things.â And again, âWhen a man is baptized by one that is dead, his
washing profiteth him nothing.â"Â You see to what end all these
things tend, viz., that the conscience of him that gives in holiness
(lest any one, by receiving his faith from one that is faithless,
should receive not faith but guilt) should be itself the origin, and
root, and head, and seed of him that is baptized. For, wishing to
prove that the conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we
look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, and that he
receives not faith but guilt, who wittingly receives his faith from
one that is faithless, he has added immediately afterwards, "For
everything has its existence from a source and root; and if anything
has not a head, it is nothing; nor does anything well confer a new
birth, unless it be born again of good seed."Â And for fear that any
one should be so dull as still not to understand that in each case he
is speaking of the man by whom a person is baptized, he explains this
afterwards, and says, "This being so, brethren, what perversity must
it be to maintain that he who is guilty by reason of his own offenses
should make another free from guilt; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ
says, âA good tree bringeth forth good fruit:Â do men gather grapes
of thorns?â"Â And lest, by some incredible stupidity of
understanding, the hearer or seer should be blind enough not to see
that he is speaking of the man that baptizes, he adds another passage,
where he actually specifies the man. "And again," he says, "âA good
man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good
things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil
things;â and again, âWhen a man is baptized by one that is dead, his
washing profiteth him nothing,â"Â Certainly it is now plain,
certainly he needs no longer any interpreter, or disputant, or
demonstrator, to show that the object of his party is to prove that
the origin, and root, and head of him that is baptized is none other
than he by whom he is baptized. And yet, being overwhelmed by the
force of truth, and as though forgetful of what he had said before,
Petilianus acknowledges afterwards to me that Christ is the origin and
root of them that are regenerate, and the Head of the Church, and not
any one that may happen to be the dispenser and minister of baptism.Â
For having said that the apostles used to baptize in the name of
Christ, and set forth Christ as the foundation of their faith, to make
men Christians, and being fain to prove this, too, by passages and
examples from holy Scripture, just as though we were denying it, he
says, "Where is now that voice, from which issued the noise of those
minute and constant petty questionings, wherein, in the spirit of envy
and self-conceit, you uttered many involved sayings about Christ, and
for Christ, and in Christ, in opposition to the rashness and
haughtiness of men? Lo, Christ is the origin, Christ is the head,
Christ is the root of the Christian."Â When, therefore, I heard this,
what could I do but give thanks to Christ, who had compelled the man
to make confession? All those things, therefore, are false which he
said in the beginning of his epistle, when he wished to persuade us
that the conscience of one that gives in holiness must be looked for
to cleanse the conscience of the recipient; and that when one has
wittingly received his faith from one that is faithless he receives
not faith but guilt. For, wishing as it were to show clearly how
much rested in the man that baptizes, he had added what he seems to
think most weighty proofs, saying "For everything has its existence
from a source and root; and if anything has not a head, it is
nothing."Â But afterwards, when he says what we also say, "Lo, Christ
is the origin, Christ is the head, Christ is the root of the
Christian," he wipes out what he had said before, "that the conscience
of one that gives in holiness is the origin, and root, and head of the
recipient."Â The truth, therefore, has prevailed, so that the man who
is desirous to receive the baptism of Christ should not rest his hope
upon the man who administers the sacrament, but should approach in all
security to Christ Himself, as to the source which is not changed, to
the root which is not plucked up, to the head which is not cast down.
Chapter 53.â65. Then who is there that could fail to perceive from
what a vein of conceit it proceeds, that in explaining as it were the
declaration of the apostle, he says, "He who said, âI planted, Apollos
watered, but God gave the increase,â surely meant nothing else than
this, that âI made a man a catechumen in Christ, Apollo baptized him;
God confirmed what we had done?â"Â Why then did not Petilianus add
what the apostle added, and I especially took pains to quote, "So then
neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but
God that giveth the increase"?[2446]2446Â And if he be willing to
interpret this on the same principle as what he has set down above, it
follows beyond all doubt, that neither is he that baptizeth anything
but God that giveth the increase. For what matter does it make in
reference to the question now before us, in what sense it has been
said, "I planted, Apollos watered,"âwhether it is really to be taken
as equivalent to his saying, "I made a catechumen, Apollos baptized
him;" or whether there be any other truer and more congruous
understanding of it?âfor in the mean time, according to his own
interpretation of the words, neither is he that makes the catechumen
anything, neither he that baptizes, but God that gives the increase.Â
But there is a great difference between confirming what another does,
and doing anything oneself. For He who gives the increase does not
confirm a tree or a vine, but creates it. For by that increase it
comes to pass that even a piece of wood planted in the ground produces
and establishes a root; by that increase it comes to pass that a seed
cast into the earth puts forth a shoot. But why should we make a
longer dissertation on this point? It is enough that, according to
Petilianus himself neither he that maketh a catechumen, nor he that
baptizes, is anything, but God that gives the increase. But when
would Petilianus say this, so that we should understand that he meant,
Neither is Donatus of Carthage anything, neither Januarius, neither
Petilianus? When would the swelling of his pride permit him to say
this, which now causes the man to think himself to be something, when
he is nothing, deceiving himself?[2447]2447
Chapter 54.â66. Finally, again, a little afterwards, when he
resolved and was firmly purposed, as it were, to reconsider once more
the words of the apostle which he had brought up against him, he was
unwilling to set down this that I had said, preferring something else
in which by some means or other the swelling of human pride might find
means to breathe. "For to reconsider," he says, "those words of the
apostle, on which you founded an argument against us; he said, âWhat
is Apollos, what is Paul, save only ministers of Him in whom ye have
believed?â[2448]2448Â What else for example, does he say to all of us
than this, What is Donatus of Carthage, what is Januarius, what is
Petilianus, save only ministers of Him in whom ye have believed?"Â I
did not bring forward this passage of the apostle, but I did bring
forward that which he has been unwilling to quote, "Neither he that
planteth is anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth
the increase."Â But Petilianus was willing to insert those words of
the apostle, in which he asks what is Paul, and what is Apollos, and
answers that "They are ministers of Him in whom ye have believed."Â
This the muscles of the hereticâs neck could bear; but he was wholly
unable to endure the other, in which the apostle did not ask and
answer what he was, but said that he was nothing. But now I am
willing to ask whether it be true that the minister of Christ is
nothing. Who will say so much as this? In what sense, therefore,
is it true that "Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that
watereth, but God that giveth the increase," except that he who is
something in one point of view may be nothing in another? For
ministering and dispensing the word and sacrament he is something, but
for purifying and justifying he is nothing, seeing that this is not
accomplished in the inner man, except by Him by whom the whole man was
created, and who while He remained God was made man,âby Him, that is,
of whom it was said, "Purifying their hearts by faith;"[2449]2449 and
"To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the
ungodly."[2450]2450Â And this testimony Petilianus has been willing
to set forth in my words, whilst in his own he has neither handled it
nor even touched it.
Chapter 55.â67. A minister, therefore, that is a dispenser of the
word and sacrament of the gospel, if he is a good man, becomes a
fellow-partner in the working of the gospel; but if he is a bad man,
he does not therefore cease to be a dispenser of the gospel. For if
he is good, he does it of his own free will; but if he is a bad
man,âthat is, one who seeks his own and not the things of Jesus
Christ,âhe does it unwillingly, for the sake of other things which he
is seeking after. See, however, what the same apostle has said:Â
"For if I do this thing willingly," he says, "I have a reward; but if
against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto
me;"[2451]2451 as though he were to say, If I, being good, announce
what is good, I attain unto it also myself; but if, being evil, I
announce it, yet I announce what is good. For has he in any way
said, If I do it against my will, then shall I not be a dispenser of
the gospel? Peter and the other disciples announce the good tidings,
as being good themselves. Judas did it against his will, but yet,
when he was sent, he announced it in common with the rest. They have
a reward; to him a dispensation of the gospel was committed. But
they who received the gospel at the mouth of all those witnesses,
could not be cleansed and justified by him that planted, or by him
that watered, but by Him alone that gives the increase. For neither
are we going to say that Judas did not baptize, seeing that he was
still among the disciples when that which is written was being
accomplished, "Jesus Himself baptized not, but His
disciples."[2452]2452Â Are we to suppose that, because he had not
betrayed Christ, therefore he who had the bag, and bare what was put
therein,[2453]2453 was still enabled to dispense grace without
prejudice to those who received it, though he could not be an upright
guardian of the money entrusted to his care? Or if he did not
baptize, at any rate we must acknowledge that he preached the
gospel. But if you consider this a trifling function, and of no
importance, see what you must think of the Apostle Paul himself, who
said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
gospel."[2454]2454Â To this we may add, that according to this,
Apollos begins to be more important, who watered by baptizing, than
Paul, who planted by preaching the gospel, though Paul claims to
himself the relation of father towards the Corinthians in virtue of
this very act, and does not grant this title to those who came to them
after him. For he says, "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in
Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have
begotten you through the gospel."[2455]2455Â He says, "I have
begotten you" to the same men to whom he says in another place, "I
thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, and I
baptized also the household of Stephanus."[2456]2456Â He had begotten
them, therefore, not through himself, but through the gospel. And
even though he had been seeking his own, and not the things of Jesus
Christ, and had been doing this unwillingly, so as to receive no
reward for himself, yet he would have been dispensing the treasure of
the Lord; and this, though evil himself, he would not have been making
evil or useless to those who received it well.
Chapter 56.â68. And if this is rightly said of the gospel, with how
much greater certainty should it be said of baptism, which belongs to
the gospel in such wise, that without it no one can reach the kingdom
of heaven, and with it only if to the sacrament be added
righteousness? For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,"[2457]2457
said Himself also, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven."[2458]2458Â The form of the sacrament is
given through baptism, the form of righteousness through the gospel.Â
Neither one without the other leads to the kingdom of heaven. Yet
even men of inferior learning can baptize perfectly, but to preach the
gospel perfectly is a task of much greater difficulty and rarity.Â
Therefore the teacher of the Gentiles, that was superior in excellence
to the majority, was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize;
because the latter could be done by many, the former only by a few, of
whom he was chief. And yet we read that he said in certain places,
"My gospel;"[2459]2459 but he never called baptism either his, or any
oneâs else by whom it was administered. For that baptism alone which
John gave is called Johnâs baptism.[2460]2460Â This that man received
as the special pledge of his ministry, that the preparatory sacrament
of washing should even be called by the name of him by whom it was
administered; whereas the baptism which the disciples of Christ
administered was never called by the name of any one of them, that it
should be understood to be His alone of whom it is said, "Christ loved
the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."[2461]2461Â If,
therefore, the gospel, which is Christâs, but so that a minister also
may call it his in virtue of his office of administering it, can be
received by a man even at the hands of an evil minister without danger
to himself, if he does according to what he says, and not after the
example of what he does, how much more may any one who comes in good
faith to Christ receive without fear of contagion from an evil
minister the baptism of Christ, which none of the apostles so
administered as to dare to call it his own?
Chapter 57.â69. Furthermore, if, while I have continued without
intermission to prove how entirely the passages of Scripture which
Petilianus has quoted against us have failed to hurt our cause, he
himself has in some cases not touched at all what I have quoted, and
partly, when he has endeavored to handle them, has shown that the only
thing that he could do was to fail in finding an escape from them, you
require no long exhortation or advice in order to see what you ought
to maintain, and what you should avoid. But it may be that this has
been the kind of show that he has made in dealing with the testimony
of holy Scripture, but that he has not been without force in the case
of the documentary evidence found in the records of the schism
itself. Let us then see in the case of these too, though it is
superfluous to inquire into them after testimony from the word of God,
what he has quoted, or what he has proved. For, after pouring forth
a violent invective against traditors, and quoting loudly many
passages against them from the holy books themselves, he yet said
nothing which could prove his opponents to be traditors. But I
quoted the case of Silvanus of Cirta, who held his own see some little
time before himself, who was expressly declared in the Municipal
Chronicles to have been a traditor while he was yet a sub-deacon.Â
Against this fact he did not venture to whisper a syllable. And yet
you cannot fail to see how strong the pressure was which must have
been urging him to reply that he might show a man, who was his
predecessor, not only one of his party, but a partner, so to speak, in
his see, to have been innocent of the crime of delivering up the
sacred books, especially as you rest the whole strength of your cause
on the fact that you give the name of traditor to all whom you either
pretend or believe to have been the successors of traditors in the
path of their communion. Although, then, the very exigencies of your
cause would seem to compel him to undertake the defence of a citizen
even of Russicadia, or Calama, or any other city of your party, whom I
should declare to be a traditor, on the authority of the Municipal
Chronicles, yet he did not open his mouth even in defense of his own
predecessor. For what reason, except that he could not find any mist
dark enough to deceive the minds of even the slowest and sleepiest of
men? For what could he have said, except that the charges brought
against Silvanus were false? But we quote the words of the
Chronicles, both as to the date of the fact, and as to the time of the
information laid before Zenophilus the ex-consul.[2462]2462Â And how
could he resist this evidence, being encompassed on every side by the
most excellent cause of the Catholics, while yours was bad as bad
could be? For which reason I quote these words from my epistle to
which he would fain be thought to have replied in this which I am now
refuting, that you may see for yourselves how impregnable the position
must be against which he has been able to find no safer weapon than
silence.
Chapter 58.â70. For when he quoted a passage from the gospel as
making against us, where our Lord says, "They will come to you in
sheepâs clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; ye shall know
them by their fruits,"[2463]2463âI answered and said, "Then let us
consider their fruits;" and then I at once went on to add the
following words:Â "You bring up against them their delivery of the
sacred books. This very charge we urge with greater probability,
against their accusers themselves. And not to carry our search too
far:Â in the same city of Constantina, your predecessors ordained
Silvanus bishop at the very outset of his schism. He, while he was
still a sub-deacon, was most unmistakably entered as a traditor in the
archives of the city. If you, on your side, bring forward documents
against our predecessors, all that we ask is equal terms, that we
should either believe both to be true, or both to be false. If both
are true, you are unquestionably guilty of schism, who have pretended
that you avoid offenses in the communion of the whole world, though
these were common among you in your own fragmentary sect. But again,
if both are false, you are unquestionably guilty of schism, who, on
account of the false charges of traditors, are staining yourselves
with the heinous offense of severance from the Church. But if we
have something to urge in accusation, while you have nothing, or if
our charges are true, while yours are false, it is no longer matter of
discussion how thoroughly your mouths are closed. What if the holy
and true Church of Christ were to convince and overcome you, even if
we held no documents in support of our cause, or only such as were
false, while you had possession of some genuine proof of delivery of
the sacred books, what would then remain for you, except that, if you
would, you should show your love of peace, or otherwise should hold
your tongues? For whatever in that case you might bring forward in
evidence, I should be able to say with the greatest ease and with the
most perfect truth, that then you are bound to prove as much to the
full and Catholic unity of the Church, already spread abroad and
established throughout so many nations, to the end that you should
remain within, and that those whom you convict should be expelled.Â
And if you have endeavored to do this, certainly you have not been
able to make good your proof; and, being vanquished or enraged, you
have separated yourselves, with all the heinous guilt of sacrilege,
from the guiltless men who could not condemn on insufficient proof.Â
But if you have not even endeavored to do this, then with most
accursed and unnatural blindness you have cut yourselves off from the
wheat of Christ, which grows throughout His whole fields, that is,
throughout the whole world until the end, because you have taken
offense at a few tares in Africa."[2464]2464Â To this, which I have
quoted from my former epistle, Petilianus has made no answer
whatsoever. And, at all events, you see that in these few words is
comprised the whole question which is at issue between us. For what
should he endeavor to say, when, whatever course he chose, he was sure
to be debated?
71. For when documents are brought forward relating to the
traditors, both by us against the men of your party, and by you
against the men of our party, (if indeed any really are brought
forward on your side, for to this very day we are left in total
ignorance of them; nor indeed can we believe that Petilianus would
have omitted to insert them in his letter, seeing that he has taken so
much pain to secure the quotation and insertion of those portions of
the Chronicles which bear on the matter in opposition to me),âbut
still, as I began to say, if such documents are brought forward both
by us and by you, documents of whose existence we are wholly ignorant
to this very day,âsurely you must acknowledge that either both are
true, or both false, or ours true and yours false, or yours true and
ours false; for there is no further alternative that can be suggested.
Chapter 59.âBut according to all these four hypotheses, the truth is
on the side of the communion of the Catholic Church. For if both are
true, then you certainly should not have deserted the communion of the
whole world on account of men such as you too had among yourselves.Â
But if both are false, you should have guarded against the guilt of
most accursed division, which had not even any pretext to allege of
any delivery of the sacred books. If ours are true and yours are
false, you have long been without anything to say for yourselves. If
yours are true and ours are false, we have been liable to be deceived,
in common with the whole world, not about the truth of the faith, but
about the unrighteousness of men. For the seed of Abraham, dispersed
throughout the world, was bound to pay attention, not to what you said
you knew, but to what you proved to the judges. Whence have we any
knowledge of what was done by those men who were accused by your
ancestors, even if the allegations made against them were true, so
long as they were held to be not true but false, either by the judges
who took cognizance of the case, or at least by the general body of
the Church dispersed throughout the world, which was only bound to pay
heed to the sentence of the judges? God does not necessarily pardon
any human guilt that others in the weakness of human judgment fail to
discover; yet I maintain that no one is rightly deemed guilty for
having believed a man to be innocent who was not convicted. How then
do you prove the world to be guilty, merely because it did not know
what possibly was really guilt in the Africans,âits ignorance arising
either from the fact that no one reported the sin to it, or from its
having given credence, in respect of the information which was given,
rather to the judges who took cognizance of the case, than to the
murmurers who were defeated? So far then, Petilianus deserves all
praise, in that, when he saw that on this point I was absolutely
impregnable, he passed it by in silence. Yet he does not deserve
praise for his attempts to obscure in a mist of words other points
which were equally impregnable, which yet he thought could be
obscured; or for having put me in the place of his cause, when the
cause left him nothing to say; while even about myself he could say
nothing except what was either altogether false, or undeserving of any
blame, or without any bearing whatsoever upon me. But, in the
meantime, are you, whom I have made judges between Petilianus and
myself, possessed of discrimination enough to decide in any degree
between what is true and what is false, between what is mere empty
swelling and what is solid, between what is troubled and what is calm,
between inflammation and soundness, between divine predictions and
human assumptions, between bringing an accusation and establishing it,
between proofs and fictions, between pleading a cause and leading one
away from it? If you have such power of discrimination, well and
good; but if you have it not, we shall not repent of having bestowed
our pains on you, for even though your heart be not converted unto
peace, yet our peace shall return unto ourselves.
St. AUGUSTIN:
a treatise concerning
the correction of the donatists
 [de correctione donatistarum, liber seu epistola clxxxv.]
circa A.D. 417.
translated by
rev. j. r. king, m.a.,
vicar of st. peterâs in the east, oxford; and late fellow and tutor of
merton college, oxford.
A Treatise
Concerning
the Correction of the Donatists;
Or Epistle CLXXXV.[2465]2465
A Letter of Augustin[2466]2466 to Boniface, who, as we learn from
Epistle 220, was Tribune, and afterwards Count in Africa. In it
Augustin shows that the heresy of the Donatists has nothing in common
with that of Arius; and points out the moderation with which it was
possible to recall the heretics to the communion of the Church through
awe of the imperial laws. He adds remarks concerning the savage
conduct of the Donatists and Circumcelliones, concluding with a
discussion of the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy
Ghost.[2467]2467
Chapter 1.â1. I must express my satisfaction, and congratulations,
and admiration, my son Boniface,[2468]2468 in that, amid all the cares
of wars and arms, you are eagerly anxious to know concerning the
things that are of God. From hence it is clear that in you it is
actually a part of your military valor to serve in truth the faith
which is in Christ. To place, therefore, briefly before your Grace
the difference between the errors of the Arians and the Donatists, the
Arians say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are different
in substance; whereas the Donatists do not say this, but acknowledge
the unity of substance in the Trinity. And if some even of them have
said that the Son was inferior to the Father, yet they have not denied
that He is of the same substance; whilst the greater part of them
declare that they hold entirely the same belief regarding the Father
and the Son and the Holy Ghost as is held by the Catholic Church.Â
Nor is this the actual question in dispute with them; but they carry
on their unhappy strife solely on the question of communion, and in
the perversity of their error maintain rebellious hostility against
the unity of Christ. But sometimes, as we have heard, some of them,
wishing to conciliate the Goths, since they see that they are not
without a certain amount of power, profess to entertain the same
belief as they. But they are refuted by the authority of their own
leaders; for Donatus himself, of whose party they boast themselves to
be, is never said to have held this belief.
2. Let not, however, things like these disturb thee, my beloved
son. For it is foretold to us that there must needs be heresies and
stumbling-blocks, that we may be instructed among our enemies; and
that so both our faith and our love may be the more approved,âour
faith, namely, that we should not be deceived by them; and our love,
that we should take the utmost pains we can to correct the erring ones
themselves; not only watching that they should do no injury to the
weak, and that they should be delivered from their wicked error, but
also praying for them, that God would open their understanding, and
that they might comprehend the Scriptures. For in the sacred books,
where the Lord Christ is made manifest, there is also His Church
declared; but they, with wondrous blindness, while they would know
nothing of Christ Himself save what is revealed in the Scriptures, yet
form their notion of His Church from the vanity of human falsehood,
instead of learning what it is on the authority of the sacred books.
3. They recognize Christ together with us in that which is written,
"They pierced my hands and my feet. They can tell all my bones:Â
they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and
cast lots upon my vesture;" and yet they refuse to recognize the
Church in that which follows shortly after:Â "All the ends of the
world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of
the nations shall worship before Thee. For the kingdom is the
Lordâs; and He is the Governor among the nations."[2469]2469Â They
recognize Christ together with us in that which is written, "The Lord
hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee;"
and they will not recognize the Church in that which follows:Â "Ask
of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and
the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."[2470]2470Â They
recognize Christ together with us in that which the Lord Himself says
in the gospel, "Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the
dead the third day;" and they will not recognize the Church in that
which follows:Â "And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem."[2471]2471Â And the testimonies in the sacred books are
without number, all of which it has not been necessary for me to crowd
together into this book. And in all of them, as the Lord Christ is
made manifest, whether in accordance with His Godhead, in which He is
equal to the Father, so that, "In the beginning was the Word, and; the
Word was with God, and the Word was God;" or according to the humility
of the flesh which He took upon Him, whereby "the Word was made flesh
and dwelt among us;"[2472]2472 so is His Church made manifest, not in
Africa alone, as they most impudently venture in the madness of their
vanity to assert, but spread abroad throughout the world.
4. For they prefer to the testimonies of Holy Writ their own
contentions, because, in the case of Cæcilianus, formerly a bishop of
the Church of Carthage, against whom they brought charges which they
were and are unable to substantiate, they separated themselves from
the Catholic Church,âthat is, from the unity of all nations.Â
Although, even if the charges had been true which were brought by them
against Cæcilianus, and could at length be proved to us, yet, though
we might pronounce an anathema upon him even in the grave,[2473]2473
we are still bound not for the sake of any man to leave the Church,
which rests for its foundation on divine witness, and is not the
figment of litigious opinions, seeing that it is better to trust in
the Lord than to put confidence in man.[2474]2474Â For we cannot
allow that if Cæcilianus had erred,âa supposition which I make
without prejudice to his integrity,âChrist should therefore have
forfeited His inheritance. It is easy for a man to believe of his
fellow-men either what is true or what is false; but it marks
abandoned impudence to desire to condemn the communion of the whole
world on account of charges alleged against a man, of which you cannot
establish the truth in the face of the world.
5. Whether Cæcilianus was ordained by men who had delivered up the
sacred books, I do not know. I did not see it, I heard it only from
his enemies. It is not declared to me in the law of God, or in the
utterances of the prophets, or in the holy poetry of the Psalms, or in
the writings of any one of Christâs apostles, or in the eloquence of
Christ Himself. But the evidence of all the several scriptures with
one accord proclaims the Church spread abroad throughout the world,
with which the faction of Donatus does not hold communion. The law
of God declared, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed."[2475]2475Â The Lord said by the mouth of His prophet, "From
the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, a pure
sacrifice shall be offered unto my name:Â for my name shall be great
among the heathen."[2476]2476Â The Lord said through the Psalmist,
"He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto
the ends of the earth."[2477]2477Â The Lord said by His apostle, "The
gospel is come unto you, as it is in all the world, and bringeth forth
fruit."[2478]2478Â The Son of God said with His own mouth, "Ye shall
be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in
Samaria, and even unto the uttermost part of the earth."[2479]2479Â
Cæcilianus, the bishop of the Church of Carthage, is accused with the
contentiousness of men; the Church of Christ, established among all
nations, is recommended by the voice of God. Mere piety, truth, and
love forbid us to receive against Cæcilianus the testimony of men
whom we do not find in the Church, which has the testimony of God; for
those who do not follow the testimony of God have forfeited the weight
which otherwise would attach to their testimony as men.
Chapter 2.â6. I would add, moreover, that they themselves, by making
it the subject of an accusation, referred the case of Cæcilianus to
the decision of the Emperor Constantine; and that, even after the
bishops had pronounced their judgment,[2480]2480 finding that they
could not crush Cæcilianus, they brought him in person before the
above-named emperor for trial, in the most determined spirit of
persecution. And so they were themselves the first to do what they
censure in us, in order that they may deceive the unlearned, saying
that Christians ought not to demand any assistance from Christian
emperors against the enemies of Christ. And this, too, they did not
dare to deny in the conference which we held at the same time in
Carthage:Â nay, they even venture to make it a matter of boasting
that their fathers had laid a criminal indictment against Cæcilianus
before the emperor; adding furthermore a lie, to the effect that they
had there worsted him, and procured his condemnation. How then can
they be otherwise than persecutors, seeing that when they persecuted
Cæcilianus by their accusations, and were overcome by him, they
sought to claim false glory for themselves by a most shameless life;
not only considering it no reproach, but glorying in it as conducive
to their praise, if they could prove that Cæcilianus had been
condemned on the accusation of their fathers? But in regard to the
manner in which they were overcome at every turn in the conference
itself, seeing that the records are exceedingly voluminous, and it
would be a serious matter to have them read to you while you are
occupied in other matters that are essential to the peace of Rome,
perhaps it may be possible to have a digest[2481]2481 of them read to
you, which I believe to be in the possession of my brother and
fellow-bishop Optatus; or if he has not a copy, he might easily
procure one from the church at Sitifa; for I can well believe that
even that volume will prove wearisome enough to you from its
lengthiness, amid the burden of your many cares.
7. For the Donatists met with the same fate as the accusers of the
holy Daniel.[2482]2482Â For as the lions were turned against them, so
the laws by which they had proposed to crush an innocent victim were
turned against the Donatists; save that, through the mercy of Christ,
the laws which seemed to be opposed to them are in reality their
truest friends; for through their operation many of them have been,
and are daily being reformed, and return God thanks that they are
reformed, and delivered from their ruinous madness. And those who
used to hate are now filled with love; and now that they have
recovered their right minds, they congratulate themselves that these
most wholesome laws were brought to bear against them, with as much
fervency as in their madness they detested them; and are filled with
the same spirit of ardent love towards those who yet remain as
ourselves, desiring that we should strive in like manner that those
with whom they had been like to perish might be saved. For both the
physician is irksome to the raging madman, and a father to his
undisciplined son,âthe former because of the restraint, the latter
because of the chastisement which he inflicts; yet both are acting in
love. But if they were to neglect their charge, and allow them to
perish, this mistaken kindness would more truly be accounted
cruelty. For if the horse and mule, which have no understanding,
resist with all the force of bites and kicks the efforts of the men
who treat their wounds in order to cure them; and yet the men, though
they are often exposed to danger from their teeth and heels, and
sometimes meet with actual hurt, nevertheless do not desert them till
they restore them to health through the pain and annoyance which the
healing process gives,âhow much more should man refuse to desert his
fellow-man, or brother to desert his brother, lest he should perish
everlastingly, being himself now able to comprehend the vastness of
the boon accorded to himself in his reformation, at the very time that
he complained of suffering persecution?
8. As then the apostle says, "As we have therefore opportunity, let
us do good unto all men, not being weary in well-doing,"[2483]2483 so
let all be called to salvation, let all be recalled from the path of
destruction,âthose who may, by the sermons of Catholic preachers;
those who may, by the edicts of Catholic princes; some through those
who obey the warnings of God, some through those who obey the
emperorâs commands. For, moreover, when emperors enact bad laws on
the side of falsehood, as against the truth, those who hold a right
faith are approved, and, if they persevere, are crowned; but when the
emperors enact good laws on behalf of the truth against falsehood,
then those who rage against them are put in fear, and those who
understand are reformed. Whosoever, therefore, refuses to obey the
laws of the emperors which are enacted against the truth of God, wins
for himself a great reward; but whosoever refuses to obey the laws of
the emperors which are enacted in behalf of truth, wins for himself
great condemnation. For in the times, too, of the prophets, the
kings who, in dealing with the people of God, did not prohibit nor
annul the ordinances which were issued contrary to Godâs commands, are
all of them censured; and those who did prohibit and annul them are
praised as deserving more than other men. And king Nebuchadnezzar,
when he was a servant of idols, enacted an impious law that a certain
idol should be worshipped; but those who refused to obey his impious
command acted piously and faithfully. And the very same king, when
converted by a miracle from God, enacted a pious and praiseworthy law
on behalf of the truth, that every one who should speak anything amiss
against the true God, the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
should perish utterly, with all his house.[2484]2484Â If any persons
disobeyed this law, and justly suffered the penalty imposed, they
might have said what these men say, that they were righteous because
they suffered persecution through the law enacted by the king:Â and
this they certainly would have said, had they been as mad as these who
make divisions between the members of Christ, and spurn the sacraments
of Christ, and take credit for being persecuted, because they are
prevented from doing such things by the laws which the emperors have
passed to preserve the unity of Christ and boast falsely of their
innocence, and seek from men the glory of martyrdom, which they cannot
receive from our Lord.
9. But true martyrs are such as those of whom the Lord says,
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnessâ
sake."[2485]2485Â It is not, therefore, those who suffer persecution
for their unrighteousness, and for the divisions which they impiously
introduce into Christian unity, but those who suffer for
righteousnessâ sake, that are truly martyrs. For Hagar also suffered
persecution at the hands of Sarah;[2486]2486 and in that case she who
persecuted was righteous, and she unrighteous who suffered
persecution. Are we to compare with this persecution which Hagar
suffered the case of holy David, who was persecuted by unrighteous
Saul?[2487]2487Â Surely there is in essential difference, not in
respect of his suffering, but because he suffered for righteousnessâ
sake. And the Lord Himself was crucified with two thieves;[2488]2488
but those who were joined in their suffering were separated by the
difference of its cause. Accordingly, in the psalm, we must
interpret of the true martyrs, who wish to be distinguished from false
martyrs, the verse in which it is said, "Judge me, O Lord, and
distinguish[2489]2489 my cause from an ungodly nation."[2490]2490Â He
does not say, Distinguish my punishment, but "Distinguish my cause."Â
For the punishment of the impious may be the same; but the cause of
the martyrs is always different. To whose mouth also the words are
suitable, "They persecute me wrongfully; help Thou me;"[2491]2491 in
which the Psalmist claimed to have a right to be helped in
righteousness, because his adversaries persecuted him wrongfully; for
if they had been right in persecuting him, he would have deserved not
help, but correction.
10. But if they think that no one can be justified in using
violence,âas they said in the course of the conference that the true
Church must necessarily be the one which suffers persecution, not the
one inflicting it,âin that case I no longer urge what I observed
above; because, if the matter stand as they maintain that it does,
then Cæcilianus must have belonged to the true Church, seeing that
their fathers persecuted him, by pressing his accusation even to the
tribunal of the emperor himself. For we maintain that he belonged to
the true Church, not merely because he suffered persecution, but
because he suffered it for righteousnessâ sake; but that they were
alienated from the Church, not merely because they persecuted, but
because they did so in unrighteousness. This, then, is our
position. But if they make no inquiry into the causes for which each
person inflicts persecution, or for which he suffers it, but think
that it is a sufficient sign of a true Christian that he does not
inflict persecution, but suffers it, then beyond all question they
include Cæcilianus in that definition, who did not inflict, but
suffered persecution; and they equally exclude their own fathers from
the definition, for they inflicted, but did not suffer it.
11. But this, I say, I forbear to urge. Yet one point I must
press:Â If the true Church is the one which actually suffers
persecution, not the one which inflicts it, let them ask the apostle
of what Church Sarah was a type, when she inflicted persecution on her
hand-maid. For he declares that the free mother of us all, the
heavenly Jerusalem, that is to say, the true Church of God, was
prefigured in that woman who cruelly entreated her
hand-maid.[2492]2492Â But if we investigate the story further, we
shall find that the handmaid rather persecuted Sarah by her
haughtiness, than Sarah the handmaid by her severity:Â for the
handmaid was doing wrong to her mistress; the mistress only imposed on
her a proper discipline in her haughtiness. Again I ask, if good and
holy men never inflict persecution upon any one, but only suffer it,
whose words they think that those are in the psalm where we read, "I
have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them; neither did I turn
again till they were consumed?"[2493]2493Â If, therefore, we wish
either to declare or to recognize the truth, there is a persecution of
unrighteousness, which the impious inflict upon the Church of Christ;
and there is a righteous persecution, which the Church of Christ
inflicts upon the impious. She therefore is blessed in suffering
persecution for righteousnessâ sake; but they are miserable, suffering
persecution for unrighteousness. Moreover, she persecutes in the
spirit of love, they in the spirit of wrath; she that she may correct,
they that they may overthrow:Â she that she may recall from error,
they that they may drive headlong into error. Finally, she
persecutes her enemies and arrests them, until they become weary in
their vain opinions, so that they should make advance in the truth;
but they, returning evil for good, because we take measures for their
good, to secure their eternal salvation, endeavor even to strip us of
our temporal safety, being so in love with murder, that they commit it
on their own persons, when they cannot find victims in any others.Â
For in proportion as the Christian charity of the Church endeavors to
deliver them from that destruction, so that none of them should die,
so their madness endeavors either to slay us, that they may feed the
lust of their own cruelty, or even to kill themselves, that they may
not seem to have lost the power of putting men to death.
Chapter 3.â12. But those who are unacquainted with their habits
think that they only kill themselves now that all the mass of the
people are freed from the fearful madness of their usurped dominion,
in virtue of the laws which have been passed for the preservation of
unity. But those who know what they were accustomed to do before the
passing of the laws, do not wonder at their deaths, but call to mind
their character; and especially how vast crowds of them used to come
in procession to the most frequented ceremonies of the pagans, while
the worship of idols still continued,ânot with the view of breaking
the idols, but that they might be put to death by those who worshipped
them. For if they had sought to break the idols under the sanction
of legitimate authority, they might, in case of anything happening to
them, have had some shadow of a claim to be considered martyrs; but
their only object in coming was, that while the idols remained
uninjured, they themselves might meet with death. For it was the
general custom of the strongest youths among the worshippers of idols,
for each of them to offer in sacrifice to the idols themselves any
victims that he might have slain. Some went so far as to offer
themselves for slaughter to any travellers whom they met with arms,
using violent threats that they would murder them if they failed to
meet with death at their hands. Sometimes, too, they extorted with
violence from any passing judge that they should be put to death by
the executioners, or by the officer of his court. And hence we have
a story, that a certain judge played a trick upon them, by ordering
them to be bound and led away, as though for execution, and so escaped
their violence, without injury to himself or them. Again, it was
their daily sport to kill themselves, by throwing themselves over
precipices, or into the water, or into the fire. For the devil
taught them these three modes of suicide, so that, when they wished to
die, and could not find any one whom they could terrify into slaying
them with his sword, they threw themselves over the rocks, or
committed themselves to the fire or the eddying pool. But who can be
thought to have taught them this, having gained possession of their
hearts, but he who actually suggested to our Saviour Himself as a duty
sanctioned by the law, that He should throw Himself down from a
pinnacle of the temple?[2494]2494Â And his suggestion they would
surely have thrust far from them, had they carried Christ, as their
Master, in their hearts. But since they have rather given place
within them to the devil, they either perish like the herd of swine,
whom the legion of devils drove down from the hill-side into the
sea,[2495]2495 or, being rescued from that destruction, and gathered
together in the loving bosom of our Catholic Mother, they are
delivered just as the boy was delivered by our Lord, whom his father
brought to be healed of the devil, saying that ofttimes he was wont to
fall into the fire, and oft into the water.[2496]2496
13. Whence it appears that great mercy is shown towards them, when
by the force of those very imperial laws they are in the first
instance rescued against their will from that sect in which, through
the teaching of lying devils, they learned those evil doctrines, so
that afterwards they might be made whole in the Catholic Church,
becoming accustomed to the good teaching and example which they find
in it. For many of the men whom we now admire in the unity of
Christ, for the pious fervor of their faith, and for their charity,
give thanks to God with great joy that they are no longer in that
error which led them to mistake those evil things for good,âwhich
thanks they would not now be offering willingly, had they not first,
even against their will, been severed from that impious association.Â
And what are we to say of those who confess to us, as some do every
day, that even in the olden days they had long been wishing to be
Catholics; but they were living among men among whom those who wished
to be Catholics could not be so through the infirmity of fear, seeing
that if any one there said a single word in favor of the Catholic
Church, he and his house were utterly destroyed at once? Who is mad
enough to deny that it was right that assistance should have been
given through the imperial decrees, that they might be delivered from
so great an evil, whilst those whom they used to fear are compelled in
turn to fear, and are either themselves corrected through the same
terror, or, at any rate, whilst they pretend to be corrected, they
abstain from further persecution of those who really are, to whom they
formerly were objects of continual dread?
14. But if they have chosen to destroy themselves, in order to
prevent the deliverance of those who had a right to be delivered, and
have sought in this way to alarm the pious hearts of the deliverers,
so that in their apprehension that some few abandoned men might
perish, they should allow others to lose the opportunity of
deliverance from destruction, who were either already unwilling to
perish, or might have been saved from it by the employment of
compulsion; what is in this case the function of Christian charity,
especially when we consider that those who utter threats of their own
violent and voluntary deaths are very few in number in comparison with
the nations that are to be delivered? What then is the function of
brotherly love? Does it, because it fears the shortlived fires of
the furnace for a few, therefore abandon all to the eternal fires of
hell? and does it leave so many, who are either already desirous, or
hereafter are not strong enough to pass to life eternal, to perish
everlastingly, while taking precautions that some few should not
perish by their own hand, who are only living to be a hindrance in the
way of the salvation of others, whom they will not permit to live in
accordance with the doctrines of Christ, in the hopes that some day or
other they may teach them too to hasten their death by their own hand,
in the manner which now causes them themselves to be a terror to their
neighbors, in accordance with the custom inculcated by their devilish
tenets? or does it rather save all whom it can, even though those whom
it cannot save should perish in their own infatuation? For it
ardently desires that all should live, but it more especially labors
that not all should die. But thanks be to the Lord, that both
amongst usânot indeed everywhere, but in the great majority of
placesâand also in the other parts of Africa, the peace of the
Catholic Church both has gained and is gaining ground, without any of
these madmen being killed. But those deplorable deeds are done in
places where there is an utterly furious and useless set of men, who
were given to such deeds even in the days of old.
Chapter 4.â15. And indeed, before those laws were put in force by
the emperors of the Catholic faith, the doctrine of the peace and
unity of Christ was beginning by degrees to gain ground, and men were
coming over to it even from the faction of Donatus, in proportion as
each learned more, and became more willing, and more master of his own
actions; although, at the same time, among the Donatists herds of
abandoned men were disturbing the peace of the innocent for one reason
or another in the spirit of the most reckless madness. What master
was there who was not compelled to live in dread of his own servant,
if he had put himself under the guardianship of the Donatists? Who
dared even threaten one who sought his ruin with punishment? Who
dared to exact payment of a debt from one who consumed his stores, or
from any debtor whatsoever, that sought their assistance or
protection? Under the threat of beating, and burning, and immediate
death, all documents compromising the worst of slaves were destroyed,
that they might depart in freedom. Notes of hand that had been
extracted from debtors were returned to them. Any one who had shown
a contempt for their hard words were compelled by harder blows to do
what they desired. The houses of innocent persons who had offended
them were either razed to the ground or burned. Certain heads of
families of honorable parentage, and brought up with a good education
were carried away half dead after their deeds of violence, or bound to
the mill, and compelled by blows to turn it round, after the fashion
of the meanest beasts of burden. For what assistance from the laws
rendered by the civil powers was ever of any avail against them?Â
What official ever ventured so much as to breathe in their presence?Â
What agents ever exacted payment of a debt which they had been
unwilling to discharge? Who ever endeavored to avenge those who were
put to death in their massacres? Except, indeed, that their own
madness took revenge on them, when some, by provoking against
themselves the swords of men, whom they obliged to kill them under
fear of instant death, others by throwing themselves over sundry
precipices, others by waters, others by fire, gave themselves over on
the several occasions to a voluntary death, and gave up their lives as
offerings to the dead by punishments inflicted with their own hands
upon themselves.
16. These deeds were looked upon with horror by many who were firmly
rooted in the same superstitious heresy; and accordingly, when they
supposed that it was sufficient to establish their innocence that they
were ill contented with such conduct, it was urged against them by the
Catholics:Â If these evil deeds do not pollute your innocence, how
then do you maintain that the whole Christian world has been polluted
by the alleged sin of Cæcilianus, which are either altogether
calumnies, or at least not proved against him? How come you, by a
deed of gross impiety, to separate yourselves from the unity of the
Catholic Church, as from the threshing-floor of the Lord, which must
needs contain, up to the time of the final winnowing, both corn which
is to be stored in the garner, and chaff that is to be burned up with
fire?[2497]2497Â And thus some were so convinced by argument as to
come over to the unity of the Catholic Church, being prepared even to
meet the hostility of abandoned men; whilst the greater number, though
equally convinced, and though desirous to do the same, yet dared not
make enemies of these men, who were so unbridled in their violence,
seeing that some who had come over to us experienced the greatest
cruelty at their hands.
17. To this we may add, that in Carthage itself some of the bishops
of the same party, making a schism among themselves, and dividing the
party of Donatus among the lower orders of the Carthaginian people,
ordained as bishop against bishop a certain deacon named Maximianus,
who could not brook the control of his own diocesan. And as this
displeased the greater part of them, they condemned the aforesaid
Maximinus, with twelve others who had been present at his ordination,
but gave the rest that were associated in the same schism a chance of
returning to their communion on an appointed day. But afterwards
some of these twelve, and certain others of those who had had the time
of grace allowed to them, but had only returned after the day
appointed, were received by them without degradation from their
orders; and they did not venture to baptize a second time those whom
the condemned ministers had baptized outside the pale of their
communion. This action of theirs at once made strongly against them
in favor of the Catholic party, so that their mouths were wholly
closed. And on the matter being diligently spread abroad, as was
only right, in order to cure menâs souls of the evils of schism, and
when it was shown in every possible direction by the sermons and
discussions of the Catholic divines, that to maintain the peace of
Donatus they had not only received back those whom they had condemned,
with full recognition of their orders, but had even been afraid to
declare that baptism to be void which had been administered outside
their Church by men whom they had condemned or even suspended; whilst,
in violation of the peace of Christ, they cast in the teeth of all the
world the stain conveyed by contact with some sinners, it matters
little with whom, and declared baptism to be consequently void which
had been administered even in the very Churches whence the gospel
itself had come to Africa;âseeing all this, very many began to be
confounded, and blushing before what they saw to be mostly manifest
truth, they submitted to correction in greater numbers than was their
wont; and men began to breathe with a somewhat freer sense of liberty
from their cruelty, and that to a considerably greater extent in every
direction.
18. Then indeed they blazed forth with such fury, and were so
excited by the goadings of hatred, that scarcely any churches of our
communion could be safe against their treachery and violence and most
undisguised robberies; scarcely any road secure by which men could
travel to preach the peace of the Catholic Church in opposition to
their madness, and convict the rashness of their folly by the clear
enunciation of the truth. They went so far, besides, in proposing
hard terms of reconciliation, not only to the laity or to any of the
clergy, but even in a measure to certain of the Catholic bishops.Â
For the only alternative offered was to hold their tongues about the
truth, or to endure their savage fury. But if they did not speak
about the truth, not only was it impossible for any one to be
delivered by their silence, but many were even sure to be destroyed by
their submitting to be led astray; while if, by their preaching the
truth, the rage of the Donatists was again provoked to vent its
madness, though some would be delivered, and those who were already on
our side would be strengthened, yet the weak would again be deterred
by fear from following the truth. When the Church, therefore, was
reduced to these straits in its affliction, any one who thinks that
anything was to be endured, rather than that the assistance of God, to
be rendered through the agency of Christian emperors, should be
sought, does not sufficiently observe that no good account could
possibly be rendered for neglect of this precaution.
Chapter 5.â19. But as to the argument of those men who are unwilling
that their impious deeds should be checked by the enactment of
righteous laws, when they say that the apostles never sought such
measures from the kings of the earth, they do not consider the
different character of that age, and that everything comes in its own
season. For what emperor had as yet believed in Christ, so as to
serve Him in the cause of piety by enacting laws against impiety, when
as yet the declaration of the prophet was only in the course of its
fulfillment, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and their rulers take
counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed;" and
there was as yet no sign of that which is spoken a little later in the
same psalm:Â "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye
judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with
trembling."[2498]2498Â How then are kings to serve the Lord with
fear, except by preventing and chastising with religious severity all
those acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the
Lord? For a man serves God in one way in that he is man, in another
way in that he is also king. In that he is man, he serves Him by
living faithfully; but in that he is also king, he serves Him by
enforcing with suitable rigor such laws as ordain what is righteous,
and punish what is the reverse. Even as Hezekiah served Him, by
destroying the groves and the temples of the idols, and the high
places which had been built in violation of the commandments of
God;[2499]2499 or even as Josiah served Him, by doing the same things
in his turn;[2500]2500 or as the king of the Ninevites served Him, by
compelling all the men of his city to make satisfaction to the
Lord;[2501]2501 or as Darius served Him, by giving the idol into the
power of Daniel to be broken, and by casting his enemies into the den
of lions;[2502]2502 or as Nebuchadnezzar served Him, of whom I have
spoken before, by issuing a terrible law to prevent any of his
subjects from blaspheming God.[2503]2503Â In this way, therefore,
kings can serve the Lord, even in so far as they are kings, when they
do in His service what they could not do were they not kings.
20. Seeing, then, that the kings of the earth were not yet serving
the Lord in the time of the apostles, but were still imagining vain
things against the Lord and against His Anointed, that all might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, it must be granted that at
that time acts of impiety could not possibly be prevented by the laws,
but were rather performed under their sanction. For the order of
events was then so rolling on, that even the Jews were killing those
who preached Christ, thinking that they did God service in so doing,
just as Christ had foretold,[2504]2504 and the heathen were raging
against the Christians, and the patience of the martyrs was overcoming
them all. But so soon as the fulfillment began of what is written in
a later psalm, "All kings shall fall down before Him; all nations
shall serve Him,"[2505]2505 what sober-minded man could say to the
kings, "Let not any thought trouble you within your kingdom as to who
restrains or attacks the Church of your Lord; deem it not a matter in
which you should be concerned, which of your subjects may choose to be
religious or sacrilegious," seeing that you cannot say to them, "Deem
it no concern of yours which of your subjects may choose to be chaste,
or which unchaste?"Â For why, when free-will is given by God to man,
should adulteries be punished by the laws, and sacrilege allowed? Is
it a lighter matter that a soul should not keep faith with God, than
that a woman should be faithless to her husband? Or if those faults
which are committed not in contempt but in ignorance of religious
truth are to be visited with lighter punishment, are they therefore to
be neglected altogether?
Chapter 6.â21. It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that
men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be
driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow
that because the former course produces the better men, therefore
those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have
found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual
experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they
might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act
what they had already learned in word. Some, indeed, set before us
the sentiments of a certain secular author, who said,
"âTis well, I ween, by shame the young to train,
And dread of meanness, rather than by pain."[2506]2506
This is unquestionably true. But while those are better who are
guided aright by love, those are certainly more numerous who are
corrected by fear. For, to answer these persons out of their own
author, we find him saying in another place,
"Unless by pain and suffering thou art taught,
Thou canst not guide thyself aright in aught."[2507]2507
But, moreover, holy Scripture has both said concerning the former
better class, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out
fear;"[2508]2508 and also concerning the latter lower class, which
furnishes the majority, "A servant will not be corrected by words; for
though he understand, he will not answer."[2509]2509Â In saying, "He
will not be corrected by words," he did not order him to be left to
himself, but implied an admonition as to the means whereby he ought to
be corrected; otherwise he would not have said, "He will not be
corrected by words," but without any qualification, "He will not be
corrected."Â For in another place he says that not only the servant,
but also the undisdained son, must be corrected with stripes, and that
with great fruits as the result; for he says, "Thou shall beat him
with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell;"[2510]2510 and
elsewhere he says, "He that spareth the rod hateth his
son."[2511]2511Â For, give us a man who with right faith and true
understanding can say with all the energy of his heart, "My soul
thirsteth for God, for the living God:Â when shall I come and appear
before God?"[2512]2512 and for such an one there is no need of the
terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or imperial
laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing to cleave
unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that
happiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in
its attainment. But yet, before the good sons can say they have "a
desire to depart, and to be with Christ,"[2513]2513 many must first be
recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil
slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives.
22. For who can possibly love us more than Christ, who laid down His
life for His sheep?[2514]2514Â And yet, after calling Peter and the
other apostles by His words alone, when He came to summon Paul, who
was before called Saul, subsequently the powerful builder of His
Church, but originally its cruel persecutor, He not only constrained
him with His voice, but even dashed him to the earth with His power;
and that He might forcibly bring one who was raging amid the darkness
of infidelity to desire the light of the heart, He first struck him
with physical blindness of the eyes. If that punishment had not been
inflicted, he would not afterwards have been healed by it; and since
he had been wont to see nothing with his eyes open, if they had
remained unharmed, the Scripture would not tell us that at the
imposition of Ananiasâ hands, in order that their sight might be
restored, there fell from them as it had been scales, by which the
sight had been obscured.[2515]2515Â Where is what the Donatists were
wont to cry: Man is at liberty to believe or not believe? Towards
whom did Christ use violence? Whom did He compel? Here they have
the Apostle Paul. Let them recognize in his case Christ first
compelling, and afterwards teaching; first striking, and afterwards
consoling. For it is wonderful how he who entered the service of the
gospel in the first instance under the compulsion of bodily
punishment, afterwards labored more in the gospel than all they who
were called by word only;[2516]2516 and he who was compelled by the
greater influence of fear to love, displayed that perfect love which
casts out fear.
23. Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling
her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their
destruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only
led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if
they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but
salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation
than those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of
the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not
violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing
blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he
has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show
symptoms of resistance; especially since, if they multiply with
growing abundance among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the
more right in that the mark of the master is recognized on them, which
is not outraged in those whom we receive but do not rebaptize? For
the wandering of the sheep is to be corrected in such wise that the
mark of the Redeemer should not be destroyed on it. For even if any
one is marked with the royal stamp by a deserter who is marked with it
himself, and the two receive forgiveness,[2517]2517 and the one
returns to his service, and the other begins to be in the service in
which he had no part before, that mark is not effaced in either of the
two, but rather it is recognized in both of them, and approved with
the honor which is due to it because it is the kingâs. Since then
they cannot show that the destination is bad to which they are
compelled, they maintain that they ought to be compelled by force even
to what is good. But we have shown that Paul was compelled by
Christ; therefore the Church, in trying to compel the Donatists, is
following the example of her Lord, though in the first instance she
waited in the hopes of needing to compel no one, that the prediction
of the prophet might be fulfilled concerning the faith of kings and
peoples.
24. For in this sense also we may interpret without absurdity the
declaration of the blessed Apostle Paul, when he says, "Having in a
readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is
fulfilled."[2518]2518Â Whence also the Lord Himself bids the guests
in the first instance to be invited to His great supper, and
afterwards compelled; for on His servants making answer to Him, "Lord,
it is done as Thou hast commanded, and yet there is room," He said to
them, "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come
in."[2519]2519Â In those, therefore, who were first brought in with
gentleness, the former obedience is fulfilled; but in those who were
compelled, the disobedience is avenged. For what else is the meaning
of "Compel them to come in," after it had previously said, "Bring
in," and the answer had been made, "Lord, it is done as Thou
commanded, and yet there is room"? If He had wished it to be
understood that they were to be compelled by the terrifying force of
miracles, many divine miracles were rather wrought in the sight of
those who were first called, especially in the sight of the Jews, of
whom it was said, "The Jews require a sign;"[2520]2520 and, moreover,
among the Gentiles themselves the gospel was so commended by miracles
in the time of the apostles, that had these been the means by which
they were ordered to be compelled, we might rather have had good
grounds for supposing, as I said before, that it was the earlier
guests who were compelled. Wherefore, if the power which the Church
has received by divine appointment in its due season, through the
religious character and the faith of kings, be the instrument by which
those who are found in the highways and hedgesâthat is, in heresies
and schismsâare compelled to come in, then let them not find fault
with being compelled, but consider whether they be so compelled. The
supper of the Lord is the unity of the body of Christ, not only in the
sacrament of the altar, but also in the bond of peace. Of the
Donatists themselves, indeed, we can say that they compel no man to
any good thing; for whomsoever they compel, they compel to nothing
else but evil.
Chapter 7.â25. However, before those laws were sent into Africa by
which men are compelled to come in to the sacred Supper, it seemed to
certain of the brethren, of whom I was one, that although the madness
of the Donatists was raging in every direction, yet we should not ask
of the emperors to ordain that heresy should absolutely cease to be,
by sanctioning a punishment to be inflicted on all who wished to live
in it; but that they should rather content themselves with ordaining
that those who either preached the Catholic truth with their voice, or
established it by their study, should no longer be exposed to the
furious violence of the heretics. And this they thought might in
some measure be effected, if they would take the law which Theodosius,
of pious memory, enacted generally against heretics of all kinds, to
the effect that any heretical bishop or clergyman, being found in any
place, should be fined ten pounds of gold, and confirm it in more
express terms against the Donatists, who denied that they were
heretics; but with such reservations, that the fine should not be
inflicted upon all of them, but only in those districts where the
Catholic Church suffered any violence from their clergy, or from the
Circumcelliones, or at the hands of any of their people; so that after
a formal complaint had been made by the Catholics who had suffered the
violence, the bishops or other ministers should forthwith be obliged,
under the commission given to the officers, to pay the fine. For we
thought that in this way, if they were terrified and no longer dared
do anything of the sort, the Catholic truth might be freely taught and
held under such conditions, that while no one was compelled to it, any
one might follow it who was anxious to do so without intimidation, so
that we might not have false and pretended Catholics. And although a
different view was held by other brethren, who either were more
advanced in years, or had experience of many states and places where
we saw the true Catholic Church firmly established, which had,
however, been planted and confirmed by Godâs great goodness at a time
when men were compelled to come in to the Catholic communion by the
laws of previous emperors, yet we carried our point, to the effect
that the measure which I have described above should be sought in
preference from the emperors:Â it was decreed in our
council,[2521]2521 and envoys were sent to the court of the Count.
26. But God in His great mercy, knowing how necessary was the terror
inspired by these laws, and a kind of medicinal inconvenience for the
cold and wicked hearts of many men, and for that hardness of heart
which cannot be softened by words, but yet admits of softening through
the agency of some little severity of discipline, brought it about
that our envoys could not obtain what they had undertaken to ask.Â
For our arrival had already been anticipated by the serious complaints
of certain bishops from other districts, who had suffered much
ill-treatment at the hands of the Donatists themselves, and had been
thrust out from their sees; and, in particular, the attempt to murder
Maximianus, the Catholic bishop of the Church of Bagai, under
circumstances of incredible atrocity, had caused measures to be taken
which left our deputation nothing to do. For a law had already been
published, that the heresy of the Donatists, being of so savage a
description that mercy towards it really involved greater cruelty than
its very madness wrought, should for the future be prevented not only
from being violent, but from existing with impunity at all; but yet no
capital punishment was imposed upon it, that even in dealing with
those who were unworthy, Christian gentleness might be observed, but a
pecuniary fine was ordained, and sentence of exile was pronounced
against their bishops or ministers.
27. With regard to the aforesaid bishop of Bagai, in consequence of
his claim being allowed in the ordinary courts, after each party had
been heard in turn, in a basilica[2522]2522 of which the Donatists had
taken possession, as being the property of the Catholics, they rushed
upon him as he was standing at the altar, with fearful violence and
cruel fury, beat him savagely with cudgels and weapons of every kind,
and at last with the very boards of the broken altar. They also
wounded him with a dagger in the groin so severely, that the effusion
of blood would have soon put an end to his life, had not their further
cruelty proved of service for its preservation; for, as they were
dragging him along the ground thus severely wounded, the dust forced
into the spouting vein stanched the blood, whose effusion was rapidly
on the way to cause his death. Then, when they had at length
abandoned him, some of our party tried to carry him off with psalms;
but his enemies, inflamed with even greater rage, tore him from the
hands of those who were carrying him, inflicting grievous punishment
on the Catholics, whom they put to flight, being far superior to them
in numbers, and easily inspiring terror by their violence. Finally,
they threw him into a certain elevated tower, thinking that he was by
this time dead, though in fact he still breathed. Lighting then on a
soft heap of earth, and being espied by the light of a lamp by some
men who were passing by at night, he was recognized and picked up, and
being carried to a religious house, by dint of great care, was
restored in a few days from his state of almost hopeless danger.Â
Rumor, however, had carried the tidings even across the sea that he
had been killed by the violence of the Donatists; and when afterwards
he himself went abroad, and was most unexpectedly seen to be alive, he
showed, by the number, the severity, and the freshness of his wounds,
how fully rumor had been justified in bringing tidings of his death.
28. He sought assistance, therefore, from the Christian emperor, not
so much with any desire of revenging himself, as with the view of
defending the Church entrusted to his charge. And if he had omitted
to do this, he would have deserved not to be praised for his
forbearance, but to be blamed for negligence. For neither was the
Apostle Paul taking precautions on behalf of his own transitory life,
but for the Church of God when he caused the plot of those who had
conspired to slay him to be made known to the Roman captain, the
effect of which was that he was conducted by an escort of armed
soldiers to the place where they proposed to send him, that he might
escape the ambush of his foes.[2523]2523Â Nor did he for a moment
hesitate to invoke the protection of the Roman laws, proclaiming that
he was a Roman citizen, who at that time could not be
scourged;[2524]2524 and again, that he might not be delivered to the
Jews who sought to kill him, he appealed to Cæsar,[2525]2525âa Roman
emperor, indeed, but not a Christian. And by this he showed
sufficiently plainly what was afterwards to be the duty of the
ministers of Christ, when in the midst of the dangers of the Church
they found the emperors Christians. And hence therefore, it came
about that a religious and pious emperor, when such matters were
brought to his knowledge, thought it well, by the enactment of most
pious laws, entirely to correct the error of this great impiety, and
to bring those who bore the standards of Christ against the cause of
Christ into the unity of the Catholic Church, even by terror and
compulsion, rather than merely to take away their power of doing
violence, and to leave them the freedom of going astray, and perishing
in their error.
29. Presently, when the laws themselves arrived in Africa, in the
first place those who were already seeking an opportunity for doing
so, or were afraid of the raging madness of the Donatists, or were
previously deterred by a feeling of unwillingness to offend their
friends, at once came over to the Church. Many, too, who were only
restrained by the force of custom handed down in their homes from
their parents, but had never before considered what was the groundwork
of the heresy itself,âhad never, indeed, wished to investigate and
contemplate its nature,âbeginning now to use their observation, and
finding nothing in it that could compensate for such serious loss as
they were called upon to suffer, became Catholics without any
difficulty; for, having been made careless by security, they were now
instructed by anxiety. But when all these had set the example, it
was followed by many who were less qualified of themselves to
understand what was the difference between the error of the Donatists
and Catholic truth.
30. Accordingly, when the great masses of the people had been
received by the true mother with rejoicing into her bosom, there
remained outside cruel crowds, persevering with unhappy animosity in
that madness. Even of these the greater number communicated in
feigned reconciliation, and others escaped notice from the scantiness
of their numbers. But those who feigned conformity, becoming by
degrees accustomed to our communion, and hearing the preaching of the
truth, especially after the conference and disputation which took
place between us and their bishops at Carthage, were to a great extent
brought to a right belief. Yet in certain places, where a more
obstinate and implacable body prevailed, whom the smaller number that
entertained better views about communion with us could not resist, or
where the masses were under the influence of a few more powerful
leaders, whom they followed in a wrong direction, our difficulties
continued somewhat longer. Of these places there are a few in which
trouble still exists, in the course of which the Catholics, and
especially the bishops and clergy, have suffered many terrible
hardships, which it would take too long to go through in detail,
seeing that some of them had their eyes put out, and one bishop his
hands and tongue cut off, while some were actually murdered. I say
nothing of massacres of the most cruel description, and robberies of
houses, committed in nocturnal burglaries, with the burning not only
of private houses, but even of churches,âsome being found abandoned
enough to cast the sacred books into the flames.
31. But we were consoled for the suffering inflicted on us by these
evils, by the fruit which resulted from them. For wherever such
deeds were committed by unbelievers, there Christian unity has
advanced with greater fervency and perfection, and the Lord is praised
with greater earnestness for having deigned to grant that His servants
might win their brethren by their sufferings, and might gather
together into the peace of eternal salvation through His blood His
sheep who were dispersed abroad in deadly error. The Lord is
powerful and full of compassion, to whom we daily pray that He will
give repentance to the rest as well, that they may recover themselves
out of the snare of the devil, by whom they are taken captive at his
will,[2526]2526 though now they only seek materials for calumniating
us, and returning to us evil for good; because they have not the
knowledge to make them understand what feelings and love we continue
to have towards them, and how we are anxious, in accordance with the
injunction of the Lord, given to His pastors by the mouth of the
prophet Ezekiel, to bring again that which was driven away, and to
seek that which was lost.[2527]2527
Chapter 8.â32. But they, as we have sometimes said before in other
places, do not charge themselves with what they do to us; while, on
the other hand, they charge us with what they do to themselves. For
which of our party is there who would desire, I do not say that one of
them should perish, but should even lose any of his possessions? But
if the house of David could not earn peace on any other terms except
that Absalom his son should have been slain in the war which he was
waging against his father, although he had most carefully given strict
injunctions to his followers that they should use their utmost
endeavors to preserve him alive and safe, that his paternal affection
might be able to pardon him on his repentance, what remained for him
except to weep for the son that he had lost, and to console himself in
his sorrow by reflecting on the acquisition of peace for his
kingdom?[2528]2528Â The same, then, is the case with the Catholic
Church, our mother; for when war is waged against her by men who are
certainly different from sons, since it must be acknowledged that from
the great tree, which by the spreading of its branches is extended
over all the world, this little branch in Africa is broken off, whilst
she is willing in her love to give them birth, that they may return to
the root, without which they cannot have the true life, at the same
time if she collects the remainder in so large a number by the loss of
some, she soothes and cures the sorrow of her maternal heart by the
thoughts of the deliverance of such mighty nations; especially when
she considers that those who are lost perish by a death which they
brought upon themselves, and not, like Absalom, by the fortune of
war. And if you were to see the joy of those who are delivered in
the peace of Christ, their crowded assemblies, their eager zeal, the
gladsomeness with which they flock together, both to hear and sing
hymns, and to be instructed in the word of God; the great grief with
which many of them recall to mind their former error, the joy with
which they come to the consideration of the truth which they have
learned, with the indignation and detestation which they feel towards
their lying teachers, now that they have found out what falsehoods
they disseminated concerning our sacraments; and how many of them,
moreover, acknowledge that they long ago desired to be Catholics, but
dared not take the step in the midst of men of such violence,âif, I
say, you were to see the congregations of these nations delivered from
such perdition, then you would say that it would have been the extreme
of cruelty, if in the fear that certain desperate men, in number not
to be compared with the multitudes of those who were rescued, might be
burned in fires which they voluntarily kindled for themselves, these
others had been left to be lost for ever, and to be tortured in fires
which shall not be quenched.
33. For if two men were dwelling together in one house, which we
knew with absolute certainty to be upon the point of falling down, and
they were unwillingly to believe us when we warned them of the danger,
and persisted in remaining in the house; if it were in our power to
rescue them, even against their will, and we were afterwards to show
them the ruin threatening their house, so that they should not dare to
return again within its reach, I think that if we abstained from doing
it, we should well deserve the charge of cruelty. And further, if
one of them should say to us, Since you have entered the house to save
our lives, I shall forthwith kill myself; while the other was not
indeed willing to come forth from the house, nor to be rescued, but
yet had not the hardihood to kill himself:Â which alternative should
we choose,âto leave both of them to be overwhelmed in the ruin, or
that, while one at any rate was delivered by our merciful efforts, the
other should perish by no fault of ours, but rather by his own? No
one is so unhappy as not to find it easy enough to deride what should
be done in such a case. And I have proposed the question of two
individuals,âone, that is to say, who is lost, and one who is
delivered; what then must we think of the case where some few are
lost, and an innumerable multitude of nations are delivered? For
there are actually not so many persons who thus perish of their own
free will, as there are estates, villages, streets, fortresses,
municipal towns, cities, that are delivered by the laws under
consideration from that fatal and eternal destruction.
34. But if we were to consider the matter under discussion with yet
greater care, I think that if there were a large number of persons in
the house which was going to fall, and any single one of them could be
saved, and when we endeavored to effect his rescue, the others were to
kill themselves by jumping out of the windows, we should console
ourselves in our grief for the loss of the rest by the thoughts of the
safety of the one; and we should not allow all to perish without a
single rescue, in the fear lest the remainder should destroy
themselves. What then should we think of the work of mercy to which
we ought to apply ourselves, in order that men may attain eternal life
and escape eternal punishment, if true reason and benevolence compel
us to give such aid to men, in order to secure for them a safety which
is not only temporal, but very short,âfor the brief space of their
life on earth?
Chapter 9.â35. As to the charge that they bring against us, that we
covet and plunder their possessions, I would that they would become
Catholics, and possess in peace and love with us, not only what they
call theirs, but also what confessedly belongs to us. But they are
so blinded with the desire of uttering calumnies, that they do not
observe how inconsistent their statements are with one another. At
any rate, they assert, and seem to make it a subject of most invidious
complaint among themselves, that we constrain them to come in to our
communion by the violent authority of the laws,âwhich we certainly
should not do by any means, if we wished to gain possession of their
property. What avaricious man ever wished for another to share his
possessions? Who that was inflamed with the desire of empire, or
elated by the pride of its possession, ever wished to have a
partner? Let them at any rate look on those very men who once
belonged to them, but now are our brethren joined to us by the bond of
fraternal affection, and see how they hold not only what they used to
have, but also what was ours, which they did not have before; which
yet, if we are living as poor in fellowship with poor, belongs to us
and them alike; whilst, if we possess of our private means enough for
our wants, it is no longer ours, inasmuch as we do not commit so
infamous an act of usurpation as to claim for our own the property of
the poor, for whom we are in some sense the trustees.
36. Everything, therefore, that was held in the name of the churches
of the party of Donatus, was ordered by the Christian emperors, in
their pious laws, to pass to the Catholic Church, with the possession
of the buildings themselves.[2529]2529Â Seeing, then, that there are
with us poor members of those said churches who used to be maintained
by these same paltry possessions, let them rather cease themselves to
covet what belongs to others whilst they remain outside, and so let
them enter within the bond of unity, that we may all alike administer,
not only the property which they call their own, but also with it what
is asserted to be ours. For it is written "All are yours; and ye are
Christâs; and Christ is Godâs."[2530]2530Â Under Him as our Head, let
us all be one in His one body; and in all such matters as you speak
of, let us follow the example which is recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles:Â "They were of one heart and of one soul:Â neither said
any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own;
but they had all things common."[2531]2531Â Let us love what we
sing:Â "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell
together in unity!"[2532]2532 that so they may know, by their own
experience, with what perfect truth their mother, the Catholic Church,
calls out to them what the blessed apostle writes to the
Corinthians:Â "I seek not yours, but you."[2533]2533
37. But if we consider what is said in the Book of Wisdom,
"Therefore the righteous spoiled the ungodly;"[2534]2534 and also what
is said in the Proverbs, "The wealth of the sinner is laid up for the
just;"[2535]2535 then we shall see that the question is not, who are
in possession of the property of the heretics? but who are in the
society of the just? We know, indeed, that the Donatists arrogate to
themselves such a store of justice, that they boast not only that they
possess it, but that they also bestow it upon other men. For they
say that any one whom they have baptized is justified by them, after
which there is nothing left for them but to say to the person who is
baptized by them that he must needs believe on him who has
administered the sacrament; for why should he not do so, when the
apostle says, "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness?"[2536]2536Â Let him
believe, therefore, upon the man by whom he is baptized, if it be none
else that justifies him, that his faith may be counted for
righteousness. But I think that even they themselves would look with
horror on themselves, if they ventured for a moment to entertain such
thoughts as these. For there is none that is just and able to
justify, save God alone. But the same might be said of them that the
apostle says of the Jews, that "being ignorant of Godâs righteousness,
and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not
submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."[2537]2537
38. But far be it from us that any one of our number should call
himself in such wise just, that he should either go about to establish
his own righteousness, as though it were conferred upon him by
himself, whereas it is said to him, "For what hast thou that thou
didst not receive?"[2538]2538 or venture to boast himself as being
without sin in this world, as the Donatists themselves declared in our
conference that they were members of a Church which has already
neither spot nor wrinkle, nor any such thing,[2539]2539ânot knowing
that this is only fulfilled in those individuals who depart out of
this body immediately after baptism, or after the forgiveness of sins,
for which we make petition in our prayers; but that for the Church, as
a whole, the time will not come when it shall be altogether without
spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, till the day when we shall hear
the words, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory? The sting of death is sin."[2540]2540
39. But in this life, when the corruptible body presseth down the
soul,[2541]2541 if their Church is already of such a character as they
maintain, they would not utter unto God the prayer which our Lord has
taught us to employ:Â "Forgive us our debts."[2542]2542Â For since
all sins have been remitted in baptism, why does the Church make this
petition, if already, even in this life, it has neither spot nor
wrinkle, nor any such thing? They would also have a fight to despise
the warning of the Apostle John, when he cries out in his epistle, "If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness."[2543]2543Â On account of this hope, the universal
Church utters the petition, "Forgive us our debts," that when He sees
that we are not vainglorious, but ready to confess our sins, He may
cleanse us from all unrighteousness, and that so the Lord Jesus Christ
may show to Himself in that day a glorious Church, not having spot or
wrinkle, or any such thing, which now He cleanses with the washing of
water in the word:Â because, on the one hand, there is nothing that
remains behind in baptism to hinder the forgiveness of every bygone
sin (so long, that is, as baptism is not received to no effect without
the Church, but is either administered within the Church, or, at
least, if it has been already administered without, the recipient does
not remain outside with it); and, on the other hand, whatever
pollution of sin, of whatsoever kind, is contracted through the
weakness of human nature by those who live here after baptism, is
cleansed away in virtue of the same laverâs efficacy. For neither is
it of any avail for one who has not been baptized to say, "Forgive us
our debts."
40. Accordingly, He so now cleanses His Church by the washing of
water in the word, that He may hereafter show it to Himself as not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,âaltogether beautiful, that
is to say, and in absolute perfection, when death shall be "swallowed
up in victory."[2544]2544Â Now, therefore, in so far as the life is
flourishing within us that proceeds from our being born of God, living
by faith, so far we are righteous; but in so far as we drag along with
us the traces of our mortal nature as derived from Adam, so far we
cannot be free from sin. For there is truth both in the statement
that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,"[2545]2545 and
also in the former statement, that "if we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."[2546]2546Â The Lord
Jesus, therefore, is both righteous and able to justify; but we are
justified freely by no other grace than His.[2547]2547Â For there is
nothing that justifieth save His body, which is the Church; and
therefore, if the body of Christ bears off the spoils of the
unrighteous, and the riches of the unrighteous are laid up in store as
treasures for the body of Christ, the unrighteous ought not therefore
to remain outside, but rather to enter within, that so they may be
justified.
41. Whence also we may be sure that what is written concerning the
day of judgment, "Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness
before the face of such as have afflicted him, and made no account of
his labors,"[2548]2548 is not to be taken in such a sense as that the
Canaanite shall stand before the face of Israel, though Israel made no
account of the labors of the Canaanite; but only as that Naboth shall
stand before the face of Ahab, since Ahab made no account of the
labors of Naboth, since the Canaanite was unrighteous, while Naboth
was a righteous man. In the same way the heathen shall not stand
before the face of the Christian, who made no account of his labors,
when the temples of the idols were plundered and destroyed; but the
Christian shall stand before the face of the heathen, who made no
account of his labors, when the bodies of the martyrs were laid low in
death. In the same way, therefore, the heretic shall not stand in
the face of the Catholic, who made no account of his labors, when the
laws of the Catholic emperors were put in force; but the Catholic
shall stand in the face of the heretic, who made no account of his
labors when the madness of the ungodly Circumcelliones was allowed to
have its way. For the passage of Scripture decides the question in
itself, seeing that it does not say, Then shall men stand, but "Then
shall the righteous stand;" and they shall stand "in great boldness"
because they stand in the power of a good conscience.
42. But in this world no one is righteous by his own
righteousness,âthat is, as though it were wrought by himself and for
himself; but as the apostle says, "According as God hath dealt to
every man the measure of faith."Â But then he goes on to add the
following:Â "For as we have many members in one body, and all members
have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in
Christ."[2549]2549Â And according to this doctrine, no one can be
righteous so long as he is separated from the unity of this body.Â
For in the same manner as if a limb be cut off from the body of a
living man, it cannot any longer retain the spirit of life; so the man
who is cut off from the body of Christ, who is righteous, can in no
wise retain the spirit of righteousness, even if he retain the form of
membership which he received when in the body. Let them therefore
come into the framework of this body, and so possess their own labors,
not through the lust of lordship, but through the godliness of using
them aright. But we, as has been said before, cleanse our wills from
the pollution of this concupiscence, even in the judgment of any enemy
you please to name as judge, seeing that we use our utmost efforts in
entreating the very men of whose labors we avail ourselves to enjoy
with us, within the society of the Catholic Church, the fruits both of
their labors and of our own.
Chapter 10.â43. But this, they say, is the very thing which
disquiets us,âIf we are unrighteous, wherefore do you seek our
company? To which question we answer, We seek the company of you who
are unrighteous, that you may not remain unrighteous; we seek for you
who are lost, that we may rejoice over you as soon as you are found,
saying, This our brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost,
and is found.[2550]2550Â Why, then, he says, do you not baptize me,
that you might wash me from my sins? I reply: Because I do not do
despite to the stamp of the monarch, when I correct the ill-doing of a
deserter. Why, he says, do I not even do penance in your body? Nay
truly, except you have done penance, you cannot be saved; for how
shall you rejoice that you have been reformed, unless you first grieve
that you had been astray? What, then, he says, do we receive with
you, when we come over to your side? I answer, You do not indeed
receive baptism, which was able to exist in you outside the framework
of the body of Christ, although it could not profit you; but you
receive the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace[2551]2551 without
which no one can see God; and you receive charity, which, as it is
written, "shall cover the multitude of sins."[2552]2552Â And in
regard to this great blessing, without which we have the apostleâs
testimony that neither the tongues of men or of angels, nor the
understanding of all mysteries, nor the gift of prophecy, nor faith so
great as to be able to remove mountains, nor the bestowal of all oneâs
goods to feed the poor, nor giving oneâs body to be burned, can profit
anything;[2553]2553 if, I say, you think this mighty blessing to be
worthless or of trifling value, you are deservedly but miserably
astray; and deservedly you must necessarily perish, unless you come
over to Catholic unity.
44. If, then, they say, it is necessary that we should repent of
having been outside, and hostile to the Church, if we would gain
salvation, how comes it that after the repentance which you exact from
us we still continue to be clergy, or it may be even bishops in your
body? This would not be the case, as indeed, in simple truth, we
must confess it should not be the case, were it not that the evil is
cured by the compensating power of peace itself. But let them give
themselves this lesson, and most especially let those feel sorrow in
their hearts, who are lying in this deep death of severance from the
Church, that they may recover their life even by this sort of wound
inflicted on our Catholic mother Church. Â For when the bough that has
been cut off is grafted in, a new wound is made in the tree, to admit
of its reception, that life may be given to the branch which was
perishing for lack of the life that is furnished by the root. But
when the newly-received branch has become identified with the stock in
which it is received, the result is both vigor and fruit; but if they
do not become identified, the engrafted bough withers, but the life of
the tree continues unimpaired. For there is further a mode of
grafting of such a kind, that without cutting away any branch that is
within, the branch that is foreign to the tree is inserted, not indeed
without a wound, but with the slightest possible wound inflicted on
the tree. In like manner, then, when they come to the root which
exists in the Catholic Church, without being deprived of any position
which belongs to them as clergy or bishops after ever so deep
repentance of their error, there is a kind of wound inflicted as it
were upon the bark of the mother tree, breaking in upon the strictness
of her discipline; but since neither he that planteth is anything,
neither he that watereth,[2554]2554 so soon as by prayers poured forth
to the mercy of God peace is secured through the union of the
engrafted boughs with the parent stock, charity then covers the
multitude of sins.
45. For although it was made an ordinance in the Church, that no one
who had been called upon to do penance for any offense should be
admired into holy orders, or return to or continue in the body of the
clergy,[2555]2555 this was done not to cause despair of any indulgence
being granted, but merely to maintain a rigorous discipline; otherwise
an argument will be raised against the keys that were given to the
Church, of which we have the testimony of Scripture:Â "Whatsoever
thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[2556]2556Â But
lest it should so happen that, after the detection of offenses, a
heart swelling with the hope of ecclesiastical preferment might do
penance in a spirit of pride, it was determined, with great severity,
that after doing penance for any mortal sin, no one should be admitted
to the number of the clergy, in order that, when all hope of temporal
preferment was done away, the medicine of humility might be endowed
with greater strength and truth. For even the holy David did penance
for deadly sin, and yet was not degraded from his office. And we
know that the blessed Peter, after shedding the bitterest of tears,
repented that he had denied his Lord, and yet remained an apostle.Â
But we must not therefore be induced to think that the care of those
in later times was in any way superfluous, who, when there was no risk
of endangering salvation, added something to humiliation, in order
that the salvation might be more thoroughly protected,âhaving, I
suppose, experienced a feigned repentance on the part of some who were
influenced by the desire of the power attaching to office. For
experience in many diseases necessarily brings in the invention of
many remedies. But in cases of this kind, when, owing to the serious
ruptures of dissensions in the Church, it is no longer a question of
danger to this or that particular individual, but whole nations are
lying in ruin, it is right to yield a little from our severity, that
true charity may give her aid in healing the more serious evils.
46. Let them therefore feel bitter grief for their detestable error
of the past, as Peter did for his fear that led him into falsehood,
and let them come to the true Church of Christ, that is, to the
Catholic Church our mother; let them be in it clergy, let them be
bishops unto its profit, as they have been hitherto in enmity against
it. We feel no jealousy towards them, nay, we embrace them; we wish,
we advise, we even compel those to come in whom we find in the
highways and hedges, although we fail as yet in persuading some of
them that we are seeking not their property, but themselves. The
Apostle Peter, when he denied his Savior, and wept, and did not cease
to be an apostle, had not as yet received the Holy Spirit that was
promised; but much more have these men not received Him, when, being
severed from the framework of the body, which is alone enlivened by
the Holy Spirit, they have usurped the sacraments of the Church
outside the Church and in hostility to the Church, and have fought
against us in a kind of civil war, with our own arms and our own
standards raised in opposition to us. Let them come; let peace be
concluded in the virtue of Jerusalem, which virtue is Christian
charity,âto which holy city it is said, "Peace be in thy virtue, and
plenteousness within thy palaces."[2557]2557Â Let them not exalt
themselves against the solicitude of their mother, which she both has
entertained and does entertain with the object of gathering within her
bosom themselves, and all the mighty nations whom they are, or
recently were, deceiving; at them not be puffed up with pride, that
she receives them in such wise; let them not attribute to the evil of
their own exaltation the good which she on her part does in order to
make peace.
47. So it has been her wont to come to the aid of multitudes who
were perishing through schisms and heresies. This displeased
Lucifer,[2558]2558 when it was carried out in receiving and healing
those who had perished beneath the poison of the Arian heresy; and,
being displeased at it, he fell into the darkness of schism, losing
the light of Christian charity. In accordance with this principle
the Church of Africa has recognized the Donatists from the very
beginning, obeying herein the decree of the bishops who gave sentence
in the Church at Rome between Cæcilianus and the party of Donatus;
and having condemned one bishop named Donatus,[2559]2559 who was
proved to have been the author of the schism, they determined that the
others should be received, after correction, with full recognition of
their orders even if they had been ordained outside the Church,ânot
that they could have the Holy Spirit even outside the unity of the
body of Christ, but, in the first place, for the sake of those whom it
was possible they might deceive while they remained outside, and
prevent from obtaining that gift; and, secondly, that their own
weakness also being mercifully received within, might thus be rendered
capable of cure, no obstinacy any longer standing in the way to close
their eyes against the evidence of truth. For what other intention
could have given rise to their own conduct, when they received with
full recognition of their orders the followers of Maximianus, whom
they had condemned as guilty of sacrilegious schism, as their
council[2560]2560 shows, and to fill whose places they had already
ordained other men, when they saw that the people did not depart from
their company, that all might not be involved in ruin? And on what
other ground did they neither speak against nor question the validity
of the baptism which had been administered outside by men whom they
had condemned? Why, then, do they wonder, why do they complain, and
make it the subject of their calumnies, that we receive them in such
wise to promote the true peace of Christ, while yet they do not
remember what they themselves have done to promote the false peace of
Donatus, which is opposed to Christ? For if this act of theirs be
borne in mind, and intelligently used in argument against them, they
will have no answer whatsoever that they can make.
Chapter 11.â48. But as to what they say, arguing as follows: If we
have sinned against the Holy Ghost, in that we have treated your
baptism with contempt, why is it that you seek us, seeing that we
cannot possibly receive remission of this sin, as the Lord says,
"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven
him, neither in this world, neither in the world to
come?"[2561]2561âthey do not perceive that according to their
interpretation of the passage none can be delivered. For who is
there that does not speak against the Holy Ghost and sin against him,
whether we take the case of one who is not yet a Christian, or of one
who shares in the heresy of Arius, or of Eunomius, or of Macedonius,
who all say that He is a creature; or of Photinus, who denies that He
has any substance at all, saying that there is only one God, the
Father; or of any of the other heretics, whom it would now take too
long a time to mention in detail? Are none, therefore, of these to
be delivered? Or if the Jews themselves, against whom the Lord
directed His reproach, were to believe in Him, would they not be
allowed to be baptized? for the Saviour does not say, Shall be
forgiven in baptism:Â but "Shall not be forgiven, neither in this
world, neither in the world to come."
49. Let them understand, therefore, that it is not every sin, but
only some sin, against the Holy Ghost which is incapable of
forgiveness. For just as when our Lord said, "If I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin,"[2562]2562 it is clear that He
did not wish it to be understood that they would have been free from
all sin, since they were filled with many grievous sins, but that they
would have been free from some special sin, the absence of which would
have left them in a position to receive remission of all the sins
which yet remained in them, viz., the sin of not believing in Him when
He came to them; for they could not have had this sin, had He not
come. In like manner, also, when He said, "Whosoever sinneth against
the Holy Ghost,"or, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost;" it is
clear that He does not refer to every sin of whatsoever kind against
the Holy Ghost, in word or deed, but would have us understand some
special and peculiar sin. But this is the hardness of heart even to
the end of this life, which leads a man to refuse to accept remission
of his sins in the unity of the body of Christ, to which life is given
by the Holy Ghost. For when He had said to His disciples "Receive
the Holy Ghost," immediately added, Whosesoever sins ye remit, they
are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained."[2563]2563Â Whosoever therefore has resisted or fought
against this gift of the grace of God, or has been estranged from it
in any way whatever to the end of this mortal life, shall not receive
the remission of that sin, either in this world, or in the world to
come, seeing that it is so great a sin that in it is included every
sin; but it cannot be proved to have been committed by any one, till
he has passed away from life. But so long as he lives here, "the
goodness of God," as the apostle says, "is leading him to repentance;"
but if he deliberately, with the utmost perseverance in iniquity, as
the apostle adds in the succeeding verse, "after his hardness and
impenitent heart, treasures up unto himself wrath against the day of
wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,"[2564]2564 he
shall not receive forgiveness, neither in this world, neither in that
which is to come.
50. But those with whom we are arguing, or about whom we are
arguing, are not to be despaired of, for they are yet in the body; but
they cannot seek the Holy Spirit, except in the body of Christ, of
which they possess the outward sign outside the Church, but they do
not possess the actual reality itself within the Church of which that
is the outward sign, and therefore they eat and drink damnation to
themselves.[2565]2565Â For there is but one bread which is the
sacrament of unity, seeing that, as the apostle says, "We, being many,
are one bread, and one body."[2566]2566Â Furthermore, the Catholic
Church alone is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and
Saviour of His body.[2567]2567Â Outside this body the Holy Spirit
giveth life to no one seeing that, as the apostle says himself, "The
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is
given unto us;"[2568]2568 but he is not a partaker of the divine love
who is the enemy of unity. Therefore they have not the Holy Ghost
who are outside the Church; for it is written of them, "They separate
themselves being sensual, having not the Spirit."[2569]2569Â But
neither does he receive it who is insincerely in the Church, since
this is also the intent of what is written:Â "For the Holy Spirit of
discipline will flee deceit."[2570]2570Â If any one, therefore,
wishes to receive the Holy Spirit, let him beware of continuing in
alienation from the Church, let him beware of entering it in the
spirit of dissimulation; or if he has already entered it in such wise,
let him beware of persisting in such dissimulation, in order that he
may truly and indeed become united with the tree of life.
51. I have despatched to you a somewhat lengthy epistle, which may
prove burdensome among your many occupations. If, therefore, it may
be read to you even in portions, the Lord will grant you
understanding, that you may have some answer which you can make for
the correction and healing of those men who are commended to you as to
a faithful son by our mother the Church, that you may correct and heal
them, by the aid of the Lord wherever you can, and howsoever you can,
either by speaking and replying to them in your own person, or by
bringing them into communication with the doctors of the Church.
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Index of Greek Words and Phrases
Index of German Words and Phrases
Index of French Words and Phrases
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
_________________________________________________________________
[2571]1 Baur discredits this claim on internal grounds (Das Manich.
Religionssystem, p. 7).
[2572]2 Indian Wisdom, 3rd ed. (1876), p. 49.
[2573]3 Lenormant, Chaldean Magic (1877), p. 144-145.
[2574]4 Ibid. p. 146-147.
[2575]5 Ibid. p. 148.
[2576]6 Ante-Nicene Library, Am. ed. vol. vi. pp. 182 and 188.
[2577]7 Ibid. p. 241.
[2578]8 Outlines of the Hist. of Religion (1877), p. 173. Cf. J.
Darmsteter, Introduction to the Zend-Avesta, p. xliii., xliv., lvi.,
lxxii., lxxiv. sq.; and his article in the Contemporary Review (Oct.
1879), on "The Supreme God in the Indo-European Mythology."
[2579]9 This is confidently asserted by Kessler (Art. Mani in Herzogâs
RE, 2d ed. vol. IX. p. 258), and after him by Harnack, Encyclopædia
Britannica, art. Manichæism. On the other hand, Lenormant (Anc.
Hist. II. p. 30), says:Â "Ahriman had been eternal in the past, he
had no beginning, and proceeded from no former being * * * . This
being who had no beginning would come to an end. * * * . Evil then
should be finally conquered and destroyed, the creation should become
as pure as on its first day, and Ahriman should disappear forever."Â
Such, doubtless, was the original doctrine, but the form probably in
vogue in the time of Mani was more pantheistic or monotheistic, both
Ormuzd and Ahriman proceeding from boundless time (Zrvan akarana).Â
See on this matter, Darmsteter:Â Introd. to the Zend-Avesta, p.
lxxii, etc., and his art. in Contemp. Review; and Lenormant:Â Anc.
Hist. as above.
[2580]10 That meat is used in the sense of flesh may be inferred from
Darmsteterâs comment on this passage, which he suggests may be a bit
of religious polemics against Manichæism. See his Introd. to the
Zend-Avesta, p. xl. sq.
[2581]11 Das Manichäische Religionssystem, p. 433 sq.
[2582]12 Church Hist. vol. I.
[2583]13 Cunningham, St. Austin and his Place in the History of
Christian Thought (1886), has these remarks on the relation of Mani to
Buddhism:Â "Mani was indeed a religious reformer:Â deeply
impregnated with the belief and practice which Buddhist monks were
spreading in the East, he tried with some success to reform the
religion of Zoroaster in Persia [i.e. the Persian Empire], his native
land. While his fundamental doctrine, the root of his system, was of
Persian origin, and he figured the universe to himself as if it were
given over to the unending conflict between the Powers of Light and
Darkness, in regard to discipline his system very closely resembles
that founded by Buddha; the elect of the Manichæans correspond to the
Buddhist monks:Â the precepts about abstinence from meat and things
of sense are, if not borrowed from the rules Gotama gave for the
conduct of his followers, the outcome of the same principles about the
nature of man." Harnack, art. Manichæism in Ency. Britannica,
follows Kessler in attaching slight importance to the Buddhist
influence on Manichæism, preferring, with him, to derive nearly all
of the features ascribed by Baur, Neander and others to Buddhist
influence, to the old Babylonian religion, the precise character of
which, in the time of Mani, is imperfectly understood. Harnackâs
(and Kesslerâs) statements must therefore be taken with some
allowance. There is no objection, however, to supposing that Mani
derived from the old Babylonian party or parties with which he came in
contact religious principles which were wrought out in detail under
the influence of Buddhism. This is in fact what probably occurred.
[2584]14 Encyclopædia Britannica, art. Manichæism.
[2585]15 Confessions, Book. VII. ch. 9, vol. 1. p. 108, of the present
series.
[2586]16 See G. Loesche:Â De Augustino Plotinizante in Doctrina de
Deo Disserenda, Jenæ, 1880. Also, Dorner: Augustinus, Zeller,
Ueberweg, Ritter, and Erdmann:Â Histories of Philosophy, sections on
Augustin and Neo-Platonism.
[2587]17 See J. B. Mozleyâs Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, art. The
Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers. The sentence quoted above is
Mozleyâs.
[2588]18 For an account of the controversies in which Augustin was
engaged with the Manichæans, and for the chronological order of the
Anti-Manichæan treatises, see the Preface of the Edinburgh editor.Â
Cf. Bindemann, on the various controversies, in his Der h. Augustinus,
passim. See also, a good chronological list of St. Augustinâs works
in Cunningham:Â St. Austin, p. 277 sq.
[2589]19 Compare Professor George T. Stokesâ excellent article
Manichæans, in Smith and Wace: Dict. of Chr. Biography, vol. III.
p. 798 sq.
[2590]20 Beausobre (Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme,
Amst. 1734, 2 vols.) has collected everything that is known of Mani.Â
The original sources are here sifted with unusual acuteness, and with
great and solid learning, though the authorâs strong "bias in favor of
a heretic" frequently leads him to make unwarranted statements.Â
Burtonâs estimate of this entertaining and indispensable work
(Heresies of Apostol. Age, p. xxi.), is much fairer than Puseyâs (Aug.
Conf. p. 314). A brief account of Mani and his doctrines is given by
Milman with his usual accuracy, impartiality and lucidity (Hist. of
Christianity, ii. 259, ed. 1867). For any one who wishes to
investigate the subject further, ample references are there given. A
specimen of the confusion that involves the history of Mani will be
found in the account given by Socrates (Hist. i. 22).
[2591]21 [For the Oriental accounts of Maniâs parentage and youth, see
the Introductory Essay, and the works there referred to.âA.H.N.]
[2592]22 See also Eusebius:Â Hist. Eccl. vii. 31, with Heinichenâs
note.
[2593]23 2 Kings xv. 14.
[2594]24 "Peut-être cherchons nous du mystere, ou il nây en a
point."âBeausobre, i. 79.
[2595]25 [This is in the highest degree improbable.âA.H.N.]
[2596]26 Called Erteng or Arzeng, i.e., according to Renaudot, an
illustrated book.
[2597]27 Böhringer adopts the more horrible tradition. "Sein
Schicksal war, dass er von den Christen, von den Magiern verfolgt,
nach mannig fachem Wechsel unter Bahram lebendig geschunden wurde" (p.
386).
[2598]28 Böhringer characterizes it briefly in the words: "Es ist
der alte heidnische Dualismus mit seiner Naturtheologie, der in Maniâs
Systeme seine letzten Kräfte sammelt und unter der gleissenden Hülle
christlicher Worte und Formen an den reinen Monotheismus des
Christenthums und dessen reine Ethik sich heranwagt."
[2599]29 Aug. c. Faustum, xiii. 6 and 18. [See full list of Maniâs
writings in Kesslerâs art. in Herzog, R.E.âA.H.N.]
[2600]30 Lardner, however, seems to prove that Hierax was not a
Manichæan, though some of his opinions approximated to this heresy.Â
The whole subject of the Manichæan literature is treated by Lardner
(Works, iii. p. 374), with the learning of Beausobre and more than
Beausobreâs impartiality.
[2601]31 The De Natura Boni, written in the year 405, is necessarily
very much a reproduction of what is elsewhere affirmed, that all
natures are good, and created by God, who alone is immutable and
incorruptible. It presents concisely the leading positions of
Augustin in this controversy, and concludes with an eloquent prayer
that his efforts may be blessed to the conversion of the heretics,ânot
the only passage which demonstrates that he wrote not for the glory of
victory so much as for the deliverance of men from fatal error.
[2602]32 Histoire, i. 91.
[2603]33 Published by Zaccagni in his Collectanea Monumentorum
Veterum, Romæ, 1698; and by Routh his Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. v., in
which all the material for forming an opinion regarding it is
collected.
[2604]34 Any one who consults Beausobre on this point will find that
historical criticism is not of so recent an origin as some persons
seem to think. It is worth transcribing his own account of the
spirit in which he means to do his work:Â "Je traiterai mon sujet en
Critique, suivant la Regle de S. Paul, Examinez toutes choses, et ne
retenez que ce qui est bon. LâHistoire en general, et lâHistoire
Ecclesiastique en particulier, nâest bien souvent quâun mélange
confus de faux et de vrai, entasse par des Ecrivains mal instruits,
credules ou passionez. Cela convient surtout a lâHistoire des
Heretiques et des Heresies. Câest au Lecteur attentif et judicieux
dâen faire le discernement, a lâaide dâune critique, qui ne soit trop
timide, ni temeraire. Sans le secours de cet art, on erre dans
lâHistoire comme un Pilote sur les mers, lorsquâil nâa ni boussole, ni
carte marine" (i. 7).
[2605]35 Beausobre and Cave suppose that we have the whole of Faustusâ
book embodied in Augustinâs review of it. Lardner is of opinion that
the commencement, and perhaps the greater part, of the work is given,
but not the whole.
[2606]36 See the interesting account of Faustus in the Confessions, v.
10.
[2607]37 [This estimate of Faustus is somewhat too disparaging. For
fuller bibliography, see Introductory Essay.âA.H.N.]
[2608]38 His willingness to do so, and the success with which he
encountered the most renowned champions of this heresy, should have
prevented Beausobre from charging him with misunderstanding or
misrepresenting the Manichæan doctrine. The retractation of Felix
tells strongly against this view of Augustinâs incompetence to deal
with Manichæism.
[2609]39 Possidius. Vita Aug. vi.
[2610]40 This cannot but make us cautious in receiving the statements
of the tract, On the Morals of the Manichæans. There can be little
doubt that many of the Manichæans practiced the ascetic virtues, and
were recognizable by the gauntness and pallor of their looks, so that
Manichæan became a by-word for any one who did not appreciate the
felicity of good living. Thus Jerome says of a certain class of
women, "quam viderint pallentem atque tristem, Miseram, Monacham, et
Manichæan vocant" (De Custod. Virg. Ep. 18). Lardner throws light
on the practices of the Manichæans, and effectually disposes of some
of the calumnies uttered regarding them. Â Puseyâs appendix to his
translation of the Confessions may also be referred to with advantage.
[2611]41 Retract. ii. 8.
[2612]42 Epist. August. xxv.
[2613]43 Retract. ii. 10:Â "quod, mea sententia, omnibus quÅ adversus
illam pestem scribere potui, facile præpono." The reason of this
preference is explained by Bindemann, Der heilige Augstinus, iii. 168.
[2614]44 "Wo Entwickelungen, dialektische Begriffe sein sollten,
stellt sich ein Bild, ein Mythus ein."âBöhringer, p. 390.
[2615]45 Some have thought Augustin more successful here than
elsewhere. Cassiodorus may have thought so when he said:Â
"diligentius atque vivacius adversus eos quam contra hæreses alias
disseruit" (Instit. i. quoted by Lardner).
[2616]46 Written in the year 388. In his Retractations (i. 7)
Augustin says:Â "When I was at Rome after my baptism, and could not
bear in silence the vaunting of the Manichæans about their pretended
and misleading continence or abstinence, in which, to deceive the
inexperienced, they claim superiority over true Christians, to whom
they are not to be compared, I wrote two books, one on the morals of
the Catholic Church, the other on the morals of the Manichæans."
[2617]47 [This is commonly supposed to have been the first work of any
importance written by the Author against Manichæism. What he here
refers to it is not easy to conjecture.âA.H.N.]
[2618]48 [Augustinâs transition from his fine Platonizing discussion
of virtue, the chief good, etc., to the patriarchs, the law, and the
prophets is very fine rhetorically and apologetically.âA.H.N.]
[2619]49 Matt. xxii. 37.
[2620]50 Rom. viii. 28, 35.
[2621]51 [The most satisfactory feature of Augustinâs apology for the
Old Testament Scriptures is his demonstration of the substantial
agreement of the Old Testament with undisputed portions of the New
Testament.âA.H.N.]
[2622]52 Deut. vi. 5.
[2623]53 Rom. viii. 36; cf. Ps. xliv. 22.
[2624]54 Retract. i. 7, § 2:â"In the book on the morals of the
Catholic Church, where I have quoted the words, âFor Thy sake we are
in suffering all day long, we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter,â the inaccuracy of my manuscript misled me; for my
recollection of the Scriptures was defective from my not being at that
time familiar with them. For the reading of the other manuscripts
has a different meaning:Â not, we suffer, but we suffer death, or, in
one word, we are killed. That this is the true reading is shown by
the Greek text of the Septuagint, from which the Old Testament was
translated into Latin. I have indeed made a good many remarks on the
words, âFor thy sake we suffer,â and the things said are not wrong in
themselves; but, as regards the harmony of the Old and New Testaments,
this case certainly does not prove it. The error originated in the
way mentioned above, and this harmony is afterwards abundantly proved
from other passages."
[2625]55 [Augustinâs virtus takes the place of the Greek duuâ¬meiv and
the Vulgate virtutes. It is not quite certain what meaning he
attached to the expression. He seems to waver between the idea of
power and that of virtue in the ethical sense, and finally settles
down to the use of the term in the latter sense. That this does not
accord with the meaning of the Apostle is evident.âA.H.N.]
[2626]56 Rom. viii. 38, 39.
[2627]57 [I.e. only by the use of the mental faculty of which God
Himself is the Creator and Author; not by any independently existing
power "of the same nature with Him who created it."âA.H.N.]
[2628]58 1 Cor. i. 23, 24.
[2629]59 John xiv. 6.
[2630]60 Rom. viii. 29.
[2631]61 Rom. v. 5.
[2632]62 Rom. viii. 20.
[2633]63 Rom. xi. 36.
[2634]64 [It would be difficult to find in Christian literature a more
beautiful and satisfactory exposition of love to God. The
Neo-Platonic influence is manifest, but it is Neo-Platonism thoroughly
Christianized.âA.H.N.]
[2635]65 Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[2636]66 John i. 3, 4.
[2637]67 [Augustin seems to make no distinction between Apocryphal and
Canonical books. The book of Wisdom was evidently a favorite with
him, doubtless on account of its decided Platonic quality.âA.H.N.]
[2638]68 Wisd. viii. 1, 4, 7.
[2639]69 Retract. i. 7, § 3:â"The quotation from the book of Wisdom
is from my manuscript, where the reading is, âWisdom teaches sobriety,
justice, and virtue.â From these words I have made some remarks true
in themselves, but occasioned by a false reading. It is perfectly
true that wisdom teaches truth of contemplation, as I have explained
sobriety; and excellence of action, which is the meaning I give to
justice and virtue. And the reading in better manuscripts has the
same meaning:Â âIt teaches sobriety, and wisdom, and justice, and
virtue.â These are the names given by the Latin translator to the
four virtues which philosophers usually speak about. Sobriety is for
temperance, wisdom for prudence, virtue for fortitude, and justice
only has its own name. It was long after that we found these virtues
called by their proper names in the Greek text of this book of
Wisdom."
[2640]70 Wisd. viii. 3.
[2641]71 1 Cor. i. 24.
[2642]72 Matt. xi. 27.
[2643]73 Wisd. ix. 9.
[2644]74 Heb. i. 3.
[2645]75 Ps. lxxxix. 8.
[2646]76 John xiv. 6.
[2647]77 Wisd. ix. 17-19.
[2648]78 Rom. v. 5.
[2649]79 Wisd. i. 5.
[2650]80 Rom. viii. 29.
[2651]81 Ps. iv. 6.
[2652]82 Wisd. ix. 17.
[2653]83 Rom. xi. 36.
[2654]84 Deut. vi. 4.
[2655]85 [Here we have the key to all that is best in Augustinâs
defense of the anthropomorphisms and the seemingly imperfect ethical
representations of the Old Testament. See Mozleyâs essay on "The
Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers," in his Ruling Ideas in Early
Ages. The entire volume represents an attempt to account for the
elements in the Old Testament that offend the Christian
consciousness.âA.H.N.]
[2656]86 1 Cor. xi. 19.
[2657]87 Matt. vii. 7.
[2658]88 Matt. x. 26.
[2659]89 Wisd. vi. 12-20.
[2660]90 Matt. vii. 6.
[2661]91 Eph. iii. 14-19.
[2662]92 Matt. vii. 7.
[2663]93 Eph. iii. 7.
[2664]94 [Animi not mentis.âA.H.N.]
[2665]95 From his 19th to his 28th year.
[2666]96 1 Tim. vi. 10.
[2667]97 1 Cor. xv. 22.
[2668]98 Col. iii. 9, 10.
[2669]99 1 Cor. xv. 47-49.
[2670]100 2 Cor. iv. 16.
[2671]101 Ps. li. 10.
[2672]102 2 Cor. iv. 18.
[2673]103 Gal. i. 10.
[2674]104 Col. ii. 8.
[2675]105 1 John ii. 15.
[2676]106 Rom. xii. 2.
[2677]107 Eccles. i. 2, 3.
[2678]108 Retract. i. 7, § 3: â"I found in many manuscripts the
reading, âVanity of the vain.â But this is not in the Greek, which
has âVanity of vanities.â This I saw afterwards. And I found that
the best Latin manuscripts had vanities and not vain. But the truths
I have drawn from this false reading are self-evident."
[2679]109 Rom. v. 3, 4.
[2680]110 Job. i. 2.
[2681]111 [It is interesting to observe how remote Augustin was from
attaching superior merit to voluntary poverty, or to other forms of
asceticism as ends in themselves. What he prized was the ability to
use without abusing, to have without cleaving to the good things which
God provides.âA.H.N.]
[2682]112 2 Mac. vii.
[2683]113 Ps. cxvi. 15.
[2684]114 Prov. xvi. 32.
[2685]115 Ecclus. ii. 4, 5.
[2686]116 Ecclus. xxvii. 6.
[2687]117 Matt. vi. 24.
[2688]118 Rom. i. 25.
[2689]119 Deut. vi. 13.
[2690]120 A name given by Augustin to the Holy Spirit, v. xxx.
[2691]121 Matt. xxiv. 42.
[2692]122 John xii. 35.
[2693]123 1 Cor. v. 6.
[2694]124 Ecclus. xix. 1.
[2695]125 John xvii. 3.
[2696]126 Retract. i. 7. § 4:â"I should have said sincere affection
rather than full; or it might be thought that the love of God will be
no greater when we shall see Him face to face. Full, then, must be
here understood as meaning that it cannot be greater while we walk by
faith. There will be greater, yea, perfect fullness, but only by
sight."
[2697]127 [By authority Augustin does not mean the authority of the
Church or of Scripture, but he refers to the loving recognition of the
authority of God as the condition of true discipleship.âA.H.N.]
[2698]128 Matt. xxii. 39.
[2699]129 Rom. xiii. 10.
[2700]130 Rom. viii. 28.
[2701]131 Retract. i. 7. § 4:â"This does not mean that there are
actually in this life wise men such as are here spoken of. My words
are not, âalthough they are so wise,â but âalthough they were so
wise.â"Â [Augustinâs ideal wise man was evidently the "Gnostic" of
Clement of Alexandria. The conception is Stoical and
Neo-Platonic.âA.H.N.]
[2702]132 Deut. vi. 5; Lev. xix. 18; Matt. xxii. 37, 39.
[2703]133 Matt. xxii. 40.
[2704]134 [The strong testimony borne by Augustin against the perverse
subjective criticism of the Manichæns has an important application to
the present time.âA.H.N.]
[2705]135 [This view of the marriage relation seems to have been
almost universal in the ancient Church. Tertullian and Clement of
Alexandria are fond of dwelling upon it. For Augustinâs views more
fully stated see his De Bono Conjugali, 6. See also an interesting
excursus on "Continence in Married Life" in Cunninghamâs St. Austin,
p. 168. sq.âA.H.N.]
[2706]136 [If this apostrophe had been addressed to "Christianity"
rather than to the "Catholic Church," no Christian could fail to see
in it one of the noblest tributes ever bestowed on the religion of
Christ. Augustin identified Christianity with the organized body
which was far from realizing the ideal that he here sets forth. As
an apostrophe to ideal Christianity nothing could be finer.âA.H.N.]
[2707]137 Deut. iv. 24. Retract. i. 7, § 5:â"The Pelagians may
think that I have spoken of perfection as attainable in this life.Â
But they must not think so. For the fervor of charity which is
fitted for following God, and of force enough to consume all vices,
can have its origin and growth in this life; but it does not follow
that it can here accomplish the purpose of its origin, so that no vice
shall remain in the man; although this great effect is produced by
this same fervor of charity, when and where this is possible, that as
the laver of regeneration purifies from the guilt of all the sins
which attach to manâs birth, or come from his evil conduct, so this
perfection may purify him from all stain from the vices which
necessarily attend human infirmity in this world. So we must
understand the words of the apostle:Â âChrist loved the Church, and
gave himself for it; cleansing it with the washing of water by the
word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thingâ (Eph. v. 25-27). For in
this world there is the washing of water by the word which purifies
the Church. But as the whole Church, as long as it is here, says,
âForgive us our debts,â it certainly is not while here without spot,
or wrinkle, or any such thing; but from that which it here receives,
it is led on to the glory which is not here, and to perfection."
[2708]138 Luke xii. 49.
[2709]139 Hos. xiii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55.
[2710]140 1 Cor. xv. 56.
[2711]141 [This picture of cÅnobitic life, even in its purest form, is
doubtless idealized. It is certain that the monasteries very soon
became hot-beds of vice, and the refuge of the scum of
society.âA.H.N.]
[2712]142 [Augustin ascribes a broadmindedness and charitableness to
the ascetics of his time which was doubtless quite subjective. The
ascetics of that age with whose history we are acquainted were not of
this type. Jerome is an example.âA.H.N.]
[2713]143 Tit. i. 15.
[2714]144 Matt. xv. 11.
[2715]145 1 Cor. vi. 13.
[2716]146 1 Cor. viii. 8.
[2717]147 Rom. xiv. 2-21.
[2718]148 See title of the Epistle of Manichæus, Contra Faust. xiii.
4.
[2719]149 1 Cor. vi. 12.
[2720]150 1 Tim. v. 23.
[2721]151 1 Tim. iv. 8.
[2722]152 Â [Augustin says nothing of the encouragement given to such
pagan practices by men regarded in that age as possessed of almost
superhuman sanctity, such as Sulpicius Severus, Paulinus of Nola,
etc. He speaks of corruptions as if they were exceptional, whereas
they seem to have been the rule. Yet there is force in his
contention that Christianity be judged by its best products rather
than by the worst elements associated with it.âA.H.N.]
[2723]153 [Augustinâs ideal representation of Christianity and his
identification of the organized Catholic Church with Christianity is
quite inconsistent with the practice of the Church which he here seeks
to justify. No duty is more distinctly enjoined upon believers in
the New Testament than separation from unbelievers and evil doers.Â
But such separation is impracticable in an established Church such as
that to which Augustin rejoiced to belong.âA.H.N.]
[2724]154 Matt. iii. 13, and xiii. 24-43.
[2725]155 1 Cor. vii. 31.
[2726]156 1 Cor. vi. 11-20.
[2727]157 1 Cor. vii. 1-7.
[2728]158 1 Cor. vii. 14.
[2729]159 2 Cor. iv. 16.
[2730]160 This statement has a complete parallel in Clement of
Alexandria, and along with what follows, is Neo-Platonic.âA.H.N.]
[2731]161 [On Augustinâs view of negativity of evil and on the
relation of this view to Neo-Platonism, see Introduction, chapter
IX. Augustinâs view seems to exclude the permanence of evil in the
world, and so everlasting punishment and everlasting rebellion against
God.âA.H.N.]
[2732]162 [It is probable that Mani thought of the Kingdom of Light
pantheistically, and that the principles personified in his
mythological system were the result of efforts on his part to connect
the infinite with the finite.âA.H.N.]
[2733]163 In Retract. i. 7, § 6, it is said: "This must not be
understood to mean that all things return to that from which they fell
away, as Origen believed, but only those which do return. Those who
shall be punished in everlasting fire do not return to God, from whom
they fell away. Still they are in order as existing in punishment
where their existence is most suitable."Â [This does not really meet
the difficulty suggested on a preceding page.âA.H.N.]
[2734]164 Isa. xlv. 7.
[2735]165 [That is to say nothing is absolutely evil, and conversely
what is absolutely evil is ipso facto non-existent.âA.H.N.]
[2736]166 Luke ii. 14.
[2737]167 [The reasoning here is admirably adapted to Augustinâs
purpose, which is to refute the Manichæan notion of the evil nature
of material substance.âA.H.N.]
[2738]168 Â [The text has asinum in this sentence but aspidem in the
next. The former is a mistake.âA.H.N.]
[2739]169 John viii. 36.
[2740]170 Gal. v. 13.
[2741]171 Sallust, in prolog. Catilin. § 3.
[2742]172 Rom. xiv. 21.
[2743]173 Rom. xiii. 14.
[2744]174 Matt. xv. 2.
[2745]175 Isa. xlv. 23, 24.
[2746]176 Rom. xiv. and xv. 1-3.
[2747]177 1 Cor. viii. 4, etc.
[2748]178 1 Cor. x. 19-25 and 28, xi. 1.
[2749]179 [Augustinâs comparison of Manichæan with Christian
asceticism is thoroughly just and admirable.âA.H.N.]
[2750]180 [Much of the foregoing, as well as of what follows, seems to
the modern reader like mere trifling, but Augustinâs aim was by
introducing many familiar illustrations to show the utter absurdity of
the Manichæan distinctions between clean and unclean. It must be
confessed that he does this very effectively.âA.H.N.]
[2751]181 Matt. viii. 32.
[2752]182 Matt. xxi. 19.
[2753]183 [This is, of course, a physiological blunder, but Augustin
doubtless states what was the common view at the time.âA.H.N.]
[2754]184 V. Retract. i. 7. § 6, where Augustin allows that this is
doubtful, and that many have not even heard of it.
[2755]185 [Compare what is said about the disgusting ceremonial of
Ischas by Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. vi.), Augustin (Haeres. xlvi.),
Pope Leo X. (Serm. V. de Jejuniis, X. Mens.). These charges were
probably unfounded, though they are not altogether out of harmony with
the Manichæan principles.âA.H.N.]
[2756]186 John xv. 18.
[2757]187 John xiv. 17.
[2758]188 Doubtless Augustin exaggerates the immorality of the
Manichæans; but there must have been a considerable basis of fact for
his charges.âA.H.N.]
[2759]189 Compare the account from the Fihrist, in our Introduction,
Chapter III.âA.H.N.]
[2760]190 Scarcely any one of his earlier treatises was more
unsatisfactory to Augustin in his later Anti-Pelagian years than that
Concerning Two Souls. In his Retractations, Book I., chapter xv., he
recognizes the rashness of some of his statements and points out the
sense in which they are tenable or the reverse. As regards the
occasion of the writing, the following may be quoted:Â "After this
book [De Utilitate Credendi] I wrote, while still a presbyter, against
the Manichæans Concerning Two Souls, of which they say that one part
is of God, the other from the race of darkness, which God did not
found, and which is coeternal with God, and they rave about both these
souls, the one good, the other evil, being in one man, saying forsooth
that the evil soul on the one hand belongs to the flesh, which flesh
also they say is of the race of darkness; but that the good soul is
from the part of God that came forth, combated the race of darkness,
and mingled with the latter; and they attribute all good things in man
to that good soul, and all evil things to that evil soul."âA.H.N.]
[2761]191 In his Retractations, Augustin explains this proposition as
follows:Â "I said this in the sense in which the creature is known to
pertain to the Creator, but not in the sense that it is of Him, so as
to be regarded as part of Him."âA.H.N.
[2762]192 John xiv. 6.
[2763]193 It will aid the reader in following the thread of Augustinâs
argument, if he will bear in mind that throughout this treatise the
writer considers the points of antagonism between Manichæism and
Catholicism from the point of view of his early entanglement in
Manichæan error. Considering the opportunities that he had for
knowing the truth, the helps to have been expected from God in answer
to prayer, the capacities of the unperverted intellect to arrive at
truth, he inquires how he should have guarded himself from the
insinuation of Manichæan error, how he should have defended the
truth, and how he should have been the means of liberating
others.âA.H.N.
[2764]194 Sublimitate animi.
[2765]195 Mente atque intelligentia.
[2766]196 Matt. viii. 22.
[2767]197 1 Tim. v. 6.
[2768]198 Neither Augustin nor the Manichæans seem to have recognized
the distinction in kind between the human soul and animal life.âA.H.N.
[2769]199 John viii. 47 and 44.
[2770]200 John i. 3.
[2771]201 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[2772]202 Rom. xi. 36.
[2773]203 1 Cor. xi. 12.
[2774]204 1 Cor. ii. 15.
[2775]205 1 Tim. v. 6.
[2776]206 John i. 11.
[2777]207 John xvii. 3.
[2778]208 2 Cor. iv. 18.
[2779]209 Nothing is more certain than that Christianity has suffered
more at the hands of injudicious and ignorant defenders than from its
most astute and determined foes. Little attention would be paid to
the blatant infidels of the present day were it not for the interest
aroused and sustained by weak attempts to refute their arguments.Â
And as the youthful, ardent Augustin was encouraged and confirmed in
his errors by the inability of his opponents, so are errors confirmed
at the present day. The philosophical defence of Christianity is a
matter of the utmost delicacy, and should be undertaken with fear and
trembling.âA.H.N.
[2780]210 The Pelagians used this statement with considerable effect
in their polemics against its author. In his Retractations Augustin
has this to say by way of explanation:Â "The Pelagians may think that
thus was said in their interest, on account of young children whose
sin which is remitted to them in baptism they deny on the ground that
they do not yet use the power of will. As if indeed the sin, which
we say they derive originally from Adam, that is, that they are
implicated in his guilt and on this account are held obnoxious to
punishment, could ever be otherwise than in will, by which will it was
committed when the transgression of the divine precept was
accomplished. Our statement, that âthere is never sin but in will,â
may be thought false for the reason that the apostle says:Â âIf what
I will not this I do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me.â For this sin is to such an extent involuntary, that
he says:Â âWhat I will not this I do.â Â How, therefore, is there
never sin but in the will? But this sin concerning which the apostle
has spoken is called sin, because by sin it was done, and it is the
penalty of sin; since this is said concerning carnal concupiscence,
which he discloses in what follows saying:Â âI know that in me, that
is in my flesh, dwelleth no good; for to will is present to me, but to
accomplish that which is good, is not.â (Rom. vii. 16-18). Since the
perfection of good is, that not even the concupiscence of sin should
be in man, to which indeed when one lives well the will does not
consent; nevertheless man does not accomplish the good because as yet
concupiscence is in him, to which the will is antagonistic, the guilt
of which concupiscence is loosed by baptism, but the infirmity
remains, against which until it is healed every believer who advances
well most earnestly struggles. But sin, which is never but in will,
must especially be known as that which is followed by just
condemnation. For this through one man entered into the world;
although that sin also by which consent is yielded to concupiscence is
not committed but by will. Wherefore also in another place I have
said:Â âNot therefore except by will is sin committed.â"âA.H.N.
On this matter Augustinâs still earlier treatise De Libero Arbitrio,
and his interesting Retractations on the same, should be compared.Â
The reader of these earlier treatises in comparison with the
Anti-Pelagian treatises can hardly fail to recognize a marked change
of base on Augustinâs part. His efforts to show the consistency of
his earlier with his later modes of thought are to be pronounced only
partially successful. The fact is, that in the Anti-Manichæan time
he went too far in maintaining the absolute freedom of the will and
the impossibility of sin apart from personal will in the sinner; while
in the Anti-Pelagian time he ventured too near to the fatalism that he
so earnestly combated in the Manichæans.âA.H.N.
[2781]211 This dictum also Augustin thought it needful to explain:Â
"This was said that by this definition a willing person might be
distinguished from one not willing, and so the intention might be
referred to those who first in Paradise were the origin of evil to the
human race, by sinning no one compelling, that is by sinning with free
will, because also knowingly they sinned against the command, and the
tempters persuaded, did not compel, that this should be done. For he
who ignorantly sinned may not incongruously be said to have sinned
unwillingly, although not knowing what he did, yet willingly he did
it. So not even the sin of such a one could be without will, which
will assuredly, as it has been defined, was a âmovement of the mind,
no one compelling, either for not losing or for obtaining
something.â For he was not compelled to do what if he had been
unwilling he would not have done. Because he willed, therefore he
did it, even if he did not sin because he willed, being ignorant that
what he did is sin. So not even such a sin could be without will,
but by will of deed not by will of sin, which deed was yet sin; for
this deed is what ought not to have taken place. But whoever
knowingly sins, if he can without sin resist the one compelling him to
sin, yet resists not, assuredly sins willingly. For he who can
resist is not compelled to yield. But he who cannot by good will
resist cogent covetousness, and therefore does what is contrary to the
precepts of righteousness, this now is sin in the sense of being the
penalty of sin. Wherefore it is most true that sin cannot be apart
from will."
It is needless to say that such reasoning would not have answered
Augustinâs purpose in writing against the Manichæans.âA.H.N.
[2782]212 Here also Augustin guards himself in his Retractations:Â
"The definition is true, inasmuch as that is defined which is only
sin, and not also that which is the penalty of sin."âA.H.N.
[2783]213 In his Retractations, Augustin replies to the Pelagian
denial of the sinfulness of infants, in support of which they had
quoted the above sentence. "They [infants] are held guilty not by
propriety of will but by origin. For what is every earthly man in
origin but Adam?"Â The will of the whole human race was in Adam, and
when Adam sinned the whole race voluntarily sinned, seems to be his
meaning.âA.H.N.
[2784]214 In his Retractations, Augustin explains that by nature is to
be understood the state in which we were created without vice. He
transfers the entire argument from the actual condition of man to the
primitive Adamic condition. It is evident, however, that this was
not his meaning when he combated the Manichæans. The question of
infant sinfulness arises here also, and is discussed in the usual
Anti-Pelagian way.âA.H.N.
[2785]215 Augustinâs carefulness to explain that he is only indulging
in personification is doubtless due to the fact that with the
Manichæans the sun and the moon were objects of worship.âA.H.N.
[2786]216 In his Retractations, Augustin explains that he did not
really regard this as an open question, but speaks of it as such only
so far as this particular discussion is concerned. He simply
declines to enter upon a consideration of it in this
connection.âA.H.N.
[2787]217 Here also the use of the word "nature" gave Augustin trouble
in his later years. He claims in the Retractations that he uses the
word in the sense of "nature that has been healed" and that "cannot be
vitiated," and seeks to show that he did not mean to exclude divine
grace.âA.H.N.
[2788]218 Bicipiti.
[2789]219 Præcipiti.
[2790]220 This purpose Augustin accomplished in several works. See
especially Contra Adimantum, and Contra Faustum Manichæum. On
Augustinâs defense of the Old Testament Scriptures, see Mozleyâs
Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, last chapter.âA.H.N.
[2791]221 This Disputation seems to have occurred shortly after the
writing of the preceding treatise. It appears from the Retractations
that Fortunatus had lived for a considerable time at Hippo, and had
secured so large a number of followers that it was a delight to him to
dwell there. The Disputation is supposed to be a verbatim report of
what Augustin and Fortunatus said during a two daysâ discussion. The
subject is the origin of evil. Augustin maintains that evil, so far
as man is concerned, has arisen from a free exercise of the will on
manâs part; Fortunatus, on the other hand, maintains that the nature
of evil is co-eternal with God. Fortunatus shows considerable
knowledge of the New Testament, but no remarkable dialectic powers.Â
He appears at great disadvantage beside his great antagonist. In
fact, he is far from saying the best that can be said in favor of
dualism. We may say that he was fairly vanquished in the argument,
and at the close confessed himself at a loss what to say, and
expressed an intention of more carefully examining the problems
discussed, in view of what Augustin had said. Augustin is more
guarded in this treatise than in the preceding in his statements about
free will. He found little occasion here, therefore, to retract or
explain. Fortunatus often expresses himself vaguely and obscurely.Â
If some sentences are difficult to understand in the translation, they
will be found equally so in the Latin.âA.H.N.
[2792]222 The word used is oratio, by which is evidently meant the
religious services to which Auditors were admitted, prayer (oratio)
being the prominent feature.âA.H.N.
[2793]223 The allusion here is doubtless to the probably slanderous
charge that the Manichæans were accustomed to partake of human semen
as a Eucharist. The Manichæan view of the relation of the substance
mentioned to the light, and their well-known opposition to
procreation, give a slight plausibility to the charge. Compare the
Morals of the Manichæans, ch. xviii., where Augustin expresses his
suspicions of Manichæan shamelessness. See also further references
in the Introduction.âA.H.N.
[2794]224 This is, of course, a mixture of two passages of
Scripture.âA.H.N.
[2795]225 John xiv. 8, 9.
[2796]226 John v. 24.
[2797]227 As remarked in the Introduction, the Manichæans of the
West, in Augustinâs time, sustained a far more intimate relation to
Christianity than did Mani and his immediate followers. Far as
Fortunatus may have been from using the above language in the ordinary
Christian sense, yet he held, by profession at least, enough of
Christian truth to beguile the unwary.âA.H.N.
[2798]228 Philipp. ii. 5-8.
[2799]229 Fortunatus could not surely have used this language with any
proper conception of its meaning. He seems, against Mani, to have
identified in some sense the Jesus that suffered with Christ. Yet
even in this statement his docetism is manifest.âA.H.N.
[2800]230 1 Cor. i. 24.
[2801]231 John i. 3.
[2802]232 Ps. cxlviii. 5.
[2803]233 Matt. xv. 13, and iii. 10.
[2804]234 Eph. ii. 1-18. There are several somewhat important
variations from the Greek text in this long extract. The attentive
reader can get a good idea of the nature of the variations by
comparing this literal translation with the revised English
version.âA.H.N.
[2805]235 There are three readings here, "wearied out," "deceived,"
and "worn out."Â The latter is preferred by the Benedictine
editors.âA.H.N.
[2806]236 Rom. xi. 1.
[2807]237 Rom. i. 1-4.
[2808]238 Isa. vii. 14.
[2809]239 John iii. 6.
[2810]240 1 Cor. xv. 50.
[2811]241 This little side remark lends reality to the discussion, and
enables us to form a vivid conception of what doctrinal debates were
in the age of Augustin.âA.H.N.
[2812]242 Liberum voluntatis arbitrium.
[2813]243 1 Tim. vi. 10.
[2814]244 Matt. xv. 13, and iii. 10.
[2815]245 John xv. 22.
[2816]246 Rom. viii. 7.
[2817]247 Gal. v. 17.
[2818]248 Rom. vii. 23-25.
[2819]249 Gal. v. 14.
[2820]250 Matt. xii. 35.
[2821]251 Eph. v. 6.
[2822]252 1 Tim. iv. 4.
[2823]253 Rom. v. 19.
[2824]254 1 Cor. xv. 21, 49.
[2825]255 Gal. v. 13.
[2826]256 Rom. viii. 2.
[2827]257 Gen. iii. 19.
[2828]258 Matt. x. 16.
[2829]259 Eph. v. 12.
[2830]260 Rom. ix. 20.
[2831]261 Eph. i. 5.
[2832]262 John x. 18.
[2833]263 Written about the year 397. In his Retractations (ii. 2)
Augustin says: "The book against the Epistle of Manichæus, called
Fundamental, refutes only its commencement; but on the other parts of
the epistle I have made notes, as required, refuting the whole, and
sufficient to recall the argument, had I ever had leisure to write
against the whole."Â [The Fundamental Epistle seems to have been a
sort of hand-book for Manichæan catechumens or Auditors. In making
this document the basis of his attack, Augustin felt that he had
selected the best-known and most generally accepted standard of the
Manichæan faith. The tone of the work is conciliatory, yet some
very sharp thrusts are made at Manichæan error. The claims of Mani
to be the Paraclete are set aside, and the absurd cosmological fancies
of Mani are ruthlessly exposed. Dualism is combated with
substantially the same weapons as in the treatise Concerning Two
Souls. We could wish that the author had found time to finish the
treatise, and had thus preserved for us more of the Fundamental
Epistle itself. This work was written after the author had become
Bishop of Hippo.âA.H.N.]
[2834]264 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25.
[2835]265 Mal. iv. 2.
[2836]266 John i. 9.
[2837]267 [This is one of the earliest distinct assertions of the
dependence of the Scriptures for authority on the Church.âA.H.N.]
[2838]268 Matt. x. 2-4; Mark iii. 13-19; Luke vi. 13-18.
[2839]269 Acts i. 26.
[2840]270 Acts ix.
[2841]271 John xiv. 16.
[2842]272 John x. 30.
[2843]273 Acts i. 1-8.
[2844]274 Acts ii. 1-13.
[2845]275 John vii. 39.
[2846]276 John xx. 22.
[2847]277 [This is, of course, fanciful; but is quite in accordance
with the exegetical methods of the time.âA.H.N.]
[2848]278 [The Manichæans assumed the role of rationalists, and
scorned the credulity of ordinary believers. Yet they required in
their followers an amount of credulity which only persons of a
peculiar turn of mind could furnish. The same thing applies to
modern rationalistic anti-Christian systems. The fact is, that it
requires infinitely less credulity to believe in historical
Christianity than to disbelieve in it.âA.H.N.]
[2849]279 [Compare the fuller account from the Fihrist in the
Introduction.âA.H.N.]
[2850]280 [This exalted view of God Augustin held in common with the
Neo-Platonists.âA.H.N.]
[2851]281 [Modern mental physiologists differ among themselves as
regards the presence of the mind throughout the entire nervous system;
some maintaining the view here presented, and others making the brain
to be the seat of sensation, and the nerves telegraphic lines, so to
speak, for the communication of impressions from the various parts of
the body to the brain. Compare Carpenter: Mental Physiology, and
Calderwood:Â Mind and Brain.âA.H.N.]
[2852]282 [There is sufficient reason to think that Mani identified
God with the kingdom and the region of light. See
Introduction.âA.H.N.]
[2853]283 [This discussion of the lines bounding the Kingdom of Light
and the Kingdom of Darkness seems very much like trifling, but
Augustinâs aim was to bring the Manichæan representations into
ridicule.âA.H.N.]
[2854]284 [This portion of the argument is conducted with great
adroitness. Augustin takes the inhabitants of the region of
darkness, as Mani describes them, and proves that they possess so much
of good that they can have no other author than God.âA.H.N.]
[2855]285 John i. 14.
[2856]286 Rom. viii. 29.
[2857]287 [Augustin still addresses himself to the "nature of the
rational soul."âA.H.N.]
[2858]288 Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[2859]289 Ps. xlv. 7.
[2860]290 Matt. x. 28, and Luke xii. 4.
[2861]291 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[2862]292 [We have already encountered in the treatise Concerning two
Souls, substantially the same course of argumentation here pursued.Â
The doctrine of the negativity of evil may be said to have been
fundamental with Augustin, and he uses it very effectually against
Manichæan dualism.âA.H.N.]
[2863]293 Matt. v. 8.
[2864]294 [The Neo-Platonic quality of this section cannot escape the
attention of the philosophical student.âA.H.N.]
[2865]295 Vide Preface.
[2866]296 Confessions, v. 3, 6.
[2867]297 Ps. xxxvii. 23.
[2868]298 Col. ii. 5; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 10.
[2869]299 1 Cor. iii. 9.
[2870]300 Matt. i. 1.
[2871]301 2 Tim. ii. 8.
[2872]302 1 Cor. xv. 11.
[2873]303 Gal. i. 8, 9.
[2874]304 1 Cor. xv. 47-49.
[2875]305 2 Tim. iv. 4.
[2876]306 [This mixture of the substance of Primordial Man, with the
kingdom of darkness, and the formation of stars out of portions
thereof, was probably a part of primitive Manichæan teaching.âA.H.N.]
[2877]307 [Compare Book xx. 2, where Faustus states the Manichæan
doctrine of the Jesus patabilis. Beausobre, Mosheim and Baur agree
in thinking that Augustin has not distinguished accurately in these
two passages between names Christ and Jesus, as used by the
Manichæans. See Baur: Das Manichäische Religionssystem, p.
72.âA.H.N.]
[2878]308 Rom. ix. 4, 5.
[2879]309 Rom. viii. 23.
[2880]310 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[2881]311 Phil. ii. 6.
[2882]312 John i. 12.
[2883]313 [It cannot be said that Augustin adequately meets the
difficulty that Faustus finds in the genealogies of our Lord. Cf.
Hervey:Â The Genealogies of Our Lord, and the recent commentaries,
such as Meyerâs, Langeâs, The International Revision, and especially
Broadus on Matthew.âA.H.N.]
[2884]314 1 Cor. x. 6, 11.
[2885]315 Luke xxiv. 44.
[2886]316 Isa. vii. 9.
[2887]317 Matt. xiii. 52.
[2888]318 2 Tim. ii. 16-18.
[2889]319 [A good argumentum ad hominem, a species of argument which
Augustin is fond of using.âA.H.N.]
[2890]320 Matt. xix. 29.
[2891]321 Matt. v. 3-11.
[2892]322 Matt. xi. 2-6.
[2893]323 [This is a good description of ideal Manichæan religious
life. Whether Faustus lived up to the claims here set forth is
another question.âA.H.N.]
[2894]324 Matt. vii. 21.
[2895]325 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
[2896]326 John xv. 14.
[2897]327 John xv. 10.
[2898]328 Matt v. 3-10.
[2899]329 Matt. xxv. 35.
[2900]330 Matt. xix. 21.
[2901]331 Matt. xvi. 7.
[2902]332 1 Cor. xv. 47.
[2903]333 Gal. i. 8, 9.
[2904]334 2 Tim. ii. 8.
[2905]335 Rom. iv. 25.
[2906]336 John v. 25-27.
[2907]337 Acts. i. 14.
[2908]338 John iii. 14, 15.
[2909]339 1 John v. 20, iv. 3.
[2910]340 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
[2911]341 1 Tim. i. 5.
[2912]342 [Augustin confounds saving faith with orthodox doctrine, as
has been too commonly done since.âA.H.N.]
[2913]343 1 Cor. vii. 5, 6.
[2914]344 1 Cor. vi. 7, 4.
[2915]345 Matt. x. 38-42.
[2916]346 Book iv.
[2917]347 1 Cor. x. 6.
[2918]348 Col. ii. 16, 17.
[2919]349 Tit. i. 15.
[2920]350 Wisd. vii. 24, 25.
[2921]351 [In bringing to notice the absurdities of the Manichæan
moral system, Augustin may seem to be trifling, but he is in reality
striking at the root of the heresy.âA.H.N.]
[2922]352 1 Cor. x. 11.
[2923]353 Matt. viii. 32.
[2924]354 Luke v. 14.
[2925]355 Phil. iii. 19.
[2926]356 Tit. i. 15.
[2927]357 Matt. xvi. 11.
[2928]358 Tit. i. 15.
[2929]359 Prov. xxi. 20.
[2930]360 [Compare the Introduction, where an abstract is given of the
Fihristâs account of the creation.âA.H.N.]
[2931]361 [These biological blunders belong to the age, and are not
Augustinâs peculiar fancies. Of course, the argumentative value of
them depends on their general acceptance.âA.H.N.]
[2932]362 1 Cor. x. 11.
[2933]363 Rom. xv. 4.
[2934]364 [It will be seen in subsequent portions of this treatise
that Augustin carries the typological idea to an absurd
extreme.âA.H.N.]
[2935]365 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.
[2936]366 Cf. Lev. xxi. 18.
[2937]367 Matt. xii. 48.
[2938]368 Matt. xxiii. 9.
[2939]369 John i. 1-5.
[2940]370 Matt. ix. 16.
[2941]371 Gal. iv. 9.
[2942]372 1 Cor. x. 11.
[2943]373 Matt. xiii. 52.
[2944]374 Matt. xvi. 23.
[2945]375 Rom. xi. 16-26.
[2946]376 Book vi. 2.
[2947]377 Rom. i. 3.
[2948]378 2 Cor. v. 16.
[2949]379 1 Cor. xiii. 11.
[2950]380 [The extremely subjective method of dealing with Scripture
which Augustin ascribes to Faustus, was characteristic of Manichæism
in general.âA.H.N.]
[2951]381 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[2952]382 2 Tim. ii. 8.
[2953]383 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 12.
[2954]384 Gen. ii. 22.
[2955]385 1 Cor. xi. 5.
[2956]386 Vulg.
[2957]387 1 Cor. xv. 35-53.
[2958]388 1 Tim. i. 17.
[2959]389 Natus.
[2960]390 Factus.
[2961]391 Phil. iii. 15.
[2962]392 [This is an excellent statement of the doctrine of
Scriptural authority, that has been held to by Protestants with far
more consistency than by Catholics.âA.H.N.]
[2963]393 Luke xxiv. 39.
[2964]394 1 Cor. xv. 50-53.
[2965]395 Rom. vi. 9.
[2966]396 Col. iii. 1, 2.
[2967]397 Tit. iii. 5.
[2968]398 Rom. viii. 23-25.
[2969]399 2 Cor. v. 14-18.
[2970]400 Eph. ii. 4-7.
[2971]401 Rom. vii. 5.
[2972]402 Rom. viii. 8, 9.
[2973]403 1 Cor. xiii. 11.
[2974]404 Matt. iii. 17.
[2975]405 John xvi. 28.
[2976]406 John viii. 13-18.
[2977]407 John x. 38.
[2978]408 Rom. i. 21.
[2979]409 Lib. xi.
[2980]410 Rom. i. 1-3.
[2981]411 Rom. ix. 1-5.
[2982]412 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[2983]413 Rom. iii. 1, 2.
[2984]414 John v. 46.
[2985]415 Luke xxiv. 44.
[2986]416 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16.
[2987]417 Luke xvi. 27-31.
[2988]418 Rom. iii. 21.
[2989]419 2 Cor. i. 20.
[2990]420 Rom. ix. 6-8.
[2991]421 Gal. iii. 16.
[2992]422 Col. iii. 10.
[2993]423 John vi. 53.
[2994]424 Rom. v. 14.
[2995]425 Eph. v. 31, 32.
[2996]426 Phil. ii. 6, 7.
[2997]427 Vulg.
[2998]428 Matt. ix. 12, 13.
[2999]429 John viii. 34, 36.
[3000]430 Ps. xli. 4.
[3001]431 John ix. 31.
[3002]432 Gal. iii. 10.
[3003]433 2 Cor. xiii. 4.
[3004]434 Ps. lxvi. 9.
[3005]435 Ps. xxxvi. 11.
[3006]436 Ps. xiii. 4.
[3007]437 Ps. xvi. 8.
[3008]438 Ps. xxx. 6, 7.
[3009]439 2 Cor. vi. 11.
[3010]440 Rom. v. 5.
[3011]441 Isa. xi. 2, 3.
[3012]442 Eph. iv. 3.
[3013]443 Matt. xii. 30.
[3014]444 1 Cor. i. 23-25.
[3015]445 Eph. ii. 12, 19, 20.
[3016]446 1 Cor. xi. 19.
[3017]447 John i. 47-51.
[3018]448 Gen. xxviii. 11-18.
[3019]449 1 Cor. iii. 1-3.
[3020]450 2 Cor. v. 13-15.
[3021]451 Ps. cxix. 83.
[3022]452 1 Cor. x. 1-4.
[3023]453 John iii. 14.
[3024]454 John i. 29.
[3025]455 John xix. 36.
[3026]456 Luke xi. 20.
[3027]457 John xvi. 33.
[3028]458 Rom. xi. 5.
[3029]459 2 Cor. ix. 7.
[3030]460 Matt. iii. 10.
[3031]461 1 Tim. ii. 1-4.
[3032]462 Ps. xxx. 11, 12.
[3033]463 1 Cor. x. 10, 6.
[3034]464 2 Cor. iii. 16.
[3035]465 Gen. xxii. 18.
[3036]466 Gen. xxvi. 4.
[3037]467 Gen. xxviii. 14.
[3038]468 Ex. iii. 6.
[3039]469 Gen. xxiv. 2.
[3040]470 Gen. xlix. 1, 2, 8-12.
[3041]471 Prov. xxx. 30.
[3042]472 Isa. i. 18.
[3043]473 Isa. liii.
[3044]474 Ps. xxii.
[3045]475 Ps. lvii. 4. (Vulg.).
[3046]476 Ps. lvii. 4.
[3047]477 Ps. ii. 8, 9.
[3048]478 Baruch iii. 37, 38.
[3049]479 Dan. vii. 13, 14.
[3050]480 Matt. xxiv. 15.
[3051]481 Dan. ix. 24-27.
[3052]482 Wisd. ii. 18-21.
[3053]483 Rom. x. 14, 15.
[3054]484 Isa. vii. 9 (Vulg.).
[3055]485 Gal. iii. 6, 8.
[3056]486 Rom. iv. 11, 12.
[3057]487 Isa. vi. 3.
[3058]488 [It is unnecessary to point out in detail the vicious
elements in Augustinâs allegorizing and typologizing. It should be
said that his exegetical fancies were not original, but were derived
from Philo, Origen, and their followers.âA.H.N.]
[3059]489 [On the Sibylline books, see article by G. H. Schodde in the
Schaff-Hertzog Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, and the works
there referred to. The Christian writers of the first three
centuries seem not to have suspected the real character of these
pseudo-prophetical writings, and to have regarded them as remarkable
testimonies from the heathen world to the Truth of the Christian
religion.âA.H.N.]
[3060]490 ["The Mercurius or Hermes Trismegistus of legend was a
personage, an Egyptian sage or succession of sages, who, since the
time of Plato, has been identified with the Thoth (the name of the
month September), of that people.⦠He was considered to be the
impersonation of the religion, art, learning and sacerdotal discipline
of the Egyptian priesthood. He was by several of the Fathers, and,
in modern times, by three of his earliest editors, supposed to have
existed before the time of Moses, and to have obtained the appellation
of âThrice greatestâ, from his threefold learning and rank of
Philosopher, Priest and King, and that of âHermes,â or Mercurius, as
messenger and authoritative interpreter of divine things."Â The
author of the books that go under the name of Hermes Trismegistus is
thought to have lived about the beginning of the second century, and
was a Christian Neo-Platonist. See J. C. Chambers: The Theological
and Philosophical Works of Hermes Trismegistus, translated from the
original Greek, with Preface, Notes and Index, Edinburh, 1882.âA.H.N.]
[3061]491 Rom. i. 2, 3.
[3062]492 Isa. xi. 10.
[3063]493 Isa. vii. 14.
[3064]494 Matt. xxii. 42-44.
[3065]495 Matt. xxiv. 24, 25.
[3066]496 Ps. ii. 7, 8.
[3067]497 Ps. lxxii. 10.
[3068]498 Ps. xlv. 7.
[3069]499 Jer. x. 11.
[3070]500 Jer. xvi. 19-21.
[3071]501 Jer. xvii. 5-8.
[3072]502 Jer. xvii. 9.
[3073]503 Phil. ii. 6.
[3074]504 John i. 1.
[3075]505 John xiv. 9.
[3076]506 Isa. ii. 17-20.
[3077]507 Isa. i. 3.
[3078]508 Isa. lxv. 2; cf. Rom. x. 21.
[3079]509 Isa. vi. 10; cf. Rom. xi.
[3080]510 Rom. i. 28.
[3081]511 1 Cor. ii. 8.
[3082]512 2 Tim. iii. 8.
[3083]513 Jer. xvii. 12.
[3084]514 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[3085]515 Matt. v. 14.
[3086]516 Dan. ii. 34, 35.
[3087]517 John vi. 54.
[3088]518 Cant. ii. 2.
[3089]519 Ps. cxx. 7.
[3090]520 Ezek. ix. 1.
[3091]521 Matt. xiii. 30.
[3092]522 1 Cor. iii. 21.
[3093]523 Jer. xvii. 14.
[3094]524 Rom. xv. 4.
[3095]525 Gal. i. 9.
[3096]526 Deut. xxi. 23.
[3097]527 Deut. xxv. 5-10.
[3098]528 Gal. iii. 10.
[3099]529 Rom. vi. 6.
[3100]530 Rom. viii. 3.
[3101]531 2 Cor. v. 21.
[3102]532 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.
[3103]533 Rom. i. 25.
[3104]534 1 Tim. iv. 4.
[3105]535 1 Cor. xv. 40.
[3106]536 Matt. x. 28.
[3107]537 Rom. vi. 6.
[3108]538 Rom. viii. 3.
[3109]539 2 Cor. v. 21.
[3110]540 Isa. lvi. 4, 5.
[3111]541 [In scarcely any other Manichæan record do we find the
Manichæan hostility to Judaism expressed with so much ardor and with
so much precision as in the blasphemous statements of Faustus in this
treatise.âA.H.N.]
[3112]542 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.
[3113]543 Rom. vii. 2, 3.
[3114]544 Rom. i. 1-3.
[3115]545 1 Cor. xi. 19.
[3116]546 Lib. viii.
[3117]547 Matt. xiii. 52.
[3118]548 Matt. vi. 24.
[3119]549 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.
[3120]550 Ps. xxxi. 19.
[3121]551 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3.
[3122]552 Ezek. xi. 19.
[3123]553 1 Pet. ii. 4-8.
[3124]554 Rom. xiii. 9, 10.
[3125]555 Matt. xxii. 37-40.
[3126]556 2 Tim. iv. 4.
[3127]557 Deut. vi. 4.
[3128]558 1 Cor. xiii. 9.
[3129]559 Gal. iii. 19.
[3130]560 Rom. v. 20.
[3131]561 Rom. iv. 15.
[3132]562 Rom. vii. 7-13.
[3133]563 1 Cor. viii. 1.
[3134]564 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.
[3135]565 1 Tim. iv. 1-4.
[3136]566 Ps. lxxxiv. 4.
[3137]567 Ps. cxlviii. 1.
[3138]568 Ps. xlv. 10-17.
[3139]569 John viii. 13, 17, 18.
[3140]570 Deut. xviii. 15.
[3141]571 Deut. xxviii. 66.
[3142]572 Deut. xiii. 5.
[3143]573 John v. 17.
[3144]574 Gen. xvii. 9-14.
[3145]575 Matt. xxiii. 15.
[3146]576 Matt. x. 25.
[3147]577 John ii. 19.
[3148]578 Matt. v. 24.
[3149]579 Matt. viii. 4.
[3150]580 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[3151]581 Rom. xii. 1.
[3152]582 John v. 46.
[3153]583 John viii. 17, 18.
[3154]584 Deut. xix. 15.
[3155]585 Deut. xviii. 15.
[3156]586 John i. 29.
[3157]587 1 Cor. x. 4.
[3158]588 Rom. ix. 5.
[3159]589 1 Tim. ii. 5.
[3160]590 Rom. viii. 3.
[3161]591 Luke i. 35.
[3162]592 1 Tim. i. 15.
[3163]593 Num. ix. 10-12.
[3164]594 Matt. xiv. 30.
[3165]595 1 Cor. x. 4.
[3166]596 Matt. v. 14.
[3167]597 1 Cor. i. 23, 24.
[3168]598 Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
[3169]599 Gal. ii. 20.
[3170]600 Matt. xiii. 57.
[3171]601 Num. xiii. 9, xiv. 6.
[3172]602 John xiv. 3.
[3173]603 Ex. xxiii. 20, 21.
[3174]604 Matt. v. 4.
[3175]605 Deut. xxviii. 16.
[3176]606 John xiv. 6.
[3177]607 Rom. xii. 14.
[3178]608 2 Tim. iv. 14.
[3179]609 Gal. v. 12.
[3180]610 Matt. xix. 12.
[3181]611 John xi. 49-51.
[3182]612 Matt. xxii. 31, 32, and Luke xx. 37, 38.
[3183]613 Matt. viii. 10-12.
[3184]614 Gal. iii. 8.
[3185]615 Matt. xv. 3-6.
[3186]616 Rom. i. 14.
[3187]617 1 Cor. x. 6.
[3188]618 Col. ii. 16, 17.
[3189]619 Matt. xii. 7.
[3190]620 Col. ii. 15.
[3191]621 1 Cor. xv. 50-59.
[3192]622 Hab. ii. 4, and Rom. i. 17.
[3193]623 Rom. x. 9.
[3194]624 Rom. iv. 25.
[3195]625 Rom. iv. 11.
[3196]626 Matt. xxiii. 15.
[3197]627 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
[3198]628 Rom. ii. 26.
[3199]629 Matt. xi. 18, 19.
[3200]630 Matt. iii. 4.
[3201]631 Tit. i. 15.
[3202]632 Matt. xv. 16-20.
[3203]633 Matt. xxiii. 23, 24.
[3204]634 Matt. ix. 9.
[3205]635 Deut. xii. 32.
[3206]636 Gal. i. 9.
[3207]637 John xxi. 25.
[3208]638 John xii. 41.
[3209]639 John v. 46.
[3210]640 John xxi. 20-24.
[3211]641 Luke xviii. 8.
[3212]642 Matt. xi. 19.
[3213]643 John v. 25.
[3214]644 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[3215]645 Matt. v. 17-20.
[3216]646 Rom. xiii. 10.
[3217]647 Rom. v. 5.
[3218]648 John xiii. 35.
[3219]649 John i. 7.
[3220]650 Matt. xxiii. 15.
[3221]651 Matt. xv. 11.
[3222]652 Matt. ix. 13.
[3223]653 Jer. xxxi. 32.
[3224]654 Ezek. xi. 19.
[3225]655 2 Cor. ii. 3.
[3226]656 Col. ii. 17.
[3227]657 Rom. i. 25.
[3228]658 Rom. viii. 3.
[3229]659 1 Cor. x. 6.
[3230]660 Matt. xxii. 40.
[3231]661 Rom. viii. 2.
[3232]662 Rom. ii. 14, 15.
[3233]663 Rom. viii. 2.
[3234]664 Tit. i. 12.
[3235]665 Matt. xxiii. 34.
[3236]666 Eph. iv. 11.
[3237]667 Matt. v. 21-44.
[3238]668 Deut. xxvii. 15.
[3239]669 2 Cor. i. 19, 20.
[3240]670 John i. 17.
[3241]671 John v. 46.
[3242]672 Rom. v. 20.
[3243]673 Rom. vii. 12, 13.
[3244]674 Gal. iii. 23, 25.
[3245]675 2 Cor. iii. 6.
[3246]676 Gal. iii. 21, 22.
[3247]677 Rom. viii. 3, 4.
[3248]678 1 John ii. 1, 2.
[3249]679 Rom. xv. 8.
[3250]680 Luke xvi. 16.
[3251]681 John i. 17.
[3252]682 1 Cor. xii. 28.
[3253]683 Matt. xi. 28, 29.
[3254]684 1 Cor. v. 7.
[3255]685 2 Cor. v. 17.
[3256]686 Rom. vi. 4.
[3257]687 2 Tim. iii. 5.
[3258]688 1 Tim. i. 5.
[3259]689 1 Pet. iii. 21.
[3260]690 Rom. i. 17.
[3261]691 2 Macc. vii.
[3262]692 John i. 14.
[3263]693 Gal. iii. 23.
[3264]694 Matt. xxvi. 28.
[3265]695 Gal. v. 2.
[3266]696 Gal. ii. 14.
[3267]697 Acts. xv. 6-11.
[3268]698 John i. 17.
[3269]699 Gal. v. 6.
[3270]700 Matt. v. 38, 39.
[3271]701 Matt. v. 27, 28.
[3272]702 1 John iii. 15.
[3273]703 Rom. i. 9; Phil. i. 8, and 2 Cor. i. 23.
[3274]704 Rom. i. 30.
[3275]705 Matt. v. 45.
[3276]706 Matt. xi. 12.
[3277]707 Ex. xxi. 24, and Matt. v. 39.
[3278]708 Matt. v. 33, 34.
[3279]709 Deut. xxiv. i, and Matt. v. 31, 32.
[3280]710 Gal. v. 6.
[3281]711 Rom. xiii. 8.
[3282]712 John xiii. 34.
[3283]713 Ps. vi. 7.
[3284]714 Prov. xvi. 32.
[3285]715 Ecclus. xxviii. 21. [Augustin makes no distinction between
the Old Testament Apocrypha and the canonical books. Indeed, the
Platonizing Apocryphal writings, such as Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom,
seem to have been his favorites.âA.H.N.]
[3286]716 Ex. xx. 17.
[3287]717 Rom. vii. 7.
[3288]718 Lam. iii. 30.
[3289]719 Prov. xxv. 21.
[3290]720 Rom. xii. 20.
[3291]721 Ps. cxx. 6.
[3292]722 Wisd. xi. 21, xii. 2.
[3293]723 Matt. v. 44, 48.
[3294]724 Ecclus. xxviii. 1-5.
[3295]725 Matt. xix. 4-6.
[3296]726 Matt. xix. 7, 8.
[3297]727 Sec. 26.
[3298]728 Wisd. vi. 22.
[3299]729 John v. 39.
[3300]730 Ps. cxviii. 16.
[3301]731 Ps. xii. 3.
[3302]732 Wisd. iii. 1-5.
[3303]733 Wisd. v. 16, 17.
[3304]734 Matt. xxii. 23-28.
[3305]735 1 Tim. vi. 16.
[3306]736 1 Cor. i. 24.
[3307]737 [The Manichæan doctrine of the Jesus patabilis is more
fully expounded in this book than elsewhere. Of course, this is only
a way of expressing the familiar Manichæan notion that the divine
life which is imprisoned in the world and which is trying to escape
through the growth of plants, etc., suffers from any sort of injury
done to plants. Compare Baur: Das Manichäische Religionssystem,
pp. 72-77.âA.H.N.]
[3308]738 1 Cor. x. 20.
[3309]739 Sen. Hipp. vv. 194, 195.
[3310]740 John xix. 38.
[3311]741 Rom. iii. 13.
[3312]742 1 Cor. iii. 17, and vi. 19.
[3313]743 1 Tim. iv. 2.
[3314]744 Matt. xii. 7.
[3315]745 Ps. lxxix. 9.
[3316]746 Matt. vi. 12.
[3317]747 1 Cor. x. 30.
[3318]748 Rom. i. 20-23.
[3319]749 Rom. i. 25.
[3320]750 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4.
[3321]751 Rev. xix. 10.
[3322]752 Dan. vi.
[3323]753 Ps. l. 23.
[3324]754 Rom. xii. 1.
[3325]755 [Augustinâs exposure of the paganism of Manichæism is an
admirable and effective piece of argumentum ad hominem. That the
Christianity of Augustinâs time was becoming paganized is undoubted,
but Manichæism was pure paganism.âA.H.N.]
[3326]756 2 Cor. iv. 4.
[3327]757 Rom. iii. 5.
[3328]758 Rom. ix. 14, 15, 22, 23.
[3329]759 Rom. i. 24, 25, 28.
[3330]760 John ix. 39.
[3331]761 Ps. xxxvi. 6.
[3332]762 Rom. xi. 33.
[3333]763 Ps. ci. 1.
[3334]764 Rom. xi. 17-24.
[3335]765 Jas. iv. 15.
[3336]766 Wisd. xi. 21.
[3337]767 Eph. v. 28, 29.
[3338]768 1 Cor. xii. 1-26.
[3339]769 2 Cor. xi. 3.
[3340]770 1 Cor. xv. 33.
[3341]771 Gal. vi. 3.
[3342]772 Rom. i. 28.
[3343]773 Wisd. i. 13, and ii. 24.
[3344]774 Wisd. i. 16.
[3345]775 Ecclus. xi. 14.
[3346]776 Gal. i. 4.
[3347]777 Ps. xcvi. 5.
[3348]778 1 Tim. i. 17.
[3349]779 Quoted Cic. pro Dejor. § 9.
[3350]780 [This is one of Augustinâs most effective refutations of
Manichæan dualism.âA.H.N.]
[3351]781 Gen. xvi. 2-4.
[3352]782 Gen. xii. 13, and xx. 2.
[3353]783 Gen. xix. 33, 35.
[3354]784 Gen. xxvi. 7.
[3355]785 Gen. xxix. and xxx.
[3356]786 Gen. xxxviii.
[3357]787 2 Sam. xi. 4, 15.
[3358]788 1 Kings xi. 1-3.
[3359]789 Hos. i. 2, 3.
[3360]790 Ex. ii. 12.
[3361]791 Ex. xii. 35, 36.
[3362]792 Ex. xvii. 9.
[3363]793 Gen. i. 2.
[3364]794 1 John i. 5.
[3365]795 2 Cor. iv. 6.
[3366]796 Wisd. vii. 26.
[3367]797 Ps. xviii. 28.
[3368]798 Matt. v. 8.
[3369]799 Isa. viii. 20.
[3370]800 Eph. v. 8.
[3371]801 Matt. viii. 10.
[3372]802 Gen. iii. 9.
[3373]803 Luke viii. 44, 45.
[3374]804 Matt. vii. 7.
[3375]805 Matt. x. 39.
[3376]806 John ii. 17.
[3377]807 Matt. x. 14, 15.
[3378]808 Rom. ii. 12.
[3379]809 Matt. xxii. 11, 15.
[3380]810 Luke xix. 27.
[3381]811 Rom. viii. 32.
[3382]812 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18.
[3383]813 Prov. iii. 12.
[3384]814 Job ii. 10.
[3385]815 Rev. iii. 19.
[3386]816 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32.
[3387]817 Acts xvii. 28.
[3388]818 1 Cor. x. 20.
[3389]819 Gen. iv. 4.
[3390]820 Wisd. xiv. 15.
[3391]821 John xv. 1-3.
[3392]822 2 Cor. xii. 7-9.
[3393]823 1 Tim. i. 20.
[3394]824 John xix. 11.
[3395]825 2 Thess. i. 5.
[3396]826 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18.
[3397]827 1 Pet. iii. 17.
[3398]828 1 Cor. xii. 26.
[3399]829 [Augustin certainly makes it appear that the God in the Old
Testament is not so bad as the God of the Manichæans, yet he cannot
be said to reach a complete theodicy.âA.H.N.]
[3400]830 Matt. xxi. 19.
[3401]831 John viii. 6-8.
[3402]832 Ãn. i. 212.
[3403]833 Ãn. ii. 715.
[3404]834 [This comparison of the objectors to the Old Testament to
blundering school-boys is very fine.âA.H.N.]
[3405]835 1 John iii. 2.
[3406]836 1 Cor. vii. 4.
[3407]837 Gen. xii. 3.
[3408]838 Gen. xv. 3, 4.
[3409]839 Tob. viii. 9.
[3410]840 Gen. xiii. 8, and xi. 31.
[3411]841 Matt. xii. 46.
[3412]842 Matt. x. 23.
[3413]843 Matt. ii. 14.
[3414]844 John vii. 10, 30.
[3415]845 Acts ix. 25.
[3416]846 Cant. i. 7.
[3417]847 Eph. v. 31, 32.
[3418]848 Matt. xxiii. 9.
[3419]849 Matt. xii. 48-50.
[3420]850 Jer. xvii. 9.
[3421]851 Phil. iii. 13.
[3422]852 Luke ix. 62.
[3423]853 Luke xvii. 32.
[3424]854 1 Tim. i. 8.
[3425]855 Gen. xxvi. 7.
[3426]856 2 Cor. x. 12.
[3427]857 Acts viii. 18-20.
[3428]858 Matt. viii. 20.
[3429]859 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.
[3430]860 1 Cor. vii. 4.
[3431]861 1 Cor. vii. 3.
[3432]862 Gal. iv. 22-24.
[3433]863 Isa. i. 18.
[3434]864 Gen. xxix. 17.
[3435]865 Matt. v. 3-9.
[3436]866 Gen. xxix. 26.
[3437]867 Ecclus. i. 33.
[3438]868 Isa. vii. 9, Vulg.
[3439]869 Phil. iv. 1.
[3440]870 2 Cor. xi. 23.
[3441]871 2 Cor. vii. 5.
[3442]872 2 Cor. v. 13.
[3443]873 Wisd. vi. 23.
[3444]874 Gen. xxx. 1.
[3445]875 Isa. xxix. 13.
[3446]876 Rom. ii. 21, 22.
[3447]877 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[3448]878 Phil. i. 18.
[3449]879 1 Tim. iii. 7.
[3450]880 Gen. xxx. 15.
[3451]881 Gen. xxx. 16.
[3452]882 John i. 1.
[3453]883 Gen. xlix. 8-12.
[3454]884 Matt. xix. 6.
[3455]885 Ezek. xvi. 52.
[3456]886 Matt. ii. 16.
[3457]887 John vi. 70, 71.
[3458]888 1 Cor. v. 1.
[3459]889 Matt. xxii. 10.
[3460]890 Ex. xii. 3-5.
[3461]891 1 Sam. xiv.
[3462]892 1 Sam. xxviii. 3.
[3463]893 John xix. 4, 6.
[3464]894 Matt. xvi. 17, 22, 23.
[3465]895 2 Sam. xii.
[3466]896 1 Sam. xxiv. and xxvi.
[3467]897 2 Sam. xvi.
[3468]898 1 Sam. xv. 24.
[3469]899 Luke xvii. 28.
[3470]900 Gal. ii. 14.
[3471]901 Heb. iii. 5.
[3472]902 Matt. xxvi. 51, 52.
[3473]903 Ex. iii. 21, 22; xi. 2; xii. 35, 36.
[3474]904 Rom. xi. 34.
[3475]905 Matt. xiii. 29, 30.
[3476]906 Matt. viii. 31, 32.
[3477]907 Luke iii. 14.
[3478]908 Matt. xxii. 21.
[3479]909 Matt. viii. 9, 10.
[3480]910 Rom. xiii. 1.
[3481]911 Matt. v. 39.
[3482]912 Matt. x. 16, 28, 30.
[3483]913 Matt. xxvi. 52, 53; Luke xxii. 42, 51; John xviii. 11.
[3484]914 Phil. ii. 9-11.
[3485]915 Matt. xxiii. 35.
[3486]916 Eph. ii. 14.
[3487]917 Ps. lxxii. 11.
[3488]918 Luke xxii. 35-38, 50, 51.
[3489]919 Rom. v. 12, 19.
[3490]920 Wisd. ix. 15.
[3491]921 Rom. vii. 24, 25.
[3492]922 Job vii. 4.
[3493]923 Ex. xxxii. 32.
[3494]924 1 Cor. v. 5.
[3495]925 1 Tim. i. 20.
[3496]926 Hos. i. 2.
[3497]927 Matt. xxi. 31.
[3498]928 Gen. xxvii. 40.
[3499]929 1 Cor. iv. 16.
[3500]930 Acts viii. 13.
[3501]931 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[3502]932 John xi. 50, 51.
[3503]933 Matt. xxvii. 34.
[3504]934 Gen. iii. 21.
[3505]935 Luke xxiii. 12.
[3506]936 John xix. 15.
[3507]937 Gen. xlix. 10.
[3508]938 Dan. ix. 24, and Ps. xlv. 7.
[3509]939 John v. 36.
[3510]940 John i. 6.
[3511]941 Matt. xi. 11.
[3512]942 Luke i. 44.
[3513]943 Cant. iv. 2.
[3514]944 Matt. xxvi. 75.
[3515]945 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.
[3516]946 Ps. xviii. 43.
[3517]947 Rom. viii. 30.
[3518]948 Matt. iii. 7.
[3519]949 Hag. ii. 8.
[3520]950 Cant. iv. 15.
[3521]951 Tob. ii. 1.
[3522]952 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[3523]953 John iv. 13, 14.
[3524]954 Hos. i. 2-ii. 1.
[3525]955 Rom. ix. 23-26.
[3526]956 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10.
[3527]957 Gal. iii. 29.
[3528]958 Gal. i. 22.
[3529]959 Ps. cxviii. 22.
[3530]960 Eph. ii. 11-22.
[3531]961 Matt. vii. 24-27.
[3532]962 ii. sec. 40.
[3533]963 L. xii. sec. 30.
[3534]964 Ps. iv. 4.
[3535]965 Col. iii. 5.
[3536]966 Rom. i. 21-23.
[3537]967 Luke xii. 49.
[3538]968 Ps. xix. 6.
[3539]969 Acts x. 13.
[3540]970 [This book is one of the most unsatisfactory parts of the
entire treatise. We have here some of the worst specimens of
perverse Scripture interpretation.âA.H.N.]
[3541]971 Ex. xxiii. 11.
[3542]972 Hag. i. 1.
[3543]973 Rom. i. 1-3.
[3544]974 Mark i. 1.
[3545]975 Luke iii. 22, 23.
[3546]976 Isa. viii. 14, and Matt. i. 23.
[3547]977 Matt. iii. 17.
[3548]978 Matt. xvii. 5.
[3549]979 Phil. ii. 6.
[3550]980 Gal. iv. 4.
[3551]981 2 Tim. ii. 8.
[3552]982 Wisd. viii. 1.
[3553]983 Rom. vi., vii.; 1 Cor. xv.; 2 Cor. iv.; Eph. iii., iv.; and
Col. iii.
[3554]984 John iii. 3.
[3555]985 Gal. iv. 19.
[3556]986 Eph. iv. 22-24.
[3557]987 Col. iii. 9-11.
[3558]988 Gal. iii. 27, 28.
[3559]989 1 Cor. iv. 15.
[3560]990 Gal. i. 15, 16.
[3561]991 1 Cor. xii. 18.
[3562]992 1 Cor. xv. 33-45.
[3563]993 Gen. ii. 7.
[3564]994 Rom. v. 12.
[3565]995 Rom. viii. 10, 11.
[3566]996 1 Cor. xi. 11, 12.
[3567]997 1 Cor. xv. 47.
[3568]998 Tit. i. 15.
[3569]999 John ix.
[3570]1000 Rom. xi. 24.
[3571]1001 2 Kings ii. 11; Matt. i. 25, xvii. 50.
[3572]1002 John i. 3.
[3573]1003 Luke xxiv. 7.
[3574]1004 Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
[3575]1005 Matt. viii. 24.
[3576]1006 Matt. iv. 2.
[3577]1007 John xix. 28.
[3578]1008 Matt. xxvi. 37.
[3579]1009 III. 3.
[3580]1010 2 Cor. xiii. 3.
[3581]1011 Gal. i. 8, 9.
[3582]1012 John xx. 28.
[3583]1013 Matt. i. 25; Luke ii. 7.
[3584]1014 Matt. ii. 11; Mark iii. 32; Luke ii. 33; John ii. 1.
[3585]1015 In the Retractations, ii. sec 7, Augustin refers in
correction of this remark to his Reply to the Second Answer of Julian,
iv. sec. 36, where he makes uncomeliness the effect of sin.
[3586]1016 1 Cor. xii. 22-25.
[3587]1017 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.
[3588]1018 Dan. i. 12.
[3589]1019 Dan. x. 2, 3.
[3590]1020 See the apocryphal book, Paul and Thecla.
[3591]1021 Matt. xix. 12.
[3592]1022 1 Cor. vii. 5, 6.
[3593]1023 1 Tim. iv. 3-5.
[3594]1024 1 Cor. vii. 38.
[3595]1025 Tit. i. 16.
[3596]1026 Dan. i. 12.
[3597]1027 Acts x. 11-15.
[3598]1028 Gen. i. 31.
[3599]1029 Phil. iii. 8.
[3600]1030 Gen. xvii. 9-14.
[3601]1031 Ex. xxxi. 13.
[3602]1032 Ex. xii.
[3603]1033 Lev. xxiii.
[3604]1034 Deut. xxv. 5-10.
[3605]1035 Deut. xxi. 23.
[3606]1036 Deut. xxv. 5-10.
[3607]1037 Gen. xvii. 14.
[3608]1038 Num. xv. 35.
[3609]1039 John xvi. 13, xiv. 26.
[3610]1040 Jer. xxxi. 31, 32.
[3611]1041 Gal. iii. 29.
[3612]1042 Col. ii. 16, 17.
[3613]1043 1 Cor. x. 11.
[3614]1044 1 Cor. iv. 15.
[3615]1045 1 Cor. ii. 13.
[3616]1046 Eph. vi. 15.
[3617]1047 Isa. lii. 7.
[3618]1048 1 Cor. v. 8.
[3619]1049 Matt. vii. 13.
[3620]1050 Ex. xix.-xxxi.
[3621]1051 Luke xi. 8.
[3622]1052 1 Cor. x. 20.
[3623]1053 Gen. ix. 6.
[3624]1054 Acts xv. 29.
[3625]1055 Eph. ii. 11-22.
[3626]1056 Matt. xv. 11.
[3627]1057 Book XXII.
[3628]1058 Wisd. ix. 15.
[3629]1059 Acts ii.
[3630]1060 John xvi. 13.
[3631]1061 John vii. 39.
[3632]1062 [Another name for the Montanists, who arose in Phrygia
shortly after the middle of the second century.âA.H.N.]
[3633]1063 1 Cor. xiii. 9, 10.
[3634]1064 1 Cor. vii. 36.
[3635]1065 Montanus.
[3636]1066 John xiv. 17.
[3637]1067 Gal. i. 9.
[3638]1068 Rom. v. 5.
[3639]1069 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[3640]1070 1 John iii. 2.
[3641]1071 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[3642]1072 Gal. i. 8.
[3643]1073 Matt. viii. 11.
[3644]1074 Luke xxiii. 43.
[3645]1075 Matt. xxi. 31.
[3646]1076 John viii. 3-11.
[3647]1077 Matt. v. 45.
[3648]1078 Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 2-10.
[3649]1079 Luke xiii. 24-29.
[3650]1080 John viii. 39, 56.
[3651]1081 Luke xvi. 23.
[3652]1082 Rom. iv. 3.
[3653]1083 Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 2-10.
[3654]1084 Ps. xxxiv. 5.
[3655]1085 Luke viii. 43, 46.
[3656]1086 Or sanity, according to another reading.âA.H.N.
[3657]1087 Dan. iii. 72.
[3658]1088 Formaâformosus.
[3659]1089 Speciesâspeciosus.
[3660]1090 Ex. iii. 14.
[3661]1091 Ps. xvi. 10.
[3662]1092 John xix. 18, 34.
[3663]1093 Modus, modica.
[3664]1094 Wisd. xi. 21.
[3665]1095 Luke i. 33.
[3666]1096 Ps. cii. 27.
[3667]1097 Wisd. vii. 27.
[3668]1098 1 Tim. i. 17.
[3669]1099 James i. 17.
[3670]1100 John x. 30.
[3671]1101 John i. 1-3.
[3672]1102 John xviii. 20.
[3673]1103 It is difficult for us to understand why Augustin should
have thought it worth while to refute so elaborately an argument so
puerile. But it is his way to be prolix in such matters.âA.H.N.
[3674]1104 Rom. iv. 17.
[3675]1105 Mac. vii. 28.
[3676]1106 Ps. cxlviii. 5.
[3677]1107 Rom. xi. 36.
[3678]1108 Ex ipso and de ipso.
[3679]1109 Rom. ii. 3-6.
[3680]1110 Wisd. vii. 24, 25.
[3681]1111 1 Cor. xii. 26, 18, 24, 25.
[3682]1112 Rom. xi. 33.
[3683]1113 Rom. v. 8-10.
[3684]1114 Ibid. iii. 5.
[3685]1115 Ibid. xi. 22.
[3686]1116 Prov. viii. 15.
[3687]1117 Rom. xiii. 1.
[3688]1118 Job xxxiv. 30. Compare the Revised English Version. The
sense seems to be completely missed in Augustinâs text.âA.H.N.
[3689]1119 Hos. xiii. 11.
[3690]1120 Job i. and ii.
[3691]1121 Matt. xxvi. 31-35, 69-75.
[3692]1122 2 Cor. xii. 7.
[3693]1123 Matt. xxvii. 5.
[3694]1124 Matt. xxv. 41.
[3695]1125 2 Pet. ii. 4.
[3696]1126 Eph. vi. 12.
[3697]1127 Ibid. ii. 2.
[3698]1128 1 Tim. iv. 4.
[3699]1129 Gen. ii. 9.
[3700]1130 Rom. i. 25.
[3701]1131 Mark. x. 18.
[3702]1132 1 Tim. vi. 16.
[3703]1133 Rom. xvi. 27.
[3704]1134 Col. iii. 25.
[3705]1135 Ps. ciii. 8.
[3706]1136 Matt. v. 45.
[3707]1137 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
[3708]1138 Wisd. xii. 2.
[3709]1139 Rom. ii. 4-6.
[3710]1140 Ezek. xviii. 21.
[3711]1141 Ps. li. 17.
[3712]1142 Epist. xlix. li.
[3713]1143 Bened. Ed. Vol. ix. pp. 7-52. Migne, Vol. ix. pp. 33-108.
[3714]1144 The other works bearing on this controversy are mentioned
in the exhaustive volume of Ferd. Ribbeck, Donatus und Augustinus
 (Elberfeld, 1858).âEd.
[3715]1145 Parmenianus was successor to Donatus the Great in the See
of Carthage, circ. 350 A.D., and died circ. 392 A.D.
[3716]1146 Tichonius, who flourished circ. 380, was the leader of a
reformatory movement in Donatism, which Parmenianus opposed, in the
writing here alluded to. The reformer was excommunicated. He had
the clearest ideas concerning the church and concerning interpretation
of any of the ancients.
[3717]1147 Contra Epist. Parmen. ii. 14, also written circ. 400 A.D.
[3718]1148 Cyprian, in his controversy with Pope Stephen of Rome,
denied the validity of heretical or schismatical baptism. The
Donatists denied the validity of Catholic baptism. See Schaff,
Church History, vol. ii. 262 sqq.
[3719]1149 Comp. v. 23, and iii. 16, note.
[3720]1150 Felicianus, bishop of Musti, headed the revolt against
Primianus, the successor of Parmenianus in the Carthaginian See.Â
Listening to the complaint of the deacon Maximianus, who had been
deposed by Primianus, a synod was convened in 393 at Cabarsussis,
which ordained Maximianus as bishop of Carthage. Hence the title
Maximianistæ. Primianus, in 394, at the council of Bagai, was
recognized by 310 bishops. The larger fraction, according to the
Catholics, was subsequently forced into reunion. Prætextatus, bp.
of Assuris, was also one of the leaders in this separation.
[3721]1151 Ps. lxi. 2, 3. Cp. Hieron, and LXX.
[3722]1152 Eph. ii. 6.
[3723]1153 Ps. lxi. 2, 3. Cp. Hieron, and LXX.
[3724]1154 Matt. vii. 15.
[3725]1155 Matt. xxiv. 23.
[3726]1156 Matt. xi. 24.
[3727]1157 The Council of 310 Donatist bishops, held at Bagai in
Numidia, A.D. April 24, 394. Cp. Contra. Crescon. iii. 52, 56.
[3728]1158 Quodam modo cardinales Donatistas.
[3729]1159 See below, on ii. 9.
[3730]1160 Matt. xii. 30.
[3731]1161 Mark ix. 38, 39; Luke ix. 50.
[3732]1162 Acts x.
[3733]1163 Ex. xxxii.
[3734]1164 Num. xvi.
[3735]1165 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
[3736]1166 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2.
[3737]1167 John xi. 51.
[3738]1168 1 Sam. xviii. 10.
[3739]1169 Acts viii. 13.
[3740]1170 Mark i. 24.
[3741]1171 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[3742]1172 Acts viii. 13, 21.
[3743]1173 1 Cor. iii. 1-4.
[3744]1174 1 Cor. i. 10-13.
[3745]1175 1 Cor. x. 11. In figura; tupikòv; A.V., "for ensamples."
[3746]1176 Gen. xxi. 10.
[3747]1177 Gen. xxx. 3.
[3748]1178 Mal. i. 2, 3; Gen xxv. 24.
[3749]1179 Matt. xxviii. 19.
[3750]1180 John xx. 23.
[3751]1181 Song of Sol. vi. 9.
[3752]1182 1 John ii. 11.
[3753]1183 Gal. iii. 27.
[3754]1184 Wisd. i. 5.
[3755]1185 Debebat. Hieron, debebat, LXX. øfeilen.
[3756]1186 Matt. xviii. 23-35.
[3757]1187 The words in parenthesis are wanting in the Mss., and seem
to have crept from the margin into the text.
[3758]1188 1 Cor. xv. 46.
[3759]1189 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[3760]1190 Gal. iv.
[3761]1191 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[3762]1192 Ps. cxxxix. 16.
[3763]1193 Cf. Hieron, and LXX. A.V. "In Thy book were all my
members written."
[3764]1194 Non caste; oÃc Ægnòv. Phil. i. 16. Hieron. non
sincere.
[3765]1195 In the Retractations, ii. 18, Augustin notes on this
passage, that wherever he uses this quotation from the Epistle to the
Ephesians, he means it to be understood of the progress of the Church
towards this condition, and not of her success in its attainment; for
at present the infirmities and ignorance of her members give ground
enough for the whole Church joining daily in the petition, "Forgive us
our debts."
[3766]1196 Gen. xv. 10.
[3767]1197 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[3768]1198 See below, ii. 9.
[3769]1199 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[3770]1200 Ps. lxxiii. 18; cp. Hieron.
[3771]1201 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiii. 1.
[3772]1202 John xv. 1, 2.
[3773]1203 John xiii. 34.
[3774]1204 Gal. v. 22, 23.
[3775]1205 Botrum.
[3776]1206 John xv. 2.
[3777]1207 Rom. iii. 17; from which it has been introduced into the
Alexandrine Ms. of the Septuagint at Ps. xiv. 3, cf. Hieron.; it is
also found in the English Prayer-book version of the Psalms.
[3778]1208 Charitatis ubera.
[3779]1209 Præfocantur.
[3780]1210 The Council of Carthage, A.D. 256, in which eighty-seven
African bishops declared in favor of rebaptizing heretics. The
opinions of the bishops are quoted and answered by Augustin, one by
one, in Books vi and vii.
[3781]1211 Matt. xvi. 18.
[3782]1212 Cypr. Ep. lxxi.
[3783]1213 Gal. i. 20.
[3784]1214 Gal. ii. 14.
[3785]1215 Luke xxiii. 40-43.
[3786]1216 Matt. xxvi. 69-75.
[3787]1217 That is, the proconsular province of Africa, or Africa
Zeugitana, answering to the northern part of the territory of Tunis.
[3788]1218 The letters of Jubaianas, Mauritanian bishop, are not
extant.
[3789]1219 See above, c. i. 2.
[3790]1220 Bede asserts that this was the case. Book VIII. qu. 5.
[3791]1221 See above, c. ii. 3.
[3792]1222 Matt. xxii. 30.
[3793]1223 1 Cor x. 13.
[3794]1224 Phil. iii. 15.
[3795]1225 Rom. iii. 17; see on i. 19, 29.
[3796]1226 Phil. iii. 16.
[3797]1227 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
[3798]1228 Eph. iv. 3.
[3799]1229 Traditores sanctorum librorum.
[3800]1230 Ex. xxxii.
[3801]1231 Jer. xxxvi.
[3802]1232 Num. xvi.
[3803]1233 Non convicti sed conficti traditores.
[3804]1234 Rom. xiv. 4.
[3805]1235 Ps. lviii. 1. Aug.:Â Si vere justitiam diligitis, recte
judicate filii hominum. Cp. Hieron.: Si vere utique justitiam
loquimini, recta judicate filii hominum.
[3806]1236 John vii. 24.
[3807]1237 Matt. vii. 15.
[3808]1238 Agrippinus was probably the second (some place him still
earlier) bishop before Cyprian. He convened the council of 70
(disputed date), who were the first to take action in favor of
rebaptism. Cp. Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 4, bonæ memoriæ vir. Cp. lxxiii.
3.
[3809]1239 1 Cor. xiv. 29, 30.
[3810]1240 Cypr. Ep. lxxi.
[3811]1241 Cypr. Ep. lxxi.
[3812]1242 The former Council of Carthage was held by Agrippinus early
in the third century, the ordinary date given being 215-7 A.D.; others
186-7.
[3813]1243 Tanquam lectulo auctoritatis.
[3814]1244 Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 4.
[3815]1245 Transmarinum vel universale Concilium.
[3816]1246 The plenary Council, on whose authority Augustin relies in
many places in this work, was either that of Arles, in 314 A.D., or of
Nicæa, in 325 A.D., both of them being before his birth, in 354
A.D. He quotes the decision of the same council, contra Parmenianum,
ii. 13, 30; de Hæresibus  69: Ep. xliii. 7, 19. Contra
Parmenianum, iii. 4, 21:Â "They condemned," he says, "some few in
Africa, by whom they were in turn vanquished by the judgment of the
whole world;" and he adds, that "the Catholics trusted ecclesiastical
judges like these in preference to the defeated parties in the
suit."Â Ib. 6, 30:Â He says that the Donatists, "having made a
schism in the unity of the Church, were refuted, not by the authority
of 310 African bishops, but by that of the whole world."Â And in the
sixth chapter of the first book of the same treatise, he says that the
Donatists, after the decision at Arles, came again to Constantine, and
there were defeated "by a final decision," i.e. at Milan, as is seen
from Ep. xliii. 7, 20, in the year 316 A.D. Substance of note in
Benedictine ed. reproduced in Migne.
[3817]1247 See above, ch. ii. 3.
[3818]1248 Ib.
[3819]1249 Rom. xiv. 4.
[3820]1250 Wisd. xii. 10.
[3821]1251 Not Ps. ciii. 8, but lxxxvi. 15.
[3822]1252 Ezek. xxiii. 11.
[3823]1253 2 Tim. iv. 2.
[3824]1254 John xii. 43.
[3825]1255 He is alluding to that chief schism among the Donatists,
which occurred when Maximianus was consecrated bishop of Carthage, in
opposition to Primianus, probably immediately after the Synod of
Cabarsussum, 393.
[3826]1256 Optatus, a Donatist bishop of Thamogade in Numidia, was
called Gildonianus from his adherence to Gildo, Count of Africa, and
generalissimo of the province under the elder Theodosius. On his
death, in 395 A.D., Gildo usurped supreme authority, and by his aid
Optatus was enabled to oppress the Catholics in the province, till, in
398 A.D., Gildo was defeated by his brother Mascezel, and destroyed
himself, and Optatus was put in prison, where he died soon
afterwards. He is not to be confounded with Optatus, Bishop of
Milevis, the strenuous opponent of the Donatists.
[3827]1257 The Council of Bagai. See above, I. v. 7.
[3828]1258 Matt. xviii. 19.
[3829]1259 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[3830]1260 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23 to Jubaianus.
[3831]1261 John xiii. 10. "Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem
iterum lavandi."Â The Latin, with the A.V., loses the distinction
between é leloumâ¢nov, "he that has bathed," and n°ptein, "to
wash:"Â and further wrongfully introduces the idea of repetition.
[3832]1262 John iii. 5.
[3833]1263 See above, cii. 3.
[3834]1264 See above, II. ii. 3.
[3835]1265 See above, II. ii. 3.
[3836]1266 See above, II. ii. 3.
[3837]1267 Ecclus. iii. 18.
[3838]1268 See above, II. ii. 3.
[3839]1269 John i. 33.
[3840]1270 The Council of Carthage.
[3841]1271 Epist. lxxiii. 23, to Jubianus.
[3842]1272 Seventh Conc. Carth. under Cyprian, the third which dealt
with baptism, A.D. 256, sec. 28. These opinions are quoted again in
Books VI. and VII.
[3843]1273 John xiv. 6.
[3844]1274 Conc. Carth. sec. 30.
[3845]1275 Ib. sec. 56.
[3846]1276 Gal. ii. 11-14.
[3847]1277 Conc. Carth. sec. 63.
[3848]1278 Thucca.
[3849]1279 Conc. Carth. sec. 77.
[3850]1280 Ctpr. Ep. lxxiii. 1.
[3851]1281 Ctpr. Ep. lxxiii. 1.
[3852]1282 Ctpr. Ep. lxxiii. 1.
[3853]1283 The Novatian bishop, Acesius, was invited by Constantine to
attend the Council of Nicaea. Soc., H.E.I. 10.
[3854]1284 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 2.
[3855]1285 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 3.
[3856]1286 Above, Book I. c. xi. sqq.
[3857]1287 Non ut jam vere dimissa non retineantur. One of the
negatives here appears to be superfluous, and the former is omitted in
Amerbachâs edition, and in many of the Mss., which continue the
sentence, "non ut ille baptismus," instead of "neque ut ille," etc.Â
If the latter negative were omitted, the sense would be improved, and
"neque" would appropriately remain.
[3858]1288 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.
[3859]1289 Phantasmata.
[3860]1290 1 Cor ii. 14.
[3861]1291 1 Cor. i. 13.
[3862]1292 1 Cor iii. 1-3.
[3863]1293 Eph. iv. 14.
[3864]1294 Matt. xxviii. 19.
[3865]1295 Cp. Concilium Arelatense, A.D. 314, can. 8. "De Afris,
quod propria lege utuntur ut rebaptizent; placuit ut si ad ecclesiam
aliquis de hæresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si
perviderint eum in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum,
manus ei tantum imponatur, ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si
interrogatus non responderit hanc Trinitatem, baptizetur."
[3866]1296 Phil. iii. 15.
[3867]1297 Jer. xv. 18, cp. LXX.
[3868]1298 Rev. xvii. 15.
[3869]1299 Rom. v. 5.
[3870]1300 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3.
[3871]1301 1 Cor. xii. 11.
[3872]1302 Acts viii. 13.
[3873]1303 1 Sam. x. 6, 10.
[3874]1304 1 Tim. i. 5.
[3875]1305 He refers to laying on of hands such as he mentions below,
Book V. c. xxiii.:Â "If the laying on of hands were not applied to
one coming from heresy, he would be, as it were, judged to be wholly
blameless."
[3876]1306 Matt. xvi. 19.
[3877]1307 Song of Sol. vi. 9.
[3878]1308 Cypr. de Lapsis c vi.
[3879]1309 John xx. 21-23.
[3880]1310 1 Cor. ii. 15.
[3881]1311 Eph. v. 27. Cp. Retract. ii. 18, quoted above on I. xvii.
[3882]1312 Tit. i. 7.
[3883]1313 Num. xvi.
[3884]1314 Lev. x. 1, 2.
[3885]1315 Rom. ii. 4.
[3886]1316 Acts viii. 5-17.
[3887]1317 Because Cyprian, in his letter to Jubaianus (Ep. lxxiii.
10), had urged as following from this, that "there is no reason,
dearest brother, why we should think it right to yield to heretics
that baptism which was granted to the one and only Church."
[3888]1318 Deut. iv. 24.
[3889]1319 Hos. ii. 5, cp. LXX.
[3890]1320 John i. 47.
[3891]1321 John xiv. 21.
[3892]1322 John xiii. 34, 35.
[3893]1323 Matt. v. 17.
[3894]1324 Rom. xiii. 10.
[3895]1325 John xv. 1-5.
[3896]1326 Prov. xviii. 1, cp. Hieron, and LXX.
[3897]1327 1 John ii. 19.
[3898]1328 2 Tim. ii. 16-21.
[3899]1329 Hos. ii. 5-8, cp. LXX.
[3900]1330 In Hieron, and LXX., as well as in the English version,
this is in the second person, vestimenta tua multicolaria; tèn
³matismèn tèn poik°lon sou.
[3901]1331 Ezek. xvi. 17-19.
[3902]1332 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.
[3903]1333 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. ad Jubaian. 10.
[3904]1334 Gen. ii. 8-14.
[3905]1335 Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
[3906]1336 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 11.
[3907]1337 Ib.
[3908]1338 Ib.
[3909]1339 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 11.
[3910]1340 Cypr. Ep. xi. 1.
[3911]1341 Tit. i. 16.
[3912]1342 1 Pet. iii. 21.
[3913]1343 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 11.
[3914]1344 Eph. v. 26, 27.
[3915]1345 Song of Sol. vi. 9.
[3916]1346 Rom. xiv. 6.
[3917]1347 Retract. ii. 18, quoted on I. 17.
[3918]1348 Cypr. Ep. xi. I, first part loosely quoted.
[3919]1349 Matt. vii. 23.
[3920]1350 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 11.
[3921]1351 Ib., lxiii. 12, quando a nobis baptisma eorum in acceptum
refertur.
[3922]1352 Cypr. Ep. lxxvii. 12.
[3923]1353 1 Cor. vi. 10.
[3924]1354 Eph. v. 5.
[3925]1355 Cypr. Ep. lv. 26.
[3926]1356 2 Cor. vi. 16.
[3927]1357 Cypr. Ep. lxxvii. 12.
[3928]1358 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 13.
[3929]1359 1 Tim. i. 13.
[3930]1360 2 Tim. ii. 24.
[3931]1361 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 10.
[3932]1362 Eph. v. 5.
[3933]1363 Col. iii. 5. Cypr. Ep. lv. 27.
[3934]1364 1 Tim. i. 13.
[3935]1365 Eph. v. 5.
[3936]1366 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 13.
[3937]1367 Gal. ii. 14.
[3938]1368 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 13.
[3939]1369 Phil. i. 18. Hieron. "annuntietur."
[3940]1370 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 14.
[3941]1371 Luke ii. 14. "Hominibus bonæ voluntatis;" and so the
Vulgate, following the reading Ân â¡nqrðpoiv eÃdok°av.
[3942]1372 Cypr. de Zel. et Liv. c. 1.
[3943]1373 Ib. c. 4.
[3944]1374 Wisd. ii. 24, 25.
[3945]1375 Conc. Carth. sub in.
[3946]1376 1 Cor. xi. 16.
[3947]1377 This treatise is still extant. See Trans. in Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. V. 484-490.
[3948]1378 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 26.
[3949]1379 Rom. ii. 21.
[3950]1380 Cypr. de Lapsis. c. vi.
[3951]1381 1 Cor. vi. 10.
[3952]1382 Ps. xv. 5.
[3953]1383 Eph. v. 5.
[3954]1384 Matt. xiii. 29.
[3955]1385 Phil. i. 15-18.
[3956]1386 Wisd. ii. 24, 25.
[3957]1387 Matt. xiii. 28, 25.
[3958]1388 Matt. xiii. 23; Luke viii. 15.
[3959]1389 Rev. ii. 6.
[3960]1390 Acts viii. 9-24.
[3961]1391 Phil. ii. 21.
[3962]1392 1 Cor. xiii. 5.
[3963]1393 Eph. v. 27; Retract. ii. 18.
[3964]1394 Song of Sol. vi. 9.
[3965]1395 Cypr. Ep. xi. i.
[3966]1396 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 14.
[3967]1397 Luke ix. 49, 50.
[3968]1398 Matt. xii. 30.
[3969]1399 Gal. ii. 14.
[3970]1400 Phil. iii. 15.
[3971]1401 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
[3972]1402 Phil. i. 18; see on ch. 7. 10.
[3973]1403 John i. 33.
[3974]1404 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 15; 2 Tim. ii. 17.
[3975]1405 1 Cor. xv. 32, 33, 12.
[3976]1406 Eph. v. 5.
[3977]1407 Antonianus, a bishop of Numidia, wrote 252 A.D., to
Cyprian, favoring his milder view in opposition to the purism of
Novatian:Â subsequently Novatian wrote to him, advocating the purist
movement and impugning the laxity of Cornelius, bp. of Rome. To
overthrow the effect upon A. of this letter, Cyprian wrote Epistle
LV. In Ep LXX., A. is of the number of those Numidian bishops whom
Cyprian addresses.
[3978]1408 2 Tim. ii. 20.
[3979]1409 Ps. ii. 9.
[3980]1410 Cypr. Ep. lv. 25.
[3981]1411 2 Tim. ii. 17-20.
[3982]1412 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 15.
[3983]1413 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 15; 2 Cor. vi. 14.
[3984]1414 Ib.
[3985]1415 1 John ii. 9.
[3986]1416 Phil. i. 15, 16.
[3987]1417 Cypr l.c.
[3988]1418 Cypr Ep. xi. 1.
[3989]1419 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 15.
[3990]1420 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 15.
[3991]1421 Matt. vii. 23.
[3992]1422 Matt. xxv. 41.
[3993]1423 Rom. ii. 4.
[3994]1424 Ps. lxxxix. 32, 33.
[3995]1425 Ecclus. xxx. 23. The words, "placentes Deo" are derived
from the Latin version only.
[3996]1426 Matt. xxiv. 13.
[3997]1427 From a letter of Pope Stephenâs, quoted Cypr. Ep. lxxiii.
16.
[3998]1428 Mark xiii. 21.
[3999]1429 2 Tim. ii. 21.
[4000]1430 2 Tim. ii. 19.
[4001]1431 Matt. vii. 23.
[4002]1432 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 16.
[4003]1433 Ib. de Laps. c. vi.
[4004]1434 Ib. Ep. xi. 1.
[4005]1435 Ib. Ep. lxxiii. 17.
[4006]1436 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[4007]1437 1 Cor. iii. 3.
[4008]1438 2 Cor. iv. 16.
[4009]1439 Various Synods from 345 on anathematized Photinus, the
bishop of Sirmium. The two of Sirmium, 351 and 357, accused him of
constituting two Gods.
[4010]1440 Hos. ii. 5-8.
[4011]1441 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 21.
[4012]1442 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
[4013]1443 Cyp. l.c.
[4014]1444 Cyp. l.c.
[4015]1445 Cyp. l.c.
[4016]1446 Matt. xii. 30.
[4017]1447 1 Cor. vi. 10.
[4018]1448 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4019]1449 Eph. v. 5, 6.
[4020]1450 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.
[4021]1451 Matt. xi. 24.
[4022]1452 Matt. xxv. 41.
[4023]1453 John iii. 5.
[4024]1454 Another reading, of less authority, is, "Aut catechumeno
sacramentum baptismi præferendum putamus." This does not suit the
sense of the passage, and probably sprung from want of knowledge of
the meaning of the "catechumenâs sacrament."Â It is mentioned in the
Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, as "the sacrament of salt" (cap. 5).Â
Augustin (de Peccat. Meritis, ii. c. 26), says that "what the
catechumens receive, though it be not the body of Christ, yet is holy,
more holy than the food whereby our bodies are sustained, because it
is a sacrament."âCp. de Catech. Rudibus, c. 26 [Bened.]. It appears
to have been only a taste of salt, given them as the emblem of purity
and incorruption. See Bingham, Orig. Eccles. Book x. c. ii. 16.
[4025]1455 Acts x. 44.
[4026]1456 Acts viii. 13, 18, 19.
[4027]1457 Matt. v. 20.
[4028]1458 Acts x. 4, 5.
[4029]1459 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 22.
[4030]1460 Luke xxiii. 43.
[4031]1461 In Retract. ii. 18, Augustin expresses a doubt whether the
thief may not have been baptized.
[4032]1462 Rom. x. 10.
[4033]1463 Matt. iii. 6, 13.
[4034]1464 Rom. iv. 11, 3.
[4035]1465 Gen. xvii. 9-14.
[4036]1466 Ex. iv. 24-26.
[4037]1467 John ix. 21.
[4038]1468 Acts xix. 3-5.
[4039]1469 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. ad Jubaian. 23.
[4040]1470 See below, Book VII. c. 2, 3.
[4041]1471 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23.
[4042]1472 Phil. iii. 15.
[4043]1473 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23.
[4044]1474 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 24.
[4045]1475 Ib.
[4046]1476 1 Tim. i. 8.
[4047]1477 John xiii. 27.
[4048]1478 1 Cor. xi. 29.
[4049]1479 1 Tim. i. 5.
[4050]1480 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 24; Acts xix. 3-5.
[4051]1481 John iii. 27.
[4052]1482 John i. 16.
[4053]1483 John xiii. 4, 5.
[4054]1484 Matt. iii. 13.
[4055]1485 Matt. xi. 11.
[4056]1486 John i. 27.
[4057]1487 Rom. x. 4.
[4058]1488 Cypr. Serm. de Lapsis, c. vi.
[4059]1489 Eph. ii. 6.
[4060]1490 Rom. viii. 24.
[4061]1491 Matt. iii. 11.
[4062]1492 John i. 29.
[4063]1493 Acts xix. 3-5.
[4064]1494 Matt. iii. 16; John i. 33.
[4065]1495 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 25.
[4066]1496 John i. 33.
[4067]1497 John xv. 15.
[4068]1498 Num. xvii. 8.
[4069]1499 1 Cor. i. 12-15.
[4070]1500 Matt. iii. 14.
[4071]1501 John i. 32, 33.
[4072]1502 1 Cor. ix. 15.
[4073]1503 Rom. xi. 13.
[4074]1504 Eph. iii. 4.
[4075]1505 2 Tim. ii. 8.
[4076]1506 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4077]1507 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 25.
[4078]1508 Ib.
[4079]1509 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 25.
[4080]1510 Eph. v. 27. Cp. Aug. Retract. ii. 18, quoted above, I.
17, 26.
[4081]1511 Gen. xxv. 29-34.
[4082]1512 1 Cor. xi. 16.
[4083]1513 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 26.
[4084]1514 Ps. xxvi. 8.
[4085]1515 1 Cor. i. 27.
[4086]1516 John xv. 2.
[4087]1517 In this and the following chapter, Augustin is examining
the seventy-first epistle of Cyprian to his brother Quintas, bishop in
Mauritania. Here LXXI. 1.
[4088]1518 Apud veteres hæreses et schismata prima adhuc fuisse
initia; that among the ancients heresies and schisms were yet in their
very infancy. Benedictines suggest: "hæresis et schismatum."Â
Hartel reads: apud veteres hæreseos et schismatum prima adhuc
fuerint initia.
[4089]1519 Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 2.
[4090]1520 Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 2.
[4091]1521 Cypr. Ep. lxxi. 3.
[4092]1522 1 John ii. 9.
[4093]1523 1 John iii. 15.
[4094]1524 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 14.
[4095]1525 In this and the next two chapters Augustin is examining the
seventieth epistle of Cyprian, from himself and thirty other bishops
(text of Hartel), to Januarius, Saturninus, Maximus, and fifteen
others.
[4096]1526 In the question, "Dost thou believe in eternal life and
remission of sins through the holy Church?"Â Cyp. l.c. 2.
[4097]1527 John ix. 31.
[4098]1528 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 2.
[4099]1529 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 2.
[4100]1530 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 2.
[4101]1531 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 3.
[4102]1532 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 3.
[4103]1533 1 John ii. 9.
[4104]1534 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 3.
[4105]1535 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 3.
[4106]1536 Acts ix. 4.
[4107]1537 Matt. xxv. 45.
[4108]1538 1 John ii. 19.
[4109]1539 John xx. 23.
[4110]1540 Cypr. Ep. lxx. 3.
[4111]1541 Matt. vi. 15.
[4112]1542 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv., which is examined by Augustin in the
remaining chapters of this book.
[4113]1543 Cypr. Ep.lxxiv. 2.
[4114]1544 Cypr. Ep.lxxiv. 2.
[4115]1545 Tit. iii. 11.
[4116]1546 Rom. ii. 1.
[4117]1547 Rom. ii. 21.
[4118]1548 1 Cor. vi. 10.
[4119]1549 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 4.
[4120]1550 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 4.
[4121]1551 Wisd. i. 5.
[4122]1552 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 5.
[4123]1553 Cyprian, in the laying on of hands, appears to refer to
confirmation, but Augustin interprets it of the restoration of
penitents. Cp. III. 16, 21.
[4124]1554 Gal. iii. 27.
[4125]1555 2 Cor. vi. 16.
[4126]1556 1 Sam. xix. 23.
[4127]1557 Mark ix. 38.
[4128]1558 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 6.
[4129]1559 Eph. v. 27. Cp. Aug. Retract. ii. 18, quoted above, I.
17, 26.
[4130]1560 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 7.
[4131]1561 Ib.
[4132]1562 "Docibilis;" and so the passage (2 Tim. ii. 24) is quoted
frequently by Augustin. The English version, "apt to teach," is more
true to the original, didaktikov.
[4133]1563 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 10.
[4134]1564 Cypr. Ep. lxxiv. 10.
[4135]1565 Ib. 11, and Eph. iv. 4-6.
[4136]1566 1 Cor. xv. 32.
[4137]1567 1 Cor. i. 13.
[4138]1568 1 Cor. xv. 12.
[4139]1569 Cant. iv. 12, 13.
[4140]1570 Eph. v. 27.
[4141]1571 Cant. ii. 2.
[4142]1572 Rom. ii. 29.
[4143]1573 Ps. xlv. 13.
[4144]1574 Ps. xl. 5.
[4145]1575 Rom. viii. 28.
[4146]1576 2 Tim. ii. 19.
[4147]1577 Gal. vi. 1.
[4148]1578 Ps. cxix. 28.
[4149]1579 Phil. iii. 15.
[4150]1580 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21.
[4151]1581 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23.
[4152]1582 John xx. 23.
[4153]1583 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[4154]1584 1 Tim. i. 5.
[4155]1585 Wisd. ix. 15.
[4156]1586 Phil. iii. 15.
[4157]1587 Gal. ii. 14.
[4158]1588 Cant. vi. 8, 9.
[4159]1589 Eph. v. 27; Cp. Aug. Retract. ii. 18.
[4160]1590 Cant. iv. 12, 13.
[4161]1591 John xx. 23.
[4162]1592 Conc. Carth., the seventh under Cyprian, A.D. 256.Â
Introduction.
[4163]1593 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 26.
[4164]1594 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 26.
[4165]1595 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 26.
[4166]1596 Cypr. Ep. lxix. 12.
[4167]1597 De baptismi simplicitate ubique agnoscendam
consuetudinem. The Benedictines give the reading of some Mss.: "De
baptismi simplicitate ubique agnoscenda," etc., "maintaining the
custom of the universal Church to acknowledge everywhere the identity
of baptism."
[4168]1598 Conciliis universalibus.
[4169]1599 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[4170]1600 Phil. iii. 15.
[4171]1601 Bilta (Biltha, Vilta) was in Africa Proconsularis. This
Cæcilius is probably the same as the one addressed by Cyprian in Ep.
lxiii., and who unites with Cyprian and other bishops in letters
addressed to others. Epp. iv. (to Pomponius), lvii., lxvii., lxx.
[4172]1602 Eph. iv. 4, 5.
[4173]1603 Conc. Carth. sec. 1.
[4174]1604 1 John iii. 15.
[4175]1605 Concilii universitate.
[4176]1606 This section is wanting in the Mss. and in the edition of
Amerbach, so that it has been supposed to have been added by Erasmus
from Cyprian (Conc. Carth. sec. 2),âthe name of Felix (really Primus),
which is not found in Cyprian, being derived from the following
section of Augustin. So Hartel: Primas a Misgirpa dixit. Migirpa
or Misgirpa, was in Zeugitana. This Primus is seemingly identical
with the Primus of Cypr. Epp. 67 (following Cæcilius), and 70
(preceding Cæcilius).
[4177]1607 Adrumetum (Hadrumetum) was an ancient PhÅnician settlement,
made a Roman colony by Trajan, on the coast of the Sinus Neapolitanus,
some ninety miles south-east of Carthage, capital of Byzacium.Â
Cyprian writes to Bp. Cornelius, Ep. xlviii., vindicating Polycarp:Â
his name occurs also in the titles of Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii. (after
Primus), and lxx. (after Cæcilius).
[4178]1608 Thamugadis (Thamogade), a town in Numidia, on the east side
of Mount Aurasius. The whole opinion of Novatus (Conc. Carth. sec.
4), is omitted in the Mss.
[4179]1609 The words in Cyprian are, "secundum decretum collegarum
nostrorum sanctissimæ memoriæ virorum." The decree referred to is
one of the Council held by Agrippinus.
[4180]1610 Tubunæ, a town in Mauritania Cæsariensis. Nemesianus
probably same with one of that name in Cypr. Epp. lxii., lxx., lxxvi.,
lxxvii.
[4181]1611 Prov. ix. 12, LXX., the passage being altogether absent in
the Hebrew, and consequently in the English version. Probably in N.
Afr. version. The text in Erasmus is somewhat different, and was
revised by the Louvain editors to bring it into harmony with the
answer of Augustin and the text of Cyprian (Conc. Carth. sec. 5).
[4182]1612 Prov. ix. 18, LXX., possibly N. Afr. version also.
[4183]1613 John iii. 5.
[4184]1614 Gen. i. 2.
[4185]1615 Eph. iv. 3-6.
[4186]1616 Quoniam Spiritus Deus est, et de Deo natus est. These
words are found at the end of John iii. 6, in the oldest Latin Ms. (in
the Bodleian Library), and their meaning appears to be, as given in
the text, that whatsoever is born of the Spirit is spirit, since the
Holy Ghost, being God, and born of, or proceeding from God, in virtue
of His supreme power makes those to be spirits whom He regenerates.Â
If the meaning had been (as Bishop Fell takes it), that "he who is
born of the Spirit is born of God," the neuter "de Deo natum est"
would have been required. To refer "Spiritus Deus est," with the
Benedictines, to John iv. 24, "God is a Spirit," reverses the grammar
and destroys the sense of the passage. The above explanation is
taken from the preface to Cyprian by the monk of St. Maur (Maranus),
p. xxxvi., quoted by Routh, Rel. Sac. iii. 193.
[4187]1617 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4188]1618 Cypr. Ep. xi. 1.
[4189]1619 Prov. ix. 12, cp. LXX.
[4190]1620 John iii. 5.
[4191]1621 Acts viii. 13.
[4192]1622 Wisd. i. 5.
[4193]1623 John iii. 6.
[4194]1624 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4195]1625 Lambæse (Lambese) was one of the chief cities in southern
Numidia. This Januarius is not unlikely identical with the first of
that name in Cypr. Ep. lxvii., and with the one of Epp. lxii. and
lxx. For an opponent of Cyprian in Lambese, see Cypr. Epp. xxxvi.
and lix.
[4196]1626 Conc. Carth. sec. 6.
[4197]1627 Castra Galbæ was most likely in Numidia. Lucius as
bishop occurs in Cypr. Epp. lxvii., lxx., lxxvi.and lxxvii., but it is
doubtful to which of the four of this name attendant on this council
these references may apply.
[4198]1628 Matt. v. 13. "Id quod salietur ex eo, ad nihilum
valebit."
[4199]1629 Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.
[4200]1630 Recedendo infatuati contrarii facti sunt. Dr. Routh from
a Ms. in his own possession, inserts "et" after "infatuati."â"have
lost their savor and become contrary to the Church."Â Rel. Sac. iii.
p. 194.
[4201]1631 Prov. xiv. 9, cp. LXX.
[4202]1632 Conc. Carth. sec. 7.
[4203]1633 John xx. 23.
[4204]1634 1 John ii. 9.
[4205]1635 Ex. xx. 13, 15.
[4206]1636 Cirta, an inland city of the Massylii in Numidia, was
rebuilt by Constantine, and called Constantina.
[4207]1637 See below, on sec. 25.
[4208]1638 Ex Scripturis deificis.
[4209]1639 Conc. Carth. sec. 8.
[4210]1640 There are two letters extant from Cyprian to Stephen, No.
68, respecting Marcianus of Arles, who had joined Novatian, and No.
72, on a Council concerning heretical baptism. It is clear, however,
from Ep. lxxiv. 1, that this Council, and consequently the letter to
Stephen, was subsequent to the Council under consideration; and
consequently Augustin is right in ignoring it, and referring solely to
the former. Dr. Routh thinks the words an interpolation, of course
before Augustinâs time; and they may perhaps have been inserted by
some one who had Cyprianâs later letter to Stephen before his mind.Â
Rel. Sac. iii. p. 194.
[4211]1641 Segermi church province of Byzacium. A Nicomedes occurs
in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii., lxx.
[4212]1642 Conc. Carth, sec. 9.
[4213]1643 Girba, formerly Meninx (Lotophagitis), an island to the
south-east of the Lesser Syrtis belonged to church province of
Tripolis. For Bp. Monnulus, see Cypr. Ep. lvii.
[4214]1644 In baptismi trinitate. "Quia trina immersione
expediebatur, in nomine Patris, Filii, et S. Spiritus."âBishop Fell.
[4215]1645 Matt. xxviii. 19.
[4216]1646 Erroris offectura. Other readings are "offensa" and
"effectura."
[4217]1647 Conc. Carth. sec. 10.
[4218]1648 Cedias (Cedia) has been identified, but without sufficient
reason, with Quidias, or Quiza, in Mauritania Cæsariensis for both
places have bishops at the Collation of 411. A Bp. Secundinus is
mentioned in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii., but whether these refer to him
of Cedias or him of Carpos (ch. 31) cannot be decided.
[4219]1649 Matt. xii. 30.
[4220]1650 1 John ii. 18.
[4221]1651 Conc. Carth. sec. 11.
[4222]1652 Matt. vii. 22, 23.
[4223]1653 Bagai, in church province of Numidia. See on I. 5. 7.Â
Among the many of the name of Felix in the letters of Cyprian, lvi.,
lvii., lxvii; title 1, 6, lxx., lxxvi. bis, lxxvii., lxxix., title and
text, it would be unsafe to decide a sure reference to distinguish
between this and the other bishops of the same cognomen in this
council.
[4224]1654 Matt. xv. 14.
[4225]1655 Conc. Carth. sec. 12.
[4226]1656 1 Cor. xv. 32.
[4227]1657 Rom. viii. 6.
[4228]1658 Mileum, Milevis, Mileve, in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia, noted as the seat of two Councils 402 A.D. and 416 A.D.; also
as the See of Optatus. Polianus is most likely to be identified with
the one in Cypr. Epp. lxxvi., lxxix.
[4229]1659 Conc. Cath. sec. 13.
[4230]1660 Hippo Regius, the see of Augustin himself, in
ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4231]1661 Conc. Carth. sec. 14.âC.D.H.
[4232]1662 Badiæ (Vada) in ecclesiastical province of Numidia. For
Dativus see Cypr. Epp. lxxvi., lxxvii.
[4233]1663 Conc. Carth. sec. 15.
[4234]1664 Matt. vi. 15.
[4235]1665 Eph. iv. 3.
[4236]1666 Phil. iii. 15.
[4237]1667 Abbir Germaniciana was in ecclesiastical province of
Zeugitana, or Africa Proconsularis. Successus probably identical
with one mentioned in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii., lxx., lxxx.
[4238]1668 Conc. Carth. sec. 16.
[4239]1669 1 John iii. 15.
[4240]1670 Thuccabori, Tucca or Terebrinthina, in ecclesiastical
province of Africa Proconsularis or Zeugitana. For Bp. Fortunatus,
see Cypr. Epp. xlviii., lvi., lvii. (the first), lxvii., lxx.
[4241]1671 Conc. Carth. sec. 17.
[4242]1672 Matt. vii. 24.
[4243]1673 Cypr. Serm. de Laps.
[4244]1674 Matt. vii. 24, 26.
[4245]1675 It is pointed out by the Louvain editors that this passage
shows that Augustin considered our Lordâs precept to comprehend
everything contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
[4246]1676 It is pointed out by the Louvain editors that this passage
shows that Augustin considered our Lordâs precept to comprehend
everything contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
[4247]1677 Luke vi. 37.
[4248]1678 Matt. vi. 14, 15.
[4249]1679 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[4250]1680 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 14.
[4251]1681 Tuburbo (Thuburbo) was in the ecclesiastical province of
Zeugitana. Sedatus is not unlikely the same as the one mentioned in
Cypr. Epp. iv., lxvii., lxx.
[4252]1682 Conc. Carth sec. 18.
[4253]1683 Phil. iii. 15.
[4254]1684 See above, III. cc. 14, 15.
[4255]1685 Matt. xiii. 29.
[4256]1686 1 Kings iii. 26.
[4257]1687 Sufetula was a town in ecclesiastical province of Byzacene,
twenty-five miles from Sufes (same province), of which the name is a
diminutive. Bp. Privatianus is mentioned in Cypr. Epp. lvi., lvii.
[4258]1688 Conc. Carth. sec. 19.
[4259]1689 See n. 6. p. 475.
[4260]1690 Conc. Carth. sec. 20.
[4261]1691 Lares, in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.Â
Hortensianus is very likely the same as the one in Cypr. Epp. lvii.,
lxx.
[4262]1692 Conc. Carth. sec. 21.
[4263]1693 Matt. vii. 23.
[4264]1694 John i. 33.
[4265]1695 Macomades [in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.]Â Bp.
Cassius is probably to be identified with the one in Cypr. Ep. lxx.
[4266]1696 Flebiles et tabidos. This is otherwise taken of the
repentant heretics "Melting with the grief and wretchedness of
penitence;" but Bishop Fell points out that the interpretation in the
text is supported by an expression in c. 33, 63: Mens hæretica,
quæ diuturna tabe polluta est. Routh Rel. Sac. iii. p. 199.
[4267]1697 Adulteros. So all the Mss. of Augustin, though in Cyprian
is sometimes found "adulterinos."Â In classical Latin, however
"adulterit" is sometimes used in the sense of "adulterinus."Â Cassius
seems to have had in mind Heb. xii. 8, "Then are ye bastards, and not
sons."
[4268]1698 Conc. Carth. sec. 22.
[4269]1699 Jer. ii. 21.
[4270]1700 Vicus Cæsaris, probably of ecclesiastical province of
Byzacium. This Bp. Januarius may be the second of that name in Cypr.
Ep. lxvii., and is to be distinquished from Bp. Januarius of Lambæse,
ch. xiii. 20.
[4271]1701 Conc. Carth. sec. 23.
[4272]1702 Carpis (Carpos) was in ecclesiastical province of
Zeugitana. See for Secundinus, note on chap. 18.
[4273]1703 Fiant. Another reading in some Mss. of Cyprian (not found
in those of Augustin) is, "quomodo Christianos faciunt," which is less
in harmony with the context.
[4274]1704 Matt. xii. 30.
[4275]1705 Conc. Carth. sec. 24.
[4276]1706 Ps. cxliv. 11-15, so LXX. cp. Hieron. Ps. cxliii. 11-15.
[4277]1707 Cypr. Presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus, Ep. xi. 1.
[4278]1708 Thabraca was on the coast of Numidia, in ecclesiastical
province of that name, the frontier town towards Zeugitana, at the
mouth of the Tucca. The name of a Victoricus occurs in Cypr. Epp.
lvii., lxvii.
[4279]1709 Conc. Carth. sec. 25.
[4280]1710 Uthina was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. This
Felix is to be distinguished from the bishop of Bagai, ch. 19:Â A
reference to a bishop of Utina is made by Tert. de Monog. ch. xii.,
but he cannot have been this Felix, as some assume.
[4281]1711 Conc. Carth. sec. 26.
[4282]1712 Burug (Buruc) or Burca was in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia. Quietus may be identical with the one mentioned in Cypr.
Ep. lxvii.
[4283]1713 In the English version this is, "He that washeth himself
after touching a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his
washing?"âEcclus. xxxiv. 25.
[4284]1714 Conc. Carth. sec. 27.
[4285]1715 Contra Parmenianum, II. 10. 22.
[4286]1716 Rom. vi. 23.
[4287]1717 Rom. viii. 6.
[4288]1718 1 Tim. v. 6.
[4289]1719 John i. 33.
[4290]1720 Matt. vi. 15.
[4291]1721 Ps. xxxv. 12.
[4292]1722 Cant. vi. 9.
[4293]1723 Sicca was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. This
is certainly not the Castus of Cypr. de Laps. c. xiii.
[4294]1724 Conc. Carth. sec. 28.
[4295]1725 Theni was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacene. A
Eucratius occurs in Cypr. Ep. ii.
[4296]1726 Matt. xxviii. 19.
[4297]1727 Conc. Carth. sec. 29.
[4298]1728 Vaga was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacium. The name
of a Libosus occurs in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4299]1729 John xiv. 6.
[4300]1730 Conc. Carth. sec. 30.
[4301]1731 Thebaste (Thebeste) in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia. For Lucius, cp. c. 14.
[4302]1732 Conc. Carth. sec. 31.
[4303]1733 Ammedera, probably in ecclesiastical province of
Proconsularis Africa.
[4304]1734 Conc. Carth. sec. 32.
[4305]1735 Phil. iii. 15.
[4306]1736 Ammacura (Bamacorra) in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4307]1737 Cant. iv. 12.
[4308]1738 Conc. Carth. sec. 33.
[4309]1739 Ch. 21, 37.
[4310]1740 2 Cor. ii. 15.
[4311]1741 Muzuli is perhaps the same as Muzuca in ecclesiastical
province of Byzacium.
[4312]1742 Conc. Carth. sec. 34.
[4313]1743 Thasbalte (Thasvalthe) was in ecclesiastical province of
Byzacene. An Adelphius is mentioned in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4314]1744 Conc. Carth. sec. 35.
[4315]1745 Leptis the Lesser was in ecclesiastical province of
Byzacene, the Greater being in that of Tripolis. A Demetrius occurs
in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxx.
[4316]1746 Conc. Carth. sec. 36.
[4317]1747 Gal. v. 21.
[4318]1748 Thibari, perhaps the same as Tabora, in ecclesiastical
province of Mauritania Cæsariensis. A Bp. Vincentius is mentioned
in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4319]1749 Mark xvi. 15-18.
[4320]1750 Matt. xxviii. 19.
[4321]1751 Conc. Carth. sec. 37.
[4322]1752 Matt. xviii. 17.
[4323]1753 Matt. xi. 24.
[4324]1754 Ezek. xvi. 51.
[4325]1755 Luke xvii. 14.
[4326]1756 Luke i. 11, 13.
[4327]1757 Acts xvii. 28.
[4328]1758 Cypr. de Idol. Vanitate, c. vi.
[4329]1759 Wisd. ix. 15.
[4330]1760 Gal. ii. 11.
[4331]1761 Mactaris (Macthari) was in ecclesiastical province of
Byzacium. This bishop is probably the Marcus of Cypr. Ep. lxx.
[4332]1762 Conc. Carth. sec. 38.
[4333]1763 Sicilibba was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. In
the text of this Council the bishopâs name is Sattius, and the name
occurs in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii., lxx.
[4334]1764 Con. Carth. sec. 39.
[4335]1765 Gor (Gorduba) is variously supposed to be Garra in
ecclesiastical province of Mauritania Cæsariensis, or Garriana in
ecclesiastical province of Byzacium. The name of a bishop Victor
occurs in Cypr. Epp. iv., lvii., lxii., lxvii. In Ep. lxx. the names
of three.
[4336]1766 Conc. Carth. sec. 40.
[4337]1767 Utica, the well-known city in ecclesiastical province of
Zeugitana. The Aurelius of Cypr. Epp. xxvii. 4, lvii. and lxvii.
(the first) are more likely to be identical with the bishop of Utica,
than with the Aurelius of Chullabis, who delivers his opinion the 81st
in order.
[4338]1768 1 Tim. v. 22.
[4339]1769 Conc. Carth. sec. 41.
[4340]1770 Matt. vi. 15.
[4341]1771 Germaniciana Nova was in ecclesiastical province of
Byzacium, and so called after the German veterans settled there. An
Iambus is mentioned as bishop in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii.
[4342]1772 Conc. Carth. sec. 42.
[4343]1773 Rucuma was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. This
Lucianus is probably the same with the one mentioned in Cypr. Epp.
lvii., lxx.
[4344]1774 Gen. i. 4.
[4345]1775 Conc. Carth. sec. 43.
[4346]1776 The position of Luperciana in unknown.
[4347]1777 See 1 Kings xviii. 21.
[4348]1778 Con. Carth. sec. 44.
[4349]1779 Matt. vii. 24-27.
[4350]1780 Midila (Midili) was in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia. Jader is Punic name. Occurs as bishop in Cypr. Epp.
lxxvi., lxxix.
[4351]1781 Conc. Carth. sec. 45.
[4352]1782 Marazana was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacene. On
Felix, see Bk. VI. c. 19. note 2.
[4353]1783 Eph. iv. 5.
[4354]1784 Conc. Carth. sec. 46.
[4355]1785 Necâ¦mutati. "Nec" is restored by the Benedictines from
the Mss.
[4356]1786 Eph. v. 27. See Retract. ii. 18, quoted on I. 17, 26.
[4357]1787 Bobba (Obba) was in ecclesiastical province of Mauritania
Cæsariensis, including Tingitana. A bishop Paul is mentioned in
Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4358]1788 Rom. iii. 3, 4.
[4359]1789 Conc. Carth. sec. 47.
[4360]1790 2 Cor. vi. 16.
[4361]1791 Dionysiana was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacium.Â
The name of Pomponius occurs in Cypr. Epp. iv., lvii., lxvii., lxx.
[4362]1792 Conc. Carth. sec. 48.
[4363]1793 John xx. 23.
[4364]1794 Tinisa (Thinisa) was in ecclesiastical province of
Zeugitana. In Cypr. Ep. lxvii. the name Venantius is found.
[4365]1795 Conc. Carth. sec. 49.
[4366]1796 1 Cor. xv. 33, 32.
[4367]1797 2 Cor. xi. 3.
[4368]1798 Ahymmus. See Cypr. Ep. lvi.
[4369]1799 Ausuaga was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana.
[4370]1800 Conc. Carth. sec. 50.
[4371]1801 John i. 33.
[4372]1802 Victoriana was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacium.Â
[The name Saturninus is found in Cypr. Epp. xxi. 4, xxii. 3, xxvii. 1,
11, lvii. ter. lxvii. bis, lxx. quinquies.
[4373]1803 Conc. Carth. sec. 51.
[4374]1804 Ps. l. 16, 18.
[4375]1805 Matt. vii. 23.
[4376]1806 Tucca was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia. For
Saturninus, see c. 15-28, n. 2.
[4377]1807 He is alluding to Stephen, bishop of Rome, of whom Cyprian
says in his Ep. lxxiv. 7 (to Pompeius):Â "Why has the perverse
obstinacy of our brother Stephen burst out to such a point, that he
should even contend that sons of God are born of the baptism of
Marcion, also of Valentinus and Apelles, and others who blaspheme
against God the Father?"
[4378]1808 Conc. Carth. sec. 52.
[4379]1809 Zama was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia. For
Marcellus, see Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4380]1810 Conc. Carth. sec. 53.
[4381]1811 Ululi (Ullita, Vallita) in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia.
[4382]1812 Conc. Carth. sec. 54.
[4383]1813 Â [Cibaliana (Cybaliana), most probably in ecclesiastical
province of Africa Proconsularis.]Â Donatus, as contemporary bishop,
occurs in Cypr. Epp. lvii. bis. lxx. bis.
[4384]1814 Conc. Carth. sec. 55.
[4385]1815 Tharassa was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4386]1816 Gal ii. 11; Conc. Carth. sec. 56.
[4387]1817 Telepte (Thelepte) or Thala, was in ecclesiastical province
of Byzacium.
[4388]1818 John iii. 27.
[4389]1819 Conc. Carth. sec. 57.
[4390]1820 Timida Regia was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana.Â
A Faustus is mentioned in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4391]1821 Conc. Carth. sec. 58.
[4392]1822 Furni was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For
Geminius as bishop, see Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4393]1823 Conc. Carth. sec. 59.
[4394]1824 Phil. iii. 15.
[4395]1825 Nova was in ecclesiastical province of Mauritania
Cæsariensis. For Rogatianus as bishop, see Cypr. Epp. lvii.,
lxvii., lxx., bis.
[4396]1826 Conc. Carth. sec. 60.
[4397]1827 Bulla (Vulla) was in ecclesiastical province of Africa
Proconsularis. For Therapius cp. Cypr. Ep. lxiv. 1.
[4398]1828 Conc. Carth. sec. 61.
[4399]1829 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 23.
[4400]1830 Membresa was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For
Lucius, see Bk. VI. c. 38.
[4401]1831 John ix. 31.
[4402]1832 Conc. Carth. sec. 62.
[4403]1833 Buslaceni (Cussaceni) is probably Byzacium, the capital of
province of Byzacium, since we know that it was also called Bizica
Lucana; others place it in Africa Proconsularis. For Felix, cp. Bk.
VI. cc. 19 and 23.
[4404]1834 Conc. Carth. sec. 63.
[4405]1835 Abitini (Avitini) was in ecclesiastical province of Africa
Proconsularis. For Saturninus, cp. cc. 15, 16.
[4406]1836 Conc. Carth. sec. 64.
[4407]1837 Aggya, probably the same as Aggiva and the Aga in
ecclesiastical province of Proconsular Africa. The name Quintas as
bishop occurs in Cypr. Epp lvii., lxvii., lxx., lxxi., but this one is
of Mauritania, as appears from Epp lxxii. 1, lxxiii. 1.
[4408]1838 Conc. Carth. sec. 65.
[4409]1839 Marcelliana (Gyrnmarcelli) in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia.
[4410]1840 Matt. vi. 24.
[4411]1841 Conc. Carth. sec. 66.
[4412]1842 Horrea Celiæ (Cæliæ) was a village of ecclesiastical
province of Byzacium, ten miles north of Hadrumetum. A Tenax is
mentioned as bishop in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
[4413]1843 Conc. Carth. sec. 67.
[4414]1844 Assuras was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For
Victor, cp. c. 4.
[4415]1845 See Eph. iv. 4-6.
[4416]1846 Conc. Carth. sec. 68.
[4417]1847 Capse was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacene. This
Donatulus is probably to be identified with the one mentioned Cypr.
Ep. lvi.
[4418]1848 Conc. Carth. sec. 69.
[4419]1849 Rusiccade was at the mouth of the Thapsus, in
ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4420]1850 Conc. Carth. sec. 70.
[4421]1851 Cuiculi was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4422]1852 Conc. Carth. sec. 71.
[4423]1853 Hippo Diarrhytus (Hippozaritus) was on the coast in
ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For Petrus, cp. Cypr. Ep.
lxvii.
[4424]1854 Conc. Carth. sec. 72.
[4425]1855 Ausafa was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For
Lucius, cp. Bk. VI. cc. 14 and 38, and Bk. VII. c. 26.
[4426]1856 Conc. Carth. sec. 73.
[4427]1857 Gurgites was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacium. For
Felix, cp. Bk. VI. cc. 19, 33, 40; Bk. VII. cc. 10, 28.
[4428]1858 Conc. Carth. sec. 74.
[4429]1859 Lamasba was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4430]1860 Conc. Carth. sec. 75.
[4431]1861 2 Cor. ii. 15.
[4432]1862 Mark ix. 38.
[4433]1863 Gazaufala (Gazophyla) was in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia.
[4434]1864 Conc. Carth. sec. 76.
[4435]1865 Tucca (Thucca) was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.Â
Honoratus occurs as bishopâs name in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxii., lxvii.,
lxx. bis. The attempts to distinguish or to identify these are
hazardous.
[4436]1866 Conc. Carth. sec. 77.
[4437]1867 Octavus was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia. For
Victor, cp. cc. 4, 32.
[4438]1868 Conc. Carth. sec. 78.
[4439]1869 Mascula was in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4440]1870 Conc. Carth. Ibid. sec. 79.
[4441]1871 Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
[4442]1872 Thambei (Thambi, Satambei), was in ecclesiastical province
of Byzacium.
[4443]1873 Conc. Carth. sec. 80.
[4444]1874 Isa. xxix. 13.
[4445]1875 Chullabi, or Cululi, was in ecclesiastical province of
Byzacium. For Aurelius, cp. c. 5.
[4446]1876 2 John 10, 11.
[4447]1877 Conc. Carth. sec. 81.
[4448]1878 1 Tim. i. 5.
[4449]1879 Hos. ii.
[4450]1880 1 Cor. v. 11.
[4451]1881 Some read Licteus; not unlikely the bishop of Cypr. Ep.
lxxvi.
[4452]1882 Gemelli was a Roman colony in ecclesiastical province of
Numidia.
[4453]1883 Matt xv. 14.
[4454]1884 Illuminare; baptism being often called fwtismçv.
[4455]1885 Conc. Carth. sec. 82.
[4456]1886 Sabrati, Oëa and Leptis Magna were the three cities whose
combination gave its name to Tripolis, an ecclesiastical province.
[4457]1887 Sabrati, Oëa and Leptis Magna were the three cities whose
combination gave its name to Tripolis, an ecclesiastical province.
[4458]1888 Sabrati, Oëa and Leptis Magna were the three cities whose
combination gave its name to Tripolis, an ecclesiastical province.
[4459]1889 Conc. Carth. sec. 83-85.
[4460]1890 Neapolis was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. The
name Junius as bishop appears in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxx.
[4461]1891 Conc. Carth. sec. 86.
[4462]1892 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii.
[4463]1893 Conc. Carth. sec. 87.
[4464]1894 Cypr. Ep. lxix. 5.
[4465]1895 Phil. i. 15, 17.
[4466]1896 Ps. lxviii. 6; cp. LXX. and Hieron.
[4467]1897 John vi. 51.
[4468]1898 Matt. xxvi. 26-29.
[4469]1899 Phil. i. 18.
[4470]1900 Matt. xvi. 18.
[4471]1901 Cant. vi. 9.
[4472]1902 Eph. v. 27; cp. Retract. ii. 18.
[4473]1903 Cant. iv. 12, 13.
[4474]1904 Matt. xvi. 19.
[4475]1905 Matt. xviii. 17.
[4476]1906 Ps. xxvi. 8.
[4477]1907 Ps. lxviii. 6; cp. LXX. and Hieron.
[4478]1908 Ps. cxxii. 1.
[4479]1909 Ps. lxxxiv. 4.
[4480]1910 Matt. xiii. 23; Luke viii. 15.
[4481]1911 2 Tim. ii. 20.
[4482]1912 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[4483]1913 1 Cor. iii. 17.
[4484]1914 2 Tim. ii. 20. In Retract. ii. 18, Augustin says that he
thinks the meaning of this last passage to be, not as Cyprian took it,
Ep. liv. 3, that the vessels of gold and silver are the good, which
are to honor; the vessels of wood and earth the wicked, which are to
dishonor:Â but that the material of the vessels refers to the outward
appearance of the several members of the Church, and that in each
class some will be found to honor, and some to dishonor. This
interpretation he derives from Tychonius.
[4485]1915 1 John ii. 19.
[4486]1916 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
[4487]1917 1 John ii. 19.
[4488]1918 Phil. iii. 15.
[4489]1919 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4490]1920 Ps. cxx. 7; cf. Hieron.
[4491]1921 Probably Alypius.
[4492]1922 Ps. cxviii. 8.
[4493]1923 Jer. xvii. 6.
[4494]1924 Ps. iii. 8.
[4495]1925 Ps. lx. 11.
[4496]1926 1 Cor. i. 13.
[4497]1927 Rom. iv. 5.
[4498]1928 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
[4499]1929 John xv. 5.
[4500]1930 Rom. xii. 5.
[4501]1931 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[4502]1932 Rom. iv. 25, 5.
[4503]1933 Matt. vii. 17, 16.
[4504]1934 Matt. xii. 35.
[4505]1935 See below, Book II. 6, 12.
[4506]1936 So the Donatists commonly quoted Ecclus. xxiv. 25, which is
more correctly rendered in our version, "He that washeth himself after
touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his
washing?" Â Augustin (Retractt. i. 21, 3) says that the misapplication
was rendered possible by the omission in many African Mss. of the
second clause, "and touches it again."Â Cp. Hieron, Ecclus. xxxiv.
30.
[4507]1937 Rom. vi. 9.
[4508]1938 John i. 33.
[4509]1939 Cp. Contra Cresconium, Book II. 25-30:Â "Ita mortui sunt,
ut neque super terras, neque in requie sanctorum vivant."
[4510]1940 Benedictines suggest as an emendation "quod Deus illi comes
erat," as in II. 23, 53; 37, 88, 103, 237.
[4511]1941 1 Sam. xvii. 51.
[4512]1942 That of Bagai. See on de Bapt. I. 5, 7.
[4513]1943 Ore latissimo acclamaverunt. The Louvain edition
has"lætissimo," both here and Contra Crescon. IV. 41, 48.
[4514]1944 Num. xvi. 31-35.
[4515]1945 Ps. lxxii. 8.
[4516]1946 Ps. ii. 8.
[4517]1947 Musti is in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
[4518]1948 Assura is in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. See
Treatise on Baptism, Book VII. c. 32.
[4519]1949 Qui talia facientes quamvis improbent. A comparison of
the explanation of this passage in Contra Crescon. III. 41, 45, shows
the probability of Migneâs conjecture, "quamvis improbe," "who endure
the men that act in such a way, however monstrous their conduct may
be."
[4520]1950 Nec in se agnoscunt. The reading of the Louvain edition
gives better sense, "Et in se agnoscunt," "and discover in
themselves."
[4521]1951 Matt. xxiii. 34.
[4522]1952 Isa. lviii. 1.
[4523]1953 Ps. lxiii. 11.
[4524]1954 Ps. xiv. 5-7, LXX. and Hieron., and probably N. Af.
version.
[4525]1955 Matt. vii. 15.
[4526]1956 Matt. vii. 16.
[4527]1957 See below, III. 57, 69; 68, 70; and Contra Cresc. III. 29,
33, IV. 56, 66.
[4528]1958 "Obmutescatis" is the most probable conjecture of Migne or
"obtumescatis," which could only mean, "you should swell with
confusion."
[4529]1959 Gen. xxii. 18.
[4530]1960 Gal. iii. 16.
[4531]1961 That of Bagai.
[4532]1962 Veritatis fortissimis documentis Catholica expugnat; and so
the Mss. The earlier editors, apparently not understanding the
omission of "ecclesia," read "veritas."
[4533]1963 Mark iii. 23.
[4534]1964 See II. 18, 40, 41.
[4535]1965 Ps. xiv. 6, LXX. Hieron., N. Af. version.
[4536]1966 Ps. lxxxiii. 16.
[4537]1967 Written probably in the beginning of 401 A.D. Some say in
402.
[4538]1968 John i. 33.
[4539]1969 Rom. iv. 5.
[4540]1970 Jer. xvii. 5.
[4541]1971 1 Cor. iv. 15.
[4542]1972 Phil. i. 17, 18.
[4543]1973 Phil. ii. 21.
[4544]1974 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[4545]1975 Matt. vii. 17, 16.
[4546]1976 Matt. xii. 35.
[4547]1977 Ecclus. xxxiv. 25; see on I. 9, 10.
[4548]1978 Matt. viii. 21, 22.
[4549]1979 Matt. xii. 45.
[4550]1980 Rom. vi. 9.
[4551]1981 Acts viii. 13, 18, 19.
[4552]1982 1 Tim. v. 6.
[4553]1983 Matt. xxvii. 4, 5.
[4554]1984 John xvii. 12.
[4555]1985 Ps. cix. 8, 9.
[4556]1986 2 Macc. vii. 9. The words in brackets are not in the
original Greek.
[4557]1987 Ps. xxii. 16-18.
[4558]1988 Ps. xxii. 27, 28.
[4559]1989 Ps. ii. 8.
[4560]1990 Majorinus, ordained by the Numidian bishops in 311 A.D.
[4561]1991 Gal. iii. 29.
[4562]1992 Rom. viii. 17.
[4563]1993 Gen. xxii. 18.
[4564]1994 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.
[4565]1995 1 Cor. v. 5.
[4566]1996 1 Tim. i. 20.
[4567]1997 John ii. 15-17.
[4568]1998 John x. 37.
[4569]1999 John viii. 44.
[4570]2000 Matt. xxiii. 33-35.
[4571]2001 Ps. xiv. 5, LXX, cp. Hieron.
[4572]2002 Ps. xiv. 6, LXX. cp. Hieron.
[4573]2003 A suggested reading is, "nos esse viperas."
[4574]2004 These both with others are celebrated in the martyrology of
the Donatists, see IIII. Idas Martii Sermo de Passione SS. Donati et
Advocati, c. 340; Passio Marculi sacerdotis Donatistæ qui sub Macario
interfectus a Donatistis pro Martyre habebatur  (Dec. 25, a. 348),
and others. See Du Pin Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum Historiam
pertinentia, in his edition of Optatus.
[4575]2005 See below, c. 20, 46:Â and Contra Crescon. III. 49, 54.
[4576]2006 Ps. xxii. 27.
[4577]2007 Gen. xxii. 18.
[4578]2008 Rom. iv. 3.
[4579]2009 Ps. lvii. 4.
[4580]2010 Ps. xix. 4.
[4581]2011 Luke xxiv. 44-47.
[4582]2012 Ps. xiv. 5-8, cp. LXX. and Hieron., the last verse only
being in the Hebrew.
[4583]2013 Wisd. i. 11.
[4584]2014 Rom. iv. 5.
[4585]2015 Rom. iii. 26.
[4586]2016 John xx. 19, 21.
[4587]2017 Matt. vii. 15, 16.
[4588]2018 Matt. xxiv. 23.
[4589]2019 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15.
[4590]2020 Gen. vi. 3.
[4591]2021 Matt. xxv. 41.
[4592]2022 1 Cor. vi. 3.
[4593]2023 "Perdiderunt," which the Benedictines think may be a
confusion for "perierunt."
[4594]2024 Novissimus.
[4595]2025 1 Cor. xv. 9.
[4596]2026 2 Cor. xi. 26.
[4597]2027 Portenta.
[4598]2028 Down to this point Augustin had already answered Petilianus
in the First Book, as he says himself below, III. 50, 61.
[4599]2029 Matt. x. 23.
[4600]2030 Matt. x. 16, 28.
[4601]2031 1 Pet. iii. 15.
[4602]2032 Matt. v. 39.
[4603]2033 1 Kings xviii.
[4604]2034 Wisd. xii. 23.
[4605]2035 Acts ix. 4, 5.
[4606]2036 Ps. cv. 15.
[4607]2037 Vivacem Christum.
[4608]2038 Rom. xiii. 2, 4.
[4609]2039 1 John iii. 15.
[4610]2040 Acts ix. 4-18.
[4611]2041 John xiii. 10, 11.
[4612]2042 John xv. 3, 4.
[4613]2043 John xiv. 27.
[4614]2044 1 Tim. i. 7.
[4615]2045 Mark x. 35-39.
[4616]2046 Matt. v. 10.
[4617]2047 Optatus Gildonianus is the person to whom he refers.
[4618]2048 Gildo, from subservience to whom Optatus received the name
Gildonianus, was "Comes Africæ." The play on the meanings of
"Comes," in the expression "quod Comitem haberet Deum," is incapable
of direct translation. Cp. 37, 88; 103, 237.
[4619]2049 Ps. l. 18.
[4620]2050 Gal. vi. 5.
[4621]2051 Rom. xiv. 14.
[4622]2052 1 Cor. vi. 10.
[4623]2053 Matt. xxv. 34, 41.
[4624]2054 John xiii. 10.
[4625]2055 Matt. xxviii. 19.
[4626]2056 Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43.
[4627]2057 Matt. iii. 12.
[4628]2058 Wisd. i. 5.
[4629]2059 Eph. iv. 5.
[4630]2060 Optatus.
[4631]2061 Gildo.
[4632]2062 See above, on 23, 53.
[4633]2063 Ps. cxxxii. 9.
[4634]2064 John xi. 51.
[4635]2065 Tit. i. 12, 13.
[4636]2066 Acts xvii. 23, 27, 28.
[4637]2067 Rom. xiii. 1.
[4638]2068 John xix. 11.
[4639]2069 John iii. 27.
[4640]2070 Matt. iii. 11.
[4641]2071 John xx. 22.
[4642]2072 Acts ii. 2-4.
[4643]2073 Isa. lxvi. 24.
[4644]2074 Matt. v. 14.
[4645]2075 2 Sam. xii. 12.
[4646]2076 Ps. xix. 3-6, cp. Hieron.
[4647]2077 Eph. iv. 5.
[4648]2078 Matt. iii. 11.
[4649]2079 John xx. 22.
[4650]2080 Acts i. 5.
[4651]2081 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
[4652]2082 Matt. v. 9.
[4653]2083 See above, 23, 53.
[4654]2084 Acts i. 15, ii. 4, x. 44.
[4655]2085 Optatus Gildonianus.
[4656]2086 Gen. xxii. 18.
[4657]2087 Gal. vi. 5.
[4658]2088 Acts xix. 1-7.
[4659]2089 1 Cor. x. 1, 2.
[4660]2090 Matt. xiii. 17.
[4661]2091 Matt. xi. 9, 11.
[4662]2092 Mark i. 2; cp. Mal. iii. 1.
[4663]2093 Mark i. 7.
[4664]2094 Matt. xxvi. 17.
[4665]2095 In his treatise on the Sermon on the Mount, Book I. iv. 12,
Augustin again compares the "celebratio octavarum feriarum quas in
regeneratione novi hominis celebramus" with the circumcision on the
eighth day; and in Serm. 376, c. ii. 2, he says that the heads of the
infants were uncovered on the eighth day, as a token of liberty. Cp.
Bingham, Orig. Sacr. XII. iv. 3.
[4666]2096 Augustin apparently supposed that the sacrifice of the
paschal lamb was still observed among the Jews of the dispersion; cp.
Retract. I. x. 2. It was, however, forbidden them to sacrifice the
Passover except in the place which the Lord should choose to place His
name there; and hence the Jews, though they observe the other paschal
solemnities, abstain from the sacrifice of the lamb.
[4667]2097 Matt. xxi. 25.
[4668]2098 Gildo; see above, 23, 53.
[4669]2099 Isa. xlvi. 8.
[4670]2100 Luke xv. 32.
[4671]2101 Acts i. 7, 8.
[4672]2102 Dan. ii. 35.
[4673]2103 1 John ii. 19.
[4674]2104 Apparently from Wisd. iii. 6.
[4675]2105 Macarius acted as imperial commissioner with Paulus, c.
348, to settle the disputes between Donatists and Catholics, but only
to the further exasperation of the former, who accused him of
intrusion and murder, and thereafter called their opponents Macarians.
[4676]2106 Prov. ii. 22.
[4677]2107 Matt. xiii. 24-30.
[4678]2108 Gen. xxii. 18.
[4679]2109 Ps. lxxiii. 26.
[4680]2110 Ps. xvi. 5.
[4681]2111 John xi. 51.
[4682]2112 Prov. ii. 22.
[4683]2113 Ps. ii. 8.
[4684]2114 Ps. xxii. 27.
[4685]2115 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15.
[4686]2116 1 Cor. i. 12, 13.
[4687]2117 Ps. cxix. 42.
[4688]2118 Acts i. 8.
[4689]2119 Ps. xix. 4.
[4690]2120 Ps. cxix. 122.
[4691]2121 Matt. xxi. 43.
[4692]2122 Ps. cv. 44.
[4693]2123 Gal. iii. 27.
[4694]2124 Et super cathedram pestilentiæ, cp. Hieron.
[4695]2125 Ps. i.
[4696]2126 Gal. vi. 4.
[4697]2127 Ps. xxiii.
[4698]2128 Ps. cxliv. 9.
[4699]2129 Ps. xcvi. 1.
[4700]2130 1 Cor. xi. 29.
[4701]2131 1 Cor. iv. 3.
[4702]2132 Job ii. 3, 4.
[4703]2133 Matt. iv. 5-7.
[4704]2134 Ps. i. 1.
[4705]2135 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
[4706]2136 Isa. lxvi. 3.
[4707]2137 Hos. ix. 4.
[4708]2138 Tit. i. 15.
[4709]2139 In the Council of Bagai.
[4710]2140 Ps. xiv. 3, cp. LXX. and Hieron.
[4711]2141 Matt. vii. 21.
[4712]2142 Matt. vi. 10.
[4713]2143 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25.
[4714]2144 Matt. vii. 22, 23.
[4715]2145 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
[4716]2146 Luke x. 20.
[4717]2147 Acts i. 8.
[4718]2148 Matt. vii. 22, 23.
[4719]2149 1 Tim. i. 8.
[4720]2150 Ps. lxxii. 8.
[4721]2151 Acts xxii. 25.
[4722]2152 Ex. xx. 13-17.
[4723]2153 Matt. xxi. 43.
[4724]2154 Matt. v. 19, 20.
[4725]2155 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
[4726]2156 1 Cor. vi. 18.
[4727]2157 Matt. xii. 31, 32.
[4728]2158 Acts i. 8.
[4729]2159 The older editions have, "Quam multum et quantum luctum
dederint Deo" (Erasmus alone ideo) laudes amatorum vestrorum:"Â "How
much and how great grief have the praises of your lovers caused to
God?"Â The Benedictines restored the reading translated above ("Quam
multisâ¦Deo laudes armatorum vestrorum"), Deo laudes being the cry of
the Circumcelliones. Cp. Aug. in Ps. cxxxii. 6: "A quibus plus
timetur Deo laudes quam fremitus leonis;" and ib.:Â "Deo laudes
vestrum plorant homines."
[4730]2160 Gen. xxii. 18.
[4731]2161 Ps. cxli. 5, LXX., cf. Hieron.
[4732]2162 Matt. v. 3-9.
[4733]2163 Luke xxiv. 36, 45-47.
[4734]2164 Matt. xxii. 39.
[4735]2165 Eph. v. 29.
[4736]2166 Gal. v. 17.
[4737]2167 2 Tim. iv. 2.
[4738]2168 Eph. iv. 1-3.
[4739]2169 Jer. viii. 11.
[4740]2170 Ps. xlvi. 9.
[4741]2171 Dan. ii. 35.
[4742]2172 Eph. ii. 14.
[4743]2173 Matt. v. 10.
[4744]2174 Matt. xxiii. 13, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28.
[4745]2175 Matt. x. 16.
[4746]2176 John x. 27.
[4747]2177 Luke xxiv. 39, 46, 47.
[4748]2178 Matt. vii. 15, 16.
[4749]2179 1 Cor. xi. 19.
[4750]2180 John xiii. 34, 35.
[4751]2181 2 Cor. xi. 26.
[4752]2182 1 Cor. xi. 1.
[4753]2183 Phil. ii. 20, 21.
[4754]2184 2 Cor. vii. 5.
[4755]2185 1 Cor. xiii. 1-8.
[4756]2186 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[4757]2187 Matt. xiii. 38, 39, 30.
[4758]2188 Gal. i. 8.
[4759]2189 Ps. ci. 5.
[4760]2190 Luke ix. 49, 50.
[4761]2191 Phil. i. 15-18.
[4762]2192 1 Cor. xiii. 6.
[4763]2193 See below, 95, 217, and c. Gaudentium, I. 25, 28 sqq.
[4764]2194 Rom. xiii. 4.
[4765]2195 Augustin speaks of the Moor Rogatus, bishop of Cartenna in
ecclesiastical province of Mauritania Cæsariensis in his ninety-third
epistle, to Vincentius, c. iii. 11. We learn from the eighty-seventh
epistle, to Emeritus, sec. 10, that the followers of Rogatus called
the other Donatists Firmiani, because they had been subjected to much
cruelty at their hands under the authority of Firmus.
[4766]2196 Cp. note 3, p. 556.
[4767]2197 Optatus of Thaumugade (Thamogade), the friend of Gildo.
[4768]2198 Augustin mentions again in his thirty-fifth epistle, to
Eusebius, sec. 3, that Hippo had received the Roman citizenship. His
argument is that, even if not a native of the place, the deacon should
have been safe from molestation wherever Roman laws prevailed.
[4769]2199 Emphyteuticam. The land, therefore, was held under the
emperors, and less absolutely in the power of the owner than if it had
been freehold.
[4770]2200 Augustin remonstrates with Crispinus on the point, Epist.
lxvi.
[4771]2201 John vi. 44.
[4772]2202 Ecclus. xv. 16, 17.
[4773]2203 Matt. v. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 20.
[4774]2204 Acts v. 29.
[4775]2205 Prov. xiv. 28.
[4776]2206 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.
[4777]2207 Acts i. 8.
[4778]2208 Ex. xxxii. 28-32.
[4779]2209 Mal. i. 11.
[4780]2210 Ps. cxiii. 3.
[4781]2211 Ps. l. 14.
[4782]2212 1 John iii. 15.
[4783]2213 Matt. iv. 6, 7.
[4784]2214 John xviii. 10, 11; Matt. xxvi. 52.
[4785]2215 Ps. cxx. 6, 7, cp. Hieron.
[4786]2216 See Contr. Cresc. l. III. c. 67, l. IV. cc. 60, 61.
[4787]2217 John xii. 24.
[4788]2218 Veracissime. Another reading is "feracissime," "most
abundantly."
[4789]2219 Matt. v. 39.
[4790]2220 2 Cor. xi. 20, 23.
[4791]2221 Deut. xix. 21.
[4792]2222 2 Mac. vii.
[4793]2223 Dan. iii.
[4794]2224 Matt. ii. 16.
[4795]2225 Dan. vi.
[4796]2226 Matt. xxvii. 26.
[4797]2227 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.
[4798]2228 John xvi. 2.
[4799]2229 1 Kings xxi.
[4800]2230 Matt. xiv. 8, 9.
[4801]2231 Matt. xxvii. 24-26.
[4802]2232 Ps. ii., cp. Hieron.
[4803]2233 Matt. xxvii. 24.
[4804]2234 Some editions have Varius in the place of Geta, referring
to Aurelius Antoninus Heliogabalus, of whom Lampridius asserts that he
derived the name of Varius from the doubtfulness of his parentage.Â
Aelii Lampridii Antoninus Heliogabalus, in S.S. Historiæ Augustæ.Â
The Mss. agree, however, in the reading "Geta," which was a name of
the second son of Severus, the brother of Caracalla.
[4805]2235 Optatus defends the cause of Macarius at great length in
his third book against Parmenianus. Of Ursacius he says in the same
place:Â "You are offended at the times of a certain Leontius, of
Ursacius, Macarius and others."Â And Augustin, in his third book
against Cresconius, c. 20, introduces an objection of the Donatists
against himself:Â "But so soon as Silvanus, bishop of Cirta, had
refused to communicate with Ursacius and Zenophilus the persecutors,
he was driven into exile."Â Usuardus, deceived by a false story made
up by the Donatists, enters in his Martyrology, that a pseudo-martyr
Donatus suffered on the 1st of March, under Ursacius and Marcellinus,
to this effect:Â "On the same day of the holy martyr Donatus, who
suffered under Ursacius the judge (or dux), and the tribune
Marcellinus."
[4806]2236 1 Kings xxi.
[4807]2237 Prov. xviii. 21.
[4808]2238 Constitutio quam impetraverunt. Some editions have "quam
dederunt Constantio;" but there is no place for Constantius in this
history of the Donatists, nor was any boon either sought or obtained
from him in their name. The Louvain editors therefore restored
"constitutio," which is the reading of the Gallic Mss.
[4809]2239 Matt. vii. 3.
[4810]2240 Gen. xx.
[4811]2241 Gen. xxvi. 11.
[4812]2242 Gen. xlvii.
[4813]2243 Gen. xxxix., xli.
[4814]2244 Gen. xlii. 15.
[4815]2245 Ex. ii. 10.
[4816]2246 1 Sam. xxvii.
[4817]2247 1 Kings xviii. 44-46.
[4818]2248 2 Kings iv. 13.
[4819]2249 Dan. iii.-vi.
[4820]2250 John xvi. 2.
[4821]2251 Phil. iii. 5, 6.
[4822]2252 Acts xxiii. 12-33.
[4823]2253 The reign of Constantine lasted about thirty-two years,
from 306 to 337 A.D. Julian succeeded Constantius, and reigned one
year and seven months, dying at the age of thirty, in a war against
the Persians, in 363 A.D.
[4824]2254 Gen. ix. 5.
[4825]2255 Ps. ii. 10-12.
[4826]2256 Ps. ii. 7, 8.
[4827]2257 Isa. ii. 18; Zech. xiii. 2.
[4828]2258 Simulacri; and so the Mss. Â The older editions have
"adorandi simulacra;" but the singular is more forcible in its special
reference to the image on the plain of Dura. Dan. iii.
[4829]2259 Dan. ii.-vi.
[4830]2260 This is illustrated by the words of Augustin, Epist. 105,
ad Donatistas, c. I. 7:Â "Do ye not know that the words of the king
were:Â âI thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high
God hath wrought toward me. How great are His signs! and how mighty
are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His
dominion from generation to generationâ (Dan. iv. 2, 3)? Do you not,
when you hear this, answer Amen, and by saying this in a loud voice,
place your seal on the kingâs decree by a holy and solemn act?"Â In
the Gothic liturgy this declaration was made on Easter Eve (when the
third chapter of Daniel is still read in the Roman Church), and the
people answered "Amen."
[4831]2261 Nam nemo vivit invitus; et tamen puer ut hoc volens discat,
invitus vapulat. Perhaps a better reading is, "Nam nemo vult
invitus; et tamen puer ut volens discat," etc., leaving out "hoc,"
which is wanting in the Fleury Mss.:Â "No one wishes against his
will; and yet a boy, wishing to learn, is beaten against his will."
[4832]2262 Gal. vi. 5.
[4833]2263 Luke xxiv. 47.
[4834]2264 Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.
[4835]2265 Acts xxiii. 12-33.
[4836]2266 Acts i. 8.
[4837]2267 Matt. xvi. 26.
[4838]2268 1 Pet. ii. 20.
[4839]2269 Matt. v. 3.
[4840]2270 2 Cor. vi. 10.
[4841]2271 Matt. xvi. 25.
[4842]2272 Matt. xix. 29.
[4843]2273 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
[4844]2274 Acts i. 8.
[4845]2275 See above, c. 84.
[4846]2276 Matt. x. 28.
[4847]2277 Ps. lvii. 4.
[4848]2278 Job xiv. 4, 5; cp. LXX.
[4849]2279 Ps. li. 5.
[4850]2280 Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.
[4851]2281 Jer. xvii. 5.
[4852]2282 Mark vii. 4.
[4853]2283 Jer. xv. 15-18; cp. LXX.
[4854]2284 2 Cor. vii. 5.
[4855]2285 2 Cor. xi. 29.
[4856]2286 Rev. xvii. 15.
[4857]2287 Acts viii. 13.
[4858]2288 Col. i. 23.
[4859]2289 Ps. xciii. 1.
[4860]2290 Gildo.
[4861]2291 Ps. cxli. 5; cp. LXX and Hieron.
[4862]2292 Prov. xxvii. 6; cp. LXX. and Hieron.
[4863]2293 Ps. cxxxiii.
[4864]2294 Compare Tract. xv. 27 in Joannem:Â "Messiah was
anointed. The Greek for âanointedâ is âChrist,â the Hebrew Messiah;
whence also in PhÅnician we have âMesseâ for âanoint.â For these
languages, the Hebrew, PhÅnician and Syrian, are closely cognate, as
well as geographically bordering on each other."Â See also Max
Müllerâs Lectures on the Science of Language, series I. Lect. VIII.Â
"The ancient language of PhÅnicia, to judge from inscriptions, was
most closely allied to Hebrew."
[4865]2295 Col. i. 18.
[4866]2296 Matt. xix. 21.
[4867]2297 Acts iv. 32-35.
[4868]2298 Luke xxiv. 47.
[4869]2299 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4870]2300 Apparently misquoted from 1 Sam. ii. 25.
[4871]2301 Col. iv. 2-4.
[4872]2302 1 John i. 8.
[4873]2303 Dan. vi. 16.
[4874]2304 Ezek. xiv. 14.
[4875]2305 Dan. ix. 20.
[4876]2306 Lev. xvi.; Heb. ix. 7.
[4877]2307 Lev. xvi.; Heb. ix. 7.
[4878]2308 2 Cor. i. 11.
[4879]2309 1 John ii. 1, 2.
[4880]2310 1 Tim. iv. 14.
[4881]2311 1 Tim. v. 22.
[4882]2312 Rom. i. 32.
[4883]2313 Gal. v. 19-21.
[4884]2314 Matt. xvi. 18.
[4885]2315 Matt. vii. 26.
[4886]2316 Ps. lxi. 2, 3.
[4887]2317 That the Donatists were called at Rome Montenses, is
observed by Augustin, de Hæresibus, c. lxix., and Epist. liii. 2; and
before him by Optatus, Book II. c. iv. That they were also called
Cutzupitani, or Cutzupitæ, we learn from the same epistle, and from
his treatise de Unitate Ecclesiæ, c. iii. 6.
[4888]2318 Lucilla.
[4889]2319 Possidius, in the third chapter of his Indiculus,
designates this third book as "One book against the second letter of
the same."Â Cp. Aug. Retractt. Bk. II. c. xxv.
[4890]2320 Ps. lii. 3.
[4891]2321 Ps. lxxxiv. 10.
[4892]2322 Nihil enim mihi conscius sum.
[4893]2323 1 Cor. iv. 1-6.
[4894]2324 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.
[4895]2325 Jas. i. 17.
[4896]2326 1 Cor. iv. 7.
[4897]2327 1 Cor. iv. 16.
[4898]2328 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[4899]2329 Jer. xvii. 5.
[4900]2330 Matt. iii. 12.
[4901]2331 2 Tim. ii. 20.
[4902]2332 Matt. xiii. 47, 48.
[4903]2333 Matt. xxv. 32, 33.
[4904]2334 Matt. xiii. 24-40.
[4905]2335 1 Cor. i. 12, 13.
[4906]2336 2 Tim. ii. 19.
[4907]2337 Ps. xxvii. 14.
[4908]2338 1 Thess. v. 14, 15.
[4909]2339 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.
[4910]2340 1 Cor. viii. 11.
[4911]2341 1 Cor. iii. 7.
[4912]2342 1 John iv. 16.
[4913]2343 Gal. vi. 4, 5.
[4914]2344 Rom. xiv. 12, 13.
[4915]2345 Gal. vi. 2, 3.
[4916]2346 Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[4917]2347 Matt. xii. 30.
[4918]2348 Gal. i. 8.
[4919]2349 Matt. v. 12.
[4920]2350 Cant. i. 3.
[4921]2351 Ps. lvii. 11.
[4922]2352 1 Cor. i. 30, 31.
[4923]2353 Matt. v. 10-12.
[4924]2354 Matt. x. 25.
[4925]2355 Ps. xxvi. 1.
[4926]2356 Ps. lvi. 11.
[4927]2357 Ps. xi. 1.
[4928]2358 1 Pet. iii. 21.
[4929]2359 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
[4930]2360 Some editors have "unitate," but Amerbach and the Mss.
"veritate;" and this is supported by c. 24, 28 below: "De ecclesiæ
vel baptismi veritate;" and c. 13, 22 of the treatise de Unico
Baptismo: "Ambulantibus in ecclesiæ veritate."
[4931]2361 Ubi vobis faventibus loquatur, et victus verum simulans
statum, talia vel etiam sceleratiori dictat in me. Mihi sat est ad
rem, etc. Morel (Elem. Crit. pp. 326-328) suggests as an
improvement. "Ubi vobis faventibus loquatur et victus. Verum si
millies tantum talia vel etiam sceleratiora dicat in me, mihi sat
est", etc.,â "on which he may speak amidst applause from you, even
when beaten. But if he were to make a thousand times as many
statements concerning me," etc.
[4932]2362 Eph. vi. 12.
[4933]2363 Eph. v. 8.
[4934]2364 2 Cor. vi. 7, 8.
[4935]2365 Luke vi. 35.
[4936]2366 Luke xxiii. 34.
[4937]2367 See above, Book I. c. 1, 2.
[4938]2368 Acts xxiv. 1.
[4939]2369 Paracletus.
[4940]2370 "Favente," which is wanting in the Mss., was inserted in
the margin by Erasmus, as being needed to complete the sense.
[4941]2371 Megalius, bishop of Calama, primate of Numidia, was the
bishop who ordained Augustin, as we find in c. viii. of his life by
Possidius. Augustin makes further reply to the same calumny, which
was gathered from a letter of Megalius, in Contra Cresconium, Book
III. c. 80, 92, and Book IV. c. 64, 78, 79.
[4942]2372 Lente, ut dicitur, et bene. Morel (Element. Crit. pp.
140, 141) suggests as an amendment, "lene," as suiting better with
"lente."
[4943]2373 See Book I. c. 1, 2, c. 2, 3.
[4944]2374 Lactantius, Divin. Instit. Book V. c. xv., tells us of the
talents of Carneades, recording that when he was sent on an embassy to
Rome by the Athenians, he spoke there first in defense of justice, and
then on the following day in opposition to it; and that he was in the
habit of speaking with such force on either side, as to be able to
refute any arguments advanced by anybody else.
[4945]2375 Ter. Heaut. act. IV. scen. iii. vers. 41.
[4946]2376 Ter. Heaut. act. IV. scen. iii. vers. 41.
[4947]2377 In de Civ. Dei, Book II. c. xxi., Augustin mentions L.
Furius Philus, one of the interlocutors in Ciceroâs Laelius, as
maintaining this same view. From the similarity of the name, it has
been thought that here Furius and Pilus are only one man.
[4948]2378 The Mss. here and below have Protagoras. Both were
atheists, according to Cicero, Nat. Deor. I. i. 2, and Lactantius
Divin. Instit. I. c. ii.; de Ira Dei, c. ix.
[4949]2379 Ps. xiv. 1.
[4950]2380 See Book I. c. 2, 3.
[4951]2381 See Book I. c. 2, 3.
[4952]2382 Jer. xvii. 5.
[4953]2383 1 Cor. iii. 21.
[4954]2384 Ps. lxii. 1, 2; cp. Hieron.
[4955]2385 John i. 22.
[4956]2386 Matt. iii. 7.
[4957]2387 Wisd. i. 5.
[4958]2388 1 Tim. iii. 10.
[4959]2389 Book I. cc. 1, 2, 2, 3.
[4960]2390 Wisd. i. 5.
[4961]2391 The Council of Carthage, held on the 13th of September,
401, passed a decree (canon 2) in favor of receiving the clergy of the
Donatists with full recognition of their orders.
[4962]2392 Acts viii. 36.
[4963]2393 Jer. xv. 18. See Book II. c. 102, 234, 235.
[4964]2394 Rev. xvii. 15.
[4965]2395 Ps. cxli. 5. See Book II. c. 103, 236, 237.
[4966]2396 1 John iv. 1.
[4967]2397 Matt. xvi. 16.
[4968]2398 Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24; Luke viii. 28.
[4969]2399 Wisd. i. 5.
[4970]2400 See Book I. cc. 10, 11, 11, 12.
[4971]2401 1 Cor. iii. 21, and i. 31.
[4972]2402 Rom. iv. 5.
[4973]2403 Rom. iv. 5.
[4974]2404 That of Bagai.
[4975]2405 Gal. vi. 5.
[4976]2406 See Possidiusâ Life of St. Augustin, cc. v.-xi.
[4977]2407 See c. 45, 54.
[4978]2408 Rom. iv. 5.
[4979]2409 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
[4980]2410 John xv. 5.
[4981]2411 Rom. xii. 5.
[4982]2412 Book I. c. 5, 6.
[4983]2413 Book I. c. 6, 7.
[4984]2414 Matt. vii. 17, 16.
[4985]2415 Matt. xii. 35.
[4986]2416 See Book I. cc. 7, 8, 8, 9.
[4987]2417 1 Cor. xv. 13-15.
[4988]2418 See Book I. c. 6, 7.
[4989]2419 See Book I. c. 8, 9.
[4990]2420 Rom. ix. 5.
[4991]2421 Acts v. 3, 4.
[4992]2422 Matt. xxii. 30.
[4993]2423 Rom. iv. 5.
[4994]2424 John i. 33.
[4995]2425 Eph. v. 25, 26.
[4996]2426 Jer. xvii. 5.
[4997]2427 Ps. xl. 4.
[4998]2428 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[4999]2429 Matt. x. 23.
[5000]2430 Matt. vii. 17, 16.
[5001]2431 Matt. xii. 35.
[5002]2432 Ecclus. xxxiv. 25. See Book I. c. 9, 10.
[5003]2433 Ps. cxviii. 8.
[5004]2434 Jer. xvii. 5.
[5005]2435 Ps. iii. 8.
[5006]2436 Ps. lx. 11.
[5007]2437 1 Cor. iii. 7.
[5008]2438 Rom. iv. 5.
[5009]2439 Ps. lxxii. 8.
[5010]2440 Ps. ii. 8.
[5011]2441 Gen. xxii. 18.
[5012]2442 Gal. iii. 16.
[5013]2443 Matt. xxiii. 3.
[5014]2444 1 Cor. i. 13.
[5015]2445 See Book I. cc. 3, 4, 4, 5.
[5016]2446 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
[5017]2447 Gal. vi. 3.
[5018]2448 Ministri ejus cui credidistis. See 1 Cor. iii. 4, 5.
[5019]2449 Acts xv. 9.
[5020]2450 Rom. iv. 5.
[5021]2451 1 Cor. ix. 17.
[5022]2452 John iv. 2.
[5023]2453 John xii. 6.
[5024]2454 1 Cor. i. 17.
[5025]2455 1 Cor. iv. 15.
[5026]2456 1 Cor. i. 14, 16.
[5027]2457 John iii. 5.
[5028]2458 Matt. v. 20.
[5029]2459 2 Tim. ii. 8.
[5030]2460 Acts xix. 3.
[5031]2461 Eph. v. 25, 26.
[5032]2462 See Book III. c. Cresconium, cc. 27, 28, 31, 32.
[5033]2463 Matt. vii. 15, 16.
[5034]2464 See Book I. cc. 21, 22, 23, 24.
[5035]2465 Written c. 417.
[5036]2466 In Book 11. c. xlviii of his Retractations, Augustin
says:Â "About the same time" (as that at which he wrote his treatise
De Gestis Pelagii, i.e., about the year 417), "I wrote also a treatise
De Correctione Donatistarum, for the sake of those who were not
willing that the Donatists should be subjected to the correction of
the imperial laws."Â This treatise begins with the words "Laudo, et
gratulor, et admiror."Â This letter in the old editions was No.
50,âthe letter which is now No. 4 in the appendix (Benedictine) being
formerly No. 185.
[5037]2467 He handles the same thought in Ep. 93.
[5038]2468 The correspondence between Augustin and Boniface is limited
to Epp. 185, 189 and 220. The sixteen smaller letters are
spurious. For note to Boniface and translations of 189 and 220, see
vol. I of this series pp. 552 and 573.
[5039]2469 Ps. xxii. 16-18, 27, 28.
[5040]2470 Ps. ii. 7, 8.
[5041]2471 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.
[5042]2472 John i. 1, 4.
[5043]2473 This epistle was produced in the fifth conference of the
fifth ecumenical Synod (553), when the point was under debate whether
Theodorus of Mopsuesta could be condemned after his death.
[5044]2474 Ps. cxviii. 8.
[5045]2475 Gen. xxvi. 4.
[5046]2476 Mal. i. 11.
[5047]2477 Ps. lxxii. 8.
[5048]2478 Col. i. 6.
[5049]2479 Acts i. 8.
[5050]2480 In the Councils at Rome and Arles.
[5051]2481 This digest will be found in the 9th volume of Benedictine
edition of Augustinâs Works. Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis,
p. 371 sqq., reproduced in Migne 613, sqq.
[5052]2482 Dan. vi. 24.
[5053]2483 Gal. vi. 9, 10.
[5054]2484 Dan. iii. 5, 29.
[5055]2485 Matt v. 1.
[5056]2486 Gen. xvi. 6.
[5057]2487 1 Sam. xviii., xix., etc.
[5058]2488 Luke xxiii. 33.
[5059]2489 Discerne causam meam. The Eng. Vers. has, "plead my cause
against an ungodly nation."
[5060]2490 Ps. xliii. 1.
[5061]2491 Ps. cxix. 86.
[5062]2492 Gal. iv. 22-31.
[5063]2493 Ps. xviii. 37.
[5064]2494 Luke iv. 9.
[5065]2495 Mark v. 13.
[5066]2496 Matt. xvii. 14.
[5067]2497 Matt. iii. 12.
[5068]2498 Ps. ii. 1, 2, 10, 11.
[5069]2499 2 Kings xviii. 4.
[5070]2500 2 Kings xxiii. 4, 5.
[5071]2501 Jonah iii. 6-9.
[5072]2502 Bel and Drag. vv. 22, 42.
[5073]2503 Dan. iii. 29.
[5074]2504 John xvi. 2.
[5075]2505 Ps. lxxii. 11.
[5076]2506 Ter. Adelph. act 1. sc. i. 32, 33.
[5077]2507 This is not found in the extant plays of Terence.
[5078]2508 1 John iv. 18.
[5079]2509 Prov. xxix. 19.
[5080]2510 Prov. xxiii. 14.
[5081]2511 Prov. xiii. 24.
[5082]2512 Ps. xlii. 2.
[5083]2513 Phil. i. 23.
[5084]2514 John x. 15.
[5085]2515 Acts ix. 1-18.
[5086]2516 1 Cor. xv. 10.
[5087]2517 Accipiant:Â sc. the baptizer and the baptized; and so the
Mss. The common reading is "accipiat."
[5088]2518 2 Cor. x. 6.
[5089]2519 Luke xiv. 22, 23.
[5090]2520 1 Cor. i. 22.
[5091]2521 That of Carthage, held June 26 (more correctly, probably
June 15th or 16th), 401.
[5092]2522 The basilica of Fundus Calvianensis. See C. Crescon. iii.
c. 43.
[5093]2523 Acts xxiii. 17-32.
[5094]2524 Acts xxii. 25.
[5095]2525 Acts xxv. 11.
[5096]2526 2 Tim. ii. 26.
[5097]2527 Ezek. xxxiv. 4.
[5098]2528 2 Sam. xviii., xxii.
[5099]2529 Cod. Theod. Lib. xvi. tit. v., de Hæreticis, 52.
[5100]2530 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23.
[5101]2531 Acts iv. 32.
[5102]2532 Ps. cxxxiii. 1.
[5103]2533 2 Cor. xii. 14.
[5104]2534 Wisd. x. 20.
[5105]2535 Prov. xiii. 22.
[5106]2536 Rom. iv. 5.
[5107]2537 Rom. x. 3.
[5108]2538 1 Cor. iv. 7.
[5109]2539 Eph. v. 27.
[5110]2540 1 Cor. xv. 55, 56.
[5111]2541 Wisd. ix. 15.
[5112]2542 Matt. vi. 12.
[5113]2543 1 John i. 8, 9.
[5114]2544 1 Cor. xv. 54.
[5115]2545 1 John iii. 9.
[5116]2546 1 John i. 8.
[5117]2547 Rom. iii. 24.
[5118]2548 Wisd. v. 1.
[5119]2549 Rom. xii. 3-5.
[5120]2550 Luke xv. 32.
[5121]2551 Eph. iv. 3.
[5122]2552 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[5123]2553 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3.
[5124]2554 1 Cor. iii. 7.
[5125]2555 Pope Innocent I., in his 6th Epistle to Agapitus,
Macedonius, and Maurianus, bishops of Apulia, writes to the effect
that "canons had been passed at Nicæa, excluding penitents from even
the lowest orders of the ministry" (can. 10).
[5126]2556 Matt. xvi. 19.
[5127]2557 Ps. cxxii. 7; cp. Hieron.
[5128]2558 Bishop of Calaris. Cp. De Agone Christiano, c. xxx. 32.
[5129]2559 The Bishop of Casæ Nigræ.
[5130]2560 The Council of Bagai.
[5131]2561 Matt. xii. 32.
[5132]2562 John xv. 22.
[5133]2563 John xx. 22, 23.
[5134]2564 Rom. ii. 4, 5.
[5135]2565 1 Cor. xi. 29.
[5136]2566 1 Cor. x. 17.
[5137]2567 Eph. v. 23.
[5138]2568 Rom. v. 5.
[5139]2569 Jude 19.
[5140]2570 Wisd. i. 5.
References
1. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1
2. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2
3. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf3
4. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf4
5. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf5
6. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf6
7. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf7
8. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf8
9. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf9
10. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf10
11. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf11
12. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf12
13. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf13
14. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf14
15. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf15
16. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf16
17. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf17
18. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf18
19. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf19
20. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf20
21. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf21
22. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf22
23. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf23
24. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf24
25. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf25
26. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf26
27. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf27
28. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf28
29. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf29
30. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf30
31. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf31
32. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf32
33. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf33
34. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf34
35. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf35
36. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf36
37. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf37
38. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf38
39. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf39
40. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf40
41. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf41
42. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf42
43. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf43
44. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf44
45. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf45
46. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf46
47. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf47
48. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf48
49. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf49
50. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf50
51. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf51
52. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf52
53. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf53
54. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf54
55. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf55
56. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf56
57. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf57
58. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf58
59. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf59
60. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf60
61. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf61
62. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf62
63. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf63
64. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf64
65. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf65
66. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf66
67. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf67
68. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf68
69. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf69
70. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf70
71. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf71
72. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf72
73. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf73
74. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf74
75. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf75
76. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf76
77. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf77
78. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf78
79. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf79
80. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf80
81. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf81
82. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf82
83. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf83
84. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf84
85. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf85
86. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf86
87. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf87
88. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf88
89. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf89
90. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf90
91. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf91
92. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf92
93. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf93
94. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf94
95. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf95
96. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf96
97. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf97
98. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf98
99. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf99
100. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf100
101. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf101
102. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf102
103. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf103
104. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf104
105. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf105
106. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf106
107. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf107
108. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf108
109. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf109
110. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf110
111. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf111
112. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf112
113. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf113
114. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf114
115. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf115
116. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf116
117. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf117
118. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf118
119. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf119
120. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf120
121. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf121
122. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf122
123. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf123
124. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf124
125. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf125
126. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf126
127. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf127
128. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf128
129. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf129
130. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf130
131. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf131
132. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf132
133. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf133
134. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf134
135. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf135
136. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf136
137. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf137
138. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf138
139. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf139
140. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf140
141. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf141
142. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf142
143. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf143
144. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf144
145. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf145
146. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf146
147. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf147
148. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf148
149. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf149
150. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf150
151. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf151
152. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf152
153. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf153
154. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf154
155. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf155
156. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf156
157. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf157
158. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf158
159. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf159
160. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf160
161. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf161
162. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf162
163. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf163
164. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf164
165. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf165
166. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf166
167. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf167
168. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf168
169. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf169
170. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf170
171. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf171
172. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf172
173. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf173
174. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf174
175. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf175
176. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf176
177. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf177
178. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf178
179. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf179
180. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf180
181. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf181
182. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf182
183. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf183
184. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf184
185. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf185
186. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf186
187. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf187
188. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf188
189. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf189
190. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf190
191. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf191
192. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf192
193. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf193
194. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf194
195. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf195
196. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf196
197. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf197
198. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf198
199. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf199
200. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf200
201. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf201
202. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf202
203. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf203
204. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf204
205. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf205
206. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf206
207. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf207
208. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf208
209. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf209
210. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf210
211. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf211
212. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf212
213. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf213
214. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf214
215. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf215
216. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf216
217. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf217
218. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf218
219. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf219
220. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf220
221. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf221
222. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf222
223. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf223
224. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf224
225. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf225
226. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf226
227. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf227
228. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf228
229. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf229
230. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf230
231. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf231
232. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf232
233. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf233
234. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf234
235. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf235
236. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf236
237. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf237
238. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf238
239. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf239
240. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf240
241. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf241
242. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf242
243. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf243
244. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf244
245. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf245
246. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf246
247. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf247
248. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf248
249. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf249
250. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf250
251. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf251
252. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf252
253. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf253
254. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf254
255. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf255
256. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf256
257. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf257
258. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf258
259. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf259
260. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf260
261. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf261
262. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf262
263. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf263
264. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf264
265. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf265
266. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf266
267. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf267
268. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf268
269. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf269
270. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf270
271. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf271
272. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf272
273. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf273
274. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf274
275. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf275
276. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf276
277. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf277
278. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf278
279. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf279
280. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf280
281. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf281
282. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf282
283. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf283
284. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf284
285. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf285
286. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf286
287. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf287
288. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf288
289. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf289
290. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf290
291. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf291
292. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf292
293. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf293
294. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf294
295. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf295
296. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf296
297. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf297
298. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf298
299. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf299
300. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf300
301. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf301
302. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf302
303. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf303
304. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf304
305. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf305
306. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf306
307. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf307
308. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf308
309. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf309
310. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf310
311. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf311
312. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf312
313. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf313
314. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf314
315. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf315
316. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf316
317. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf317
318. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf318
319. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf319
320. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf320
321. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf321
322. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf322
323. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf323
324. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf324
325. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf325
326. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf326
327. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf327
328. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf328
329. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf329
330. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf330
331. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf331
332. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf332
333. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf333
334. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf334
335. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf335
336. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf336
337. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf337
338. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf338
339. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf339
340. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf340
341. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf341
342. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf342
343. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf343
344. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf344
345. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf345
346. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf346
347. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf347
348. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf348
349. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf349
350. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf350
351. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf351
352. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf352
353. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf353
354. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf354
355. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf355
356. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf356
357. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf357
358. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf358
359. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf359
360. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf360
361. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf361
362. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf362
363. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf363
364. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf364
365. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf365
366. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf366
367. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf367
368. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf368
369. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf369
370. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf370
371. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf371
372. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf372
373. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf373
374. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf374
375. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf375
376. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf376
377. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf377
378. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf378
379. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf379
380. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf380
381. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf381
382. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf382
383. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf383
384. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf384
385. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf385
386. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf386
387. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf387
388. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf388
389. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf389
390. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf390
391. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf391
392. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf392
393. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf393
394. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf394
395. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf395
396. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf396
397. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf397
398. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf398
399. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf399
400. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf400
401. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf401
402. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf402
403. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf403
404. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf404
405. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf405
406. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf406
407. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf407
408. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf408
409. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf409
410. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf410
411. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf411
412. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf412
413. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf413
414. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf414
415. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf415
416. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf416
417. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf417
418. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf418
419. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf419
420. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf420
421. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf421
422. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf422
423. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf423
424. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf424
425. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf425
426. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf426
427. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf427
428. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf428
429. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf429
430. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf430
431. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf431
432. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf432
433. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf433
434. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf434
435. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf435
436. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf436
437. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf437
438. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf438
439. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf439
440. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf440
441. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf441
442. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf442
443. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf443
444. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf444
445. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf445
446. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf446
447. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf447
448. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf448
449. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf449
450. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf450
451. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf451
452. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf452
453. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf453
454. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf454
455. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf455
456. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf456
457. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf457
458. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf458
459. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf459
460. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf460
461. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf461
462. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf462
463. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf463
464. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf464
465. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf465
466. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf466
467. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf467
468. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf468
469. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf469
470. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf470
471. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf471
472. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf472
473. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf473
474. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf474
475. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf475
476. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf476
477. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf477
478. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf478
479. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf479
480. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf480
481. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf481
482. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf482
483. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf483
484. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf484
485. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf485
486. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf486
487. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf487
488. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf488
489. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf489
490. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf490
491. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf491
492. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf492
493. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf493
494. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf494
495. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf495
496. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf496
497. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf497
498. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf498
499. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf499
500. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf500
501. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf501
502. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf502
503. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf503
504. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf504
505. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf505
506. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf506
507. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf507
508. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf508
509. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf509
510. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf510
511. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf511
512. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf512
513. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf513
514. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf514
515. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf515
516. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf516
517. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf517
518. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf518
519. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf519
520. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf520
521. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf521
522. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf522
523. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf523
524. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf524
525. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf525
526. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf526
527. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf527
528. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf528
529. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf529
530. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf530
531. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf531
532. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf532
533. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf533
534. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf534
535. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf535
536. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf536
537. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf537
538. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf538
539. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf539
540. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf540
541. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf541
542. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf542
543. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf543
544. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf544
545. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf545
546. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf546
547. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf547
548. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf548
549. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf549
550. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf550
551. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf551
552. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf552
553. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf553
554. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf554
555. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf555
556. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf556
557. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf557
558. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf558
559. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf559
560. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf560
561. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf561
562. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf562
563. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf563
564. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf564
565. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf565
566. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf566
567. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf567
568. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf568
569. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf569
570. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf570
571. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf571
572. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf572
573. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf573
574. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf574
575. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf575
576. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf576
577. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf577
578. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf578
579. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf579
580. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf580
581. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf581
582. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf582
583. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf583
584. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf584
585. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf585
586. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf586
587. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf587
588. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf588
589. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf589
590. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf590
591. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf591
592. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf592
593. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf593
594. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf594
595. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf595
596. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf596
597. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf597
598. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf598
599. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf599
600. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf600
601. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf601
602. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf602
603. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf603
604. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf604
605. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf605
606. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf606
607. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf607
608. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf608
609. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf609
610. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf610
611. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf611
612. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf612
613. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf613
614. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf614
615. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf615
616. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf616
617. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf617
618. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf618
619. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf619
620. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf620
621. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf621
622. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf622
623. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf623
624. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf624
625. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf625
626. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf626
627. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf627
628. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf628
629. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf629
630. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf630
631. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf631
632. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf632
633. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf633
634. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf634
635. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf635
636. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf636
637. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf637
638. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf638
639. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf639
640. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf640
641. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf641
642. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf642
643. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf643
644. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf644
645. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf645
646. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf646
647. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf647
648. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf648
649. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf649
650. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf650
651. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf651
652. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf652
653. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf653
654. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf654
655. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf655
656. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf656
657. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf657
658. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf658
659. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf659
660. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf660
661. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf661
662. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf662
663. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf663
664. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf664
665. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf665
666. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf666
667. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf667
668. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf668
669. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf669
670. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf670
671. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf671
672. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf672
673. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf673
674. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf674
675. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf675
676. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf676
677. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf677
678. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf678
679. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf679
680. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf680
681. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf681
682. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf682
683. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf683
684. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf684
685. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf685
686. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf686
687. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf687
688. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf688
689. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf689
690. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf690
691. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf691
692. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf692
693. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf693
694. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf694
695. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf695
696. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf696
697. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf697
698. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf698
699. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf699
700. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf700
701. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf701
702. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf702
703. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf703
704. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf704
705. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf705
706. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf706
707. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf707
708. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf708
709. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf709
710. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf710
711. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf711
712. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf712
713. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf713
714. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf714
715. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf715
716. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf716
717. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf717
718. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf718
719. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf719
720. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf720
721. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf721
722. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf722
723. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf723
724. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf724
725. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf725
726. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf726
727. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf727
728. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf728
729. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf729
730. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf730
731. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf731
732. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf732
733. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf733
734. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf734
735. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf735
736. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf736
737. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf737
738. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf738
739. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf739
740. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf740
741. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf741
742. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf742
743. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf743
744. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf744
745. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf745
746. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf746
747. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf747
748. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf748
749. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf749
750. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf750
751. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf751
752. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf752
753. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf753
754. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf754
755. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf755
756. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf756
757. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf757
758. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf758
759. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf759
760. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf760
761. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf761
762. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf762
763. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf763
764. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf764
765. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf765
766. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf766
767. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf767
768. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf768
769. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf769
770. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf770
771. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf771
772. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf772
773. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf773
774. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf774
775. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf775
776. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf776
777. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf777
778. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf778
779. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf779
780. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf780
781. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf781
782. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf782
783. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf783
784. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf784
785. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf785
786. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf786
787. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf787
788. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf788
789. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf789
790. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf790
791. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf791
792. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf792
793. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf793
794. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf794
795. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf795
796. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf796
797. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf797
798. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf798
799. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf799
800. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf800
801. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf801
802. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf802
803. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf803
804. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf804
805. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf805
806. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf806
807. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf807
808. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf808
809. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf809
810. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf810
811. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf811
812. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf812
813. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf813
814. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf814
815. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf815
816. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf816
817. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf817
818. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf818
819. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf819
820. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf820
821. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf821
822. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf822
823. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf823
824. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf824
825. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf825
826. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf826
827. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf827
828. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf828
829. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf829
830. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf830
831. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf831
832. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf832
833. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf833
834. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf834
835. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf835
836. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf836
837. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf837
838. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf838
839. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf839
840. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf840
841. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf841
842. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf842
843. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf843
844. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf844
845. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf845
846. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf846
847. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf847
848. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf848
849. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf849
850. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf850
851. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf851
852. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf852
853. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf853
854. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf854
855. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf855
856. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf856
857. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf857
858. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf858
859. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf859
860. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf860
861. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf861
862. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf862
863. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf863
864. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf864
865. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf865
866. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf866
867. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf867
868. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf868
869. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf869
870. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf870
871. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf871
872. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf872
873. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf873
874. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf874
875. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf875
876. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf876
877. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf877
878. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf878
879. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf879
880. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf880
881. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf881
882. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf882
883. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf883
884. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf884
885. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf885
886. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf886
887. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf887
888. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf888
889. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf889
890. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf890
891. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf891
892. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf892
893. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf893
894. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf894
895. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf895
896. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf896
897. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf897
898. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf898
899. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf899
900. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf900
901. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf901
902. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf902
903. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf903
904. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf904
905. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf905
906. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf906
907. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf907
908. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf908
909. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf909
910. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf910
911. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf911
912. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf912
913. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf913
914. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf914
915. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf915
916. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf916
917. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf917
918. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf918
919. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf919
920. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf920
921. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf921
922. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf922
923. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf923
924. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf924
925. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf925
926. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf926
927. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf927
928. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf928
929. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf929
930. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf930
931. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf931
932. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf932
933. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf933
934. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf934
935. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf935
936. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf936
937. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf937
938. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf938
939. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf939
940. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf940
941. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf941
942. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf942
943. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf943
944. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf944
945. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf945
946. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf946
947. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf947
948. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf948
949. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf949
950. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf950
951. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf951
952. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf952
953. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf953
954. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf954
955. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf955
956. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf956
957. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf957
958. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf958
959. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf959
960. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf960
961. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf961
962. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf962
963. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf963
964. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf964
965. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf965
966. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf966
967. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf967
968. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf968
969. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf969
970. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf970
971. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf971
972. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf972
973. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf973
974. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf974
975. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf975
976. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf976
977. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf977
978. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf978
979. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf979
980. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf980
981. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf981
982. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf982
983. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf983
984. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf984
985. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf985
986. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf986
987. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf987
988. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf988
989. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf989
990. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf990
991. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf991
992. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf992
993. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf993
994. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf994
995. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf995
996. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf996
997. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf997
998. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf998
999. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf999
1000. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1000
1001. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1001
1002. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1002
1003. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1003
1004. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1004
1005. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1005
1006. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1006
1007. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1007
1008. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1008
1009. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1009
1010. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1010
1011. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1011
1012. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1012
1013. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1013
1014. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1014
1015. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1015
1016. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1016
1017. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1017
1018. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1018
1019. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1019
1020. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1020
1021. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1021
1022. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1022
1023. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1023
1024. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1024
1025. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1025
1026. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1026
1027. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1027
1028. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1028
1029. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1029
1030. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1030
1031. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1031
1032. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1032
1033. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1033
1034. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1034
1035. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1035
1036. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1036
1037. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1037
1038. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1038
1039. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1039
1040. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1040
1041. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1041
1042. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1042
1043. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1043
1044. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1044
1045. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1045
1046. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1046
1047. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1047
1048. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1048
1049. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1049
1050. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1050
1051. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1051
1052. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1052
1053. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1053
1054. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1054
1055. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1055
1056. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1056
1057. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1057
1058. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1058
1059. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1059
1060. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1060
1061. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1061
1062. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1062
1063. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1063
1064. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1064
1065. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1065
1066. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1066
1067. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1067
1068. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1068
1069. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1069
1070. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1070
1071. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1071
1072. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1072
1073. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1073
1074. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1074
1075. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1075
1076. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1076
1077. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1077
1078. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1078
1079. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1079
1080. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1080
1081. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1081
1082. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1082
1083. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1083
1084. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1084
1085. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1085
1086. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1086
1087. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1087
1088. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1088
1089. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1089
1090. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1090
1091. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1091
1092. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1092
1093. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1093
1094. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1094
1095. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1095
1096. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1096
1097. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1097
1098. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1098
1099. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1099
1100. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1100
1101. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1101
1102. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1102
1103. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1103
1104. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1104
1105. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1105
1106. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1106
1107. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1107
1108. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1108
1109. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1109
1110. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1110
1111. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1111
1112. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1112
1113. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1113
1114. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1114
1115. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1115
1116. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1116
1117. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1117
1118. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1118
1119. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1119
1120. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1120
1121. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1121
1122. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1122
1123. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1123
1124. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1124
1125. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1125
1126. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1126
1127. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1127
1128. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1128
1129. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1129
1130. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1130
1131. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1131
1132. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1132
1133. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1133
1134. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1134
1135. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1135
1136. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1136
1137. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1137
1138. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1138
1139. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1139
1140. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1140
1141. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1141
1142. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1142
1143. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1143
1144. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1144
1145. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1145
1146. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1146
1147. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1147
1148. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1148
1149. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1149
1150. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1150
1151. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1151
1152. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1152
1153. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1153
1154. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1154
1155. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1155
1156. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1156
1157. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1157
1158. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1158
1159. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1159
1160. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1160
1161. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1161
1162. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1162
1163. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1163
1164. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1164
1165. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1165
1166. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1166
1167. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1167
1168. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1168
1169. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1169
1170. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1170
1171. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1171
1172. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1172
1173. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1173
1174. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1174
1175. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1175
1176. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1176
1177. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1177
1178. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1178
1179. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1179
1180. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1180
1181. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1181
1182. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1182
1183. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1183
1184. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1184
1185. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1185
1186. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1186
1187. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1187
1188. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1188
1189. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1189
1190. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1190
1191. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1191
1192. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1192
1193. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1193
1194. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1194
1195. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1195
1196. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1196
1197. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1197
1198. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1198
1199. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1199
1200. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1200
1201. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1201
1202. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1202
1203. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1203
1204. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1204
1205. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1205
1206. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1206
1207. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1207
1208. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1208
1209. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1209
1210. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1210
1211. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1211
1212. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1212
1213. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1213
1214. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1214
1215. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1215
1216. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1216
1217. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1217
1218. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1218
1219. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1219
1220. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1220
1221. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1221
1222. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1222
1223. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1223
1224. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1224
1225. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1225
1226. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1226
1227. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1227
1228. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1228
1229. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1229
1230. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1230
1231. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1231
1232. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1232
1233. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1233
1234. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1234
1235. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1235
1236. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1236
1237. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1237
1238. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1238
1239. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1239
1240. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1240
1241. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1241
1242. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1242
1243. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1243
1244. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1244
1245. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1245
1246. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1246
1247. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1247
1248. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1248
1249. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1249
1250. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1250
1251. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1251
1252. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1252
1253. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1253
1254. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1254
1255. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1255
1256. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1256
1257. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1257
1258. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1258
1259. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1259
1260. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1260
1261. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1261
1262. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1262
1263. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1263
1264. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1264
1265. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1265
1266. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1266
1267. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1267
1268. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1268
1269. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1269
1270. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1270
1271. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1271
1272. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1272
1273. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1273
1274. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1274
1275. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1275
1276. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1276
1277. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1277
1278. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1278
1279. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1279
1280. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1280
1281. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1281
1282. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1282
1283. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1283
1284. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1284
1285. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1285
1286. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1286
1287. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1287
1288. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1288
1289. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1289
1290. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1290
1291. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1291
1292. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1292
1293. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1293
1294. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1294
1295. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1295
1296. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1296
1297. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1297
1298. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1298
1299. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1299
1300. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1300
1301. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1301
1302. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1302
1303. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1303
1304. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1304
1305. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1305
1306. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1306
1307. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1307
1308. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1308
1309. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1309
1310. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1310
1311. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1311
1312. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1312
1313. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1313
1314. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1314
1315. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1315
1316. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1316
1317. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1317
1318. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1318
1319. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1319
1320. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1320
1321. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1321
1322. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1322
1323. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1323
1324. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1324
1325. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1325
1326. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1326
1327. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1327
1328. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1328
1329. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1329
1330. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1330
1331. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1331
1332. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1332
1333. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1333
1334. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1334
1335. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1335
1336. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1336
1337. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1337
1338. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1338
1339. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1339
1340. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1340
1341. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1341
1342. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1342
1343. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1343
1344. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1344
1345. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1345
1346. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1346
1347. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1347
1348. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1348
1349. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1349
1350. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1350
1351. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1351
1352. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1352
1353. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1353
1354. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1354
1355. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1355
1356. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1356
1357. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1357
1358. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1358
1359. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1359
1360. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1360
1361. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1361
1362. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1362
1363. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1363
1364. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1364
1365. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1365
1366. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1366
1367. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1367
1368. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1368
1369. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1369
1370. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1370
1371. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1371
1372. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1372
1373. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1373
1374. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1374
1375. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1375
1376. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1376
1377. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1377
1378. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1378
1379. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1379
1380. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1380
1381. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1381
1382. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1382
1383. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1383
1384. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1384
1385. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1385
1386. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1386
1387. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1387
1388. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1388
1389. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1389
1390. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1390
1391. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1391
1392. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1392
1393. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1393
1394. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1394
1395. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1395
1396. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1396
1397. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1397
1398. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1398
1399. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1399
1400. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1400
1401. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1401
1402. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1402
1403. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1403
1404. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1404
1405. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1405
1406. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1406
1407. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1407
1408. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1408
1409. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1409
1410. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1410
1411. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1411
1412. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1412
1413. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1413
1414. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1414
1415. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1415
1416. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1416
1417. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1417
1418. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1418
1419. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1419
1420. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1420
1421. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1421
1422. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1422
1423. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1423
1424. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1424
1425. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1425
1426. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1426
1427. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1427
1428. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1428
1429. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1429
1430. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1430
1431. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1431
1432. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1432
1433. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1433
1434. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1434
1435. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1435
1436. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1436
1437. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1437
1438. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1438
1439. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1439
1440. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1440
1441. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1441
1442. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1442
1443. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1443
1444. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1444
1445. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1445
1446. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1446
1447. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1447
1448. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1448
1449. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1449
1450. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1450
1451. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1451
1452. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1452
1453. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1453
1454. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1454
1455. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1455
1456. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1456
1457. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1457
1458. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1458
1459. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1459
1460. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1460
1461. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1461
1462. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1462
1463. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1463
1464. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1464
1465. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1465
1466. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1466
1467. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1467
1468. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1468
1469. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1469
1470. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1470
1471. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1471
1472. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1472
1473. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1473
1474. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1474
1475. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1475
1476. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1476
1477. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1477
1478. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1478
1479. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1479
1480. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1480
1481. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1481
1482. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1482
1483. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1483
1484. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1484
1485. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1485
1486. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1486
1487. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1487
1488. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1488
1489. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1489
1490. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1490
1491. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1491
1492. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1492
1493. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1493
1494. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1494
1495. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1495
1496. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1496
1497. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1497
1498. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1498
1499. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1499
1500. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1500
1501. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1501
1502. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1502
1503. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1503
1504. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1504
1505. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1505
1506. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1506
1507. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1507
1508. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1508
1509. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1509
1510. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1510
1511. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1511
1512. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1512
1513. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1513
1514. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1514
1515. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1515
1516. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1516
1517. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1517
1518. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1518
1519. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1519
1520. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1520
1521. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1521
1522. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1522
1523. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1523
1524. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1524
1525. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1525
1526. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1526
1527. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1527
1528. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1528
1529. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1529
1530. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1530
1531. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1531
1532. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1532
1533. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1533
1534. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1534
1535. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1535
1536. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1536
1537. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1537
1538. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1538
1539. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1539
1540. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1540
1541. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1541
1542. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1542
1543. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1543
1544. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1544
1545. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1545
1546. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1546
1547. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1547
1548. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1548
1549. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1549
1550. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1550
1551. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1551
1552. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1552
1553. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1553
1554. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1554
1555. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1555
1556. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1556
1557. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1557
1558. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1558
1559. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1559
1560. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1560
1561. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1561
1562. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1562
1563. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1563
1564. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1564
1565. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1565
1566. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1566
1567. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1567
1568. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1568
1569. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1569
1570. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1570
1571. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1571
1572. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1572
1573. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1573
1574. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1574
1575. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1575
1576. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1576
1577. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1577
1578. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1578
1579. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1579
1580. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1580
1581. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1581
1582. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1582
1583. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1583
1584. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1584
1585. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1585
1586. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1586
1587. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1587
1588. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1588
1589. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1589
1590. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1590
1591. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1591
1592. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1592
1593. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1593
1594. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1594
1595. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1595
1596. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1596
1597. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1597
1598. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1598
1599. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1599
1600. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1600
1601. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1601
1602. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1602
1603. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1603
1604. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1604
1605. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1605
1606. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1606
1607. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1607
1608. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1608
1609. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1609
1610. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1610
1611. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1611
1612. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1612
1613. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1613
1614. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1614
1615. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1615
1616. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1616
1617. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1617
1618. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1618
1619. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1619
1620. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1620
1621. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1621
1622. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1622
1623. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1623
1624. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1624
1625. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1625
1626. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1626
1627. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1627
1628. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1628
1629. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1629
1630. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1630
1631. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1631
1632. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1632
1633. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1633
1634. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1634
1635. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1635
1636. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1636
1637. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1637
1638. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1638
1639. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1639
1640. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1640
1641. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1641
1642. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1642
1643. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1643
1644. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1644
1645. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1645
1646. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1646
1647. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1647
1648. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1648
1649. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1649
1650. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1650
1651. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1651
1652. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1652
1653. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1653
1654. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1654
1655. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1655
1656. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1656
1657. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1657
1658. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1658
1659. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1659
1660. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1660
1661. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1661
1662. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1662
1663. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1663
1664. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1664
1665. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1665
1666. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1666
1667. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1667
1668. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1668
1669. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1669
1670. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1670
1671. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1671
1672. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1672
1673. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1673
1674. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1674
1675. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1675
1676. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1676
1677. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1677
1678. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1678
1679. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1679
1680. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1680
1681. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1681
1682. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1682
1683. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1683
1684. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1684
1685. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1685
1686. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1686
1687. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1687
1688. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1688
1689. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1689
1690. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1690
1691. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1691
1692. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1692
1693. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1693
1694. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1694
1695. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1695
1696. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1696
1697. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1697
1698. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1698
1699. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1699
1700. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1700
1701. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1701
1702. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1702
1703. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1703
1704. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1704
1705. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1705
1706. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1706
1707. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1707
1708. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1708
1709. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1709
1710. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1710
1711. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1711
1712. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1712
1713. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1713
1714. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1714
1715. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1715
1716. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1716
1717. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1717
1718. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1718
1719. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1719
1720. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1720
1721. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1721
1722. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1722
1723. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1723
1724. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1724
1725. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1725
1726. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1726
1727. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1727
1728. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1728
1729. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1729
1730. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1730
1731. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1731
1732. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1732
1733. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1733
1734. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1734
1735. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1735
1736. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1736
1737. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1737
1738. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1738
1739. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1739
1740. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1740
1741. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1741
1742. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1742
1743. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1743
1744. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1744
1745. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1745
1746. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1746
1747. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1747
1748. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1748
1749. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1749
1750. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1750
1751. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1751
1752. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1752
1753. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1753
1754. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1754
1755. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1755
1756. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1756
1757. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1757
1758. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1758
1759. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1759
1760. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1760
1761. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1761
1762. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1762
1763. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1763
1764. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1764
1765. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1765
1766. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1766
1767. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1767
1768. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1768
1769. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1769
1770. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1770
1771. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1771
1772. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1772
1773. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1773
1774. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1774
1775. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1775
1776. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1776
1777. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1777
1778. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1778
1779. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1779
1780. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1780
1781. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1781
1782. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1782
1783. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1783
1784. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1784
1785. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1785
1786. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1786
1787. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1787
1788. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1788
1789. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1789
1790. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1790
1791. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1791
1792. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1792
1793. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1793
1794. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1794
1795. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1795
1796. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1796
1797. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1797
1798. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1798
1799. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1799
1800. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1800
1801. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1801
1802. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1802
1803. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1803
1804. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1804
1805. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1805
1806. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1806
1807. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1807
1808. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1808
1809. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1809
1810. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1810
1811. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1811
1812. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1812
1813. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1813
1814. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1814
1815. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1815
1816. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1816
1817. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1817
1818. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1818
1819. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1819
1820. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1820
1821. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1821
1822. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1822
1823. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1823
1824. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1824
1825. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1825
1826. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1826
1827. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1827
1828. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1828
1829. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1829
1830. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1830
1831. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1831
1832. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1832
1833. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1833
1834. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1834
1835. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1835
1836. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1836
1837. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1837
1838. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1838
1839. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1839
1840. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1840
1841. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1841
1842. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1842
1843. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1843
1844. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1844
1845. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1845
1846. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1846
1847. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1847
1848. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1848
1849. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1849
1850. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1850
1851. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1851
1852. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1852
1853. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1853
1854. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1854
1855. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1855
1856. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1856
1857. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1857
1858. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1858
1859. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1859
1860. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1860
1861. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1861
1862. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1862
1863. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1863
1864. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1864
1865. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1865
1866. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1866
1867. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1867
1868. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1868
1869. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1869
1870. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1870
1871. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1871
1872. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1872
1873. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1873
1874. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1874
1875. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1875
1876. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1876
1877. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1877
1878. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1878
1879. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1879
1880. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1880
1881. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1881
1882. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1882
1883. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1883
1884. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1884
1885. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1885
1886. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1886
1887. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1887
1888. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1888
1889. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1889
1890. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1890
1891. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1891
1892. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1892
1893. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1893
1894. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1894
1895. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1895
1896. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1896
1897. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1897
1898. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1898
1899. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1899
1900. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1900
1901. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1901
1902. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1902
1903. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1903
1904. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1904
1905. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1905
1906. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1906
1907. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1907
1908. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1908
1909. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1909
1910. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1910
1911. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1911
1912. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1912
1913. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1913
1914. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1914
1915. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1915
1916. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1916
1917. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1917
1918. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1918
1919. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1919
1920. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1920
1921. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1921
1922. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1922
1923. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1923
1924. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1924
1925. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1925
1926. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1926
1927. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1927
1928. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1928
1929. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1929
1930. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1930
1931. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1931
1932. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1932
1933. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1933
1934. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1934
1935. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1935
1936. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1936
1937. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1937
1938. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1938
1939. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1939
1940. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1940
1941. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1941
1942. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1942
1943. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1943
1944. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1944
1945. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1945
1946. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1946
1947. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1947
1948. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1948
1949. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1949
1950. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1950
1951. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1951
1952. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1952
1953. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1953
1954. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1954
1955. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1955
1956. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1956
1957. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1957
1958. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1958
1959. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1959
1960. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1960
1961. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1961
1962. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1962
1963. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1963
1964. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1964
1965. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1965
1966. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1966
1967. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1967
1968. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1968
1969. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1969
1970. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1970
1971. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1971
1972. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1972
1973. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1973
1974. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1974
1975. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1975
1976. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1976
1977. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1977
1978. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1978
1979. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1979
1980. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1980
1981. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1981
1982. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1982
1983. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1983
1984. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1984
1985. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1985
1986. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1986
1987. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1987
1988. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1988
1989. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1989
1990. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1990
1991. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1991
1992. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1992
1993. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1993
1994. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1994
1995. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1995
1996. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1996
1997. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1997
1998. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1998
1999. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf1999
2000. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2000
2001. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2001
2002. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2002
2003. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2003
2004. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2004
2005. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2005
2006. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2006
2007. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2007
2008. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2008
2009. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2009
2010. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2010
2011. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2011
2012. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2012
2013. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2013
2014. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2014
2015. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2015
2016. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2016
2017. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2017
2018. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2018
2019. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2019
2020. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2020
2021. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2021
2022. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2022
2023. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2023
2024. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2024
2025. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2025
2026. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2026
2027. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2027
2028. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2028
2029. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2029
2030. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2030
2031. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2031
2032. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2032
2033. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2033
2034. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2034
2035. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2035
2036. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2036
2037. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2037
2038. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2038
2039. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2039
2040. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2040
2041. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2041
2042. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2042
2043. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2043
2044. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2044
2045. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2045
2046. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2046
2047. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2047
2048. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2048
2049. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2049
2050. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2050
2051. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2051
2052. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2052
2053. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2053
2054. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2054
2055. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2055
2056. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2056
2057. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2057
2058. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2058
2059. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2059
2060. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2060
2061. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2061
2062. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2062
2063. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2063
2064. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2064
2065. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2065
2066. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2066
2067. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2067
2068. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2068
2069. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2069
2070. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2070
2071. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2071
2072. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2072
2073. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2073
2074. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2074
2075. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2075
2076. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2076
2077. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2077
2078. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2078
2079. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2079
2080. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2080
2081. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2081
2082. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2082
2083. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2083
2084. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2084
2085. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2085
2086. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2086
2087. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2087
2088. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2088
2089. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2089
2090. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2090
2091. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2091
2092. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2092
2093. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2093
2094. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2094
2095. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2095
2096. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2096
2097. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2097
2098. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2098
2099. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2099
2100. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2100
2101. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2101
2102. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2102
2103. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2103
2104. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2104
2105. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2105
2106. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2106
2107. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2107
2108. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2108
2109. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2109
2110. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2110
2111. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2111
2112. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2112
2113. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2113
2114. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2114
2115. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2115
2116. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2116
2117. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2117
2118. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2118
2119. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2119
2120. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2120
2121. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2121
2122. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2122
2123. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2123
2124. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2124
2125. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2125
2126. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2126
2127. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2127
2128. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2128
2129. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2129
2130. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2130
2131. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2131
2132. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2132
2133. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2133
2134. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2134
2135. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2135
2136. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2136
2137. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2137
2138. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2138
2139. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2139
2140. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2140
2141. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2141
2142. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2142
2143. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2143
2144. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2144
2145. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2145
2146. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2146
2147. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2147
2148. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2148
2149. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2149
2150. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2150
2151. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2151
2152. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2152
2153. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2153
2154. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2154
2155. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2155
2156. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2156
2157. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2157
2158. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2158
2159. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2159
2160. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2160
2161. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2161
2162. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2162
2163. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2163
2164. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2164
2165. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2165
2166. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2166
2167. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2167
2168. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2168
2169. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2169
2170. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2170
2171. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2171
2172. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2172
2173. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2173
2174. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2174
2175. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2175
2176. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2176
2177. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2177
2178. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2178
2179. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2179
2180. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2180
2181. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2181
2182. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2182
2183. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2183
2184. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2184
2185. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2185
2186. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2186
2187. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2187
2188. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2188
2189. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2189
2190. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2190
2191. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2191
2192. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2192
2193. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2193
2194. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2194
2195. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2195
2196. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2196
2197. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2197
2198. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2198
2199. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2199
2200. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2200
2201. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2201
2202. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2202
2203. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2203
2204. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2204
2205. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2205
2206. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2206
2207. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2207
2208. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2208
2209. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2209
2210. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2210
2211. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2211
2212. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2212
2213. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2213
2214. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2214
2215. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2215
2216. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2216
2217. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2217
2218. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2218
2219. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2219
2220. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2220
2221. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2221
2222. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2222
2223. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2223
2224. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2224
2225. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2225
2226. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2226
2227. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2227
2228. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2228
2229. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2229
2230. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2230
2231. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2231
2232. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2232
2233. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2233
2234. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2234
2235. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2235
2236. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2236
2237. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2237
2238. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2238
2239. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2239
2240. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2240
2241. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2241
2242. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2242
2243. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2243
2244. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2244
2245. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2245
2246. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2246
2247. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2247
2248. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2248
2249. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2249
2250. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2250
2251. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2251
2252. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2252
2253. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2253
2254. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2254
2255. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2255
2256. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2256
2257. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2257
2258. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2258
2259. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2259
2260. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2260
2261. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2261
2262. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2262
2263. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2263
2264. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2264
2265. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2265
2266. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2266
2267. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2267
2268. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2268
2269. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2269
2270. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2270
2271. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2271
2272. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2272
2273. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2273
2274. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2274
2275. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2275
2276. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2276
2277. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2277
2278. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2278
2279. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2279
2280. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2280
2281. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2281
2282. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2282
2283. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2283
2284. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2284
2285. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2285
2286. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2286
2287. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2287
2288. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2288
2289. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2289
2290. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2290
2291. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2291
2292. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2292
2293. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2293
2294. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2294
2295. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2295
2296. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2296
2297. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2297
2298. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2298
2299. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2299
2300. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2300
2301. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2301
2302. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2302
2303. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2303
2304. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2304
2305. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2305
2306. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2306
2307. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2307
2308. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2308
2309. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2309
2310. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2310
2311. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2311
2312. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2312
2313. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2313
2314. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2314
2315. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2315
2316. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2316
2317. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2317
2318. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2318
2319. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2319
2320. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2320
2321. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2321
2322. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2322
2323. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2323
2324. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2324
2325. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2325
2326. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2326
2327. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2327
2328. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2328
2329. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2329
2330. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2330
2331. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2331
2332. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2332
2333. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2333
2334. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2334
2335. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2335
2336. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2336
2337. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2337
2338. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2338
2339. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2339
2340. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2340
2341. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2341
2342. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2342
2343. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2343
2344. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2344
2345. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2345
2346. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2346
2347. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2347
2348. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2348
2349. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2349
2350. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2350
2351. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2351
2352. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2352
2353. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2353
2354. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2354
2355. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2355
2356. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2356
2357. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2357
2358. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2358
2359. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2359
2360. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2360
2361. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2361
2362. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2362
2363. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2363
2364. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2364
2365. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2365
2366. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2366
2367. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2367
2368. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2368
2369. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2369
2370. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2370
2371. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2371
2372. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2372
2373. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2373
2374. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2374
2375. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2375
2376. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2376
2377. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2377
2378. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2378
2379. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2379
2380. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2380
2381. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2381
2382. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2382
2383. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2383
2384. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2384
2385. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2385
2386. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2386
2387. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2387
2388. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2388
2389. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2389
2390. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2390
2391. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2391
2392. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2392
2393. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2393
2394. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2394
2395. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2395
2396. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2396
2397. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2397
2398. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2398
2399. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2399
2400. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2400
2401. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2401
2402. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2402
2403. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2403
2404. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2404
2405. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2405
2406. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2406
2407. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2407
2408. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2408
2409. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2409
2410. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2410
2411. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2411
2412. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2412
2413. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2413
2414. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2414
2415. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2415
2416. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2416
2417. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2417
2418. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2418
2419. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2419
2420. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2420
2421. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2421
2422. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2422
2423. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2423
2424. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2424
2425. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2425
2426. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2426
2427. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2427
2428. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2428
2429. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2429
2430. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2430
2431. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2431
2432. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2432
2433. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2433
2434. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2434
2435. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2435
2436. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2436
2437. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2437
2438. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2438
2439. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2439
2440. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2440
2441. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2441
2442. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2442
2443. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2443
2444. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2444
2445. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2445
2446. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2446
2447. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2447
2448. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2448
2449. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2449
2450. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2450
2451. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2451
2452. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2452
2453. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2453
2454. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2454
2455. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2455
2456. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2456
2457. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2457
2458. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2458
2459. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2459
2460. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2460
2461. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2461
2462. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2462
2463. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2463
2464. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2464
2465. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2465
2466. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2466
2467. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2467
2468. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2468
2469. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2469
2470. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2470
2471. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2471
2472. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2472
2473. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2473
2474. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2474
2475. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2475
2476. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2476
2477. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2477
2478. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2478
2479. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2479
2480. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2480
2481. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2481
2482. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2482
2483. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2483
2484. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2484
2485. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2485
2486. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2486
2487. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2487
2488. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2488
2489. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2489
2490. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2490
2491. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2491
2492. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2492
2493. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2493
2494. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2494
2495. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2495
2496. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2496
2497. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2497
2498. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2498
2499. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2499
2500. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2500
2501. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2501
2502. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2502
2503. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2503
2504. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2504
2505. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2505
2506. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2506
2507. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2507
2508. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2508
2509. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2509
2510. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2510
2511. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2511
2512. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2512
2513. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2513
2514. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2514
2515. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2515
2516. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2516
2517. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2517
2518. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2518
2519. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2519
2520. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2520
2521. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2521
2522. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2522
2523. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2523
2524. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2524
2525. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2525
2526. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2526
2527. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2527
2528. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2528
2529. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2529
2530. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2530
2531. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2531
2532. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2532
2533. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2533
2534. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2534
2535. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2535
2536. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2536
2537. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2537
2538. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2538
2539. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2539
2540. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2540
2541. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2541
2542. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2542
2543. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2543
2544. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2544
2545. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2545
2546. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2546
2547. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2547
2548. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2548
2549. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2549
2550. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2550
2551. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2551
2552. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2552
2553. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2553
2554. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2554
2555. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2555
2556. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2556
2557. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2557
2558. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2558
2559. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2559
2560. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2560
2561. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2561
2562. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2562
2563. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2563
2564. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2564
2565. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2565
2566. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2566
2567. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2567
2568. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2568
2569. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2569
2570. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnf2570
2571. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1
2572. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2
2573. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb3
2574. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb4
2575. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb5
2576. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb6
2577. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb7
2578. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb8
2579. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb9
2580. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb10
2581. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb11
2582. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb12
2583. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb13
2584. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb14
2585. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb15
2586. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb16
2587. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb17
2588. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb18
2589. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb19
2590. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb20
2591. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb21
2592. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb22
2593. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb23
2594. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb24
2595. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb25
2596. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb26
2597. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb27
2598. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb28
2599. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb29
2600. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb30
2601. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb31
2602. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb32
2603. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb33
2604. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb34
2605. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb35
2606. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb36
2607. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb37
2608. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb38
2609. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb39
2610. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb40
2611. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb41
2612. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb42
2613. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb43
2614. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb44
2615. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb45
2616. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb46
2617. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb47
2618. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb48
2619. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb49
2620. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb50
2621. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb51
2622. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb52
2623. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb53
2624. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb54
2625. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb55
2626. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb56
2627. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb57
2628. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb58
2629. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb59
2630. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb60
2631. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb61
2632. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb62
2633. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb63
2634. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb64
2635. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb65
2636. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb66
2637. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb67
2638. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb68
2639. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb69
2640. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb70
2641. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb71
2642. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb72
2643. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb73
2644. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb74
2645. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb75
2646. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb76
2647. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb77
2648. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb78
2649. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb79
2650. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb80
2651. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb81
2652. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb82
2653. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb83
2654. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb84
2655. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb85
2656. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb86
2657. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb87
2658. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb88
2659. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb89
2660. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb90
2661. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb91
2662. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb92
2663. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb93
2664. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb94
2665. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb95
2666. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb96
2667. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb97
2668. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb98
2669. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb99
2670. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb100
2671. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb101
2672. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb102
2673. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb103
2674. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb104
2675. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb105
2676. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb106
2677. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb107
2678. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb108
2679. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb109
2680. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb110
2681. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb111
2682. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb112
2683. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb113
2684. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb114
2685. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb115
2686. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb116
2687. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb117
2688. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb118
2689. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb119
2690. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb120
2691. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb121
2692. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb122
2693. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb123
2694. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb124
2695. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb125
2696. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb126
2697. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb127
2698. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb128
2699. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb129
2700. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb130
2701. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb131
2702. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb132
2703. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb133
2704. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb134
2705. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb135
2706. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb136
2707. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb137
2708. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb138
2709. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb139
2710. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb140
2711. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb141
2712. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb142
2713. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb143
2714. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb144
2715. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb145
2716. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb146
2717. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb147
2718. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb148
2719. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb149
2720. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb150
2721. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb151
2722. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb152
2723. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb153
2724. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb154
2725. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb155
2726. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb156
2727. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb157
2728. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb158
2729. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb159
2730. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb160
2731. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb161
2732. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb162
2733. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb163
2734. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb164
2735. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb165
2736. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb166
2737. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb167
2738. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb168
2739. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb169
2740. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb170
2741. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb171
2742. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb172
2743. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb173
2744. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb174
2745. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb175
2746. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb176
2747. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb177
2748. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb178
2749. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb179
2750. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb180
2751. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb181
2752. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb182
2753. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb183
2754. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb184
2755. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb185
2756. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb186
2757. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb187
2758. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb188
2759. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb189
2760. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb190
2761. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb191
2762. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb192
2763. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb193
2764. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb194
2765. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb195
2766. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb196
2767. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb197
2768. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb198
2769. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb199
2770. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb200
2771. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb201
2772. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb202
2773. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb203
2774. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb204
2775. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb205
2776. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb206
2777. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb207
2778. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb208
2779. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb209
2780. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb210
2781. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb211
2782. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb212
2783. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb213
2784. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb214
2785. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb215
2786. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb216
2787. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb217
2788. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb218
2789. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb219
2790. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb220
2791. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb221
2792. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb222
2793. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb223
2794. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb224
2795. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb225
2796. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb226
2797. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb227
2798. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb228
2799. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb229
2800. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb230
2801. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb231
2802. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb232
2803. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb233
2804. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb234
2805. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb235
2806. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb236
2807. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb237
2808. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb238
2809. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb239
2810. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb240
2811. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb241
2812. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb242
2813. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb243
2814. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb244
2815. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb245
2816. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb246
2817. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb247
2818. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb248
2819. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb249
2820. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb250
2821. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb251
2822. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb252
2823. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb253
2824. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb254
2825. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb255
2826. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb256
2827. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb257
2828. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb258
2829. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb259
2830. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb260
2831. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb261
2832. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb262
2833. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb263
2834. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb264
2835. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb265
2836. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb266
2837. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb267
2838. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb268
2839. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb269
2840. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb270
2841. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb271
2842. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb272
2843. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb273
2844. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb274
2845. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb275
2846. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb276
2847. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb277
2848. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb278
2849. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb279
2850. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb280
2851. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb281
2852. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb282
2853. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb283
2854. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb284
2855. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb285
2856. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb286
2857. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb287
2858. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb288
2859. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb289
2860. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb290
2861. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb291
2862. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb292
2863. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb293
2864. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb294
2865. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb295
2866. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb296
2867. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb297
2868. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb298
2869. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb299
2870. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb300
2871. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb301
2872. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb302
2873. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb303
2874. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb304
2875. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb305
2876. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb306
2877. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb307
2878. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb308
2879. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb309
2880. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb310
2881. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb311
2882. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb312
2883. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb313
2884. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb314
2885. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb315
2886. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb316
2887. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb317
2888. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb318
2889. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb319
2890. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb320
2891. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb321
2892. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb322
2893. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb323
2894. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb324
2895. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb325
2896. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb326
2897. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb327
2898. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb328
2899. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb329
2900. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb330
2901. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb331
2902. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb332
2903. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb333
2904. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb334
2905. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb335
2906. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb336
2907. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb337
2908. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb338
2909. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb339
2910. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb340
2911. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb341
2912. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb342
2913. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb343
2914. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb344
2915. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb345
2916. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb346
2917. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb347
2918. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb348
2919. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb349
2920. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb350
2921. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb351
2922. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb352
2923. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb353
2924. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb354
2925. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb355
2926. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb356
2927. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb357
2928. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb358
2929. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb359
2930. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb360
2931. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb361
2932. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb362
2933. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb363
2934. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb364
2935. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb365
2936. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb366
2937. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb367
2938. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb368
2939. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb369
2940. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb370
2941. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb371
2942. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb372
2943. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb373
2944. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb374
2945. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb375
2946. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb376
2947. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb377
2948. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb378
2949. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb379
2950. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb380
2951. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb381
2952. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb382
2953. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb383
2954. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb384
2955. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb385
2956. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb386
2957. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb387
2958. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb388
2959. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb389
2960. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb390
2961. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb391
2962. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb392
2963. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb393
2964. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb394
2965. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb395
2966. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb396
2967. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb397
2968. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb398
2969. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb399
2970. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb400
2971. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb401
2972. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb402
2973. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb403
2974. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb404
2975. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb405
2976. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb406
2977. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb407
2978. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb408
2979. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb409
2980. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb410
2981. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb411
2982. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb412
2983. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb413
2984. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb414
2985. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb415
2986. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb416
2987. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb417
2988. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb418
2989. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb419
2990. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb420
2991. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb421
2992. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb422
2993. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb423
2994. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb424
2995. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb425
2996. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb426
2997. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb427
2998. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb428
2999. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb429
3000. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb430
3001. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb431
3002. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb432
3003. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb433
3004. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb434
3005. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb435
3006. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb436
3007. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb437
3008. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb438
3009. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb439
3010. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb440
3011. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb441
3012. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb442
3013. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb443
3014. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb444
3015. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb445
3016. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb446
3017. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb447
3018. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb448
3019. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb449
3020. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb450
3021. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb451
3022. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb452
3023. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb453
3024. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb454
3025. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb455
3026. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb456
3027. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb457
3028. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb458
3029. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb459
3030. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb460
3031. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb461
3032. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb462
3033. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb463
3034. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb464
3035. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb465
3036. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb466
3037. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb467
3038. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb468
3039. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb469
3040. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb470
3041. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb471
3042. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb472
3043. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb473
3044. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb474
3045. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb475
3046. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb476
3047. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb477
3048. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb478
3049. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb479
3050. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb480
3051. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb481
3052. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb482
3053. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb483
3054. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb484
3055. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb485
3056. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb486
3057. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb487
3058. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb488
3059. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb489
3060. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb490
3061. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb491
3062. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb492
3063. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb493
3064. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb494
3065. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb495
3066. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb496
3067. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb497
3068. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb498
3069. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb499
3070. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb500
3071. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb501
3072. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb502
3073. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb503
3074. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb504
3075. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb505
3076. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb506
3077. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb507
3078. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb508
3079. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb509
3080. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb510
3081. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb511
3082. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb512
3083. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb513
3084. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb514
3085. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb515
3086. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb516
3087. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb517
3088. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb518
3089. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb519
3090. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb520
3091. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb521
3092. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb522
3093. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb523
3094. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb524
3095. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb525
3096. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb526
3097. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb527
3098. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb528
3099. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb529
3100. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb530
3101. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb531
3102. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb532
3103. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb533
3104. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb534
3105. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb535
3106. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb536
3107. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb537
3108. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb538
3109. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb539
3110. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb540
3111. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb541
3112. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb542
3113. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb543
3114. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb544
3115. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb545
3116. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb546
3117. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb547
3118. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb548
3119. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb549
3120. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb550
3121. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb551
3122. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb552
3123. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb553
3124. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb554
3125. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb555
3126. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb556
3127. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb557
3128. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb558
3129. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb559
3130. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb560
3131. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb561
3132. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb562
3133. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb563
3134. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb564
3135. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb565
3136. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb566
3137. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb567
3138. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb568
3139. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb569
3140. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb570
3141. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb571
3142. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb572
3143. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb573
3144. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb574
3145. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb575
3146. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb576
3147. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb577
3148. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb578
3149. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb579
3150. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb580
3151. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb581
3152. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb582
3153. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb583
3154. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb584
3155. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb585
3156. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb586
3157. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb587
3158. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb588
3159. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb589
3160. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb590
3161. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb591
3162. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb592
3163. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb593
3164. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb594
3165. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb595
3166. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb596
3167. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb597
3168. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb598
3169. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb599
3170. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb600
3171. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb601
3172. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb602
3173. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb603
3174. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb604
3175. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb605
3176. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb606
3177. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb607
3178. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb608
3179. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb609
3180. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb610
3181. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb611
3182. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb612
3183. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb613
3184. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb614
3185. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb615
3186. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb616
3187. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb617
3188. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb618
3189. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb619
3190. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb620
3191. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb621
3192. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb622
3193. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb623
3194. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb624
3195. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb625
3196. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb626
3197. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb627
3198. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb628
3199. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb629
3200. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb630
3201. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb631
3202. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb632
3203. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb633
3204. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb634
3205. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb635
3206. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb636
3207. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb637
3208. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb638
3209. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb639
3210. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb640
3211. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb641
3212. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb642
3213. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb643
3214. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb644
3215. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb645
3216. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb646
3217. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb647
3218. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb648
3219. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb649
3220. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb650
3221. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb651
3222. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb652
3223. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb653
3224. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb654
3225. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb655
3226. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb656
3227. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb657
3228. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb658
3229. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb659
3230. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb660
3231. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb661
3232. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb662
3233. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb663
3234. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb664
3235. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb665
3236. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb666
3237. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb667
3238. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb668
3239. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb669
3240. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb670
3241. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb671
3242. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb672
3243. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb673
3244. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb674
3245. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb675
3246. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb676
3247. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb677
3248. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb678
3249. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb679
3250. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb680
3251. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb681
3252. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb682
3253. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb683
3254. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb684
3255. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb685
3256. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb686
3257. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb687
3258. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb688
3259. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb689
3260. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb690
3261. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb691
3262. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb692
3263. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb693
3264. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb694
3265. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb695
3266. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb696
3267. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb697
3268. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb698
3269. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb699
3270. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb700
3271. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb701
3272. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb702
3273. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb703
3274. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb704
3275. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb705
3276. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb706
3277. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb707
3278. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb708
3279. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb709
3280. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb710
3281. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb711
3282. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb712
3283. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb713
3284. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb714
3285. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb715
3286. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb716
3287. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb717
3288. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb718
3289. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb719
3290. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb720
3291. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb721
3292. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb722
3293. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb723
3294. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb724
3295. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb725
3296. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb726
3297. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb727
3298. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb728
3299. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb729
3300. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb730
3301. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb731
3302. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb732
3303. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb733
3304. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb734
3305. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb735
3306. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb736
3307. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb737
3308. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb738
3309. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb739
3310. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb740
3311. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb741
3312. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb742
3313. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb743
3314. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb744
3315. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb745
3316. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb746
3317. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb747
3318. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb748
3319. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb749
3320. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb750
3321. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb751
3322. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb752
3323. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb753
3324. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb754
3325. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb755
3326. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb756
3327. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb757
3328. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb758
3329. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb759
3330. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb760
3331. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb761
3332. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb762
3333. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb763
3334. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb764
3335. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb765
3336. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb766
3337. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb767
3338. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb768
3339. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb769
3340. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb770
3341. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb771
3342. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb772
3343. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb773
3344. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb774
3345. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb775
3346. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb776
3347. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb777
3348. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb778
3349. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb779
3350. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb780
3351. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb781
3352. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb782
3353. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb783
3354. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb784
3355. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb785
3356. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb786
3357. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb787
3358. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb788
3359. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb789
3360. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb790
3361. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb791
3362. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb792
3363. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb793
3364. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb794
3365. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb795
3366. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb796
3367. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb797
3368. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb798
3369. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb799
3370. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb800
3371. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb801
3372. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb802
3373. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb803
3374. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb804
3375. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb805
3376. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb806
3377. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb807
3378. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb808
3379. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb809
3380. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb810
3381. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb811
3382. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb812
3383. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb813
3384. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb814
3385. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb815
3386. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb816
3387. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb817
3388. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb818
3389. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb819
3390. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb820
3391. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb821
3392. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb822
3393. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb823
3394. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb824
3395. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb825
3396. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb826
3397. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb827
3398. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb828
3399. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb829
3400. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb830
3401. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb831
3402. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb832
3403. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb833
3404. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb834
3405. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb835
3406. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb836
3407. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb837
3408. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb838
3409. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb839
3410. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb840
3411. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb841
3412. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb842
3413. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb843
3414. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb844
3415. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb845
3416. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb846
3417. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb847
3418. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb848
3419. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb849
3420. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb850
3421. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb851
3422. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb852
3423. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb853
3424. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb854
3425. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb855
3426. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb856
3427. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb857
3428. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb858
3429. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb859
3430. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb860
3431. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb861
3432. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb862
3433. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb863
3434. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb864
3435. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb865
3436. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb866
3437. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb867
3438. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb868
3439. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb869
3440. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb870
3441. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb871
3442. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb872
3443. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb873
3444. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb874
3445. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb875
3446. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb876
3447. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb877
3448. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb878
3449. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb879
3450. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb880
3451. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb881
3452. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb882
3453. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb883
3454. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb884
3455. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb885
3456. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb886
3457. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb887
3458. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb888
3459. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb889
3460. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb890
3461. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb891
3462. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb892
3463. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb893
3464. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb894
3465. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb895
3466. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb896
3467. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb897
3468. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb898
3469. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb899
3470. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb900
3471. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb901
3472. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb902
3473. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb903
3474. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb904
3475. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb905
3476. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb906
3477. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb907
3478. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb908
3479. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb909
3480. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb910
3481. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb911
3482. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb912
3483. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb913
3484. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb914
3485. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb915
3486. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb916
3487. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb917
3488. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb918
3489. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb919
3490. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb920
3491. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb921
3492. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb922
3493. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb923
3494. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb924
3495. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb925
3496. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb926
3497. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb927
3498. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb928
3499. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb929
3500. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb930
3501. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb931
3502. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb932
3503. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb933
3504. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb934
3505. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb935
3506. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb936
3507. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb937
3508. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb938
3509. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb939
3510. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb940
3511. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb941
3512. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb942
3513. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb943
3514. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb944
3515. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb945
3516. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb946
3517. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb947
3518. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb948
3519. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb949
3520. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb950
3521. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb951
3522. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb952
3523. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb953
3524. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb954
3525. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb955
3526. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb956
3527. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb957
3528. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb958
3529. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb959
3530. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb960
3531. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb961
3532. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb962
3533. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb963
3534. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb964
3535. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb965
3536. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb966
3537. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb967
3538. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb968
3539. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb969
3540. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb970
3541. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb971
3542. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb972
3543. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb973
3544. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb974
3545. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb975
3546. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb976
3547. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb977
3548. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb978
3549. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb979
3550. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb980
3551. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb981
3552. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb982
3553. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb983
3554. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb984
3555. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb985
3556. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb986
3557. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb987
3558. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb988
3559. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb989
3560. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb990
3561. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb991
3562. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb992
3563. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb993
3564. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb994
3565. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb995
3566. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb996
3567. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb997
3568. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb998
3569. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb999
3570. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1000
3571. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1001
3572. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1002
3573. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1003
3574. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1004
3575. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1005
3576. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1006
3577. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1007
3578. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1008
3579. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1009
3580. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1010
3581. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1011
3582. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1012
3583. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1013
3584. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1014
3585. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1015
3586. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1016
3587. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1017
3588. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1018
3589. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1019
3590. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1020
3591. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1021
3592. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1022
3593. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1023
3594. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1024
3595. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1025
3596. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1026
3597. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1027
3598. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1028
3599. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1029
3600. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1030
3601. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1031
3602. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1032
3603. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1033
3604. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1034
3605. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1035
3606. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1036
3607. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1037
3608. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1038
3609. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1039
3610. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1040
3611. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1041
3612. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1042
3613. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1043
3614. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1044
3615. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1045
3616. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1046
3617. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1047
3618. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1048
3619. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1049
3620. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1050
3621. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1051
3622. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1052
3623. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1053
3624. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1054
3625. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1055
3626. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1056
3627. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1057
3628. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1058
3629. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1059
3630. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1060
3631. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1061
3632. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1062
3633. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1063
3634. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1064
3635. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1065
3636. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1066
3637. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1067
3638. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1068
3639. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1069
3640. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1070
3641. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1071
3642. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1072
3643. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1073
3644. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1074
3645. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1075
3646. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1076
3647. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1077
3648. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1078
3649. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1079
3650. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1080
3651. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1081
3652. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1082
3653. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1083
3654. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1084
3655. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1085
3656. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1086
3657. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1087
3658. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1088
3659. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1089
3660. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1090
3661. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1091
3662. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1092
3663. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1093
3664. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1094
3665. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1095
3666. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1096
3667. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1097
3668. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1098
3669. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1099
3670. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1100
3671. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1101
3672. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1102
3673. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1103
3674. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1104
3675. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1105
3676. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1106
3677. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1107
3678. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1108
3679. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1109
3680. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1110
3681. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1111
3682. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1112
3683. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1113
3684. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1114
3685. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1115
3686. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1116
3687. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1117
3688. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1118
3689. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1119
3690. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1120
3691. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1121
3692. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1122
3693. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1123
3694. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1124
3695. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1125
3696. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1126
3697. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1127
3698. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1128
3699. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1129
3700. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1130
3701. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1131
3702. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1132
3703. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1133
3704. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1134
3705. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1135
3706. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1136
3707. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1137
3708. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1138
3709. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1139
3710. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1140
3711. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1141
3712. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1142
3713. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1143
3714. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1144
3715. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1145
3716. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1146
3717. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1147
3718. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1148
3719. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1149
3720. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1150
3721. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1151
3722. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1152
3723. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1153
3724. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1154
3725. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1155
3726. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1156
3727. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1157
3728. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1158
3729. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1159
3730. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1160
3731. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1161
3732. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1162
3733. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1163
3734. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1164
3735. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1165
3736. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1166
3737. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1167
3738. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1168
3739. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1169
3740. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1170
3741. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1171
3742. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1172
3743. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1173
3744. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1174
3745. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1175
3746. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1176
3747. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1177
3748. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1178
3749. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1179
3750. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1180
3751. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1181
3752. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1182
3753. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1183
3754. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1184
3755. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1185
3756. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1186
3757. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1187
3758. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1188
3759. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1189
3760. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1190
3761. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1191
3762. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1192
3763. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1193
3764. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1194
3765. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1195
3766. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1196
3767. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1197
3768. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1198
3769. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1199
3770. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1200
3771. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1201
3772. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1202
3773. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1203
3774. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1204
3775. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1205
3776. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1206
3777. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1207
3778. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1208
3779. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1209
3780. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1210
3781. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1211
3782. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1212
3783. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1213
3784. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1214
3785. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1215
3786. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1216
3787. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1217
3788. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1218
3789. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1219
3790. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1220
3791. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1221
3792. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1222
3793. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1223
3794. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1224
3795. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1225
3796. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1226
3797. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1227
3798. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1228
3799. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1229
3800. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1230
3801. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1231
3802. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1232
3803. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1233
3804. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1234
3805. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1235
3806. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1236
3807. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1237
3808. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1238
3809. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1239
3810. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1240
3811. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1241
3812. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1242
3813. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1243
3814. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1244
3815. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1245
3816. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1246
3817. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1247
3818. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1248
3819. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1249
3820. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1250
3821. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1251
3822. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1252
3823. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1253
3824. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1254
3825. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1255
3826. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1256
3827. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1257
3828. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1258
3829. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1259
3830. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1260
3831. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1261
3832. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1262
3833. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1263
3834. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1264
3835. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1265
3836. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1266
3837. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1267
3838. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1268
3839. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1269
3840. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1270
3841. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1271
3842. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1272
3843. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1273
3844. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1274
3845. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1275
3846. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1276
3847. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1277
3848. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1278
3849. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1279
3850. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1280
3851. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1281
3852. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1282
3853. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1283
3854. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1284
3855. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1285
3856. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1286
3857. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1287
3858. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1288
3859. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1289
3860. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1290
3861. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1291
3862. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1292
3863. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1293
3864. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1294
3865. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1295
3866. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1296
3867. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1297
3868. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1298
3869. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1299
3870. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1300
3871. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1301
3872. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1302
3873. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1303
3874. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1304
3875. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1305
3876. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1306
3877. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1307
3878. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1308
3879. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1309
3880. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1310
3881. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1311
3882. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1312
3883. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1313
3884. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1314
3885. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1315
3886. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1316
3887. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1317
3888. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1318
3889. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1319
3890. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1320
3891. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1321
3892. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1322
3893. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1323
3894. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1324
3895. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1325
3896. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1326
3897. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1327
3898. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1328
3899. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1329
3900. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1330
3901. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1331
3902. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1332
3903. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1333
3904. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1334
3905. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1335
3906. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1336
3907. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1337
3908. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1338
3909. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1339
3910. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1340
3911. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1341
3912. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1342
3913. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1343
3914. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1344
3915. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1345
3916. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1346
3917. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1347
3918. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1348
3919. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1349
3920. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1350
3921. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1351
3922. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1352
3923. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1353
3924. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1354
3925. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1355
3926. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1356
3927. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1357
3928. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1358
3929. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1359
3930. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1360
3931. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1361
3932. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1362
3933. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1363
3934. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1364
3935. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1365
3936. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1366
3937. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1367
3938. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1368
3939. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1369
3940. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1370
3941. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1371
3942. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1372
3943. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1373
3944. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1374
3945. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1375
3946. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1376
3947. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1377
3948. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1378
3949. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1379
3950. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1380
3951. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1381
3952. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1382
3953. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1383
3954. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1384
3955. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1385
3956. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1386
3957. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1387
3958. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1388
3959. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1389
3960. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1390
3961. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1391
3962. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1392
3963. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1393
3964. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1394
3965. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1395
3966. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1396
3967. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1397
3968. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1398
3969. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1399
3970. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1400
3971. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1401
3972. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1402
3973. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1403
3974. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1404
3975. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1405
3976. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1406
3977. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1407
3978. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1408
3979. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1409
3980. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1410
3981. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1411
3982. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1412
3983. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1413
3984. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1414
3985. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1415
3986. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1416
3987. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1417
3988. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1418
3989. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1419
3990. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1420
3991. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1421
3992. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1422
3993. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1423
3994. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1424
3995. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1425
3996. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1426
3997. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1427
3998. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1428
3999. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1429
4000. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1430
4001. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1431
4002. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1432
4003. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1433
4004. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1434
4005. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1435
4006. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1436
4007. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1437
4008. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1438
4009. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1439
4010. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1440
4011. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1441
4012. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1442
4013. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1443
4014. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1444
4015. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1445
4016. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1446
4017. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1447
4018. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1448
4019. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1449
4020. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1450
4021. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1451
4022. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1452
4023. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1453
4024. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1454
4025. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1455
4026. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1456
4027. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1457
4028. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1458
4029. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1459
4030. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1460
4031. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1461
4032. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1462
4033. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1463
4034. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1464
4035. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1465
4036. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1466
4037. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1467
4038. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1468
4039. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1469
4040. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1470
4041. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1471
4042. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1472
4043. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1473
4044. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1474
4045. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1475
4046. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1476
4047. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1477
4048. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1478
4049. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1479
4050. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1480
4051. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1481
4052. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1482
4053. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1483
4054. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1484
4055. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1485
4056. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1486
4057. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1487
4058. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1488
4059. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1489
4060. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1490
4061. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1491
4062. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1492
4063. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1493
4064. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1494
4065. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1495
4066. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1496
4067. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1497
4068. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1498
4069. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1499
4070. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1500
4071. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1501
4072. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1502
4073. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1503
4074. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1504
4075. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1505
4076. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1506
4077. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1507
4078. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1508
4079. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1509
4080. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1510
4081. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1511
4082. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1512
4083. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1513
4084. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1514
4085. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1515
4086. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1516
4087. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1517
4088. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1518
4089. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1519
4090. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1520
4091. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1521
4092. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1522
4093. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1523
4094. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1524
4095. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1525
4096. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1526
4097. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1527
4098. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1528
4099. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1529
4100. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1530
4101. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1531
4102. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1532
4103. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1533
4104. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1534
4105. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1535
4106. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1536
4107. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1537
4108. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1538
4109. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1539
4110. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1540
4111. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1541
4112. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1542
4113. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1543
4114. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1544
4115. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1545
4116. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1546
4117. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1547
4118. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1548
4119. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1549
4120. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1550
4121. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1551
4122. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1552
4123. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1553
4124. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1554
4125. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1555
4126. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1556
4127. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1557
4128. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1558
4129. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1559
4130. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1560
4131. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1561
4132. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1562
4133. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1563
4134. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1564
4135. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1565
4136. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1566
4137. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1567
4138. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1568
4139. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1569
4140. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1570
4141. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1571
4142. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1572
4143. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1573
4144. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1574
4145. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1575
4146. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1576
4147. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1577
4148. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1578
4149. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1579
4150. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1580
4151. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1581
4152. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1582
4153. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1583
4154. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1584
4155. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1585
4156. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1586
4157. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1587
4158. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1588
4159. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1589
4160. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1590
4161. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1591
4162. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1592
4163. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1593
4164. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1594
4165. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1595
4166. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1596
4167. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1597
4168. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1598
4169. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1599
4170. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1600
4171. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1601
4172. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1602
4173. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1603
4174. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1604
4175. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1605
4176. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1606
4177. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1607
4178. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1608
4179. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1609
4180. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1610
4181. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1611
4182. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1612
4183. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1613
4184. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1614
4185. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1615
4186. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1616
4187. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1617
4188. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1618
4189. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1619
4190. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1620
4191. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1621
4192. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1622
4193. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1623
4194. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1624
4195. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1625
4196. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1626
4197. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1627
4198. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1628
4199. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1629
4200. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1630
4201. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1631
4202. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1632
4203. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1633
4204. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1634
4205. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1635
4206. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1636
4207. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1637
4208. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1638
4209. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1639
4210. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1640
4211. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1641
4212. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1642
4213. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1643
4214. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1644
4215. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1645
4216. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1646
4217. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1647
4218. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1648
4219. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1649
4220. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1650
4221. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1651
4222. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1652
4223. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1653
4224. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1654
4225. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1655
4226. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1656
4227. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1657
4228. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1658
4229. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1659
4230. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1660
4231. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1661
4232. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1662
4233. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1663
4234. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1664
4235. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1665
4236. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1666
4237. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1667
4238. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1668
4239. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1669
4240. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1670
4241. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1671
4242. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1672
4243. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1673
4244. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1674
4245. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1675
4246. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1676
4247. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1677
4248. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1678
4249. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1679
4250. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1680
4251. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1681
4252. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1682
4253. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1683
4254. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1684
4255. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1685
4256. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1686
4257. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1687
4258. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1688
4259. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1689
4260. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1690
4261. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1691
4262. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1692
4263. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1693
4264. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1694
4265. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1695
4266. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1696
4267. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1697
4268. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1698
4269. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1699
4270. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1700
4271. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1701
4272. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1702
4273. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1703
4274. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1704
4275. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1705
4276. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1706
4277. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1707
4278. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1708
4279. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1709
4280. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1710
4281. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1711
4282. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1712
4283. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1713
4284. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1714
4285. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1715
4286. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1716
4287. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1717
4288. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1718
4289. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1719
4290. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1720
4291. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1721
4292. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1722
4293. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1723
4294. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1724
4295. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1725
4296. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1726
4297. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1727
4298. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1728
4299. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1729
4300. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1730
4301. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1731
4302. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1732
4303. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1733
4304. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1734
4305. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1735
4306. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1736
4307. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1737
4308. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1738
4309. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1739
4310. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1740
4311. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1741
4312. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1742
4313. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1743
4314. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1744
4315. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1745
4316. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1746
4317. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1747
4318. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1748
4319. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1749
4320. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1750
4321. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1751
4322. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1752
4323. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1753
4324. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1754
4325. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1755
4326. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1756
4327. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1757
4328. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1758
4329. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1759
4330. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1760
4331. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1761
4332. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1762
4333. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1763
4334. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1764
4335. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1765
4336. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1766
4337. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1767
4338. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1768
4339. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1769
4340. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1770
4341. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1771
4342. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1772
4343. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1773
4344. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1774
4345. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1775
4346. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1776
4347. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1777
4348. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1778
4349. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1779
4350. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1780
4351. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1781
4352. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1782
4353. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1783
4354. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1784
4355. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1785
4356. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1786
4357. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1787
4358. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1788
4359. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1789
4360. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1790
4361. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1791
4362. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1792
4363. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1793
4364. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1794
4365. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1795
4366. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1796
4367. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1797
4368. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1798
4369. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1799
4370. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1800
4371. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1801
4372. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1802
4373. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1803
4374. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1804
4375. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1805
4376. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1806
4377. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1807
4378. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1808
4379. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1809
4380. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1810
4381. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1811
4382. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1812
4383. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1813
4384. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1814
4385. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1815
4386. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1816
4387. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1817
4388. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1818
4389. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1819
4390. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1820
4391. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1821
4392. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1822
4393. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1823
4394. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1824
4395. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1825
4396. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1826
4397. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1827
4398. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1828
4399. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1829
4400. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1830
4401. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1831
4402. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1832
4403. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1833
4404. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1834
4405. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1835
4406. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1836
4407. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1837
4408. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1838
4409. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1839
4410. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1840
4411. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1841
4412. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1842
4413. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1843
4414. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1844
4415. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1845
4416. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1846
4417. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1847
4418. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1848
4419. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1849
4420. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1850
4421. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1851
4422. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1852
4423. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1853
4424. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1854
4425. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1855
4426. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1856
4427. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1857
4428. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1858
4429. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1859
4430. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1860
4431. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1861
4432. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1862
4433. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1863
4434. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1864
4435. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1865
4436. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1866
4437. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1867
4438. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1868
4439. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1869
4440. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1870
4441. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1871
4442. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1872
4443. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1873
4444. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1874
4445. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1875
4446. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1876
4447. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1877
4448. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1878
4449. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1879
4450. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1880
4451. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1881
4452. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1882
4453. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1883
4454. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1884
4455. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1885
4456. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1886
4457. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1887
4458. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1888
4459. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1889
4460. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1890
4461. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1891
4462. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1892
4463. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1893
4464. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1894
4465. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1895
4466. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1896
4467. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1897
4468. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1898
4469. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1899
4470. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1900
4471. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1901
4472. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1902
4473. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1903
4474. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1904
4475. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1905
4476. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1906
4477. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1907
4478. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1908
4479. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1909
4480. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1910
4481. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1911
4482. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1912
4483. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1913
4484. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1914
4485. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1915
4486. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1916
4487. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1917
4488. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1918
4489. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1919
4490. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1920
4491. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1921
4492. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1922
4493. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1923
4494. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1924
4495. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1925
4496. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1926
4497. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1927
4498. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1928
4499. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1929
4500. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1930
4501. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1931
4502. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1932
4503. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1933
4504. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1934
4505. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1935
4506. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1936
4507. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1937
4508. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1938
4509. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1939
4510. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1940
4511. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1941
4512. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1942
4513. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1943
4514. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1944
4515. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1945
4516. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1946
4517. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1947
4518. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1948
4519. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1949
4520. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1950
4521. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1951
4522. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1952
4523. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1953
4524. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1954
4525. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1955
4526. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1956
4527. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1957
4528. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1958
4529. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1959
4530. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1960
4531. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1961
4532. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1962
4533. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1963
4534. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1964
4535. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1965
4536. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1966
4537. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1967
4538. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1968
4539. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1969
4540. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1970
4541. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1971
4542. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1972
4543. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1973
4544. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1974
4545. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1975
4546. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1976
4547. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1977
4548. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1978
4549. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1979
4550. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1980
4551. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1981
4552. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1982
4553. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1983
4554. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1984
4555. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1985
4556. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1986
4557. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1987
4558. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1988
4559. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1989
4560. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1990
4561. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1991
4562. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1992
4563. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1993
4564. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1994
4565. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1995
4566. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1996
4567. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1997
4568. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1998
4569. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb1999
4570. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2000
4571. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2001
4572. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2002
4573. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2003
4574. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2004
4575. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2005
4576. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2006
4577. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2007
4578. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2008
4579. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2009
4580. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2010
4581. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2011
4582. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2012
4583. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2013
4584. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2014
4585. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2015
4586. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2016
4587. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2017
4588. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2018
4589. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2019
4590. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2020
4591. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2021
4592. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2022
4593. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2023
4594. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2024
4595. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2025
4596. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2026
4597. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2027
4598. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2028
4599. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2029
4600. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2030
4601. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2031
4602. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2032
4603. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2033
4604. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2034
4605. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2035
4606. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2036
4607. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2037
4608. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2038
4609. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2039
4610. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2040
4611. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2041
4612. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2042
4613. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2043
4614. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2044
4615. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2045
4616. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2046
4617. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2047
4618. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2048
4619. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2049
4620. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2050
4621. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2051
4622. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2052
4623. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2053
4624. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2054
4625. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2055
4626. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2056
4627. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2057
4628. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2058
4629. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2059
4630. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2060
4631. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2061
4632. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2062
4633. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2063
4634. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2064
4635. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2065
4636. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2066
4637. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2067
4638. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2068
4639. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2069
4640. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2070
4641. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2071
4642. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2072
4643. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2073
4644. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2074
4645. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2075
4646. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2076
4647. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2077
4648. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2078
4649. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2079
4650. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2080
4651. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2081
4652. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2082
4653. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2083
4654. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2084
4655. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2085
4656. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2086
4657. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2087
4658. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2088
4659. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2089
4660. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2090
4661. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2091
4662. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2092
4663. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2093
4664. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2094
4665. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2095
4666. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2096
4667. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2097
4668. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2098
4669. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2099
4670. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2100
4671. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2101
4672. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2102
4673. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2103
4674. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2104
4675. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2105
4676. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2106
4677. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2107
4678. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2108
4679. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2109
4680. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2110
4681. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2111
4682. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2112
4683. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2113
4684. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2114
4685. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2115
4686. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2116
4687. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2117
4688. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2118
4689. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2119
4690. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2120
4691. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2121
4692. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2122
4693. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2123
4694. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2124
4695. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2125
4696. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2126
4697. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2127
4698. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2128
4699. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2129
4700. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2130
4701. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2131
4702. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2132
4703. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2133
4704. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2134
4705. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2135
4706. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2136
4707. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2137
4708. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2138
4709. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2139
4710. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2140
4711. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2141
4712. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2142
4713. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2143
4714. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2144
4715. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2145
4716. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2146
4717. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2147
4718. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2148
4719. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2149
4720. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2150
4721. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2151
4722. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2152
4723. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2153
4724. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2154
4725. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2155
4726. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2156
4727. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2157
4728. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2158
4729. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2159
4730. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2160
4731. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2161
4732. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2162
4733. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2163
4734. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2164
4735. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2165
4736. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2166
4737. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2167
4738. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2168
4739. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2169
4740. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2170
4741. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2171
4742. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2172
4743. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2173
4744. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2174
4745. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2175
4746. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2176
4747. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2177
4748. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2178
4749. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2179
4750. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2180
4751. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2181
4752. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2182
4753. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2183
4754. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2184
4755. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2185
4756. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2186
4757. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2187
4758. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2188
4759. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2189
4760. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2190
4761. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2191
4762. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2192
4763. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2193
4764. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2194
4765. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2195
4766. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2196
4767. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2197
4768. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2198
4769. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2199
4770. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2200
4771. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2201
4772. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2202
4773. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2203
4774. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2204
4775. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2205
4776. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2206
4777. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2207
4778. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2208
4779. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2209
4780. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2210
4781. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2211
4782. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2212
4783. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2213
4784. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2214
4785. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2215
4786. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2216
4787. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2217
4788. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2218
4789. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2219
4790. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2220
4791. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2221
4792. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2222
4793. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2223
4794. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2224
4795. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2225
4796. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2226
4797. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2227
4798. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2228
4799. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2229
4800. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2230
4801. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2231
4802. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2232
4803. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2233
4804. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2234
4805. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2235
4806. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2236
4807. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2237
4808. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2238
4809. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2239
4810. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2240
4811. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2241
4812. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2242
4813. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2243
4814. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2244
4815. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2245
4816. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2246
4817. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2247
4818. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2248
4819. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2249
4820. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2250
4821. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2251
4822. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2252
4823. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2253
4824. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2254
4825. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2255
4826. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2256
4827. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2257
4828. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2258
4829. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2259
4830. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2260
4831. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2261
4832. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2262
4833. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2263
4834. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2264
4835. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2265
4836. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2266
4837. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2267
4838. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2268
4839. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2269
4840. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2270
4841. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2271
4842. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2272
4843. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2273
4844. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2274
4845. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2275
4846. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2276
4847. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2277
4848. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2278
4849. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2279
4850. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2280
4851. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2281
4852. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2282
4853. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2283
4854. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2284
4855. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2285
4856. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2286
4857. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2287
4858. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2288
4859. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2289
4860. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2290
4861. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2291
4862. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2292
4863. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2293
4864. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2294
4865. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2295
4866. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2296
4867. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2297
4868. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2298
4869. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2299
4870. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2300
4871. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2301
4872. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2302
4873. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2303
4874. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2304
4875. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2305
4876. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2306
4877. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2307
4878. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2308
4879. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2309
4880. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2310
4881. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2311
4882. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2312
4883. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2313
4884. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2314
4885. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2315
4886. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2316
4887. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2317
4888. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2318
4889. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2319
4890. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2320
4891. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2321
4892. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2322
4893. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2323
4894. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2324
4895. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2325
4896. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2326
4897. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2327
4898. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2328
4899. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2329
4900. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2330
4901. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2331
4902. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2332
4903. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2333
4904. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2334
4905. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2335
4906. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2336
4907. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2337
4908. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2338
4909. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2339
4910. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2340
4911. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2341
4912. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2342
4913. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2343
4914. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2344
4915. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2345
4916. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2346
4917. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2347
4918. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2348
4919. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2349
4920. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2350
4921. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2351
4922. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2352
4923. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2353
4924. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2354
4925. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2355
4926. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2356
4927. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2357
4928. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2358
4929. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2359
4930. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2360
4931. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2361
4932. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2362
4933. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2363
4934. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2364
4935. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2365
4936. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2366
4937. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2367
4938. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2368
4939. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2369
4940. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2370
4941. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2371
4942. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2372
4943. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2373
4944. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2374
4945. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2375
4946. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2376
4947. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2377
4948. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2378
4949. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2379
4950. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2380
4951. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2381
4952. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2382
4953. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2383
4954. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2384
4955. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2385
4956. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2386
4957. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2387
4958. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2388
4959. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2389
4960. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2390
4961. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2391
4962. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2392
4963. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2393
4964. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2394
4965. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2395
4966. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2396
4967. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2397
4968. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2398
4969. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2399
4970. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2400
4971. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2401
4972. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2402
4973. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2403
4974. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2404
4975. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2405
4976. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2406
4977. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2407
4978. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2408
4979. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2409
4980. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2410
4981. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2411
4982. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2412
4983. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2413
4984. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2414
4985. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2415
4986. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2416
4987. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2417
4988. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2418
4989. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2419
4990. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2420
4991. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2421
4992. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2422
4993. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2423
4994. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2424
4995. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2425
4996. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2426
4997. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2427
4998. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2428
4999. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2429
5000. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2430
5001. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2431
5002. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2432
5003. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2433
5004. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2434
5005. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2435
5006. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2436
5007. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2437
5008. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2438
5009. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2439
5010. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2440
5011. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2441
5012. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2442
5013. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2443
5014. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2444
5015. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2445
5016. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2446
5017. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2447
5018. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2448
5019. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2449
5020. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2450
5021. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2451
5022. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2452
5023. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2453
5024. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2454
5025. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2455
5026. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2456
5027. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2457
5028. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2458
5029. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2459
5030. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2460
5031. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2461
5032. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2462
5033. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2463
5034. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2464
5035. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2465
5036. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2466
5037. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2467
5038. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2468
5039. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2469
5040. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2470
5041. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2471
5042. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2472
5043. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2473
5044. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2474
5045. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2475
5046. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2476
5047. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2477
5048. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2478
5049. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2479
5050. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2480
5051. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2481
5052. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2482
5053. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2483
5054. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2484
5055. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2485
5056. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2486
5057. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2487
5058. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2488
5059. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2489
5060. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2490
5061. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2491
5062. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2492
5063. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2493
5064. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2494
5065. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2495
5066. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2496
5067. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2497
5068. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2498
5069. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2499
5070. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2500
5071. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2501
5072. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2502
5073. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2503
5074. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2504
5075. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2505
5076. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2506
5077. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2507
5078. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2508
5079. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2509
5080. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2510
5081. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2511
5082. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2512
5083. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2513
5084. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2514
5085. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2515
5086. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2516
5087. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2517
5088. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2518
5089. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2519
5090. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2520
5091. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2521
5092. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2522
5093. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2523
5094. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2524
5095. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2525
5096. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2526
5097. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2527
5098. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2528
5099. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2529
5100. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2530
5101. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2531
5102. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2532
5103. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2533
5104. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2534
5105. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2535
5106. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2536
5107. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2537
5108. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2538
5109. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2539
5110. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2540
5111. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2541
5112. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2542
5113. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2543
5114. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2544
5115. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2545
5116. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2546
5117. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2547
5118. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2548
5119. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2549
5120. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2550
5121. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2551
5122. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2552
5123. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2553
5124. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2554
5125. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2555
5126. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2556
5127. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2557
5128. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2558
5129. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2559
5130. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2560
5131. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2561
5132. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2562
5133. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2563
5134. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2564
5135. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2565
5136. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2566
5137. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2567
5138. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2568
5139. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2569
5140. file://localhost/usr/local2/htdocs/s/schaff/npnf104/oeb/i.htm#_fnb2570
Livros Grátis
( http://www.livrosgratis.com.br )
Milhares de Livros para Download:
Baixar livros de Administração
Baixar livros de Agronomia
Baixar livros de Arquitetura
Baixar livros de Artes
Baixar livros de Astronomia
Baixar livros de Biologia Geral
Baixar livros de Ciência da Computação
Baixar livros de Ciência da Informação
Baixar livros de Ciência Política
Baixar livros de Ciências da Saúde
Baixar livros de Comunicação
Baixar livros do Conselho Nacional de Educação - CNE
Baixar livros de Defesa civil
Baixar livros de Direito
Baixar livros de Direitos humanos
Baixar livros de Economia
Baixar livros de Economia Doméstica
Baixar livros de Educação
Baixar livros de Educação - Trânsito
Baixar livros de Educação Física
Baixar livros de Engenharia Aeroespacial
Baixar livros de Farmácia
Baixar livros de Filosofia
Baixar livros de Física
Baixar livros de Geociências
Baixar livros de Geografia
Baixar livros de História
Baixar livros de Línguas
Baixar livros de Literatura
Baixar livros de Literatura de Cordel
Baixar livros de Literatura Infantil
Baixar livros de Matemática
Baixar livros de Medicina
Baixar livros de Medicina Veterinária
Baixar livros de Meio Ambiente
Baixar livros de Meteorologia
Baixar Monografias e TCC
Baixar livros Multidisciplinar
Baixar livros de Música
Baixar livros de Psicologia
Baixar livros de Química
Baixar livros de Saúde Coletiva
Baixar livros de Serviço Social
Baixar livros de Sociologia
Baixar livros de Teologia
Baixar livros de Trabalho
Baixar livros de Turismo