Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

1.

Faustus dixit: Quomodo Christum colitis prophetas repudiantes, quorum ex praesagiis accipitur fuisse venturus? Christum quidem nostrum, id est filium dei Hebraeorum aliquos adnuntiasse prophetas nescio an probare quis possit, cum res coeperit examinari. p. 377,16 Verumtamen etiam si hoc ita se habeat, quid ad nos? Illos manet haec reprehensio, qui ex iudaismo forte ad christianismum conversi sub testimoniis, ut perhibes, prophetarum postea neglexerint eos ut beneficiorum ingrati. Porro autem nos natura gentiles sumus, id est, quod Paulus praeputium vocat, sub alia nati lege et praefatoribus aliis, quos gentilitas vates appellat, atque ex his postea sumus ad christianismum conversi, non ante effecti Iudaei, ut merito Hebraicorum prophetarum sequeremur fidem euntes ad christianismum, sed sola exciti fama et virtutum opinione atque sapientia liberatoris nostri Iesu. p. 378,1 Unde si mihi adhuc in paterna religione moranti praedicator adveniens Christum vellet ex prophetis insinuare, hunc ego protinus dementem putarem, qui gentili mihi et longe alterius religionis homini de magis dubiis dubia conaretur astruere. Quid ergo opus erat, nisi ut ante prophetis mihi credendum esse persuaderet et tunc per prophetas Christo? Quod ipsum ut fieret, opus item erat aliis prophetis, qui pro istis facerent fidem. Quapropter si tu Christum per prophetas accipiendum putas, prophetas per quem accipies? An dicturus eris per Christum vicissim, id est ut alter alterum commendet, Christus prophetas et prophetae Christum? Sed paganus utriusque eorum condicione liber nec prophetis de Christo dicentibus crederet nec Christo de prophetis. p. 378,13 Ita totum nulli alii quam suae fidei debet, quicumque fit ex gentibus christianus. Atque ut exemplo fiat id, quod dicimus, apertius, ponamus aliquem nunc a nobis catechizari gentilem, cui assidentes dicamus: Crede Christo, quia deus est. Ille Vero unde hoc mihi probatis? dicat, et nos respondentes dicamus ex prophetis. Rursum illo quaerente quibus prophetis? nos repondeamus Hebraeis! Atque ille subridens dicat: Sed his ego minime credo. Nos autem respondeamus: Quid, quod eos Christus confirmat? Idem vero multo magis ridens dicat: Quid, quod ego nec ipsi credo? Quid fiet his ita transactis? Nonne haerebimus et ille risis nobis tamquam imprudentibus remeabit ad sua? Ita nihil, ut dixi, ecclesiae christianae Hebraeorum testimonia conferunt, quae magis constet ex gentibus quam ex Iudaeis. p. 378,27 Sane si sunt aliqua, ut fama est, Sibyllae de Christo praesagia aut Hermetis, quem dicunt Trismegistum, aut Orphei aliorumque in gentilitate vatum, haec nos aliquanto ad fidem iuvare poterunt, qui ex gentibus efficimur christiani; Hebraeorum vero testimonia nobis, etiamsi sint vera, ante fidem inutilia sunt, post fidem supervacua, quia ante quidem eis credere non poteramus, nunc vero ex superfluo credimus.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

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, ¹ or in Hermes, ² 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.