書信與論戰集（CSEL） 第 5 章 第 14/118 段

nor ought we on that account to separate ourselves from the catholic communion, if perhaps anything should be done to us against our will, or even, if we could prevail, against our contradiction — since we have learned peaceful forbearance, the Apostle saying: Bearing with one another in love, striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Which peace and forbearance we said those did not hold who made a schism — so that now, among their own who are milder than they, they bear graver things, lest what is already torn be torn further, whereas they were unwilling to bear lighter things for the sake of that very unity. We said also that not yet in the times of the ancients had the peace and forbearance of unity been proclaimed with so great a commendation,

as it is by the example of the Lord and by the charity of the New Testament; and yet those prophets and holy men were wont to declare the crimes of the people against them, while nevertheless they did not attempt to tear themselves away from the unity of that people and from the communion of receiving together the sacraments which then existed. Thence, I know not how, it came to the mention of Genethlius of blessed memory, the bishop — how he had suppressed some ordinance issued against them, and had not allowed it to take effect. All praised him and most kindly preferred him. Amid these praises it was added by us that even this same Genethlius, nevertheless, if he had fallen into their hands, would be judged fit to be rebaptized. And these things we were saying now standing, because the time of departure was pressing.

There plainly that old man said that a rule had now been made, that whoever of the faithful should come to them from us should be baptized — which it was apparent, as far as he could, that he said unwillingly and with grief. Indeed, since he himself too most openly lamented and displayed many evils of his own people — which was proved by the testimony of his whole city, how remote he was from such deeds — and set forth with modest complaint the things that he was wont to say even to his own; and since we recalled that passage of the prophet Ezekiel, where it is openly written that neither the son's fault is to be imputed to the father, nor the father's to his son, where it is said: For as the soul of the father is mine, so also the soul of the son is mine;

for whatever soul sins, it alone shall die — it pleased all that in such disputations the violent deeds of evil men ought not to be objected by us to one another. There remained, therefore, the question of the schism. And so we exhorted him that, again and again, with a calm and peaceful mind, he should strive together with us, so that by diligent examination so great an inquiry might reach its term. Whereupon, when he kindly said that we alone sought these things, but that our people were unwilling that these things be sought, we departed, having made this promise: that we would present to him several of our colleagues, at least even ten, who with such great goodwill and gentleness and such pious zeal would wish this to be sought, as we already perceived him to have observed and approved in us.

This too he himself promised on behalf of the number of his own people. Wherefore I exhort you and adjure you by the blood of the Lord, that you remind him of his promise and earnestly press him, that the matter which has been begun may be carried through — which you now perceive to have come almost to its end. For, as far as I judge, you can with the greatest difficulty find among your bishops so useful a mind and will as we discerned in that old man. For on the next day he himself came to us, and we had begun again to inquire into these things. But because the necessity of ordaining a bishop was now snatching us away from there at any moment, we could not be longer with him.

For we had already sent word to Maiorinus of the Caelicolae, whom we had heard had set himself up among them as the founder of a new baptism and had led many astray by that sacrilege, so that we might discuss something with him, as far as the constraints of the time allowed. But when he learned that we were coming, seeing that we had taken up another business, and since some necessity of a journey was pressing upon him as well, he parted from us kindly and peaceably. It seems to me, however, that we should altogether avoid disorderly crowds who bring hindrance rather than help, and that with a friend's mind, truly tranquil, we should undertake so.

With the Lord's help we may carry through this great business: that we ought to meet together at some estate, not a large one, where neither of us would have a church, but which estate nonetheless is held in common by men both of our communion and of his, such as the estate of Titiana.

Whether therefore in the district of Thubursicum or of Thagaste such a place is found, whether the one I have mentioned or some other, let us see that the canonical books are at hand, and, if any can be produced, the documents from both sides, so that, setting all else aside — if it please the Lord and no trouble intervenes — for as many days as we can, devoting ourselves to this and each of us imploring the Lord in our host's dwelling, with the aid of Him to whom Christian peace is most pleasing, we may bring so great a matter, begun with good will, through to the end of the inquiry. Write back, indeed, what seems best about this matter either to you or to him. (45)

To our most kindred and most beloved lords, praiseworthy in Christ, Paulinus and Therasia, Alypius and Augustine send greeting in the Lord. By no means has some cessation on your part — whereby, behold, for a whole two years, since our sweetest brothers Romanus and Agilis returned to you, we have received no letters from you — made us sluggish to write. For while in other matters the more one is loved, the more worthy of imitation he seems, in this matter it is the contrary. For the more ardently we love you, the less we bear it that you do not write to us; nor do we wish to imitate you in this.

Behold, therefore, we greet you — if not answering your letters, which none reach us, then at least remonstrating, and with no slight grief, though perhaps your love likewise complains in the same way, if indeed you know of letters sent by you which did not reach us, and, in turn, of those sent by us which were not delivered to you. And if this is so, let us turn our complaints into prayers to the Lord, that He not deny us such great consolations. We had heard that you were writing against the pagans. If that is finished, we beg you, do not delay to send it by the bearer of this letter. He is dear to us, and to his character we can, in our regions, not rashly bear good testimony.

He asks through us for your holiness, that you would deign to commend him to those with whom he has business, and before whom he fears his good cause may be crushed. What is being done in the matter he himself will more conveniently relate, since he can even be questioned on the particular points that may perhaps have moved his mind. We hold it most welcome, and give thanks before the Lord our God to your most sincere kindness, if through your effort we may rejoice over the security of a Christian brother. (46) To the beloved and venerable father, bishop Augustine, from Publicola. It is written: Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will speak to you.

Whence I too judged that the law must be sought out from the mouth of a priest in such a case, whose nature I set forth by letter, and at the same time so that I too may be instructed in various matters. I have had the individual questions, various as they are, designated by chapters, to which I beg you to reply one by one. (1) In the Arzuges, as I have heard, the barbarians who swear are accustomed to swear by their demons to the decurion who is in charge of the frontier, or to the tribune. Those who have contracted to conduct the transport of baggage, or others to guard the crops themselves — the individual landholders or lessees are accustomed to receive, for the guarding of the crops, as though the men were now trustworthy, a letter which the decurion sends; or individual travelers, who must needs pass through their territory.

A dispute has arisen in my heart: whether that landholder who has received the barbarian — whose good faith seemed made firm by an oath sworn by demons — is not defiled, either himself, or the things which he guards, or the one who is escorted by the barbarian escort. But this you ought to know, that the barbarian who swears receives gold from the landholder for guarding the crops, or the escort receives it from the traveler; yet even along with this sort of payment, which is customarily given by the landholder or the traveler, that deadly oath given to the decurion or the tribune also stands in the midst. This troubles me, lest it pollute him who has received the barbarian's oath, or those things which the barbarian guards. For on whatever condition — even with gold given and hostages given, as I have heard.

Nevertheless, an iniquitous oath has intervened in the midst. Deign, however, to write back to me definitively and not doubtfully, because, if you yourself should write hesitantly, I may fall into greater doubts than before I asked. (2) This too I have heard, that these same men, the lessees who are set over my property, receive an oath, when the barbarians swear by their demons, for the reserving of the crops. If, then, when they swear by their demons to guard the crops, they do not pollute the crops themselves — so that, if a Christian knowingly eats of them or uses the price of those very things and is defiled — deign to signify this. (3) Again, from another I have heard that no oath is sworn to the lessee by the barbarian; and another has said that an oath is sworn to the lessee.

If he who said that an oath is sworn to the lessee has told me a falsehood, then, for this alone that I have merely heard it, ought I not to use those crops or their price, on account of the mere report, because it has been said: But if anyone says, 'This is a thing sacrificed to idols,' do not eat, on his account? If, however, this case is also similar to the case of a thing sacrificed? And if it is so, what ought I to do about those crops or their price? (4)

Whether I ought to make inquiry of both — the one who told me that no oath is sworn to the lessee, and the one who said that an oath is sworn to the lessee — and to prove the statement of each by witnesses, which of those two spoke the truth, and for so long not to touch those crops or their price, until it has been proved to me whether he spoke the truth who said that no oath is sworn to the lessee? (5) If a barbarian who by his oath swears an evil thing makes that Christian lessee, or the tribune who is in charge of the frontier, swear to him — for keeping faith with him, for guarding the crops — by that same deadly oath by which he himself swears, whether that Christian alone is defiled? Or not also those things for whose sake he swears?

Or if a pagan who is in charge of the frontier swears to a barbarian, for keeping faith with him, by a deadly oath, whether it does not defile those for whom he swears? If I send someone to the Arzuges, whether it is permitted him to receive that deadly oath from a barbarian, and whether he is not defiled, if a Christian has accepted such an oath? (6) Concerning a threshing floor of wheat or of any kind of pulse, or a wine-press, from which an offering has been made to a demon — whether a Christian is permitted knowingly to eat thereof? (7) Concerning a sacred grove — whether a Christian is permitted knowingly to take wood for some use of his own? (8)

If someone going to the meat-market buys meat which is not sacrificial, and has held two thoughts in his heart — that it has been sacrificed and that it has not been sacrificed — and has held that thought by which he thinks it not sacrificed, if he eats it, does he sin? (9) If someone does a good thing about which he is in doubt whether it be good or evil, when he thinks it good, though he had also thought it evil, whether sin is charged to him? (10) If someone says that a thing is sacrificial, lying, and afterward says again that he has lied, and, as to the truth, has truly lied — whether a Christian is permitted to eat thereof, or to sell it, and to use its price on account of what he heard? (11)

If some Christian, walking along, suffering the necessity of sustenance from hunger — of one day, or two, or many days, so that he can no longer hold out — should so chance upon it that, in that very necessity of hunger, in which he sees death already drawing near to him, he finds food set in an idol's shrine, where there is no one of men, and cannot find other food, ought he to die, or thence to feed himself? (12) If a Christian sees that a barbarian or a Roman wishes to kill him, ought that Christian himself to kill them, lest he be killed by them? Or is it permitted, without killing, to attack or repel them, because it has been said: Do not resist evil? (13)

If a Christian ought to build a wall for his estate against an enemy, and whether that Christian who has built the wall is a cause of homicide, when from it some have begun to fight and to kill enemies? (14) If it is permitted to drink from a spring or from a well into which something of a sacrifice has been cast? If from a well which is in a temple and has been made deserted, ought a Christian to drink thereof? If in a temple that is worshiped there be an idol's well or spring, and nothing has been done there in that well or spring, ought a Christian to draw water thence and drink? (15) Whether a Christian ought to bathe in the baths or in the thermal springs in which sacrifice is made to images?

Whether a Christian ought to bathe in baths in which on their feast day the pagans have washed, either with them or without them? (16) If in a basin into which the pagans have descended, coming from the idols on their feast day, and have there in the basin done something of their sacrilege, and a Christian knows it, ought he to descend into that same basin? (17) If a Christian, invited by someone, has had meat set before him as food, of which it has been said to him that it is sacrificial, and he has not eaten it; but afterward, the same meat having been transferred to another, he by some chance finds it for sale and buys it, or has it set before him, invited by some other, and does not recognize it and eats it, does he sin? (18)

Whether from the garden or estate of the idols or of their priests a Christian ought knowingly to buy a vegetable or any fruit and eat thereof? Indeed, concerning the oath or concerning the idols, that you may not suffer toil in searching out what the Lord has granted us to find, I wished to set these before your eyes; but if you find anything else clearer or better in the Scriptures, deign to signify it to me. Whence, what we have found is this, where Laban said to Jacob: The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor — but what god, the Scripture did not signify; and again, when Abimelech came to Isaac, where he swore, or those who were with him, but what sort of oath, the Scripture did not signify;

again concerning idols, where in the Book of Judges it was said to Gideon by the Lord that of the calf he had slain he should make a burnt offering; and in Joshua concerning Jericho, that all the gold, silver, and bronze should be brought into the treasuries of the Lord, and it was called holy, from the city which is anathema; and what is that which is set down in Deuteronomy: You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and you shall be an anathema, as this very thing is? The Lord keep you; I greet you; pray for me. (47) To the honorable and most beloved son Publicola, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord.

After I learned of the fever of your mind from your letter, mine at once became feverish too — not that all such things moved me, by which you have indicated that you were moved, but I confess I grew feverish over the manner in which these fevers might be taken away from you, especially because you ask that I write back to you definitively, lest you fall into greater doubts than before you asked. For I see that this is not in my power. For however I may write what seem to me most certain, if I do not persuade you, without doubt you will be more uncertain. But it does not lie with me to persuade anyone in the same way as it lies with me to counsel. Nevertheless, lest I deny my little labor to your love, after some deliberation I have thought I should write back.

You are surely moved as to whether one ought to make use of the good faith of a man who, in order to keep it, has sworn by demons. Here I want you first to consider whether, if someone should swear by false gods that he will keep faith and does not keep it, it does not seem to you that he has sinned twice. For if by such an oath he were to keep the promised faith, he would be judged to have sinned only in this, that he swore by such gods; but no one would rightly reproach that, namely, that he kept faith. As it is, however, because he both swore by those by whom he ought not, and acted against the pledged faith, which he ought not to have done, he has certainly sinned twice;

and therefore he who makes use of the good faith of one who is known to have sworn by false gods, and uses it not for an evil but for a lawful and good end, does not associate himself with that man's sin, by which he swore by demons, but with his good compact, by which he kept faith. Nor do I here speak of that faith being kept by which those are called faithful who are baptized in Christ. For that is far different and far distinct from the faith of human agreements and compacts. Yet without any doubt it is a lesser evil to swear truthfully by a false god than to swear falsely by the true God. For the more sacred that is by which one swears, the more penal is the perjury.

There is, therefore, another question: whether he does not sin who has caused an oath to be sworn to himself by false gods, since the one who swears to him worships false gods. To this question those testimonies which you yourself have cited concerning Laban and Abimelech can lend support — if, that is, Abimelech swore by his own gods, just as Laban did by the god of Nahor. This, as I have said, is another question, which might perhaps rightly move me, were it not that those examples of Isaac and Jacob had occurred, and any others that can be found — if, that is, that does not still move you, which is said in the New Testament, that we should not swear at all.

Which seems to me to have been said for this reason: not because to swear truly is a sin, but because to swear falsely is a monstrous sin, from which He wished us to be far, who admonished us by all means not to swear. But I know that to you it seems otherwise — about which there is no need to dispute now, so that we may rather do that on which you thought I should be consulted. Accordingly, just as you do not swear, so neither compel another to swear, if this is your pleasure, although it has been said that we should not swear, but nowhere in the Holy Scriptures do I recall having read that we should not accept an oath from another. But it is another question whether we ought to make use of that peace which has been made among others swearing to one another. And if we should be unwilling, I do not know whether we could find where to live on earth.

For not only to the frontier but to all the provinces peace is procured by barbarian oath-swearing. Whence this too would follow: that not only the crops which are guarded by those who have sworn by false gods, but everywhere all things which are secured by that very peace which that oath confirms, would be defiled. But if it is most absurd to say this, then let not those things move you which used to move you. Likewise, if from a threshing floor or a wine-press something is taken for the sacrifices of demons, with a Christian knowing it, then he sins if he permits it to be done, where he has the power of prohibiting.

But if he learns of the deed after it is done, or had no power of prohibiting, he uses the remaining clean fruits from which those things were taken, just as we use springs from which we most certainly know water is drawn for the use of sacrifices. The same reasoning applies also to washings. For we do not hesitate to draw breath from the air into which we know the smoke goes up from all the altars and incense-offerings of demons. Whence it appears that this was forbidden — that we should not use anything in honor of foreign gods, or be thought to use it, by accepting it in such a way that, although in mind we despise them, we nonetheless build up, unto the honoring of these things, those who are ignorant of our mind.

And when temples, idols, groves, and anything of this kind are overthrown, power having been given, although it is manifest that, when we do this, we do not honor them but rather detest them, nevertheless for that reason we ought not to appropriate anything thence for our own private and personal uses — at least for these — so that it may appear that we destroy them out of piety, not out of avarice. But when they are converted to common uses, not to personal and private ones, or to the honor of the true God, this happens to them which happens to men themselves, when from sacrilegious and impious they are changed into the true religion.

This God is understood to have taught by those testimonies which you yourself have set down, when concerning the grove of foreign gods He commanded that wood be used for a burnt offering, and concerning Jericho, that all the gold, silver, and bronze be brought into the treasuries of the Lord. Wherefore also that which is written in Deuteronomy: You shall not covet their silver or gold, nor take of it for yourself, lest you transgress on account of it, for it is an abomination to the Lord your God; and you shall not bring the accursed thing into your house, and you shall be an anathema, like it also; and with offense you shall offend, and with defilement you shall be defiled by that abomination, because it is anathema.

It sufficiently appears that either those private uses in such things are forbidden, or that nothing thence should be brought into the house in such a way as to be honored; for then it is an abomination and an execration, not when in such things the sacrilegious honor is overturned by a most open destruction. Concerning the foods of idols, however, be assured that we ought to observe nothing more than what the Apostle enjoined. And therefore about this matter recall his words, which, if they were obscure, we would expound according to our little measure. But he does not sin who afterward, not knowing, eats food which before he had spurned as a thing sacrificed to idols. A vegetable or any fruit born in any field belongs to Him who created it, because the earth is the Lord's and its fullness, and every creature of God is good.

But if that which is born in the fields is consecrated to an idol or sacrificed, then it is to be reckoned among things sacrificed to idols. For care must be taken, lest, if we should think that no vegetable which is born in the garden of an idol's temple ought to be eaten, it should follow that we suppose the apostles ought not to have taken food at Athens, because the city was Minerva's and consecrated to her deity. This I would answer also concerning a well or spring which is in a temple. But it does move one more, in truth, if something of the sacrifices is thrown into a spring or well.

But the same reasoning applies to the air, which receives all that smoke of which we spoke above; or, if it is thought to differ for this reason, that the sacrifice from which the smoke is mingled with the air is offered not to the air itself but to some idol or demon — while sometimes sacrifices are thrown into the waters in such a way that sacrifice is made to the waters themselves — we do not on that account refrain from using the light of this sun, because the sacrilegious do not cease to sacrifice to it where they can. Sacrifice is offered even to the winds, which nevertheless we use for so many of our conveniences, while they themselves seem in a certain way to draw in and devour the smoke of those same sacrifices.

If someone doubts about some meat, whether it be sacrificial, and it is not sacrificial, if he has held the thought that it is not sacrificial and eats of it, he certainly does not sin, because it neither is nor is now thought to be sacrificial, even if before it was thought so. For it is not unlawful to correct one's thoughts from falsehood to truth. But if someone should think that to be good which is evil, and does it, thinking thus he certainly sins. And all these are sins of ignorance, when anyone thinks that to be done well which is done ill.

Concerning killing men, lest anyone be killed by them, I do not approve the counsel, unless perhaps he be a soldier or held by a public function, so that he does this not for himself but for others or for the city where he himself also is, having received lawful authority, if it befits his person. But those who are repelled by some terror, lest they do evil, perhaps to these too something is granted. And it was said for this reason: Let us not resist evil, lest vengeance delight us, which feeds the mind on another's harm, not that we should neglect the correction of men. Whence neither is he guilty of another's death who, when for his own possession ... and has led a wall around it, someone by their own use is struck and perishes.

For a Christian is not guilty if his ox by goring, or his horse by kicking, kills someone; nor for that reason ought Christians not to have oxen with horns, or a horse with hoofs, or a dog with teeth — or indeed, since Paul the Apostle took sufficient care that it should be brought to the tribune's notice that ambushes were being prepared against him by certain abandoned men, and on this account received armed escorts, if those wicked men had run upon those weapons, Paul would recognize his own crime in the shedding of their blood. Far be it that things which we do or have for a good and lawful end, if through them some evil should befall anyone against our will, be imputed to us.

Otherwise, neither household nor farming implements are to be kept, lest someone destroy himself or another with them; nor a tree or a rope, lest someone hang himself thereby; nor is a window to be made, lest someone cast himself down through it. Why should I mention more, since in mentioning them I could not come to an end? For what is there among the good and lawful uses of men from which destruction cannot also be brought about? It remains, unless I am mistaken, that we should say something about that Christian traveler whom you mentioned, overcome by the necessity of hunger, if he should find nothing anywhere except food set in an idol's shrine, where there is no other man — whether it is better for him to die of hunger than to take that for nourishment.

In which question, since it does not follow that that food is a thing sacrificed to idols — for it could have been left there by forgetfulness or of purpose by those who, turning aside from their journey there, had refreshed their bodies, or placed there for some other reason whatever — I answer briefly. Either it is certain that it is sacrificed to idols, or it is certain that it is not, or it is unknown. If therefore it is certain that it is, it is better spurned by Christian virtue; but if it is known not to be, or is unknown, it is taken up for the use of necessity without any scruple of conscience. (48) To the lord, beloved and most longed-for brother and fellow-presbyter Eudoxius, and to the brethren who are with you, Augustine and the brethren who are with me send greeting in the Lord.