Therefore the soul receives even the name of its ruler — that is, the body deprived of soul — because it must be restored to it in the resurrection; just as the building which is called a church, even when the church which is the people has gone out from it, is nonetheless called a church. But since the body does not receive the name of soul in a living man, it is a wonder how it should then be called a soul, when it lacks a soul.
Further, if we understand a 'dead soul' as one separated from the body, so that it seems to have called that very separation 'death' — that is, that the soul is dead as sundered from the body, not lost in its own nature (for indeed when we too are said to be 'dead to sin,' its nature is not said to have perished, but that we no longer use sin, so that the soul may thus be understood as dead, that is, dead to the body, because it has ceased to use it, while it lives in its own nature) — how can anyone enter in to a dead soul, which this priest is forbidden to do, since whoever enters in to a dead body enters, not to the soul which has departed from the body? Or did he call by the name of 'soul' that temporal life itself, which is indeed dead in the deceased body once that soul which cannot die has migrated?
Not that this life itself was the soul, but that through the presence of the soul, by which it subsisted, it received the soul's name — just as we distinguished, when we were speaking about blood, why it was said: 'the soul of all flesh is its blood.' For the blood itself is also dead in a dead body; for it did not depart with the departing soul. Scripture, therefore, forbade the supreme priest to go in even to the funeral of a father or mother; which it did not forbid to the second-order priest. For it follows: 'over his father and over his mother he shall not be defiled'; and the order of the words is: 'over his father he shall not be defiled, nor over his mother.' 'And he shall not go out from the holy things.'
Beyond doubt, he was forbidden to go out from the holy things at that very time when the funerals of his own were being celebrated, just as also during the seven days in which he was being sanctified — but not always. Indeed, if the supreme priests of that time were not forbidden to take wives or beget sons, a great question arises. For since the Law declares a man unclean until evening even by conjugal intercourse, even when he has washed his body with water, and since the supreme priest is commanded, on account of the incense of the perpetual offering, to enter within the veil twice daily every day, where the altar of incense was, and since it was not lawful for any unclean person to approach the holy things — how did the supreme priest fulfill this daily, if he was begetting sons?
For if sickness had befallen him, and someone should inquire who would perform his office in his place, it can be answered that by the grace of God he did not fall sick. Can it likewise be answered thus concerning the begetting of sons? Whence it follows as a consequence that either he was continent, or on certain days the incense was omitted, or, if it could not be omitted — since it necessarily had to be laid on only through the supreme priest — he did not become unclean through conjugal intercourse, by the merit of his special sanctification. Or if that also pertains to him which is said in the following passages concerning all the sons of Aaron, that none of them should approach the holy things if any uncleanness had befallen him, then assuredly it remains to accept this: that on some days the incense was not laid on.
But as to the fact that the supreme priest is forbidden to go in to the funeral of his own father, it can be asked how he could already be supreme priest while his father was not yet dead, since he commands them to succeed their fathers. Therefore it was necessary, while the supreme priest was not yet buried, that a priest be substituted at once on account of the incense of the perpetual offering, which had to be laid on daily through the supreme priest. Yet that question about the sickness of the supreme priest also remains — whether even one about to die necessarily had to be sick for some days; unless perhaps this too be resolved thus: that it be said that supreme priests were not accustomed to die except suddenly, without a preceding sickness, as Scripture testifies concerning Aaron himself. It must be observed how often he says:
'I am the Lord who sanctifies him,' speaking of the priest, when he had also said this to Moses: 'and you shall sanctify him.' How, then, does both Moses sanctify and the Lord? For Moses does not act in place of the Lord, but Moses sanctifies by visible sacraments through his ministry, while the Lord sanctifies by invisible grace through the Holy Spirit — wherein lies the whole fruit even of the visible sacraments. For without this sanctification of invisible grace, what do the visible sacraments profit? But it is rightly asked whether this invisible sanctification also, without the visible sacraments by which a man is visibly sanctified, likewise profits nothing — which is certainly absurd.
For one might more tolerably say that without those visible sacraments this invisible sanctification does not exist, than that, if it did exist, it would profit nothing — since in it lies all the usefulness of them. But even this, that it cannot exist without them, must be examined as to how it may rightly be said. For to Simon the magician the visible baptism profited nothing, since the invisible sanctification was lacking to him; but to those to whom this invisible sanctification, because it was present, profited, the visible sacraments too had been received, they having been baptized in like manner. Yet Moses, who visibly sanctified the priests, is nowhere shown to have himself been sanctified by those very sacrifices or by oil; but who would dare to deny that he was invisibly sanctified, whose grace so greatly excelled? This can be said also of John the Baptist;
for he appeared as a baptizer before he appeared as one baptized. Whence we can by no means deny that he was sanctified. Yet we do not find this done visibly in him before he came to the ministry of baptizing. This can also be said of that thief to whom the Lord, crucified with him, said: 'Today you shall be with me in paradise.' For not without invisible sanctification was he granted such great felicity. Accordingly, it is gathered that invisible sanctification was present and profited some without the visible sacraments, which have been changed according to the diversity of times, so that some were then and others are now; but visible sanctification, which was effected through visible sacraments, can be present without this invisible one, yet cannot profit.
Yet not for this reason is the visible sacrament to be despised; for one who despises it can in no way be invisibly sanctified. Hence it is that Cornelius and those who were with him, though they already appeared to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit invisibly poured out, were nevertheless baptized; nor was the visible sanctification, which the invisible had already preceded, judged superfluous. 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and let them take heed concerning the holy things of the children of Israel, and they shall not profane my holy name in the things which they sanctify to me; I am the Lord. And you shall say to them:'
'In your generations, every man whatever, from all your seed, who approaches the holy things — whatever the children of Israel shall have sanctified to the Lord — while his uncleanness is upon him, that soul shall be exterminated from before me: I am the Lord your God.' Every doubt is removed that no priest, whether supreme or of the second order, ought to have approached the holy things if his uncleanness was upon him. It was therefore a consequence that the priest should be continent, lest on account of the begetting of sons the incense of the perpetual offering should on some days not be laid on — which used to be laid on by the supreme priests alone twice a day, in the morning and in the evening — since after conjugal intercourse, even when the body was washed, he was unclean until evening, by whom that incense had necessarily to be laid on. But as to what he says:
'the things which the children of Israel sanctify,' it must be understood as offering to the priests what is to be offered through them to the Lord. And a kind of sanctification is to be noted, which is done by the vow and devotion of the one offering. But whether, just as in this way the things offered by men are sanctified, so also the men themselves are said to sanctify themselves in the same way, when they vow themselves in some matter, must be observed in the Scriptures. 'And whoever touches any uncleanness of a soul' — that is, anything that is a carcass, the touch of which defiles according to the Law. 'Any man whatever who curses his God shall bear his sin, but he who names the name of the Lord shall die the death.'
As though it were one thing to curse one's God and another to name the name of the Lord, and the former should be a sin, but the latter so great a wickedness that it is even worthy of death. Although in this passage it must be so understood, that what is said, 'the name of the Lord,' means that it is done together with a curse, that is, that he names it in cursing. What difference, then, is there between that sin and this crime of so great a wickedness? Or perhaps by repeating this very thing he showed that that was no light sin, but so great a wickedness that it must be punished by death? But because he introduced this by a distinction, not saying 'for one who names,' but 'but one who names,' it has become somewhat obscure. And therefore, if this is rightly understood, the kind of expression must also be noted.
'And a man who strikes the soul of a man, and he dies, shall die the death.' He did not say: 'whoever strikes a man, and he dies,' but: 'the soul of a man,' although it is rather the body of a man that is struck by the striker, as the Lord also says: 'Do not fear those who kill the body.' By that manner in which Scripture is accustomed, he calls 'soul' that very life of the body which comes about through the soul, and from this he wished to point out the murderer as one who strikes the soul of a man — that is, by striking deprives a man of life. Why, then, did he add: 'and he dies,' if he has already by this very thing shown the murder — namely, that he has struck the soul of a man, that is, that a man has been deprived of life by the striker?
Or did he wish to expound how it should be taken, what he had said, 'the soul of a man has been struck,' and so says: 'and he dies,' as though he were saying: that is, he has died? For this is what it is, for the soul of a man to have been struck. 'When you come into the land which I give you, and the land which I give you rests — sabbaths of the Lord. Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather its fruit; but in the seventh year, sabbaths: there shall be rest for the land, sabbaths to the Lord.' How is it to be understood: 'When you come into the land which I give you, and the land rests — six years you shall sow your field,' and the rest?
As though the precept were to be carried out at the time when the land rests, whereas the land rests for this very reason, because this is done. For he wishes the rest of the land to be understood as being in the seventh year, in which he commanded that no one work it by any agriculture. But doubtless a long hyperbaton produces obscurity for this sense. This, therefore, seems to be the order of the words: 'When you come into the land which I give you, and the land which I give you rests — sabbaths of the Lord: what springs up of itself from your field you shall not reap, and the grape of your sanctification you shall not gather. It shall be a year of resting for the land. And the sabbaths of the land shall be food for you, and for your manservant and for your maidservant, and for your hired man and for the sojourner who has attached himself to you,'
'and for your cattle and for the beasts that are in your land, everything that grows from it for food.' But he inserted, by way of exposition, how the land rests, and says: 'Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vine and gather its fruit; but in the seventh year, sabbaths: there shall be rest for the land, sabbaths of the Lord. Your field you shall not sow, and your vineyard you shall not prune.' And by this that he says, 'you shall not prune,' we ought to understand every kind of cultivation to be forbidden in that year. For if it is not to be pruned, neither is it to be ploughed, nor propped up with supports, nor anything else whatever that pertains to its cultivation to be applied; but as the whole is customarily understood from a part, so by pruning every kind of cultivation is signified.
And by 'field' and 'vineyard,' since he forbade the former to be sown and the latter to be pruned, every kind of field is to be understood. For neither in an olive grove nor in any field of another kind is anything to be worked, concerning which he was silent. But as to what he says, 'And the sabbaths of the land shall be food for you and for your manservant and for your maidservant,' and the rest, he made it sufficiently plain that not even the owner of the field is forbidden to eat of those things which, without cultivation applied, spring up of their own accord in that year, but that he is forbidden to gather them in as a harvest. So, then, he was permitted to take something thence for food only as one passing through, so as to take only what he would at once consume by eating, not what he would store up for future uses. 'And the land shall not be sold for profanation.' Other manuscripts have 'for confirmation';
which corruption in either direction I judge to have arisen first in the Greek on account of the similar sound of the word; for bebēlōsis means 'profanation,' but bebaiōsis means 'confirmation.' But that sense is plain: 'and the land shall not be sold for profanation,' that is, lest anyone dare to sell the land which he received from God to profane persons, who would use it for impiety and the worship of alien and false gods. But that other is somewhat obscure: 'the land shall not be sold for confirmation.' Which I think is not to be understood otherwise than that the sale should not be so confirmed that the seller does not receive it back at the time of remission, as was commanded. But what follows can suit either sense, whether it be read: 'and the land shall not be sold for profanation,' or:
'for confirmation.' For continuing, he added: 'for the land is mine, because you are proselytes and sojourners before me. And throughout all the land of your possession you shall give a redemption-price for the land.' But other manuscripts have 'you shall give redemption for the land.' The sense, then, is this: the land shall not be sold for profanation, that is, to those who would use it to the injury of the Creator; or: for confirmation, that is, so that the buyer should possess it forever and not, according to God's precept, restore it to the seller at the fixed interval of years. 'For the land is mine,' he says; whence, according to my precept, you ought to use it. And to show that it is his, not theirs, and what they themselves were upon it, he consequently added, saying:
'because you are proselytes and sojourners before me,' that is: although there be proselytes to you — that is, newcomers, who from foreigners are joined to your nation — and sojourners — that is, those not remaining in their own land — nevertheless you all too are before me newcomers and sojourners. God says this either to the Israelites, because he gave them the land of other nations which he had expelled for them; or to every man, since before God, who ever abides and, as it is written, fills heaven and earth by his presence, every man is a newcomer by being born and a sojourner by living, since he is compelled to migrate by dying. Then he adds and says: 'And throughout all the land of your possession you shall give a redemption-price for the land,' as tenants, or a redemption.
That, unless I am mistaken, he wishes to be understood which they rendered back in a certain way through the cessations of every seventh year and of the fiftieth year, which he calls the year of remission — so that the very leaving of the land fallow might be, as it were, the rent of habitation or the redemption from him whose it is, that is, from God its Creator. 'And I will set my tabernacle among you, and my soul shall not abhor you.' God calls his 'soul' his will. For he is not an animal having a body and a soul; nor is his substance of the same kind as that creature of his which is called soul, which he made — as he himself testifies through Isaiah, saying: 'and every breath I have made': for the consequences make plain that he says this concerning the soul of man.
As, therefore, when he says 'his eyes' and 'his lips' and the other names of bodily members, we by no means understand him to be bounded by the form of a body, but understand all those names of members as nothing other than the effects of his operations and powers: so also, when he says 'my soul,' we ought to understand his will. For that perfect, simple nature which is called God does not consist of body and spirit, nor is it mutable even by that spirit as the soul is; but God is both spirit and always the very same, with whom there is no change. From this the Apollinarists took occasion, who say that the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, did not have a soul, but was only Word and flesh, since he said:
'My soul is sorrowful even unto death.' But by his very action, which is declared to us through the Gospel history, the offices of the human soul so plainly appear that to doubt of this from that saying would be the mark of a madman. What does it mean that God, when he was threatening the penalties of disobedience, said among other things: 'and a sword shall consume you as it ranges through'? Then he says: 'and your land shall be desolate, and your cities shall be desolate. Then the land shall well perceive its sabbaths, all the days of its desolation, and you shall be in the land of your enemies.' How, then, shall the sword consume them, if they shall be in the land of their enemies? Or shall it consume them in that very land, since, a slaughter of deaths having been made, they will not be there? Or does he say 'shall consume you' as if he were saying:
'They will slay you' — so that those pertain to that consummation who fall by the sword, not all of them, since a little later he says: 'And upon those of you who are left I will bring cowardice into their heart'? Or was it said by way of hyperbole: 'It will consume you,' according to the same manner of speaking by which their abundance was said to be 'as the sand of the sea'? According to this manner is also said what next follows: 'And the sound of a flying leaf shall pursue them,' that is, because there will be so excessive a fear in them that they will dread even the very lightest things. BOOK FOUR. QUESTIONS ON NUMBERS. QUESTION I. What is the meaning of the fact that he commands princes to be chosen one from each of the several tribes, and calls them chiliarchs? Certain Latin translators have called these 'tribunes.'
Now chiliarchs seem to be named from 'a thousand.' But when Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, gave counsel to his son-in-law — which God also approved — concerning the ordering of the people under rulers, so that not all the causes of all should burden Moses beyond his strength, he called those to be appointed over a thousand men 'chiliarchs,' those over a hundred 'hekatontarchs,' those over fifty 'pentekontarchs,' and those over ten 'dekadarchs,' named from the very numbers over which they presided. Are the chiliarchs here also to be understood in the same way, namely that each was over a thousand men? By no means. For the entire people of Israel was not then twelve thousand men.
For he chose one man from each of the several tribes, and these twelve tribes without doubt contained not a thousand men each, but many thousands. Therefore the name is common with those who in Exodus are called chiliarchs, because each of the latter was the ruler of a thousand men; but each of the former was the ruler of thousands, since whether from 'a thousand' or from 'thousands' the same composition of the name resounds, so that they are called chiliarchs. It is rightly asked what is meant by the fact that throughout all the tribes, where the sons of Israel of military age are reckoned tribe by tribe, it is said:
'according to their kindreds, according to their peoples, according to the houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according to their head' — and these five things are repeated in entirely the same way, until all the tribes are completed; as though 'according to their kindreds' were one thing, 'according to their peoples' another, 'according to the houses of their families' another, 'according to the number of names' another, 'according to head' another, when rather all these seem to signify the same thing in different words. But it moves our attention that the same things are so carefully repeated throughout all the tribes, that anyone would judge it not to be done in vain, even if he does not understand it. Doubtless, then, the number itself intimates something of a mystery, in that this same thing is repeated five times in varied ways.
For this number — namely the number five — is especially commended in the Old Testament, as in the very five books of Moses. But those four things that are next joined together — that is, 'the males from twenty years old and upward, everyone who goes forth in strength, the review of them' — although these too are repeated throughout all the tribes in exactly the same manner, have a necessary distinction. For when it was a question of the number of the whole multitude belonging to one tribe, the sex had to be distinguished; therefore it was set down: 'all the males.' And lest little children too should be counted, it was added: 'from twenty years old and upward.' Again, lest the unwarlike age of old men be numbered, it was added: 'everyone who goes forth in strength.'
And all is concluded by the word of that work which was being done, so that it is said: 'the review of them.' For a review was being made, in order that these thousands of men might be counted. Therefore those five — 'kindreds, peoples, houses of families, number of names, and head' — and then these four — 'sex, age, strength, review' — perhaps intimate something in the number itself. For if of these two numbers, namely five and four, one be multiplied by the other — that is, if five times four or four times five be reckoned — they make twenty. By which number that age of the young men is also signified.
This number is also mentioned when they enter into the land of promise, and that age of twenty years is spoken of, which had not turned aside to the right hand or to the left. Wherein there seem to me to be signified the holy faithful of both Testaments who hold the true faith. For the Old Testament especially excels in the five books of Moses, and the New in the four Gospels. As to what he says concerning the stripping, lifting, and setting up of the tabernacle: 'and the stranger who comes near shall die' — here the stranger is to be understood even as one of those sons of Israel who were not of that tribe which he commanded to serve the tabernacle, that is, whoever was not of the tribe of Levi.
It is remarkable, however, how 'stranger' (alienigena) is used improperly, since it rather signifies a man of another race, that is allogenēs, and not rather allophylos, which signifies a man of another tribe: by which name Scripture rather uses in the case of men of other nations, so that they are called, as it were, men of other tribes. 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take the tribe of Levi and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall minister to him; and they shall keep his charges and the charges of the sons of Israel before the tabernacle of testimony.' These phylakas which the Greek said, some of our translators have rendered 'charges' (custodias), others 'watches' (excubias).
But it would seem better to call them 'watches' (uigiliae), which in camps are wont to have an observation of three hours each. Whence it is written: 'But in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking upon the sea' — that is, after the ninth hour of the night, that is, after three watches. And in many places of the Scriptures our translators have rendered as 'watches' what the Greeks call phylakas, where there is no doubt that periods of nocturnal time are signified: which I think is also to be understood here.
For how are the Levites commanded to keep the charges of Aaron and the charges of the sons of Israel, that is the phylakas, unless perhaps it was said lest they should think that, because of the honor by which they served the tabernacle, they ought to be exempt from keeping the watches which are properly kept in camps, whereas they too, on account of the works of the tabernacle, ought no less in turn to keep the watches which were kept in the other camps of the sons of Israel round about? 'The stranger who touches shall die.' It must be asked how he said in Leviticus: 'He who touches the tabernacle shall be sanctified,' whereas here he says: 'The stranger who touches shall die,' wishing to be understood those who were not of the tribe of Levi.
Or perhaps here he said 'touches' with reference to the compliance of service, which he commanded to be owed to the tabernacle by the Levites alone? For of this he was speaking. What is the meaning of the fact that God reckons the Levites to himself in place of the firstborn of the sons of Israel, so that, the firstborn of the people being numbered — who were found to be more than was the number of the Levites — they were redeemed with silver, five shekels being given for one? This was not done for the cattle, although he willed that the cattle of the Levites also should be his in place of the firstborn of the cattle of Israel. How thereafter did their firstborn, or the firstborn of their cattle, pertain to God, when he commanded that the unclean firstborn, whether of men or of cattle, should be exchanged for sheep?
How were the sons of the Levites not also thereafter reckoned in place of these firstborn — for the same tribe remained in their descendants, which could be reckoned in place of later firstborn — unless because this was just, that those who were born of those who already pertained to the portion of the Lord given in place of the firstborn who went out of Egypt, God should now hold as his own, from his own, and they could not justly be reckoned in place of those who were thereafter owed to God as firstborn? For out of the whole people and out of all the cattle of the people a portion was given to God in place of the firstborn. And this portion was the Levites and their cattle. Now if they had begotten anything, it was God's; this could not be given as though by the people, since it was already alien to them.
And because of this, the firstborn thereafter owed to God had to be rendered, nor could the descendants of the Levites or of their cattle be reckoned in place of these. When he was commanding concerning the taking away of the table, he commanded that the loaves be taken away with it, saying thus: 'and the loaves which shall be always upon it.' Not indeed those same loaves will be always upon it, but ones like them, because those were removed and fresh ones were set out daily, provided nevertheless that the table was not left without loaves. Therefore he said: 'which shall be always upon it,' that is, because there are always loaves, not because those are always. 'And over the golden altar they shall spread a covering of hyacinth, and they shall cover it with a covering of hyacinth-colored skin.'
This expression might seem such that the Latin translators, deeming it as it were absurd and not sound, were unwilling to translate it — that is: 'and over the golden altar they shall spread a covering of hyacinth'; as though it ought to have been said: 'and they shall cover the golden altar with a covering of hyacinth.' For 'they shall spread a covering of hyacinth' seems to signify this, that the covering itself was covered from elsewhere, not that the altar was covered by that covering. But to me it seems to be not so much a manner of speech as a somewhat obscure sense. For this can be understood: