Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

8.

Elsewhere Faustus says: When you find no passage to point to, you use this weak and inappropriate argument, that a Christian is bound to believe Christ when he says that Moses wrote of Him, and that whoever does not believe this is not a Christian. It would be far better to confess at once that you cannot find any passage. This argument might be used with me, because my reverence for Christ compels me to believe what He says. Still it may be a question whether this is Christ's own declaration, requiring absolute belief, or only the writer's, to be carefully examined. And disbelief in falsehood is no offence to Christ, but to impostors. But of whatever use this argument may be with Christians, it is wholly inapplicable in the case of the Jew or Gentile, with whom we are supposed to be discussing. And even with Christians the argument is objectionable. When the Apostle Thomas was in doubt, Christ did not spurn him from Him. Instead of saying, "Believe, if thou art a disciple; whoever does not believe is not a disciple," Christ sought to heal the wounds of his mind by showing him the marks of the wounds in His own body. Does it become you then to tell me that I am not a Christian because I am in doubt, not about Christ, but about the genuineness of a remark attributed to Christ? But, you say, He calls those especially blessed, who have not seen, and yet have believed. If you think that this refers to believing without the use of judgment and reason, you are welcome to this blind blessedness. I shall be content with rational blessedness.

Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

8.

Alias inquit si christianus es, crede dicenti Christo, quia de se scripsit Moyses; quod si non credis, christianus non es. Inepta haec semper et imbecilla responsio est nihil habentium, quod ostendant. p. 446,18 Quanto igitur melius fecisses, si idem confitereris simpliciter? Et tamen hoc mihi quidem dicere potuisti, quem scias necesse habere, ut credam causa religionis, qua famulor Christo, licet hoc ipsum adhuc quaeratur, utrum sit et hoc Christi testimonium, ut credi debeat absolute, an scriptoris, ut examinari sollicite, nec si nos non crediderimus falsis, Christum hinc offendimus, sed falsatores. Tamen utcumque hoc ferri poterit christianis oppositum. Quid autem de illis agemus, quos retuli, Iudaeo scilicet atque gentili, quibus dicere non possumus: si christianus es, crede; si non credis, christianus non es? Quamquam de (ne? ) christiano quidem hoc rectissime dixeris, cum Christus Thomam apostolum dubitantem de se aspernatus non sit; sed quo animi eius vulneribus mederetur, corporis sui cicatrices ostendit nec dixit: si discipulus es, crede; si non credis, discipulus non es. p. 447,4 Tu mihi hoc dicas non de Christo dubitanti, sed de sententia, utrum sit eius, an subinducta. At inquis beatiores appellat, qui non viderunt et crediderunt. Hoc si ideo dictum putas, ut sine ratione et iudicio quidque credamus, esto tu beatior sine sensu, ego mihi contentus ero cum ratione beatus audisse.