Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

8.

One of your false doctrines is, that flesh is unclean on account of mixture with the race of darkness. But this would make not only flesh unclean, but your God himself, in that part which he sent to become subject to absorption and contamination, in order that the enemy might be conquered and taken captive. Besides, on account of this mixture, all that you eat must be unclean. But you say flesh is especially unclean. It requires patience to listen to all their absurd reasons for this peculiar impurity of flesh. I will mention only what will suffice to show the inveterate folly of these critics of the Old Testament, who, while they denounce flesh, savor only fleshly things, and have no sort of spiritual perception. And a lengthy discussion of this question may perhaps enable us to dispense with saying much on some other points. The following, then, is an account of their vain delusions in this matter:--In that battle, when the First Man ensnared the race of darkness by deceitful elements, princes of both sexes belonging to this race were taken. By means of these princes the world was constructed; and among those used in the formation of the heavenly bodies, were some pregnant females. When the sky began to rotate, the rapid circular motion made these females give birth to abortions, which, being of both sexes, fell on the earth, and lived, and grew, and came together, and produced offspring. Hence sprang all animal life in earth, air, and sea. ¹ Now if the origin of flesh is from heaven, that is no reason for thinking it especially unclean. Indeed, in this construction of the world, they hold that these principles of darkness were arranged higher or lower, according to the greater or less amount of good mixed with them in the construction of the various parts of the world. So flesh ought to be cleaner than vegetables which come out of the earth, for it comes from heaven. And how irrational to suppose that the abortions, before becoming animate, were so lively, though in an abortive state, that after falling from the sky, they could live and multiply; whereas, after becoming animate, they die if brought forth prematurely, and a fall from a very moderate height is enough to kill them! The kingdom of life in contest with the kingdom of death ought to have improved them, by giving them life instead of making them more perishable than before. If the perishableness is a consequence of a change of nature, it is wrong to say that there is a bad nature. The change is the only cause of the perishableness. Both natures are good, though one is better than the other. Whence then comes the peculiar impurity of flesh as it exists in this world, sprung, as they say, from heaven? They tell us, indeed, of the first bodies of these principles of darkness being generated like worms from trees of darkness; and the trees, they say, are produced from the five elements. But supposing that the bodies of animals come in the first place from trees, and afterwards from heaven, why should they be more unclean than the fruit of trees? Perhaps it will be said that what remains after death is unclean, because the life is no longer there. For the same reason fruits and vegetables must be unclean, for they die when they are pulled or cut. As we saw before, the elect get others to bring their food to them, that they may not be guilty of murder. Perhaps, since they say that every living being has two souls, one of the race of light, and the other of the race of darkness, the good soul leaves at death, and the bad soul remains. But, in that case, the animal would be as much alive as it was in the kingdom of darkness, when it had only the soul of its own race, with which it had rebelled against the kingdom of God. So, since both souls leave at death, why call the flesh unclean, as if only the good soul had left? Any life that remains must be of both kinds; for some remains of the members of God are found, we are told, even in filth. There is therefore no reason for making flesh more unclean than fruits. The truth is, they pretend to great chastity in holding flesh unclean because it is generated. But if the divine body is more grossly shut in by flesh, there is all the more reason that they should liberate it by eating. And there are innumerable kinds of worms not produced from sexual intercourse; some in the neighborhood of Venice come from trees, which they should eat, since there is not the same reason for their being unclean. Besides, there are the frogs produced by the earth after a shower of rain. ² Let them liberate the members of their God from these. Let them rebuke the mistake of mankind in preferring fowls and pigeons produced from males and females to the pure frogs, daughters of heaven and earth. By this theory, the first principles of darkness produced from trees must be purer than Manichaeus, who was produced by generation; and his followers, for the same reason, must be less pure than the lice which spring from the perspiration of their bodies. But if everything that comes from flesh is unclean, because the origin of flesh itself is unclean, fruits and vegetables must also be unclean, because they are manured with dung. After this, what becomes of the notion that fruits are cleaner than flesh? Dung is the most unclean product of flesh, and also the most fertilizing manure. Their doctrine is, that the life escapes in the mastication and digestion of the food, so that only a particle remains in the excrement. How is it, then, that this particle of life has such an effect on the growth and the quality of your favorite food? Flesh is nourished by the productions of the earth, not by its excrements; while the earth is nourished by the excrements of flesh, not by its productions. Let them say which is the cleaner. Or let them turn from being unbelieving and impure to whom nothing is clean, and join with us in embracing the doctrine of the apostle, that to the pure all things are pure; that the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; that every creature of God is good. All things in nature are good in their own order; and no one sins in using them, unless, by disobedience to God, he transgresses his own order, and disturbs their order by using them amiss.

Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

8.

Si secundum errorem vestrum propter commixtionem gentis tenebrarum non carnes, sed ipse deus vester immundus est in ea parte, quam velut debellandis et captivandis hostibus absorbendam et inquinandam misit et miscuit, deinde propter ipsam commixtionem etiam quicquid aliud manducatis, immundum est. Sed dicitis: ‘Multo amplius immundae sunt carnes’. Et quare amplius immundae sunt carnes longum est eorum de hac re deliramenta commemorare, sed breviter attingam, quod sat est, ut inspiciantur reprehensores veteris testamenti tanta stultitiae vetustate confecti, ut carnis accusatores sine ulla spiritali veritate solam carnem sapere convincantur. p. 296,14 Fortassis enim paulo prolixior ista responsio sic adversus eos lectorem instruet, ut in ceteris responsionibus non a nobis tam multa verba requirantur. Dicunt enim isti vaniloqui et mentis seductores in illa pugna, quando primus homo eorum tenebrarum gentem elementis fallacibus irretivit, utriusque sexus principibus indidem captis, cum ex eis mundus construeretur, plerosque eorum in caelestibus fabricis colligatos, in quibus erant etiam feminae aliquae praegnantes. Quae cum caelum rotari coepisset, eandem vertiginem ferre non valentes conceptus suos abortu excussisse; Eosdemque abortivos fetus et masculos et feminas de caelo in terram cecidisse, vixisse, crevisse, concubuisse, genuisse. p. 296,25 Hinc esse dicunt originem carnium omnium, quae moventur in terra, in aqua, in aere. Ergo si de caelo est origo carnium, absurdissimum est propter hoc eas immundiores putare, praesertim quia in ipsa structura mundi eosdem principes tenebrarum ita per omnem contextionem a summis usque ad ima colligatos dicunt, ut quanto quaeque (quisque ?) amplius haberent commixti boni, tanto sublimius collocari mererentur ac per hoc mundiores carnes esse deberent, quarum origo de caelo est, quam fruges quae oriuntur ex terra. Deinde quid tam insanum dici potest quam conceptus factos ante vitae commixtionem tanto vivaciores fuisse, ut et abortivi et de caelo in terram ruentes viverent, commixta autem vita nisi tempore maturo editi vivere non possint, et si de paulo altiore loco cadant, continuo moriantur? p. 297,10 Utique si regnum vitae contra regnum mortis belligeravit, commixta vita vivaciores facere debuit, non corruptibiliores. Quodsi in sua natura quaeque res magis suam retinet incorruptionem, non duas naturas, bonam et malam, sed duas bonas, quarum sit una melior, praedicare debuerunt. Unde igitur asserunt immundiores carnes, quas de caelo genus ducere affirmant, istas dumtaxat omnibus notas? Nam ipsa prima corpora principum tenebrarum ex arboribus ibidem natis tamquam vermiculos opinantur exorta, ipsas autem arbores ex quinque illis elementis. Proinde si animalium corpora primam originem habent ex arboribus, secundam de caelo, quid causae est, ut immundiora quam fructus arborum aestimentur? p. 297,22 Si propterea, quia cum moriuntur, amittunt animam, ut iam immundum sit, quicquid vita deserente manserit, cur eodem pacto non sunt immunda olera vel poma, quae utique, sicut supra dictum est, cum decerpuntur vel avelluntur, moriuntur? Horum quippe homicidiorum rei esse nolunt, dum nihil ex terra vel ex arbore decerpunt. Deinde cum duas animas esse in uno animantis corpore affirmant, unam bonam de gente lucis, alteram malam de gente tenebrarum, numquid, cum occiditur animal, bona anima fugit et mala remanet? Si enim hoc esset, si‹c› viveret animal occisum, quomodo vivebat in gente tenebrarum, quando solam suae gentis habebat animam, qua etiam rebellaverat adversum regna divina. Cum ergo in morte cuiuslibet animalis utraque anima, et bona et mala, deserat carnem, cur immunda caro dicitur, quasi a sola bona anima deseratur? p. 298,9 Quia etsi aliquae vitae quasi reliquiae remanent, ex utraque remanent; nec ipsum quippe fimum dicunt remanere sine aliquibus exiguis reliquiis membrorum dei. Nullam igitur causam reperiunt, cur asseverent carnes frugibus immundiores. Sed videlicet fallacem castitatem suam ostentare conantes eo putant immundiorem carnem, quod de concubitu exsistat, quasi non tanto vehementius coguntur membro illi divino manducando succurrere, quanto illic artius colligatum putant. Postremo si ista causa est maioris immunditiae carnium, ea comedant animalium corpora, quae non de concubitu oriuntur, sicut sunt innumerabilia genera vermium, quorum nonnullos vulgo edunt quaedam Veneticae regiones ex arboribus natos. p. 298,21 Ranas etiam, quas repente ex una pluvia terra generat, in escam isti assumere debuerunt, ut dei sui membra talibus formis commixta liberarent, si eam carnem detestantur, quae concubitu propagatur, et genus humanum erroris arguerent, quod gallinis columbisque vescantur ex masculorum feminarumque coitu procreatis et mundiores caeli et terrae filias ranas abiciant. Nam secundum istorum fabulam mundiores sunt primi principes tenebrarum, quorum parentes arbores fuerunt, quam ipse Manichaeus, quem pater et mater concumbendo genuerunt, mundiores etiam peduculi eorum, qui sine concubitu sudore carnis uel corporis exhalatione nascuntur, quam isti ipsi miseri, qui de parentibus concumbentibus nati sunt. p. 299,2 Aut si iam quicquid ex carne etiam sine concubitu nascitur, propterea putant immundum, quia ipsa caro ex concubitu est, immunda erunt olera et fruges, quae de stercoribus fertilius uberiusque surrexerint. Ubi videant, quid faciant vel quid respondeant, qui fruges dicunt mundiores esse quam carnes. Nam stercore quid immundius ex carne proicitur et quid frugibus feracius adhibetur? Certe ipsi dicunt per attritiones et digestiones ciborum fugere inde vitam et exiguum quiddam in stercore remanere. Cur ergo ubi exigua vita remanet, inde cibi vestri, hoc est fructus terrae de stercore et meliores et maiores et plures exsistunt? Caro non purgamentis terrae, sed fetibus pascitur; terra vero purgamentis carnis, non fetibus fecundatur. Eligant, quid sit mundius, aut iam correcti desinant esse immundi et infideles, quibus nihil sit mundum, et nobiscum amplectantur apostolum dicentem: Omnia munda mundis; domini est terra et plenitudo eius; omnis creatura dei bona est. p. 299,18 Omnia quippe, quae naturaliter sunt in ordine suo, bona sunt et nemo in eis peccat, nisi qui ordinem suum in dei oboedientia non custodiens eorum quoque ordinem male utendo perturbat.