Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 30
30.1 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 PL 42, 489
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." 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 swine’s 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: 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.
FAUSTUS dixit: De vobis jamdudum. Paulus scripsit, quia discedent quidam a fide, intendentes spiritibus seductoriis, doctrinis daemoniorum, in hypocrisi loquentes mendacium, cauteriatam habentes conscientiam suam, prohibentes nubere, abstinentes a cibis quos Deus creavit, ad percipiendum cum gratiarum actione fidelibus . Nunquam plane tibi ego haec ab Apostolo dicta esse consenserim, nisi antea confitearis ipse, Moysen et Prophetas doctrinas attulisse daemoniorum, et seductorii spiritus ac maligni fuisse interpretes, qui a porcina et caeteris carnibus, quas immundas vocant, sollicite doceant abstinendum. De his ergo primo deliberandum vobis est, et diu multumque cogitandum, haec qui debeant accipi, in Deone ipsi haec, an in daemonio locuti videantur. Hac enim tenus, aut Moyses et Prophetae nobiscum damnati erunt, aut et nos cum illis absoluti. Neque enim justa haec nunc vestra sententia est, ut nos quidem, qui solum in plebe sacerdotale hominum genus censeamus a carnibus abstinere debere, daemoniorum doctrinae videamur vobis assectatores: vestros vero Prophetas, atque ipsum adeo Moysen, qui primus non antistitibus solum, sed omni confuse hominum generi suilla interdixerit, et leporina, et hericina carne, et sepiis ac lolliginibus, caeterisque generibus piscium carentibus squama , non in spiritu seductorio hoc, nec in doctrina daemoniorum, sed in Deo potius et in sancto Spiritu locutos esse arbitremini. Igitur ut hoc tibi interim Paulum dixisse concedam, victus tamen abs te non ante fuero, quam tu Moysen damnaveris et Prophetas: ut quod ratione convictus et veritate nunquam fortasse fecisses, id nunc ventris causa facere videaris, blasphemare Moysen.
30.2 PL 42, 491
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; 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 apostle’s opinion. And Daniel himself declares that he fasted for three weeks, not eating flesh or drinking wine, while he prayed for his people. How is it that he boasts of this doctrine of devils, and glories in the falsehood of a lying spirit?
Est vero et aliud de tribus pueris apud vos in Daniele, quo vehementer perinde confundemini, si istud constiterit, a cibis abstinere, daemoniorum esse religio. Illi enim non tantum ab interdictis Lege, sed etiam a concessis abstinuisse leguntur : quos vehementer mirari soletis, et in martyribus numerare; cum sint et ipsi doctrinam assecuti daemoniorum, si hoc esse Apostoli testimonium constat. Ad haec et Daniel ipse tribus hebdomadis dierum jejunasse se perhibet, et carnem non edisse, nec bibisse vinum, dum exoraret pro populo suo . Quid ergo et hic in doctrina se daemoniorum magnificat, et de seductorii spiritus commento gloriam captat?
30.3 PL 42, 491
3. Again, what are we to think of you, or of the better class of Christians among you, some of whom abstain from swine’s 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 world—I 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 Christ’s 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.
De vobis vero quid dicam? id est, de christianioribus apud vos, quorum nonnulli quidem porcina, plerique vero quadrupede omni, alii etiam cuncto animali penitus abstinent, fertque ob hoc in oculis eos omnis Ecclesia, et summa cum veneratione suscipiens, solum non deos existimat. Nec videtis, indociles, quia si hoc verum, et ab Apostolo dictum testimonium est, daemoniorum et ipsi sunt ludificati doctrinis. Quid vero et de illo dicemus, quod sane frustrari quis audeat aut abnegare, cum constet hoc inter omnes, et aeque per orbem terrarum quotannis omni cum studio celebretur in conventu catholico? Dico autem Quadragesimam, quam qui inter vos rite observandam putaverit, abstineat necesse est omnibus his quae capitulum hoc a Deo ad percipiendum nobis creata dicit, et daemoniorum insuper doctrinam vocat abstinentiam prae dictorum. Quid ergo et vos, charissimi? ritune tunc daemoniorum vivitis, cum haec a vobis passionis Christi celebrantur mysteria, et seductorii spiritus fraude capimini, et in hypocrisi loquimini mendacium, et cauteriatam habetis conscientiam vestram? Quod si horum nihil vos; nec nos igitur. Quid ergo sibi vult capitulum hoc, aut a quo scriptum putabimus, et contra quos, quod nec Veteris Testamenti traditiones, nec Novi confirmet scita? Siquidem hoc ab omnibus, ut ex vobis ipsis apparet; illud vero a quibusdam quamvis, abstineri tamen docet: sententia vero haec vestra cunctam penitus carnalium ciborum abstinentiam, daemoniorum vult esse doctrinas. Cui si et vos creditis, eadem saepius dixero, damnate Moysen, renuntiate Prophetis, ferte parem et de vobis ipsis sententiam: quia ut illi semper a quibusdam ciborum, sic vos interdum abstinetis ab omnibus.
30.4 PL 42, 492
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,—consider, I beseech you, if it is not perfect madness to suppose these words to be Paul’s 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. 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. 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," 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 King’s 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. So that what you mean, or intend, by quoting this verse against us, it is impossible to say.
Aut si Moyses vobis et Prophetae, cum escas dijudicant, Dei legem sancire videntur, et non daemoniorum; si Daniel in Spiritu sancto observavit tres hebdomadas; si Ananias, Azarias, et Misael pueri, divinae mentis instinctu, oleribus uti maluerunt et leguminibus; si denique in vobis quotquot abstinent, non a daemoniis impulsi id faciunt; si Quadragesima sine vino et carnibus non superstitiose a vobis, sed divina lege servatur: videte, quaeso, videte, ne summae dementiae hoc sit a Paulo dictum putare, quod daemoniorum doctrina sit abstinentia omnis ciborum, et prohibere nubere: quemadmodum nec illud quod dicit etiam virgines dicare Christo, daemoniorum esse doctrinas; quod vos perinde sine consideratione legentes, ut caetera, ad nos subinde respicitis: nec videtis hinc et virgines vestras daemoniorum doctrina captas notari, et vos esse antistites daemoniorum, qui certatim semper ad hanc eas incitetis professionem suasionibus vestris, ut pene jam major in Ecclesiis omnibus virginum apud vos, quam mulierum numerositas habeatur? Quid ergo non et vos jam desistitis a talibus incoeptis? Quid in fraudem miseras inducitis filias hominum, si non in eis Christi voluntas impletur, sed daemoniorum? Et tamen hoc nobis primo respondeatis velim, utrum omnino virgines facere, doctrina sit daemoniorum, an solum per prohibitionem facere nubendi? Si per prohibitionem, nihil ad nos: nam et ipsi tam stultum judicamus inhibere volentem, quam nefas et impium satis nolentem cogere. Si vero favere huic quoque proposito et non reluctari volenti, id quoque doctrinam putatis esse daemoniorum, taceo nunc vestrum periculum, ipsi jam timeo Apostolo, ne daemoniorum doctrinam intulisse tunc Iconium videatur, cum Theclam oppigneratam jam thalamo, in amorem sermone suo perpetuae virginitatis incendit. Quid vero et de magistro ipso dicemus, ac sanctimonii totius auctore Jesu, et hujus ipsius professionis puellarum caelibe sponso, qui in Evangelio tria genera taxans spadonum, unum nativum, alterum factitium, tertium voluntarium, eis tamen palmam attribuit, qui se ipsos, inquit, spadones fecerunt propter regnum coelorum ; significans virgines et pueros qui nubendi ipsa a cordibus suis exsecta cupiditate, spadonum vice in ejus Ecclesia semper, tanquam in domo regia conversentur? Quid ergo, et hoc vobis doctrina videtur esse daemoniorum, et in seductorio spiritu dictum? Et quis erit alius in Deo loquens, si Paulus et Christus daemoniorum probantur fuisse sacerdotes? Mitto enim caeteros ejusdem Domini nostri Apostolos, Petrum et Andream, Thomam et illum inexpertem Veneris inter caeteros beatum Joannem, qui per diversa professionem boni istius inter virgines ac pueros divino praeconio cecinerunt, formam nobis atque adeo vobis ipsis faciendarum virginum relinquentes. Sed hos quidem, ut dixi, praetereo; quia eos vos exclusistis ex canone, facileque mente sacrilega vestra daemoniorum his potestis importare doctrinas. Num igitur et de Christo eadem dicere poteritis, aut de apostolo Paulo, quem similiter ubique constat, et verbo semper praetulisse nuptis innuptas, et id opere quoque ostendisse erga sanctissimam Theclam? Quod si haec daemoniorum doctrina non fuit, quam et Theclae Paulus, et caeteri caeteris annuntiaverunt Apostoli, cui credi jam poterit hoc ab ipso esse memoratum, tanquam sit daemoniorum voluntas et doctrina, etiam persuasio sanctimonii? Non ergo est interim quod vos existimetis solis hortamentis virgines facere, et non prohibitione nubendi. Nobis enim quoque hoc ipsum insitum est: et demens profecto ille, non tantum stultus putandus est, qui id existimet lege privata prohiberi posse, quod sit publica concessum: dico autem hoc ipsum nubere. Quapropter et nos hortamur quidem volentes ut permaneant, non tamen cogimus invitas ut accedant. Novimus enim quantum voluntas, quantum et naturae ipsius vis etiam contra legem publicam valeat, nedum adversus privatam, cui respondere sit liberum, Nolo. Si igitur hoc modo virgines facere sine crimine est, extra culpam sumus et nos: sin quoquo genere virgines facere crimen est, rei estis et vos. Jam qua mente aut consilio hoc adversum nos capitulum proferatis, ego non video.
30.5 PL 42, 493
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. 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. 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: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 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.
AUGUSTINUS respondit: Audi ergo, quod confiteris te non videre, qua mente aut consilio hoc adversum vos capitulum proferamus: non quod a carnibus abstineatis, nam hoc a quibusdam et primi patres nostri fecerunt, sicut commemoras; non tamen ea damnandi, sed significandi gratia, quod non intelligitis, et unde jam quantum sufficere videbatur, in superioribus partibus operis hujus locutus sum: et Christiani, non haeretici, sed Catholici, edomandi corporis causa, propter animam in orationibus amplius humiliandam, non quod illa esse immunda credant, non solum a carnibus, verum a quibusdam etiam terrae fructibus abstinent; vel semper, sicut pauci, vel certis diebus atque temporibus sicut per Quadragesimam fere omnes, quanto magis quisque vel minus seu voluerit, seu potuerit. Vos autem ipsam creaturam negatis bonam, et immundam dicitis, quod carnes diabolus operetur faeculentiore materia mali; ac per hoc eas, tanquam immundiora et truculentiora dei vestri vincula, exhorrentes abjicitis. Auditoribus autem vestris, quos tanquam distinctos a genere sacerdotum dixisti, secundum veniam haec edenda conceditis: sicut quibusdam concedit Apostolus secundum veniam, non omnem concubitum conjugalem, etiam qui fit sola causa generandi; sed eum qui fit per incontinentiam, sed tamen cum conjuge . Neque enim conceditur secundum veniam, nisi peccatum. Hoc vos de omni carnium cibo sentitis, hoc et ipsi ab haeresi vestra didicistis, et vestros auditores docetis: sed illis quod sit ignoscendum, propter quod vobis necessaria ministrant, ut dixi, conceditis, non dicentes non esse peccatum, sed peccantibus veniam largientes; vos autem ab omni tali tanquam mala et immunda contagione abstinetis: ac per hoc illud quod sequitur ea verba Apostoli, quibus commemorationem hujus capituli terminasti, ipsum est omnino quod nos facit hoc testimonium vobis objicere: quod et tu, puto, sciebas, ut ea verba primo non poneres, et nobis in extremo diceres, Qua mente aut consilio hoc adversum nos capitulum proferatis, ego non video; cum hoc ipsum nostrum consilium tacere quam commemorare malueris. Cum enim Apostolus dixisset, Abstinentes a cibis quos Deus creavit ad percipiendum cum gratiarum actione fidelibus; secutus ait, Et iis qui cognoverunt veritatem: quoniam omnis creatura Dei bona est, et nihil abjiciendum, quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur; sanctificatur enim per verbum Dei et orationem . Haec sunt quae negatis; hoc animo, hac voluntate, hac opinione ab escis hujusmodi temperatis, quod non significatione, sed natura malae et immundae sint. Qua in re creatorem earum sine dubio blasphematis: hoc est quod pertinet ad doctrinam daemoniorum. Nolite ergo mirari hoc de vobis tanto ante a sancto Spiritu prophetatum.
30.6 PL 42, 494
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;" if you taught that marriage is good, and virginity better, as the Church teaches which is truly Christ’s Church, you would not have been described in the Spirit’s 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. 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.
————————————
Iterum si ad virginitatem sic adhortaremini, quemadmodum hortatur apostolica doctrina, Qui dat nuptum, bene facit; et qui non dat nuptum, melius facit : ut bonum esse nuptias diceretis, sed meliorem virginitatem, sicut facit Ecclesia, quae vere Christi est Ecclesia: non vos Spiritus sanctus ita praenuntiaret, dicens, prohibentes nubere . Ille enim prohibet, qui hoc malum esse dicit, non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit. Denique vos eum praecipue concubitum detestamini, qui solus honestus et conjugalis est, et quem matrimoniales quoque tabulae prae se gerunt, Liberorum procreandorum causa: unde vere non tam concumbere, quam nubere prohibetis. Concumbitur enim etiam causa libidinum, nubitur autem nonnisi filiorum. Nec ideo vos dicatis non prohibere, quia multos vestros Auditores in hoc obedire nolentes vel non valentes salva amicitia toleratis. Illud enim habetis in doctrina vestri erroris, hoc in necessitate societatis. Hinc est quod paulo ante distuleram dicere, cur vobis mors Christi visa sit vel fallax et simulata praedicanda, et non etiam nativitas. Mortem quippe tanquam separationem animae, id est, naturae dei vestri a corpore inimicorum ejus, hoc est a figmento diaboli, praedicatis atque laudatis: ac per hoc rem dignam fuisse credidistis, quam Christus etsi non moriens, tamen mortem simulans commendaret. In nativitate autem quia non solvi, sed ligari potius deum vestrum creditis, hanc nec saltem fallaciter imaginatum Christum credere voluistis: ita ut non sic vobis Maria displiceret, si concubuisset, et non concepisset, quomodo displicet, quia non concubuit, et tamen peperit. Videtis ergo multum interesse inter hortantes ad virginitatem, bono minori bonum amplius praeponendo; et prohibentes nubere, concubitum propagationis, qui solus proprie nuptialis est, vehementius accusando: multum interesse inter abstinentes a cibis, propter sacramenti significationem, vel propter corporis castigationem; et abstinentes a cibis, quos Deus creavit, dicendo quod eos Deus non creavit. Proinde illa doctrina est Prophetarum et Apostolorum, haec daemoniorum mendaciloquorum.