— which punishes those who refuse to be corrected — both Testaments agree and are congruent with one another, as though both were written by one God. Concerning what is written in Exodus: 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' and other such things. Against this passage the Manichaeans object, because in the old Law equal retribution is permitted, and it is said that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is to be exacted. They slander it thus, as though the Lord himself had set forth these two things in the Gospel as being, so to speak, mutually opposed and contrary. For he himself says: 'You have heard that it was said to the men of old: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth;'
'but I say to you: do not resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever wishes to contend with you at law and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak too.' In these two sentences the difference of the two Testaments is indeed shown, yet both were established by one God. For since at first carnal men burned to avenge themselves far more than the injury of which they complained warranted, a first degree of gentleness was established for them: that the pain of the avenger should in no way exceed the measure of the injury received. For thus one who had first learned not to surpass an injury could at length even forgive it.
Hence the Lord, now leading the people through the grace of the Gospel to the highest peace, builds upon this degree another: that he who had already heard he must not render more vengeance than the harm each suffered, should now rejoice, with a mind at peace, to forgive the whole. This too the prophet proclaims in those ancient books, saying: 'O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is iniquity in my hands, if I have requited with evil those who requited me.' And another prophet says of such a man who suffers injuries and bears them most gently: 'He will give his cheek to the one who strikes him; he will be filled with reproaches.'
From which it is understood both that a measure of avenging was rightly appointed for carnal men, and that the complete remission of injury was not only commanded in the New Testament, but long before foretold in the Old. Concerning what is written, that God spoke with Adam and Eve and with the serpent and with Cain and the other men of old. Among whom he is also written to have appeared to some and to have been seen by them, not in one but in many passages of the Scriptures, in which God is found both to have spoken with men and to have appeared to some. The Manichaeans therefore lie in wait and say that all these things are contrary to the New Testament, since the Lord says: 'No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father;'
'he has declared him to us'; and again, when he says to the Jews: 'You have neither ever heard his voice nor seen his face, nor do you have his word abiding in you, because you did not believe him whom he sent.' To these we answer that from this very thing which is written in the Gospel — 'No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has declared him to us' — the whole question can be resolved: because that same Son, who is the Word of God, not only in the latest times, when he deigned to appear in the flesh, but also earlier, from the foundation of the world, declared concerning the Father to whom he willed, whether by speaking or by appearing, whether through some angelic power or through any creature whatsoever:
because he himself is in all things the Truth, and all things hold together in him, and all things serve him at his beck and are subject to him, so that he may even appear to bodily eyes, through a visible creature, to whom he wills, when he deigns; while yet he himself, according to his divinity and according to that which is the Word of the Father, coeternal with the Father and unchangeable, through whom all things were made, is not seen except by a most purified and most simple heart. And therefore in certain passages Scripture itself testifies that an angel was seen, where it says that God was seen; as in that wrestling of Jacob, the one who appeared was called both God and an angel. And when he appeared in the bush to Moses, and likewise in the wilderness, when he had already led the people out of the land of Egypt, God spoke to him when he received the Law.
But whether in the bush, when he sent him, or afterward, when he gave him the Law, Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles says that an angel appeared to him. This we say lest anyone suppose that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, can as it were be confined within places and appear visibly to anyone except through some visible creature. For just as the Word of God is in the prophet, and it is rightly said 'the prophet said,' and rightly also 'the Lord said,' because the Word of God, which is Christ, speaks the truth in the prophet:
so also in the angel he himself speaks, when the angel announces the truth; and it is rightly said 'God said' and 'God appeared,' and likewise it is rightly said 'the angel said' and 'the angel appeared' — the former being said from the person of the indwelling God, the latter from the person of the serving creature. From this rule the Apostle too says: 'Do you wish to receive a proof of him who speaks in me, namely Christ?' But if this troubles anyone, that in the Old Testament God speaks even to sinners — whether to Adam or to Eve or to the serpent — let them also observe in the New what sort of example the Lord set concerning the foolish and greedy man, how the Lord spoke to him when he said: 'Fool, this night your soul will be taken from you; these things which you have prepared, whose will they be?'
For when the truth is spoken even to sinners, through whatever creature it may be spoken, it is spoken by none other than him who alone is truthful. But as for what he says to the Jews, 'You have never heard his voice,' he says this because they did not obey — those, at least, with whom he was speaking. To whom he also says, 'Nor have you seen his face,' because it cannot be seen. And as for what he says, 'Neither do you have his word abiding in you,' this is because Christ, in whom the Word of God abides, abides in him — and these men rejected Christ. For when the Lord himself had said, 'Father, glorify me with that glory which I had with you before the world was made,' a voice sounded from heaven: 'I have both glorified it and will glorify it.'
Many of the Jews who were present heard that voice, and yet they are not to be said to have heard, because they did not obey so as to believe. Wherefore, if it is not to be wondered at that the Word of God — that is, the only-begotten Son of God, who declares concerning the Father — to whom he wills declares through himself, to whom he wills through some creature, whether by sounding or by appearing, while yet he himself is seen through himself by a pure heart, and through him the Father — for 'blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God' — it is not to be wondered at that all these testimonies from both Testaments are in harmony. Concerning what is written, that God spoke to Moses and said to him: 'Speak to the sons of Israel: take firstfruits from every man, which you shall set apart for me, namely gold,
silver, bronze, purple, fine linen, scarlet, goats' hair, red rams' skins, whole timbers, oil for lighting, incense, precious stones — that is, beryls — and set up a tabernacle in which I may dwell among you.' Here too the Manichaeans stir up a question, and they say that this saying in the Gospel is contrary to this passage of the Scriptures, which the Lord says: 'You shall not swear either by heaven, because it is the throne of God, nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet.' For they argue, and think they are saying something great, when they say: How does that God, whose throne is heaven and whose footstool is the earth, dwell in a tabernacle
which was constructed out of gold or silver and bronze and purple and the hair and skins of cattle? They also bring in the Apostle Paul as a witness, because he says that God dwells in light inaccessible. To these we bring back a like question, and what they have brought forward from the New Testament, we bring forward from the Old. For there it is found written first: 'Heaven is my throne, the earth is the footstool of my feet: what house will you build for me, or what is the place of my rest? Has not my hand made all these things?' Behold, they have where the books of the Old Testament proclaim that God does not dwell in temples made by hands;
and yet the Son of our God, with a scourge made of cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling oxen and doves, and overturned the tables of the money-changers, and said: 'My Father's house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers.' If therefore anyone, with these two chapters likewise set in opposition, should wish to deceive the untaught and to say that in the Old Testament that God is magnified whose throne is said to be heaven and the earth the footstool of his feet, and who is denied to dwell in a house made by hands, while in the New Testament his house is said to be a temple built by men:
will not the Manichaeans, even if late, confess both that in both Testaments a dwelling-place of God made by the hands of men is understood as having some signification, and that in both Testaments it is proclaimed that God does not dwell in places built by men? Concerning what is written in Exodus: 'You shall not worship strange gods,' and again: 'Your God is called jealous; for being jealous he has been jealous.' When the Manichaeans slander this chapter which is written, 'You shall not worship strange gods,' they sufficiently show that it pleases them to worship many gods. Nor is it any wonder, since in their sect they recount and commend a most numerous family of gods; indeed they have even descended to those visible things which they venerate and worship in place of the very light of truth;
and therefore what is written in Exodus displeases them: 'You shall not worship strange gods.' They add also that this was said for this reason: 'Your God is called jealous; for being jealous he has been jealous,' so that we should not love as God one who is jealous, by whose jealousy we are not allowed to be jealous for strange gods. And therefore they say that these things are contrary to the Gospel, since the Lord says: 'Righteous Father, and the world has not known you' — as though a righteous God ought not to be called one, unless he permits us to worship strange gods. For they argue that a righteous God and a jealous God are, as it were, contrary to each other, and they deceive the wretched who do not understand that the whole hope of our salvation is the jealousy of God.
For by this name is signified that providence of his by which he permits no soul to commit fornication away from himself with impunity, as the prophet says: 'You will destroy all who commit fornication away from you.' For just as that which is called the wrath of God is not a disturbance of mind but a power of avenging, so the jealousy of God is not that torment of soul by which husbands are wont to be tortured against their wives, or wives against their husbands, but a most tranquil and pure justice, by which no soul is allowed to be blessed while corrupted and in a manner made pregnant by false opinions and depraved desires. For those men shudder at these words who have not yet seen that no words are fitting to the ineffable majesty of God. For thus they think one must refrain from these words, as though they were saying something worthy of God
when they do not utter these things. For the Holy Spirit, insinuating this very thing to men of understanding — how ineffable the highest divine things are — willed to use even these words which among men are wont to be reckoned as faults, so that from them they might be admonished that even those things which men think they say with some dignity befitting God are unworthy of his majesty, for which an honouring silence rather befits than any human utterance. I seek out the jealousy of man and I find a disturbance torturing the heart. Yet when I seek the cause, I find nothing else than that he does not endure his spouse's adultery. For especially and properly is jealousy wont to be spoken of among married couples.
Therefore, if a husband were in himself blessed and omnipotent and just, he would avenge his spouse's sin without any torment and with all ease and without any iniquity. And yet I would, according to the human manner of speaking, even if not properly, still by transference and rightly, call that action of his jealousy. For who slandered Tullius (Cicero), who certainly knew how to speak Latin, when he said to Caesar: 'Of your virtues none is more admirable nor more gracious than mercy'? And yet they say that mercy is so named because it makes the heart wretched at another's misery. Does virtue then make the heart wretched? What then would Tullius answer to the slanderers, except that by the name of mercy he wished to call clemency?
since we are rightly wont to speak using not only proper words but also neighbouring ones. I wished to make mention of this author, because the question is not about the matter but about the word. For just as our authors — those, that is, of the divine writings — thought chiefly about things, so almost all the care of worldly authors is about words. But I have the Gospel and all the books of the New Testament, in which the mercy of God is most frequently commended. If therefore these wretches dare, let them from that source too raise a question and deny that God is merciful, lest he be understood to have a wretched heart. As therefore there can be in God mercy without wretchedness of heart,
so also, without decay or torment of soul, let us not disdain to accept the jealousy of God, and let us bear with the condition of human speech, that we may arrive at the divine silence. But if they say that a jealous God and a just God are contraries, what will they say when even in the New Testament I find: 'I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God,' and a testimony applied from the Old in the Gospel: 'The zeal of your house has consumed me'? Again, when in the Old they read: 'The Lord is just and has loved acts of justice; his countenance has beheld equity,' will they not confess that even in this way the two Testaments may seem to the untaught to be contrary — that in the New we find the jealousy of God, and in the Old the justice of God?
But to those who understand well, both are found in both, harmonizing with the great unity and peace of the Holy Spirit. Concerning what is written, that blood must not be eaten, because the blood is the soul of the flesh. Against this sentence of the old Law the Manichaeans set from the Gospel that saying which the Lord speaks: that those are not to be feared who can kill the body but cannot harm the soul; and they argue, saying: If blood is the soul, how is it that men do not have power over it, since they do many things with blood — whether draining it off and setting it before dogs and birds as food, or pouring it out or mixing it with mire and mud? For these things and countless others men can do with blood without difficulty.
Therefore these men ask, insulting, how, if the soul is of blood, a man's slayer cannot harm the soul, since he has so great a power over its blood. They add also what the Apostle Paul says: 'Because flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God,' and they say: If blood is the soul, as Moses says, no soul will be found able to attain the kingdom of God. To this slander it must first be answered thus, that they themselves be compelled to show where it is written in the books of the old Law that the human soul is blood. For nowhere will they find this in that Scripture which the wretches, as long as they attempt to tear it to pieces, are in no way permitted to understand.
But if nothing of the sort is said there about the human soul, what does it matter to us if the soul of a beast either can be harmed by a slayer or cannot possess the kingdom of God? But because these men are exceedingly anxious about the souls of beasts — for since the souls of men are rational, they nonetheless think that these are rolled back into beasts — they suppose that the kingdoms of heaven are closed to them, if they should agree that they are closed to the souls of beasts. What of this? That Adimantus, one of the disciples of Mani — whom they record to have been a great teacher of that sect — even dared to insult the people of Israel. He dared therefore to insult the Jewish people, because according to their understanding, by which they suppose the blood to be the soul,
the souls of their own parents were partly devoured by serpents, partly consumed by fire, partly dried up in deserts and the most rugged places of the mountains. But if anyone should grant that this is true, he would still prove that it was done without any crime of those whom this man wished to insult. For they did not in any part harm the souls of their own parents, to whom he said all those things befell according to their understanding; wherefore they can have grief from it, but not guilt. But what will Adimantus himself do according to his own opinion, by which he believed that even rational souls — that is, the souls of men — can be thrust into the bodies of beasts? What then will he do about so great a crime,
if he ever wearied a slow beast of burden with blows or one urged on by the bridle, in which perhaps his father's soul was? — not to mention that he could even have killed his own parents among lice and fleas, from the killing of which these men do not abstain. For what does it profit them that they sometimes deny that human souls can be rolled back into those most minute creatures? For they deny this lest they be held guilty of so many killings, or be forced to spare fleas and lice and bugs and to endure such great annoyances from them without any license to slay them. For they are vehemently pressed as to why a human soul can be rolled back into a little fox and cannot into a weasel, since the cub of a fox is perhaps even smaller than a large weasel.
Then, if it can into a weasel, why not into a mouse? And if it can into that, why not into a gecko? And if it can into that, why not into a locust? Then into a bee, then into a fly, then into a bug, and thence even down to a flea, and to whatever else is much more minute? For they do not find where to set a limit, and so through this trifling cruelty their consciences are overwhelmed with countless crimes of homicide. Now from what is written, that the blood of a beast is its soul — besides what I said above, that it does not pertain to me what becomes of the soul of a beast — I can also interpret that precept as having been set down in a sign. For the Lord did not hesitate to say:
'This is my body,' when he was giving a sign of his body. But as for what the Apostle says, 'Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God,' it is also said in the Law: 'My spirit shall not remain in these, because they are flesh.' And so often in the ancient books a future reward is promised to the souls of the just. But nevertheless the Apostle, wishing to intimate what kind of body the just will have through the transformation in the resurrection — since they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be as the angels in heaven — wishing therefore to intimate this future transformation of the bodies of the saints, the Apostle said: 'For I say to you, brethren, that flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God.'
This can be found, not by one sentence taken separately and cited for the sake of fraud, but by the whole passage of the epistle being examined, or rather simply read — for the matter is not obscure. For he says thus: 'This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.' That he says this concerning the body is manifestly found from what precedes, when he says: 'Not all flesh is the same flesh: one indeed of men, another of beasts; one flesh of birds, another of fishes; and there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is one, and that of the earthly another; one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. For star differs from star in glory; so also is the resurrection of the dead.'
'The body is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown a natural body, it will rise a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual, as it is written: The first man Adam was made into a living soul, the last Adam into a life-giving spirit. But that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is natural, afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is of heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy, such also are the earthy; and as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of him who is of heaven.'
'But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God by inheritance, neither shall corruption possess incorruption by inheritance.' Certainly it is now clear why the Apostle said this. Why then does that man, with such base fraud, cite nothing but this last statement and keep silent about those preceding ones, by which this thing, which he ill interprets, could be well understood? For since the body of our Lord after the resurrection was so raised up into heaven that, for the sake of that heavenly habitation, it received a heavenly change — and we have been commanded to hope for this on the last day — therefore the Apostle said: 'As is the earthy, such also are the earthy,' that is, the mortal; 'and as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly.'
That is, immortal not only in soul but also in body. Hence he had also said above that the glory of heavenly bodies is one thing and that of earthly bodies another. But when he says that in the resurrection the body will be spiritual, it is not therefore to be supposed that it will not be a body but a spirit; rather, he calls it a spiritual body because it will be in every way subject to the spirit, without any corruption or death. For just as you call the body which we now have an animal body, that is no reason to suppose it is not a body but a soul. Therefore, as it is now called an animal body because it is subject to the soul, but cannot yet be called spiritual because it is not yet fully subject to the spirit, so long as it can still be corrupted:
so also then it will be called spiritual, when it can resist the spirit and eternity with no corruption. But if it still seems to have been too little shown that the Apostle spoke that sentence on account of the transformation which is to come, when he says: 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption inherit incorruption,' attend to what he immediately subjoins and adds: 'Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall indeed all rise again, yet we shall not all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed.' Then he weaves in and states also that which I mentioned a little before, so as to show
of what sort that very transformation will be. For at once he says: 'For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.' From this, then, it appears why flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God: because, when it shall have put on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood, but will be changed into a heavenly body. This indeed we have treated by way of the occasion, because those who deny the resurrection of bodies are wont to lie greatly in wait against this sentence too. For that question was proposed not concerning the body but concerning the soul, which they think is so understood in the Law that it is reckoned to be the blood—a thing which we in no way understand thus.
But although we are not concerned about the souls of beasts, with which we have no fellowship of reason, nevertheless as to that which the Law says—that blood is to be poured out and not taken as food, because the blood is the life (soul)—we say that this was set down as a sign, just as many other things, and indeed almost all the sacraments of those Scriptures, are full of signs and figures of the future proclamation which has now been made manifest through our Lord Jesus Christ. For the blood is the soul in the same manner as the rock was Christ, as the Apostle says: 'For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' Now it is well known that the children of Israel, when the rock was struck, drank water in the desert—of whom the Apostle was speaking when he said this. And yet he did not say:
'The rock signified Christ,' but he says: 'The rock was Christ.' And again, lest this be taken carnally, he calls that rock spiritual, that is, he teaches that it is to be understood spiritually. It would be long, and is not now necessary, to expound the sacraments of that same Law, except in so far as they can be briefly set forth. But it is enough that those who slander these things should know that we do not understand them in the way they are wont to mock, but as the Apostles, understanding all things, expounded a few, so as to leave the rest to be understood by posterity according to the same rules. Concerning that which is written in Deuteronomy: 'See that you do not forget the covenant of your God which he has written, and that you make for yourselves figures and images,' he further added, saying:
'Your God is a consuming fire and a jealous God.' These words that Adimantus proposed from the Scriptures in this manner; for we have undertaken to refute and confute his slanders. But even above, when he was slandering the jealousy of God, I think a sufficient answer has been given. Let us nevertheless remember that not only there, but also here, he thus charged the Scriptures concerning the jealousy of God, so as to add also that which, in those books, is commanded by the Lord our God about not worshipping graven images—as though he found fault with God's jealousy for no other reason than that by that very jealousy we are forbidden the worship of idols. He therefore wishes to appear to favour idols. And this they do for the purpose of winning even the goodwill of the pagans for their most wretched and insane sect.
Against this chapter of the Law they also set that passage where a certain man came to the Lord and said to him: 'Good Master, what shall I do to possess eternal life?' To whom Jesus answered: 'Why do you ask me about what is good? No one is good but God alone.' So that from this, forsooth, we might judge these to be contradictory: because in the Law it is said, 'God is a consuming fire,' and 'God is jealous,' but in the Gospel, 'No one is good but God alone.' And concerning jealousy indeed it has already been answered that these words are not so set down in the Scriptures as to signify any perturbation or torment of God, but because nothing worthy can be said of God, therefore recourse has been had even to such expressions—which, when men have judged them unworthy,