Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Reply to Faustus the Manichaean/Chapter 2

Book II.

Faustus claims to believe the Gospel, yet refuses to accept the genealogical tables on various grounds which Augustin seeks to set aside.

1.&#160; said:&#160; Do I believe the gospel?&#160; Certainly.&#160; Do I therefore believe that Christ was born?&#160; Certainly not.&#160; It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.&#160; This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ&#8217;s preaching.&#160; As for the genealogy, the author himself does not venture to call it the gospel.&#160; For what did he write?&#160; "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David." &#160; The book of the generation is not the book of the gospel.&#160; It is more like a birth-register, the star confirming the event.&#160; Mark, on the other hand, who recorded the preaching of the Son of God, without any genealogy, begins most suitably with the words, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God."&#160; It is plain that the genealogy is not the gospel.&#160; Matthew himself says, that after John was put in prison, Jesus began to preach the gospel of the kingdom; so that what is mentioned before this is the genealogy, and not the gospel.&#160; Why did not Matthew begin with, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God," but because he thought it sinful to call the genealogy the gospel?&#160; Understand, then, what you have hitherto overlooked —the distinction between the genealogy and the gospel.&#160; Do I then admit the truth of the gospel?&#160; Yes; understanding by the gospel the preaching of Christ.&#160; I have plenty to say about the generations too, if you wish.&#160; But you seem to me now to wish to know not whether I accept the gospel, but whether I accept the generations.

2.&#160; replied:&#160; Well, in answer to your own questions, you tell us first that you believe the gospel, and next, that you do not believe in the birth of Christ; and your reason is, that the birth of Christ is not in the gospel.&#160; What, then, will you answer the apostle when he says, "Remember that Christ Jesus rose from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel?" &#160; You surely are ignorant, or pretend to be ignorant, what the gospel is.&#160; You use the word, not as the apostle teaches, but as suits your own errors.&#160; What the apostles call the gospel you depart from; for you do not believe that Christ was of the seed of David.&#160; This was Paul&#8217;s gospel; and it was also the gospel of the other apostles, and of all faithful stewards of so great a mystery.&#160; For Paul says elsewhere, "Whether, therefore, I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." &#160; They did not all write the gospel, but they all preached it.&#160; The name evangelist is properly given to the narrators of the birth, the actions, the words, the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ.&#160; The word gospel means good news, and might be used of any good news, but is properly applied to the narrative of the Saviour.&#160; If, then, you teach something different, you must have departed from the gospel.&#160; Assuredly those babes whom you despise as semi-Christians will oppose you, when they hear their mother Charity declaring by the mouth of the apostle, "If any one preach another gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." &#160; Since, then, Paul, according to his gospel, preached that Christ was of the seed of David, and you deny this and preach something else, may you be accursed!&#160; And what can you mean by saying that Christ never declares Himself to have been born of men, when on every occasion He calls Himself the Son of man?

3.&#160; You learned men, forsooth, dress up for our benefit some wonderful First Man, who came down from the race of light to war with the race of darkness, armed with his waters against the waters of the enemy, and with his fire against their fire, and with his winds against their winds.&#160; And why not with his smoke against their smoke, and with his darkness against their darkness?&#160; According to you, he was armed against smoke with air, and against darkness with light.&#160; So it appears that smoke and darkness are bad, since they could not belong to his goodness.&#160; The other three, again—water, wind, and fire—are good.&#160; How, then, could these belong to the evil of the enemy?&#160; You reply that the water of the race of darkness was evil, while that which the First Man brought was good; and so, too, his good wind and fire fought against the evil wind and fire of the adversary.&#160; But why could he not bring good smoke against evil smoke?&#160; Your falsehoods seem to vanish in smoke.&#160; Well, your First Man warred against an opposite nature.&#160; And yet only one of the five things he brought was the opposite of what the hostile race had.&#160; The light was opposed to the darkness, but the four others are not opposed to one another.&#160; Air is not the opposite of smoke, and still less is water the opposite of water, or wind of wind, or fire of fire.

4.&#160; One is shocked at your wild fancies about this First Man changing the elements which he brought, that he might conquer his enemies by pleasing them.&#160; So you make what you call the kingdom of falsehood keep honestly to its own nature, while truth is changeable in order to deceive.&#160; Jesus Christ, according to you, is the son of this First Man.&#160; Truth springs, forsooth, from your fiction.&#160; You praise this First Man for using changeable and delusive forms in the contest.&#160; If you, then, speak the truth, you do not imitate him.&#160; If you imitate him, you deceive as he did.&#160; But our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the true and truthful Son of God, the true and truthful Son of man, both of which He testifies of Himself, derived the eternity of His godhead from true God, and His incarnation from true man.&#160; Your First Man is not the first man of the apostle.&#160; "The first man," he says, "was of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven, heavenly.&#160; As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.&#160; As we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly." &#160; The first man of the earth, earthy, is Adam, who was made of dust.&#160; The second man from heaven, heavenly, is the Lord Jesus Christ; for, being the Son of God, He became flesh that He might be a man outwardly, while He remained God within; that He might be both the true Son of God, by whom we were made, and the true Son of man, by whom we are made anew.&#160; Why do you conjure up this fabulous First Man of yours, and refuse to acknowledge the first man of the apostle?&#160; Is this not a fulfillment of what the apostle says:&#160; "Turning away their ears from the truth, they will give heed to fables?" &#160; According to Paul, the first man is of the earth, earthy; according to Manich&#230;us, he is not earthy, and is equipped with five elements of some unreal, unintelligible kind.&#160; Paul says:&#160; "If any one should have announced to you differently from what we have announced let him be accursed."&#160; Therefore lest Paul be a liar, let Manich&#230;us be accursed.

5.&#160; Again, you find fault with the star by which the Magi were led to worship the infant Christ, which you should be ashamed of doing, when you represent your fabulous Christ, the son of your fabulous First Man not as announced by a star, but as bound up in all the stars. &#160; For you say that he mingled with the principles of darkness in his conflict with the race of darkness, that by capturing these principles the world might be made out of the mixture.&#160; So that, by your profane fancies, Christ is not only mingled with heaven and all the stars, but conjoined and compounded with the earth and all its productions, —a Saviour no more, but needing to be saved by you, by your eating and disgorging Him.

This foolish custom of making your disciples bring you food, that your teeth and stomach may be the means of relieving Christ, who is bound up in it, is a consequence of your profane fancies.&#160; You declare that Christ is liberated in this way—not, however, entirely; for you hold that some tiny particles of no value still remain in the excrement, to be mixed up and compounded again and again in various material forms, and to be released and purified at any rate by the fire in which the world will be burned up, if not before.&#160; Nay, even then, you say, Christ is not entirely liberated; but some extreme particles of His good and divine nature, which have been so defiled that they cannot be cleansed, are condemned to stay for ever in the horrid mass of darkness.&#160; And these people pretend to be offended with our saying that a star announced the birth of the Son of God, as if this were placing His birth under the influence of a constellation; while they subject Him not to stars only, but to such polluting contact with all material things, with the juices of all vegetables, and with the decay of all flesh, and with the decomposition of all food, in which He is bound up, that the only way of releasing Him, at least one great means, is that men, that is the Elect of the Manich&#230;ans, should succeed in digesting their dinner.

We, too, deny the influence of the stars upon the birth of any man; for we maintain that, by the just law of God, the free-will of man, which chooses good or evil, is under no constraint of necessity.&#160; How much less do we subject to any constellation the incarnation of the eternal Creator and Lord of all!&#160; When Christ was born after the flesh, the star which the Magi saw had no power as governing, but attended as a witness.&#160; Instead of assuming control over Him, it acknowledged Him by the homage it did.&#160; Besides, this star was not one of those which from the beginning of the world continue in the course ordained by the Creator.&#160; Along with the new birth from the Virgin appeared a new star, which served as a guide to the Magi who were themselves seeking for Christ; for it went before them till they reached the place where they found the Word of God in the form of a child.&#160; But what astrologer ever thought of making a star leave its course, and come down to the child that is born, as they imagine, under it?&#160; They think that the stars affect the birth, not that the birth changes the course of the stars; so, if the star in the Gospel was one of those heavenly bodies, how could it determine Christ&#8217;s action, when it was compelled to change its own action at Christ&#8217;s birth?&#160; But if, as is more likely, a star which did not exist before appeared to point out Christ, it was the effect of Christ&#8217;s birth, and not the cause of it.&#160; Christ was not born because the star was there; but the star was there because Christ was born.&#160; If there was any fate, it was in the birth, and not in the star.&#160; The word fate is derived from a word which means to speak; and since Christ is the Word of God by which all things were spoken before they were, the conjunction of stars is not the fate of Christ, but Christ is the fate of the stars.&#160; The same will that made the heavens took our earthly nature.&#160; The same power that ruled the stars laid down His life and took it again.

6.&#160; Why, then, should the narrative of the birth not be the gospel, since it conveys such good news as heals our malady?&#160; Is it because Matthew begins, not like Mark, with the words, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," but, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ?"&#160; In this way, John, too, might be said not to have written the gospel, for he has not the words, Beginning of the gospel, or Book of the gospel, but, "In the beginning was the Word."&#160; Perhaps the clever word-maker Faustus will call the introduction in John a Verbidium, as he called that in Matthew a Genesidium.&#160; The wonder is, that you are so impudent as to give the name of gospel to your silly stories.&#160; What good news is there in telling us that, in the conflict against some strange hostile nation, God could protect His own kingdom only by sending part of His own nature into the greedy jaws of the former, and to be so defiled, that after all those toils and tortures it cannot all be purged?&#160; Is this bad news the gospel?&#160; Every one who has even a slender knowledge of Greek knows that gospel means good news.&#160; But where is your good news, when your God himself is said to weep as under eclipse till the darkness and defilement are removed from his members?&#160; And when he ceases to weep, it seems he becomes cruel.&#160; For what has that part of him which is to be involved in the mass done to deserve this condemnation?&#160; This part must go on weeping for ever.&#160; But no; whoever examines this news will not weep because it is bad, but will laugh because it is not true.

————————————