Latin original · 40 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 15:644–15:683 (1391 verses in all)
— why a Christian does not observe the distinction of foods which is prescribed in the Law, if Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, I answer: nay rather, the Christian does not observe it, precisely because what was prophesied by those figures Christ has now fulfilled, not admitting into his own body — which body he has predestined in his saints unto eternal life — whatever was signified through those animals in the morals of men. When you ask why a Christian does not offer to God sacrifices of flesh and blood by immolating animals, if Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, I answer: nay rather, for this reason the Christian ought now no longer to offer these things, because those things—
— which by such figures of things prophesied to them, Christ fulfilled by the immolation of his own flesh and blood. When you ask why a Christian does not observe unleavened bread as the Jews do, if Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, I answer: nay rather, for this reason the Christian does not observe it, because what was prophesied by that figure Christ fulfilled, when — the leaven of the old life being purged out — he showed forth the new life. When you ask why a Christian does not celebrate the Passover with the flesh of a lamb, if Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, I answer: nay rather, for this reason the Christian no longer so celebrates the Passover, because that which was foretold by that figure Christ, the spotless Lamb, fulfilled by his own passion. When you ask—
— for what cause a Christian does not celebrate the new moons enjoined in the Law, if Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, I answer: nay rather, for this reason the Christian no longer celebrates them, because that for the foretelling of which they were celebrated Christ has now fulfilled. For the celebration of the new moon foretold the new creature, of which the Apostle says, 'If therefore there be any new creature in Christ, the old things are passed away; behold, all things are made new.' When you ask why a Christian does not observe those washings of each and every uncleanness—
— which are prescribed in the Law for each several uncleanness, if Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, I answer that the Christian rather does not observe these because they were figures of things to come, which Christ fulfilled. For he came to bury us together with himself through baptism into death, that, as Christ rose from the dead, so we also might walk in newness of life.
When you ask what is the reason that the Feast of Tabernacles is not a solemnity of Christians, if the Law was fulfilled by Christ, not abolished, I answer that the tabernacle of God is his faithful ones, in whom, being socially bound together in love and in a certain manner fitted together, he deigns to dwell; and therefore that feast is the more not observed by Christians, because Christ has now fulfilled in his Church that which that figure prophetically promised. And for the present, indeed, we have touched upon these matters with all the brevity we could, that they might not be passed over in silence, in view of the task undertaken. But discussed limb by limb and joint by joint, they have filled great and many books, showing nothing else in them than Christ prophesied.
So it comes to pass that all those things which you suppose are not observed by Christians because Christ abolished them out of that Scripture, are rather found not to be observed by Christians because Christ fulfilled them. For the very observance of such figures was a foretelling of Christ. Hence what wonder is it, what absurdity — nay, what is not fitting and consonant — if, after his advent, whatever was being done in order to foretell his advent has ceased? The figures, therefore, of the things which were observed to this end, that by their very observance the Christ who was to come might be prophesied, ought so far not to be thought unfulfilled by Christ's advent because at his coming they were not observed, that, unless they were already fulfilled through Christ's advent—
— they would still be observed. But men can be curdled together into no name of religion, whether true or false, unless they are bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments; the power of which sacraments is inexpressibly of the greatest force, and therefore, when despised, it makes men sacrilegious. For it is impiously despised, that without which piety cannot be perfected. Nevertheless, because visible sacraments of piety can be present even in the impious — as we read that even Simon Magus had holy baptism — such men become of the sort of whom the Apostle says, 'having a form of piety, but denying the power thereof.' Now the power of piety is the end of the commandment, that is, charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned. Whence the Apostle Peter—
— when he was speaking of the sacrament of the ark, in which the household of Noah was delivered from the flood, says, 'So too baptism, by a like figure, saves you.' And lest they should think the visible sacrament sufficient for themselves, through which they had a form of piety, while by evil morals, living in ruin, they denied the power thereof, he immediately subjoined, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience.' Accordingly, the first sacraments, which were observed and celebrated out of the Law, were foretellings of the Christ who was to come; and when Christ by his advent had fulfilled them, they were taken away. And for this reason taken away, because fulfilled; for he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it. And others were instituted, greater in power, better in usefulness, easier in performance,
fewer in number — inasmuch as the righteousness of faith has been revealed, and, the yoke of servitude having been taken away, the sons of God have been called into liberty; which yoke was fitting for a hard people given over to the flesh. Nevertheless, if the righteous of old, who understood by those sacraments that the coming revelation of faith was being foretold — from which faith, though as yet veiled and hidden, yet understood by the gift of piety, they too even then were living, since in this life no one can be righteous except him who lives by faith — if, then, the righteous of old were ready to endure all things hard and dreadful for those foretelling sacraments and figures of things not yet fulfilled, and most of them did endure them;
if we praise the three young men and Daniel because they would not be defiled from the king's table, which was against the sacrament of that time; if we hold up the Maccabees with immense admiration because they would not touch the foods which Christians now lawfully use, since then, for the prophetic season, it was not lawful — how much more now, for the baptism of Christ, for the Eucharist of Christ, for the sign of Christ, ought the Christian to be readier to endure all things, seeing that those were promises of things to be fulfilled, while these are tokens of things fulfilled? For what is still promised to the Church, that is, to the body of Christ, is both preached in its manifestation and in the very Head of the body, the Saviour—
— that is, in the very Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus — it has now assuredly been fulfilled. For what is promised except eternal life out of the resurrection from the dead? This has now been fulfilled in that flesh, in that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Then, therefore, faith was also hidden; for the same things were believed and the same things were hoped by all the righteous and holy even of those times; and all those sacraments and all that ritual of sacred things were promissory. But now faith has been revealed, into which the people was shut up when it was kept under the Law; and what is promised to the faithful in the judgment has now been fulfilled by way of example through him who came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them.
Wherefore it is indeed inquired among the searchers of the holy Scriptures whether the faith of a Christ who was to suffer and to rise again — which the righteous of old learned either by revelations or perceived in the prophets — profited them as much as now the faith of a Christ who has suffered and been raised profits us; or whether the very outpouring of the blood of the Lamb of God, which was made, as he himself says, for many unto the remission of sins, either gave or added some usefulness and purgation even to those who, believing this to be future before it came to pass, had departed out of this life; and whether his death visited even the dead for their deliverance.
But to discuss this question now by thorough treatment, or to define anything found in it by way of confirmation, is both a long matter and not necessary to this work. Meanwhile, against the slanderous ignorance of Faustus, it will have sufficed to have shown with how great an error they rave who think that, the signs and sacraments being changed, the very things also are diverse which the prophetic rite foretold as promised, and which the evangelical rite announced as fulfilled; or who judge that, since the things are the same, they ought not to have been announced as fulfilled by other sacraments than those by which they were foretold as still to be fulfilled. For if the sounds of the words by which we speak are changed according to the season, and the same thing is announced in one way as to be done, in another way as done—
— just as these very two words which I have said, 'to-be-done' and 'done,' sounded neither in equal intervals of time nor in the same or as many letters and syllables — what wonder is it if by some seals of the mysteries the future passion and resurrection of Christ were promised, and by others it is announced as already done, seeing that the very words 'future and done,' 'about-to-suffer and having-suffered,' 'about-to-rise and rose,' could neither be prolonged equally nor sound alike? For what else are all corporeal sacraments but certain, as it were, visible words — sacrosanct indeed, yet mutable and temporal? For God is eternal, and yet the water and all that corporeal action which is performed when we baptize is not eternal, since it both comes to be and passes away:
where again even those syllables, sounding swiftly and passing away when 'God' is said, unless they be said, there is no consecration. All these come to be and pass away, sound and pass away; yet the power which operates through these abides continually, and the spiritual gift which is conveyed through these is eternal. He, therefore, who says, 'If Christ had not abolished the Law and the Prophets, those sacraments of the Law and the Prophets would remain in the congregations and celebrations of Christians,' can say, 'If Christ had not abolished the Law and the Prophets, one about to be born, to suffer, and to rise again would still be promised' — whereas for this reason rather he has not abolished but fulfilled these things, because there is no longer promised one about to be born,
about to suffer, about to rise again — which those sacraments once sounded forth — but it is announced that he has been born, has suffered, has risen — which these sacraments, that are performed by Christians, now sound forth. He, therefore, who came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfil them, by that very fulfilment took away those things through which was still promised the fulfilment of what now stands fulfilled. It is as if he took away these words, 'about to be born, about to suffer, about to rise again,' which, since these were future, were rightly said, and instituted the saying of 'he has been born, he has suffered, he has risen,' which, those things being fulfilled and on that account taken away, are rightly said.
As, therefore, are these words, so also were those sacraments of the former people; since through him who came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfil them they have now been fulfilled, they therefore had to be taken away and changed. To the first Christians, who had believed out of the Jews, the apostles suffered them to keep their ancestral rite and tradition — until, against so long-standing a custom, they might little by little be persuaded and brought to a perfect understanding, and because they had been so born and so trained — and those to whom this was needful, that they might comply with their slowness and their morals, they admonished.
Hence it is that the Apostle even circumcised Timothy, born of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, on account of those to whom he had come with him as such, and himself among them observed a custom of this kind — not by deceitful pretence, but by prudent counsel; for to men so born and so trained these things were not harmful, although they were no longer necessary for signifying things to come. For it was rather more harmful to forbid them as harmful among those men, among whom they had to endure until Christ, who had come to fulfil all those prophecies—
— found them thus initiated, so that from thenceforth those who were held by no such bond, but from the opposite side, as it were from another wall — that is, from uncircumcision — should come together to that corner-stone which is Christ, and should be compelled to no such things. But if those who had come out of the circumcision and were still devoted to such sacraments should of their own accord wish, like Timothy, to contribute conformity, they were not to be forbidden; yet if they thought that in such works of the Law their hope and salvation were contained, they were to be prohibited as from a certain ruin. Whence is that saying of the Apostle:
'Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing' — circumcised, that is, as they themselves wished, as had been urged upon them by certain corrupted persons, namely that without these works of the Law they could not be saved.
For when the Gentiles came to the faith of Christ in such a way, chiefly through the preaching of the Apostle Paul, as they ought to have come — namely, that they should not be burdened with any observances of this kind (because these things being unaccustomed, and above all circumcision, would, by frightening those advanced in age, deter them from the faith; and they, not being so born as to be imbued with such sacraments, if after the old manner they were made proselytes, would seem, as it were, still to have Christ promised as about to come through those mysteries) — when, therefore, they came to the faith thus, as it was now fitting to come from among the Gentiles, those who had come out of the circumcision, not understanding why those things had been permitted to them—
— and why they ought not to be imposed on the Gentiles, had begun by certain carnal seditions to disturb the Church, because the Gentiles, in coming to the people of God, were not made proselytes in due form by circumcision of the flesh and the other observances of the Law of this kind. And among these were some who especially insisted that this should be done, because they feared the Jews, among whom they moved. Against these the Apostle Paul wrote many things; for he corrected even Peter, drawn into their dissimulation, by a brotherly rebuke.
But after the apostles, gathered together into one, decreed by their council that the Gentiles were not to be compelled to works of the Law of this kind, it displeased certain Christians of the circumcision — men unable in mind to discern that those alone were not to be forbidden from observances of this kind whom the faith, which has now been revealed, had found already imbued with them, so that in them the prophetic action itself might be brought to completion, since it had already held them fast before the fulfilment of the prophecy — lest, if it were removed even from these, it should seem to have been disapproved rather than brought to an end; whereas if it were imposed even upon the Gentiles, it should be thought either that it had not been instituted for the sake of promising Christ, or that it was still promising Christ.
And so the first people of God, before Christ came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, was commanded to observe all those things which promised Him: free in those who understood to what these things pointed, but slave in those who did not understand this. Therefore the later people, coming to the faith by which Christ was already proclaimed to have come, to have suffered, and to have risen again, was in those very men whom that same faith had found already instituted in such sacraments neither compelled to observe these things nor forbidden;
but in those who, empty of such things, having been held by no bond of race, custom, or fitness, had believed, it was even forbidden, so that through them it might now begin to appear that all those things had been instituted for the sake of promising Christ, and that, once He had come and fulfilled these promises, they now ought to cease. When, therefore, this tempering and moderating work of the Holy Spirit, operating through the apostles, had displeased certain believers of the circumcision who did not understand these things, they remained in that perversity, so that they would even compel the Gentiles to Judaize. These are they whom Faustus mentioned under the name of the Symmachians or the Nazarenes, who down to our own times still persist, now indeed in a tiny number, but yet even in that very fewness endure.
What ground, then, do these men have on which to slander the Law and the Prophets, on the pretext that Christ came to dissolve rather than to fulfil them, because Christians do not observe what is there commanded — seeing that the only things they do not observe are those through which Christ was being promised, and that they do not observe them precisely because Christ has now fulfilled those same promises, and they are no longer being promised because they are already fulfilled, and their promissory signs ought to have come to an end in those whom the faith of Christ, who fulfils these things, had found already imbued with them? For do not Christians observe what is written in that Scripture: Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God; you shall not make for yourself an idol, and the like? Do not Christians observe what is there said:
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain? Do Christians not observe the Sabbath itself, which pertains to the understanding of the true rest? Do Christians not render honour to parents, which is there commanded? Do Christians not refrain from fornications, or murders, or thefts, or false testimonies, from coveting a neighbour's wife or from coveting a neighbour's property? All of which are written down in that Law. These are precepts of morals; those are sacraments of things promised: these are fulfilled through assisting grace, those through truth rendered.
Both are through Christ and through that grace which always bestows, and now also reveals, and through that truth which then promised, and now displays; for the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. In short, those things which are kept in a rightly-living conscience are fulfilled by faith working through love; but those which were engaged in a promissory signification have passed away now that the things themselves have been rendered. Thus they too were not dissolved but fulfilled, because Christ showed them to be neither void nor deceptive when He displayed that which was promised by their signification. Therefore it is not, as Faustus supposes, that the Lord Jesus fulfilled certain things.
— namely, those which had already been spoken by the ancient righteous ones before the Law of Moses, such as: You shall not kill; which He did not refute by contradiction, but rather confirmed, when He called men back both from anger and from insult — while He dissolved certain others which seemed proper to the Law of the Hebrews, such as: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; which He seems rather to have taken away than to have confirmed, when He said: But I say to you, not to resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other also, and the rest. For we say that even these things, which those men think Christ dissolved, as though by adducing contrary statements, were both well instituted at the time for the season and are now not dissolved by Christ, but fulfilled.
Accordingly, I first ask of these men whether those ancient righteous ones, Enoch and Seth — for Faustus chiefly mentions these — and any others, not only before Moses but even any who existed before Abraham, were angry with their brother without cause, or said to their brother: 'You fool.' For if they did not say it, why did they not also teach such things? But if they did teach such things too, I ask how Christ fulfilled either their righteousness or their teaching by adding: But I say to you, if anyone is angry with his brother, or if anyone says 'raca,' or if anyone says 'you fool,' he shall be liable either to judgment, or to the council, or to the fire of hell — since those men too lived in the same manner and admonished that one must live in the same manner.
Or were those righteous men ignorant that anger must be bridled and that a brother must not be provoked by insolent insult? Or did they indeed know it, but were unable to refrain from these things? Then they were liable to hell — how, then, were they righteous? For assuredly you would not dare to say that their righteousness was either ignorant of the things pertaining to its own duty, or so intemperate as to make them liable to hell. Why, then, would Christ fulfil that Law, according to which the ancient righteous ones lived, by adding these things, when their righteousness could not exist without them either? Or will you say that headlong anger and an abusive tongue, from the time Christ came, began to belong to iniquity, whereas before it was not iniquitous to commit such things either in heart or in mouth?
Just as in certain matters instituted according to the properties of the times we find that something is now not permitted which was permitted before, or that something is now permitted which was not permitted before. You are not so foolish as to say this; but even if you were to say it, it would be answered you that, according to this understanding, Christ did not come to fulfil what was lacking to the ancient Law, but to institute a Law which did not exist — if to say to one's brother 'you fool,' which among the ancient righteous ones was not unjust, Christ now willed to be so unjust that whoever said this should be liable to hell. Accordingly, you have not yet found to what Law these things were at any time lacking, which, now added, Christ might fulfil.
Or perhaps the law against adultery was half-complete among those ancient righteous ones, until it was fulfilled by the Lord adding that no one should look upon a woman to covet her? For thus you have quoted the very statement: You have heard that it was said: You shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, do not even covet. This, you say, is a fulfilment. Then unfold plainly the very words of the Gospel; do not water down by your own words what was said; and see what you may have thought of those most ancient righteous ones. You have heard, He says, that it was said: You shall not commit adultery; but I say to you: whoever looks upon a woman to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
But did those righteous men, Seth or Enoch or any who were like them, indeed commit adultery in their hearts, and was their heart either not the temple of God, or did they commit adultery in the temple of God? But if you do not dare to say this, how is it that Christ, coming only now, fulfilled in this matter also their law, which was already full among them even then? Concerning not swearing, however — since here too you have said that their law was fulfilled by Christ — I cannot affirm that the ancient righteous did not swear; for we find that even the Apostle Paul swore. But from your own mouth frequent swearing is not removed, since you swear by the light which you love together with the flies — for that light of minds is not utterly alien from these eyes, that light which enlightens every man coming into this world.
You are able in some part to reflect — and by your lord Manichaeus, who in his native tongue was called Manes. But you, in order to avoid among the Greeks the name of madness, as it were by inflecting and lengthening the name, added a kind of 'pouring,' whereby you might slip the further. For thus one of you explained to me why he was called Manichaeus: namely, that in the Greek tongue he might seem, as it were, to pour out manna, because in Greek 'he pours' is said cheî; wherein I know not what you have accomplished, except that you might dream up madness for yourselves more expressly.
For you did not add one letter in the earlier part of the name, so that 'manna' might be recognized, but you added in the latter part two syllables, calling him not Mannicheus but Manichaeus, so that it might sound as if nothing else were being poured out to you by his so long-winded and empty discourses except madness. Very often you swear even by the Paraclete — not, to be sure, that one whom Christ promised and sent to His disciples, but by that very one, that I may translate his name into Latin: the madness-pourer. Since, therefore, you never cease from swearing, I should like to know how you understand this part of the Law too, which you wish to be understood as most ancient, which you say the Lord fulfilled for you — and rather on account of the swearings of the Apostle.
For what authority is yours, even for yourselves, let alone for me or for any man? Whence I think it is now clear how differently that must be received which Christ says: I have not come to dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it — not, that is, by those additions which pertain either to the exposition of the ancient statements set forth, or to conduct, and not to fulfilment. For because they did not understand murder to be anything but the destruction of the human body, by which life is taken away, the Lord opened up that every unjust impulse to harm a brother is to be reckoned in the category of murder. Whence John also says: He who hates his brother is a murderer.
And because they thought that only bodily unlawful union with a woman was called adultery, the Master demonstrated that such lust too is nothing other than this. Likewise, because to swear falsely is a grave sin, but not to swear at all is no more a sin than to swear truly, yet he who is not even accustomed to swear is set further from swearing falsely than he who is inclined to swear truly — the Lord preferred that we who do not swear should not depart from the truth, rather than that we, swearing truly, should draw near to perjury. And so the Apostle too, in the discourses which he is reported to have given, never swore, lest by the habit of swearing he might at some time, even unknowingly, slip into perjury. But in the Scriptures, where there is greater and more attentive consideration,
he is found to have sworn in several places, lest anyone should think that one sins even by swearing truly, but rather might understand that the hearts of human frailty are more safely preserved from perjury by not swearing. Having examined these things, we find that not even those things have been destroyed, as Faustus thinks, which he wishes to belong, as it were, properly to Moses. For here too I ask of these men why they wish it to be proper to the Law of Moses, that it was said to the ancients: You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. Did not the Apostle Paul also call certain men hateful to God? And indeed, in this very admonition the Lord Himself exhorts us to this, that we should imitate God.
That you may be, He says, sons of your Father who is in heaven, who makes His sun to rise upon the good and the evil, and rains upon the just and the unjust. It must therefore be inquired how, by the example of God, to whom Paul said certain men were hateful, enemies are to be held in hatred, and again, by the example of God, who makes His sun to rise upon the good and the evil and rains upon the just and the unjust, enemies are to be loved. Thus it will appear that the Lord willed to convey to those who misunderstood what was said, 'you shall hate your enemy,' that which they did not know at all: that they should love their enemies. But how each is to be observed is a long matter to discuss.