Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

25.

Iam vero illud, quod antiquis dictum est: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, quomodo contrarium habet, quod ait dominus: Ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo; sed si quis te percusserit in maxillam tuam dexteram, praebe illi et alteram et cetera, quandoquidem et illud antiquum ad reprimendas flammas odiorum saevientiumque immoderatos animos refrenandos ita praeceptum est? Quis enim tandem facile contentus est tantum reponere vindictae, quantum accepit iniuriae? Nonne videmus homines leviter laesos moliri caedem, sitire sanguinem vixque invenire in malis inimici unde satientur? Quis pugno percussus non aut iudicia concitat in damnationem eius, qui percusserit, aut, si ipse repercutere velit, totum hominem, si non etiam telo aliquo arrepto, pugnis calcibusque contundit? Huic igitur immoderatae ac per hoc iniustae ultioni lex iustum modum figens poenam talionis instituit, hoc est, ut qualem quisque intulit iniuriam, tale supplicium pendat. p. 525,21 Proinde oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente non fomes, sed limes furoris est, non ut id, quod sopitum erat, hinc accenderetur, sed ne id, quod ardebat, ultra extenderetur, impositus. Est enim quaedam iusta vindicta iusteque debetur ei, qui fuerit passus iniuriam. Unde utique cum ignoscimus, de nostro quodam modo iure largimur. Unde etiam debita dicuntur, quae in oratione dominica humanitus dimittere monemur, ut nobis et nostra divinitus dimittantur. Quod autem debetur, etsi benigne dimittitur, non tamen inique repetitur. Sed sicut in iurando etiam qui verum iurat, propinquat peiurio, unde longe abest, qui omnino non iurat, et quamvis non peccet, qui verum iurat, remotior tamen a peccato est qui non iurat – unde admonitio non iurandi conservatio est a peccato peiurii -, p. 526,9 ita cum peccet qui per immoderationem iniuste vult vindicari, non peccet autem, qui modum adhibens iuste vult vindicari, remotior est a peccato iniustae vindictae, qui non vult omnino vindicari. Peccat enim, qui exigit ultra debitum; non peccat autem qui exigit debitum, sed tutius longe est a peccato iniusti exactoris, qui omnino non exigit debitum, praesertim ne cogatur et ipse reddere debitum ab eo, qui nullum habet debitum. Possem ergo et ego sic ista ponere: Dictum est antiquis: ‛Non iniuste vindicabis’; ego autem dico, ne vindicetis quidem; adimpletio est, p. 526,19 sicut de iurando Faustus ait: ‛Dictum est: non peierabis; ego autem dico, ne iuretis quidem’; aeque adimpletio est. Poteram ergo et ego ita dicere, si mihi per haec adiecta verba, quod legi defuit, a Christo additum videretur, ac non potius id, quod lex volebat efficere, ne iniuste se quisquam vindicando peccaret, conservari tutius, si omnino se non vindicaret, sicut id quod volebat efficere, ne quisquam peierando peccaret, conservari tutius, si non iuraret. Nam si contrarium est: Oculum pro oculo et: Qui te percusserit in maxillam, praebe illi et alteram, cur non sit contrarium: Reddes domino iusiurandum tuum et: Noli iurare omnino? p. 527,6 Et tamen illam non destructionem sed adimpletionem Faustus arbitratur, quod et hic debuit arbitrari. Nam si verum iura adimpletur dicendo ne iures, cur non et iuste vindica adimpletur dicendo ne vindices? Sicut ego in utroque conservationem esse arbitror a peccato, quo vel falsum iuratur vel iniuste vindicatur, quamquam hoc de donanda omnino vindicta valeat etiam ad illud, ut dimittendo huiusmodi debita etiam nobis dimitti mereamur. Sed duro populo modus prius adhibendus fuit, quo discer[ner]et non egredi debitum, ut edomita ira, quae ad immoderatam vindictam rapit, iam qui vellet tranquillus attenderet, quid ipse deberet, quod sibi relaxari a domino cuperet, ut hac consideratione conservo debitum relaxaret. p. 527,19

Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

25.

Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which was said by them of old time, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and what the Lord says, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but if any one smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," and so on. ¹ The old precept as well as the new is intended to check the vehemence of hatred, and to curb the impetuosity of angry passion. For who will of his own accord be satisfied with a revenge equal to the injury? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt, eager for slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make their enemy suffer enough? If a man receives a blow, does he not summon his assailant, that he may be condemned in the court of law? Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he not fall upon the man with hand and heel, or perhaps with a weapon, if he can get hold of one? To put a restraint upon a revenge so unjust from its excess, the law established the principle of compensation, that the penalty should correspond to the injury inflicted. So the precept, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a fire that was quenched, was rather a covering to prevent the fire already kindled from spreading. For there is a just revenge due to the injured person from his assailant; so that when we pardon, we give up what we might justly claim. Thus, in the Lord's prayer, we are taught to forgive others their debts that God may forgive us our debts. There is no injustice in asking back a debt, though there is kindness in forgiving it. But as, in swearing, one who swears, even though truly, is in danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger who never swears; and while swearing truly is not a sin, we are further from sin by not swearing; so that the command not to swear is a guard against perjury: in the same way since it is sinful to wish to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge. It is sin to demand more than is due, though it is no sin to demand a debt. And the best security against the sin of making an unjust demand is to demand nothing, especially considering the danger of being compelled to pay the debt to Him who is indebted to none. Thus, I would explain the passage as follows: It has been said by them of old time, Thou shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take no revenge at all: here is the fulfillment. It is thus that Faustus, after quoting, "It has been said, Thou shall not swear falsely; but I say unto you, swear not at all," adds: here is the fulfillment. I might use the same expression if I thought that by the addition of these words Christ supplied a defect in the law, and not rather that the intention of the law to prevent unjust revenge is best secured by not taking revenge at all, in the same way as the intention to prevent perjury is best secured by not swearing at all. For if "an eye for an eye" is opposed to "If any one smite thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also," is there not as much opposition between "Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oath," and "Swear not at all?" ² If Faustus thinks that there is not destruction, but fulfillment, in the one case, he ought to think the same of the other. For if "Swear not" is the fulfillment of "Swear truly," why should not "Take no revenge" be the fulfillment of "Take revenge justly"?

So, according to my interpretation, there is in both cases a guard against sin, either of false swearing or of unjust revenge; though, as regards giving up the right to revenge, there is the additional consideration that, by forgiving such debts, we shall obtain the forgiveness of our debts. The old precept was required in the case of a self-willed people, to teach them not to be extravagant in their demands. Thus, when the rage eager for unrestrained vengeance, was subdued, there would be leisure for any one so disposed to consider the desirableness of having his own debt cancelled by the Lord, and so to be led by this consideration to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant.