Belief and the Gospels

Augustinus respondit: O mirabilem insaniam, de Christo aliquid narranti nolle credi Matthaeo, et velle credi Manichaeo! Si Matthaeus non interfuit, cum Christus dixisset: Non veni solvere Legem aut Prophetas, sed adimplere; et propterea non est ei credendum: numquid Manichaeus interfuit, aut iam vel natus fuit, cum Christus inter homines appareret? Secundum ergo hanc fidei vestrae legem, nihil ei de Christo testificanti credere debuistis. Nos autem non propterea dicimus non credendum esse Manichaeo, quia dictis factisque Christi non interfuit, et longe post natus est; sed quia de Christo contra Christi discipulos loquitur, et contra Evangelium quod illorum auctoritate firmatum est. Habemus enim Apostoli vocem, qui in Spiritu sancto tales venturos esse cernebat. Unde fidelibus dicebat: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit. Nam si nemo de Christo vera dicit, nisi qui eum praesens vidit et audivit, hodie de illo nemo vera dicit. Porro si hodie propterea de illo fidelibus eius vera dicuntur, quia illi qui viderunt et audierunt, vel praedicando vel scribendo ea disseminaverunt; cur ex ore Ioannis condiscipuli sui non posset vera Matthaeus audire de Christo, ubi ille adfuit, et ipse non adfuit, si ex libro Ioannis possumus vera loqui de Christo, non solum nos tanto post nati, sed etiam post nos alii nascituri? Hinc enim non solum Matthaei, verum etiam Lucae ac Marci Evangelium, qui eosdem discipulos secuti sunt, in non imparem auctoritatem receptum est. Huc accedit, quia et ipse Dominus potuit narrare Matthaeo, quod antequam eum vocasset, cum iis egerat quos prius vocaverat. At enim hoc ipse Ioannes in Evangelio suo ponere debuit, si hoc dictum a Domino audierat, qui, cum diceretur, praesens erat? Quasi fieri non potuerit ut cum omnia quae a Domino audierat, scribere non posset, inter alia quae praetermisit, et hoc praetermiserit, cum in alia scribenda esset intentus. Nonne Evangelium suum ita ipse conclusit, dicens: Et alia quidem multa fecit Iesus, quae si scriberentur singula, nec ipsum existimo capere mundum qui scriberentur libros. Hic utique ostendit se scientem multa praetermisisse. Sed si de Lege et Prophetis vos delectat Ioannis auctoritas, Ioanni credite attestanti Legi et Prophetis. Ipse scripsit quod Isaias viderit Christi gloriam. In eius habetis Evangelio, unde iam paulo ante tractavimus: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Undique tergiversatio vestra contunditur. Aperte dicite non vos credere Christi Evangelio: nam qui in Evangelio quod vultis creditis, quod vultis non creditis, vobis potius quam Evangelio creditis. Sanctus Augustinus Hipponensis, Contra Faustum  Manichaeum, Liber XVII

Augustine replied: O wondrous madness, to be unwilling to believe something Matthew told of Christ, while you are eager to believe Mani! If Matthew was not present when Christ said, 'I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill,' 1 and therefore should not be believed, was Mani there? Was he even born when Christ appeared among men? According to this rule of your faith, then, you should not trust anything that Mani says of Christ. We indeed refuse to believe what Mani says, not because he was not there to witness Christ's words and deeds, but because he speaks against Christ's disciples and against the Gospel which is founded on their authority. Indeed we have the voice of the Apostle, who by the Holy Spirit discerned that such teachers would come, concerning which, he says to the faithful: 'If any one preaches to you another Gospel than that you have received, let him be accursed.' 2 If no one can speak the truth about Christ unless he has himself seen and heard Him, no one today can be trusted. However if the faithful can now say what is true because those who saw and heard such things have by preaching and writing being disseminated, why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his fellow disciple John, when John was present and he was not, if from the book of John we can acquire truth about Christ, and not only we who were born after but others who will be born after us? Thus not only Matthew but the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were followers of the disciples, with no lesser authority are received. And it may have been that the Lord Himself told Matthew what he had done among those who were called before him. But should have John recorded this, if this saying of the Lord he heard, he who was, as was said, present on the occasion? As if it were not possible, since it was impossible to write all that be heard from the Lord, he omitted this among others. Does he not say at the end of his Gospel: 'And there were also many other things which Jesus did, which, if each one were  written, I think that not even the world itself could contain the books which should be written?' 3 Which shows that he omitted many things intentionally. But if it pleases you to have John as an authority regarding the Law and the Prophets, believe his testimony of the Law and Prophets. It is he who writes that Isaiah saw Christ's glory. 4 It is in his Gospel you will find that passage we discussed a little while ago: 'If you believed Moses, you would also believe me, for he wrote of me.' 5 Your evasions are met on every side. Say plainly that you do not believe the Gospel of Christ, for to believe what you please in the Gospel, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves rather than the Gospel. Saint Augustine of Hippo, Against Faustus Book 17 1. Mt 4.17 2  Gal 1.19 3 Jn 21.25 4 Jn 12.41 5 Jn 5:46