Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

62.

Quod ita nobis Faustus vel ipsa Manichaea perversitas arbitratur adversum, quasi nobis in illius scripturae veneratione dignoque praeconio vitia hominum, quae illa commemorat, necesse sit approbare. Quin potius necesse est, ut, quanto illam religiosius accipimus, tanto fidentius illa culpemus, quae per eius veritatem certius culpanda didicimus. Ibi enim fornicatio et omnis illicitus concubitus divino iure damnatur, ac per hoc, cum talia quorundam facta commemorat, de quibus eo loco suam taceat sententiam, iudicanda nobis permittit, non laudanda praescribit. Quis enim nostrum in ipso evangelio non detestatur Herodis crudelitatem, cum de Christi nativitate sollicitus tot infantes iussit occidi? At hoc factum ibi non vituperatur, sed tantum narratur. p. 658,18 Sed ne hoc Manichaei vesana impudentia falsum esse contendant, quia et ipsam Christi nativitatem, qua Herodes perturbatus est, negant, ipsorum Iudaeorum immanitatem et caecitatem legant, quemadmodum illic tantummodo narretur, non vituperetur, et tamen ab omnibus detestetur.

Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

62.

The mistake of Faustus and of Manichaeism generally, is in supposing that these objections prove anything against us, as if our reverence for Scripture, and our profession of regard for its authority, bound us to approve of all the evil actions mentioned in it; whereas the greater our homage for the Scripture, the more decided must be our condemnation of what the truth of Scripture itself teaches us to condemn. In Scripture, all fornication and adultery are condemned by the divine law; accordingly, when actions of this kind are narrated, without being expressly condemned, it is intended not that we should praise them, but that we should pass judgment on them ourselves. Every one execrates the cruelty of Herod in the Gospel, when, in his uneasiness on hearing of the birth of Christ, he commanded the slaughter of so many infants. ¹ But this is merely narrated without being condemned. Or if Manichaean absurdity is bold enough to deny the truth of this narrative, since they do not admit the birth of Christ, which was what troubled Herod, let them read the account of the blind fury of the Jews, which is related without any expression of reproach, although the feeling of abhorrence is the same in all.