Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

97.

Numquidnam ergo, si quisquam legens factum David, cuius eum domino arguente ac minante paenituit, inde sibi ad peccandum fomitem praebeat, illa scriptura culpanda est? Ac non tanto severius ille damnandus, quanto potius ad se vulnerandum aut occidendum abuti voluit ea re, quae ad sanandum liberandumque conscripta est? p. 703,10 Quia enim homines in peccatum lapsi vel superbia neglegunt paenitentiae medicinam vel recipiendae salutis veniaeque promerendae diffidentia penitus pereunt, de tanto viro exemplum propositum est, quo sanentur aegroti, non quo hi, qui sani sunt, saucientur. Neque enim medicinae vitium est, si vel insani se ipsos vel maligni alios ferramentis medicinalibus perimant.

Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

97.

If, then, any one reading of the action of David, of which he repented when the Lord rebuked and threatened him, find in the narrative an encouragement to sin, is Scripture to be blamed for this? Is not the man's own guilt in proportion to the abuse which he makes for his own injury or destruction of what was written for his recovery and release? David is set forth as a great example of repentance, because men who fall into sin either proudly disregard the cure of repentance, or lose themselves in despair of obtaining salvation or of meriting pardon. The example is for the benefit of the sick, not for the injury of those in health. If madmen destroy themselves, or if evil-doers destroy others, with surgical instruments, it is not the fault of surgery.