Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

4.

Quod autem putat quaerendum esse Faustus, quid de se Iesus ipse praedicaverit, cui non iustum videatur? Sed numquid hoc sciri potest nisi discipulis eius narrantibus, quibus si non creditur adnuntiantibus, quod de virgine natus sit, quomodo eis fides habebitur adnuntiantibus, quid de se ipse praedicaverit? p. 741,1 Si enim prolatae fuerint aliquae litterae, quae nullo alio narrante ipsius proprie Christi esse dicantur, unde fieri poterat, ut si vere ipsius essent, non legerentur, non acciperentur, non praecipuo culmine auctoritatis eminerent in eius ecclesia, quae ab ipso, per apostolos, succedentibus sibimet episcopis usque ad haec tempora propagata dilatatur multis in ea iam completis, quae ante praedicta sunt et usque in finem quae restant, sine dubio futuris atque venturis? Quia et illae litterae si proferrentur, utique considerandum erat, a quibus proferrentur: si ab ipso, illis primitus sine dubio proferri potuerunt, qui tunc eidem cohaerebant, et per illos etiam ad alios pervenire. Quod si factum esset, per illas, quas commemoravi, praepositorum et populorum successiones confirmatissima auctoritate clarescerent. Quis est ergo tam demens, qui hodie credat esse epistulam Christi, quam protulerit Manichaeus, et non credat facta vel dicta esse Christi, quae scripsit Matthaeus, p. 741,17 aut si etiam de Matthaeo, utrum iste ipsa scripserit, dubitat, de ipso quoque Matthaeo non potius id credat, quod invenit in ecclesia, quae ab ipsius Matthaei temporibus usque ad hoc tempus certa successionum serie declaratur, et credat nescio cui ex transverso de Perside post ducentos vel amplius annos venienti et suadenti, ut illi potius, quid Christus dixerit feceritque credatur, cum ipse apostolus Paulus post ascensionem domini de caelo uocatus, si non inueniret in carne apostolos, quibus communicando et cum quibus conferendo evangelium eiusdem societatis esse appareret, ecclesia illi omnino non crederet? p. 742,2 Sed cum cognovisset eum hoc adnuntiantem, quod etiam illi adnuntiabant, et in eorum communione atque unitate viventem, accedentibus (accidentibus?) etiam per eum talibus signis, qualia et illi operabantur, ita eum domino commendante meruit auctoritatem, ut verba illius hodie sic audiantur in ecclesia, tamquam in illo Christus, sicut verissime ipse dixit, locutus audiatur. Et putat Manichaeus credi sibi debere ab ecclesia Christi loquenti contra scripturas tanta et tam ordinata auctoritate firmatas, per quas ei praecipue commendatum est, ut quisquis illi adnuntiaverit praeterquam quod accepit, anathema sit.

Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

4.

Faustus most plausibly refers to what Jesus said of Himself. But how is this to be known except from the narratives of His disciples? And if we do not believe them when they tell us that Christ was born of a virgin, how shall we believe what they record as said by Christ of Himself? For, as regards any writing professing to come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how is it not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and extended to our own day, and in which is found the fulfillment of many former predictions, while those concerning the last days are sure to be accomplished in the future? In regard to the appearance of such a writing, it would require to be considered from what quarter it issued. Supposing it to have issued from Christ Himself, those in immediate connection with Him might very well have received it, and have transmitted it to others. In this case, the authority of the writing would be fully established by the traditions of various communities, and of their presidents, as I have already said. Who, then, is so infatuated as in our day to believe that the Epistle of Christ issued by Manichaeus is genuine, or to disbelieve Matthew's narrative of Christ's words and actions? Or, if the question is of Matthew being the real author, who would not, in this also, believe what he finds in the Church, which has a distinct history in unbroken connection from the days of Matthew to the present time, rather than a Persian interloper, who comes more than two hundred years after, and wishes us to believe his account of Christ's words and actions rather than that of Matthew; whereas, even in the case of the Apostle Paul, who was called from heaven after the Lord's ascension, the Church would not have believed him, had there not been apostles in life with whom he might communicate, and compare his gospel with theirs, so as to be recognized as belonging to the same society? When it was ascertained that Paul preached what the apostles preached, and that he lived in fellowship and harmony with them, and when God's testimony was added by Paul's working miracles like those done by the apostles, his authority became so great, that his words are now received in the Church, as if, to use his own appropriate words, Christ were speaking in him. ¹ Manichaeus, on the other hand, thinks that the Church of Christ should believe what he says in opposition to the Scriptures, which are supported by such strong and continuous evidence, and in which the Church finds an emphatic injunction, that whoever preaches to her differently from what she has received must be anathema. ²