Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

77.

If our foolish opponents are surprised at the difference between the precepts given by God to the ministers of the Old Testament, at a time when the grace of the New was still undisclosed, and those given to the preachers of the New Testament, now that the obscurity of the Old is removed, they will find Christ Himself saying one thing at one time, and another at another. "When I sent you," He says, "without scrip, or purse, or shoes, did ye lack anything? And they said, Nothing. Then saith He to them, But now, he that hath a scrip, let him take it, and also a purse; and he that hath not a sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." If the Manichaeans found passages in the Old and New Testaments differing in this way, they would proclaim it as a proof that the Testaments are opposed to each other. But here the difference is in the utterances of one and the same person. At one time He says, "I sent you without scrip, or purse, or shoes, and ye lacked nothing;" at another, "Now let him that hath a scrip take it, and also a purse; and he that hath a tunic, let him sell it and buy a sword." Does not this show how, without any inconsistency, precepts and counsels and permissions may be changed, as different times require different arrangements? If it is said that there was a symbolical meaning in the command to take a scrip and purse, and to buy a sword, why may there not be a symbolical meaning in the fact, that one and the same God commanded the prophets in old times to make war, and forbade the apostles? And we find in the passage that we have quoted from the Gospel, that the words spoken by the Lord were carried into effect by His disciples. For, besides going at first without scrip or purse, and yet lacking nothing, as from the Lord's question and their answer it is plain they did, now that He speaks of buying a sword, they say, "Lo, here are two swords;" and He replied, "It is enough." Hence we find Peter with a weapon when he cut off the assailant's ear, on which occasion his spontaneous boldness was checked, because, although he had been told to take a sword, he had not been told to use it. ¹ Doubtless, it was mysterious that the Lord should require them to carry weapons, and forbid the use of them. But it was His part to give the suitable precepts, and it was their part to obey without reserve.

Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

77.

Si autem hoc mirum istis vanis videtur, quod aliud tunc deus praecepit dispensatoribus veteris testamenti, ubi novi gratia velabatur, aliud praedicatoribus novi testamenti, ubi veteris obscuritas revelabatur, attendant ipsum dominum Christum mutantem, quae dixerat, et aliud dicentem: ‛Quando misi vos’ inquit ‛sine sacculo et pera et calciamentis, numquid aliquid defuit vobis?’ At illi dixerunt: ‛Nihil’. Dixit ergo eis:‛Sed nunc qui habet sacculum, tollat, similiter et peram; et qui non habet, vendat tunicam suam et emat gladium’. p. 677,3 Isti certe, si ista diversa in testamentis singulis invenirent, vetere et novo, etiam hoc clamarent duo sibi testamenta esse contraria. Quid ergo nunc respondebunt, cum idem ipse dicit: Antea misi vos sine sacculo et pera et calciamentis, et nihil vobis defuit; nunc autem qui habet sacculum, tollat, similiter et peram, et qui habet, tunicam vendat et emat gladium? Iamne intellegunt, quemadmodum nulla inconstantia praecipientis, sed ratione dispensantis pro temporum diversitate praecepta vel consilia vel permissa mutentur? Nam si dicunt certi mysterii gratia hoc de tollendo sacculo et pera et emendo gladio locutum fuisse, cur non admittunt certi mysterii gratia eundum unum deum tunc prophetas gerere bella iussisse, nunc apostolos prohibuisse? p. 677,16 Neque enim in eo, quod ex evangelio commemoravimus, verba tantum domini fuerunt, sed et obtemperantium quoque discipulorum facta secuta sunt. Nam et tunc sine sacculo et pera ierunt et nihil eis defuit, sicut eius interrogatio et eorum responsio declaravit, et nunc dixerunt ei, cum de gladio emendo iussisset: Ecce sunt hic duo gladii_. Et ille respondit: Sufficit*. Hinc et Petrus armatus inventus est, cum aurem persecutoris abscidit, ubi spontanea eius coercetur audacia, quia non ut iussus fuerat ferrum tollere, ita iussus fuerat et ferire. Latebat certe domini voluntas, cur arma portari praecepisset, quibus eos uti noluisset, verumtamen ad illum cum ratione praecipere, ad istos autem sine retractatione praecepta facere pertinebat. p. 678,3