Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 29
29.1 Faustus seeks to justify the docetism of the Manichæans. Augustin insists that there is nothing disgraceful in being born PL 42, 487
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.
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. 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 ejus 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. Aut si ita non est, fateamini 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 multoties, ut jam probatum a nostris est, Angeli et visi hominibus et locuti esse monstrentur.
29.2 PL 42, 488
2. Augustin replied: We do not say that to die without having been born is sorcery; for, as we have said already, this happened in the case of Adam. But, though it had never happened, who will venture to say that Christ could not, if He had so pleased, have come without taking His body from a virgin, and yet appearing in a true body to redeem us by a true death? However, it was better that He should be, as He actually was, born of a virgin, and, by His condescension, do honor to both sexes, for whose deliverance He was to die, by taking a man’s body born of a woman. In this He testifies emphatically against you, and refutes your doctrine, which makes the sexes the work of the devil. What we call sorcery in your doctrine is your making Christ’s passion and death to have been only in appearance, so that, by a spectral illusion, He seemed to die when He did not. Hence you must also make His resurrection spectral and illusory and false; for if there was no true death, there could not be a real resurrection. Hence also the marks which He showed to His doubting disciples must have been false; and Thomas was not assured by truth, but cheated by a lie, when he exclaimed, "My Lord, and my God." And yet you would have us believe that your tongue utters truth, though Christ’s whole body was a falsehood. Our argument against you is, that the Christ you make is such that you cannot be His true disciples unless you too practise deceit. The fact that Christ’s body was the only one born of a virgin does not prove that there was sorcery in His birth, any more than there is sorcery in its being the only body to rise again on the third day, never to die any more. Will you say that there was sorcery in all the Lord’s miracles because they were unusual? They really happened, and their appearance, as seen by men, was true, and not an illusion; and when they are said to be contrary to nature, it is not that they oppose nature, but that they transcend the method of nature to which we are accustomed. May God keep the minds of His people who are still babes in Christ from being influenced by Faustus, when he recommends as a duty that we should acknowledge Christ’s birth to have been illusory and not real, that so we may end our dispute! Nay, verily, rather let us continue to contend for the truth against them, than agree with them in falsehood.
AUGUSTINUS respondit: Non vobis dicitur magia esse, ut qui natus non fuerit, moriatur; nam hoc in Adam factum esse jam supra commemoravimus: sed et si nunquam factum fuisset, et Dominus Christus ita venire voluisset, ut non ex virgine assumpta, sed tamen in vera carne apparens, nos vera morte redimeret, quis cum non potuisse dicere auderet? Sed illud melius erat quod fecit, ut etiam de virgine nasceretur, et utrumque sexum, pro quo liberando moriturus erat, dignaretur etiam commendare nascendo, masculino suo corpore ex femina procreato: contra vos ipsos maxime facto ipso loquens, vosque subvertens, qui masculum et feminam non Dei, sed diaboli opus esse praedicatis. Sed illud est quod magiae simile dicimini asserere, quod passionem mortemque ejus specie tenus factam, et fallaciter dicitis adumbratam, ut mori videretur qui non moriebatur. Ex quo fit ut ejus quoque resurrectionem umbraticam, imaginariam, fallacemque dicatis: neque enim ejus qui non vere mortuus est, vera esse resurrectio potest. Ita fit ut et cicatrices discipulis dubitantibus falsas ostenderit; nec Thomas veritate confirmatus, sed fallacia deceptus clamarit, Dominus meus et Deus meus : et tamen persuadere conamini, lingua vos loqui verum, cum Christum dicatis toto corpore fuisse mentitum. Haec sunt quae vobis objiciuntur, qui talem Christum vobis finxistis, cujus discipuli veri non sitis, nisi mendaces vos quoque fueritis. Non autem ideo magia videri potest nata ex virgine hominis caro, quia caro Christi sola ita nata est: sicut nec illa magia est, quia sola Christi caro die tertio resurrexit, nunquam ulterius moritura. Alioquin omnia miracula Dei magica erunt, quia singulariter facta sunt: sed vere facta sunt, verumque ostenderunt, non oculos hominum praestigiis fallacibus illuserunt: quae quidem contra naturam plerumque appellantur, non quod naturae adversentur, sed quod naturae modum, qui nobis est usitatus, excedant. Repellat ergo Dominus a parvulorum suorum mentibus, quod quasi admonendo Faustus persuadere conatus est, ut etiam nos imaginariam, non veram nativitatem Christi profiteamur: atque ita inter nos omnis contentio finiatur; imo vero maneat nobis adversus illos potius pro veritate certamen, quam cum illis in falsitate concordia.
29.3 PL 42, 489
3. But if we are to end the controversy by saying this, why do not our opponents themselves say it? While they assert the death of Christ to have been not real but feigned, why do they make out that He had no birth at all, not even of the same kind as His death? If they had so much regard for the authority of the evangelist as to oblige them to admit that Christ suffered, at least in appearance, it is the same authority which testifies to His birth. Two evangelists, indeed, give the story of the birth; but in all we read of Jesus having a mother. Perhaps Faustus was unwilling to make the birth an illusion, because the difference of the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke causes an apparent discrepancy. But, supposing a man ignorant, there are many things also relating to the passion of Christ in which he will think the evangelists disagree; suppose him instructed, he finds entire agreement. Can it be right to feign death, and wrong to feign birth? And yet Faustus will have us acknowledge the birth to be feigned, in order to put an end to the dispute. It will appear presently in our reply to another objection what we think to be the reason why Faustus will not admit of any birth, even a feigned one.
Verumtamen quaero ab eis, si nostra contentio terminatur cum hoc dixerimus, cur hoc ipsi non dicunt? Cur ipsi mortem non veram, sed imaginariam Christi affirmant; nativitatem autem non saltem talem, sed prorsus nullam dicere delegerunt? Si auctoritatis evangelicae pondere erubuerunt, et ideo non ausi sunt Christum non saltem imaginarie passum dicere: nativitatem quoque ejus eadem evangelica testatur auctoritas. Etsi enim duo evangelistae ipsum partum Mariae narraverunt ; nullus tamen Evangelistarum tacuit, quod habuerit matrem Jesus . An ideo piguit etiam hoc praedicare simulatum, quia generationes alias Matthaeus, alias Lucas exsequitur, unde videntur non sibi convenire? Sed da hominem qui non intelligat, putabit etiam in multis quae ad Christi passionem pertinent, Evangelistas sibi non convenire: da vero qui intelligat, et ubique conveniunt. An quia mortem simulare honestum est, nativitatem autem etiam simulare turpe est? Cur ergo nos hortatur hoc confiteri, quo possit nostra contentio profligari? Unde ergo mihi videatur nativitatem Christi, nec saltem sicut mortem simulatam, sed prorsus nullam praedicare voluisse, in consequenti sermone apparebit, ubi alteri respondebimus quaestioni.
29.4 PL 42, 490
4. We deny that there is anything disgraceful in the bodies of saints. Some members, indeed, are called uncomely, because they have not so pleasing an appearance as those constantly in view. But attend to what the apostle says, when from the unity and harmony of the body he enjoins charity on the Church: "Much more those members of the body, which seem to be feeble, are necessary: and those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism in the body." The licentious and intemperate use of those members is disgraceful, but not the members themselves; for they are preserved in purity not only by the unmarried, but also by wedded fathers and mothers of holy life, in whose case the natural appetite, as serving not lust, but an intelligent purpose in the production of children, is in no way disgraceful. Still more, in the holy Virgin Mary, who by faith conceived the body of Christ, there was nothing disgraceful in the members which served not for a common natural conception, but for a miraculous birth. In order that we might conceive Christ in sincere hearts, and, as it were, produce Him in confession, it was meet that His body should come from the substance of His mother without injury to her bodily purity. We cannot suppose that the mother of Christ suffered loss by His birth, or that the gift of productiveness displaced the grace of virginity. If these occurrences, which were real and no illusion, are new and strange, and contrary to the common course of nature, the reason is, that they are great, and amazing, and divine; and all the more on this account are they true, and firm, and sure. Angels, says Faustus, appeared and spoke without having been born. As if we held that Christ could not have appeared or spoken without having been born of a woman! He could, but He chose not; and what He chose was best. And that He chose to do what He did is plain, because He acted, not like your god, from necessity, but voluntarily. That He was born we know, because we put faith not in a heretic, but in Christ’s gospel.
————————————
Absit autem ut sit in membris sanctorum etiam genitalibus aliqua turpitudo. Dicuntur quidem inhonesta, quia non habent eam speciem decoris, quam membra quae in promptu locata sunt. Sed videte quid dicat Apostolus, cum ex ipsa membrorum corporis nostri unitate atque compage charitatem persuadet Ecclesiae. Multo magis, inquit, quae videntur membra corporis infirmiora esse, necessaria sunt; et quae videntur viliora esse corporis, iis abundantiorem honorem circumponimus: et quae inhonesta sunt nostra, abundantiorem honestatem habent; quae autem honesta sunt nostra, non opus habent: sed Deus temperavit corpus, ei, cui deerat, majorem honorem dans, ut non essent scissurae in corpore . Illicitus itaque, et temperantiae legibus non subjectus membrorum illorum usus est turpis; non ipsa membra, quae non solum in excellenti integritate caelibes et virgines servant, sed ipsi conjugati sancti patres ac matres, sic eis generationi tantummodo consulentes utebantur, ut ille naturalis motus nullo modo turpis esset, qui non libidini, sed rationi serviret. Quanto magis ergo in sancta virgine Maria, quae Christi carnem fide concepit, nihil habuerunt turpitudinis membra, quae nec humano licitoque conceptui, sed divino tantum partui servierunt? Merito plane sic honestata, ut nobis Christum, quem cordibus integris credendo conciperemus, et confitendo quodammodo pareremus, etiam corporaliter servata integritate transfunderet. Nullo modo enim Christus matrem nascendo faceret deteriorem; ut cui munus fecunditatis attulerat, decus virginitatis auferret. Haec veraciter, non fallaciter facta sunt: sed nova sunt, sed insolita sunt, sed contra naturae cursum notissimum sunt, quia magna, quia mira, quia divina; et eo magis vera, certa, firmata .
Et Angeli, inquit, visi et locuti sunt, quamvis nati non fuerint. Quasi nos dicamus Christum, nisi nasceretur ex femina, nec videri, nec loqui potuisse. Potuit, sed noluit: et hoc melius est quod voluit. Hoc autem eum voluisse ideo certum est, quia hoc fecit, qui nihil necessitate, sicut deus vester, faceret, sed omnia voluntate. Hoc vero eum fecisse, ideo non dubitamus, quia non cuiquam haeretico, sed ejus Evangelio credimus.