Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

31.

You follow Adimantus in saying that Christ made no distinction in food, except in entirely prohibiting the use of animal food to His disciples, while He allowed the laity to eat anything that is eatable; and declared that they were not polluted by what enters into the mouth, but that the unseemly things which come out of the mouth are the things which defile a man. These words of yours are unseemly indeed, for they express notorious falsehood. If Christ taught that the evil things which come out of the mouth are the only things that defile a man, why should they not be the only things to defile His disciples, so as to make it unnecessary that any food should be forbidden or unclean? Is it only the laity that are not polluted by what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out of it? In that case, they are better protected from impurity than the saints, who are polluted both by what goes in and by what comes out. But as Christ, comparing Himself with John, who came neither eating nor drinking, says that He came eating and drinking, I should like to know what He ate and drank. When exposing the perversity which found fault with both, He says: "John came neither eating nor drinking; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man cometh eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." ¹ We know what John ate and drank. For it is not said that he drank nothing, but that he drank no wine or strong drink; so he must have drunk water. He did not live without food, but his food was locusts and wild honey. ² When Christ says that John did not eat or drink, He means that he did not use the food which the Jews used. And because the Lord used this food, He is spoken of, in contrast with John, as eating and drinking. Will it be said that it was bread and vegetables which the Lord ate, and which John did not eat? It would be strange if one was said not to eat, because he used locusts and honey, while the other is said to eat simply because he used bread and vegetables. But whatever may be thought of the eating, certainly no one could be called a wine-bibber unless he used wine. Why then do you call wine unclean? It is not in order to subdue the body by abstinence that you prohibit these things, but because they are unclean, for you say that they are the poisonous filth of the race of darkness; whereas the apostle says, "To the pure all things are pure." ³ Christ, according to this doctrine, taught that all food was alike, but forbade His disciples to use what the Manichaeans call unclean. Where do you find this prohibition? You are not afraid to deceive men by falsehood; but in God's righteous providence, you are so blinded that you provide us with the means of refuting you. For I cannot resist quoting for examination the whole of that passage of the Gospel which Faustus uses against Moses; that we may see from it the falsehood of what was said first by Adimantus, and here by Faustus, that the Lord Jesus forbade the use of animal food to His disciples, and allowed it to the laity. After Christ's reply to the accusation that His disciples ate with unwashen hands, we read in the Gospel as follows: "And He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came His disciples, and said unto Him, Knowest Thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?" Here, when addressed by His disciples, He ought certainly, according to the Manichaeans, to have given them special instructions to abstain from animal food, and to show that His words, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which goeth out of the mouth," applied to the multitude only. Let us hear, then, what, according to the evangelist, the Lord replied, not to the multitude, but to His disciples: "But He answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." The reason of this was, that in their desire to observe their own traditions, they did not understand the commandments of God. As yet the disciples had not asked the Master how they were to understand what He had said to the multitude. But now they do so; for the evangelist adds: "Then answered Peter and said unto Him, Declare unto us this parable." This shows that Peter thought that when the Lord said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which goeth out of the mouth," He did not speak plainly and literally, but, as usual, wished to convey some instruction under the guise of a parable. When His disciples, then, put this question in private, does He tell them, as the Manichaeans say, that all animal food is unclean, and that they must never touch it? Instead of this, He rebukes them for not understanding His plain language, and for thinking it a parable when it was not. We read: "And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the drought? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." ⁴

Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

31.

Dicis enim et tu Christum sic docuisse ciborum indifferentiam, ut a suis quidem discipulis omnes carnes penitus removeret, saecularibus vero vulgo concederet omnia, quae possent edi, atque asseveraret, quod eos nihil in os intrans pollueret, quia quae de ore imprudenter procedunt, ea sola sunt, quae polluant hominem. Haec verba tua sunt tanto impudentiore, quanto apertiore mendacio deprompta et expressa, primo quia secundum Christi sententiam si ea sola polluunt hominem, quae mala ex ore procedunt, cur et discipulos Christi non ea sola polluerunt, ut eos tamquam ab immundis carnibus esset necesse prohiberi? p. 478,8 An saeculares homines non polluuntur his, quae in os intrant, sed his, quae ex ore exeunt? Ergo munitiores sunt adversus immunditiam quam sancti, si sanctos et ea, quae intrant, et ea, quae exeunt, possunt inquinare. Vellem autem mihi isti dicerent: Quid manducabat et bibebat Christus, qui in comparatione Iohannis non manducantis neque bibentis se dixit manducantem et bibentem? Cum enim argueret perversitatem hominum utrobique calumnias inquirentium, venit, inquit, Iohannes non manducans neque bibens, et dicunt: daemonium habet; venit filius hominis manducans et bibens, et dicunt: Ecce homo vorax et vinaria, amicus publicanorum et peccatorum. Et Iohannis quidem escam ac potum novimus; non enim dictum est, quod omnino non biberet, sed quod vinum et siceram non biberet; bibebat ergo aquam. p. 478,22 Cibus autem eius non omnino nullus erat, sed locustae et mel silvestre. Unde ergo dictus est non manducans neque bibens, nisi quia illo victu, quo Iudaei utebantur, ille non utebatur? Hoc ergo dominus nisi uteretur, non in eius comparatione manducans bibensque diceretur. An forte ideo, quia pane et oleribus dominus vescebatur, quibus Iohannes non vescebatur? Mirum si non manducans dicitur, qui locustas et mel comedit, et manducans dicitur, qui pane atque olere contentus est. Sed de cibis suspicamini, quicquid vultis; certe bibens et vinaria non diceretur, nisi vinum biberet. Cur ergo et hoc vos immundum putatis? Neque enim haec propter continentiam disciplinamque domandi corporis tangere prohibetis, sed quod immunda sint; p. 479,9 nam ea sordes et fel gentis tenebrarum esse perhibetis contra apostolum dicentem: Omnia munda mundis. Ecce qui audent dicere Christum indifferentiae ciborum magistrum, discipulos tamen suos ab his prohibuisse, quae immunda ipsi putant. Ostendite, ubi ista a discipulis suis removerit, fallaces improbi, verumtamen dei vindicis providentia ita caecati, ut etiam commoneatis nos, unde convincamini. Non _ (nam ?)_vim patior ab animo meo, nisi totum ipsum evangelii capitulum, quod iste adversum Moysen opponere voluit, inspiciendum inseruero, ut ibi videamus, quam falsum sit, quod prior Adimantus et modo Faustus dixit dominum Iesum a discipulis suis carnes vescendas removisse easque vulgo saecularibus concessisse. p. 479,22 Nempe cum respondisset calumniantibus, quod non lotis manibus manducarent, ita sequitur evangelium: Et convocatis turbis ait illis: Audite et intellegite. Non quod intrat in os, communicat hominem, sed quod procedit de ore, communicat hominem. Tunc accedentes discipuli dixerunt ad eum: Scis, quod pharisaei audito hoc verbo scandalizati sunt? Hic certe a discipulis compellatus debuit eos, sicut isti volunt, proprie docere ab omnibus carnibus abstinendum, ut illud, quod supra dixit: Non quod intrat in os, communicat hominem, sed quod procedit de ore, turbis dixisse videretur. Sequatur ergo evangelista et dicat, quid iam non turbis, sed discipulis responderit dominus. At ille respondens ait: omnis plantatio, quam non plantavit pater meus caelestis, eradicabitur, sinite illos, caeci sunt duces caecorum. Caecus autem si caecum ducat, ambo cadent in foveam. p. 480,10 Hoc utique ideo, quia traditiones suas volentes statuere mandata dei non intellegebant. Sed nondum quaesierant discipuli a magistro, quomodo ipsi, quod turbis dixerat, accipere deberent. Ecce et hoc fit; nam contexit evangelista et dicit: Respondens autem Petrus ait illi: Narra nobis parabolam istam. Hinc intellegimus Petrum putasse non proprie, nec aperte dominum locutum fuisse, cum diceret: Non quod intrat in os, communicat hominem, sed quod procedit de ore, sed, ut solet, obscuritate parabolae aliquid significare voluisse. Videamus ergo, utrum iam secretius discipulis interrogantibus hoc dicat, quod Manichaei volunt, immundas esse omnes carnes nec eos aliquid earum debere contingere. p. 480,22 Quid, quod exprobrat, quod apertam suam locutionem nondum intellexerint et proprie dictum parabolam putent? Sic enim sequitur: At ille dixit:Adhuc et vos insipientes estis et non intellegitis, quia omne, quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit et in latrinam emittitur; quae autem procedunt ex ore, de corde exeunt, illa communicant hominem? Nam de corde exeunt cogitationes malae, homicidia, adulteria, fornicationes, furta, falsa testimonia, blasphemiae; haec sunt, quae communicant hominem; non lotis autem manibus manducare non communicat hominem.