Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

3.

Augustinus respondit: O mirabilem insaniam de Christo aliquid narranti nolle credi Matthaeo et velle credi Manichaeo! Si Matthaeus non interfuit, cum Christus dixisset: Non veni solvere legem aut prophetas sed adimplere, et propterea non est ei credendum, numquid Manichaeus interfuit aut iam vel natus fuit, cum Christus inter homines appareret? p. 485,6 Secundum hanc ergo fidei vestrae legem nihil ei de Christo testificanti credere debuistis. Nos autem non propterea dicimus non credendum esse Manichaeo, quia dictis factisque Christi non interfuit et longe post natus est, sed quia de Christo contra Christi discipulos loquitur et contra evangelium, quod illorum auctoritate firmatum est. Habemus enim apostoli vocem, qui in spiritu sancto tales venturos esse cernebat. Unde fidelibus dicebat: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit. Nam si nemo de Christo vera dicit, nisi qui eum praesens vidit et audivit, hodie de illo nemo vera dicit. Porro si hodie propterea de illo fidelibus eius vera dicuntur, quia illi, qui viderunt et audierunt, vel praedicando vel scribendo ea disseminaverunt, cur ex ore Iohannis condiscipuli sui non posset vera Matthaeus audire de Christo, ubi ille adfuit et ipse non adfuit, si ex libro Iohannis possumus vera loqui de Christo non solum nos tanto post nati, sed etiam post nos alii nascituri? p. 485,22 Hinc enim non solum Matthaei verum etiam Lucae ac Marci evangelium, qui eosdem discipulos secuti sunt, in non imparem auctoritatem receptum est. Huc accedit, quia et ipse dominus potuit narrare Matthaeo, quod antequam eum vocasset, cum iis egerat, quos prius vocaverat. At enim hoc ipse Iohannes in evangelio suo ponere debuit, si hoc dictum a domino audierat, qui cum diceretur, praesens erat. Quasi fieri non potuit, ut cum omnia, quae a domino audierat, scribere non posset, inter alia, quae praetermisit, et hoc praetermiserit, cum in alia scribenda esset intentus. p. 486,5 Nonne evangelium suum ita ipse conclusit dicens: Et alia quidem multa fecit Iesus; quae si scriberentur singula, nec ipsum existimo capere mundum qui scribuntur libros.? Hic utique ostendit se scientem multa praetermisisse. Sed si de lege et prophetis vos delectat Iohannis auctoritas, Iohanni credite attestanti legi et prophetis! Ipse scripsit, quod Esaias viderit Christi gloriam. In eius habetis evangelio, unde iam paulo ante tractavimus: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Undique tergiversatio vestra contunditur. Aperte dicite non vos credere Christi evangelio! Nam qui in evangelio quod vultis, creditis, quod vultis non creditis, vobis potius quam evangelio creditis. p. 486,18

Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

3.

Augustin replied: What amazing folly, to disbelieve what Matthew records of Christ, while you believe Manichaeus! If Matthew is not to be believed because he was not present when Christ said, "I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill," was Manichaeus present, was he even born, when Christ appeared among men? According, then, to your rule, you should not believe anything that Manichaeus says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to believe what Manichaeus says of Christ; not because he was not present as a witness of Christ's words and actions, but because he contradicts Christ's disciples, and the Gospel which rests on their authority. The apostle, speaking in the Holy Spirit, tells us that such teachers would arise. With reference to such, he says to believers: "If any man preaches to you another gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed." ¹ If no one can say what is true of Christ unless he has himself seen and heard Him, no one now can be trusted. But if believers can now say what is true of Christ because the truth has been handed down in word or writing by those who saw and heard, why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his fellow-disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as from the writings of John both we who are born so long after and those who shall be born after us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the Gospel of Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides, the Lord Himself might have told Matthew what those called before him had already been witnesses of. Your idea is, that John should have recorded this saying of the Lord, as he was present on the occasion. As if it might not happen that, since it was impossible to write all that be heard from the Lord, he set himself to write some, omitting this among others. Does he not say at the close of his Gospel: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written"? ² This proves that he omitted many things intentionally. But if you choose John as an authority regarding the law and the prophets, I ask you only to believe his testimony to them. It is John who writes that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ. ³ It is in his Gospel we find the text already treated of: "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me; for he wrote of me." ⁴ Your evasions are met on every side. You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.