Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

6.

Quapropter quisquis es, quem velut repugnantia ista moverunt, quod alibi scriptum est: Filium dei ex semine David, alibi autem: Etsi noveramus Christum secundum carnem, sed iam nunc non novimus, etsi non utrumque ex unius apostoli litteris proferretur, sed unum eorum Paulus dixisset, alterum Petrus aut Esaias aut alius quisquam apostolorum sive prophetarum, quia ita sibi omnia in canonica auctoritate concordant, ut tamquam uno ore dicta iustissima et prudentissima pietate credantur et serenissimo intellectu inveniantur et sollertissima diligentia demonstrentur: non liceret de alterutro dubitare. p. 321,25 Proinde quia ex apostoli Pauli canonicis, id est vere Pauli epistulis utrumque profertur et non possumus dicere aut mendosum esse codicem –omnes enim latini emendati sic habent – aut interpretem errasse – omnes enim graeci emendati sic habent, restat ut tu non intellegas, a me autem ratio flagitetur, quomodo neutrum ab altero dissonet, sed in eadem sanae fidei regula utrumque concordet. Si enim tu quoque pie quaereres, posses invenire, quomodo ista perscrutata dilucescant.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

6.

With regard, then, to this apparent contradiction between the passage which speaks of the Son of God being of the seed of David, to the words, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more," even though both quotations were not from the writings of one apostle,--though one were from Paul, and the other from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or prophet,--such is the equality of canonical authority, that it would not be allowable to doubt of either. For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research. In the case before us both quotations are from the canonical, that is, the genuine epistles of Paul. We cannot say that the manuscript is faulty, for the best Latin translations substantially agree; or that the translations are wrong, for the best texts have the same reading. So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand. Accordingly it remains for me to explain how both passages, instead of being contradictory, may be harmonized by one rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer will find all perplexity removed by a careful examination.