Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

14.

Sed hanc non solum sacrilegam adversus evangelicam sanctitatem, verum etiam enervem ac debilem esse argumentationem sentit et Faustus atque intentionem suam in illud potius confert eoque se plus teneri dicit, quia omnem Moyseos scripturam scrutatus nullas ibi de Christo prophetias invenit. Cui cito respondeo: quia non intellegit; et si, cur non intellegat, quisquam quaesierit, respondebo: quia inimico, quia adverso animo legit, quia non ideo scrutatur, ut sciat, sed quod nescit scire se putat. Haec praesumptio tumidae arrogantiae oculum cordis vel claudit, ut omnino non videat, vel distorquet, ut perverse videat, et aliud pro alio probet aut improbet. Tu me inquit doce, quid est, quod me forte legentem praeterierit de deo ac domino nostro memoratum in scriptura Moysi! p. 454,9 Et hic cito respondeam: Totum te praeteriit, quia totum ille de Christo scripsit, sed quia totum discutere et pertractare non possumus, hoc tibi in isto opere, si potero, domino adiuvante servabo, quod superius dixi, ut ea ipsa, quae ad reprehendendum eligis, ostendam de Christo esse conscripta. Quin etiam petis, ne dixerim, ut imperiti solent, hoc ipsum satis esse debere ad fidem, quia Christus dixerit de se scripsisse Moysen. Quod quidem si dico, non ut imperitus, sed ut fidelis dico. Non valere autem hoc ad convincendum gentilem vel Iudaeum et ego fateor; sed adversus vos, qui quoquo modo nomine christiano gloriamini, satis esse idoneum ac praevalidum, tu quoque etsi diu tergiversatus tamen coactus es confiteri dicens: p. 454,22 Nolo enim nunc ad me respicias, quem ad credendum professio mea fecit obnoxium, ut non possim non credere ei, quem sequor; sed puta nos cum Iudaeo tractare, puta cum gentili. Quibus verbis ostendisti te interim, cum quo mihi nunc res est, quia te ad credendum professio tua fecit obnoxium, satis esse convictum de Christo scripsisse Moysen, quia ipsum Christum hoc dixisse in evangelio scriptum est, cuius tam praeclaram sanctamque auctoritatem labefactare non audes; quia et cum id ex obliquo audes, difficultatis tuae pressus angustiis et cernens, quanta ruina te obruat, cum tibi dicitur nullam esse scripturam, cui de factis et dictis Christi flagites esse credendum, si evangelio tam sancte (sancto ?) lateque notissimo credendum esse non putas, et timens, ne amisso christiani nominis pallio nuda vanitas vestra omnibus conspuenda et detestanda remaneat, p. 455,7 rursus te saucium colligere conaris et dicis, quod istis evangelii verbis iam te ad credendum professio tua fecit obnoxium. Sic ergo te interim, cum quo nunc ago, teneo, ferio, perimo, id est errorem tuum atque fallaciam, et cogo fateri de Christo scripsisse Moysen, quia hoc Christum dixisse in evangelio legitur, cui te ad credendum professio tua fecit obnoxium. Cum Iudaeo vero vel gentili si mihi necesse fuerit disputare, iam supra ostendi, quibus modis pro meis parvulis viribus me agere oportere existimem.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

14.

Besides that this argument is an impious assault on the gospel, Faustus himself is aware of its feebleness, and therefore insists more on what he calls his chief difficulty,--that in all his search of the writings of Moses he has found no prophecies of Christ. The obvious reply is, that he does not understand. And if any one asks why he does not understand, the answer is that he reads with a hostile, unbelieving mind; he does not search in order to know, but thinks he knows when he is ignorant. This vainglorious presumption either blinds the eye of his understanding so as to prevent his seeing anything, or distorts his vision, so that his remarks of approval or disapproval are misdirected. I ask, he says, for instruction in whatever the writings of Moses contain about our God and Lord, which has escaped me in reading. I reply at once that it has all escaped him, for all is written of Christ. As we cannot go through the whole, I will, with the help of God, comply with your request, to the extent I have already promised, by showing that the passages which you specially criticise refer to Christ. You tell me not to use the ignorant argument that Christ affirms Moses to have written of Him. But if I use this argument, it is not because I am ignorant, but because I am a believer. I acknowledge that this argument will not convince a Gentile or a Jew. But, in spite of all your evasions, you are obliged to confess that it tells against you, who boast of possessing a kind of Christianity. You say, Suppose you had not to deal with me, as in my case there is an obligation to believe Him whom I profess to follow, but with a Jew or a Gentile. This is as much as to say that you, at any rate, with whom I have at present to do, are satisfied that Moses wrote of Christ; for you are not bold enough to discard altogether the well-grounded authority of the Gospel where Christ's own declaration is recorded. Even when you attack this authority indirectly, you feel that you are attacking your own position. You are aware that if you refuse to believe the Gospel, which is so generally known and received, you must fail utterly in the attempt to substitute for it any trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Christ. You are afraid that the loss of the Christian name might lead to the exposure of your absurdities to universal scorn and condemnation. Accordingly you try to recover yourself, by saying that your profession of Christianity obliges you to believe these words of the Gospel. So you, at any rate, which is all that we need care for just now, are caught and slain in this death blow to your errors. You are forced to confess that Moses wrote of Christ, because the Gospel, which your profession obliges you to believe, states that Christ said so. As regards a discussion with a Jew or a Gentile, I have already shown as well as I could how I think it should be conducted.