Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

3.

As regards the passage from Paul's epistle which teaches, in opposition to your heresy, that the Son of God was born of the seed of David, it is found in all manuscripts both new and old of all Churches, and in all languages. So the profession which Faustus makes of believing the apostle is hypocritical. Instead of saying, "Assuredly I believe," he should have said, Assuredly I do not believe, as he would have said if he had not wished to deceive people. What part of his belief does he get from the apostle? Not the first man, of whom the apostle says that he is of the earth, earthy; and again, "The first man Adam was made a living soul." Faustus' First Man is neither of the earth, earthy, nor made a living soul, but of the substance of God, and the same in essence as God; and this being is said to have mixed up with the race of darkness his members, or vesture, or weapons, that is, the five elements, which also are part of the substance of God, so that they became subject to confinement and pollution. Nor does Faustus get from Paul his Second Man, of whom Paul says that He is from heaven, and that He is the last Adam, and a quickening spirit; and also that He was born of the seed of David after the flesh, that He was made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law. ¹ Of Him Paul says to Timothy: "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel." ² And this resurrection he quotes as an example of our resurrection: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." And a little further on he draws an inference from this doctrine: "Now, if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" ³ Our professed believer in Paul believes nothing of all this. He denies that Jesus was born of the seed of David, that He was made of a woman (by the word woman is not meant a wife in the common sense of the word, but merely one of the female sex, as in the book of Genesis, where it is said that God made a woman before she was brought to Adam ⁴ ); he denies His death, His burial, and His resurrection. He holds that Christ had not a mortal body, and therefore could not really die; and that the marks of His wounds which He showed to His disciples when He appeared to them alive after His resurrection, which Paul also mentions, ⁵ were not real. He denies, too, that our mortal body will be raised again, changed into a spiritual body; as Paul teaches: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." To illustrate this distinction between the natural and the spiritual body, the apostle adds what I have quoted already about the first and the last Adam. Then he goes on: "But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And to explain what he means by flesh and blood, that it is not the bodily substance, but corruption, which will not enter into the resurrection of the just, he immediately says, "Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption." And in case any one should still suppose that it is not what is buried that is to rise again, but that it is as if one garment were laid aside and a better taken instead, he proceeds to show distinctly that the same body will be changed for the better, as the garments of Christ on the mount were not displaced, but transfigured: "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all be changed, but we shall all rise." ⁶ Then he shows who are to be changed: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed." And if it should be said that it is not as regards our mortal and corruptible body, but as regards our soul, that we are to be changed, it should be observed that the apostle is not speaking of the soul, but of the body, as is evident from the question he starts with: "But some one will say, How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?" So also, in the conclusion of his argument, he leaves no doubt of what he is speaking: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." ⁷ Faustus denies this; and the God whom Paul declares to be "immortal, incorruptible, to whom alone is glory and honor," ⁸ he makes corruptible. For in this monstrous and horrible fiction of theirs, the substance and nature of God was in danger of being wholly corrupted by the race of darkness, and to save the rest part actually was corrupted. And to crown all this, he tries to deceive the ignorant who are not learned in the sacred Scriptures, by making this profession: I assuredly believe the Apostle Paul; when he ought to have said, I assuredly do not believe.

Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

3.

Hoc autem, quod adversus impietatem vestram ex apostoli Pauli epistula profertur, filium dei ex semine David esse secundum carnem, omnes codices et novi et veteres habent, omnes ecclesiae legunt, omnes linguae consentiunt. Exuimini ergo pallio fallaciae, quo Faustus indutus, cum sibi proposuisset tamquam interrogantem et dicentem: Accipis apostolum Paulum? respondit: Et maxime. Cur enim non potius respondit: Et minime! nisi quia fallax aliud quam id, quod falsum erat, respondere non potuit? Quid enim accepit apostoli Pauli? Non primum hominem, quem ille dicit de terra terrenum, de quo item dicit: Factus est primus homo Adam in animam viventem; p. 316,20 ille autem adnuntiat nescio quem primum hominem nec de terra terrenum nec factum in animam viventem, sed de substantia dei id ipsum exsistentem quod deus est, membra sua vel vestimenta sua vel arma sua, id est quinque elementa cum et ipsa nihil aliud essent quam substantia dei, in tenebrarum gente mersisse, ut inquinata caperentur. Non secundum hominem, quem Paulus dicit de caelo, quem dicit etiam novissimum Adam ‹factum› in spiritum vivificantem, quem dicit factum ex semine David secundum carnem, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, redimeret, p. 317,1 de quo ad Timotheum dicit: Memor esto Christum Iesum resurrexisse a mortuis ex semine David secundum evangelium meum, in cuius exemplo etiam resurrectionem nostram praedicat dicens: Tradidi enim vobis in primis, quod et accepi[stis], quia Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris secundum scripturas; et quia sepultus est et quia resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas, et paulo post infert, quare hoc dixerit: Si autem Christus praedicatur, quia resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo dicunt quidam in vobis, quia resurrectio mortuorum non est? Iste autem, qui interrogatus, utrum accipiat apostolum Paulum, respondet: Et maxime, haec omnia negat; nec Iesum ex semine David vult accipere nec factum ex muliere, quam, non quod fuerit vel concumbendo vel pariendo corrupta, mulierem Paulus appellat sed more scripturarum loquitur, quae ipsum sexum sic appellare consueverunt, sicut in genesi de Eva scriptum est: Formavit eam in mulierem, cum commixta viro non fuisset; p. 317,19 nec ipsam mortem Christi et sepulturam et resurrectionem accipit, quandoquidem Christum dicit nec mortale corpus habuisse, ubi illa vera mors esset, nec illas cicatrices veras fuisse, quas post resurrectionem discipulis ostendit, cum eis, quod et Paulus commemorat, vivus apparuit; nec ipsam carnem nostram resurrecturam in corpus spiritale mutatam, sicut apertissime idem apostolus dicit: Seminatur corpus animale, surgit corpus spiritale, unde discernens inter corpus animale et spiritale contexit, quod iam commemoravi de primo Adam et novissimo Adam, deinde intulit: Hoc autem dico, fratres, quoniam caro et sanguis regnum dei possidere non possunt. p. 318,2 Et ne quisquam ipsam speciem carnis et ipsam substantiam non posse resurgere credidisset, exprimere volens, quid nunc appellaverit carnem et sanguinem, quia ipsam corruptionem intellegi voluit, quae tunc in resurrectione iustorum non erit, continuo contexuit: Neque corruptio incorruptelam possidebit. Et ne adhuc quisquam putaret non illud, quod sepultum fuerit, resurrecturum, sed tamquam alia tunica ponatur et alia melior accipiatur, volens apertissime declarare, quia hoc ipsum in melius commutabitur – sicut vestimenta Christi in monte non sunt posita et alia sumpta, sed ipsa, quae fuerant, in melius clarificata sunt – sequitur et contexit dicens: Ecce mysterium vobis dico: omnes quidem resurgemus, non tamen omnes immutabimur. p. 318,15 Et ne adhuc esset incertum, qui sint, qui immutabuntur: in atomo inquit in ictu oculi, in novissima tuba; canet enim tuba et mortui resurgent incorrupti et nos commutabimur. Adhuc forte dicant non secundum hoc mortale et corruptibile corpus nos in resurrectione commutari, sed secundum animam, cum apostolus hoc non proposuerit, unde diceret, sed de corpore ab ipsius quaestionis initio locutus fuerit, sicut ipsa eius indicat propositio: Sed dicet aliquis inquit quomodo resurgunt mortui? Quo autem corpore veniunt? Hic tamen consequenter tamquam digito ostendit, unde loqueretur, et subiecit dicens: Oportet enim corruptibile hoc induere incorruptelam et mortale hoc induere immortalitatem. p. 319,1 Haec ergo cum iste neget cumque ipsum deum, de quo Paulus dicit: Immortali, incorruptibili, soli deo honor et gloria; amen, iste corruptibilem praedicet, quandoquidem substantiam eius atque naturam et totam timuisse, ne a tenebrarum gente corrumperetur et ut ceterae consuleretur, ex parte corruptam detestanda et abominanda eorum fabula somniat, quid est quod etiam in hoc conatur fallere imperitos et in divinis scripturis minus eruditos, ut interrogatus, utrum accipiat apostolum Paulum, respondeat: maxime et inveniatur minime? *