Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

23.

Quia enim non intellegebant homicidium nisi peremptionem corporis humani, per quam vita privaretur, aperuit dominus omnem iniquum motum ad nocendum fratri in homicidii genere putari. Unde et Iohannes dicit: Qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est. Et quoniam putabant tantummodo corporalem cum femina illicitam commixtionem vocari moechiam, demonstravit magister etiam talem concupiscentiam nihil esse aliud. p. 522,2 Item quia peierare grave peccatum est, non iurare autem sicut verum iurare nullum peccatum est, sed longius remotus est a falsum iurando, qui nec iurare consuevit, quam qui verum iurare proclivis est, maluit nos dominus et non iurantes non recedere a vero quam verum iurantes propinquare periurio. Itaque et apostolus in sermonibus, quos habuisse narratur, numquam iuravit, ne iurandi consuetudine aliquando vel nescius in periurium laberetur. In scripturis autem, ubi est consideratio maior atque propensior, pluribus locis iurasse invenitur, ne quisquam putaret etiam verum iurando peccari, sed potius intellegeret humanae fragilitatis corda non iurando tutius a periurio conservari. Quibus perspectis invenimus nec illa esse destructa, sicut Faustus putat, quae velut proprie vult ad Moysen pertinere. p. 522,16

Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

23.

Thus, as regards murder, which was understood to mean merely the destruction of the body, by which a man is deprived of life, the Lord explained that every unjust disposition to injure our brother is a kind of murder. So John also says, "He that hateth his brother is a murderer." ¹ And as it was thought that adultery meant only the act of unlawful intercourse with a woman, the Master showed that the lust He describes is also adultery. Again, because perjury is a heinous sin, while there is no sin either in not swearing at all or in swearing truly, the Lord wished to secure us from departing from the truth by not swearing at all, rather than that we should be in danger of perjury by being in the habit of swearing truly. For one who never swears is less in danger of swearing falsely than one who is in the habit of swearing truly. So, in the discourses of the apostle which are recorded, he never used an oath, lest he should ever fall unawares into perjury from being in the habit of swearing. In his writings, on the other hand, where he had more leisure and opportunity for caution, we find him using oaths in several places, ² to teach us that there is no sin in swearing truly, but that, on account of the infirmity of human nature, we are best preserved from perjury by not swearing at all. These considerations will also make it evident that the things which Faustus supposes to be peculiar to Moses were not destroyed by Christ, as he says they were.