Book VII.

The genealogical question is again taken up and argued on both sides.

1.  Faustus said:  You ask why I do not believe in the genealogy of Jesus.  There are many reasons; but the principal is, that He never declares with His own lips that He had an earthly father or descent, but on the contrary, that he is not of this world, that He came forth from God the Father, that He descended from heaven, that He has no mother or brethren except those who do the will of His Father in heaven.  Besides, the framers of these genealogies do not seem to have known Jesus before His birth or soon after it, so as to have the credibility of eye-witnesses of what they narrate.  They became acquainted with Jesus as a young man of about thirty years of age, if it is not blasphemy to speak of the age of a divine being.  Now the question regarding a witness is always whether he has seen or heard what he testifies to.  But the writers of these genealogies never assert that they heard the account from Jesus Himself, nor even the fact of His birth; nor did they see Him till they came to know Him after his baptism, many years after the time of His birth.  To me, therefore, and to every sensible man, it appears as foolish to believe this account, as it would be to call into court a blind and deaf witness.

2.  Augustin replied:  As regards what Faustus calls his principal reason for not receiving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a complete refutation is found in the passages formerly quoted, where Christ declares Himself to be the Son of man, and in what we have said of the identity of the Son of man with the Son of God:  that in His Godhead He has no earthly descent, while after the flesh He is of the seed of David, as the apostle teaches.  We are to believe, therefore, that He came forth from the Father, that He descended from heaven, and also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst men.  If the words, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?"³⁶⁷³⁶⁷     Matt. xii. 48. are quoted to show that Christ had no earthly mother or descent, it follows that we must believe that His disciples, whom He here teaches by His own example to set no value on earthly relationship, as compared with the kingdom of heaven, had no fathers, because Christ says to them, "Call no man father upon earth; for one is your Father, even God."³⁶⁸³⁶⁸     Matt. xxiii. 9.   What He taught them to do with reference to their fathers, He Himself first did in reference to His own mother and brethren; as in many other things He condescended to set us an example, and to go before that we might follow in His footsteps.  Faustus’ principal objection to the genealogy fails completely; and after the defeat of this invincible force, the rest is easily routed.  He says that the apostles who declared Christ to be the Son of man as well as the Son of God are not to be believed, because they were not present at the birth of Christ, whom they joined when He had reached manhood, nor heard of it from Christ Himself.  Why then do they believe John when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made,"³⁶⁹³⁶⁹     John i. 1-5. and such passages, which they agree to, without understanding them?  Where did John see this, or did he ever hear it from the Lord Himself?  In whatever way John learned this, those who narrate the nativity may have learned also.  Again, how do they know that the Lord said, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?"  If on the authority of the evangelist, why do they not also believe that the mother and the brethren of Christ were seeking for Him?  They believe that Christ said these words, which they misunderstand, while they deny a fact resting on the same authority.  Once more, if Matthew could not know that Christ was born, because he knew Him only in His manhood, how could Manichæus, who lived so long after, know that He was not born?  They will say that Manichæus knew this from the Holy Spirit which was in him.  Certainly the Holy Spirit would make him speak the truth.  But why not rather believe what Christ’s own disciples tell us, who were personally acquainted with Him, and who not only had the gift of inspiration to supply defects in their knowledge, but in a purely natural way obtained information of the birth of Christ, and of His descent, when the event was fresh in memory?  And yet he dares to call the apostles deaf and blind.  Why were you not deaf and blind, to prevent you from learning such profane nonsense, and dumb too, to prevent you from uttering it?

————————————