God made man such that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish in immortality, so that he himself might be to himself the author either of life or of death: that, by guarding himself from sin, he might rejoice through his own labour to be immortal, but, becoming negligent, might blame himself, because he had begun to be mortal. For as long as he abided in the law of his Creator, he was worthy to eat of the tree of life, so that he could not die. Nor indeed was his body of such a nature that it seemed impossible to be dissolved; rather, the taste of the tree of life held back the corruption of the body. Accordingly, even after sin he could have remained indissoluble, if only he had been permitted to eat of the tree of life. For how did he have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? For the immortal needs neither food nor drink.
For food supplied strength, but the tree of life, in the manner of a medicine, kept off all corruption. For thus it was to man as an impregnable wall, so to speak. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THAT WHICH SAYS: 'MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS,' WHEN THE ANGELS HAVE NO NEED OF FOOD, SEEING THAT THEY ARE SIMPLE IN NATURE AND FLOURISH IN SPIRITUAL POWER? The bread which it calls the bread of angels is the manna. Now 'manna' is interpreted: 'What is this?' For the children of Israel, seeing as it were the seed of coriander, white, falling upon the earth, said to one another: 'What is this?'—which in the Hebrew tongue is called 'manni.' This bread, then, or food, was not created by the law of the world through a mixing of elements, but came from above, provided by a spiritual ordinance.
Nor indeed was it kept in the heavens, since it was created by the power of God for the moment, for the nourishing of bodies. But it was called the bread of angels for this reason: because it was created by that power by which the angelic nature subsists and lives. For without God there is no life for any. Therefore, because it is said to have come from heaven, it was called the bread of angels. For in order to recount how great and of what kind are God's benefits toward man, Scripture spoke thus, so that men, recognizing them, might render thanks to God, who governs His servants with such care that He provides for them—even while they are still set in the flesh, should it be necessary—those things by which the angels live. The Apostle said among other things: 'But the rock was Christ,' so that, because by the power of Christ water flowed from the rock, the rock was called Christ.
In like manner also, because the manna came from heaven by His power, the manna—that is, the bread—is called Christ; so that what was then done is reckoned to have been a figure of that thing which is now offered in the Church, so that the Christian people, whom Scripture signified by 'angels,' might be the bread that men ate—that is, the Jews. And because there is now a greater grace than there was among the prophets, and liberty has been given through Christ, since 'where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,' in comparison of the times and of the graces the Christians were called angels, by whose bread, which is Christ, the Jews—whom He called 'men'—were fed. To these belongs Christ more fully, to whom He has also been revealed, and who are deemed worthy to be called by this name.
In a twofold sense, therefore, the aforesaid question can be understood: that it can be called both the bread of the heavenly angels and that of Christians, according to the things that have been said. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF HAVING MADE MAN TO THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. This is what it is for man to have been made to the image of God: that one made one, so that, as from one God are all things, so also from one man is the whole human race. The likeness, moreover, is this: that just as the Son is from the Father, so also woman is from man, that the authority of one principle might be preserved. But the Son was born of God the Father ineffably and incomprehensibly, whereas woman, as we read, was made bodily from man, so that through her birth might arise.
But the Son of God was born for this purpose, that through Him the creature might come to be. In this, then, there is a dissimilarity; for God was born of God, but woman from man, because there is simplicity, and the simple could be born only from the simple—spirit from spirit, God from God. Therefore man is the image of God. For thus it is written: 'And God made man; to the image of God He made him.' Whence also the Apostle says: 'A man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman,' he says, 'let her veil her head.' Why? Because she is not the image of God. Whence again the Apostle says: 'But to a woman it is not permitted to teach, nor to have dominion over a man.' WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SOLOMON'S SAYING: 'JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH,' AND IN THE PSALM:
'NO LIVING MAN,' IT SAYS, 'SHALL BE JUSTIFIED IN THE SIGHT OF GOD'? He justifies his soul before death who by the hope of the future life obtains faith, lest he die ungodly. But Solomon speaks of him who lives under the law and is not justly converted. Such a one, therefore, if he amend his mind so as to walk the ways of righteousness, justifies his soul before death. For Solomon gave this counsel on account of the future judgment, lest anyone, careless about himself, die in his sins; but David spoke of the perfection of righteousness, because no one will be justified before the Lord, so as to be worthy of the promise, unless he has died with righteousness. For as long as he lives, he does not yet have the full merit of things to come. Whence the Saviour says:
'He who shall have endured to the end, the same shall be saved.' WHETHER SOULS COME BY TRANSMISSION (EX TRADUCE), AS BODIES DO. I consider it unseemly if souls are said to be generated together with bodies, so that soul is born from soul, which does not even befit the soul itself. Or if indeed each of the heavenly powers was made singly, and the rest were born from them, can it then seem credible that the rest of souls are born from the one soul of Adam? But it is not fitting, because this was possible for God alone, that the simple should generate, nor was it granted to the rest. This is so mystical a matter in the case of the Saviour that it is thought incredible not only by the Gentiles or the Jews, but even by those very persons who call themselves Christians; for both the Photinians and the Arians spurn this faith.
For if, at the time when the body is sown, the soul also is generated from the soul, we read that the rib was taken from Adam, yet not that a soul was born from a soul; but if the rib carried a soul with it, then that soul was not born, but drawn off into a part. But not even this is written. For the prophet Zechariah says, among other things: 'who forms the soul of man within him.' Nor does Isaiah, dissenting from these, fail to say: 'Thus says the Lord God, who made you and formed you in the womb.' If, then, it is formed in the womb, it is already assigned to a body that has been shaped.
For when it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be shaped within the body; and just as water, though it is without form of its own, yet when poured into a vessel appears shaped, so too the soul, though it is by nature incorporeal and simple, is as it were shaped into the body, giving life to each member. This indeed Moses handed down more plainly, saying: 'If anyone strike a woman that is with child, and she miscarry, if it be formed, let him give a soul for a soul; but if it be unformed, let him be fined a sum of money,' so as to prove that there is no soul before the form. And so, if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born at conception of the body, derived together with the seed. For if soul too existed from soul together with the seed, many souls would perish daily, since the seed by a certain flow does not come to 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, that from him it might be understood that the body, once formed, received a soul. For God could have mixed a soul into the clay of the earth and so formed the body. But by reason He was being shaped, because first the house had to be framed together, and so the inhabitant introduced. The soul, surely, because it is spirit, cannot dwell in what is dry; therefore it is borne in the blood. When, therefore, the outlines of the body have not been framed together, where will the soul be? Does it wander outside until it is sent in—when reason holds that it is given precisely so as to animate the body, not to wander idly? But from which is it 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 shows otherwise. For they propose that the soul too was given from the man together with the rib, which by many arguments we have shown to be untenable. Whence perhaps it might seem to be given from the female, chiefly on account of the Saviour, whom we know to have been born from a woman without the embrace of the flesh, of the Holy Spirit. But if they think this, they grant more to women; for they transfer the authority of the man to the woman. For when they say the origin both of body and of soul is from the man, they reverse themselves, so as to say that the better part—that is, the soul—is from the woman, but the lesser—that is, the body—from the male; whereas it is manifest that the order of the example handed down by God cannot be changed. WHY IS IT THAT, THOUGH MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, THE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, AND NOT ALSO THE WOMAN?
Man and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh; but in rank the man is greater, because woman is from him, as the Apostle says: 'The head of the woman is the man.' For the cause made the man greater, not the substance. For even in one body there are greater members and lesser ones—not by nature, but by order. WHY, AFTER HIS PROPHECY, DID JOSEPH ADJURE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THAT, WHEN THEY WERE DELIVERED BY GOD, THEY SHOULD CARRY HIS ASHES OUT OF EGYPT? That Joseph did not give this command to the children of Israel idly is beyond question. For he who was able to prophesy is not to be believed to have spoken improvidently.
For since he was the more inclined toward devotion to God the Creator, yet knowing that he was venerated by the Egyptians on account of the administration by which he governed Egypt in great destitution, after his departure he asked that the error be removed, being sure that the vanity of the common people venerates the dead rather than the living as gods, lest the honour due to the Creator should be paid to him. Here, then, he showed himself to have been free from the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when, lest it should turn out to the injury of God, he commanded his ashes to be carried over. This indeed we find the Apostles also followed. For Paul and Barnabas, when they saw that men wished to sacrifice to them, knowing that this was hateful to God, tore their garments, saying: 'What are you doing? We also are men like you,' and thus they restrained the crowds.
IT MUST BE INQUIRED CONCERNING ELISHA, WHETHER HE OBTAINED THAT WHICH HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED HARDLY (HARSHLY) FROM ELIJAH. The holy Elisha, eager to perform mighty works, enticed by his master's example, having received the faculty of asking whatever he wished, was greedy for good, asking that a double spirit be in him, compared to that which was in his master; to whom the man of God Elijah said: 'You have asked a hard thing.' For in his eagerness he did not consider that the disciple is not above the master. Elijah, however, knowing that he had asked this not from ambition for present glory, replied: 'Nevertheless, if you see me taken from you, it shall be so for you.' This sense must be weighed. Being somewhat indignant, when he had said: 'You have asked a hard thing,' he added: 'If, however, you see me taken away, it shall be so for you.'
Was it not that, because he had seemed to refuse him, he showed that it would be for him as was fitting, not as he himself had asked? For Scripture wishes many things to be understood by inference, so that the sense gathered from the words may not be contrary to the reasoning of religion. For surely a harsh petition ought even to lose its merit; but because he asked thus out of desire for the good, God, who knows what gift is to be given to each, did not suffer him to be deprived of his merits. Let us therefore see whether the merit of Elijah would allow Elisha to deserve to receive a double gift of his. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah, of what merit John was to be: 'He shall come,' it says, 'in the spirit and power of Elijah'—thus showing John equal to Elijah—and the Lord says:
'Among those born of women there is no prophet greater than John the Baptist.' He did not say 'he is greater than all,' but 'no one is greater than he'—that is, 'he has an equal, but not a greater.' Elijah, then, is his equal, surely less than none; how then is Elisha greater than Elijah, when John, than whom no one is greater, is the equal of Elijah? For coming to the crossing of the waters, Elisha did not receive honour from them, so as to be able to cross, until he had named the God of Elijah; so that by this his harsh petition might appear rebuked, since he was heard only in the name of Elijah—lest he should be thought to have received what he had harshly asked, as though the dispensation of the Spirit granted to Elijah were not sufficient for the merit of the time.
WHETHER THE WITCH (PYTHONESS) RAISED UP SAMUEL, AND WHETHER HE HIMSELF WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL, AS THE HISTORY RELATES IN THE BOOK OF KINGDOMS. I deem it an unworthy thing if assent is given according to the words of the history. For how could it come about that a man both holy by birth and just in the works of his life should be drawn forth by magic art? Or, if he was not drawn, did he consent? Either alternative is repugnant to believe of a just man. For if he was led unwillingly, justice has no support; but if willingly, he lost the merit of the spiritual man which, while set in the flesh, he had sought—which is utterly absurd, since the just man who departs from here remains just.
Moreover, this is a deception of Satan, by which, in order to deceive very many, he pretends to have even good men in his power. As the Apostle says among other things: 'Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.' For in order to produce the error in which he glories, he disguised himself under the guise and name of a just man, that he might lie, asserting that the hope which the worshippers of God preached availed nothing, since he pretended that the just who depart from here are in his power. But this deceives some, that he did not lie about the death of Saul and his son—as though it were a great thing for the devil to foresee the fall of the body before the day, since certain signs are wont to appear to those about to die, by whom indeed the protection of God seems to be withdrawn.
How much more the devil, whom the prophetic oracles testify to have been exalted in angelic majesty, of whose greatness the Apostle says: 'Or do you not know the height of Satan?' What wonder, then, if he could foresee death close at hand, since this is the very means by which he deceives and wishes himself to be worshipped as in the power of God? For Saul was made so demented by such dullness that he took refuge with the witch. For depraved by the cause of sin, he betook himself to those things which he had condemned. But if anyone, on account of the history and the things expressed in words, should think they are not to be passed over, lest the account of the history be empty, he will indeed do rightly—provided, however, that he by no means draws this to a reckoning of the truth, but to the perception 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 the things that were said and seen, passing over whether they were true or false. For what does it say? Saul, hearing in what guise the one raised up was: 'he understood,' it says, 'that this was Samuel.' It reported what he understood, and, because he did not understand rightly, contrary to Scripture he worshipped another than the Lord, and, supposing it to be Samuel, he worshipped the devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deception. For this is what he strives after: that he be worshipped as God. For if Samuel had truly appeared to him, surely the just man would not have permitted himself to be worshipped, who had preached that the Lord alone is to be worshipped.
And how could the man of God, who was with Abraham in refreshment, say to a man of pestilence worthy of the burning of Gehenna: 'Tomorrow you shall be with me'? By these two marks the improvident Satan betrayed the subtlety of his deception: because he permitted himself to be worshipped under the guise and name of Samuel, contrary to the law, and because—since there is a great distance between sinners and the just—he lied that a man pressed down by sins would be with most just Samuel. But it can indeed be seen that, if the name of Samuel be left out of account, Saul was to be with the devil. For he migrated to him whom he worshipped. Therefore the devil, always lurking under a covering, betrays himself, while he feigns those things which are abhorrent to the persons through whom he strives to deceive.
WHAT MUST BE OBJECTED AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THAT THIS WORLD IS MOVED NATURALLY FROM ETERNITY AND IS SUBJECT NEITHER TO A BEGINNING NOR TO ABOLITION. That the world subsists from eternity and owes subjection to none is improbable and impossible, seeing that we behold it to be corporeal, existing with so great a diversity—since nothing can be divine and eternal except what is simple, in which no diversity is seen, but there is unity. For it does not even keep the very alternations of the seasons, so that it is not only varied in its times and consists of contrary substances, but is so even in the very changes of the seasons; whereas an eternal thing abhors diversity and is to be grasped neither by touch nor by sight, being incorporeal.
But this world is subject to passion, because water fights against fire, and fire, if it be in greater measure, overcomes water; and earth, since it is by nature dry and cold, suffers burning as a corporeal thing. And so it is incongruous to call the world eternal, which—when we see it subject to passion and failing through old age part by part—we believe is also brought to an end. What does he judge concerning man, who thinks the world eternal? Surely man began in the world: without man, then, for whom did the yearly fruitfulness of the world avail? Or did it generate without any providence? And how did the eternal generate corruptible and mortal things, when from the eternal the eternal ought to exist? And by what audacity is that called eternal which is visible and is perceived and is touched?
And that which is administered by the alternations of the seasons—so that the very seasons sometimes do not keep their offices—how is it called eternal? For eternity is not corrupted, is not changed. WHY WAS IT COMMANDED THAT CIRCUMCISION BE PERFORMED ON THE EIGHTH DAY? It was commanded that circumcision be performed on the eighth day from birth for this reason: because, according to the number and courses of the seven days, the same day is found again to be the first, as it were after the Sabbath, so that it is no longer reckoned the eighth, but the first. For since the salvation to come through Christ had been predestined to be on the first day—which is therefore called the Lord's Day, because on it the Lord rose, who is after the Sabbath—therefore a figure of this salvation was given in circumcision, so that, as it were, the renewal to come might be discerned 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, a figure of this matter was given in circumcision on the first day, which was also to be a sign of Abraham's faith. The matter, therefore, is consistent, because the sign of past faith signified on the first day was a figure of future faith established on the first day. IN PROVERBS IT SAYS: 'THE JUST MAN IS HIS OWN ACCUSER AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH': HOW IS HE JUST, IF A SINNER? All truth is righteousness. For he who confesses what is, is just—for he speaks the truth—but sinners who vindicate their own offences cannot be justified.
Whence such a one is worthily called just, because in declaring his own sin he certainly asks for himself, imploring the mercy of God. For he knows what is said in the law: 'Confess your sins, that you may be justified.' But what is it to confess 'at the beginning of one's speech,' if not to confess not under compulsion, but voluntarily? For who, even fearing God, is without sin, since transgressions 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, he without doubt confesses himself a sinner, that he may be justified. WHETHER A SERPENT BY NATURE SPOKE WITH THE WOMAN, OR WHETHER THE DEVIL, CALLED A SERPENT BY HIS DEED, SEDUCED HER.
As far as pertains to the history, it was said to be a serpent by nature, which was more cunning than the other beasts which the Lord God had made upon the earth. Accordingly, God also pronounced sentence upon the serpent. For what wonder if the devil be more cunning than the beasts, of whom the Apostle says among other things: 'Or do you not know the height of Satan?' But it was a serpent by nature to such a degree that it was said to it: 'Upon your breast and your belly shall you creep, and you shall eat earth all the days of your life.' These things are far from the condition of Satan, because he is neither corporeal nor mortal. And if it be looked at more closely, it will be seen that the sentence given did the serpent no harm, but that it was commanded to remain in that for which it had been 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, repressed the exaltation of the serpent, because it had begun to be a minister of pride. For man seemed to be made beneath the serpent, by whose counsel, once received, he had despised the law that was given. But because serpents are prudent, the Lord confirms it in the Gospel, saying: 'Be wise as serpents.' Therefore, since it has become clear that a serpent truly spoke with Eve, it remains to be discerned whether it could be so prudent and cunning as to deceive her by guile. For if it was more prudent than the other beasts, yet not more so than men, seeing that no animal is rational except man.
And so it is impossible that the serpent devised that subtlety. For although it is called prudent, yet not beyond its own nature; for it neither deliberates nor devises nor takes counsel. Therefore there is no doubt that it was the devil who circumvented the woman through the serpent. For mingling himself with the serpent, he acted through it as through an instrument, so that the woman, knowing the serpent to be prudent, might not perceive the guile of the hidden devil. And through this, the sentence given bodily fell spiritually upon Satan, because the sentence holds the guilty party. For the sentence was not given by a man, who might perhaps destroy an innocent person through error or malevolence, but by God, who surely cannot be deceived, so that His sentence does not hold him who is not guilty.
For since Satan is invisible, yet he carried out his deceit by bodily means, the sentence pronounced appears to be a bodily one, so that it might hold him in a spiritual sense, whose deed drew forth the sentence that was given. For Satan, most shameless, cast down from the most sacred seats of the heavens, is rolled upon the earth, forever groaning. But perhaps it may be objected: with what tongue, do you suppose, did the serpent speak to the woman? With the serpent's own mouth, of course. For if even today there are not lacking those who understand the barking of dogs and the howling of wolves and the trumpeting of elephants and the crowing of chicks, why could not the woman, still untaught, all the more have known and understood the hissing of serpents, since we know that many can distinguish the cries of birds? For it is established that the devil uses the tongue of whatever creature's body he has entered;
nor could he otherwise have deceived the woman. And by this means he spoke through the serpent with the serpent's mouth. XXXII. We read in Solomon: 'The rich and the poor have met together; but God made them both.' How then is there no respect of persons with God? Far be this assertion of impiety from the minds of the faithful. For Scripture, lest it should teach that the poor man is to be despised and the rich man to be honored, shows that God is the maker of them both — not indeed in their poverty and riches, but in that which they are. For though they differ from one another in resources, yet they do not differ in the substance of their nature.
For just because circumstances bring about certain outcomes in the world — making some prosperous in riches or others unfortunate in poverty — those whom God has not humbled are not therefore to be looked down upon, nor are those to whom truth has given no testimony to be looked up to. Those plainly are to be despised who are corrupters of morals and sacrilegious against the law of God, but those are to be honored who love God and are keepers of discipline. For these are reckoned rich before God who are of good conduct, and the more contemptible they are in the world, so much the more honorable are they in heaven.
For those who enjoy the favorable opportunity of the time in increasing their resources — if they would know themselves and understand the will of God (since He gave the earth to all, and commands His sun to rise upon all, and pours out rain without distinction, while the injustice of the time, or chance occurrences, or want, deny to some what God gave to all) — let them themselves minister to those people, 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 them from the eternal ones. But those whom they suppose are to be despised on account of poverty — if they consider the future judgment of God — will be forever rich there, where the rich of this age will be in want, repenting that they were not poor. XXXIII. Solomon:
'The years of the wicked shall be shortened,' he says — yet we see some of the wicked living long. It would indeed have been fitting that all the wicked should not only sooner be deprived of this light, but should not even enjoy the life of a single moment of time, who, forgetful of their Creator, ascribe to the creature the authority over their whole life. But Scripture here speaks of those wicked ones who, though they lived under the law of God, were the more inclined toward idols. For they are worse than the other wicked; for, knowing the Lord and despising Him, they render obedience to servants. And that it was said of these, the apostle proves, saying: 'But we know that whatsoever the law says, it says to those who are under the law.' But the Gentiles are not counted in the number of 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.' It is doubtful to none that all good things are from God; but the evils which he mentioned are evils to us, while vengeance is taken upon us. For punishment, although justly inflicted, nevertheless seems an evil to the one who suffers it. For God also speaks through the prophet to sinners, saying: 'I will do evils to you,' that is, 'I will drive you with punishments.' But life and death are from God in this way: because He gave the law, which promises life to those who keep it, but death to those who despise it — yet that death which is called the second. For while He judges each one according to what he deserves, both the acquittal unto life and the guilt unto death proceed from Him.
Therefore He is not the inventor of death, but its judge, because the author of death is sin. How then could God make death, who knows not how to sin? But when He requites sins, death is said to be from Him, although it is not from Him, but from him who sinned. By the same reasoning poverty and riches are from God. For some who have the fear of God spurn luxury, flee a prodigal life, and do not turn their eye away from the needy or the poor: men of this sort bring about an increase of goods. For it is written in the Proverbs: 'Discipline takes away poverty and ignobility.'