ℹ️ This corpus has no morphological tagging. Glosses are matched by word form against a dictionary — a match does not prove it is the same word (an inflected form can coincide with another word’s lemma). Verify against the original and a specialist lexicon where precision matters.
ℹ️ The Chinese and English alongside are this site's own translation, made directly from the original text on this page (not the CUV or the WEB, which follow the Masoretic Text and a different textual tradition).
These persons Scripture carefully defines in many places, and these you yourself showed above, from the very precept of the law, ought to be treated mercifully as native-born. These the law gathers to you in many observances and openly distinguishes from the rest of the foreign sojourners. Hence, when it says in a certain place: «In the seventh year you shall make a release,» which is celebrated in this manner: «To whom anything is owed by a friend or neighbor or his brother, he shall not be able to demand it back, because it is the year of the Lord's release; of a stranger and sojourner you shall exact it,» it plainly teaches that the stranger and sojourner are not to be treated as mercifully as the native-born. This same sojourner it had understood above, where it says: «Everything that is clean, eat;»
«whatever has died of itself, let no one eat of it. To the stranger who is within your gates give it, that he may eat it, or sell it to him, because you are a holy people of the Lord your God.» For long before this, in another book, it intimates concerning the sojourner — «who sojourns by dwelling among you, not merely passing through» — just as those things which are set down nearby there concerning the eating of carrion, even as it forbade you, saying: «The soul that has eaten what died of itself or was caught by a beast, whether of the native-born or of the sojourners, shall wash his clothes and himself with water, and shall be unclean until evening, and in this manner he shall become clean. But if he does not wash his clothes and his body, he shall bear his iniquity.»
But the one whom in one place it calls «stranger and sojourner,» elsewhere it sometimes names a «foreigner»; as when it is said: «You shall not lend to your brother at interest, neither money nor produce nor any other thing, but to a foreigner you may.» Concerning these sojourners, however, who sojourn among you — not you among them — it is written in another place, when it says: «Any man of the house of Israel and of the sojourners who sojourn among you, if he eats blood, I will set my face against that soul and will cut him off from his people.» For by no precept of the law would you comprehend another sojourner than the one who dwells among you, and on this account is subject to your dominion and discipline.
Wherefore, since divine grace, providing for us, has taken away from you altogether every possession of the land — so that, namely, no one sojourns among you, but you sojourn among all peoples — know that we are bound by none of your statutes. But as for your striving to compel us to circumcision by the precept of circumcision and the example of Abraham, so that you may include also in the law's sacrament those to whom you nonetheless grant that the law was in no way given, nor even the promise of the land made, which is established in the covenant of circumcision — see how feeble is your objection. For when the Lord had first said: «Every male among you shall be circumcised,» and had added:
«every male throughout your generations, both the house-born and the bought, and whoever is not of your stock» — surely by this, in that He says «among you,» He comprehends not only Abraham and his posterity, but also, besides, all whoever belong to their household and possession, so that, namely, they might command them and compel them to circumcision. Hence too, after He said «and you,» and afterward added, «throughout your generations, both house-born and bought,» and then subjoined: «and whoever is not of your stock» — by what He said:
«throughout your generations, and whoever is not of your stock,» He carefully expressed what He had comprehended above when He said «among you» — namely, not only the generations of his own posterity, but also the household of foreigners which they possess. The same One too, in giving the sentence: «And my covenant shall be in your flesh,» spoke thus generally, «in your flesh,» just as before He had said «in you.» Otherwise the promise would be very incongruous, as though the covenant of God would not appear in their flesh unless the sojourners also, like the rest, were circumcised. Wherefore also, by what is said, «in your flesh,» it is established that the sojourners themselves are comprehended. That too, which finally completes the added sentence:
«The male whose flesh of his foreskin has not been circumcised, that soul shall perish from his people, because he has made my covenant void» — how is it referred back to what was said before, in which the sojourners are already comprehended, unless His covenant is also with the sojourners; at least when it is said: «Every male among you shall be circumcised,» etc.? But as for your laboring to assert that the eternal blessedness of souls also has been promised to you out of your statutes, this can be shown from the law itself to be a most worthless conjecture. For by this — that it is said «with an everlasting covenant» or «for an eternal covenant» concerning those who shall be circumcised by God's precept — you understand them to be so allied to Him forever that not even in the future are they cut off from His grace.
Whence it would in no way be doubted that Israel, or Esau, or very many of the reprobate are to be saved. I marvel too that you do not notice that «eternal» or «everlasting» is often taken in the law in such a way that it does not exceed the continuance of the present life. Hence too, in the very covenant of circumcision, when it is premised: «And I will give to you and to your seed the land of your sojourning and all the land of Canaan for an eternal possession,» I do not believe you to be so deranged as to include, under the word «eternity,» also the blessedness of the future life, concerning which it is here superfluous to give any command. Often too, as you know, in the very works of the law which are celebrated only in this life, the law is wont to add:
«It shall be a perpetual statute for us throughout all your generations and dwellings.» For thus — to bring forward something from among many — it added the example concerning the celebration of the feast of tabernacles. For when it had premised: «And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruits of the most beautiful tree, and palm branches, and boughs of trees of thick foliage, and willows from the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, and you shall celebrate His solemnity seven days in the year» — it at once subjoined: «It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations.» The same too, instituting in a certain place the keeping of the Sabbath on the seventh day, says: «It is an everlasting covenant between me and the children of Israel, and a perpetual sign.»
But also when the Lord says of a Hebrew servant who does not wish to go out free, that «he shall be a servant forever,» it comprehends only the time of his life. For Hebrew servants are not, according to the law, handed down to posterity, as are those who are taken from the nations. Hence it is written: «Let your bondman and bondwoman be from the nations that are round about you, and from the sojourners that sojourn among you, or who shall be born of these in your land; these you shall have as servants, and you shall hand them down by hereditary right to posterity, and shall possess them forever; but do not oppress your brethren, the children of Israel, by force.»
For it sufficed the Lord, in the recompense of a carnal people who knew nothing but earthly things, to fit that recompense only to the time of the present life. But as for what you asserted, commending the perfection of the law — that only those things which Moses commanded are to be done — I marvel that you have forgotten that you yourself maintained above, laudably, that many things were superadded to the precepts out of grace. Which is most true for everyone, father. Hence you too received not a few first traditions after the law, which you judge most useful — as when, by the example of Daniel refusing the royal foods and wine lest he be defiled by them, you too abstain from our wine.
But the Rechabites too, abstaining from wine forever by the precept of Jonadab their father, went beyond both the precepts of Moses and all the traditions of your fathers. To them also Jeremiah, sent by the Lord that they might drink wine, was not heeded by them. Whence their obedience is so commended by the voice of the Lord that He promised them, saying: «Because you have obeyed the precept of Jonadab your father, and have kept all his commandments, there shall not be wanting a man of the stock of Jonadab the son of Rechab, standing in my sight all the days.» Did King Hezekiah too become a transgressor of the law by breaking the bronze serpent — by laudably destroying without a precept that which had been usefully made by a precept?
David too, when he composed the psalms to the honor of God, or solemnly brought up the ark of the Lord into Jerusalem; or Solomon, when he built and dedicated the temple of the Lord — they assuredly did that which Moses had by no means commanded. All the prophecies too were written down apart from the precept of Moses and of the law handed to him; and after Moses innumerable things were done by the holy fathers, either out of the Lord's precept or for manifest usefulness, which are by no means contained in the precepts of Moses. For in those things which have manifest usefulness, the precepts of the Lord are not to be awaited; nor is it sin to do what is not commanded, but to do against the precept.
Otherwise you could not pass even one day of the present life, nor accomplish the household care of a single day, since we must do many things — whether by buying or trading, or by passing from this place to that, or finally by eating or sleeping — which are not contained in a precept. Moreover, who does not see that, if neither more nor less than Moses commanded ought to be done, all who keep the law would be of equal merit, and that one would not be better than another among them, whose merits could not be unequal? It is clear therefore from what has been premised that in no way can you commend the perfection of the law by this — that you understand it to be acted against the law if anything which is not commanded in it be superadded.
Nor should you recognize that you sufficiently excuse the Lord — who, when He was persuading obedience to the law, passed over, as I said, that which is greatest in His recompense — if you judge that the law suffices even for meriting that. But as for your confidence that you obtain spiritual good by the purification of sins through sacrifices or any outward works of the law whatever, I marvel — if, as you yourself professed and as manifest truth holds, your love of God and of neighbor suffices for the justification of holiness. For without these latter, that former would profit nothing, as far as pertains to the soul's salvation; nor is there any doubt that, when these have made anyone just, he is no longer in such guilt of sin that he needs spiritual purification.
Whence too, concerning the repentant sinner, you have it written: «A sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit,» etc.; and again: «I said: I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord, and you forgave the impiety of my sin.» Behold how He commends this sacrifice of a contrite heart, who altogether rejects that outward sacrifice elsewhere, saying in the person of the Lord: «Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will not take calves out of your house, nor he-goats out of your flocks. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is mine and the fullness thereof. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the day of tribulation: I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.»
The Lord hungers for the sacrifice of the heart, not of animals, and is refreshed by it; and when He finds this, He does not seek that; and when He does not find this, that is altogether superfluous — superfluous, I say, as to the justification of the soul, not as to the circuit of legal penalties, according to which nevertheless sins are said to be remitted to you. For your law, which pays out the merits of its fulfillment or its transgression only in this life, and has its recompense for both only here, so fits all things to this bodily life that it reckons nothing clean or unclean according to the soul, nor refers any purifications to the uncleanness of souls — which we properly name sins.
Hence too it names foods clean or unclean, just as it does men; and it frequently calls beds also, seats, and the whole furniture of the house, or even garments, and very many other inanimate things, unclean or polluted. But if you should number among sins the uncleannesses of men, whose purifications were instituted, for those who are defiled — do you judge that a woman, cleansed by sacrifice after childbirth, has by this very thing, that she gave birth, incurred sin? — when rather you reckon her accursed who has not left seed in Israel? What sin too does a man who suffers an issue of seed contract from this? — whom nevertheless the law reckons so abominable that the bed on which he sleeps is unclean, and wherever he sits.
An earthen vessel too which he touches shall be broken, but a wooden one shall be washed. If any man touches his bed, or sits where he had sat, he shall wash his clothes, and he himself, washed with water, shall be unclean until evening. A woman too, when she suffers the issue of menstruation that naturally befalls her, is reckoned so unclean that even that on which she has slept or sat is so polluted that by her touch she pollutes whatever she touches, just as was said above of the man suffering an issue of seed. But what, I beg, have these things to do with the defilement of the soul — that anyone's bed should be polluted even by a touch? What, I pray, are these uncleannesses or pollutions?
Surely they are those of the same kind as the uncleannesses of foods — so that, just as those foods are to be avoided by you in eating, so these things in touching; and just as those are unclean because not to be eaten, so these are unclean or polluted because not to be touched; and those who touch them, even if they do so under compulsion or in ignorance, are likewise judged unclean, because they are to be avoided in the familiarity of social intercourse until the appointed term of purification. But those things which are manifest sins, such as murder or adultery and the like, are punished rather with death than expiated with sacrifices. Nor is the remedy of such purifications granted to them, by which those who committed them might be saved.
From which you may rather understand that these purifications are fitted to a certain decency of the present life than to the salvation of the soul. And when the sins of such persons are said to be pardoned, it is plain that those bodily penalties which were instituted for them are relaxed to those who are separated from common intercourse. For is anything else to be understood by «sin pardoned» than that the penalty due to it is relaxed, whether that penalty be bodily or perpetual? But the guilt of the soul, just as it is committed by its own will, so through its contrite heart and the true compunction of penitence is at once so pardoned that one is in no way condemned any further for it, as was said: «I said: I will confess against myself.»
For after the penitent sinner has resolved within himself to accuse himself thereof by confession, then in this very thing — that he is now without the guilt of the wicked will by which he had sinned — he admits it, and his perpetual penalty is pardoned, even if a temporal one is still kept for his correction; as the same Prophet of yours commemorates elsewhere, saying: «The Lord chastising has chastised me, but He has not given me over to death.» These things, in inquiring concerning my own soul's salvation, whether of your faith or of mine, I judge that I have sufficiently consulted you about.
And in this conference of our consultation I consider that this has been accomplished: that not even by the authority of your law — even if you receive it as given by God — can you make known that I ought to submit myself to its burden, as though anything were necessary to be added to that law which He prescribes to us by the example of His servant Job, or to that discipline of morals which our philosophers left to posterity concerning the virtues sufficient for blessedness. Concerning which it now remains to hear the sentence of the present judge, or — what remains for me — to transfer the labor of our inquiry to the Christian. JUDGE: Both of us assert that they accept the sentence of our judgment.
But I, being desirous of learning rather than of judging, answer that I wish first to hear the reasonings of all, so that I might be the more discerning in judging the wiser I became in hearing, according to that which I mentioned above, after the proverb of the supreme wise man: «The wise man hearing shall be wiser, and the understanding shall possess governance.» In this all alike assented, kindled by the same desire of learning. PHILOSOPHER: You now, O Christian, I address, that you may respond to my inquiry according to the condition of our proposal. Whose law indeed ought to be so much the more perfect, and the more excellent in recompense, and its teaching the more reasonable, by as much as it is the later.
For in vain would the earlier laws be written for a people, if something were not added to them for the perfection of teaching. Which one of ours, carefully considering in the second book of the Rhetoric, when he was forming a case concerning contrary laws, prescribed that one must attend to which law was enacted later. «For every later one,» he says, «is the weightiest.» CHRISTIAN: I marvel that you so shamelessly dissent from what you professed at the outset. For when you had premised that by your inquiries you found the Jews foolish, the Christians insane, you afterward said that you contended not for strife but to confer for the inquiring of truth: by what reasoning do you now at last expect the teaching of truth from those whom you even found insane?
Do you now, after your inquiries, suppose that their insanity has ceased, so that they can now suffice for your instruction? Surely, if you judge it insanity to follow the Christian faith, and reckon those who follow it insane, see, you Philosopher, what is to be esteemed of those supreme Greek philosophers, who, by that rude and uncultivated preaching of simple men — that is, of the apostles — were all converted to this and made most insane. Indeed this our «insanity,» as you call it, was so rooted and confirmed among the Greeks, that there both the evangelical and the apostolic teaching were written down, and afterward great councils celebrated, which thence filled the whole world and suppressed all heresies. PHILOSOPHER:
Sometimes men are more easily provoked by reproaches and insults than they are bent by supplications and entreaties; and those who are thus provoked busy themselves more zealously over the fight than those who are entreated are moved by favor. CHRISTIAN: You are to be pardoned, if you did this with that intention. But now, lest from distrust I seem to defer this fight, both I and you must pray that the Lord Himself may inspire what is to be asked by you and what is to be answered by me — He who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of Himself.
Now therefore, if it please you, since you are without part in the perfection of our law — namely, of the evangelical as well as the apostolic teaching — let us first inspect this, and confer it with all other teachings, so that, if you see it more perfect than those in the precepts or exhortations that justify, you may, as is fitting, rather choose it. Which your rhetorician too, treating, as you said, of contrary laws, advises above, saying: «If two or more laws cannot be observed because they disagree among themselves, let that one be thought most to be preserved which seems to pertain to the greatest matters.» PHILOSOPHER: Nothing is more probable than this counsel, and nothing more foolish than to withdraw from old laws to new ones unless they are superior in teaching.
Those new laws, namely, which they who composed them were able to write so much the more carefully and perfectly, by as much as, already instructed by the discipline of the earlier laws and by the very experience of necessary matters, they were able easily to add from their own ingenuity what was lacking — as happens also in the other disciplines of philosophy. And then one is most to be confident of the perfection of the later writings, if the modern writers have been able to equal the ancients in talent. But what, if perhaps they even far transcend them? It is to be hoped. Which indeed, concerning the lawgiver — namely, Christ, whom you call the very Wisdom of God — you in no way doubt. Concerning whom too you assert that our Job sang beforehand:
«Behold, God in His might, and none is like Him among lawgivers.» Whose teaching also your Apostle, preferring it and manifestly professing the imperfection of the first law, says: «God, who in many parts and in many ways spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us in His Son,» etc. And again the same, below, judging concerning the distinction of the old and the new law, says: «There is a setting aside of the preceding commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness. For the law brought nothing to perfection; but there is a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw near to God.» CHRISTIAN: Surely, as I see, it is not ignorance of our faith, but rather the obstinacy of your unbelief, that condemns you.
You who have both learned the perfection of our law from its very writings, and yet still inquire what you should follow — as though you did not there have the perfect document of virtues, more excellent than all others, which you in no way doubt suffice for blessedness. Concerning which perfection — those things which were lacking, that is, completing His own old law — when the Lord Himself was handing down the New Testament, having begun at once He said to His disciples: «Unless your righteousness abounds,» etc. And immediately, pursuing through each particular the abundance of the new law in those things which were lacking to moral perfection, He carefully expressed it and consummated true ethics.
In comparison with which, whatever had been handed down, by the ancient fathers as well as by the prophets, concerning the discipline of morals and the discernment of virtues, will easily be shown to be nothing, if we carefully confer these things with the earlier ones. PHILOSOPHER: It was only the desire of these comparisons, as you know, that brought me hither, and with this intention we have gathered together. CHRISTIAN: Now indeed, as far as I perceive, we are proceeding to the end and consummation of all the disciplines. Which you are wont to name «ethics,» that is, the moral science, but we «divinity.» We name it, namely, from that toward whose comprehending it tends — that is, God; you, from those things through which one arrives thither — that is, good morals, which you call virtues. PHILOSOPHER:
I assent to what is clear, and I approve not a little of the new appellation of your name. For because you esteem that to which one arrives more worthy than those things through which one comes, and to have arrived happier than to come, this is the more distinguished appellation of your name, drawing the reader greatly by the origin of its proper divination. Which, if it preeminently excels in its document as in its term, I judge no discipline to be compared to it. Now therefore, if it please you, we wish you to define beforehand in what the sum of true ethics consists, and what is to be looked for by us from this discipline, and at what, when we have arrived there, its intention is consummated. CHRISTIAN:
Of this discipline, as I judge, the whole sum is gathered in this: that it may make plain what the supreme good is, and by what way we are to arrive thither. PHILOSOPHER: It pleases me exceedingly that the sum of so great a matter is expressed in so few words, and the intention of the whole of ethics so carefully comprehended. Which words of its intention at once seize the hearer into themselves and commend the study of this discipline, so that in comparison with it the teachings of all the arts grow worthless. For inasmuch as the supreme good is more excellent than all others, in the enjoyment of which true blessedness consists, it is established beyond doubt that its teaching far precedes the rest in usefulness as in dignity.
For far below the supreme good do the studies of others remain, nor do they attain the eminence of blessedness, nor does any fruit appear in them, except insofar as they serve this supreme philosophy, like handmaids occupied about their mistress. For what has the study of grammar, or dialectic, or of the other arts, to do with investigating the true blessedness of man? Far below this eminence they all lie, nor are they able to raise themselves to so great a summit.
But they hand down certain kinds of speech, or exercise certain natures of things, as if preparing certain steps to this loftiness — when we must discourse about it, and when, as it were, some natures of things must be brought forward by way of example or likeness, so that through them, as by a certain leading of handmaids, we may attain to the mistress, having in those our passage of progression, in this our rest and the attained end of our weariness. CHRISTIAN: I rejoice that you have so carefully touched upon the excellence of this philosophy and distinguished it from the rest, from which I understand you to be especially occupied in its study. PHILOSOPHER: Rightly, I say, occupied.
For this alone is the natural discipline which agrees with philosophers by its moral precepts so much the more, by as much as it is established that they make more use of law and adhere to reasonings — as that learned man remembers: «For the Jews,» he says, «ask for signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom.» For the Jews only, being animal and sensual, imbued with no philosophy by which they might examine reasonings, are moved to faith solely by the miracles of outward works, as though to do these were the work of God alone, and no illusion of demons could be wrought in them.
How foolish it is to accept this, both the magicians in Egypt taught, and Christ above all instructed you, who, forewarning concerning the pseudo-philosophers of Antichrist, testifies that in the seduction of men they shall work such great miracles, «that, if it were possible,» He says, «even the elect might be led into error.» As though, therefore, to seek these signs were folly, the aforesaid Apostle, by contrast, remembers it through what he subjoined, when he added: «and the Greeks seek wisdom» — that is, they exact reasonings from the preachers, which are the sure instruments of wisdom. Whence your preaching — that is, the Christian — is especially commended.
Because it was able to convert to the faith those who relied and abounded most in reasonings — namely, those imbued with the studies of all the liberal arts, armed with reasonings. Of which these men were not only the inquirers but even the discoverers, and from their founts streamlets flowed out into the whole world. From which we are now especially confident concerning your discipline — that, the more it has now grown strong, solidified, the more it may avail in the conflict of reasonings. CHRISTIAN: