Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Reply to Faustus the Manichaean/Chapter 33

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.&#160; He justifies his subjective criticism of Scripture.&#160; Augustin sums up the argument, claims the victory, and exhorts the Manich&#230;ans to abandon their opposition to the Old Testament notwithstanding the difficulties that it presents, and to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.

1.&#160; said:&#160; 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," and ask why we do not acknowledge the patriarchs.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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? &#160; Who is so hard-hearted as to disapprove of this act of benevolence?&#160; 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. &#160; 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. &#160; 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. &#160; One thing perplexes me in your doctrine:&#160; 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.&#160; You will say that the Gentiles worshipped idols, and the Jews the Almighty God, and that therefore Jesus had regard only to the Jews.&#160; 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.&#160; That is as you please.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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."&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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 Matthew&#8217;s ingenious narrative?&#160; But the passage is corrupt.&#160; For, in describing the centurion&#8217;s 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; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; And He shall answer and say, I know you not.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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." &#160; 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.&#160; In the same way, Luke mentions the centurion and his servant, without alluding in that connection to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.&#160; Since it is uncertain when the words were spoken, we are at liberty to doubt whether they were spoken at all.

3.&#160; It is not without reason that we bring a critical judgment to the study of Scriptures where there are such discrepancies and contradictions.&#160; By thus examining everything, and comparing one passage with another, we determine which contains Christ&#8217;s actual words, and what may or may not be genuine.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; But whatever you make of that, as regards this verse, I repeat that I do not insist on rejecting it.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; So, whatever you think of this verse, it does not affect us:&#160; for if it is genuine, it only illustrates Christ&#8217;s goodness and compassion; and if it is spurious, those who wrote it are to blame.&#160; Our cause is as safe as it always is.

4.&#160; replied:&#160; Poor safety, indeed! when you contradict yourself by hating the patriarchs as impure, at the same time that you grieve for your impure god.&#160; 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 Saviour&#8217;s advent, still lies in darkness, is still sunk in the ocean of iniquity, still wallows in the mire of all uncleanness.&#160; These men, therefore, were not only better than your god in their lives, but also happier in their death.&#160; Where was the abode of the just who departed from this life before Christ&#8217;s 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; Otherwise the expectations of the unrighteous will be sadly disappointed when God begins to fulfill His threatenings to the unrighteous.

5.&#160; I have already given what I considered a sufficient answer to Faustus&#8217; calumnies of the lives of the patriarchs.&#160; That they were punished at their death, or that they were justified after the Lord&#8217;s passion, is not what we learn from His commendation of them, when He admonished the Jews that, if they were Abraham&#8217;s children, they should do the works of Abraham, and said that Abraham desired to see His day, and was glad when he saw it; 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. &#160; And what are we to make of the Apostle Paul?&#160; 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? &#160; And so much importance does he attach to this, that the single ground which he specifies for our becoming Abraham&#8217;s children, though not descended from him in the flesh, is, that we follow the footsteps of his faith.

6.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; How can you thus do injury to your own souls?&#160; Where will you find any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings?&#160; 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?&#160; 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?&#160; 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?&#160; And this decision remained unaltered in spite of some similarity in style and matter:&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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?&#160; 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.&#160; How is the authorship ascertained in each case, except by the author&#8217;s 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?&#160; But why speak of old books?&#160; Take the books now before us:&#160; should any one, after some years, deny that this book was written by me, or that Faustus&#8217; 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?&#160; 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 apostles—a community of brethren as numerous as they were faithful—to 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.&#160; But Faustus finds contradictions in the Gospels.&#160; Say, rather, that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too foolish to understand, and too blind to see.&#160; 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.&#160; 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?&#160; This is what Faustus does in his attempt to impeach the truth of the Gospels; as if Luke&#8217;s omitting some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial on the part of Luke of Matthew&#8217;s statement.&#160; There is no real difficulty in the case; and to make a difficulty shows want of thought, or of the ability to think.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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?" &#160; The explanation is, that Matthew&#8217;s narrative is correct, but brief, mentioning the centurion&#8217;s 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.&#160; But is it not common to speak of a person as coming near to a thing, although he may not reach it?&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; Are we, then, in reading to forget the common usage of speech?&#160; Or must the sacred Scripture have a language of its own?&#160; The cavils of forward critics are thus met by a reference to the usual forms of speech.

8.&#160; 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 Matthew&#8217;s narrative.&#160; To such it is said in the Psalm "Come unto Him, and be enlightened; and your faces shall not be ashamed." &#160; 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.&#160; We find an analogous case in the woman with the issue of blood, who was healed by touching the hem of Christ&#8217;s garment, when Christ said, "Some one hath touched me."&#160; The disciples wondered what Christ meant by saying, "Who hath touched me?" "Some one hath touched me," when the crowd was thronging Him.&#160; In fact, they made this reply:&#160; "The crowd throngeth Thee, and sayest Thou, Who hath touched me?" &#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; Thus are undone all the bandages with which poor Manich&#230;ans stifle themselves to keep in the spirit of error, and to keep out all that might lead to their salvation.

9.&#160; Now that all Faustus&#8217; 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. &#160;There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and its predictions fulfilled.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; Admit this, or believe it, and you will no longer be Manich&#230;ans, so that in course of time you may become Catholics.