Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| XIV.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
XIV.
How4817
| 4817 From the Contemplations of Anastasius Sinaita,
who flourished a.d. 685.
Harvey doubts as to this fragment being a genuine production of Irenæus;
and its whole style of reasoning confirms the suspicion. | is
it possible to say that the serpent, created by God dumb and irrational,
was endowed with reason and speech? For if it had the power of itself to
speak, to discern, to understand, and to reply to what was spoken by the
woman, there would have been nothing to prevent every serpent from doing
this also. If, however, they say again that it was according to the
divine will and dispensation that this [serpent] spake with a human voice
to Eve, they render God the author of sin. Neither was it possible for
the evil demon to impart speech to a speechless nature, and thus from
that which is not to produce that which is; for if that were the case, he
never would have ceased (with the view of leading men astray) from
conferring with and deceiving them by means of serpents, and beasts, and
birds. From what quarter, too, did it, being a beast, obtain information
regarding the injunction
of God to the man given to him
alone, and in secret, not even the woman herself being aware of it? Why
also did it not prefer to make its attack upon the man instead of the
woman? And if thou sayest that it attacked her as being the weaker of the
two, [I reply that], on the contrary, she was the stronger, since she
appears to have been the helper of the man in the transgression of the
commandment. For she did by herself alone resist the serpent, and it was
after holding out for a while and making opposition that she ate of the
tree, being circumvented by craft; whereas Adam, making no fight
whatever, nor refusal, partook of the fruit handed to him by the woman,
which is an indication of the utmost imbecility and effeminacy of mind.
And the woman indeed, having been vanquished in the contest by a demon,
is deserving of pardon; but Adam shall deserve none, for he was worsted
by a woman,—he who, in his own person, had received the command
from God. But the woman, having heard of the command from Adam, treated
it with contempt, either because she deemed it unworthy of God to speak
by means of it, or because she had her doubts, perhaps even held the
opinion that the command was given to her by Adam of his own accord. The
serpent found her working alone, so that he was enabled to confer with
her apart. Observing her then either eating or not eating from the trees,
he put before her the fruit of the [forbidden] tree. And if he saw her
eating, it is manifest that she was partaker of a body subject to
corruption. “For everything going in at the mouth, is cast out into
the draught.”4818
If then corruptible, it is
obvious that she was also mortal. But if mortal, then there was certainly
no curse; nor was that a [condemnatory] sentence, when the voice of God
spake to the man, “For earth thou art, and unto earth shall thou
return,”4819
as the true course of
things proceeds [now and always]. Then again, if the serpent observed the
woman not eating, how did he induce her to eat who never had eaten? And
who pointed out to this accursed man-slaying serpent that the sentence of
death pronounced against them by God would not take [immediate] effect,
when He said, “For in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely
die?” And not this merely, but that along with the impunity4820
| 4820 The Greek reads the barbarous
word ἀθριξίᾳ, which
Massuet thinks is a corruption of ἀθανασίᾳ,
immortality. We have, however, followed the conjecture of Harvey, who
would substitute ἀπληξίᾳ,
which seems to agree better with the context. | [attending
their sin] the eyes of those should be opened who had not seen until
then? But with the opening [of their eyes] referred to, they made
entrance upon the path of death.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
