Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII

The Book of Questions [of Saint Augustine] of the Old and New Testaments, One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Questions I. WHAT IS GOD? God is that which no opinion touches. For He is more than anything that can be said or thought. But let us say something, which, although it is unequal, yet agrees in some measure with reason concerning those things which seem worthy of God. For each nature, according to its own capacity, forms an opinion about God, so that as nature differs from nature, so much does opinion differ from opinion as to what God is. Because He is above all things, it is necessary that He exceed the minds of all. For men, as far as they can extend the keenness of their mind, perceive what God is by opinion, not by definition; but angels, who are superior to men, because they perceive something more about God, there is no doubt; archangels, by that very fact, perceive more; but cherubim and seraphim, which are said to be powers near to God, perceive greater things about God, yet they do not fully comprehend what God is, because no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father.

Therefore God is, as it seems to men, a spirit of simple nature, inaccessible light, invisible, inestimable, infinite, perfect, lacking nothing, eternal, immortal in every way, from whom all things have received their beginning; venerable, lovable, fearsome, outside of whom nothing exists, but rather in whom are all things that are above, below, highest and lowest; omnipotent, all-holding, truly rich in all things, because there is nothing that is not His; good, just, merciful: good, because He caused to exist what did not exist; just, because what He made, that they might advance, were released to their own free will—since they are not so perfect that they cannot fall, He decreed that seeds of law should be inherent in them, naturally adding the aid of revealed law, so that its authority might be for the benefit of men—; merciful, indeed, because He does not readily punish those who sin, but waits so that He may forgive those who turn back. He is also severe, so that by terror what was well established by Him may be preserved, lest negligence produce a precipice of life, and, lest I pass over what is more remarkable, so great is His clemency that, having suffered insults from those whom He made, He endures and calls them first to peace. Is this not a mark of greater virtue than having created the creature? In which, if He persisted, His excessive goodness would harm the creature. Hence He wishes to be loved at times, at times feared, lest those straying from Him perish utterly.

Hence it is that, lest His patience be thought to be to His own detriment, but rather entirely to be disregarded to ours, He says: "I have kept silent; shall I always be silent?" Therefore, God is good; all things He made are good. Whence, then, does evil come? Nothing is evil except the transgression of good, when things not granted are presumed or granted things are done in a disordered manner, so that what is commanded in one place is done in another: when what is permitted in a wife is done with a prostitute; and what was to be offered to God is offered to the devil; and when one takes not his own but another's; and when it is lawful to kill a transgressor, an innocent person is killed. No nature, therefore, is proven to be evil. But will is an accident of nature, conceived from causes, which is moved badly when it exceeds the measure, so that it does those things which are not of its nature. The causes of transgression arise from the senses, when we see or hear something badly. This error is caused by the fact that man is not God, who alone cannot err.

Human nature, therefore, is released to its own judgment, so that it can do what it wishes, so that if the exercise of its nature improves the good, it is a matter of honor, but if it weakens its own strength, a person of this sort is considered worthy of disgrace. For he does what is against himself. It is no small thing that has been granted to man, so that when he follows what is right, he rejoices in himself through the fact that he sees himself improved by his own work, or certainly blames himself, since he could have, but did not apply himself to improve himself with good things. But if man were not of his own power, he would have been subject to necessity, so that he would have neither the glory of good work nor the penalty of evil, but would have been one of the cattle. Since, therefore, we have been made capable of both, so that through negligence we may transgress, if we hear and see what we ought to hear and see well, badly, that is, contrary to nature and reason, but through vigilance we preserve the good of nature, and we cannot always be cautious, because, as I have said, we have been made capable of both, if we sin, we are not yet condemned, unless we transgress again, then as if we were destroyers. For he who has sinned once ought to repair himself so that he does not sin again, lest he be equal to him who had overcome him, so that if he does not sin again, he is considered superior, because having been cast down once, he has triumphed twice. This is justice, that, because there is a struggle in the world, he who is more inclined not to sin is crowned.

Nothing, therefore, is evil in the work of God, and if certain things are called evil by some, such as poison, such as darkness—for because our bodies cannot bear the force of poison, it is called evil, just as they bear fire or water—and iron or lead. Because it is far removed from gold, it will be called evil. For they condemn darkness in comparison to light, although they know it is necessary in its own place, just as lead or earthenware. For it certainly gives rest after labor. Therefore, everyone who struggles in the world ought to strive in such a way that he does not depart defeated in a harsh matter and become guilty, recovering with difficulty or slowly, and perhaps death may come in the midst of these things, and he may depart from here with sin. For he who resists with all his strength, if he happens to be thrown down, falls like a man, and no one is angry with him, but with a certain encouragement restores his spirit. For he saw that he had the intention of conquering, and he hopes that such a one, whom his enemy threw down not without his own exhaustion, can advance to victory. For he who is easily conquered does not have the spirit of resistance and is not conquered, but consents. This one sins more harshly; such a one is scarcely to be admitted to pardon, who has a desire to sin. For he who meditates on not sinning, even if he has sinned, does not sin harshly. For to those who are diligent, lesser sins sometimes creep in. For the smaller they are, the more subtle they are, and while they are despised, they are not avoided. For greater sins appear from afar, and on this account, he who sins in greater matters, the crime is of his will.

Rightly, since we said above that sins take their origin from the senses, when, contrary to the command of the law or reason, we look at or hear something—that is, if, seeing the sun, we think it should be worshipped because of its beauty, then we see badly, because it pertains to the injury of the common creator that what is owed to him alone is attributed to a creature, especially since it has been forbidden by law. Or when we see well-formed and beautiful bodies, or if we covet something of our neighbor's, and we look at them otherwise than the law commands, then a sin occurs which is called evil. But perhaps it will be said: 'Nothing beautiful should have been made, lest we sin,' so that our safety would depend on the ugliness of others; nor should iron exist, lest homicides be committed with it; nor should a lamp be in use, lest thieves use its light for breaking in; so that what is greatly useful to all would be absent because of the idle talk of some, although it is established that we always look at everything and yet do not always covet, because it is not their fault, but ours when we are negligent. This is evident from the fact that it is created at intervals, because we are not what God is. But we hear badly if, hearing that idols are gods, we consent, or if we lend an ear to those singing shameful things. But we hear well if, hearing about God, that he is one, we are delighted. If anyone, hearing something contrary to the law, gives assent, he sins: this will be hearing badly.

II. WHY GOD MADE THE WORLD. He made it because He is a craftsman; or let it be denied, if He is not. But the works themselves manifest that He is. He made it, therefore, so that there would be something that did not exist before, because without doubt it is better to be than not to be. But it is said: "Was there something empty where He could make it, or what was there before where He made it?" The vessel of election settles this in few words. For he says, when the discourse was about God: "In Him we live and move and have our being," that is, all things are in God, because He is everywhere and alone before all things, eternal, invisible to every creature. And lest we seem to have omitted the mystery, or rather to have been ignorant of why the world was made, we say that the apostasy of the devil drew many angels, that is, spiritual powers, with him into transgression, while he wishes to claim a kingdom for himself by impious presumption. The prophet Isaiah signifies this, saying: "How did Lucifer, who rose in the morning, fall from heaven?" that is, 'who appeared brighter than the rest.' For he was like a prince over many, among whom he was more brilliant, and by whose company he descended into impious combat. For seeing many spiritual powers beneath him, since in the paradise of God he was more eminent in knowledge of the heavenly mystery, he was inflated by that very elation and wished to be called God, by this reasoning, namely, that we also see in the present life some imitators of his example, who, by contemplation of the soldiers gathered around them, puffed up by their retinue, who provide fuel for conspiracy in this matter, have wished to claim dominion for themselves.

This, then, is why God created matter, which was a confusion of things, from which He would make the world, so that He might destroy the presumption of the devil not by power but by reason. For the distinct things, which had been confused together, produced this ornament which we see. For when the substances were separated from one another and a joining was made, it is called "world," because each thing, separated from another, appeared to the world, so that man, placed here, created from the higher and the lower, that is, from the celestial and the earthly, might show the one God as Lord not only by voice but also by image, in which he was made one by the one God, from whom the rest would arise. For this reason He made one from one, so that He might teach that all things are from one and, through this, that God is one, so that the superior creature might learn, to its own confusion, the truth in man, who was established from the earth. From this, the devil became an enemy of man; for he saw that man was made for his accusation. Hence, by his own subtlety, he brought it about that he led him into the same transgression into which he himself had fallen, so that he might make his accuser a sharer in his own damnation. For through transgression, he promised him divinity, to which he himself, while aspiring to it, was cast down. And because every nature is free from crime, names are from accidents—for the thing comes first, then the signification—and through this, "Satan" and "devil" are names composed from his action, so that they signify not his nature, but his will.

Therefore, so that God’s plan, which He had decreed in the matter of the creation of man, might remain, and the deed of the devil, by which he ensnared man, might contribute to the increase of his guilt, Christ deigned to come from the sacred abodes to the earth, both to free man from the sentence of transgression and to show the future perdition of the devil, lest anyone imitate his deed. For this reason the apostle John said: the Son of God came to undo the works of the devil. If he were evil by nature, to promise him punishment would be either the act of a madman or of an unjust person. For why would one reproach him whom he sees doing nothing otherwise than what his nature permits? If one can be angry with fire because it burns, or with water because it cools, when it does this not by will, but by nature? Hence also the devil, if he were evil by nature, would not have will. For he would not be able to discern, but would plunge himself into everything in one and the same way, as if blind.

Moreover, he does this by a kind of judgment; for he spares those who do his will, he feigns ignorance of some neutrals, he places obstacles and impediments before those who wish to flee to God’s help, he lays snares for the servants of God, and he is more hostile to those who are more zealous in his service. Hence it is clear that his will is in crime. For this reason the apostle Peter says: “Be sober and watchful, because your adversary the devil prowls like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” He does not seek Gentiles, he does not seek Jews, he does not seek those of evil life and conduct, but he seeks the servants of God and of Christ, whom he knows to be his enemies, because they condemn his deed and presumption. Finally, after the law was given, his envy burned more fiercely against those who were under the law, knowing that the teachings of the law hand down one God and good conduct to men. Therefore, if he is thought to do this naturally, he cannot be held guilty, because he does what is of his nature and what he can, and he does not do what he cannot, because it is not of his nature. Thus he is neither to be praised nor condemned. He is not to be praised, because what he does is harmful; but he is not to be condemned, because he does this not by will but by the impulse of nature.

For we know that some people suddenly made insane have harmed many with iron, clubs, stones, and bites, and have even killed some; but when they are captured by effort and brought to trial, they are not held guilty, because they did these things not by will but driven by some unknown force, not knowing what they did. For how can someone be held guilty who does not know what he did? So too, if the devil does not know the good, why is he judged worthy of condemnation, since he does not do what he does not know? On the contrary, if it were possible, he would deserve praise, because he does what he knows. We, however, are rightly held guilty, because we do something other than what we know we ought to do. But since we see the devil held guilty throughout all scripture, and we read that hell is prepared for him, we know that he is to be condemned by the laws, because, although he knew and was able to do good, he did evil. For God, who is just, would not condemn him because he had not done the good which he did not know, or because he had done the evil which he knew. Therefore, I think it has been made clear that no nature should be called evil, because all evil, as has become evident, arises from will, which occurs to nature through the senses.

III. WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR MOSES, AND NOT BEFORE HIM, TO SET FORTH THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION? It ought not to have been described earlier, because as yet there was not so great an error among men on this account. But when error grew among the human race, so that even the children of Israel in Egypt heard from the philosophers of the Egyptians—by whom also Moses had been instructed in all Egyptian learning—that a certain Saclas asserted that this world was founded by evil angels, and that this one also seemed to be the prince of the world, that is, Satan—which opinion Marcion followed and rushed into death. For the Manichaeans also say that man was made by the same Saclas, not this world, being more foolish than the rest; for since it is established that the world was made for the sake of man, they say that the world was made by God, albeit from another's material, but that man was created by the adversary, so that in another's house another placed a master—, therefore it was necessary for Moses, in order to expose and remove this error, to reveal that God is the author of the world and of man made. For having received authority through the signs and wonders which he performed, he taught without doubt that what he handed down with signs as witnesses was true. For who would not believe him, in whose deeds such great signs existed? Finally, this is why those who think contrary to this discipline are known to err, because they try to allege their assertions with bare words.

Therefore, to teach that nothing is coeternal with God, he sets forth the very order of created things, so that while he records that the lesser were made first, but afterwards the greater, none of these is to be considered uncreated, because those which are lesser in time are greater in power, so that if they [the lesser] should presume to claim priority in time, they are refuted by the very weakness by which they are subject to later things, or if these [the greater] should claim primacy for themselves by presuming on their power, they are humbled by their posteriority, so that none of these appears not subject to a beginning. First, indeed, heaven and earth were made; then light, which in its function is day; afterwards the firmament, which was called heaven, and the gatherings of waters which he called seas, so that the earth might appear in which it could be inhabited. But the earth which he says was made after heaven, he does not intend to be understood as earth alone, but he signified matter, that is, all the lower things, which advanced into every form of the world. But he contends that heaven—not this corporeal heaven, but that higher one, which is spiritual—was made in the beginning, so that when he says heaven was made first, then earth, he would signify that in heaven all invisible things and in earth all visible things were created by God. For he comprehends the highest and lowest of all nature, so that whatever is in between is undoubtedly believed to have been made. But the luminaries, which he instituted for governing the world, he asserts were made on the fourth day, so that however great they are in power, they are so much inferior in time. But he established man on the sixth day, so that he might bring the inhabitant into the house that had been made.

This is the reason why it was said, which displeases some: "And God saw the light, that it was good." For because all things were said to be made by evil and could not be believed to be good, Moses, in order to prove that the things which were made are good, showed that what he made was pleasing to God himself, so that he would hold anyone to whom they were displeasing guilty. For how could he who said, "Let there be light, and light was made," be ignorant of light? Does anyone make what he does not know? But the light, once made, pleased him who made it. What craftsman does not rejoice in his own work? If it was said, "God saw the light, that it was good," and there are those who say, "It is evil," what if it had been left without testimony? Therefore, after describing the construction of the world and the origin of the first man, he held to the line of the race of Seth, who was given in place of Abel, and came in order to Abraham, the father of the Jews, to show that Abraham believed in this God, who is the maker of the world, and that he himself gave the law, in which the future Christ was promised, who would free the human race from the dominion of the devil. From these things our faith is proved reasonable; for the described origin gives testimony to this, because the race of Christians is from the beginning. For from Seth, the son of Adam, one comes to Enoch, from Enoch to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham one descends to David, from David, through Mary, Christ is born from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all those before who had faith in the one God, which the Savior preached, are rightly called Christians; for from the beginning the Savior was promised to come.

Hence in the Apocalypse it says: "the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world." Thus Christianity has always existed. For all those whom I have mentioned above, from the first man created in the world, through whom the line is drawn to the Savior, had faith in this God, of whom Christ spoke, saying: "This, however, is eternal life, that they may know you alone and the true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent." It may be objected: "If Christianity existed before, what knowledge did Christ bring?" This advancement of understanding the coming of Christ conferred, because it revealed the mystery of the one God who was preached and demonstrated what pertains to which person, and added to the fulfillment of the justice of the law what had been reserved. IV. WHY WAS THE LAW NOT GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING? First, the law formed in letters ought not to have been given, because it is in a certain way implanted in nature itself, and knowledge of the creator from the lineage was not hidden. For who does not know what befits a good life, or is ignorant that what one does not wish done to oneself should least of all be done to another? But when natural law faded, oppressed by the habit of sinning, then it was necessary for it to be made manifest, so that all might hear through the Jews, not because it had been completely obliterated, but because they lacked its greatest authority: they were devoted to idolatry; fear of God was not on earth; fornication was practiced; they were greedy for their neighbor's property through lust. Therefore the law was given, so that what was known might have authority and what had begun to lie hidden might be made manifest.

For we find that before Moses, sins were not only not hidden, but were also avenged. For this reason, many are found to have been righteous; for, knowing that God was an avenger, they feared to sin. When this began to be neglected, it was necessary for the natural law to be revealed, so that all might know by clear reasoning that the Lord would examine human actions. Although it is recorded that vengeance was taken through the flood and upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the forgetfulness of antiquity had covered these things over; hence they were recalled through Moses for the sake of terror, to correct discipline and to restore faith in God. For this reason the Apostle says: "The law was not given to the just, but to the unjust," to idolaters, fornicators, and the like. Now let us see whether it is fitting for those who, hearing of God's judgment, laugh at the future—whether it will benefit or harm, whether it is fortified by truth or lacks reason. The law was indeed given to the world, but we see that it is inoperative in many cases; therefore it does not seem just. Why are those who sin here secure through power, while others mock the laws, the poor are oppressed, accusations are fabricated against the just, those who do good are held in reproach, the pious are in need, the wicked flourish, the iniquitous and corrupt are held in honor, the avaricious and plunderers grow rich, and the judge is venal?

Does it not seem unjust if the founder of things does not require these things, so that those who were unjustly oppressed here are relieved, and those who lived well but were in need are rewarded, and those who were held in disgrace because of justice are honored; but those who, through power, despised the laws or, through chicanery, mocked them, pursuing iniquity, and were so glorious in these things that they seemed to insult justice itself, are subjected, humiliated and confounded, to torments in the sight of those in whose evils and contempt they rejoiced, so that they themselves, joyful at the punishment of those, may give thanks to God, with whom alone the acceptance of persons ceases? V. WHY WAS ABEL'S SACRIFICE ACCEPTED AND CAIN'S REJECTED? From the words of this reading itself it can be gathered, because it is not a history veiled by the art of letters. For the speech of scripture indicates Abel as prudent and devout in that very thing, but Cain as negligent and improvident and, because of this, less devout. Abel therefore chose the better of the acceptable things, which he would offer to God the creator, so that he might offer to him the foremost of those things which he had created, thereby proving both his own dedication and his merit, and showing both his own reverence and God as the author. This Cain, like a rustic, was unable to foresee. For, fixing his whole mind on the earth, he could not lift the eyes of his mind to heaven, to see what was worthy for the creator; for he offered whatever gifts to God.

This cause is also detected in the Jews of perverse mind. For they were often rebuked, when they offered their gifts unadvisedly at God's altar, gifts which would not even seem worthy to men, with the Lord saying: "You offer blind and one-eyed animals to me; I will not accept these from your hands." You offer them to your governor or your leader; if he accepts them, when it is established among all that the most excellent gifts ought to be offered to a person of high rank. And therefore Cain's gifts were rejected, with God saying to him: "Why are you sad, and why has your face fallen? Have you not sinned, if you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly? Be still. Its return is with you, and you will be its master." You see, therefore, that division incurs sin. While he did not consider what was worthy of God, he reserved the better things for his own use. And so he was not rebuked because he offered, but because he offered unworthy things; nor was he condemned on that account, but was warned to correct the deed. "For to you," it says, "its return is with you, and you will be its master," that is, 'since I do not accept it, the gift offered by you has reverted to your own dominion,' so that he might know for the future what he should do. From this, envy blazed up so that he killed his brother, so that he who had first shown justice might be killed by an unjust man, and an evil example might be given to men. For he was so blinded by the rivalry of zeal that he not only gave no thanks—because he had not been made guilty, but had also learned how to correct this—but also added another, more serious offense, through which he deserved to be condemned.

Such is the case of the imprudent and fratricidal Cain, as also of that worthless slave who, when it was unknown to his master, became ungrateful and, going out, strangled his fellow slave, so that he might be condemned without excuse both for the crime previously unknown to him and for the impiety committed against his fellow slave. And yet Cain was not condemned at once, but was sent away in confusion and under threat, guilty, upon the earth, so that, if he repented, he might be forgiven. Finally, fearing that someone might kill him for this deed, he said to God: "My case is greater: that I be left behind. If you cast me out today from your face, I will hide myself from the face of the earth and will be groaning and trembling upon the earth. And it will be that everyone who finds me will kill me." Terrified by the words of the just judge God, Cain fears being despised by God, so much so that he thinks he ought to flee even from the sight of men, certain that he who lives with God angry can also be killed by a man. But what did the Lord answer him? "Not so," he said, "this is (that is, I have sent you back for this, although you do not deserve to live, so that you may be killed by someone, but so that you may groan and tremble, as one who first gave a bad example upon the earth, while the fruit of your labors did not respond from the ground). Therefore, everyone who kills Cain," he said, "will pay seven penalties." This sentence shows that Cain was to be condemned by law. For when he saw the law given under such a threat, that no one should imitate his deed, he began to fear more, knowing what evil he had committed.

Therefore, He promises sevenfold vengeance if anyone should aspire to this crime, so that, seeing Cain made guilty by this deed, and when the revelation of the law was not yet given, he would know that he would be punished with a sevenfold penalty if he did not avoid this, so that the knowledge of the law would add six stripes beyond what Cain had merited, so that with Cain's stripe, seven vengeances would be counted. By this same number are those to be rewarded who, having abandoned everything, follow the Lord and in the future will have eternal life. This is the sign that God placed on Cain, so that no one who found him would kill him. For in the case of a parricide, a law was established, so that if anyone committed homicide—since every parricide is homicide—he would be seven times as guilty as Cain was, so that by this severity the rest, terrified, would refrain from this crime. VI. DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS IS THOUGHT? Those who think that Lamech said of Cain, "I have killed a man for a bruise to me and a young man for a wound to me," are mistaken in this. For Lamech was already born in the fifth generation from Cain, that is, from Methuselah, the great-grandson of Cain. Lamech mentions this, however, in order to show that one who has sinned under a manifest law should be bound more strictly. And on this account, if after Cain sevenfold vengeance was exacted upon his imitator, how much more vengeance is to be exacted upon him whom neither the deed of Cain and the reproof, nor the sentence passed after him, terrified into turning his will away from such an impious and cruel crime!

After Cain, therefore, Lamech committed homicide, who without doubt, according to what was said above, paid the sevenfold vengeance. And what would happen to the one who followed this after Lamech, he shows, saying: "But concerning Lamech, seventy times seven, because evil work is not followed by repentance, let him be struck with seventy-seven blows." Whence also the Savior commanded that even for one sinning seventy times seven, yet if converted, it be forgiven. But let it not be thought that another committed homicide after Cain before Lamech, because it was said: "It was avenged concerning Cain," as if already done. But how would Lamech say concerning himself that it was avenged in him, when the homicide was still recent, which he had confessed to have committed, since it is established that every deed carries its sentence with it? For when there is no other hope, except that which is known to be worthy of the completed work, the future is considered as done. Finally, it was said to Adam: "On the day you eat, you will die by death," and certainly they did not die immediately, but after a long interval of time; but because the hope of immortality was already lost, the future death was called present, because it began to be held in hope. Therefore, Lamech confesses that he killed a young man and Cain, as is clear, could not have reached this time, or if he did, which is impossible, he was older.

VII. The Ten Words Given on the Tablets: How Many Words Did Each Tablet Contain? He called the ten sentences "ten words" because the Savior also signified a thought by the word "word," saying among other things to the Jews: "I ask you also one word; answer me: John's baptism, whence was it, from heaven or from men?" This thought he called a "word." In like manner, on the two tablets ten words are said to be written, which are ten thoughts. Finally, he says: "You shall have no other gods besides me"—this is the first word—and he added: "You shall not make for yourself any likeness, of those which are in heaven above and on earth below, nor in the water which is under the earth." Then he added thirdly: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not cleanse one who takes his name in vain," that is, you shall not assume the name of the Lord your God in a lie, so that you perish through it. Then fourthly he says: "You shall keep the sabbaths of the Lord your God and shall do no servile work on it." These are four words of the ten; these pertain properly to the Lord; these are written on the first tablet.

Then on the second tablet these are contained: the first word is: honor your father and mother; the second: you shall not kill; the third: you shall not commit fornication; the fourth: you shall not steal; the fifth: you shall not bear false witness; the sixth: you shall not covet anything of your neighbor, and such things. That these are written on the second tablet the apostle Paul proves, saying: honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment in the promise. How would it be first, unless on the second tablet it had begun from that? He said "in the promise" moreover because he immediately added: so that you may be long-lived upon the earth and it may be well with you. This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. Thus you have both the commandments distinguished and their number completed and which and how many are written on each tablet. VIII. WHY DID MOSES, DESCENDING FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLETS, HAVE A SPLENDID AND UNBEARABLE COUNTENANCE? Having received authority over sinners, he descended from the mountain with honor and a glorious face. For the law was given against sinners. Moses, therefore, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious to such an extent that he could not be seen by sinners. For it was shown in him that sinners do not deserve to behold the glory of God. After the image of the molten calf and the breaking of the tablets on which the law had been given, Moses again ascended the mountain with the tablets, on which, having received the law, he descended.

His face became glorious, so that the sons of Israel could not look upon his countenance, nor could Aaron, because he too had sinned; but he spoke to them through an interposed veil, so that they would be unworthy of the glory of God for as long as they remained entangled in sins. Whence the apostle says: when he has turned to the Lord, the veil will be removed, so that, washed by the gift of God, they might become worthy to behold the glory of God. For in the breaking of the tablets, which he had received before, he signified the reprobate people of the Jews, because, devoted to sins, they would be unworthy of God's promise. But that the law was reiterated signified that a different people would come, for whom the law given on the mountain would be beneficial. IX. IF GOD MADE ALL THINGS GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DOES HE SAY TO NOAH: 'BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK FROM THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN,' WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT THE UNCLEAN CANNOT BE CALLED GOOD? Because words have manifold meanings, they create questions. For if they are referred to the matter at hand, there will be no question, because the things themselves reveal themselves in order. For sometimes we call 'common' what is undivided, sometimes what is unclean; for 'common' is used in two ways. Finally, the apostle Peter says: 'Common and unclean never entered my mouth,' and the apostle Paul says: 'Everything that is not from faith is sin,' and elsewhere: 'The law,' he says, 'is not from faith, and yet it is not sin.' You see, therefore, that one and the same word does not always signify the same thing.

Therefore, when something is called "unclean," it must be considered for what reason it is so called, because sometimes it is called unclean in comparison to better things, sometimes it refers to foul deeds, so that it is understood as evil. No substance, then, is evil, because things that are considered unclean by their substance are unclean only in comparison to the most beautiful things. For bread is called unclean, and oil and lead are unclean in comparison to gold, and the raven in comparison to the peacock; and, although they are members of one body, some are called honorable, others dishonorable, though it is known that they are not evil. Thus all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful. X. WHEN GOD SAYS TO ABRAHAM CONCERNING THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT THEY WOULD DEPART FROM THE POWER OF THE EGYPTIANS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY IS IT THAT ON THE CONTRARY THE LAW SAYS: "THE SONS OF ISRAEL DEPARTED FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT IN THE FIFTH GENERATION"? IT SEEMS QUITE CONTRARY. As far as the words are concerned, it seems to be contrary; but if the meaning is sought, it will be found not to be dissimilar. For the law speaks in such a way that it can be understood by the diligent and careful, so that the truth of the matter reveals itself not to the careless, but to the attentive. For indeed God said: the fourth generation, and Moses wrote: the fifth generation, although Moses reported both and it is impossible for him to deceive, in whom such great power was at work. And through this the meaning must be investigated, because divine scripture does not speak anything idly or carelessly. Thus there are two parts, which each of them recorded.

For God signified four generations, which were born in Egypt; but Moses, adding one to these, from which these took their origin, when they had entered into Egypt, says: "In the fifth generation the children of Israel went out." For he included together the generation which entered into Egypt and the four which were born there. For from Abraham up to the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, there are eight generations. For two hundred and fifteen years they dwelt in Canaan after the promise made to Abraham, and two hundred and fifteen years in Egypt. These are the years which the Apostle comprehends when he says to the Galatians: "After four hundred and thirty years the law was given." Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan, that is, one in Isaac, a second in Jacob, a third in Levi, a fourth in Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. But when the children of Israel had entered into Egypt, Kohath begot Amram—this is the first generation made in Egypt; Amram begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation made in Egypt; and Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation; Eleazar begot Phinehas in the fourth generation. These are the four generations procreated in Egypt. Whence God says to Abraham: "Your seed will be a sojourner, and they will oppress them with servitude; but I will free them; in the fourth generation they will go out from there." See if it is not clear, that God signified nothing other than what was done in Egypt.

But Moses, in order to include also that generation which entered Egypt with his father Jacob, from which these four take their origin, said: "In the fifth generation the children of Israel went out from the land of Egypt." XI. IF THE WILL OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY IS IT THAT ISAAC DID NOT BLESS ESAU, WHOM HE WISHED, BUT JACOB, WHOM HE DID NOT WISH? The will of a righteous man, as far as his own conscience is concerned, is good; but as far as foreknowledge is concerned, it is immune from adversities. For God alone is the one who judges concerning future things. And through this, the righteous Isaac, as far as present human nature is concerned, thought that his elder son was more worthy of being blessed. But God, who is the knower of hidden things, showed that the younger son merited the blessing, so that it might be shown that the benefit in the blessing is not of man, but is of God, and that the dignity of the office, not the merit of the man, is what the blessing of God follows. Finally, it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests: "But you place my name upon the children of Israel; I, the Lord, will bless them," so that the tradition of grace, through the ministry of the ordained, might transfer it to men, and the will of the priest can neither hinder nor help, but the merit of the one seeking the blessing does.

But how great the dignity of the priestly order is, let us note from this. It was said, moreover, about the most wicked Caiaphas, the slayer of the Savior, among other things: "This, however, he did not say of his own accord, but because he was high priest of that year, he prophesied." By this it is shown that the spirit of graces does not follow the person, whether worthy or unworthy, but the ordination of tradition, so that even if someone is of good merit, he cannot bless unless he has been ordained, to perform the office of ministry. It is God's, however, to grant the effect of the blessing. XII. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE CIRCUMCISION AS THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH? If you are willing to pay attention, you will see that what you think is inconsistent with reason is not incongruous. For believing that he would have a son, in whom all nations would be blessed and from whom sanctity was to arise, he received the sign in that part through which the generation of sons occurs and ceases, so that it might be more holy. But if it seems a disfigurement to some, let them note that Abraham rejoiced in it and that his sons were glorious through this testimony. For Achior, indeed, one of the princes of the Gentiles, seeing such great virtue in the God of Abraham that Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army, whose power the whole earth trembled at, was beheaded by his own sword at the hand of a woman, circumcised himself voluntarily, thinking that he had thereby gained dignity for himself. Does it not speak well of a man if he has lost an eye or some limb for the sake of Christ's name?

Does it not thrust that very part before human eyes, so that he might appear glorious? For to lose something for a time for the sake of faith is to make a profit. Thus also Abraham, receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured but improved. Spiritually, however, this signified that the cloud of the flesh was to be cut away from the hearts of men through faith in Christ, because carnal error stood in the way, casting a fog over human hearts, so that they would not recognize the Creator. Abraham, moreover, because from his seed Christ was promised to come, who would wipe away this fog, was therefore circumcised, because he believed he would have a son who would cut away this error. Now see if that sign in that part was not fittingly received. XIII. IF THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IS JUST, WHY WERE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS? So that the excessively impious crime of the Sodomites might be recognized, their sin reached even to the slaughter of their own children, lest any sign of their origin remain. Was it not provided for in them, that they should not, living long, follow the examples of their fathers? For they are free from hell, having been killed in another's cause. For the parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, because, in order that the works of those parents might be obliterated, their entire offspring was wiped out. For if children are gladdened by the good deeds of their parents and are commended by their prerogative, so also concerning death, which is inflicted for the parents' evils, they cannot complain, so that, just as they are participants in profit, so they are also in loss.

Similarly in Egypt, the sons were punished for the crimes of their fathers, but so that it might serve for their correction, because they refused from other causes to believe in and venerate the Lord, who was in Moses, terrified by this plague they would confess with satisfaction, lest they feel him more grievously angered. Therefore, this death of the sons is the crime of the fathers. For in whatever way the sons rendered up their due spirit, they would be future accusers of their parents, because they could not overcome their own faithlessness even by the blood of their sons. Thus, the evils of the parents found out the sons not for the future, but for the present time. And is it not some kind of benefit to be not glorious, yet not guilty? For if some, with prayers, strive when placed in their last moments to approach the true faith, so that, if not a crown, they may at least merit pardon, how can some here complain, with whom it has been so dealt that there was neither anything from which they could beg pardon for themselves, nor were those who had labored least held in high esteem? Compare now a single moment's torment to a punishment of long duration; consider also that many labor and, because they cannot persevere, not only lose the effect of their labor but are also punished; add also that it is difficult for those born from evil and raised or living among the most wicked to temper their mind to follow the discipline of God: see, therefore, if it was not more well done with the sons of the lost.

XIIII. Why is it that God, who is proclaimed just, promised to repay the sins of fathers to their sons in the third and fourth generation? Anyone who doubts that the Lord does or says nothing unjust is insane. Therefore, if the words of the Lord are not suppressed, but everything pertaining to the same question is set forth, what seems obscure will shine forth, and what is thought to be utterly unjust will be judged pious. For whoever suppresses the words of a question is either inexperienced or a tergiversator, who is more devoted to calumny than to teaching. Moreover, God indeed promised to repay the sins of fathers to their sons, but to those who hate him, that is, those who, persisting in their fathers' evils, serve idols, just as their fathers did. For such a one is an enemy of God, who claims the honor of his name for a creature. For just as the sons of the just, themselves also just, ennoble the race of justice in themselves, being exalted by both their fathers' and their own justice, so also the sons of the most wicked, themselves also most wicked, increase malice, because they are both sons of evil men and have emulated their wickedness to the destruction of many.

Therefore, God seems to have spoken with terror, but it is true, and this has reason. For who does not abhor the son of an evil and wicked man with a twofold kind of loathing, just as the son of a good and upright man is deemed worthy of honor with a twofold merit? Moreover, He promised to exact punishment in the third and fourth generation, so that if after a wicked father the son does not follow the father’s treachery, but the grandson, being an imitator of the grandfather in evil deeds, knows that he will not be immune from the severity of the sentence; or if the grandson, perhaps not following the grandfather’s but the father’s footsteps, loves God’s covenant, the great-grandson should not be unaware that the sentence reaches even to him, if he is an emulator of the great-grandfather’s treachery. By this manifestation of the law, God wished to deter impious fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry would produce, they might be recalled to reverence for the Creator either by affection for their sons, or so that sons, fearing lest they incur the sins of their fathers, might obey God’s law.

But they, attending to wickedness, began to interpret this differently, saying: "The fathers ate sour grapes, and the teeth of the sons were set on edge," so that, secure in impunity because the sins were being repaid to their sons, they nevertheless had piety neither of spirit nor of flesh. Hence it is said to them: "Not 'the son will die for the father' nor 'the father for the son,' but: the soul that sins, that one will die." And they were to learn that it would not be without consequence for them, but that the sins of the fathers are repaid to the sons in such a way that, because they followed the impiety of their parents, they made manifest evils that ought to have been obliterated, and are punished more harshly. After God showed what evil idolatry produces, he immediately added what good follows those who love him, saying: "And doing mercy for thousands upon thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments," so that the good of the father is repaid not only to the great-grandson, but for thousands upon thousands. For example, if someone from the seed of David loves the Lord—who, it is established, lived more than a thousand years ago—mercy is added to him from God, so that in need, with two supporting causes, he may deserve to receive mercy: because he himself is a worshiper of God and because he is from the seed of one who loved God. And in this, the mercy of God is praiseworthy, so that he repays those who hate him up to the third and fourth generation, but not for thousands upon thousands; so that if evil is drawn out to the fifth generation, it begins again from there to have a head, and from that point is counted up to the third and fourth generation.

But someone will say: 'It seems more just to render more to the author than to the imitator.' A fitting punishment is given to the author; to the sons, however, what is said to be rendered more is the penalty of the fathers. And if you inquire, by the approach of the law sinners become more guilty, as also Lamech and after Lamech. To some, nevertheless, it seems that the sins of the fathers were thus repaid to the sons, when they were led into captivity because of the fathers and were there up to the fourth generation. If this is true, God repaid the sins of the fathers not only to those who hated him, but also to those who loved his name, because Daniel was led away, and the three youths, and Baruch, and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. Therefore it clearly appears that what we said above is fitting for the proposed question. XV. SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS WHAT IS JUST, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO HAS FULL JUSTICE, AGAINST SOLOMON: 'DO NOT,' HE SAYS, 'BE EXCESSIVELY JUST.' Excessive justice incurs sin, but tempered justice makes perfect ones. For he who is excessively just is not without malice, because if you respond to sinners in every single matter, there will be no lack of occasions where you sin. Finally, God's justice is tempered. For he sometimes forgives sinners, sometimes becomes angry, sometimes renders not as much as they deserve; for he endures them, so that there may be those who advance. For the law, because it cannot soften itself, must be mitigated by us, so that it can benefit those acting under it. Therefore, he who is an imitator of God is not excessively just.

XVI. Why was the angel, who wished to kill Moses on the road, appeased by the circumcision of an infant? What Moses had done without counsel, the threatening appearance of the angel corrected. Finally, seeing that it had been omitted through negligence, he ceased from his anger. Therefore, Moses saw the angel so hostile toward himself and ready for vengeance because the fault of a man of high station is a grave sin. For the more eminent a person is, the more his light offense becomes a most grievous sin. So he was proceeding to the sons of Israel, sent by God to Abraham, and he did not bear the sign of Abraham’s righteousness, in which he knew the Jews gloried, so that either he himself would be called a seducer or he was not sent by the same God who had chosen Abraham. For while dwelling in Midian, he did not circumcise his sons, whom he either ought not to have taken with him to Egypt, since he was going to lead others out from there, or certainly ought to have taken them circumcised, for the reasons we have stated above.

Seffora, therefore, the wife of Moses—for the Scripture speaks concisely—not being ignorant of the reason why the angel seemed hostile to her husband, took and circumcised her son, and the angel departed. For the anger was mitigated by the same reasoning by which it had also been kindled. For the Scripture speaks with some conciseness, wishing certain things to be understood from the reasoning presented, just as also that saying of the Savior among other things to the Jews: "Why do you also pass over the commandment of God, to establish your own tradition?" For God said: 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Whoever has spoken evil against father or mother shall die by death.' But you say: 'Whoever has said to father or mother: "Every gift whatsoever that comes from me will benefit you," and has not honored his father or his mother.' Without doubt the Savior said this concisely, so that it might be understood that the priests of the Jews, while they pursued avarice, had spurned the law of God; for by an impious conspiracy they gave counsel to sons, that those speaking evil against father or mother should offer whatever as if a gift to God, through which the sentence pronounced against the evil-speakers would be dissolved, whence the sons, made secure, contemned their parents contrary to God's precept. So also Moses, when he saw the angel hostile to him, understanding the cause, showed what ought to be done to his wife, so that the angel who sought to kill him would depart from him. This is understood in this case, just as also that which we said above concerning the priests.

XVII. Why does it say that those who have not left seed in Israel are cursed, but through Isaiah it says that eunuchs suffer no harm because they cannot beget? Because it had begun to be understood otherwise than as it was given, therefore the prophet Isaiah later showed in what sense it had been said. For when this had been set in place as a sentence on account of the offense of God—because those who were deserting God were struck in this, that they, taking wives, left no seed—human error seized upon this so that they thought those were guilty before God who either did not want wives or, taking them, as often happens, could not beget, as if God sought nothing other than seed, as they are reproached through the prophet Malachi. Isaiah, therefore, to console those whom a bad understanding had saddened, taught that it does no harm if someone either could not have children or did not wish to, so long as he kept the law of God. For the curse applied to those who, though they could and would, were sterile by the opposing judgment of God, so that they would have no fruit of God’s creation, which they were spurning, so that when they saw that they could not beget or that those begotten they could not possess, they would recognize that it was the anger of an indignant God and, converted, would make amends.

For holy men, when they were desirous of children and did not obtain them, used to think that sins were an obstacle and grieved, not knowing that it was God's providence for which they were being preserved. Finally, through God's care Anna conceived and bore Samuel, and Elizabeth bore John, and the wife of Manoah bore Samson. The spiritual understanding in this matter, however, is this: that those who have not left seed that sees the Lord are to be considered accursed—that is, those who have not instructed either a son or a servant or a neighbor to teach the fear of God upon the earth. XVIII. Why did Saul, when sinning, ask to be prayed for so that he might be forgiven, and was unable to obtain it, whereas David, when sinning, asked and obtained pardon? It is not fitting to reconsider God's judgment; for human weakness and inexperience ought to be instructed by God's judgment in that which it does not understand, so that from God's decision it may perceive the truth and that nothing else ought to have been done than what it sees the Lord did, whom it knows is not a respecter of persons. For if he accepted David's prayer and rejected Saul's, one must not think that the Lord did anything contrary. For knowing with what mind each spoke, he accepted the petition of the one whom he saw asking for pardon with a troubled heart; but he despised the other, because his heart had not been touched by the pain of penitence, since God is more a hearer of the heart than of the voice. Hence it is said: man sees the face, but God sees the heart.

We are also deceived because pretense in words and countenance entraps us; for we cannot see what lies in the heart. Therefore we ought to follow God’s judgment, who examines each one according to the heart, in which each person’s intention resides. We find that the Savior also did this. For he did not accept the scribe who offered himself, but called Levi, who was sitting at the tax booth, because the scribe’s words were not followed by his heart, whereas Levi, though silent, had in his heart what the scribe had in his words. But Jesus, who, according to what is written, knew what was in a man, chose Levi. Moreover, David did not wish another to humble himself in his place, as Saul did, but he himself, suppliant, with a troubled heart, begged for pardon. XIX. IT IS TO BE INQUIRED WHETHER ADAM HAD A MORTAL OR AN IMMORTAL BODY WHEN HE WAS MADE. God made man so that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish with immortality, so that he himself would be the author either of life or of death, so that, by guarding himself from sin, he would rejoice through his own effort that he was immortal, but if he became negligent, he would blame himself, because he had begun to be mortal. For as long as he persisted in the creator’s law, he was worthy to eat from the tree of life, so that he could not die. For his body was not of such a kind that it seemed impossible to dissolve, but the taste of the tree of life prevented the corruption of the body. Finally, even after the sin, he could have remained indissoluble, if only it had been permitted for him to eat from the tree of life. For how could he have had an immortal body, which was sustained by food?

For the immortal does not need food nor drink. For food provided strength, but the tree of life, after the manner of a remedy, prevented all corruption. Thus it was for man as an impregnable wall. XX. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN IT SAYS: 'MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS,' SINCE ANGELS DO NOT NEED FOOD, ESPECIALLY AS THEY ARE OF A SIMPLE NATURE AND FLOURISH BY SPIRITUAL POWER? The bread which it calls the bread of angels is manna. Now manna is interpreted as 'what is this?' For the children of Israel, seeing something like coriander seed falling white upon the ground, said to one another: 'What is this?' which in the Hebrew language is called 'manni?' This bread or food, therefore, was not created by the law of the world through a mixture of elements, but came from above, provided by a spiritual principle. Nor indeed would it be found in the heavens, because it was created by the power of God for a moment to nourish bodies. It is called the bread of angels, however, because it was created by that same power by which the angelic nature subsists and lives. For without God, there is no life for anyone. Therefore, because it is said to have come from heaven, it was called the bread of angels. For in order to recall how great and what kind of benefits of God surround man, he spoke thus, so that, recognizing this, they might give thanks to God, who governs his servants with such care that He provides for them, while they are still in the flesh, if necessary, those things by which angels live.

The apostle said among other things: "But the rock was Christ," so that, because water flowed from the rock by the power of Christ, Christ was called "rock." In a similar way, because manna came from heaven by his power, manna—that is, bread—is said to be Christ, on the grounds that what happened then is considered to have been a figure of that which is now offered in the church, so that the Christian people, whom Scripture signified as "angels," ate the bread of men, that is, of the Jews. And because the grace is now greater than it was in the prophets, and freedom was given through Christ—for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom—in comparison with the times and the graces, Christians are called "angels," by whose bread, which is Christ, the Jews, whom he called "men," were filled. Christ belongs more to these, to whom he was both revealed and who are deemed to be called by this name. Therefore, the above-mentioned question can be understood in a twofold manner, so that it can be said both that the bread of the celestial angels and that of Christians, according to what has been said.

XXI. WHAT IT MEANS THAT MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. This is what it means for man to have been made in the image of God: that the one made the one, so that just as all things come from the one God, so too the whole human race comes from the one man. The likeness, however, is this: that just as the Son is from the Father, so too is woman from man, so that the authority of a single origin is preserved. But the Son was born from God the Father in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, whereas woman was made from man in a bodily way, as we read, so that through her birth might arise. The Son of God, however, was born so that through him creation might come into being. In this, therefore, there is unlikeness; for God was born from God, but female from male, because there simplicity exists, and from the simple only the simple could be born: spirit from spirit, God from God. Therefore, man is the image of God. For thus it is written: "And God made man; he made him in the image of God." Whence also the apostle says: "A man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but a woman," he says, "let her cover her head." Why? Because she is not the image of God. Whence the apostle says further: "A woman is not permitted to teach nor to have authority over a man.

XXII. WHY DOES SOLOMON SAY: "JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH," AND IN THE PSALM: "NO LIVING MAN," IT SAYS, "WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN THE SIGHT OF GOD"? Here, one who obtains faith in hope of a future life, so as not to die impious, justifies his soul before death. But Solomon speaks of one who lives under the law and does not turn to righteousness. Such a one, therefore, if he corrects his mind so that he walks the paths of justice, justifies his soul before death. For Solomon gave counsel on account of the future judgment, lest anyone die in sins through negligence concerning himself; David, however, spoke about the perfection of justice, because no one will be justified before the Lord, worthy of the promise, unless he has died with justice. For as long as he lives, he does not yet have full merit of future things. Whence the Savior says: he who perseveres to the end, this one will be saved. XXIII. WHETHER SOULS ARE FROM TRANSMISSION AS BODIES ARE.

I consider it dishonorable if souls are said to be generated together with bodies, so that a soul is born from a soul—which does not even befit the soul itself. Or if, certainly, individual celestial powers were made and from them the rest were born, can it seem credible that from the one soul of Adam the rest are born? But this is not fitting, because this was possible for God alone, that the simple might generate, and it was not granted to others. This is so mysterious in the case of the Savior that it is considered unbelievable not only by pagans or Jews, but even by those who call themselves Christians; for both the Photinians and the Arians reject this faith. For if at the time when the body is sown, the soul is also generated from a soul, we read that a rib was taken from Adam, yet not that a soul was born from a soul; but if the rib had a soul with it, then it was not born, but drawn off into a part. But neither is this written. For the prophet Zechariah, among other things, says: "Who molds," he says, "the soul of a man in him." Nor does Isaiah disagree with these, saying: "Thus says the Lord God who made you and formed you in the womb." If, therefore, it is formed in the womb, it is granted to the already formed body. For when it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be figured in the body, and just as water, though without shape, when poured into a vessel appears shaped, so also the soul, though incorporeal and simple in nature, is as if formed in the body, giving life to each member.

Moses indeed taught this more clearly, saying: if anyone strikes a woman who is pregnant and she miscarries, if the fetus is formed, he shall give a life for a life; but if it is unformed, he shall be fined with money, so that it might be proven that the soul does not exist before the form. Therefore, if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born with the seed, derived from a soul, at the moment of conception. For if the soul arises from a soul together with the seed, many souls perish daily, when the seed, by some flux, does not result in birth. But if we look more closely, we shall see what we ought to follow. Let us contemplate the making of Adam; for in Adam an example was given, so that from it we might understand that the already formed body received a soul. For it had been possible to mix the soul with the clay of the earth and thus form the body. But it was informed by reason, because first the house had to be put together and then the inhabitant brought in. The soul, certainly, because it is spirit, cannot dwell in a dry place; therefore it is carried in the blood. Therefore, when the body's features have not been compacted, where will the soul be? Or does it wander outside, until it is sent in, when reason teaches that it is given in such a way that it animates the body, not that it wanders idly? But from whom it is given, let those who think otherwise say: from the male or from the female? If from the female, it is not fitting, because the example is otherwise. For they propose that from the man, together with the rib, a soul was given, which we have shown to be weakened by many arguments.

Hence it may seem that [the origin of the soul] is given from the female especially on account of the Savior, whom we know was born from a woman without carnal union, from the Holy Spirit. But if they think this, they give more to women; for they transfer the authority of the man to the woman. For when they say that both the origin of the body and of the soul come from the man, they turn around and claim that what is more important—that is, the soul—comes from the woman, while what is lesser—that is, the body—comes from the male, although it is manifest that the order of the example handed down by God cannot be changed. XXIV. WHY IS IT THAT, ALTHOUGH MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, THE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, BUT NOT THE WOMAN? Man and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh, but the man is greater in rank, because the woman comes from him, as the apostle says: the man is the head of the woman. For the cause made the man greater, not the substance. For even in one body there are greater and lesser members, not by nature, but by order. XXV. WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER THE PROPHECY, ADJURE THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT, WHEN THEY WERE FREED BY GOD, THEY SHOULD TRANSFER HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT?

It was not without purpose that Joseph commanded this to the sons of Israel, as is clear. For he who was able to prophesy is not to be believed to have spoken without foresight. For since he was more inclined to devotion toward the Creator God, knowing that he was worshipped by the Egyptians because of the administration by which he governed Egypt in great need, after his departure he sought to remove the error, certain that the vanity of the common people venerates the dead as gods more than the living, lest the honor due to the Creator be transferred to him. Thus he showed himself to have been free from the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when, lest it redound to the injury of God, he ordered his ashes to be transferred. And indeed we find that the apostles followed this example. For Paul and Barnabas, when they saw that they wished to sacrifice to them, knowing that this was hateful to God, tore their garments, saying: "What are you doing? We are men like you," and thus they restrained the crowds. 26. IT MUST BE INQUIRED CONCERNING ELISHA WHETHER HE OBTAINED THAT WHICH HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED RUDELY FROM ELIJAH.

The holy Elisha, desirous of performing miracles, was enticed by the example of his master. Having received the ability to ask for whatever he wished, greedy for the good, he requested that a double portion of the spirit be in him, which was in his master. The man of God, Elijah, said to him: "You have asked a hard thing." For in his eagerness he did not consider that a disciple should not be above his master. Elijah, however, knowing that he had not asked this out of ambition for present glory, replied: "Nevertheless, if you see me being taken up from you, it will be so for you." This meaning is to be weighed. But after he had said, somewhat indignantly, "You have asked a hard thing," he added: "Nevertheless, if you see me being taken up, it will be so for you." Lest he should seem to have denied him, he showed that it would be so for him as was fitting, not as he himself had asked? For Scripture often wishes much to be understood, so that the sense gathered from the words may not be contrary to the reason of religion. For indeed a hard petition ought even to have lost its merit; but because he who was greedy for the good asked thus, God, who knows what gift is to be given to each one, did not allow him to be deprived of his merits.

Let us see, then, whether the merit of Elijah would allow that Elisha deserved to receive a double portion of his gift. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah what merit John would have: “He will come,” he says, “in the spirit and power of Elijah”—thus he shows John to be equal to Elijah—and the Lord says: “No one greater among those born of women than John the Baptist.” He did not say “he is greater than all,” but “no one is greater than him,” that is, “he has an equal, he has no one greater.” Therefore Elijah is equal to him, certainly inferior to no one; how then is Elisha greater than him, when John, than whom no one is greater, is equal to Elijah? For when he came to the crossing of the waters, he did not receive honor from them so that he could cross, unless he had named the God of Elijah, so that by this the harsh request might seem to have been rebuked, since he was heard only by the name of Elijah, lest he be thought to have received what he had harshly asked, as if the dispensation of the spirit granted to Elijah were not sufficient for the merit of the time.

XXVII. WHETHER THE WITCH OF ENDOR RAISED SAMUEL, AND WHETHER HE WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL, AS THE STORY RELATES IN THE BOOK OF KINGS. I consider it an unworthy deed, if assent is given according to the words of the history. For how could it happen that a man, holy by birth and just by the works of his life, would be drawn by magic art? Or, if he was not drawn, did he consent? Both of these things are contrary to believing about a just man. For if he was brought unwillingly, justice has no support; if, however, willingly, he lost the merit of his spiritual life, which he had sought while placed in the flesh, which is very absurd, because he who departs from here just remains just. Moreover, this is a trick of Satan, by which, to deceive as many as possible, he pretends that even good men are in his power. As the Apostle says among other things: "Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light." For, to create error, in which he glories, he disguised himself in the appearance and name of a just man, so that he might falsely claim that the hope which the worshipers of God proclaimed was of no avail, when he pretended that just men departing from here were in his power.

But this deceives some, because he did not lie about the death of Saul and his son, as if it were a great thing for the devil to foresee the fall of the body before the day, when certain signs are accustomed to appear to those about to die, especially those from whom the protection of God seems to be removed. How much more so the devil, whom the prophetic oracles testify was exalted by angelic majesty, concerning whose greatness the apostle says: "Do you not know the depth of Satan?" What wonder, then, if he could foresee imminent death near at hand, since this is the means by which he deceives and wishes to be worshipped as being in the power of God? For Saul was rendered so dull-witted that he fled to the witch. Corrupted, indeed, by the cause of sin, he betook himself to those things which he had condemned. But if anyone, on account of the history and those things which are expressed in words, thinks they should not be passed over, lest the rationale of the history be empty, he will indeed do rightly, provided that he does not at all draw this into the reason of truth, but to the sight and understanding of Saul. For, having been made reprobate, he could not have a good understanding. For the historian described the mind of Saul and the appearance of Samuel, expressing those things which were said and seen, passing over whether they are true or false. For what does he say? Hearing in what attire he was roused: "He understood," he says, "that this was Samuel." He reported what he understood, and because he did not understand rightly, he worshipped another contrary to Scripture than the Lord, and, thinking it was Samuel, he worshipped the devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deception. For this is what he strives for, that he be worshipped as if a god.

For if truly Samuel had appeared to him, a just man would certainly not have allowed himself to be worshipped, he who had preached that the Lord alone is to be worshipped. And how could a man of God, who was in the resting place with Abraham, say to a man worthy of the fire of Gehenna: 'Tomorrow you will be with me'? By these two points the imprudent Satan betrayed the subtlety of his deception, because he allowed himself to be worshipped under the appearance and name of Samuel, contrary to the law and to the man weighed down by sins, since there is a great distance between sinners and the just, and he falsely claimed that the future would be with the most just Samuel. It can indeed seem so, if the name of Samuel is kept silent, because Saul was destined to be with the devil. For he passed over to the one whom he worshipped. Therefore the devil, always hiding under a veil, betrays himself when he fabricates things that are abhorrent to the persons through whom he tries to deceive. XXVIII. WHAT IS TO BE OBJECTED TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD IS FROM ETERNITY NATURALLY MOVED, AND IS SUBJECT NEITHER TO A BEGINNING NOR TO ABOLITION.

That the world exists from eternity and owes subjection to no one is both improbable and impossible. For we see that it exists as a corporeal thing with such great diversity, whereas nothing divine and eternal can exist except that which is simple, in which no diversity is seen, but there is unity. For it does not even preserve the very changes of the seasons, so that it is not only variable in its times and composed of contrary substances, but also in the very changes of the seasons, since an eternal thing abhors diversity and is not to be grasped either by touch or by sight, as it is incorporeal. But this world is subject to passion, because water opposes fire, and fire, if it is stronger, overcomes water, and earth, though it is by nature dry and cold, suffers burning as a corporeal thing. Therefore it is unfitting to call the world eternal, which we see subject to passion and, in its individual parts, failing with age, and we believe it also comes to an end. What does one think of a man who considers the world eternal? Certainly man had a beginning in the world: for whom, then, did the annual fertility of the world profit, if there was no man? Or did it produce without any providence? And how could an eternal thing generate corruptible and mortal things, since from an eternal thing an eternal thing ought to arise? And that which is visible and is perceived and touched—by what audacity is it called eternal? And that which is administered by the changes of the seasons, so that the seasons themselves sometimes do not keep their offices—how is it called eternal? For eternity is not corrupted, is not changed.

XXIX. Why Was It Commanded to Circumcise on the Eighth Day? It was commanded to circumcise on the eighth day from birth because, according to the number and cycles of days, the seventh day itself is again found to be the first, as it were after the Sabbath, so that it is no longer considered the eighth but the first. For since future salvation through Christ was predestined on the first day, which is called the Lord’s day because on it the Lord rose, which is after the Sabbath, for this reason the figure of this salvation was given in circumcision, so that the future renewal might be recognized in the law of circumcision. And because men were to be saved through faith, which was confirmed on the first day by the resurrection of the Lord, the figure of this matter was given in circumcision on the first day, which was also to be a sign of Abraham’s faith. Therefore the cause is complete, because the sign of past faith signified on the first day was a figure of future faith established on the first day. XXX. In Proverbs: “The just man,” it says, “is his own accuser at the beginning of speech”: How is he just, if he is a sinner?

All truth is justice. For he who confesses what is, is just—for he speaks the truth—but sinners defending their own offenses cannot be justified. Hence a person of this kind is deservedly called just, because in declaring his sin he asks that it be remitted to him, imploring the mercy of God. For he knows it is said in the law: Confess your sins, that you may be justified. But what is it to confess at the beginning of speech, if not to admit not under compulsion, but voluntarily? For who, even fearing God, is without sin, since offenses are mingled even in thought and we sometimes sin unwillingly? Yet it can also be said or understood of him that he is called a catechumen, so that approaching the faith he may be justified. For when he asks to be changed, without doubt he confesses himself a sinner, that he may be justified. XXXI. Whether the Serpent Spoke with the Woman by Nature, or Whether the Serpent Called the Devil Actually Seduced Her.

As far as history is concerned, the serpent was said by nature to be the one who was wiser than the other beasts which the Lord God had made upon the earth. Indeed, God also passed sentence upon the serpent. For what wonder is it that the devil would be wiser than the beasts, concerning whom the apostle says among other things: "Do you not know the depth of Satan?" Moreover, the serpent was so much a creature of nature that it was said to it: "You shall crawl on your breast and belly and eat earth all the days of your life." These things are far removed from the condition of Satan, because he is neither corporeal nor mortal. And if one looks more closely, it will appear that the sentence given did no harm to the serpent, but it was ordered to remain in that state in which it was made. For because it was made a minister of Satan for subjugating man, to whom God had subjected all things, therefore God, in that subjection by which He subjected all things to man, checked the pride of the serpent, because it had begun to be a minister of pride. For man seemed to be made subject to the serpent, through whose counsel he had accepted and despised the law given. Moreover, because serpents are prudent, the Lord confirms this in the Gospel, saying: "Be as shrewd as serpents.

Therefore, since it is clear that the serpent truly spoke with Eve, it remains to be determined whether it could have been so prudent and cunning as to deceive her by guile. For if it was more prudent than the other beasts, it was not, however, more so than humans, especially since no animal is rational except man. And so it is impossible that the serpent devised this subtlety. For although it is called prudent, it is not beyond its own nature; for it does not deliberate or think out or take counsel. For this reason, there is no doubt that it was the devil who, through the serpent, circumvented the woman. For by mingling himself with the serpent, he acted through it as through an instrument, so that the woman, knowing the serpent to be prudent, would not understand the hidden devil's guile. And through this, the sentence given corporally fell spiritually upon Satan, because the sentence holds the guilty one. For the sentence was not given by a man, who might by error or malice destroy an innocent person, but by God, who certainly cannot be deceived, so that His sentence does not hold the one who is not guilty. For since, although Satan is invisible, he acted the guile corporally, the sentence given appears corporal, so that it holds spiritually the one whose deed elicited the giving of the sentence. For the most shameless Satan, cast out from the most sacred seats of the heavens, rolls on the earth, always groaning.

But perhaps it will be said: 'And in what tongue, do you think, did the serpent speak to the woman?' By the serpent's mouth, of course. For if today there are those who understand the barking of dogs, the howling of wolves, the trumpeting of elephants, and the crowing of cocks, why could not the still inexperienced woman have known and understood the hissing of serpents, when we know that many discern the voices of birds? For it is also established that the devil uses the tongue of whatever body he has entered; nor could he otherwise have deceived the woman. And through this, he spoke by the serpent's mouth, through the serpent. XXXII. WE READ IN SOLOMON: 'A RICH MAN AND A POOR MAN MET; BUT GOD MADE BOTH': HOW THEN IS THERE NO FAVORITISM OF PERSONS WITH GOD? Far be it from the minds of the faithful this assertion of impiety. For Scripture, lest it teach that the poor man is to be despised and the rich man honored, shows that God is the maker of both, not indeed in respect of poverty and riches, but in respect of what they are. For if they differ from each other in their resources, they do not differ in the substance of their nature. For not because the chances of fortune make some in the world either prosperous in riches or unfortunate in poverty, are those whom God has not humiliated to be despised, or those to whom truth has not given testimony to be esteemed. Those are plainly to be despised who are corrupters of morals and sacrilegious against the law of God; those are to be honored who love God and are cultivators of discipline.

For the rich in God’s sight are those who are of good conduct, and the more contemptible they are in the world, the more honored they are in heaven. For those who have the benefit of time to increase their wealth, if they come to know themselves and understand God’s will—because God gave the earth to all and commands His sun to rise for all and pours forth rains without distinction, while the iniquity of the times or chance occurrences or need denies to some what God gave to all—let them minister to these, so that, perceiving God’s will, they may be rich not only in the world but also in heaven, lest the riches of a brief time exclude eternal ones. But those whom they think should be despised because of poverty, if they contemplate God’s future judgment, will be rich there forever, where the rich of this world will be in need, repenting that they were not poor. XXXIII. Solomon: “The years,” he says, “of the impious will be shortened.” Although we see that some impious are long-lived.

It was indeed fitting that all the impious should not only be deprived of this light more quickly, but also not enjoy life even for a single moment, they who, unmindful of their creator, attribute the authority of their entire life to the creature. But Scripture speaks of those impious who, though they acted under the law of God, were more inclined toward idols. For they are worse than other impious persons; for, knowing the Lord and despising him, they obey his servants. And that this was said concerning them, the apostle proves, saying: "But we know that whatever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law." For gentiles are not counted among the living. XXXIV. IN SOLOMON: 'GOD,' HE SAYS, 'DID NOT MAKE DEATH,' AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: 'GOOD AND EVIL, LIFE AND DEATH, POVERTY AND HONOR ARE FROM GOD.' There is no doubt that all good things are from God; but the evils which he spoke of are evils to us, when vengeance is taken upon us. For punishment, although justly inflicted, nevertheless seems evil to the one suffering it. For also through the prophet, God speaks to sinners, saying: "I will do evils to you," that is, 'I will afflict you with punishments.' Life and death, moreover, are from God in this way, because he gave a law which promises life to those who keep it, but death to those who despise it—that death which is called the second. For when he judges what each one deserves, it is from him whether it be absolution to life or guilt to death. Therefore, he is not the inventor of death, but the judge, because the author of death is sin. How, then, could God make death, who does not know how to sin?

But when it is in retribution for sins, death is said to be from him, although it is not from him, but from the one who sinned. By the same reasoning, poverty and wealth are from God. For some, having fear of God, spurn luxury, flee from a prodigal life, and do not avert their eyes from the needy or the poor: such persons increase their goods. For it is written in Proverbs: "Discipline removes poverty and ignobility." But those, however, who do not have fear of God, living more dissolutely and despising the needy, as it is written, will be in need, not only being negligent and improvident concerning themselves, but also despisers of the given law. In this way God makes the poor and the rich, because, while the offense against the law begets poverty, it is said to be done by God as the author of the law, and when some, through fear, observe the discipline of the law, they become rich by God as the author of the law. 35. FOR WHAT REASON DOES DAVID, AFTER GOD DEPARTED FROM HIM, CALL SAUL CHRIST OF THE LORD AND DEFER TO HIM?

David was not unaware that the royal office was a divine tradition; therefore, while Saul was still placed in that same tradition, he honored him, lest he seem to do injury to God, who decreed honor for these orders. For a king bears the image of God, just as a bishop bears the image of Christ. Therefore, as long as he is in that tradition, he is to be honored—if not for his own sake, then at least for the sake of the order. Hence the apostle says: "Be subject to all higher authorities." For there is no power except from God; those that exist are ordained by God. This is why we honor a pagan, even if he is unworthy, when he is placed in authority, though he, holding God's order, gives thanks to the devil. For authority demands honor because it deserves it. For this reason, a dream of a future famine was revealed to Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar alone, among those standing with him, saw the Son of God in the fiery furnace—not, of course, by his own merit, since he wished to be worshipped in an idol, but by the merit of the royal order.

XXXVI. If “the soul that sins will itself die,” why is it that Achar, son of Charmi, sinned and thirty-six men were killed in his case? The scripture spoke in a different sense than what was proposed. For it did not speak of this death which is common to all, but of that which is called the second death. This death receives sinners; but for those who died in battle, Achar’s sin was not repaid to them, but it harmed them in that they were not aided by divine protection to prevail against the enemy. For they were not weakened because of Achar, but they were not fortified by God’s help, so that, while they could not act bravely, they were killed. For they were few against many, and thus they are known to have been overcome. Therefore there is no injustice in God’s will. For it is in his power, if he wishes to help, that if he is present, he is merciful; if he is unwilling, he is just; for he is not a debtor to such persons, so as to be held obligated. Hence it is that Joshua, son of Nun, grieved and tore his garments, understanding that the Lord had withdrawn his help not without cause.

XXXVII. Why is it that the death sent against Jacob came upon Israel, when Jacob himself is called Israel? He has given two names to one people, so that their merits might be understood from the names. For indeed, he who is surnamed Israel was previously called Jacob. For while wrestling with the Savior, he understood that the one he saw in bodily form was God, and therefore he was called 'the man who sees God.' Therefore, the people whom he calls Jacob in this passage and in this context signifies the carnal, in the way that names are imposed on children by their parents. But these, that is, the Jews, were not called Israelites because of their evil deeds, since they sacrificed to cows and lights in Samaria by the zeal and command of King Jeroboam. But that people who offered sacrifices in the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem through the priests of God were called Israel. Therefore, Samaria, on account of its impiety, was handed over to captivity and death, but Jerusalem was preserved because it had kings who loved God. However, when Jerusalem itself followed the impiety of Samaria, the sentence given against Samaria overtook it.

Therefore it was said: God sent death against Jacob—that is, against the people of Samaria, who lived carnally, as we said above—and it came upon Israel, that is, upon the people of Jerusalem, because they followed idolatry, imitating Samaria, so that they too might be led away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, just as Samaria was by Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians. This is clear: a sentence given against the wicked finds even the good, when they have ceased to be righteous. For death was sent against Jacob, as was shown above, and it reached Israel, not passing over Samaria; but because the cause for which it was sent against Samaria was also found in Jerusalem, it came there and also arrived at that place where the same thing was present. For vengeance follows the cause, not distinguishing the person. XXXVIII. If a horse and a mule do not have understanding, how much more is the earth a thing without sense? What then does it mean that the earth is said to bless God?

It is not to be understood as the words sound. For a work, although it is mute, is said to proclaim the praise of the creator; for it urges those who look upon it to bless the maker, just as every well-made vessel praises the craftsman, especially since it is read in the Psalms: "Will dust confess you," it says, "or announce your truth?" Therefore, in every insensate substance, it is not the will, which certainly is none, but the works that bless the author. But if you wish to take this spiritually, understand that the earth signifies man according to the saying of the prophet—"Remember, Lord," he says, "that we are earth"—whom the works of creation urge to break forth into praise of their creator. XXXIX. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF WHAT IS READ IN SOLOMON: "THERE IS HOPE," HE SAYS, "IN DARKNESS; A DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION"? Darkness signifies gentility and ignorance. He wishes it to be understood that there is hope in a gentile than in an apostate, through what he subjoins saying: a dog is better than a dead lion, because just as a lion is stronger than all wild beasts, so is Christianity stronger than all sects. Therefore, if anyone has withdrawn from it, he loses salvation, so that he is worse than a gentile. For it can happen that a gentile believes and acquires salvation, which the apostate has lost. And, if he does not believe, the apostate is worse. Because it is worse to have lost salvation than never to have had it. Moreover, the Savior showed that "dog" signifies "gentile" by saying: It is not permitted to take the bread of the children and throw it to the dogs.

XL. What does the prophet mean by saying: 'Rejoice, barren woman. You who do not give birth, break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor, because the deserted woman has many more sons than she who has a husband'? Because the sons of the earthly Jerusalem have apostatized from God, joy cannot be ascribed to her, but rather grief. Therefore, to the reproach of this Jerusalem, the prophet says that the higher Jerusalem—which the apostle calls our mother—ought to rejoice, because without groaning and pains she has far more sons than this one who gives birth with tears carnally (namely, the Jews), whereas that one gives birth to Christians through faith spiritually. He calls her deserted because she is the life which the first Adam deserted and followed death. When men are regenerated, therefore, they return to the life which they had deserted. This life is Christ, because he himself said: I am the life. And God the Father is life, because the Lord says: just as the Father has life, so he gave life to the Son. Without doubt the Holy Spirit also is life, as the Lord says: he who will receive from Me, he says, from life. Therefore he who receives from life is life. Thus the three are one life. This is the life through whose faith we are regenerated. She is our mother, just as we read in Genesis: because she herself, it says—that is, life—is the mother of all the living. Who are those who live, if not those who believe?

XLI. Whether the Spirit that was borne over the waters is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, because it was said: 'The Spirit of God was borne over the water.' If the Holy Spirit is thought by some to be present because it is read as the spirit of God, this assertion is weak and empty. For not only does the order not permit this, and reason reject it, but the very words themselves are shown to be insufficient to establish this case. For we frequently find these words signifying something else in the Law; among other things, the Lord God says: My spirit will not remain in these men, because they are flesh. And in the following: But I will destroy, he says, everything from man to beast, because he was about to make a flood upon the earth. Can the Holy Spirit be understood here? Did he not speak of souls? For not only are our souls called spirits, but also those of beasts. For it is written thus: And every flesh died in the water, in which there was the spirit of life. And in the prophet Ezekiel it is said thus, while he promises concerning the reformation of men, God says: Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and I will put my spirit in you, and you will live. Did he speak of the Holy Spirit and not of the soul?

All heavenly beings are indeed spirits, but they differ from one another, and God is a spirit, but in a far different way. Every spirit, therefore, is of God; yet it is not God, except the spirit which is from him, whose signification is such that it is called 'holy.' For men are also called sons of God, and Christ is called Son of God; but there is a difference, because he is the true Son, they are adopted. So also there is a diversity among the spirit of God. For the Holy Spirit is from God, consubstantial with him; the remaining spirits are said to be of God, but they are a creature. But it is not even fitting that the Holy Spirit be understood to have been borne over the waters, since reason teaches that what is borne over the waters is a spiritual creature, and one which has above itself another, more powerful creature, because one creature differs from another in glory. For whatever approaches nearer to the throne of God, the ministries are more glorious. Whence the angel Raphael says among other things: 'I am,' he says, 'one of the seven holy angels who stand and move about before the majesty of God.

XLII. Why did the angel sent to speak to Moses appear in fire and a bush on the mountain? God is most high; therefore it was fitting that he appear in a high place, in a location near the sky. And because fire always seeks higher places, rising upward toward heaven, the Lord of the heavens ought to appear in that which strives from the ground toward the heights. As for the bush, the reason for appearing in it was on account of sins. For because the law had come down to be given on account of sinners—and thorns signify sins—since, he says, I endured that it might produce a grape, but it produced thorns—and the law had not come to punish immediately, but first to show, therefore the fire did not consume the bush, that is, the given law did not make sinners guilty for the past. For because sins are not from nature, but from accident, the material of the bush, that is, of the thorns, does not have a root armed with thorns. Therefore it was done reasonably that the Lord appeared thus to Moses. XLIII. Since we know that Abraham was forbidden by God to sacrifice his son, why was Jephthah not forbidden when he offered his daughter, but rather paid a vow to God with human blood?

There is a great difference between the case of Abraham and that of Jephthah. First, Abraham was born legitimately, but Jephthah was a bastard, for he was the son of a harlot. Next, Abraham was of the best character, but Jephthah was a leader of bandits. Abraham was a just man and proven in trial; in Jephthah, however, there is no testimony of justice. Thus it was commanded to Abraham that he offer his son to God, and that he show men how much he trusted God, who, when God commanded, did not hesitate to kill even his own son. For He who was able to make him be born from a barren and aged woman, contrary to the world's hope, it was not doubtful that He could, contrary to the world's reason, raise him from the dead. By this deed Abraham was heaped with righteousness. For God showed that He had not demanded the boy's blood, but that His servant Abraham might become greater through this deed. For He who loves His own wishes them to suffer something, so that He may seem justly to advance them.

Jephthah was a wicked and reckless man who, with foolish devotion, promised a gift to God, saying: "Whatever meets me returning from the slaughter before the doors of my house, I will offer that to God." Was he compelled to vow, or did he understand how he ought to make a vow? For what if a dog or an ass had met him, which God has forbidden to be offered? Or if another man's son, or if his wife, so that in another's grief he would exultantly fulfill his vow? Therefore, because of his reckless impiety, what he had vowed to the destruction of another was turned back upon him by divine judgment. And Jephthah was so senseless that not even afterward did he recognize that he had vowed foolishly, so that his error, which had begun with him, might be corrected by him. For he ought to have understood that God does not delight in such a sacrifice, and to have begged forgiveness for his folly and offered something else which was not against the law. But the fool showed himself faithful as a murderer, when it is established that foolish faith not only does not profit, but harms. Therefore, in the case of his daughter, he himself was sacrificed, and for this reason God dissembled from such a sacrifice. For if He had forbidden this, He would have seemed to wish that Jephthah offer something else to Him, when He knew that Jephthah ought not to offer something unworthy. But his daughter gained, because, innocent, she died in her father's evils and escaped the punishment of the underworld, which perhaps she could not have attained by living long.

But that the triumph of Jephthah’s victory might be celebrated, neither his own merit nor that of the people brought it about; for it is not read that they were suppliants to God, that he might give them a defender. Or did God himself send Jephthah or speak to him? But because the Philistines were praising their own gods, as if they would make the children of Israel subject to them, reviling the God of Abraham, for that reason, for the honor of his own name, God took vengeance on the Philistines, if not for the sake of these people, then at least for the sake of Abraham’s merit and his own majesty. Or will Samson, because the spirit of the Lord leaped upon him while he was whoring, be called worthy, when this deed is understood to have been for the destruction of the Philistines? XLIIII. AGAINST THE JEWS. It is written in the prophet Isaiah: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” But perhaps the Jews may say: “The house of God, that is, the synagogue, lies open to all.” Nor do we gainsay this, yet in such a way that, as always, those who are circumcised are bound to the law. For the law is for those who were commanded to be circumcised after the manner of Abraham. Therefore nothing new can seem to be in this example of the prophet, because anyone coming from any nation was not forbidden to join himself to the law from the beginning of Judaism. Nothing new can be thought to have been said by the prophet; indeed, it is superfluous. For if Gentiles were always admitted to serve the God of Abraham and are never found to have been prohibited at any time. And it is true, because those submitting themselves to the law are proved never to have been unwelcome.

If, therefore, these things are so, the prophet seems to have admonished superfluously, since what was once handed down has always been kept. And can anyone so dull be found who would say that such a great prophet spoke something superfluous and empty? I know not for whom it is safe either to hear this and not to forbid it. For since the Jewish people, on account of the sins they committed against the Lord by seeking help from idols, were often rebuked by the prophets but were unwilling to enter upon the path of penance so as to return to God, God signified, to their reproach, that He would open His house to all nations for prayer, showing that He would place others in their stead, the Jews having been cast off. For if the nations were always admitted to the Law, as was said above, how would the prophet have said this as something future, unless he meant something other than what had previously been commanded? For he could not speak of a thing that happened daily as if it were to come. Hence it is clear that this works to the destruction of the Jews, to whom the prophet shows that others, once these were removed, were to be called to receive the gift of God’s grace, which had been promised to the Jews.

Now what was promised, the prophet Isaiah teaches, saying: "He will come from Zion who will rescue and turn away impiety from Jacob; and this is a testament to me from them." Therefore, this testament is the abolition of sins. For this is the new testament, which was promised through Jeremiah, saying: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will complete for the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new testament, not according to the testament which I arranged for their fathers on the day when I took their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in my testament. And I neglected them, says the Lord." This is their transgression: when they made the image of the calf, then they corrupted the testament. Hence, the tablets on which the law had been given were broken at the mountain, because they deserved to receive heavy precepts. But because God is clement and merciful, He promised through the prophets to change the law, so that He would give another testament, which would differ from the one He had given before. So that not only what was burdensome would be changed, but also those things which had been given in figure, that is, the sabbath and circumcision, so that, because they had been oppressed for a long time, being relieved in all things, they would give thanks to God as suppliants. And because, persisting in paternal transgression, they were unwilling to turn their minds away from idols, the nations, together with the remnant who kept faith, would enjoy the testament which He had said would be in the future.

He testifies, so that the faithless Jews were burdened in a twofold manner and tormented; for they were burdened for a time with precepts and in the future will pay fitting penalties, because they were found faithful in neither the Old nor the New Testament. Therefore, he said that he would give a New Testament, so that the Old, which had been given to the fathers, would cease. And through this, whoever serves God in this testament keeps neither the Sabbath nor the new moons nor circumcision nor distinctions of foods, but has only the fear of God in faith, because he is not justified by the law, but by faith, as the prophet Habakkuk says: "For the just man will live by my faith," so that he no longer uses many precepts to merit God, but few, with Isaiah again saying the same about this sense; for he says: "If the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, the remnant of them will be saved." For the word that completes and shortens into equity. Because God will make the shortened word throughout the whole world. To the remnant, who persevered in the faith of the promise while the others distrusted, he shows the shortened word of the law, that is, the New Testament which he promised. Which would not be called a testament otherwise, unless it were also confirmed by the testimony of blood in a similar manner, just as the Old Testament, so that the name of each is one. But in the Old there are many precepts, in the New, however, few, as he promised, so that, because he had said that Abraham would be the father of many nations, the sons would be justified in the same way.

just as the father had been justified, so that, with those things which had begun after Abraham’s faith ceasing, those receiving the faith through which the same Abraham was justified would be sons of Abraham, as was said by the Lord. This is indeed neither strange nor unheard of, that men are justified without concern for the Sabbath, circumcision, and other commandments of this kind. For Enoch did not please God by this means, so that he was translated; nor did Noah, by observing these things, alone prove to be just in the flood; nor was Abraham himself justified after he was circumcised. For it says: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Then he was circumcised, so that it might be a sign in him that he believed, since he was older, that he would have a son. Therefore, circumcision does not commend Abraham, but faith does. And so for believers, faith suffices for justification, so that they are sons of Abraham in faith, not in circumcision, because they have no need of circumcision. For it is not believed that Abraham believed what they believe. The Jews, however, were ordered to be circumcised so that they might have the sign of Abraham’s faith—not of their own faith, but so that they might be known as his sons according to the flesh. But if they believe, they will be his sons also in justification.

For what benefit is there in calling someone the son of a powerful man when he is powerless, except that it is more of a detriment? For it is a disgrace for the son of a man of high rank to be without honor. For circumcision of the flesh is of so little merit that God declares through the prophet Jeremiah that He will take vengeance on all those who are circumcised in the foreskin if they are not circumcised in heart. But He is not angry with those who, circumcised in heart, are uncircumcised in the flesh, because no one has pleased God without circumcision of the heart. Therefore, all who are circumcised in the flesh signify the race of Abraham according to the flesh; but those who are circumcised in heart signify the race of God according to faith, because, circumcised from all worldly error, they profess God as their parent. What benefit, then, does circumcision of the flesh provide, when, if faith is lacking in a Jew, he will not be able to attain to the merit of Abraham? Or what harm does the foreskin cause, since no one, unless he has been an emulator of the faith of Abraham, attains to his righteousness?

Therefore, they boast superfluously about circumcision of the flesh, since they see that it has no merit before God. And if, as has been shown, it is better to have faith than circumcision, then the Gentiles are better than the Jews, because the former have faith, the Jews circumcision. And whom, do you think, does Abraham more readily acknowledge as sons: those who are like him in the flesh, or those who are like him in faith? But Abraham’s faith bears witness, and for this reason he glories not in the flesh, but in faith. Therefore, he adopts as sons those whom he sees are imitators of his glory. For how can he call those sons whom he sees abhorring that by which he pleased God and was justified? Therefore, he will be able to judge these not as sons, but as enemies. For they seem to be envious of him, spurning the faith through which he was glorified. Nor is it surprising if the Jews are found to be distrustful, scarcely accepting the New Testament, since we know that they were not even faithful in the Old. For they were always rebellious and insolent toward God, and for this reason they received such commandments, by which their necks, which were unbending, would be pressed down. For they never wished to hope for good things from God, although they had acknowledged such great benefits and so wondrous deeds of his.

This is the reason why, among other things, the prophet Ezekiel says: "I raised my hand among them in the desert, so that they would be scattered among the Gentiles and dispersed throughout the regions, because they did not perform my ordinances and rejected my precepts." And in the following: "And I gave them precepts that are not good and ordinances in which they will not live." He shows for what cause such great and harsh precepts were given to them: because, since they were ungrateful for such great goods, by the dictate of justice they would be oppressed by stricter precepts. For he called them "not good," although they are just, because they did not profit them for justification, but for destruction; and punishment, although deservedly inflicted, is nevertheless not good for the one who suffers it. After this, however, because God is merciful, he promised that he would give a new testament, in which an abridgment of the law would justify believers, just as Abraham was justified, so that with the cessation of the new moons, the Sabbath, circumcision, and the other precepts—not those which are of natural law, that is, murder, adultery, and the like—they would be justified just as Abraham was. For, with the faith of Abraham renewed, he wished everything to cease, so that the time would be as it had been when Abraham believed.

But perhaps the Jews will say: "If those things which were given through Moses are said to cease by the abbreviation of the law, was not circumcision given through Moses so that it would cease? And through this sign we have our father, because we are sons of Abraham, which ought not to cease on account of the testimony of lineage." Circumcision was indeed to be observed in its own time, that is, before the new testament was given, which had been promised. But when, by the grace of God, the burdens of the law were ordered to cease, what need is there to be circumcised? For this reason, moreover, a new law was given, that is, a spiritual one, so that carnal things would cease and those receiving it would receive its sign, just as in the old they had the sign of Abraham, from which the old testament began. So also in the new they have the sign of the Savior, who is the founder of the new testament. For just as from Abraham they were called Hebrews, so also from Christ they are called Christians. Therefore, whoever are still called Hebrews have not received the new testament which God promised, thereby nullifying the benefit and mercy of God, who, not willing that his people be designated by the name of a man, deigned to establish them under the name of his Son.

With what audacity, then, do the Jews say that we do not use our own law but theirs, when David says: "I will confess to you among the Gentiles," and again: "Feast, O Gentiles, with his people"? And to the prophet Jeremiah the Lord says: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you and placed you as a prophet among the Gentiles." Judaism certainly has its own designations; for either this people is signified in Jacob, or in Samaria, or in Jerusalem, or in Judah, or in Israel. But concerning the Gentiles, it is clear that it signifies them differently than it does the Jews. Therefore, Jeremiah is our prophet. For although in all the prophets God showed the Gentiles to be participants in his gift, he speaks specifically to Jeremiah, because he gave him to us as a prophet. For he signified that the New Testament would come, which would benefit the Gentiles more than the Jews, as now seems to have been declared. For since the preaching of the New Testament is throughout the whole world, a faithful Jew is found so rarely and with difficulty that all the churches of the New Testament are named after the Gentiles, as was said in the prophet Hosea: "I will call my people not my people, and the not-beloved beloved." Therefore, with the Jews rejected, he summons the Gentiles by that grace of mercy with which he deigned to call Abraham as well. For not even Abraham, unless called, knew the Lord. Thus, the one who deigned to call Abraham is the same one who has deigned to call the Gentiles.

Why, then, do they say, "The law is ours," when it is manifest that the gift of God belongs to all who desire it? Let this audacity of usurpation cease, therefore, because the grace of God is common to all. For with what shame do they deny that our Christ was promised in the law, when they see all the signs in him which the law foretold would come? For both according to the promise to Abraham, all nations are justified in believing in him, and according to the prophecy of Isaiah, he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem from the tribe of Judah. As was promised, from the seed of David, and, in accordance with what Jeremiah prophesied, he proclaimed the new testament, which God had promised would come, and after all the signs of his miracles were shown, he humbled himself according to the sayings of the prophets, and suffered all that was foretold, and on the third day he rose again, as it is written in the prophet. And if they seek the time of the promise, as was shown to the prophet Daniel, they will find it fulfilled at the time when Christ was born and suffered, because from the time of the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, up to the birth and passion of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was carried out under Vespasian, prince of the Roman Empire, the seventy weeks were completed, which are 490 years. This computation through the kingdoms and through the successors of the empire is manifest, as it is also found computed by Tertullian in the book he wrote against the Jews; and so that it might not work to his discredit, because he computed correctly, we have omitted it.

And who can doubt this number, when nearly three hundred years are now found to have passed beyond this number? It is, therefore, shameless to say, after so great an additional number of years since the advent of the Savior, 'He has not come'; for under the apostles, or even at the very time when the Lord was living among men, malice could conceal itself by contradicting the truth, so that, although it saw all the signs of the promised Christ in the Savior, it could still claim to be uncertain about the time, in order to hide its own perfidy. But afterwards, when many years began to accumulate beyond the promised number, what shamelessness it is to deny that He has come, who is known to have been fulfilled both by signs and by times! For when something is full and does not overflow, some contentious person can say that it is not full; but if it overflows, the mouth of the contentious is shut. Thus also the Jews at the time of the Savior could say, albeit deceitfully, that the calculation from the time of Darius up to the Lord Christ was not properly made, so that He might be said to be the one who was promised. 'For we are mistaken in the years and months and days of the emperors, and we have not gathered them precisely.' But when the times have grown beyond the prescribed number of years of the promised Christ, no excuse can be put forward so that He who came is not said to be the Christ, unless—which God forbid—the one who promised is said to have lied. For when the time of the promise has been completed and it is denied that the one who was promised has come, what else is it but to accuse the one who promised of falsehood?

But the one who made the promise is truthful, as all the signs teach, which were foretold and are known to have been found in Christ. The Jews, however, while they are ashamed to correct themselves, do not consider the future judgment. For nothing is worse than if someone denies what is true, which he understands is not a lie. XLV. ON THE IMAGE. "Let us make," he says, "man in our image and likeness." This seems to some to be understood from another part of the reading, namely from this, in which we read that God said: "Come, let us go down and confound their languages," because, as it appears on the surface, it is similar: for it is the voice of one speaking in the plural number, but the sense differs, because the reasoning is also dissimilar. For there it speaks of creating man, whom God wishes to be created in his image and likeness. But that which says: "Come, let us go down and confound their languages," pertains to this, that men might not understand each other; whence God can be seen to have spoken to angels, as a commander to an army. For he spoke collectively, because he was going to act through them, as their creator, and thus he says: "Let us confound their languages." For when he says: "Let us make man in our image and likeness," it cannot be said that he spoke to angels, because it cannot be said that the image of God and of angels is one, as that of an emperor and his counts, because where the image is one, the dignity or nature cannot be dissimilar.

Finally, he added: "And God made man," it says; "He made him in the image of God," so that God spoke and God made, not a different God or a distinct one, but the same God. For when one spoke to one, it signified not a different nature, but a person. For although God is one, there are nevertheless three persons; and therefore God is one, because, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, the substance of the one God is present, since what is from him cannot fail to be what he himself is. Thus, the person of God the Father is the one saying, "Let us make"; the Son, however, is the one making man in the image of God: whether in the image of the Father or in his own makes no difference, because the image of both is one. Therefore, the Son made through the Holy Spirit. For just as the Father is said to act through the Son, so too the Son acts through the Holy Spirit, as he himself says: "For I cast out demons in the Spirit of God." Thus, the image of the three is one, because, whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, there is one God. And by this, one man was made in the image of the one God. In this, man is the image of God, so that, just as there is one God in the heavens, from whom all spiritual things subsist, so there would be one man on earth, from whom others would have their carnal origin.

Some, however, think that man was made in the image of God in respect of dominion, because it says: "And let him rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the whole earth," although not only man but also woman is seen to be subject to these things, and it is established that she does not have the image of God. This indeed lacks reason in a twofold way; for by this it is asserted that God did not say to the Son: "Let us make man in our image and likeness," but to the celestial dominions, which the apostle mentions, if man has the image of God in respect of dominion, and it is given to woman, so that she too is the image of God, which is absurd. For how can it be said of woman that she is the image of God, when it is established that she is subject to the dominion of man and has no authority? For she can neither teach nor be a witness nor give testimony nor judge: how much less can she command! XLVI. CONCERNING SAMUEL. There are some among us who, partly occupied with secular affairs, partly less diligent concerning the sacred scriptures, suffer error, thinking that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he had his origin from Aaron, from whose progeny the Lord God established that priests should be born, not made. And it was granted to no one except his sons to place incense on the altar. Among these, some, erring more, deny indeed that Samuel was of the lineage of Aaron, that is, they do not say that he was born a priest, and nevertheless they assert that he performed the priesthood. To these a response must first be given.

For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet to assert that he performed the priestly office, than to say that he was a priest from the sons of Aaron. For in the latter case there is ignorance, in the former, stupidity. For when those who think he was born a priest learn that he is not from the sons of Aaron, they will clearly understand that he was not a priest, being ignorant of the fact that it was not lawful for anyone to perform the priesthood unless he was from the seed of Aaron. For they have it on record; it is evident, because Korah, when he was not from the sons of Aaron and wished to place incense on the altar, was swallowed up by a chasm in the earth with his associates. And King Uzziah, who was certainly not from the seed of Aaron but from the tribe of Judah, and presumed to perform the priesthood, while standing before the altar was struck with leprosy on his forehead and thus died. Those, however, who say that Samuel was not born a priest and nevertheless assert that he performed the priesthood—what they say is quite foolish. And to persuade a fool of what is good is a very great labor. For with how great dullness are they led, that when the sun is shining upon the earth, they say it is night! For when they read, and read not in one place, that this was decreed by God, that no one should dare to perform the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, with obstinate mind they contend that Samuel was a priest. For they do not understand that if Samuel was not born a priest and performed the priesthood, he is called a usurper, because God established that priests should be born, not made.

And concerning Samuel, I think it is not safe to hold this opinion. For how could it happen that a praiseworthy man, commended by the testimony of God, would do what he knew was not permitted? He also knew for certain that vengeance for such presumption had been exacted once and again. Nor could he aspire to this by God’s judgment, whom he knew to be immutable; from whom, if by chance he had heard this, he would rather have believed himself to be tempted, knowing that God could in no way rescind his own sentence. For he could more readily believe that this was being done with him under the appearance and name of God, so that he might be ensnared by the opposing side, than that God could change his judgment. Finally, when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and afterwards asked again whether he should go, God, angered at him, rebuked him with the example of a donkey, because the donkey, seeing the angel forbidding it, refused to complete the journey it had begun. But Balaam, with God forbidding him to go, and asking again whether he wished him to go, judged God as if he were a man, who, because he is not prescient, is fickle and changeable. But Balaam is commended by no divine testimony—for he was a soothsayer—whereas Samuel was a man dear to God and knowing that the sentence of his judgments was fixed; how could he believe that something else should be done, which he knew had been established by God?

But Heli,' they say, 'having died, and his sons the priests, Samuel began to exercise the priesthood': which neither the reading teaches nor reason admits. For in saying this, they think that there was then no one who exercised the priesthood, so that with these three dead, unless Samuel had offered the people's gifts, the priesthood would have ceased; which assertion is hostile to God. For by this, God is judged improvident; as if unknowing, He established something that could not endure. For why did He decree that no one other than the sons of Aaron should exercise the priesthood forever, that is, until the times of the coming of Christ? Did He know that this would fail? But if He does not know—which is unthinkable!—He was improvident; and therefore it is possible that Samuel was priest when those failed. But if God is provident and prescient, what He established has endured; and if what He established has endured, Samuel did not exercise the priesthood, because they were not priests. In the old law, God decreed that priests be born; in the new, however, the Lord commanded that priests be made.

Let them now choose one of two: either let them prove that Samuel was born a priest or that he was made one. But they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know he was not from the sons of Aaron. If, therefore, Samuel was not born a priest, and he is not read nor proved to have been made one, because God had not then established that priests be made, it is certain that Samuel was by no means a priest. But the contradictors, with eyes closed, say: 'If he was not a priest, he nevertheless acted in the place of a priest, since it is read that he offered a sacrifice to God.' Who would dare deny what is proved by Scripture? For Samuel did offer a sacrifice to God, but it is not thereby known that he acted in the place of a priest. For the one whose offerings they are, which the priest places upon the altar, is always said to offer. And Saul offered in this manner, that is, through a priest, just as is now offered; and David offered, and Solomon offered, and others similarly offered. Did all of them act in the place of a priest? For although the priest performs his own office, yet the one in whose name the priest acts is said to offer; it is attributed to him, whose gifts are offered. And how could one who was not a priest act in the place of a priest? Can a deacon act in the place of a priest? For a prefect can act in the place of a prefect, and a praetor in the place of a praetor, but a private person cannot act in the place of any authority; how much less can one who is not a priest act in the place of a priest!

For with what plan does he dare to aspire to what he knows is not permitted to him? For if a priest is absent somewhere, a priest from another place can be asked to come and act in his stead; yet a prophet, even if he is of holy life, cannot do what he knows is by no means granted to him. For it is one thing to live well, and another to receive the authority of some office. For just as one who is a priest should not think that his life is commended on that account, so too one who is of holy conduct and life should not on that account claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is good, it will be evil for him to whom it is not granted and who presumes to take it. For if we consider what is written about the holy Samuel, we will see what testimony the Scripture gives to him, saying: "And it became known," it says, "to all the people, that Samuel is faithful as a prophet to the Lord"; and in the Psalm: "Let," it says, "Moses and Aaron be his priests, and Samuel among those who call upon his name." Who does not notice from this distinction that the persons are separated by reason of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are known to have attained the priestly dignity, while Samuel is held to have been worthy among the prophets before God, who by prayers invoked God to protect his people, as is read? And to such an extent are the priests shown not to have been lacking, that when the ark was brought back by the Levite bearers, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in the absence of Samuel.

But when Saul was made king, Achimas was the great-grandson of Eli the priest, who wore the ephod. 'But from this,' they say, 'Samuel seems to have been a priest, because he was clothed in an ephod.' As if deacons today do not wear dalmatics, just as the bishop does. Moreover, we read that David also was clothed in an ephod, and a double ephod. But Samuel, while still a little boy, was girded with an ephod: could a little boy offer the people's gifts to God? You see, therefore, that 'ephod' is one name, but it does not always signify one thing. For priests carried the ephod, they were not clothed in it; but kings and the Levite Samuel were clothed in an ephod. Sometimes, therefore, 'ephod' signifies a garment, sometimes a kind of small chest, which priests carried to consult the Lord. As far as can be seen, it has been proven that Samuel was not a priest, but a prophet. Now we answer those who, not knowing that Samuel is not from the sons of Aaron the priest, think that he was a priest; for it was not lawful that one descending from the origin of Aaron should not be a priest. First, I want them to know that, if Samuel was a priest, without doubt his father Elkanah was also a priest. It would also have been fitting that his sons were priests, whom, because they were not priests, he appointed judges for the sons of Israel, just as Samuel himself was. For we read thus: that he judged the sons of Israel.

Helcana, however, the father of Samuel, because he was not a priest: he went up, it says, from day to day from his city Armathem to adore and sacrifice to the almighty God Sabaoth. And there were Heli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord. What is so clear, that Helcana came to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests at the appointed time, according to what Moses had established, that three times a year they should offer their gifts and tithes where the ark of the Lord and the priests were, especially since he also had two wives at one time, which is unlawful for priests? For Helcana was from the Levites, as the order of generations is contained in the book of Paralipomenon. For at that time the Levites did not yet have an established order of ministry around the priests and the ark of the Lord. For David in his kingdom arranged the courses for the priests and Levites, so that from twenty years and above, in the law, however, from twenty-five years and above, they would begin to perform services for the Lord's ceremonies, so that from the sons of Aaron, that is, from the lineage of Phinehas and Ithamar, there would be twenty-four courses of priests, which would perform their duties at fixed times. The Levites, moreover, were appointed, who would be doorkeepers of the tabernacle and who would be bearers of the ark of the Lord and who would keep watch and who would be guardians of the vessels and who would receive the miscellaneous offerings.

And twenty-four classes of singers and citharists and other musicians were established, so that even these, that is, all the Levites, had turns of times, because it was necessary for them also to have leisure, so that they might attend to the care of their own homes. And not only do these things serve the aforementioned case, 'because Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron, but also that which his mother says to the Lord: "Because if you give me a son," she says, "I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life." She would not say this if he had been born a priest—for it was necessary for him to serve the altar—but because he was a Levite and the law for Levites had not yet been established, but each one acted according to his own will, so that those who went astray presumed unlawful things. For Jonathan, the son of the son of Moses, although he was counted among the Levites, presumed to perform the priesthood for the tribe of Dan. And through this we read in the Book of Judges, because "each one," it says, "did what was pleasing to himself," because there was no king in Israel. Therefore Anna made a vow, saying: "I will dedicate him to the Lord," lest he go astray with the others.

And so that the question may be more fully examined, let us also treat that which is said about Elkanah, that he came day after day to offer his gifts and tithes. How was he offering tithes, who possessed nothing? For the Levites did not receive fields, because they sought their livelihood from the tithes which were given by the people. But it can happen and is thus given to be understood, that he could have had the possession of his wife or purchased it, because not only these but also the others took wives from other tribes, so that even the priests took wives for themselves from other tribes. For Joiada the high priest married a wife from the tribe of Judah, the daughter of King Jehoram. XLVII. ON THE READING OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH: 'AND SEVEN WOMEN SEIZED ONE MAN, SAYING: WE WILL EAT OUR BREAD AND BE COVERED BY OUR GARMENTS, NEVERTHELESS LET YOUR NAME BE INVOKED OVER US. TAKE AWAY OUR REPROACH.' It is clear that the seven women signify seven churches; for although it is one, it is called sevenfold, as one body consists of a sevenfold number of members. For not only we, but also the heavenly beings above are members of the church, whose head is Christ. Therefore, whether the churches are called one or seven, it does not disagree. For it is called one because it has one head, which is Christ; but seven, because, just as the members are diverse, so also are the spiritual powers. Among which we also are counted, the virtues are diverse, on account of which they are said to be in need.

For this reason they are diverse, so that not all things can be done by each individually, but all together they are the body of Christ, because He Himself is the head of the body of the Church, from which the whole body subsists, that is, from which all things in heaven and on earth have their origin. In this Church, therefore, which is on earth, mention is made of all churches, because when the sacrament of the Creator is proclaimed to this one, such teaching is also made known to the heavenly ones. For when it is insinuated to the lower ones, it is necessary that the higher ones also hear. Hence the Apostle says: "To me," he says, "the least of all the saints, this grace has been given to evangelize among the Gentiles the incomprehensible riches of Christ and to illuminate all, what is the arrangement of the mystery hidden from the ages in God, who created the universe, and to make it known to the princes and powers in the heavens through the Church of the manifold wisdom of God." Through this Church, therefore, the higher ones are taught, because truth, it says, has arisen from the earth. For so that mention of the higher ones may be made, here seven churches are named in one people, which seven churches a suppliant prophet introduces to the Savior made man. For they understood that Christ was born for this purpose: to remove the reproach, first indeed of those acting under His own law, then of the rest. Moreover, they had in memory that it was written: "He will come from Zion who will rescue and turn away impiety from Jacob.

Therefore these seven churches have taken hold of one man, that is, the Christ who was born, saying: we will eat our bread and we will be covered with our garments; yet let your name be invoked over us; take away our reproach. What is this that they pray for? For if they use their own bread and are clothed with their own garments, that is, they both live and are not naked, what do they lack? For if bread signifies life, and clothing signifies devotion to God—because he who is without God is said to be naked; whence the apostle says: you who are baptized in Christ, you have put on Christ, and again: if we are stripped, he says, let us not be found naked—what is it that they ask for, that reproach be taken away from them, unless it is that this people is signified by the number of the seven churches, who, living under the Law, were awaiting the promised Christ for the abolition of sins? Therefore they say: we will eat our bread—that is, we will be nourished by the words of the Law, which teach one God, because man lives not by bread alone but by every word of God—and we will be covered with our garments, that is, we are counted under the name of our creator, because each one is said to be clothed with that which he both is and professes.

Finally, senators or officials are understood by their garments to be what they are. But because these things are not sufficient to appease God, He also established this: that through the sacrament of the knowledge of the one God, a man would be an heir of the kingdom of heaven. For through faith, washed of sins and separated from the second death—which, by the sentence given in Adam, detained men among the dead—he proceeds, with no one detaining him, into the paradise of God the Father, in which the Lord said to the thief that he would be with him. For although the people mentioned above, who are signified in the seven churches, were under God’s law and devotion from the very origin of the world, they still needed purification from both their own and their ancestral transgression, because, it says, all have sinned and stand in need of the glory of God. Therefore the aforementioned churches pray that their reproach be removed by the invocation of the name of Christ, because those who bear His sign, by which He conquered death, cannot be held by the enemy. And not only do these churches beg that the name of Christ be invoked over them, but also the higher spiritual beings dwelling in the heavens. For although they are spiritual and celestial powers, they are still subject to reproach if they are alienated from their Creator, and they will not be members of the body, wandering without recognizing their own head.

And because it is nothing other than what we have explained, the prophet bears witness in the following words, saying: "On that day God will illuminate in counsel upon the earth," and he added: "For the Lord will wash away, he says, the filth of sons and daughters and will purge blood from their midst." What is so evident, that on that day—that is, the day on which the promise of God was fulfilled and the sacrament of faith was declared to men—they were illuminated, so that through the knowledge of the Creator, those who had been liable to death were purified and became heirs of eternal life? The prophet therefore spoke indiscriminately, to signify that all stand in need of the gift of God, so that both sinners and the righteous were known to have awaited the mercy of God: sinners on account of their own offenses, that they might be snatched from the jaws of death; the righteous, however, absolved from the ancestral sin, the sentence given in Adam having been annulled—by which all were held bound by death—having received freedom, they might enter into the kingdom of God, no longer slaves, but sons of God.