Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

1.

Faustus dixit: Ergo magia erat, quod visus ac passus est, si natus non est. Eadem in te vicissim argumentatio retorquetur, ut magia et illud fuerit, quod utero portatus aut quod editus sit, si seminatus non fuit. p. 743,18 Extra legem naturae esse constat virginem peperisse multoque magis inventam etiam post partum virginem. Quare ergo et hoc praeter naturam non vis ut contigerit, pati eum potuisse volentem sine sorte nativitatis? Mihi crede: quantum ad rem attinet, utrique in hoc naturae contraria profitemur, sed hoc interest, quod nos honeste, vos turpiter; nos passionis eius rationem aliquam reddimus et probabilem, vos nativitatis aut nullam praestatis aut falsam; denique nos specie tenus passum confitemur nec vere mortuum, vos pro certo puerperium fuisse creditis et utero muliebri portatum. p. 744,3 Aut si non ita est, fatemini et vos, quia hoc etiam imaginarie sit factum, ut videretur natus, et omnis nobis erit profligata contentio. Nam illud quidem, quod saepe affirmare soletis necessario eum esse natum, quia alias hominibus videri aut loqui non posset, ridiculum est, cum multotiens, ut iam probatum a nostris est, angeli et visi hominibus et locuti esse monstrentur.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

1.

Faustus said: If Christ was visible, and suffered without having been born, this was sorcery. This argument of yours may be turned against you, by replying that it was sorcery if He was conceived or brought forth without being begotten. It is not in accordance with the law of nature that a virgin should bring forth, and still less that she should still be a virgin after bringing forth. Why, then, do you refuse to admit that Christ, in a preternatural manner, suffered without submitting to the condition of birth? Believe me: in substance, both our beliefs are contrary to nature; but our belief is decent, and yours is not. We give an explanation of Christ's passion which is at least probable, while the only explanation you give of His birth is false. In fine, we hold that He suffered in appearance, and did not really die; you believe in an actual birth, and conception in the womb. If it is not so, you have only to acknowledge that the birth too was a delusion, and our whole dispute will be at an end. As to what you frequently allege, that Christ could not have appeared or spoken to men without having been born, it is absurd; for, as our teachers have shown, angels have often appeared and spoken to men.