Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

98.

Sed tamen patres nostri patriarchae atque prophetae, quibus tam illustre testimonium sanctitatis atque pietatis ea scriptura perhibet, quam saluti generis humani divinitus dispensatam non negat, nisi quisquis aut eam nescit aut omnem sensum rationalis considerationis amisit, etiamsi libidinosi et crudeles fuissent, sicut eos Manichaeorum error vel potius furor accusat, p. 703,23 nonne etiam sic non dico electis eorum, sed ipso etiam deo illorum demonstrarentur esse meliores? Nonne melius est cum pelice volutari virum cum femina quam esse sincerissimam lucem et miscendo se tenebris inquinari? Ecce homo avaritiae ac ventris causa uxorem suam sororem mentitus in aliorum concubitum vendidit: quanto ille peior et exsecrabilior est, qui naturam suam ad libidinem desiderantium simulando coaptatam gratis eis polluendam corrumpendamque subiecit! Iam cum filiabus qui etiam sciens concubuerit, nonne minus mali perpetrat, quam qui membra sua omnium talium peiorumque turpitudinum libidinibus miscet? Quid enim tale ab immundis flagitiosisque committitur, ubi non deus vester, Manichaei, turpitudinibus omnibus polluatur? p. 704,3 Denique si vere Iacob, ut ait Faustus, inter quattuor uxores foeda concupiscentia tamquam hircus erraret nullam propaginis curam gerens, sed lascivae solius voluptati, quanto minus miser esset deo vestro, qui non solum in ipso et in eius quattuor uxoribus omne illud dedecus luxuriae pateretur, omnibus eorum corporibus motibusque concretus, sed in ipso hirco, quem viro illi sordidus comparavit, omnem illum genitalem motum caloremque perpetitur et ubique turpi condicione permixtus in capro inflammatur, in capra seminatur, in haedo generatur! Ac per hoc etsi Iudas non tantum fornicator, sed etiam sciens nurus suae nefarius incestator exsisteret, in illius quoque incesti libidine deus vester haereret, sorderet, arderet. p. 704,18 David autem iniquitatis paenituit, quod uxorem adamaverit alienam virumque eius mandarit occidi: at vero deum vestrum quando paenitebit, quod a tartareo genere masculino ac feminino principum tenebrarum adamatus eorum libidini sua membra concessit nec maritum, cuius coniugem adamaverat, sed suos filios in membris daemonum, a quibus daemonibus ipse fuerat adamatus, occidit? Sed etsi non paenituisset David nec iustitiae sanitatem tali medicina recepisset, etiam sic isto deo Manichaeorum melior exstitisset. Iste quippe uno ipso facto putemus et aliis talibus quotquotlibet, quam multa unus homo posset admittere, ille autem in omnibus omnium talibus factis commixtione illa membrorum suorum turpari polluique convincitur. p. 705,3 Et Osee propheta accusatur a Fausto. Qui si meretricem turpi concupiscentia captivatus adamasset atque duxisset, animas certe amborum, et lascivi amatoris et obscaenae meretricis, partes et membra naturamque dei vestri esse praedicatis, illa ergo meretrix – quid enim ambiam verbis et non plane dicam? – illa meretrix esset deus vester; neque enim potestis dicere, quod servata atque incorrupta suae sanctitate naturae illi meretricio corpori non ligatus, sed praesentatus incideret, sed et inquinatissima esse ista membra dei vestri et ob hoc magna purgatione indigere fatemini. Illa ergo meretrix, de qua hominem dei audetis arguere, deus vester esset, etiamsi non esset in melius casto coniugio commutata; aut si non vultis, particulam certe dei vestri, licet minimam, non negatis illam animam meretricis. p. 705,16 Hoc ergo iam melior deo vestro, quoniam ipsa una meretrix esset, ille autem condicione suae illius commixtionis universo generi tenebrarum in omnibus meretricibus prostituitur, in omnibus denique maribus ac feminis late varieque fornicantibus et sese corrumpentibus volutatur, solvitur, illigatur, rursus in eorum fetibus volutandus, solvendus, ligandus, donec ad ultimum globum pars immundissima dei vestri tamquam inexpiabilis meretrix perducatur. Haec scilicet mala, has turpitudines, haec dedecora a membris suis deus vester amovere non potuit et hostis immanis necessitate compulsus ad ista pervenit; neque enim potuit interimere iniuriosum atque violentum suis vel civibus vel partibus salvis. p. 705,28 Quanto ergo ille melior, qui occiso Aegyptio fratrem defendit illaesum, quem mirabili vanitate Faustus arguit et deum suum mirabiliore caecitate non respicit! Quanto melius ipse vasa aurea et argentea abstulisset de gente Aegyptiorum, quam eius membra depraedaretur gens tenebrarum! Et tamen cum bellum tam miserum ipse gessisset, cultores eius famulo dei nostri obiciunt, quod bella gesserit, in quibus semper cum suis omnibus victor de hostibus triumphavit, qui captivi vel captivae Moyse belligerante de populo Israhel duci potuerunt, quod et deus vester si potuisset, utique fecisset. Hoc ergo non est malos arguere, sed felicioribus invidere. Quae autem crudelitas Moysi, quod in populum, qui graviter in deum peccaverat, gladio vindicavit, cuius tamen peccati veniam se pro illis etiam divinae vindictae offerens deprecatus est. p. 706,13 Verumtamen si et hoc non misericorditer, sed crudeliter fecisset, etiam sic melior deo vestro esset. Neque enim quemquam suorum innocentium et oboedientium, si ad hostis cuneum disrumpendum missus fuisset et captivatus, ullo modo eum postea, si vicisset, ipse damnaret, quod facturus est deus iste de sua parte, quam configet in globo, quia oboedivit iubenti, quia in hostiles cuneos pro salute regni eius proposita sua morte processit. Sed in hac, inquit, serie saeculorum iam malis permixta atque concreta non obtemperavit praeceptis. Quaeramus, quare! Si propria voluntate, vera culpa et iusta poena; sed iam si voluntas est rea, nulla est ad peccandum natura contraria, et ideo Manichaeorum omnis convicta est et eversa fallacia. Si autem ab hoste oppressa quo missa est, si alieno malo superata, cui resistere non valuerat, iniqua poena et magna crudelitas. p. 706,28 Sed ad excusandum profertur dei necessitas. Talem colant deum, qui nolunt colere deum. Sane, quod fatendum est, etiam ipsi cultores eius, quamvis talem deum colendo sint pessimi, meliores tamen illo sunt, quia saltem sunt, ille autem nihil est nisi fictio falsitatis et cogitatio vanitatis. Sed iam cetera Fausti arguta deliramenta videamus!

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

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 Manichaeans falsely and fanatically allege, they might still be shown to be superior not only to those whom the Manichaeans 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 Manichaean 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 Faustus' 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. But, says the Manichaean, 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 Manichaeism 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 Faustus' vagaries. ¹