Or when in another place He commands His hearers to obey the sayings of the scribes and Pharisees, but not to imitate their deeds. For He says: 'They sit in Moses' seat; what they say, do; but what they do, do not; for they say and do not.' In which place the Lord both confirms the authority of the Law which was given through Moses, and yet shows most plainly that the ways of those who did not obey the Law which they had received are to be guarded against and shunned. But by these their own perversities they brought it about that when some Gentile passed over to their Law — that is, was made a proselyte — he took on their ways and became a child of hell twofold more than they themselves were.
For they took great pains that someone from among the Gentiles should become a Jew, and having made him a Jew, they compelled him to imitate their most wicked ways. Nor was Adimantus at all able to notice that what he cites from the Apostle as though contrary is in no way contrary, because his whole eye was intent not upon inquiry into Scripture but upon its reproach. For he cites the Apostle saying: 'Is any called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised, for circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.' For what is more manifest than that the Apostle here enjoins that each one remain as he was called?
For when the realities came, of which those observances were the shadows, this was brought about: that it might be shown that hope is not to be placed in the shadows themselves, but in the very realities which those shadows signified were to come — that is, in Christ and the Church. And therefore all those things were now empty; yet the Apostle enjoins that they be not removed as though harmful, but despised as superfluous — so that if any Jew had believed in Christ, he should not, because of the offence of his own people, be forbidden to remain in those superfluous things, and yet should not suppose his salvation to be established in them; for it is not those signs, but the things which are signified by them, that lead unto salvation. And therefore circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
And as for what he says in another place: 'I would that they were even cut off who trouble you' — the Apostle does not say this because circumcision is contrary to the Gospel, as the Manichaeans suppose; but this is what is contrary to the Gospel: that anyone, forsaking the reality which is figured by that shadow, should follow the emptiness of the shadow itself. This is what those men wanted who imposed the yoke of circumcision upon Gentiles believing in Christ, as though it were necessary unto salvation, when now no shadow was to be figured in the body, but the reality itself was to be borne in the heart. And as for what he says: 'Ye observe days, and sabbaths, and solemnities; I am afraid of you, lest I have laboured over you in vain' — it is not in fact written as Adimantus puts it, for the Apostle does not there name the sabbath. For he says:
'Ye observe days, and years, and seasons; I am afraid of you, lest I have laboured over you in vain.' But suppose it were said of the sabbath. Do not we too say that these things are not to be observed, but rather those which are signified by them? For they observed them in a servile manner, not understanding to the signification and foreannouncement of what realities they pertained. And this the Apostle blames in them, and in all who serve the creature rather than the Creator. For we too solemnly observe both the Lord's day and Easter and whatever other Christian festivals of days there are; but because we understand to what they pertain, we do not observe the seasons, but the things which are signified by those seasons.
The Manichaeans, however, reprehend these things as though they observed no days and seasons. But when they are questioned about these matters according to the opinion of their sect, they attempt to explain everything so that they may seem to observe not the seasons themselves, but the realities of which those are the signs. And that these realities are indeed fabulous and utterly false is shown in other places. For the present it has been said thus, that they may be compelled by their own mouth to confess that such things can be reasonably celebrated. And therefore it is manifest that the circumcision of the flesh was both rightly imposed upon servants and rightly understood by the free. We reject it, then, as carnal with the Apostle, and we approve it as spiritual with the Apostle;
and we do not observe the rest of the sabbath in time, but we understand the temporal sign, and toward the eternal rest which is signified by that sign we direct the gaze of the heart. We reject, therefore, the observance of seasons with the Apostle, and we hold the understanding of the temporal signs with the Apostle; and we approve the difference of the two Testaments in such wise that in the one there are the burdens of servants, in the other the joys of the free — in the one is recognized the prefiguring of our possession, in the other is held the possession itself. The Apostle interprets the sabbath in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says: 'There remaineth therefore a keeping of sabbath to the people of God.' He interprets circumcision also, when he says of Abraham: 'And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith.'
I hold, therefore, the apostolic interpretation spiritually, and I despise in liberty the carnal observance of bondage, venerating God the author of both Testaments — who both set before the old man fleeing away, as a Lord, what he might fear, and opened to the new man returning, as a Father, what he might love. Concerning that which is written in Exodus: 'If thou wilt hearken with thine ear to my voice and do whatsoever I command thee, I will hate them that hate thee and afflict them that afflict thee; my angel shall go before thee and bring thee to the Amorites and Perizzites and Canaanites and Jebusites and Girgashites; and ye shall slay them. Ye shall not worship their gods nor do their works, but with overthrowing shalt thou overthrow them and blot out their memory.'
To these words thus cited from the old books Adimantus opposes, as though contrary, that which is written in the Gospel, the Lord saying: 'But I say unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse you, and do good to them that hate you; and pray for them that persecute you.' In which place it must first be observed that it ought to have been enough for a man wishing to show things as it were contrary, that he pointed out that concerning the slaying of enemies it is written in the old Law. For the Lord assuredly gave His precept concerning loving enemies with regard to men, whom, through our patience and charity, anyone understands can be converted to salvation, and which has very often been demonstrated by examples.
What then does he mean by that which he thought ought to be added as a consequence, where it is written: 'Ye shall not worship their gods, nor do their works, but with overthrowing overthrow them and blot out their memory' — unless it be that the Manichaeans compel us to love even the gods of the nations? And do they judge that what the Lord says in the Gospel, 'Love your enemies,' pertains not only to men, but also to demons or even to idols? If it is so, who would not detest that madness? But if they do not so judge, then this man erred greatly, who wished to cite that the superstitions of the nations were commanded to be overthrown in the Old Testament, when he wanted to oppose, as though contrary, what is written in the New concerning loving enemies.
But we, for our part, do not say that even that which was said to that people in the old books concerning slaying hostile men is contrary to this Gospel precept, by which the Lord bids us love our enemies — seeing that that slaying of enemies was fitting for a people still carnal, to whom the Law had been given as a schoolmaster, as the Apostle says. But those who at that time among that people were holy and spiritual men — very few, such as Moses, such as the prophets — with what mind they carried out that slaying of enemies, whether they loved those whom they slew, lies much hidden from the unlearned and impious who love their own blindness; and since they are not fit to see these things, they must rather be pressed by the weight of authority.
For what is it that the Apostle says: 'I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though present, him who has so done — in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus'? For what does that slaying, which these men greatly exaggerate and invidiously bandy about, contain, except the destruction of the flesh? But because the Apostle set forth with what mind he did it, he sufficiently declared that vengeance can proceed against some enemy together with charity. And yet here too perhaps the destruction of the flesh may be understood in another way, namely that which comes about through penance.
They themselves, moreover, read apocryphal Scriptures, which they even say are utterly uncorrupted, where it is written that the apostle Thomas cursed a man by whom, out of imprudence, he had been struck with the palm of the hand — one who did not know who he was — and that that curse forthwith came to effect. For when that man, since he was a servant of the banquet, had gone out to the fountain to fetch water, he was killed and torn to pieces by a lion; and, that this might be made manifest to the terror of others, a dog brought his hand to the tables where the apostle was feasting. And so, when the cause was inquired after by those who did not know it and was disclosed to them, they were converted to great fear and great honour of the apostle; and hence, they say, arose the beginning of commending the Gospel.
If anyone wished to turn the teeth of the Manichaeans against themselves, how bitingly would he reprove these things! But because there too it is not left unsaid with what mind it was done, the love of the avenger is seen. For thus it is read in that Scripture, that the apostle prayed for the one against whom vengeance was temporally taken, that he might be spared in the judgment to come. If, therefore, in the time of the New Testament, when charity is above all commended, a fear of visible punishments was divinely instilled into carnal men, how much more is it to be understood that this was fitting, in the time of the Old Testament, for that people whom the fear of the Law, as of a schoolmaster, kept in check? For this is the briefest and plainest difference of the two Testaments: fear and love.
The one pertains to the old man, the other to the new man; yet both are brought forth and joined together by the most merciful dispensation of the one God. And in the old Scripture the mind of those who avenge is passed over in silence, because very few spiritual men knew, by divine revelations, what they were doing, so that the people, for whom terror was useful, might be tamed by a most severe rule — that, just as they saw their impious enemies and worshippers of idols given into their hands to be slain, so they themselves might dread being given into the hands of their enemies, if they should despise the commands of the true God and slip into the worship of idols and the impieties of the nations. For upon those who sinned in like manner, vengeance was taken in like manner. But all this temporal vengeance terrifies weak souls,
in order that it may instruct those nurtured under discipline and may be able to turn them away from everlasting and unspeakable torments, because carnal men fear more what God avenges in the present than what He threatens for the future. There can be love, therefore, in the avenger — which each man proves in his own son, when he restrains him, as he slides into the worst ways, with a most severe correction, and the more so the more he loves him, and judges that in this way he can be set right. But men do not slay the sons whom they love when they wish to correct them, because many hold this life to be a great good, and place all their reason for wishing to educate their sons in this life.
But faithful and wise men, who believe that there is another and better life and have come to know it as far as they can, do not themselves take vengeance by killing when they wish to correct their sons, because they believe that in this life they can be corrected. God, however, who knows what He assigns to each, takes vengeance by killing upon whom He wills, whether through men or by a hidden order of things — not because He hates them insofar as they are men, but insofar as they are sinners. For in those very old books we read it said to God: 'And thou hatest nothing of the things which thou hast made,' but He orders all things, whether through punishments or through rewards, justice governing. Was not the Apostle Paul speaking to faithful Christians when he said:
'But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with this world.' Behold, it is manifest that God with love corrects, not only by infirmities and sicknesses but even by temporal deaths, those whom He does not will to condemn with the world. Let these men attend to these things and see how even impious nations could be given into the hands of a people, though still carnal, yet worshipping one God, that they might be slain by it;
while nevertheless in that people, if there were any spiritual men, they understood the dispensation of God without hatred of anyone. And let them see how it is not contrary that the Lord commanded us in the Gospel to love our enemies, concerning whom He nevertheless Himself promises vengeance, when He brings in the similitude of that judge who, though he was unjust, neither fearing God nor reverencing men, yet could not endure the daily importunities of the widow woman asking that he avenge her, and heard her, lest he should suffer weariness any further — from which comparison He said that God, who is most kind and most just, much more avenges His sons upon their enemies. Against Him let these men dare to raise a question, and let them say, if they can:
'What is this, that thou hast commanded that we love our enemies, and yet dost purpose to avenge us upon them? Or wilt thou perhaps act against the will of thy saints, by punishing and condemning those whom they love?' Nay rather, let them themselves be converted from this slanderous blindness to God, and in both His Testaments understand His will, lest they be found on the left-hand side among those to whom the Lord will say: 'Go into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and ye gave me not to eat,' and other such things. For it displeases these wretched men that God delivered enemies to be slain to His people; and they themselves forbid bread to be given to one begging — not an enemy, but a suppliant.
Let them rather understand that there can be vengeance without hatred — which few understand; and yet, as long as it is not understood, so long is it necessary that the reader in the books of both Testaments be tossed about with great labour or error, and suppose the Scriptures to be contrary to one another. This vengeance without hatred the apostles had not yet conceived in their minds, when, angered at those by whom they were not received into hospitality, they inquired of the Lord whether He would have them ask for fire from heaven, as Elijah had done, by which fire the inhospitable men might be consumed. Then the Lord answered them, saying that they knew not of what spirit they were sons, and that He Himself had come to liberate, not to destroy — since they, with a hostile mind, desired to destroy those whom they wished to be consumed by fire.
But afterward, when they had been filled with the Holy Spirit and had been made perfect, so that they could now love even their enemies, they received the power of avenging, because now they could avenge without hatred. This power the apostle Peter also used, in that book which these men do not accept, since it manifestly contains the coming of the Paraclete — that is, of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit — whom He sent to those who mourned, when He Himself had ascended from their eyes into heaven. For the Comforter is sent to the sorrowful, according to that saying of the same Lord: 'Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.' He Himself also said: 'Then shall the children of the bridegroom mourn, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.'
In that book, then, where it is most plainly declared that the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord had promised as Comforter, had come, we read that at the sentence of Peter men fell down and died — a man and his wife — who had dared to lie to the Holy Spirit. This these men blame with great blindness, whereas in the apocrypha they read, as a great work, both that which I have recounted concerning the apostle Thomas, and that Peter's own daughter was made paralytic by her father's prayers, and that the gardener's daughter died at Peter's own prayer; and they answer that it was expedient for these — that the one should be released from that paralysis, and that the other should die for her. Yet they do not deny that it was done at the apostle's prayers. But who told them, 'It was not expedient that impious nations should be slain'?
Deriding these as delivered by God into the hands of the people of the Jews, they feign to marvel; but since those deeds were done by the apostles not out of hatred but out of a good mind, how do these men convict the souls of the spiritual men who were among that people, of hating those whom, through them, divine justice bade to be taken from this life? Let them rather restrain their rashness, and not deceive the inexperienced who either have no leisure to read, or are unwilling to read, or read with a perverse mind and do not attend that both the mercy and the severity of God are commended in the letters of both Testaments. For as to the love of an enemy, that evil be not rendered for evil, is it not read in the old books:
'O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there be iniquity in my hands, if I have rendered evil to them that requited me evil, let me deservedly fall empty from before my enemies.' Who would say this, save one who knew that it pleases God that no one render evil for evil? But this belongs to the perfect: that they should hate in sinners nothing but sins, and love the men themselves; and when they avenge, that they avenge not with the harshness of cruelty, but with the moderation of justice, lest the very relaxing of the sin should harm the sinner more than the punishment of vengeance. Yet just men did not do this except by divine authority, lest anyone suppose it to be permitted him at random to kill whom he will, or to prosecute by judgment, or to afflict with any punishments whatsoever.
But sometimes the divine authority itself is openly set down in the Scriptures, and sometimes it is hidden, so that the reader may both be instructed by the manifest things and exercised by the obscure. Assuredly David received his enemy and persecutor, king Saul — most ungrateful and most hostile — into his power, so that he might do to him what he willed; and he chose rather to spare than to slay. For he had not been commanded to slay, but neither had he been forbidden; nay, he had even divinely heard that he might do with impunity whatever he willed to his enemy. And yet he turned so great a power to gentleness. Let it be told me whom he feared, when he was unwilling to slay. We cannot say that he feared the man whom he had received into his power, nor God, who had given him over.
Where, then, there was neither difficulty in slaying nor fear, love spared the enemy. Behold, David that warrior fulfilled the precept of Christ which we have received, that we should love our enemies. And would that these men would imitate this, who have twisted the human affection of mercy into I know not what cruel ravings! For while they believe that bread weeps — which cannot be — they do not hold it out to the man whom they see weeping. Perhaps they may say, as the blind are wont to hurl insane reproaches, that David was better, who spared his enemy, than the God who had given him the power of slaying — as though, forsooth, God did not know to whom He had given this power.
He knew assuredly the will of His servant; but that to other men also there might become known, for their imitation, that love of the enemy which was in David's heart, already known to God, He gave into his power the enemy whom He did not yet will to be slain, on account of a certain disposition of things which had to be fulfilled through him. Thus both David's goodness was commended, so that men might have what to love, and Saul's malice was deferred to a more worthy end, so that men might have what to fear. Concerning that which is written in Deuteronomy:
'If thou wilt hearken with thine ear to the voice of the Lord thy God, blessed art thou in thy field, blessed art thou in thy meadow, blessed is the fruit of thy womb and the fruit of thy land and the offspring of thy cattle and the herds of thine oxen and the flocks of thy sheep; blessed art thou in thy coming in and in thy going out.' To this chapter they say that this in the Gospel is contrary: 'If any man will follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'
But by that rule it is shown that it is not contrary, by which it ought now to be known that to a people as yet carnal, carnal and temporal rewards were fittingly promised — yet by the one God, whose is every creature, both the higher and the lower. For assuredly Adimantus himself set down a testimony from the Gospel, where the Lord says: 'Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is His throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool' — which indeed is written also in the old books: 'Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool.'
What wonder is it, then, if He gives the goods of His throne spiritually to those who serve Him spiritually, and the goods of His footstool carnally to those who serve Him carnally, since the spirit is higher and the flesh lower, just as things heavenly are higher and things earthly lower? Although all those things — that is, field and meadow and fruit of the womb and fruit of the land and of cattle and herd of oxen and flock of sheep — can also be understood spiritually. But this discussion does not now pertain to the matter.
But if in the New Testament itself, whose reward and inheritance pertain to the new man, the Lord nevertheless promises to these very ones — whom He wills to be despisers of temporal things, that they may serve Him in the Gospel — a multiplication of those same things in this world, saying that they shall receive in this world a hundredfold, and in the world to come life eternal (just as it is said also in the old Scripture: 'To the faithful man the whole world of riches belongs'), whence the Apostle exults, saying: 'As having nothing, and yet possessing all things':
If, then, in the New Testament, besides the eternal possession which is promised to the saints, the multiplication of this possession also — which is to pass away — is not withdrawn, and becomes the more abundant the more contemptuously it is possessed, how much more, in the Old Testament, ought the rewards of a carnal people to have been such — yet with that one and true God, the governor of all times, moderating and administering all things according to the time? But lest they judge these things to be despised only in the books of the New Testament, let them hear a prophet casting away such felicity and singing that one must flee for refuge to the one Lord God. For thus he says:
'Deliver me from the malignant sword, and rescue me out of the hand of the children of strangers, whose mouth hath spoken vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of iniquity: whose sons are as new plants established in their youth; their daughters set in order and adorned like the likeness of a temple; their storehouses full, overflowing from this into that; their sheep fruitful, multiplying in their outgoings; their oxen fat. There is no ruin of the fence, nor outgoing, nor crying in their streets. They called that people blessed which hath these things; but blessed is the people whose God is the Lord.' Let them attend, then, how this felicity is derided in impious men, and all blessedness is fixed unshaken in God alone. For those men say the people is blessed which has these things:
but blessed is the people whose God is the Lord Himself. But as to that also which they supposed to be contrary to this passage of the Old Testament — that which the Lord says: 'Whosoever shall be ashamed of me or of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father and with the praise of His holy angels' — I do not see what it has to do with the contempt of temporal things. But if it does pertain, lest anyone, terrified by the losses of such things, should either blush or fear to confess Christ, what have they to say? Since we too say that these are gifts of God, yet such that they are the lowest, and, in comparison with the saving confession, are not only to be given up,
but even to be cast away of one's own accord — yet to those who love these carnal things and do not yet grasp the heavenly promises, they were usefully pledged by the Lord God, lest they should seek these things from idols and demons. Concerning that which is written in the Law: 'I am He who giveth riches to my friends and poverty to my enemies.' To this sentence they oppose that which the Lord says: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,' and: 'Woe unto you rich, for ye have received your consolation.' But why are they unwilling to consider also other things in the Gospel? For where it is written: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,' there follows: 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth by inheritance.'
Behold, they have God's friends becoming rich by an inheritance of the earth. But when that rich man is reduced to such destitution that he begs to have a drop of moisture dripped upon his parched tongue by the very poor man whom he had scorned, from a finger briefly dipped in water, let them understand how God's enemies become poor, and let them recognize that this is what is written in the law: 'I am he who gives riches to my friends and poverty to my enemies.' For that these temporal riches were held in contempt even in the Old Testament I have already shown above, and in countless passages whoever wishes to read will find it. Hence too is that saying: 'Better is a little to the just man than the many riches of sinners'; and this: 'The law of thy mouth is good to me, above thousands of gold and silver'; and this: