18. And now, if we institute a similar examination with regard to the Gospels, how shall it appear other­wise than absurd to take the injunction literally, “Sa­lute no man by the way?” And yet there are simple individuals, who think that our Saviour gave this com­mand to His apostles! How, also, can it appear possible for such an order as this to be observed, especially in those countries where there is a rigorous winter, attended by frost and ice, viz., that one should possess “neither two coats, nor shoes?” And this, that when one is smitten on the right cheek, he is ordered to present the left also, since everyone who strikes with the right hand smites the left cheek? This precept also in the Gospels must be accounted among impossibilities, viz., that if the right eye “of­fend” thee, it is to be plucked out; for even if we were to suppose that bodily eyes were spoken of, how shall it appear appropriate, that when both eyes have the property of sight, the responsibility of the “offence” should be transferred to one eye, and that the right one? Or who shall be considered free of a crime of the greatest enormity, that lays hands upon himself? But perhaps the Epistles of the Apostle Paul will appear to be beyond this. For what is his meaning, when he says, “Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised.” This expression indeed, in the first place, does not on careful consideration seem to be spoken with reference to the subject of which he was treating at the time, for this discourse consisted of injunctions relating to marriage and to chastity; and these words, therefore, will have the appearance an unnecessary addition to such a subject. In the second place, however, what objection would there be, if, for the sake of avoiding that unseemli­ness which is caused by circumcision, a man were able to become uncircumcised? And, in the third place, that is altogether impossible.