Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

20.

Proinde primum ab his quaero, utrum illi antiqui iusti, Enoch et Seth – hos enim potissimum Faustus commemorat – et si qui alii, non solum ante Moysen, sed et si qui ante Abraham fuerunt, irati sint fratri sine causa aut dixerunt fratri Fatue. Si enim non dixerunt, cur non et talia docuerunt? Quodsi et talia docuerunt, quaero, quemadmodum vel eorum iustitiam doctrinamque Christus adimpleverit addendo: Ego autem dico vobis: Si quis irascitur fratri suo aut si quis dicit ‛racha’ aut si quis dicit ‛fatue’, reus erit vel iudicii vel consilii vel gehennae ignis, quandoquidem et illi eodem modo vivebant, eodem modo vivendum monebant. p. 519,3 An ignorabant illi iusti frenandam esse iracundiam nec petulanti convicio fratrem lacessendum, aut noverant quidem, sed ab his se abstinere non poterant? Ergo rei erant gehennae, quomodo igitur iusti? Profecto enim nec imperitam rerum ad suum officium pertinentium nec intemperantem audes dicere eorum fuisse iustitiam in tantum, ut eos faceret reos gehennae. Cur ergo illam legem, secundum quam vivebant antiqui iusti, haec addendo Christus impleret, cum eorum quoque iustitia sine istis esse non posset? An dicturus es, quod praeceps iracundia et lingua improba, ex quo venit Christus, coepit ad iniquitatem pertinere, antea vero non erat iniquum vel corde vel ore ista committere, sicut in quibusdam rebus pro temporum proprietatibus institutis invenimus nunc aliquid non licere, quod ante licuerit vel quod ante non licuerit, nunc licere. p. 519,17 Non usque adeo desipis, ut hoc dicas; sed etiam si dicas, respondebitur tibi, quod secundum istum intellectum Christus non adimplere venerit, quod legi antiquae defuit, sed legem instituere, quae non fuit, si dicere fratri fatue, cum apud antiquos iustos non fuisset iniustum, nunc ita iniustum esse Christus voluit, ut quisquis hoc dixerit, reus sit gehennae. Proinde nondum invenisti, cuinam legi haec aliquando defuerunt, quibus nunc additis eam Christus impleret.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

20.

In the first place let me ask our opponents if these ancient righteous men, Enoch and Seth, whom Faustus mentions particularly, and any others who lived before Moses, or even, if you choose, before Abraham, were angry with their brother without a cause, or said to their brother, Thou fool. If not, why may they not have taught these things as well as preached them? And if they taught these things, how can Christ be said to have fulfilled their righteousness or their teaching, any more than that of Moses, by adding, "But I say unto you, if any man is angry with his brother, or if he says Racha, or if he says, Thou fool, he shall be in danger of the judgment, or of the council, or of hell-fire," since these men did these very things themselves, and enjoined them upon others? Will it be said that they were ignorant of its being the duty of a righteous man to restrain his passion, and not to provoke his brother with angry abuse; or that, knowing this, they were unable to act accordingly? In that case, they deserved the punishment of hell, and could not have been righteous. But no one will venture to say that in their righteousness there was such ignorance of duty, and such a want of self-control, as to make them liable to the punishment of hell. How, then, can Christ be said to have fulfilled the law, by which these men lived by means of adding things without which they could have had no righteousness at all? Will it be said that a hasty temper and bad language are sinful only since the time of Christ, while formerly such qualities of the heart and speech were allowable; as we find some institutions vary according to the times, so that what is proper at one time is improper at another, and vice versa? You will not be so foolish as to make this assertion. But even were you to do so, the reply will be that, according to this idea, Christ came not to fulfill what was defective in the old law, but to institute a law which did not previously exist; if it is true that with the righteous men of old it was not a sin to say to their brother, Thou fool, which Christ pronounces so sinful, that whoever does so is in danger of hell. So, then, you have not succeeded in finding any law of which it can be said that Christ supplied its defect by these additions.