Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 3
3.1 Faustus objects to the incarnation of God on the ground that the evangelists are at variance with each other, and that incarnation is unsuitable to deity. Augustin attempts to remove the critical and theological difficulties PL 42, 213
1. Faustus said: Do I believe in the incarnation? For my part, this is the very thing I long tried to persuade myself of, that God was born; but the discrepancy in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew stumbled me, as I knew not which to follow. For I thought it might happen that, from not being omniscient, I might take the true for false, and the false for true. So, in despair of settling this dispute, I betook myself to Mark and John, two authorities still, and evangelists as much as the others. I approved with good reason of the beginning of Mark and John, for they have nothing of David, or Mary, or Joseph. John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," meaning Christ. Mark says, "The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," as if correcting Matthew, who calls him the Son of David. Perhaps, however, the Jesus of Matthew is a different person from the Jesus of Mark. This is my reason for not believing in the birth of Christ.
Remove this difficulty, if you can, by harmonizing the accounts, and I am ready to yield. In any case, however, it is hardly consistent to believe that God, the God of Christians, was born from the womb.
FAUSTUS dixit: Accipis ergo generationem? Equidem conatus diu sum hoc ipsum qualecumque est persuadere mihi, quia sit natus Deus: sed offensus duorum maxime evangelistarum dissensione, qui genealogiam ejus scribunt, Lucae et Matthaei , haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer. Fieri enim posse putabam, ut quia praescius non sum, quem mentiri existimarem, ipse diceret verum; et quem vera loqui, ipse forsitan mentiretur. Infinita ergo eorum praetermissa lite, et interminabili mihi, ad Joannem Marcumque me contuli: nec impariter a duobus ad duos, et ab Evangelistis ad ejusdem nominis professores. Quorum mihi principia interim non immerito placuerunt, quia nec David, nec Mariam inducunt, nec Joseph; sed Joannes quidem in principio fuisse Verbum dicit, et Verbum fuisse apud Deum, et Deum fuisse Verbum , Christum significans: Marcus vero, Evangelium, inquit, Jesu Christi filii Dei : tanquam Matthaeum exprobrans, qui posuerit filium David. Nisi forte alterum hic, et alterum ille annuntiat Jesum. Haec ergo ratio est, qua ego non accipio Christum natum. Tu vero, si tantus es ut hanc mihi adimas offensionem, effice ut inter se ipsi conveniant; et utcumque succumbam: quamvis nec sic quidem dignum erit ex utero natum credere Deum, et Deum Christianorum.
3.2 PL 42, 213
2. Augustin replied: Had you read the Gospel with care, and inquired into those places where you found opposition, instead of rashly condemning them, you would have seen that the recognition of the authority of the evangelists by so many learned men all over the world, in spite of this most obvious discrepancy, proves that there is more in it than appears at first sight. Any one can see, as well as you, that the ancestors of Christ in Matthew and Luke are different; while Joseph appears in both, at the end in Matthew and at the beginning in Luke. Joseph, it is plain, might be called the father of Christ, on account of his being in a certain sense the husband of the mother of Christ; and so his name, as the male representative, appears at the beginning or end of the genealogies. Any one can see as well as you that Joseph has one father in Matthew and another in Luke, and so with the grandfather and with all the rest up to David. Did all the able and learned men, not many Latin writers certainly, but innumerable Greek, who have examined most attentively the sacred Scriptures, overlook this manifest difference? Of course they saw it. No one can help seeing it. But with a due regard to the high authority of Scripture, they believed that there was something here which would be given to those that ask, and denied to those that snarl; would be found by those that seek, and taken away from those that criticise; would be open to those that knock, and shut against those that contradict. They asked, sought, and knocked; they received, found, and entered in.
AUGUSTINUS respondit: O si pio studio legisses Evangelium, et ea quae te in Evangelistis tanquam repugnantia movissent, diligenter quaerere, quam temere damnare maluisses; ut saltem propter ipsam, quae quasi prima fronte occurrit, apertissimam repugnantiam, cogitares, nisi aliquid illic magnum lateret, difficile fieri potuisse ut tanta eis auctoritas in terrarum orbe praeberetur, qua sibi tot hominum doctissimorum ingenia subjugarent. Quid enim magnum est videre quod vidistis, alios Christi secundum carnem progeneratores commemorari a Luca, alios a Matthaeo, cum ambo Joseph constituant, Matthaeus ad quem terminet, Lucas a quo incipiat: qui propter quoddam cum ejus matre sanctum et virginale conjugium, etiam ipse parens Christi meruit appellari; ut propter virilem dignitatem, ab ipso, vel usque ad ipsum, generationes contexerentur? Quid ergo magnum est quod vidistis, quod alium patrem habeat Joseph secundum Matthaeum, alium secundum Lucam; et alium avum secundum istum, alium secundum illum, et deinceps sursum versus usque ad David, per tam multas generationes alios parentes ejus ab isto, alios ab illo enumerari? Itane tam apertam manifestamque diversitatem, tot acuti et docti viri, divinarum Scripturarum pertractatores diligentissimi, non viderent? qui quidem in latina lingua perpauci sunt; eos autem in graeca quis numeret? Viderunt eam plane. Quid enim facilius, aut quis paululum intuens, ista non videat? Sed pie cogitantes tantae auctoritatis eminentiam, latere ibi aliquid crediderunt, quod petentibus daretur, oblatrantibus negaretur; a quaerentibus inveniretur, reprehendentibus subtraheretur; pulsantibus aperiretur , oppugnantibus clauderetur; petierunt, quaesierunt, pulsaverunt, acceperunt, invenerunt, intraverunt.
3.3 PL 42, 215
3. The whole question is how Joseph had two fathers. Supposing this possible, both genealogies may be correct. With two fathers, why not two grandfathers, and two great-grandfathers, and so on, up to David, who was the father both of Solomon, who is mentioned in Matthew’s list, and of Nathan, who occurs in Luke? This is the difficulty with many people who think it impossible that two men should have one and the same son, forgetting the very obvious fact that a man may be called the son of the person who adopted him as well as of the person who begot him.
Adoption, we know, was familiar to the ancients; for even women adopted the children of other women, as Sarah adopted Ishmael, and Leah her handmaid’s son, and Pharaoh’s daughter Moses. Jacob, too, adopted his grandsons, the children of Joseph. Moreover, the word adoption is of great importance in the system of our faith, as is seen from the apostolic writings. For the Apostle Paul, speaking of the advantages of the Jews, says: "Whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law; whose are the fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." And again: "We ourselves also groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, even the redemption of the body." Again, elsewhere: "But in the fullness of time, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." These passages show clearly that adoption is a significant symbol. God has an only Son, whom He begot from His own substance, of whom it is said, "Being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal to God." Us He begot not of His own substance, for we belong to the creation which is not begotten, but made; but that He might make us the brothers of Christ, He adopted us. That act, then, by which God, when we were not born of Him, but created and formed, begot us by His word and grace, is called adoption. So John says, "He gave them power to become the sons of God."
Since, therefore; the practice of adoption is common among our fathers, and in Scripture, is there not irrational profanity in the hasty condemnation of the evangelists as false because the genealogies are different, as if both could not be true, instead of considering calmly the simple fact that frequently in human life one man may have two fathers, one of whose flesh he is born, and another of whose will he is afterwards made a son by adoption? If the second is not rightly called father, neither are we right in saying, "Our Father which art in heaven," to Him of whose substance we were not born, but of whose grace and most merciful will we were adopted, according to apostolic doctrine, and truth most sure. For one is to us God, and Lord, and Father: God, for by Him we are created, though of human parents; Lord, for we are His subjects; Father, for by His adoption we are born again. Careful students of sacred Scripture easily saw, from a little consideration, how, in the different genealogies of the two evangelists, Joseph had two fathers, and consequently two lists of ancestors. You might have seen this too, if you had not been blinded by the love of contradiction. Other things far beyond your understanding have been discovered in the careful investigation of all parts of these narratives. The familiar occurrence of one man begetting a son and another adopting him, so that one man has two fathers, you might, in spite of Manichæan error, have thought of as an explanation, if you had not been reading in a hostile spirit.
Nempe tota in hoc quaestio est, quomodo potuerit duos patres habere Joseph. Hoc enim si potuisse fieri demonstratur, nulla omnino causa est, cur quisquam istorum evangelistarum, in diversis generationibus enumerandis, falsum dixisse credatur. A duobus enim patribus, jam non erit mirum neque contrarium, quod et avi duo et atavi et proavi esse potuerunt, et quidquid supra est usque ad David cujus erant ambo filii, et Salomon qui pertinet ad ordinem quem Matthaeus secutus est, et Nathan qui est in serie quam Lucas exposuit. Attendunt enim ista nonnulli, et vident non posse a duobus viris per commixtionem carnis hominem gigni; et ideo putant istam quaestionem non posse dissolvi: nec intuentur, quod usitatissimum atque facillimum est, patrem cujusquam, non eum tantum dici a quo genitus, sed etiam eum a quo fuerit adoptatus.
Neque enim adoptionis vinculum apud antiquos alienum ab eorum moribus fuit, cum etiam feminas inveniamus adoptasse sibi filios, non ex utero suo natos: sicut Sara ex Agar , et Lia ex ancilla sua , et filia Pharaonis Moysen adoptavit . Ipse autem Jacob, nepotes suos, filios Joseph adoptavit . Ipsum vero adoptionis nomen plurimum valere in nostrae fidei sacramento, apostolica doctrina testatur. Unde apostolus Paulus cum de Judaeorum meritis loqueretur: Quorum est, inquit, adoptio, et gloria, et Testamenta, et Legislatio; quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula . Item dicit: Et ipsi in nobismetipsis ingemiscimus, adoptionem exspectantes filiorum Dei, redemptionem corporis nostri . Item alio loco: Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub Lege, ut eos qui sub Lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus . Haec igitur adoptio quanti sacramenti sit, his atque hujusmodi testimoniis satis apparet. Unicum enim Filium Deus habet, quem genuit de substantia sua, de quo dicitur: Cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo . Nos autem non de substantia sua genuit; creatura enim sumus, quam non genuit, sed fecit: et ideo, ut fratres Christi secundum modum suum faceret, adoptavit. Iste itaque modus quo nos Deus, cum jam essemus ab ipso non nati, sed conditi et instituti, verbo suo et gratia sua genuit ut filii ejus essemus, adoptio vocatur. Unde Joannes dicit: Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri . Cum igitur jus adoptionis filiorum apud patres nostros et in Scripturis sanctis usitatum sit; quae impietatis dementia praecipitat, prius Evangelistas falsitatis arguere, quod diversas generationes commemoraverunt, tanquam utraeque verae esse non possint; quam cogitare et attendere et videre quod facillimum est, quam crebra consuetudine generis humani, unus homo duos patres habere potuerit; unum cujus carne homo sit genitus, alterum cujus voluntate, cum jam homo esset, filius sit adoptatus? Qui si non recte dicitur pater, nec nos recte dicimus, Pater noster, qui es in coelis , ei de cujus substantia nati non sumus, sed cujus gratia et misericordissima voluntate adoptati secundum doctrinam apostolicam et fidelissimam veritatem sumus. Ipsum quippe habemus et Deum, et Dominum, et Patrem: Deum, quod ab ipso, etiam ex hominibus parentibus, conditi sumus; Dominum, quod ei subditi sumus; Patrem, quod ejus adoptione renati sumus.
Facile fuit ergo religiosis perscrutatoribus divinarum Litterarum, aliquantulum considerare, et videre in diversis Christi generationibus a duobus evangelistis commemoratis, quomodo duos patres potuit habere Joseph, quorum progenitores diversi enumerentur. Hoc et vos, si studium contentionis non excaecaret, facile videre possetis. Sed ab illis viris alia etiam quaesita et inventa sunt, cum omnes harum narrationum partes pertractarent: haec autem a vestro intellectu longissime remota sunt. Itaque etiam in Manichaei errore constituti, id quod in rebus humanis fieri solet, ut alius carne generet filium, alius eum voluntate adoptet, ac sic unus duos patres habeat, si non adverso animo legeretis, cogitando videre possetis.
3.4 PL 42, 216
4. But why Matthew begins with Abraham and descends to Joseph, while Luke begins with Joseph and ascends, not to Abraham, but to God, who made man, and, by giving a commandment, gave him power to become, by believing, a son of God; and why Matthew records the generations at the commencement of his book, Luke after the baptism of the Saviour by John; and what is the meaning of the number of the generations in Matthew, who divides them into three sections of fourteen each, though in the whole sum there appears to be one wanting; while in Luke the number of generations recorded after the baptism amount to seventy-seven, which number the Lord Himself enjoins in connection with the forgiveness of sins, saying, "Not only seven times, but seventy-seven times;"—these things you will never understand, unless either you are taught by some Catholic of superior stamp, who has studied the sacred Scriptures, and has made all the progress possible, or you yourselves turn from your error, and in a Christian spirit ask that you may receive, seek that you may find, and knock that it may be opened to you.
Cur autem Matthaeus ab Abraham coeperit, descendens usque ad Joseph; Lucas autem a Joseph coeperit, ascendens, non usque ad Abraham, sed usque ad Deum qui fecit hominem, et dato praecepto potestatem dedit ut credens filius Dei fieret: et cur ille in capite libri generationes ipsas enumeravit; ille autem, cum Dominus Salvator a Joanne baptizatus fuisset: et quid sibi velit numerus generationum secundum Matthaeum, ut ter quatuordecim digerantur, quibus in summam computatis, tanquam una minus appareat; numerus autem generationum secundum Lucam, qui in baptismo Domini commemoratur, ad septuaginta et septem perveniat: quem numerum ipse Dominus in peccatorum remissionem commendat dicens, Non tantum septies, sed usque septuagies septies : nullo pacto indagare possetis, nisi aut ab aliquo catholico id audiretis, non quolibet, sed divinarum Scripturarum studioso, et quantum posset, perito; aut ipsi ab errore correcti, pietate catholica peteretis ut acciperetis, quaereretis ut inveniretis, pulsaretis ut intraretis.
3.5 PL 42, 217
5. Since, then, this double fatherhood of nature and adoption removes the difficulty arising from the discrepancy of the genealogies, there is no occasion for Faustus to leave the two evangelists and betake himself to the other two, which would be a greater affront to those he betook himself to than to those he left. For the sacred writers do not desire to be favored at the expense of their brethren. For their joy is in union, and they are one in Christ; and if one says one thing, and another another, or one in one way and another in another, still they all speak truth, and in no way contradict one another; only let the reader be reverent and humble, not in an heretical spirit seeking occasion for strife, but with a believing heart desiring edification. Now, in this opinion that the evangelists give the ancestors of different fathers, as it is quite possible for a man to have two fathers, there is nothing inconsistent with truth. So the evangelists are harmonized, and you, by Faustus’s promise are bound to yield at once.
Quapropter, quoniam id quod Faustum de generationum diversitate permovit, quia in duobus patribus intelligendis hic nodus erat, intellecta natura et adoptione solutum est, frustra se voluit ad duos evangelistas conferre, et ab aliis duobus auferre: magis offensurus ad quos se contulisset, quam eos a quibus abstulisset. Non enim amant sancti suos electores, si suorum sociorum eos invenerint desertores. Unitate enim gaudent, et in Christo unum sunt: et si alius aliud, et alius aliud; aut alius aliter, et alius aliter; vera tamen omnes dicunt, nec sibi ullo modo contraria, si pius lector accedat, si mitis legat, si non haeretico animo unde rixetur, sed fideli corde unde aedificetur, inquirat. Jam ergo, quoniam singulorum patrum generationes, quos ut unus homo duos haberet, non est ab humano genere alienum, singulos Evangelistas narrandas suscepisse credidimus, non est a veritate nostra fides aliena. Quocirca, inter se jam Evangelistis convenientibus, sicut Faustus promisit, utcumque succumbite.
3.6 PL 42, 217
6. You may perhaps be troubled by that additional remark which he makes: "In any case, however, it is hardly consistent to believe that God, the God of Christians, was born from the womb." As if we believed that the divine nature came from the womb of a woman. Have I not just quoted the testimony of the apostle, speaking of the Jews: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever?" Christ, therefore, our Lord and Saviour, true Son of God in His divinity, and true son of man according to the flesh, not as He is God over all was born of a woman, but in that feeble nature which He took of us, that in it He might die for us, and heal it in us: not as in the form of God, in which He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, was He born of a woman, but in the form of a servant, in taking which He emptied Himself. He is therefore said to have emptied Himself because He took the form of a servant, not because He lost the form of God. For in the unchangeable possession of that nature by which in the form of God He is equal to the Father, He took our changeable nature, by which He might be born of a virgin. You, while you protest against putting the flesh of Christ in a virgin’s womb, place the very divinity of God in the womb not only of human beings, but of dogs and swine. You refuse to believe that the flesh of Christ was conceived in the Virgin’s womb, in which God was not found nor even changed; while you assert that in all men and beasts, in the seed of male and in the womb of female, in all conceptions on land or in water, an actual part of God and the divine nature is continually bound, and shut up, and contaminated, never to be wholly set free.
————————————
An illud quod adjunxit, vos movet adhuc? Quamvis nec sic quidem, inquit, dignum erit, ex utero natum credere Deum, et Deum Christianorum. Quasi nos ipsam divinam naturam ex feminae utero exstitisse credamus. Nonne modo commemoravi Apostoli testimonium, ubi ait de Judaeis: Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula? Christus ergo Dominus et Salvator noster Filius Dei verus secundum divinitatem, et filius hominis verus secundum carnem, non ex eo quod est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula ex femina natus est; sed ex illa infirmitate quam suscepit ex nobis, ut in ea moreretur pro nobis, et eam sanaret in nobis: non ex forma Dei, in qua cum esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo, natus ex femina est; sed ex forma servi, quam accipiendo, semetipsum exinanivit . Neque enim ob aliud exinanisse se dictus est, nisi accipiendo formam servi, non amittendo formam Dei. Illa enim natura, qua in forma Dei aequalis est Patri, incommutabiliter permanente, suscepit mutabilem nostram, per quam de virgine nasceretur. Vos autem, cum carnem Christi virginali utero committere horretis, ipsam divinitatem Dei, non tantum hominum, sed et canum porcorumque uteris commisistis! semel conceptam in utero virginis Christi carnem non vultis credere, in quo non solum non ligatus, sed nec mutatus est Deus; et ipsam Dei partem, divinamque naturam, in omnium hominum, ac bestiarum masculinis seminibus et femininis uteris, in omnibus conceptibus, per omnes terras, et per omnes aquas, et per omnes horas ligari, opprimi, coinquinari, et nec totam postea liberari posse praedicatis!